BOARD of SELECTMEN MEETING AGENDA August 31, 2015 Town Offices, 50 Billerica Road Chelmsford, MA 01824 Dennis Ready Meeting Room 204

BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING AGENDA August 31, 2015 Town Offices, 50 Billerica Road Chelmsford, MA 01824 Dennis Ready Meeting Room 204

1. 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - NOTIFICATION OF LIVE BROADCAST

2. PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS

l 9/11 Remembrance Ceremony: 9/11 Memorial, 50 Billerica Rd. l Henry Parlee: Farm Fair, Barrett-Byam Homestead, 9/12 l Betty-Mae Flaherty: Library Book Sale, 9/18- 9/20

Documents: 2015 FARM FAIR FLYER.PDF

3. OPEN SESSION

4. COMMITTEE VACANCIES

Documents: COMMITTEE VACANCIES.PDF

5. LICENSES St. Vartanantz Armenian Church, 180 Old Westford Rd.

l One Day All Alcohol License: 9/26/2015 Veteran Dinner Dance l One Day All Alcohol License: 10/7/2015 Golf Tournament l One Day Beer & Wine License: 11/7/2015 Wine Tasting l One Day Beer & Wine License: 11/20 & 11/21/2015 2 Day Bazaar

Documents: 1 DAY ST VARTANANTZ.PDF

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS

l Mark Vegnani, Lightower Fiber Networks Underground Conduit Petition: Elizabeth Drive l Continuation of Public Hearing - All Alcohol Package Store Application: Ashish Patel, AH&MJ Triangel Corp. d/b/a/ Triangle Package Store, 148 Groton Rd. N. Chelmsford

Documents: PETITION-ELIZABETH DR.PDF, TRIANGLE PACKAGE STORE APPLICATION.PDF, TRIANGLE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS.PDF

7. REPORTS & PRESENTATIONS

l NMCOG:

Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Regional Emergency Communications Center

l Tom Gilroy: Grinder Pump Study Committee Report

Documents: CHELMSFORD_SUMMARY FOR THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN.PDF, HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN_FEMA APPROVED_8_15.PDF, CERTIFICATE OF ADOPTION-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN-08-31-2015.PDF, RECC PRESENTATION.PDF, NMRECC REPORT_8_27_15.PDF, REVISED FINAL DRAFT DISTRICT AGREEMENT.PDF, CHAPTER 500 OF THE ACTS OF 2014.PDF, CPD REPS - COPY.PDF, GRINDER PUMP PRESENTATON FALL 2015.PDF

8. TOWN MANAGER REPORTS

l Updated Sexual Harassment Policy l Affordable Care Act Policy l Revised Draft FATM List and Warrant

Documents: SEXUAL_HARASSMENT_POLICY_2015.PDF, ACA POLICY PROCEDURES 2015.PDF, 2015 FALL ATM LIST OF WARRANT ARTICLES.PDF, 2015 FALL ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT.PDF

9. DISCUSSION ITEM: ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES FOR VIEWPERMIT

Documents: ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES FOR LICENSING PROGRAM.PDF

10. APPOINTMENTS

l Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee: David Antonelli, 3 year term ending 6/30/2018 l Board of Appeals Associate Member: Steven Mendez, 3 year term ending 6/30/2018 l Community Action Program Committee: Ryan Reveley, 1 year term ending 6/30/2016

Documents: BPAC APP-ANTONELLI.PDF, ZBA APPLICATION-MENDEZ.PDF, CAPC-APPLICATION-REVELEY.PDF

11. MEETING MINUTES

l Regular Meeting Minutes: July 20, 2015

Documents: 7-20-15 BOS MINUTES.PDF

12. SELECTMEN LIAISON REPORTS & REFERRALS

13. PRESS QUESTIONS

NEXT MEETING DATE: September 14, 2015 BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING AGENDA August 31, 2015 Town Offices, 50 Billerica Road Chelmsford, MA 01824 Dennis Ready Meeting Room 204

1. 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - NOTIFICATION OF LIVE BROADCAST

2. PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS

l 9/11 Remembrance Ceremony: 9/11 Memorial, 50 Billerica Rd. l Henry Parlee: Farm Fair, Barrett-Byam Homestead, 9/12 l Betty-Mae Flaherty: Library Book Sale, 9/18- 9/20

Documents: 2015 FARM FAIR FLYER.PDF

3. OPEN SESSION

4. COMMITTEE VACANCIES

Documents: COMMITTEE VACANCIES.PDF

5. LICENSES St. Vartanantz Armenian Church, 180 Old Westford Rd.

Documents: 1 DAY ST VARTANANTZ.PDF

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS

Documents: PETITION-ELIZABETH DR.PDF, TRIANGLE PACKAGE STORE APPLICATION.PDF, TRIANGLE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS.PDF

7. REPORTS & PRESENTATIONS

l NMCOG:

Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Regional Emergency Communications Center

l Tom Gilroy: Grinder Pump Study Committee Report

8. TOWN MANAGER REPORTS

l Updated Sexual Harassment Policy l Affordable Care Act Policy l Revised Draft FATM List and Warrant

Documents: SEXUAL_HARASSMENT_POLICY_2015.PDF, ACA POLICY PROCEDURES 2015.PDF, 2015 FALL ATM LIST OF WARRANT ARTICLES.PDF, 2015 FALL ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT.PDF

9. DISCUSSION ITEM: ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES FOR VIEWPERMIT

Documents: ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES FOR LICENSING PROGRAM.PDF

10. APPOINTMENTS

Documents: BPAC APP-ANTONELLI.PDF, ZBA APPLICATION-MENDEZ.PDF, CAPC-APPLICATION-REVELEY.PDF

11. MEETING MINUTES

l Regular Meeting Minutes: July 20, 2015

Documents: 7-20-15 BOS MINUTES.PDF

12. SELECTMEN LIAISON REPORTS & REFERRALS

13. PRESS QUESTIONS

NEXT MEETING DATE: September 14, 2015

Fun for the whole family! Pony rides, old time arts and crafts, cider making, hay rides, folk music, antique farm tractors, honey making and much more!

Barrett-Byam Homestead

Saturday Farm Fair September 12th 12 noon - 4:00 pm 40 Byam Road Chelmsford

Admission is Free!

Chelmsford Historical Society

Committee Vacancies as of 8/31/2015

Board of Appeals (1) 3 year term ending 6/30/2018

Community Preservation Fund Committee (1) 3 year term ending 6/30/2018

Economic Development Commission (1) 3 year term ending 6/30/2018

Great Brook Farm Advisory Committee (1) 1 year term ending 6/30/2016

Land Management Subcommittee (1) 2 year term ending 6/30/2016

Public Celebrations Committee (2) 1 year terms ending 6/30/2016

TREE Committee (1) 3 year term ending 6/30/2018

Committee Application If you are interested in serving on a Town Board or Committee, please fill out the committee application that is available on the Town website www.townofchelmsford.us The form can be emailed to [email protected] or mailed to:

Town Manager's Office 50 Billerica Road Chelmsford, MA 01824

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region

 Preparation of a Hazard Mitigation Plan is required under the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and is necessary to ensure a community’s eligibility for funding under FEMA’s Pre‐Disaster Mitigation (PDM), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) and Hazard Mitigation (HMGP) grant programs.  NMCOG has been working with the local communities on the development of the Plan since 2011. The Plan must be updated and adopted every five years in order for communities to remain eligible for FEMA grant funding.  A Multiple Hazard Community Planning Team was established to provide input into the planning process and to review work products. This team was comprised of emergency managers, public safety officials, municipal planners, engineering staff and public works personnel.  Input was solicited from residents, the business community, neighborhood organizations, non‐profits, local officials and other interested stakeholders. Ten public meetings were conducted throughout the planning process.  The Plan assesses each community’s exposure and vulnerability to natural hazards such as flooding, winter storms, earthquakes, wildfire, urban fire, tornadoes and hurricanes. It also evaluates the severity and extent of natural disaster occurrences in each community. The critical infrastructure in each community has been mapped and evaluated in terms of its vulnerability to natural hazards.  The Plan outlines measures that can be taken to reduce or prevent future damage caused by natural hazards, reducing long‐term risks to human life and property, and it assesses the interrelationship between climate change and hazard mitigation.  An existing protection matrix was developed outlining the measures, programs and projects that have already been implemented in each community to mitigate natural hazards.  As required, the Plan demonstrates that every community has made progress fulfilling commitments made in the previous plan.  An action plan was developed through a consensus building process that consisted of meetings and discussions with local policymakers, boards and commissions, municipal staff and the Community Planning Team. Priorities were established based on cost, availability of funding, political feasibility and acceptance, consistency with local plans and priorities, lead time required for design and implementation, and whether the measure has been subject to a public process, was approved by the chief legislative body in each community, or needs action by a permitting agency.  Examples of proposed mitigation actions outlined for the Town of Chelmsford include: o Structural projects such correcting erosion problems in the vicinity if Williamsburg Condos , and replacing the Meadowbrook Road culvert; o Prevention measures, such as updating the response plan for the Freeman Lake and Heart Pond dams and studying measures to mitigate flooding along Tyngsborough Road; o Emergency service projects, such as installing emergency vehicle preemption at signalized intersections, and improve alternative access to Williamsburg condos; o Property protection projects, such as inspecting town‐owned buildings to evaluate the snow load capacity of roofs and developing an inventory of town buildings that do not meet seismic standards; o Public education measures, such as increasing public awareness on the dangers of extreme temperatures for vulnerable populations.  Once the Plan is adopted, NMCOG staff will meet with members of the Multiple Hazard Community Planning Team annually to discuss each community’s progress in implementing the Plan.  Should a significant disaster occur, the Plan can be updated and revised to include appropriate mitigation measures as a result of the disaster. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE NORTHERN MIDDLESEX REGION

2015 Update

Prepared by: Northern Middlesex Council of Governments 40 Church Street Lowell, Massachusetts 01852

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE NORTHERN MIDDLESEX REGION

2015 Update

PREPARED BY:

NORTHERN MIDDLESEX COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 40 Church Street Lowell, MA 01852

Preparation of this report was funded through a Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in cooperation with the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No. Table of Contents ...... i Acknowledgments ...... vi Executive Summary ...... 1 Preface ...... 3 Section 1: The Planning Process ...... 4 A. Planning Team Meetings ...... 6 B. Municipal Meetings ...... 7 C. Public Meetings and Opportunities for Public Involvement . . 8 D. Other Local and Regional Planning Initiatives . . . . 10 E. Hazard Identification and Assessment Process . . . . 12 F. Updating the Existing Protection Matrix . . . . . 12 G. Development of Hazard Mitigation Strategies and Preparation of the Plan ...... 13 Section 2: Plan Purpose ...... 14 Section 3: Regional Profile ...... 15 A. Population and Housing ...... 15 B. Land Use Characteristics ...... 16 C. Open Space/Conservation Land ...... 18 D. Water Resources and Water Quality . . . . . 19 E. The Regional Economy ...... 21 F. Historic and Cultural Resources ...... 22 G. Demographic Data and Projections . . . . . 25 H. Assessed Valuations ...... 27 Section 4: Hazard Identification ...... 28 A. Natural Hazards Inventory ...... 28 1. Flood-Related Hazards ...... 28 2. Wind-Related Hazards ...... 38 3. Winter-Related Hazards ...... 51 4. Fire-Related Hazards ...... 65 5. Geologic Hazards ...... 65 6. Other Natural Hazards ...... 76 7. Climate Change ...... 77 B. Non-Natural Hazards ...... 81 1. Public Health Emergencies and Hazards . . . . 83 2. Transportation Accidents ...... 82 3. Nuclear Event ...... 83 4. Infrastructure Failure ...... 85 5. Commodity Shortages ...... 85 6. Food Contamination/Foodborne Illnesses . . . . 87 7. Water Contamination/Waterborne Illnesses . . . . 87 8. Chemical/Hazardous Materials . . . . . 88 9. Terrorism ...... 89 Section 5: Community Profiles, Critical Facilities, and Risk and Vulnerability Assessments ...... 91

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page i

A. Natural Hazard Risks for the Northern Middlesex Communities . . 91 B. Natural Hazard Risk Assessment for the Town of Billerica . . 93 C. Natural Hazard Risk Assessment for the Town of Chelmsford . . 102 D. Natural Hazard Risk Assessment for the Town of Dracut . . 111 E. Natural Hazard Risk Assessment for the Town of Dunstable . . 117 F. Natural Hazard Risk Assessment for the City of Lowell . . . 124 G. Natural Hazard Risk Assessment for the Town of Pepperell . . 137 H. Natural Hazard Risk Assessment for the Town of Tewksbury . . 145 I. Natural Hazard Risk Assessment for the Town of Tyngsborough . 154 J. Natural Hazard Risk Assessment for the Town of Westford . . 160 Section 6: Developing the Existing Protection Matrix . . . . 172 Section 7: Vulnerability/Risk Assessment ...... 194 A. Overview of Natural Hazards Vulnerability . . . . 194 B. Potential Flood Damage as a Measure of Vulnerability . . . 196 C. Vulnerability to Future Natural Hazards . . . . . 198 D. Impacts of New Growth on Vulnerability . . . . . 202 Section 8: Action Plan and Strategies ...... 206 A. Mitigation Goals ...... 207 B. Mitigation Progress Since 2007 ...... 208 C. The Action Plan ...... 221 D. Mitigation Success Stories in the Northern Middlesex Region . . 287 Section 9: Plan Adoption and Maintenance ...... 289 Section 10: Plan Implementation ...... 292 Section 11: Funding Sources ...... 240 Bibliography Appendix A: Meeting Agendas and Summaries Appendix B: Massachusetts Dam Hazard Classification Appendix C: Mercali Earthquake Scale Appendix D: Critical Facilities Maps Appendix E: Critical Facilities Database by Community Appendix F: Newspaper Articles on Hazard Mitigation Appendix G: Plan Adoption Documentation for NMCOG and the Municipalities Appendix H: Crosswalk from the 2006 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Appendix I: Draft Certificates of Adoption

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Earthquake Activity in the Northeast . . . . . 71 Figure 2: Seismic Status of Northern Middlesex Bridges . . . . 75 Figure 3: Boston Annual Precipitation Totals, 1960-2010 . . . . 78 Figure 4: Repetitive Loss Structures along the Concord and Shawsheen Rivers ...... 98

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Public Meetings Conducted in the Communities During Plan Development ...... 8 Table 2: Lowell Neighborhood Meetings Conducted During the Plan Development Process ...... 9 Table 3: 2000 and 2010 Population in the Northern Middlesex Region . . 15 Table 4: Housing and Population Density in the Northern Middlesex Region ...... 16 Table 5: Land Use Patterns and Trends in the Region (1971-2005) . . . 16 Table 6: Permanently Protected Open Space by Community . . . 19 Table 7: Municipal Drinking Water Supplies-Primary Protection Zones . . 21 Table 8: National Register Districts and Local Historic Districts . . . 23 Table 9: Current and Projected Population in the Northern Middlesex Region ...... 25 Table 10: Current and Projected Households in the Northern Middlesex Region ...... 26 Table 11: Current and Projected Employment in the Northern Middlesex Region ...... 26 Table 12: 2011 Assessed Values by Class ...... 25 Table 13: Flood-related Disaster Declarations . . . . . 30 Table 14: Repetitive Flood Loss Properties under the NFIP . . . . 31 Table 15: National Flood Insurance Policies in the Northern Middlesex Region . 32 Table 16: Floodplain Area by Community ...... 33 Table 17: Structurally Deficient Bridges over Water . . . . 35 Table 18: High Hazard Dams in the Northern Middlesex Region . . . 37 Table 19: New England Hurricanes and Tropical Cyclones (1938-present) ...... 41 Table 20: Hurricane-related Presidential Disaster Declarations . . . 43 Table 21: Estimated Population Impacted by a Possible Hurricane In the Northern Middlesex Region . . . . . 44 Table 22: Tornadoes in the Northern Middlesex Region . . . . 47 Table 23: The Enhanced F-Scale ...... 47 Table 24: The Enhanced F-Scale Damage Indicators . . . . 48 Table 25: Power Outages Across the Region During the October 2011 Snowstorm ...... 52 Table 26: Annual Snowfall Totals for Lowell, MA-1983-2011 . . . 52 Table 27: Winter Weather-Related Federal Disaster and Emergency Declarations for Middlesex County, 2005-2011 . . . . 53 Table 28: Regional Snowfall Index Values ...... 56 Table 29: Regional Snowfall Index and Societal Impacts for the Northeast . . 56 Table 30: Brush Fires/Wildfires in the Northern Middlesex Region (2002-2010) ...... 67 Table 31: Persons at Risk to Earthquakes ...... 73 Table 32: Record High and Low Temperatures by Community . . . 77 Table 33: Total Crashes by Community, 2008-2010 . . . . . 83

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page iii

Table 34: Emergency Operations Center, Health Care Facilities, and Shelters –Billerica ...... 94 Table 35: Billerica Hazard Risk Assessment ...... 95 Table 36: Hazard Classification of Billerica Dams . . . . . 99 Table 37: Emergency Operations Center, Health Care Facilities, and Shelters –Chelmsford ...... 103 Table 38: Chelmsford Hazard Risk Assessment . . . . . 104 Table 39: Hazard Classification of Chelmsford Dams . . . . 107 Table 40: Emergency Operations Centers, Health Care Facilities, and Shelters-Dracut ...... 112 Table 41: Dracut Hazard Risk Assessment ...... 113 Table 42: Hazard Classification of Dracut Dams . . . . . 115 Table 43: Emergency Operations Centers, Health Care Facilities and Shelters-Dunstable ...... 118 Table 44: Dunstable Hazard Risk Assessment . . . . . 120 Table 45: Hazard Classification of Dunstable Dams . . . . . 122 Table 46: Emergency Operations Centers, Health Care Facilities and Shelters – Lowell ...... 125 Table 47: Lowell Hazard Risk Assessment ...... 127 Table 48: Structurally Deficient Bridges in Lowell . . . . . 133 Table 49: Hazard Classification of Lowell Dams . . . . . 133 Table 50: Emergency Operations Centers, Health Care Facilities and Shelters-Pepperell ...... 138 Table 51: Pepperell Hazard Risk Assessment . . . . . 139 Table 52: Hazard Classification of Pepperell Dams . . . . . 140 Table 53: Emergency Operations Centers, Health Care Facilities and Shelters –Tewksbury ...... 146 Table 54: Tewksbury Hazard Risk Assessment . . . . . 148 Table 55: Hazard Classification of Tewksbury Dams . . . . 152 Table 56: Emergency Operations Centers, Health Care Facilities and Shelters-Tyngsborough ...... 155 Table 57: Tyngsborough Hazard Risk Assessment . . . . . 156 Table 58: Hazard Classification of Tyngsborough Dams . . . . 158 Table 59: Emergency Operations Centers, Health Care Facilities and Shelters –Westford ...... 162 Table 60: Westford Hazard Risk Assessment . . . . . 163 Table 61: Hazard Classification of Westford Dams . . . . . 166 Table 62: Westford Winter Precipitation ...... 167 Table 63: Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Billerica . . . 172 Table 64: Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Chelmsford . . . 174 Table 65: Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Dracut . . . 177 Table 66: Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Dunstable . . . 178 Table 67: Existing Protection Matrix for the City of Lowell . . . . 181 Table 68: Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Pepperell . . . 183 Table 69: Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Tewksbury . . . 185 Table 70: Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Tyngsborough . . 189 Table 71: Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Westford . . . 191

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page iv

Table 72: Disaster Declarations for Middlesex County (1991-2013) . . 195 Table 73: Assessed Value of Buildings in the 100-Year Floodplain by Community and Use Code ...... 197 Table 74: Estimated Contents Replacement Costs for Buildings in the 100-Year Floodplain ...... 197 Table 75: Critical Infrastructure in the 100-Year Floodplain by Community . 198 Table 76: The Region’s Potential Vulnerability to Future Natural Hazards . . 201 Table 77: Secondary Impacts from Primary Natural Hazards . . . 202 Table 78: Residential Building Permits and Construction Costs (2007-2010) . 203 Table 79: Average Residential Property Values by Community, 2010 . . 203 Table 80: Significant Commercial, Institutional and Industrial Development Projects (2007-present) ...... 204 Table 81: Mitigation Progress Since 2007 ...... 208 Table 82: Proposed Regional Mitigation Actions . . . . . 222 Table 83: Proposed Mitigation Actions-Town of Billerica . . . . 232 Table 84: Proposed Mitigation Actions-Town of Chelmsford . . . 237 Table 85: Proposed Mitigation Actions – Town of Dracut . . . . 243 Table 86: Proposed Mitigation Actions-Town of Dunstable . . . . 247 Table 87: Proposed Mitigation Actions-City of Lowell . . . . 253 Table 88: Proposed Mitigation Actions-Town of Pepperell . . . . 264 Table 89: Proposed Mitigation Actions-Town of Tewksbury . . . 269 Table 90: Proposed Mitigation Actions-Town of Tyngsborough . . . 277 Table 91: Proposed Mitigation Actions-Town of Westford . . . . 281 Table 92: Role of Local Boards, Departments and Committees in Plan Implementation ...... 292 Table 93: FEMA Hazard Mitigation Funding Programs . . . . 294

LIST OF MAPS

Map 1: Typical Historical Cyclone Tracks over Massachusetts . . . 44 Map 2: Category 1-5 Hurricanes (1851-2010) . . . . . 45 Map 3: Tornado Density for Middlesex County . . . . . 49 Map 4: Seismic Risk Map of the U.S...... 70 Map 5: New England Earthquake Probability . . . . . 72 Map 6: Seismicity in Massachusetts, 1973-present . . . . . 73 Map 7: Seismic Hazard in Massachusetts ...... 74 Map 8: Billerica Critical Facilities and Evacuation Routes . . . . Appendix D Map 9: Chelmsford Critical Facilities and Evacuation Routes . . . Appendix D Map 10: Dracut Critical Facilities and Evacuation Routes . . . . Appendix D Map 11: Dunstable Critical Facilities and Evacuation Routes . . . Appendix D Map 12: Lowell Critical Facilities and Evacuation Routes . . . . Appendix D Map 13: Pepperell Critical Facilities and Evacuation Routes . . . Appendix D Map 14: Tewksbury Critical Facilities and Evacuation Routes . . . Appendix D Map 15: Tyngsborough Critical Facilities and Evacuation Routes . . . Appendix D Map 16: Westford Critical Facilities and Evacuation Routes . . . Appendix D Map 17: Critical Infrastructure Located in 100-Year Floodplain . . . 199 Map 18: Lowell Critical Infrastructure Located in 100-Year Floodplain . . 200

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page v

Acknowledgments

This plan was prepared with the input and guidance of a regional Multiple Hazard Community Planning Team comprised of representatives from the nine communities in the Northern Middlesex Region. Community representatives included the following:

 William Laurendeau, Emergency Management Director, Billerica;  Peter Kennedy, Town Planner (former), Town of Billerica;  Tony Fields, Director of Planning, Town of Billerica;  Deputy Chief Michael Donoghue, Chelmsford Fire Department;  Walter Hedlund, Emergency Services Coordinator (former), Chelmsford;  Stephen Maffetone, Emergency Management Director, Chelmsford  Evan Belansky, Director of Community Development, Chelmsford;  Deputy Richard Patterson, Dracut Fire Department;  Glen Edwards, Assistant Town Manager/Town Planner, Dracut;  William Ahern, Emergency Management Director(former), Dunstable;  John Crandall, Emergency Manager Director, Dunstable;  Mark Boldrighini, Emergency Management Director (former), Lowell;  George Rose, Emergency Management Director, Lowell;  George Ux, Emergency Management Director, Pepperell;  Peter Shattuck, Highway Superintendent; Pepperell;  Michael Sitar, Emergency Management Director (former), Tewksbury;  Steve Sadwick, Community Development Director, Tewksbury;  Captain Wes Russell, Director of Emergency Management, Tyngsborough;  Chief Joe Targ, Fire Department, Westford; and  Tim Whitcomb, Emergency Management, Police Department, Westford.

Many additional municipal staff, state officials, citizens and volunteers participated in the meetings and contributed to this report. Among them were the following:

 Daniel Rosa, Police Chief, Billerica;  Daniel Doyle, Deputy Police Chief, Billerica;  Anthony Capaldo, Fire Chief (former), Billerica;  Thomas Conway, Fire Chief, Billerica;

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page vi

 John Curran, Town Manager, Billerica;  Abdul Alkhatib, Public Works Director, Billerica;  Paul Cohen, Town Manager, Chelmsford;  Richard Day, Director of Public Health, Chelmsford;  James F. Murphy, Police Chief (former), Chelmsford;  James Spinney, Police Chief, Chelmsford;  Michael Curran, Fire Chief, Chelmsford;  Scott Ludwig, Engineering Department, Chelmsford;  Jim Pearson, Director, Department of Public Works (former), Chelmsford;  Gary Perschetti, Director of Public Works, Chelmsford;  Dennis Piendak, Town Manager (former), Dracut;  Jim Duggan, Town Manager, Dracut;  Michael Buxton, Director of Public Works, Dracut;  Mark Hamel, Town Engineer, Dracut;  James G. Downes, III, Police Chief, Dunstable;  Brian Rich, Fire Chief, Dunstable;  Mike Martin, Highway Department, Dunstable;  Madonna McKenzie, Interim Town Administrator (former), Dunstable;  Edward Pitta, Fire Chief, Lowell;  Ralph Snow, Director of Public Works, Lowell;  Debra Fredl, Deputy Superintendent, Lowell Police Department;  Adam Baacke, Assistant City Manager/Director, Department of Planning and Development, Lowell;  Lisa E. DeMeo, City Engineer, Lowell;  David Scott, Police Chief, Pepperell;  Toby Tyler, Fire Chief, Pepperell;  Susan Snyder, Planning Administrator, Pepperell;  Kenneth Kalinowski, Town Engineer, Pepperell;  Paula Terrasi, Conservation Administrator, Pepperell;  John Moak, Town Administrator (former), Pepperell;  Mark Andrews, Town Administrator, Pepperell  Richard Mackey, Fire Chief (former), Tewksbury;

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page vii

 Timothy Sheehan, Police Chief, Tewksbury;  John Voto, Deputy Police Chief, Tewksbury Police Department;  Brian Gilbert, Superintendent, Department of Public Works, Tewksbury;  Michele Stein, Town Engineer (former), Tewksbury  James Hustins, Highway Superintendant, Tyngsborough;  Richard Burrows, Deputy Police Chief, Tyngsborough;  Patrick Sands, Captain, Tyngsborough Fire Department;  Curt Bellevance, Town Administrator, Tyngsborough;  Nina Nizarian, Assistant Town Administrator, Tyngsborough;  Richard Barrett, Highway Superintendant, Westford;  Chris Coutu, GIS Coordinator, Westford;  Alice Bilbo, Office of Dam Safety, Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation;  Lou-Ann Clement, Public Health Director, Tewksbury  Danielle McFadden, Executive Director, Greater Lowell Chamber of Commerce  Caroly Shumway, Executive Director, Merrimack River Watershed Council  Jane Calvin, Executive Director, Lowell Parks and Conservation Trust  Marybeth Groff, Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency  Sarah White, Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency  Scott MacLeod, Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency  Richard Zingarelli, Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation

NMCOG also wishes to acknowledge the following Council members and staff:

 Matthew Hanson, Chairman  Beverly Woods, Executive Director  Jay Donovan, Assistant Director  Carlin Andrus, GIS Specialist  Justin Howard, Transportation Program Manager

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A natural hazard is defined as “an event or physical condition that has the potential to cause fatalities, injuries, property damage, infrastructure damage, agricultural losses, damage to the environment, interruption of business, or other types of harm or loss.1 The Northern Middlesex region is susceptible to many types of natural hazards including floods, severe thunderstorms, winter storms, earthquakes, and hurricanes. The economic cost of these disasters can be staggering. In addition, disasters can bring social and emotional devastation to our communities. This Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan outlines actions that can be taken now to reduce the impact of natural disasters when and if they occur later. Regional mitigation breaks the costly cycle of recurrent damage and increasing reconstruction costs.

In 2006, the Northern Middlesex Council of Governments developed a regional multi- hazard mitigation plan encompassing the communities of Billerica, Chelmsford, Dracut, Dunstable, Lowell, Pepperell, Tewksbury, Tyngsborough and Westford. This document represents the first five-year update to the 2006 Plan. The update has been prepared in accordance with the federal Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) of 2000.

The Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region contains goals and objectives for developing the Plan, provides an assessment and inventory of natural hazard risks, as well as a vulnerability analysis based on the geographic location of critical infrastructure and facilities, and delineates an existing protection matrix for the region and its nine member communities. Through discussions with local officials and the Multi Hazard Community Planning Team, a list of hazard mitigation actions and projects has been developed for future implementation. Unlike the 2006 regional hazard mitigation plan, this update also takes into account the potential impacts of climate change.

The completion of this update will maintain the region’s eligibility for certain types of federal funds to implement mitigation initiatives under the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), and Hazard Mitigation Grant (HMGP) programs. The update has a strong emphasis on integrating local, regional and state planning initiatives. The updated document will also serve as the local annexes for the nine NMCOG communities, and is a multi- jurisdictional document.

The region’s vulnerability to natural hazards can be viewed as having three components2:

 Exposure to a hazard – for example, a community located in proximity to a natural hazard, such as a geological fault line, is more likely to be impacted by an earthquake;

1 MEMA and DCR PowerPoint presentation, 2010. 2 Cutter, S.L., Burton, C.G. & Emrich, C.T. Disaster Resilience Indicators for Benchmarking Baseline Conditions, Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 2010

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 1

 Sensitivity or the ability to mitigate a threat – a community that has not permitted development in the floodplain is less sensitive to flooding than a community that has not protected low-lying lands; and

 Capacity to adapt – a community with the resources to plan for, prevent, limit and recover from a natural disaster event is less vulnerable than one that has little capacity to respond.

Vulnerability can vary from community to community. For example, communities that are close to hazard-prone areas, such as riverine floodplains, are vulnerable to flooding depending on the magnitude, intensity and frequency of an event. Vulnerability is also greatest where buildings are poorly constructed or maintained, or where critical infrastructure, such as bridges, roads and water and sewer lines, is susceptible to damage. Social vulnerability may occur in areas with high poverty, minority status, gender inequality, an aging population or a high percentage of individuals with a disability. These factors tend to affect access to governmental and social service resources both before and after a disaster.

The updated plan will continue to reduce the region’s vulnerability to natural disasters by effectively identifying appropriate projects for the limited amount of funding that is made available in the future. Development of a regional mitigation plan before disaster strikes will result in the most efficient and effective means of reducing the loss of life and property. Mitigation assists in helping minimize or prevent damage to structures, infrastructure, and other resources. The regional nature of this plan helps to ensure that mitigation initiatives, measures and strategies are coordinated across municipal boundaries. Ultimately, such regional integration of the plan will also improve the ability of the local communities to implement post- disaster recovery projects in a cooperative and coordinated manner. Implementing the mitigation measures identified in the plan will also help reduce short-term and long-term recovery and reconstruction costs.

Many tools have been analyzed within the planning process for their applicability in mitigating natural hazards, including the following:

 Land use planning and regulation of development in hazard-prone areas, such as prohibiting construction in a floodplain;  Enforcement of building codes and environmental regulations;  Public safety measures, such as routine and ongoing maintenance of roadways, culverts and dams;  Acquisition or relocation of properties, e.g. purchasing repetitive flood loss properties;  Retrofitting of structures and careful design of new construction, such as elevating buildings; and  Comprehensive emergency planning, preparedness and recovery.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 2

PREFACE

Congress enacted the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) on October 10, 2000. Also known as the Stafford Act Amendments, the bill was signed into law by President Clinton on October 30, 2000, creating Public Law 106-390. The law established a national program for regional mitigation and streamlined the federal administration of disaster relief. Specific rules on the implementation of DMA 2000 were published in the Federal Register in February 2002 and required that all communities must have a Multiple Hazards Mitigation Plan in place in order to qualify for future federal disaster mitigation grants following a Presidential disaster declaration.

According to federal regulations, every five years regional and local jurisdictions must review and revise their plan to reflect changes in development, progress in mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities. The updated plan must be resubmitted to MEMA and FEMA for review and approval in order to continue to be eligible for mitigation project grant funding. Plan updates must demonstrate that progress has been made in the last five years through a comprehensive review of the previous plan.

The regional and local plans emphasize measures that can be taken to reduce or prevent future disaster damages caused by natural hazards. Mitigation, in the context of natural hazard planning, refers to any action that permanently reduces or eliminates long-term risks to human life and property. In 2006, FEMA performed a cost-benefit analysis based on a sampling of hazard mitigation grants and determined that every dollar spent on mitigation saved society an average of four dollars.3

A variety of mitigation actions are available to reduce the risk of losses from natural hazards. These activities, which can be implemented at the local and state levels, include hazard mitigation planning, the adoption and enforcement of development codes and standards, the use of control structures such as floodwalls and culverts, and the protection of wetlands, floodplain and open space. Many of the strategies identified in hazard mitigation planning are implemented through land use planning tools and development regulations that can prevent or limit development in hazard-prone areas. Where development has already occurred in hazard-prone areas buildings can be retrofitted or modified to increase the chances of surviving a known hazard. Enforcement of the state building code is critical in order to effectively minimize natural hazard losses. For example, studies have shown that inadequate code enforcement resulted in significant losses from Hurricane Andrew in 1992.

In addition to addressing natural hazard mitigation, this updated hazard mitigation plan includes an overview of non-natural hazards and assesses the interrelationship of climate change and hazard mitigation.

3 National Institute of Building Sciences, Natural Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study to Assess Future Savings from Mitigation Activities, 2006.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 3

SECTION 1: THE PLANNING PROCESS

The Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) has encouraged the regional planning agencies to act as facilitators of local hazard mitigation planning efforts. The development of the multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan update was conducted under the overall direction of the Northern Middlesex Council of Governments (NMCOG). NMCOG is one of thirteen regional planning agencies in Massachusetts and was established in 1963 under Chapter 40B of the Massachusetts General Laws. NMCOG is the official area-wide planning agency for the region and engages in comprehensive planning in the areas of land use, transportation, economic development, historic preservation, emergency response, housing, municipal service delivery and environmental planning.

NMCOG completed the region’s initial Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2006, and this update builds upon that planning initiative. Updated data regarding natural hazard events, demographics, non-natural hazards, and critical infrastructure have been incorporated into the document. Recently developed plans, including comprehensive community plans and master plans, open space and recreation plans, economic development plans, housing production plans and emergency management plans have been consulted. The Regional Strategic Plan, Greater Lowell Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy 2009-2013 and the 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan have also been considered in formulating the updated document. New information regarding changes in development patterns, progress in local mitigation efforts and changes in local and regional priorities have been incorporated into the update. The State’s Hazard Mitigation Plan has been considered in the preparation of this document as well.

In completing the planning process for the Hazard Mitigation Plan update, NMCOG staff met with MEMA and FEMA staff, consulted with other regional planning agencies, attended conferences, and consulted state and federal guidance and regulations relative to development of a regional hazard mitigation plan. During the development of the Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region, NMCOG and local staff have taken numerous steps to coordinate all aspects of emergency management planning. Each municipality has a Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) and a Regional Homeland Security Plan is also in place. Each of these emergency management plans has a slightly different focus, but many of the components within each are common, such as the inventory of critical facilities, roles and responsibilities, and protocols for response. The intent of this hazard mitigation plan is to reflect existing conditions, as cited in previous work, and to complement and augment efforts already undertaken. Accordingly, this Hazard Mitigation Plan update includes goals and objectives that meet local needs and complement local and regional goals established in the CEMPs and Homeland Security Plan.

A Multiple Hazard Community Planning Team (MHCPT) was formed and input was solicited from the MHCPT, local officials, local residents, the business community, neighborhood organizations and other interested stakeholders. The MHCPT reviewed and commented on the plan update during its formulation, and served as a liaison with other local boards and committees. The MHCPT members included:

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 4

 William Laurendeau, Emergency Management Director, Billerica;  Peter Kennedy, Director of Planning (former), Town of Billerica;  Tony Fields, Director of Planning, Town of Billerica;  Deputy Fire Chief Michael Donoghue, Chelmsford Fire Department;  Walter Hedlund, Emergency Services Coordinator (former), Chelmsford;  Steve Maffetone, Emergency Manager, Chelmsford;  Evan Belansky, Director of Community Development, Chelmsford;  Deputy Richard Patterson, Dracut Fire Department;  Glen Edwards, Assistant Town Manager/Town Planner, Dracut;  William Ahern, Emergency Management Director (former), Dunstable;  John Crandall, Emergency Management Director, Dunstable  Mark Boldrighini, Emergency Management Director (former), Lowell;  George Rose, Emergency Management Director, Lowell;  Brian Gilbert, DPW Director, Tewksbury;  Kevin Hardiman, Town Engineer, Tewksbury  Michael Sitar, Tewksbury Fire Department (former);  Steve Sadwick, Community Development Director, Tewksbury;  Captain Wes Russell, Director of Emergency Management, Tyngsborough;  Chief Joseph Targ, Emergency Management, Westford Fire Department  Tim Whitcomb, Emergency Management, Westford Police Department

The process for developing the updated document included the following steps:

 Update the identification of natural hazards for the region and the nine member communities;

 Update all demographic, land use, economic and other data, as needed;

 Re-evaluate and update the Existing Protection Matrix for the region and each community;

 Review and update the risk assessment/vulnerability section of the Plan, by identifying critical infrastructure and repetitive flood loss structures, and estimating potential losses;

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 5

 Review the action plan from the 2006 hazard mitigation plan to identify those measures that were implemented, and to determine whether the remaining measures are still relevant and should be carried into the updated plan;

 Develop and prioritize mitigation strategies and create an action plan for the region and each municipality based on current and future conditions.

Once the draft plan is approved by MEMA and FEMA, and is adopted by NMCOG and all nine communities, final approval will be sought and plan maintenance will be initiated.

A. Planning Team Meetings

The first MHCPT meeting was held on March 1, 2011 at the NMCOG offices. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the planning team members to the plan update process and to provide an overview of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The meeting outlined the roles of the MHCPT and NMCOG in assisting each community in meeting in its obligations under the DMA of 2000. The meeting began with a PowerPoint presentation that described the DMA of 2000 and the need for local communities to have an approved updated plan in place. It then proceeded to a general discussion of the types of natural disasters common to the area, and solicited participant input based on local experience in responding to recent disasters. Further discussion focused on disaster mitigation and appropriate steps each community may take prior to a disaster in order to mitigate its potential impact.

On May 4, 2011, an additional meeting of the MHCPT was held at the NMCOG offices in Lowell. The MHCPT reviewed the goals of the plan update, examined updated critical infrastructure data and mapping for their respective communities, and identified the priorities for each municipality. In addition, FEMA staff provided an overview of FEMA’s expectations in terms of the plan update process, public involvement and the content of the updated document. Meeting summaries are included in Appendix A. The MHCPT met again on June 13, 2012 to review the draft document before release to the local communities for full review and comment. The draft plan was then released to the communities, the public and all project stakeholders. Copies of the document were made available through the NMCOG website and at all City/Town Halls. NMCOG staff responded to comments received from the public and the local communities and forwarded the final draft to MEMA in July 2012. Comments were received from MEMA in April 2013 and were subsequently addressed by NMCOG staff. The revised draft plan was resubmitted to MEMA in November 2013, was approved by MEMA staff, and then transmitted to FEMA. Review comments on the draft plan were received from FEMA in June 2014.

The MHCPT met on August 1, 2014 to discuss FEMA’s review comments regarding the first draft Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region sent to FEMA in November 2013. Meeting attendees discussed the schedule, responsibilities for completing the revisions, the FEMA approval process, and the local adoption process.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 6

B. Municipal Meetings

In the period between March 2011 and May 2012, individual meetings were held with the representatives of each community. Draft community base maps with flooding related hazards and critical facility locations were presented for review and discussion. In addition, possible mitigation strategies for individual communities were discussed.

NMCOG staff also contacted each of the nine jurisdictions by phone and e-mail. The Planning Committee members were the primary contacts for the planning process. Meetings were attended by the primary contacts and other key municipal staff including, where possible: the community planner, city/town engineer, public works director, emergency management director, conservation agent, local board of health, fire and police chief and other interested parties. These meetings were useful in facilitating the local natural disaster mitigation planning process. In some cases, NMCOG met with the local Planning Committee staff alone, if other staff was unable to attend. Overall these meetings generally formed the heart of the planning process, given the importance of local participation and the fact that natural disaster mitigation activities are typically locally initiated.

NMCOG staff contacted other stakeholders to gather their input on the region’s hazards and possible mitigation actions. Among the stakeholders were the University of Massachusetts Lowell (UML), the Merrimack River Watershed Council (MRWC), the Lowell Parks and Conservation Trust, the Greater Lowell Chamber of Commerce, and local neighborhood organizations.

In addition to correcting the local hazard maps, meetings focused on updating the “Existing Protection Matrix”, and identifying projects that have been completed since the original Plan was approved. In addition, the discussions provided an opportunity for city/town staff to identify gaps in natural disaster mitigation programs. NMCOG staff encouraged municipal staff to discuss specific needs within each community and to identify appropriate mitigation projects.

A meeting was held with the Town of Chelmsford Planning Committee on September 9, 2014 to discuss revisions to the draft document and request additional data. NMCOG staff met with the City of Lowell’s Emergency Manager on August 27, 2014 to discuss the comments provided by FEMA, and to review the community’s responsibility in providing information needed to address the comments. NMCOG staff also met with the municipal managers and administrators from all nine communities on August 20, 2013 and on June 25, 2014 to discuss the status of the plan, outline the information required from each municipality in order to develop an approved document, and to solicit their input on revisions to the draft document.

NMCOG staff participated in the Hazard Mitigation planning process for the University of Massachusetts Lowell. Staff attended meetings with the University on February 3, 2013, June 17, 2013, and on December 16, 2013. NMCOG also represented the Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies (MARPA) on the State Hazard Mitigation Interagency Committee and attended meetings of that body on May 22, 2013, December 3, 2013, February 3, 2014, May 5, 2014, August 12, 2014, and December 5, 2014. Staff also attended

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 7

meetings of MEMA’s Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Subcommittee on February 27, 2014 and on June 5, 2014.

C. Public Meetings and Opportunities for Community Involvement

Efforts to adopt new mitigation activities can be constrained by the general public’s lack of awareness and understanding about natural hazards and risks. Collaboration aimed at clarifying priorities, goals and desired outcomes is essential to an effective hazard mitigation planning process. A comprehensive public involvement process was utilized to encourage governmental entities, local residents, businesses and nonprofit sector participation in the process. During the drafting of the plan and prior to plan approval, a wide range of stakeholders were engaged, including neighborhood and environmental groups, local elected officials, the University of Massachusetts Lowell and area businesses. The stakeholders assisted in identifying the most vulnerable populations and facilities, assessing the potential extent of each hazard, providing data and identifying mitigation goals, objectives and strategies.

NMCOG staff discussed the Plan during a public meeting held in each community. In most cases either the Board of Selectmen or Planning Board acted as the meeting host, with exception of the Lowell meeting, which was hosted by the NMCOG Council. In most cases, the meetings were broadcast on local cable. All public meetings were advertised in the local newspaper and posted in the City/Town Clerk offices, as required under Massachusetts Open Meeting law. Table 1 below details the dates and locations of these meetings.

Table 1: Public Meetings Conducted in the Communities during Plan Development Date Location Board Hosting the Meeting 5/25/11 Dracut – Harmony Hall Planning Board 6/6/11 Westford – Town Hall Planning Board 6/8/11 Chelmsford – Town Offices Planning Board 6/13/11 Billerica – Town Hall Planning Board 6/15/11 Lowell-NMCOG Office NMCOG Council 6/16/11 Tyngsborough – Town Hall Planning Board 6/20/11 Dunstable – Town Hall Planning Board 6/21/11 Tewksbury – Town Hall Board of Selectmen 7/18/11 Pepperell –Town Hall Planning Board 9/8/14 Lowell-Wang School FEMA and ACOE sponsored meeting on NFIP revisions and flood mitigation

The meetings provided additional opportunities to engage the community and educate the public on the importance of mitigation planning. Meeting notes are included in Appendix A.

In addition to the public meetings outlined above, NMCOG staff performed public outreach to the various neighborhood organizations within the City of Lowell. The following table contains a list of neighborhood meetings held throughout the plan development process.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 8

Table 2: Lowell Neighborhood Meetings Conducted During the Plan Development Process Date Neighborhood Organization 2/6/12 Pawtucketville Citizens Council 3/12/12 Highlands Circle/Highlands Neighborhood Association 3/19/12 Centraville Neighborhood Action Group (CNAG) 4/11/12 Belvidere Neighborhood Council 4/18/12 Acre Coalition to Improve Our Neighborhood (ACTION) 4/23/12 Downtown Neighborhood Association 4/25/12 Lower Highlands Neighborhood Group 6/11/12 East Pawtucketville Neighborhood Group 10/14/13 Highland Neighborhood Association

The neighborhood level meetings provided for direct grassroots participation. NMCOG staff members went to regular monthly meetings of the neighborhood organizations, and were able to educate residents on the importance of mitigation planning and gain an in depth understanding of the residents’ issues and concerns. The neighborhood groups were very engaged in the process given that they were directly impacted by the 2006 and 2007 floods.

In order to gain input from the business community, NMCOG staff presented the draft Hazard Mitigation Plan to the region’s Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Committee on April 10, 2012 and on June 12, 2012. In addition, NMCOG reached out to the local business community through the Greater Lowell Chamber of Commerce and the Greater Lowell Workforce Investment Board.

The Draft Plan, and other work products and informational items related to development of the plan, were also posted on the NMCOG website: www.nmcog.org. The public was encouraged to review the document and provide comments through the website via an email link. The Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan was also discussed at monthly NMCOG meetings and information was provided through NMCOG’s quarterly newsletter, Regional Perspectives.

NMCOG conducted a public meeting on July 25, 2012 at the Tewksbury Town Hall to receive comments on the draft Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan. NMCOG staff gave a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the hazard mitigation planning process and the contents of the draft plan. Staff then solicited input and feedback relative to potential mitigation projects and strategies that were included in the draft plan. Participants discussed several natural disaster and mitigation topics of interest. The agenda for the meeting is included in Appendix A.

On June 20, 2013 NMCOG staff presented the Hazard Mitigation Plan to the Greater Lowell Workforce Investment Board (GLWIB) and discussed the planning process and community and business resiliency principles. On June 27, 2013 the Northern Middlesex Metropolitan Planning Organization discussed the integrating hazard mitigation and resiliency into the regional transportation planning process.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 9

D. Other Local and Regional Planning Initiatives

As previously mentioned, recently developed local plans, such as comprehensive plans and master plans, open space and recreation plans, economic development plans, housing production plans, and emergency management plans were consulted in formulating this document. In addition, hazard mitigation has been included and considered in many planning documents and initiatives. In 2010 NMCOG assisted the Town of Chelmsford in preparing its Master Plan, which included discussion of hazard mitigation issues and references to the 2006 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Over the past several years, NMCOG has prepared Open Space and Recreation Plans for the communities of Billerica, Dracut, Tyngsborough and Westford. Each of those documents incorporated hazard mitigation planning, and contained recommendations regarding flood control, stormwater management, and other mitigation issues.

In 2011, NMCOG completed the Regional Strategic Plan (RSP) for Greater Lowell. The RSP assisted NMCOG and its member communities in planning for future development initiatives and for the preservation of open space and natural resources. The RSP focuses on smart growth and sustainable development principles that promote compact development in those areas with available infrastructure, and fosters the protection and preservation of the region’s most vulnerable and valuable environmental and cultural resources. Several of the goals outlined in the Strategic Plan are beneficial in mitigating natural hazards and addressing climate change, including the following:

 Use land efficiently and protect sensitive resource areas by directing growth to priority development areas and locations with adequate infrastructure;

 Support the transformation of key underutilized lands, such as brownfields, to productive uses that complement the community and enhance existing neighborhoods;

 Minimize the environmental impact of future development by encouraging mixed-use and compact development patterns, and by promoting the use of low impact development techniques;

 Care for the natural environment by protecting and restoring natural systems, conserving habitat, improving water quality, and reducing air pollution, thereby ensuring that all residents, regardless of social and economic status, live in a healthy environment;

 Promote the use of innovative, environmentally sensitive development practices, including design, materials, construction, and on-going maintenance;

 Encourage the use of low impact development techniques and other best management practices (BMPs) for managing stormwater;

 Preserve, protect and enhance the region’s remaining agricultural lands;

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 10

 Preserve significant historic, visual and cultural resources, including public views, landmarks, archaeological sites, historic and cultural landscapes and areas of special character; and

 Promote the production and use of alternative energy.

The 2011-2035 Regional Transportation Plan incorporates hazard mitigation planning in that it addresses stormwater management, climate change and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, transportation safety, and traffic management along evacuation routes. The regional transportation plan is updated every four years.

In addition to the above efforts, NMCOG received an Urban Waters Small Grant from EPA. Under this grant program, NMCOG is working in partnership with the Merrimack River Watershed Council to educate residents of Lowell, Chelmsford, Dracut and Tewksbury on the importance of managing stormwater. In addition, a train-the-trainer program is being developed for local officials and staff.

Through the District Local Technical Assistance (DLTA) program, NMCOG worked with its member communities to establish a regional entity that would provide assistance to municipalities in implementing certain BMPs outlined in their MS-4 permits. In 2012, NMCOG received a Community Innovation Challenge grant from the Executive Office of Administration and Finance (A&F) to form the Northern Middlesex Stormwater Collaborative comprised of the nine NMCOG communities. The intent of the Collaborative is to utilize new approaches to solve stormwater problems across the region in a way that reduces costs for local governments and taxpayers, and promotes regional communication and cooperation. The principal goals are to effectively manage stormwater and improve water quality, while engaging in resource sharing among local governments, thereby minimizing costs and improving the quality of service provided to residents. Although stormwater management isn’t a new concept for our region, this is the first initiative that has successfully brought nine political jurisdictions together to address the problem in a comprehensive and cohesive manner. The participating municipalities and NMCOG have signed an MOU forming the collaborative and outlining roles and responsibilities of the participants.

In 2014 NMCOG received additional funding to expand the Collaborative to include the communities of Burlington, Carlisle, Littleton and Wilmington, creating a Collaborative of fourteen communities in total. The funding is also being used to address the public education, procurement, management, administrative, and mapping tasks necessary for implementing municipal stormwater management plans and meeting EPA requirements. Expansion of the Collaborative will remove geographic and jurisdictional obstacles to maximizing efficiencies in these areas. Such collaboration at the regional level will also benefit hazard mitigation planning, particularly in addressing flood hazards. Most recently, the Collaborative was awarded the STORMY Award for municipal innovation by the New England Water Works Association.

Projects that benefit hazard mitigation are also incorporated within the region’s Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) prepared by the Northern Middlesex Council of Governments in partnership with the Economic Development Administration (EDA)

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 11

of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Some of these projects are listed in the document’s Priority Projects list.

E. Hazard Identification and Assessment Process

The MHCPT and NMCOG staff updated the natural hazards inventory for the region and grouped the hazards in a format consistent with the State Hazard Mitigation Plan. Specific discussions were held regarding recent hazards, local natural hazard issues, current protection measures, and potential action items that could benefit the communities. Consequently, an updated discussion of each individual hazard is provided, as well as an assessment and history of the occurrence of the hazard in the region, and an evaluation of the likelihood of future occurrence.

Comprehensive hazard maps were updated using the best available data for each of the nine local jurisdictions. The maps include natural hazard zones such as flood zones or other high-risk areas. The maps also include the location of critical facilities such as emergency operation centers, city or town offices, police and fire stations, schools, daycare centers, nursing homes and hospitals, emergency shelters, power plants and power substations, bridges, access roads, evacuation routes and other critical facilities. In addition, the base maps include roads, rail lines, streams, ponds, lakes, wetlands, and other data. The maps depict the location of structures within flood zones, including repetitive loss structures, and form the basis for estimating probable losses from potential natural disasters, such as severe flooding.

The hazard identification and assessment process included compiling information regarding high-risk dams and structurally deficient bridges. This information was culled from state data sources, including the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Office of Dam Safety and MassDOT, and further refined with input from the local municipalities. Part of the risk assessment consisted of the development of loss estimates and area vulnerability assessments. Through input from the local communities and the regional MHCPT, it was concluded that flooding was the most prevalent natural disaster impacting the region. Furthermore, potential flooding impacts can be identified and predicted within flood zones such as the 100-year event flood plain, for which maps are readily available. The most recent tax assessor’s data was evaluated to estimate the value of structures located within the 100-year flood plain. The mapping incorporated the most recent FIRM map updates. The figures derived provide an estimate of losses that might result from a severe flood event. The methodology utilized is described in more detail in a later section of this document.

F. Updating the Existing Protection Matrix

The existing protection matrix is a summary of measures, programs, and projects that have been implemented locally to mitigate natural hazards. The matrix is essentially a listing of the items already in place which work toward solving hazard problems or preventing future losses, as outlined in FEMA’s Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance.4 In order to update the matrix, NMCOG interviewed municipal staff members in each of the nine NMCOG communities. These interviews were used to examine the adequacy of each community’s

4 Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, FEMA, July 2008

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 12

programs, policies and bylaws, and to determine what has been accomplished since the original plan was approved in 2006. The information gathered from these interviews is outlined in the meeting summaries in Appendix A and is also detailed in the updated existing protection matrix.

G. Development of Hazard Mitigation Strategies and Preparation of the Plan

The MHCPT and NMCOG staff worked together to develop the hazard mitigation strategies. In local meetings, municipal staff members were asked to identify possible projects, programs, and strategies that would become part of the updated local and regional mitigation plans. The meetings served to stimulate discussion relative to appropriate mitigation measures. In addition, the MHCPT also generated valuable suggestions that were incorporated into the Plan. Public input and comments provided by the project stakeholders were seriously weighed and considered in crafting appropriate mitigation strategies for the region and for each municipality.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 13

SECTION 2: PLAN PURPOSE

The process utilized by the planning team focused on identifying vulnerabilities to future disasters and formulating mitigation strategies to avoid or minimize losses. The Plan contains data and information that can be utilized to increase public awareness and promote improved mitigation planning at the local, regional, and state levels of government. Developing a mitigation plan before disaster strikes will result in the most efficient and effective means for reducing loss of life and property.

FEMA, within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for leading the country’s efforts to prepare for, prevent, respond to, and recover from disasters. FEMA has made hazard mitigation a primary goal in its efforts to reduce the long-term effects of natural hazards. FEMA provides guidance to state, regional and local governments in developing their hazard mitigation plans, reviews and approves the plans, and administers a number of hazard mitigation grant programs to fund mitigation activities.

A number of state and federal grant programs and related regulations, mandate that local governments develop and maintain natural hazard mitigation plans. The Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires that all communities have such plans in place in order to be eligible for future federal post disaster mitigation funds under the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program. This plan is intended to assist the region and the local communities in complying with these requirements. The mitigation planning process is also directed at ensuring that proposals for mitigation projects and initiatives are coordinated among the communities within the Northern Middlesex Council of Governments’ planning district.

Hazard Mitigation Plans must be updated and resubmitted to FEMA for approval every five years. Plan updates must demonstrate that progress has been made in fulfilling the commitments made in the previous plan. This requires a review and update of each section of the plan and a discussion of the progress made over the past five-year period. This document represents the first full update to the region’s 2006 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan, and it describes occurrences of hazards included in the previous plan, as well as new occurrences of hazard events and changes in the region’s vulnerability to such hazards. The Plan has also been revised to include changes in development patterns and changes in local and regional priorities. The goals contained in the prior plan have been reviewed and either reaffirmed or revised to reflect new information and priorities.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 14

SECTION 3: REGIONAL PROFILE

The Greater Lowell region consists of the City of Lowell and its eight suburbs – Billerica, Chelmsford, Dracut, Dunstable, Pepperell, Tewksbury, Tyngsborough and Westford – and has a land area of approximately 196 square miles and an inland water area of 5.76 square miles. The City of Lowell serves as the central city and economic center of the region. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Greater Lowell region had a population of 286,901 in 2010, which represented an increase of 2.2% since 2000. This growth rate was one-third of what the region experienced between 1990 and 2000.

The region is tied together by the Merrimack River and is located in the northeastern section of Massachusetts, abutting the New Hampshire state line. The City of Lowell is approximately forty-five minutes from the City of Boston and Manchester, New Hampshire and an hour from the City of Worcester and Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

A. Population and Housing

Presently, Lowell accounts for 37% of the region’s population and continues to have the highest population density, at over 7,325 persons per square mile. Billerica, Chelmsford, Dracut and Tewksbury, the early suburbanizing communities with population densities over 1,000 persons per square mile, collectively account for 46% of the region’s population. The remaining communities, where much of the development activity occurred during the 1990s, account for 17% of the region’s population. Table 3 below summarizes the population characteristics of the region’s communities.

Table 3: 2000 and 2010 Population in the Northern Middlesex Region Community 2000 Population 2010 Population % Change Billerica 38,981 40,243 3.24% Chelmsford 33,858 33,802 -0.17% Dracut 28,562 29,457 3.13% Dunstable 2,829 3,179 12.37% Lowell 105,167 106,519 1.29% Pepperell 11,142 11,497 3.19% Tewksbury 28,851 28,961 0.38% Tyngsborough 11,081 11,292 1.90% Westford 20,754 21,951 5.77% Total 281,225 286,901 2.02% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2012 U.S. Census Data

The total number of housing units in the region increased from 101,973 units in 2000 to 109,446 units in 2010, an increase of 7,473 units or 7.3%. The City of Lowell accounted for the largest share of housing units in the region, however, its percentage share of the total housing units in the region decreased slightly from 38.7% in 2000 to 37.9% in 2010. The number of vacant units in the region nearly doubled from 2.6% in 2000 to 5 % in 2010. In terms of housing unit density, the City of Lowell was the only community in 2010 that had more than 600 housing units per square mile at 2,849.45 housing units, with the next highest community being

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 15

Chelmsford at 593.08 housing units per square mile. Table 4 below, provides population density and housing density data for the region and for each community.

Table 4: Housing and Population Density in the Northern Middlesex Region Community Population Housing Units Land Area (Sq. Population Housing Unit Mi.) Density Density (Per Sq. Mi.) (Per Sq. Mi.) Billerica 40,243 14,481 26.38 1,525.51 548.94 Chelmsford 33,802 13,807 23.28 1,451.98 593.08 Dracut 29,457 11,351 21.36 1,379.07 531.41 Dunstable 3,179 1,098 16.74 189.90 65.59 Lowell 106,519 41,431 14.54 7,325.93 2,849.45 Pepperell 11,497 4,348 23.17 496.20 187.66 Tewksbury 28,961 10,848 21.06 1,375.17 515.10 Tyngsborough 11,292 4,206 18.50 610.38 227.35 Westford 21,951 7,876 31.33 700.64 251.39 Total 286,901 109,446 196.36 1,461.10 557.37 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census

B. Land Use Characteristics

The most recent land use data for the Greater Lowell region was compiled in 2005 using aerial photogrammetric data. According the McConnell land use data provided by the University of Massachusetts Amherst, the communities of Lowell, Billerica, Chelmsford and Tewksbury had the greatest acreage currently in commercial use, followed by Dracut, Tyngsborough and Westford. Of the nine Greater Lowell communities, the Town of Billerica clearly had the largest land area devoted to industrial development (1,071 acres), followed by Lowell (632 acres), Tewksbury (586 acres), Chelmsford (561 acres) and Westford (416 acres). In 2005, the overall region had 2,470 acres of land being utilized for commercial development and 3,612 acres devoted to industrial development. Nearly one-quarter of the region’s land area used for commercial and industrial development (1,491 acres) was located within the Town of Billerica. As shown in Table 5 below, this land use pattern is very different from that seen in 1971, when the City of Lowell had the largest land area devoted to commercial and industrial uses, and reflects a continued trend in the suburbanization of employment centers.

Table 5: Land Use Patterns and Trends in the Region (1971-2005) Community Land Use Acres Percentage Percent of Category Change Region (1971 -2005) (2005) 1971 1985 1991 2005 Billerica Commercial 216.6 283.80 397.00 419.81 93.82 16.99 Industrial 324.6 692.28 1,083.57 1,071.70 230.16 29.67 Residential 4,747.58 5,670.02 6,665.34 7,265.28 53.03 16.46 Developed 5,288.78 6,646.10 8,145.91 9,831.96 85.90 16.67 Undeveloped 11,608.93 10,251.61 8,751.80 6,983.72 -39.84 10.55 Total 16,897.71 16,897.71 16,897.71 16,815.68 N/A 13.43

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 16

Table 5 (cont’d): Land Use Patterns and Trends in the Region (1971-2005) Community Land Use Acres Percentage Percent of Category Change (1971 Region -2005) (2005) 1971 1985 1991 2005 Chelmsford Commercial 158.39 216.55 376.89 410.70 159.30 16.62 Industrial 310.07 503.97 637.32 560.91 80.90 15.53 Residential 3,249.10 3,914.34 6,866.71 7,162.52 120.44 16.22 Developed 3,717.56 4,634.86 7,880.92 9,286.53 149.80 15.75 Undeveloped 11,110.09 10,192.79 6,946.73 5,463.36 -50.83 8.25 Total 14,827.65 14,827.65 14,827.65 14,749.89 N/A 11.78 Dracut Commercial 115.88 176.87 215.36 256.82 121.63 10.39 Industrial 228.49 277.73 425.91 125.47 -45.09 3.47 Residential 2,159.37 3,024.00 4,502.61 4,837.59 124.03 10.96 Developed 2,503.74 3,478.60 5,143.88 5,525.23 120.68 9.37 Undeveloped 11,241.50 10,266.64 8,601.36 8,121.81 -27.75 12.27 Total 13,745.24 13,745.24 13,745.24 13,647.04 N/A 10.90 Dunstable Commercial 2.77 2.77 0.00 1.79 -35.38 0.07 Industrial 26.8 62.75 189.11 0 0 0 Residential 368.59 586.81 1,064.48 1,725.27 368.07 3.91 Developed 398.16 652.33 1,253.59 1,850.79 364.84 3.14 Undeveloped 10,346.39 10,092.22 9,490.96 8,866.62 -14.30 13.39 Total 10,744.55 10,744.55 10,744.55 10,717.41 N/A 8.56 Lowell Commercial 424.91 466.57 493.97 549.55 29.33 22.24 Industrial 465.99 638.01 797.94 632.04 35.63 17.50 Residential 2,455.18 2,645.16 4,453.35 3,548.46 44.53 8.04 Developed 3,346.08 3,749.74 5,745.26 8,125.43 142.83 13.78 Undeveloped 5,990.99 5,587.33 3,591.81 1,174.06 -80.40 1.77 Total 9,337.07 9,337.07 9,337.07 9,299.48 N/A 7.43 Pepperell Commercial 44.56 55.49 62.13 46.23 3.75 1.87 Industrial 46.37 131.79 196.12 87.58 88.87 2.42 Residential 1,041.51 1,801.37 2,595.19 4,013.63 285.37 9.09 Developed 1,132.44 1,988.65 2,853.44 4,397.52 288.32 7.46 Undeveloped 13,754.62 12,898.41 12,033.62 10,449.41 -24.03 15.78 Total 14,887.06 14,887.06 14,887.06 14,846.93 N/A 11.862 Tewksbury Commercial 194.63 284.85 274.18 342.64 76.05 13.87 Industrial 338.63 442.83 656.03 586.22 73.12 16.23 Residential 2,803.53 3,555.56 4,876.41 5,472.25 95.19 12.39 Developed 3,336.79 4,283.24 5,806.62 7,264.22 207.61 12.32 Undeveloped 10,234.58 9,288.13 7,764.75 6,247.17 -38.96 9.44 Total 13,571.37 13,571.37 13,571.37 13,511.40 N/A 10.79 Tyngsborough Commercial 24.83 82.13 178.98 225.79 809.34 9.14 Industrial 149.43 256.78 309.28 132.08 -11.61 3.66 Residential 819.27 1,459.02 2,245.08 3,561.95 334.77 8.07 Developed 993.53 1,797.93 2,733.34 4,599.05 362.90 7.80 Undeveloped 10,626.49 9,822.09 8,886.68 6,946.92 -34.63 10.49 Total 11,620.02 11,620.02 11,620.02 11,545.96 N/A 9.225 Westford Commercial 71.23 137.91 172.71 217.73 205.67 8.81 Industrial 477.56 572.81 719.90 416.31 -12.83 11.52 Residential 2,504.62 3,642.93 4,930.98 6,562.39 162.01 14.86 Developed 3,053.41 4,353.65 5,823.59 8,086.59 164.84 13.71 Undeveloped 17,013.72 15,713.48 14,243.54 11,949.75 -29.76 18.05 Total 20,067.13 20,067.13 20,067.13 20,036.33 N/A 16.00

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 17

Table 5 (cont’d): Land Use Patterns and Trends in the Region (1971-2005) Land Use Acres Percentage Percent of Category Change (1971 Region Community -2005) (2005) 1971 1985 1991 2005 Region Commercial 1,253.80 1,706.94 2,171.22 2,471.06 97.09 100 Industrial 2,367.94 3,578.95 5,015.18 3,612.31 52.55 100 Residential 20,148.75 26,299.21 38,200.15 44,149.34 119.12 100 Developed 23,770.49 31,585.10 45,386.55 58,967.31 148.07 100 Undeveloped 101,927.31 94,112.70 80,311.25 66,202.82 -35.05 100 Total 125,697.80 125,697.80 125,697.80 125,170.13 N/A 100 Source: McConnell Land Use Data, University of Massachusetts

Land consumption will likely continue at an alarming rate for as long as large lot zoning remains the norm in the suburbs. The largest category of developed land use in the region was residential. This included all residential dwelling types, from large lot, single-family homes to multi-family apartments and condominiums. Recent development across the region has been largely in the form of large lot, single family subdivisions, although there have been several multi-family projects constructed under Chapter 40B. A significant amount of undeveloped land remains, although it is not evenly distributed throughout the region. This undeveloped land includes land that is vacant and developable, as well as land that may be classified as undevelopable due to various development constraints, such as wetlands.

Commercial development continues to be dispersed beyond traditional centers to locations along state numbered routes and major travel corridors, such as Route 110 in Lowell, Chelmsford and Westford, Route 3A in Billerica, Lakeview Avenue in Dracut, Route 38 in Tewkbury, and Middlesex Road in Tyngborough. The greatest concentration of industrial areas also tends to be in technology parks built near highway interchanges and along major corridors, such as Route 110 in Westford, Route 129 in Chelmsford and Billerica, Concord Road and the Middlesex Turnpike in Billerica, and Route 133 in Tewksbury. Such industrial parks are often built in a campus-like setting with large fields of paved parking, resulting in higher land consumption rates than would occur in an urban or compact development setting where higher floor area ratios are typically allowed.

The trend toward urbanization/suburbanization of the region has implications for natural hazard planning. As more land is developed, additional impervious surface is created, potentially increasing the flood risk and decreasing the area available for flood storage. As population and housing density increases, the potential for property damage and economic loss as a result of a natural disaster also increases.

C. Open Space/Conservation Land

Presently, there are 16,497 acres of permanently protected open space within the Northern Middlesex region, as shown in Table 6 on the following page. These lands range from large tracts of state-owned land located across multiple communities, to small tracts held by private land trusts and municipalities. Table 16 on the following page shows the acreage of protected open space in each community. Region-wide, nearly 3,000 acres are held by the Commonwealth, while the municipalities own more than 7,600 acres collectively. Approximately, 828 acres are under agricultural preservation restrictions, and another 680 acres

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 18

have been set aside for water supply protection. Over 1,550 acres are owned and protected through non-profit organizations, such as the local land trusts.

Table 6: Permanently Protected Open Space by Community

Community Total Acreage State Municipality Land Conservation Water Agricultural Other Total Trusts Restriction Supply Preservation Restriction (APR) Billerica 448.57 1,114.12 60.33 77.40 0 19.65 122.25 1,842.32 Chelmsford 56.00 798.00 80.00 66.00 2.77 0 0 1,004.00 Dracut 554.88 358.58 68.80 85.82 99.65 222.90 0 1,390.63 Dunstable 228.14 845.69 700.07 475.01 14.39 210.00 0 2,473.30 Lowell 347.16 360.72 8.41 0 0 0 11.74 728.03 Pepperell 445.79 592.29 318.39 1 132.63 315.13 62.10 1,867.33 Tewksbury 412.53 974.76 0 0 0 0 0 1,387.29 Tyngsborough 480.43 536.82 68.70 65.13 71.7 20.00 0 1,242.78 Westford 13.00 2,040.51 251.26 1,715.00 358.90 39.97 142.79 4,561.34 Total 2,986.50 7,621.49 1,555.96 2,485.36 681.27 827.65 338.88 16,497.11 Source: Regional Strategic Plan, NMCOG

D. Water Resources and Water Quality

The region possesses an abundance of water resources, including rivers, streams, brooks, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, marshes and wetlands. The entire region falls within the drainage basin of the Merrimack River, the second largest in New England. The Concord, Nashua, Nissitissit and Shawsheen Rivers are other rivers in the region and are tributaries of the Merrimack River. More than fifty streams and brooks, including Beaver Brook, Black Brook, River Meadow Brook, Stony Brook and Trull Brook, are tied into this river system and connect with the lakes, ponds and wetlands in an elaborate hydrologic system.

More than twenty-five (25) major lakes and ponds are found in the region. Most are natural water bodies over ten (10) acres in area and, therefore, are defined as “Great Ponds”, according to DEP. The larger bodies of water in the region include Forge Pond in Westford and Mascuppic Lake in Tyngsborough, which are greater than 200 acres in area. Long Pond in Tyngsborough and Dracut, and Long Sought For and Nabnasset Ponds in Westford and Pepperell Pond in Pepperell and Groton are greater than one hundred (100) acres in area. In general, the ponds with the best water quality are Long Pond in Tyngsborough, Burgess Pond in Westford, and Massapoag Pond in Dunstable. Two swamps, the Great Swamp in Tewksbury and Tadmuck Swamp in Westford, are more than one hundred (100) acres in area as well.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 19

Abundant, high quality water sources are essential to the region’s long term growth and economic vitality. According to the Massachusetts 2012 Integrated List of Waters, the section of the Concord River within the Greater Lowell region is impacted by a number of impairments due to the presence of fecal coliform, invasive plant species, mercury in fish, phosphorus, and algal growth. Similarly, the Merrimack River suffers from several impairments including fecal coliform, Escherichia coli, phosphorus, and mercury and PCB in fish. The Nashua River in Dunstable and Pepperell is impacted by mercury in fish tissue, non-native aquatic plants, nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators and phosphorus. The Shawsheen River in Billerica and Tewksbury is impaired due to low dissolved oxygen levels and the presence of fecal coliform. Ongoing efforts by environmental groups, such as the Merrimack River Watershed Council, the Nashua River Watershed Association, and the Northern Middlesex Stormwater Collaborative focus on water quality addressing problems through a watershed or regional approach.

Wetlands are protected from development by the state Wetlands Protection Act and, in some cases, by local wetlands protection bylaws. Freshwater wetlands support high biodiversity, including unique plant communities and many animal species that are dependent on wetlands for various lifecycle needs. Wetlands also capture heavy rains and prevent flooding downstream, absorb greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, and store and purify groundwater. Despite federal, state and local regulations, wetland destruction, habitat fragmentation, unsustainable water withdrawals, pollution, invasive species and climate change threaten the quantity and quality of the region’s wetland resources.

The region contains a number of municipal water supply sources, including the Merrimack River and Concord River which supply drinking water to the communities of Billerica, Chelmsford, Dracut, Lowell, and Tewksbury. Surface water reservoirs and groundwater aquifers meet the daily water supply needs of the remainder of the region.

It is essential that the region protect both the quantity and quality of its water supply through effective land use controls and health regulations. Toward this end, most municipalities have adopted water supply protection district regulations consistent with DEP drinking water source protection requirements. These regulations prohibit high-risk commercial and industrial uses within the protection district. The following table provides an overview of the region’s primary water supply lands (Zone A and Zone II), as mapped by DEP and summarized in Table 7 on the following page. Zone A is an area delineated 400' from a surface water supply (200' from tributaries). Zone II is a wellhead protection area that has been determined by hydro-geologic modeling and approved by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). In cases where hydro-geologic modeling studies have not been performed and there is no approved Zone II, an Interim Wellhead Protection Area (IWPA) is established based on DEP well pumping rates or default values. Certain land uses may be either prohibited or restricted in both approved (Zone II) and interim (IWPA) wellhead protection areas.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 20

Table 7: Municipal Drinking Water Supplies – Primary Protection Zones Municipality Zone A (acres) Zone II (acres) Zone A and Zone % Permanently II protected area Protected (acres) Zone A Zone II Billerica 710.85 1055.00 1765.85 67.41 10.24 Chelmsford 173.22 4704.58 4877.80 15.21 21.11 Dracut 115.02 128.00 243.02 0.00 30.52 Dunstable 0 443.28 443.28 0.00 21.13 Lowell 882.15 83.23 965.38 7.29 1.08 Pepperell 0 702.34 702.34 0.00 61.01 Tewksbury 56.57 2562.19 2618. 76 2.26 16.87 Tyngsborough 547.83 428.59 976.42 11.52 20.20 Westford 0 4298.64 4298.64 0.00 39.21 Region 2485.64 14408.92 16894.56 25.52 26.85 Source: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

E. The Regional Economy

The economic conditions in the Greater Lowell region have been negatively impacted by the national recession, which began as of December 2007. The full impact of the national recession was not felt in this region until a year later when the unemployment rate in the City of Lowell increased from 7.7% in November 2008 to 8.3% in December 2008. The unemployment rate in the City of Lowell continued to increase steadily until it reached 11.7% in September 2009 and finally reached its peak of 11.8% in January 2010. As of June 2013, the unemployment rate for the City of Lowell had decreased to 9.4%.

During the twenty-four month period from July 2011 to June 2013, the unemployment rate in the City of Lowell decreased slightly from 9.7% to 9.4%, while the average unemployment rate for this twenty-four month period was 8.8%. This average unemployment rate was .7% greater than the average national unemployment rate for the same period. During the period from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013, the average unemployment rate for the City of Lowell was 8.6%, which was .4% higher than the nation’s average unemployment rate for the same period of time.

The unemployment rate for the Greater Lowell region experienced a nearly 3% increase, from 5.8% in September 2008 to 8.6% in August 2010. Since August 2010, the unemployment rate for the region decreased to 7.5% as of June 2013. The City of Lowell and the suburban communities experienced a significant increase in the unemployment rates between December 2009 and January 2010. The unemployment rates as of August 2010 showed that the suburban communities had been impacted as well, such as in Dracut (9.1%), Tyngsborough (8.5%), Billerica (7.8%) and Tewksbury (7.8%). However, these unemployment rates have decreased to 7.1% in Dracut and 6.6% in Billerica, Tewksbury and Tyngsborough 6.6% as of June 2013.

The Greater Lowell region experienced 1,984 layoffs from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2013. These layoffs directly impacted six of our nine communities – Billerica (824 employees in 14 businesses), Chelmsford (321 employees in 8 businesses), Dracut (54 public employees), Lowell (469 employees in 14 organizations), Tewksbury (183 employees in 5 organizations) and Westford (133 employees in 5 businesses). For instance, the 315 layoffs at Jabil Circuits,

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 21

located in North Billerica, directly impacted Lowell residents, who comprised one-third of the workforce, in 2009.

Additionally, the housing crisis, which initially impacted this region in 2008, continued to negatively impact the economy through 738 foreclosure petitions, 577 foreclosure auctions and 200 bank-owned/REO properties between April 2008 and March 2010. During 2011, the region experienced 561 foreclosure petitions, 955 auctions and 428 foreclosure deeds. The City of Lowell has generally accounted for 40% of the foreclosure petitions, 45-50% of the auctions and 41-48% of the foreclosure deeds in the region. These statistics illustrate that the Greater Lowell region is still slowly recovering from the national recession. According to the Warren Group, foreclosure petitions statewide fell to the lowest monthly level in June 2013 since they started compiling foreclosure statistics in 2006. A total of 245 foreclosure petitions were recorded in June, which represented an 84% decrease from the 1,548 foreclosure petitions filed in June 2012. From January to June 2013 2,943 foreclosure petitions were filed statewide, which represented a decrease of 69% from the same time period in 2012.

During the recession in the early 2000s, this region’s computer manufacturing and information technology industries were significantly impacted. During the most recent recession, layoffs occurred in high tech manufacturing, information technology and retail industries, but the impact on these industries wasn’t as severe and the economic downturn has affected every industry. Due to the diverse and high tech nature of the Massachusetts economy, industries in this region have been able to recover more readily than industries in other parts of the country. Recent statistics show that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has done better than most states in creating new jobs as we continue to emerge from the national recession.

F. Historic and Cultural Resources

The preservation of historic and cultural resources must be carefully considered in order to protect the character of the region’s city, town, and village centers. Many colonial era residences, mill structures, and village greens are already protected to some extent through the establishment of historic districts, however, additional consideration should be given to protecting such resources from potential natural hazards. Historic inventories and plans are essential in guiding historic preservation initiatives, and such plans should consider hazard mitigation. Effective preservation of these resources requires active stewardship and support of the overall community. Table 8 on the following page provides a listing of the National Register Historic Districts and the Local Historic Districts in each community.

COSTEP-MA promotes proactive steps to reduce losses from natural hazards, especially flooding or water damage following fires, through cooperative, team-building activities in communities and through educational activities within the cultural heritage and emergency management communities. COSTEP-MA has worked to develop an Annex to the state’s CEMP to promote education and cooperation in communities and to enhance the protection of cultural resources from natural disasters.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 22

Table 8: National Register Districts and Local Historic Districts Community National Register Districts Local Historic Districts

Billerica Billerica Mills Historic District Billerica Mills Historic District

Town Hall Corner Historic District

Middlesex Canal Historic and Archaeological Howe School District

Two Brothers Rocks Richardson’s Mill Historic District

Sabbath Day House

Chelmsford Chelmsford Center Historic District Chelmsford Center Historic District

Old Town Hall Old Town Hall

Fiske House Fiske House

Forefathers Cemetery Forefathers Cemetery

J.P. Emerson House J.P. Emerson House

Middlesex Canal Historic and Archaeological District

Dracut None None

Dunstable None None

Belvidere Hill Historic District City Hall District

Andrew J. Calef Building Downtown Lowell Historic District

City Hall District Warren Fox Building

Colburn School Hamilton Manufacturing Co.-Counting House Lowell Eliot Presbyterian Church Hamilton Manufacturing Co.- Storage House

Warren Fox Building Hill Brothers Carriage House

Hamilton Manufacturing Co.-Counting House Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church

Hamilton Manufacturing Co. –Storage House Howe Building

Hill Brothers Carriage Factory Hoyt-Shedd Estate

Holy Trinity Church Lawrence Manufacturing Co.-Mill #12

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 23

Table 8 (Cont’d): National Register Districts and Local Historic Districts Community National Register Districts Local Historic Districts

Howe Building Lawrence Manufacturing Co. – Storehouse #14 Hoyt-Shedd Estate Lawrence Manufacturing Co. –Agent’s House Lawrence Manufacturing Co.-Mill #12 Locks and Canal District

Lawrence Manufacturing Co. – Storehouse #14 Merrimack-Middle Street Historic District

Lawrence Manufacturing Co. –Agent’s House Peter Powers Double House

Lowell Locks and Canal District Saint Anne’s Episcopal Church (Continued) Lowell National Historical Park Canal System Lawrence Manufacturing Co.- Mill #12 Merrimack-Middle Street Historic District Lawrence Manufacturing Co. – Storehouse #14 Middlesex Canal Historic and Archaeological Wentworth Block District John Nesmith House Whistler House Peter Powers Double House Roger Fort Hill Park Historic District Round House Saint Anne’s Episcopal Church Saint Patrick’s Church South Common Historic District Dr. Joel Spalding House Tyler Park Historic District U.S. Post Office Historic District (Appleton) U.S. Post Office Historic District (Kearney Square) Wamesit Canal-Whipple Mill Industrial Complex Wannalancit Street Historic District Washington Square Historic District Wentworth Block Whistler House Wilder Street Historic District Worcester House Pepperell Pepperell Center Historic District None Pepperell Town Hall Tewksbury Tewksbury State Hospital None

Tyngsborough None None

Westford Brookside Historic District Forge Village Historic District Graniteville Historic District Parker Village Historic District Westford Center Historic District Source: 2010 State Register of Historic Places, Massachusetts Historical Commission

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 24

G. Demographic Data and Projections In considering exposure to natural hazards it is important to assess population and development trends. As more land is developed, additional impervious surface is created increasing the flood risk and decreasing available flood storage area. The population, household and employment projections for the Northern Middlesex Region were developed utilizing a methodology developed by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT). Over the past ten years, the region has continued to grow, albeit less dramatically than in past decades. Based upon population projections developed by MassDOT with input from NMCOG, the region is expected to grow by an additional 10,099 residents (3.52%) between 2010 and 2020 and by another 23,000 residents (7.74%) between 2020 and 2035. The region, as a whole, is projected to grow by 8.88% between 2010 and 2035, which represents a much greater growth rate than that experienced between 2000 and 2010 (2.02%). The data summarized in Table 9 below reflects anticipated population trends over the next two decades.

