Before the storm managing development to reduce hurricane damages

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

- ..... . . . . 6

6~~~~~~~ 3

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IfW I

.......Ei-

U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..........LJ

I~~~~~~~~-NGII!-~Di-,~,~"
3 6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.... .

J- ~~~~~ Hazel '54 Donna' '0 Connie '55 Ilone '55

... . . . . . 6bL
I 3 W~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~illiarn3D.i c lyea
DaVidiJ.Br~ower,
1 3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Dav id R. Gods�chak
HT !~~~~~Ocean and Coasitail Polic"Y'Programn
Center for Urbanjand Regionali Sudies~
Univers--y f NthCarolina at ChapelHil
M3325
1982~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-- -6~ .~Prepared for the,4- ~......
J Of if Offce, ofCosaMnamet *
DepartmeK otQf,,Natbral ,Resources and Commrunity Deveoppmehi
--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~) 6 6 ... 66 6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g
6 6 6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

I BEFORE THE; STORM:
MANAGING DEVEOPMENT TO. REDUCE

HURRICANE, DAMAGES

William.D McElyea.
David J. Brower
David R.- Godschalk
with
I~~~ f :Barry Seymour

Ocean and Coas.tal Policy Program
Cenlter for Urban and: Regional Studies.
University of North Caroli-na at Chapel Hill

Property of CSC Lijbrs2

S. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
I . 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

The preparation of this study was financed.
i -
by a grant proyided by the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program, through funds provided by
the. Federal Emergency Management Agency, State
Assistance Project EMW-K-0201.

I >'YY t G f : 0 Second.Printing August 1982.

I F - :

j! ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank the s taff of the N. C. Office of Coastal
Management for their assistance with this project, especially Mr. Ralph Cantral
(Chief, Policy, Planning, and Technical Services). We also wish to acknowledge
the contribution of the following people on Topsail Island who provided a
valuable perspective on the problems local governments face in managing develop-
ment and emergency operations: Mayor Phillip J. Stevens and Mr. Hal Hanig of
the Town of Topsail Beach; Mayor Joseph Palliotti, Mr. Charles E. Hafter, and
Mr. Dean Wise of the Town of Surf City; and Mr. Kenneth Windley and Mr. Donald
Herman of Onslow County.

7I .The authors are especially grateful to Mr. Lee Mullis of the Center for
Urban and Regional Studies for his help in preparing the manuscript, and wish
to acknowledge Mr. Phillip Culpepper,'s fine work on the maps contained in
this report. We also extend thanks to Ms. Barbara Rodgers and Ms. Carroll
Carrozza of the Center for their secretarial and administrative support.

U ,

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If~ ~EXECUTIVE: SUMMARY'

: The North Carolina coast facesaa strong threat of damages from hurri-
canes, northeasters, and other major storms. While. there has been a marked!
lull in: the number of hurricanes that0 have stricken 1the North Carolina coast'
in the past 20 years, the threat still: exists; many say that North' Carolina is.
long overdue for a major storm. At the same time, development along:the coast
has grown by leaps and bounds. Unless this development is wisely located.and
builtt to withstand hurricane forcesi,. North Carolinat's coastal communities :will
face massive destruction;. Local governments, as the primary protectors of the.
public health, safety, and: general welfare, have a responsibility to reduce
the risk of property 'damages and los's:of life' attending coastal development-.
They also have a responsibility to ensure that reconstructioni following a
major storm can occur quickly and leave. the community safer from disaster in
the future. These are the goals of hazard mitigation and reconstruction
planning.

Hazard mitigation includes any'l activity' which reduces' the probability
that a disaster will occur- or miniim ibesthe :damage. caused by a disaster.
Hlazard mitigation includes not oonly.R'naging:'development, but also evacuation
planning and other::measures to r:eduieilosses of life and property. Recon-
structin- involves the full' ranfige .of repair activities': in: the wake.of a
disaster which seek to return' theco unity to a- normal'!: level of operations.

The' purpose: of this report iS:it':assist North Carotlia's coastal com--
munities- in managing development an&d post-disast:er reconstruction' to' reduce
the risk of future hurricane damages' While the report deals'primarily with
hurricanes', it applies to ot'hefr 'majorstorims as well' (such as northeasters).
The report identifies' arious' tobls'an,: programs that local governments can
use to manage development with. an.ey-e toward hurricane hazards'. It outlines a
planning process that lo'c'al governets can use:,(1) to' assess the community's
vulnerability to damages given- curre' and-expected development conditions,
and :::(2) to select- aptroproe''at ensure" that new development and 'post-
disaster reconstruction' are reasonai:' safe fro-. future damages. It discusses;
procedures for assessing damages and':rmitting' repairs and: reconstruction.
It::idetifies key programan- and pers 'e: outsilde t'he community which: influence::
locail hazard mitigatiion and recon'struction efforts.: ;

The -main' theme underlying this' report is' th'e need to plan ahead of: time-
for- the damages that a hurricane' or other maj;or storm can- cause.. This" plantning
applies to develop'ent that is taking-,place now' in North Carolina 's coastal,
commiuniti a es to. reconstruction following. a disaster. When:a
major hurricane or northeaster next hits Noith- Carolina, the-damage will
undoubtedly be massi'Ve due to' the way; development along: the. coast has proceeded"
in th'e past. By, planning now, local governments' can ensure that new development.:
and post-disaster reconstruction will' not repeat: old mistakes.

iii

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O

The Hurricane Hazard

Hurricanes are extremely powerful, yet unpredictable, phenomena. The size 5
and intensity of each hurricane is unique. While a hurricane is, by definition,
a tropical weather disturbance with winds over 73 miles per hour, sustained
winds in an extreme hurricane may exceed 165 miles per hour with gusts exceed- I
ing 200 miles per hour. These winds present a hazard to anything in their path.
A hurricane can also cause extensive coastal and riverine flooding by creating
a "storm surge" and heavy precipitation; ninety percent of all hurricane-related
deaths result from drowning and the majority of property damages result from
flooding. Heightened wave action and shoreline erosion accompanying a hurricane
'further add to the level of damages; the coastline may change shape and new i
inlets may form in response to the energy of a single storm. Wherever human
activities stand in the path of these forces, heavy damages are likely to occur.

North Carolina history is replete with hurricanes that have changed both i
the physical environment and human communities. The same is true for the power-
ful northeasters which have hit North Carolina in the winter and early spring,
causing damages similar to those of a hurricane. Based on the coast's hurricane I
history, the probability that the North Carolina coastline will be directly hit
by a hurricane in any given year ranges from six percent near Wilmington to 11
percent around Cape Hatteras. Even though there has been a marked lull in hurri-
cane activity in North Carolina over the past 20 years, a strong threat exists I
with the passing of each hurricane season.

Over the same 20 years, development along the coast has grown at a rapid
pace. In addition to increases in year-round populations, coastal communities I
in North Carolina have, experienced a surge in second-home development and tourist
populations, which swell the potential for property damages and loss of life
even further. This concentration of people and development in hurricane-prone
communities points out the need for local officials to address the hurricane
threat and reassess the policies and measures that are now in place to reduce
the risk of storm damages. i

Mitigating the Hurricane Hazard I

Local officials need to understand the various types of activities and
government functions involved in community disaster planning. Community
activities regarding natural disasters fall into four related phases: miti-
gation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Mitigation involves activities
which reduce the probability that a disaster will occur and minimize the damage"
caused by a disaster; they are not geared to:a specific disaster, but arise
from a long-term concern for avoiding damages. Preparedness activities imme- I
diately precede a particular disaster; they help the community cope with
immediate threats to life and property. Response activities immediately -
follow a particular disaster; they include search and rescue, damage assess-
ment, and providing emergency housing and medical care. Recovery involves
the full range of repair and reconstruction activities which seek to return
the community to "normal"; these activities may continue for years after a
particular disaster.

3 - ; ; fOperating throughout these four
phases of agtivity are two distinct govern-
ment functions: emergency management and
..development management. Emergency manage-
ment deals primarily with activities during
the preparedness and response phases which
Recovery Mitigation immediately precede and follow a specific
disaster; its focus is the improvement of
operations in the face of disaster.
R, sponse Preparedness
Development management primarily deals
with activities .during the mitigation and
It. .recovery phases:; its focus is the improve-
ment of conditions in the face of disaster
by providing a set of guidelines for
Disaster Event development to follow. Unfortunately,
-most communities do not coordinate their
emergency management activities with their
developmen.t management activities. Even
though they are both part of a community's
comprehensive planning process, they typically operate independently of one
another in working to.ward the commo g.al of reducing damages.

Hazard.mitigation, or reducijg. te risk of damages from natural disasters,
has always been a part of local planning and policy-making. In turn, many local
and state governments throughout .the, j ited:States have responded to natural
hazards, especially flooding And hi': winds, by delineating hazardous areas
and by instituting land use controls, .,ons,tructio. standards, and public invest-
ment policies governng development. within those areas. Nonetheless, coastal
development continues at a pace tht eposes er-increasig numbers of people
and properties to the forces of.hurriane.s; property losses due to hurricanes
continue to climb.