Table 9: Current and Projected Population in the Northern Middlesex Region Community 2010 2020 2025 2030 2035

Billerica 40,243 40,690 41,340 41,810 42,560

Chelmsford 33,802 34,750 35,260 35,880 36,480

Dracut 29,457 32,080 33,140 34,630 36,160

Dunstable 3,179 3,560 3,950 4,370 4,800

Lowell 106,519 106,920 108,220 109,820 111,360

Pepperell 11,497 13,070 13,680 14,660 15,360

Tewksbury 28,961 30,000 31,020 31,820 32,640

Tyngsborough 11,292 12,470 13,070 13,740 14,400

Westford 21,951 23,460 24,320 25,270 26,240

Total 286,901 297,000 304,000 312,000 320,000

Source: U.S. Census for 2010; MassDOT projections in consultation with NMCOG

Between 2010 and 2035, the towns of Dunstable and Pepperell are expected to increase their total populations significantly with growth rates of 50.99% and 33.6%, respectively. For those communities that are more developed, such as Billerica, Chelmsford, Tewksbury and the City of Lowell, less dramatic population growth is expected over the next twenty-five years. In general, the growth rates for the remaining towns will range between 12.7% (Tewksbury) and 19.5% (Westford) for this same period of time.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 25

Notwithstanding the current housing slump, the number of households in the region is projected to increase from 104,022 in 2010 to 118,900 households in 2035, an increase of 14.3%. The principal areas of household growth will be in Dunstable (55.2%), Pepperell (38.2%), Tyngsborough (33.8%), Westford (25.8%), and Dracut (25.7%), as outlined in Table 10 below. The more developed communities, such as the City of Lowell (5.7%), Billerica (10.6%), Chelmsford (11.6%) and Tewksbury (15.8%), will experience more restrained household growth between 2010 and 2035. Table 10: Current and Projected Households in the Northern Middlesex Region Community 2010 2020 2025 2030 2035

Billerica 14,034 14,350 14,700 14,950 15,250

Chelmsford 13,313 13,900 14,180 14,550 14,850

Dracut 10,956 12,000 12,490 13,150 13,770

Dunstable 1,063 1,210 1,350 1,500 1,650

Lowell 38,470 38,650 39,370 39,920 40,650

Pepperell 4,197 4,850 5,130 5,500 5,800

Tewksbury 10,492 10,980 11,450 11,800 12,150

Tyngsborough 3,999 4,550 4,800 5,080 5,350

Westford 7,498 8,310 8,630 9,050 9,430

Total 104,022 108,800 112,100 115,500 118,900

Source: U.S. Census for 2010; MassDOT projections in consultation with NMCOG

As mentioned previously, the Northern Middlesex Region has experienced its worst economy since the end of World War II. Although the Commonwealth performed better economically than many other states, the national recession has created the worst unemployment rates in more than thirty years. However, the state projects 21,000 jobs will be added for the region between 2010 and 2035, as shown in Table 11 below. Table 11: Current and Projected Employment in the Northern Middlesex Region Community 2010 2020 2025 2030 2035

Billerica 20,583 22,620 22,590 22,810 22,810

Chelmsford 20,736 23,200 23,520 23,710 23,920

Dracut 4,826 5,720 5,970 6,210 6,420

Dunstable 255 320 350 360 390

Lowell 33,204 36,520 36,680 37,460 37,960

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 26

Table 11 (cont’d): Current and Projected Employment in the Northern Middlesex Region Community 2010 2020 2025 2030 2035

Pepperell 1,379 1,750 1,950 2,170 2,300

Tewksbury 15,213 17,190 17,610 18,050 18,400

Tyngsborough 4,123 5,040 5,160 5,380 5,650

Westford 11,681 13,640 14,170 14,850 15,150

Total 112,000 126,000 128,000 131,000 133,000

Source: U.S. Census for 2010; MassDOT projections in consultation with NMCOG

This employment growth of 18.75% is expected to be fueled by employment growth principally in the City of Lowell (4,756 jobs), Westford (3,469 jobs), Tewksbury (3,187 jobs), Chelmsford (3,184 jobs) and Billerica (2,227 jobs). The expected employment growth in Pepperell (66.8%), Dunstable (52.9%), Tyngsborough (37%) and Dracut (33%) will occur between 2010 and 2035.

H. Assessed Valuations

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) requires all communities to value all property each year and every third year a complete recertification is required. Both a recertification and an interim year adjustment (the two years in between the triennial recertification) include a detailed analysis of the appropriate sales data as a basis for adjusting the property values. The goal is to keep the values as close as possible to 100% of market value and avoid an excessive swing in the assessments in one year. Table 12 below contains the FY 2013 Assessed Values for all property classes in each community.

Table 12: 2013 Assessed Values by Class COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL OPEN COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL PERSONAL TOTAL SPACE PROPERTY Billerica $4,006,737,103 0 $268,594,743 $782,113,174 $224,326,400 $5,281,771,420 Chelmsford $3,603,918,180 0 $353,189,440 $334,358,600 $187,203,250 $4,478,669,470 Dracut $2,504,925,425 0 $142,870,485 $50,039,590 $80,555,623 $2,778,391,123 Dunstable $443,558,300 0 $4,271,791 $3,103,100 $8,962,380 $459,895,571 Lowell $5,005,369,487 0 $526,424,699 $344,529,092 $206,194,580 $6,082,517,858 Pepperell $1,044,751,604 0 $26,817,879 $23,800,500 $17,841,030 $1,113,211,013 Tewksbury $3,063,903,096 0 $375,205,114 $206,961,040 $157,198,370 $3,803,267,620 Tyngsborough $1,171,902,140 0 $101,051,779 $51,961,105 $38,939,717 $1,363,854,741 Westford $3,283,472,825 0 $243,588,224 $217,461,440 $94,723,861 $3,839,246,350 Source: Massachusetts Department of Revenue, Division of Local Services

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 27

SECTION 4: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION

In the context of this plan, a “hazard” is defined as an extreme natural event that poses a risk to people, infrastructure, or resources. Hazard identification details the geographic extent, the significance, and the probability of a particular natural hazard affecting the region. Federal regulations for hazard mitigation plans include a requirement for a risk assessment, in order to provide communities with information needed to prioritize mitigation strategies. Hazard mitigation is commonly defined as any sustained action that permanently reduces or eliminates long-term risk to people, property, and resources. It is important to note that one particular category of hazard can be caused by several different types of events. For example, flooding can be the result of a hurricane, a nor’easter, a thunderstorm or a winter storm.

In an urbanized area, such as the Northern Middlesex region, natural hazards can result in disaster. Hazard mitigation planning is a process directed at reducing the impact that natural disasters may have on the built environment and the lives of area residents. As the region grows and population increases, the risk of disaster caused by natural hazards becomes greater. It is impossible to predict exactly when and where such a disaster might occur; however, careful planning can help minimize the losses that may result. Hazards can be exacerbated by human behavior and practices, such as building in a floodplain, along steep slopes, or on a fault line.

A. Natural Hazards Inventory

Natural hazards that are likely to occur in Northern Middlesex region are summarized in this section of the report. These include flood-related hazards, wind-related hazards, winter- related hazards, fire-related hazards, and geologic hazards. In addition, some information is provided regarding non-natural hazards such as pandemics, chemical and hazardous materials, transportation accidents, nuclear incidents, infrastructure failure, terrorism, and commodity shortages. Including such information within this updated document provides consistency with the Commonwealth’s most recent Hazard Mitigation Plan completed in 2010.

This section provides a regional summary of the hazards and assesses the potential for occurrence based on historic records and information available from local, state and national sources. Where cumulative data is available for the region, or is aggregated from the information gathered from the individual communities, it is presented herein. Section 5 of this report presents community-by-community information relative to the hazard identification process.

1. Flood-Related Hazards

Floods are the most common hazard to affect New England. Most floods are caused by spring rains, thunderstorms, hurricanes, or rapid snowmelt. Inland floods are most likely to occur in Spring due to increased rains and snowmelt. Riverine flooding consists of the overbank flooding of rivers and streams, typically resulting from either extremely rapid snowmelt or a large-scale weather event that generates an unusual amount of precipitation. In areas of urban flooding, heavy rainfall collects and flows quickly across impervious surfaces. During periods of urban flooding, roadway flooding is common and basements may fill with water.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 28

Flooding poses a danger to life and property. Two types of flooding typically affect the Northern Middlesex region: riverine flooding and urban flooding. In addition, there are several low-lying areas that have the potential to flood. According to the National Climatic Data Center, fifty-three (53) flood events were reported in Middlesex County from January 1, 1950 to July 2010. Floodwaters can be extremely dangerous, as the force of six inches of rapidly moving water can knock people off their feet. Flash flood waters move very quickly and often happen unexpectedly. Flash floods usually result from an intense storm, typically a thunderstorm that drops a large amount of rainfall over a short period of time. Flash floods can destroy buildings and obliterate bridges.

While the Merrimack River is generally prone to minor flooding, on May 15, 2006 rainfall raised the river to more than 8 feet (2.4 m) above flood stage, forcing evacuations and damaging property. Reports of total rainfall vary, but most areas appear to have received around a foot of rain, with some areas receiving as much as 17 inches. According to the Boston Globe, around 1,500 people evacuated their homes to escape the flood. This flood also prompted the City of Lowell, Massachusetts to install a modern (albeit temporary) flood control gate comprised of square steel beams at the site of the historic Francis Gate, a 19th and 20th century wooden flood gate. When lowered, the Francis Gate seals the city's canal system off from its source on the Merrimack. The Mother’s Day 2006 flood caused $25 million in damage to infrastructure in the City of Lowell alone, and approximately 400 homes in the City were damaged from the floodwaters. The most significant flood in the recorded history of the Merrimack River was in March 1936, when rain, melting snow and ice swelled the Merrimack in Lowell to 68.4 feet (20.8 m), 10 feet (3 m) higher than the 2006 flood. In addition to the 1936 flood, the 1852 flood, the Mother's Day Flood of 2006, the New England Hurricane of 1938, and April 2007 flood are among the River's most serious flood events in Lowell. Most recently, from March 14 through 21, 2010, a major rain event caused all seven gauged mainstream rivers in Middlesex County to rise above flood stage.

Flooding at the Lawrence Mills in Lowell in 2007

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 29

Since 1985, there have been twelve federal Disaster Declarations for flood events, most of which were the result of severe weather. Table 13 below summarizes the details of each declaration.

Table 13: Flood-related Disaster Declarations (1985-present) Disaster # Disaster Type Declaration Date Incident Period DR-1895 Severe Storm and 3/29/10 3/12/10-4/26/10 Flooding DR-1813 Severe Winter Storm and 1/05/09 12/11/08-12/18/08 Flooding DR-1642 Severe Storms and 5/25/06 5/12/06-5/23/06 Flooding DR-1614 Severe Storms and 11/10/05 10/7/05-10/16/05 Flooding DR-1512 Flooding 4/21/04 4/1/04-4/30/04 DR-1364 Severe Storms and 4/10/01 3/5/01-4/16/01 Flooding DR-1224 Heavy Rain and Flooding 6/23/98 6/13/98-7/6/98 DR-1142 Severe Storms/Flooding 10/25/96 10/20/96-10/25/96 DR-975 Winter Coastal Storm 12/21/92 12/11/92-12/13/92 DR-914 Hurricane Bob 8/26/91 8/19/91 DR-790 Severe Storms, Flooding 4/18/87 3/30/87-4/13/87 DR-751 Hurricane Gloria 10/28/85 9/27/85 Source: FEMA

Methodology

Flood hazard identification is the first phase of flood-hazard assessment. Identification is the process of estimating the geographic extent of the floodplain, the intensity of flooding that can be expected in specific locations, and the probability of occurrence of flood events.

Flood-related hazards were identified in each of the nine communities in the region. The methodology employed in assessing the hazard presented by flooding involved mapping the 100- year flood plain in each of the nine communities. Vulnerable critical infrastructure, including dams and bridges, was then mapped relative to proximity to streams, rivers and flood prone areas. Map 17 on page 157 shows the location of all critical infrastructure located within the 100-year flood plain.

Floodplains and Repetitive Loss Structures

The communities of Billerica, Dracut, Chelmsford, Lowell, Pepperell, Tewksbury and Tyngsborough have repetitive loss structures located within their boundaries. Table 14 on the following page graphically displays the number of repetitive losses and the money paid out by FEMA in insurance claims under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in each community as of May 2013. Billerica had the most repetitive losses (139) impacting fifty (50) properties and totaling $1,799,982.79 in claims, the most recent of which occurred in 2010. Since 1979, there have been a total of 266 repetitive claims for flood insurance payments across the region, as shown in Table 14. Dracut had the fewest number of claims, with only four claims totaling $181,947.24. Monetarily, the largest losses occurred in the Town of Tyngsborough which had claims totaling $2,129,486.05. The total monetary payout for the region under the NFIP was $5,352,590.34. As shown in Table 14 on the following page, most of the repetitive flood loss properties (98) are residential. There are only six repetitive flood loss properties in the

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 30

region that are non-residential in terms of use classification.

Table 14: Repetitive Flood Loss Properties under the NFIP by Community (as of May 2013) Community Number Number Single- 2-4 Family Other Non – Total Paid of of Family Residentia Residentia Residentia Repetitive Losses Residential l l l Flood Properties Properties Properties Loss Properties Billerica 50 139 48 0 0 2 $1,799,982.79 Chelmsford 7 22 7 0 0 0 344,702.28 Dracut 2 4 1 0 0 1 181,947.24 Lowell 24 55 17 7 0 0 584,907.11 Pepperell 2 6 1 0 0 1 123,945.05 Tewksbury 8 24 8 0 0 0 187,619.82 Tyngsborough 8 16 3 0 3 2 2,129,486.05 Region 101 266 85 7 3 6 $5,352,590.34 Source: Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation

Severe repetitive loss properties are located in Billerica and Chelmsford. A Severe Repetitive Loss property is a residential property that is covered under an NFIP flood insurance policy and: a. That has at least four NFIP claim payments (including building and contents) over $5,000 each, and the cumulative amount of such claims exceeds $20,000; or b. For which at least two separate claim payments (building payments only) have been made with the cumulative amount of the building portion of such claims exceeding the market value of the building. At least two of the referenced claims must have occurred within any ten year period and must be greater than ten days apart. There are two properties in Billerica and two in Chelmsford that fall under this designation. All four properties are impacted by riverine flooding.

In addition to threatening building structures, flood events pose risks to critical infrastructure, such as dams and bridges. The ability of these structures of withstand flood events depends in part on the current maintenance and repair status. Dam failure during a flood event can pose a serious threat to downstream properties by releasing a surge of water that was stored behind the dam prior to its failure.

With the exception of Dunstable and Westford, most communities in the region are at risk of being impacted by flood events. The floodplain boundaries provide a reasonable approximation of where the risk is greatest within each community.

National Flood Insurance Program

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is a federal program administered by FEMA. The NFIP provides subsidized flood insurance within communities that agree to adopt corrective and preventative floodplain management regulations that will reduce future flood damages. Congress created the NFIP in 1968, with the passing of the National Flood Insurance Act. The Act was passed to benefit homeowners whose insurance does not cover flood damage. In general, flood insurance from private companies is either not available or extremely expensive. NFIP flood insurance is available anywhere within a participating community,

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 31

regardless of the flood zone in which a property is located. Federal law requires that flood insurance be purchased as a condition of federally insured financing used for the purchase of buildings in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Table 15 below summarizes the NFIP policy data for those communities in the Northern Middlesex region:

Table 15: National Flood Insurance Policies in the Northern Middlesex Region (as of 9/30/13) Community Policies In-force Insurance In-force Written Premium In- (whole $) force Billerica 246 $59,712,000 $359,879 Chelmsford 302 76,218,400 320,593 Dracut 64 15,050,800 60,486 Dunstable 10 3,025,900 7,091 Lowell 1,269 242,748,900 896,359 Pepperell 36 8,441,500 41,607 Tewksbury 110 27,906,700 107,161 Tyngsborough 129 20,906,900 118,643 Westford 102 27,099,600 79,864 Region 2,268 $421,398,700 $1,631,804 Source: FEMA

FEMA produces Flood Insurance Rate Maps, commonly known as FIRMs, to support the National Flood Insurance Program. The FIRMs depict Special Flood Hazard Areas, the areas subject to inundation from the 1% annual chance flood (also known as the Base Flood or the 100-Year Flood). The SFHA determines where flood insurance is required as a condition of a federally insured loan through the NFIP mandatory purchase requirement. This requirement is intended to shift flood damage and recovery costs away from the general taxpayer and on to those who live in floodplains. The risk zones and flood elevations shown on the FIRMs within the SFHA are used to determine flood insurance rates. The SFHA also determines where NFIP floodplain management requirements must be enforced by communities that participate in the program. These include land use and building code standards. In addition to the NFIP, the FIRMs are also used within FEMA’s Individual and Public Disaster Assistance programs and FEMA’s Mitigation Grant Programs, in emergency management, and they are also used to identify areas where certain State Building Code and Wetland Protection regulations must be enforced. Massachusetts State Building Code covers the entire state, applies to both public and private construction, and is administered through the local building inspectors with state oversight. Section 3107 of the State Building Code contains most of the construction requirements related to buildings or structures.

In 2010, new FEMA floodplain maps were released for the communities located in the Northern Middlesex region. The updated FIRM maps indicate a net increase of approximately 532 acres now determined to be located in the flood plain. The greatest increases are in the towns of Chelmsford, Lowell and Dunstable, as shown in Table 16 on the following page.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 32

Table 16: Floodplain Area by Community Acres of Acres of Difference % Change Total Land % Land floodplain floodplain as in acres 1979-2010 Area in Acres Area in as shown on shown on (1979-2010 Flood Plain Community 1979 FIRM 2010 FIRM FIRM (according maps maps maps) to the 2010 FIRM maps) Billerica 2,267.94 2,284.43 16.49 0.73 16,815.68 13.58 Chelmsford 1,947.67 2,076.28 128.61 6.60 14,749.89 14.08 Dracut 1,128.86 1,144.05 15.19 1.35 13,647.04 8.38 Dunstable 1,847.58 1,960.73 113.15 6.12 10,717.41 18.29 Lowell 1,226.20 1,285.33 59.13 4.82 9,299.48 13.82 Pepperell 1,470.85 1,518.10 47.25 3.21 14,846.93 10.23 Tewksbury 1,602.31 1,617.72 15.41 0.96 13,511.40 11.97 Tyngsborough 1,731.76 1,814.20 82.44 4.76 11,545.96 15.71 Westford 2,991.97 3,045.77 53.80 1.80 20,036.33 15.20 Regional Total 16,215.14 16,746.61 531.47 3.28 125,170.10 13.38 Source: GIS Analysis of the FEMA FIRM maps

It is important to note that the term "100-year flood" is misleading. It is not a flood that will occur only once every 100 years. Rather, it is a flood that has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded each year. Thus, the 100-year flood could occur more than once in a relatively short period of time. The 100-year flood, which is the standard used by most federal and state agencies, is used by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) as the standard for floodplain management and to determine the need for flood insurance. A structure located within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) shown on an NFIP map has a 26 percent chance of suffering flood damage during the term of a 30-year mortgage.

All nine Northern Middlesex communities participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. To join the program each community adopted a resolution of intent to participate and cooperate with FEMA. Each community agreed to “maintain in force…adequate land use and control measures consistent with the NFIP criteria” and to:  Assist the Administrator in the delineation of the floodplain;  Provide information concerning present uses and occupancy of the floodplain;  Maintain for public inspection and furnish upon request, for the determination of applicable flood insurance risk premium rates within all areas having special flood hazards, elevation and floodproofing records on new construction;  Cooperate with agencies and firms which undertake to study, survey, map, and identify floodplain areas, and cooperate with neighboring communities with respect to the management of adjoining floodplain areas in order to prevent aggravation of existing hazards; and  Notify the Administrator whenever the boundaries of the community have been modified by annexation or the community has otherwise assumed or no longer has authority to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations for a particular area.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 33

National Flood Insurance Program Compliance

Although the NFIP is a federal program, its successful implementation and management depends on the participation of a variety of partners, including local communities, MEMA, DCR and FEMA. Participating communities agree to adopt and enforce compliant floodplain management regulations as a condition of making federal flood insurance available. FEMA, MEMA and DCR support local communities by providing technical assistance and monitoring and enforcing compliance with the requirements of the NFIP.

Communities must enforce the ordinances or bylaws that they adopt. This means that all development in a community’s Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA as mapped by FEMA) must be reviewed and permitted. The local permitting process ensures that all construction and development is adequately designed, located, constructed and anchored to minimize flood damage and is fully compliant with the local bylaw or ordinance. Communities can grant exceptions, called variances, to the NFIP requirements under limited circumstances.

In the Greater Lowell region, all communities have adopted a local floodplain management bylaw or ordinance which is enforced according to FEMA requirements. Each community conducts inspections during the construction process to detect violations and remedies such violations prior to completion of the project.

Each community in the region has a designated floodplain manager who is responsible for ensuring the community’s compliance with NFIP. This person is responsible for understanding NFIP regulations, reviewing permit applications, conducting inspections (or designating a staff member to perform inspections), taking enforcement actions against non- compliant projects, monitoring and participating in the variance process, and maintaining the community’s floodplain records.

Each community periodically reviews its floodplain bylaw/ordinance and makes necessary revisions as needed. Communities work to identify potential and actual violations of the bylaw/ordinance and take necessary steps to avert them or enforce compliance. In addition, municipal staff in each community takes advantage of training opportunities offered by MEMA and FEMA, as a means of staying up-to-date with changes in the NFIP program and requirements. Most recently, the communities assisted with the revision of the FIRM maps, and helped residents understand the changes that were made and how such changes impacted their properties. Each community has identified action items related to their NFIP program. These actions are identified in Section 8 of this document.

Community Rating System

The Community Rating System is part of the NFIP. The CRS program encourages communities to reduce their flood risk by engaging in floodplain management activities. CRS provides discounts on flood insurance for communities that establish floodplain management programs that go beyond the minimum requirements of the NFIP. Depending on the level of activities that communities undertake in four areas – public information, mapping and regulatory activities, flood damage reduction, and flood preparedness - communities are categorized into 1 to 10 CRS classes. A Class 1 rating provides the largest flood insurance premium reduction, while a community with a Class 10 rating receives no insurance premium reduction.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 34

Although communities are not required to participate in CRS to receive approval of a hazard mitigation plan, FEMA encourages jurisdictions to integrate the CRS planning steps in their multi-hazard mitigation plans. Tewksbury is the only CRS community in the Northern Middlesex region, however their designation was rescinded in 2009.

Bridges

Bridges in Massachusetts are rated in accordance with standards set by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). AASHTO standards rate bridges on a scale of 1 to 100, with one being the least compliant with the ideal and 100 being the most compliant. Bridges with an AASHTO rating lower than 50 are considered in need of improvement and are placed on a state bridge repair list. In some cases, a bridge may have an AASHTO rating greater than 50 but is considered deficient due to a specific key structural problem with a particular component. A bridge may also be considered functionally obsolete, meaning that the roadway carried by the bridge does not meet current design standards for things such as roadway width. For the purpose of flood related hazards, the designation of structurally deficient is the most critical. Bridges in the region which are classified as structurally deficient and located over water are listed by community in Table 17 on the below.

Table 17: Structurally Deficient Bridges Over Water

Community Roadway Water Body Owner Year Built/ Status AASHTO Rebuilt Rating Lowell Bridge St. Eastern Canal MassDOT 1937 Preliminary 49.2 design Lowell Lawrence St. Concord River City of Lowell 1850/1951 No activity 51.1 Lowell VFW Parkway Beaver Brook MassDOT 1949 Under Design 19.0 Lowell Market St. Western Canal City of Lowell 1920 Preliminary 31.2 design Lowell Beaver St. Beaver Brook City of Lowell 1971 Local 53.1 responsibility Tewksbury Mill St. Shawsheen Town of 1998 Local 59.9 River Tewksbury responsibility Westford Bridge Street Stony Brook Town of 1870 Local 48.1 Westford responsibility Westford Beaver Brook Beaver Brook Town of 1957 Local 38.1 Rd. Westford responsibility Source: MassDOT

Dams

A dam is an artificial barrier that has the ability to impound water, wastewater, or any liquid for the purpose of storage or control. Dam failure can be defined as a catastrophic failure characterized by the sudden, rapid, and uncontrolled release of impounded water. Dams can fail for several reasons:  Overtopping caused by floods that exceed the capacity of the dam;  Deliberate acts of sabotage;  Structural failure of materials used in dam construction;  Movement and/or failure of the foundation supporting the dam;

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 35

 Settlement and cracking of concrete or embankment dams;  Piping and internal erosion of soil in embankment dams; or  Inadequate maintenance and upkeep.

Dam failures potentially represent the worst of flood events. When a dam fails, huge volumes of water are often released, causing widespread destruction and potential loss of life. Floods due to dam failures have occurred in New England in the past. On May 16, 1874, in Williamsburg, Massachusetts, a landslide destroyed a 43-foot dam on Mill Creek, a tributary of the Connecticut River, resulting in the deaths of 144 people.

Pawtucket Dam on the Merrimack River in Lowell

Dams are classified by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, Office of Dam Safety, according to their “hazard potential”. Dams are classified as High Hazard (Class I), Significant Hazard (Class II), and Low Hazard (Class III). Each level of classification has an associated hazard potential. Class I dams are located in areas where “failure or misoperation will likely cause loss of life and serious damage to home(s), industrial or commercial facilities, important public utilities, main highway(s) or railroad(s)”. Class II dams are located in areas “where failure or misoperation may cause loss of life and damage home(s), industrial or commercial facilities, secondary highway(s) or railroad(s) or cause interruption of use or service of relatively important facilities”. Class III dams are located in areas “where failure or misoperation may cause minimal property damage to others”. Loss of life is not expected from the failure of Low Hazard dams. See Appendix B for a complete description of Massachusetts’ Dam Hazard Classification system.

It is important to note that a dam’s hazard classification is not an assessment of its potential for failure. For example, a Class I – High Hazard Dam does not have a higher potential

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 36

for failure than a Class III – Low Hazard Dam. The hazard classification identifies the potential damage that would be caused if failure did occur. However, because of the greater risk posed by higher hazard dams, the state requires more frequent inspections of such dams. The higher the hazard classification the more frequently dam inspections must be performed. There are four high hazard dams located in the region, as shown in Table 18 below. Only the dams in Tewksbury have been inspected within the past two years, as required by state regulation. The Turner Dam on the Nissitissit River in Pepperell has not been inspected since 1998.

The current dam regulations, dated June 29, 2009, were promulgated in accordance with 2002 revisions to the Dam Safety Statute (MGL Chapter 253, Sections 44-50) and identify the responsibilities of dam owners to register, inspect, develop emergency action plans for high hazard dams, and maintain dams in good operating condition. Amendments to Dam Safety Regulations (302 CMR 10.00-10.16) became effective November 4, 2005 with minor revisions in 2009, and are reflective of the 2002 statutory changes.

In accordance with MGL Chapter 235, Section 45, and 302 CMR 10.05, dam owners must add their dam(s) to the public record by completing a Dam Registration form provided by the Office of Dam Safety, which in turn issues a Dam Registration Certificate to a dam owner. The dam owner must record the certificate at the applicable Registry of Deeds as an attachment to the record deed and provide the Office with a copy of the recorded certificate. When land ownership is transferred, a revised form must be submitted to the Office to initiate an updated registration certificate. Owners of dams are required by 302 CMR 10.07 to hire a qualified engineer to inspect high hazard dams every two years. Significant dams must be inspected every five years, while low hazard dams must be inspected every ten years.

Table 18: High Hazard (Class I) Dams in the Northern Middlesex Region

Community Dam Name Impoundment Downstream Last Inspection Next Inspection Name Population** Date Due

Lowell Lowell Lowell Reservoir 400 8/25/2009 8/25/2011* Reservoir Dam

Pepperell Turner Dam Nissitissit River 0 6/24/1998 6/24/2000*

Tewksbury Ames Pond Ames Pond 5,000 10/7/2010 10/7/2012 Dike A

Tewksbury Ames Pond Dam Ames Pond 5,000 10/7/2010 10/7/2012 *Dam inspection overdue. **Downstream population estimates are from the 2005 CEMP on file with MEMA

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 37

2. Wind-Related Hazards

As wind speed increases, the pressure against an object increases at a disproportionate rate. For example, a 25-mile per hour wind causes about 1.6 pounds of pressure per square inch. When the wind speed increases to 75 miles per hour, the force on that object increases to 450 pounds per square inch. At a wind speed of 125 miles per hour, the force increases to 1,250 pounds per square inch. High winds can cause considerable damage to structures, infrastructure and trees. Winds sustained at 31 to 39 mph for at least one hour, or any gusts of 46 to 57 mph, cause the National Weather Service to issue a Wind Advisory. W h i l e w inds 58 mph or higher would lead to the issuance of a High Wind Warning. Local communities in the Northern Middlesex region do not monitor or record wind speed data, and no other local source for this information has been identified. There are no airports or National Weather Service stations located within the region.

Effects from high winds can include downed trees and/or power lines and damage to roofs, windows, etc. High winds can cause scattered power outages, and are also a hazard for the boating, shipping, and aviation industry sectors. The region is susceptible to high wind from several types of weather events: before and after frontal systems, hurricanes and tropical storms, severe thunderstorms, and Nor’easters. The State Building Code has incorporated engineering standards for wind loads. Calculating wind load is important in the design of the wind force- resisting systems (including structural members, components, and cladding) to ensure against shear, sliding, overturning, and uplift actions.

Two major wind-related hazards that occur in the region include hurricanes and tornadoes. (Nor’easters are discussed under winter-related hazards). The entire region is at equal risk for wind-related hazards. Though these are not frequent events on an annual or seasonal basis, the chance of occurrence and the extent of damage associated with each are of concern to disaster mitigation planners. Unlike flooding, where historical river flow records allow the potential extent of flooding to be delineated with some accuracy within each community, delineating the exact area where a hurricane or tornado will strike is not possible. A brief description of hurricanes and tornadoes, along with the general risks associated with each follows.

Hurricanes

A hurricane is a type of tropical cyclone; an organized rotating weather system that develops in the tropics. Tropical cyclones are classified as follows:

Tropical depression: An organized system of persistent clouds and thunderstorms with a low-level circulation and maximum sustained winds of 39 mph or less.

Tropical storm: An organized system of strong thunderstorms with a well-defined circulation and maximum sustained winds of 39-73 mph.

Hurricane: An intense tropical weather system with a well-defined circulation and maximum sustained winds of 74 mph or higher.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 38

The typical hurricane moves at an average speed of approximately twelve (12) miles per hour. While in the lower latitudes, hurricanes tend to move from east to west. However, when a storm drifts further north, the westerly flow at the mid-latitudes tends to cause the storm to curve toward the north and east. When this occurs, the storm may accelerate its forward speed. This explains why some of the strongest hurricanes have reached New England.

Tropical depressions and tropical storms, while generally less dangerous than hurricanes, can be deadly. The winds of tropical depressions and tropical storms are usually not the greatest threat. Heavy rains, flooding and severe weather associated with tropical storms and depressions can cause significant problems in the region. Serious power outages can be associated with hurricanes and other tropical storms. After Hurricane Gloria in 1985, some area residents were without power for five days. When the remnants of Hurricane Irene passed through the region as a tropical storm in late August 2011, much of the region was without power for 3 to 5 days.

Hurricanes can occur along the East Coast of the United States anytime in the period between June and November. However, from 1900-2013, there are no records of a land falling hurricane in New England during the months of June or July. August, September, and the first half of October have the most frequent hurricane occurrences for New England. This is due to the fact that it takes a while for the waters south of Long Island to warm up enough to sustain storms this far north. In addition, as Fall approaches, the upper level jet stream contains more dips, which means that the steering winds may flow from the Great Lakes southward to the Gulf states and then back northward up the eastern seaboard. This pattern is conducive for capturing a tropical system over the Bahamas and accelerating it northward.

Hurricane intensity and the potential property damage posed by a hurricane are rated from 1 to 5, according the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. Hurricanes reaching Category 3 and higher are considered major hurricanes, given the potential for loss of life and property damage. The wind intensity and potential damage for each category is summarized as follows:5

Category 1 – Winds 74 to 95 miles per hour (mph). Damage potential to unanchored mobile homes, trees, shrubbery, and poorly constructed signs.

Category 2 – Winds 96 to 110 mph. Damage to roofing material, doors, and windows. Considerable damage to mobile homes and poorly constructed signs. Significant damage to trees and shrubs, with some trees blown down.

Category 3 – Winds 111 to 130 mph. Small residences and buildings may experience some structural damage. Minor curtain wall failure is possible. Destruction of mobile homes and poorly constructed signs. Foliage is blown off trees and trees may be blown down.

Category 4 – Winds 131 to 155 mph. Small residences may experience complete roof structure failures. Mobile homes completely destroyed. All signs, trees, and shrubs blown down. Doors and windows extensively damaged.

Category 5 – Winds greater than 155 mph. Many residences and industrial buildings experience complete roof failure. Complete building failures possible. Small utility buildings are blown over or away. All signs, trees, and shrubs blown down. Mobile homes

5 References to coastal surges are not included as there is no coast line within the Northern Middlesex region.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 39

completely destroyed. Windows and doors severely and extensively damaged.

Hurricane force winds can destroy buildings and mobile homes. According to NOAA, the strongest sustained 1-minute wind speed and wind gust ever recorded in Massachusetts from a hurricane was at the Blue Hill Observatory in Milton, MA, during the Great New England Hurricane in 1938. A sustained wind of 121 mph with a peak gust to 186 mph was recorded. In hurricane conditions, debris such as signs, roofing materials, siding and lawn furniture can become missiles. Hurricanes can also spawn tornadoes that generally occur in thunderstorms embedded in rain bands well away from the center of the hurricane. Tornadoes can also occur near the eye wall.

A hurricane watch is issued when a hurricane or hurricane conditions pose a threat to an area within the next thirty-six (36) hours. A hurricane warning is issued when hurricane winds of 74 mph or higher are expected in the next twenty-four (24) hours. If a hurricane’s path is erratic or unusual, the warning may be issued only a few hours before the beginning of hurricane conditions.

While there have been relatively few direct hits from hurricanes in New England, peripheral effects from offshore hurricanes and tropical storms that track inland are not uncommon. In the period of time since records have been kept for hurricanes, Massachusetts has experienced forty-seven (47) wind-related occurrences associated with hurricanes. Of those, seven have had a direct impact and forty (40) have had an indirect impact. Each community in the Northern Middlesex region is at equal risk of being impacted by a hurricane. Table 19 on the following page provides a summary of hurricanes that have affected New England since 1938.

The most recent hurricane to significantly affect the region was Hurricane Irene in August 28, 2011, which became a tropical storm as it passed over the region. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and federal government issued a Pre-Landfall Emergency Declaration on August 26, 2011 and local states of emergency were declared on August 27, 2011. The local emergency managers were in constant communication with National Grid, MEMA and FEMA. Local DPW crews supported power restoration efforts and the LEPCs participated in MEMA’s daily conference calls from August 26th through September 1st. In the Northern Middlesex region, local communities communicated with residents through reverse 911 phone calls, emails and web postings.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 40

Table 19: New England Hurricanes and Tropical Cyclones (1938-2012)

DATE STORM/ DESCRIPTION FATALITIES INJURIE PROPERTY EVENT S DAMAGE

09/21/1938 New Highest sustained winds-121 mph, 564 1700+ 9,000 homes and England Forward motion in excess of 50 businesses Hurricane mph. 17 inches of rain; extensive destroyed, flooding. 15,000 damaged. 09/15/1944 Great Forward motion in excess of 40 390 NA $925 million Atlantic mph. Hurricane 09/12/1950 Hurricane Center passed offshore Cape Cod. 0 0 $2 million Dog 4.42 inches of rain in 24 hours. 09/07/1953 Hurricane Moved through the Bay of Fundy 0 0 Carol with only minor damage. 08/31/1954 Hurricane First of three devastating 60 NA $438 million Carol hurricanes of 1954. Forward motion in excess of 50 mph. Category 3. Extensive flooding and damage. Hurricane Over 7 inches of rainfall. 29 NA $40.5 million 09/11/1954 Edna Extensive flooding. 10/15/1954 Hurricane Forward motion over 50 mph. 600 NA $350 million Hazel 08/00/1955 Hurricane Extensive flooding with 4-6 43 NA $40 million Connie inches of rainfall 08/18/1955 Tropical 20 inches of rainfall caused 184 NA $832 million Storm devastating floods Diane 08/29/1958 Hurricane New England felt only periphery 0 0 NA Daisy gales. 09/12/1960 Hurricane Category 2. Forward motion of 39 133 NA $387 million Donna mph. 09/21- Hurricane Did unusual loop-de-loop 0 NA NA 25/1961 Esther southeast of Cape Cod. 7-8 inches of rainfall. Forward motion slowed approaching New England. 10/10/1961 Hurricane Category 3 storm, 110 mph winds. NA NA NA Frances Some wind damage in New England 08/29/1962 Hurricane Minor damage only. NA NA NA Alma 10/06- Hurricane 14.25 inches of rainfall over 48 24 NA NA 07/1962 Daisy hours in Wakefield, MA. Significant flooding occurred throughout New England. Set record for 24-hour precipitation which remained unbroken until Hurricane Bob in 1991.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 41

Table 19 (cont’d): New England Hurricanes and Tropical Cyclones (1938-2012) DATE STORM/ DESCRIPTION FATALITIES INJURIES PROPERTY EVENT DAMAGE 10/29/1963 Hurricane Famous snow hurricane in 0 0 $300,000 Ginny Maine with up 18 inches falling in the Maine mountains. 09/14/1964 Hurricane Moderate rainfall. 3 NA $200 million Dora 09/24/1964 Hurricane Moderate to heavy precipitation. 2 NA $6.7 million Gladys 06/13/1966 Hurricane Minor damage. 5 NA $1.5 million Alma 09/09/1969 Hurricane Center passes directly over NA NA NA Gerda Nantucket with gusts to 140 mph. 08/28/1971 Tropical Storm Wind gusts to 80 mph. Heavy 3 NA NA Doria rains, flooding. 09/14/1971 Tropical Storm Moderate rainfall, little damage. 0 0 NA Heidi 09/03- Tropical Storm Hurricane force wind gusts. 1 NA $1.2 million 04/1972 Carrie Heavy rainfall 07/27/1975 Hurricane Most heavy weather remained 0 NA NA Blanche offshore 08/09- Hurricane Category 1. Forward motion 32 3 3 NA 10/1976 Belle mph. Heavy rainfall causes some flooding. 09/06/1979 Tropical Storm Minor effects 1,100 NA $60 million David (Virgin Islands) 09/25/1985 Tropical Storm Minor effects 0 0 NA Henri 09/27/1985 Hurricane Category 2. Forward motion of NA 3 $ 1 billion Gloria 72 mph. Gusts to 80 mph. 08/07/1988 Tropical Storm Winds of 50 mph. 31 NA $500 million Alberto 08/19/1991 Hurricane Bob Category 2. Forward motion of 18 NA $1.5 billion 51 mph. Wind speeds of up to 60 mph. Set new 24- hour precipitation record. Major flooding and power outages 10/30- Unnamed Huge storm surge caused 12 NA $210 million 11/01/1991 “Halloween” extensive damage along the storm coast 07/13/1996 Hurricane Forward motion of 48 mph. 12 NA $275 million Bertha Very heavy rainfall and strong gusty winds. Spawned one tornado in Massachusetts 09/02/1996 Hurricane Left 40,000 residents without 0 0 $3.5 million Edouard power, 3 inches of rain fell

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 42

Table 19 (cont’d): New England Hurricanes and Tropical Cyclones (1938-2012) DATE STORM/ DESCRIPTION FATALITIES INJURIES PROPERTY EVENT DAMAGE 07/25/1997 Tropical Dropped 3-5 inches of rain 0 0 Storm Danny 09/16- Tropical Forward motion of 56 mph. 0 0 $4.5 billion 17/1999 Storm Floyd No significant damage in Massachusetts. 09/03/10 Hurricane Tropical Storm passed 98 1 0 NA Earl miles east of New England with winds of 40+ mph producing high surf, heavy rain and coastal flooding 08/28/11 Hurricane Hurricane Irene, became a 42 NA 7-10 Billion (est.) Irene tropical storm as it moved inland over New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine 10/30/12 Hurricane Major impacts caused by 160 NA $50 billion Sandy flooding of roads and bridges in Massachusetts; widespread power outages Source: National Climatic Data Center, NOAA, U.S. Dept. of Commerce

Since there are no coastal areas within the region, the risk of storm surge associated with a hurricane is not a factor. However, inland flooding resulting from intense rain is a serious threat and is often responsible for more deaths than wind. In the past 30 years, inland flooding has been responsible for more than half the deaths associated with tropical cyclones in the United States. There is no direct correlation between wind speed and rain intensity. Less intense hurricanes can deliver the highest amount of rainfall, especially if a storm stalls over an area.

Though heavy rains associated with hurricanes probably present the highest recurrent risk in the Northern Middlesex region, high winds are also a risk. Blowing objects carried by the wind pose a threat to people stranded outside in a hurricane. Hurricanes can also spin off small, localized tornadoes outside the center of the storm. Though typically weaker than other tornadoes, those associated with hurricanes still pose an additional threat outside the primary track of the hurricane. Downed trees and tree limbs, blocked roads, and downed telephone and power lines can disrupt transportation routes and communication channels.

Since 1954, there have been five hurricane-related Presidential Disaster Declarations affecting the region, as shown in Table 20 below.

Table 20: Hurricane-related Presidential Disaster Declarations (1954-2012) Disaster Number Date Storm/incident 4028 09/03/2011 Tropical Storm Irene 914 08/26/1991 Hurricane Bob 751 10/28/1985 Hurricane Gloria 43 8/20/1855 Unnamed hurricane 22 09/02/1954 Unnamed hurricane Source: FEMA

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 43

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services Center provides a searchable database that allows one to query hurricane records dating back to as early as 1851. Query results show historical storm tracks by storm intensity within a specified radius of a site. Query results for this region for hurricanes of Category 1 or above, passing within a 75-mile radius, show eight Category 1-5 hurricanes, as depicted in Figure 4 on the following page. These include six unnamed storms for the years 1858, 1869, 1874, 1893, 1916, and 1944, as well as Hurricane Donna (1960) and Hurricane Bob (1991). The figure that follows shows the tracks of these storms. 1 As noted above, however, a hurricane’s wind intensity alone does not speak to the threat posed by intense rains that can cause serious inland flooding. Less intense hurricanes or tropical storms, can carry higher rainfall amounts independent of wind speed. Map 2 on page 42 shows Category 1-5 hurricanes whose centers have passed within ten (10) nautical miles of the Massachusetts state boundary from 1851 to 2010.

Map 1: Typical Historical Cyclone Tracks over Massachusetts Source: NOAA

The Comprehensive Emergency Management Plans prepared for the nine communities in the Northern Middlesex region indicate that an estimated 108,700 people may be affected by a possible hurricane. Potentially, 9,732 people may lack access to transportation. The regional population potentially affected by a hurricane, as identified in the CEMPs on file with MEMA, is outlined by community in Table 21 below.

Table 21: Estimated Population Impacted by a Possible Hurricane in the Northern Middlesex Region Community Maximum Population Affected Maximum Number of People Without Transportation Billerica 38,981 3,696 Chelmsford 20,000 2,000 Dracut 3,000 3 00 Dunstable 400 40 Lowell 15,000 3,000 Pepperell 80 10 Tewksbury 28,644 314 Tyngsborough 2,100 120 Westford 500 50 Total 108,705 9,732 Source: Comprehensive Emergency Management Plans for the NMCOG communities

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 44

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 45

Tornadoes According to the American Meteorological Society’s Glossary of Meteorology, a tornado is “a violently rotating column of air, pendant from a cumuliform cloud or underneath a cumuliform cloud, and often (but not always) visible as a funnel cloud”. The most deadly and destructive tornado forms from a super cell, which is a rotating thunderstorm with a well-defined circulation called a mesocyclone.

Tornadoes can appear from any direction, but most move from southwest to northeast, or west to east. Tornadoes can last from several seconds to more than an hour. Most last less than ten minutes, and over 80% of strikes occur between noon and midnight. “Tornado season” is generally from March through August, although a tornado may occur any time of the year. Some ingredients for tornado formation include:  Very strong winds in the mid and upper levels of the atmosphere;  Clockwise turning of the wind with height (i.e., from southeast at the surface to west aloft);  Increasing wind speed in the lowest 10,000 feet of the atmosphere (i.e., 20 mph at the surface and 50 mph at 7,000 feet);  Very warm, moist air near the ground with unusually cooler air aloft; and  A forcing mechanism, such as a cold front or leftover weather boundary from prior shower or thunderstorm activity.

The most devastating tornado to occur in New England was the Worcester tornado of July 9, 1953, which killed ninety-six people and injured over thirteen hundred. The most recent tornado to strike New England occurred on June 1, 2011, pummeling sections of Springfield and West Springfield. This event included seven confirmed tornadoes, the worst of which was a category F3. The storm killed three, injured hundreds and left over 48,000 people without electricity. As a result, President Obama declared Springfield and the surrounding region a Federal Disaster Area. Governor Patrick also activated National Guard troops to assist with rescue and recovery efforts.

On average, six tornadoes per year touch down somewhere in New England. Those at risk include people in automobiles, anyone not in a secure structure, and those residing in mobile homes. Since 1951, there have been 156 tornadoes in Massachusetts, which resulted in 105 fatalities and 1,559 injuries.

Within the Northern Middlesex region, there have been eight tornadoes since 1955. As shown in Table 22 below, the most recent tornado impacting the region occurred in September 1974 and was classified as an F3. The oldest record of a tornado in the region is from July 24, 1857, when a powerful tornado swept through Tewksbury, MA. The town was sparsely populated at the time, and there were no injuries or fatalities. The tornado tore up fields and orchards, and destroyed barns and sheds, as it headed south to Wilmington. In July 1890, a tornado touched down for three minutes in North Billerica, destroying the roofs on some buildings and damaging trees. On July 21, 1972 an F2 tornado sliced a 7.6 mile long, 35-yard path from Tyngsborough, along the Merrimack River, into North Chelmsford and over Robin Hill into South Chelmsford. There have been no tornadoes reported in the region since 1974. Each community in the Northern Middlesex region is at equal risk of being impacted by a tornado.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 46

Table 22: Tornadoes in the Northern Middlesex Region Date Category Injuries/fatalities 10/24/55 F1 0 8/21/57 F2 1 injury 7/11/58 F2 0 7/18/63 F1 0 10/3/70 F3 1fatality 7/1/71 F1 1 injury 7/21/72 F2 4 injuries 9/29/74 F3 1injury Source: www.tornadohistoryproject.com

As outlined in the Commonwealth’s 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Reported Tornado Occurrence map shows tornado risk based on the historic past occurrence of tornadoes. The density per 25 square miles indicated the probable number of tornado touchdowns for each square mile cell within the contoured zone that can be expected over a similar timeframe (fifty years). The analysis shows that the area of the state at greatest risk runs from central to northeastern Massachusetts and includes the Northern Middlesex region.

The National Weather Service (NWS) issues tornado forecasts through each local NWS office. In predicting severe weather, meteorologists look for the development of instability, lift and wind shear for tornadic thunderstorms. Real-time weather observations from satellites, weather stations, weather balloons, and radar become highly important as a storm approaches. A tornado watch defines an area where tornadoes and other types of severe weather are possible in the next several hours. A tornado warning means that a tornado has been spotted, or that Doppler radar indicates a thunderstorm with circulation that can spawn a tornado.

Tornado damage severity is measured by the Fujita Tornado Scale, in which wind speed is not measured directly but rather estimated from the amount of damage. As of February 01, 2007, the National Weather Service began rating tornados using the Enhanced Fujita-scale (EF- scale). It is considerably more complicated than the original F-scale, and it allows surveyors to create more precise assessments of tornado severity. Tables 23 and 24 illustrate the EF-scale and the damage indicators. It uses three-second gusts estimated at the point of damage as judged by eight levels of damage to the 28 indicators listed in Table 24. These estimates vary with height and exposure.

Table 23: The Enhanced F-Scale

F Fastest ¼ 3-second Derived Operational EF Scale Number -mile gust EF Number 3-second gust EF 3-second (mph) (mph)1 (mph) Number gusts (mph) 0 40-72 45-78 0 65-85 0 65-85 1 73-112 79-117 1 86-109 1 86-110 2 113-157 118-161 2 110-137 2 111-135 3 158-207 162-209 3 138-167 3 136-165 4 208-260 210-261 4 168-199 4 166-200 5 261-318 262-317 5 200-234 5 Over -200 Source: www.noaa.gov

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 47

Table 24: Enhanced F-Scale Damage Indicators

Number Damage Indicator Abbreviation 1 Small barns, frames outbuildings SBO 2 One or two‐family residences FR12 3 Single‐wide mobile home MHSW 4 Double‐wide mobile home MHDW 5 Apt, Condo, townhouse (3 stories or less) ACT 6 Motel M 7 Masonry Apt. or motel MAM 8 Small retail building (fast food) SRB 9 Small professional (Doctor office, Bank) SPB 10 Strip Mall SM 11 Large shopping mall LSM 12 Large, isolated (big box) retail building LIRB 13 Automobile showroom ARS 14 Automobile service building ASB 15 School – 1‐story elementary (interior or exterior halls) ES 16 School – jr. or sr. high school JHSH 17 Low‐rise (1‐4 story) building LRB 18 Mid‐rise (5‐20) building MRB 19 High‐rise (over 20 stories HRB 20 Institutional bldg. (hospital, govt. or university) IB 21 Metal building system MBS 22 Service station canopy SSC 23 Warehouse (tilt‐up walls or heavy timber) WHB 24 Transmission line tower TLT 25 Free‐standing tower FST 26 Free standing pole (light, flag, luminary) FSP 27 Tree ‐ hardwood TH 28 Tree ‐ softwood TS

Source: www.noaa.gov

The Disaster Center evaluated tornado statistics from 1950-1995 by state. When compared with other states across the country, Massachusetts ranked 35th in frequency, 16th in the number of tornado-related deaths, 21st in the number of injuries, and 12th for the cost of tornado-related damages. In terms of tornado frequency per square mile, Massachusetts ranked 14th in overall frequency, and first in terms of fatalities, injuries, and cost per area. Map 3 on the following page shows tornado density for Middlesex County.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 48

Map 3: Tornado Density for Middlesex County Source: NOAA

Severe Thunderstorms

The National Weather Service considers a thunderstorm to be severe if it produces hail at least ¾ inch in diameter, has winds of 58 mph or higher, or has the potential to produce a tornado. Lightning accompanies all thunderstorms and can cause death, injury and property damage. Straight-line winds can exceed 100 mph and are responsible for most thunderstorm wind damage. A downburst, a small area of rapidly descending air beneath a thunderstorm, can reach speeds equal to that of a strong tornado.

Three basic ingredients are required for a thunderstorm to form: moisture, rising unstable air (air that keeps rising when given a nudge), and a lifting mechanism to provide the impetus. The sun heats the surface of the earth, which warms the air above it. When this warm surface air begins to rise, such as in areas with hills or mountains, or areas where warm/cold or wet/dry air bump together, it will continue to rise as long as it weighs less and stays warmer than the air around it. As the air rises, it transfers heat from the surface of the earth to the upper levels of the atmosphere (a process known as convection). The water vapor in the air begins to cool, releases heat and condenses into a cloud. The cloud eventually expands upward into areas where the temperature is below freezing. Some of the water vapor turns to ice, and some of it turns into water droplets. Both ice particles and water droplets have electrical charges. Ice particles usually have positive charges, and rain droplets usually have negative charges. When the charges build up they are eventually discharged in a bolt of lightning, which causes the sound waves we hear as thunder.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 49

An average thunderstorm is 15 miles in diameter and lasts an average of 30 minutes. Severe thunderstorms can be much larger and last much longer. Southern New England typically experiences about 10-15 days per year in which there are severe thunderstorms. It is not unusual for the region to experience a few severe thunderstorms over the course of the spring and summer. The greatest hazard caused by this type of storm is flash flooding. In addition, hail can cause substantial damage to property and crops. Large hailstones can fall faster than 100 mph, and can be very costly in terms of economic losses.

A thunderstorm over Westford Every thunderstorm has an updraft (rising air) and a downdraft (sinking air, usually with the rain). However, sometimes, there are extremely strong downdrafts, known as downbursts, which can cause tremendous straight-line wind damage at the ground, similar to that of a tornado. A small (< 2.5 mile path) downburst is known as a “microburst” and a larger downburst is called a “macroburst.” An organized, fast-moving line of embedded microburst that travels across large portions of a state is known as a “derecho” and this can occasionally occur in Massachusetts. The strongest downburst ever recorded was 175 mph, near Morehead City, North Carolina. Winds exceeding 100 mph have been measured in Massachusetts from downbursts.

One hazard specifically associated with thunderstorms is lightning. Fatalities, although rare, can occur from lightning. In the United States, 99 percent of fatalities have occurred outside of a large substantial building or fully-enclosed metal-topped vehicle. For all of the United States, approximately 34 people were killed by lightning per year from 2003 to 2012 or 349 total fatalities, and Massachusetts accounted for just four of those incidents.

There have been several damaging thunderstorms in Massachusetts. In June of 1998, a very slow moving and complex storm system moved through southeast New England. The combination of its slow movement and presence of tropical moisture across the region produced

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 50

rainfall of 6 to 12 inches over much of eastern Massachusetts. This led to widespread urban, small stream, and river flooding. As a result, the counties of Suffolk, Essex, Middlesex, Norfolk and Bristol received a Presidential Disaster Declaration for the Individual Household Program (Individual Assistance) on June 23, 1998. Each community in the Northern Middlesex region is at equal risk of being impacted by a severe thunderstorm and it is not possible to predict where damage from such a storm might occur.

On May 22, 2006 a severe thunderstorm toppled trees in Tyngsborough, Chelmsford and Lowell and left 5,000 residents without power. Wind gusts reached 45 mph.

3. Winter-Related Hazards

Severe winter storms can produce a wide variety of hazardous weather conditions, including heavy snow, freezing rain, sleet, and extreme wind and cold. A severe winter storm is one that results in four or more inches of snow over a twelve-hour period, or six or more inches over a twenty four-hour period. The leading cause of death during winter storms is from an automobile or other transportation accidents. Exhaustion or heart attacks caused by overexertion are the second most likely cause of winter storm-related deaths.

The National Weather Service issues outlooks, watches, warnings and advisories for all winter weather hazards. These statements are defined as follows: Outlook: Winter storm conditions are possible in the next 2-5 days Watch: Winter storm conditions are possible in the next 36-48 hours Warning: Life-threatening severe winter conditions have begun or will begin Advisory: Winter weather conditions are expected to cause significant inconveniences and may be hazardous.

The most severe winter storm to ever strike New England was the Blizzard of 1888. The storm that occurred from March 11-14, 1888, deposited up to 50 inches of snow. The Blizzard of 1978 dumped 24-36 inches of snow on the eastern part of the state and paralyzed the area for several days. The winter of 2010-2011 produced some of the largest snowfall totals in the region’s and state’s history, and included two blizzards, both occurring in January 2011. According to the National Weather Service, Boston received 80.1 inches of snow that winter, while the Northern Middlesex region received 79.6 inches.

Since 1983, the most significant winter snowfall in the region occurred during the winter of 1995, when snowfall measurements in the City of Lowell reached 126.5 inches. Most recently, the October 2011 snowstorm left 640,000 Massachusetts homes and residents without power, according to MEMA. Table 25 on the following page outlines the number of power outages by community as a result of the early season snow storm, which left 79,296 customers, or 67% of the region, in the dark.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 51

Table 25: Power Outages in the Region During the October 2011 Snowstorm (10/30/11) Community Customers without power % of Customers without power Billerica 13,444 out of 16,112 83.44 Chelmsford 13,898 out of 15,372 90.41 Dracut 12,096 out of 12,672 95.45 Dunstable 1,176 out of 1,220 96.39 Lowell 13,441 out of 41,526 32.37 Pepperell 3,470 out of 4,824 71.93 Tewksbury 8,954 out of 12,442 71.97 Tyngsborough 4,935 out of 4,966 99.37 Westford 7,882 out of 9,010 87.48 Region 79,296 out of 118,144 67.12 Source: National Grid

Table 26 below details the annual snowfall totals for the City of Lowell, from 1983-2011. This data was compiled by the University of Massachusetts Lowell, Department of Environmental and Atmospheric Sciences.

Table 26: Annual Snowfall Totals for Lowell, MA – 1983-2011 Winter season starting Annual Snowfall Total (inches) 1983 28.9 1984 18.4 1985 41.2 1986 40.6 1987 49.6 1988 8.2 1989 55.5 1990 25.9 1991 21.0 1992 90.3 1993 81.1 1994 23.3 1995 126.5 1996 55.5 1997 46.6 1998 38.2 1999 32.5 2000 85.3 2001 32.7 2002 84.9 2003 41.2 2004 94.6 2005 55.7 2006 38.1 2007 79.1 2008 80.6 2009 46.0 2010 87.1 2011 23.9 2012 92.1 Average 63.1 *Source: University of Massachusetts Lowell, Department of Environmental and Atmospheric Sciences; based on snowfall measurements taken every 24 hours.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 52

Since 2005, there have been several disaster declarations related to winter weather, as well as specific “snow emergency” declarations. Each community in the Northern Middlesex region is at equal risk of being impacted by a severe winter storm. As an example, the Lowell Sun published the following snowfall totals for the February 9, 2013 snowstorm. Every community in the region received significant snow ranging from 19 inches in Chelmsford to 28 inches in Tyngsborough. Temperature, wind direction, and banding of precipitation impact where the highest snowfall totals occur, but these factors are unpredictable, as shown in the case of the snowfall from the February 9, 2013 storm where each community received the following:

 Billerica-23.8 inches  Chelmsford-19 inches  Dracut-24.9 inches  Dunstable-25 inches  Lowell-20 inches  Tewksbury-27 inches  Tyngsborough-28 inches  Westford-24 inches

A summary of the winter weather related disaster declarations for Middlesex County is provided in Table 27 below.

Table 27: Winter Weather-Related Federal Disaster and Emergency Declarations for Middlesex County 2005-2013

Disaster Name Disaster Number Declared Areas (Date of Event) (Type of Assistance) Severe Winter Storm, FEMA DR 4110 All 14 counties Snowstorm and Flooding February 8-9, 2013 Severe Storm and Snow storm FEMA DR 4051 Counties of Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden, (October 29-30, 2011) Hampshire, Middlesex, and Worcester.

Severe Storm (Jan. 11-12, FEMA DR 1959 (Public) Counties of Berkshire, Essex, Hampshire 2011) Hampden, Hampshire, Middlesex, Norfolk and Worcester Severe Winter Storm and FEMA-1813 Counties of Berkshire, Essex, Franklin, Flooding (Public and individual) Hampden, Hampshire, Middlesex, and (December 11 – December 18, Worcester 2009) Severe Winter Storm FEMA 3296 Counties of Berkshire, Essex, Franklin, (Dec. 11, 2008 – Dec. 18, (Public) Hampden, Hampshire, Middlesex, Bristol, 2008) Suffolk and Worcester Severe Winter Storm (January FEMA 3201 All 14 Counties 22, 2005 – January 23, 2005) (Public) Source: www. fema.gov

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 53

Nor’easters

Nor’easters occur in New England more frequently than hurricanes and typically have a longer duration than hurricanes. A nor’easter is a large New England storm formed from a weather system traveling from South to North, passing along or near the seacoast. The nor’easter derives its name from the northeasterly direction of its counterclockwise cyclonic winds. It is not unusual for the sustained winds of a nor’easter to meet or exceed hurricane force. The duration of a nor’easter may outlast a hurricane event by many hours or even days. High winds associated with a nor’easter can last from 12 hours to 3 days, while the duration of a hurricane ranges from 6 to 12 hours.

Nor’easters pose a threat to infrastructure, including critical facilities. During the height of a storm, blizzard conditions present a hazard to driving or any other outdoor activity. A blizzard is defined as a storm with winds in excess of 35 mph, with falling and blowing snow reducing visibility to less than ¼ mile for at least three hours. Heavy snow disrupts transportation and may impede the passage of emergency vehicles. Heavy snow may also bring down power lines and trees, and lead to roof collapses. The Blizzard of 1978 dumped 24-48 inches of snow on eastern Massachusetts, paralyzing the region for several days.

The region experienced a significant nor’easter on March 5-7, 2001, that resulted in a Presidential Disaster Declaration on April 10, 2001. Two feet of snow fell over a three-day period (March 5-7). Wind gusts to 64 miles per hour were reported in some areas. The combination of heavy wet snow and high winds resulted in broken tree limbs that blocked roadways and downed power lines. More than 16,000 people in the Merrimack Valley were left without power on March 6, 2001. The late season snow set the stage for flooding. Two subsequent rainstorms, on March 20-22 and 29-30, 2001 resulted in the flooding of more than 10,000 residences and businesses in northeastern Massachusetts. Most of the damage due to flooding occurred along smaller tributary streams and rivers.

Most recently, the region experienced a significant Nor’easter, known as the Halloween Nor’easter, on October 29-30, 2011. The storm produced a snow fall in excess of 30 inches in some parts of the state, and, due to the amount of foliage still on the trees, resulted in power outages for hundreds of thousands of electrical customers for up to seven days. (The National Weather Service estimated that approximately 3 million electrical customers were without power at the height of the event.) As a result of the storm, a Presidential disaster declaration was approved on November 1, 2011.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 54

The October 2011 snowstorm downed trees and power lines in Chelmsford

Recovery during the aftermath of a snowstorm poses its own challenges. Prolonged curtailment of all forms of transportation can have significant adverse impacts for people stranded at home, preventing the delivery of critical services such home heating fuel supplies or the ability to get to a local food store. The cost of snow removal, repairing damages, and the loss of business can have severe economic impacts on local communities. Each community in the region is at equal risk of being impacted by a Nor’easter, and the impact of such a storm is widespread and consistent across the region.

While the Fujita and Saffir-Simpson Scales characterize tornadoes and hurricanes respectively, there is no widely used scale to classify snowstorms. NOAA's National Climatic Data Center is now producing the Regional Snowfall Index (RSI) for significant snowstorms that impact the eastern two thirds of the U.S. The RSI differs from these other indices because it includes population. RSI is based on the spatial extent of the storm, the amount of snowfall, and the juxtaposition of these elements with population. Including population information ties the index to societal impacts. Currently, the index uses population based on the 2000 Census. The RSI is an evolution of the Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale (NESIS), which NCDC began producing operationally in 2005. While NESIS was developed for storms that had a major impact in the Northeast, it includes the impact of snow on other regions as well. It can be thought of as a quasi-national index that is calibrated to Northeast snowstorms. By contrast, the RSI is a regional index; a separate index is produced for each of the six NCDC climate regions in the eastern two-thirds of the nation. The RSI is important because of the need to place snowstorms and their societal impacts into a historical perspective on a regional scale.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 55

Table 28: Regional Snowfall Index Values

Category RSI Value Description

1 1–3 Notable

2 3–6 Significant

3 6–10 Major

4 10–18 Crippling

5 18.0+ Extreme http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/rsi/societal-impacts

Table 29 shows the RSI values of winter storms for the Northeast area. Twelve storms were rated as “Crippling” or “Extreme” through the winter of 2013.

Table 29: Regional Snowfall Index and Societal Impacts for the Northeast Start Date End Date Category RSI Area of Snow Population

1969-02-21 1969-02-27 5 26.42 174,690 57,062,630

1993-03-11 1993-03-14 5 20.465 174,690 57,062,622

1996-01-05 1996-01-08 5 20.281 162,082 56,617,484

1950-11-21 1950-11-29 4 11.182 149,147 55,898,440

1969-12-24 1969-12-28 4 10.284 174,690 57,062,568

1978-02-03 1978-02-07 4 15.675 174,690 57,062,560

1966-01-27 1966-01-31 4 10.655 174,680 57,048,708

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 56

Table 29 (cont’d): Regional Snowfall Index and Societal Impacts for the Northeast Start Date End Date Category RSI Area of Snow Population

1902-03-02 1902-03-05 4 11.272 140,008 27,993,083

2010-02-20 2010-02-28 4 15.853 174,690 57,062,541

1900-02-25 1900-03-02 4 13.879 143,073 28,985,495

2013-02-07 2013-02-09 4 10.089 174,229 58,816,885

2003-02-13 2003-02-17 4 14.452 162,812 56,921,974

1947-12-24 1947-12-26 3 8.138 174,066 57,055,783

1971-02-25 1971-03-05 3 9.479 174,680 57,059,895

1971-03-02 1971-03-05 3 9.674 174,690 57,062,629

1925-01-27 1925-01-30 3 7.421 173,883 57,053,814

1920-02-03 1920-02-06 3 6.246 174,335 57,058,468

1947-02-26 1947-03-03 3 9.752 174,575 57,061,379

1964-01-08 1964-01-13 3 6.081 171,442 57,027,901

1961-01-31 1961-02-04 3 8.567 152,241 56,690,510

1960-02-28 1960-03-04 3 7.024 174,037 57,055,440

1958-03-17 1958-03-22 3 6.821 174,469 57,060,215

1958-02-11 1958-02-17 3 7.894 174,469 57,060,252

2010-02-03 2010-02-07 3 8.438 90,161 48,490,403

2007-02-10 2007-02-15 3 7.316 174,690 57,062,546

1915-12-09 1915-12-14 3 6.244 173,681 57,046,880

1914-02-11 1914-02-14 3 9.708 173,941 57,053,757

2003-12-03 2003-12-07 3 9.024 174,690 57,062,588

1983-02-09 1983-02-12 3 7.875 141,180 53,610,038

1952-02-16 1952-02-17 2 3.53 166,743 52,742,331

1972-02-15 1972-02-19 2 5.401 174,690 57,062,566

1971-11-22 1971-11-26 2 3.267 170,711 55,967,850

1969-02-07 1969-02-09 2 4.528 173,306 56,875,979

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 57

Table 29 (cont’d): Regional Snowfall Index and Societal Impacts for the Northeast Start Date End Date Category RSI Area of Snow Population

1978-01-16 1978-01-20 2 5.555 174,690 57,062,585

1956-03-13 1956-03-16 2 3.323 174,488 57,060,279

1927-02-15 1927-02-20 2 3.401 172,345 57,039,670

1926-02-02 1926-02-04 2 4.539 173,354 56,998,419

1924-03-31 1924-04-03 2 3.02 173,277 57,049,340

1924-02-16 1924-02-20 2 3.123 173,018 57,046,918

1922-01-25 1922-01-29 2 3.632 102,471 51,341,410

1921-02-17 1921-02-21 2 3.997 163,446 56,723,855

1947-02-19 1947-02-23 2 5.114 174,575 57,061,339

1966-02-22 1966-02-25 2 3.752 174,680 57,061,955

1966-01-20 1966-01-23 2 4.147 167,944 56,939,500

1961-01-17 1961-01-20 2 3.986 172,768 57,008,892

1960-12-09 1960-12-12 2 4.279 174,181 57,057,113

1935-01-20 1935-01-24 2 4.379 173,748 57,052,314

1910-02-09 1910-02-12 2 3.493 172,989 57,044,222

1910-01-11 1910-01-14 2 3.363 140,978 55,947,687

1909-12-22 1909-12-26 2 4.349 172,999 57,044,725

1907-02-03 1907-02-05 2 3.911 173,374 57,048,198

1903-02-13 1903-02-17 2 4.06 173,018 57,041,030

1902-02-12 1902-02-18 2 3.365 167,406 56,975,091

1959-03-11 1959-03-13 2 4.077 172,191 56,714,016

1946-02-14 1946-02-20 2 3.958 172,816 56,825,942

1941-03-06 1941-03-09 2 4.613 174,575 57,061,330

1940-02-12 1940-02-14 2 4.278 153,942 56,715,406

1938-11-22 1938-11-24 2 3.72 174,575 57,061,300

1936-01-17 1936-01-20 2 4.227 173,326 56,966,638

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 58

Table 29 (cont’d): Regional Snowfall Index and Societal Impacts for the Northeast Start Date End Date Category RSI Area of Snow Population

2011-01-08 2011-01-12 2 3.495 174,680 57,057,940

2010-12-23 2010-12-27 2 3.272 174,690 57,062,573

2010-02-04 2010-02-10 2 3.368 147,138 56,328,325

2010-02-07 2010-02-10 2 3.117 146,081 56,302,907

1917-12-11 1917-12-14 2 4.49 172,682 57,041,084

1917-03-01 1917-03-05 2 4.802 173,422 56,988,232

1916-03-01 1916-03-08 2 4.672 173,940 57,053,760

1933-12-25 1933-12-26 2 3.024 174,220 57,057,400

2008-12-20 2008-12-22 2 3.095 174,661 57,059,860

2007-03-15 2007-03-17 2 3.351 173,614 56,930,626

1995-02-01 1995-02-05 2 4.535 174,690 57,062,563

1994-02-27 1994-03-03 2 4.448 174,690 57,062,623

2006-02-09 2006-02-13 2 5.128 174,690 57,062,590

2005-02-27 2005-03-01 2 3.159 174,690 57,062,575

2005-01-21 2005-01-23 2 4.349 174,623 59,091,926

2009-12-27 2010-01-03 2 3.636 174,123 57,008,734

1987-01-20 1987-01-23 2 4.916 174,690 57,062,574

1992-12-08 1992-12-12 2 4.882 161,274 56,695,670

1988-02-08 1988-02-13 2 3.242 174,690 57,062,638

2002-12-22 2002-12-25 2 3.75 170,048 56,788,225

2000-12-27 2000-12-31 2 3.369 168,174 52,797,525

1982-04-03 1982-04-07 2 3.66 174,181 56,955,431

1997-03-30 1997-03-31 2 4.666 172,730 57,025,596

1996-03-02 1996-03-08 2 3.259 174,681 57,050,954

1995-12-17 1995-12-21 2 3.551 174,680 57,061,297

1967-02-05 1967-02-07 2 3.209 169,933 56,960,500

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 59

Table 29 (cont’d): Regional Snowfall Index and Societal Impacts for the Northeast Start Date End Date Category RSI Area of Snow Population

1966-12-21 1966-12-25 2 3.686 174,690 57,062,573

1951-12-12 1951-12-15 1 2.311 174,680 57,062,517

1950-02-10 1950-02-16 1 2.613 166,070 51,673,631

1949-01-28 1949-01-31 1 1.553 174,690 57,062,568

1948-01-22 1948-01-24 1 2.799 171,019 57,022,580

1974-01-07 1974-01-11 1 2.771 174,075 56,992,170

1973-12-14 1973-12-17 1 1.727 174,652 57,052,520

1970-12-30 1971-01-01 1 1.791 170,837 57,021,076

1970-12-08 1970-12-13 1 1.021 157,402 49,280,790

1969-02-24 1969-03-03 1 1.263 162,476 55,960,968

1977-03-20 1977-03-24 1 2.182 162,831 50,380,369

1977-01-06 1977-01-10 1 2.099 174,680 57,060,970

1978-01-13 1978-01-18 1 2.919 174,690 57,062,534

1978-01-10 1978-01-14 1 2.228 174,690 57,062,563

1957-12-02 1957-12-04 1 1.233 122,969 54,570,440

1956-03-17 1956-03-19 1 2.816 171,797 56,931,226

1956-03-02 1956-03-08 1 1.256 155,499 41,155,971

1929-02-19 1929-02-21 1 2.289 174,574 57,061,360

1926-01-06 1926-01-09 1 2.211 169,731 57,011,569

1924-12-30 1925-01-02 1 2.014 119,067 51,492,402

1923-02-02 1923-02-06 1 1.038 139,940 55,494,710

1964-02-17 1964-02-20 1 2.498 174,690 57,062,486

1963-12-20 1963-12-23 1 1.757 174,690 57,062,539

1962-03-07 1962-03-13 1 1.029 154,432 46,895,982

1962-03-04 1962-03-08 1 1.828 142,218 55,752,214

1962-02-27 1962-03-06 1 1.764 142,228 55,753,745

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 60

Table 29 (cont’d): Regional Snowfall Index and Societal Impacts for the Northeast Start Date End Date Category RSI Area of Snow Population

1962-02-12 1962-02-15 1 2.26 155,268 56,758,999

1960-02-11 1960-02-14 1 1.999 174,181 57,056,961

1910-02-15 1910-02-17 1 1.399 161,130 50,009,110

1909-03-01 1909-03-04 1 1.701 170,932 57,024,650

1909-01-26 1909-01-30 1 1.311 171,365 56,992,536

1909-01-09 1909-01-14 1 1.173 170,270 56,656,050

1908-02-15 1908-02-19 1 1.767 170,279 57,014,817

1908-02-02 1908-02-06 1 2.086 173,056 57,044,423

1908-01-28 1908-02-01 1 2.099 173,316 57,047,562

1906-03-16 1906-03-19 1 2.72 174,334 57,058,700

1906-03-11 1906-03-16 1 1.862 174,027 57,055,420

1904-01-26 1904-01-29 1 1.219 141,017 55,940,756

1902-12-10 1902-12-13 1 1.728 151,463 55,548,200

1901-01-31 1901-02-05 1 1.939 166,522 56,758,490

1929-12-18 1929-12-23 1 1.597 173,883 57,053,837

1918-01-24 1918-01-28 1 1.295 171,413 57,036,845

1918-01-20 1918-01-22 1 1.105 164,522 56,944,000

1918-01-11 1918-01-15 1 2.266 170,625 56,557,158

1945-12-16 1945-12-19 1 2.837 162,966 56,910,640

1945-01-12 1945-01-16 1 2.683 174,114 57,017,145

1944-12-07 1944-12-12 1 2.287 174,161 56,969,568

1944-02-07 1944-02-12 1 2.088 173,633 57,004,760

1943-01-24 1943-01-28 1 2.751 154,432 56,625,618

1942-03-27 1942-03-30 1 2.377 169,548 57,009,586

1942-02-27 1942-03-03 1 1.892 168,280 55,511,724

1936-02-09 1936-02-14 1 1.593 167,992 56,971,249

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 61

Table 29 (cont’d): Regional Snowfall Index and Societal Impacts for the Northeast Start Date End Date Category RSI Area of Snow Population

1932-12-15 1932-12-17 1 1.293 121,902 53,126,620

1931-03-03 1931-03-11 1 1.782 164,648 51,398,896

2012-01-11 2012-01-13 1 1.067 167,137 53,414,773

2011-10-24 2011-10-30 1 1.969 157,459 54,140,301

2011-02-23 2011-02-26 1 1.85 155,720 42,991,280

2011-01-25 2011-01-26 1 2.652 174,431 57,059,999

2010-02-11 2010-02-18 1 1.16 174,421 57,029,770

1900-03-14 1900-03-15 1 2.301 167,089 56,971,290

1917-12-05 1917-12-08 1 1.349 170,163 56,868,400

1915-04-02 1915-04-04 1 2.175 119,442 49,424,275

1915-03-01 1915-03-07 1 1.507 107,833 49,168,120

1915-01-28 1915-02-02 1 1.784 173,902 57,053,360

1934-02-22 1934-02-26 1 2.865 174,459 57,060,080

2012-12-27 2012-12-30 1 1.173 175,199 58,917,659

2012-12-23 2012-12-27 1 2.24 175,891 59,050,400

1999-03-11 1999-03-15 1 1.913 164,907 54,530,770

1999-01-12 1999-01-15 1 2.554 172,653 56,794,660

2009-02-28 2009-03-02 1 1.58 174,411 57,038,130

2009-02-25 2009-03-02 1 1.515 170,865 56,437,990

2009-02-21 2009-02-23 1 1.56 169,232 55,409,126

2009-01-08 2009-01-11 1 1.059 168,809 54,332,392

2008-12-17 2008-12-21 1 2.792 174,671 57,060,880

2008-02-20 2008-02-23 1 1.005 174,603 57,061,670

2007-12-13 2007-12-16 1 1.844 166,195 53,716,405

2007-11-29 2007-12-03 1 1.393 169,674 55,864,530

2007-04-02 2007-04-05 1 1.162 161,380 46,978,423

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 62

Table 29 (cont’d): Regional Snowfall Index and Societal Impacts for the Northeast Start Date End Date Category RSI Area of Snow Population

1994-02-21 1994-02-24 1 1.917 173,345 56,885,145

1994-01-15 1994-01-17 1 2.995 174,680 57,062,212

1994-01-03 1994-01-08 1 2.62 173,393 56,887,967

1993-12-31 1994-01-04 1 2.911 173,556 56,914,705

2009-12-17 2009-12-20 1 2.743 130,407 54,528,591

2009-12-06 2009-12-10 1 1.805 169,501 55,845,477

2013-03-16 2013-03-19 1 1.781 175,113 58,748,374

2013-03-02 2013-03-08 1 1.441 158,555 58,817,789

2000-01-23 2000-01-31 1 1.469 173,787 56,932,414

2000-01-23 2000-01-26 1 2.567 174,680 57,060,450

1987-12-12 1987-12-16 1 1.112 163,869 51,435,470

1987-11-09 1987-11-11 1 1.114 168,828 56,871,600

1987-02-21 1987-02-23 1 1.441 139,451 55,806,361

1987-01-07 1987-01-11 1 1.711 170,490 56,359,527

1986-12-31 1987-01-02 1 2.8 173,460 56,907,542

1985-02-28 1985-03-04 1 1.144 156,652 48,965,830

1985-01-28 1985-02-02 1 2.04 174,690 57,062,552

1984-02-23 1984-02-29 1 2.285 168,511 55,355,457

1993-02-19 1993-02-23 1 2.291 174,690 57,062,555

1993-02-13 1993-02-17 1 2.223 174,671 57,059,500

1990-12-26 1990-12-28 1 1.724 174,085 57,056,014

1988-01-21 1988-01-26 1 2.295 174,681 57,062,330

1988-01-04 1988-01-08 1 1.696 174,575 57,061,380

2002-12-31 2003-01-03 1 2.968 169,039 57,800,788

2000-02-15 2000-02-19 1 1.395 172,730 57,041,310

1982-01-19 1982-01-23 1 1.227 174,690 57,062,566

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 63

Table 29 (cont’d): Regional Snowfall Index and Societal Impacts for the Northeast Start Date End Date Category RSI Area of Snow Population

1982-01-11 1982-01-14 1 2.059 174,690 57,062,540

1979-02-16 1979-02-19 1 2.868 135,318 53,049,251

1979-02-05 1979-02-08 1 1.441 154,317 56,740,391

1997-01-07 1997-01-11 1 1.597 174,690 57,062,621

1996-04-08 1996-04-10 1 1.726 174,498 57,033,178

1996-01-31 1996-02-03 1 1.349 128,600 52,977,105

1967-03-19 1967-03-22 1 1.361 168,828 56,995,870 Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/rsi/societal-impacts

Ice Storms

Ice storms occur when a mass of warm moist air collides with a mass of cold Arctic air. As the less dense warm air rises moisture may precipitate as rain. The rain falls through the colder, denser air and comes in contact with cold surfaces where ice forms. Ice may continue to form until the ice is several inches thick.

Ice storms may strain tree branches, power lines and even transmission towers to the breaking point and often create treacherous conditions for highway travel and aviation. The weight of formed ice (especially with a following wind) may cause power and phone lines to snap and the towers that support them to collapse under the load, and may break tree limbs. Debris impacted roads make emergency access, repair and cleanup extremely difficult.

The most recent ice storm in New England and the region occurred in December 2008. The storm resulted in one fatality and left over one million people without power, some for as long as two weeks. Damage from the storm was measured in millions of dollars in property damage, lost business and clean up costs. For example, The Town of Westford alone spent $650,000 in responding to this storm, according to Town Manager Jodi Ross. Many of the expenses incurred were related to debris cleanup. Given the magnitude of damage, the storm resulted in a Presidential Disaster Declaration.

Ice storms equally as severe have been recorded in New England since 1929. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory estimates a 40 – 90 year return period for an event with a uniform ice thickness of between .75 and 1.25 inches. In other words, on average, a one-inch ice storm is likely every fifty years. Middlesex County has experienced 22 ice storms since 1971.6 Each community in the region is at equal risk of being impacted by an ice storm and impacts are consistent across the region, with the exception of Lowell, where tree damage and power outages are often lessened due to the community’s urban nature and the fact that utilities within the downtown are located underground.