As a result, in recent years, .terje has.been an increasing emphasis at
the state and federal levels on impro0vng hazard mitigation policies. The
National Flood Insurance disaste r assista nce programs, and other
federal programs are beginning to .fous more on changing development conditions
in disaster-prone communities. At thesame time, the Sitatte of North Carolina
(through the Office of Coastal Manage t and the Division of Emergency Manage-
ment) is beginning to focus more'on iiproing devopment conditions and
.emergency operations in hurricane-pro 0, ommunitis. Local government action
I is becoming especially mor~e inPrat, since local government carries :the prim:
respQnibility for managing de~veloppt to protect the public health, safety,
and general welfare. Giive a growing cincerXI for hazard.mitigation at all leves
federal, state, and local -- the tim.e :s ripe for local governments to pla: more
effectively for haza:rd mitigation and post-disaster reconstruction.

Hazard mitigation should be a guJepos:t for local decisions regarding, new
development and reconstruction, wyhethe it involves private or public faciiities.,
A number of measures are available to local governments for managing development
and reconstruction to reduce the risk Of storm damages. In considering these
measurles, local governments are likely to 'face the following issues: Should
there be changes in land use? Should': there be changes in the building code?
Should we try:to make the community more efficient and more attractive? What

I v

public expenditures will be involved and how will we cover them? Addressing
these issues can give rise to a host of technical and political problems that
local officials must overcome. The lack of community consensus regarding the
level of risk that exists in the community makes these basic issues difficult
to resolve. Some residents will perceive a high level of risk and press for
mitigation. Others will perceive a low level of risk. Many won't think about I
hurricanes at all. Nonetheless, local officials need to start planning for
hazard mitigation and post-disaster reconstruction now, before a major storm
strikes. Too often the situation boils down to "out of sight, out of mind," I
where communities don't take steps to protect themselves in the long run until
a massive disaster actually occurs.

Local government has available a variety of tools for managing development I
and reconstruction; these play a useful and essential role in coastal communities
in reducing the risk of damages from flooding, erosion, and high winds. Such
tools as zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, and building codes are
used by communities throughout the country to protect private development from
storm hazards. Public facilities siting and design criteria apply similar
standards to public works decisions. Land acquisition programs can compensate
landowners and keep development out of hazard areas while providing the com- I
munity with more open space. All of these tools can be coordinated by compre-
hensive planning that accounts for storm hazards in the community and the
political and technical feasibility of using different measures to manage I
development.

Whilethe primary responsibility for managing development falls on local
government, local government does not operate in a vacuum. State and federal
programs also have a strong influence on development in hazardous areas and can
set the context for local government actions regarding new development and post- _
disaster reconstruction. North Carolina's Coastal Area Management Program sets
standards for development in statewide areas of environmental concern (which
cover several hazard areas) and standards for post-disaster reconstruction.
The State Building Code contains criteria for protecting buildings against I
high winds and other storm forces. The National Flood Insurance Program I
requires development to follow certain standards in order for properties in
the community to qualify for federally-subsidized insurance. Federal disaster I
assistance programs, in providing grants and loans for the repair and recon-
struction of private and public facilities, influence the pattern and quality
of post-disaster reconstruction in the community. Other state and federal
policies further influence the location and structural integrity of development
in hazard areas. Local governments must keep all of these policies and programs
in mind while formulating their own strategies for mitigating storm hazards.

Planning for Hurricane Hazard Mitigation

In planning for hazard mitigation and post-disaster reconstruction, there
are several steps the community should follow to identify the community's
vulnerability to storm forces, to identify and select appropriate mitigation
measures, and to implement these measures and integrate them into the community's I
existing land use, capital improvements, and emergency operations plans. Indi-
vidual communities can use this process to come up with approaches for managing
new development and reconstruction that are tailored to their own unique I
conditions.

vi
: :: : ::: |~~~

I A: MAPPING WHAZA :AREAS

B: VULNERABILITY
ASSESSMENT I

1Identify Severity of Identify Magnitude of I
Risk in Each Hazard Area Risk in Each Hazard Arell

I Inventory Land Uses A

Invent-oy :Structures v

I 4,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
C: IDENTIFYING
MITIGATION NEE6S

D. REVIEWING
ICURDRENT MEASURES ,~-

r dr: Coveiage?. : Poor, oEnfor cement? i
I l

E REVIEWING,
ALTERNATIVE MSRS

F; IMPLETANTATiON

The first step in the proce�s is the identifiation: and' lapp ng of those
sections of the community which are, most vulnerable to hurricane damages�.
Information on hazard areas -ca n Come fro the National Fibod Insurance Program,
the CAMA program, arid local experienddswith-t severe storms. While delineating
Ithese areas, loc aof f"cials should kdep in mind the particular storm forces
(highiwinds, flooding' wa.-M action,,1 nd&erosibn) thatdare likely to appear in
I. each area;< this idftxtif eie the" fdrces-that. public pdolic must help guard againist
Once: hazard areas are~ identified, the o6mm"un'ity can assess how' vulnerable. it is
to damage by seeing .hbwr current and ein ,cted": development: patterns relate! to
the hazard areas. zThis analysits swil~lrivea specific : problets that the com-
mth itY needs to mitiggAte, setting : the foundatiof for're.iew of cuirtnt lo cal
deve opmnent policies andaterative mea~irres th6 c'ommunity: could adopt to
handl~ its :.'particulhr stbrui :hazardS~ixc arT s ~ fh, instep- is then to adot and impe-p
ment specific actions and to moiiito- their, effeckt on new developments and poist-
disaster reconstruction'.

A case study conducted on Topsail Islanid, N6rth Carolina, illustrdtes' the
I hurrican e hazards pres~.t in costal c mniities and the ways local goverhmeii
can manage development to mitigate these hazards'. The case study applies :the:
planning process mention-ed above td map hazard areas, assess: the island's
vulnerability to darnages,; identify: mitigation needsaand review existing local
development policies on the island. The- case stud diemonstrates some of the;
issues: facing a community whqich is; trying to reduce the risk of hurricane

vii

damages, both in areas that are already developed and areas that are now
developing. It also points out the need for coastal communities to plan for
reconstruction before the storm to minimize the chaos that attends disaster, I
to facilitate reconstruction, and to ensure that reconstruction leaves the
community safer from the next storm.

I
Planning for Reconstruction

A local reconstruction plan should outline damage assessment and recon-
struction permitting procedures that the community will follow after a hurri-
cane or other major storm occurs. It should identify information that the
local government will need to make sound permit decisions regarding repairs I
'and reconstruction and to get state and federal disaster assistance. Some
specific topics that the plan should address include:

1., identifying cases where repairs and reconstruction will not be
permitted, or will be permitted only if they meet certain
conditions;

2. guidelines (drawn from the analysis of hazards and mitigation
measures) for the repair and rebuilding of damaged structures
and utilities; and I

3. plans for possible public acquisition of high hazard areas and
the relocation of highly vulnerable and damaged structures. 3

By identifying and clarifying all of these policies, procedures, and informa-
tion requirements, local officials will have a ready set of guidelines which
will help avoid delays in reconstruction as well as make the community safer
from damages in the long run.

It is crucial for local officials to understand federal and state procedures
for assessing damages and applying for disaster relief aid; these procedures
provide the context for local recovery activities. While they include specific
things that local governments must do to receive federal and state disaster
assistance, they also provide a basis for other actions, such as damage assess-
ment, that local governments must take to implement their own hazard mitigation
and reconstruction plans and policies.

As with managing development to reduce the risk of storm damages, local I
governments bear ultimate responsibility for emergency operations, assessing
and reporting damages, requesting outside assistance, and managing recon-
struction. Given the strain that this responsibility places on local resources
in a time of crisis, local governments need to establish, before the storm, a
ready-made set of damage assessment and reconstruction permitting procedures.
These procedures should be integrated with local hazard mitigation policies
that require repairs and reconstruction to include features that protect
against future damages.

I
viii

Putting It All Together

All of the discussion above indicates that local governments should prepare
several documents in advance of a major storm to make post-disaster repairs and
reconstruction move as smoothly, quickiyj and efficiently as possible. These
documents include:. (1) a hazard mitigation plan, (2) a reconstruction plan,
(3) ordinances and resolutions dealifg with hazard mitigation and reconstruction,
and (4) detailed and accurate property information. The hazard mitigation plan
establishes the policies which new development and reconstruction will follow
to reduce the risk of future storm damages. The reconstruction plan establishes
procedures for assessing damages and permitting repairs and rebuilding. Ordi-
nances and resolutions dealing with hazard mitigation and reconstruction give
these policies and procedures the force of law. Maintaining detailed and
accurate property information will facilitate damage assessments and recon-
struction permitting decisions.

Hazard mitigation and reconstruction plans should not be prepared
separately; they should operate together as part of a more comprehensive local
planning effort. Comprehensive planning gives the community a forum for
addressing and balancing a full range;of local development objectives, not
just those related to storm hazards8. It allows the community to chart specific
courses of action consistent with difterent development objectives. Local land
use plans prepared in compliance with the Coastal Area Management Act, as basic
comprehensive planning documents, provide a logical place for communities to
identify and address hazard mitigatioi "'and reconstruction problems. By incor-
porating a more detailed analyis of the community's storm hazards and
1 reconstruction permitting procedures into the local land use plan, the local
government will be able to balance haizkrd mitigation against other development
need's and objectives. The local govement will be well-prearpared to select an
appropriate course oqf action that will make the community safer from hurricanes
and other major storms.