6 NCDC Database

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 64

Utility company responds to the aftermath of the December 2008 ice storm in Westford, MA

Ice Jams

Ice jams occur when warm temperatures and heavy rain cause rapid snow melting. The melting snow combined with the heavy rain, causes frozen rivers to swell, breaking the ice layer into large chunks that float downstream and pile up near narrow passages or near obstructions, such as bridges and dams. Historically, there have been hundreds of ice jams in New England. Within the Northern Middlesex region, ice jams have been recorded on the Merrimack River in Lowell and on the Nashua River in the Town of Pepperell. According to the U.S. Army Cold Regions Research Lab’s database, 7 an ice jam occurred along the Nashua River on March 19, 1968, and along the Nashoba Brook on March 18, 1972 and on February 17, 2008. The major hazard associated with an ice jam is flooding. Given that sizable rivers traverse every community in the region, each municipality is at equal risk of being impacted by an ice jam, however, based on historical occurrences, the probability of such an event occurring is relatively low.

4. Fire-Related Hazards

Fire poses a danger to developed and urbanized areas of the region, as well as to forested areas. A wildland fire can be defined as any non-structure fire that occurs in the wildland. Three distinct types of wildland fire have been defined and include wildfire (naturally occurring or human caused), and prescribed fire. Many of these are highly destructive and can be very uncontrollable. They occur in forested, semi-forested or less developed area.

7 http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 65

Drought

Drought is a normal recurrent feature of climate, occurring in virtually all climatic zones. Drought originates from a deficiency in precipitation over an extended period of time, typically two winter seasons or more, and should be considered relative to the long-term average condition based on precipitation and evapo-transpiration. The first evidence of drought is usually seen in rainfall records. Within a short period of time, soil moisture can begin to decrease. The effects on stream and river flow, or water levels in lakes and reservoirs, may not be noticed for several weeks or months. Water levels in wells may not be impacted for a year or more after the drought begins.

Massachusetts is often considered to be a water-rich state, receiving an average of 45 inches of precipitation each year. The region can experience extended periods of dry weather, from single season events to multi-year events, such as occurred in the mid-1960s. Historically, droughts in Massachusetts have started with dry winters, rather than summers.

During the summer of 2002, one-third of the nation, including New England, experienced drought conditions. Massachusetts has experienced multi-year drought episodes in 1879-1873, 1908-1912, 1929-1932, 1939-1944, 1961-1969 and 1980-1983. The most recent drought advisory for the state was issued in April 2012 when a number of days had “red flag” wildfire warnings due to warm and dry weather, high winds, and low fuel moisture. DCR placed an increased emphasis on wildfire detection and suppression during this period of time.

A serious drought occurred in Massachusetts during the Spring and Summer of 1999. Cumulative deficits in precipitation reached 8-12 inches below normal over a one-year period. Stream flows routinely fell below the 25th percentile of historical flows for the month. Ground water levels were also below normal throughout the summer over nearly the entire state. During this period, the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency developed a Massachusetts Drought Management Plan. The Plan includes ground water, surface water, reservoir, and precipitation data, and stream flow conditions, as well as a report on fire danger and agricultural conditions. The Drought Management Plan provides specific action items to be implemented during a drought watch, drought warning and drought emergency. A drought emergency is one in which state-mandated water restrictions or use of emergency water supplies is necessary. Each community in the region is at equal risk of being impacted by a drought emergency. Communities within the Northern Middlesex region have imposed outdoor watering restrictions during times of drought.

Wildfires

A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire that spreads due to the presence of vegetative fuel. These fires often begin unnoticed and spread quickly. In this area of the country, wildfire season generally begins in March and ends in late November. Human beings start four out of every five wildfires through arson or carelessness; lightning strikes account for the remainder. If heavy rain follows a major wildfire, other natural disasters can occur, including landslides and floods. Once groundcover is burned away, there is little left to hold soil in place on steep slopes. Water supplies can also be affected. The loss of ground cover materials and the chemical transformation of burned soils can make some watersheds more susceptible to erosion.

A surface fire is the most common type of wildfire, burning slowly along the floor of a

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 66

forest, destroying or damaging trees. Lightning typically starts a ground fire, and burns on or below the forest floor; such fires are difficult to detect and extinguish. Crown fires spread quickly along the tops of trees, and are driven by wind. Crown fires are seen when high- intensity surface fire spreads or “ladders” upward through the lower foliage to the canopy.

The Massachusetts Office of Fire Services reported 45,486 wildfires in the Commonwealth from 2000-2009. In 2011, there were 1,116 human-caused fires that consumed 545.5 acres across the state.8 The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), Fire Control Division maintains monthly records of the number of wildfires. The Northern Middlesex region is located in Massachusetts Fire Control District 6. Each municipal Fire Department in the region has provided wildfire data for a nine-year period ending in 2010, which is shown in Table 30 below. This is the most recent data available. It should be noted that the Town of Dracut was only able to provide data for the years 2008-2010.

TABLE 30: Brush Fires/Wildfires in the Northern Middlesex Region (2002 to 2010) Community Number of Events Billerica 549 Chelmsford 325 Dracut 78* Dunstable 115 Lowell 631 Pepperell 106 Tewksbury 400 Tyngsborough 206 Westford 171 Total 2,503 * 2008-2010 Source: Municipal Fire Departments The early detection of forest fires is critical to preventing a large wildfire. The sooner suspicious smoke is located and units are dispatched for investigation the less likely there will be needless damage to homes and property. Early detection is achieved by trained DCR observers who staff the statewide network of operating fire towers. From their high vantage points, observers utilize alidade tables, binoculars, and topographic maps to triangulate the precise location of any fire. This information is then given to local community fire departments for prompt response. There is a fire tower on Robbin Hill in Chelmsford that is manned by DCR staff during periods of high fire danger. While the communities of Dunstable, Pepperell, Tyngsborough, and Westford have the most forested land and large tracts of remaining open space, the incidence of brush fire is lower in these communities than in the more urbanized communities. This is primarily due to there being less human activity, which is often the catalyst for such events. Input received from the region’s communities indicates that there are no specific geographic patterns related to brush fire incidents, although brush fires along major highways were noted to be frequently caused by careless disposal of cigarette materials by passing motorists. Local communities do not maintain data on the areas impacted by brush fire events or on the extent of such events. The Town of Chelmsford has identified specific locations that the Fire Department considers to be at risk for wildfire. Please refer to pages 107-108 for a list of the locations.

8 www.northeastwildfire.org

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 67

Wildland/Urban Interface

Wildland/urban interface areas exist wherever homes and businesses are built among trees and other combustible vegetation. The wildland/urban interface problem stems from two different sources of fire and their impact on the community. Fire can move from forest, brush or pastureland into the community or from the community into adjacent wild areas. In temperate areas vegetative decay is a slow process, and logs, leaves and evergreen needles pile up on the forest floor. This accumulation of fuel increases the probability of large fires that are difficult to control. Ignitions are more frequent in the wildland/urban interface because of the increased presence of people - carelessness, recreation, damaged power lines, and industrial activity are potential ignition sources.

Interface fire can move rapidly through agricultural landscapes. Drought conditions, high winds, and accumulation of fine fuels, such as grass or stubble, set the stage for interface fires far away from any forests. In addition to building and equipment loss, crops, feed, soil, livestock and farm infrastructure are also at risk.

Typically, wildland/urban interface fires do tremendous damage, resulting in large economic losses and severe social impacts. The impact to residents can include the loss of, or damage to, homes and irreplaceable items, and even death or serious injury. Financial costs include building and infrastructure loss or damage, and business interruptions, as well as suppression and evacuation costs.

Wildland fires produce firebrands that are lofted into the air and travel great distances, often igniting spot fires ahead of the main fire. Firebrands that land on a combustible roof will usually start a fire that will consume a building, if not suppressed in time. The reality of firebrand-caused ignitions is that buildings located in relatively urban settings, some distance inside the community interface boundary, are still vulnerable to wildland fires. Additionally, direct flame contact or radiant heat can ignite vulnerable buildings. Ignitions can result from both vegetation-to-structure spread and structure-to-structure spread.

Within the Northern Middlesex region there are some locations where forests interface with urban and suburban neighborhoods. Most notable are the areas adjacent to the Dracut- Tyngsborough-Lowell State Forest, Manning State Forest in Billerica, Thanksgiving Forest and the Cranberry Bog in Chelmsford, the Town Forest in Pepperell, and the Town Forest and East Boston Camp/Stepinski parcels in Westford.

Urban Fire

The probability of an urban fire increases with population density. This is due to human error and carelessness, which are primary factors contributing to urban fires. The elderly (age 65 and older) tend to be more vulnerable to fires than any other age group. They also experience the highest number of deaths per fire. The second most vulnerable age group is those age 14 years and younger. Many homes destroyed by urban fires are often older homes in the community. Fire can spread faster in areas with high concentrations of housing, compared to less densely developed suburban and rural areas. The potential secondary effects of an urban fire include utility failures and hazardous materials releases. The City of Lowell is the only community in the

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 68

region at high risk for urban fire. During 2013, 323 structure fires were reported in the City. Tragically, seven people perished in an apartment fire in Lowell in 2014.

5. Geologic Hazards

Earthquakes

Earthquakes in the Northeast are not associated with specific known faults, as they are in California. In New England, the immediate cause of most earthquakes is the sudden release of stress along a fault or fracture in the earth’s crust. Much of the research on earthquakes in the northeast has involved attempts to identify pre-existing faults and other geological features that may be susceptible to such stress, but this has proven to be quite difficult. Unlike the situation in the western part of the country where many plate boundary earthquakes occur, it is unclear whether faults mapped at the earth’s surface in the northeast are the same faults along which earthquakes are occurring.

It is impossible to predict the time and location of future earthquakes in New England. The U.S.G.S. has produced a series of earthquake hazard maps for the United States. These maps show the amount of earthquake generated ground shaking that is predicted to have a specific chance of being exceeded over a certain period of time. Ground shaking caused by earthquakes is often expressed as a percentage of the force of gravity. Due to the difficulty of identifying specific seismically active geological features in the Northeast, the level of seismic hazard is based primarily on past seismic activity. These maps generally show that there is a 1 in 10 chance that in any given fifty-year period a potentially damaging earthquake will occur.

From 1924-1989 there were eight earthquakes with a magnitude of 4.2 or greater in New England. The Northeast States Emergency Consortium (NESEC) documented 165 earthquakes within 250 miles of the NESEC northeast region, from January 1 through December 5, 2012. These earthquakes ranged from magnitude 0.3 to 4.5, and 30 were magnitude 2.5 or greater. NESEC also noted that in 2012 there was a sequence of 12 offshore earthquakes that occurred off the continental slope east of Massachusetts, ranging from magnitude 0.5 to 4.5. New England experiences 30-40 earthquakes each year, although most are not felt. Potential earthquake losses total $4.4 billion annually in the United States, with the Northeast ranking third in the nation for annualized losses, according to FEMA. The $4.4 billion estimate includes only losses to buildings and business interruption. It does not include damage and losses to critical facilities, transportation infrastructure and services, utilities, or indirect economic losses.9

The Northern Middlesex region is considered to be at moderate risk of experiencing an earthquake. Moderate risk means that there is a relatively long period of time between strong earthquakes. Since 1985 there has been a small earthquake approximately every 2 ½ years within a few miles of Littleton and Westford, Massachusetts. It is not clear why some localities experience such clustering of earthquakes, but one possibility suggested by Prof. John Ebel of Weston Observatory of Boston College is that these spatial clusters are sites where strong earthquakes were centered in the prehistoric past. These spatial clusters may indicate locations where there is an increased likelihood of future earthquake activity.

9 www.nesec.org

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 69

The area’s vulnerability to a devastating earthquake is based primarily on two elements: the density of the population in the region, and the age of the region’s buildings and lack of earthquake proof design. Additionally, seismic waves travel further in the eastern U.S. than in other parts of the country. Seismologists have determined that the likelihood of an earthquake with a magnitude of 5.0 or greater occurring in New England area by the year 2043 is 41-56%.10 Map 4 on the following page shows the earthquake risk for each region of the United States.

Source: New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management website: www.nhoem.state.nh.us

MAP 4

Earthquake magnitude is measured on two scales, the Richter Scale and the Mercali Scale. The Richter Scale (expressed as “mb”) is an open-ended logarithmic scale that measures the amount of energy released by an earthquake. An earthquake registering 1.5mb on the Richter Scale represents that point at which some disturbance may be felt. At 4.5mb slight damage may be caused. An 8.5mb is considered a devastating earthquake. The Mercali Scale is measured on a Scale of I to XII and expresses more directly the damaged caused by an earthquake. A Scale I earthquake on the Mercali Scale would barely be felt, whereas a Scale XII quake would result in total destruction of all buildings. The intensity of the quake is evaluated according to observations at specific locations. Appendix C outlines the full impact for each level.

Ground movement during an earthquake is seldom the direct cause of injury or death. Collapsing walls, falling objects and flying glass cause most casualties. Buildings with foundations resting on unconsolidated landfill, old waterways, or other unstable soils are most at risk. Buildings, trailers, and manufactured homes not tied to a reinforced foundation anchored to the ground are also at risk, since they can be shaken off their mountings during an earthquake. In the eastern part of the U.S. a magnitude 5.5 earthquake can be felt as far as 300 miles from where it occurred, and can cause damage out to 25 miles from the epicenter.

10 www.earthquake.usgs.gov

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 70

Based on past records, the maximum experienced earthquake intensities on the Mercali Scale in Northern Middlesex County have been in the range of VI (where there is damage to objects indoors, the tremor is felt by all people indoors and outdoors, movement is unsteady, moderately heavy furniture moves, and pictures fall off walls) to VII (where there is damage to architecture, the tremors are frightening, it is difficult to stand, cracks occur in chimneys and plaster, bricks may fall, and stream banks may cave in).

Figure 1 below shows earthquake activity in the northeast from October 1975 to March 2010. Map 5 on the following page shows the results of an earthquake probability analysis conducted by the Weston Observatory at Boston College. The study examined earthquake activity of magnitude greater than 2.7. According to the analysis, there is a 66% chance that the next earthquake of magnitude greater than 2.7 will occur in the green areas shown on Map 5 on the following page. Map 7 on page 74 shows the seismic activity in Massachusetts since 1973.

Figure 1: Earthquake Activity in the Northeast from October 1975 – March 2010

Source: Weston Observatory

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 71

MAP 5: NEW ENGLAND EARTHQUAKE PROBABILITY Source: Weston Observatory, Boston College

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 72

Map 6: Seismicity in Massachusetts, 1973 to present

Source: www.earthquake.usgs.gov

The CEMPs on file with MEMA for the nine communities in the Northern Middlesex region indicate that a significant earthquake in the region would affect 277,000 people; 13,000 of whom do not have access to transportation. The number of people potentially affected in each community is summarized in the Table 31 below and essentially includes the entire population of the region.

TABLE 31: PERSONS AT RISK TO EARTHQUAKES

Maximum Population Maximum Number of People without Community Affected Transportation (est.)

Billerica 38,981 1,169

Chelmsford 33,858 1,157

Dracut 28,562 1,102

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 73

TABLE 31 (cont’d): PERSONS AT RISK TO EARTHQUAKES

Maximum Population Maximum Number of People without Community Affected Transportation (est.)

Dunstable 2,829 91

Lowell 105,167 8,090

Pepperell 11,142 300

Tewksbury 28,851 314

Tyngsborough 11,081 308

Westford 20,754 246

REGIONAL TOTAL 281,225 12,777

Map 8: Seismic Hazard in Massachusetts

Source: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/massachusetts/hazards.php

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 74

Failure to design structures with earthquakes in mind will also affect the potential damage caused by an earthquake. Map 8 on the previous page shows seismic hazard for the state of Massachusetts. Regulations that require buildings and structures to meet some minimum seismic criteria were only put in place over the past three decades. For example, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts began requiring new or rehabilitated bridges to meet minimum seismic criteria in 1991. Therefore, many bridges in the region have an elevated risk of failure during a significant earthquake. Figure 2 below indicates that 119 of the 198 bridges (60%) have not been subject to any specific seismic evaluation because they were built or rebuilt prior to state seismic requirements.

Figure 2: Seismic Status of Northern Middlesex Bridges

Bridges Built Prior to 1991 Seismic Criteria

Dracut (4) Chelmsford (23) Billerica (6) Lowell (60) Pepperell & Dunstable (6) Tewksbury (8) Built or rebuilt Tyngsborough(2) since 1991 Seismic Westford (10) Standard (79)

Billerica Chelmsford Dracut Lowell Pepperell Tewksbury Tyngsborough Westfor d Post 1991 Seismic Standard

Source: MassDOT 2010

Little is understood about the occurrence of earthquakes in this area, as mentioned previously. The earthquake cluster identified in the vicinity of Littleton and Westford may indicate a pattern that is likely to continue. Overall, the region is at a moderate risk for earthquakes, and the greatest damage is likely to occur where structures were designed prior to seismic standards being incorporated into the state building code. Such structures are scattered throughout the region. In addition, many older structures in the region, such as schools, hospitals and fire stations, are built of un-reinforced masonry (i.e., “red brick”) and are particularly vulnerable to damage or collapse in the event of an earthquake.

Landslides

A landslide is the downward movement of a slope and its materials under the force of gravity. Human activity such as construction and mining, and natural factors such as topography, geology and precipitation influence landslides. Landslides often develop when water rapidly accumulates in the ground, such as during periods of heavy rainfall or rapid

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 75

snowmelt. Other factors contributing to a landslide include earthquakes, and erosion by rivers and streams. Landslides commonly occur with other major natural disasters, such as earthquakes and floods that exacerbate relief and reconstruction efforts.

Nationally, landslides constitute a major geologic hazard, as they are widespread, occur in every state, cause an estimated 25 fatalities annually, and result in $1-2 billion in property damage each year. Landslides are common throughout New England, but are generally limited to mountainous or hilly terrain. The Northern Middlesex region is not considered to be at risk for this type of natural hazard.

6. Other Natural Hazards

Extreme Temperatures

A heat wave is a period of three consecutive days during which the air temperature reaches or exceeds 90 degrees Fahrenheit on each day. Temperatures that hover ten degrees or more above the average high for the region and last for several weeks are defined as extreme heat. Humid or muggy conditions, which add to the discomfort of high temperatures, occur when a dome of high pressure traps hazy, damp air near the surface.

Heat kills by pushing the human body beyond its limits. Most heat disorders occur because the victim has been overexposed to heat or has over-exercised for his or her age and physical condition. The most severe heat-induced illnesses are heat exhaustion and heat stroke. If left untreated, heat exhaustion can progress to heat stroke and possible death. Young children, the elderly and those with existing illnesses are more likely to become victims. Other conditions that can cause heat-related illness include stagnant atmospheric conditions and poor air quality.

Recent statistics in the United States indicate that approximately 200 deaths per year are attributable to heatstroke. In 1980, high summer temperatures in Central and Southern States caused an estimated 1,700 excess deaths directly attributable to the heat. In July 1995, a heat wave in the mid-west caused 670 deaths, 375 in the Chicago area alone. High cooling demands also increase the risk of utility black outs as transmission systems are stretched to their limits. The combination of a loss of air conditioning due to a black out, along with a heat wave could have catastrophic results for the region.

The hottest temperature ever recorded in the region was 105 degrees measured in Dunstable and Pepperell during August 1948.11 In recent years, temperatures over 100 degrees were recorded in the region in July 1995, June 2008, and July 2011. Although the entire region is at risk for extreme heat, it is of particular concern in Lowell where the built environment contributes to the phenomenon of urban heat-island effect. Heat islands develop when built surfaces replace a large portion of natural land, keeping nighttime air temperatures high, relative to temperatures in less urbanized areas. According to meteorologists, a heat island is a well- defined area where temperatures are higher than the surrounding region, sometimes as much as 15º F higher.

11 www.intellicast.com

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 76

Extreme cold events are days where the mean daily temperature (average of the high and low recorded temperatures over a 24-hour period) falls below 32° F. Prolonged exposure to extreme cold temperatures can lead to serious health problems such as hypothermia, cold stress, frostbite, or freezing of the exposed extremities such as fingers, toes, noses and earlobes. Infants, seniors, people who are homeless, and those living in a home without adequate heat are most susceptible to such conditions. As the temperature drops and wind speed increases, heat can leave the body more rapidly. This phenomenon is known as the wind-chill effect, which can exacerbate an extreme cold event. The coldest temperature ever recorded in the region was -29 degrees, as recorded in Dunstable and Pepperell in January 1957.12

The entire region is at risk for extreme cold and heat, although the City of Lowell contains a higher percentage of the most vulnerable populations, such as the elderly and those who are homeless. The record high and low temperatures for the communities within the Northern Middlesex region are shown in Table 32 below.

Table 32: Record High and Low Temperatures by Community Community Record High Month and Year Record Low Month and Year Temperature Recorded Temperature Recorded (degrees F) (degrees F) Billerica 101 August 1975 -19 January 1961 Chelmsford 103 August 1948 -17 January 1994 Dracut 103 August 1948 -17 January 1994 Dunstable 105 August 1948 -29 January 1957 Lowell 103 August 1948 -17 January 1994 Pepperell 105 August 1948 -29 January 1957 Tewksbury 102 July 1926 -20 December 1993 and January 1984 Tyngsborough 103 August 1948 -17 January 1994 Westford 103 August 1948 and July -17 January 1994 2011 Source: www.intellicast.com and data reported by the Town of Westford

7. Climate Change

Scientific assessments indicate that climate change is expected to alter the frequency or

severity of weather-related natural hazards, increasing the vulnerability to such hazards. These assessments suggest that the potential effects of climate change on weather-related events could be significant. For example, increasing temperatures may impact communities by altering the frequency or severity of hurricanes, tornadoes, and severe thunderstorms. There is growing evidence that the warming surface temperatures in the sea have increased the destructive potential of Atlantic tropical storms since 1970.

Massachusetts’ climate is already changing – ambient temperature has increased by approximately 1.8°F since 1970 and sea surface temperature has increased by 2.3° F between 1970 and 2002. These warming trends have also been associated with more frequent days with temperatures above 90°F, reduced snowpack, and earlier snow melt and spring peak flows.13

12 Ibid. 13 Frumhoff, P.C., J.J. McCarthy, J.M. Melillo, S.C. Moser and D.J. Wuebbles, 2006. Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast: A Report of the Northeast Climate Change Impacts Assessments, Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 77

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that, by the end of the century, Massachusetts will experience a 5° to 10°F increase in average ambient temperature, with several more days of extreme heat during the summer months. Days with temperatures above 90°F are predicted to increase from 5 to 20 days annually presently, to 30 to 60 days annually. Sea temperatures are expected to increase by 8°F. Winter precipitation (generally in the form of rain) is expected to increase by 12% to 30%, while the number of snow events is expected to decrease.14

New England is expected to experience changes in the amount, frequency and timing of precipitation. Since 1900, precipitation recorded at the U.S. Historical Climatology Network weather stations located across the northeast has increased by 5 to 10 percent. By the end of the century, annual precipitation is expected to increase 14% with a slight decrease in the summer.15 The shift toward more rainy and icy winters would have serious implications in terms of possible damaging ice storms, similar to the storm that severely impacted the region in December 2008. In addition, more winter rain is expected to cause more high-flow and flooding events during the winter, earlier peak flows in the spring, and extended low-flow periods in the summer months. Such hydrologic changes would impact water resources, including an increase in flooding, pollutant laden overflows from stormwater and wastewater systems during high periods of flow, and increased stress on surface and groundwater drinking sources during periods of low flow or drought. Figure 4 below shows the annual precipitation totals for Boston over the past four decades.

Figure 3

Source: National Weather Service

14 Massachusetts Climate Adaptation Report, Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and the Adaptation Advisory Committee, September 2011. 15 Ibid.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 78

Higher temperatures will have a negative effect on air quality and human health. Increased rates of respiratory illness, worsening of allergies and asthma, increased vector borne diseases, and degraded water quality are expected. Floods caused by high intensity precipitation will also impact the region and the state. Should these events occur with greater frequency as many climate expert predict, future damage may be severe and cumulative, straining local and state resources. Extreme weather events can disrupt power, limit access to safe and nutritious food, damage property, and impact health care services.

Climate change is also expected to impact the state and local economy. Among the sectors most likely to be affected are agriculture, forestry, fisheries, manufacturing and service industries, tourism, recreation and health care. Establishing redundant supply routes and sources, developing renewable energy sources, and protecting facilities and sites which are vulnerable to flooding, will help minimize the potential economic impact to businesses. With these higher temperatures, electricity demand in Massachusetts could increase by 40% in 2030, most of the increase would occur during the summer months, requiring significant investment in peak load capacity and energy efficiency measures.16

Given the known natural hazard risks and the projected impacts of climate change, there are several reasons to integrate hazard mitigation and climate change adaptation. First, the decisions and choices made today will shape the future of our communities and impact their ability to be resilient. Second, given significant time is required to develop adaptive strategies and implementation capacity, acting now will allow the time needed for communities to work toward achieving long-term adaptation goals. Third, proactive planning is far less costly than reacting and responding to a disaster created by a hazard that has been exacerbated by the effects of climate change.

By creating an engaged community and taking a proactive approach to reducing the region’s vulnerability, the region will be better positioned to deal with the increased threats posed by climate change. Some solutions that address climate change can also be viewed as hazard mitigation strategies in that they achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming and exacerbate the severity and impacts of natural hazards.

Developing effective and efficient initiatives to address climate change will require communication, coordination, and collaboration among government bodies, the private sector, non-profit organizations, academic institutions and other stakeholders. Neither adaptation nor mitigation alone can address the impacts of climate change, but taken together the two programs can reduce the risks of climate change and result in more resilient communities.

The Region’s Vulnerability to Climate Change The most significant vulnerability to structures in the region is that they were designed and constructed based on historic weather conditions. This puts infrastructure at an increased risk of future damage from increased precipitation and flooding. It is expected that increased frequency of extreme weather events will raise the risk of damage to transportation systems, energy-related facilities, communications systems, and water supply and wastewater management systems. Improving siting and design of new structures to include consideration of

16 Ibid.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 79

the impacts of climate change will minimize the region’s vulnerability and allow communities to be more resilient. The Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) has released a new report which provides an analysis of residential building codes in the 18 hurricane-prone coastal states along the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Coast. Massachusetts rated fourth with a score of 87 out of 100.17

Municipalities and the State should adjust traditional maintenance and inspection schedules for roadways, bridges and drainage structures to take into account the impacts of climate change. Short-term measures for publicly-owned water and wastewater treatment facilities could include flood-proofing by increasing the elevation of structures, installing water- tight doors and windows, replacing wet/dry well pumps with submersible pumps, increasing emergency back-up provisions to keep key equipment operational, and relocating vulnerable equipment.

There are similar vulnerabilities across ecosystems based on projected temperature changes, increased storm intensity, precipitation changes, drought, and sea level rise. Different organisms have different rates of response to climate change. It is expected that climate change will cause changes in species composition and forest structure. Climate change, in conjunction with other stressors, will alter forest function and its ability to provide wildlife habitat, and could reduce the ability of forests to provide ecological services such as air and water cleansing. In addition, the negative impacts of invasive species may increase, as native forests are increasingly stressed. In general adaptive strategies for natural resources and habitats include land and water protection, land and water resource management, regulation changes and increased monitoring.

Higher summer temperatures, less summer precipitation, and an increase in drought frequency will impact water quality and quantity. Intermittent streams will cease flowing earlier in the season and some coldwater habitat will be replaced with warm water habitat. The predicted changes in precipitation patterns will also increase stormwater discharge. Hydrologic changes from increased flooding will lead to increased erosion, stream scouring and sedimentation. Overbank floods that once spilled across the floodplain can become confined within the channel and disconnect the waterway from the floodplain. Adaptation strategies should integrate the protection of rivers, streams, lakes, floodplain, and wetlands with land use, watershed and floodplain management.

The entire region is vulnerable to impacts of climate change. The areas most at risk include those located in the floodplain, near wetlands and along waterways. In order to help protect existing structures and minimize or prevent exposure, sound land use decisions should be promoted through technical support to local communities on effective land use standards, model bylaws and permitting processes. Hazard mitigation, evacuation and emergency response plans should be evaluated and updated to reflect changing climate conditions and new development patterns.

17 “Rating the States: An Assessment of Residential Building Codes and Enforcement Systems for Life Safety and Property Protection in Hurricane Prone Regions”, IBHS, 2012.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 80

Climate Change Planning and Adaptation at the State Level

Massachusetts is actively working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change adaptation. The Global Warming Solutions Act, passed by the Massachusetts Legislature and signed by Governor Deval Patrick in 2008, directed the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs to convene an advisory committee charged with developing a report that analyzed strategies for adapting to the predicted impacts of climate change. The Massachusetts Climate Change Adaptation Report was published in September 2011. The report provides an overview of the observed and predicted changes to Massachusetts’ climate and the anticipated impacts, outlines key findings, sets guiding principles, and identifies key adaptation strategies that could help increase resilience and preparedness.

B. Non-Natural Hazards

The Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) is the state agency responsible for coordinating federal, state, local, voluntary, and private resources during emergencies and disasters in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. MEMA provides leadership in developing plans for effective response to all hazards, disasters or threats; trains emergency personnel; provides information to the public; and assists individuals, families, businesses, and communities to mitigate against, prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies caused by both nature and humans.

Each municipality has a Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) in place. The CEMP combines the four phases of emergency management: mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. In the interest of holistically addressing mitigation and its interrelationship with emergency management overall, this Hazard Mitigation Plan provides an overview of several hazards that are non-natural and pose a threat to the state, the region and individual municipalities. This section of the regional Hazard Mitigation Plan is intended to complement the state’s Hazard Mitigation Plan. Strategies will not be provided for addressing these hazards at the regional and local levels. MEMA and the communities maintain Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan s (CEMPs), as well as other documents that outline the specific response and mitigation associated with non-natural disasters, crime, and other emergencies.

According to the National Preparedness Report published by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in March 2012, the Nation’s preparedness capabilities have improved considerably since 9/11. Areas of overall strength include:

 Planning: All hazards planning considers routine emergencies and catastrophic events, integrating local perspectives;  Operational Coordination: The National Incident Management System (NIMS) provides a common doctrine for incident management;  Intelligence and information sharing: A national network of fusion centers and Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) brings together federal, state and local law enforcement, intelligence community, and other public safety officials and private sector partners;  Environmental Response/Health and Safety: A diverse set of federal, state and local assets have the capabilities to address a wide range of routine and large-scale hazardous material and chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive incidents;

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 81

 Mass Search and Rescue Operations: Federal, state and local resources comprise a comprehensive rescue network;  Operational communication: Government partners have established communication capabilities tested through exercises and real events; and  Public Health and Medical Services: A wide range of partners provide a responsive public health and medical network.

1. Public Health Emergencies and Hazards

A community or region may face serious illness due to a communicable disease which threatens to overwhelm the public health system. Infectious disease emergencies are extremely rare - while the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) receives 10,000 case reports of infectious disease annually, only a small fraction are considered public health infectious disease emergencies. Health care providers, local boards of health, and the MDPH handle most infectious diseases routinely. However, when an infectious disease spreads undetected or undeterred through a community, especially an easily communicable disease with high morbidity and mortality, it is considered an emergency. The longer this type of disease goes unrecognized and untreated, the more severe the impact will be on human health and mortality.

Worldwide travel and the re-emergence of infectious diseases in more virulent forms may increase the rate of public health infectious disease emergencies in the future. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health is the primary agency responsible for the study, planning, isolation/quarantine and actions, surveillance, and reporting for all public health emergencies. Any cluster or outbreak of any unusual disease or illness must be reported to the local board of health (or to MDPH if the local board of health is not available). The H1N1 flu (also referred to as the swine flu) caused by a new virus first recognized in April of 2009, and was the most recent public health emergency. The H1N1 flu quickly spread to many parts of the world and was identified as a pandemic, or global outbreak impacting Massachusetts.

Bioterrorism is the intentional use of (or threat to use) biological agents including but not limited to: anthrax, botulism, brucellosis, cholera, pandemic influenza, plague, ricin, smallpox, tularemia, and viral hemorrhagic fevers.

2. Transportation Accidents

Transportation accidents can occur in any community. Automobile accidents occur with great frequency across the region, while rail accidents occur less frequently and are isolated to areas where active lines exist. Aircraft accidents occur with the least frequency but have the potential to affect the region, given current flight paths and patterns for local and regional airports.

NMCOG has an ongoing safety program aimed at identifying, reducing and mitigating motor vehicle crashes within the region. Using crash data collected by MassDOT and the Registry of Motor Vehicles, the top 100 most hazardous intersections within the region were identified. Over a three-year period extending from 2008-2010, a total of 19,485 crashes were reported within the Northern Middlesex region. Table 33 provides a summary of the total crashes reported in each of the Northern Middlesex communities.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 82

Table 33: Total Crashes by Community, 2008 – 2010 Crashes per Percent of Crashes Community Total Crashes Roadway Miles Roadway Mile for the Region per year Billerica 1,782 449.74 1.3 9% Chelmsford 1,967 449.63 1.5 10% Dracut 1,346 301.28 1.5 7% Dunstable 141 62.55 0.8 1% Lowell 9,670 503.12 6.4 50% Pepperell 621 144.64 1.4 3% Tewksbury 1,943 293.41 2.2 10% Tyngsborough 750 158.83 1.6 4% Westford 1,265 333.2 1.3 6% Total 19,485 2,696.40 2.4 100% Source: MassDOT; Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles

3. Nuclear Event

As described in the joint Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Federal Emergency Management Agency publication “Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants” (NUREG- 0654 REMA-REP-1 Rev.1), a radioactive plume released from a nuclear power plant consists of gaseous and/or particulate material. Three dominant modes of exposure have been identified from atmospheric releases: external whole body irradiation, inhalation, and ingestion. External whole body irradiation is direct exposure from gamma radiation in or from the plume. Internal exposure occurs primarily through the inhalation of airborne radioactive material in the plume or from breathing re-suspended material deposited from a passing plume. Ingestion is exposure to radiation following the consumption of contaminated food or water by mouth.

Exposure to radiation is measured on a dose equivalent basis. Dose equivalent (or effective dose) combines the amount of radiation absorbed and the medical effects of that type of radiation. For beta and gamma radiation, the dose equivalent is the same as the absorbed dose. By contrast, the dose equivalent is larger than the absorbed dose for alpha and neutron radiation, because these types of radiation are more damaging to the human body. Units for dose equivalent are the roentgen equivalent man (rem) and sievert (Sv), and biological dose equivalents are commonly measured in 1/1000th of a rem (known as a millirem or mrem). 18 Linear no-threshold (LNT) dose-response relationship is used to describe the relationship between radiation dose and the occurrence of cancer. This dose-response model suggests that any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental increase in risk. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) accepts the LNT hypothesis as a conservative model for estimating radiation risk. The greater the dose received the greater the potential for biological effect. However, it is impossible to predict precisely how an individual will respond to a particular dose, as effects will vary from one person to another.

The average annual whole body dose equivalent from all natural sources of radiation in the U.S. is estimated to be approximately 360 millirems. This dose results from exposure to cosmic and terrestrial radiation sources and radiation from internally deposited radio nuclides.

18 http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/health-effects/measuring-radiation.html

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 83

Additionally, the use of x-rays and radioactive materials in medicine and dentistry add to overall population doses.

Radiation effects can be classified in two categories, early or delayed, but these categories are not mutually exclusive. Early acute effects of radiation exposure generally occur within 90 days from exposure, and may include fatalities, symptoms of acute radiation syndrome, or clinically detectable changes in blood and chromosomes. However, emergency protective actions can be taken to prevent or minimize these effects. Delayed effects of radiation exposure (i.e., biological effects that can only be observed on a statistical basis) could occur in some members of a population that has been exposed to radioactive materials. The effects may include fatalities or disabilities of anatomical or genetic origin.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) utilize the emergency planning zone (EPZ) concept. EPZs are designated areas for which plans are prepared to ensure that prompt and effective actions can be taken to protect the public in the event of an incident at a nuclear power plant. There are three EPZs that impact Massachusetts. The Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station located in Plymouth and operated by Entergy Nuclear Northeast is the only nuclear power generation facility located within the borders of Massachusetts. Two other licensed facilities are located just over the border from Massachusetts. These include the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee) located in Vernon, Vermont, and operated by Entergy Nuclear Northeast; and Seabrook Nuclear Power Station, located in Seabrook, New Hampshire, and operated by NextEra Energy.

Within the Northern Middlesex region, the University of Massachusetts Lowell (UML) operates a small nuclear reactor that is utilized for educational purposes. The UML Nuclear Reactor is water cooled and operates at a maximum power level of one megawatt. It is used primarily for training and research in the fields of nuclear science, radiochemistry and engineering. The reactor is housed in a containment building which is part of the UML Radiation Laboratory.

Radiation sources at the University of Massachusetts Lowell (UML) are regulated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH). Through these agencies, the University has been granted three broad scope licenses to manage its campus radiation safety program. As part of the requirements of the broad scope licenses, the University is required to appoint a Radiation Safety Committee (RSC) and a Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) to develop and manage the university radiation safety program. This program is subject to periodic audits by the NRC and DPH to verify regulatory compliance and to ensure the safety of university personnel and members of the public.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 84

4. Infrastructure Failure

Infrastructure failure includes technological emergencies that result in an interruption or loss of a utility service, power source, life support system, information system or equipment needed to keep the businesses in operation. Examples include:

• Utilities such as electric power, gas, water, hydraulics, compressed air, municipal sewer systems, water treatment plants, and wastewater treatment plants; • Security and alarm systems, elevators, lighting, life support systems, heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems, and electrical distribution systems; • Manufacturing equipment and pollution control equipment; • Communication systems, both data and voice computer networks; and • Transportation systems including air, highway, railroad and waterways.

Technological emergencies have the potential to occur in every community. Communities with limited infrastructure are more vulnerable to experiencing an incident because of the lack of redundant systems. Communities should consider mitigation measures such as installing emergency generators, burying cable, installing back-up systems, and undertaking vegetation management and pruning to help reduce risks.

The New York Blackout of 2003, the December 2008 Ice Storm and the October 2011 Snowstorm resulted in widespread power outages of up to five days in duration. These outages significantly impacted the delivery of services, the regional economy, and the quality of life for the region’s residents.

5. Commodity Shortages

Commodities are goods that are in demand in an emergency, such as food, fuel and medicine. For example, petroleum shortages in Massachusetts may be caused by natural disasters in the Commonwealth itself or in those parts of the world which supply petroleum. The shortage may be created by geopolitical events such as revolutions, embargoes, or war, or by economic factors that drive up prices or reduce available supply.

Petroleum Shortages

Massachusetts is particularly vulnerable to petroleum shortages during the winter months due to a combination of high demand for home heating oil and severe weather that may impact regional distribution mechanisms. Massachusetts and New England in general are logistically isolated from major U.S. refineries and pipelines, and depend on imports, chiefly by water, from domestic and foreign sources.

Historically, there have been several events that have impacted the price and availability of petroleum. The Arab Oil Embargo in 1973 led to increased fuel prices and rationing throughout the United States. In 1979, the Iranian Revolution caused a steep decline in that country’s oil exports, which in turn caused a spike in fuel prices in the United States. Severe weather in January and February of 2000 not only increased demand in Massachusetts, but limited supply as weather conditions slowed the docking and unloading of barges and tankers. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina shut down refineries and oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, leading to price

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 85

spikes in Massachusetts due to limited supplies. In the summer of 2008, oil prices skyrocketed to almost $150 per barrel, creating concern that residents would have difficulty affording the oil needed to heat their homes in winter.

The Regional Strategic Plan for Greater Lowell calls for policies that will result in reducing fossil fuel use in buildings, power generation, and transportation. The use of renewable energy sources would help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, manage energy costs, and reduce reliance on fossil fuels, thereby creating a sustainable energy future for the region. Increased reliance on local solar, wind and geothermal energy sources would provide a buffer against the fluctuations in supply and prices of traditional fossil fuel markets.

Natural Gas Shortages

Natural gas shortages may be caused by a natural disaster, disruptions to pipelines and other facilities which transport natural gas, geopolitical events such as revolutions, embargoes or war, or by economic factors that drive up prices or reduce available supply. New England receives 80% of its natural gas supply from the Gulf Coast, western Canada, and eastern Canada via interstate pipelines. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is also imported through the Distrigas facility in Everett. LNG presently meets 20 to 25% of New England’s demand, spiking to 30% in winter months. Concern for natural gas supply reliability is almost exclusively confined to the winter months when demand for natural gas for space heating increases. During the three winter months, interstate pipelines feeding Massachusetts operate at over 90% of capacity.19 Nearly half of all homes in Massachusetts are heated with natural gas.

Severe winter weather can cause increased demand for natural gas for heating and electric power generation, along with delays of over-the road transportation of LNG to satellite facilities. Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico may shut down or damage natural gas infrastructure in that area. Intensely cold weather in January 1981, combined with disruptions in the supply of liquefied natural gas created by storm off the coast of Algeria which disrupted tanker shipments, caused the Governor to declare an energy emergency in Massachusetts. Schools heated by natural gas were closed, non-residential buildings were ordered to lower thermostats to 55 degrees, and residential customers were urged to lower their thermostats by ten degrees.

Electricity Shortage

Electricity shortage may be caused by a sudden increase in demand due to weather conditions, a shortfall in generating capacity, or by power issues in neighboring regions that decrease available electricity reserves. An electricity shortage is distinguished from a power failure in that the electric transmission infrastructure has suffered little or no damage.

All areas are vulnerable to electricity shortages. Shorter-duration heat waves (2-3 days) may cause demand surges, generator stresses/outages, and transmission problems. A prolonged heat wave may lead to electricity supply problems, rolling blackouts, and health and safety risks if priority users cannot be supplied with power. Electricity problems in neighboring power pools may deplete available electricity reserves, leading to supply problems if conditions in New England deteriorate.

19 2010 State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Massachusetts Emergency Agency, p. 95.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 86

Disruptions in the supply of natural gas or petroleum may impact generating capacity in the region. Disruptions to generation plants or key transmission lines due to natural disasters, mechanical failure, or deliberate action may reduce the supply of electricity. Most electricity in Massachusetts is produced by gas- or oil-fired power plants, with coal-fired plants accounting for about 25% of net electricity production. National Grid is the delivery company for the region.

6. Food Contamination / Foodborne Illnesses

Foodborne illnesses are caused by more than two hundred different pathogens, including viruses, bacteria, parasites, toxins, chemical contaminants, and metals. Symptoms of foodborne illness range from mild stomach upset to life-threatening neurological conditions, liver and kidney syndromes, or even death. All communities are vulnerable to foodborne illness. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), there are approximately 76 million cases per year of illness from foodborne agents, including about 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths.20 Most cases of foodborne illness are natural or accidental in nature, but deliberate contamination of food for financial gain or as an act of terrorism is possible.

In addition to illnesses and deaths, food contamination can cause significant economic impact to the food industry through the effects of recalls and decreased consumer confidence. Changes in demographics and consumption patterns have increased susceptibility to food-borne pathogens and contamination. Approximately 25% of the population is in a high-risk category from foodborne illness (e.g. young, elderly, pregnant, immune compromised). Furthermore, people are increasingly consuming ready-to-eat and prepared foods, and these “convenience foods” are at higher risk of cross-contamination from other foods and/or from food workers. Consumers are also eating a greater variety of foods year-round, particularly those consumed raw or with minimal processing, which are often associated with foodborne illness. In addition, a greater proportion of foods are imported now than in the past, some of which come from countries with less well-developed food safety systems.

In September 2011, Colorado’s state health department reported to CDC an outbreak of listeriosis. From August to October, the outbreak reached 28 states, and 146 cases of invasive listeriosis were confirmed and reported to public health officials. Ultimately, thirty patients died. The outbreak made national headlines as the deadliest outbreak of foodborne illness since 1924.

7. Water Contamination / Waterborne Illnesses

Water supplies in the region may be contaminated by pathogens, such as E. coli or Giardia, or by chemicals from stormwater runoff or point sources such as industrial sources or storm sewers. Infants, young children, the elderly, pregnant women, and the immune compromised are particularly vulnerable to water contamination and waterborne illness. There is also an economic impact if public water supplies are unusable for extended periods, as businesses which rely on these supplies must remain closed and bottled water is substantially more expensive per gallon than tap water.

When water supply contamination is suspected, boil water orders are issued by MassDEP to local public water suppliers, who in turn issue advisories to their consumers advising them

20 Ibid.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 87

that they should boil their tap water for drinking and other human-consumption uses like cooking, hand washing, brushing teeth, etc. Boil water orders are preventative measures issued to protect public health from waterborne infectious agents that could be or are known to be present in drinking water. When a boil order is issued by MassDEP to the local public water supplier (PWS), the PWS must take appropriate corrective action, notify/advise its customers, continue to monitor its water supply, and notify customers when it has remedied the problem and the boil water order is lifted.

8. Chemical/Hazardous Materials

Chemical agents are poisonous vapors, aerosols, liquids, and solids that have a toxic effect on people, animals, or plants. Such agents can be released by accident, by bombs or sprayed from aircraft, boats, and vehicles. They can have an immediate effect (a few seconds to a few minutes) or a delayed effect (2 to 48 hours). While potentially lethal, chemical agents are difficult to deliver in lethal concentrations. Outdoors, the agents often dissipate rapidly. Chemical agents also are difficult to produce. A chemical attack could come without warning. Symptoms of a chemical release include difficulty breathing, eye irritation, a loss of coordination, nausea, or burning sensation in the nose, throat, and lungs. The presence of many dead insects or birds may also indicate a chemical agent release.

Chemicals are found throughout our communities. They are used to purify drinking water, increase crop production, and simplify household chores. But chemicals can be hazardous to humans or the environment if used or released improperly. Hazards can occur during production, storage, transportation, use, or disposal processes. Hazardous materials come in the form of explosives, flammable and combustible substances, poisons, and radioactive materials. These substances are most often released as a result of transportation accidents or because of chemical accidents at industrial plants. A hazardous material spill or release can pose a risk to life, health or property. An incident can result in the evacuation of a few people, a section of a facility or an entire neighborhood.

There are a number of Federal laws that regulate hazardous materials, including: the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA), the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Clean Air Act. Title III of SARA regulates the packaging, labeling, handling, storage and transportation of hazardous materials. The law requires facilities to furnish information about the quantities and health effects of materials used at the facility, and to promptly notify local and State officials whenever a significant release of hazardous materials occurs.

Communities with a large industrial base may be more likely to experience a hazardous materials release due to the number of facilities that use such materials in their manufacturing processes. Communities with major highways or rail corridors may also be at a greater risk due to the number of trucks or trains transporting hazardous materials.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 88

9. Terrorism

Terrorism is the use of force or violence against persons or property in violation of the criminal laws of the United States for purposes of intimidation, coercion or ransom. Terrorists bypass established institutions (such as courts), using violence against citizens to force changes in society or to force governments to change policies in support of their cause. Terrorists might use weapons of mass destruction, such as toxic or poisonous chemicals, disease causing organisms, dangerous radiation, explosive, incendiary or poison gas bombs, grenades, rockets or missiles, mines or similar devices. Terrorists may also use traditional weapons such as automatic guns or grenades in armed attacks on targets. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 had a profound impact on the nation, the state and the region. A series of four suicide attacks were carried out by nineteen terrorists from the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda. The attacks involved the hijacking of four passenger jets. Two of the planes were flown into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, a third plane hit the Pentagon just outside Washington, D.C., and the fourth plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. The two passenger jets that struck the World Trade Center, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, originated from Logan Airport in Boston. Following this attack, a presidential disaster declaration was made that provided $1.5 million in FEMA Individual Household Program funds for Massachusetts residents who requested crisis counseling. Depending on the severity and type of a terrorist attack, many things can impact a community or the region overall:

 There could be casualties;

 Significant damage to buildings and the community’s infrastructure;

 Health and mental health resources in the affected communities could be strained to the limit or overwhelmed;

 There could be heavy involvement of law enforcement at local, state and federal levels, due to the event's criminal nature;

 Evacuation may be necessary;

 Workplaces and schools may be closed;

 There may be restrictions on domestic and international travel;

 Cleanup could take months; and

 Public fear could continue for a prolonged period.

High-risk targets for acts of terrorism include military and civilian government facilities, and high-profile landmarks. Terrorists might also target large public gatherings, water and food supplies, utilities, public transportation facilities and corporate centers.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 89

Since 1995, MEMA has conducted multiple anti-terrorism programs, training thousands of local, state, and federal public safety officials, hospital emergency room personnel, and emergency management personnel, through classes in Anti-Terrorism, Incident Command, and Hazmat Awareness, including chemical-biological threats. To ensure adequate preparedness, MEMA has conducted hundreds of exercises in conjunction with local communities and other state and federal agencies.

The MEMA Planning Department works closely with communities to ensure that the all hazards Comprehensive Emergency Management Plans (CEMP) are current. These local plans include a Terrorism Annex, which helps local officials focus on specific potential terrorist threats to their particular community. The Massachusetts Statewide Anti-Terrorism Unified Response Network (SATURN) is an information sharing and first responder network created to enhance the existing public security delivery system. SATURN brings together fire, emergency management, and police personnel from each municipality, and provides a process for receiving and exchanging information during a terrorist threat.

The Commonwealth maintains a fusion center which is defined by the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative as: “a collaborative effort of two or more agencies that provide resources, expertise, and/or information to the center with the goal of maximizing the ability to detect, prevent, apprehend and respond to criminal and terrorist activity.” The Commonwealth Fusion Center (CFC) operates around the clock and provides terrorist-related intelligence and public safety and security information to state, local and federal public safety interests. The CFC also serves as a clearinghouse for information and information requests between the state’s public and private safety and security entities, as well as DHS.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 90

SECTION 5: COMMUNITY PROFILES, CRITICAL FACILITIES, AND RISK AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS

A. Natural Hazard Risks for the Northern Middlesex Communities

The natural hazard risks in each community are detailed in the following report sections. Each section provides information regarding flood prone areas, repetitive loss structures, structurally deficient bridges over waterways, and the hazard potential of local dams. A database containing information relative to critical facilities has also been developed for each municipality in the region. These facilities are vital to the delivery of key government services, and may significantly impact the public during a time of emergency or while recovering from an emergency. The primary sources of information relative to critical facilities were the Emergency Managers, and the Fire, Police and Public Works Departments within each municipality. During individual community meetings, the list of critical facilities was reviewed and updated to reflect the most current information. Several schools have been built and/or upgraded since completion of the 2006 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan. These upgraded facilities typically have emergency backup generators, and are therefore a good choice for emergency shelter locations.

The list of critical facilities inventoried for each community included the following: a) emergency operations center b) city or town offices c) water and wastewater treatment plants d) water pumping stations and tanks e) municipal wells f) sewage pumping stations g) police and fire stations h) schools and colleges i) hospitals j) daycare facilities with greater than 5 children k) electric power substations l) public works garages m) nursing homes/elderly housing/senior centers n) correctional facilities o) emergency shelters p) dams q) power plants r) access roads to all listed facilities s) evacuation routes t) bridges u) communication facilities v) nuclear sites w) gas pipelines/storage sites x) flood gates y) transportation hubs z) problem areas based on local knowledge

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 91

The critical facilities information is contained within a digital database which has been graphically displayed on maps for each community. The maps can be found in Appendix D of this document. A CD containing the electronic database files is included in Appendix E. In addition to providing information relative to critical facilities, each community was asked to identify areas that are of local concern or are known problems areas, although they may not currently be identified on state, regional, or even town-wide inventories.

Finally, a risk assessment was performed for each community, taking into consideration the historic occurrence of natural hazard events, and utilizing data available through the municipalities, MEMA and other sources. The risks identified by each individual community were averaged to quantify the overall risk to the region. Ratings were applied to each hazard based on frequency, severity, extent of impact, and probability as follows:

 Low – 1 point  Medium – 2 points  High – 3 points

The criteria for each category were weighted as follows:

 Frequency (weight factor = 2) is based on the record of previous occurrences. -Low: 0-1 event has occurred over the past 100 years -Medium: 2-3 events have occurred over the past 100 years -High: 4 or more events have occurred over the past 100 years

 Severity (weight factor = 5) is based on the percentage of population and property likely to be affected by the hazard under an average occurrence of the event. -Low: less than 1% affected -Medium: 1-10% affected -High: greater than 10% affected

 Extent of Impact (weight factor = 7) is the highest percentage if population and property that could be impacted under the worst case scenario. -Low: less than 5% affected -Medium: 5-25% affected -High: greater than 25% affected

 Probability (weight factor = 7) is the likelihood of future occurrence within a specified time period. -Low: one incident likely within 75 to 100 years -Medium: one incident likely within 26 to 74 years -High: one incident likely within the next 25 years.

Based on this methodology, scores may range from 24 to 75. With the exception of flooding, urban fire and dam failure, all of the region’s communities are equally at risk for the remaining hazards.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 92

B. Natural Hazard Risk Assessment for the Town of Billerica

Community Profile

The Town of Billerica covers a land area of 26.38 square miles, and has a resident population of 40,243 persons, according to the 2010 U.S. Census. The town’s population density was 1,525.51 persons per square mile in 2010. Billerica’s population increased 3.24% between 2000 and 2010, compared to a population increase of 2.02% for the Greater Lowell region overall. In 2010, the median age in Billerica was 40.1 years, with 25.3% of the resident population under the age of 20, 62.5% between the ages of 20 and 64, and 12.2% of the population was 65 years of age or older. Approximately, 2.46% of the population lives below the poverty line, according the 2010 American Community Survey.

There are 5,720 students enrolled in the Billerica public school system, which includes six elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school, and there is one new school under construction. Billerica is also home to Shawsheen Valley Regional Technical School, which has an enrollment of 1,268 students.

One hundred percent of the town is served by the municipal drinking water supply which is drawn from the Concord River, and passes through the town’s water treatment plant. The water system pumps approximately 4.7 million gallons per day (MGD). The Billerica Wastewater Treatment Facility treats wastewater from all homes, businesses, and industries connected to the sewer system in Billerica. The facility is located in the north end of town near the Concord River. It is a Grade 7 plant with a capacity of 5.4 million gallons per day (MGD) and an average flow of 4.0 MGD.21 The plant operates 24-hours-a-day, every day of the year and currently serves 75% of the town's population.

In 2010, there were 14,481 housing units in the town, with the average housing unit sheltering 2.78 persons. There is an average of 548.94 housing units per square mile.22 Forty percent (40%) of the town’s land is used for residential housing, eight percent of the land is in commercial and industrial use, three percent (3%) is used for agriculture, forty-three (43%) percent is in open space, recreation, or water use, and four percent (4%) is used for transportation, mining, or waste disposal. The Town of Billerica has twice the acreage zoned for industrial use as any community in the region.

There are 151 public safety personnel in Billerica, including 66 uniformed police officers, 73 fire fighters and 12 EMS personnel.23 In addition, the town has an emergency civil defense force comprised of volunteers who are under the direction of the Emergency Management Division. The Force acts as an auxiliary police force and receives emergency management, emergency response, and some police training.

Critical Facilities

21 http://www.billericadpw.org/divisions_wastewater.asp 22 2010 U.S. Census 23 NMCOG Feasibility Study for a Regional Emergency Communications Center, Final Report, December 2011, Page 7.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 93

The most recent CEMP on file with the MEMA for the Town of Billerica is dated 2009. The list of critical care facilities has been extracted from that document and updated based on input received from the Town during the development of this Plan. This listing includes emergency operations centers, health care facilities and shelters. Map 8 in Appendix D shows the location of all critical facilities in the Town of Billerica. Table 34 below provides information concerning the Town’s Emergency Operations Center, health care facilities and shelters.

Table 34: Emergency Operations Center, Health Care Facilities and Shelters – Billerica

Facility Type Common Street Health Average Capacity Feeding Emergency Name Address Facility Daily Capability Generator Type Patient Available Capacity Emergency Police Station 6 Good St. No Yes Operations Center

Life Care 80 Boston Level 124 No Center of the Road Health Merrimack Facilities Valley New England 78 Boston Level No Pediatric Care Road Shelters Marshall Floyd Street 1,400 Yes Yes Middle School Ditson School Cook Street 1,000 Yes Yes Billerica 365 Boston 800 Yes Yes Memorial Road High School

Hazard Risk Assessment

Using the methodology outlined on page 91, an assessment of hazard risk was performed based on frequency, severity, extent of impact and the probability of a future event. The result of the analysis is outlined in Table 35 on the following page.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 94

Table 35: Billerica Hazard Risk Assessment Hazard Frequency- Severity- Extent of Probability- Total Score (Weight (Weight Impact – (weight factor=2) factor=5) (Weight factor=7) factor=10)

Flood 3x2=6 2x5=10 3x10=30 3x7=21 67

Wildfire 3x2=6 1x5=5 3x10=30 3x7=21 62

Urban Fire 2x2=4 1x5=5 2x10=20 2x7=14 43

Earthquake 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 2x7=14 65

Tornado 1x2=2 2x5=10 3x10=30 1x7=7 49

Dam Failure 1x2=2 1x5=5 2x10=20 1x7=7 34

Drought 2x2=4 3x5=15 3x10=30 1x7=7 56

Nor’easter/sever 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72 e storm

Hurricane 3x3=9 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 75

Snowstorm/ 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72 blizzard

Landslide 1x2=2 1x5=5 1x10=10 1x7=7 24

Ice Storm 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72

Ice Jam 1x2=2 1x5=5 1x10=10 1x7=7 24

Based on this analysis, Billerica is at a high risk for flooding, wildfire, earthquake, nor’easters, hurricanes, ice storms, snowstorms and blizzards. The town is at a moderate risk for urban fire and drought, and at low risk for ice jams, dam failure, and tornadoes.

Flood Prone Areas

The Concord and Shawsheen Rivers run in a south to north direction through Billerica. The Concord River flows 9.6 miles roughly through the geographic center of the town, while the Shawsheen River flows through the southeastern end of town. Historically, the western bank of the Concord River, between Route 4 and Route 3A, has been subject to flooding that affects residential development, especially in the area along Elsie Avenue. Due to the fact that the

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 95

Concord River generally has a broad, flat floodplain, it is relatively slow to respond to flood events. The Concord generally crests at flood stage (8 feet) up to three days after the related rain event has ceased. This allows some time to react; however, the River also tends to stay at flood stage for a long period of time. In the flood of 1955, the river remained at a flood elevation of 11.7 feet for eight days. In the flood of 1936, it stayed at flood elevations for fourteen days. In 1979, flood elevation reached 11.8 feet in the vicinity of the town’s water treatment plant. The River has reached or exceeded the 10-year flood elevation of 11.4 feet almost every year since 1957.

The Shawsheen River passes through the southern portion of town. The banks of the river are bordered by wetlands which, for the most part, have prevented development in the floodplain. Unlike the Concord River, the Shawsheen River is quick to react to rain events. Floodwater velocities in the main channel exceed hazardous levels. The Army Corps of Engineers estimated that during the October 1962 storm, maximum velocities of the Shawsheen River approached four feet per second in the channel. These high velocities are hazardous to structures close to the river channel. More importantly, they have a greater capacity to break loose and carry ice and debris, which can clog bridge openings and result in higher flood crests upstream. In January 1979, and again in March 2010, flood levels exceeded the 100-year flood elevation. The latter storm resulted in numerous repetitive loss claims as indicated on page 82. At the peak of the 2006 flood, the river reached 8.94 feet. Flood stage on the Shawsheen River is seven feet.

During the 2010 flood, the town’s wastewater plant was overwhelmed causing overflows at some manholes. The Pinehurst section of town, near the intersection of Boston Road and Shawsheen Street, was hardest hit after the Shawsheen River overflowed. Several roads were closed, including Boston Road, Cook Street and Pinedale Avenue, and the Whipple Road Bridge was damaged.

Multiple tributaries flow into the Concord and Shawsheen Rivers. Major streams flowing into the Shawsheen include Jones Brook, Content Brook, Webb Brook, and McKee Brook. Mill Brook is the major tributary running into the Concord River. In addition, Lubber Brook, located in the eastern corner of Billerica, flows into the Ipswich River in Wilmington.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 96

A duck swims across Elsie Avenue in Billerica during the March 2010 flood (photo by Yoon Byun)

Billerica’s floodplain zoning prohibits buildings within the floodplain district, unless a special permit is granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals, as reviewed by the Board of Health and the Building Inspector. Approval is required for new fill or paving within the 100-year flood plain. The boundaries of the Flood Plain Districts are defined by adjusted borders of the 1973 Green Engineering Floodplain Index Map, and include any land shown in the 2010 Flood Insurance Rate Map. Beginning in 1990, a Board of Health regulation prohibited new construction within 100 feet of the 100-year floodplain without a variance. A permit from the Conservation Commission is also required for any activity in this area.

Repetitive Flood Loss Structures

Billerica has more repetitive loss structures than any other community in the region. It ranks eleventh in the state in terms of National Flood Insurance Program repetitive flood loss properties. Fifty (50) structures have experienced repetitive losses due to flooding (please see Table 14 on page 30). Figure 4 on the following page shows the number of flood losses experienced along both the Concord River and the Shawsheen River.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 97

Flooding along Elsie Avenue in Billerica

REPETITIVE LOSS STRUCTURES ALONG THE CONCORD AND SHAWSHEEN RIVERS

0 Concord Shawsheen

Figure 3

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has paid out $1,799,982 in repetitive flood loss claims in the Town of Billerica as of May 2013. Of the fifty properties that have suffered repetitive losses, seventeen (17) are in the Concord River watershed and thirty-three (33) are in the Shawsheen River watershed. Two of these are severe repetitive flood loss properties. The most vulnerable areas of the town are along the Shawsheen and Concord Rivers within the floodplain (please refer to Appendix D).

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 98

Structurally Deficient Bridges Over Waterways

Since completion of the 2006 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan, MassDOT has rehabilitated or replaced all structurally deficient bridges on the federal aid system within Billerica. While the Brown Street/Whipple Road Bridge is under local control, improvements were undertaken through a cooperative agreement with the towns of Billerica, Tewksbury and Wilmington, with funding assistance from MassDOT.

Hazard Potential of Dams

Talbot Dam, North Billerica There are three dams in Billerica listed with the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation’s (DCR) Office of Dam Safety. Detailed information concerning the characteristics and hazard classification of each dam is provided in Table 36 below. The dam on Winning Pond has not been inspected since 1992, according to the data provided by DCR.

Table 36: Hazard Classification of Billerica Dams Dam Name Impoundment Name Hazard Class Last Inspection Date Next Inspection Due

Millbrook Mill Brook Low 4/30/2009 4/30/2019

Faulkner Concord River Significant 5/22/2009 5/22/2014 Mills/Talbot Dam

Winning Pond Winning Pond Low 1/18/1982 1/18/1992* Source: Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, Office of Dam Safety * Dam inspection overdue.

Winter Storms (ice storms, snowstorms, nor’easters)

As stated in this Plan previously, severe winter storms can produce a wide variety of

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 99

hazardous weather conditions, including heavy snow, freezing rain, sleet, and extreme wind and cold. A severe winter storm is one that results in four or more inches of snow over a twelve-hour period, or six or more inches over a twenty-four hour period. The leading cause of death during winter storms is from an automobile or other transportation accident. Exhaustion or heart attacks caused by overexertion are the second most likely cause of winter storm-related deaths. Billerica, like the rest of the region, is at risk for winter storms.

Since 1983, the most significant winter snowfall in the region occurred during the winter of 1995, when snowfall measurements in the City of Lowell reached 126.5 inches. Snowfall totals in Billerica were similar, however the Town does not maintain its own records. During the Halloween Snowstorm of 2011 (10/29-11/03), the Billerica Police Department communication center answered 365 9-1-1 calls and another 5,503 business line calls. Since many hardwood trees were still retaining their leaves, the wet snow added a tremendous amount of weight to the branches. For many trees in town, it was too much to bear and many split and fell and brought wires and utility poles down with them. The end result was a widespread power outage affecting over 80% of Billerica’s National Grid customers. This power outage was so widespread that National Grid needed to mobilize hundreds of line crews from out of state to restore power. In many cases, this restoration process took several days.

Recovery from a winter storm poses a number of challenges. Prolonged curtailment of all forms of transportation can have significant adverse impacts for people stranded at home, preventing the delivery of critical services such home heating fuel supplies or the ability to get to a local food store. Extended power outages, the cost of snow removal, repairing damages, and the loss of business can have severe economic impacts on local communities. The elderly and infirmed are populations of particular concern during these events. The map in Appendix D shows the nursing facilities and senior housing locations within the town.

Hurricanes

Hurricanes can occur along the East Coast of the United States anytime in the period between June and November. Hurricane force winds can destroy buildings and mobile homes. Debris, such as signs, roofing materials, siding and lawn furniture, can become missiles. Hurricanes can also spawn tornadoes that generally occur in thunderstorms embedded in rain bands well away from the center of the hurricane. Tornadoes can also occur near the eye wall. Heavy rain associated with the storm may cause flooding. Flooding events in Billerica tend to be most severe along the Concord and Shawsheen Rivers.

The most recent hurricane to affect the region and the town was Hurricane Irene in August 2011, which became a tropical storm as it passed over the region. Irene caused localized flooding and knocked out power for thousands of local residents. Although heavy rains associated with hurricanes present the highest recurrent risk, high winds are also a risk. Downed trees and tree limbs, blocked roads, and downed telephone and power lines can disrupt transportation routes and communication channels. It is impossible to predict where these things might occur during a hurricane event, therefore the entire town is considered to be equally vulnerable. The areas vulnerable to flooding have been discussed above. Table 19 on page 41 contains a list of hurricanes that have hit New England over the past decades. The entire Northern Middlesex region is equally impacted by these events.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 100

Wildfire

A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire that spreads due to the presence of vegetative fuel. These fires often begin unnoticed and spread quickly. In this area of the country, wildfire season generally begins in March and ends in late November. Human beings start four out of every five wildfires through arson or carelessness; lightning strikes account for the remainder. Over a three-year period, over five hundred brush fires were reported in the Town of Billerica. The area surrounding the Manning State Forest is vulnerable, as it is one of the most heavily forested areas of the town. This facility is managed by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), and is located in the north section of town. Other areas prone to such fires include the Pan Am/MBTA railroad rights-of-way and the area along the Route 3 corridor.

On June 2, 2013, Billerica firefighters battled both fire and heat exhaustion after a brush fire near Iron Horse Park spread to a nearby building, the Lowell Sun reported. The fire broke out around 5 p.m. near the park, with high winds spreading the blaze. With temperatures in the 90s, keeping the firefighters in their heavy suits from overextending themselves in the heat was quickly a concern. Billerica Deputy Fire Chief Tom Ferraro stated that the collapsed building was an old storage building for the railroad, owned by Pan Am Railways.

Earthquake

In New England the immediate cause of most earthquakes is the sudden release of stress along a fault or fracture in the earth’s crust. Much of the research on earthquakes in the northeast has involved attempts to identify pre-existing faults and other geological features that may be susceptible to such stress, but this has proven to be quite difficult. It is unclear whether faults mapped at the earth’s surface in the northeast are the same faults along which earthquakes are occurring. It is impossible to predict the time and location of future earthquakes in New England. There is a 1 in 10 chance that in any given fifty-year period a potentially damaging earthquake will occur.

From 1924 to 1989 there were eight earthquakes with a magnitude of 4.2 or greater in New England. According to the Weston Observatory, the last earthquake to hit the New England Region with a magnitude of 3.0 or greater occurred on September 26, 2010, in the area of Contoocook, New Hampshire. New England experiences 30-40 earthquakes each year, although most are not felt.

The area’s vulnerability to a devastating earthquake is based primarily on the following elements: the density of the population in the region, and the age of the region’s buildings and lack of earthquake proof design. In the Town of Billerica, concentrations of older buildings can be found in the North Billerica Historic District and in the area around the Town Center, although older buildings can also be found throughout other areas of town.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 101

C. Natural Hazard Risk Assessment for the Town of Chelmsford

Community Profile

The Town of Chelmsford covers a land area of 23.28 square miles and has a population of 33,802 persons, according to the 2010 U.S. Census. Just over sixteen percent (16%) of the town’s population is 65 years of age or older. Approximately four percent (4%) of the town’s residents live below the poverty level, according to the 2005-2009 American Community Survey.

There are approximately 5,211 students enrolled in the public school system, which includes five elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school. Ninety-five percent of the town is served by a public drinking water supply. Drinking water comes from groundwater wells and is distributed by three independent water districts – the Chelmsford Water District, the North Chelmsford Water District, and the East Chelmsford Water District. Approximately, 95% of the Town is served by one of the three water districts. Nearly 100% of the Town is served by sewer, which is treated at the Greater Lowell Wastewater Treatment Facility.

There are 13,807 housing units in town, with the average housing unit sheltering 2.45 people. Forty-seven percent of the town’s land is used for residential housing, six percent is in commercial and industrial use, four percent is used for agriculture, 39 percent is in open space, recreation, or water use, and five percent is used for transportation, mining, or waste disposal. Since 1999, there has been almost no change in land use within Chelmsford, which can be attributed to the slowing economy and the nearly built-out nature of the community.

There are 111 public safety personnel in Chelmsford, including 49 uniformed police officers and 62 fire fighters.24

Critical Care Facilities

The list of critical care facilities includes emergency operation centers, health care facilities and shelters. It has been extracted from the Town’s CEMP, and was updated based on input received from the Town during the development of this Plan. This information is shown in Table 37 on the following page. Map 9, contained in Appendix D, shows the location of all critical facilities in the community.

24 NMCOG Feasibility Study for a Regional Emergency Communications Center, Final Report, December 2011, Page 10.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 102

Table 37: Emergency Operations, Health Care Facilities and Shelters – Chelmsford

Facility Type Common Name Street Health Average Capacit Feeding Emergency Address Facility Daily y Capability Generator Type Patient Capacity Available Emergency Police North Road No Yes Operations Headquarters Center (Primary) Town Offices 50 Billerica No Yes (Secondary) Road (7-days fuel)

Harvard Pilgrim 228 Billerica General 50 No No Health Plan Road Health Lowell General 10 Research Facilities Hospital Surgical Place Center Chelmsford Walk- Parkhurst General 25 No No in Road Palm Manor Parkhurst Level III 85 No No Nursing Road Sunny Acres 254 Billerica Levels I- 75 No No Nursing Road IV McCarthy Middle 250 North 400 Yes Yes School Road Chelmsford High 200 800 Yes Yes Shelters School Richardson Road Parker Jr. High 75 200 Yes Yes School Graniteville Road Byam School 25 Maple 200 Yes Yes Road South Row School 250 Boston 150 Yes Yes Road Town Hall One North 150 Yes No Road Town Offices 50 Billerica 200 No Yes Road Senior Citizen 75 Groton 500 Yes Yes Center Road St. John's Church Middlesex 250 Yes No Street St. Mary's Church North Road 250 Yes No North Chelmsford Princeton 150 Yes No Congregational Street Church Central Worthen 200 Yes No Congregational Street Church

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 103

Areas with Limited Access or of Local Concern

One area of concern was identified during the project meetings with Chelmsford town staff and officials. Emergency access to the Williamsburg Condominium complex, located off Route 3A in the northern area town, is limited by two at-grade railroad crossings which carry an active freight line. The complex has an estimated population of 2,500 residents, and much of the area lies within the floodplain of the Merrimack River. Freight trains that use the rail line on a regular basis are often 100 or more cars in length. During normal train travel, emergency vehicle access to the Williamsburg area can be blocked for critical periods of time. Complete stoppage of a train along the line for extensive periods of time is possible during extreme weather events, or as a result of damage to the rail line. There is a secondary gravel access road to this area but the roadway has fallen into disrepair. In addition, the bank of the Merrimack River in this area is eroding. Bank stabilization is needed to protect nearby homes that are located in the floodplain.

Hazard Risk Assessment

Using the methodology outlined on page 91 an assessment of hazard risk was performed based on frequency, severity, extent of impact and the probability of a future event. The result of the analysis is outlined in Table 38 on the following page.

Table 38: Chelmsford Hazard Risk Assessment Hazard Frequency- Severity- Extent of Probability- Total Score (Weight (Weight Impact – (weight factor=2) factor=5) (Weight factor=7) factor=10)

Flood 3x2=6 2x5=10 3x10=30 3x7=21 67

Wildfire 3x2=6 1x5=5 3x10=30 3x7=21 62

Urban Fire 2x2=4 1x5=5 2x10=20 2x7=14 43

Earthquake 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 2x7=14 65

Tornado 1x2=2 2x5=10 3x10=30 1x7=7 49

Dam Failure 1x2=2 1x5=5 1x10=10 1x7=7 24

Drought 2x2=4 3x5=15 3x10=30 1x7=7 56

Nor’easter/sever 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72 e storm

Hurricane 3x3=9 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 75

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 104

Snowstorm/ 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72 blizzard

Landslide 1x2=2 1x5=5 1x10=10 1x7=7 24

Ice Storm 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72

Ice Jam 1x2=2 1x5=5 1x10=10 1x7=7 24

Based on this analysis, Chelmsford is at a high risk for flooding, wildfire, earthquake, nor’easters, hurricanes, ice storms, snowstorms and blizzards. The town is at a moderate risk for urban fire and drought and at low risk for ice jams, dam failure, and tornadoes.

Flood Prone Areas

Chelmsford has an extensive hydrological system that includes groundwater, wetlands and surface water. Surface water accounts for 2.3% (328 acres) of the town’s area. The town also contains 1,379 acres of wetlands and floodplain, accounting for nearly 9.3% of the town’s total land area.25 The Town is located within the Merrimack River basin, and falls within two sub-watersheds: the Merrimack and the Sudbury, Assabet and Concord (SuAsCo). The Merrimack River forms a portion of Chelmsford’s northern border, and the Concord River runs 2/3 of a mile along its eastern border. Eleven named streams run through Town including Beaver Brook, Stony Brook, Crooked Spring Brook, Scotty Hollow Brook, Farley Brook, Putnam Brook, Black Brook, Hales Brook, Cold Spring Brook and River Meadow Brook.

Stony Brook is a tributary of the Merrimack River located in the north end of town. It has a 100-year flood plain that extends back from its confluence with the Merrimack River and under Route 3. River Meadow Brook runs south to north, draining much of the eastern third of the town, and has several tributaries that flow into it from the west. There is flood plain throughout large portions of River Meadow Brook’s watershed, much of it extending upstream from where it crosses under Interstate 495.

Flood zones are located adjacent to the rivers, streams, and wetlands within Town, many of which were flooded during the Mother’s Day in 2006 and Patriot’s Day Storms of 2007. In addition, there were other areas of localized flooding caused by heavy rains in the spring of 2010. The Town has reported recurrent flooding problems along Tyngsborough Road (Route 3A) in North Chelmsford when the Merrimack River is at flood stage. In 2006, Dunshire Avenue also flooded. During past years, this flooding has been severe enough to require closure of the roadway along with Butterfield and Sleeper Streets for days at a time. These are the most vulnerable areas of Chelmsford, in terms of flooding. The Town also has concerns that access to the sewer pump station located on Wotton Street could become blocked during a severe flooding event.

25 Chelmsford Master Plan, Vision Quest 2020, Town of Chelmsford and Northern Middlesex Council of Governments, October 2010, p.259.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 105

During the May 2006 flood, which followed a week of precipitation that dumped over a foot of rain on the Merrimack Valley, a half mile of Tyngsborough Road in Chelmsford was closed. At 81 Tyngsborough Road, the Mobil gas station was forced to close after flood waters caused the station’s tanks to leak gasoline. Workers were forced to cap the tanks to prevent further environmental damage. East of Tyngsborough Road residents of Sleeper and Butterfield Streets were evacuated by boat. Gas service to several homes on Dunshire Drive was also shut off. The gauging station on the Merrimack River recorded 59.7 feet, approximately 10 feet over flood stage. In 2010, Route 110 was closed from Chelmsford Center to Hunt Road due to flooding of an adjacent brook that washed out 15 feet of roadway.

Stony Brook has a 100-year floodplain that extends back from its confluence with the Merrimack River and under Route 3. There is also significant floodplain throughout a large portion of the River Meadow Brook watershed, much of it extending upstream from where it crosses I-495. In 2002, the River Meadow Brook floodplain elevation was increased from 106 feet to 108 feet through the FEMA amendment process.

According to the town’s 2010 Open Space and Recreation Plan Update, several other areas have reportedly been observed to flood regularly during storm events or after an extended period of heavy rain:

 Littleton Road, west of Chelmsford Center;  Turnpike Road at River Meadow Brook;  Portions of Southwell Park near the Merrimack River;  High Street at Beaver Brook;  Warren Avenue at River Meadow Brook;  Crooked Spring Road and Meadowbrook Road; and  Meadowbrook Road at Stony Brook.

Initially adopted in 1997, Chelmsford’s Floodplain Overlay District is similar to that of other communities across the Commonwealth. It includes all areas within the 100-year floodplain and floodways, as shown in the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The 100-year flood zones are Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), with a 1% annual chance of flooding. All development in the district, including structural and non-structural activities, whether permitted by right or special permit, must be in compliance with M.G.L. c.131, §40. The Zoning Board of Appeals can grant a special permit for new construction in the floodplain, as long as the applicant demonstrates that a proposed project conforms to the State Building Code and provides an engineer’s certification that it will not increase the flood levels during the 100-year flood.

The Town enacted a local wetlands bylaw in 1996, and the bylaw was updated in 2009 to strengthen areas of jurisdiction and setbacks. The purpose of Chapter 187 is to “protect the wetlands, water resources, flood prone areas, and adjoining uplands...by controlling activities deemed by the Conservation Commission as likely to have a significant or cumulative effect on Resource Area values, including but not limited to the following: public or private water supply, groundwater supply, flood control, erosion and sedimentation control, storm damage prevention, water quality, prevention and control of water pollution, fisheries, fresh water shellfisheries, wildlife habitat, rare species habitat, agriculture, aquaculture, recreation and aesthetic values deemed important to the community”. The local wetlands bylaw includes a 50-foot no build zone, a 30-foot no impervious surface restriction, and a 25-foot no-disturbance zone.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 106

Repetitive Flood Loss Structures

There seven (7) repetitive flood loss properties in the Town of Chelmsford and two of these are severe repetitive flood loss properties, as shown on Table 14 on page 30. All of the repetitive flood loss properties in Chelmsford are single-family homes. As of May 2013, the National Flood Insurance Program paid out $344,702 for twenty-two (22) claims. The most vulnerable locations in town for flooding are along the Merrimack River.

Town Programs to Address Stormwater, Flooding and Drainage Issues

The town currently maintains drainage swales, retention and detention basins, culverts and ponds within its jurisdiction. The town has a dredging permit for this purpose and regularly sweeps street, empties catch basins, cleans inlet screens, and cleans blocked culverts as a flood prevention measure.

NFIP Compliance

Chelmsford participates in the NFIP and has an NFIP compliant floodplain bylaw (Chapter 195, Article XV). The Town participates in training opportunities provided by MEMA and FEMA, and work with neighboring communities during major storm events or other natural disasters.

Structurally Deficient Bridges Over Waterways

There are no structurally deficient bridges over waterways in Chelmsford.

Hazard Potential of Dams

There are seven dams located within the Town of Chelmsford. None are classified as high hazard dams but inspections are overdue for two of the dams: the Stony Brook Dam and the Russell Mill Pond Dam. Since completion of the last Plan, the Town has worked with DCR to reclassify the Swain Pond Dam, Crooked Spring Dam and Heart Pond Dam as “Non- jurisdictional”. The hazard classification for each dam is provided in Table 39 below.

Table 39: Hazard Classification of Chelmsford Dams

Dam Name Impoundment Hazard Class** Downstream Last Next Inspection Name Population Inspection Due Date

Stony Brook Stony Brook Significant 500 3/31/1998 3/31/2003* Dam***

Crooked Spring Crooked Spring Non- NA Dam Pond jurisdictional

Lowell Scotty Hollow Non- NA Sportsman's Brook jurisdictional Club Dam***

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 107

Table 39: Hazard Classification of Chelmsford Dams

Dam Name Impoundment Hazard Class** Downstream Last Next Inspection Name Population Inspection Due Date

Swain Pond Swains Pond Non- NA Dam jurisdictional

Heart Pond Dam Heart Pond Non- NA jurisdictional

Russell Mill Russell Mill Pond Significant 300 3/31/1998 3/31/2003* Pond Dam***

Freeman Lake Freeman Lake Significant 200 1/19/2012 1/19/2017 Dam Source: Massachusetts of Conservation and Recreation, Office of Dam Safety * Dam inspection overdue. **Non-jurisdictional dams are not regulated by Office of Dam Safety *** These dams are not owned or operated by the Town of Chelmsford

Winter Storms (ice storms, snowstorms, nor’easters)

As stated in this Plan previously, severe winter storms can produce a wide variety of hazardous weather conditions, including heavy snow, freezing rain, sleet, and extreme wind and cold. A severe winter storm is one that results in four or more inches of snow over a twelve-hour period, or six or more inches over a twenty four-hour period. The leading cause of death during winter storms is from an automobile or other transportation accident. Exhaustion or heart attacks caused by overexertion are the second most likely cause of winter storm-related deaths. Chelmsford, like the rest of the region, is at risk for winter storms.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 108

Hurricanes

Hurricanes can occur along the East Coast of the United States anytime in the period between June and November. Hurricane force winds can destroy buildings and mobile homes. Debris, such as signs, roofing materials, siding and lawn furniture can become missiles. Hurricanes can also spawn tornadoes that generally occur in thunderstorms embedded in rain bands well away from the center of the hurricane. Tornadoes can also occur near the eye wall. Heavy rain associated with the storm may cause flooding. Flooding events in Chelmsford tend to be most severe along the Merrimack River.