While hazard mitigation and reconstruction planning should be incorporated
into the community's comprehensive land use planning efforts, they should also'
be coordinated with the community's emergency planning efforts. Local evacuation
plans, emergency operations plans, and disaster relief and assistance plans deal
mainly with short-term' concerns surf:u'ing a disas ter, but they also affect
and are affected by the community's dielopmentf decisions. Development con-
ditions in the community will dictate what emergency actions a local government
must take in the face of a' m ajor stor. Emergency plans sfet up the special
roles local officials must play and the special procedures local government
must follow during and' immediately after a' disaster; these can easily influence
the character of post-disaster reconstruction'

This report represents an important beginning, for North Carolina's coastal
comnmunities. It identifies1 the tools thoo at o :al governments can' use to manage
development and post-disaster reconstructiii to minimize the damages resulting'
from' future hurricanes, northeasters, and other major storms. As the primary
guardian of the public health, safety',, and general welfare, local government
faces an important resp'onsibility to'reduce the risk of property damages and
loss of life attending coastal development. It must start planning now for
the storms yet to come.

I
0, pu

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .ii
Executive Summary . . . .... .. .. ...... iii
List of Figures . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . xiv
List of Tables ... . .. . .. ... . . . . . . . . xv
List of Photographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi

Chapter 1: Introduction.. . ..... ..... 1-1
References ........ ........ 1-5

Chapter 2: The Hurricane Hazard . . . ......... 2-1
Impacts and Components of a Hurricane ....... 2-4
High Winds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
Flooding. .............. 2-6
Wave Action . .:. . . . . . ....... 2-10
Erosion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
Hurricanes and North' Carolina . . ........ 2-11
Hurricane Hazel .......... 2-11
Northeasters (Extratropical Winter Storms) . .. 2-13
Trends in Coastal Development . . . . . . ... 2-16
References . . ......... .. 2-17

Chapter 3: Mitigating the Hurricane Hazard .......... 3-1
Emergency Management and Development Management
Functions of Local Government. .. . . .. 3-2'
The Increasing Emphasis on Hazard Mitigation . . . 3-3
Hazard Mitigation--An Introduction to the Issues 3-7
Mitigationand New Development .... . . 3-7
Mitigation and Post-disaster Reconstruction . 3-8
Planning Before Disaster Strikes . . . . . ... 3-14
References . ... .. . 3-15

Chapter 4: Tools andi i$i hi icane HIazard Mitigation . .. 4-1
State Programs Influencing'Local Development 4-2
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) . . . . . . . 4-2
Ocean Hazard:AECs . . . . . .. ...... 4-3
Estuarine Syste.AECs . . . . . . . . . ... 4-5
Exemptions for Emergency Maintenance and
Repairs .. ... . 4-7
Post-disaster Policies ........... 4-7
State Agency Consistency . . 4-8
N. C. State Building Code . . . . . . . .... 4-8
Requirements: to Reduce Storm Damage .4-9
Government Action to Regulate Construction 4-13
State Regulations Covering Water Supply and
Waste Disposal Facilities . . . . . . . . . 4-14
Federal Programs Influencing Local Development . 4-16
National Flood Insurance Program . . . . . ... 4-16
Emergency Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17
Regular Phase . . . . ............ 4-17
Relocation of Damaged Structures ...... 4-20'

Page

Federal Disaster Assistance Programs . . .. 4-23
Assistance for Repairs and Reconstruction 4-24
Interagency Regional Hazard Mitigation Teams 4-28
Section 406 Hazard Mitigation Plan .. 4-29
Executive Order 11988 - Floodplain Management 4-31
Barrier Islands Legislation . . . . . .... 4-35
Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency
Requirements . ... . .... 4-37
Local Programs to Manage Development in Hazard Areas 4-40
Zoning Regulations . . . . . .. . ... 4-42
Subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Regulations . . . 4-45
Construction Standards . ... . . . . . . . 4-47
Environmental Protection Regulations . . . . .. 4-48
Development Moratoria and Interim Development
Regulations ...... . . . . . . . . . . . 4-50
Land Acquisition ... . 4-51
Compensatory Regulations and Transfer of
Development Rights . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4-54
Public Facilities Siting and Design . :... 4-56
Comprehensive Planning .. ... .. . . .. . . 4-58
References . . . ;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-60

Chapter 5: Planning for Hurricane Hazard Mitigation.; .:. . . . . 5-1
Mapping Hazard Areas . . 5-1
Assessing the Community's Vulnerability to
Hurricane Damages .. . . . . . . . . .5-7
Severity of Risk . .... 5-7
Magnitude of Risk . ... . . . . . . .:5-9
Community Evacuability . . . . 5-10
Identifying and Ranking Mitigation Problems . . . 5-12
Determining an Acceptable Level of Risk . 5-12
Reviewing Current Mitigation Measures ... . . 5-14
Coverage Problems . 5-14
Enforcement Problems . . . . . . .. . . . .. 5-18
Reviewing Alternative Measures . . 5-19
Implementation and Monitoring . .. .. . 5-22
References. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-24

Chapter 6: Topsail Island Case Study . . 6-1
Mapping Hazard Areas .. . . . . ... . . ... . . 6-4
National Flood Insurance Program Information 6-4
CA1MA Information .. . . . . . . 6-5
Information from Aerial Photographs .. . . . 6-6
Composite Hazard Map .. . .. .;... . . . . . . . 6-6
Vulnerability Assessment . ... 6-7
Severity of Risk . . . . . .. . .. . 6-7
Magnitude of Risk .... 6-7
Existing Development . . . . 8 6
Future Development . . . . . .. . . . .. 6-13

xii

:: , :: X ;; V.oX, 0t; DX tfU

I;~~~~~~~~~ ~~~Page

Reviewing Current Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . 6-14
Topsail Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Surf City . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 617
West Onslow Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-18
Identifying Miitigation Problems . . . . . . . . . . 6-21
Philosophical Pr6blems .. . . . . . . . . 6-21
Administrative Problems . . . . . .6-2-2
References .6-24

Chapter 7: Planning for Reconstructiton . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
The Federal Role in Emergency Response and
Procedures for Obtaining Federal-Disaster
Assistance . . ............... 7-2
The Presidential Declaration . . . .. . . . . . 7-3
Preliminary Damage Assessment . . . . . . . . 7-3
FEMA's Post-disaster Procedures . . . . . . 7-4
The State Role in Emergency Response and Procedures
for Obtaining State Disaster Assistance . . . . 7-15
The Local Role inEimergencyResponse . . . . . . . 7-26
Establishing Post-hurricane-Damage Assessment and
ReconstructionT'ermitt Iing Procedures . . 7-30
Establishing Damage Assessment Procedures . . . 7-30
Establishing Reconstruction Permitting Procedures 7-32
The Sequence of 'Events, or Timetable, for Assess-
ing Damages and Permitting Reconstruction . 7-34
Documents to Prepare in Advance of a Major Storm 7-34
Referencs .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-38

Chapter 8: Conclusions . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 8-1

Appendix A: N. C. Storms of the 20th Century.... .. A-1

Appendix B: Annotated Bibliography .. . . . . . . . . . . . B-

IAppendix C: Sample Construction Standards . . . . . . . C

*Appendix D: Directory of State and'Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . D-1

: : :DI1,

:: iii
:

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Page

2.1: Typical Pattern of Hurricane Winds. . . . . .;. . . .... . . 2-1
2.2: Track of Hurricane Ginger, 1971 . . . . .... ;. 2-2
2.3: Deaths and; Damages from Hurricanes in the United States . . . 2-5
2.4: Model of Wind Speed Distribution for a Moderate Hurricane . 2-6
2.5: Wind Forces on Buildings. . . . ..... . .. 2-7
2.6: Flooding in the Albemarle Sound Region from Hurricanes
Hazel, Connie, Diane, and Ione (1954 - 1955) . . . 2-9
2.7: Percentage Probability that a Hurricane (winds exceeding
73 mph) or a Great Hurricane (winds exceeding 125 mph)
Will Strike a 50-mile Segment of the U. S. Coastline
in Any Given Year ........... . 2-12

3.1: The Four Phases of Disaster-related Activity . . . . 3-1
3.2: The Four Stages of Reconstruction . ... : . . . . '3-8

4.1: N. C. State Building Code's Basic Design Wind Velocities .. . 4-12
4.2: Decision-making Process for E. 0. 11988 . . .:. . . . . . . 4-33

5.1: A Process for Mitigating the Hurricane Hazard 5-2
5.2: Annual Extreme Fastest Wind Speed in Miles per Hour .5-5
5.3: Composite Hazard Overlay .. . . . . 5-6
5.4: Severity of Risk in Hazard Areas . . . '. . . 5-7

6.1:' Location of Topsail Island, North Carolina . . . . . 6-2
6.2: Topsail Island, North Carolina. . :. ... . . . . . . . . . . 6-3
6.3: Index to Hazard Area Maps . on pages following 6-6
6.4: Flood Insurance Zones on Topsail Island � " ' " 6-6
6.5: CAMA AECs on Topsail Island . ." " " 6-6
6.6: Composite Hazard' Maps for Topsail Island. I I " " 6-6

7.1: FEMA Notice of Interest Form.. . 7-6
7.2: FEMA Damage Survey Report Form . . . . . . . . . . 7-7
7.3: FEMA Project Application Form . . . ... . . . . . 7-9
7.4: FEMA Applicant's Agent Designation Form . . . . .... . . . 7-11
7.5: FEMA Final Inspection Report Form . ... 7-12
7.6: FEMA Request for Reimbursement Form .7-14
7.7: Timing of Federal Disaster Assistance Activities . . 7-16
7.8: Format for Requesting State Disaster Assistance . . . . . . 7-18
7.9: State Assistance Flow Chart . . .: . ...... 7-19
7.10: DEM Situation Report Form . . 7-23
7.11: DEM Damage Assessment Report Form . ... . . . . . . . 7-24
7.12: DEM Expenditure/Obligation Report Form; . . ... 7-25
7.13: Damage Assessment Worksheet (Direct Dollar Estimate) .. 7-28
7.14: Damage Assessment Worksheet (Percentage of Value Method) . . . 7-29
7.15: Sequence of Local Activities in Assessing Damages and
Permitting Reconstruction . . . 7-35

xiv

X tt) 0 : \ f X: :tU

LIST OF TABLES

Table No.
Pag-
2.1: Saffir/Simpsop Damage Potential Scale . . ... . 2-
2:.2: Population Growth in Coastal North Carolina .2-15
2.3: Population Projections fopr th~e Eight Oceanfront Counties . . 2-16,

4.1: Tie-down Requirements for Mobile Homes in North Carolina's
"Hurricane Zone" . . .... . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . 4-13
4.2: Minimum Requirements for Regul ar Phase Communities .4-19
4.3: Community Selection Factors:'fo.r the Section 1362 Program. . . 4-22
4.4: Federal Disaster Assistance Programs Aiding Directly in
Repairs and Rconstruction . 4-25

5.1:, Checklist for Reviewing Current Mitigation Measures . . . . . . 5-16

6.1: Definition of Hazard Areas. ..6-7
6.2: Number of Structures in Hazard Areas . . . . . . . .. . . . . 6-9
6.3: Estimates of Damages on Topsail Island from Storms of
Different Frequencies. . . . . . . . . . 6-11
6.4: Local Policies in Effect on topsail Island .. 6-19

7.1: Categories of Public Assistance.,Available from FEMA . . . . . . 7-8
7.2: Local Actions During Three Phaes of Disaster . . . 7-21
7.3: Prototype Damage Assessment Tea.ms .. . . . . 7-27

xv
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ae

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

Page

Homes in Wrightsville Beach after Hurricane Hazelin 1954 . 1-1
Beachfront Development in Gulf Shores, Alabama,
Before and After Hurricane Frederic. . .. .. .. .... . 1-3

Satellite View of Hurricane Frederic . . . . .... .... 2-1
The Richelieu Apartments on Mississippi s Gulf Coast Before
and After Hurricane Camille in 1969. .. . ......... .2-4
House in Nags Head with Roof Torn Off by Storm in 1933 . . . 2-7
Flooding on the Dare Beaches from a Storm in 1933 ... . . . . 2-8
Storm Surge Flooding and Wave Action. .. . . . . .. . 2-10
Damages by Hurricane Hazel in Long Beach and Wrightsville Beach . 2-14

Homes in Carolina Beach after Hurricane Hazel .4-1

Sole Evacuation Route in Topsail Beach Threatened by
Overhead Power Lines .... . .. . .. .. 6-10
Severe Erosion in Topsail Beach Leaves Structures Vulnerable
to Storm Damages ............... ..6-12
Mobile Homes in Surf City and West Onslow Beach ....... 6-13
Development in West Onslow Beach/Poorly Maintained Evacuation Route 6-15
Topsail Island Communities Take Action to Protect Oceanfront Dunes 6-20
Developer Moves Road to Provide Setback for Oceanfront Homes . 6-23

Hotel in Wilmington Beach and House in Carolina Beach Damaged
Beyond Repair by Hurricane Hazel ...... 7-2

~xvi~~I
I

xvi3

30~ S~CHA:PTER',- 1:

INTR ODqTION

The North Carolina. oast faces a:strong threat: of damages. from. hurri-
canes, northeasters,.and other .major sstorms. While there. has been a marked
lull in the number of hurricanes that:havestricken :the North Carolina coas.t
in the past 20 years, the threat still .exists; many say that .North Carolina is
long overdue for a, major storm. At.;the:.same time, development along the coast
has grown by leaps and bounds. .Unlesfs ,-this development is ::wisely located and
built to withstand hurricane, forces, "North Carolina's coastal. communities will
face massive destruction. Local gpove!r.nments, as the primary. protectors of .the
public-health, safety, and gene,r aweilare, have a responsibility to reduce
the risk of property damages and loss: of life attending coastal development.
They also have a responsibility to;.enure that reconstruction following a
major storm can occur quickly and leave the community safer from disaster in
the future. These are the goals of;,hazard mitigation and reconstruction
planning.

The purpose of this report is to assist North. Carolina's coastal communi-
ties in managing development and post-disaster reconstruction to- reduce the.
risk of future. hurriicane ,damages. W.ile the report deals .primarily with
hurricanes, it applies to other .majo.rstoms .as ,well, (:such ,as northeasters ).
The report identifies various tools .andprograms that local governments can
use to .manage development with ,an eye -toward hurricane hazards. It outlines :a
planning process that loalgover.nmets ,an: use (1) to assess the commnityls
vulnerability to damages ,given curgent ,and ,expected development conditions,
and (2). to select appropriate ,, acti'ns:O ensure that n.ew,,elopment- and. post-
disaster reconstruction are ,re'sona .sa fe from :future 'damages. It discusses
procedures for assessing damages$anid :f:-p ermitting;repair,s ,and reconstruction.
It identifies key programs.,:and personel outsiide the ,community.which influence
local hazard mitigation and reco.nsruction eforts.

Hazard mitigatio.n includes .any, ,,a.vity: which reduces thel probability
that a ,disaster will .occur -or minimizes the damage caus.ed by a'disaster.
: Hazard ,mitigation incldes; nt otnlymnaging development, but .also evacuation
planning and other ,,,asures to reduceioss.es :of-life and property. Recon-
struction involves.the full range of epair ,activities inthe ,wake of a
disast~e~r which seek tom return the ,qni~ty Pto a"normal"- level of operations.
.n .carying out these.acti vitie, loal: governmets. face ;.a variety of problems
and iss.ues.

Homes in Wrightsvil:e
Beach after Hurricane
Hazel in 1954

(Courtesy of N. C. Div.
of Archives and History)

1-1
:I

First is public awareness. People who live or own property in a coastal I
community that has not been recently hit by a major storm tend not to know
about the awesome strength of hurricanes; and the damages they cause. Some
people ignore such information because they feel the probability of a storm
striking their community is too low to merit local government action. To the
extent that public awareness 'of a problem dictates the level of local govern-
ment response to that problem, the community may find itself ill-prepared to
withstand a hurricane and rebuild quickly.

This is related to a second problem -- determining what level of protec- I
tion is reasonable. Given a certain probabiliity that disaster will strike
the community, its residents must choosehazard mitigation measures that they
feel provide an adequate level of protection. Some people will3 sense a
greater risk than others and, therefore, press for stronger Iprotections
against storm damages. Some people will sense a lower level of risk. The
role of local government becomes that of a forum where the attitudes of
different groups of people are balanced, a specific level of protection is
agreed upon, and hazard mitigation measures are adopted and enforced. The
measures chosen will be different for different communities, which face
different levels of risk and whose residents hold different attitudes toward I
risk. Each community will end up with its own interpretation of what protec-
tions are reasonable.

A third problem is the lack of time after a hurricane or other disaster I
for making decisions regarding the character of development in the community.
When disaster strikes, there is a strong drive to immediately rebuild the
community as it was before, regardless of whether or not any protections are I
included to keep another disaster from occurring in the future. People want
the community to get back to "normal" as soon as possible. This makes it
difficult for local government to focus on the long-range problem of hazard
mitigation and the implications that reconstruction has for the community's
long-term safety. When combined with the large number of tasks that local
officials and administrators must carry out right after a disaster (damage
assessment, restoring utilities, debris removal, etc.), this sense of imme-
diacy points out the need;for communities to plan for disasters before they
occur. If the community resolves important issues beforehand, and selects
those policies and actions that it feels are reasonable and appropriate to
protect against storm damages, then repairs and reconstruction can proceed
quickly according to prel-determined guidelines.

Sanibel, Florida, is an excellent example of a community that is planning 3
for hurricanes ahead of time. Since Sanibel is on the Gulf coast, its resi-
dents have long been concerned about hurricanes. In the early 1970s, while
preparing its first comprehensive plan, the town found that existing rates of
development were outstripping its ability to evacuate in advance of a storm.
The town took steps to limit the amount of development. In 1981, Sanibel
developed a hurricane evacuation and hazard mitigation plan. The plan stages
evacuation according to different lengths of time before. a storm's predicted
arrival; this increases the number of people that can be safely evacuated.
The plan also sets out specific requirements for the: siting, elevation, and
construction of buildings that new development and post-disaster reconstruc-
tion must follow; these requirements reduce the risk of storm damages. The
plan also outlines procedures: for';Sanibel to follow in assessing damages and

1-2

permitting reconstruction. Even .though Sanibel zhas: not been hit by a hurri-
cane in many years, it has recognized -that a. strong threat .exists and has
taken steps to prepare itself.