The most recent hurricane to affect the region and the town was Hurricane Irene in August 2011, which became a tropical storm as it passed over the region. Although heavy rains associated with hurricanes present the highest recurrent risk, high winds are also a risk. Downed trees and tree limbs, blocked roads, and downed telephone and power lines can disrupt transportation routes and communication channels. It is impossible to predict where these things might occur during a hurricane event, therefore the entire town is considered to be vulnerable. Given the likelihood of high winds, residents in the mobile home park on Route 110 are considered to be particularly vulnerable. The Town appropriates capital funds each year to have a certified arborist remove any hazardous tree limbs in order to protect property and prevent injuries.

Table 19 on page 41 contains a list of hurricanes that have hit New England over the past decades. The entire Northern Middlesex region is equally impacted by these events.

Wildfire

The Chelmsford Fire Department has identified the following open space and forested parcels as areas of potential risk:

Private Areas  Sportsman Club, Swain Road - 51.50 acres  Kent Farm, Elm Street - 31 acres  Visnewski Land, Concord Road -17.25 acres  Bridge Street Realty Trust - 13.72 acres  Hennessy Misty Meadow - 41.16 acres  Chelmsford Swim & Tennis, Robin Hill Rd - 17.30 acres  Russell Mill Swim & Tennis, Mill Road - 10.60 acres

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 109

Water District Properties inclusive of pump station sites  Center Water District - 255.41 acres  North Water District - 53.75 acres  East Water District - 32.93 acres

Conservation Commission properties  Crooked Spring Reservation - 37.44 acres  Lime Quarry - 64.37 acres  Wright Reservation - 57.17 acres  Bill Edge Deep Brook Reservation -15.67 acres  Red Wing Farm - 12.56 acres  Cranberry Bog (Chelmsford portion) - 180 acres  Thanksgiving Forest - 45.67 acres  Greenwood Wildlife Reserve - Concord Rd 13.20 acres  Russell Mill, 105 Mill Rd - 132 acres  Town of Chelmsford Landfill - 16.76 acres

There is no specific data available detailing the greatest number of acres burned during a wildfire. The collective memory of the current Fire Department Command Staff places the amount in the 2-3 acre range. The Department has experienced brush fires in the Sportsman Club and in the Cranberry Bog recently.

Earthquake

In New England, the immediate cause of most earthquakes is the sudden release of stress along a fault or fracture in the earth’s crust. Much of the research on earthquakes in the northeast has involved attempts to identify pre-existing faults and other geological features that may be susceptible to such stress, but this has proven to be quite difficult. It is unclear whether faults mapped at the earth’s surface in the northeast are the same faults along which earthquakes are occurring. It is impossible to predict the time and location of future earthquakes in New England. There is a 1 in 10 chance that in any given fifty-year period a potentially damaging earthquake will occur.

From 1924to1989 there were eight earthquakes with a magnitude of 4.2 or greater in New England. According to the Weston Observatory, the last earthquake to hit the New England Region with a magnitude of 3.0 or greater occurred on September 26, 2010, in the area of Contoocook, New Hampshire. New England experiences 30-40 earthquakes each year, although most are not felt.

The area’s vulnerability to a devastating earthquake is based primarily on the following elements: the density of the population in the region, and the age of the region’s buildings and lack of earthquake-proof design. In the Town of Chelmsford, concentrations of older buildings can be found in the North Chelmsford and Vinal Square neighborhoods and in the area around the Town Center. Older buildings can also be found throughout other areas of town, for example the Old Chelmsford Garrison House, located off Route 110, dates back to 1691.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 110

D. Natural Hazard Risk Assessment for the Town of Dracut

Community Profile

The Town of Dracut covers a land area of 21.36 square miles and has a population of 29,457 persons, according to the 2010 U.S. Census. Nearly sixteen percent (16) of the town’s population is 65 years old or older. Approximately 2.95% of the population lives below the federal poverty line, according to the 2005-2009 American Community Survey. There are 11,351 housing units in the town, with the average housing unit sheltering 2.69 people.

There are approximately 3,953 students enrolled in the Dracut public school system, which includes four elementary schools, one junior high school, and one high school. Ninety percent of the town is on public drinking water supply distributed by the Dracut Water Supply District or Kenwood Water District. The Dracut Water Supply District serves the neighborhoods of Dracut Center, the Navy Yard, and Collinsville. The District’s main well fields are located off Hildreth Street in Dracut and off Frost Road in Tyngsborough. The District also purchases water from the City of Lowell. The District supplies approximately 9,000 households, including about 1,000 residents in Tyngsborough. The Kenwood Water District distributes water to approximately 1,500 households in East Dracut. The Kenwood District has no water supply of its own but instead purchases water from the City of Lowell and the Town of Methuen.

The municipal sewer system services about 90% of the town. Existing sewered areas include most of Dracut Center, East Dracut, Collinsville, the Navy Yard, and the Peters Pond area. Discharge from the sewer system is either sent to the Greater Lowell Wastewater Utility or the Greater Lawrence Wastewater Facility. The sections of the community not served by public sewer utilize on-site septic systems.

Thirty-two percent of the town’s land use is for residential housing, two percent is in commercial and industrial use, fourteen percent is used for agriculture, 46 percent is classified as open space, recreation, or water, and five percent is used for transportation, mining, or waste disposal.

There are 76 public safety personnel in Dracut, including 39 uniformed police officers and 37 fire fighters.

Critical Facilities

The list of critical care facilities, shown in Table 40 on the following page, has been extracted from the Town’s CEMP and updated based on input received from the Town during the development of this Plan. Map 10, contained in Appendix D, shows the location of all critical facilities in the Town of Dracut.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 111

Table 40: Emergency Operations Centers, Health Care Facilities, and Shelters - Dracut

Facility Common Name Street Health Average Capacity Feeding Emergency Types Address Facility Daily Capability Generator Type Patient Available Capacity Emergency Central Fire 488 Pleasant No Yes Operations (Primary) Street Centers

Broadway Road Broadway No Yes (Route 113) Fire Road (Route Station 113)

(Secondary)

Fire Stations Central Fire 488 Pleasant No Yes Street

Station 2 15 Jones No Yes Avenue

Station 3 1990 No Yes Lakeview Avenue

Police Police Station 110 Loon No No Stations Hill Road

Dracut Junior 1580 125 Yes Yes

High School Lakeview

Avenue Shelters

Campbell 1021 125 Yes Yes School Methuen St

Dracut Middle 1560 150 Yes Yes School Lakeview Avenue

Areas with Limited Access or of Local Concern

The risk of wildfire in the Lowell/Dracut/Tyngsborough State Forest, located in the southwest corner of Town, is of concern to fire and emergency management officials. There are several regional truck transfer facilities in the east end of town along Broadway Road (Route 113). The terminals generate a high volume of truck traffic that may carry significant quantities of hazardous cargo, but the transient nature of the traffic makes it difficult to quantify the risk.

Hazard Risk Assessment

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 112

Table 41: Dracut Hazard Risk Assessment Hazard Frequency- Severity- Extent of Probability- Total Score (Weight (Weight Impact – (weight factor=2) factor=5) (Weight factor=7) factor=10)

Flood 2x2=4 2x5=10 3x10=30 2x7=14 58

Wildfire 3x2=6 1x5=5 3x10=30 3x7=21 62

Urban Fire 2x2=4 1x5=5 2x10=20 2x7=14 43

Earthquake 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 2x7=14 65

Tornado 1x2=2 2x5=10 3x10=30 1x7=7 49

Dam Failure 1x2=2 1x5=5 2x10=20 1x7=7 34

Drought 2x2=4 3x5=15 3x10=30 1x7=7 56

Nor’easter/sever 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72 e storm

Hurricane 3x3=9 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 75

Snowstorm/ 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72 blizzard

Landslide 1x2=2 1x5=5 1x10=10 1x7=7 24

Ice Storm 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72

Ice Jam 1x2=2 1x5=5 1x10=10 1x7=7 24

Based on this analysis, Dracut is at high risk for wildfire, earthquake, nor’easters, hurricanes, ice storms, snowstorms and blizzards. The town is at a moderate risk for flooding, urban fire, and drought and at low risk for ice jams, dam failure and tornadoes.

Flood Prone Areas

The Merrimack River forms much of Dracut’s southern border. The riverbank is

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 113

relatively steep in this area and the floodplain is quite narrow. Other perennial streams in Dracut include Beaver Brook, Trout Brook, Richardson Brook, Bartlett Brook, Peppermint Brook, and Double Brook, all of which flow into the Merrimack River. Areas prone to flooding and identified in FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the Town include:

 Peter’s Pond and Cedar Pond Shorelines  Bartlett Brook  Richardson Brook  Trout Brook  Double Brook  Shore of Lake Mascuppic, and  Beaver Brook

During the 2006 flood, the E. Butterworth Mill on Lakeview Avenue sustained significant flood damage and water flooded the Lakeview Avenue Bridge when Beaver Brook topped its banks. During local meetings, the Town identified a section of Peabody Avenue and Lakeview Avenue as areas of concern. Flooding on Tennis Plaza Road is also particular concern for public safety, given that 303 condominiums and 69 single-family homes are accessed via this roadway. Flooding on Kelly Road has been severe enough to warrant evacuations. According to local officials, other areas where flooding has historically been reported include the following:

 Tennis Plaza Road, Vinal and Cook Streets  Loon Hill Road  Peters and Cedar Pond shorelines  Lake Mascuppic shoreline  Cricket Lane  Bridge Street  Nottingham Road and Dean Avenue

The Town also expressed concern over the lack of coordination between New Hampshire and Massachusetts government officials relative to dam releases upstream on Beaver Brook. Such releases have caused flooding in Dracut in the past.

Since completion of the 2006 Plan, the town has replaced or upgraded several culverts and drainage structures to reduce flash flooding problems. The following locations have been addressed: Varnum Road near Florence Street; Lakeview Avenue near Florence Street; Methuen Street near Stuart Avenue; Pleasant Street, Lakeview Avenue, and Burdette Road at Peppermint Brook; Cheever Avenue near Robbins Road, Salem Road and Loon Hill Road.

The Town has a Flood Plain and Floodway Overlay District in place that regulates land use in flood prone areas designated as A, A1-30, AE, AH, and A99 on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). In the interest of maintaining the flood storage capacity of floodplains and avoiding property damage, all new construction or earthmoving is prohibited in this district, except certain agricultural and conservation uses, repairs to pre-existing structures, and new structures that have been shown by an engineer not to be subject to flooding. The Conservation Commission also has jurisdiction in all flood plains. In addition, the town, in conjunction with

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 114

the Northern Middlesex Council of Governments, has developed a draft Low Impact Development By-law that will be presented to Town Meeting in the future.

Repetitive Flood Loss Structures

As of May 2013, there were two repetitive loss structures in Dracut, one residential and one non-residential (see Table 14 on page 30). Four NFIP claims were paid out totaling $181,947.

The Town of Dracut has participated in the NFIP for many years. The Building Inspector is currently working on becoming a certified flood plain manager. The Town has taken steps to monitor and ensure compliance with the program through the permitting process. Information is available to the public at the Building Department regarding flood plain building regulations, flood insurance and code requirements. All foundations are inspected regardless of possible floodplain infringement, as part of the building permit process and checked for BFE compliance. The use of elevation certificates is required. Cause of submit to rate structure is addressed through the town bylaws. The FIRM is included in the Town’s GIS mapping tool and is available online to assist builders, officials, citizens and developers.

Structurally Deficient Bridges Over Waterways

According to MassDOT, there are currently no structurally deficient bridges in the Town of Dracut.

Hazard Potential of Dams

There are four dams located within the Town of Dracut, all of which are overdue for inspection. Three of the dams are classified as a significant hazard. The hazard classification of each dam is detailed in Table 42 on the following page.

Table 42: Hazard Classification of Dracut Dams

Dam Name Impoundment Hazard Class** Downstream Last Inspection Next Name Population Date Inspection Due

Old Tub & Dye NA Non-jurisdiction NA Printing Works Dam

Beaver Brook Dam / Beaver Brook Significant 500 4/30/1998 4/30/2003* Collinsville Dam

Peters Pond Dam Peters Pond Non-jurisdictional NA

Beaver Brook Dam ) Beaver Brook Significant 250 3/30/1998 3/30/2003* Source: Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, Office of Dam Safety Winter Storms (ice storms, snowstorms, nor’easters)

As stated in this Plan previously, severe winter storms can produce a wide variety of

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 115

hazardous weather conditions, including heavy snow, freezing rain, sleet, and extreme wind and cold. A severe winter storm is one that results in four or more inches of snow over a twelve-hour period, or six or more inches over a twenty four-hour period. The leading cause of death during winter storms is from an automobile or other transportation accidents. Exhaustion or heart attacks caused by overexertion are the second most likely cause of winter storm-related deaths. Dracut, like the rest of the region, is at risk for winter storms.

Hurricanes

Hurricanes can occur along the East Coast of the United States anytime in the period between June and November. Hurricane force winds can destroy buildings and mobile homes. Debris, such as signs, roofing materials, siding and lawn furniture can become missiles. Hurricanes can also spawn tornadoes that generally occur in thunderstorms embedded in rain bands well away from the center of the hurricane. Tornadoes can also occur near the eye wall. Heavy rain associated with the storm may cause flooding. Dracut is at moderate risk for flooding and, as previously mentioned, the areas most prone to flooding include:

 Peter’s Pond and Cedar Pond Shorelines  Bartlett Brook  Richardson Brook  Trout Brook  Double Brook  Shore of Lake Mascuppic, and  Beaver Brook

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 116

vulnerable. Table 19 on page 41 contains a list of hurricanes that have hit New England over the past ten decades. The entire Northern Middlesex region is equally impacted by these events.

Wildfire

A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire that spreads due to the presence of vegetative fuel. These fires often begin unnoticed and spread quickly. In this area of the country, wildfire season generally begins in March and ends in late November. Human beings start four out of every five wildfires through arson or carelessness; lightning strikes account for the remainder. Dracut averages about 80 brush fires per year. The area surrounding the Lowell-Dracut-Tyngsborough State Forest is vulnerable, as it is one of the most heavily forested areas of the town. This facility is managed by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). On July 5, 2012, Dracut firefighters responded to a brush fire in the State Forest which was brought under control and extinguished.

Earthquake

From 1924 to1989 there were eight earthquakes with a magnitude of 4.2 or greater in New England. According to the Weston Observatory, the last earthquake to hit the New England Region with a magnitude of 3.0 or greater occurred on September 26, 2010, in the area of Contoocook, New Hampshire. New England experiences 30-40 earthquakes each year, although most are not felt.

The area’s vulnerability to a devastating earthquake is based primarily on two elements: the density of the population in the region, and the age of the region’s buildings and lack of earthquake proof design. In the Town of Dracut concentrations of older buildings can be found in the Navy Yard area, the Town Center, and in East Dracut, although older buildings can also be found throughout other areas of town.

E. Natural Hazard Risk Assessment for the Town of Dunstable

Community Profile

The Town of Dunstable covers a land area of 16.7 square miles and has a population of 3,179 persons, according to the 2010 U.S. Census. Nearly ten percent (9.9%) of the town’s population is 65 years of age or older. Approximately 5.27% of the population lives below the

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 117

federal poverty level, according the 2005-2009 American Community Survey. There are 1,098 housing units in the town, with the average housing unit sheltering 2.89 persons.

There are 864 Dunstable students enrolled in the public school system. Dunstable is part of the Groton-Dunstable Regional School which includes two elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. With the exception of the Swallow Union Elementary School, the school buildings are all located in Groton.

Five percent of the town is served by a public drinking water supply, using water pumped from the Salmon Brook aquifer. The average public water supply consumer uses 25,000 gallons per day. The remainder of the Town extracts its water from private wells. There is no public sewer system in Dunstable. All wastewater treatment is done through onsite septic systems. Most 2-acre lots must provide their own water source and their own wastewater treatment onsite.

Dunstable has numerous ponds, rivers, brooks, wetlands, aquifers and other groundwater resources. All water which falls on Dunstable eventually drains into the Merrimack River to the east of town. The town's drainage pattern, however, can be divided into three smaller watershed areas: 1) the Nashua River watershed, 2) the Salmon Brook watershed, and 3) the Eastern Upland watershed.

Eleven percent (11%) of the town’s land is used for residential housing; less than one percent of the land is in commercial and industrial use; twelve percent is used for agriculture; 74 percent is in open space, recreation, or water use; and two percent is used for transportation, mining, or waste disposal. There are 43 public safety personnel in Dunstable, including seven full-time and seven reserve uniformed police officers, 29 volunteer fire fighters and a part-time paid chief.

Critical Facilities

The list of critical care facilities, shown in Table 43 on the following page, has been extracted from the Town’s CEMP and updated based on input received from the Town during the development of this Plan. Map 11, contained in Appendix D, shows the location of all critical facilities in the Town of Dunstable.

Table 43: Emergency Operations Centers, Health Care Facilities and Shelters- Dunstable

Facility Type Common Name Street Health Average Capacit Feeding Emergency Address Facility Daily Patient y Capability Generator Type Capacity Available Emergency Police Station 23 No No Operations (Primary) Pleasant Centers Street

Fire Station 28 (Secondary) Pleasant Street

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 118

Table 43: Emergency Operations Centers, Health Care Facilities and Shelters- Dunstable

Facility Type Common Name Street Health Average Capacit Feeding Emergency Address Facility Daily Patient y Capability Generator Type Capacity Available Fire Stations Fire Station 28 Pleasant Street Police Station Police Station 23 Pleasant Street

Shelters Swallow Union 518 Main 200 Yes No School St.

Dunstable 516 Main 50 Yes No Congregational St Church Town Hall 511 Main 25 No No Street

Areas with Limited Access or of Local Concern

Local officials have reported that the growing beaver population poses the greatest challenge for the community in terms of the worsening of existing flooding problems. The increased cost of hiring licensed trappers to deal with this problem is impacting the Town’s budget, and its ability to respond in a timely fashion.

Hazard Risk Assessment

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 119

Table 44: Dunstable Hazard Risk Assessment Hazard Frequency- Severity- Extent of Probability- Total Score (Weight (Weight Impact – (weight factor=2) factor=5) (Weight factor=7) factor=10)

Flood 1x2=2 1x5=5 2x10=20 2x7=14 41

Wildfire 3x2=6 1x5=5 3x10=30 3x7=21 62

Urban Fire 1x2=3 1x5=5 1x10=10 1x7=7 24

Earthquake 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 2x7=14 65

Tornado 1x2=2 2x5=10 3x10=30 1x7=7 49

Dam Failure 1x2=2 1x5=5 2x10=20 1x7=7 34

Drought 2x2=4 3x5=15 3x10=30 1x7=7 56

Nor’easter/sever 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72 e storm

Hurricane 3x3=9 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 75

Snowstorm/ 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72 blizzard

Landslide 1x2=2 1x5=5 1x10=10 1x7=7 24

Ice Storm 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72

Ice Jam 1x2=2 1x5=5 1x10=10 1x7=7 24

Based on this analysis, Dunstable is at high risk for wildfire, earthquake, nor’easters, hurricanes, ice storms, snowstorms and blizzards. The town is at a moderate risk for flooding, and drought and at low risk for ice jams, dam failure, landslides, urban fire and tornadoes.

Flood Prone Areas

The Nashua River forms the western boundary of the Town of Dunstable. Its embankments are relatively steep and no town roads cross or closely approach the River. Therefore, impacts on the Town are minimal when the River is at flood stage. The principal cause of flooding along the Nashua River is runoff from spring snowmelt. This melting is greatest during heavy spring rains, when the still frozen ground cannot absorb the runoff. The

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 120

worst such storm was recorded in 1936, but flooding occurs yearly with varying severity. Hurricanes are also a source of flooding conditions, especially when accompanied by wet autumns, when the soil is already saturated. Severe storms of this nature occurred in 1938, 1954, and 1958.

Unkety Brook, a tributary to the Nashua River, is prone to flooding caused primarily by backwater from the Nashua. The brook itself has an extensive floodplain, however, there is no development located in the floodplain considered to be at risk.

Salmon Brook runs south to north through the geographic center of the Town. Its main tributaries in Dunstable are Joint Grass Brook, Hauk Brook, and Black Brook. The Brook is bordered by adjoining marshes and during flood stage no man-made structures are considered to be at risk.

The upland till area of Dunstable is drained by three intermittent streams which flow into Locust and Flint Ponds in Tyngsborough. Because soils in this watershed are generally slowly permeable, wetlands small in area, and slopes generally steep, water runoff characteristics are relatively fast. As the area develops, the impacts of heavy rain will be felt more quickly in this area than in the other watersheds. Because of this, and because soils in this area tend to be hardpan types with limitations for septic systems and complicated by slopes, protection strategies emphasized in the town’s 2010 Open Space and Recreation Plan include:

 Development controls which limit construction to hazard-free areas;  Controls which regulate peak discharge of storm water; and  Preservation of wetlands as natural storage basins and pollutant modifiers.

During meetings with local officials flooding problems were identified at the following locations:

 River Street: Repeatedly flooding has occurred in this location, even after replacing a problematic culvert on several occasions. The low profile of the roadway, along with beaver activity, has caused washouts of the roadway a few times. The local highway department is considering elevating the roadway in an attempt to rectify the problem.  Main Street: Repeated flooding has occurred in the vicinity of Sweets Pond.  Lowell and Forest Street: Local officials are concerned about potential flood problems that may impact new homes being constructed in this area.

The Town’s 2010 Open Space and Recreation Plan prioritizes the protection of the Nashua River watershed within Dunstable through:

 The protection of the river embankment and adjoining flood prone areas;  Preservation and protection of those watershed characteristics which reduce flooding, especially of wetlands adjoining Unkety Brook and its tributaries; and  Adoption of development controls which will modify peak runoff and lessen the danger of pollution.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 121

Repetitive Flood Loss Structures

There are no repetitive flood loss structures in the Town of Dunstable.

Structurally Deficient Bridges Over Waterways

The Main Street Bridge over Salmon Brook is the only structurally deficient bridge in the community, with an AASHTO rating of 21.7, according to MassDOT. MassDOT is currently designing a bridge replacement for this location.

Hazard Potential of Dams

There are three dams located within the Town of Dunstable, one of which is overdue for inspection. The Massapoag Pond Dam is classified as a significant hazard, potentially impacting a downstream population of 200 persons. The hazard classification of each dam is detailed in Table 45 below.

Table 45: Hazard Classification of Dunstable Dams

Dam Name Impoundment Hazard Class Downstream Last Inspection Next Inspection Name Population Date Due

Woodward’s Black Brook Low NA 1/28/2010 1/28/2020 Mill/James Shaw Dam

Massapoag Pond Massapoag Pond Significant 200 6/26/2007 6/26/2012 Dam

Joint Grass Brook Joint Grass Brook Low NA 5/2/2001 5/2/2011* Dam Source: Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, Office of Dam Safety * Dam inspection overdue

Winter Storms (ice storms, snowstorms, nor’easters)

As stated in this Plan previously, severe winter storms can produce a wide variety of hazardous weather conditions, including heavy snow, freezing rain, sleet, and extreme wind and cold. A severe winter storm is one that results in four or more inches of snow over a twelve-hour period, or six or more inches over a twenty-four hour period. The leading cause of death during winter storms is from an automobile or other transportation accidents. Exhaustion or heart attacks caused by overexertion are the second most likely cause of winter storm-related deaths. Dunstable, like the rest of the region, is at risk for winter storms.

Recovery from a winter storm poses a number of challenges. Prolonged curtailment of all

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 122

forms of transportation can have significant adverse impacts for people stranded at home, preventing the delivery of critical services such home heating fuel supplies or the ability to get to a local food store. Extended power outages, the cost of snow removal, and repairing damages, can have severe economic impacts on local communities. The elderly and infirmed are populations of particular concern during these events. Given its rural nature, there are no senior housing or medical facilities within Dunstable, however, most Dunstable residents are on private wells and have no access to drinking water during a power outage.

Hurricanes

Hurricanes can occur along the East Coast of the United States anytime in the period between June and November. Hurricane force winds can destroy buildings and mobile homes. Debris, such as signs, roofing materials, siding and lawn furniture can become missiles. Hurricanes can also spawn tornadoes that generally occur in thunderstorms embedded in rain bands well away from the center of the hurricane. Tornadoes can also occur near the eye wall. Heavy rain associated with the storm may cause flooding. Historically, flooding has occurred on River Street, Main Street (near Sweets Pond), Lowell Street and Forest Street.

The most recent hurricane to affect the region and the town was Hurricane Irene in August 2011, which became a tropical storm as it passed over the region. Although heavy rains associated with hurricanes present the highest recurrent risk, high winds are also a risk. Downed trees and tree limbs, blocked roads, and downed telephone and power lines can disrupt transportation routes and communication channels. It is impossible to predict where these things might occur during a hurricane event, therefore the entire town is considered to be vulnerable. Table 19 on page 41 contains a list of hurricanes that have hit New England over the past ten decades. The entire Northern Middlesex region is equally impacted by these events.

Wildfire

Earthquake

From 1924 to1989 there were eight earthquakes with a magnitude of 4.2 or greater in

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 123

New England. According to the Weston Observatory, the last earthquake to hit the New England Region with a magnitude of 3.0 or greater occurred on September 26, 2010, in the area of Contoocook, New Hampshire. New England experiences 30-40 earthquakes each year, although most are not felt.

The area’s vulnerability to a devastating earthquake is based primarily on the following elements: the density of the population in the region, and the age of the region’s buildings and lack of earthquake proof design. Dunstable is a rural community with a low population density, however, there a significant number of older buildings that can be found throughout the town.

F. Natural Hazard Risk Assessment for the City of Lowell

Community Profile

The City of Lowell covers a land area of 14.54 square miles, and has a population of 106,519 persons, according to the 2010 U.S. Census. Just over ten percent (10%) of the City’s population is 65 years of age or older. There are 41,431 housing units in the City, with the average housing unit sheltering 2.57 persons. Approximately 17.67% of the City’s population lives below the federal poverty level, according to the 2005-2009 American Community Survey.

There are approximately 13,421 students enrolled in the Lowell public school system, which includes twenty-six schools. In addition, total enrollment in the City’s two charter schools, the Middlesex Academy Charter School and the Lowell Community Charter School, was 784 students in 2011. There are additional 2,842 student enrolled in eleven private schools within the City.26

Lowell sits at the confluence of the Merrimack and Concord Rivers. The Merrimack River flows easterly through the northern portion of the City and drops approximately sixty feet in its eight-mile course through the City. The three-mile stretch of the Pawtucket Falls accounts for 30 feet of the elevation drop. The Concord River flows northerly through Billerica and enters the Merrimack River near Bridge Street in the central business district of the City. The floodplain for the Concord River tends to be broad, and the river drops significantly in Lowell as evidenced by three sets of falls.

Surface water discharges to the Merrimack River and its tributaries results from both public and private sources. Recent survey data compiled by the Lowell Regional Wastewater Utility (LRWU) indicates that there are more than 300 stormwater outfalls in the city, not including those located along the canals. Fifty percent of Lowell’s sewer pipes are part of a combined sewer and stormwater system. Approximately fifty percent of the system is also over one hundred years old. The LRWU is a secondary facility, which receives wastewater from Lowell, Chelmsford, Dracut and Tewksbury. The nine combined sewer overflow structures that regulate flow to the LRWU discharge excess stormwater flows directly to the Merrimack River and its tributaries.

26 Lowell Master Plan Existing Conditions Report, 2011, City of Lowell Department of Planning and Development.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 124

One hundred percent of the city is served by the municipal drinking water supply. Water is withdrawn from the Merrimack River and treated by the City’s water treatment plant. The water system pumps an average of 15 million gallons per day (mgd) with a maximum capacity of 30 mgd. The utility also supplies water to the Dracut, Tyngsborough and Chelmsford on a daily basis, and to Tewksbury, North Chelmsford, and Chelmsford Center on an as-needed basis.

Forty-eight percent of the City’s land use is used for residential housing; thirteen percent of the land is in commercial and industrial use; one percent is used for agriculture; 32 percent is in open space, recreation, or water use; and five percent is used for transportation, mining, or waste disposal.

There are 428 public safety personnel in Lowell, including 228 uniformed police officers and 200 fire fighters. The Fire Department operates nine fire stations throughout the City.

Critical Facilities

The list of critical care facilities for Lowell has been extracted from the City’s CEMP and updated based on input received from City officials during the development of this Plan, as shown in Table 46 below. Critical care facilities include emergency operations centers, health care facilities, and shelters. Map 12, contained in Appendix D, shows the location of critical facilities in the City and has been reviewed by the appropriate department heads within City government for accuracy.

Table 46: Emergency Operations Centers, Health Care Facilities and Shelters– Lowell

Facility Type Common Name Street Address Health Average Capacit Feeding Emergency Facility Daily y Capability Generator Type Patient Available Capacity

Emergency Police Station JFK Plaza No Yes Operations (Primary) Centers Lowell 451 First Street No Yes Wastewater (Lowell/Lawrence Treatment Plant Boulevard – route 110) (Secondary)

Portable EOC Northwood 1010 Varnum Avenue Level II 134 No No Manor & III Lowell General Varnum Avenue General 200 No No Hospital Saints Medical Stackpole Street General 200 No No Center Walk-in Clinic 1230 Bridge Street First Aid No No Health Highland 660 Middlesex Street First Aid No No Facilities Medical

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 125

Table 46: Emergency Operations Centers, Health Care Facilities and Shelters– Lowell

Facility Type Common Name Street Address Health Average Capacit Feeding Emergency Facility Daily y Capability Generator Type Patient Available Capacity Lowell 597 Merrimack Street First Aid No No Community Health Center D'Youville Varnum Avenue Level II 200 No No Manor Nursing & III Home Heritage Merrimack Street Level II 142 No No Nursing Home & III Lowell High 50 Father Morrisette 1000 Yes No School Boulevard Lowell Senior Broadway Street 500 Yes No Center Robinson 110 June Street 800 Yes No School

Rogers School 43 Highland Street 500 Yes No Reilly School 115 Douglas School 1000 Yes No Pawtucket West Meadow Road 700 Yes No Memorial School Pyne School Boylston Street 500 Yes No Lowell East Merrimack Street 2000 No No Shelters Memorial Auditorium UMass Lowell – University Avenue 1000 Yes No North UMass Lowell – Wilder Street 1000 Yes No South Lowell Catholic 530 Stevens Street 500 Yes No Middlesex East Merrimack Street 500 No No Community College St. Joseph's 500 Merrimack Street 500 No No Parish Hall

St. Margaret's 500 Stevens Street 1000 No No Parish Hall St. Michael's 537 Bridge Street 500 No No Parish Hall St. Jeanne D'Arc 4th Avenue 600 No No Parish Hall St. Patrick's Suffolk Street 1000 No No Parish Hall Sacred Heart Moore Street 1000 No No Parish Hall Immaculate East Merrimack Street 500 No No Conception Parish Hall

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 126

Areas with Limited Access or of Local Concern

The City of Lowell has a number of abandoned buildings that add to the risk of urban wildfires. The concentration of these buildings relative to each neighborhood is presently being analyzed in order to assess the risk potential. The City Fire Department is undertaking this analysis. Since 2007, the rising number of foreclosed and vacant properties has increased this risk.

Hazard Risk Assessment

Table 47: Lowell Hazard Risk Assessment Hazard Frequency- Severity- Extent of Impact – Probability- (weight Total (Weight (Weight (Weight factor=10) factor=7) Score factor=2) factor=5)

Flood 3x2=6 2x5=10 3x10=30 3x7=21 67

Wildfire 2x2=4 1x5=5 2x10=20 3x7=21 50

Urban Fire 3x2=6 1x5=5 3x10=30 3x7=21 62

Earthquake 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 2x7=14 65

Tornado 1x2=2 2x5=10 3x10=30 1x7=7 49

Dam Failure 1x2=2 1x5=5 2x10=20 1x7=7 34

Drought 2x2=4 3x5=15 3x10=30 1x7=7 56

Nor’easter/severe 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72 storm

Hurricane 3x3=9 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 75

Snowstorm/ 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72 blizzard

Landslide 1x2=2 1x5=5 1x10=10 1x7=7 24

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 127

Table 47 (cont’d): Lowell Hazard Risk Assessment Hazard Frequency- Severity- Extent of Impact – Probability- (weight Total (Weight (Weight (Weight factor=10) factor=7) Score factor=2) factor=5)

Ice Storm 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72

Ice Jam 1x2=2 1x5=5 1x10=10 1x7=7 24

Based on this analysis, Lowell is at high risk for flooding, urban fire, earthquake, nor’easters, hurricanes, ice storms, snowstorms and blizzards. The City is at a moderate risk for wildfire, and drought, and at low risk for ice jams, dam failure, landslides, and tornadoes.

Flood Prone Areas

Lowell sits at the junction of two major rivers, the Concord and the Merrimack. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) maintains a gauge on the Merrimack River, just above the Hunts Falls Bridge. This gauge also accounts for water received from the Concord River, the major tributary to the Merrimack. Average flow at this site is 7,610 cubic feet per second.

Periodic flooding in Lowell has caused extensive property damage in some locations. As in many urban areas, Lowell’s floodplains, which generally form a corridor along the waterways, have been built upon. This has exacerbated flooding problems, as wetlands that provide valuable flood storage have been filled to allow for development.

Flooding is a problem along the Concord River during heavy rain periods, and is also a problem along the northern banks of the Merrimack River near the water treatment plant. Other areas of chronic flooding include land around Black Brook and the Trull Brook tributary between Phoenix Avenue and Clark Road. There are several other areas that are located in the 100-year floodplain along major waterways within the City, including the Concord River, Marginal Brook, River Meadow Brook, Beaver Brook, and Clay Pit Brook.

The Wentworth Avenue/Douglas Road area includes a significant drainage area tributary to Trull Brook that has been the focus of several past studies. Major street flooding and sewer backup problems have occurred in the area behind the Wentworth Health Care Facility and along Douglas Road near the Janas Skating Rink. The City has reported 1-3 feet of flooding on these roadways during a significant storm. In addition, an adjacent marsh along Wentworth Avenue encroaches on the roadway during heavy rain events. The City has tried to reduce this impact by placing berms at the end of the street along the marsh, however, this approach has not been completely effective.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 128

Flooding during May 2006 in Downtown Lowell

In 1980 and 1983, the City completed the South Lowell Drainage and Sewer Facilities Study. Problems in the area were evaluated by an outside consultant, and recommendations were made to help alleviate the flooding. These past reports noted that the existing drainage channels and culverts had significant sedimentation that filled the channels and reduced the overall drainage capacity. Major recommendations included dredging and re-channelization of the existing marshy areas between Phoenix Avenue and Wentworth Avenue, and between Douglas Road and Clark Road in Tewksbury.

Local flooding at the intersection of Gorham Street (Route 3A) and Moore Street during intense rainstorms is a common occurrence. Intense rain in the summer of 2003 filled the intersection with up to four feet of water. Gorham Street is a major evacuation route for the City. Other areas that have been identified by the City as being susceptible to flooding due to poor drainage include the following:

 Hadley and Pratt Streets;  North of Princeton Street along Black Brook;  The mouth of Black Brook;  Area north of Varnum Avenue and east of Laurel Lane;  Area south of Varnum Avenue and east of Lebanon Street;  Area west of Bridge Street and North of Billings Street;  The mouth of Marginal Brook;  Area north of Cawley Stadium; and  Area south of Hollis Avenue.

The City participates in FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program. The Flood Insurance Rate Map and the City profile map are used to determine if a property is within the

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 129

floodplain. Section 9.1 of the Lowell Zoning Ordinance addresses development within the floodplain, covering all areas designated as Zone A, AO, AH, A1-30, AE, A99,VO,V1-30, VE or V. The precise boundaries are dictated by the 100-year flood elevation on the FIRM maps.

Sections 5 through 120 of the Municipal Code of Ordinances specifically state that no person, “shall remove, fill, dredge, alter or build upon or within 100 feet of any bank; upon or within 100 feet of any lake, river, pond, stream; upon or within any land under said waters; or upon any land subject to flooding or inundation by groundwater or surface water.” During local meetings, some Conservation Commission members suggested that enforcement of this ordinance be improved, given that the City currently relies solely on reports and complaints by residents.

Pursuant to an EPA Administrative Order, the City prepared a Long-Term Control Plan in February 2002 that evaluated a range of alternatives to reduce the City’s CSO discharges. Since 2001, the Greater Lowell Wastewater Utility has spent more than $90 million to implement Phase 1 of the Control Plan which focused on upgrades to: the treatment plant, the CSO diversion stations along the interceptor system, and the sewerage and drainage collection systems. These improvements have been necessary to separate sanitary wastewater and stormwater flows and relieve the existing interceptor system, which has in turn reduced street flooding and sewer surcharging.

The City owns and operates a flood protection system in the Centraville neighborhood. The Local Protection Project (LPP) for flood control was constructed by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 1944, under the 1936 US Flood Control Act. The project was undertaken in response to the historic 1936 and 1938 flooding events that the devastated the City and other communities along the Merrimack River. After construction, the City was required to operate and maintain the LPP system.

As part of the LPP system, the USACE constructed a system of earthen levees and concrete I-walls along both Beaver Brook and the Merrimack River to protect low-lying areas of the Centralville Neighborhood. The earthen levee extends for about 2,700 feet along the River adjacent to the VFW Highway. There is also a 900-foot long I-wall near Bridge Street and a 790- foot I-wall near Beaver Street, as well as an 810-foot earthen levee along Beaver Brook. These structures were utilized in 2006 a 2007 floods to protect the area from high stream levels.

Lowell has made substantial improvements in its flood protection system in the past several years. In January 2007, the US Army Corps of Engineers completed an inspection and identified the following deficiencies that needed to be addressed in order to maintain an “active” status of the flood protection system:

 Removal of brush and trees from the earthen levees;  Fortification of the levee and I-wall system; and  Replacement of the inoperable West Street Flood Pump Station.

The City completed the brush and tree removal immediately, but the remaining improvements require significant funding.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 130

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 131

Concurrent with the Lowell LPP ACOE report, FEMA revised the FIRM mapping for the area. Given that the USACE deemed the LPP “inactive”, FEMA determined that the Centraville area behind the LPP was unprotected from flood hazards. Residents in this area are now required to obtain flood hazard insurance until the LPP can be recertified by USACE and FEMA.

The City is actively working to address levee stability and the pumping station. An engineering assessment that included field testing and computer modeling was completed that recommended fortification of the levee and I-wall along Beaver Brook. In the Spring 2011, the stability improvements were completed the along Beaver Brook portion of the LPP. Efforts are now underway to replace the West Street Flood Pumping Station.

Repetitive Flood Loss Structures

There have been repetitive flood losses along Black Brook and Clay Pit Brook. These losses are associated with floodwater backup into the tributaries from the Merrimack River. All of the losses have affected single-family homes. There are 24 repetitive flood loss properties within the City. As of May 2013, a total of $584,907 has been paid out by the National Flood Insurance Program for fifty-five (55) claims. All of the repetitive flood loss properties are residential (please see Table 14 on page 30).

In 2006, the City experienced significant flooding requiring evacuations in some areas, and requiring officials to find permanent housing for twenty evacuees. The Merrimack River reached 58.6 feet during this flood, although the record flood occurred in March 1936 when the river reached 68.4 feet. Many residents in the Beaver Brook area were also flooded out. The National Guard and local public safety officials canvassed 2,300 addresses within the floodplain to assess damage. In Lowell damages from the flood were estimated at $25 million, including damage to forty city streets and eight bridges. Approximately 400 homes sustained damage.

During the aftermath of the May 2006 flood, several infrastructure needs were identified that could help prevent such severe flooding in the future:

 Currently, the West Street CSO Station diverts to the Merrimack River by gravity only. A pump station is needed to assure that Lakeview Avenue does not flood when the height of the Merrimack River prevents gravity discharge from the station. These improvements are in progress.

 The Greater Lowell Wastewater Treatment Plant emergency effluent pumps could not pump all treated flows to the River during the height of the flood. Modifications to the effluent pumping station to allow direct pumping to the River could prevent river water from backing up into the plant and flooding the unit processes. Most of these modifications have been made.

 “Duck Bill Backflow” prevention valves on some CSO and stormwater outlets would prevent backflow from the River from inundating the pump stations, gravity division stations and local streets. These devices are needed at the Tilden and West Street CSO stations and at stormwater discharge lines on Sparks Street and Rosemont Street. Work on these improvements has been partially completed.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 132

 Given the proximity of the Walker Street and Tilden Street CSO stations and the Rosemont Street Sewer Pump Station to the River and Beaver Brook, flood-proofing through the construction of berms/levees is needed to prevent flooding of these areas.

 A backflow prevention valve is needed at the Alma Street outfall pipe to prevent flood water from the Merrimack River and Beaver Brook from backing up into the neighborhood via the stormwater drainage pipe.

 The existing Merrimack River Erosion/Flood Control Walls along the Merrimack River in Pawtucketville and along Pawtucket Street need to be repaired, reconstructed and elevated. These walls, which are designed to hold the riverbanks and prevent erosion due to flooding, have deteriorated substantially as a result of recent flood events. Repair is needed over approximately 3,300 linear feet on the south side of the river and 9,300 linear feet on the north side. Reconstruction may entail increasing the height of these walls to prevent flooding of adjacent properties and roadways. The City is currently awaiting the completion of a study on the flood walls.

NFIP Compliance

The City has participated in the NFIP since 1974. Since that time, the City staff has taken advantage of training opportunities provided by MEMA. To improve compliance with NFIP, the City adopted a Wetlands Ordinance in 2003 which was amended in 2012. A Floodplain Overlay District was incorporated in 1991 and amended in 2010. The City has continued to provide NFIP information to its residents.

Building foundations are inspected before framing to ensure that the lowest floor is at or above base elevation (BFE). This is coordinated through the issuance of building permits and through the Conservation Commission’s approval process. Elevation certificates are required for LOMA applications and all work proposed on jurisdictional area of the Wetlands Protection Act. The City staff provides guidance to property owners regarding this process. City staff has provided information to neighborhood organizations on the NFIP program and have reviewed FIRM with interested residents and property owners.

In 2011, DCR’s Office of Water Resources conducted a Community Assistance Visit to monitor community floodplain management programs. In 2012, the City coordinated with the NFIP Region I office to incorporate the 2012 revisions of the NFIP Flood Insurance Manual.

Structurally Deficient Bridges Over Waterways

Presently, there are five bridges in Lowell considered by MassDOT to be structurally deficient, as show in Table 48 on the following page. The two bridges that are considered to be the most structurally deficient are: (1) the bridge over Beaver Brook on the V.F.W. Highway, with an AASHTO rating of 21.0, and (2) the Western Canal Bridge on Market Street, with an AASHTO rating of 31.2. The rehabilitation of both bridges is currently under design. The Route 38 Bridge over the Merrimack River was recently reconstructed. In addition, construction work

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 133

on the replacement structure for the University Avenue Bridge was completed in November 2013. MassDOT has initiated design work for reconstruction of the Bridge Street Bridge over the Eastern Canal.

Table 48: Structurally Deficient Bridges in Lowell Community Roadway Water Body Owner Year Built/ Status AASHTO Rebuilt Rating Lowell Bridge St. Eastern Canal MassDOT 1937 Preliminary 49.2 design Lowell Lawrence St. Concord City of Lowell 1850/1951 No activity 51.1 River Lowell VFW Beaver Brook MassDOT 1949 Under 19.0 Parkway Construction Lowell Market St. Western City of Lowell 1920 Preliminary 31.2 Canal design Lowell Beaver St. Beaver Brook City of Lowell 1971 Local 53.1 responsibility Source: MassDOT 2013

Hazard Potential of Dams

There are nine dams located within the City of Lowell, all of which are overdue for inspection. Five of the dams are classified as a significant or high hazard, potentially impacting downstream populations. The hazard classification of each dam is detailed in Table 49 below.

Table 49: Hazard Classification of Lowell Dams

Dam Name Impoundment Hazard Class Downstream Last Inspection Next Inspection Name Population Date Due

Guard Pawtucket Canal Significant 400 6/1/2006 6/1/2011* Locks**

Northern Northern Canal Significant 8,000 6/1/2006 6/1/2011* Canal Head Gates**

Lower Locks Pawtucket Canal Low 200 6/1/2006 6/1/2011* Dam**

Swamp Locks Upper Pawtucket Significant 500 6/1/2006 6/1/2011* Dam** Canal

Pawtucket/ Merrimack River Significant 6,000 9/21/2000 9/21/2005* Great Dam**

Lowell Lowell Reservoir High 400 8/25/2009 8/25/2010* Reservoir Dam

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 134

Table 49: Hazard Classification of Lowell Dams

Dam Name Impoundment Hazard Class Downstream Last Inspection Next Inspection Name Population Date Due

Middlesex*** Concord River Non- 1,000 Dam jurisdictional

Wamesit Concord River Low 750 8/30/1999 8/20/2009* Power Company / Centennial Island Dam**

Hickey Hall Western Canal Non- NA Structure*** jurisdictional Source: Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, Office of Dam Safety * Dam inspection overdue ** Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Regulated Dam ***Non-jurisdictional dams are not regulated by Office of Dam Safety

The possible replacement of the Pawtucket Dam flashboard system with an inflatable crest gate system has been approved by FERC. The U.S. Department of Interior has filed a legal appeal of the approval based on the impacts to the Pawtucket Dam which is an historic structure located within the Lowell National Historical Park. The dam is also listed in the Historic Engineering Record and is a designated National Landmark.

Aftermath of a January 2011 snowstorm in Lowell

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 135

Winter Storms (ice storms, snowstorms, nor’easters)

As stated in this Plan previously, severe winter storms can produce a wide variety of hazardous weather conditions, including heavy snow, freezing rain, sleet, and extreme wind and cold. A severe winter storm is one that results in four or more inches of snow over a twelve-hour period, or six or more inches over a twenty-four hour period. The leading cause of death during winter storms is from an automobile or other transportation accidents. Exhaustion or heart attacks caused by overexertion are the second most likely cause of winter storm-related deaths. Lowell, like the rest of the region, is at risk for winter storms.

Since 1983, the most significant winter snowfall in the region occurred during the winter of 1995, when snowfall measurements in the City of Lowell reached 126.5 inches. Recovery from a winter storm poses a number of challenges. Prolonged curtailment of all forms of transportation can have significant adverse impacts for people stranded at home, preventing the delivery of critical services such home heating fuel supplies or the ability to get to a local food store. The City of Lowell imposes an on-street parking ban during snow events and often removes snow within the downtown area and at major intersections to address public safety concerns.

Extended power outages, the cost of snow removal, repairing damages, and the loss of business can have severe economic impacts on local communities. The elderly and infirmed are populations of particular concern during these events. The map in Appendix D shows the location of senior housing and medical facilities (hospitals and nursing homes) within the City.

Hurricanes

Hurricanes can occur along the East Coast of the United States anytime in the period between June and November. Hurricane force winds can destroy buildings and mobile homes. Debris, such as signs, roofing materials, siding and lawn furniture can become missiles. Hurricanes can also spawn tornadoes that generally occur in thunderstorms embedded in rain bands well away from the center of the hurricane. Tornadoes can also occur near the eye wall. Heavy rain associated with the storm may cause flooding. As mentioned previously, the area along the Merrimack River is particularly vulnerable to flooding.

The most recent hurricane to affect the region and the city was Hurricane Irene in August 2011, which became a tropical storm as it passed over the region. Although heavy rains associated with hurricanes present the highest recurrent risk, high winds are also a risk. Downed trees and tree limbs, blocked roads, and downed telephone and power lines can disrupt transportation routes and communication channels. It is impossible to predict where these things might occur during a hurricane event, therefore the entire city is considered to be vulnerable. Electric utilities within the Downtown Historic District are underground, helping to prevent power outages in this area.

Table 19 on page 41 contains a list of hurricanes that have hit New England over the past ten decades. The entire Northern Middlesex region is equally impacted by these events.

Urban Fire

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 136

The probability of fire occurring increases with population growth and concentration, due to human error and carelessness, which are factors that contribute to urban fires. The elderly (aged 65 and older) tend to be more vulnerable to fires than any other age group. They also experience the highest number of deaths per fire. The second most vulnerable age group is those 14 years and younger. The City of Lowell is at high risk for urban fire due to the density of development.

For calendar year 2013, the City of Lowell reported 552 fires to the Massachusetts Fire Incident Reporting System (MFIRS). The 323 structure fires, 44 vehicle fires, and 160 other fires resulted in $4.8 million dollars in losses. While four people were injured, fortunately there was no loss of life. Tragically, seven people perished in an apartment fire in 2014. Generally, about 80% of building fires in Lowell occur in residential properties, with apartments accounting for most of the fires. The leading cause of residential building fires in Lowell is cooking, followed by smoking.

Many of Lowell’s neighborhoods are very dense, and a significant portion of the housing stock is multi-family, of significant age and of wood construction. Many older structures lack sprinkler systems due to their age. Neighborhoods within the City most at risk include the Acre, South Lowell and Centralville, due to their dense nature.

Earthquake

The area’s vulnerability to a devastating earthquake is based primarily on two elements: the density of the population in the region, and the age of the region’s buildings and lack of earthquake proof design. In the City of Lowell older buildings can be found throughout. The Downtown Historic District, including its many mill structures, are predominantly of brick construction, which may make them vulnerable during a significant earthquake. There are three high-rise buildings that may be difficult to evacuate in such an event: Cross Point Towers, the Fox Hall dormitory at UMass Lowell and the River Place Towers.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 137

G. Natural Hazard Risk Assessment for the Town of Pepperell

Community Profile

The Town of Pepperell covers a land area of 23.17 square miles and has a population of 11,497 persons, according to the 2010 U.S. Census. Approximately 9.8% of the Town’s population is 65 years of age or older. There are 4,348 housing units in Town, with the average housing unit sheltering 2.64 people. Approximately 3% of the town’s residents live below the federal poverty line, according to the 2005-2009 American Community Survey.

Pepperell is part of the North Middlesex Regional School District, which includes the towns of Townsend and Ashby. There is one public elementary school located in Pepperell which has an enrollment of 709 students, and one middle school with an enrollment of 645 students. There is also one private elementary school in town, with an enrollment of 26 students.

Eighty-five percent of the Town is served by public drinking water supplied by four groundwater wells located on Jersey Street and Bemis Road. The water system pumps an average of 1.2 million gallons per day. The areas not currently served by public water are primarily located in the northwest and southern areas of town. The Pepperell Wastewater Treatment Plant at 47 Nashua Road went on line in 1979. In 2009, the town expanded the system, installing 2,600 ft. of new main line on Nashua Road and Mill Street. The plant processes approximately 178 mgd and has over 1,500 connections. About 40% of the community is currently sewered. The town has an intermunicipal agreement in place with Groton to supply 120,000 gpd of capacity. Approximately 60% of the town is supported by on- site septic.

Eighteen percent of the town’s land use is used for residential housing; two percent is in commercial and industrial use; fifteen percent is used for agriculture; 63 percent is open space, recreation, or water; and four percent is used for transportation, mining, or waste disposal.

There are 64 public safety personnel in Pepperell, including 18 uniformed police officers, a full time paid fire chief and 45 volunteer firefighters.

Critical Facilities

The list of critical care facilities has been extracted from the Town’s CEMP and updated based on input received from Town officials during the development of this Plan, as shown in Table 50 below. Critical care facilities include emergency operations centers, health care facilities and shelters. Map 13, contained in Appendix D, shows the location of critical facilities within the Town of Pepperell.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 138

Table 50: Emergency Operations Center, Health Care Facilities and Shelters – Pepperell

Facility Type Common Street Health Average Capacity Feeding Emergency Name Address Facility Daily Capability Generator Type Patient Available Capacity

Emergency Public Safety Main Street No Yes Operations Complex Center (Primary) Varnum Hollis Street Yes Yes Brook School (Secondary)

Fire Station Park Street First Aid 30 No Yes Fire Station Jersey Street First Aid 20 No Yes Health Care Facilities

Peter Main Street 250 No Yes Shelters Fitzpatrick School Nissitissit End of Chase 200 Yes Yes Middle and Tucker School Avenues Varnum Hollis Street 250 Yes Yes Brook Middle School Senior Center 37 Nashua 100 (no Yes Yes Road overnight) Community 4 Hollis Street No No Center

Areas with Limited Access or of Local Concern

The intersection of Main Street, River Road, and Hollis Street has experienced local flooding when the culvert under Hollis Street, east of the intersection, has become obstructed. The intersection is critical, as it is part of an emergency evacuation route. The paved surfaces of Brookfield Street and Lowell Road tend to ice over in the winter due to drainage issues, which presents a traffic safety concern.

Hazard Risk Assessment

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 139

Table 51: Pepperell Hazard Risk Assessment Hazard Frequency- Severity- Extent of Probability- Total Score (Weight (Weight Impact – (weight factor=2) factor=5) (Weight factor=7) factor=10)

Flood 3x2=6 1x5=5 1x10=10 3x7=21 42

Wildfire 3x2=6 1x5=5 2x10=20 3x7=21 52

Urban Fire 1x2=2 1x5=5 1x10=10 1x7=7 24

Earthquake 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 2x7=14 65

Tornado 1x2=2 2x5=10 3x10=30 1x7=7 49

Dam Failure 1x2=2 1x5=5 2x10=20 1x7=7 34

Drought 2x2=4 3x5=15 3x10=30 1x7=7 56

Nor’easter/sever 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72 e storm

Hurricane 3x3=9 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 75

Snowstorm/ 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72 blizzard

Landslide 1x2=2 1x5=5 1x10=10 1x7=7 24

Ice Storm 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72

Ice Jam 2x2=4 1x5=5 1x10=10 2x7=14 33

Based on this analysis, Pepperell is at high risk for flooding, earthquake, nor’easters, hurricanes, ice storms, snowstorms and blizzards. The Town is at a moderate risk for wildfire, drought, and ice jams, and at low risk for dam failure, landslides, urban fire and tornadoes.

Flood Prone Areas

Pepperell lies entirely within the watershed of the north-flowing Nashua River, and has almost eight miles of riverfront. U.S. Geological Survey maintains a gauging station that shows an average flow of 546 cubic feet per second. Historically, the Nashua River has been prone to flooding. The 1936 flood destroyed the Main Street Bridge in East Pepperell. This flood resulted from a series of interrelated weather events: above average snowfall with cold temperatures and

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 140

frozen ground, followed by a storm that brought warmer temperatures, snowmelt and successive days of rain, resulting in rapid runoff and massive flooding. Roads were awash, and factories and homes were inundated. The peak flow on the Nashua River during the March 1936 flood was 20,900 cubic feet per second (compared with an average flow of 546 cfs), as measured by USGS.

In the May 2006 flood, the Nashua River crested at 9.38 feet, which is 1.38 feet over flood stage. Historically, flood damage has been concentrated in East Pepperell on the Nashua River. Since the Town’s early beginnings, activity has concentrated around east Pepperell on the banks of the Nashua River, so that portions of the floodplain have been developed residentially, commercially, and industrially. Low-lying areas of Pepperell Center are subject to periodic flooding in the area near the confluence of the Nashua River, Nissitissit River, and Reedy Meadow Brook.

Pepperell has four miles of riverfront on the Nissitissit River. The Nissitissit River is protected under the Squannacook and Nissitissit Rivers Sanctuary Act (MGL Chapter 132A, section 17). Its confluence with the Nashua River is approximately one mile north of the East Pepperell Dam, near the covered bridge.

Varnum Brook and Green’s Brook, both tributaries of the Nashua, are prone to flooding. Green’s Brook joins the Nashua through the former mill yard. Just upstream, the area between Main Street and River Road is also prone to flooding. Varnum Brook joins Green’s Brook further upstream behind the communications center. Upstream it crosses under the Route 111/113 Rotary, where is collects runoff from both sides of Park Street. The combined area drained by Green’s Brook and Varnum Brook is 600 acres in size.

Further downstream of the Green’s Brook confluence with the Nashua, is a flood prone area on the west bank of the Nashua River, between the Nashua and the Nissitissit Rivers. The area is known as “The Land between the Rivers” and extends about one-half mile upstream from the confluence. On the opposite bank, the Nashua is joined by Reedy Meadow Brook to form a complex hydrological dynamic.

There are two significant dams in Pepperell. The Main Street or Pepperell Pond Dam is located on the Nashua River. The Turner’s Dam impounds the Nissitissit River just upstream from the Hollis Street Bridge.

A marshy basin bounded by East Street and Lowell Road receives runoff from more than 300 acres. A small culvert through the railroad embankment channels the flow toward the Nashua River. At flood stage the River backs up through this culvert, exacerbating flooding in this area. In recent years, beaver activity has caused extensive impoundment of water, flooding buried sewer lines and street storm drains. Attempts by the Town and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation to manage the beaver population have resulted in some improvement.

During meetings with local officials it was reported that significant flooding has occurred along Route 119 near the Nashua River, requiring closure of the roadway. The Town attributes

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 141

this problem, in part, to the collection of debris on the upstream side of the Route 119 Bridge across the River. It may be possible to lessen the severity of the flooding through improved maintenance of the bridge structure by MassDOT.

2010 Roadway flooding along Route 119 in Pepperell

There are no flood control works on the rivers and streams in the Town of Pepperell. The dams on the Nashua and Nissitissit Rivers offer no flood protection. In 1974, Pepperell entered the NFIP, making residents eligible to buy subsidized flood insurance. As a result, a floodplain bylaw was enacted as part of the town’s General Bylaw.

In 1981, FEMA published flood maps for Pepperell showing 100-year flood zones for the Town. However, the flooding along the Nashua River, lower sections of the Reedy Meadow Brook, and the Nissitissit River, as shown on the FEMA maps, was less than the actual flooding experienced during the 1936 flood in those locations. Therefore, in November 1984, Town Meeting incorporated into the town’s Zoning Bylaws, the 1936 Nashua River flood elevations, as shown by the Raytheon Company’s mapping of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood data. Wherever applicable, these actual flood records provide the base flood elevation for local regulatory purposes. The FEMA maps were updated again in 2010 to more closely reflect the actual flooding conditions seen historically.

Repetitive Flood Loss Structures

There are two repetitive flood loss structures in the Town of Pepperell, one residential and one non-residential, as shown on Table 14 on page 30. Six flood insurance claims totaling $123,945 were paid by the NFIP, as of May 2013.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 142

Flooding along Groton Street in Pepperell during the 2010 flood

Structurally Deficient Bridges Over Waterways

Currently, there are no structurally deficient bridges within the Town of Pepperell.

Hazard Potential Dams

Turner Dam on the Nissitissit River

Table 52 lists the Pepperell dams that are included on the Office of Dam Safety’s hazard classification list. Based on the data provided, all of the dams in Pepperell are overdue for inspection. Three of the five dams are classified as significant or high hazard dams. Initiatives are underway to remove or partially breach the Turner Dam and the Town is working with the dam owner to secure the appropriate permits and approvals.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 143

Table 52: Hazard Classification of Pepperell Dams

Dam Name Impoundment Hazard Class Downstream Last Inspection Next Inspection Name Population Date Due

Turner Dam Nissitissit River High 0 6/24/1998 6/24/2000*

Pork Barrel Dam Pork Barrel Pond Low NA 1/11/1945 1/11/1955*

Nashua River Nashua River Low NA 1/11/1945 1/11/1955* Dam**

Pepperell Paper Nashua River Significant 85 12/8/2009 12/8/2014 Co. Dam

Guarnottas Breached Non- 0 Dam*** jurisdictional Source: Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, Office of Dam Safety * Dam inspection overdue ** FERC Regulated Dam *** Non-jurisdictional dams are not regulated by the Office of Dam Safety

Winter Storms (ice storms, snowstorms, nor’easters)

As stated in this Plan previously, severe winter storms can produce a wide variety of hazardous weather conditions, including heavy snow, freezing rain, sleet, and extreme wind and cold. A severe winter storm is one that results in four or more inches of snow over a twelve hour period, or six or more inches over a twenty-four hour period. The leading cause of death during winter storms is from an automobile or other transportation accidents. Exhaustion or heart attacks caused by overexertion are the second most likely cause of winter storm-related deaths. Pepperell, like the rest of the region, is at risk for winter storms.

Recovery from a winter storm poses a number of challenges. Prolonged curtailment of all forms of transportation can have significant adverse impacts for people stranded at home, preventing the delivery of critical services such home heating fuel supplies or the ability to get to a local food store. Extended power outages, the cost of snow removal, repairing damages, and the loss of business can have severe economic impacts on local communities. The elderly and infirmed are populations of particular concern during these events. Appendix D shows the location of all senior housing and medical facilities within Pepperell. Those residing within the mobile home park are also vulnerable due to the threat of roof collapse as a result of heavy snow loads.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 144

Hurricanes

The most recent hurricane to affect the region and the town was Hurricane Irene in August 2011, which became a tropical storm as it passed over the region. Although the heavy rains associated with hurricanes present the highest recurrent risk, high winds are also a risk. Downed trees and tree limbs, blocked roads, and downed telephone and power lines can disrupt transportation routes and communication channels. It is impossible to predict where these things might occur during a hurricane event, therefore the entire town is considered to be vulnerable. Those residing within the mobile home park are considered to be particularly vulnerable.

Table 19 on page 41 contains a list of hurricanes that have hit New England over the past ten decades. The entire Northern Middlesex region is equally impacted by these events.

Wildfire

A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire that spreads due to the presence of vegetative fuel. These fires often begin unnoticed and spread quickly. In this area of the country, wildfire season generally begins in March and ends in late November. Human beings start four out of every five wildfires through arson or carelessness; lightning strikes account for the remainder. Pepperell is considered to be at moderate risk for wildfire. Over a three year period, over 100 brush fires were reported in the Town of Pepperell. Given its rural nature, the entire community is considered to be vulnerable given the abundance of forested areas, but special attention is paid to the Town Forest.

Earthquake

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 145

H. Natural Hazard Risk Assessment for the Town of Tewksbury

Community Profile

The Town of Tewksbury covers a land area of 21.06 square miles and has a population of 28,961 persons, according to the 2010 U.S. Census. Approximately 14.5% of the Town’s population is 65 years of age or older. Approximately 3.79% of the town’s population lives below the federal poverty level, according to the 2005-2009 American Community Survey. There are 10,848 housing units in Town, with the average housing unit sheltering 2.67 people.

There are approximately 4,646 students enrolled in the public school system, which includes one preschool, five elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school. Ninety-eight percent (98%) of the Town is served by the community’s public drinking water supply. Water is withdrawn from the Merrimack River and treated at the Town’s water treatment plant. In 2002, the Town increased the capacity of its water treatment plant from 3.5 to 7.0 mgd. Nearly the entire town (98%) uses the public water system. Total water consumption is about 3.5 mgd, with residential water use accounting for 65% of the demand. Approximately 98% of the town is supported by municipal sewer. The sewage is treated the Greater Lowell Wastewater Utility in Lowell.

Thirty-six percent of the town’s land use is used for residential housing; six percent is in commercial and industrial use; two percent used for agriculture; 49 percent for open space, recreation, or water use; and seven percent is used for transportation, mining, or waste disposal.

The Tewksbury Police Department is comprised of 57 sworn police officers, 50 part-time officers and 5 civilian dispatchers. The Town also employs 50 fire fighters.

Critical Facilities

The list of critical care facilities has been extracted from the Town’s CEMP and updated based on input received from Town officials during the development of this Plan, as shown in Table 53 on the following page. Critical care facilities include emergency operations centers, health care facilities, and shelters. Map 14, contained in Appendix D, shows the location of all critical facilities within Tewksbury.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 146

Table 53: Emergency Operations Center, Health Care Facilities, and Shelters – Tewksbury

Facility Common Name Street Health Average Capacity Feeding Emergency Type Address Facility Daily Capability Generator Type Patient Available Capacity

Emergency Tewksbury Fire 21 Town No Yes Operations Department (Primary) Hall Avenue Center Tewksbury Police 918 Main No Yes Department(Secondary) Street

Blair House 10 Erlin Level 200 No No Avenue 1 – 4 Health Care The Emeritus 2580 Main Level 4 50 No No Facilities Street

North Fire Station 830 North First Aid 0 Street Center Fire Station 21 Town First Aid 0 Hall Avenue South Fire Station 2342 Main First Aid 0 Street High School 20 Pleasant 0 1000 Yes Yes Street Dewing School 1469 0 500 Yes Yes Shelters Andover Street Wynn Middle School 1 Griffin 0 1000 Yes No Way Ryan School 141 Pleasant 0 800 Yes Yes Street

Trahan School 12 Salem 0 500 Yes No

Street

Heath Brook School 165 0 600 Yes No

Shawsheen Shelters Street

North Street School 133 North 0 500 Yes No Street Senior Drop In Center 300 0 50 Yes Yes Chandler Street

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 147

Areas with Limited Access or of Local Concern

There are two intersections in Tewksbury that are subject to local flooding, creating access problems. Both involve roadways or intersections that are affected by the Shawsheen River. Brown Street and Whipple Road are periodically flooded, necessitating roadway closures. Shawsheen Street, south of Main Street (Route 38) and north of Kenneth Lane, also experiences flooding which blocks a critical evacuation intersection at Main Street (Route 38) and Shawsheen Street.

A major railroad freight line crosses four arterials within the Town: North Street, Livingston Street, East Street, and Shawsheen Street. An emergency affecting railroad traffic could impair traffic circulation and evacuation routes. The northwest central section of town, which includes an extensive wetland area, is subject to occasional brush fires.

The Town is trying to address the need for back-up emergency generators for its sewer pump stations. Presently, the Tewksbury’s town-wide sewer collection system utilizes 47 sewer pumping stations. If there is a power outage, the sewer pumping stations would rely on back-up power in order to continue pumping the wastewater flows. Without emergency generators, the wastewater flows to the pump station would then backup into the homes that are tributary to those specific pump stations. This back-up would create a health hazard, and result in costly cleanup and repair costs. Environmental impacts may also result from such overflow events. The town estimates that it will cost $483,000 to address this issue.

The sewer collection system in the Town of Tewksbury has been growing with the Town. The existing sewer system consists of over roughly 877,000 linear feet of sewers (166 miles) of public sewers and 46 pumping stations. The earliest sanitary sewer system was constructed in August 1973, and additions to the sewer system have been constructed in intervals. The existing collection system now services the entire population of the town.

A review of the system, indicates that extensive infiltration and inflows (I/I) are occurring. Due to the increasing wastewater conveyance and treatment costs, this infiltration and inflow has created a financial burden on the Town and its residents. Infiltration and inflow problems are more evident in high groundwater months and rain/wet weather events, during which flooding occurs. The sewer collection systems within flood prone areas are hit the hardest, with excessive flows during these events. The I/I influences are partly attributed to leaky pipe joints and manholes in high groundwater and flood prone areas. Significant flow increases are well documented in spring/flood prone months and baseline I/I is also evident entering the system in wet areas of the Town.

The Town has initiated a project to flood proof the existing sewer manhole structures located within the 100-year flood plain. Sewer piping in this area will be tested and sealed due to the degradation of the joints caused by flooding conditions. Sewer manhole structures will be assessed on a case-by-case basis and the appropriate waterproofing technology will be selected based on manhole field conditions. If this project is implemented, it is expected to reduce the effects of infiltration and inflow by roughly 75% to 80% in the treated areas, greatly reducing the conveyance and treatment costs. It will provide protection of existing sewer infrastructure during 100-year flood events. The cost estimate for this project is $517,400.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 148

Hazard Risk Assessment

Table 54: Tewksbury Hazard Risk Assessment Hazard Frequency- Severity- Extent of Probability- Total Score (Weight (Weight Impact – (weight factor=2) factor=5) (Weight factor=7) factor=10)

Flood 3x2=6 2x5=10 3x10=30 3x7=21 67

Wildfire 1x2=2 1x5=5 2x10=20 2x7=14 41

Urban Fire 1x2=2 1x5=5 2x10=20 1x7=7 34

Earthquake 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 2x7=14 65

Tornado 1x2=2 2x5=10 3x10=30 1x7=7 49

Dam Failure 1x2=2 1x5=5 1x10=10 1x7=7 24

Drought 2x2=4 3x5=15 3x10=30 1x7=7 56

Nor’easter/sever 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72 e storm

Hurricane 3x3=9 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 75

Snowstorm/ 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72 blizzard

Landslide 1x2=2 1x5=5 1x10=10 1x7=7 24

Ice Storm 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72

Ice Jam 1x2=2 1x5=5 1x10=10 1x7=7 24

Based on this analysis, the Town of Tewksbury is at high risk for flooding, earthquake, nor’easters, hurricanes, ice storms, snowstorms and blizzards. The Town is at a moderate risk for drought, and at low risk for wildfire, dam failure, landslides, ice jams, urban fire and tornadoes.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 149

Flood Prone Areas

The Town of Tewksbury lies within three watersheds – the Concord, Merrimack and Shawsheen – and within four watershed basins – the Concord, Ipswich, Merrimack and Shawsheen. Tewksbury is bordered by the Merrimack River on the northeast, and the Concord River touches the western most portion of Town. The Shawsheen River runs southwest to northeast through the southeastern portion of the Town. There are four major streams in Town: Heath Brook, Sutton Brook, Strongwater Brook (which flow into the Shawsheen River) and Trull Brook (which flows into the Merrimack River) All of these waterways are prone to flooding, blocking many major roadways in Town. Both the Shawsheen River and Strongwater Brook have significant flood plains. GIS analysis has shown that over 20% of the town’s area is comprised of wetlands.

During meetings with the Town, the following locations were identified as having recurring flooding and/or drainage problems:

 Bridge Street and South Street;  Shawsheen Street and Mohawk Street;  East Street near Strong Water Brook;  Pinnacle Street;  Shawsheen Street near Main Street/Route 38;  Brown Street at Whipple Road;  Pond Street; and  Bonnie Lane.

River Road in Tewksbury sustained considerable damage in the floods of March 2010 and is now being reconstructed through funding received from MassDOT and MEMA.

DPW crews work to control roadway undermining created by flooding on River Road in Tewksbury in March 2010

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 150

The existing Trull Brook culvert crossing on River Road is a large nine (9) foot diameter corrugated metal pipe with tapered end sections. The culvert is in relatively good condition except on the bottom plates at entrance and exit points, where scouring velocities have accelerated corrosion and some undermining is present. The culvert has marginal entrance and exit flow characteristics causing some backwater conditions which result in toe erosion of the abutting slope. The backwater conditions causes erosion of the Trull Brook channel and also of the supporting slope at River Road. Wet weather conditions and some roadway runoff can significantly and quickly degrade the roadway side slopes as it washes down the steep bank causing erosion and slope failure. These conditions have resulted in recurring and periodic slope failure with a significant failure occurring in the spring of 2010. Although the Town continues to add trap rock slope protection, the existing angle of repose is insufficient to maintain the slope under saturated or wet weather conditions. Such damages occur with an estimated 10-year frequency storm event.

The town is proposing to install Storm Sewer Pipe into the existing culvert, and inject grout into the annular area between the new pipe and the existing deteriorated pipe, and supplement the slope material to create a more stable roadway side slope. Rip rapping of slope toes near the culvert will also be enhanced. This project, if implemented, will help reduce further damages due to the increased stability for the slope. This project is estimated to cost $279,000.

The existing roadway on Shawsheen Street at Heath Brook is prone to flooding during peak storm events due to its low elevation. This causes periodic closures of Shawsheen Street during peak storm events, restricting access for emergency vehicles and causing significant increases in response times. Additionally, closure of this roadway has a significant impact to residential and commercial traffic and to abutting communities, as the roadway is often used as a connector between Route 129 in Billerica and I-93. The town is proposing reclamation of the existing roadway and sidewalk. Fill material will be installed and graded to raise the final roadway grade to at least Elevation 86.0. If this project is implemented, it will be an improvement over the existing conditions due to the fact that the roadway grade will be raised to the 100-year flood elevation level. The estimated cost for this project is $400,000.

During peak storm events, the Shawsheen River crests and overtops South Street and back feeds into Sutton Brook, causing flow to exceed its hydraulic capabilities further down South Street. As a result, the overtopping of this intersection causes full isolation of several residential units lying between Bridge Street and Sutton Brook. The adjacent Shawsheen River has a 100-year flood elevation of 85.0 which can overtop the existing roadway (existing elevation of approximately 83.9). The flood elevation of the upper Sutton Brook is about 77.0 feet, so back-feeding by the Shawsheen River at elevation 85.0 can have a significant impact. Past flooding events have closed off the northern end of South Street, with a flood event in June 1998 requiring National Guard vehicles to shuttle residents to and from their homes. This event affected approximately 500 residents. In addition, the closing of this intersection causes significant traffic re-routing, thereby delaying emergency response from the South Street Fire Station and impacting commerce. The Town is proposing to raise the roadway to an elevation of 85.0+ over a distance of several hundred feet. It is estimated that this project will cost $400,000.

Pinnacle Street is a residential road which serves as access to the Town of Andover and to Route 93. The roadway accommodates local traffic and feeds many residential homes in both towns. An existing culvert was constructed with concrete block and stone set on top of a single barrel 65” X 40” corrugated metal arch pipe. In recent years, during intense storm events,

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 151

flooding has occurred due to an undersized culvert, which exacerbates upstream flooding conditions, surcharging into abutting residential properties and occasionally overtopping the road. Up-gradient forested areas also contribute debris and branches, which can quickly accumulate during storm events to block the relatively small-sized culvert. The Town is proposing to install a 5' x 6' box culvert to mitigate this situation. Flooding conditions can necessitate closing of the roadway, limiting emergency service access to residential homes in Tewksbury. The detours also create additional traffic impairments for commuters in the area. Construction of the culvert is estimated to cost $50,000.

Tewksbury has taken some steps to protect its wetland resource and floodplain areas, notably by establishing a Flood Plain District in the Zoning Bylaw, and by adopting a local (non- zoning) wetlands bylaw in 1986 which is administered by the Conservation Commission. The local wetlands bylaw augments M.G.L. c. 131 § 40, the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. It establishes a minimum continuous 25-foot wide buffer strip of undisturbed, natural vegetation around wetland resources and requires that any proposed structure be at least 50 feet from the resource. In effect, the bylaw intends to create a 25-foot “no disturbance zone” and a 50-foot “no build zone” around wetland resources.

The town’s Flood Plain (FP) District is typical of flood plain bylaws in other communities. It is triggered by uses in flood hazard areas identified on the Flood Insurance Rating Map (FIRM), and in areas within the 100-year floodplain as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The bylaw does not prohibit uses allowed in the underlying districts, but bans construction activity that encroaches on a floodway. For development in the Flood Plain District, the bylaw specifies submission requirements for permits from local authorities and incorporates compliance with other laws, e.g., the Wetlands Protection Act, the State Building Code and Title V.

Tewksbury has received disaster relief funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for several floods over the past ten years. The Town is particularly concerned about flooding impacts in South Tewksbury which is densely populated, has narrow roadways and older housing stock, with a significant elderly population and a number of young families. In the past, the Town has created emergency access ways in order to evacuate the neighborhood.

Repetitive Flood Loss Structures

There are eight repetitive flood loss structures located along the Shawsheen River within the Town of Tewksbury and in the Devonshire Road area. All of the repetitive flood loss properties are residential. As of May 2013, twenty-four (24) claims were paid under the National Flood Insurance Program which totaled $187,619.

The Town of Tewksbury has been part of the NFIP for well over a decade. The Town has adopted Chapter 40, Section J relative to Public Safety Mutual Aid and Chapter 40, Section K relative to Public Works Mutual Aid. NFIP monitoring and compliance is accomplished through the building permit process, whereby the Building Department requires certified plat plans for all proposed structures. NFIP educational materials are available at the Building Department and the Town Clerk’s office.

Monitoring is accomplished through standard reconnaissance of potential zoning, wetland and stormwater violations. Non-compliant structures are known through the Building

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 152

Department’s institutional knowledge and have also been identified through previous flooding studies. The Building Commissioner has been certified through MEMA to rate structures. The Building Department requires foundation as-builts stamped by an engineer prior to framing permits being issued for properties located in the floodplain. The Building Department, through the Building Commissioner and the Permit Technicians, assists residents and officials on how to read and interpret the FIRMs.

Structurally Deficient Bridges Over Waterways

The Mill Street Bridge over the Shawsheen River is the only structurally deficient bridge located over a waterway in Tewksbury. The Town has plans to address this bridge in FY 2015.

Hazard Potential of Dams

Table 55 below lists the dams in Tewksbury that are included in the Office of Dam Safety’s hazard classification list. Based on the data provided in the state’s list, Ames Pond Dike B is overdue for inspection. Two of the three dams are classified as high hazard.

Table 55: Hazard Classification of Tewksbury Dams

Dam Name Impoundment Name Hazard Class Downstream Last Inspection Next Inspection Population Date Due

Ames Pond Dike A Ames Pond High 5,000 10/7/2010 10/7/2012

Ames Pond Dam Ames Pond High 5,000 10/7/2010 10/7/2012

Ames Pond Dike B Ames Pond Low 5,000 4/30/2003 4/30/2008* Source: Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, Office of Dam Safety * Dam inspection overdue

Winter Storms (ice storms, snowstorms, nor’easters)

As stated in this Plan previously, severe winter storms can produce a wide variety of hazardous weather conditions, including heavy snow, freezing rain, sleet, and extreme wind and cold. A severe winter storm is one that results in four or more inches of snow over a twelve hour period, or six or more inches over a twenty-four hour period. The leading cause of death during winter storms is from an automobile or other transportation accident. Exhaustion or heart attacks caused by overexertion are the second most likely cause of winter storm-related deaths. Tewksbury, like the rest of the region, is at risk for winter storms.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 153

the loss of business can have severe economic impacts on local communities. The elderly and infirmed are populations of particular concern during these events. The senior housing and medical facilities located within Tewksbury are identified in Appendix D.

Hurricanes

Table 19 on page 41 contains a list of hurricanes that have hit New England over the past ten decades. The entire Northern Middlesex region is equally impacted by these events.

Wildfire

A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire that spreads due to the presence of vegetative fuel. These fires often begin unnoticed and spread quickly. In this area of the country, wildfire season generally begins in March and ends in late November. Human beings start four out of every five wildfires through arson or carelessness; lightning strikes account for the remainder. Tewksbury is considered to be at moderate risk for wildfire. Over a three period, 400 brush fires were reported in the town. The town’s Community Development Director has identified the land around the Tewksbury State Hospital and the Great Swamp area along I-495 as locations that are particularly vulnerable.

In April 2012, a field on Main Street caught fire and the flames quickly spread. The flames, he said, were concentrated beneath the power lines with the potential to race across the field and damage houses and businesses. Firefighters were able to prevent the fire from spreading. A lack of precipitation during the winter and spring exacerbated the fire.

Earthquake

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 154

are occurring. It is impossible to predict the time and location of future earthquakes in New England. There is a 1 in 10 chance that in any given fifty-year period a potentially damaging earthquake will occur.

From 1924 to1989 there were eight earthquakes with a magnitude of 4.2 or greater in New England. According to the Weston Observatory, the last earthquake to hit the New England region with a magnitude of 3.0 or greater occurred on September 26, 2010, in the area of Contoocook, New Hampshire. New England experiences 30-40 earthquakes each year, although most are not felt.

The area’s vulnerability to a devastating earthquake is based primarily on the following elements: the density of the population in the region, and the age of the region’s buildings, and lack of earthquake proof design. In the Town of Tewksbury concentrations of older buildings can be found in the Town Center area and along East Street, as well as throughout the rest of the town.

I. Natural Hazard Risk Assessment for the Town of Tyngsborough

Community Profile

The Town of Tyngsborough covers a land area of 18.5 square miles and has a population of 11,292 persons, according to the 2010 U.S. Census. Approximately 8.9% of the town’s population is 65 years of age or older. There are 4,206 housing units in the town, with the average housing unit sheltering 2.69 people. Approximately 2.02% of the population lives below the federal poverty line, according to the 2005-2009 American Community Survey.