Gulf Shores, Alabama, is a community that learned.its lesson the hard
way. For.:years, ;development :.proceeded in this:community-with little regard
-for the hazards present. ;:As Alabama!'s primary coastal resort, Gulf ::Shores
- :built up with a full complement :-o:f ,:single-family .residences, condominiums,
.stores, motels,: restaurants, marinas-,,:piers, and recreational facilities.
Then, in September of 1979, Gulf-Shores :suffered :the fury of Huryof Hurricane
Frederic. Buildings and roads were;-destroyed as the: -storm flooded the island,
battered it with waves, and lashed it-' with:winds of around 100.miles.per hour.
Eighty percent -of ;.the roughly 500:,homes along the 20-mile barrier beach. were
*destroyed (U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, 1981, p.112). The town:,began
rebuilding immediately after :the st:o.rm, but the town board had little interest
in planning the reconstruction to mitigate another disaster in.the future.
Buildings went back up, exact-ly where-they were -before, sometimes at higher
densities, even though:.15-foot.'dunies:had:been washed away. The town board was
swept from office at .the next. elect-ion. The :new town board prepared 'and
adopted a new building code and a,'anew zoning-ordinance which, among other
things, require buildings -to be -well-,-braced against high winds, elevated.well
above expected flood-heights ,and loceated a.relatively safe distance 'from the
shoreline. However, -the -town was .-80percent -rebuilt .before the - new zoning;and
,building regulations -,.were ,-adopted;ithe.new.: regulations -will :have little-effect
until another storm causes ~extensive-t.destruction. While Gulf .Shores now, has a
good set of development controls to :reduce: the risk -of hurricane, damages, it
could have saved -itself agreat-deal0of -anguish and money if- the measures had
3 :been in place before FredericIhit.

:.1Beachfront -Deve Zopment in -Gulf .Shores A -abanma, Before and After
.urr-icane Frederic : (Courtesy of NOAA)

The main theme underlying .this:-report is -the need to plan ahead of time
for the damages that a hurricane,, or other majorstorm can -cause. This
-I -. -planning applies to- ,development -that is,, taking.place now in North Carolina-'s
coastal communities. -It also applies- to reconstruction following a disaster.
I-.-W:ith this theme in mind, the report .-is organized along the following lines:

e. o1-3
I:

Chapter 2 - The Hurricane Hazard -- briefly discussed the hurricane's
destructive forces and the threat of hurricane damages Sin coastal North
Carolina;

Chapter 3 - Mitigating the Hurricane Hazard -- discusses the emergency
management and'development management functions of local government, the
hazard mitigation concept, and the issues surrounding mitigation and
post-disaster reconstruction;

Chapter f --Tools and Programs for Hurricane Hazard Mitigation --
presents current state and federal programs influencing development and
reconstruction in hurricane-prone communities, and presents measures that
local governments can use for managing development to reduce the risk of
storm damages;

Chapter 5 - Planning for Hurricane Hazard Mitigation -- presents steps
that a local government can take to assess its vulnerability to storm
damages and to select and implement appropriate development and recon-
struction policies;

Chapter 6 - Topsail Island Case Study-- applies several of these steps;
to the three communities on Topsail Island to illustrate different
hazard-related development problems and different local policies that
address them;

Chapter 7 - Planning for Reconstruction -- presents federal and state
procedures for assessing damages and applying for disaster relief aid,
discusses the local role in emergency response and recovery, and outlines
steps for local governments to take inl establishing their own damage
assessment and reconstruction permitting procedures.

The information in this report will help local governments in coastal
North Carolina plan better to minimize hurricane damages and to facilitate
post-hurricane reconstruction. It will also help them plan in advance of
actual damages and be well-prepared for when a storm strikes. When a major
hurricane next hits North Carolina, the damage will undoubtedly be massive due
to the way development along the coast has proceeded in the past. By planning
now, local governments can ensure that new development and reconstruction will
not repeat old mistakes.

? ; ; 0V : Qf i ?) : 5S:RS S C: lif i ?; ' t; ;; f tGI

3 ~~~~~~~~~~REFERENCES: ~CHATER-1
I ~ ~U.S. Arm r.Corps of Elngieers~o~eitj
PotdsstrRpr. oiet 19:81. Hfurricane Frederic
Post-disaster~AL U.S.1ob e Ar~my. Corps o;f ,Engineer~s.~'

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~J1

C H PTER 2:

THE HU:RANE HAZARD

A hurricane resembles a large, ha!ow :funnel. Air flows in a count~er-
clockwise direction from high presse areas along the storm's periphery to:a
concentrated center of extr emely; l:,wPressure (see Figure 2.1). While a
hurricanesystem may have a radius f 1,000 ,kilometers, hurricane-force winds
3are usually confined within 100 k:i:,Peters of the storm's center (Simpson and
Riehl, 198:1, p. 8)., The storm's r consiss ce of a cylindrical wall of
clouds, where winds are their st ron st and may reach speeds of 200 miles per
hour. Surrounded by this wall of cl ids is the hurricane:'s "eye," an area of
relative calm several:miles in diater which has little wind or rain.

Figure 2.1: Typical Pattern of

.
Hurricane Winds

3 ~ So~u~e: Simps and Riehl, 1I981,
p. 126.

Atlantic hurricanes begin as Jog-intensity storm systems and form predom-
inantly in the Caribbean Sea and the wlsern Atlantic Ocean, although some
storms which affect the United States coast originate off the west coast of
Africa. Following initial formati storm systems pass through increasingly
intense phases, clasif:i as tropicaldepres s. (winds less than p40 mils
per hour), tropical storms (winds between 40 and 73 miles per hour), anidhur
ri.canes (winds 74 miles per hour or greater). While the hurricane season ru,,ns
from June through November, hurricanes tend to be more frequent in late sm.uer
and early fall. Along the North Carolina coast, over ninety percent of all
recorded hurricanes have occurred in August, Septer, and October Octean

2-1
I:: '

temperatures, and air temperature and humidity near the ocean surface, are
greatest at this time, providing a large source of energy to drive the hurri-
cane storm system.

Hurricanes are typically classified according to the Saffir/Simpson
Damage Potential Scale (see Table 2.1), which categorizes hurricanes according
to their wind speeds, storm surge levels, and atmospheric pressure. This
scale is used by the National Weather Service to give public officials an
estimate of a hurricane's potential for wind and storm surge damage as it
approaches the U.S. coastline. A hurricane is designated on a scale of 1 to 5
based on observations made while the storm is in progress, with a 1 indicating
the weakest storm. The designation changes as new observations are made
during the storm's lifespan as the storm gains or loses strength:.

Hurricanes tend to follow a parabolic path, moving westward across the
Atlantic and Caribbean and curving north or northeast as they move out of the
tropics and into the westerly air currents of higher latitutdes. The forward
movement of the hurricane system is relatively slow, usually around 15 miles
per hour, but exceptions are not unknown. For example, Hurricane Hazel had a
forward speed of between 25 and 35 miles per hour. 'As hurricanes move out of
the tropics, their movement increasingly depends on air flow patterns in the
higher latitudes, which are generally unsteady and unpredictable. A hurricane
moving on a "normal' parabolic path may stop dead in its track, reverse direc-
tion, or take a sharp turn, all in response to changes in atmospheric
currents. Figure 2.2 shows the erratic path of Hurricane Ginger in 1971, from
formation south of Bermuda on September 6 to landfall and exit in North
Carolina on October 1 and 2.

Residents of areas susceptible to hurricanes rely on the National Hurri-
cane Center in Miami, Florida, for predicting the paths and intensities of I
advancing storms. The Center employs reconnaissance aircraft, weather
satellites, radar, observations from ships at sea, and ocean buoy systems to
monitor hurricane movements. It employs sophisticated models to predict the
paths hurricanes will take. However, major forecasting problems still exist.

The average error in predicting a hurricane's path is about 80 kilometers
12 hours before the storm's arrival (Simpson and Riehl, 1981, p. 300). Even

.. 0 ' ' ' Figure 2.2: Track of Hurricane
Ginger, 1971.

. Nuann et al., 98,
.. P, 133.

2-2

Table' 2.1: Saff IrSmpobh Damage, Potent-ial Scale

Scale No. 1-Winds ~of 74 to :95 -1 eis' er hour. Damagel prinlarily~ to 'shrubbery,
frees, foilage,~ and unanichored mobile homes~. Nora, dmg to thrsruue.
Some damag to poorlyconstructe' signfs. And/or: Stom surge 4 to S feet above~
normaI., Low-lyinigcoastal roads inundated, minor pier damakge,~ some small craft
in 'exposed anchorage torn fro moorings.
bery and tree~ foliage; some tesbwndown.~ Major damage to exposed moibil
homes. Extensive damage to poorly ,constructed signs; Softie damage'to roofing
maeial ofbilis; some: windo and door damage. No major damage, to
buildings,. And/or: storm surge '6 tod '8fet above normal. Coastal roads and -low-
lying~ escape rouitesinland 'bcut by rising water 2 to 4 hours' before: arrival of
hurricane center. Consid'erabl5e- da'fin~ge- to' ~piers~. Mar'inas flooded. Small ~~craft ~in
unprotected anchorages -toni fromit" n 6oorings. Ev~acuation, of someb shoreline 'resi.-
dences ard 'lo-lingisland a-esrprd
scale No. 3.-~Winds; of III to' 1301mile's per hour., Foliageg torn from trees; larege
trees~ blo~wn AOw* n.~ Pra-ctic-ally, all poorly- constructed signs' blown downM. :Some
damage "to roofing mtfate-ial of buidizigs;,soncwdbad do*r'damage'. Some
structural damg't ialbidh'~ Mbl homes destroyed' And/or: istorm
surge 9' to- '12' feet above normlf~ ina i f loo-I din atcatadmnysale
'tuctures: near coast destroyed;' larger'sr'c'rs 'ercotdamage'bbatrn
waves' and floatin~g-debris. -LowLlyimg )escape -routes- inland cut 'by risifig water' 3'
to 5 Ours beore, hurricane cete'er'-arrives. Flat terrain' 5 feet or less~ abover'sea
level fl~odedinland' miles, -or miore tvacuation' ofow--lying '-re'sidene wti
severalblocks of shdreliue'possi- 'reijiud.,
Scale No--id f11~o 15mlsper houbr. Shritbs'adte blwhdon
alsigns drown. Ex'tenv dA'ag Ito roofing ~materials windos and'dorsCni-
plete failu'ret of roofs`,on many snialeiees Compi-lete' destruction ~-( mobile
homes., And/or:- stormi surg~e-13" to' 4 'l iee abov norma~l. f Fat trr'ain 10 fectsor
less above 'sea,:le~v.el l"~~6bdQ~irI 'inad asfarasC 6mls.Maodmge'oowr
floors ofstructrsnashoede'o'idg andF btitring'bywave'sand 'floa'ti'ng
debris. Lowlyn 'Iap routes inlAid :zcut by risin ,water ~3 ~to 5~ hours before'
hurricane center arrives. Major 'eoino of ~beafches. Massive evacuatibn of all
lwgrounfd withini-2 minei shore.
denc69 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e hour 'Shrub adte'blWI
down;consid~rale daag 'o rofs oIf bu"Ildins al" sinsdon Very, severe
andextnsve ara'g' o wndos"a~iildoos omplete falurebofroofs6bliymany
dor.Sme coi''pete uildig,' failures,.SmSall buildinigsoetndorbo"