There are 2,300 students enrolled in the public school system, which includes three elementary schools and one junior/senior high school. Additionally, Tyngsborough is home to Greater Lowell Technical High School, a public vocational school which serves the towns of Tyngsborough, Dracut, and Dunstable as well as the city of Lowell. There is one private school, the Academy of Notre Dame, and the town also has one public charter school, Innovation Academy, serving over 400 students in grades five through twelve.

Thirty percent (30%) of the town is currently serviced by public drinking water. The remaining seventy percent (70%) is served by on-site private wells. There are three water districts that operate a total of five distribution systems which access various supply sources in neighboring communities, including Dracut, Chelmsford, Lowell and Nashua, NH. The town’s public sewer service covers only 25% of the town, while the remainder of the town is supported by on-site septic systems.

Twenty percent of the town’s land is used for residential housing; two percent is in commercial and industrial use; five percent is used for agriculture; 63 percent is in open space, recreation, or water use; and five percent is used for transportation, mining, or waste disposal.

There are 66 public safety personnel in Tyngsborough, including 23 uniformed police officers and 40 on-call fire fighters, who are overseen by a Fire Chief and two additional paid fire officers.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 155

Critical Facilities

The list of critical care facilities, as shown in Table 56 below, has been extracted from the Town’s most recent CEMP, and updated based on input received from Town officials and staff during the development of this Plan. Critical care facilities include emergency operations centers, and shelters. Map 15, contained in Appendix D, shows the location of all critical facilities for the Town of Tyngsborough.

Table 56: Emergency Operations Center, Health Care Facilities and Shelters – Tyngsborough

Facility Types Common Name Street Health Average Capacit Feeding Emergency Address Facility Daily y Capability Generator Type Patient Available Capacity

Emergency Fire Station 26 Kendall No Yes Operations (Primary) Road Centers Police Station 20 Westford No Yes (Alternate) Road Town Hall 25 Bryants No Yes (Alternate) Lane

Health and Medical None Facilities

Tyngsborough 50 Norris 100 Yes Yes Shelters High School Road Tyngsborough 205 100 Yes Yes Elementary School Westford Road Greater Lowell 250 100 Yes Yes Vocational High Pawtucket School Boulevard

Areas with Limited Access or of Local Concern

The primary access to the Tyngsborough Elementary School, which is located off Westford Road, is subject to flooding from Bridge Meadow Brook. This flooding can obstruct the primary access to the School. Although a secondary gated access point is available north of the school via Diamond Road, it adds travel time for school buses, and can affect school schedules, etc.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 156

Hazard Risk Assessment

Table 57: Tyngsborough Risk Assessment Hazard Frequency- Severity- Extent of Probability- Total Score (Weight (Weight Impact – (weight factor=2) factor=5) (Weight factor=7) factor=10)

Flood 3x2=6 1x5=5 3x10=30 3x7=21 62

Wildfire 3x2=6 1x5=5 3x10=20 3x7=21 52

Urban Fire 1x2=2 1x5=5 1x10=10 1x7=7 24

Earthquake 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 2x7=14 65

Tornado 1x2=2 2x5=10 3x10=30 1x7=7 49

Dam Failure 1x2=2 1x5=5 1x10=10 1x7=7 24

Drought 2x2=4 3x5=15 3x10=30 1x7=7 56

Nor’easter/sever 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72 e storm

Hurricane 3x3=9 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 75

Snowstorm/ 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72 blizzard

Landslide 1x2=2 1x5=5 1x10=10 1x7=7 24

Ice Storm 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72

Ice Jam 2x2=4 1x5=5 2x10=20 2x7=14 43

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 157

Based on this analysis, Tyngsborough is at high risk for flooding, earthquake, nor’easters, hurricanes, ice storms, snowstorms and blizzards. The Town is at a moderate risk for wildfire, drought, and ice jams, and at low risk for dam failure, landslides, urban fire and tornadoes.

The 2008 Ice Storm brings down tree limbs in Tyngsborough (photo by Mark Wilson)

Flood Prone Areas

The Merrimack River bisects the Town of Tyngsborough, running from north to south for a distance of five miles. When the Merrimack River is at flood stage it overtops its bank and floods a section of Route 113 near the Vesper Country Club. Flooding from the River occurs in the vicinity of Bridgeview Circle. In addition, as previously stated, Bridge Meadow Brook floods the access road to the Tyngsborough Elementary School, which has the greatest impact on the community. Repetitive flooding also occurs on Riverbend Road, River Road, and Red Gate Road and Larson Avenue.

There are five other perennial streams within the Town, including the following:

 Bridge Meadow Brook –originates on Scribner Hill and flows into Flint Pond;

 Lawrence Brook- flows from Norris Corner, along Lawndale Road, and into the Merrimack River just upstream from the Tyngsborough Country Club;

 Limit Brook – flows out of Hudson, New Hampshire and enters the Merrimack River near Frost Road;

 Scarlett Brook – flows out of wetlands located between Althea Lake and the State Forest, and enters the Merrimack River near the Greater Lowell Vocational Technical High School; and

 Locust Brook – flows from Locust Pond, along Locust Avenue, and enters the Merrimack River near Farwell Road.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 158

Repetitive Flood Loss Structures

There are eight repetitive flood loss properties within the Town of Tyngsborough. Most of these properties are located adjacent to the Merrimack River. All of the repetitive flood loss structures are residential. As of May 2013, the National Flood Insurance Program paid out $2,129,486 for sixteen claims.

Structurally Deficient Bridges Over Waterways

Presently, there are no structurally deficient bridges over water bodies in Tyngsborough.

Hazard Potential of Dams

Table 58 below lists the dams in Tyngsborough included in the Department of Conservation and Recreation, Office of Dam Safety’s hazard classification list. Based on the data provided, two of the dams in Tyngsborough are overdue for inspection and three of the five dams are classified as significant hazard dams.

Table 58: Hazard Classification of Tyngsborough Dams

Dam Name Impoundment Hazard Class Downstream Last Inspection Next Inspection Name Population Date Due

Lower Flint Pond Lower Flint Pond Low 450 10/13/2007 10/13/2012 Dam

Locust Pond Dam Locust Pond Significant 100 NA NA

Mascuppic Lake Mascuppic Lake Non- NA NA NA Dam jurisdictional

Upper Flint Pond Upper Flint Pond Significant 0 10/13/07 10/13/2012 Dam

Cow Pond Brook Cow Pond Brook Significant 100 6/26/2007 6/26/2012 Dam Source: Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, Office of Dam Safety

Winter Storms (ice storms, snowstorms, nor’easters)

As stated in this Plan previously, severe winter storms can produce a wide variety of hazardous weather conditions, including heavy snow, freezing rain, sleet, and extreme wind and cold. A severe winter storm is one that results in four or more inches of snow over a twelve-hour period, or six or more inches over a twenty-four hour period. The leading cause of death during winter storms is from an automobile or other transportation accident. Exhaustion or heart attacks caused by overexertion are the second most likely cause of winter storm-related deaths. Tyngsborough, like the rest of the region, is at risk for winter storms.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 159

Recovery from a winter storm poses a number of challenges. Prolonged curtailment of all forms of transportation can have significant adverse impacts for people stranded at home, preventing the delivery of critical services such home heating fuel supplies or the ability to get to a local food store. Extended power outages, the cost of snow removal, repairing damages, and the loss of business can have severe economic impacts on local communities. The elderly and infirmed are populations of particular concern during these events. Senior housing within Tyngsborough is shown in Appendix D.

Hurricanes

Hurricanes can occur along the East Coast of the United States anytime in the period between June and November. Hurricane force winds can destroy buildings and mobile homes. Debris, such as signs, roofing materials, siding and lawn furniture can become missiles. Hurricanes can also spawn tornadoes that generally occur in thunderstorms embedded in rain bands well away from the center of the hurricane. Tornadoes can also occur near the eye wall. Heavy rain associated with the storm may cause flooding. Historically, flooding has occurred along a section of Route 113 near the Vesper Country Club, in the vicinity of Bridgeview Circle, on the the access road to the Tyngsborough Elementary School, and on Riverbend Road, River Road, Red Gate Road and Larson Avenue.

The most recent hurricane to affect the region and the town was Hurricane Irene in August 2011, which became a tropical storm as it passed over the region. Though heavy rains associated with hurricanes present the highest recurrent risk, high winds are also a risk. Downed trees and tree limbs, blocked roads, and downed telephone and power lines can disrupt transportation routes and communication channels. It is impossible to predict where these things might occur during a hurricane event, therefore the entire town is considered to be vulnerable.

Wildfire

A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire that spreads due to the presence of vegetative fuel. These fires often begin unnoticed and spread quickly. In this area of the country, wildfire season generally begins in March and ends in late November. Human beings start four out of every five wildfires through arson or carelessness; lightning strikes account for the remainder. Over a three year period, over 206 brush fires were reported in the Town of Tyngsborough. The area around the Dracut-Lowell-Tyngsborough State Forest is particularly vulnerable. This property is managed by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR).

Earthquake

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 160

England. There is a 1 in 10 chance that in any given fifty-year period a potentially damaging earthquake will occur.

The area’s vulnerability to a devastating earthquake is based primarily on the following elements: the density of the population, and the age of the buildings and lack of earthquake proof design. In the Town of Tyngsborough concentrations of older buildings can be found in the vicinity of the Town Center and along Farwell Road, and older buildings are also scattered throughout town.

J. Natural Hazard Risk Assessment for the Town of Westford

Community Profile

The Town of Westford covers a land area of 31.33 square miles and has a population of 21,951 persons, according to the 2010 U.S. Census. Approximately 9.9 percent of the Town’s population is 65 years of age or older. There are 7,876 housing units in the town, which shelter an average of 2.79 people per unit. Approximately 1.14 % of the population lives below the federal poverty line, according to the 2005-2009 American Community Survey.

There are approximately 5,350 students enrolled in the public school system, which includes six elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school. Seventy-five percent of the town is on public drinking water supply. Water is withdrawn from eight municipal wells, and the distribution system delivers 1.764-MGD to Westford residents and businesses. All wastewater is disposed of through private on-site systems.

Twenty-five percent of the town’s land use is used for residential housing; two percent is in commercial and industrial use; five percent is used for agriculture; sixty-five percent is in open space, recreation, or water use; and three percent is used for transportation, mining, or waste disposal.

There are 91 public safety personnel in Westford, including 39 uniformed police officers and 52 fire fighters.

Critical Facilities

The list of critical care facilities, as shown in Table 59 on the following page, has been extracted from the Town’s CEMP and updated based on input received from Town officials during the development of this Plan. Critical care facilities include emergency operations centers, health care facilities and shelters. Map 17, contained in Appendix D, shows the location of all critical facilities for the Town of Westford. It should be noted that not all of the shelter

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 161

facilities identified by the Town have feeding capabilities and back-up emergency power generators.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 162

Table 59: Emergency Operations Center, Health Care Facilities, and Shelters – Westford

Facility Types Common Street Health Average Capacity Feeding Emergency Name Address Facility Daily Capability Generator Type Patient Available Capacity

Emergency Police Station 53 Main St. No Yes Operations (Primary) Centers Fire Station # 3 37 Town No Yes (Secondary) Farm Road

Police Station 55 Main First Aid Yes Health Street Facilities Fire Station 55 Main First Aid No Yes Street Westford 3 Park Skilled 50 Yes Nursing and Drive Nursing Rehab Center Emerson Littleton Outpatient Hospital Road facility Medical Clinic Blanchard 15 West 700 Yes Yes Middle School Street Westford 30 Patten 500 Yes Yes Academy Road Norman Day 75 East 300 Yes Yes School Prescott Shelters Street Stony Brook 9 Farmer 700 Yes Yes Middle School Way

Senior Center 20 Pleasant

St.

Abbott 25 Depot

Elementary St. School Nabnasset 99 Plain St. Elementary School Crisafulli 13 300 Yes Yes Middle School Robinson Road Rita Miller 1 Mitchell 300 Yes Yes Elementary Way School

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 163

Table 60: Westford Hazard Risk Assessment Hazard Frequency- Severity- Extent of Probability- Total Score (Weight (Weight Impact – (weight factor=2) factor=5) (Weight factor=7) factor=10)

Flood 1x2=2 1x5=5 1x10=10 1x7=7 24

Wildfire 3x2=6 1x5=5 2x10=20 3x7=21 52

Urban Fire 1x2=2 1x5=5 1x10=10 1x7=7 24

Earthquake 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 2x7=14 65

Tornado 1x2=2 2x5=10 3x10=30 1x7=7 49

Dam Failure 1x2=2 1x5=5 1x10=10 1x7=7 24

Drought 2x2=4 3x5=15 3x10=30 1x7=7 56

Nor’easter/sever 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72 e storm

Hurricane 3x3=9 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 75

Snowstorm/ 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72 blizzard

Landslide 1x2=2 1x5=5 1x10=10 1x7=7 24

Ice Storm 3x2=6 3x5=15 3x10=30 3x7=21 72

Ice Jam 2x2=4 1x5=5 2x10=20 2x7=14 43

Based on this analysis, Westford is at high risk for earthquakes, nor’easters, hurricanes, ice storms, snowstorms and blizzards. The Town is at a moderate risk for wildfire, drought, and ice jams, and at low risk for dam failure, landslides, urban fire and tornadoes.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 164

The 2008 Ice Storm brought down trees and power lines across most of the community

Flood Prone Areas

Westford falls within two major drainage basins or watersheds: The Merrimack River basin and the Sudbury-Assabet-Concord (SuAsCo) basin. Seven sub-basins drain most of Westford’s surface area: the Snake Meadow Brook/Keyes Brook sub-basin; the Nabnasset Lake sub-basin; the Stony Brook sub-basin; the Forge Pond sub-basin; the Tadmuck Swamp sub- basin; and the Heart Pond sub-basin. There are also four sub-basins that lie largely outside of Westford: Bridge Meadow Brook (Tyngsborough); Deep Brook (Chelmsford; Beaver Brook (Littleton); and a small section of the Massapoag Pond basin (Groton/Tyngsborough). By virtue of the size of its drainage sub-basin, Stony Brook is Westford primary watercourse.

In 1983, flood hazards in Westford were mapped as part of the Federal Emergency Management Act. The FIRM flood plain map was later updated in 2010. Westford has a Flood Zone Overlay District (FOD) that restricts uses within mapped floodplains. The purpose of the FOD is to protect public health and safety, to preserve natural flood control characteristics and flood storage capacity of the floodplain, and to protect the groundwater recharge areas within the floodplain. No construction or earthmoving activities are permitted in the FOD without a special permit from the Planning Board. The applicant must demonstrate that a proposed project conforms to the State Building Code and provide an engineer’s certification that it will not increase flood levels. The town has also adopted a Water Resource Protection Overlay District (WRPOD) in order to protect drinking water supply areas. Within the overlay districts, Westford prohibits certain land uses and allows others only by special permit. The WRPOD also imposes limits on total impervious cover.

Historically, roadways and areas that have experienced chronic flooding include:

 Bridge Street at Stony Brook Crossing and at “Blacksmith Pond”;  Gould Road;  Wing Road near Keyes Road;

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 165

 Tenney Road;  Route 40 near Keyes Road; and  Concord Road at Vine Brook

During meetings with Town, concern was expressed regarding flooding problems on Route 110 in the vicinity of Tadmuck Swamp. This problem has been due to failure to maintain culverts in the area. Route 110 is a state-owned and maintained highway under the jurisdiction of the MassDOT. A similar problem exists on Boston Road, also a state highway. Flooding is also a problem along Route 40 just west of Keyes Road due to culvert issues, and the town has applied for mitigation funds to address this issue.

Repetitive Flood Loss Structures

There are no repetitive loss structures in the Town of Westford.

NFIP Compliance

The Town participates in the NFIP and their policies require that foundations be inspected prior to framing for those structures located in the floodplain. An elevation certificate is also issued for such properties. The Town’s GIS department and Engineering Department participates in MEMA NFIP training. The Town has established a Public Works Mutual Aid agreement and is working on a similar agreement for building inspectors. The town staff provides NFIP information to residents at the Building Permit counter. The building permit process is used to identify non-compliant structures.

Structurally Deficient Bridges Over Waterways

There are two structurally deficient bridges over a waterway in Westford: the Beaver Brook Road Bridge over Beaver Brook with an AASHTO rating of 38.1, and the Bridge Street Bridge over Stony Brook with an AASHTO rating of 48.1. The Beaver Brook Road Bridge is rated structurally deficient, due to the fact that the two steel culverts have corroded bottom sections. Westford Highway Department is currently seeking funding from the Town's capital appropriation to realign both culvert pipes. This realignment process consists of slipping a PVC pipe into the existing culvert and grouting around the pipe, providing a structural repair without tearing out the entire structure or disrupting traffic. The Town is further evaluating the condition of the Bridge Street Bridge to determine the extent of the repairs that are needed.

Hazard Potential of Dams

Table 61 on the following page lists the dams in Westford that are included in the Department of Conservation and Recreation, Office of Dam Safety’s hazard classification list. Based on the data provided, the Brookside Station Dam is overdue for inspection. Six of the eight dams are classified as significant hazard dams.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 166

Table 61: Hazard Classification of Westford Dams

Dam Name Impoundment Hazard Downstream Last Inspection Next Name Class Population Date Inspection Due

Commodore Foods Stony Brook Significant 7,000 6/2/1998 6/2/2008* Company/Brookside Station Dam

Westford Depot Dam Stony Brook Significant 0 9/2/2010 9/2/2015

Stony Brook Dam At Stony Brook Pond Significant 0 12/8/2011 12/8/2016 Graniteville

Fletcher Pond Dam Fletcher Pond Significant 500 4/10/2008 4/10/2013

Murray Printing Forge Pond Significant 125 10/16/2008 10/16/2013 Company Dam/ Forge Pond Dam

Flushing Pond Dam Flushing Pond **Non- NA jurisdictional

Nabnasset Pond Dam Nabnasset Pond Significant 25 12/8/2011 12/8/2016

Long-Sought-For Pond Long-Sought-For **Non- NA Dam Pond jurisdictional Source: Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, Office of Dam Safety and the Town of Westford * Dam inspection overdue **Non-jurisdictional dams are not regulated by the DCR Office of Dam Safety

Winter Storms (ice storms, snowstorms, nor’easters)

As stated in this Plan previously, severe winter storms can produce a wide variety of hazardous weather conditions, including heavy snow, freezing rain, sleet, and extreme wind and cold. A severe winter storm is one that results in four or more inches of snow over a twelve-hour period, or six or more inches over a twenty-four hour period. The leading cause of death during winter storms is from an automobile or other transportation accidents. Exhaustion or heart attacks caused by overexertion are the second most likely cause of winter storm-related deaths. Westford, like the rest of the region, is at risk for winter storms.

Since 1983, the most significant winter snowfall in the region occurred during the winter of 1995, when snowfall measurements in the City of Lowell reached 126.5 inches. Snowfall totals in Westford were similar. The Town has provided the following information regarding winter precipitation totals from 2009-2013, as shown in Table 62 on the following page.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 167

Table 62: Westford Winter Precipitation: 2009-2013 Date Precipitation Amount (inches) Precipitation Type 12/5/2009 3 Snow 12/9/2009 8 Snow/sleet 12/13-14/2009 0 Snow/rain 12/20/2009 8 Snow 12/28/2009 0 Snow showers 1/1 – 1/3/2009 7 Snow 1/8/2010 0 Light snow 1/18/2010 7 Snow/rain 1/19/2010 3 Light snow 1/29/2010 0.5 Snow squall 2/10/2010 0 Snow 2/16/2010 7 Snow 2/24/2010 5 Wet snow 2/27/2010 0 Snow/black ice 12/11-12/2010 0 Black ice 12/15-16/2010 1 Light snow 12/20-21/2010 Dusting Light snow 12/26/2010 Dusting Light snow 12/26-27/2010 12 Snow 1/8/2011 Dusting Light snow 1/12/2011 20 Snow 1/15/2011 Dusting Snow 1/18/2011 6 Snow/freezing rain 1/19/2011 1 Snow 1/21/2011 7 Snow 1/25/2011 1 Snow 1/26-27/2011 11 Snow 2/1/2011 7 Snow 2/2/2011 7.5 Snow 2/5/2011 0 Freezing rain 2/8/2011 3 Snow 2/21/2011 2 Snow 2/25/2011 3 Snow/freezing rain 2/27/2011 7 Wet snow 2/28/2011 1 Freezing rain 3/1/2011 0 Black ice 3/5/2011 0 Black ice 3/8/2011 0 Black ice 3/17/2011 0 Black ice 3/22/2011 1 Snow 4/1/2011 5 Wet snow 10/30/2011 12 Wet snow 1/12-13/2012 2 Snow/freezing rain 1/16/2012 2 Snow 1/19/2012 2 Snow 1/21/2012 3 Snow 1/26/2012 0 Snow/freezing rain 2/29/2012 7 Snow 3/3/2012 1 Wet snow/freezing rain 3/4/2012 0 Black ice 11/7-8/2012 1.5 Snow 12/1/2012 0.5 Light snow 12/2/2012 0 Black ice

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 168

Table 62 (cont’d): Westford Winter Precipitation: 2009-2013 Date Precipitation Amount (inches) Precipitation Type 12/16-17/2012 1 Snow/freezing rain 12/26-27/2012 3 Wet snow/freezing rain 12/29-30/2012 8 Snow 1/6/2013 0 Trace snow 1/16/2013 4 Snow 1/17/2013 0 Black ice 1/21/2013 0.5 Snow 1/28-29/2013 1.5 Wet snow/freezing rain 1/30/2013 0 Freezing rain/black ice 2/3/2013 0.5 Light snow 2/6/2013 0 Light snow 2/8-9/2013 27 Snow 2/11/2013 0 Snow/freezing rain 2/16/2013 1 Wet snow 2/17/2013 2 Snow 2/24-25/2013 5 Wet snow 2/27/2013 0 Wet snow/freezing rain 3/6/2013 1 Light snow 3/7-8/2013 16 Wet snow 3/18-20/2013 12 Snow/freezing rain 11/26/2013 0 Light snow 12/1/2013 0 Ice/freezing rain 12/6/2013 Dusting Light snow/ice 12/9/2013 1 Snow/freezing rain 12/14-15/2013 9 Snow 12/17/2013 8 Snow 12/23/2013 0 Freezing rain 12/24/2013 0 Black ice 12/26/2013 1 Snow 12/30/2013 0 Black ice Source: Westford Highway Department

The October 29, 2011 snowstorm was among the most devastating that the town has experienced. The storm produced 6 inches of heavy wet snow that resulted in extensive tree damage and the loss of power for 8,790 households (87% of the town). More than 2,000 households were without power for six days. School was cancelled for four days due to downed wires. A fiber optic line located at the corner of Forge Village Road and Flagg Road was destroyed by fire during power restoration efforts. This line is the primary connection to Town Hall. More than 60 roads were closed as a result of the downed wires and trees.

Recovery from a winter storm poses a number of challenges. Prolonged curtailment of all forms of transportation can have significant adverse impacts for people stranded at home, preventing the delivery of critical services such home heating fuel supplies or the ability to get to a local food store. Extended power outages, the cost of snow removal, repairing damages, and the loss of business can have severe economic impacts on local communities. The elderly and infirmed are populations of particular concern during these events. Senior housing within Westford is shown in Appendix D.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 169

Hurricanes

Hurricanes can occur along the East Coast of the United States anytime in the period between June and November. Hurricane force winds can destroy buildings and mobile homes. Debris, such as signs, roofing materials, siding and lawn furniture can become missiles. Hurricanes can also spawn tornadoes that generally occur in thunderstorms embedded in rain bands well away from the center of the hurricane. Tornadoes can also occur near the eye wall. Heavy rain associated with the storm may cause flooding. Historically, flooding has occurred at the following locations:

 Bridge Street at Stony Brook Crossing and at “Blacksmith Pond”;  Gould Road;  Wing Road near Keyes Road;  Tenney Road;  Route 40 near Keyes Road; and  Concord Road at Vine Brook.

The most recent hurricane to affect the region and the Town was Hurricane Irene in August 2011, which became a tropical storm as it passed over the region. Tropical Storm Irene reached Westford on August 28th at 10 pm with heavy rain and wind gusts. The storm created widespread power outages as trees and tree limbs fell onto power lines. Some National Grid customers went days without power and the first day of school was postponed due to the presence of downed lines.

As a result of Irene, the Frost School and J.V. Fletcher Library sustained roof damages which led to interior damage. Roof top equipment on Westford Academy was damages as a result of power surges. A fiber optic line connected to Westford Academy was damaged by a fallen tree. Tree damage caused wires to be disconnected from utility poles in 40 locations throughout town, impacting 2,600 residents who lost power. Given that many town residents rely on private wells for their drinking water, it is estimated that 1,000 households were without water as a result of the power outage.

The following roadways were closed during Irene as a result of flooding: Plain Road, Tenney Road, and Powers Road at Concord Road. Though heavy rains associated with hurricanes present the highest recurrent risk, high winds are also a risk. Downed trees and tree limbs, blocked roads, and downed telephone and power lines can disrupt transportation routes and communication channels. It is impossible to predict where these things might occur during a hurricane event, therefore the entire town is considered to be vulnerable. Table 19 on page 41 contains a list of hurricanes that have hit New England over the past decades. The entire Northern Middlesex region is equally impacted by these events.

Though heavy rains associated with hurricanes present the highest recurrent risk from a hurricane, high winds are also a risk. Downed trees and tree limbs, blocked roads, and downed telephone and power lines can disrupt transportation routes and communication channels. It is impossible to predict where these things might occur during a hurricane event, therefore the entire town is considered to be vulnerable.

Wildfire

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 170

In February 2007, firefighters knocked down a quick moving brush fire in the Forge Village section of town by Forge Pond. The fire spread to about an 80' x 100' area but was quickly contained by firefighters on the scene. In May 2007, firefighters battled a large brush/wildland fire on Keyes Road. The fire was spread by the intense wind across several acres and a nearby home. Two firefighters were transported to a local Hospital for treatment for smoke inhalation and heat exhaustion. The Tyngsborough, Chelmsford, Groton, Carlisle, Lowell, and Littleton Fire Departments provided mutual aid for the fire.

In April 2009 firefighters were called to a report of a brush fire at the end of Trail Side Road. Once firefighters arrived on scene, they discovered a large area of brush burning between Trail Side Road and Preservation Way. Multiple mutual aid units were requested and all shifts were called back to work due to the fire being over such a large area and moving quickly up a hill. Command declared the fire contained in about two hours and all units left the scene three hours after the initial call.

On May 7, 2010, firefighters responded to reports of smoke in the area of Farmers Way and discovered smoke pluming out of the woods in the East Boston Camps. After walking a mile, a brush fire was found burning over an acre. Access to the area was very difficult, as was access to water. All stations were utilized to fight the fire. Firefighters were able to get the fire under control. In June 2010, firefighters battled a large hay field fire off Old Lowell Road. The field burned over an acre, bringing firefighters from all companies and a mutual aide engine from Littleton.

Earthquake

From 1924 to1989 there were eight earthquakes with a magnitude of 4.2 or greater in New England. According to the Weston Observatory, the last earthquake to hit the New England Region with a magnitude of 3.0 or greater occurred on September 26, 2010, in the area of Contoocook, New Hampshire. New England experiences 30-40 earthquakes each year, although most are not felt.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 171

The area’s vulnerability to a devastating earthquake is based primarily on the following elements: the density of the population, and the age of the buildings and lack of earthquake proof design. In the Town of Westford concentrations of older buildings can be found in the vicinity of the Town Center, in Forge Village, Graniteville, Parkerville, and in the Brookside neighborhood of Nabnasset. Older buildings are also scattered throughout town.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 172

SECTION 6: DEVELOPING THE EXISTING PROTECTION MATRIX

The existing protection matrix is a summary of current measures, programs, projects and activities already in place that are related to hazard mitigation. Compiling such an inventory allows gaps and deficiencies to be identified. In preparing the region’s 2006 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan, a detailed questionnaire was developed and distributed to each local community. As part of the plan update process, the 2006 information was reviewed and revised through a series of meetings, email communications, and conversations with local officials. In addition, local zoning bylaws, rules and regulations, Master Plans, and Open Space and Recreation Plans were consulted. The updated existing protection matrix reflects current conditions and incorporates new measures that have been put in place over the last five years, as shown in Tables 63 through 71. These tables have been prepared using the format suggested in FEMA guidelines.

Table 63: Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Billerica

TYPE OF DESCRIPTION AREA EFFECTIVENESS IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING COVERED OR OR CHANGES PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT NEEDED

Town participation Provides flood FEMA flood Effective None in the National Flood insurance for zones Insurance Program structures located in (NFIP) flood-prone areas.

Floodplain zoning Floodplain zoning Zone A town- Effective None bylaw is in place. by-law prohibits wide. construction in the floodplain, except by special permit issued by the ZBA.

Subdivision Subdivision Town-wide Enforced by the None. regulations address regulations are Planning Board, erosion control and consistent with EPA Conservation stormwater Phase II stormwater Commission and Board management. requirements. of Health.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 173

Table 63 (cont’d): Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Billerica

TYPE OF DESCRIPTION AREA EFFECTIVENESS OR IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING COVERED ENFORCEMENT OR CHANGES PROTECTION NEEDED

Stormwater The town has a Town-wide Implemented and Changes will be Management Plan stormwater monitored by the needed when new EPA management plan in Conservation stormwater regulations place that complies Commission, Planning go into effect. with existing EPA Board, Building Phase II requirements Inspector and Public Works Department.

Town has a local Local bylaw is more Town-wide Enforced by None. wetlands zoning restrictive than the MA Conservation bylaw. Wetlands Protection Commission. Act. Requires 100-foot buffer in wetland resource areas.

Local regulations Local bylaw includes Town-wide Enforced by the Conservation address limitations limitations on Planning Board and Commission advocates on impervious expansion of Conservation increased public surface. impervious surfaces. Commission. education and awareness.

Town’s Open Plan advocates Town-wide Moderately effective. None. Space Plan targets acquisition of parcels Town is pursuing protection and within the 100-year acquisition of parcels acquisition of floodplain and other along the Shawsheen parcels for flood environmentally and Concord Rivers. mitigation. sensitive area.

Community has a The town has an Town-wide The Department of None. Capital ongoing sewer Public Works is Improvement construction program, responsible for Program that and is designing implementing these includes projects roadway improvement projects. with natural hazard projects that will mitigation benefits. address drainage issues in targeted locations.

Maintenance The Town has a Town-wide Program is implemented None. program for maintenance program by the Department of stormwater for cleaning drainage Public Works and is drainage structure structures, culverts, and effective. detention basins. Streets are swept on a regular basis.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 174

Table 63 (cont’d): Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Billerica

TYPE OF DESCRIPTION AREA EFFECTIVENESS IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING COVERED OR OR CHANGES PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT NEEDED

Town has a Mandates use of Town wide Enforced by the None. Stormwater structural and non- Board of Health Management Bylaw structural BMPs in construction projects

The Community has a The Fire Department Town-wide Effective None. program to notify utilizes local media, residents of potential including cable TV and wildfire hazard during radio, to educate drought conditions. residents regarding wildfire danger.

Enforcement of State The town’s building Town-wide Effective None. Building Code inspector enforces the state building code, including those sections that relate to the NFIP requirements.

Town utilizes Allows for emergency Town wide Effective None CodeRED emergency notification on a town- notification system wide basis or on a specific area basis

Table 64: Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Chelmsford

TYPE OF DESCRIPTION AREA EFFECTIVENESS IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING COVERED OR OR CHANGES PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT NEEDED

Community NFIP provides flood FEMA Zones Moderately effective Improved zoning participates in the insurance to property A and AZ enforcement needed. National Flood owners in exchange for (100-year Insurance Program. community compliance floodplain) with floodplain management.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 175

Table 64 (cont’d): Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Chelmsford

TYPE OF DESCRIPTION AREA EFFECTIVENESS IMPROVEMENTS OR EXISTING COVERED OR CHANGES NEEDED PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT

Town has The Town adopted Covers Effective None. floodplain zoning DCR’s model Zones A and in place floodplain bylaw in AZ (100-year April 2004. floodplain)

Stormwater and The Planning Board Town-wide Regulations should be Improved coordination is erosion control requires adherence to reviewed; although a needed between the measures DEP’s Stormwater major revision is not Planning Board, policy town wide. The needed. Conservation Commission, town also has a and ZBA (as 40B permit stormwater granting authority). management plan as Implementation of a Low required under its Impact Development (LID) MS4 Permit. bylaw should be evaluated.

The Town has a The Conservation Town-wide Both wetland and No improvements needed. wetlands Commission has a aquifer protection protection and general (non-zoning) bylaws are effective. aquifer protection wetlands bylaw; the bylaw and district. zoning bylaw includes a section regarding the Aquifer Protection District.

The Town has The Aquifer Within the Routine review is Better enforcement would impervious Protection District Aquifer warranted. be beneficial. surface limits impervious Protection limitations. surface to 2,500 District square feet, or 15%.

Open Space Plan Identifies Town-wide Open Space Plan is OSRP has been approved includes measures improvements to open updated every 7 by the State. aimed at natural space properties and years. Implementation will be hazard mitigation. protection of resource ongoing. areas; includes a seven year action plan.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 176

Table 64 (cont’d): Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Chelmsford

TYPE OF DESCRIPTION AREA EFFECTIVENESS OR IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING COVERED ENFORCEMENT OR CHANGES PROTECTION NEEDED

Master Plan The town’s 2010 Town-wide The town has an The Implementation addresses Natural Master Plan contains established Master Plan Committee should Hazard Mitigation recommendations Implementation contain to its work to relative to natural Committee charged with implement the plan hazard mitigation. implementing the recommendations; recommendations progress will be reported contained within the to town meeting on an Plan. annual basis.

The Town has Zoning and subdivision Town-wide Stormwater controls are Town should evaluate local stormwater regulations require generally effective; and consider Low regulations in limiting the rate of Town relies on closed Impact Development place. runoff to pre- stormwater systems. (LID); improved development rates. Best management coordination between Culverts are sized for practices required for the Planning Board, 10-year storms, new commercial Conservation detention basins for 25- developments and Commission, and ZBA. year storms with subdivisions. damage avoidance for the 100-year event.

A response plan is There are emergency Area in Plans adequately assess Response plans should in place for dams plans in place for the vicinity of potential damage and be routinely reviewed located within Freeman Lake and dams provide response and updated. Town. Heart Pond Dams. measures.

Town performs The Town clears Town-wide In general, stormwater A plan for routine limited several small streams, systems are maintained maintenance should be maintenance of swales, etc. each year. only when there is a established. drainage failure/emergency. infrastructure.

Town has Town sweeps streets Town-wide Marginally effective. Financial constraints program to sweep and cleans each catch More frequent limit more frequent streets, clean out basin yearly. Culverts maintenance is necessary maintenance. catch basins, and are cleaned as needed. to protect resource areas clear blocked and meet DEP standards. culverts

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 177

Table 64 (cont’d): Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Chelmsford

TYPE OF DESCRIPTION AREA EFFECTIVENESS IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING COVERED OR OR CHANGES PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT NEEDED

Green The Town has been Town-wide Effective None. Ongoing Community designated by the program. Designation Department of Energy Resources as a Green Community. Hence, the community works toward improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which benefits climate change.

Enforcement of The town’s building Town-wide Effective None. State Building inspector enforces the state Code building code, including those sections that relate to the NFIP requirements.

Town has active Street trees are monitored, Town-wide Generally effective None program to cut and pruned as needed. address tree Town relies on abutters to hazards report problem locations.

Table 65: Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Dracut

TYPE OF DESCRIPTION AREA EFFECTIVENESS IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING COVERED OR OR CHANGES PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT NEEDED

Community NFIP provides flood FEMA Zones Effective None participates in the insurance to property A and AZ National Flood owners in exchange for (100-year Insurance Program. community compliance floodplain) with floodplain management.

The Town has a Construction of a new Town-wide Effective None wetland and water structure, new impervious conservancy overlay surface or enlargement of district an existing structure or impervious surface is prohibited.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 178

Table 65 (cont’d): Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Dracut

TYPE OF DESCRIPTION AREA EFFECTIVENESS IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING COVERED OR OR CHANGES PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT NEEDED

Community has a Planning Board reviews Applied to Effective None. stormwater control projects for compliance new policy with DEP stormwater development regulations. Subdivision projects and zoning regulations town-wide require peak runoff for development to be less than or equal to predevelopment runoff rates; require that drainage systems be sized for the 25-year storm and detention basins for 100- year storm.

Erosion and The Town has an erosion Town-wide Effective None sediment control and sediment control bylaw bylaw to promote groundwater recharge, limit impervious surface, and remove suspended solids and contaminants from stormwater.

Maintenance plan The Town maintains all Town-wide Effective None for drainage and detention/ retention basins, stormwater culverts, swales and other infrastructure. drainage infrastructure under its control.

Emergency The Dracut Water Supply Dracut Water Effective None generators for water District has installed new Supply supply/other capital booster pumps with District and improvements emergency generators and the Kenwood has plans for other capital Water Dept. projects. The Kenwood district Water Dept. is constructing a new pump station with an emergency generator.

The Town has a Streets are swept and Town-wide Effective None street sweeping culverts are cleaned program in place. annually.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 179

Table 65 (cont’d): Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Dracut

TYPE OF DESCRIPTION AREA EFFECTIVENESS IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING COVERED OR OR CHANGES PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT NEEDED

Tree maintenance The town has a full-time Town-wide Effective None program. tree program to address dead and diseased trees that pose a public safety hazard and may impact utility lines

Enforcement of The town’s building Town-wide Effective None. State Building Code inspector enforces the state building code, including those sections that relate to the NFIP requirements.

Drainage The town has Town-wide Effective Additional locations Improvement/culvert replaced/upgraded several need to be addressed replacement culverts and drainage program structures to reduce flash flooding problems. The following locations have been addressed: Varnum Road near Florence Street; Lakeview Avenue near Florence Street; Methuen Street near Stuart Avenue; Pleasant Street, Lakeview Avenue, and Burdette Road at Peppermint Brook; Cheever Ave, near Robbins Rd., and Salem Rd.

Table 66: Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Dunstable

TYPE OF DESCRIPTION AREA EFFECTIVENESS IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING COVERED OR OR CHANGES PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT NEEDED

Town participation in Provides flood FEMA 100- Effective None. the National Flood insurance for year flood Insurance Program structures located in zones (NFIP). flood-prone areas.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 180

Table 66 (cont’d): Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Dunstable

TYPE OF DESCRIPTION AREA EFFECTIVENESS IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING COVERED OR OR CHANGES PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT NEEDED

The Town has a Prohibits construction of a Town-wide Effective None. local wetlands new structure or alteration bylaw. of an existing structure within 100 feet of a wetland.

Floodplain The Town’s zoning bylaw Town-wide Effective None. Overlay District includes a floodplain within the overlay district. No 100-year building or structure may floodplain. be erected within the 100- year floodplain.

Enforcement of The town’s building Town-wide Effective None. State Building inspector enforces the state Code building code, including those sections that relate to the NFIP requirements.

Open Space Plan The Town has a state- Town-wide Effective. Implementation is addresses hazard approved Open Space and ongoing. mitigation Recreation Plan that contains goals and recommendations relative to flood protection and open space acquisition.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 181

Table 67: Existing Protection Matrix for the City of Lowell

TYPE OF DESCRIPTION AREA EFFECTIVENESS IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING COVERED OR OR CHANGES PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT NEEDED

The City NFIP provides flood FEMA 100- Effective None. participates in the insurance to property year flood National Flood owners in exchange for zones Insurance community compliance Program (NFIP). with floodplain management.

Floodplain zoning Section 9.1 of the zoning Covers all Effective None. overlay district ordinance requires that FIRM zones ordinance is in all development, in the 100- place. including structural and year nonstructural activities, floodplain be in compliance with state building code

requirements for construction in floodplains.

City Wetlands Sections 5 through 120 City-wide Effective Improve enforcement. Ordinance of the Municipal Code of Ordinances states that no person shall remove, fill, dredge, alter or build upon or within 100 feet of any bank, lake, river, pond, or stream, or upon any land subject to flooding.

Program to reduce The City of Lowell is City-wide Long-term program is Additional funding Combined Sewer implementing a program being implemented as sources will be needed Overflows to separate wastewater funds become to implement the and stormwater that will available, highly overall program within reduce sewer backups effective over the long- a reasonable timeframe. and relieve street term. flooding.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 182

Table 67 (cont’d): Existing Protection Matrix for the City of Lowell

TYPE OF DESCRIPTION AREA EFFECTIVENESS IMPROVEMENTS OR EXISTING COVERED OR CHANGES NEEDED PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT

Street tree The City has a City-wide Effective None. program in place. program in place to remove problem trees and plant replacements.

Ongoing flood The City has made Merrimack Effective City is currently working protection system substantial River and to address levee stability, improvement improvements to its Beaver Brook the West Street Pumping program flood protection flood zones station, and the I-wall system since the floods along Beaver Brook. of 2006 and 2007

Brush thin and The City of Lowell and Lowell-Dracut- New Program, None. fuel reduction DCR have Tyngsborough effectiveness cannot program for the implemented a fuel State Forest yet be rated. State Forest. reduction program for the Lowell-Dracut- Tyngsborough State Forest to reduce the risk of wildfire.

Open Space Plan The City has a state- City-wide Effective None. that address approved Open Space protection of the and Recreation Plan in floodplain place that addresses flood protection.

Master Plan The City’s 2011 City-wide Implementation will None. addresses natural Master Plan addresses be ongoing over the hazards flood risk and flood next several years zone protection.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 183

Table 67 (cont’d): Existing Protection Matrix for the City of Lowell

TYPE OF DESCRIPTION AREA EFFECTIVENESS IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING COVERED OR OR CHANGES PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT NEEDED

Green Community The Town has been Town-wide Effective None. Ongoing Designation designated by the program. Department of Energy Resources as a Green Community. Hence, the community works toward improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which benefits climate change.

Enforcement of The City’s Building Town-wide Effective None. State Building Department enforces the Code state building code, including those sections that relate to the NFIP requirements.

Plan to notify The City has implemented City-wide Effective. None. residents in the reverse E911 as one means event of a natural of notifying residents in an disaster. emergency.

Table 68: Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Pepperell

TYPE OF DESCRIPTION AREA EFFECTIVENESS IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING COVERED OR OR CHANGES PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT NEEDED

The Town NFIP provides flood FEMA 100-year Effective None. participates in the insurance to flood zones National Flood property owners in Insurance Program exchange for (NFIP). compliance with floodplain management.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 184

Table 68 (cont’d): Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Pepperell

TYPE OF DESCRIPTION AREA EFFECTIVENESS IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING COVERED OR OR CHANGES PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT NEEDED Local Wetlands In addition to the Town-wide Moderately effective Bylaw should be Protection Bylaw requirements of the reviewed and state’s Wetlands modifications Protection Act, the considered. local bylaw states that a 50-foor wide undisturbed, vegetated strip of naturally occurring plant species must be maintained between a certified vernal pool or wetland resource area. Zoning bylaw The Town’s zoning Town-wide Effective None. addresses erosion bylaw states that site control. design, materials, and construction processes shall be employed to avoid erosion damage, sedimentation, or uncontrolled surface water runoff. Zoning bylaw The Water Resource Town-wide Effective None. contains a Water Protection Overlay Resource Protection District consists of Overlay District. three zones: Water Source Protection Zone (Zone I); Well Protection Zone (Zone II) and an Aquifer-Watershed Protection Zone (Zone III). Activities within each of these zones are regulated to protect groundwater from degradation. Local Flood Control The Town bylaws Town-wide Effective. None. Bylaw (Chapter 95) contain a local floodplain bylaw consistent with the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 185

Table 69: Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Tewksbury

TYPE OF DESCRIPTION AREA EFFECTIVENESS IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING COVERED OR OR CHANGES PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT NEEDED

The Town NFIP provides flood Town-wide Effective None. participates in the insurance for property National Flood owners in exchange Insurance Program. for community compliance with floodplain management.

Tewksbury The federal CRS Town-wide Effective. The Town None. participates in the program encourages has adopted an Community Rating communities to improved stormwater System (CRS). undertake activities management program that exceed the as a result of its minimum NFIP participation in the floodplain CRS program. management standards.

Floodplain overlay The Town’s Town-wide Effective None. district zoning floodplain overlay bylaw district zoning bylaw was revised in 2002. All development in the district must comply with Chapter 131, Section 40 MGL; 780 CMR (State Building code) for flood resistant construction which addresses floodplain; 310 CMR Section 10.00; and 302 CMR 6.00, as well as DEP Title V regulations for subsurface disposal of sanitary sewage.

Discharges to Includes enforcement Town wide Effective None municipal storm by the DPW on illicit sewers by-law has connections to been adopted prevent pollutant from entering the system.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 186

Table 69 (cont’d): Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Tewksbury

TYPE OF DESCRIPTION AREA EFFECTIVENESS IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING COVERED OR OR CHANGES PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT NEEDED

Local Wetlands The Town has a local Town-wide Effective None Protection Bylaw wetlands protection bylaw which states that no person shall alter a resource area including within 100 feet of any vegetated wetland, meadow, swamp, or bog; or within 100 feet of any river, brook, stream (intermittent or otherwise), pond of lake; any land under water; or within 100 feet of bordering or isolated land subject to flooding or inundation by groundwater or surface water.

Subdivision The peak rate of Town-wide Effective. New None. regulations address stormwater runoff stormwater drainage, erosion shall not exceed the management and sediment rate prior to requirements are in control, and have construction based on place. additional standards a 2, 10, 25, 50 and for the floodplain 100-year storm district. design. Street drainage cannot be channeled into a wetland or water body without first going to a vegetated detention basin in accordance with DEP stormwater regulations. Where possible, streets must be laid out so that filling or construction in the flood plain district is not required.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 187

Table 69 (cont’d): Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Tewksbury

TYPE OF DESCRIPTION AREA EFFECTIVENESS IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING COVERED OR OR CHANGES PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT NEEDED

Open Space and The Town’s most Key parcels Effective. None. Recreation Plan recent Open Space and town-wide. addresses Natural Recreation Plan targets Disaster Mitigation. open space acquisition for natural hazard mitigation especially those in the flood plain.

Capital The town has a capital Town-Wide. Effective. The Sewer None. Improvement improvement program Program Will Address Program that contains projects The Failed Septic that will benefit natural Systems That Have hazard mitigation. Been Monitored By These include The Board Of Health. implementation of the town’s sewer facilities plan, and stormwater management infrastructure improvements.

Repair of the Ames Within the past five Ames Pond Effective Future maintenance Pond Dam and years, the Town Dam and Dikes responsibilities for Dikes funded the cost of A and B these facilities need to repairs for the Ames be addressed. Pond Dam and dikes, which are privately owned.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 188

Table 69 (cont’d): Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Tewksbury

TYPE OF DESCRIPTION AREA EFFECTIVENESS IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING COVERED OR OR CHANGES PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT NEEDED

Street Sweeping The Town has a Town-wide Effective None. Program program to sweep streets, and clean catch basins and culverts.

DPW Forestry The Town DPW has a Town-wide Effective None. Department Tree program for removing Maintenance diseased and dead Program trees which pose a risk to public safety and utility lines.

Measures to address The Town requires Town-wide Effective None. wildfire risk. fireproof roofing shingles. Vegetative fuel under power lines is also removed to reduce fire risk.

Groundwater The Groundwater Wellhead area Effective None. Protection Overlay Overlay District for the District bylaw protects the Tewksbury wellhead for the State Hospital Tewksbury State water supply. Hospital drinking water supply.

FMA and HMGP Two repetitive flood Two repetitive Effective None. Grants loss structures were flood loss elevated above base properties, and flood elevation, and East culverts were Street/Strong installed on East water Brook Street to address crossing flooding.

Stormwater Approved by town Town wide. Effective. None. Management and meeting in October erosion control 2010 bylaw.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 189

Table 70: Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Tyngsborough

TYPE OF DESCRIPTION AREA EFFECTIVENESS IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING COVERED OR OR CHANGES PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT NEEDED Subdivision Subdivision regulations Town-wide Effective None. regulations state that the quantity of address drainage runoff shall be less or and stormwater. equal to the predevelopment condition. The system must be designed for the 25-year storm event. Detention basins must be designed for the 100-year storm.

The Town NFIP provides flood Town-wide Effective None. participates in the insurance for property National Flood owners in exchange for Insurance community compliance Program. with floodplain management.

The Town’s The Floodplain Overlay The Floodplain Effective None. zoning bylaw District bylaw states Overlay District includes a that no new building includes FIRM Floodplain and shall be erected, and no Zones A and A1- Floodway Overlay existing structure shall 30. District. be altered, enlarged or moved; no dumping, filling, or earth transfer or relocation shall be permitted; nor any land, building or structure used for any purpose, except by special permit. The Floodway Overlay District bylaw states that all encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements to existing structures, and other development are prohibited, except by special permit.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 190

Table 70 (cont’d): Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Tyngsborough

TYPE OF DESCRIPTION AREA COVERED EFFECTIVENES IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING S OR OR CHANGES PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT NEEDED Zoning bylaw The following uses are Boundaries of the Effective None. includes a prohibited in the district are Wetlands Wetlands Overlay coterminous with Overlay District. District: the erection of the bounds any new building or contained in MGL structure, or impervious Chapter 131: banks, surface, or enlargement bordering vegetated of an existing structure; wetlands, land under dumping, filling, earth water and removal; sewage/septage waterways, and disposal systems, refuse certain land subject dumping or sanitary to flooding landfills; the storage of including bordering chemicals, manure or and isolated areas. toxics. The draining, damming or relocation of any water feature is prohibited. Local Wetlands The Town’s Wetlands Lands within 200 Effective None. Protection Bylaw Protection Bylaw states feet of a river, and that no person shall lands within 100 remove, fill, dredge, feet of other build upon, degrade, resource areas, are discharge into, or covered by this otherwise alter any bylaw. freshwater wetlands; marsh; wet meadow; bog; swamp; vernal pool; bank; reservoir; lake; pond of any size; river; stream; creek; beach; land under water; land subject to flooding; and land abutting any of the aforementioned resource areas.

Green The Town has been Town-wide Effective None. Ongoing Community designated by the DOER program. Designation as a Green Community. Hence, the community works toward improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which benefits climate change.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 191

Table 70 (cont’d): Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Tyngsborough

TYPE OF DESCRIPTION AREA COVERED EFFECTIVENESS IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING OR OR CHANGES PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT NEEDED Stormwater The Town has a bylaw Town-wide Effective None. Management By- to regulate stormwater law and runoff, non-point Stormwater source pollution, illicit Management Plan connections, illegal discharges and obstructions to the storm sewer system. The Town also has a stormwater management plan as part of its MS4 permit.

Table 71: Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Westford

TYPE OF DESCRIPTION AREA EFFECTIVENESS IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING COVERED OR OR CHANGES PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT NEEDED Zoning bylaw The Town’s FIRM 100-year Effective None. includes a Floodplain Overlay flood elevations Floodplain Overlay District Bylaw states designated as District. that no structure or Zone A and building shall be Zones A1-A30. erected, constructed, substantially improved, or otherwise created or moved, except by special permit granted by the Planning Board By- law updated in 2010 to reflect updated FIRMs. Zoning Bylaw The Town’s Water Town-wide Effective Master Plan calls for includes a Water Resource Overlay addition of Resource Protection District (WRPD) quantitative standards, Overlay District. includes WRPD I such as related to through III nitrogen loading, into locations. the existing WRPD by-law

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 192

Table 71 (cont’d): Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Westford

TYPE OF DESCRIPTION AREA EFFECTIVENESS IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING COVERED OR OR CHANGES PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT NEEDED The Town NFIP provides flood Town-wide Effective None. participates in the insurance for property National Flood owners in exchange Insurance for community Program. compliance with floodplain management.

Zoning bylaw The Conservation Seven locations Effective None. includes a Overlay District is across Town, Conservation comprised of land set including a Overlay District. aside from portion of: Pine development for Ridge Estates; agriculture, open Vine Brook space, and passive Estates; Pilgrim recreation. Village at Keyes Pond; and Hildreth Hills; land off Lucille Avenue (2.5 acres); and land off Tenney Road (15.3 acres). Local Wetlands The Town’s local Town-wide Effective None. Bylaw wetlands bylaw states that no person shall remove, fill, dredge, alter or build upon or within 100 ft. of any bank, wetland, marsh, bog, swamp, vernal pool or beach; brook, stream, pond, or lake; or FEMA 100-year flood plain. Stormwater Applies to all land Town-wide Need to develop Regulations are being Management Plan disturbances greater regulations, enforced developed by the town and By-law than 1 acre and all via Planning Board subdivisions. permitting and Engineering Dept. review of proposals Discharges to Includes enforcement Town-wide Effective None municipal storm by the Board of sewers by-law has Health relative to been adopted illicit connections to prevent pollutants from entering the system.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 193

Table 71 (cont’d): Existing Protection Matrix for the Town of Westford

Regular The Town has an Recent Effective None. maintenance of active program to improvement Dam Structures maintain town- projects include owned dams. the Commodore Foods/Brookside Station Dam and the Stony Brook Dam. Maintenance The Town routinely Program covers Effective None. Program for town- maintains sluice town-owned owned outfall gates for outfalls for structures. structures. lakes/ponds. Street Sweeping The Town sweeps Town-wide Effective None. Program all roadways on an annual basis. Drainage The Town maintains Town-wide Effective None. infrastructure and cleans all maintenance drainage structures program. including catch basins and culverts on a regular schedule. Prevention Ensure erosion Town-wide Effective None control through Planning Board and subdivision regulations. Tree Maintenance The Town Highway Town-wide Effective None. Program Dept. has a program for removing diseased and dead trees which pose a risk to public safety and utility lines. Wildfire mitigation The Fire Department Town-wide To be determined; None measures initiated a program new program. to address the potential for wildfire in forested areas of Town, in conjunction with the District 6 Fire Warden. Plan for public The Town has a plan Town-wide Effective None. information in place to provide dissemination to residence with warn of possible warning information natural disaster. utilizing cable TV, the internet, and reverse 911.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 194

SECTION 7: VULNERABILITY/RISK ASSESSMENT

A. Overview of Natural Hazards Vulnerability

Previous sections of this report describe the natural hazards that have occurred, or are most likely to occur in the region. Since 1991, there have been twenty-three Presidential disaster declarations that included Middlesex County, as summarized in Table 72 below. Since 2006, there have been seven Presidential disaster declarations in Middlesex County, four of which were the result of flooding, while the remaining three were the result of severe winter storms. The vulnerability and risk assessment has been based on: the frequency of disasters, the potential extent of the impact from each hazard and the probability of the event occurring. The 2010 Massachusetts State Hazard Mitigation Plan was consulted for this analysis. The Hazard Assessment analysis is outlined in Section 4 of this document.

According to the State’s 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan, the 2010 Hazard Mitigation Index Rating for Middlesex County was 22. This represents a minimal change from 2007, when the county received an index score of 20. For comparison, in 2010 the lowest index rating of 9 was found in Hampshire County and the highest rating of 25 was in Essex County. The higher the index rate the greater the potential vulnerability to a natural disaster. The greatest hazard risk in Middlesex County is from flooding. In fact, Middlesex County is rated at the greatest risk for flooding of all counties in Massachusetts.

Table 72: Disaster Declarations for Middlesex County (1991-2013)

Disaster Name Disaster Number Declared Areas (Date of Event) (Type of Assistance) Hurricane Bob (August 1991) FEMA -914-DR-MA (PA); Counties of Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Essex, FEMA-914-DR-MA Hampden, Middlesex, Plymouth, Nantucket, (HMGP) Norfolk, and Suffolk Severe Coastal Storm (October FEMA-920-DR-MA (PA); Counties of Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Essex, 1991) FEMA-920-DR-MA IMA); Middlesex, Plymouth, Nantucket, Norfolk, and FEMA-920-DR-MA Suffolk (HMGP) Blizzard (March 1993) FEMA-3103-EM (PA) All 14 Massachusetts counties Blizzard (January 1996) FEMA-1090-EM (PA) All 14 Massachusetts counties Severe Storms/Flood (October FEMA – 1142 –DR-MA Counties of Essex, Middlesex, Plymouth, 1996) (PA); FEMA -1142 – DR- Norfolk, and Suffolk MA (IFG); FEMA-1142-DR- MA (HMGP); and FY 1997 CDBG Heavy Rain/Flood (June 1998) FEMA-1224-DR-MA (IFG); Counties of Bristol, Essex, Middlesex, Norfolk, FEMA-1224-DR-MA Suffolk, Plymouth and Worcester (HMGP); 1998 CDBG Severe Storms and Flooding FEMA-1364-DR-MA (IFG); Counties of Bristol, Essex, Middlesex, Norfolk, FEMA-1364-DR-MA Suffolk, Plymouth, and Worcester (HMGP) Snowstorm (March 2001) FEMA-3164-DR-MA (IFG) Counties of Berkshire, Essex, Franklin, Hampshire, Middlesex, Norfolk, and Worcester Terrorist Attack (September 11, FEMA-1391 (IFG) Massachusetts residents who requested crisis 2001) counseling services following September 11th. Snowstorm (February 2003) FEMA-3175-EM (PA) All 14 Massachusetts counties.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 195

Table 72 (cont’d): Disaster Declarations for Middlesex County (1991-2013) Disaster Name Disaster Number Declared Areas (Date of Event) (Type of Assistance) Snowstorm (December 2003) FEMA-3191-EM (PA) Counties of Barnstable, Berkshire, Bristol, Essex, Franklin, Hampden, Hampshire, Middlesex, Norfolk, Plymouth, Suffolk, and Worcester Flooding (April 2004) FEMA-1512-DR (IFG); Counties of Essex, Middlesex, Norfolk, Suffolk and FEMA-1512-DR (HMGP) Worcester Severe Winter Storm (January FEMA-3201-EM (PA) All 14 Massachusetts counties. 2005) Hurricane Katrina (August FEMA- 3252-EM (PA) All 14 Massachusetts counties. 2005) Severe Storms and Flooding FEMA-1614-DR (IHP); Counties of Berkshire, Bristol, Franklin, Hampden, (October 2005) FEMA -1614-DR-MA Hampshire, Middlesex, Norfolk, Plymouth and (HMGP) Worcester (HMGP funds were available to all 14 Massachusetts counties) Severe Storms and Flooding FEMA-1642- DR-MA (PA) Essex and Middlesex Counties (May 2006) FEMA-1642-DR-MA (IHP) Essex, Middlesex and Suffolk FEMA-1642-DR-MA All 14 Massachusetts counties (HMGP) Severe Storms and Flooding FEMA-1701-DR-MA (PA); All 14 Massachusetts counties (April 2007) FEMA-1701-DR-MA (HGMP) Severe Winter Storm FEMA-3296-EM-MA Counties of Berkshire, Bristol, Essex, Franklin, (December 2008) (Public) Hampden, Hampshire, Middlesex, Suffolk and Worcester Severe Storms and Flooding FEMA-1813-DR-MA (PA); Counties of Berkshire, Essex, Franklin, Hampden, (December 2008) FEMA-1813-DR-MA Hampshire, Middlesex, and Worcester. (HGMP (HMGP) funds were made available to all 14 counties. Severe Storm and Flooding FEMA-1895-DR-MA (PA); Counties of Essex, Suffolk. Plymouth, Middlesex, (March-April 2010) FEMA-1895-DR-MA (IHP) Norfolk, and Worcester Severe Storm and Snowstorm FEMA-1959-DR-MA (PA); Counties of Berkshire, Essex, Hampden, (January 2011) FEMA-1959-DR-MA Hampshire, Middlesex, Norfolk, and Suffolk. (HGMP) (HGMP funds were made available in all 14 Massachusetts counties) Severe Storm/snowstorm FEMA – 4051-DR-MA Counties of Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden, (October 2011) (PA); Hampshire, Middlesex, and Worcester. (HMGP FEMA-4051-DR-MA funds are available in all 14 counties) (HMGP) Severe Winter Storm, FEMA-4110-DR-MA All 14 Massachusetts counties snowstorm and flooding (April 2013) Key: PA-Public Assistance Project Grants: Supplemental disaster assistance to states, local governments, certain private non-profit organizations resulting from declared major disasters or emergencies.

HMGP – Hazard Mitigation Grant Program: Project grants to prevent future loss of life or property due to disaster. A presidential declaration of a major disaster or emergency is needed to designate HMGP assistance.

IHP – Individual Household Program: Formerly named IFG, this program provides grants and loans to individual disaster victims to address serious needs and necessary expenses, under the FEMA Disaster Housing, State IFG Program, and/or SBA Home and Business Loan Programs.

CDBG – Community Development Block Grant: Project grants for community development –type activities to assist with long- term recovery needs related to both residential and commercial buildings.

Source: FEMA

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 196

B. Potential Flood Damage as a Measure of Vulnerability

All jurisdictions within the region have hazard-prone areas. Clearly, the most common hazard is flooding. Estimates of the potential losses from flooding were calculated as one means of measuring the region's vulnerability. Methodologies to measure the geographic impact of flood events are well developed, and mitigation practices to reduce flood impacts are well understood.

NMCOG staff estimated the value of buildings within the 100-year flood plain using assessed value data from the tax assessor records in each community. The 100-year flood plain is a well-defined geographical area for which up-to-date maps are readily available. These maps, which were updated in 2010, were overlaid with the building location data for each municipality.

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) data was obtained from MassGIS showing the 100- year floodplain (Zones A, A1-30, and AE). The 100-year flood plain map was then overlain on MassGIS Level~2 parcels for eight of the communities. Dunstable, with sixteen properties in the 100-Year Flood Plain, was visually checked using 1:5000 orthophotos, and a point file of these properties was created. The parcel maps of the other eight communities were intersected with the 100-year flood plain and all parcels in the 100-year flood plain were identified.

The identified parcels were then visually compared to the orthophotos to determine if the actual building structure fell within the 100-year floodplain. Given the level of accuracy of the 100-year flood plain data, it was decided that if any part of a building lie outside the 100-year flood plain, that structure would not be included in the calculation.

After visually being checked for accuracy, the parcel files were merged with each community’s assessor database. Given that these databases are in various formats, a merger into a regional database was not undertaken. Therefore, individual town files were used for the mapping, rather than one regional file. It is also important to note that the individual map objects do not equal the number of buildings. The building count will be far higher than the parcel count, due to the inclusion of condominiums. In two cases, there were large parcels that were recently developed containing condominium buildings located within and outside of the flood plain. The building values were generally quite similar. Based on visual inspection of the floodplain maps, the number of units that were not within the floodplain was subtracted from the total for those parcels. Buildings were grouped together by land use category: residential (all types), commercial, industrial and institutional.

The final output shows the total value of buildings within the 100-year flood plain for each community. Given the limitations of funding and methodology, there was no attempt made to estimate the probable amount of damage from the 100-year storm event. Hence, the value of each building is the upper limit of potential damage and would not be exceeded, except in an exceedingly rare catastrophic storm event far exceeding a 100-year storm. Table 71 on the following page summarizes by community the value of properties located in the 100-year floodplain by land use code.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 197

Table 73: Assessed Value of Buildings in the 100-Year Flood Plain by Community and Use Code

Number of Residential Commercia Industrial Governmenta Total Value Structures l l /Institutional Billerica 321 $46,852,100 $5,771,300 $1,779,200 $3,682,400 $58,085,000 Chelmsford ¹ 400 50,197,574 8,959,400 8,307,900 1,191,600 89,301,774 Dracut 68 9,811,200 3,342,900 8,092,700 100,000 21,346,800 Dunstable 28 5,230,900 0 0 0 5,230,900 Lowell 451 113,199,600 16,304,900 9,084,500 8,744,800 147,333,800 Pepperell 30 4,082,885 187,600 81,100 87,900 4,439,485 Tewksbury 246 26,027,600 5,211,200 1,837,200 810,400 33,886,400 Tyngsboroug h 111 16,852,800 7,466,800 383,400 221,200 24,924,200 Westford 113 20,645,300 5,883,100 9,366,600 0 50,733,300 Total 1788 $292,899,959 $53,127,200 $38,932,600 $14,838,300 $435,281,659 ² ¹Includes 118 Condo units, representing $28,506,204 in the Williamsburg Condominium Complex ²Based on assessed value of structures and adjusted for condo units when majority of building is out of the flood zone.

While Table 73 above provides an estimate of the building values, the figures do not include the estimated cost of replacing building contents. According to HAZUS, the value of building contents depends on the type of building. The contents of residential buildings have a replacement cost of approximately 50% of the building value. Commercial building contents cost approximately 100% of the building value to replace and industrial building contents cost about 125%. For purposes of this analysis, the commercial rate was applied to governmental and institutional buildings. The estimated costs of contents replacement for structures located in the 100-year floodplain by community can be found in Table 74 below. As can be seen from the Tables 73 and 74, replacement costs for building contents total over $263 million, while building value exceeds $435 million. Therefore, the estimated value of property and contents located within the 100-year floodplain exceeds $698 million for the region overall.

Table 74: Estimated Contents Replacement Costs for Buildings in the 100-Year Floodplain

Community Residential Commercial Industrial Governmental/ Total Contents Contents Value Contents Contents Institutional Contents Value Value Value Value Billerica $23,426,050 $5,771,300 $2,224,400 $3,682,400 $35,104,150. Chelmsford¹ 25,098,787 8,959,400 10,384,875 1,191,600 45,634,662 Dracut 4,905,600 3,342,900 10,115,875 100,000 18,464,375 Dunstable 2,615,450 0 0 0 2,615,450 Lowell 56,599,800 16,304,900 11,355,635 8,744,800 93,005,135 Pepperell 2,041,279 187,600 101,375 87,900 2,418,154 Tewksbury 13,013,800 5,211,200 2,296,500 810,400 21,331,900 Tyngsborough 8,426,400 7,466,800 479,250 221,200 16,593,650 Westford 10,322,650 5,883,100 11,708,250 0 27,914,000 Total $146,449,816 $53,127,200 $48,666,160 $14,838,300 $263,081,476. Source: Local Assessor records, FIRM maps, contents value calculations utilize HAZUS methodology.

It is important to note that loss of property does not reflect the entire cost of a region- wide flood event where there may be rescue and evacuation costs, infrastructure

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 198

repair/replacement, clean up costs, personnel costs, and economic costs related to business closures and damage. Utilizing GIS, critical infrastructure that is located within the 100-year flood plain was identified and mapped. This information is shown below in Table 75 below and displayed on Maps 17 and 18, located on pages 196 and 197. Specific geographic locations subject to flooding have been discussed in previous chapters of this document. The locations of vulnerable populations are shown in the maps contained in Appendix D. These locations include elderly services and housing, medical facilities and other critical locations.

Table 75: Critical Infrastructure in the 100-Year Flood Plain by Community

Community Infrastructure/Structures Located in the 100-year Flood Plain Billerica Nursing Home, sewage pumping stations, child care facility, fire station, bridges, hazardous material site, helicopter landing zone Chelmsford¹ Water supply wells, water storage tank, drinking water pumping station, bridges, dams Dracut Bridges Dunstable* Electrical substation, dams, child care facility Lowell Electrical substation, Co-Generation Plant, bridges, dams, child care facilities, helicopter landing zone, elderly housing, fire station, hazardous material site Pepperell Water supply well, hazardous material site, bridges, and a dam Tewksbury Child care facility, helicopter landing zone, sewerage pumping stations, bridges, water pumping station Tyngsborough Water pumping stations, bridges, dams, hazardous material site Westford Water supply well, water pumping station, dams, bridges

C. Vulnerability to Other Natural Hazards

The vulnerability to natural hazards for the overall region is the same from community to community for the following hazards: earthquake, tornado, winter storms (snow storm, blizzard, ice storm), drought, landslide, and hurricane. However, there are differences among the region’s communities for flooding, wildfire and urban fire. These differences have been discussed in Section 4A and throughout Section 5. The region’s critical infrastructure is mapped in Appendix D and is shown relative to the 100-year flood plain.

D. Vulnerability to Future Natural Hazards Based on the identification and profile of the natural hazards that have occurred throughout the region over time, a vulnerability table has been developed. The matrix, adapted from the 2010 Massachusetts Hazard Mitigation Plan developed by MEMA, was used to categorize each hazard based on frequency, severity, extent of impact, and area of occurrence. The analysis included input from the MHCPT, the local hazard mitigation committees, MEMA, and other stakeholders that were engaged during the plan development process, as discussed in previous chapters of this document. Historical data was utilized, as well as the best available scientific assessments, published literature and input from subject area experts. The criteria were formulated based on the hazard identification profile and assessment performed for the region. There have been no significant changes in the region’s vulnerability since the completion of the 2006 Plan.

Table 76 on the page 201 lists the hazards to which the region is vulnerable, describes the expected frequency of occurrence, and the potential severity of the damage resulting from each individual hazard. The methodology utilized was outlined on page 91. As a means of assessing the region’s vulnerability, the regional hazard score was calculated based on the average of those

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 199

scores assigned to each hazard within each community.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 200

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 201

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 202

Table 76: The Region’s Potential Vulnerability to Future Natural Hazards

PROBABILITY EXTENT OF FREQUENCY SEVERITY OF IMPACT OCCURENCE

HAZARD LOW MEDIUM HIGH LOW MEDIUM HIGH LOW MEDIUM HIGH LOW MEDIUM HIGH FLOOD X X X X HURRICANE X X X X WILDFIRE X X X X URBAN FIRE X X X X EARTHQUAKE X X X X TORNADO X X X X DROUGHT X X X X NOR’EASTER X X X X SNOWSTORM/ X X X X BLIZZARD SEVERE X X X X THUNDERSTORM LANDSLIDE X X X X ICE STORM X X X X ICE JAM X X X X

Hazards can be interrelated and the impacts of one hazard can create the occurrence of another. For example, an earthquake might trigger fires or landslides, and the impacts of climate change are known to increase the frequency and severity of storm events. Table 77 on the following page graphically outlines the potential secondary effects of each natural hazard.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 203

Table 77: Secondary Impacts from Primary Natural Hazards

SECONDARY IMPACTS

PRIMARY Utility outage

HAZARD Structural damage Chemical release Commodity shortage Emergency communications failure Erosion fire Structural Disease Flooding Landslide Dam failure Tornado Hail Wildfire FLOOD X X X X X X X DAM FAILURE X X X X X X HURRICANE X X X X X X X X X TORNADO X X X X THUNDERSTORM X X X X X NOR’EASTER X X X X X X SNOWSTORM/ X X X X BLIZZARD ICE STORM X X X X X X ICE JAM X X X DROUGHT X X WILDFIRE X X X EARTHQUAKE X X X X X X X X LANDSLIDES X X Source: Derived from the 2010 Massachusetts State Mitigation Plan, MEMA

D. Impacts of New Growth on Vulnerability

As outlined in earlier sections of this report, there has been very modest growth throughout the region over the past ten years. The U.S. Census data shows that the region’s population increased by 2.02% between 2000 and 2010. Most of that growth occurred in the suburban communities of Dunstable (12.37%), Westford (5.77%), Billerica (3.24%) and Pepperell (3.19%). The trend is not expected to change remarkably over the next several years, particularly in light of the struggling economy. This suggests that there will be minimal changes in risk in the region overall. The losses that have been seen over the last several years have occurred in existing structures. New construction has not been significantly impacted given the regulatory requirements in place within the Northern Middlesex communities.

To provide a sense of the development activity in the region since completion of the 2006 Plan, Table 78 on the following page details the number of residential building permits issued in each community from 2007 through 2011, along with the total construction costs associated with these permits. For the region overall, a total of 1,820 residential building permits were issued, with associated construction costs of $359,004,486. Over the previous five years, Westford clearly had the most residential development activity of the nine Northern Middlesex communities.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 204

Table 78: Residential Building Permits and Construction Costs (2007-2011)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 5-Year Total

Community Number of Number Permits Construction Costs of Number Permits Construction Costs of Number Permits Construction Costs of Number Permits Construction Costs of Number Permits Construction Costs of Number Permits Construction Costs Billerica 55 $8,872,706 39 $4,722,458 44 $10,566,236 98 $15,764,669 34 $5,283,646 270 $45,209,715 Chelmsford 23 4,307,000 12 2,510,000 14 2,885,000 10 1,764,040 23 4,759,500 82 16,225,540 Dracut 66 13,950,000 33 7,350,000 50 11,425,000 55 12,375,000 33 7,375,000 237 52,475,000 Dunstable* 18 2,066,532 12 1,377,685 11 1,262,877 12 1,377,684 9 1,033,263 62 7,118,041 Lowell 45 3,365,400 87 13,838,923 26 2,662,600 40 4,102,000 46 10,081,250 244 34,050,173 Pepperell 14 3,767,000 9 2,229,400 20 4,006,760 22 3,831,500 13 2,636,500 78 16,471,160 Tewksbury 40 6,749,460 65 40,101,737 57 16,576,185 41 7,067,080 28 5,963,520 231 76,457,982 Tyngsborough 80 7,902,980 16 2,977,000 115 11,121,000 23 10,309,000 13 2,537,000 247 34,846,980 Westford 101 18,879,080 50 9,875,777 55 12,356,437 82 18,254,011 81 16,514,490 369 76,149,795 Regional 442 $69,860,158 323 $84,982,980 392 $72,862,095 383 $74,844,984 280 $56,184,169 1,820 $359,004,386 Total *Estimated with imputation Source: U.S. Census Bureau

To better understand the monetary implications of natural disaster to residential properties, Table 79 below outlines the average residential property value by community for 2010. For each disaster event, damage and associated financial losses are assessed by state and local officials. The most costly disasters to strike the region since completion of the 2006 Plan were the 2007 flood, the Ice Storm of 2008, and the October 2011 snowstorm.

Table 79: Average Residential Property Values by Community, 2010

Community Number of Housing Units, Average Residential Property 2010 Value Billerica 14,481 $325,397 Chelmsford 13,807 $347,659 Dracut 11,351 $284,026 Dunstable 1,098 $416,275 Lowell 41,431 $231,515 Pepperell 4,348 $301,105 Tewksbury 10,848 $321,473 Tyngsborough 4,206 $324,403 Westford 7,876 $450,723 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Given the economic recession that has gripped the nation and the region over the past few years, commercial and industrial development activity has been fairly slow. Table 80 on the following page provides information relative to the most significant development projects that have been initiated since completion of the previous Plan. None of these projects were located within the 100-year floodplain, although some projects required an Order of Conditions from the Conservation Commission due to wetland impacts. In fact, with the exception of the two Westford projects, they were all located on land that had been previously disturbed. Building code, zoning regulations, and environmental regulations have been fairly effective in keeping development out of the floodplain.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 205

Table 80: Significant Commercial, Institutional and Industrial Development Projects (2007-present)

Community Project/location Gross Floor Area(square feet) Chelmsford Stop and Shop 60,000 Route 110 Lowell Shopping Center at 1235 Bridge 110,500 Street Lowell Hamilton Canal District 2,200,000 Lowell Lowell General Hospital 170,000 expansion/renovation Lowell UMass Lowell Emerging 82,000 Technology Center Lowell UMass Lowell Health and Social 69,000 Sciences Building Lowell 1088-1100 Gorham Street- 42,000 redevelopment and new construction Lowell Lowell Community Health Center 100,000 Jackson Street (mill redevelopment) Lowell Lowe’s 153,000 790 Chelmsford Street Lowell Jeanne D’Arc Headquarters 53,000 225 Father Morrisette Blvd. Lowell Target 137,000 119 Plain Street Westford Cornerstone Square 246,000 Route 110 Westford Boch Honda 59,000 Route 110 Westford 7 Lyberty Way (commercial) 32,000 Westford Red Hat, 314 Littleton Road 175,000 Westford 108 Littleton Road 43,000

In Chelmsford, construction at the Lighthouse School located at 25 Wellman Avenue required that compensatory storage be provided. In addition, improvements at 1 and 2 Executive Drive required approximately 11 cubic feet of compensatory storage and two wet ponds were built for this purpose. The Chelmsford Water District project at 55 Richardson Road resulted in approximately 2,300 cubic feet of compensatory storage, while a project located at 103 Tyngsborough Road required approximately 3,900 cubic feet of compensatory storage on site.

There have been four significant development projects within Dracut since 2007: Meadow Creek Golf Course, Great Woods (off Mammoth Road), Farm Gate Estates (off Parker Road) and Dadak Estates (off Methuen Road). Given the recession, all of the projects are still under development. Two single-lot developments impacted the floodplain and both obtained Planning Board Special Permits as required by the town’s bylaw. One project involved a parking area and the other a landscaped area. No structures were included and compensatory storage was provided.

Within the City of Lowell, the following projects were approved by the Conservation Commission with effective mitigation:

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 206

 Lowe’s- 790 Chelmsford Street  1519-1527 Middlesex Street – retail development  211 Plain Street – retail center  Rita Street extension- single-family subdivision  10-76 Eckland Drive and 56-140 Adies Way – residential subdivision  270 Lawrence Street - multi-family development  1857 Middlesex Street –charter school

Within the Town of Tewksbury, two projects were permitted within the floodplain with appropriate mitigation. The first project was a 20 unit townhouse complex located on 13 acres at 130 Pinnacle Street. The second project consisted of a 8,000 square foot addition to an existing building located at 1201 Main Street.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 207

SECTION 8: ACTION PLAN AND STRATEGIES

The following categorizes mitigation actions that will serve to minimize risks or reduce losses from natural hazards. The actions have been organized into the following categories, as recommended in the FEMA Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guide (7/1/08) and the Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning Guide, (August 2006):

 Prevention: Prevention actions are intended to address future development and guide development away from natural hazards. Many of the hazards that impact the region can be reduced by addressing them upfront through code enforcement and regulatory measures. Prevention activities include planning, zoning, building ordinances, subdivision regulations, and requirements to bury utilities;

 Property Protection: Property protection actions address individual buildings and reduce risk through modification. Activities include acquisition, building relocation, building elevation, retrofitting, barriers, flood-proofing, utility relocation or flood-proofing, and insurance;

 Public Education and Awareness: Public educations and awareness actions will inform and remind the public about natural hazards and actions that can be taken to avoid potential damage and injury resulting from a hazard. Activities include providing informational mailings or workshops, community outreach, real estate disclosure of hazards, environmental education, and technical assistance provided on disaster management issues;

 Natural Resource Protection: Natural resource protection reduces the intensity of hazard effects and improves the quality of the environment. Activities include preservation or restoration of natural systems, open space preservation, state and local floodplain and wetland regulations, stormwater management, watershed protection measures and best management practices, and soil erosion and sediment control;

 Structural Projects: Structural projects are actions that control the hazard and directly protect people and property. Such activities include construction and maintenance of berms, dams, floodwalls, channel improvements, drainage improvements, and detention/retention basins; and

 Emergency Services Protection: Emergency services protection actions are aimed at protecting emergency services before, during and immediately after an occurrence. Activities include hazard recognition, emergency warning systems, emergency response training, evacuation planning, protection of critical facilities, protection of public facilities, and health and safety maintenance.

These actions will be coordinated with other regional and community priorities, as well as with mitigation goals of state and federal agencies. Such coordination will improve access to

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 208

technical assistance; provide broader support for implementation; and reduce duplication of effort. The actions have been further categorized by timeframe into on-going, immediate, short- term projects and long-term measures.

A. Mitigation Goals

In updating the Action Plan, the regional Multiple Hazard Community Planning Team (MHCPT) reviewed the hazard identification and analysis, the regional vulnerability assessment, and the existing protection matrix and measures. The goals in the 2006 Plan were reviewed and affirmed. In addition, a new goal was added to address the impacts of climate change. The following goals were considered in the development of the Action Plan Update:

 Increase coordination between the Federal, State, regional and local levels of government;

 Discourage future development in hazard prone areas, such as flood plains;

 Protect and preserve irreplaceable cultural and historic resources located in hazard prone areas;

 Ensure that critical infrastructure is protected from natural hazards;

 Develop programs and measures that protect residences and other structures from natural hazards;

 Protect electric power delivery infrastructure from natural hazards;

 Provide alternative drinking water supplies for local communities in the event of contamination or disruption from a natural hazard;

 Increase awareness and support for natural hazard mitigation among municipalities, private organizations, businesses, and area residents through outreach and education;

 Implement a broad range of mitigation measures that protect the region’s vulnerable population and infrastructure;

 Protect critical public facilities and services from damage due to natural hazards;

 Develop a mitigation strategy that considers area businesses and protects the economic vitality of the region;

 Update and maintain the Plan as resources permit;

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 209

 Increase the number of communities participating in the Community Rating System;

 Provide communities with information concerning hazard mitigation funding opportunities, and assist the communities in the identification and development of specific mitigation projects;

 Increase each community’s capacity for responding to a natural hazard event by promoting the adequate provision of emergency service capabilities; and

 Implement adaptation strategies and modify local emergency plans to protect critical infrastructure and property from the impacts of climate change.