avi.Co~mipletei de'structidn'of'obl h~mes Oriido~'tn surge' greate thaft:
abv0sa lev6e l wti 0'ad'fso~ 'Lo-lyng e~scape routes, inlaned
cu yrising Water 3 to Shus frehriaecnrarve.Massive evactia-
required. ~ ~ ~ ~ ;Wlt 1'60'miles of shore possibly

I ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sourc~'~: Ne'ufmann et al.,~ 1,981i.5 25.

2-3'

when following the predicted path, a hurricane may vacillate around it, I
causing differences in the place of landfall by 100 kilometers or more. Since
most of the hurricane's destructive power is centered in a 100-kilometer 9
radius, the difficulties in landfall prediction appear formidable. There are
cases in which a hurricane has directly approached a coastline, halted, and
then sharply turned away. In contrast, there other situations in which the
storm moved directly inland when it was predicted to skirt the coast. 3

IMPACTS AND COMPONENTS OF A HURRICANE I

The two most drastic effects of hurricanes are fatalities and property
damage. Since the turn of the century, the general trend has been toward a
reduction in the number of deaths from hurricanes but an exponential increase
in the amount of property damage. Figure 2.3 illustrates these trends to
1970.

The main reason for the reduction and stabilization in death rate has I
been a combination of improvements in monitoring and warning systems and local
preparedness and evacuation planning. However, as the population continues to 3
grow in coastal areas beyond the point of safe evacuation within the available
warning time, the potential for substantial loss of human life remains.

I'..

The Richeieu Apartments on Mississippi's Gulf Coast Before and After
Hurricane CamiZZlle in 1969. Over 20 people died here while having a
"Hurricane Party." (courtesy of NOAA) I

While hurricane fatalities have decreased since 1900, the increase in
property damages is staggering. This increase in damages parallels the
increase in population and development in coastal hurricane-prone areas since
World War Two. Property damages stem mainly from riverine flooding, storm
surge flooding, and the waves which ride on top of the surge. They also stem
from erosion beneath structures built too near the water, and from high winds,
-which can affect a very large area.

High Winds i

A hurricane is identified primarily in terms of its high winds and low
atmospheric pressure; by definition, a hurricane is a tropical weather dis-
turbance with winds exceeding 73 miles per hour. Where a hurricane is moving
directly shoreward at 14 to 17 miles per hour, winds can be expected to reach
hurricane force at the open shoreline three to six hours before the eye makes
landfall (Simpson and Riehl, 1981, p. 212). In a hurricane of moderate 3

2-4

Figure 2.3: Deaths and Damages fromz Huirricanies in~ the United& States

U~~~~~~~~~L

2200 5500~~~~~~0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L- 1
InA6000 DAAEDETS-000'

' 1800 - -4500
o .13;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 200 - K 3000
U 0in~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1000~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2500 i
z; Z

800- 2 2000 s

Ui600- : 150
� / 7 / - ~ ~~ .... . . L

I ~~~~~~~> 400<t 51 -4z1000

2M - ~e500,;
4Z~~~~~~~~~~~~~
U~~~~~~~

3 ~~~~~~~Source: Of ficf Cosa Zone~ Management 1976, p.- 11-2.

strength, winds will increase as the hurricane center approaches, reaching I
maximum sustained speeds of about 100 miles per hour at sea level with peak
gusts of over 130 miles per hour as the center moves onshore. In an extreme
hurricane, sustained winds may exceed 165 miles per hour at the coast, with
peak gusts exceeding 200 miles per hour. A hurricane's strongest winds appear
inthe leading right-hand quadrant of the storm system (see Figure 2.4).

As the storm moves inland, friction from the land surface will generally
dissipate the high winds. However, a narrowing zone of major wind damage, 30
to 35 percent of that at the shoreline, "can extend much further inland (Simp-
son and Riehl, 1981, p. 214). Little or no change in wind speed occurs above
100 meters elevation either at the shore or inland. In fact, winds at 100
meters elevation are generally 30 to 50 percent stronger than those recorded
at sea level (Simpson, 1981, p. 213).

Distribution for a
Moderate Hurricane

!0 \. mi k/Source: Simpson and Riehl, 1981,
/ . 128.

In addition to the regular wind pattern around the eye, tornadoes may
sometimes accompany a hurricane. This is not a well-understood phenomenon nor
does it occur in all hurricanes. These tornadoes behave much as the more
common Midwestern variety and can cause considerable damage. Hurricane Agnes,
for example, spawned some 15 tornadoes in Florida, resulting in total property
losses of 4.5 million dollars (Baker, 1978,; p. 25). 3

High winds place severe stresses on buildings (see Figure 2.5) and cause
a major portion of hurricane-related property damages. High winds can tear
the roofs and walls off of buildings. They can overturn mobile homes. They
can fell trees, crops, and powerlines. Theyan c arry debris and slam it
against walls, doors, and windows.

Flooding

The hurricane's storm surge and its excessive precipitation cause massive
coastal and riverine flooding. About 90 percent of hurricane deaths result
from drowning; the majority of property damages result from flooding. 3

2-6
S : S ::: : : ~~

Figure 2.5:: WindiForces on Buildings

Overturning Displacement Pressure on Walls Roof Uplift

Source: Dames and Moore, Inc., 1981, pp. 44-45.

The hurricane system,, with its :high:.winds and low pressure moving across the
open ocean, pushes up an enormous swel~l of water before it. This mas's of
water, called the storm surge, can cause extreme elevations in mean sea level
and leads to coastal flooding. The :height of the surge along the open coast
depends on a numberr of factors which.inc1lude:wind' speed, normal water depth,
storm trajectory, and forw:ard :speepd:=ofithe storm. A hurricane storm. surge
coinciding with the: natura:l: high tide':can. cause even greater damage. As with
the hurricane's winds, the surge :is= highest in the ;leading right quadrant of
the storm system.

The roof of this hoise in Nags
Head was torn off by a- storm
in 1:933.

(Curtesy of N. C. Di. of
Archives and History):

The surge do.es not strike the coas:tas a wall of water like the: tsunami,
but~ instead as a rapid elevation in' sea leveli. In 1954, Hurricane Hazel
brought a 14:.7-foot: increase in mean sea- level at Holden Beach, an 11..7-foot
increase at Southpo'rt, and an::8,8-foot increase at Carolina Beach (N.C. Coun-
cil on' Civil Defense, 1955, pp. I8-19):.. In bays and estuaries, the elevation
of sea level due to the storm surge may exceed that at the open coast by a
factor- of 50 percent or more (Simpson. and Riehl, 198i., p. 242). This is:
primarily due to high. winds funneling. water into nartrow and shallow bays an&d
estuaries.

2-7

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The flooding of coastal areas with seawater not only causes extensive
damage to buildings and their contents but also may render agricultural lands
useless for most crops by contaminating soils with salt water. During the
North Carolina hurricanes of 1954 and 1955 (Hazel, Connie, Diane, and Ione),
most of the land less than 10 feet above sea level suffered from salt water
intrusion and extensive crop damages. About 25 percent of the area of 22
eastern counties was estimated to have been covered by fresh and salt water
during these hurricanes (N.C. Council on Civil Defense, 1955, p. 28). In
addition, flotsam, including boats or other structures lifted by the hurricane
surge and pushed by winds, may be transported inland and become battering
rams, causing additional damage.

Flooding on the Dare Beaches from a storm in 1933.
(Courtesy of N. C. Div. of Archives and History)

The contribution of the hurricane's excessive rainfall to coastal flood-
ing is difficult to separate from the storm surge. However, in inland
streams, this rainfall can cause significant flooding. Rainwater can flood
areas that the storm surge cannot reach.; This freshwater flooding may be as
destructive as the storm surge. Figure 2.6 shows the extent of freshwater
flooding and salt water flooding in Albemarle Sound due to the hurricanes of
1954 and 1955. I

Widely differing levels of precipitation have been reported for different
hurricanes, ranging from practically nothing (in spite of hurricane-force
winds) to over 40 inches for any one place along the storm's path. Hurricane
Frederic, which struck the Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida coasts
in September of 1979, showed a typical rainfall pattern. The National Weather
Service station at Mobile, Alabama, recorded 8.6 inches of rain before its
gauge was blown away. An 11-inch gauge overflowed at the home of the Civil
Defense Direction in Pascagoula, Mississippi. The highest official reported
rainfall for a 24-hour period during Frederic was 9 inches (CU.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1981, p. 59).