B. Mitigation Progress Since 2007

Since completion of the last Plan, the region’s municipalities have made significant progress in implementing additional measures to mitigate natural hazards. The following table lists the measures that have been implemented within each municipality since 2007. All other actions were pulled into this plan update (see Table 82).

Table 81: Mitigation Actions Implemented Since Completion of the Previous Plan Billerica

Action Implemented Hazard Addressed

Maintained compliance with the National Flood Flooding Insurance Program

Enforced the town’s floodplain bylaw Flooding

Enforced the erosion control and stormwater Flooding management standards with the town’s subdivision regulations

Implemented BMPs within the town’s Stormwater Flooding Management Plan

Enforced the local wetlands bylaw, the Massachusetts Flooding Wetlands Protection Act, and the Rivers Protection Act

Pursued acquisition of open space parcels along the Flooding Concord and Shawsheen Rivers

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 210

Table 81 (cont’d): Mitigation Actions Implemented Since Completion of the Previous Plan Action Implemented Hazard Addressed

Completed additional phases of the town’s sewer Flooding program

Constructed drainage improvements on Cook Street, Flooding Alexander Road and Concord Road, and at many other locations throughout town

Routinely maintained the town’s stormwater Flooding infrastructure (cleaned culverts, catch basins, detention basins)

Enforced the town’s Stormwater Management Bylaw Flooding

Implemented CodeRED emergency notification system All hazards

Developed a fire hydrant maintenance and replacement Urban fire and wildfire policy

Chelmsford

Action Implemented Hazard Addressed

Maintained compliance with the National Flood Flooding Insurance Program

Enforced the town’s floodplain bylaw Flooding

Enforced the erosion control and stormwater Flooding management standards with the town’s subdivision regulations

Implemented BMPs within the town’s Stormwater Flooding Management Plan

Enforced the local wetlands bylaw, the Massachusetts Flooding Wetlands Protection Act, and the Rivers Protection Act

Acquired open space adjacent to Heart Pond Flooding

Completed the final phases of the town’s sewer program Flooding

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 211

Table 81 (cont’d): Mitigation Actions Implemented Since Completion of the Previous Plan Action Implemented Hazard Addressed

Routinely maintained the town’s stormwater Flooding infrastructure (cleaned culverts, catch basins, detention basins)

Enforced the town’s Stormwater Management Bylaw Flooding

Constructed drainage improvements at Hunt Road/High Flooding Street

Constructed a secondary access to Chelmsford High Fire, severe storms, snowstorm, blizzard, flooding School

Drainage improvements were installed on Buckman Flooding Drive, Mill Road, Alpine Lane, Elizabeth Drive, Golden Cove Road, and Scientia Drive, Garrison Road, Elm Street, Smith Street, Warren Avenue, Dunstable Road, Lauderdale Road, Nobel Drive, Frank Street, Brick Kiln Road, Riverneck Road, Boston Road, Acton Road, Purcell Drive, Bartlett Park, Parker Road, Muriel Ave, Marina Road, Wilson Street, Brook Street, Derringer Road, Marshall Street, Pine Hill Road, Ruthellen Street, Porter Street, Washington Street, Wildes Street, Meetinghouse Road, Burning Tree Lane, Graniteville Road, Groton Road, Elm Street, Ledge Road, Hazen Street, Concord Road, Smokerise Drive, Courtland Drive, Lisa Lane, Harvey Road, Canter Road, Jonathan Lane, Thomas Drive, Mill Road and Sierra Road

The following initiative were completed by the Sewer Flooding Department:

‐SCADA remote monitoring installation ‐Generator upgrade at Miland Pump Station and Mill Road ‐Pump rebuilds for 54 pump stations ‐Two new pump stations (Hunt Road and Singlefoot Road) ‐Replaced two main channel grinder pumps ‐Upgraded the Central Square main sewer gravity line

The sewer system for the Lighthouse School was Flooding expanded

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 212

Table 81 (cont’d): Mitigation Actions Implemented Since Completion of the Previous Plan Action Implemented Hazard Addressed

Catch basins were repaired on Harold Street, North Flooding Road, Old Stage Road, Sonora Drive, Freeman Road, Burning Tree Lane, Turnpike Road, and Poplar Lane. In addition, basins were installed on Merilda Avenue, QueenStreet and Proctor Road, plus 85 other locations

Significant progress was made on the burial of overhead All hazards utility lines within the Town Center

Maintained compliance with the Office for Dam Safety Flooding for four town-controlled dams. Three of the dams were re-designated as non-jurisdictional since the completion of the last plan.

Performed drainage work at the Parker School, High Flooding School, South Row School and Harrington School

Beaver baffles were inserted at various locations Flooding throughout town

Updated the Town Master Plan to include consideration All hazards of hazard mitigation

Worked with National Grid to clear trees branches from All hazards power lines

Updated the Open Space and Recreation Plan All hazards

Repaired the School Street Bridge Flooding and Earthquake

Addressed flooding in the Swain Road area through the Flooding sewer program

Improved coordination between the Planning Board, Flooding Conservation Commission, and Zoning Board of Appeals regarding stormwater management and erosion control measures

Purchased generator for the Senior Center All Hazards

Implemented CodeRED emergency notification All Hazards

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 213

Table 81 (cont’d): Mitigation Actions Implemented Since Completion of the Previous Plan Dracut

Action Implemented Hazard Addressed

Maintained compliance with the National Flood Flooding Insurance Program

Enforced the town’s floodplain bylaw Flooding

Enforced the erosion control and stormwater Flooding management standards with the town’s subdivision regulations

Replacement of the emergency generator at the Methuen All Hazards Street pumping station. Rehabilitate Parker Avenue Bridge. Flooding, earthquake

Implemented BMPs within the town’s Stormwater Flooding Management Plan

Enforced the local wetlands bylaw, the Massachusetts Flooding Wetlands Protection Act, and the Rivers Protection Act

Routinely maintained the town’s stormwater Flooding infrastructure (cleaned culverts, catch basins, detention basins)

Enforced the town’s Stormwater Management Bylaw Flooding

Constructed additional phases of its sewer program Flooding

Completed the Loon Hill Road culvert project Flooding

Contracted with a vendor for the provision of emergency All hazards notification message town-wide

Replaced a culvert on Lakeview Avenue Flooding

Constructed a floodwall to protect the Turtle Hill Sewer Flooding Pump station

Installed emergency power supply at the New Boston All hazards Well Field.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 214

Table 81 (cont’d): Mitigation Actions Implemented Since Completion of the Previous Plan Action Implemented Hazard Addressed

Replacement of emergency generator at the Methuen All hazards Street pump station.

Completion of police station with full emergency power All hazards

Implemented an erosion and sediment control bylaw Flooding

Completed Arlington Street pump station improvements Flooding

Installed emergency power supply at the New Boston All Hazards Well Field

Dunstable

Action Implemented Hazard Addressed

Elevated River Street to mitigate flooding Flooding

Repaired retaining wall and replaced culvert along Flooding Route 113

Maintained compliance with the National Flood Flooding Insurance Program

Enforced the Town’s floodplain ordinance Flooding

Enforced the erosion control and stormwater Flooding management standards within the town’s subdivision regulations

Enforced the local wetlands bylaw, the Massachusetts Flooding Wetlands Protection Act, and the Rivers Protection Act

Routinely maintained the town’s stormwater Flooding infrastructure (cleaned culverts, catch basins, detention basins)

The town installed a second water supply well with a Wildfire generator.

The town revised Section 15.2 of its Zoning Bylaw adding a new Floodplain District

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 215

Table 81 (cont’d): Mitigation Actions Implemented Since Completion of the Previous Plan Lowell

Action Implemented Hazard Addressed

Staff participated in various MEMA training sessions, All hazards including cost-benefit training (associated software is now on the City’s system).

Established a DPW mutual aid program, All hazards

Amended the City’s wetland ordinance Flooding

Maintained compliance with the National Flood Flooding Insurance Program

Enforced the City’s floodplain ordinance Flooding

Enforced the erosion control and stormwater Flooding management standards within the City’s subdivision regulations

Implemented BMPs within the City’s Stormwater Flooding Management Plan

Enforced the local wetlands bylaw, the Massachusetts Flooding Wetlands Protection Act, and the Rivers Protection Act

Routinely maintained the City’s stormwater Flooding infrastructure (cleaned culverts, catch basins, detention basins)

Completed stormwater separation projects at various Flooding locations across the City

Replaced the University Avenue Bridge Flooding and earthquakes

Made repairs to the Central Bridge Flooding and earthquakes

Rehabilitated the Hunt’s Fall Bridge Flooding and earthquakes

Amended the City’s Flood Plain Overlay District Flooding

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 216

Table 81 (cont’d): Mitigation Actions Implemented Since Completion of the Previous Plan Action Implemented Hazard Addressed

Created a department of Development Services in 2012 Flooding, earthquakes, wind-related hazards, severe with three staff members directly supporting Boards and storms and urban fire Commission with permitting and enforcing ordinances regulating development in the floodplain.

Established a Driveway permit to regulate existing and Flooding proposed driveways to improve stormwater management

Distributed information about NFIP Grandfather rules Flooding and Floodplain Management Bulletin to Historic Buildings in 2012

With direction from EPA and MADEP, initiated the Flooding Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Long term Control Plan Phase 2. (Will supplement improvements made during Phase 1)

Invested $77M in upgrades to the Greater Lowell Flooding Wastewater Treatment Facility, improvements to the CSO diversion stations, rehabilitation of the sewer system, and construction of new drainage systems.

Instituted an annual brush clearing program along the Flooding bank of the Merrimack River levee, and a slope stabilization project along the Beaver Brook branch of the levee.

As part of a $35M plant upgrade, the Greater Lowell Flooding Wastewater Utility increased its wet weather capacity at the plant

Pepperell

Action Implemented Hazard Addressed

Removed derelict mill building from a 10.4 acre site Flooding adjacent to the Nashua River and remediated active contamination

Replaced the Groton Street Bridge Flooding and earthquakes

Replaced the Mill Street Bridge Flooding and earthquakes

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 217

Table 81 (cont’d): Mitigation Actions Implemented Since Completion of the Previous Plan Action Implemented Hazard Addressed

Swift River Hydro worked with the Town and the State Flooding to replace the penstock on the Pepperell Dam located on the Nashua River

Reconstructed numerous culverts and headwalls to Flooding decrease flooding on public ways and open land. Locations included Chestnut Street, Brookline Street, and the headwall at the Main Street rotary

Installed beaver control devices on Shawnee Road and Flooding Oak Hill Street

Rebuilt drainage at 12 Lowell Road to eliminate Flooding flooding from the Nashua River

Removed a derelict building from174 River Road which Flooding bordered a perennial stream and was located in the floodplain

Participated in NERAC programs to acquire emergency All hazards response equipment and training

Procured three utility trailers to address emergency All hazards response needs for the Highway Department, Emergency Management and Board of Health

Tewksbury

Action Implemented Hazard Addressed

Replaced the East Street and Strong Brook culvert. Flooding

Maintained compliance with the National Flood Flooding Insurance Program

Enforced the town’s floodplain bylaw Flooding

Enforced the erosion control and stormwater Flooding management standards with the town’s subdivision regulations

Implemented BMPs within the town’s Stormwater Flooding Management Plan

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 218

Table 81 (cont’d): Mitigation Actions Implemented Since Completion of the Previous Plan Action Implemented Hazard Addressed

Enforced the local wetlands bylaw, the Massachusetts Flooding Wetlands Protection Act, and the Rivers Protection Act

Routinely maintained the town’s stormwater Flooding infrastructure (cleaned culverts, catch basins, detention basins)

Enforced the town’s Stormwater Management Bylaw Flooding

Revised the Planning Board regulations in 2008 to Flooding address some drainage concerns, and erosion control regulations and were revised in 2011.

Groundwater protection district was expanded in 2008 Flooding

Revised the Floodplain Overlay District within the Flooding Zoning Bylaw in May 2010 to reflect the revised FIRM maps

The Town participates in the CRS and was most recently Flooding evaluated in April 2012

Replaced Brown Street Bridge Flooding, earthquake

Complete reconstruction of River Street to address Flooding washout and drainage issues

Constructed a 5 million gallon water tank Wildfire, urban fire

Constructed Dascomb Road water interconnection Wildfire, urban fire

Installed wireless fire alarm system Wildfire, urban fire

Installed Livingston Street and Kendall Road drainage Flooding improvements

Installed Bridge Street culvert replacement Flooding

Installed the Foster Road culvert replacement/Heath Flooding Brook channelization

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 219

Table 81 (cont’d): Mitigation Actions Implemented Since Completion of the Previous Plan Tyngsborough

Action Implemented Hazard Addressed

Maintained compliance with the National Flood Flooding Insurance Program

Enforced the town’s floodplain bylaw Flooding

Enforced the erosion control and stormwater Flooding management standards with the town’s subdivision regulations

Implemented BMPs within the town’s Stormwater Flooding Management Plan

Enforced the local wetlands bylaw, the Massachusetts Flooding Wetlands Protection Act, and the Rivers Protection Act

Routinely maintained the town’s stormwater Flooding infrastructure (cleaned culverts, catch basins, detention basins)

Enforced the town’s Stormwater Management Bylaw Flooding

Rehabilitation of the Tyngsborough Bridge (opened in All Hazards (evacuation route) 2012)

Drainage work completed through the Pawtucket Blvd. Flooding relocation project

Participated in conversations with private dam owners to Flooding check on the status of Dam Safety Orders

Tree removal for electric reliability-Implemented in All hazards Winter 2012-2013 –hazard trees are inspected and removed

Procured a Portable 100kVA Backup Generator for All hazards that may create a power failure Sewer Pump stations

Implemented CodeRED emergency notification system All hazards

Amended the floodplain bylaw in May 2012 to satisfy Flooding 44 CFR, Section 60.3

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 220

Table 81 (cont’d): Mitigation Actions Implemented Since Completion of the Previous Plan Action Implemented Hazard Addressed

Installed riverbank stabilization at the Frost Road Flooding Riverfront Park along the Merrimack River

Westford

Action Implemented Hazard Addressed

Updated subdivision regulations to reflect Phase II Flooding stormwater requirements

Developed an erosion control bylaw Flooding

Installed drainage improvements along Route 110 Flooding

Installed catch basins and drainage improvements on Flooding Tenney Road

Installed an emergency generator at the Senior Center All hazards

Replaced the emergency communications tower at the All hazards Center Fire Station

Implemented CodeRED and town meeting appropriated All hazards money for an AM radio station to be used on an emergency basis

The town revised its subdivision regulations and Flooding standards and its Floodplain overlay district to improve floodplain management at the request of DCR/NFIP

Regional Projects

Action Implemented Hazard Addressed

Provided technical assistance to local communities in All hazards the development and maintenance of the multi- jurisdictional plan

Encouraged municipalities to include hazard mitigation All hazards planning in Open Space and Recreation Plans and Master Plans

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 221

Table 81 (cont’d): Mitigation Actions Implemented Since Completion of the Previous Plan Action Implemented Hazard Addressed

Participated in the Discovery Meetings for the Concord Flooding River watershed

Formed a regional stormwater collaborative to Flooding encourage communities to work together in addressing stormwater and flooding issues

Secured an EPA Urban Waters grant to study Flooding stormwater messaging and develop a regional public education program

Worked with MassDOT to prioritize and advance Flooding and earthquakes improvements to structurally deficient bridges

Served as a liaison between the communities and All hazards MEMA relative to hazard mitigation

Provided technical assistance to the municipalities in the Flooding development of HMGP applications

NMCOG staff served on the State Hazard Mitigation All hazards Interagency Committee

Incorporated mitigation planning into the Regional All hazards Strategic Plan, Regional Transportation Plan, and the Greater Lowell Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy

Programmed ITS-related transportation projects on the All hazards regional Transportation Improvement Program

Worked with the communities to develop evacuation All hazards routes across the region

Worked with our local communities to complete a All hazards feasibility study and implementation plan for regionalizing 911 dispatch services

Completed a feasibility study relative to constructing a Flooding, earthquake permanent replacement for the temporary Rourke Bridge

Notified local communities of HMGP grant All hazards opportunities

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 222

Table 81 (cont’d): Mitigation Actions Implemented Since Completion of the Previous Plan Action Implemented Hazard Addressed

Drafted a Low Impact Development Bylaw for the All hazards Town of Dracut which can be used as a model by other communities

C. The Action Plan

The Action Plan has a regional component and also outlines action items for individual communities within the region, as presented in Tables 82 through 91. The priorities were established through a consensus building process that consisted of meetings and discussions among local policymakers, boards and commissions, municipal staff and the MHCPT. The following factors were considered in establishing the timeframe/priority for each action:

 The cost of the measure vs. the mitigation benefits;  The availability of funding;  The lead time required for design and implementation;  Political feasibility and acceptability;  The need for institutional and interagency agreements;  Consistency with local and regional plans and priorities; and  Whether the measure has been through a public process, needs Town Meeting or City Council action, or action by a permitting agency.

The benefit and cost of each project has been weighed using a qualitative method outlined in FEMA’s guidance provided in Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning.1 Method A: Simple Listing Technique was utilized and the Planning Team chose to express their priorities through timeframe designations. Projects categorized as “annual” will be undertaken each year. “Short-term” projects are those which can go forward with little or no cost, or for which a funding source has been identified, and these projects are of high priority. Projects identified as long-term are either costly, funding is not readily available, the project may not be ready for implementation due to permitting issues or the need for design, or the project requires a long lead time, or new governmental processes need to be established. It is envisioned that short-term projects will be implemented within 2 years; while long-term projects will be implemented in 3 or more years. The timeframe assigned to each project is indicative of local and regional project priorities.

This Action Plan is an update of the 2006 Action Plan. The matrices note whether each particular action was included in the 2006 Plan. Many of the actions contained in the 2006 Plan remain in the updated plan and are still a priority for the region. The actions delineated in this Plan will be implemented as resources are made available.

1 Using Benefit Cost Review in Mitigation Planning, State and Local Mitigation Planning How-To Guide Number Five, FEMA 386-5, May 2007.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 223

Table 82: Proposed Regional Mitigation Actions

Category Of Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Action Action Responsibility and Addressed Priority Funding action Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Prevention Provide technical NMCOG and local All hazards Annual DCR/MEMA Yes assistance to emergency managers competitive grant local and hazard programs and local communities in mitigation teams. general funds to the NMCOG provides finance NMCOG implementation, technical assistance staff time update and to the local maintenance of communities on an local multi- ongoing basis. hazard mitigation plans.

Natural Assist the NMCOG and local All Hazards Annual DLTA funding from Yes, but Resource municipalities in planning board and NMCOG, and CPA action item Protection including hazard conservation and local general has been mitigation in the commissions; Many funds. NMCOG modified to development of of the region’s Open staff to work with include local Open Space Space Plans Planning Boards, Master Plans and Recreation incorporate hazard Conservation as well as Plans and Master mitigation. NMCOG Commissions and Open Space Plans. will continue to Recreation Plans. encourage such Departments, and inclusion in future their staffs. updates. In addition, NMCOG will encourage consideration of hazard mitigation in the Master Plan process.

Prevention Work with the FEMA, MEMA, Flooding/ Short-term. State and Federal Yes federal and state DCR, NMCOG, and Climate agencies, local agencies and local public safety Change communities and local and GIS staff; NMCOG. NMCOG communities to NMCOG staff staff to utilize improve mapping continues to MassGIS, MassDOT and estimates of participate in the and local general structures located Discovery Meetings funds to provide GIS within the 100- and has worked assistance. year flood plain. cooperatively with Continue to FEMA staff and their participate in consultants on the Discovery floodplain map Meetings for the updates. Concord River watershed.

Table 82 (cont’d): Proposed Regional Mitigation Actions

Category Of Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Action Action Responsibility and Addressed Priority Funding action Status included in the 2006 Plan? Prevention Facilitate the Massachusetts and Flooding Short-term. Massachusetts and Yes. development of New Hampshire New Hampshire an agreement state agencies, local state agencies, between communities and NMCOG and Massachusetts NMCOG. These local and New negotiations appear communities. Hampshire state to be at an impasse. NMCOG and officials, and Issues related to the NRPC staff to local proposed crest gate work with local communities to system on the Public Works and coordinate dam Pawtucket Dam have Engineering operations and reactivated these Departments, flood control conversations. ACOE and DCR. activities in order Staff time will be to prevent the only expense downstream flooding.

Prevention/ Study the NMCOG and Flooding/ Long-term DLTA funds from No, new Natural formation of a Municipalities. Climate NMCOG; local action item Resource regional NMCOG is currently Change general funds to Protection Stormwater using DLTA funds to be utilized for Utility to fund support the regional support. NMCOG implementation stormwater utility staff works with of local effort. Public Works stormwater Departments. . management plans.

Public Complete the NMCOG and the Flooding/ Short-term EPA Urban No, new Education Restoring the Merrimack River Climate Waters Grant action item and Merrimack River Watershed Council. Change funding to finance Awareness by Connecting NMCOG recently this initiative. Communities” received EPA funds NMCOG staff to project. through the Urban work with local Water grant program communities, for a training and particularly Public outreach program Works employees. designed to educate community member, municipal staff and officials about the effects of stormwater on water quality.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 225

Table 82 (cont’d): Proposed Regional Mitigation Actions

Category Of Description Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Action Of Action Responsibility and Addressed Priority Funding action Status included in the 2006 Plan? Public Education Through NMCOG, local Winter storms, Annual Federal and No, new and Awareness public public safety ice storms, state grants action item education officials severe snow (MassDOT), as materials, storms well as local increase public general funds. awareness NMCOG staff to regarding the identify funding dangers of options and winter storms, work with local such as public safety automobile agencies. accidents, exposure, hypothermia, frost bite, overexertion, and downed power lines.

Structural Work with MassDOT, and the Earthquake, Annual. FHWA and Yes project MassDOT and Northern Middlesex flooding MassDOT funds the MPO to MPO; several and State prioritize structurally deficit transportation structurally bridges have been bond funds deficient rehabilitated and through the bridges reconstructed since MPO process. through the completion of the NMCOG staff to Transportation 2006 Plan. work with Improvement municipalities Program and MPO process. members.

Prevention/ Serve as a NMCOG, MEMA, All hazards Annual. FEMA, MEMA, Yes Public Education liaison DCR, FEMA and DCR, NMCOG and Awareness between local communities; and local FEMA, NMCOG staff general funds. MEMA/DCR, continues to work NMCOG staff to and local with its member work directly communities, communities and the with designated and to educate public relative to local staff. municipalities hazard mitigation. on the NMCOG will importance of continue to partner mitigation with MEMA on planning. workshops following Presidential disaster declarations.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 226

Table 82 (cont’d): Proposed Regional Mitigation Actions

Category Of Description Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Action Of Action Responsibility and Addressed Priority Funding action Status included in the 2006 Plan? Prevention Identify and NMCOG and local All hazards Annual. NMCOG, Yes seek public emergency FEMA and private managers, engineers competitive sector funding and public works grant for residents, staff. NMCOG staff programs businesses, has worked with its and and local and member general municipalities communities by funds. to implement informing them of NMCOG sound hazard available grant staff to mitigation opportunities for identify measures implementing funding throughout the mitigation measure. opportunities region. NMCOG has hosted workshops for local communities and MEMA staff has made a presentation to NMCOG’s policy board relative to the various grant programs.

Prevention Incorporate NMCOG. Since the All hazards Annual. NMCOG Yes natural hazard completion of the annual work mitigation and 2006 Plan, NMCOG plan which is best planning has incorporated funded practices into hazard mitigation through local NMCOG’s into the Regional assessments, planning work Strategic Plan, the local and activities. Regional contracts, Transportation Plan, and state and the Comprehensive federal Economic grants. Development Strategy, and the various local Master Plan and Open Space documents that it has prepared on behalf of municipalities.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 227

Table 82 (cont’d): Proposed Regional Mitigation Actions

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility and Addressed Priority Funding action Status included in the 2006 Plan? Prevention Develop a NMCOG and MRPC Climate Short-term EDA technical No, this Renewable Energy have initiated work on Change assistance is a new Siting Plan, in this project funds. action partnership with NMCOG and item the Montachusett MRPC staff to Regional Planning develop the Commission to Siting Plan and encourage to be reviewed renewable energy by the Energy and reduce Committees. greenhouse gas emissions.

Property Develop a NMCOG, local historic All hazards Short-term. Massachusetts No, this Protection mitigation plan for commissions, libraries, Historical is a new protecting all Mass Historical Commission action cultural and Commission, National and Board of item historic resources Park Service. To date, Library from natural an appropriate funding Commissioners hazard damage. mechanism for this . NMCOG staff action item has not been to identify identified for work at funding options the local level. and work with However, the local historic Massachusetts Board of commissions Library Commissioners and National is preparing a statewide Park Service. mitigation plan, which will be available to local communities.

Emergency Improve NMCOG, the State 911 All hazards Long-term DLTA and No, this Services emergency Department and the State 911 is a new communications local public safety Department action and officials. Since funds. item interoperability completion of the 2006 NMCOG staff through the Plan, NMCOG has to work with formation of a completed an RECC local public Regional feasibility study and has safety agencies Emergency applied for funding and Chief Communications from the State 911 Administrators. Center (RECC) Department to Bonding may undertake an be needed for implementation study. the building construction which will be repaid with state grant funds.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 228

Table 82 (cont’d): Proposed Regional Mitigation Actions

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility and Addressed Priority Funding action Status included in the 2006 Plan? Prevention Work with NMCOG, MassDOT, All hazards Annual MassDOT and Yes MassDOT, local local highway local general highway departments and public funds. departments and safety officials. The NMCOG staff public safety regional ITS to work with officials to architecture now local highway ensure that the incorporates emergency and public regional and response and hazard safety officials state Intelligent mitigation concerns. to incorporate Transportation NMCOG staff will ITS in all System (ITS) work with MassDOT projects. No considers the and various additional needs of hazard stakeholders on future funding mitigation and ITS architecture involved as the emergency updates. work will be response. part of the overall project design.

Public Organize and NMCOG. NMCOG Flooding Short-term NMCOG, Yes. Education conduct a staff has hosted hazard MEMA/DCR- and workshop on the mitigation workshops Utilize Awareness Community for its local planning funds Rating System communities. To date, to sponsor the for City/ Town Tewksbury was the workshop for Planners, only CRS community in Chief City/Town the region. NMCOG Administrators, Managers, staff will continue to Planners, Emergency encourage its Emergency Managers, and communities to Managers, Conservation participate in CRS. Building Administrators inspectors and Conservation Administrators.

Public Notify eligible NMCOG. Since All hazards Annual NMCOG, No, this Education applicants of completion of the 2006 MEMA/DCR. is a new and available hazard Plan, NMCOG has Utilize admin action Awareness mitigation notified its member funding to item. project grant communities of grant complete this funding through opportunities. task. Work the FMA, PDM, with Chief HMGP, and Administrators SRL programs. and municipal staff.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 229

Table 82 (cont’d): Proposed Regional Mitigation Actions

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility and Addressed Priority Funding action Status included in the 2006 Plan? Prevention/ Work with the NMCOG, local Flooding Short-term. NMCOG, local Yes Natural NMCOG planning boards and communities, Resource communities to conservation environmental Protection incorporate Low commissions. NMCOG agencies. Impact assisted the towns of Utilize Development Dracut and Westford in NMCOG funds Techniques in crafting draft LID to implement local bylaws. To date, the this project subdivision and bylaws have not yet through work zoning been approved by town with the local regulations. meeting. The newly planners and adopted Regional conservation Strategic Plan agents. encourages local communities to embrace LID techniques.

Prevention/ Through the NMCOG, local Flooding Annual. NMCOG, local Yes Structural NMSC, assist communities, communities, communities in MassDOT. The local MassDOT. procuring action plans denote the Utilize services to status of municipal NMCOG funds routinely clean stormwater and work with and maintain infrastructure MassDOT and drainage maintenance activities. public works infrastructure. MassDOT has an officials. ongoing stormwater maintenance program, and is in the process of expanding the extent of its program.

Prevention Reduce the risk National Grid, Hurricanes, Annual. National Grid, Yes. of power municipal DPW crews. tornadoes, municipalities. outages by The significant and winter storms, Utilize identifying and widespread outages that thunderstorms National Grid trimming occurred as a result of tree program branches that the December 2008 Ice and local could down Storm and the October general funds power lines 2011 snowstorm to address this during a storm suggests that there is issue. event. Particular considerable room for attention should improvement in this be paid to area. protecting the power supply for critical infrastructure and emergency

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 230

services.

Table 82 (cont’d): Proposed Regional Mitigation Actions

Category Of Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Prevention/ Work with the DCR NMCOG, DCR Flooding, Short-term. DCR Office of Yes. Structural Office of Dam Office of Dam earthquakes Dam Safety, Safety, dam owners Safety, dam NMCOG, local and the local owners, communities. communities to municipalities. Utilize available ensure that Repairs have funding and significant and high been made to work with DCR, hazard dams are several dams dam owners and inspected according throughout the public works to the prescribed region. However, officials. schedule, that up-to- as mentioned in Private dams to date evacuation plans earlier sections of be funded with are in place, and that this document, private funds. needed repairs are several dams are Municipal implemented in a overdue for projects to be timely fashion. inspection. funded with general funds.

Prevention Work with DCR, DCR, local fire Wildfire Short-term Utilize DCR Yes. Bureau of Fire departments, and staff and local Control and the local NMCOG. While public safety communities to NMCOG was staff to develop a uniform able to acquire implement this reporting system for wildfire data for project . wildfires. this plan, it does Requires staff not seem that time only there is a central collection vehicle or repository for such data.

Prevention/ Assist municipalities NMCOG, Flooding Short-term NMCOG, Yes Emergency in developing municipal public municipalities. Response emergency access safety officials. Utilize local and evacuation plans Since completion general funds to for neighborhoods of the 2006 Plan, develop plans. subject to isolation NMCOG staff Will work with from flooding using has worked with local public NMCOG GIS. each of its safety officials. municipalities to identify and map evacuation routes.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 231

Table 82 (cont’d): Proposed Regional Mitigation Actions

Category Of Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Property Flood-proof or Municipal public Flooding Long-term. Municipalities, Yes. Protection relocate any critical safety, DPW, and State, and facility sited in the engineers, and Federal floodplain. EOPSS. Since the agencies. completion of the FEMA 2006 Plan, flood competitive proofing of water grant funds or and sewer local general infrastructure funds will be elements has been used. undertaken in Dracut and Lowell.

Structural / Ensure that any new Municipal building Hurricane, Long-term. Municipalities. Yes. Property or existing critical departments. New tornado, State and Protection facilities meet state police stations in earthquake, Federal building code for Chelmsford and urban fire, agencies. high winds, Tewksbury were wildfire, Work with the earthquakes, fire and constructed to winter state and local snow loading. meet these codes, storms building as was the officials to renovation of ensure that new Westford Town facilities meet Hall. the building code. Retrofits would be funded through state grant monies or local general fund.

Prevention/ Develop standards Municipal All hazards Long-term. Municipal Yes. Emergency for emergency emergency general fund or Services shelters; require that managers, MEMA. HMGP funds every new and Emergency existing shelters generators have comply with all been installed at a requirements, number of including the emergency shelters provision of and at the emergency renovated generators or backup Westford Town power. Hall.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 232

Table 82 (cont’d): Proposed Regional Mitigation Actions

Category Of Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe Resources/ Was the Action Action Responsibility Addressed / Priority Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Prevention Provide training to NMCOG, Flooding Short-term. Municipalities, DEP Yes. local Conservation Municipal - Utilize DEP Commissions to conservation funding or the increase enforcement commissions, CPTC program to of the state and local DEP. implement this task. wetland and Municipalities . stormwater regulations have participated and bylaws. in the MACC, APA and CPTC workshops.

Prevention/ Educate local Municipal Wildfire Short-term. Municipalities Yes. Property communities on how planning boards, NMCOG will utilize Protection to revise local building its admin funds to regulations to require departments, fire reach out to the fire-proof roofing departments. No Planning Boards, materials in areas work has begun fire officials and adjacent to forested on this project. building land. departments

Prevention/ Conduct a workshop Municipal fire Wildfire, Annual. Municipalities, Yes Property to encourage departments, urban fire DCR- NMCOG Protection municipalities to DCR. A number staff will reach out participate in the of NMCOG to non-participating DCR/ Fire Wise communities now communities. Program participate in the Requires staff time Fire Wise only program, but not all.

Prevention Encourage local DCR, District 6, Wildfire Short-term. DCR, District 6 and Yes officials to work local local communities. cooperatively with the municipalities. NMCOG staff to District 6 Fire Warden The roadways work with planners to inventory, map and and trails through and public safety characterize all access the Lowell- officials. DCR and roadways through the Tyngsborough- municipal staff time state forests. Dracut State will cover this task. Forest have been mapped.

Prevention/ Educate landowners NMCOG, DCR Wildfire Annual Municipalities, Yes Public concerning the and local fire DCR- NMCOG Education and importance of departments. staff to work with Outreach removing fuel in DCR and public forested areas to safety officials . reduce the risk of Local general funds wildfire. will be used

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 233

Table 83: Proposed Mitigation Actions -Town of Billerica

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility and Addressed Priority Funding action Status included in the 2006 Plan? Property Reduce repetitive Board of Flooding Long-term. FEMA/MEMA Yes Protection flood losses along Selectmen and competitive grant the Concord and Conservation programs. Shawsheen Commission, Billerica land Rivers through MEMA, FEMA. bank funds or flood-proofing or No work has begun general funds may property on this task. be used to acquire acquisition. property along the rivers.

Prevention Work with the DCR, Town Flooding, Short-term Dam owners, Yes. DCR Office of Engineer and earthquake DCR. Dam Safety and DPW, Dam Public Works Dam owners to owners. A recent Department to ensure that inspection of the work with DCR inspections of the Talbot Dam was and dam owners. three dams within performed. the Town of Billerica are brought up to date.

Property Purchase Board of Flooding Long-term. Town land bank Yes Protection additional land Selectmen. The funds or general along the town has purchased funds may be Concord and significant property used or the town Shawsheen along the Concord may apply for Rivers and River, including state and federal protect as open the 40-acre Cabot grants. space. property.

Public Educate town Town Conservation Flooding Short-term. Town Planning Yes Education residents and Commission and Director and and developers Planning Board. Conservation regarding the The town continues Agent will utilize Awareness Town’s local to educate general funds to bylaw limiting developers and complete this task increases in residents. impervious surface.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 234

Table 83 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Billerica

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility and Addressed Priority Funding action Status included in the 2006 Plan? Structural Complete future DPW and Flooding Annual State SRF funds Yes project/ phases of the Engineering. and town Natural Town’s sewer bonding. Resource facilities plan. Protection

Natural Increase Town conservation Flooding Short-term. Town Yes Resource enforcement of agent and building Conservation Protection the Town’s flood inspector Agent and plain bylaw. building inspector to complete this task utilizing general funds.

Prevention/ Revise Town Planning Flooding Short-term Town general Yes Natural Stormwater and Director and funds. Resource erosion control Engineering Dept. Protection regulations; Since the completion improve of the 2006 Plan, the coordination town has streamlined between the its permitting Planning Board, process and Conservation improved Commission, and coordination among Zoning Board of departments and Appeals. boards.

Prevention/ Incorporate Planning Board and All hazards Long-term Utilize town No, this is Natural Hazard Conservation general funds. a new Resource Mitigation into Commission. The action Protection the town’s Open town will be item. Space Plan updating their Open Update and Space Plan and Master Plan Master Plan in the Update future

Prevention/ Update the DPW and Flooding Short-term Town general No, this is Natural town’s Engineering-The funds and a new Resource Stormwater town will address competitive grant action Protection Management Plan EPA’s new programs. item. to address new requirements as part MS4 permit of its MS4 permit

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 235

Table 83 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Billerica

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan? Prevention Work with NMCOG and the Flooding Short-term DLTA and CIC No, this NMCOG and the Board of funds is a new NMSC in Selectmen and The Public action investigating the DPW Works Director item. feasibility of will participate in forming a the NMSC and stormwater offer the town’s utility. perspective on the need for a stormwater utility.

Prevention/ Participate in DCR and Fire Wildfire, Annual DCR - Yes Property DCR’s Fire Department Drought Fire Chief to Protection Wise Program. work with DCR on the Fire Wise Program. No town funds needed beyond the operating budget.

Structural Upgrade Sewer Board of Flooding/ Long-term Town funds and No, this Treatment Plant Selectmen and hurricanes State grant is a new to meet DPW programs (SRF). action regulatory Bonding is likely. item requirements

Prevention Revise Planning Planning Board, Flooding Short-term Town general No, this Board, Conservation funds will be is a new Conservation Commission and used to complete action and Board of Board of Health this task item Health regulations to improve floodplain management.

Prevention Study the Town Emergency Flooding Short-term Emergency No, this Community Manager Manager, is a new Rating System to utilizing general action determine funds, will work item appropriateness with MEMA to for Billerica complete this task.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 236

Table 83 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Billerica

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan? Public Increase public Town Emergency Extreme Short-term Emergency No education awareness of the Manager Temperatures manager will dangers of implement this extreme recommendation temperatures and using general outline locations funds. where vulnerable populations (elderly, homeless and those with health issues) can have access to air conditioning or shelter from the cold

Public Distribute Emergency Winter storms – Short-term This task will be No education educational Manager snowstorms, implemented by information to blizzards, ice the Emergency residents and storms Manager using businesses on general funds protecting life and property from severe winter storm events

Emergency Ensure that Emergency Tornado, Long-term This task will No Services administrators of Manager and hurricane completed by the Protection schools, public safety Emergency businesses, Manager and medical public safety facilities, and the personnel using mobile home general funds park have a shelter plan in the event of a tornado or hurricane warning

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 237

Table 83 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Billerica

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan? Property Inspect public Building inspector Severe winter Short-term This task will be No Protection buildings to and Emergency storm/ completed by the evaluate the Manager snowstorm, Building capacity to blizzard inspector and withstand snow Emergency loads and Manager using prevent roof local operating collapse. funds Develop plans to clear roofs of excessive snow accumulations to prevent collapse. Emergency Identify Highway Severe winter Short-term This task will be No Services locations for Department storm/snowstorm, implemented by snow storage blizzard the highway farms for department using utilization in local operating severe winters funds with heavy snowfall Property Evaluate public Building inspector Hurricane, Long-term This task will be No protection buildings and and emergency tornado, blizzard implemented by critical facilities manager the Building for Inspector and the potential to Emergency withstand high manager using winds local general funds

Emergency Assess Fire Department Structural fire/ Long-term This task to be No services bridges and Highway wildfire undertaken by the and roadways to Department Fire Department ascertain and Highway their capability Department using to support fire operating funds apparatus and develop alternative routing plans where deficiencies are noted

Property Develop an Building inspector Earthquake Long-term This task is to No Protection inventory of and emergency undertaken by the public buildings manager Building that do not Inspector and currently meet emergency seismic manager using standards general funds

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 238

Table 83 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Billerica

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan? Public Provide Fire Department Drought, Brush Short-term This task is to be No education information to fire/wildfire undertaken by the homeowners on Fire Department how to protect using general their property funds from brush fire or wildfire during times of drought

Table 84: Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Chelmsford

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility and addressed Priority Funding action Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Prevention/ Elevate, flood- Town DPW Flooding/ Short-term. Combination of Yes, but the Property proof and Department. Minor hurricanes town general language has Protection maintain the maintenance was funds and been alternate access performed HMGP funds modified roadway for the following the 2006 Williamsburg Plan, however, Condominium more extensive complex and work is needed. stabilize riverbank.

Prevention Work with DCR DCR Office of Dam Flooding, Short-term DCR Office of Yes Office of Dam Safety, dam owners, earthquakes Dam Safety, Safety to ensure Town engineer- dam owners, that the Since completion of and town inspections of the 2006 Plan the engineer. Work all dams are Swain and Crooked will be current. Spring dams have performed been reclassified. within existing budget.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 239

Table 84 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Chelmsford

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility and addressed Priority Funding action Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Structural Address flooding Town DPW and condo Flooding/ Short-term HMGP grant No, this is a project/ and bank erosion association. This issue hurricanes program-- new action Property in the vicinity of is currently being Public Works item. Protection Willliamsburg studied. Department to Condos and along work with Tyngsborough MEMA and Road in North condo Chelmsford. association.

Structural Address the Town DPW. Flooding/ Short-term Town general No, this is a project Meadowbrook hurricanes funds and new action Road culvert and competitive item associated FEMA grant flooding. program

Emergency Install emergency Town and MassDOT All hazards Long-term Billerica No, this is a Services vehicle pre- Public Works new action emption at Department item. signalized budget, intersections. Chapter 90 and MassDOT funds will be used.

Emergency Install a generator Fire department All hazards Short-term HMGP funds No, this is a services at the new fire or town new action station. general funds item.

Prevention Strengthen Planning Board, Flooding, Annual Town general Yes, but enforcement of the Conservation climate funds to be language has town’s floodplain Commission and change used; falls been zoning bylaw. Building inspector. within existing modified Since the completion of budget the 2006 Plan, the town has improved its process for enforcement of the floodplain bylaw.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 240

Table 84 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Chelmsford

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility and addressed Priority Funding action Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Prevention/ Increase Town Planning Board Flooding, Short-term. Town Planner Yes Natural enforcement of and Conservation climate and Resource impervious surface Commission-still change Conservation Protection limitations within relevant. Agent to the Aquifer complete this Protection District. task utilizing general funds.

Prevention/ Propose a Low Town Planning Board Flooding, Short-term. Community Yes Natural Impact and Conservation climate Development Resource Development Commission. This change Director and Protection bylaw for recommendation was Conservation consideration of also in the town’s 2010 Agent to local officials and Master Plan. complete this town meeting task utilizing general funds.

Prevention/ Update the Town emergency Flooding, Annual. Town Yes Property response plan for manager and engineer. earthquakes emergency Protection the Freeman Lake The town has been manager and and Heart Pond addressing minor engineer to dams. compliance issues complete this related to the dam. task utilizing general funds. .

Prevention/ Perform Town DPW. The Flooding Annual. Department of Yes, but Natural maintenance on action is being Public Works to language Resource drainage/ implemented as part of address this has been Protection stormwater the town’s MS4 permit. issue utilizing modified structures. general funds.

Prevention/ Conduct outreach The town’s Community Flooding Short-term. Community Yes. Public program to Development Development Education encourage the Department to provide Director to and purchase of flood guidance and education address this Awareness insurance by to property owners. issue utilizing private property general funds. . owners.

Prevention Conduct a study to State-MassDOT Flooding Short-term State funding. Yes examine measures District 4 Public Works to mitigate Director to work flooding along with MassDOT Tyngsborough to secure Road. funding.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 241

Table 84 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Chelmsford

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility and addressed Priority Funding action Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Structural Improve dam Dam Owner at the Flooding, Short-term Dam Owner- Yes Project maintenance at the behest of the town earthquakes Private funds School Street Dam used to maintain on Stony Brook privately-owned where stones have dams. been dislodged.

Emergenc Continue to work NMCOG and the Town All hazards Short-term State 911 No, this is a y Services with NMCOG in public safety officials Department new action studying the funds- Public item. establishment an safety officials RECC. to work with NMCOG through 911 Work Group.

Public Increase public Town Emergency Extreme Short-term Emergency No education awareness of the Manager Temperature manager will dangers of extreme implement this temperatures and recommendation outline locations using general where vulnerable funds. populations (elderly, homeless and those with health issues) can have access to air conditioning or shelter from the cold

Emergenc Establish an Town Emergency All hazards Short-term Utilizing town No, this is a y Services emergency shelter manager and animal general funds, new action to care for pets control officer the Emergency item. during a natural Manager and disaster. animal control officer will address this issue.

Prevention Revise Planning Planning Board, Flooding Short-term Community No, this is a Board, Conservation Conservation Development new action Commission, and Commission and Board Director, Board item Board of Health of Health of Health regulations to Director and improve floodplain Conservation management Agent will address this issue utilizing

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 242

general funds.

Table 84 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Chelmsford

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility and addressed Priority Funding action Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Prevention Study the Town Emergency Flooding Short-term Emergency No, this is a Community Rating manager and building Manager, new action System to determine inspector, MEMA utilizing general item appropriateness for funds, will work Chelmsford with MEMA to complete this task.

Prevention Enhance the Community Flooding Short-term Community No, this is a knowledge of local Development Director Development new action officials, builders, Director to item developers, citizens address this and other issue utilizing stakeholders on how general funds. to read and interpret No bonding the FIRM. funds needed.

Public Distribute Emergency Manager Winter Short-term This task will be No education educational storms – implemented by information to snowstorms, the Emergency residents and blizzards, ice Manager using businesses on storms general funds protecting life and property from severe winter storm events

Emergenc Ensure that Emergency Manager Tornado, Long-term This task will No y Services administrators of and public safety hurricane completed by the Protection schools, businesses, Emergency medical facilities, Manager and and mobile home public safety park have a shelter personnel using plan in the event of general funds a hurricane or tornado warning

Property Inspect public Building inspector and Severe Short-term This task will be No Protection buildings to Emergency Manager winter completed by the evaluate the storm/ Building capacity to snowstorm, inspector and withstand snow blizzard Emergency loads and prevent Manager using roof collapse. local operating Develop plans to funds clear roofs of

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 243

excessive snow accumulations to prevent collapse. Table 84 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Chelmsford

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility and addressed Priority Funding action Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Emergenc Identify locations Highway Department Severe Short-term This task will be No y Services for snow storage winter implemented by farms for utilization storm/snows the highway in severe winters torm, department with heavy snowfall blizzard using local operating funds

Property Evaluate public Building inspector and Hurricane, Long-term This task will be No protection buildings and emergency manager tornado, implemented by critical facilities for blizzard the Building the potential to Inspector and withstand high Emergency winds manager using local general funds

Emergenc Assess Fire Department and Structural Long-term This task to be No y services bridges Highway Department fire/ wildfire undertaken by and roadways to the Fire ascertain Department and their capability to Highway support fire Department apparatus and using operating develop alternative funds routing plans where deficiencies are noted

Property Develop an Building inspector and Earthquake Long-term This task is to No Protection inventory of public emergency manager undertaken by buildings that do not the Building currently meet Inspector and seismic standards emergency manager using general funds

Public Provide information Fire Department Drought, Short-term This task is to be No education to homeowners on Brush undertaken by how to protect their fire/wildfire the Fire property from brush Department fire or wildfire using general during times of funds drought

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 244

Table 85: Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Dracut

Category Description Of Implementatio Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action n Addressed Priority Funding action Responsibility included and Status in the 2006 Plan?

Structural Replace the Kelly Town DPW. No Flooding, climate Long-term. Town Yes. project Road culvert and work has change, hurricanes Public Works construct commenced Director to use drainage local general improvements. funds to complete the project.

Emergency Continue to work NMCOG, All hazards Long-term State 911 No, this is Services with NMCOG in Dracut public Department a new exploring the safety officials and Public action possibility of and State 911 safety officials item. establishing an Department to work with RECC. NMCOG through the 911 Work Group.

Structural Study mitigation Town Engineer Flooding, climate Long-term. Town Public Yes project options to address and DPW. change, hurricanes Works Director riverine flooding Project has not and Town on Nottingham yet been Engineer to use Road. initiated general funds to complete the project

Public Increase public Town Extreme Short-term Emergency Public education awareness of the Emergency Temperatures manager will education dangers of Manager implement this extreme recommendatio temperatures and n using general outline locations funds. where vulnerable populations (elderly, homeless and those with health issues) can have access to air conditioning or shelter from the cold

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 245

Table 85 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Dracut

Category Description Of Implementatio Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action n Addressed Priority Funding action Responsibility included and Status in the 2006 Plan?

Structural Continue system Dracut Water Wildfire, urban Annual Dracut Water Yes project upgrades and Supply and fire Supply and water main Kenwood Water Kenwood replacements, as Districts Water Districts funds allow. will utilize District funds. Bonding may be utilized to complete the project.

Prevention/ Study Engineering Flooding Short-term Town and Yes Property overflow/flooding Department and private Protection issues created by DPW property restricted owners will stormwater need to work outfall on private together. property which Public Works result in Director to use significant general funds flooding during to complete the heavy rain events project.

Prevention Identify and Town DPW Hurricanes, Annual. Town Yes remove hazardous thunderstorms, Public Works trees in the town- winter storms Director to use owned right-of- general funds way. to complete the project.

Prevention/ Work with DCR Town and DCR Wildfire Short-term. Dracut fire and Yes Property Bureau of Fire Bureau of Fire engineering to Protection Control to Control. Some work with complete work has been DCR through mapping of the undertaken, but the use of state forest for more tasks general funds. public safety remain. purposes.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 246

Table 85 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Dracut

Prevention/ Develop a joint Town of Dracut, Wildfire, urban fire Short-term. Fire Chief to Yes Property Fire Wise City of Lowell, work with Protection Program in Town of DCR and other cooperation with Tyngsborough communities DCR, the City of fire utilizing Lowell and the departments, general funds. Town of and DCR. Work Tyngsborough. is underway on this initiative.

Prevention/ Continue to Town engineer Flooding Annual Town building No Property identify NFIP and building Commissioner Protection non-compliant commissioner, and engineer to structures and and MEMA work with submit to rate MEMA structures. utilizing general funds.

Prevention/ Continue to work Town building Flooding Short-term Town building No Property toward commissioner, Commissioner Protection certification of MEMA and to work with the Building FEMA MEMA and Commissioner as DCR, FEMA the town’s flood utilizing plain manager general funds.

Prevention/ Work with federal Town building Flooding Short-term Town No Property and state officials commissioner Emergency Protection to address and emergency Manager and existing manager, building compliance issues MEMA, FEMA commissioner relative to the to work with NFIP. MEMA and FEMA utilizing general funds. Emergency Ensure that Emergency Tornado Long-term This task will No Services administrators of Manager and completed by Protection schools, public safety the Emergency businesses, and Manager and medical facilities public safety have a shelter personnel using plan in the event general funds of a tornado warning

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 247

Table 85 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Dracut

Prevention/ Complete Town DPW Flooding Long-term Town funds No, this is Natural remaining phases and SRF funds. a new Resource of the sewer Public Works action Protection program. Director to item utilize grants, as well as local general funds for match. Project may use bonding as a finance mechanism.

Public Distribute Emergency Winter storms – Short-term This task will No education educational Manager snowstorms, be information to blizzards, ice implemented residents and storms by the businesses on Emergency protecting life Manager using and property general funds from severe winter storm events

Property Inspect public Building Severe winter Short-term This task will No Protection buildings to inspector and storm/ snowstorm, be completed evaluate the Emergency blizzard by the Building capacity to Manager inspector and withstand snow Emergency loads and prevent Manager using roof collapse. local operating Develop plans to funds clear roofs of excessive snow accumulations to prevent collapse. Emergency Identify locations Highway Severe winter Short-term This task will No Services for snow storage Department storm/snowstorm, be farms for blizzard implemented utilization in by the highway severe winters department with heavy using local snowfall operating funds

Property Evaluate public Building Hurricane, Long-term This task will No protection buildings and inspector and tornado, blizzard be critical facilities emergency implemented for manager by the Building the potential to Inspector and withstand high Emergency winds manager using local general funds

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 248

Table 85 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Dracut

Emergency Assess Fire Department Structural fire/ Long-term This task to be No services bridges and Highway wildfire undertaken by and roadways to Department the Fire ascertain Department their capability to and Highway support fire Department apparatus and using operating develop funds alternative routing plans where deficiencies are noted

Property Develop an Building Earthquake Long-term This task is to No Protection inventory of inspector and undertaken by public buildings emergency the Building that do not manager Inspector and currently meet emergency seismic standards manager using general funds

Public Provide Fire Department Drought, Brush Short-term This task is to No education information to fire/wildfire be undertaken homeowners on by the Fire how to protect Department their property using general from brush fire or funds wildfire during times of drought

Table 86: Proposed Mitigation Actions -Town of Dunstable

Category Description Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Of Action Responsibility/ Addressed Priority Funding action Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Prevention Prepare study Town Board of Flooding, Short-term Town Board of Yes of flooding Selectmen and hurricanes Selectmen and problems along Conservation Conservation Main Street Commission Commission to near Sweets complete this Pond. task utilizing general funds.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 249

Table 86 (Cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions -Town of Dunstable

Prevention Study the Town Flooding Short-term Town No, this is Community Emergency emergency a new Rating System to Manager and manager and action item determine building building appropriateness inspector, inspector, for Dunstable MEMA and FEMA and FEMA MEMA will address this task. Town will utilize general funds to complete this task.

Public Increase public Town Extreme Short-term Emergency Public education awareness of the Emergency Temperatures manager will education dangers of Manager implement this extreme recommendation temperatures and using general outline locations funds. where vulnerable populations (elderly and those with health issues) can have access to air conditioning or shelter from the cold

Prevention Work with DCR Town Earthquake, Short-term Town Yes Office of Dam Administrator, flooding Administrator to Safety to ensure DCR Office of work with DCR that the Dam Safety, and dam inspections of all dam owners owners. dams are current. General funds to be used.

Prevention/ Incorporate Town Planning All Hazards Short-term Town Planning No, this is Natural Hazard Board and Board and a new Resource Mitigation into Conservation Conservation action item Protection subdivision Commission. Commission regulations, The town’s will utilize Master Plan and Open Space general funds. Open Space Plan Plan currently Updates. addresses hazard mitigation.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 250

Table 86 (Cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions -Town of Dunstable

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Addressed Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility/ Priority Funding action Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Prevention/ Participate in DCR and Town Wildfire Annual DCR and Yes Property DCR’s Fire Fire Department Town Fire Protection Wise Program Chief to work for the forested with DCR on sections of the Fire Wise town. Program. Part of current budget, no town funds needed.

Structural Upgrade and Town Water Wildfire, urban fire Short-term Town and No, this is a Project expand the Department State funds- new action Route 113 The Town item water line, Water which will Department is improve fire responsible suppression for this capabilities. project. State grant funds and local water department funds will be used. Project may be bonded.

Emergency Purchase Town police and All Hazards Long-term Town Public Yes, but item Services communication fire departments Safety has been equipment with officials will modified. interoperability utilize general capabilities. funds and/or State 911 Department funds.

Structural Replace Main Highway Flooding, Short-term Federal and Yes Project Street/Salmon department and earthquake state funds Brook Bridge. MassDOT. The through bridge replacement MassDOT project is currently under design

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 251

Table 86 (Cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions -Town of Dunstable

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Addressed Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility/ Priority Funding action Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Emergency Study regional Town public All Hazards Short-term State 911 No, this is a Services consolidation of safety officials, Department new action 911 dispatch NMCOG and the funds will be item. services by State 911 used. Public establishing an Department safety officials RECC to work with NMCOG through 911 Work Group.

Structural Repair the next MassDOT and All Hazards Short-term Town No, this is a Project/ phase of the the Town Highway new action Emergency Route 113 Highway Dept. will item Response retaining wall in Department. work with Services order to keep the This project is MassDOT to roadway open, currently under design and and replace design construct the culvert. project. Construction will be funded through the TIP..

Emergency Ensure that Emergency Tornado Long-term This task will No Services administrators of Manager and completed by Protection schools, public safety the businesses, and Emergency municipal Manager and buildings have a public safety shelter plan in the personnel event of a tornado using general warning funds

Prevention Study the Town All Hazards Long-term Town No, this is a establishment of a Emergency Emergency new action mutual aid manager, Board Manager will item agreement with of Selectmen, implement this neighboring and building project using communities to inspector general funds. administer NFIP The Board of following a major Selectmen storm event. must approve the agreement and the building inspector is responsible for the NFIP program.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 252

Table 86 (Cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions -Town of Dunstable

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility/ Addressed Priority Funding action Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Prevention Revise Town Planning Flooding Annual Planning No, this is a subdivision Board, Board, new action regulations, Conservation Conservation item erosion control Commission and Commission, regulations, and Board of Health and Board of Board of Health Health to regulations to utilize general improve funds to floodplain complete this management as task. needed

Public Distribute Emergency Winter storms – Short-term This task will No education educational Manager snowstorms, be information to blizzards, ice implemented residents and storms by the businesses on Emergency protecting life Manager and property from using general severe winter funds storm events

Property Inspect public Building Severe winter Short-term This task will No Protection buildings to inspector and storm/ snowstorm, be completed evaluate the Emergency blizzard by the capacity to Manager Building withstand snow inspector and loads and prevent Emergency roof collapse. Manager Develop plans to using local clear roofs of operating excessive snow funds accumulations to prevent collapse. Emergency Identify locations Highway Severe winter Short-term This task will No Services for snow storage Department storm/snowstorm, be farms for blizzard implemented utilization in by the severe winters highway with heavy department snowfall using local operating funds

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 253

Table 86 (Cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions -Town of Dunstable

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility/ Addressed Priority Funding action Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Property Evaluate public Building Hurricane, tornado, Long-term This task will No protection buildings and inspector and blizzard be critical facilities emergency implemented for manager by the the potential to Building withstand high Inspector and winds Emergency manager using local general funds

Emergency Assess Fire Department Structural fire/ Long-term This task to be No services bridges and Highway wildfire undertaken by and roadways to Department the Fire ascertain Department their capability to and Highway support fire Department apparatus and using develop operating alternative funds routing plans where deficiencies are noted

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 254

Table 87: Proposed Mitigation Actions - City of Lowell

Category Description of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Structural Dredge and re- City Public Flooding Long-term. City general Yes, but the project channel marsh Works fund, with timeframe between Department possible State has been Phoenix Avenue or Federal revised and Wentworth grant Avenue and assistance between Douglas Road and Clark Road (Tewksbury).

Structural Implement Lowell Flooding, Long-term City will Yes project/ stormwater/CSO Wastewater hurricanes implement Natural separation Treatment Utility. with rate Resource measures Some stormwater payer funds, Protection citywide. separation and Federal projects have and State been completed grant since the 2006 assistance. Plan was adopted. Bonding may However, there be used. are many future phases remaining.

Structural Install drainage City DPW. A Flooding Annual City Yes. project improvements at number of Public Works various drainage Director will locations to improvement utilize local reduce roadway projects have funds to flooding. been completed complete this since the 2006 project. Plan was adopted.

Prevention/ Pursue City Manager, Flooding, Long-term With City Yes Property mitigation DPW and hurricanes Council Protection funding to Emergency approval, the reduce repetitive Manager, private City will flood losses property owners, apply for along Black MEMA, FEMA FEMA Brook and Clay competitive Brook. grant funds or use local general funds

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 255

Table 87 (Cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions –City of Lowell

Category Of Description of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Priority Resources/ Was the Action Action Responsibility Addressed Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Structural Work with City Engineer and Earthquake, Long-term The DPW Yes project/ MassDOT to DPW, and flooding Director and Emergency repair or MassDOT. A City Engineer Services replace number of bridge will work with structurally improvement MassDOT to deficient projects have secure federal bridges. been completed and state funds. since the adoption of the 2006 Plan. However, there are still several structurally deficient bridges that need to be addressed, as outlined in earlier sections of this document.

Prevention Work with City Engineer, Earthquake, Short-term City Engineer Yes DCR Office of DCR Office of flooding to work with Dam Safety to Dam Safety, dam DCR and dam ensure that the owners owners. inspections of General funds all dams are to be used. current.

Prevention Develop a joint City of Lowell, Wildfire, urban Short-term. Fire Yes Fire Wise Towns of Dracut fire Departments of Program in and Dracut and cooperation Tyngsborough, Tyngsborough, with DCR and and DCR will City of Lowell, the Towns of work together in and DCR will Dracut and addressing issues complete work Tyngsborough. within the state within annual forest. budgets.

Prevention Work with City Fire Wildfire, urban Short-term Fire Chief and Yes DCR Bureau of Department and fire GIS staff to Fire Control to GIS staff, and work with complete DCR Bureau of DCR and other mapping of the Fire Control. communities state forest for Some work has utilizing public safety been completed, general funds. purposes. but additional tasks remain.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 256

Table 87 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - City of Lowell

Category Of Description of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Priority Resources/ Was the Action Action Responsibility Addressed Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Prevention Participate in City Emergency Flooding Short-term City No the Community Manager and Emergency Rating System building Manager and or undertake inspector, building activities to MEMA, FEMA inspector will increase the utilize general grade level of funds and work the with FEMA community’s and MEMA to current CRS complete this participation. task.

Prevention Revise City Planning and Flooding Short-term DPD Director, No subdivision Development Conservation regulations, Department, Agent and erosion control Conservation Health regulations, Commission, and Department and Board of Health will address Health Department this issue regulations to utilizing improve general funds. floodplain management.

Emergency Upgrade all City Emergency All Hazards Long-term City general Yes Services shelter Manager. Some funds with facilities to progress has been state and meet Red made since the federal grant Cross completion of the funding standards; 2006 Plan. assistance. includes plumbing upgrades, air conditioning, and generators.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 257

Table 87 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - City of Lowell

Category Of Description of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Priority Resources/ Was the Action Action Responsibility Addressed Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Structural Repair City Wastewater Flooding, Long-term City will work Yes project erosion/flood Utility. Trees hurricanes with MEMA, control walls have been FEMA, and the and levees to removed from the Army Corps of ensure levee and Engineers. structural engineering LWU Director integrity. studies have been will address initiated. this issue utilizing federal, state and local funds. Bonding may be used to finance project.

Structural Repair Canal City Engineering Flooding Long-term City Engineer Yes project Walls Department, DCR and the throughout and National Park National Park system Service. Some Service will repairs have been work with made, but this is a DCR to long-term project. address this DCR owns the issue. A canal walls. combination of federal, state and local funds will be used.

Prevention Clean debris City DPW and Flooding Short-term Donated time Yes from canals non-profits, with from non-profit and control consent of Enel, volunteers and structures. the hydropower private funds Clean out idle company that from Enel. overflow retains control of City DPW will canals. the canals. Their fund disposal cooperation is costs. needed to complete this action item.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 258

Table 87 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - City of Lowell

Category Of Description of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Priority Resources/ Was the Action Action Responsibility Addressed Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Emergency Study regional City public safety All Hazards Short-term City Public No, this is Services consolidation officials, safety officials a new of 911 dispatch NMCOG and the to work with action services by State 911 NMCOG item. establishing an Department. through 911 RECC Feasibility study Work Group. completed, with Using State implementation 911 study to follow. Department funds

Structural Enlarge City Engineer and Flooding, climate Short-term City Engineer Yes project undersized DPW. Some change, and DPW culverts to culvert hurricanes Director will alleviate replacement address this flooding at key projects have issue utilizing locations. been undertaken general funds. since the Bond funds completion of the may be needed 2006 Plan, while for large others are needed. projects.

Emergency Replace City DPW. Since Winter Storms Short-term DPW Director Yes Services obsolete snow the completion of will address plow the 2006 Plan, this issue equipment with some snow through the modern, more removal City’s capital reliable snow equipment has budget removal been replaced, apparatus. Add but there is still a two snow need to replace throwing other aging apparatus for vehicles. two new multi- purpose trucks.

Emergency Purchase a City DPW. Winter storms Long-term City with Yes Services regional snow Budgetary assistance from melting constraints have MEMA/ apparatus. prevented this FEMA DPW purchase since Director will the 2006 plan was address this completed. issue utilizing federal, state and local general funds. .

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 259

Table 87 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - City of Lowell

Category Of Description of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Priority Resources/ Was the Action Action Responsibility Addressed Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Public Increase public Town Emergency Extreme Short-term Emergency Public education awareness of Manager Temperatures manager will education the dangers of implement extreme this temperatures recommendat and outline ion using locations general funds. where vulnerable populations (elderly, homeless and those with health issues) can have access to air conditioning or shelter from the cold

Public Distribute Emergency Winter storms – Short-term This task will No education educational Manager snowstorms, be information to blizzards, ice implemented residents and storms by the businesses on Emergency protecting life Manager and property using general from severe funds winter storm events

Prevention/ Conduct City Emergency Flooding Short-term. City No, this is Public outreach Manager. No Emergency a new Education and program to action taken to Manager will action Awareness provide date address this item. information on issue utilizing flood hazards general funds. and methods of . protecting property located in the floodplain. Will use multi- lingual brochures, website and social media

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 260

Table 87 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - City of Lowell

Category Of Description of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Priority Resources/ Was the Action Action Responsibility Addressed Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Structural Add secondary City Water Wildfire, urban Long-term City Water Yes Project water supply Department. No fire Department for the City action has been budget with through tie-in taken state and/or with the federal Billerica funding system on the assistance. Concord River. Director of the Water Department will address this issue.

Emergency Add portable City Water All Hazards Short-term Director of Yes Services water supply Department and the Water units for Emergency Department emergencies. Manager. No will address action has been this issue taken to date. using competitive state or federal grant funds, or using Water Department resources.

Structural Construct Lowell Flooding, Short-term Lowell Yes, Project/ pump station at Wastewater hurricanes Wastewater timeframe Property West Street Utility, state and Utility funds has been Protection CSO station to federal agencies. with state and changed protect These federal and some Lakeview improvements are funding work has Avenue from under design. assistance. been flooding. Bonding may completed be needed to finance construction.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 261

Table 87 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - City of Lowell

Category Description Implementation Hazard Timeframe/Priorit Resources/ Was the Of Action Of Action Responsibility Addressed y Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Structural Modify the Lowell Flooding, Short-term LWU Yes, Project/ effluent pump Wastewater hurricanes funds with significant Natural system at the Utility (LWU). state and improvements Resource Greater Lowell Many of the federal have been Protection/ Wastewater needed funding made since Property Treatment modifications assistance completion of Protection Plant to have been the 2006 prevent the completed, but Plan, river from additional work is backing up needed. into the plant and flooding the unit processes.

Structural Install “Duck Lowell Flooding, Short-term LWU Yes, work has Project/ Bill” backflow Wastewater hurricanes funds with been partially Property prevention Utility state and completed Protection valves on CSO federal and funding stormwater assistance outlets to prevent river backflow from inundating pump stations, gravity division stations and local roadways. Locations in need include Tilden, West, Sparks and Rosemont Streets.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 262

Table 87 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - City of Lowell

Category Description of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Structural Construct City Engineer, Flooding, Long-term City with Yes Project/ berms/levees DPW, and hurricanes state and Property along the Emergency federal Protection western bank Manager, state funding of Beaver and federal assistance Brook to flood agencies. DPW proof the Engineering Director is Walker Street studies have been responsible and Tilden undertaken. for this item. Street CSO stations and the Rosemont Street sewer. pump station

Emergenc Ensure that Emergency Tornado Long-term This task No y Services administrators Manager and will Protection of schools, public safety completed businesses, by the medical Emergency facilities, and Manager municipal and public buildings have safety a shelter plan personnel in the event of using a tornado general warning funds

Structural Install a City Engineer and Flooding, Short-term City capital Yes Project/ backflow state and federal hurricanes funds with Property prevention agencies. state and Protection valve on the Engineering federal Alma Street studies have been funding outfall pipe to undertaken. assistance. prevent City floodwater Engineer is from the responsible Merrimack for this item. River and Beaver Brook from backing up into the neighborhood. This project includes a structure to house the valve.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 263

Table 87 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - City of Lowell

Category Description of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Property Inspect public Building inspector Severe winter Short-term This task No Protection buildings to and Emergency storm/ snowstorm, will be evaluate the Manager blizzard completed capacity to by the withstand Building snow loads and inspector prevent roof and collapse. Emergency Develop plans Manager to clear roofs using local of excessive operating snow funds accumulations to prevent collapse. Emergenc Identify Highway Severe winter Short-term This task No y Services locations for Department storm/snowstorm, will be snow storage blizzard implemented farms for by the utilization in highway severe winters department with heavy using local snowfall operating funds

Property Evaluate Building inspector Hurricane, Long-term This task No protection public and emergency tornado, blizzard will be buildings and manager implemented critical by the facilities for Building the potential to Inspector withstand high and winds Emergency manager using local general funds

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 264

Table 87 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - City of Lowell

Category Description of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Emergenc Assess Fire Department Structural fire/ Long-term This task to No y services bridges and Highway wildfire be and roadways Department undertaken to ascertain by the Fire their capability Department to support fire and apparatus and Highway develop Department alternative routing plans where deficiencies are noted

Property Develop an Building inspector Earthquake Long-term This task is No Protection inventory of and emergency to public manager undertaken buildings that by the do not Building currently meet Inspector seismic and standards emergency manager using general funds

Public Provide Fire Department Drought, Brush Short-term This task is No education information to fire/wildfire to be homeowners undertaken on how to by the Fire protect their Department property from using brush fire or general wildfire during funds times of drought

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 265

Table 88: Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Pepperell

Category Of Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the action Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding included in the and Status 2006 Plan?

Structural Replace Town DPW, Flooding, Short-term DPW Director, Yes project undersized MassDOT. No hurricanes, working with culvert under work has begun on climate MassDOT, is Hollis Street to this task. change responsible for mitigate this item, flooding utilizing problem at the federal, state intersection of and/or general Main, River and local funds. Hollis Streets. Bonding funds may be needed.

Prevention Work with Town DPW and Flooding, Short-term DPW Director, Yes MassDOT to MassDOT. hurricane working with improve debris MassDOT owns MassDOT, is removal at the this bridge. responsible for Route 119 this item. bridge over the Work will be Nashua River. performed with existing budget.

Structural Work with Town, MassDOT. Earthquake, Short-term MassDOT Modified- The project MassDOT to Since the flooding DPW Director, action item in replace/ completion of the working with the 2006 Plan rehabilitate any 2006 Plan, the MassDOT, is included the structurally Groton Street responsible for replacement of deficient bridges Bridge and the this item. Will the Groton identified in the Mill Street Bridge utilize federal Street Bridge future. has been and state and the Mill reconstructed. funding through Street Bridge. MassDOT. The Groton Street and Mill Street bridges and Mill have been reconstructed.

Prevention Work with DCR Town Engineer, Earthquake, Short-term Town Engineer Yes Office of Dam DCR Office of flooding to work with Safety to ensure Dam Safety, dam DCR and dam that the owners owners. inspections of General funds all dams are and private current. monies to be used.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 266

Table 88 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Pepperell

Category Of Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the action Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding included in the and Status 2006 Plan?

Prevention Modify local Town Flooding Short-term Town Yes wetlands bylaw Conservation Conservation to better address Commission Agent, working hazard with the mitigation. Conservation Commission, is responsible for this item, utilizing local general funds.

Prevention Undertake an Town Engineer Flooding, Short term Town Engineer, Yes assessment of and MassDOT. hurricane working with what is needed MassDOT owns MassDOT, is to eliminate the the bridge and responsible for flooding adjoining road on this item. Work problem at Main Street at the will be Canal and Main Nashua River. No performed Streets. work has through the commenced to DPW date. Department budget.

Prevention Participate in Fire Department Wildfire Ongoing Fire Chief to Yes DCR’s Fire and DCR work with DCR Wise Program on the Fire for the forested Wise Program. sections of No additional town. town funds needed.

Public Increase public Town Emergency Extreme Short-term Emergency Public education education awareness of the Manager Temperature manager will dangers of s implement this extreme recommendatio temperatures n using general and outline funds. locations where vulnerable populations (elderly, homeless and those with health issues) can have access to air conditioning or shelter from the cold

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 267

Table 88 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Pepperell

Category Of Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the action Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding included in the and Status 2006 Plan?

Public Distribute Emergency Winter storms Short-term This task will No education educational Manager – snowstorms, be information to blizzards, ice implemented residents and storms by the businesses on Emergency protecting life Manager and property using general from severe funds winter storm events

Emergency Ensure that Emergency Tornado Long-term This task will No Services administrators Manager and completed by Protection of schools, public safety the businesses, Emergency medical Manager and facilities, and public safety the mobile home personnel park have a using general shelter plan in funds the event of a tornado warning

Emergency Study regional Town public safety All Hazards Short-term Public safety No, this is a Services consolidation of officials, officials to new action 911 dispatch NMCOG, and the work with item. services by State 911 NMCOG establishing an Department and through 911 RECC the municipalities Work Group using State 911 Department funding.

Property Develop a Town Emergency Flooding, Short-term. Town Yes Protection mitigation plan manager, town hurricanes Engineer and for protecting engineer, the emergency properties on conservation manager are Yale Road from commission and responsible for repetitive area homeowners this item, flooding. utilizing local general funds.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 268

Table 88 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Pepperell

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the action Of Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding included in the and Status 2006 Plan?

Prevention Incorporate Town Planning All hazards Long-term Utilizing No, this is a hazard Board and general funds, new action mitigation into Conservation the Planning item. the town’s Commission. The Administrator Master Plan and Open Space Plan and Open Space Plan be updated in 2015 Conservation updates. Agent will oversee this task.

Prevention Delineate the Town DPW Winter storm Short- term DPW Yes limits of the Director is ROW on responsible for Brookline Street this item, and Lowell Road utilizing local and develop a general funds. plan to remove pine trees that shade the road to decrease icing problems in the winter.

Prevention Study the Town Emergency All Hazards Long-term Town No, this is a establishment of Manager and Emergency new action item a mutual aid building inspector Manager, agreement with utilizing neighboring general funds, communities to will oversee administer NFIP this project. following a major storm event.

Prevention Revise Town Planning Flooding Annual Town No, this is a subdivision Board, and Planning new action item regulations, and Conservation Administrator erosion control Commission. and regulations to Conservation improve Agent will floodplain address this management as issue utilizing needed. general funds.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 269

Table 88 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Pepperell

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the action Of Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding included in the and Status 2006 Plan?

Property Inspect public Building inspector Severe winter Short-term This task will No Protection buildings to and Emergency storm/ be completed evaluate the Manager snowstorm, by the capacity to blizzard Building withstand snow inspector and loads and Emergency prevent roof Manager using collapse. local operating Develop plans to funds clear roofs of excessive snow accumulations to prevent collapse. Emergency Identify Highway Severe winter Short-term This task will No Services locations for Department storm/snowstor be snow storage m, blizzard implemented farms for by the utilization in highway severe winters department with heavy using local snowfall operating funds

Property Evaluate public Building inspector Hurricane, Long-term This task will No protection buildings and and emergency tornado, be critical facilities manager blizzard implemented for by the the potential to Building withstand high Inspector and winds Emergency manager using local general funds

Emergency Assess Fire Department Structural fire/ Long-term This task to be No services bridges and Highway wildfire undertaken by and roadways to Department the Fire ascertain Department their capability and Highway to support fire Department apparatus and develop alternative routing plans where deficiencies are noted

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 270

Table 88 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Pepperell

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the action Of Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding included in the and Status 2006 Plan?

Property Develop an Building inspector Earthquake Long-term This task is to No Protection inventory of and emergency undertaken by public buildings manager the Building that do not Inspector and currently meet emergency seismic manager using standards general funds

Public Provide Fire Department Drought, Short-term This task is to No education information to Brush be undertaken homeowners on fire/wildfire by the Fire how to protect Department their property using general from brush fire funds or wildfire during times of drought

Table 89: Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Tewksbury

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Structural Stabilize stream Town DPW. No Flooding, Short-term. DPW Yes project/ bed at Bridge work has hurricane Director will Natural Street culvert. commenced. oversee Resource project using Protection MassDOT- Chapter 90.

Structural Elevate Bridge Town DPW. No Flooding, Short-term. DPW Yes project and South Streets work has hurricane Director will to address commenced to pursue flooding issues. date. funding through HMGP program

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 271

Table 89 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Tewksbury

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Structural Construct DPW Director Flooding, Long-term. DPW Director Yes project drainage will work with hurricane will pursue improvements on MassDOT as it MassDOT Main Street owns this funding to (Route 38) at the location address this I-495 ramps. area, given that MassDOT owns this location.

Emergency Purchase Town - School All Hazards Long-term; will School Yes Services emergency Department be implemented Department generators for as schools are will pursue schools. renovated. state funding through the SBAB.

Structural Construct culvert Town DPW. No Flooding, Short-term DPW Director No, this is Project improvements on work has hurricane is responsible a new Pinnacle Street. commenced on for this item, action item this project to utilizing local date general funds or competitive state or federal grant funds.

Emergency Construct boat Fire Flooding and Short-term Fire Chief and No, this is Services ramp to the Department/DPW other emergencies DPW Director a new Merrimack River will address action item at the end of this item, Merrimack Drive utilizing local to respond to general funds. emergencies.

Structural Replace Brown Town DPW and Earthquakes, Long-term DPW Director Yes project Street bridge and MassDOT. flooding will work with raise approach Project is under MassDOT to ramps. design. address this item, utilizing federal and state funds.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 272

Table 89 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Tewksbury

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Prevention Purchase large back- DPW All hazards Long-term DPW No, this is up pump and Director is a new generator for East responsible action item Street pump station. for this item, utilizing federal, state and local general funds.

Structural Install culvert DPW. Flooding Short- term Hazard Yes, project/ improvements and Improvements are Mitigation project Natural stabilize slopes at under design Grant funds. description Resource Trull Brook on River DPW has been Protection Road. Director will work with revised to MEMA and provide FEMA to clarity address this item

Structural Flood proof Town DPW Flooding, Long-term State and Yes project Shawsheen Street at hurricane Federal Heath Brook Road. Hazard Mitigation Grant funds DPW Director will work with MEMA and FEMA to address this item.

Structural Replace Mill Street Town DPW Earthquakes, Long-term Town DPW Yes project Bridge. flooding Director will work with MassDOT to address this item, utilizing federal and state funds.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 273

Table 89 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Tewksbury

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Structural Flood proof sewer Town DPW Flooding, Short-term DPW No, this is Project manholes and sewer hurricanes Director to a new collection system. complete this action item item, utilizing federal and state funds including HMGP.

Structural Install emergency Town DPW Flooding Short-term DPW Yes, project back-up generators Director to however for sewer pump complete this the stations. item, timeframe utilizing has been federal and adjusted state funds.

Prevention/ Incorporate hazard Town All hazards Short-term Utilizing No, this is Public mitigation into the Community general a new Outreach Master Plan process. Development funds, the action item and Director. Work Community Awareness has commenced Development on the Master Director will Plan update. complete this task using CPA funds and general funds.

Emergency Study regional Town public All Hazards Short-term Public safety No, this is Services consolidation of 911 safety officials, officials to a new dispatch services by NMCOG and the work with action establishing an State 911 NMCOG item. RECC Department through 911 Work Group. State 911 Department funding will be utilized.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 274

Table 89 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Tewksbury

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Prevention Study the Town Emergency All Hazards Long-term Town No, this is establishment of a Manager, Emergency a new mutual aid agreement building inspector Manager, action item with neighboring and Board of utilizing communities to Selectmen general administer NFIP funds, will following a major implement storm event. this project. Board of Selectmen must approve agreement and building inspector implements NFIP.

Prevention Revise subdivision Town Planning Flooding Annual Town No, this is regulations, erosion Board, Community a new control regulations, Conservation Development action item and Board of Health Commission and Director, regulations to Board of Health Conservation improve floodplain Agent and management as Board of needed. Health will address this issue utilizing general funds.

Emergency Ensure that Emergency Tornado Long-term This task will No Services administrators of Manager and completed by Protection schools, businesses, public safety the medical facilities, Emergency and the mobile home Manager and park have a shelter public safety plan in the event of a personnel tornado warning using general funds

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 275

Table 89 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Tewksbury

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Structural Address drainage Town DPW Flooding, Long-term DPW No, this is project issues on East hurricane Director to a new Street by complete this action item upgrading and item, improving utilizing infrastructure. Chapter 90 funds.

Emergency Purchase GPS Town DPW and All hazards Short-term DPW The 2006 Services Units for DPW Emergency Director to Plan action vehicles and new manager work with item has messaging board Emergency been system for Manager to modified emergency complete this to include management. item, the utilizing messaging federal and board state funds. component

Emergency Install an Town DPW All hazards Short-term DPW No, this is Services emergency Director to a new generator at the complete this action item Water Treatment task utilizing Plant. federal and state competitive grant funds or local funds.

Emergency Install emergency Town Emergency All hazards Short-term DPW No, this is Services generators for Manager and Director and a new Senior Housing. Housing Housing action item Authority Authority Director will work together to complete this item with HMGP or DHCD funds

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 276

Table 89 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Tewksbury

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Prevention Develop dam Town DPW, Earthquakes and Short-term Public Works Yes maintenance plan DCR and private flooding Director to outlining future dam owners work with responsibilities DCR and for inspection, dam owners. maintenance, and Town general repair of all dams funds to be and related used. structures.

Public Increase public Town Emergency Extreme Short-term Emergency Public education awareness of the Manager Temperatures manager will education dangers of implement extreme this task temperatures and using general outline locations funds where vulnerable populations (elderly, homeless and those with health issues) can have access to air conditioning or shelter from the cold

Public Distribute Emergency Winter storms – Short-term This task will No education educational Manager snowstorms, be information to blizzards, ice implemented residents and storms by the businesses on Emergency protecting life Manager and property from using general severe winter funds storm events

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 277

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 278

Table 89 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Tewksbury

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Emergency Identify locations Highway Severe winter Short-term This task will No Services for snow storage Department storm/snowstorm, be farms for blizzard implemented utilization in by the severe winters highway with heavy department snowfall using local operating funds

Property Evaluate public Building Hurricane, Long-term This task will No protection buildings and inspector and tornado, blizzard be critical facilities emergency implemented for manager by the the potential to Building withstand high Inspector and winds Emergency manager using local general funds

Emergency Assess Fire Department Structural fire/ Long-term This task to No services bridges and Highway wildfire be and roadways to Department undertaken ascertain by the Fire their capability to Department support fire and Highway apparatus and Department develop alternative routing plans where deficiencies are noted

Property Develop an Building Earthquake Long-term This task is No Protection inventory of inspector and to undertaken public buildings emergency by the that do not manager Building currently meet Inspector and seismic standards emergency manager using general funds

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 279

Table 89 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Tewksbury

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan?

Public Provide Fire Department Drought, Brush Short-term This task is No education information to fire/wildfire to be homeowners on undertaken how to protect by the Fire their property Department from brush fire or using general wildfire during funds times of drought

Table 90: Proposed Mitigation Actions: Town of Tyngsborough

Category Description Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Of Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan? Structural Work with Town Highway Flooding, Short-term Highway Yes project MassDOT to Department, hurricanes Department to mitigate MassDOT. work with flooding Improvements to MassDOT to problems the stormwater complete this along system are item, utilizing Pawtucket currently being federal and state Blvd. (Route designed by transportation 113) MassDOT, as it funds. owns the roadway. Prevention Work with Assistant Town Earthquakes and Short-term Assistant Town Yes DCR Office of Administrator, Flooding Administrator Dam Safety to DCR Office of will work with ensure that the Dam Safety, and DCR and dam inspections of dam owners. owners to all dams are ensure timely current. inspections. Town operating funds to be used. Private dam owner responsible for funding inspections. Prevention Participate in Assistant Town Flooding Short-term Assistant Town No, this is a NFIP Training Administrator, Administrator new action offered by the emergency will ensure item MEMA and manager, building training of FEMA to inspector, MEMA, building addresses FEMA inspector and flood hazard Emergency planning and Manager using management. general funds

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 280

Table 90 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions: Town of Tyngsborough

Category Description Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Of Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan? Prevention Require use of Town building Flooding Short-term Town Building No, this is a elevation inspector Inspector to new action certificate. complete this item item utilizing local general funds. Prevention Incorporate Town Planning All hazards Short-term Planning Board Yes, Hazard Board and and description Mitigation Conservation Conservation was modified planning into Commission Agent will to include the subdivision address this Master Plan regulations, issue utilizing Master Plan general funds. and Open Space and Recreation Plan Update. Prevention Correct Town School Flooding, Short term School No, this is a flooding Department hurricanes Department and new action problems on Assistant Town item the access road Administrator to to the work with elementary MEMA and school through FEMA to culvert complete this installation. item utilizing HMGP funds. Prevention Correct Town Highway Flooding, Long-term Highway No, this is a flooding Department hurricanes Department to new action problems on undertake this item Sherburne project using Avenue and on Chapter 90 Westford funds or Road. competitive grant monies. Public Distribute Emergency Winter storms – Short-term This task will be No education educational Manager snowstorms, implemented by information to blizzards, ice the Emergency residents and storms Manager using businesses on general funds protecting life and property from severe winter storm events

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 281

Table 90 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions: Town of Tyngsborough

Category Description Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Of Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan? Public Increase public Town Emergency Extreme Short-term Emergency Public education awareness of Manager Temperatures manager will education the dangers of implement this extreme recommendati temperatures on using and outline general funds. locations where vulnerable populations (elderly, homeless and those with health issues) can have access to air conditioning or shelter from the cold

Emergency Ensure that Emergency Tornado Long-term This task will No Services administrators Manager and completed by Protection of schools, public safety the Emergency businesses, Manager and medical public safety facilities, and personnel municipal using general buildings have funds a shelter plan in the event of a tornado warning

Prevention Address areas Town Highway Winter storms Long-term Town No, this is a of severe icing Department Highway new action on roadways Department to item by delineating complete this the limits of item, utilizing the ROW for local general tree removal to funds. allow greater solar access Prevention Work with Town Highway Hurricanes, Long-term Highway No, this is a cable and Department and tornadoes, Department to new action communication utilities thunderstorms, work with item companies and winter storms utilities to the electric complete this utility to item utilizing develop a tree local general trimming funds and program for funding from above ground the utility utility lines. companies.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 282

Table 90 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions: Town of Tyngsborough

Category Description Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Of Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan? Property Inspect public Building inspector Severe winter Short-term This task will No Protection buildings to and Emergency storm/ be completed evaluate the Manager snowstorm, by the Building capacity to blizzard inspector and withstand Emergency snow loads and Manager using prevent roof local operating collapse. funds Develop plans to clear roofs of excessive snow accumulations to prevent collapse. Emergency Identify Highway Severe winter Short-term This task will No Services locations for Department storm/snowstorm, be snow storage blizzard implemented farms for by the highway utilization in department severe winters using local with heavy operating snowfall funds

Property Evaluate Building inspector Hurricane, Long-term This task will No protection public and emergency tornado, blizzard be buildings and manager implemented critical by the Building facilities for Inspector and the potential to Emergency withstand high manager using winds local general funds

Emergency Assess Fire Department Structural fire/ Long-term This task to be No services bridges and Highway wildfire undertaken by and roadways Department the Fire to ascertain Department their capability and Highway to support fire Department apparatus and develop alternative routing plans where deficiencies are noted

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 283

Table 90 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions: Town of Tyngsborough

Category Description Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Of Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action and Status included in the 2006 Plan? Property Develop an Building inspector Earthquake Long-term This task is to No Protection inventory of and emergency undertaken by public manager the Building buildings that Inspector and do not emergency currently meet manager using seismic general funds standards

Public Provide Fire Department Drought, Brush Short-term This task is to No education information to fire/wildfire be undertaken homeowners by the Fire on how to Department protect their using general property from funds brush fire or wildfire during times of drought

Table 91: Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Westford

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action included in the 2006 Plan? Prevention Implement Master Planning Board, All Hazards Short-term Director of Land No, this is a /Public Plan Conservation Use and Town new action Outreach recommendations Commission and Planner to address item advocating public emergency this task utilizing and education on hazard managers local general Awareness mitigation and funds. refinement of regulatory measures. Prevention/ Provide training to Engineering Flooding Annual Engineering Yes Natural Town staff and Department, Department, Resource board members Highway working with DEP Protection relative to Department, and NMCOG, will stormwater Planning Board address this task regulations. and Conservation utilizing town Commission operating funds

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 284

Table 91 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Westford

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action included in the 2006 Plan? Prevention Participate in Town Engineering All Hazards Long-term Emergency Yes, updates to the Department, Managers, however the regional hazard Emergency working with description mitigation plan and Managers, Planning NMCOG, town has been assist in developing staff and NMCOG departments and the local annex. MEMA will amended for complete this task clarity utilizing local general funds and HMGP/PDM funding. Prevention/ Update Building Building All Hazards Short-term Building inspector Yes, but Property Department Department to complete this description Protection policies and project utilizing has been practices to include local general amended for further funds. consideration of clarity natural hazards, such as wind, snow and seismic loads. Prevention/ Complete town- Engineering Flooding Short-term Engineering No Property wide Stormwater Department and Department will Protection Master Planning Stormwater Master oversee this Plan Committee. project using Town has hired a general funds. consultant to prepare the Plan Prevention/ Adopt stormwater Planning Board and Flooding Short-term Planning Board Yes Natural regulations to Conservation and Conservation Resource implement Commission. The Commission to stormwater by-law. town has retained a address this item Protection consultant to update using local general its stormwater funds. regulations. Prevention Conduct Engineering/Public Flooding Short-term Engineering/Public Yes hydrological/ Works Department Works Department drainage studies at to address this problem locations issue utilizing throughout Town. local general funds. Public Conduct outreach Emergency Flooding Annual Town Yes Outreach campaign to Management and Emergency and encourage residents Building Managers and to purchase flood Departments building Awareness insurance. department, will implement this project using general funds.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 285

Table 91 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Westford

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action included in the 2006 Plan? Public Conduct an Emergency All hazards Short-term Town Emergency Yes Outreach ongoing hazard Management, Managers, working and mitigation School Department, with the School community Conservation Department, Awareness outreach program Commission, Board Conservation for residents, of Health Commission and Board through the schools of Health will and at town events. implement this project utilizing general funds. Public Utilize internet Town Emergency All hazards Short-term Town Emergency Yes Outreach based technology managers, IT staff Manager, utilizing and and cable TV to and local cable general funds, will better distribute media implement this project. Awareness information concerning natural hazards. Property Flood-proof electric National Grid at the Flooding, Short-term Work to be completed Yes Protection transmission lines request of the hurricane by National Grid using and substations in Town Emergency utility funds. Effort to flood-prone areas managers and be coordinated by the of Town. Board of Selectmen Emergency Managers using local general funds. Property Regularly inspect Engineering Earthquakes Annual Engineering Yes Protection and maintain all Department and and flooding Department to work Town-owned dams DCR. The town has with DCR, utilizing completed local general funds or improvements to its CPA monies. dams since the 2006 Plan was adopted. Property Participate in Fire Department Wildfire, Annual Fire Chief to work with Yes Protection DCR’s Fire Wise urban fire DCR on the Fire Wise program to reduce Program. No additional wildfire risk. funds needed. Structural Replace undersized Highway/ Flooding/ Annual Highway/Engineering Yes Projects culverts and Engineering hurricanes Department, working drainage structures Department, and with MassDOT, will at problem MassDOT. complete this task using locations, as Drainage problems federal, state and local described in earlier have been general funds. HMGP sections of this Plan addressed at will be used at Route 40 numerous location and possibly other since the locations. completion of the 2006 Plan Emergency Interconnect traffic Highway All Hazards Short-term Highway Department, Yes Services signals and equip Department, working with with advance MassDOT MassDOT and the Police and Fire Chiefs, vehicle detection will address this task (Opticom) utilizing federal, state and local general funds.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 286

Table 91 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Westford

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action included in the 2006 Plan? Prevention Incorporate disaster Conservation All Hazards Long-term Conservation Agent, Yes mitigation into the Commission-the working with the Open Space and town’s Open Space Conservation Recreation Plan Plan currently Commission, will update process addresses hazard address this issue mitigation utilizing CPA and general funds.

Prevention Study the Town Emergency All Hazards Long-term Emergency Manager, No, this is a possibility of Managers, building utilizing general funds, new action establishing a inspector and will implement this item mutual aid Board of Selectmen project. The agreement agreement with must be approved by neighboring the Board of Selectmen communities to and the Building administer NFIP Inspector enforces following a major NFIP. storm event

Public Increase public Town Emergency Extreme Short-term Emergency manager Public education awareness of the Manager Temperatures will implement this education dangers of extreme recommendation using temperatures and general funds. outline locations were vulnerable populations (elderly and those with health issues) can have access to air conditioning or shelter from the cold

Prevention Revise subdivision Town Planning Flooding Annual Town Director of Land No, this is a regulations, erosion Board, Use, Town Planner, new action control regulations, Conservation Conservation Agent and item and Board of Commission and Board of Health will Health regulations Board of Health address this task to improve utilizing general funds. floodplain management as needed

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 287

Table 91 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Westford

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action included in the 2006 Plan? Public Distribute Emergency Winter storms Short-term This task will be No education educational Manager – snowstorms, implemented by the information to blizzards, ice Emergency Manager residents and storms using general funds businesses on protecting life and property from severe winter storm events

Emergency Ensure that Emergency Tornado Long-term This task will No Services administrators of Manager and public completed by the Protection schools, businesses, safety Emergency Manager medical facilities, and public safety and municipal personnel using general buildings have a funds shelter plan in the event of a tornado warning

Property Inspect public Building inspector Severe winter Short-term This task will be No Protection buildings to and Emergency storm/ completed by the evaluate the Manager snowstorm, Building inspector and capacity to blizzard Emergency Manager withstand snow using local operating loads and prevent funds roof collapse. Develop plans to clear roofs of excessive snow accumulations to prevent collapse. Emergency Identify locations Highway Severe winter Short-term This task will be No Services for snow storage Department storm/snowsto implemented by the farms for utilization rm, blizzard highway department in severe winters using local operating with heavy funds snowfall

Property Evaluate public Building inspector Hurricane, Long-term This task will be No protection buildings and and emergency tornado, implemented by the critical facilities for manager blizzard Building Inspector and the potential to Emergency manager withstand high using local general winds funds

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 288

Table 91 (cont’d): Proposed Mitigation Actions - Town of Westford

Category Description Of Implementation Hazard Timeframe/ Resources/ Was the Of Action Action Responsibility Addressed Priority Funding action included in the 2006 Plan? Emergency Assess Fire Department Structural Long-term This task to be No services bridges and Highway fire/ wildfire undertaken by the Fire and roadways to Department Department and ascertain Highway Department their capability to support fire apparatus and develop alternative routing plans where deficiencies are noted

Property Develop an Building inspector Earthquake Long-term This task is to No Protection inventory of public and emergency undertaken by the buildings that do manager Building Inspector and not currently meet emergency manager seismic standards using general funds

Public Provide Fire Department Drought, Short-term This task is to be No education information to Brush undertaken by the Fire homeowners on fire/wildfire Department using how to protect their general funds property from brush fire or wildfire during times of drought

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 289

D. Mitigation Success Stories in the Northern Middlesex Region

Since completion of the 2006 Plan a number of mitigation projects have been designed and implemented. This section describes two of the most successful mitigation projects that have been completed over the past five years.

Dracut Sewer Lift Station

Concerned over ongoing flooding at the 150 Turtle Hill Road sewer lift station, the Town of Dracut applied for and received a grant through FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The lift station serves over 300 residences and was originally built ½ foot above base flood elevation. However, the lift station was threatened by flooding from Beaver Brook as the flood hazard appeared to have increased since the original Flood Insurance Study was published. If the pump were to sustain flooding the pump and electrical components would fail. The failure would cause sewage to back up into homes posing a significant public health threat.

The funding provided by FEMA allowed the town to build a 12-inch thick concrete wall surrounding the station. The wall is 10 feet high with 6’6” below grade and 3’6” above grade, to prevent floodwaters from damaging the electrical components. There is a 4-foot wide service opening to allow access to the station. The opening is closed with stop logs, already stored at the site, when the station is at risk of flooding. The $48,000 project was completed in November 2008.

East Street Culvert Improvements, Tewksbury

Flooding and closure of East Street just east of Tewksbury Town Center, had been an annual event. Over the past several decades, flooding along the Shawsheen River and its tributary, Strongwater Brook, has overtopped stream crossings on major streets in town. As a result, parts of the town were isolated, requiring traffic detours along alternate routes which quickly became congested, limiting access for emergency vehicles. To mitigate the extent and duration of disruptions caused by flooding, town officials proposed installing new, larger culverts at the East Street-Strongwater Brook crossing.

Using HMGP funds totaling $281,250 (the town provided $93,750 in matching funds), two new concrete box culverts (5’ feet high x 10’ wide) were installed, providing an opening four times larger than the old culverts. In addition, the roadway was elevated by three feet so that it is now higher than the 100-year flood elevation at the crossing. Because this section of Strongwater Brook lies within a wetland, drainage improvements had to be designed to accommodate issues related to wetland protection. The design incorporated maintenance of natural water levels and velocities, including fluctuations during periods of low flow, and the accommodation of high flood flows. This was accomplished by incorporating two features into the design and installation: (1) the bottoms of the culverts were set at one foot below the natural channel of the brook and then backfilled to establish a natural channel within the culverts; and (2) the culverts were sized so that during a flood, water would back up and be temporarily stored

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 290

in the large wetland area on the upstream side of the roadway, allowing water to rise above the tops of the culverts yet not overtop East Street.

East Street/Strongwater Brook crossing before project completion

East Street/Strongwater Brook crossing after project completion

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 291

SECTION 9: PLAN ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE

Under 44 CFR Part 201 mitigation plans must be sent to the State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO) for initial review and coordination. The State then forwards the plan to FEMA for formal review and approval. The final draft is submitted to the State and FEMA prior to seeking formal adoption of the plan by the local communities and the NMCOG governing board. FEMA reviewers document their evaluation of the Plan using the Plan Review criteria. A copy of the Crosswalk provided for the 2006 Hazard Mitigation Plan is included in Appendix H.

Mitigation plans are approved when they receive a “satisfactory” for all requirements outlined under 44 CFR Section 201.6. Once a final plan is submitted, the FEMA Regional Office generally completes the review within 45 days. In the event that the plan is not approved, the FEMA Regional Office will provide comments on the areas that need improvement. FEMA will the complete review of the re-submittal within 45 days of receipt.

Once FEMA determines that the Plan is “approvable pending adoption”, the local adoption process is initiated. The adoption of the Hazard Mitigation Plan update provides continued written guidance for all local governments within the region, and signifies that the plan’s recommendations have been considered and approved in accordance with state and federal requirements. Copies of the Certificates of Adoption are provided in Appendix I for each community covered by the Plan.

The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 stipulates that regions and municipalities must not only develop a Regional Mitigation Plan, but also take steps to ensure that the plan is implemented, maintained and updated as needed. The following steps will be taken to maintain the plan in each community, assuming that funding is provided:

 Each community will monitor this plan by a combination of an annual meeting with the local team and by responsible department staff following up on specific projects. Within each municipality, an annual review of the plan by the hazard mitigation team will be conducted at one of the monthly interdepartmental meetings. At that time, the hazard mitigation team will review the hazard mitigation measures that have been implemented to date and determine if these measures have impacted the overall hazard. This review may include site visits to appropriate locations where measures have been implemented. Mitigation measures that have not been implemented will be reviewed to determine if they will still minimize natural hazards or if they are no longer a viable option. Additionally, the hazard mitigation team will determine if there are new options that should be included in an update of the plan. Within each community, the Emergency Manager will be responsible for overseeing and coordinating the update process, if needed. In addition to the Emergency Manager, the hazard mitigation team within each community is comprised of public safety officials, the chief administrative officer, planning staff, the conservation, engineering, public health departments and public works.

 The public will have opportunities to submit feedback and solicit comments from the

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 292

municipality regarding the Plan and the mitigation projects. Residents and businesses will be notified when hazard mitigation issues are brought to the Board of Selectmen or City Council. Notification by each municipality will occur through the Lowell Sun, the local newspapers, the municipal website, the City Clerk or Town Clerk bulletin board, and local cable television community bulletin boards, and social media feeds, such as Facebook and Twitter.

 As a facilitator, NMCOG will meet with members of the regional Multiple Hazard Community Planning Team, local emergency managers, city/town planners, public works departments, city/town engineers, Conservation Commissions and Chief Administrative Officers on an annual basis to discuss each community’s progress in implementing the local and regional Mitigation Plans;

 Should the Region or a municipality experience a significant disaster, the Multi- jurisdictional Mitigation Plan will be updated and revised to reflect the technical information gleaned from the event and to outline the mitigation needs that have stemmed from the disaster. Appropriate mitigation strategies will then be added to an amended Plan document; In addition, should Federal or State regulations and requirements change, the Regional and municipal Plans will be updated accordingly. In order for communities to qualify for mitigation funding, it is necessary that the Regional and local plans be amended to incorporate new mitigation projects as they are identified by the local communities;

 The ongoing monitoring and updates of this Plan will include public participation utilizing the media, the community bulletin board on the local cable channels, the municipal websites, and the NMCOG website to facilitate the public’s involvement;

 Evaluation of the hazard mitigation plan in its entirety will be done on a 5-year basis in accordance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 or any significant natural hazard disaster. Any new problems that arise will be reviewed by the hazard mitigation team and incorporated into the hazard mitigation plan. The evaluation will include a review of the goals and objectives and a determination will be as to whether each still addresses current and expected conditions. Local fiscal issues, administrative challenges or major regulation changes will be discussed during the evaluation process. The plan will be updated with possible new mitigation measures and plans of action as determined from the review. This allows for updates to be made as each municipality or the region grows and changes. Within the municipalities, the Emergency Managers will oversee the hazard mitigation team’s involvement in the review and updating process; and

 The Northern Middlesex Council of Governments intends to update this multi- jurisdictional plan five years from the date of approval, as resources allow. The next update will be completed in 2020. The update will focus on the successes and failures of the current plan as documented through surveys, meetings and reports from the local communities. Any new information, such as new or changing hazard conditions or vulnerability assessments, will be incorporated into the update The Plan revision will follow the same planning and outreach process that was utilized to develop this plan.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 293

(Please refer to Section 1.) The latest guidance available from FEMA and MEMA will be consulted to ensure that the process meets all state and federal requirements. Members of the community will be invited to provide input into the plan revisions and stakeholders will be kept apprised of the revision process. The public process will be tailored to fit the needs of each community within the region. The residents and businesses in each community will be notified when hazard mitigation issues are brought to the Board of Selectmen or City Council in each community. Such public involvement opportunities will be noticed in the Lowell Sun and posted in the City/Town Clerk office in each community. All public meetings will conform with the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law. The official update process will commence 18 months prior to this plan’s expiration date.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 294

SECTION 10: PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

The implementation of the Regional Mitigation Plan will take place at the State, Regional and local levels of government. Local governments play a pivotal role in hazard mitigation, particularly in floodplain management. The municipal Planning Boards, Conservation Commissions, and Boards of Health have legal responsibilities to implement local floodplain bylaws, floodplain guidelines incorporated into the Wetlands Protection Act, the Rivers Protection Act and Title 5 of the State Environmental Code (wastewater disposal). Local Building Departments enforce the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) construction standards incorporated into the Massachusetts State Building Code. Local public works and highway departments are responsible for local roadways, and municipal drainage, sewer and stormwater management systems. Each municipality has an emergency manager who is responsible for local preparedness, mitigation response and recovery for natural and manmade hazards. Table 92 below provides a summary of local boards and departments and their corresponding roles in implementing the action items contained in the Regional and Local Mitigation Plans.

The incorporation of the hazard mitigation actions outlined in this Plan Update within other local and regional planning documents and procedures is highly encouraged. Such documents include community master plans, capital improvement plans, Open Space and Recreation Plans, stormwater plans and regulations, emergency management plans, the University of Massachusetts Lowell Hazard Mitigation Plan, zoning bylaws, subdivision regulations, and local wetland bylaws and ordinances. Elected officials should be directly involved in the implementation of the updated Plan, as they set policy and can provide direction in establishing timeframes, assigning implementation responsibility, and providing implementation funding.

Table 92: Role of Local Boards, Departments and Committees in Plan Implementation

Department, Board or Committee Function Effect on Loss Reduction

Building Department/Inspector The building inspector enforces the Insures that NFIP standards and other Massachusetts State Building Code mitigation standards are uniformly that incorporates NFIP construction applied throughout the region standards. The building inspector also enforces locally adopted bylaws. The state building code also contains sections on wind, snow, structural loads and seismic retrofitting.

Public Works Department and/or The Public Works Department and/or Ongoing maintenance and upgrading City/Town Engineer engineer are primarily responsible for of local stormwater systems is crucial municipal drainage and stormwater to reducing and managing flood risks. management issues, taking the lead in insuring compliance with EPA Phase II Stormwater Regulations.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 295

Table 92 (Cont’d): Role of Local Boards, Departments and Committees in Plan Implementation

Department, Board or Function Effect on Loss Committee

Conservation Commission The Conservation Commission is These regulations contain performance responsible for implementing the Rivers standards which address flood control Protection Act of 1996 (MGL Chapter 258, and storm damage prevention. 310 CMR 10.58), and the Wetlands Protection At (MGL Chapter 131, Section 40, 310 CMR 10.00). The Conservation Commission reviews, approves or denies applications for projects in the 100-year floodplain, in the floodplain of a small water body not covered by a FEMA study, within 100 feet of any wetland or 200 feet of any river or stream (except in the case of Lowell, where it is within 25 feet of any river or stream).

Planning Board and Planning The Planning Board has authority under In many communities the Planning Department MGL Chapter 41, and implements local Department coordinates the hazard subdivision regulations. The Planning mitigation planning process and the Board ensures that new development implementation of hazard mitigation incorporates state and federal stormwater plans. management “best management practices”. In most communities the Planning Board is responsible for maintaining local floodplain bylaws and ordinances.

Board of Health The Board of Health implements the State Title 5 protects public health and Environmental Code, Title 5, and 310 CMR mitigates losses due to adverse effects of 15: Minimum Requirements for the improper sewage treatment in high Subsurface Disposal of Sanitary Sewage. hazard areas. The Board is also involved Some communities opt to adopt local board in issues related to water quality and of health requirements that are more infectious diseases following a disaster. stringent than the state requirements.

Board of Selectmen or City The City of Lowell is governed by a City The City Council or Board of Selectmen Council Council, and the Towns by a Board of must adopt the local Regional Mitigation Selectmen. Plan. In addition, their approval is necessary for hazard mitigation grant applications and potential projects.

Emergency Management Each community has an emergency Emergency managers play a primary role Department manager who is responsible for local in the development of the response and recovery, as well as mutual Comprehensive Emergency Management aid. Plan (CEMP), as well as in other plans required by MEMA and FEMA.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 296

SECTION 11: FUNDING SOURCES

Appropriate action is needed to ensure that financial resources are available to implement hazard mitigation projects. Such projects need to be included in capital improvement programs at the state and local levels. Federal funding programs are available to qualifying municipalities. The availability of current federal funding sources changes regularly and is dependent upon Congress’ ongoing budget appropriations process. In 2003, the federal government established two comprehensive websites that track available funding from all the federal agencies at www.fedgrants.gov or www.grants.gov. In addition, it may also be helpful to check current federal appropriations from Congress through the Federal Register at www.thomas.loc.

The following table provides a summary of FEMA programs which fund hazard mitigation projects and activities. These programs are the primary source of federal hazard mitigation funding in Massachusetts:

Table 93: FEMA Hazard Mitigation Funding Programs

Program Type of Assistance Availability Managing Funding Source Agency DCR Flood National Flood Property Owner, Any time (pre- and Hazard Insurance Program Flood Insurance Federal Emergency post- disaster) Management (NFIP) Management Agency Program Grants to state Severe Repetitive Loss emergency Up to 90% FEMA/ 10% (SRL) (Part of the management offices to Varies MEMA state government NFIP) reduce damage to insured severe RLPs Repetitive Flood Claims Grants to states and Program (RFC) (Part of municipalities to reduce Any time FEMA 100% FEMA the NFIP) damage to insured RLPs DCR Flood Community Rating Property Owner, Disaster Insurance Any time (pre and Hazard System (CRS) Federal Emergency Discounts post disaster) Management (Part of the NFIP) Management Agency Program Flood Mitigation Cost share grants for 75% FEMA/25% local Annual pre-disaster DCR & Assistance (FMA) pre-disaster planning government or grant program MEMA Program and projects organization 75% FEMA/25% local Hazard Mitigation Post-disaster Cost- Post disaster DCR & government or Grant Program (HMGP) Share Grants program MEMA organization National, competitive grant program for Annual, pre- 75% FEMA/25% local Pre-Disaster Mitigation DCR & multiple hazard disaster mitigation government or Program MEMA mitigation projects and program organization “all hazards” Small Business Pre- and Post- disaster Small Business Administration (SBA) loans to qualified Ongoing MEMA Administration Mitigation Loans businesses Public Assistance Post-disaster aid to state Post- Disaster MEMA FEMA Program and local governments

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 297

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, administers the National Flood Insurance Program, the Community Rating System, the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA)., the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM). All of these programs are administered in coordination with DCR and MEMA. FEMA also prepares and revises flood insurance studies and maps as well as information on past and current acquisition, relocation and retrofitting programs. The Mitigation Division provides expertise in other natural and technological hazards, including hurricanes, earthquakes and hazardous materials, to state and local government agencies.

Immediately following a Presidential declaration, FEMA’s Response and Recovery Division works closely with state agencies, especially MEMA, in assisting in the short-term and long-term recovery effort. FEMA assists disaster-affected communities through emergency funding programs, such as Infrastructure Support and Human Services. In coordination with its Mitigation Division, Response and Recovery distributes information on hazard mitigation methods and acquisition/relocation initiatives as well as coordinating HMGP grants for mitigation projects to protect eligible damaged public and private nonprofit facilities through the Public Assistance Program. In addition to these programs, FEMA also provides disaster recovery and hazard mitigation training at its Emergency Management Institute in Emmitsburg, Maryland.

For the latest information on these funding programs, go to FEMA’s website at www.fema.gov. More detailed information regarding the mitigation funding options is provided in the following sections. Programs NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP)

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), established by Congress in 1968, provides flood insurance to property owners in participating communities. This program is a direct agreement between the federal government and the local community that flood insurance will be made available to residents in exchange for community compliance with minimum floodplain management requirements. Since homeowners’ insurance does not cover flooding, a community’s participation in the NFIP is vital to protecting property in the floodplain, as well as ensuring that federally backed mortgages and loans can be used to finance property within the floodplain.

Pursuant to the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, any federal financial assistance related to new construction or substantial improvements (greater than 50% of a structure’s market value) of existing structures located in the 100-year floodplain is contingent on the purchase of flood insurance. Such federal assistance includes not only direct aid from agencies, but also from federally insured institutions. Thus, in order for property owners to be eligible for purchasing flood insurance, their respective community must be participating in the NFIP and in compliance with the NFIP.

Communities participating in the NFIP must:

 Adopt the Flood Insurance Rate Maps as an overlay regulatory district;  Require that all new construction or substantial improvement to existing structures in

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 298

the flood hazard area will be elevated; and  Require design techniques to minimize flood damage for structures being built in high hazard areas, such as floodways or velocity zones.

The NFIP standards are contained in the Massachusetts State Building Code (Section 3107), which is implemented at the local level by municipal building inspectors. In Massachusetts, 344 out of 351, or 98%, of Massachusetts municipalities participate in the NFIP.

SEVERE REPETITIVE LOSS PROGRAM (SRL)

The Severe Repetitive Loss Program was authorized by the Bunning-Beruter- Blumaneauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 with amended the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to provide funding to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to severe repetitive loss structures.

MEMA must apply for these funds but may work with other state agencies or local governments. Priority is given to programs that will have the greatest cost-benefit ratio in keeping with the purpose of the program. Grants may be used for acquisition, demolition and relocation but cannot be used for maintenance or repair.

Funds are allocated to the state based on the percentage of validated SRL properties and may be up to 90 percent federal and 10 percent local.

REPETITIVE FLOOD CLAIMS PROGRAM (RFC)

The Repetitive Flood Claims Program was authorized by the Bunning-Beruter- Blumaneauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 with amended the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to provide funding to reduce risk of flood damage to repetitive loss structures.

The program is 100 percent federal funded and the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed activities cannot be funded under the Flood Assistance Program. (See below.)

COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM (CRS)

A voluntary initiative of the NFIP, the Community Rating Systems (CRS) encourages communities to undertake activities that exceed the minimum NFIP floodplain management standards. Communities participating in CRS can reduce flood insurance premiums paid by policyholders in that community by performing such activities as: maintaining records of floodplain development, publicizing the flood hazard, improving flood data, and maintaining open space. Communities can gain additional credit under CRS by developing a flood mitigation plan.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 299

FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM (FMA)

Authorized by the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994, the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program makes cost-share grants available for flood mitigation planning and projects, such as property acquisition, relocation of residents living in floodplains, and retrofitting of existing structures within a floodplain. Flood hazard mitigation plans, approved by the state and FEMA, are a pre-requisite for receiving FMA project grants. Communities contribute a minimum of 25% of the cost for the planning and project grants with an FMA match of up to 75%.

HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM (HMGP)

Established pursuant to Section 404 of the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Relief Act (PL 100-707), this program provides matching grants (75% Federal, 25% Local) for FEMA- approved hazard mitigation projects following a federally declared disaster. These grants are provided on a competitive basis to state, local and tribal governments as well as non-profit organizations. The grants are specifically directed toward reducing future hazard losses, and can be used for projects protecting property and other resources against the damaging effects of floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, high winds, and other natural hazards. HMGP in Massachusetts encourages non-structural hazard mitigation measures, such as:

. The acquisition of damaged structures and deeding the land to a community for open space or recreational use; . Relocating damaged or flood prone structures out of a high hazard area; and . Retrofitting properties to resist the damaging effects of natural disasters. Retrofitting can include wet- or dry-flood proofing, elevation of the structure above flood level, elevation of utilities, or proper anchoring of the structure.

Proposals for funding are submitted for review by Massachusetts’ Interagency Hazard Mitigation Committee with final approval given by the Commissioner of the DCR, the Director of MEMA and FEMA’s Region I office.

PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PROGRAM

The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM) was authorized by §203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Assistance and Emergency Relief Act (Stafford Act), 42 USC, as amended by §102 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Funding for the program is provided through the National Regional Mitigation Fund to assist States and local governments (to include Indian Tribal governments) in implementing cost-effective hazard mitigation activities that complement a comprehensive mitigation program. All applicants must be participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) if they have been identified through the NFIP as having a Special Flood Hazard Area (a Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) or Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) has been issued). In addition, the community must not be suspended or on probation from the NFIP. 44 CFR Part 201, Hazard Mitigation Planning, establishes criteria for State and local hazard mitigation planning authorized by §322 of the Stafford Act, as amended by §104 of the

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 300

DMA. The development of State and local multi-hazard mitigation plans is key to maintaining eligibility for future PDM funding.

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA) MITIGATION LOANS

The SBA's Regional Mitigation Loan Program was developed in support of FEMA's Regional Mitigation program. Businesses proposing mitigation measures to protect against flooding must be located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Businesses may consult FIRM maps to find out if the business is located in a SFHA. For information pertaining to hazard identification mapping and floodplain management, contact the local community floodplain administrator or the State floodplain manager. To apply for a regional mitigation loan, a business must submit a complete Regional Mitigation Small Business Loan Application within the 30-day application period announced by the SBA. SBA will publish a Notice of Availability of Regional Mitigation Loans in the Federal Register announcing the availability of Regional mitigation loans each fiscal year. The Federal Register notice will designate a 30-day application period with a specific opening date and filing deadline, as well as the locations for obtaining and filing loan applications. In addition, SBA will coordinate with FEMA, and will issue press releases to the local media to inform potential loan applicants where to obtain loan applications.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

The Federal Emergency Management Agency's Public Assistance Program is triggered for counties declared major disaster areas by the President. Communities and public agencies in designated counties are eligible for partial reimbursement (75%) of expenses for emergency services and removal of debris, and partial funding (75%) for repair and replacement of public facilities that were damaged by the declared disaster. Massachusetts funds an additional 12.5% of these projects. Eligible applicants for Public Assistance include:

 State government agencies/departments;  Local governments (county, city, town, village, district, etc.); and  Certain private non-profit organizations.

Typical federal/state aid can include:

 Reimbursable payment of 87.5%of the approved costs for emergency protective measures deployed in anticipation of the storm;  Reimbursable payment of 87.5% of the approved costs for emergency services and debris removal;  Payment of 75% of the costs for the permanent repair or replacement of damaged public property; and  Funding for repair/construction of damaged highways other than those on the Federal Aid System.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 301

VOLUNTEER FIRE ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) is a Federal grant program that provides funds for fire equipment, training, and initial fire department organization to fire departments serving small communities under 10,000 in population. Congressionally appropriated VFA funds are provided to the State forestry agencies through the USDA Forest Service. The State forestry agencies pass this money on to needful fire departments within their states. A fire department may buy equipment, pay for training or training materials, or cover the cost of department incorporation, as long as the funds are matched. VFA funds are granted on a 50/50 matching basis.

SPECIAL APPROPRIATIONS FOLLOWING STATE DISASTERS

Although there is no separate state disaster relief fund in Massachusetts, the state legislature will enact special appropriations for those communities sustaining damages following a natural disaster that are not large enough for a presidential, disaster declaration. Since 1995, there have been 15 state disaster declarations and has provided over $7,177,251 in funding to aid communities affected by natural disasters

STATE REVOLVING FUND

This statewide loan program through the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs assists communities in funding local stormwater management projects which help to minimize and/or eliminate flooding in poor drainage areas.

MASSACHUSETTS LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

Land and Water Conservation Funds provide 50 percent of the total project cost to purchase land for conservation or recreation purposes. Massachusetts has spent $95.6 million dollars since 1965 to purchase almost 4,000 acres of land under this program. The program is administered by DCR.

MAJOR FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS

The state provides 50% of the non-federal share on the costs of major flood control projects developed in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This program is managed by DCR.

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page 302

Bibliography

2010 State Register of Historic Places, Massachusetts Historical Commission, 2010

2010 Open Space and Recreation Plan, Town of Dunstable

2012-2035 Transportation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region, Northern Middlesex Council of Governments, 2011

Chelmsford Master Plan, Vision Quest 2020, Town of Chelmsford, 2010

“Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants”, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

Cutter, S.L., Burton, C.G. and Emrich, C.T., Disaster Resilience Indicators for Benchmarking Baseline Conditions, Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 2010

Department of Homeland Security, National Preparedness Report, March 2012

Feasibility Study for a Regional Emergency Communications Center, Final Report, Northern Middlesex Council of Governments, December 2011

FEMA, Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, 2013

Frumhoff, P.C., J.J. McCarthy. J.M. Melillo, S.C. Moser and D.J. Wuebbles, 2006, Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast: A Report of the Northeast Climate Change Impacts Assessments, Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA

Greater Lowell Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, Northern Middlesex Council of Governments, 2009

Kocin, Paul J. and Uccellini, Louis W., “A Snowfall Impact Scale Derived from Northeast Snowfall Distributions”, Bulletin of the American Meteorological. Society, 85, 177–194

Knutson, Thomas R., McBride, J.L., Chan, J., Emanuel, K., Holland, G., Landsea, C., Held, I., Kossin, J.P., Srivastava, A.K., and Sugi, M., 2010 Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change. Nature Geoscience published online 21 February 2010, doi:10.1038/ngeo779

Lowell Master Plan Existing Conditions Report, City of Lowell Department of Planning and Development, December 2011

Massachusetts Climate Adaptation Report, Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and Adaptation Advisory Committee, September 2011

National Institute of Building Sciences, Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study to Assess Future Savings for Mitigation Activities, 2006

Open Space and Recreation Plan Update, Town of Chelmsford, 2010

Pielke, Roger A. Jr., Gratz, J., Landsea, C., Collins, D., Saunders, M.A., and Musulin, R., 2008. Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900-2005. Natural Hazards Review 9:1, 29-42. DOI: 10.1061/_ASCE_1527-6988_2008_9:1_29.

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region, Northern Middlesex Council of Governments, 2006.

Rating the States: An Assessment of Residential Building Codes and Enforcement Systems for Life Safety and Property Protection in Hurricane Prone Regions, IBHS, 2012

Regional Strategic Plan for Greater Lowell, Northern Middlesex Council of Governments, 2011

State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2010

Town of Billerica Master Plan, Town of Billerica, 2002

Town of Dracut Master Plan Update, Town of Dracut, 1998

Town of Dunstable Master Plan, Town of Dunstable, 1999

Town of Pepperell Master Plan, Town of Pepperell, 2007

Town of Tewksbury Master Plan, Town of Tewksbury, 2007

Town of Tyngsborough Master Plan, Town of Tyngsborough, 2002

Using Benefit Cost Review in Mitigation Planning, State and Local Mitigation Planning How-To Guide Number Five, FEMA 386-5, May 2007.

Westford Comprehensive Plan Update, Final Report, Town of Westford, 2009

Internet sources: www.tornadohistoryproject.com www.fema.gov www.nhoem.state.nh.us www.earthquake.usgs.gov www.billericadpw.org www.weather.noaa.gov

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page B

www.mass.gov/dcr/stewardship/mitigate/index.htm www.fema.gov/...hazards...program/national-earthquake-technical-assistance http://www.bc.edu/research/westonobservatory/northeast.html http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/rsi/societal-impacts

Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Northern Middlesex Region Page C

BOARD OF SELECTMEN Town Offices Matthew Hanson, Chairman 50 Billerica Road George R. Dixon, Jr. Robert P. Joyce, Vice Chairman Chelmsford, MA 01824-2777 Janet Askenburg Laura A. Merrill, Clerk (978) 250-5201 FAX: (978) 250-5252

CERTIFICATE OF ADOPTION TOWN OF CHELMSFORD, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF SELECTMEN

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE NORTHERN MIDDLESEX REGION-2015 UPDATE

WHEREAS, the Town of Chelmsford established a Committee to prepare the Hazard Mitigation plan; and WHEREAS, the Town of Chelmsford participated in the development of the HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE NORTHERN MIDDLESEX REGION-2015 UPDATE;

WHEREAS, the HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE NORTHERN MIDDLESEX REGION- 2015 UPDATE contains several potential future projects to mitigate potential impacts from natural hazards in the Town of Chelmsford, and WHEREAS, a duly-noticed public meeting was held by the BOARD OF SELECTMEN on August 31, 2015 for the public and municipality to review prior to consideration of this resolution; and WHEREAS, the Town of Chelmsford authorizes responsible departments and/or agencies to execute their responsibilities demonstrated in the plan, and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Chelmsford Board of Selectmen formally approves and adopts the HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE NORTHERN MIDDLESEX REGION-2015 UPDATE, in accordance with M.G.L. c. 40.

ADOPTED AND SIGNED this August 31, 2015:

______Matt Hanson Bob Joyce

______Laura Merrill Janet Askenburg

______George R. Dixon, Jr. Northern Middlesex Council of Governments PROJECT HISTORY:  Initiated in 2009 at the request of the managers/administrators to assess the feasibility of consolidating 911 dispatch services in Billerica, Chelmsford, Dracut, Dunstable, Lowell, Pepperell, Tewksbury, Tyngsborough, and Westford.  NMCOG applied for and received a grant from the State 911 Department to undertake a feasibility study.  Concluded that consolidating 911 dispatch services would improve the quality of service for residents, while resulting in significant cost savings.  A number of questions remained regarding personnel, budgeting, location of the facility and governance.  CEOs in 7 of the 9 communities agreed to continue into the Implementation Planning Phase of the project.  In 2013, NMCOG received a Development Grant from the State 911 Department to prepare an Implementation Plan.  9 sites were investigated.  A draft IMA was developed.  Cost figures, budget information and staffing plans were further refined.  Recommended that 7 communities consolidate 911 dispatch services; each community elected to continue with the study process.  In 2014, NMCOG received a Professional Services Grant from the State 911 Department to examine: o The impact of Next Generation of 911; o The impact of sending all wireless calls to each community; o Identifying a preferred site for the RECC; and o Investigating options for the small communities o Refining the financial information, the IMA, and the staffing plan.

Community 911 911 Total Wireless Wireline Chelmsford 2,748 3,545 6,293 Dracut 2,170 2,440 4,610 Tewksbury 2,265 3,741 6,006 Total 7,183 9,726 16,909 On Duty On Duty On Duty Dispatch Center Days Afternoon Nights Chelmsford 22 2 Police Tewksbury Police 2 2 2

Dracut Police* 2 2 1

Total 6 6 5

*Dracut Fire operates a secondary PSAP Dispatch Personnel Support Budget Total Center Expenses Expenses Chelmsford 664,057 19,352 683,710 Tewksbury 726,891 45,500 772,391 Dracut 587,444 36,762 624,206 Total $1,978,392 $101,614 $2,080,307  1 Executive Director  1 Administrative Assistant  21 Dispatchers  4.5 Working Supervisors (also manning a console)  Personnel on duty each shift o 6‐day shift (5 dispatchers and 1 supervisor) o 6‐evening shift (5 dispatchers and 1 supervisor) o 5‐overnight shift (4 dispatchers and 1 supervisor) Item Annual Cost Estimate Operating Expenses $102,867 Personnel Expenses $2,002,482 Pre Grant-Total $2,105,349 State Grant* $393,490 Annual Budget $1,711,859

*Incentive grant from State 911 Department USER 911 Call 911 Calls Only Population Population 50% 911 Calls Agency Volume Only 50% Population Chelmsford 6,293 37.22% 33,802 36.66% 36.94% Dracut 4,610 27.26% 29,457 31.94% 29.60% Tewksbury 6,006 35.52% 28,961 31.40% 33.46% TOTAL 16,909 100.00% 92,220 100.00% 100.00% Equipment (Minus - capital Recurring Current State expenses Cost Savings Support) Savings Total Savings Chelmsford 51,349 (77,902) 137,714 $ 111,161 Dracut 117,496 (60,857) 137,714 $ 194,353 Tewksbury 199,603 (71,660) 103,285 $ 231,228 Total $ 368,448 ($ 210,419) $ 378,713 $ 536,742  Architectural, engineering and design costs  All building construction costs (materials, labor, and financing)  All equipment for the RECC (radio systems, computers, consoles, CAD, RMS, fire alarm receiving and alerting, furnishings, etc.)  Equipment at the PSAPs to communicate with the RECC  The Executive Director’s salary for one year before start up and the first year of operations  Wireless calls are now received by the Essex RECC and then transferred to each community  Once the NMRECC is operating, there is an opportunity to directly receive the wireless calls  With assistance from the State 911 Department, wireless calls received by Essex RECC were analyzed  It is estimated that the NMRECC could receive $550,875 to $780,00 in additional revenues by receiving all wireless calls for Chelmsford, Dracut and Tewksbury, significantly reducing the costs for the communities  A District Agreement to be signed by each participating community  Board of Directors‐comprised of the Town Managers (one community, one vote)  Finance Advisory Subcommittee (chief financial officer and chief administrative officer, as required under Chapter 500 of the Acts of 2014)  Operations Committee‐comprised of the police and fire chiefs  Technology Subcommittee to manage and maintain technology and equipment  Three sites were evaluated‐Tewksbury State Hospital, UMass Lowell West Campus and Tewksbury DPW land  Used nationally accepted criteria and standards for evaluation process  Tewksbury DPW land (899 Whipple Road) appears to the be the most advantageous and is municipally owned  A statewide Next Generation 911 system is on schedule to be implemented in Massachusetts by 2016 (FCC requirement).  This is an IP based system and communities must have the capacity to not only handle 911 calls but to also receive transmitted texts, images, videos and data from the public.  The state has developed a tool to assess the operational capacity of existing PSAPs in this regard.  The state will be sending wireless 911 calls directly to the communities, significantly increasing call volumes as the ratio of wireless calls to landline calls increases.  Enhance the quality of communication services for residents as part of a modern and efficient state‐of‐the‐art facility  Increase emergency communication capabilities and staffing capacity during large events and emergencies  Cost savings for all three communities through greater economy of scale  Future replacement of equipment will be funded by the State  Enhanced information sharing between communities regarding crime patterns and activity  Relieves local communities of dealing with new additional State and Federal requirements  Establishes career path possibilities for dispatchers  Adopt District Agreement  Apply for Design Funding and Executive Director’s salary  Hire Director, Begin Design Process, Establish SOP and Policies  Begin Construction  Complete Construction and Hire Personnel and Train Staff  Cutover to RECC (2‐3 year time frame) DRAFT (8/27/15)

Northern Middlesex Regional Emergency Communications Center

Chelmsford, Dracut and Tewksbury

Implementation Update and Recommendations

Introduction

CTC, Inc. was awarded a Professional Services contract by the Northern Middlesex Council of Governments (NMCOG) to review and update previous material from the Regional Emergency Communication Center (RECC) Feasibility Study and Implementation Study. Based upon the updated material, CTC, Inc. would provide their own recommendations on regional dispatch options for the participating communities. Within this report, the towns of Chelmsford, Dracut and Tewksbury have been considered as part of the Northern Middlesex Regional Emergency Communications Center (NMRECC).

The report provides information regarding the status of the current primary public safety answering point (PSAP) center in each community, identifies the budgetary components of the RECC, outlines the cost/benefit analysis for these communities and describes the process to create the RECC.

We believe that this scenario will provide for an effective RECC for these similar communities. This scenario will also present a very cost-effective strategy for all three communities. The mission of the RECC would be totally focused on emergency communications. We also believe that this would be best accomplished as a Regional 911 Emergency Communication District, as outlined in the most recent Massachusetts legislation. The establishment of an RECC would: a. Enhance the emergency communication services provided to Chelmsford, Dracut and Tewksbury citizens and their public safety departments. b. Provide for a more robust emergency communication capability through the RECC during times of great demand for such services. c. Provide for cost savings to all three communities through a greater economy of scale. d. Reduce the cost of future replacement of communication equipment at all three PSAPs. Currently, the Tewksbury 911 dispatch center has identified the need for new radio consoles, dispatch work stations and dispatch radio equipment. e. Provide for greater information sharing between communities regarding crime patterns, vehicles and suspects through a common computer aided dispatch and records management software systems.

The following information was collected through the review of previous reports and from an electronic survey collected from the Dracut, Chelmsford, and Tewksbury Police Departments. Existing Conditions Analysis Update This section updates the data in the Current Communications Environment section of the Northern Middlesex Council of Government Feasibility Study for Regional Emergency Communications Center (December 2011) and the Northern Middlesex Implementation Study for a Regional Emergency Communications Center (February 2014). Both documents were prepared by AECOM. The updated information relied upon an electronic survey conducted by CTC, Inc. for NMCOG. The Chelmsford, Dracut and Tewksbury Police Departments provided this updated information. In this section, we will identify changes that have occurred in the dispatch environment for these communities. Updated dispatch statistics, staffing numbers, and budgets are shown in the tables within this section.

A. Current Community Environment

The population figures for the three communities participating in this Professional Services contract have been outlined in Table 1. These population figures include the 2010 U.S. Census figures and population projections for 2020, 2025 and 2030. Currently, the population being served as of the 2010 U.S. Census was 92,220, but it is expected to increase by 7.69% to 99,317 in 2040.

Table 1

Population Projections % 2010 2020 2030 2040 Change Locality Census Projection Projection Projection 2010- 2040

Chelmsford 33,802 34,208 34,558 35,878 6.14 Dracut 29,457 29,976 30,571 32,042 8.77 Tewksbury 28,961 29,436 29,980 31,397 8.41

Total 92,220 93,620 95,109 99,317 7.69 Source: 2010 U.S. Census and MassDOT projections for 2020, 2030 and 2040.

B. Current Dispatch Environment

• Town of Chelmsford

The Chelmsford Police Department Dispatch Center is the primary PSAP for the Town. The center also dispatches the Chelmsford Fire Department. The dispatch center employs nine full-time civilian personnel. Two dispatchers are on duty on each shift. In addition to the Chelmsford Police and Fire Departments, the dispatch center communicates directly with

Trinity EMS units once they have been dispatched to a call. These units are tracked in the CAD system. A Microsystems CAD system is in use.

The Chelmsford dispatch center implemented the Medical Priority EMD system in 2012 and is performing this required service in-house. The dispatch center is located inside the Chelmsford Police Department building. There are a total of four (4) positions located in this center. All positions are capable of dispatching/call-taking. There have been no significant changes in the Chelmsford dispatch operation and facility since 2012, except for the replacement of dispatch center computers.

Table 2 below shows the available metrics for the Chelmsford Police Department Communications Center: Table 2 Chelmsford Police Department Activity 2013 2014 Total 911 Call Volume 6,138 6,293 Total Calls for Service 41,927 42,570 a. Police 35,876 35,799 b. Fire 6,051 6,771 c. EMD 3,379 3,761

• Town of Dracut Police Dispatch

The Dracut Police Dispatch Center functions as the primary PSAP for the town. It also dispatches the Dracut Police Department. The Dracut Fire Department operates a secondary PSAP. All fire and medical emergency calls are transferred to the fire department dispatcher. The Police dispatch center is equipped with three positions. The center is staffed by four (4) full time and five (5) part-time dispatchers. Two dispatchers are on duty on each shift. The Department budgets approximately $10,000 per year primarily for computers. Since the update for the RECC Implementation Plan in 2014, there have not been any capital improvements to the community’s dispatch centers for consoles and radio systems.

Table 3 shows the available metrics for the Dracut Police Department:

Table 3: Dracut Police Department Activity 2013 2014 Total 911 Call Volume 4,994 4,610 Total Calls for Service 21,364 22,013 • Police 11,677 12,584 • Fire 1,991 1,868 • EMD 1,518 1,424

• Dracut Fire Department Communication Center

The Dracut Fire Department operates a secondary PSAP. A single firefighter is assigned to dispatch on each shift. The Fire Department operates a municipal fire alarm system. The system uses town-owned cable to connect the facilities.

Table 4 shows the available metrics for the Dracut Fire Department.

Table 4: Dracut Fire Department Calls Activity 2014 Fire Calls Dispatched 3,166 Emergency Medical Calls Dispatched 1,424

• Tewksbury

The Tewksbury Police Department Dispatch Center provides dispatch service for the Tewksbury Police Department and the Tewksbury Fire Department, and is the primary PSAP. The dispatch center is equipped with three positions. Two of the positions are staffed twenty-four hours a day. There are a total of nine (9) full-time dispatchers, seven (7) part-time dispatchers, and a chief dispatcher. The dispatch center is located inside the Tewksbury Police Department on Main Street. There have been no significant capital improvements to the Dispatch Center. The Department has identified a significant need to replace the radio systems in the consoles at the center.

Table 5 displays the metrics for the Tewksbury Police Communications Center.

Table 5 Tewksbury Police Department Activity 2013 2014 Total 911 Call Volume 5,862 6,006 Total Calls for Service 61,547 57,149 • Police 19,942 18,664 • Fire 3,701 3,923 • EMD 2,7371 2,972

1. Dispatch Center Staffing

Table 6 displays the current staffing at each PSAP in these three communities:

Table 6 Current Personnel

FT FT PT PT On Duty On Duty On Duty Dispatch Center Authorized Actual Authorized Actual Days Afternoon Nights

Chelmsford Police Dept. 9 9 0 0 2 2 2 Tewksbury Police Dept. 9 9 7 7 2 2 2 Dracut Police Dept. 4 4 4 4 2 2 1 Total 22 22 11 11 6 6 5

FT= Full Time PT= Part Time

Note: The Dracut Fire Department provides one firefighter dispatcher on each shift each day of the year or the equivalent of four dispatcher fulltime assigned to dispatching duties.

2. Emergency Medical Dispatch

Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD), complete with pre-arrival instructions, has become the established standard of care throughout this country. The Massachusetts State 9-1-1 Board has made EMD a requirement for 9-1-1 systems in the Commonwealth effective July 1, 2012. The regulations require that each PSAP provide EMD either through certified EMD dispatchers at the PSAP/RECC or through a certified EMD resource. Further, the PSAP/RECC or certified EMD resource must use a single EMD Protocol Reference System (EMDPRS) on every request for medical assistance, have policies and procedures for use of EMDPRS, and establish a continuous quality assurance (QA) program.

Table 7 displays the status of and protocol in use at each PSAP and the most recent year (2014) of volume: Table 7 EMD Locality Protocol in Use Volume Chelmsford Priority Dispatch 3,761 Dracut Priority Dispatch 1,424 Tewksbury Priority Dispatch 2,972 Total 8,157

3. 911 Call Volume

Below in Table 8 is the breakout of the 911 call volume by community that is received via landline or wireless. The wireless calls are initially received at the Essex RECC (managed by the Essex County Sheriff’s Office) and are then transferred to the PSAP within each community. Oftentimes, multiple calls are received for the same incident, however, only one of those calls is transferred to the community PSAP.

Table 8 – 911 Call Volume Community 2014 - 911 Wireless 2014 - 911 Wireline Total Chelmsford 2,748 3,545 6,293 Dracut 2,170 2,440 4,610 Tewksbury 2,265 3,741 6,006 Total 7,183 9,726 16,909

With the assistance of the State 911 Department, we were able to receive the numbers on the actual number of repeat calls handled by the Essex RECC for these three communities. Based upon information for May 2015, we were able to compare the monthly 911 wireless calls in 2014 received by these three communities with the total May 2015 911 wireless calls received by the Essex RECC for these communities. The numbers are as follows:

Table 8 (a) – 911 Wireless Calls Community 2014 – monthly May 2015 – received Difference wireless calls wireless calls by # and % Essex RECC Chelmsford 229 561 332 (145.0%) Dracut 181 313 132 (72.9%) Tewksbury 189 384 195 (103.2%) Total 599 1,258 659 (110.0%)

In utilizing the 40% figure quoted by the State 911 Department and the figures from above, we were able to determine the range of wireless calls from 7,183 to 10,056 that the NMRECC would be receiving directly for these three communities. It might even be possible to handle the wireless calls for the other Greater Lowell communities, including the City of Lowell, once the NMRECC is established. This arrangement would need to be approved by the State 911 Department.

Table 8 (b) – Estimated 911 Wireless Calls Community 2014 wireless calls Estimated wireless Estimated wireless calls with 40% repeats calls based on May 2015 repeats Chelmsford 2,748 3,847 5,894 Dracut 2,170 3,038 3,751 Tewksbury 2,265 3,171 4,602 Total 7,183 10,056 14,247

The wireless call figures are important in determining the incentive paid by the State 911 Department. Based upon the current population and call volume figures, the NMRECC

would receive $ 393,490. If the number of wireless calls credited to the NMRECC increased to either the 40% (10,056) or May 2015 (14,247) levels, the incentive payment could increase to $ 550,875 or $ 780,461. These figures would need to be confirmed by the State 911 Department, but any increase in the incentive grant would further reduce the cost for the participating communities in the NMRECC.

4. Current FY 2016 Budget

The participating communities were asked to provide their current budget information. This will be used for comparison with any new projections related to RECC operations. Table 9 displays the current budgets for Tewksbury, Dracut and Chelmsford with a breakout of the personnel expenses and support (administrative and maintenance) expenses:

Table 9: FY 2016 Budgets

Support Dispatch Center Personnel Budget Total Expenses* Expenses

Chelmsford 664,057 19,352 683,710 Tewksbury 726,891 45,500 772,391 Dracut 587,444 36,762 624,206 Total $ 1,978,392 $ 101,614 $ 2 ,080,307 * Includes salary, benefits and other government costs.

5. Chelmsford, Dracut and Tewksbury Scenario

This scenario consolidates the dispatch operations of the communities of Chelmsford, Dracut and Tewksbury into a single dispatch center/RECC. None of the existing centers have sufficient space or equipment to accommodate the new consolidated center. Therefore, new space and equipment would be required. A summary of the required characteristics of this particular center are as shown below:

Number of positions ...... 9 Required Space ...... 9,649 square feet Acreage ...... (1) Minimum Number of employees ...... 27.5 Personnel Expenses ...... $2,002,482 Operations & Maintenance ...... $102,867 Capital Expenses ...... (Grant)

Currently the State 911 Department provides grant funding for the development of the Regional Emergency Communications Centers. The funding under the RECC Development Grant can be used for: • Security Measures including equipment and one-time costs associated with the installation of the security measures.

• Architectural and Engineering Services to support construction of new or expansion of existing RECCs. • Construction of the RECC including: o Construction materials o Plumbing, electrical and cabling materials o Labor o Other construction or structural improvement items o Consultant services • Equipment to be used to foster the development and startup of RECCs. • The RECC Executive Director’s salary during Year 1.

The State 911 grant announcements provide information regarding the guidelines and limitations of the funding. This is a competitive grant process that is funded by a surcharge of cell phone usage to enhance the state 911 system.

The participation ratios for this center would be based on the population and 911 call volume of the communities and are shown below. CTC recommends this analysis as a fair and equitable method to share the costs for the Regional Emergency Communications Center (RECC). This method is used by a number of RECCs in Massachusetts and is also used by the State 911 Department to distribute their Incentive and Operations Grant funding. This method calls for an equal ratio of 911 call volume (50%) and population (50%). The information for the criteria is developed using independent sources, i.e., the State 911 Department and the federal census data. The 2014 data and the ratio are listed in Table 10.

Table 10: Call Volumes and Population re Participation Ratios

USER 911 Call 911 Calls Population 50% 911 Calls Agency Volume Only Population Only 50%Population Chelmsford 6,293 37.22% 33,802 36.66% 36.94% Dracut 4,610 27.26% 29,457 31.94% 29.60% Tewksbury 6,006 35.52% 28,961 31.40% 33.46% TOTAL 16,909 100.00% 92,220 100.00% 100.00%

A. Capital Equipment Expenses

Table 11 shows CTC’s opinion of the non-building capital expenditures necessary to fully equip the RECC for use by all three communities. This amount covers the equipment and furniture for nine dispatch positions/consoles to ensure the minimum of five (5) dispatcher positions and one supervisor position is provided for as well as to ensure coverage during times of large incidents that would require two additional consoles. This does not include the cost of the building itself. The Commonwealth has indicated through their grant program that they will cover the capital costs incurred in this effort; therefore, the costs are not included in later tables, except to calculate future maintenance costs. They are provided here for informational purposes only. The State 911 Department has provided guidance regarding the capital equipment expenditures for their grants that are used to

8 support the development or expansion or upgrade of Regional Emergency Communications Centers. The equipment category includes radio systems and consoles, computer aided dispatch (CAD) and records management systems (RMS), fire alarm receiving and alerting equipment, and security systems. Radio equipment must meet the special conditions for the EOPS Statewide Inter-Operability Emergency Communications (SIEC).

Table 11: Equipment Costs

Equipment Cost Elements Cost Estimate CAD/RMS System $ 1,525,500 Radio Console $ 528,900 Dispatch Console Furniture $ 135,500 EMD Software, Cards & Training $ 8 5 ,000 Vendor Services $ 3 85,800 Spares $ 56,100 Contingency $ 2 20,300 Total $2,937,100.00

B. Personnel/Salary Expenses

In order to have five (5) fully-staffed dispatch positions for the day and evening shifts and four (4) for the midnight shift as well as one (1) working supervisor position assigned to each shift, twenty one (21) dispatchers and four (4) full time and one (1) part-time supervisors are required. Three of the supervisors will be assigned to a shift and one and a half will be floaters, who would provide coverage for days off. The supervisors would be at a console assisting the dispatchers. In addition, an Executive Director and an Administrative Assistant are also required. Table 12 below shows the estimated annual salary cost for these employees, including fringe and other government costs. Opinions on salary are based on the current salaries paid by the communities. Salary Expenses represent more than 90% of the total operating budget for the proposed NMRECC. The rationale for the staffing criteria is listed following Table 12.

Table 12: Personnel Expenses Cost Staffing Cost Element Estimate Salaries $1, 463,379 Fringe & Govt. expenses $ 439,103 Overtime $ 100,000 TOTAL $ 2,002,482

Staffing Requirements

CTC, Inc. used their analytical tools as a base for the staffing and budgetary expense projections. Information used to develop the staffing criteria is very similar to that used by AECOM in the 2014 RECC Implementation Plan. In this cost analysis, CTC also included required fringe/government costs for Medicare, retirement and medical expenses. The key document that we used to develop the staffing model is listed below along with an analysis that explains the outcome that is used in the budgeting for this option/NMRECC.

APCO Project RETAINS Research Report, August, 2005, University of Denver Research Institute, and Denver, Colorado.

This study was conceived and conducted in response to staffing concerns that were brought to the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials, International (APCO) by their members. These professional communications center managers expressed concerns about the appropriate number of staff needed to serve the public’s needs and expectations for emergency services and they wanted information about practices they could use to increase employee retention. Although such centers are often equated with 9-1-1 emergency call request and services, 9-1-1 emergency calls are often only a portion of the workload. This study looked at all aspects of staffing and retention in public safety communications centers, not just the 9-1-1 service aspects in those centers. This study was completed in two phases (Study I and Study II).

Question: What factors do centers use to determine appropriate staffing levels?

The data indicates the processes public safety communications centers have used for determining staffing levels has been primarily reactive rather than proactive. There was no process for determining appropriate staffing levels in public safety communications centers that was widely used or accepted.

The Project RETAINS Research Report provided common practices across the country, which are useful to consider for the staffing levels for the NMRECC. On the next page you will find data from one hundred fifty-three (153) 911 PSAP centers relative to staffing and call volume. This data is then compared to what is proposed for the NMRECC.

Table 13: NMRECC comparison with Project RETAINs data NMRECC Center Category Average Median

# of Personnel 18 12 27.5 # of Agencies 12 6 6 Sq. Miles 770 125 65.7 Population 79,000 35,000 92,220 Call Volume 238,000 82,000 121,732

The RETAINS Report put forward that seventy-five percent (75%) of the centers surveyed handled fewer than 10,000 calls per employee, with an average of 6,500 calls per employee. The Report also noted that as call volume per employee increased, so did employee turnover. They further looked at the relationship between annual call volume per employee and the staffing situation reported by managers. On average, employees handled just over 5,200 calls per year in centers where managers indicated their center was fully staffed at the time (all authorized positions were filled). Employees in centers that were described by managers as chronically understaffed handled about twice as many calls—at 11,200 per year. The average for this RECC, based upon 2014 call volume, would be 4, 426 calls per employee in the staffing model for the NMRECC. We do not recommend increasing this level, rather in this decision time for the RECC and the transition, we recommend the shift staffing of five dispatchers on the day and evening shift and four on the mid-night shift to keep a strong level of service to their citizens and to more effectively manage the EMD calls. A working supervisor would be assigned to each shift with a floater supervisor position assigned to fill in on days off and vacation periods. The working supervisors will provide oversight, guidance and support for those times when a surge of calls impact the center. The supervisor would also provide oversight and leadership for key technical, training and quality assurance functions as assigned by the Executive Director.

As the project moves further towards implementation, greater analysis of call volumes by shift should be conducted to ensure that all shifts are being covered properly. To support the staffing requirement, it is recommended that an operational policy be developed for a contingency plan for staffing during a major event or when numerous EMD calls are being managed. We recommend the position of Executive Director for the functions of providing organizational leadership, continuation of the development of the RECC and for outreach to the communities and the public safety agencies. We also recommend an Administrative Assistant to support the Executive Director for the wide variety of administrative tasks that the Executive Director will undertake. Our recommendations consider the historical commitment for dispatch and other ancillary services in each center, while, at the same time, recognize the economy of scale that the RECC would provide. The staffing plan will also prepare the center for the increased call volume due to the transfer of wireless calls after the center is established and the State 911 Department approves the transfer.

C. Operations and Maintenance Expense

Table 14 provides cost estimates for the recurring NMRECC expenses for their annual budget. Capital expenditures were not included in this estimate as these are an eligible grant request item from the State 911 Department as an RECC.

Table 14: Operations and Maintenance Expense Cost Element Cost Estimate Maintenance/ops. expenses $30,000 Software License Annual Fees $21,467 Admin. $51,400 Total $102,867

D. Total Annual Cost

Table 15 shows the estimate of the total annual cost for the NMRECC for Chelmsford, Dracut and Tewksbury. This cost includes salaries, operations and maintenance. The Commonwealth, through the State 911 RECC Grant Programs, will provide the funds for future capital expenditures under current grant guidance.

Table 15: Total Annual Cost Estimates

Annual Cost Item Estimate Operating Expenses $102,867 Personnel Expenses $ 2,002,482 Pre Grant-Total $2,105,349 State Grant* $393,490 Annual Budget $1,711,859

*Does not include future increases in support and incentive grant funds due to undertaking initial wireless call taking and dispatching.

E. Total Annual Change per Community

Table 16 below provides an estimate of what the annual assessment will be for each community under the participation ratio using total population and total call volume. This particular methodology distributed the savings more equitably to ensure cost savings for each municipality. This takes the estimated savings due to grant funding into account. This budget, based upon recurring costs for the first operational year of the NMRECC excludes any capital expenditures from existing plans and budgets as these costs will be borne by the State 911 Grant funds discussed in Section F. The State 911 funds have a significant positive impact on the future funding for Regional Emergency Communication Centers. Table 16 compares the amount that each community expended in FY2016 from Table 9 to the amount that they would be assessed under their portion of the NMRECC annual budget using the ratio for that community identified in Table 10. This budget provides estimates based upon the highest salary level of the current union contracts and a work schedule of four and two, both of which are negotiating elements when the Dispatch District is

established. Salaries will not be at this high level as all of their employees are not at the highest pay grade due to their current seniority.

Table 16: NMRECC Recurring Cost Savings by Community

User Agency Participation Ratio FY 16 Budget New Assessment Cost Savings Chelmsford 36.94% $ 683,710 $ 632,361 $ (51,349) Dracut 29.60% $ 624,206 $ 506,710 $ (117,496) Tewksbury 33.46% $ 772,391 $ 572,788 $ ( 199,603) TOTAL 100% $ 2,080,307 $ 1,711,859 $ (368,448)

F. Current State 911 Grant Funds and Guidance

The Massachusetts State 911 Department provides grant funding to existing Primary PSAPs, regional PSAPs, regional secondary PSAPs, and RECCs are eligible to participate in the Program and are eligible to receive support grant funding. This information is applicable for both scenarios in this report.

For Fiscal Year 2015, twenty-five percent (25%) of the total surcharge revenues of the previous fiscal year were allocated to the support grant awards. Support grant awards shall be disbursed according to a formula that weighs both 911 call volume and population served.

In addition to amounts allocated as part of the support grant, existing regional PSAPs and RECCs are eligible to receive additional incentive grant funding through the Program based on the following allocation formula:

i) Regional PSAPs serving 2 municipalities, ½ of 1 percent of the total surcharge revenues of the previous fiscal year; ii) Regional PSAPs serving 3 to 9 municipalities, 1 percent of the total surcharge revenues of the previous fiscal year; iii) Regional PSAPs serving 10 or more municipalities, 1½ percent of the total surcharge revenues of the previous fiscal year; and iv) Regional emergency communication centers, up to 4 per cent of the total surcharge revenues of the previous fiscal year.

Funds shall be disbursed according to a formula that weighs both 911 call volume and population served.1

Existing regional PSAPs and RECCs that expand through the addition of one more PSAPs shall be eligible to apply for funds to be allocated based on the population formula set forth in the chart below. Such additional grant funding shall be, for each PSAP that is added to the applicant or after January 1, 2013, the greater of: the amount that would otherwise have been allocated to the applicant for the fiscal year, pro-rated to allow for funding for the remainder of the grant cycle, for the addition of the PSAP(s), or the dollar amount set forth in Table 17 below.

Table 17: State 911 Department Incentive Grants Increase in Population Funding Amount/ Funding Amount/ Served1 (per PSAP added) RECCs Regional PSAPs 0-25,000 $25,000 $12,500 25,001-50,000 $50,000 $25,000 50,001-100,000 $75,000 $37,500 100,001 or greater $100,000 $50,000

The percentages in clauses i to iv, inclusive, and the percentages of the total amounts allocated to each grantee eligible within such clauses i through iv may be adjusted by the State 911 Commission to ensure a proper allocation of incentive funds as more regional PSAPs and RECCs are added.

The amount allocated to a grantee or grantees under the Support and/or Incentive Grants may be adjusted or capped. In addition, should the status and/or dynamic of a primary PSAP, regional PSAP, RECC or regional secondary PSAP change during this funding cycle, the State 911 Department may take the following actions:

• Should a primary PSAP, regional PSAP, RECC, or regional secondary PSAP cease to exist, said PSAP will no longer be eligible for funding under the Support and/or Incentive Grants. The contract shall be terminated immediately; • Should a primary PSAP, regional PSAP, RECC, or regional secondary PSAP increase its capacity through consolidation with another PSAP(s), the State 911 Department will re-calculate the eligible award amount taking into account the increased population and call volume and, if applicable, the chart above. This new allocation would then be off-set by the funding already received and the difference would be pro-rated to allow for funding for the balance of the grant cycle. • The State 911 Department may limit allowable expenses and/or approved categories of expenses for a PSAP that is regionalizing.

The State 911 Department provided the following grant amounts to the three communities involved in this analysis. This also includes training and EMD grants that would be eligible grants for the NMRECC. Table 18: Current State 911 Department Grants

EMD/Regulatory FY14 Training Compliance Support Total Funding Chelmsford $ 16,821.00 $ 9,301.97 $ 77,902.00 $ 104,024.97 Dracut $ 13,984.00 $ 26,817.68 $ 60,857.00 $ 101,658.68 Tewksbury $ 15,426.00 $ - $ 71,660.00 $ 87,086.00

Currently, existing sole community PSAPS utilize the Support grant funds for primarily personnel expenses and/or communication center equipment. This funding will increase and transition to the NMRECC. During the first operational year of the RECC, the

1 2010 U.S. Census will be utilized.

incentive/support funds for Chelmsford and Dracut would be transferred to Tewksbury, as part of the Dispatch District, as a host community incentive.

To assist with the establishment of a Regional Emergency Communication Center (RECC), the State 911 Department also provides that they will reimburse the payroll costs for the hiring of an Executive Director for a two year period, covering one year prior to the effective date of the RECC and one year thereafter to provide planning and support to this transition period for the communities. Therefore, the salary for the Executive Director will be subsidized for the first year of operation, thereby reducing the overall personnel costs.

G. Capital Savings/Anticipated replacement cost of dispatch equipment

The equipment used on a 24/7 basis is critical to the efficiency of the call taking and dispatching functions of all 911 Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP). It is the second largest cost center for a PSAP and is often difficult to fund in annual budgets as a recurring cost. The reality is that the life cycle of dispatch equipment is often short lived and is estimated as follows:

• PC’s and laptops – 3 year cycle • Servers and routers – 5 year cycle • Software upgrades – 7 year cycle • Radio console – 7 year cycle • Dispatch Furniture – 10 year cycle

All communities involved in this planning process will be faced with replacement of their dispatch equipment. The recent survey results revealed that there has not been a great deal of funding for this equipment in the annual budgets. (In FY16 the three communities reported a total funded amount of $2,900). Based upon the cost of existing equipment for the total number of existing (7) consoles in the three communities the replacement value over the next ten years would be $2, 551,759. The annualized cost of this equipment is broken down by community as follows:

Table 19: Annual Equipment Expenditures Community Annual Equipment Expenditure Chelmsford $137,714 Dracut $137,714 Tewksbury $103,285 Total Annual $378,713

Equipment is an allowable expense for all PSAPs and RECC’s. RECC’s are also eligible for equipment purchases of Public Safety Radio Systems which PSAPs under the Support Program are not. Under the NMRECC the cost of future replacement of communication has been included into the budget estimates. Deferring this equipment purchase to the NMRECC would provide substantial savings to the four communities that are supporting five current centers. Currently the Tewksbury 911 dispatch center has identified a dire need for new radio equipment expenditure to replace the equipment utilized by the community PSAP becomes a

savings to the community as these expenditures are eligible grant funded reimbursement items for a RECC. In all four communities in this report, there has been little invested in equipment replacement for their PSAPs. Most have provided a small amount of planned purchases of computers, software updates and copy machines due the fiscal constraints that all of the communities have faced. Tewksbury in particular are reporting a need for substantial investment in their PSAP equipment particularly consoles and their public safety radio systems.

H. Cost Savings Summary

Table 20 below documents the savings that are anticipated from this cost sharing effort, as outlined in the previous sections. Not included in this summary is the salary of the Executive Director for the first year and the host incentive funds provided to Tewksbury, which represent the incentive and support funds provided previously to the Chelmsford and Dracut PSAPs.

Table 20: Cost Savings Summary Equipment capital Recurring cost (Minus - Current expenses Total Savings State Support) Savings Savings Chelmsford 51,349 (77,902) 137,714 $ 111,161 Dracut 117,496 (60,857) 137,714 $ 194,353 Tewksbury 199,603 (71,660) 103,285 $ 231,228 Total 368,448 (210,419) 378,713 $ 536,742

Additional revenues for wireless calls could be added in Year 2 or 3 of the operation of the RECC District. As outlined in Section 3 related to the 911 Calls, the incentive payment could increase to $ 550,875 or $ 740,861 if the number of wireless calls credited to the NMRECC increased to either the 40% (10,056) or May 2015 (14,247) levels. These figures would need to be confirmed by the State 911 Department, but any increase in the incentive grant would further reduce the cost for the participating communities in the NMRECC.

6. Implementation Process NMRECC

Step by Step Process to create a Northern Middlesex Regional Emergency Communications District

The implementation process was established when the law establishing Regional Emergency Communications Districts in Chapter 6A of the General Laws that was enacted in January, 2015. The various sections of the law identified the term “regional 911 emergency communication center” which meant a facility housing or otherwise supporting a regional emergency communication center, as defined in section 18A, or a “regional PSAP,” if such regional 911 emergency communication center is approved by the state 911 department.

The law provided that two or more municipalities, by approval of the chief executive officer of a city or by vote of a board of selectmen or town council, may create a regional 911 emergency communication district planning committee consisting of three (3) unpaid persons to be appointed by the mayor in each participating city and by the chairman of the board of selectmen or town council in each participating town. Requires:

• A Feasibility Study of establishing and constructing a regional 911 emergency communication district and propose the district’s organization, governance structure, operation, location, estimate of construction or siting and operating costs, maintenance and methods of financing.

• Agreement of the regional 911 emergency communication district planning committee to recommend the establishment of a regional 911 emergency communication district.

• Approval of the recommendation and proposed agreement by Boards of Selectmen or City or Town councils of member municipalities to accept the proposed district agreement.

• Finalize and sign Inter-Municipal Agreement (IMA)

• Submit IMA to State 911 Department for approval

• Seek State 911 Developmental Grant funds to construct, equip and staff the NMRECC

Site Recommendation

CTC recommends that the best site for developing the NMRECC is at 989 Whipple Street, Tewksbury. Although many sites were reviewed during the entire process over the past several years, only three sites met the basic criteria. Of those three sites, the Tewksbury DPW site is the only one that is owned by one of the communities involved in the RECC initiative. This is a large track of land that the Tewksbury DPW is located upon with sufficient space for the new Tewksbury Fire Department and the Regional Emergency Communication Center. Tewksbury Town leadership is supporting this site as a potential location for the RECC. The opportunity to co-locate with the Tewksbury Fire Station would provide cost savings to the Town of Tewksbury, the State 911 Department and those communities that participate in the NMRECC. The ownership of the property and the cost-sharing opportunity is the basis for this recommendation. The State 911 Department will not fund the purchase of any land for the development of a RECC. They will provide funding for the construction and equipping of an RECC as is outlined below.

We also recommend that NMCOG and the 911 Working Group undertake discussions with the Town of Tewksbury as soon as possible and prior to the soon-to-be initiated study of the Fire Department facility. The study would investigate, justify and define the needs and the requirements for the facility, as well as alternative solutions and the preferred solution. If there is agreement with one or more the communities involved in the RECC project, this study phase could be initiated in the fall of 2015.

The process to undertake the development of the NMRECC at this site would be as follows:

1. Agree upon and sign an Intermunicipal Agreement (IMA) between two or more communities that would establish a Regional Emergency Communication District at this site. 2. Provide the IMA to the State 911 Department for their review and approval. 3. Submit a proposal to the State 911 Department for the development of the NMRECC at this co-located facility. The State 911 Development Grant program provides funding for:

Architectural and Engineering Services Allowable items to be funded through this grant include: architectural and engineering services, including creation of specifications, blueprints, floor plans, etc. Construction Allowable items to be funded through this grant include: • Construction materials. • Plumbing, electrical and cabling materials. • Labor. • Other construction or structural improvement items. • Consultant services. The structure shall be fully compliant with all building codes, including but not limited, to the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines found at http://www.ada.gov/2010ADAstandards_index.htm and the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board Rules and Regulations found at http://www.mass.gov/eopss/architectural-access-board.html. All construction items funded through this grant shall only be permitted to fund construction and structural improvement costs to physical space used directly for the provision of enhanced 911 service. Such funds may be used to defray costs associated with construction or structural improvement of a multi-purpose building only to the extent that such funding is applied to a specific portion of the building’s total space that is dedicated directly to the provision of enhanced 911 service. For example, if a municipality is building

a new fire station that will include a regional secondary PSAP, funds may be applied to cover costs associated with constructing only that portion of the building that will house the PSAP. The applicant shall submit blueprints, detailed floor plans and any additional and available supporting documentation and the identification and contact information of a project manager.

The use of grant funding for construction shall comply with the Commonwealth’s and/or the State 911 Department’s recommendations and/or guidelines regarding construction, including without limitation, design, square footage requirements, new versus existing structures, construction grade, and usage. The State 911 Department reserves the right to modify grant funding if the grantee fails to comply with the Commonwealth’s and/or the State 911 Department’s recommendations and/or guidelines.

4. Notify Tewksbury of the approval of the State 911 funding for this project. 5. Support the Tewksbury Town Manager and Public Safety Chiefs in seeking the bonding authority from their community for this co-located facility. 6. Identify NMRECC and State 911 representatives to be active participants during the study and design phase of the development of the NMRECC.

Transition and Timeframe

The implementation of the Regional Emergency Communications Center is a significant, multi- faceted project. There will need for close coordination among all participants in order to make certain that all of the activities occur in a timely manner. We suggest thinking of the project in four elements that must come together: • Inter-Municipal Agreement (IMA) • Dispatch facility and equipment (including the radio system) • Personnel selection and training • Policy and procedure development

Commitment to Participate

Before any other activities occur, and as expeditiously as possible, each of the communities should formally commit to participate in the RECC. We suggest this be accomplished by October 2015.