A- hurricane may continue to deposit heavy rainfall far inland. Hurricane
Frederic, upon making landfall on the Gulf coast, continued to move north with
declining wind speeds but continuing heavy precipitation. Akron, Ohio,
recorded over 8. inches of rain due to Frederic (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
1981, p. 60). Hurricane Agnes did damage in excess of two billion dollars in
the Northeast in 1972; the vast majority of this damage came from heavy pre-
cipitation and riverine flooding in Pennsylvania, New York, and adjacent
states.

2-8

Figure .2.6.: Flooding *in the. Alemarle~ Sound-R Rgion f rom
Hurricanes Hazeli:Connie, Diane., and lone
(1954-1955)

SALT WATERk FLCQUIMG..
* ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~F'AESIN WATER: ~Ft.OOOIWG. .
PASQUOTA N. WAVE. ACTIONt
C~~dW4 N0 WINO., SAWA~~~~~i. ~TNOf# ARE&NO

S INDICATED.~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~ ~~~~. )

~~~~~~~~~~~MO,-I,- - *---1----

I~~~~~~~~ore-N C.Aouci o~~A4f Cv ;DfiiI 5.5

*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~29

Wave Action

An important component of the storm surge is the wind-driven waves which
ride on top :of the surge and can cause extensive damage. The size of the
waves is tied to the direction and speed of the wind, the water depth, and the
normal direction of wave movements. The height of these waves also depends
partly on the slope of the ocean bottom near the shore. A gently sloping
coast will see minimal wave action; areas where the ocean bottom falls off
rapidly will experience higher waves. High storm waves appear not only on the
ocean, but also on broad sounds where there is enough water depth and fetch
for high winds to push up a wave. The height of storm waves is generally
about 50 percent of the depth of the storm surge; therefore, a ten-foot storm
surge may be accompanied by five-foot waves.

Storm Surge Flooding

the waveskcan reach and flood areas:;not reached;by the surge itself. Second,
waves act as direct battering forces. The force of a wave against a structure I
is a function of thd sie of the wave and the speed ;at whichr it isWa moving.,
Finally, waves may be responsible ;for massive erosion along beaches',-XduneSll,
and wherever: :they reach:. _Inland from an open: co as or a-Batte r thewaves t
become diffracted and their energies :dispersed buildings, (dunes, or ;A
Waves corsuently wave severa l important effects. First,

forested areas;onsqhe d by the surge dimintself. Second,

Erosion

Extreme windsg hghwaters., and he force of avy wave against lerateructure
change normal patterns ofi;wave movement and Sand'transport to cause drastic
shoreline changes, especially on a barrier island. Thelcoastline may ch:ange
shape, ad newinetsmay of the size ofesse tand the enspergy ofed a swhichngle storm.
ast amounts of sand may be responsible for massivey wave scour alfromng beachesan dunes and
carried away by strong longshore currents'.: The geological history of North
Carolina's: coastlnh eattests to therpower of hurricanes and other storms and
their abilityto erode beaches ander opgi n andclose inlets. Inlets tend to form
or widen after a storm surgebuildsup withind sounand and gravity ushes theic
water back outh toesea. In a967 barricane Beulah cut 31 inlets through Padre;
Island, Texa; most of these from beaches graduallyfilledback in (Simpso and I
2-10carried away by strong longshore currents. The geological history of North
Island, Texas; most of these breaches gradually filled back in (Simpson and

: ; : \ f : ; :0 ' Ed 0 f 0 S iI

I �

Riehl, 1981, p.244). lIn addition-"to �severe erosion along the ocean shoreline,
severe erosion can also occur along estuarine :shorelines las waves travel
across broad sounds and batter ,beaches and 'bluffs.

HURRICANES NORTH CAROLINA

Each.summer brings to: thelNorth Carolina coast the potential for hurri-
cane damages. Coastal North .Caroltianms' experiences swith hurricanes date
back to the earliest settlers. ':Since 1899, North Carol.ina:has received direct
hits from 21 hurricanes, eight of them classified as "major" (a 3, 4, or 5) on
the.Saffir/Simpson Scale (Neumann et:al., 1981, p. 28). These are cases where
the center of the .storm passed ldirectly over the North Carolina coast. The .
state.has also suffered ,damages from umerous hurricanes whose centers came
through South Carolina or stayed at sea, passing close to the North Carolina.
coast. Appendix A lists the ;storms tofhurricane strength that have affected
North Carolina in the twentieth century. Theprobability that a:section of
the North Carolina coastline will be' :directly hit by a hurricane in any given
year ranges from six .percent near iington to 11.percent around Cape
. Hatteras -(see Figure 2.-7).

.North Caroli-na has not xperienedmajor damage from a,: hurricane in over
ten :years, when Hurricane: Gi'nger made ilandfal near Morehead City. While no
one was killed, damage was .estimated at ten mi-lion dollars ;and tinclude thou-
sands of acres of corn and soybeans ,in?-the eastern counties (Baker, 1978,
p. 73). In 1979, :Hurricane Davi'd m:de landfall inr Sou6th-Carolina and moved
inland. Most of the storm activity 'as centered ,over thePiedmont, but
coastal North Carolina did not :esca ientirely. Massiveeroson was triggered
from Sunslet Beach.to .Topsail Beach; ity-to :forty :feet-of beach:were Jlost at
Holden Beach and Yaupon Beach. Se.vera!fishing piers were,-damaged, but over-
all property loss was low, and:. no deahs occurred.

,This is slight '.in comparison-tohehurricanes -which devastated North
Carolina in the mid-1950s. Between iAgust .953 -and. September 1'955, seven
hurricanes, four- of them (Hazel, Connie, iDiane, and lone) classified as' imajor
3 ,:,sStorms, rocked the Carolina coast. 'iage ifrom these storms was estimated: to
-be .in excess of 300 million dollars i:955.dollars) (N.C iCouncil on Civil
DeTense, 1955, pp. 2--23):. The in ise .in.development :since this time leaves
coastal North Carollina vulnerable for even greater damage today.

Hurricane Hazel

'An account of Hurricane Hazel :as~ it'passed th-rough the North.Carolina
coast on October 15,:1954, iillustrates the:damages a hurricane can cause in
coastal communities. Hazel made ladfal and,- nd began its ;path of destruction at
Little River, South Carolina. Wind velocities were estimated at 140 miles per
,hour, and the storm surge exceeded 14. feet; Hazel ranks :as a 4 on the Saffir/
Simpson Scale. Every fishing pier was destroyed from Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina, to Cedar:Island, North Carolina -- a distance of 170 miles (Dunn and
'Miller, 1960, p. 251). On Ocean Isle,. North Carolina, all people were evac-
uated, but all buildings were destoyed, as were all 200:buildings at Holden
Beach. At Long Beach, 352 of 357 homes were lost. ;In Carolina Beach, 475

3 ;: : '2-1

Figure 2.7: Percentage Probability that a Hurricane
(winds exceeding 73 mph) or a Great Hurricane
(winds exceeding 125 mph) Will Strike a
50-Mile Segment of the U:. S. Coastline.
in Any Given Year.

; L..__"~ -- :rs3

--, 5 0 4-C~z7 1

: : X l:: f 00 ffE: 00:; ;2:3 ' . I
s "' b. 16 1 2N32 3

. 23 29: :

2-12

buildings were totally destroyed, and.l,365 suffered damages. Over 100,000
cubic yards of sand were deposited on the streets of Carolina Beach due to
flooding, wave action, and high winds, (Dunn and Miller, 1960, p. 252).
Wrightsville Beach was submerged in, five feet of water; 89 homes were lost
there. A total of 19 people diedtat-day. Thenumber could easily have been
much higher.

I H : The total damage caused by Hurriane Hazel was $125,309,000 (N.C. Council
'on Civil Defense, 1955, p. 21). Because Hazel arrived .after harvest time,
; damage to crops was relatively light, but damage to farm buildings exceeded
$50,000,000. Damages to forests to!taled $3,000,000. Damages to the fishing
industry were approximately $1,500,00. Costs of repairs and replacements 'of
public highways were one-half millio.n- dollars. Damage to municipal and county
public facilities exceedeed $80,000,i0. Four thousand homes and 1,000 commer-
cial and industrial buildings were completely destroyed or suffered major
damage. .Minor damage was sustained by: 20,000 dwellings and 4,000 business and
industrial buildings Sand amounted: to -about $60,000,000. Damages to churches
and public: schools were estimated at' on'e million idollars.

Northeasters (Extratropical Winter -Sorms)

In addition to the hurricane threat, North Carolina :xperiences i: the
winter and 'early spring a: progression i :-extatropical cyclones, genera1iy
moving: f:romwest to east across ' the mide latitudes. .Forming outside of the
tropics, these storms-- -called north;asters -- can have impacts on coastal
communities similar to those or hurrtianes.

Unlike hurricanes, -whi ch pass oer a coastal commuty in several -hours,
a northeaster may last in anaArea or sieveral days. Precipitation may or- may
not be associated with these storms.i : heir primary impact comes from the
* ., - force exerted on thewater surface by continuous high winds. This generates
intensive and heightened wave action,,which increases beach erosion. An
extreme northeaster may even generates:a storm surge, causing extensive
flooding and bringing wave actin an. While- the: storm: surge accompanying
'hurricanes generally recedes after ie::or two high tides, -:thesurge from a
.persistant northeaster may last r rur or five::successivehigh tides. The
I hig hest tides :and strongest winidsi a .northeaster occur farther from the
s for's l'owpressure center than: in:huricane; :hus, a':northeaster can cause
widepread damage even though its :dentr is; se:ralhundred miles at sea.

*I A00 ' ' 'ppetndix A lists the most severe extratropical storms that have affected
No'rth Carolina in the twentieth century. -The "'sh Wednesday Storm," which'
: struck fNorth Carolina: in March of 196:2, caused extensive damage in Dare
I Coun-ty. Many of the area's protective -sand dunes:were knocked flat: 'by a --storm
surge :and waves totalling over 20 feet aboave :-mean sea level. Roads were
washed out, and a '200-foot-wide inlet'was cut ::across Hatteras Island at
:' Buxton. Two deaths and approximately 12'millin ,do1lars in damages were
-reported (Baker, 1'978, p. 76).

Hazel ravaged Long Beach,
destroying nearly everything
On the island.
:(Courtesy of N. C. Div. of
. ..: Archives and History)

Homes in Wrightsville Beach
were swept into the sound.

(Courtesy of N. C. Office
of Coastal Management)

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~The storm surge and waves
left boats high and dry.I
(Courtesy of N. C. Office
of' Coastal Management)3

This elevated home in
Wrightsvi-lle Beach fared
well compared to
adjacent homes. .i

(Courtesy of N. C. Office
of Coastal Management) . ?.i

2-14

Table 2.2: Population Growth~Ifn' Coastal North Carolina (1950-1980)

-Oceanfront Town~ 1980 1970 1960 1950

,Beauf-ort 40,-385 35,980 36~,014 37,134
I Bert ie 40,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i&!9118 20,528 24,350 26,439
Tr-;1i~g i ick 351,777 24,223 .20,278 19,238
::CasweTI Beach 11028 N4A NA
oloden Bah232 136 NA NA
-Long teach 1,844 493 102 NA
-Oceaa Isle 1438 78 5NA
-Sunset Beach ~304 108 NA NA
I ~ ~~~~~~Camden --820 5,453 ',9 ,2
-_aF6Fe ~401_7 94 31,603 .27.,438 23,05.9
-Atlantic beach 941 300 76 ~ 49
-Emetald Isle 85 . 122 ~ 14 NA
-pine Knoll Shores .6662 NA NA
Chowan 1247 1,6 1729 1,4
~~~'Craven ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-763 62~,554 '58,773 48,P823
(Thi u ck 11~ ~[ ,76 6616201
Dar 143,3S77 6,995 ~5,935 5,405
-:Kil -1 Devil Hil a L79 6 357 268 NA
-Nags Head 1020 414 ~ NA NA
-Southern Shores 39 75 A NA
I ~ ~~~~~Gates -,-8 785 '85214 9, 254 19,555
Ufr~ e-Y :~d 12311,3618 ~23,529 .22,7-18 21,~453
5,'873 .~~~557 5,65 b4.79
-ianover .70.~47 ~82,j996 7174 63272
I ~ ~~~~~~~~~-Cafiiin Beach 2;00 1,-663 1,192108
--Kure "Beach '613914 293 228
-Wfigl-itsville Bleac h 2,','910 1,'701 7.23 71 1
Onslow i41-2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,'~~784 103,1~126 86U,"208 i42, 047
* a-m-fico 1037 947 9,;850 9,s.99 3
T otas nk Bec83_26 26,~824 25, 630 2,4
CityNAA