District Agreement

As soon as the involved entities have committed to the consolidation project, the legal representatives and their counsel for the communities committing to this project should review and then finalize the Draft District Agreement. All involved entities should adopt the agreement no later than December 2015.

Facility

Typically, the construction of a new public safety communications center takes a minimum of 18 to 24 months from the start of the design phase until the completion of construction. Installation and burn-in of the new equipment requires another forty- five to sixty days beyond the substantial completion of construction. During the Study phase of this project the requirements for both the Fire Station and the RECC will be identified. Tewksbury has expressed a willingness to include the RECC criteria into the study that they are about to award for the new Fire Station.

The following tasks and suggested timeline are part of the development of the new facility: • Study start ...... October 2015 • Complete Space Planning for RECC ...... January 2016 • Complete Dispatch Center Design ...... December 2016 • Begin Combined FD/RECC Construction ...... June 2017 • FD/RECC Substantial Completion ...... January 2018 • Cutover to Consolidated Center ...... July 2018

Equipment

Detailed functional specifications, based on the specific needs of the user agencies, will need to be developed, requests for proposals issued, proposals received and reviewed, negotiations conducted with the successful respondents, and the system implemented in close coordination with the building schedule. In order to achieve the coordination, the procurement process for this specialized equipment should begin shortly after the building contractor is selected. This equipment procurement process should begin with the approval of the State 911 Developmental RECC Grant proposal.

Policy and Procedure Development

A comprehensive, well thought-out uniform set of written directives, including standard operating procedures and policies, will be a critical part of the operation of the shared communications center. Work to develop these directives should begin immediately after the director is brought on board with the goal of having them completed well before cutover.

The creation of a RECC is a challenging undertaking; finding the right person to lead the consolidation is a critical early step of the consolidation process. It is important that the director be brought on board as early in the process as feasible. The State 911 RECC Development Grants allow for the reimbursement of a Director to be hired

one year prior to when the center is brought online to allow for the oversight of the transition process. The additional dispatch administrative positions recommended should be phased in over the following twelve months.

• CTC recommends that the development of the comprehensive policy and procedure manual be completed no later than June 2017.

Staffing

The estimated dispatch center staffing includes an Executive Director, an Administrative Assistant and a specific number of supervisor and dispatchers depending upon the number of communities in the NMRECC. We recommend that the Director be hired one year prior to the planned opening the center. The State 911 Department funds this position to ensure that systems are being planned properly and that systems are tested. This institutional knowledge is critical when staff is hired and trained. We recommend that additional staff be hired incrementally starting six months prior to the opening to ensure all of the training is accomplished prior to the cutover from the municipal PSAPs to the NMRECC.

• CTC recommends that the RECC Director be selected and hired no later than July 1, 2016. • CTC recommends that the RECC dispatch staff be selected and begin training on the policies and procedures no later than January 2018.

Transition to New System

The development of the NMRECC at the Tewksbury site at 99 Whipple Street will allow for the new center to be built with all of the equipment installed and tested prior to the cutover from the communities. Coordination with the State 911 Department is required prior to the cutover as they are instrumental through this process. State 911 engineers and staff coordinate the 911 lines from the community centers into the RECCs.

The project’s systems will require preconstruction meetings, site visits during construction to review building technology infrastructure, and substantial completion inspections to verify the building technology infrastructure is complete and ready to receive the District’s equipment. The project will also require systems validation testing and documentation for installed emergency communication and data cabling and termination devices.

The cutover to the new center will involve moving the entire PSAP and dispatch operation from the existing dispatch centers to the new facility. Because of the nature of 911, all dispatch and communications operations must remain in operation at all times throughout

the process. The plan must have all equipment installed in the new center as well as staff training conducted prior to cutover. The equipment must be fully functional and reliable at the time of cutover.

To ensure this, the project team must test and approve all systems prior to cutover day. The team will work with the municipalities and the vendors of the equipment supporting the 911, dispatch, and emergency operations for review of equipment requirements and approval of their installation and testing plan for all equipment to be installed in the new center. Meetings will be required throughout the process.

Participating communities can expect the following project meetings and surveys: • Initial Vendor Coordination Meetings • Radio Interoperability • PBX and Admin telephones • Space requirements for NMRECC • CAD/RMS Systems • Police and Fire Station Security • Radio console systems • Radio antennas and control equipment • Console Furniture Systems • Final Vendor Meetings

The important factor is that the participating communities maintain effective communications with each other throughout the entire planning process for the new RECC. To make this into a highly effective 911 emergency communication center it does require a strong collaborative effort on the part of each community and their public safety departments. During the transition time, we recommend that one community at a time be cutover to the NMRECC although all of the communities will be involved in the process.

Draft

District Agreement

Northern Middlesex Regional Emergency Communications Center (NMRECC) District

This District Agreement is dated as of the ______day of ______2015, in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 6A, Sections 18P to 18V, inclusive by and between the "Participating Communities" (as defined below). The effective date of the District Agreement (the "Effective Date") shall be the date when all three (3) Participating Communities have executed this document.

PREAMBLE

In order to establish, operate and maintain a consolidated emergency services communications and dispatch system for certain communities in the Northern Middlesex Region, including Chelmsford, Dracut and Tewksbury, in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 6A, Sections 18P to 18V, inclusive. The "Participating Communities" agree to jointly exercise their common powers in the manner set forth in this agreement.

WITNESSETH

WHEREAS, the Participating Communities are each empowered by law to staff, maintain, and operate a public safety communications and dispatch facility, which is a proper governmental function and service; and

WHEREAS, the Participating Communities desire to join together to establish a regional 911 emergency communication district comprised of their communities and any other communities which may in the future be admitted into the district; and

WHEREAS, the Participating Communities desire to operate and maintain a consolidated regional 911 emergency communication facility in the region and to provide an orderly method for the accomplishment thereof; and

WHEREAS, the Participating Communities have agreed to share the costs, responsibilities and obligations of constructing, operating, and maintaining a municipal regional 911 emergency communication facility in the Northern Middlesex region; and

WHEREAS, the Participating Communities have established this inter-municipal relationship for the purpose of combining their resources to maximize effective emergency and 911 dispatch services, as well as to provide regional interoperability for the public safety agencies from a single primary location, initially to be located in Tewksbury, Massachusetts; and

WHEREAS, the Participating Communities, pursuant to Chapter 6A of the Massachusetts General Laws, may enter into this District Agreement to perform joint activities or undertakings which the municipalities are authorized by law to perform. NOW THEREFORE, the Participating Communities, in consideration of the mutual benefits, promises and agreements set forth herein agree to the following:

AGREEMENT 1. Purpose This District Agreement is intended to set forth the responsibilities and obligations of the Participating Communities for cost-efficient, shared, and effective municipal emergency dispatch and communications services. The purpose of this District Agreement is to provide for the establishment, operation and maintenance of a consolidated regional 911 emergency communication center (RECC) by constructing, equipping, staffing, maintaining and operating a facility or facilities, which provide call receiving and dispatching services to the Participating Communities, by providing computers, radios and other equipment for use in the field.

2. Name The Participating Communities shall operate under the name "Northern Middlesex Regional Emergency Communication Center District", (hereinafter, the NMRECC District). Operating under the District, the services provided and the center facility will be known as the Northern Middlesex Regional Emergency Communication Center (hereinafter, the NMRECC).

3. Term The initial term of the District Agreement shall be for a term beginning on the Effective Date and ending on June 30, 2025. Thereafter, this District Agreement shall automatically renew for additional terms of five (5) years each up to twenty-five (25) years, or until terminated by mutual agreement, superseded by legislation and/or a subsequent agreement, or terminated sooner as set forth below.

Notwithstanding the above, this District Agreement shall have no force and effect unless and until each of the three (3) Participating Communities have executed this agreement with due authority. The NMRECC District has been established under Chapter 6A of the Massachusetts General Laws, which was enacted to empower the operation of the Northern Middlesex Regional Emergency Communication Center (NMRECC). Such operation shall be undertaken by the Participating Communities and the Participating Communities shall be bound by the obligations set forth herein. At all times, this District Agreement shall be subject to municipal appropriation.

This District Agreement shall not be affected by any change in leadership of any party hereto, unless terminated or modified pursuant to the terms of this District Agreement. Withdrawal or termination of a party to this District Agreement shall not, in itself, have the effect of terminating this agreement as to the remaining parties.

4. Governance The Board of Directors shall be established for the NMRECC District to oversee the construction or siting, administration, operation and financing of the center and provide said board with the powers, duties and liabilities of a regional 911 emergency communication district, which powers shall be vested in and exercised by the district board established by the agreement. Members of the Board of Directors shall serve

2 without compensation, but each member shall be entitled to reimbursement from their actual and necessary expenses incurred for their official duties.

A. The Town Manager or Chief Administrative Officer of each of the participating towns shall serve as the town’s respective representative on the Board of Directors. The Participating Communities shall each have one (1) vote on the Board of Directors to act upon matters before the Board. Votes shall only be cast in accordance with Paragraph 4(H) below. As required under Chapter 500 of the Acts of 2014, the Finance Advisory Subcommittee will submit an annual budget to the Board of Directors. The subcommittee shall be comprised of the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Administrative Officer in each Participating Community.

B. There will be an established Operations Committee to provide general oversight of the performance of the NMRECC District, including operational protocols and procedures. The Police Chief and Fire Chief for each participating community shall serve as their community’s respective representatives on the Operations Committee.

The Police Chief and Fire Chief for each Participating Community may also appoint an alternate representative to serve in place of the primary Committee representative in the event the primary Committee representative can’t serve at one or more meetings of the Committee. An alternate representative shall have the authority to vote in the name and stead of the person who appointed him/her. The Participating Communities shall each have one (1) vote on the Operations Committee to act upon matters before the Committee. Votes shall only be cast in accordance with Paragraph 4(H) below. A Committee representative shall cease to be a Committee representative if his/her community ceases to be a party to this District Agreement.

C. The Board of Directors shall appoint an Executive Director. The Executive Director shall be an employee of the NMRECC District and his/her salary and benefits shall be established by the Board of Directors. The Executive Director shall be responsible for the day-to-day operation and maintenance of the NMRECC District, subject to the specific authority retained herein by the Board of Directors and the general supervisory authority of the Board of Directors. The specific job qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the Executive Director shall be recommended by the Operations Committee and approved by the Board of Directors. The Executive Director shall report to the Board of Directors.

D. The Board of Directors shall have responsibility for all matters relating to the overall administration of the NMRECC District, such as establishing the annual operating budget and capital budgets, as well as all human resource matters. Notwithstanding the above, the Board of Directors may, by a

majority vote of its members, delegate to the Operations Committee such administration and budgetary matters as it may deem appropriate.

E. The Operations Committee shall have responsibility for the effective and orderly operation of the NMRECC District, including, without limitation, communications equipment and systems, maintenance, operations, protocols, policies and procedures, facilities, personnel, training, billing, and making budget recommendations to the Finance Advisory Subcommittee. The Committee shall coordinate with each of the Participating Communities all local protocol and standard operating procedures required to implement regional dispatch services for each of the Participating Communities and shall ensure compliance with all applicable, local, state and federal protocol, rules, regulations, directives and laws.

The Operations Committee will also formally appoint a Technology Subcommittee to address, manage and maintain the technology and equipment, including hardware and software, necessary for efficiently operating the NMRECC District.

Notwithstanding the above, the Operations Committee may, by a majority vote of all its members, delegate to the Executive Director such operational matters as it may deem appropriate.

F. Board/Committee Action All actions by either the Board of Directors or the Operations Committee shall require the presence of a quorum and an affirmative vote of a simple majority of members present (except as is otherwise set forth herein). A quorum shall consist of two (2) of the three (3) voting members. A quorum of voting members must be present for a vote of the Board of Directors to be valid and binding upon the Participating Communities.

G. Designation of Officers. The Board of Directors and the Operations Committee shall each have a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson selected by ballot among its membership. The Chairmanship and Vice Chairmanship of the Board of Directors and the Committee shall be rotated among the Participating Communities. The person serving as Vice Chairman shall serve as the Chairman in the following year.

The Chairman of the Board of Directors and the Chairman of the Operations Committee shall be responsible for giving proper notification of their respective meetings (as required by applicable provisions of the Open Meeting Laws (M.G.L. c.30A ss. 18-25), setting agendas and performing administrative activities. The Chairman of the Board of Directors and the Chairman of the Operations Committee shall notify all of its respective members, and the Town Clerk of each of the 4

Participating Communities of all meetings. In the event that the Chairman is unable to fulfill these duties, the Vice Chairman shall act as Chairman for so long as the Chairman is unable to fulfill these duties.

H. Board/Committee Meetings The Board of Directors and the Operations Committee shall each conduct regular meetings, holding at least two regular meetings each fiscal year. The first meeting of each fiscal year shall be the Annual Meeting. The date and hour of any regular meeting shall be scheduled by order of the Chairman of the Board of Directors and/or Operations Committee. The Board of Directors and Operations Committee shall provide for additional meetings as may be deemed necessary on a mutually agreed upon date and time.

The Board of Directors and the Operations Committee may each adopt rules for conducting their respective meetings and other business, as they deem necessary and appropriate. In the absence of rules to the contrary, common law principles for the operation of meetings shall govern. The failure, however, to comply with such rules shall not affect the validity of any action. The Board of Directors and Operations Committee may suspend its rules if it so chooses.

The Board of Directors and the Operations Committee shall each designate an individual present at its respective meetings to keep minutes of regular and special meetings. A copy of the approved minutes shall be provided within ten (10) business days after approval to each Board/Committee member, the Town Clerk of each Participating Community, and to any member of the public requesting same.

All meetings of the Board of Directors and the Operations Committee are subject to and shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Open Meeting Laws (M.G.L.c30A ss. 18-25) and the Public Records Laws (M.G..L. c. 66), as amended from time to time.

I. Provision of Services to Other Entities; Additional Members The NMRECC District may provide dispatch or other communication services to other public or private entities, which provide a critical public health or safety service and/or public agencies not a party to this District Agreement, but only upon the written approval of and subject to such terms and conditions as the Board of Directors may establish. Such service may be evidenced by contract, inter-municipal agreement or other form of written agreement.

The NMRECC District shall establish the amount of charge for the service being provided to other non-member entities. Charges will be set with the intent of recovering all capital, operational, and maintenance

costs expended in providing the services to a particular entity, both annually and for prorated periods thereof, as well as sums as may be needed for future improvements, repairs, upgrades or expansions.

Any municipality, which is not a party to this District Agreement as of the effective date, may seek membership in the NMRECC District. Admission of additional municipalities to the NMRECC District shall be considered an amendment to the District Agreement and, as long as there are three (3) members of the District, shall require a vote of two (2) of the three (3) Participating Communities.

5. Dispatch Facility A. The initial NMRECC District facility shall be located in Tewksbury, Massachusetts. The dispatch facility shall provide suitable and necessary components for a modern dispatch center. All equipment and materials within the facility will be supported and maintained through an annual operational budget. All equipment or materials used as part of the dispatch system will be owned as set forth in the following paragraph.

B. The NMRECC District shall in its own name, by purchase, written lease, or written license, procure an area whereby a tower or other structure for the installation of antenna shall be constructed, and a facility in which the dispatch facility will operate. The NMRECC District shall procure in its own name all equipment, systems, fixtures, goods, or other personal property, as it may deem necessary or appropriate from time to time. Upon termination or dissolution of the NMRECC District, all equipment fixtures, goods, or other personal property installed or otherwise used at the facility (other than that which has been constructed or installed and is permanently affixed to the facility premises, or affixed in a manner so that it cannot be removed without defacing or damaging the premises) and which has been procured by or on behalf of the NMRECC District with funds provided by the Participating Communities shall remain the property of the District. Any such personal property which has been purchased with funds provided by a grant shall, upon proper request, become the property of the granting authority which provided such funds. Upon the dissolution of the NMRECC District, diligent efforts shall be made to sell the property of the District (excluding property purchased with grant funds) and the proceeds therefrom shall be equitably distributed to the then Participating Communities.

Notwithstanding the above, the Participating Communities acknowledge, agree and consent to the Town of Tewksbury, acting as (1) the procurement agent of the NMRECC District, and (2) the applicant and grantee or agent for any and all grant programs that may be available to the District, provided however, that any funds, equipment, property or services procured or received by the Town of Tewksbury as the result of a grant award or otherwise shall be for the benefit of the District, and to the extent practicable,

ownership of any funds, equipment, property or services procured or received shall be assigned or otherwise transferred to the District.

C. The Operations Committee shall be responsible for determining what communications equipment is necessary to operate and maintain the dispatch system. In carrying out its responsibilities, the Operations Committee shall be subject to the following standards: 1) The dispatch facility shall be intended to provide consolidated regional public safety communications and dispatch services facility to the Participating Communities. 2) All dispatch facility components shall be compatible with each other. 3) The choice of dispatch facility components and the operation and maintenance of the system shall be based upon cost efficiency, including budget constraints and effectiveness and upon a desire to establish appropriate response to the emergency dispatch and communications needs of the citizens of the district. 4) The Participating Communities acknowledge that system quality is subject to cost efficiency and budget constraints and that various sections of this agreement impose requirements related to budget approval by the Board of Directors. 5) Each of the Participating Communities shall provide and maintain all necessary telephone circuits, radio circuits/frequencies, two-way radios, antennae and any related and/or necessary equipment required for the operation of the dispatch facility and their respective emergency networks. All such telecommunications costs, maintenance costs, and expenses for equipment located within its community shall be the responsibility of each respective community.

6. Fiscal Year of the District The fiscal year for the District shall be July 1st to June 30th of each year, except if the Effective Date of this District Agreement is other than July 1st , in which case, the first fiscal year shall be the short year commencing on the Effective Date and ending the following June 30th.

7. Annual Budget With the assistance of the Executive Director, the Operations Committee shall develop and recommend to the Finance Advisory Subcommittee an annual budget by mid- January of each year. The Finance Advisory Subcommittee shall recommend an annual budget to the Board of Directors on or before February 1st of each year. The annual budget shall set forth all anticipated expenses and revenues for the following fiscal year and contingency funds for unanticipated operating and capital expenses. The annual budget shall include: (1) the operating budget, (2) the capital budget, (3) the operating reserve budget and (4) the capital reserve budget. The budget shall include any planned or future capital expenses and the salaries and benefits for all persons employed by the NMRECC District, which shall be subject to the budget approval process set forth herein.

The useful life of equipment and other assets shall be considered when formulating the annual budget. Funds allocated to the operating reserve budget or the capital reserve budget may only be expended with the express approval of the Board of Directors. Any unspent portion of a reserve budget shall be carried forward to the next fiscal year in addition to the reserve allocation for each such fiscal year.

The total budget, upon which the assessment against each of the Participating Communities is based, will be reduced by revenue from entities not a party hereto, by unexpected or unencumbered funds available at the end of each fiscal year prior to the year for which the budget is applicable, or by other revenues available to the District.

In the event that emergency expenditures are required to maintain system integrity in excess of the amount budgeted, the NMRECC District is authorized to incur the same amount, first from the reserve fund and second from any other available funds. Any debt incurred by NMRECC shall not be subject to the limit of indebtedness prescribed in Section 10, Chapter 44 per section 18R (g) of Chapter 500 of the Acts of 2014. The NMRECC may incur debt for a term not exceeding 25 years to acquire land, buildings and equipment to construct or site and maintain a regional 911 emergency communication center, provided, however, that written notice of the amount of debt and of the general purposes for which it would be authorized shall first be given by the district board to the finance advisory subcommittee for approval, which shall require a majority vote. The finance advisory subcommittee shall vote on the proposed debt within 14 days of receiving notice. If the finance advisory subcommittee approves the debt, the debt may be authorized by the district board and written notice of the amount of debt and its general purposes shall be given to the Boards of Selectmen of each Participating Community not later than 7 days after the date on which the debt was authorized by the district board. No debt shall be incurred until the expiration of 60 days from the date the debt was authorized by the district board. If, prior to the expiration period, the Board of Selectmen of any member municipality votes to disapprove of the amount authorized by the district board, the debt shall not be incurred.

All financial obligations of the Participating Communities shall at all times be subject to annual municipal appropriation, including, but not limited to the Participating Communities' indemnification obligations under Paragraph 16 below.

Notwithstanding the above, in the event that a Participating Community does not pay the District its allocated share of the expenses of the District in any year, such community's membership in the NMRECC District shall be subject to termination, which may be made in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 12(B).

8. Allocation of Costs of Dispatch Facility The Board of Directors shall annually determine the necessary amounts to maintain and operate the NMRECC and the amounts required to pay any debt and interest incurred by the District. Each Participating Community shall be charged according to a ratio based

upon population and/or 911 calls received. Each Participating Community agrees to assume a proportional share of all costs and expenses for equipment, facilities, (including maintenance thereof), personnel and operations of the NMRECC District and to promptly remit payment upon proper request. The amounts apportioned shall be certified by the NMRECC Treasurer to the Chief Executive Officers, Board of Assessors and Treasurers in each municipality no later than February 1st each year. Payments of assessments are automatically due and payable each year without further notice as follows:

July 1st: 25% of total assessment October 1st: 25% of total assessment January 1st: 25% of total assessment April 1st: 25% of total assessment

Each Participating Community agrees to provide in its annual budget an appropriation to be available in an amount adequate for that party's assessment for the same fiscal year. If any participating community fails to include any apportioned amount so certified in its appropriations for the fiscal year, the Board of Assessors shall raise the amount in the tax levy of that year under Section 23 of Chapter 59 of the Massachusetts General Laws.

9. Appointment of Secretary and Treasurer; Revolving Fund. A. The Board of Directors shall appoint a Secretary and Treasurer (who may be the same person), who may be a treasurer of one of the Participating Communities in the District. The Treasurer, subject to the direction and approval of the Board of Directors, shall be authorized to receive, invest and disburse all funds of the District without further appropriation. The Treasurer shall give bond for the faithful performance of his/her duties in a form and amount as fixed by the Board of Directors. The Treasurer shall be entitled to charge the NMRECC District reasonable fees and collect its reasonable expenses for its services, as approved by the Board of Directors. The Treasurer shall be subject to Sections 35, 52 and 109A of Chapter 41 of the Massachusetts General Laws.

B. In order to finance the operation and administration of the NMRECC District, there shall be established and maintained a segregated revolving fund account (the "Revolving Fund") and such other accounts, as may be appropriate. The NMRECC District shall have its own taxpayer identification number. All payments received by the District and all expenses paid by the District shall be deposited into or paid from the Revolving Fund.

C. The Treasurer shall maintain accurate and comprehensive records, on the basis of generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied, of all funds deposited into and paid from the Revolving Fund and other accounts as well as records of all services procured, costs incurred, liabilities, reimbursements.

D. Financial statements shall be issued to all Participating Communities quarterly and annually. These statements shall also be provided to the Finance Advisory Committee. There shall be an audit of the books and records of the NMRECC District performed by an independent third-party certified public accountant following the end of each fiscal year. Copies of the audit shall be provided to the Chairpersons of the Boards of Selectmen, the Finance Advisory Committee, the State Auditor, the State 911 Department and the Division of Local Services of the Executive Office for Administration and Finance. (A&F). In addition, the Board of Directors shall have the right, upon sixty (60) days advance written notice, to audit or otherwise examine the books and records of the District to verify the accuracy of the financial statements. The costs of performing any audit shall be an expense of the District. The Board of Directors shall be entitled to request and receive copies of the information described above upon reasonable notice.

E. For the initial term of this District Agreement, the designated Treasurer shall ensure that the accounting system for the NMRECC District includes the following:  General ledger;  Accounts payable-invoice processing and payments as directed by the Executive Director;  Accounts receivable-invoice and cash receipt processing as directed by the  Executive Director;  Payroll processing and associated human resources services;  Bank account maintenance and reconciliations;  Billing the NMRECC District for administrative support provided by the designated Treasurer’s Participating Community;  Financial statement preparation, as required;  Audit preparation, as required;  Preparation of year-end 1099' s and W-2s; and  Grant management and administration functions, as required and appropriate. For all subsequent terms of this District Agreement, the Treasurer shall provide the Board of Directors with a list of the services his/her office will provide to the NMRECC District and the rates charged. Such services and rates shall be approved in advance by the Board of Directors.

10. Reconciliation of Revolving Fund Account Not less frequently than annually, the Executive Director shall reconcile cumulative payments made by the Participating Communities into the Revolving Fund against cumulative amounts owed. Participating Communities shall be credited for over payments or billed for shortfalls, as appropriate. Positive balances will be carried over to the following fiscal year.

11. Procurement All goods and services procured by the NMRECC District shall be procured pursuant to applicable procurement laws, rules, or regulations.

12. Termination or Withdrawal A. A Participating Community may elect to withdraw and terminate its membership in the NMRECC District by providing written notice to the Chairman of the Board of Directors not less than two (2) years prior. Termination of membership shall be effective thirty (30) days following the payment of all obligations incurred and no less than two years from the receipt of notice of termination. No Participating Community shall be entitled to retain or be reimbursed for any costs or liabilities incurred prior to the effective date of termination of membership, including without limitation, any fees, costs, or expenses attributable to this District Agreement.

Following receipt of notice of termination, the remaining Participating Communities shall address the impacts caused by termination by either encouraging other parties to join the NMRECC District or by reducing expenses of the District, but until any mitigation actually occurs, the terminated party shall remain liable for its assessment in full until the end of the current fiscal year. The type of activities to be taken in mitigation shall be determined at the sole discretion of the remaining Participating Communities. All parties to this District Agreement agree that the dispatch system is configured and expenditures are committed based upon the understanding that all parties will remain members of the District at least until the end of the current term and that the payments to be made hereunder represent reasonable liquidated damages and not a penalty. In the event that the NMRECC District shall be comprised of less than two communities, the District shall be dissolved pursuant to the applicable law.

B. If any party to this District Agreement defaults on payment of any assessment or otherwise breaches this agreement, such party shall be notified in writing stating therein the nature of the alleged default or breach and directing such party to cure such default or breach within ten (10) days. If such party in default or breach fails to cure said default or breach within ten (10) days, that party shall be subject to termination as a party to this District Agreement upon the vote of a majority of the Board of Directors representing those communities not in default. The party in default or breach shall not be entitled to vote on its own termination or be counted in determining a majority in interest. The terminated party shall remain liable for any defaulted payment and late charges accruing through the end of the current fiscal year.

13. NMRECC District Personnel The Executive Director and all other NMRECC District personnel shall be employees of the District. The NMRECC District shall employ supervisory and operations staff, as approved in each annual budget. Salaries and benefits of all such personnel shall be approved by the Board of Directors.

14. NMRECC District Personnel Retirement Plans Eligible employees of the District shall be entitled to participate in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' retirement system established under Chapter 32 of the Massachusetts General Laws. Administration of the District's employees' retirement plans shall be administered by the State Retirement System.

15. Severability Compliance with Applicable Law Should any part, term, portion or provision of this District Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstances be in conflict with any local, state or federal law or otherwise be rendered unenforceable or ineffectual, the validity of the remaining parts terms portions or provisions or the application thereof to other persons or circumstances shall be deemed severable and shall not be affected thereby. The parties further intend for this District Agreement to be modified to comply with any applicable local, state or federal law, should it be determined not to be in compliance and to remain binding between them as so modified. In particular but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the parties intend for this District Agreement to remain binding against each of them notwithstanding any legal requirement that would alter the term hereof or change the way in which any party is required to pay its share of assessments. The parties will remain bound hereunder subject to such modified terms.

16. Indemnification Each of the Participating Communities shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless each other and their successors and assigns, and all of their officers, directors, lenders, agents, contractors, volunteers, and employees (collectively the "Indemnitees") from and against any and all claims, suits, actions, judgments, demands, losses, costs, attorney's fees, expenses, damages and liability to the extent caused by, resulting from, or arising out of the intentional acts, negligent acts, errors, omissions, or allegations thereof, of their employees, agents, volunteers, or representatives in the performance of the terms of this District Agreement, to the extent allowed by law.

By entering into this District Agreement, none of the parties has waived any governmental immunity or limitation of damages which may be extended to them by operation of law. This agreement is by and between the parties which have executed it and each states that it is intended for their mutual benefit alone and is not intended to confer any express or implied benefits on any other person or entity. This District Agreement is not intended to confer third party beneficiary status on any person. It is expressly understood that the services provided hereunder are deemed for public and governmental purposes and all privileges and immunities from liability enjoyed by

municipalities shall extend to their participation hereunder and to the activities so undertaken to the fullest extent provided by law.

17. Performance Bond In accordance with the provisions of M.G.L. c. 40, section 4A, the NMRECC District shall provide a nominal bond in the amount of one dollar ($1.00) for the performance of its duties and obligations under this District Agreement.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

18. This District Agreement shall not affect any pre-existing, independent relationship(s) or obligations between the parties on any other subject or between the parties and any other third party or parties, including without limitation, "mutual aid" agreements.

19. None of the parties hereto shall be responsible for delays or failures in performance from acts beyond the reasonable control of such party (e.g., riot or institutional disturbance, natural or man-made disaster).

20. Notices All correspondence or other notice related to this District Agreement shall be in writing and delivered to each Participating Community to the address and contact person provided from time to time by each Participating Community. Each party hereto authorizes the other to rely in connection with their respective rights and obligations under the District Agreement upon approval by the party so designated or any person designated in substitution or addition hereto by notice, in writing, to the party so relying.

21. Amendments. Amendments to this District Agreement shall require a two-thirds majority vote of the members of the Board of Directors. All amendments shall be in writing and shall be executed by the Chief Administrative Officer of each Participating Community. The addition of any other community as a participating member of the N M R E C C District shall require an amendment to the District Agreement.

22. Execution in Counterparts This District Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument.

23. Binding Effect This District Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of each party and its successors and permitted assigns.

24. Governing Law This District Agreement has been executed and delivered in, and shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and parties hereto submit to the jurisdiction of any of its appropriate courts for the adjudication of disputes arising out of this District Agreement.

25. Choice of Forum Any legal proceeding brought by an employee of the N M RE C C District or any party hereto may be brought in a court with proper jurisdiction in Middlesex County.

26. Relationship of Parties None of the provisions of this District Agreement is intended to create any relationship between the parties other than that of independent parties contracting with each other for the purpose of effecting the provisions of this District Agreement. The parties are not, and shall not be construed to be, in a relationship of joint venture partnership or employer-employee.

27. Waiver No delay or failure to require performance of any provisions of this District Agreement shall constitute a waiver of the provision as to that or any other instance. Any waiver granted by a party must be in writing.

28. Entire Agreement This District Agreement represents the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes any previous agreements between the parties relating to the same subject matter.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Towns have hereto intending to be legally bound have caused their duly authorized representatives to set their hands and seals on the set forth below.

TOWN OF CHELMSFORD TOWN OF DRACUT

By: By: ______Name: Name: ______Title: Title: ______

TOWN OF TEWKSBURY

By: ______Name: ______Title: ______

To the Town of Chelmsford Representatives,

We would like to introduce ourselves; we are the Public Safety Dispatcher's for the Town of Chelmsford. We feel it is our turn to address the recent issues and articles regarding Regional Dispatch, and if it is right for Chelmsford. These concerns come from dedicated Chelmsford employees, who trained professionals in public safety dispatch, many of which have more than 20 years experience. Not only are they long time employees but many of them are residents as well. The current dispatch staff contains 9 full time staff members who are a well trained, professional, and attentive assets to not only the Police and Fire departments but the Town of Chelmsford.

The recent article in the Lowell sun released on July 29th, regarding Regional Dispatch, contained some statements that we feel are unjust, and a misrepresentation of the current staffing here. The article reads "you will get better and improved service", as well as "better trained and professional staff able to solve the public safety issue" (Sun, pg 10). The Chelmsford Public Safety Dispatcher's currently not only meet, but many exceed the state mandated requirements, which include CPR/First Aid, APCO , Power phone, and Emergency Medical Dispatch. Many of our dispatchers exceed these requirements by attending seminars, and obtaining certifications such as EMT-B or EMT instructor on their own time, and pay for the training themselves to better serve the community. This raises the question of "How much more training will a dispatcher need in a regional center?".

The article continues on to say we will have, "Availability of more resources" (Sun, pg.10). The current Mutual Aid agreement certainly covers this issue, the Public Safety Dispatchers, Police department, Fire department, Ambulance provider, are more than ready to handle any and all situations or emergencies. If the issue is just with staffing, there are other solutions to that concern.

When the issue of regionalization surfaced over five years ago there were 9 communities interested in the venture. Since then it is down to about 3 or 4 communities. This raises multiple questions: "Why would you combine Chelmsford a town that handles 36,000 emergency calls and convolute it with other towns with the same call volumes or more?"

"What is the real cost of moving to regional dispatch, will it actually save the town money?"

"How will the regional center and the Chelmsford dispatcher's be governed, will the communication between the regional center and Police department and Fire department be disrupted?"

"Who will continue to do the clerical duties of Dispatchers once they are removed from their current location. Will hiring other personal with salaries and benefits for this outweigh the alleged "savings"?"

"What will happen to our current Dispatching equipment, how will it be repaired and maintained?"

"What will happen when the state funding is depleted, where will the extra funding needed come from?"The Chelmsford Public Safety Dispatcher's know that keeping the current system in place, is the right thing to do. We are dedicated, experienced, trained professionals, who know the town, the residents, and their public safety personnel. Most importantly we care about the safety and security of everyone in the town. If the regional dispatch plan follows through, the community will not be met with the same caring voices that have kept them safe for many years.

We are asking for your support on this issue, and to keep our town and it's residents safe. There will be a presentation at the next selectmen's meeting held on August 31,2015. If you are able to attend we appreciate your support in asking questions and requesting the Board of Selectmen not move forward with the Regional Dispatch plan. August 31, 2015

1 Chelmsford Grinder Pump Study Committee

The Board of Selectmen appointed seven members:

Thomas Gilroy Daniel Burke Curtis Barton Robert Chevalier Margaret Dunn David Foley Ed Safran

Joyce Cote, Administrator George Dixon, Selectman Liaison

Meetings were televised live by Chelmsford Tele Media

Input was received from the Sewer Fairness Alliance, the Town Manager, Town Counsel, Weston & Samson, DPW Director, Sewer Dept Superintendent and anyone from the general public.

2 Chelmsford Grinder Pump Study Committee Mission Statement

The mission of the Grinder Pump Study Committee was directed by the Board of Selectmen as follows:

 Recommend Town By-law Revisions

 Update Sewer Use Regulations

 Modify Weston & Samson Scope of Work

 Develop Language for Town Warrant

3 Chelmsford Grinder Pump Study Committee Actions Taken and Recommendation

 Recommend revisions to Town By-laws to reflect Grinder Pump owner and town roles and responsibilities

 Recommendation Reviewed by Town Counsel

 Revise Town Sewer Use Regulations to Include New Grinder Pump Roles and Responsibilities (Work in Process at Sewer Department)

 Add Pump Out Procedure to Weston & Sampson Scope of Work

 Review Freeze Prevention with Grinder Pump owners

 Review Pump Out procedure with Grinder Pump Owners

 Town Meeting Warrant Language to Transfer Funds from Sewer Enterprise Fund for Maintenance And Repair

4 Chelmsford Grinder Pump Study Committee Warrant Article Recommendation

ARTICLE 7. To see if the Town will vote to amend the Town Code, Chapter 132, Section 3 “Grinder Pumps” by deleting the language shown in strikethrough and adding the language shown as underlining, with the text not being changed shown in regular type for informational purposes only, as follows:

§ 132-3 Grinder pumps. [Added 4-28-2014 ATM by Art. 25]

A. The preferred method of discharge of sewage from an individual building or group of buildings to the Town's sewer system is gravity flow. Grinder pumps shall be used approved only after alternatives for gravity service connections have been thoroughly considered and, in the opinion of the Town of Chelmsford Department of Public Works, such alternatives cannot reasonably discharge to the Town's sewer system by gravity flow. Grinder pumps shall only be used in accordance with regulations established by the Town of Chelmsford Department of Public Works.

B. Each owner/applicant Licensed Drain Layers shall submit required documentation and apply for a sewer connection permit and install the grinder system. The owner shall be responsible for all of the costs related to the connection to the Town's sewer system. 5 Chelmsford Grinder Pump Study Committee Warrant Article Recommendation

C. Grinder pump remain the private property of the homeowner. Both eExisting single or 2 family residential grinder pumps and installed controls and new single or 2 family DPW approved residential grinder pumps and the associated appurtenances and installed controls installed shall be maintained, serviced and repaired or replaced by the Town of Chelmsford, as integral components of the Town's wastewater collection system respecting that while a pump is inoperable the homeowner is without sanitary facilities. The Town of Chelmsford shall not be responsible for the maintenance or repair of grinder pumps or systems servicing commercial properties and residential properties comprised of three or more units.

D. Various items should not be introduced into any sewer system either directly or through a drain or waste disposal, including: (1) Glass, metal or plastic. (2) Diapers, sanitary napkins, tampons or baby wipes. (3) Socks, rags or clothes. (4) Explosives or flammable material. (5) Lubricating oils or grease. (6) Strong chemicals or gasoline. (7) Seafood shells or kitty litter.

E. The property owner shall be responsible for any and all costs to repair and/or replace a grinder pump as a result of improper disposal of materials into the sewer system.

; or act in relation thereto. SUBMITTED BY: Town Manager

6 TOWN OF CHELMSFORD SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICY

I. Introduction

It is the goal of the Town of Chelmsford to promote a workplace that is free of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment of employees occurring in the workplace or in other settings in which employees may find themselves in connection with their employment is unlawful and will not be tolerated by this organization. Further, any retaliation against an individual who has complained about sexual harassment or retaliation against individuals for cooperating with an investigation of a sexual harassment complaint is similarly unlawful and will not be tolerated. To achieve our goal of providing a workplace free from sexual harassment, the conduct that is described in this policy will not be tolerated and we have provided a procedure by which inappropriate conduct will be dealt with, if encountered by employees.

This Policy may apply to conduct that occurs between co-workers that takes place outside the workplace (including, but not limited to, online conduct or conduct utilizing the internet or other electronic media), or during non-work hours. When the conduct complained of occurs outside of the workplace or during non-work hours, the Town of Chelmsford may consider the following and other factors in assessing whether the conduct constitutes conduct in violation of this Policy;

 whether the event at which the conduct occurred is linked to the workplace in any way, such as at a Town of Chelmsford sponsored function;  whether the conduct occurred during work hours;  the context of conduct that occurs outside of normal work hours and whether there is any connection to the workplace;  the severity of the alleged outside-of-work conduct;  the work relationship of the complainant and alleged harasser, which includes whether the alleged harasser is a supervisor and whether the alleged harasser and complainant come into contact with one another on the job;  whether the conduct adversely affected the terms and conditions of the complainant’s employment or impacted the complainant’s work environment.

Because the Town of Chelmsford takes allegations of unlawful discrimination and harassment seriously, we will respond promptly to complaints and where it is determined that such inappropriate conduct has occurred, we will act promptly to eliminate the conduct and impose such corrective action as is necessary, including disciplinary action where appropriate.

Please note that while this Policy sets forth our goals of promoting a workplace that is free of sexual harassment, the Policy is not designed or intended to limit our authority to discipline or take remedial action for workplace conduct which we deem unacceptable,

Approved by the Board of Selectmen 10/7/13, Updated 8/14/15.

regardless of whether that conduct satisfies the legal definitions of discrimination or harassment.

II. Definition of Sexual Harassment

In Massachusetts, the legal definition for sexual harassment is this:

“Sexual harassment” means sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

(a) submission to or rejection of such advances, requests or conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of employment or as a basis for employment decisions; or,

(b) such advances, requests or conduct have the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance by creating an intimidating, hostile, humiliating or sexually offensive work environment.

Under these definitions, direct or implied requests by a supervisor for sexual favors in exchange for actual or promised job benefits such as favorable reviews, salary increases, promotions, increased benefits, or continued employment constitutes sexual harassment.

The legal definition of sexual harassment is broad and in addition to the above examples, other sexually-oriented conduct, whether it is intended or not, that is unwelcome and has the effect of creating a work place environment that is hostile, offensive, intimidating, or humiliating to male or female workers may also constitute sexual harassment. This can include conduct that is aimed at a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

While it is not possible to list all those additional circumstances that may constitute sexual harassment, the following are some examples of conduct, which if unwelcome, may constitute sexual harassment depending upon the totality of the circumstances including the severity of the conduct and its pervasiveness:

 Unwelcome sexual advances – whether they involve physical touching or not;

 Sexual epithets, jokes, written, or oral references to sexual conduct, gossip regarding one’s sex life; comment on an individual’s body, comment about an individual’s sexual activity, deficiencies, or prowess;

 Displaying sexually suggestive objects, pictures, cartoons;

 Unwelcome leering, whistling, brushing against the body, sexual gestures, suggestive or insulting comments;

 Inquiries into one’s sexual experiences, and,

 Discussion of one’s sexual activities.

All employees should take special note that, as stated above, retaliation against an individual who has complained about sexual harassment, and retaliation against individuals for cooperating with an investigation of a sexual harassment complaint is unlawful and will not be tolerated by this organization.

III. Complaints of Sexual Harassment

If any of our employees believes that they have been subjected to sexual harassment, it is our policy to provide the employee with the right to file a complaint with our organization. This may be done in writing or orally.

If you would like to file a complaint you may do so by contacting:

. Jeanne Parziale, Human Resources Director is designated the Town Offices Sexual Harassment Grievance Officer. She can be reached at 978- 250-5288 or [email protected].

. John Sousa, Finance Director, Alternate Sexual Harassment Grievance Officer. He can be reached at 978-244-3390 or [email protected].

. Dr. Jay Lang, Chelmsford Public Schools Superintendent is designated the Schools Sexual Harassment Grievance Officer. He can be reached at 978- 251-5100 x6916 or [email protected].

. Michelle Cresta, School Business Officer, Alternate Grievance Officer. She can be reached at 978-251-5100 x6913 or [email protected].

These persons are also available to discuss any concerns you may have and to provide information to you about our policy on sexual harassment and our complaint process.

IV. Sexual Harassment Investigation

When we receive the complaint we will promptly investigate the allegation in a fair and expeditious manner. The investigation will be conducted in such a way as to maintain confidentiality to the extent practicable under the circumstances. Our investigation will include a private interview with the person filing the complaint and with witnesses. We will also interview the person alleged to have committed sexual harassment. When we have completed our investigation, we will, to the extent appropriate inform the person filing the complaint and the person alleged to have committed the conduct of the results of that investigation.

If it is determined that inappropriate conduct has occurred, we will act promptly to eliminate the offending conduct, and where appropriate we will also impose disciplinary action.

V. Disciplinary Action

If it is determined that inappropriate conduct has been committed by one of our employees, we will take such action as is appropriate under the circumstances. Such actions may include: counseling, informal or formal reprimands, written or verbal warnings, suspension, reduction in pay, reduction in duties, transfers, and other formal sanctions including termination from employment.

VI. State and Federal Remedies

In addition to the above, if you believe you have been subjected to sexual harassment, you may file a formal complaint with either or both of the government agencies set forth below. Using our complaint process does not prohibit you from filing a complaint with these agencies. Each of the agencies has a short time period for filing a claim (EEOC – 300 days; MCAD – 300 days).

1. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

John F. Kennedy Federal Building 475 Government Center Boston, MA 02203 Phone: 800-669-4000 TTY: 800-669-6820

2. The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination

Boston Office Springfield Office

One Ashburton Place 436 Dwight Street Sixth Floor, Room 601 Second Floor, Room 220 Boston, MA 02108 Springfield, MA 01103 Phone: 617-994-6000 Phone: 413-739-2145 TTY: 617-994-6196

Worcester Office New Bedford Office

Worcester City Hall 800 Purchase St., Rm. 501 455 Main Street, Room 100 New Bedford, MA 02740 Worcester, MA 01608 508-990-2390 508-799-8010 508-990-4260 – FAX 508-799-8490 – FAX

TOWN OF CHELMSFORD

AND

CHELMSFORD BOARD OF SELECTMEN

POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR HEALTH INSURANCE UNDER

THE FEDERAL AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

The Town of Chelmsford and the School Committee are implementing this Policy and the following procedures in order to meet their obligations under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Chelmsford is committed to being in full compliance with the ACA. Chelmsford is categorized as a large employer under the ACA and may be subject to an Employer Shared Responsibility Payment (ESRP) if one of its full-time employees purchases health insurance through the Massachusetts Health Connector and receives a tax credit for that purchase. The following procedures are designed to ensure that Chelmsford will avoid, or at least minimize, any liability for ESRPs.

Look-Back Measurement Method: Measurement, Administrative, and Stability Periods.

Pursuant to the ACA, ongoing (current) Chelmsford employees who are employed for at least one-hundred and thirty (130) hours of service per month must be offered Town- sponsored health insurance for themselves, their spouses, and dependents up to age twenty-six (26). Chelmsford shall employ a twelve (12) month look-back measurement method to determine eligibility for all employees (total hours divided by 12 must equal at least 130 hours). This standard measurement period shall begin on January 1, 2015.

After twelve (12) months, Chelmsford shall have up to ninety (90) days (the administrative period) to determine if any full-time employees have not been offered Town-sponsored health insurance and to enroll (or disenroll) them if necessary. If there are any such employees, Chelmsford shall offer them Town-sponsored insurance for the twelve (12) months following the measurement period. This twelve (12) month coverage is called the stability period. The number of hours an employee works during the stability period is relevant only in determining whether he/she will be eligible for Town- sponsored health insurance coverage in the next stability period. The measurement, administrative, and stability periods shall then repeat themselves on an ongoing basis.

The administrative period will be the same length for all employees and it will not serve to reduce or lengthen either the measurement or stability periods. To prevent gaps in health insurance coverage, the administrative period will overlap with the prior stability period during which time an employee’s classification (full-time or part-time) will remain unchanged.

When Chelmsford hires a new employee who is expected to work on a full-time basis, Chelmsford shall offer Town-sponsored health insurance upon initial employment. Once the employee has been employed by Chelmsford for a full standard measurement period (the same period that applies to ongoing employees), he/she shall become an ongoing employee and be included in the normal look-back measurement cycle for determining eligibility.

For new employees expected to be variable hour, seasonal, and part-time employees, Chelmsford shall track their hours of service using an initial measurement period of twelve (12) months. The initial measurement period shall begin on the first day of the first calendar month following the employee’s start date (or on the first day of the first payroll period starting on or after the employee’s start date, if later). As with ongoing employees, an administrative period of up to ninety (90) days shall be employed, along with a twelve (12) month stability period. Once a new variable hour, seasonal, or part- time employee has been employed by Chelmsford for a full standard measurement period (the same period that applies to ongoing employees), he/she shall become an ongoing employee and be included in the normal look-back measurement cycle for determining eligibility.

Hours of Service and Periods of Time Not Included in 12-Month Calculation.

As mentioned previously, a Chelmsford employee must average at least one-hundred and thirty (130) hours of service over a twelve (12) month period to be entitled to Town- sponsored health insurance. The following categories of service count toward the one- hundred and thirty (130) hour average: each hour worked for which an employee is paid; unpaid short scheduled breaks (not including unpaid lunch breaks of at least 30 minutes), paid time off due to vacation, holiday, illness, incapacity (including disability), layoff, jury duty, military duty or leave of absence. Generally, unpaid time off will not count toward the one-hundred and thirty (130) hours of service.

Certain periods of unpaid time off will not be included when calculating the twelve (12) month standard measurement period. These include: summer months for teachers and other school employees, FMLA leave, military leave, jury duty. For these special periods of unpaid time off, Chelmsford will determine the average hours during the measurement period, excluding the special unpaid leave period, and will use that average for the entire measurement period.

Guidance.

Should Chelmsford employees have any questions regarding this policy, please contact Jeanne Parziale, in the Town Human Resource Office at 978-250-5288 or Ken Storlazzi in the School District Personnel and Labor Relations Office at 978-251-5100 x6904.

8/27/15 DRAFT

2015 Fall Annual Town Meeting List of Warrant Articles

1. Reports of Town Officers/Committees 2. E‐Rate Special Revenue to the School Department $TBD 3. FY15 Snow and Ice Expenditures Deficit $305,965 4. Funding for Collective Bargaining Agreements $TBD 5. Amend Fiscal Year 2016 Operating Budget $TBD 6. Sewer Construction Stabilization Fund $191,421 7. Amend Sewer Grinder Pump Bylaw 8. Amend Fiscal Year 2016 Sewer Enterprise Operating Budget $TBD 9. Appraisal and Structural Analysis of Chelmsford Forum $15,000 10. Comprehensive Facilities Assessment of the Chelmsford Public Schools $TBD 11. Design & Bid Specifications for Center Village Wayfinding Signage $10,000 12. General Stabilization Fund $TBD 13. Minimum Value of Personal Property Subject to Taxation 14. Motor Vehicle Excise Exemption for Deployed Military Personnel 15. Transfer Buttercup Lane Parcel for Conservation Purposes 16. Inclusionary Housing Zoning Bylaw 17. Establish Affordable Housing Stabilization Fund 18. Community Preservation Fund: Oak Hill Conservation Land $30,000

8/27/15 DRAFT TOWN OF CHELMSFORD

WARRANT FOR THE FALL 2015 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING

OCTOBER 19, 2015

MIDDLESEX, SS.

To the Constable, or any other suitable person of the Town of Chelmsford:

Greeting:

In the name of the Commonwealth aforesaid, you are hereby requested to notify and warn the Town Meeting Representatives of said Chelmsford to meet at the Senior Center, 75 Groton Road, North Chelmsford on Monday, the nineteenth day of October in the year two-thousand and fifteen at 7:30 p.m. in the evening and there to act upon the following articles, VIZ:

ARTICLE 1. To hear reports of the Town Officers and Committees; or act in relation thereto.

SUBMITTED BY: Board of Selectmen

ARTICLE 2. To see if the Town will vote to transfer a certain sum of money from Special Revenue to the School Department, said funding coming from E-Rate reimbursements; or act in relation thereto. SUBMITTED BY: Town Manager

ARTICLE 3. To see if the Town will vote to transfer from available funds a certain sum of money to fund the Fiscal Year 2015 snow and ice expenditures deficit; or act in relation thereto.

SUBMITTED BY: Town Manager

ARTICLE 4. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate, or transfer from available funds a certain sum of money to be used to fund employee contract agreements between the Town and its collective bargaining units; or act in relation thereto. Fall Annual Town Meeting 2015 October 19, 2015 Page 1

SUBMITTED BY: Town Manager

ARTICLE 5. To see if the Town will vote to amend the Fiscal Year 2016 operating budget voted under Articles 4, 5, and 6 of the Spring Annual Town Meeting held on April 27, 2015 and to see if the Town will raise and appropriate or transfer from available funds a sum of money to defray Town charges for the fiscal year period July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016; or act in relation thereto.

SUBMITTED BY: Town Manager

ARTICLE 6. To see if the Town will vote to transfer from Free Cash a certain sum of money to the Sewer Construction Stabilization Fund; or act in relation thereto.

SUBMITTED BY: Town Manager Two-Thirds Vote

§ 132‐3 Grinder pumps. [Added 4-28-2014 ATM by Art. 25] A. The preferred method of discharge of sewage from an individual building or group of buildings to the Town's sewer system is gravity flow. Grinder pumps shall be used approved only after alternatives for gravity service connections have been thoroughly considered and, in the opinion of the Town of Chelmsford Department of Public Works, such alternatives cannot reasonably discharge to the Town's sewer system by gravity flow. Grinder pumps shall only be used in accordance with regulations established by the Town of Chelmsford Department of Public Works.

D. Various items should not be introduced into any sewer system either directly or through a drain or waste disposal, including:

(1) Glass, metal or plastic.

(2) Diapers, sanitary napkins, tampons or baby wipes. Fall Annual Town Meeting 2015 October 19, 2015 Page 2

(3) Socks, rags or clothes.

(4) Explosives or flammable material.

(5) Lubricating oils or grease.

(6) Strong chemicals or gasoline.

(7) Seafood shells or kitty litter.

E. The property owner shall be responsible for any and all costs to repair and/or replace a grinder pump as a result of improper disposal of materials into the sewer system.

; or act in relation thereto.

SUBMITTED BY: Town Manager

ARTICLE 8. To see if the Town will vote to amend the Fiscal Year 2016 Sewer Enterprise budget voted under Article 7 of the Spring Annual Town Meeting held on April 27, 2015; or act in relation thereto.

SUBMITTED BY: Town Manager

ARTICLE 9. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate and/or transfer from available funds a sum of money to conduct an appraisal of the building and land, and a structural analysis of the building commonly known as the Chelmsford Forum, which is located at 123 Brick Kiln Road in Chelmsford and identified by the Chelmsford Board of Assessors Map 98, Block 271, Lot 2; and at 2 Brick Kiln Road in Billerica and identified by the Billerica Board of Assessors as Map 13, Block 1, Lot 0; or act in relation thereto.

SUBMITTED BY: Town Manager

ARTICLE 10. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate and/or transfer from available funds a sum of money to conduct a comprehensive facilities assessment of the Chelmsford Public Schools; or act in relation thereto.

SUBMITTED BY: Town Manager

ARTICLE 11. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate or transfer from available funds a sum of money to prepare design and bid specifications for Wayfinding Signage as recommended in the Center Village Master Plan; or act in relation thereto.

SUBMITTED BY: Town Manager.

Fall Annual Town Meeting 2015 October 19, 2015 Page 3

ARTICLE 12. To see if the Town will vote to transfer from Free Cash a certain sum of money to the General Stabilization Fund; or act in relation thereto.

SUBMITTED BY: Town Manager Two-Thirds Vote

ARTICLE 13. To see if the Town will vote to accept the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 54 and establish a minimum value of personal property subject to taxation in the amount of $5,000 effective in Fiscal Year 2016; or act in relation thereto.

SUBMITTED BY: Board of Assessors

ARTICLE 14. To see if the Town will vote to accept the provisions of the eighth paragraph of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 60A, Section 1 to provide a motor vehicle excise exemption on one vehicle owned or leased and registered for non-business use for Massachusetts residents who are in active military service and deployed outside Massachusetts for at least 45 days in the excise calendar year, effective for calendar years beginning on or after January 1, 2016; or act in relation thereto.

SUBMITTED BY: Board of Assessors

ARTICLE 15. To see if the Town will vote to transfer Buttercup Lane Map 117, Block 443, Lot 10 for conservation purposes; or act in relation thereto.

SUBMITTED BY: Town Manager

ARTICLE 16. To see if the Town will vote to amend the Town Code, Chapter 195, “Zoning Bylaw”, for purposes of adopting a new section ARTICLE XXIII, “ Inclusionary Housing Bylaw” as follows:

ARTICLE XXIII – Inclusionary Housing Bylaw

§195-133 Purpose and Intent The purpose of this bylaw is to provide for the development of affordable housing in compliance with G.L. c. 40B §20-23 so that the Town’s stock of affordable housing is not diluted by the creation of additional market-rate units. It is intended that any affordable housing unit created pursuant to this bylaw will qualify for inclusion in the Chapter 40B Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) under the regulations and guidelines of the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), and therefore units must comply with these guidelines.

Fall Annual Town Meeting 2015 October 19, 2015 Page 4

§195-134 Applicability This section shall apply to all projects proposed within the Article XXI, Community Enhancement and Investment Overlay District (CEIOD), Article XXII, Village Center Overlay District, and section 195-8 which involve four (4) dwelling units or more. The Planning Board shall, as a condition of approval of any such development require that the applicant provide affordable housing pursuant to this bylaw and more fully described in §195-137 below. All projects shall be forwarded for review and comment to the Chelmsford Housing Advisory Board and the Chelmsford Housing Authority.

§195-135 Definitions A. Affordable Housing - housing which is restricted for sale or rent to individuals and families within specific income ranges and sales prices as defined by the Massachusetts Division of Housing and Community Development (DHCD).

Affordability shall be perpetual and shall be secured by the use of an affordable housing restriction as defined in M.G.L. c.184 §31. Affordable Housing units shall count as very low- or moderate-income units on the DHCD Subsidized Housing Inventory,(SHI) subject to the approval of DHCD.

B. Ownership Units – shall be affordable to families with incomes not exceeding the HUD published low-income limit (80%) for the applicable metropolitan statistical area for Chelmsford, as published by HUD and utilized by DHCD for regulating affordable- housing programs. C. Rental Units – shall be affordable to families with incomes not exceeding the HUD published very low-income limit (50%) for the Lowell, MA HUD Metro FMR Area. D. Affordable Housing Restriction - a deed restriction for Affordable Housing meeting the statutory requirements of M.G. L. c. 184, Section 31. E. Department or DHCD – means the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) or any successor agency.

§195-136 Anti-Segmentation It is the intent of this bylaw to prohibit the subdivision of land or phasing of development to avoid the application of this section. It shall be presumed that land held in common ownership at the time of enactment of this bylaw should be included for the purposes of calculating the number of affordable units to be provided. It shall also be presumed that phased development of land held in common ownership shall be considered in its totality rather than as separate projects. These presumptions are rebuttable only upon credible evidence to the contrary.

§195-137 Provision of Affordable Units The Planning Board shall require that any development, as applicable per section 195-134, for four (4) or more dwelling units in a residential or mixed use project shall be conditioned upon at least twenty-five percent (25%), prior to any consideration of density bonus per section 195- 138.E, of the units subject to this bylaw be restricted as affordable housing units in any one or combination of methods provided for below:

Fall Annual Town Meeting 2015 October 19, 2015 Page 5

A. by constructing, rehabilitating or designating affordable housing unit(s) on the locus subject to the application; or B. by constructing, rehabilitating or designating affordable housing unit(s) on a locus different than the one subject to the application, which is not presently included in the SHI; or C. by offer to and approval by the Planning Board, with input from the Housing Advisory Board (and acceptance by the Selectmen on behalf of the Town), of a donation of land to the Town or its designee in fee simple, on- or off-site, that the Planning Board in its discretion determines is suitable for the construction of affordable housing units. Where this option is used, said land shall be compliant with zoning to support a number of affordable housing units equal to two (2) times the number of units otherwise required by Section §195-138.C; or D. by offer to and acceptance by the Planning Board, with input from the Housing Advisory Board, of a paymentdonation of money to the Town of Chelmsford’s Housing Stabilization Fund. E. at the discretion of the Planning Board, with input from the Housing Advisory Board, and compliance with statutory requirements for the disposition and use of Town property, by development of a qualifying affordable housing unit on Town-owned land through rehabilitation or new construction. F. any combination of the above requirements (a)-(e) provided that in no event shall the total number of units or land area or funds provided be less than the equivalent number or value of affordable units required by this bylaw.

§195-138 Provisions Applicable to Affordable Housing

A. Siting of affordable units All affordable units constructed, rehabilitated or designated under this bylaw shall be dispersed throughout the development and/or community and shall, on average, be no less accessible to public amenities, such as open space or services, than the market-rate units.

B. Minimum standards for affordable units Affordable housing units within market rate developments shall be integrated with the rest of the development and shall be compatible in design, appearance, construction and quality of materials with other units. Interior features of affordable units shall include similar amenities. Off-site affordable units shall be integrated with the neighborhood in which they are situated.

C. Calculation and Distribution of Number of Affordable Units. A number of affordable units equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of units shall be provided. Fractions of units shall be rounded up to the nearest round number. if the fraction is 0.6 or greater and shall be rounded down if said fraction is less that 0.6.

Affordable units shall be proportionately distributed throughout the project, in terms of both location and unit numbers, size and type.

D. Calculation of Payment Fee in Lieu of Provision of Affordable Units. Payment-in-lieu payments are intended to approximate the difference between value of a market rate rental or sale unit and a sale/rent-restricted affordable unit. The table below establishes the

Fall Annual Town Meeting 2015 October 19, 2015 Page 6

initial payments fees for each affordable unit for which a payment-in-lieu of construction shall be made.

Number of 0-3 units 4-20 units 20 + units Affordable Units: Rental Unit: none $75,000 $125,000 Ownership Unit none $150,000 $175,000

Type of Affordable Unit Payment in Lieu Rental 1 bedroom $50,000 2 + bedrooms $75,000 Ownership 1 bedroom $100,000 2 bedrooms $125,000 3 + bedrooms $150,000

From time to time, the Planning Board may by majority vote modify these per-unit fees to reflect current market conditions, following a duly noticed public hearing and consultation with the Chelmsford Housing Authority. The schedule of fees shall kept on file in the Planning Office. Additionally, the Board may adjust the fee on a project by project basis based upon evidence from the applicant and a finding from the Board that the required fee would result in the project being uneconomic. Prior to any finding, the Board shall seek the input from the Housing Advisory Board and the Chelmsford Housing Authority.

E. Density Bonus Upon a showing of exceptional design and/or public benefits, the Planning Board may, by a special permit, authorize a density bonus of up to twenty percent (20%) of the total number of dwelling units permitted in a project. Fractions of units shall be rounded up to the nearest round number. The affordability requirements of this bylaw do not apply to density bonus units. The Planning Board shall consider factors such as consistency with the Chelmsford Affordable Housing Plan, dated December 2011, or other planning documents, unit type, population served, site design amenities and public benefits that integrate the project into the neighborhood in which it is located.

F. Timing of construction or provision of affordable units or lots Affordable units shall be developed / provided concurrently with the development of market-rate units. Upon a showing of good reason, the Planning Board may allow the affordable unit(s) to be developed or restricted prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the unit that represents 50% of the number of units permitted in the proposed project.

G. Marketing plan for affordable units. Applicants under this bylaw shall submit a marketing plan, consistent with DHCD guidelines, to the Planning Board for its approval, with advice from the Housing Advisory Board. The plan

Fall Annual Town Meeting 2015 October 19, 2015 Page 7

shall describe how the affordable units will be marketed to potential homebuyers or tenants. Subject to the approval of DHCD, this plan shall include a lottery to be conducted by the Chelmsford Housing Authority (or successor agency) for selecting buyers or tenants.

H. Local Preference. At the discretion of the Planning Board, and subject to the approval of DHCD for consistency with state and federal fair-housing requirements, up to 70% of the affordable units shall be reserved for Chelmsford residents or employees of the Town of Chelmsford. In the event that the applicant or future owner is unable to sell or lease the unit to a Chelmsford resident or employee s/he may petition the Planning Board for a release of the condition, without need for a public hearing.

I. Provision of Affordable Housing Units Off-Site As an alternative to on-site provision of affordable housing, an applicant subject to the bylaw may develop, construct, rehabilitate or dedicate affordable units off-site. All requirements of this bylaw that apply to on-site provision of affordable units, shall apply to provision of off-site affordable units. The location of the off-site units to be provided shall be approved by the Planning Board, which shall have discretion to approve the appropriateness of a proposed unit to be designated as off-site affordable housing.

§195-139 Maximum Incomes and Selling Prices The maximum housing purchase price or rent for affordable units created under this bylaw shall be consistent with affordability guidelines established by DHCD or a successor agency.

195-140 Preservation of affordability

The Planning Board shall require, as a condition for approval under this bylaw, that the applicant comply with the mandatory affordable housing provisions and accompanying restrictions on affordability, including the execution of a DHCD Local Initiative Program Regulatory Agreement (for rental and homeownership units) and deed rider (for homeownership units). The Building Inspector shall not issue an occupancy permit for any unit in a project subject to this bylaw, until the regulatory agreement is recorded.

§195-141 Project Changes

The applicant may seek modifications to an approved project by submitting a written request for the same to the Planning Board. If the Planning Board determines that the change is minor in nature, it may approve the change by a simple majority vote of the Board at a regular public meeting. If the Board determines that the change is significant, it shall hold a public hearing to consider the change.

§195-142 Conflict with Other Bylaws The provisions of this section shall be considered supplemental to other zoning bylaws. To the extent that a conflict exists between this section and others, the more restrictive provisions shall apply.

Fall Annual Town Meeting 2015 October 19, 2015 Page 8

And amend the Town’s Zoning Bylaw, Chapter 195, Article III, “Use Regulations” section 195- 108, “Nonconforming Uses and Structures”, by inserting a new sentence at the end of section A. Applicability” as follows:

Residential projects of four or more units, including an increase in an existing project by four or more residential units, or a conversion of other uses to a residential use with four or more units, are subject to the requirements of Article XXIII, “Inclusionary Housing Bylaw” as applicable.

And amend the Town’s Zoning Bylaw, Chapter 195, Article XXI, Community Enhancement and Investment Overlay District”, section 195-111, “Applicability”, by inserting a new sub-section F. as follows:

F. Residential projects or four or more units, including an existing project by four or more residential units, or a conversion of other uses to a residential use with four or more units, are subject to the requirements of Article XXIII, “Inclusionary Housing Bylaw” as applicable.

; or act in relation thereto.

SUBMITTED BY: Planning Board

ARTICLE 17. To see if the Town will vote in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40, Section 5B to establish an Affordable Housing Stabilization Fund. The appropriation of monies to said stabilization fund shall include, but not be limited to, an amount of funding that has been received by the Town under the Town’s inclusionary housing zoning bylaw. The appropriation of funds from said stabilization fund shall be used to finance the purchase of land, rehabilitation of existing units, construction, and/or purchase of affordable housing units that shall qualify for inclusion on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development Chapter 40B Subsidized Housing Inventory for the Town of Chelmsford; or act in relation thereto.

SUBMITTED BY: Planning Board

ARTICLE 18. To see if the Town will vote to appropriate a certain sum of money from the Community Preservation Fund Open Space Preservation Reserve and/or from the Community Fund General Reserve for the construction of a pedestrian bridge and other costs to improve public access to the Oak Hill Conservation Land; or act in relation thereto.

SUBMITTED BY: Community Preservation Commission

Fall Annual Town Meeting 2015 October 19, 2015 Page 9

Hereof fail not and make return of this warrant with your doings at the time and place of said meeting.

Given under our hands this 14th day of September, 2015.

BOARD OF SELECTMEN OF THE TOWN OF CHELMSFORD

______Matthew J. Hanson, Chair

______Robert P. Joyce, Vice Chair

______Laura A. Merrill, Clerk

______George R. Dixon, Jr.

______Janet L. Askenburg

NOTICE OF PROPOSED DATES AND TIMES FOR CONTINUED SESSIONS OF THE ANNUAL TOWN MEETING

The Board of Selectmen shall propose the following dates and times for continued sessions of the Town Meeting of October 19, 2015 to be held at the Chelmsford Senior Center, 75 Groton Road, North Chelmsford then:

Thursday, October 22, 2014 at 7:30 p.m.

Monday, October 26, 2014 at 7:30 p.m.

Thursday, October 29, 2014 at 7:30 p.m.

If additional continued sessions are necessary they shall take place on the Monday and Thursday of the next consecutive week until the meetings are concluded.

Pursuant to General By-laws Article II, Section 4.10.

Notice these dates and times are proposed and are subject to change by vote of the Town Meeting Representatives.

Fall Annual Town Meeting 2015 October 19, 2015 Page 10

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MIDDLESEX, SS. September _____, 2015

Pursuant to the within warrant, I have notified and warned the Inhabitants of the Town of Chelmsford by posting up attested copies of same at the following places, to wit: Town Offices Building, 50 Billerica Road; North Chelmsford Fire Station, 35 Princeton Street; Senior Center, 75 Groton Road; East Chelmsford Fire Station, 115 Riverneck Road; Byam Elementary School, 25 Maple Road; Westlands School, 171 Dalton Road; West Chelmsford Fire Station, 260 Old Westford Road; McCarthy Middle School, 250 North Road; and South Row Elementary School, 250 Boston Road. Signed:

______William E. Spence, Constable

A True Copy Attest, ______William E. Spence, Constable

Fall Annual Town Meeting 2015 October 19, 2015 Page 11 Use of Electronic Signatures

The Town adopted a new Licensing and Permitting Program in January of 2014. The program initially launched with all building related permits and has rolled out to several other departments.

All of the prep work has been done to renew the Board of Selectmen Licenses in the new ViewPermit program. The use of Electronic Signatures for the Board of Selectmen will help to make this process more efficient as it would allow the office to renew the licenses in bulk after approval. The renewal process involves a built in departmental review.

The licenses can only be printed after all departments have signed off and payment has been posted. It would be most efficient if the actual licenses can be printed in bulk after the Board has approved them at a public meeting with the electronic signatures preprinted on them. Otherwise, the office staff would have to post all payments and pre‐approve the licenses in the system in order to print them out for the Board to sign prior to the meeting.

The electronic signatures will allow the approved licenses to be processed in an accurate and timely manner. Office of the Town Manager Town Offices 50 Billerica Road Chelmsford, MA 01824

CITIZENS ACTIVITY RECORD "Good Government Starts With You"

If you are interested in serving on an appointed Town committee, please complete this form and return to: Office of the Town Manager, 50 Billerica Road, Chelmsford, MA 01824-2777. Completing this form in no way assures appointment. All committee vacancies will be filled by citizens deemed most qualified to serve in a particular capacity.

NAME: ______DATE: ____

ADDRESS: ____

HOME PHONE: BUSINESS PHONE: ____

EMAIL: CELL PHONE: ______

AMOUNT OF TIME AVAILABLE: ______

INTEREST IN WHAT TOWN COMMITTEE: ____ PRESENT BUSINESS AFFILIATION AND EXPERIENCE: ______EDUCATION OR SPECIAL TRAINING: ______TOWN OFFICES HELD DATE APPOINTED TERM EXPIRED

REMARKS: ______

Office of the Town Manager Town Offices 50 Billerica Road Chelmsford, MA 01824

CITIZENS ACTIVITY RECORD "Good Government Starts With You"

NAME:Ryan Reveley ______DATE:8/26/15 ____

ADDRESS: 128 GorhamSt. Chelmsford,MA 01824 ____

HOME PHONE: 978-453-1225 BUSINESS PHONE: ____

EMAIL: [email protected] PHONE: 978-604-4268 ______

AMOUNT OF TIME AVAILABLE: ______

INTEREST IN WHAT TOWN COMMITTEE:CommunityAction ProgramCommittee ____ PRESENT BUSINESS AFFILIATION AND EXPERIENCE: Pastorof MatthewsMemorial Church. ______EDUCATION OR SPECIAL TRAINING: _ ____ MastersDegree ____ TOWN OFFICES HELD DATE APPOINTED TERM EXPIRED Memberof HarmonyAdventure Park Juneof 2014

REMARKS: ______Town of Chelmsford Board of Selectmen Minutes 50 Billerica Rd., Room 204 Chelmsford, MA 01824

Regular Meeting MINUTES July 20, 2015

Attending: Matthew Hanson, Chairman Paul Cohen, Town Manager Robert Joyce, Vice Chairman Laura Merrill, Clerk George Dixon, Jr., Selectman Janet Askenburg, Selectman

Please note that all documents referenced in these minutes are on file at the Town Manager’s Office, 50 Billerica Rd., Chelmsford, Mass. This meeting was video recorded by Chelmsford Telemedia.

Chairman Hanson called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.

A Moment of Silence was held in memory of Walter R. Hedlund, Jr.

Public Service Announcements Deadline for Citizen Petition Warrant Articles: August 3, 2015 at 4:00PM Chairman Hanson read this announcement into the record.

Open Session Sam Chase, 5 River Meadow Drive, spoke as a resident and Assessor. He assured residents that the Town does not operate with an unbalanced budget, as that is prohibited by State Law. Municipal budgets are commonly adjusted in the fall, as the State looks at year-end figures, not what a community did to get there. State standards recommend 3-5% of collected funds be available as “free cash” or “available surplus funds” to pay for unanticipated expenses that occurred during the year. Mr. Chase believes the Town Manager has the Town’s best interests in mind, and is not acting irresponsibly when he makes his budget.

Tom Gilroy, 14 Temi Rd., indicated he agreed with the process used for the Town Accountant’s Annual Review, and he did not agree with how the Town Manager’s Annual Review was handled. As was confirmed by Town Counsel, the Town Manager has sole discretion of the Town budget, and the exchange that occurred at the Board’s meeting on June 29, 2015 was unprofessional and not necessary.

Lynne Marcella, Parade Committee thanked everyone who participated and helped with the July 4th Parade this year. Raffle and float winners were announced. Residents were encouraged to become involved with the committee, as current members are looking to train new organizers.

Bob Joyce, 103 Turnpike Rd. wished to speak as a resident. He found Mr. Chase’s comments earlier interesting, as he understands that the Town Manager works for the Board of Selectmen, and answers to this Board. He also requested the Board to have the School Department come to a future Board Meeting to illustrate what the total costs to the Town were from the mismanagement of accounts and buyouts and other expenses from multiple employees leaving the school system’s employment. Chairman Hanson advised this would be requested. 1 Board of Selectmen July 20, 2015

Committee Vacancies Selectman Joyce read the list of current vacancies. Interested applicants can apply online at http://www.townofchelmsford.us or through the Town Manager’s office.

Licenses One Day Beer & Wine Licenses: Susan Gates, CCA 1A North Rd. Nick Goumas Quintet-July 31, 2015 Jacy Dawn Concert-August 8, 2015 The Doublenecks Concert-August 22, 2015 Wendee Glick Concert-September 5, 2015

The applicant was advised they did not need to appear this evening. There have been no issues with any previous license.

Motion: by Selectman Joyce to approve One Day Beer and Wine Licenses to Susan Gates at the Chelmsford Center of the Arts on July 31, 2015, for the hours of 7:00PM-10:00PM, on August 8, 2015 for the hours of 7:00PM-10:00PM, on August 22, 2015 for the hours of 7:00PM-10:00PM, and on September 5, 2015 for the hours of 7:30PM-10:00PM, to be exercised on the premises at 1A North Rd. Seconded by Selectman Merrill. Motion carries, unanimous

Reports and Presentations Energy Manager Mashail Arif: Green Communities Competitive Grant Award The total amount of the award is $178,400.00, and will be used to fund energy management systems at the Center Elementary School and Senior Center, and energy management system modifications at the McCarthy Middle School and Adams Library.

A Technical Assistance Grant of $12,500.00 has been applied for to research heating system alternatives for the Chelmsford Center for the Arts building.

Energy Manager Mashail Arif: Update on Solar Energy Installations & Energy Management Performance Contract The installation portion of this contract is almost complete, and solar production is happening. Closeout documents are pending, and energy savings data will be forthcoming.

Energy Manager Mashail Arif: Update on Department of Public Utilities Hearing on Municipal Electric Supply Aggregation Plan The DPU hearing for this contract will be held at the end of August, and state approval should occur 4-8 months after that.

Selectman Merrill asked if there is a list of items that are not covered by the ESCO contract available. Ms. Arif explained that new technology is necessitating new projects that were not intended to be covered under the existing ESCO contract. Selectman Askenburg confirmed that the purpose of the existing ESCO contract was to address the more urgent needs, which it is doing.

Finance Director John Sousa: Authorization for Special Legal Counsel to Collect Reimbursement from other Governmental Units for Portion of Retiree Health Insurance Premiums. Mr. Sousa explained how retiree health insurance reimbursements are handled when an employee has worked for several different municipalities. This statute became effective in 2012; Chelmsford’s payments to other communities are current, however, reimbursements due to Chelmsford from three other 2 Board of Selectmen July 20, 2015 communities are not current, and the balance is growing each year. The Town’s current counsel provider also represents these other communities, and so Mr. Sousa asked the Board to authorize the services of a different law firm with no conflicts of interest to help the Town with this collection issue.

Motion: by Selectman Joyce to allow the Town Treasurer use of Special Town Counsel from Blatman, Borowski, Mead and Talerman, LLC of Newburyport, Ma for the collection of amounts due relative to Retiree Health Insurance Reimbursements, as presented. Seconded by Selectman Merrill. Motion carries, unanimous.

Mr. Sousa agreed to provide an update on this process at the end of September, 2015.

Community Development Director Evan Belansky: Affordable Housing Certification RE: 101 Mill Rd. Mr. Belansky summarized the Affordable Housing Certification process after receiving clarification that the Board’s request was general in nature, and did not pertain to 101 Mill Rd., nor an unrelated previously approved project on Mill Rd. The Housing Advisory Board is requesting to appear at a future Board meeting for advice on 40B project policy, as the Committee’s latest updated housing plan met with considerable resistance from resident attendees. In 2014, the Town was 30 units short of receiving another year of “safe harbor” certification as no additional projects came forward for approval.

Town Manager Reports Regional Emergency Communications Center Study A draft report was provided to the Board, and the Town will need to decide if it will participate in this initiative with Lowell, Dracut and Tewksbury, or not participate and re-invest in its own operations. Meetings to iron out details are still ongoing, and a presentation is expected in two months.

Inter-municipal Agreement for Sewer Services at 136 Stedman St., Chelmsford This agreement was created because of the location of Route 3 to this address it is more cost efficient to run sewer service through Lowell rather than Chelmsford. Town Counsel is reviewing the language of the agreement in which the Town would be billed by Lowell, at Lowell’s rates, and the Town bills the property owner. Water service for this property already comes from Lowell.

Motion: by Selectman Joyce to approve the Inter-municipal Agreement between the City of Lowell, Town of Chelmsford, and Patricia Bernard, f/k/a Patricia Pappas contingent upon Town Counsel review & recommendations, and to authorize the Town Manager to sign the agreement, as presented. Seconded by Selectman Merrill. Motion carries, unanimous.

Town Accountant FY16 Goals Selectman Joyce read the goals into the record.

Motion: by Selectman Joyce to approve and adopt the FY2016 Goals for the Town Accountant, as presented. Seconded by Selectman Merrill. Motion carries, unanimous.

Town Manager Goals FY16 Selectman Askenburg agreed to withdraw her proposed goal regarding the Town’s budget preparation as presented at the Board’s previous meeting.

Motion: by Selectman Askenburg to approve and adopt the FY2016 Goals for the Town Manager, as amended. Seconded by Selectman Merrill. Motion carries, unanimous.

3 Board of Selectmen July 20, 2015 Appointments Cultural Council

Motion: by Selectman Joyce to approve the appointment of Carol Roche to the Cultural Council for a term to expire June 30, 2018. Seconded by Selectman Merrill. Motion carries, unanimous.

Minutes Regular Meeting Minutes: June 1, 2015

Motion: by Selectman Joyce to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of June 1, 2015, as presented. Seconded by Selectman Merrill. Motion carries, unanimous.

Regular Meeting Minutes June 15, 2015

Motion: by Selectman Joyce to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of June 15, 2015, as presented. Seconded by Selectman Merrill. Selectman Askenburg abstained, all others in favor. Motion carries.

Regular Meeting Minutes June 29, 2015

Motion: by Selectman Joyce to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of June 29, 2015, as presented. Seconded by Selectman Merrill. Motion carries, unanimous.

Selectmen Liaison Reports and Referrals Selectman Askenburg: -The Board of Health has rescheduled their Public Hearing regarding raising the tobacco smoking age to 21 to August 3, 2015 at 6:15PM. -Everyone is welcome to attend the 101 Mill Rd. Committee’s next meeting on Wednesday, July 22, 2015, at 7:00PM. -The School Committee met on last Tuesday. Ms. Skaar and Mr. Lupoli have formed a sub-committee to coordinate High School Fund Raising efforts more efficiently. Carol Fredette is returning as Director of Student Services, and all 27 slots were filled under the CHOICE program.

Selectman Merrill: -Work to remove the marked trees along the Freemen Rail Trail will be done on Tuesdays during August.

Selectman Joyce: -Mr. Cohen reported that the request to address a pole on Algonquin St. has been forwarded to the DPW.

Selectmen Dixon: -This year’s Cal Ripkin Baseball Tournament was hosted in Chelmsford and was very successful. The Police Department was thanked for their help with this tournament. -The Chelmsford Police Athletic League is discussing if they can contribute to the repair of the score board which was vandalized at Varney Park.

Chairman Hanson: -Finance committee Chairman Tom Gilroy was asked to provide a date of availability for the next Tri- Board Meeting. -Hart Pond is open to the public again. It was closed for water treatment of invasive plants. -Office hours will be held at Panera Bread from 5:00-6:00PM on Thursday. 4 Board of Selectmen July 20, 2015

Press Questions No one came forward at this time.

Next Regular Meeting: August 10, 2015.

Motion: by Selectman Joyce to adjourn this meeting at 8:47PM. Seconded by Selectman Merrill. Motion carries, unanimous.

Respectfully Submitted,

Vivian W. Merrill, Recording Secretary

List of Reference Documents: -Sam Chase remarks document -Public Notice for Fall 2015 Annual Town Meeting -List of Committee Vacancies -Supporting documents for One Day Licenses -Presentation & Reports for energy Management Grants and Updates -Presentation on Retiree Health Benefits Reimbursements -Memos related to Chelmsford housing HPP Certification -Draft of the Northern Middlesex Regional Emergency Communications Center -Non-Union employee performance reviews for Town Accountant and Town Manager -Committee Application -Draft Minutes

5 Board of Selectmen July 20, 2015