3,988 ~~~~~~~~3,~~~~806~~' 4520 5,.048
I as in on ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~14,801 1408 1488 1,8

Total ~~614,792 .50.9,457 47 3,577 :407,461.
/0Change . 1 8 6

Oceanront: Counties* :L3 4L5,',38O 127 9,639 242,475 184,124
I~~~~~~~7 % Change2415 32%

Nort-h Carolina 5,~880,000 5,8O0 ,6,0 ,6,0
%'Change . 1%1%12%

3 ~~~~~*Currituck, 'Dare, :Hyde, Carteret, Ons-low, Pender,. New Hanover, Brunswick

'2415

Trends in Coastal Development,

Hurricane Hazel was the most damaging hurricane to strike the North
Carolina coast to date, but it is far from the worst possible scenario.
Population growth along the North Carolina coast since Hurricane Hazel and the
Ash Wednesday storm has been substantial. The towns of Wriglltsville Beach,
Long Beach, and Ocean Isle have collectively grown from a population of 830 in
1960 to 5,192 in 1980. A hurricane of Hazel's magnitude passing along the
same path today as in 1954 would affect a much greater population and could be
expected to cause much greater damage. The same is true for a northeaster
similar to the Ash Wednesday storm.

Since 1950, the population in the 20 coastal counties has grown by 51
percent (see Table 2.2), from 407,461 to 614,792. The oceanfront counties
(Currituck, Dare, Hyde, Carteret, Onslow, FPender, New Hanover, and Brunswick)
have grown 88 percent, from a combined population of 184,124 in 1950 to
345,380 in 1980; furthermore, this .rate of growth is expected to continue or
increase (see Table 2.3).

Table 2.3: Population Projections for the Eight Oceanfront Counties I

County 19801 20002

Brunswick 35,777 85,002
Carteret 40,794 67,268
Currituck 11,089 35,164
Dare 13,377 51,378
Hyde 5,873 6,966
New Hanover 103,471 157,021
Onslow 112,784 120,680
Pender 22,215 33,441

1U.S. Bureau of the Census, April 1982.
2N.C. 2000 - Office of :State Budget and Management Projections.

In addition to these increases in, year-round population, coastal communi-
ties in North Carolina have experienced a surge in second-home development and
tourist populations over the past twenty years. These increases swell the
potential for:hurricane damages and loss of life even further. This concen-
tration of people and development in hurricane-prone communities since the
last time a major hurricane hit North Carolina points toward the need for
local officials to address the hurricane threat and reassess the policies and
measures that are now in place to reduce the risk of storm damages.

2-16

: f 0 : A::: E : : 0 : ; ; : f: :

I REFERENCES~~~~~~~~~: CHAPTER, 2

-Baker, :Simon. 19:78. Storms, ~People,~~and~ Property in Coastal:North Carolina.
,Raleigh, NC: UNC e rn CoEeePorm(ulcto No.UCS-81)

Dames and Moore, Inc. 191.Design;, nd ~Construc~tion Manual for Resident~ial
Buildings in Coast~al~High -Hazad" Aras." 'Washintn C:Fdera mr
gency Management Agency-(Rpo o. F.IA-7).

Dunn, Gordon and-BannerMiller. l9,6~ Atlantic Hurricanes-. ,Ba~ton Rouge, LA:
Lou~isiana State Uiversilty Pes.

Neumann, Charles, eorjge:Coy, Edwlard Cao4nd,.Brian jarvinen.. 1981. Troca
Cyclones of the North Atlantic Oc-Qean, 1871-180 Aseville, N:Ntoa

Climatic Center.
N. C. Council of, Civil Defense. '1955. ogra"eHurcn Rhb ltton
Project.Raleigh,, NC: ND.Cunio fCi Dfnse

OQf fice of Coastal ~z,;one Managgment. 41L9J6. .,Na~tural. Ha~zard Man4;agement in-Coastal
*Areas. Washington, DC: Naoa 0eicani AmospheYaric Aministto-
~OCZM.

* Simpson, Rob~ert and Hebe-rt ~Riehl. 4t981. TheJ HurcaeandIsImat
,BatonRouge, ;LA.,~uiin ;tat :nIvest~yes

U.S Arm CopvfEgn s--&Galveston- ~;Dst~rict. ;19-75.ofiingel9nes fo~r
Identifying Coastl n ,igh ja~d.Zns qave~oT:US rmy: Corps
*o,&f -Engineers.

U..S.~ Army Corps .of gng~i eers,-rMobjle, ~,Dlistrit 19.1.-Hr.ricane: Frederic
I ~~~~Post-~disaster Report. ~Mobie, ~AL US.:Arm Cop fngers

CHAfPTER 3:

* MITIGATING, TH HUI.~gRRICANE HAZARD.

Community activities regarding,,.naOtu~ral,.disasters fall into four basic.~
phases:: mitigation,- preparedness, rsp e, and, recovery. These, four: phases.
are related; while they often overlap, they roughly. follow., each other in- a
cycle from one disaster to the nex�t, (eeF

Recovery Mitigation

R: \ Kesponse :Preparne Figuei 3.1: The For: Phases- of
I Disaster-related-Activity.

Disaster Event

Mitigation involves, activities. which reduce the �probability that a dis-
asterwill occr and minimize-, the .diAmgg ausedbya disaster. Such.activi-
fties ca.anefrom the, establishment: o,i ,.a na~tionwide ',hurr~icane ,tracking system.~
to. the-adoption of loal eland usere4osw hdiscouge. resientia1
construction in fl Iood-prone, areas- Mitlgationzact ivitiesr 'no t geared to a
secific disaster; theyrst from~ loeig te-m oern ~for.,avoiding, thel
damage q4 of future na tura, disasters.

Preparedness,,activities immediately preed a paticular disaster'.
While mitigation helps a community avoid certain damages, preparedness:. helps,
a community cope. with unavoidahle. andqimediate':threats to� life, an ; property
and. ,enhances disasterl�,. response operations,. Preparedness involves a good. deal
of: planing (such. as , elopmentof. eacutin and emergency.: operations'
plans ) .that is �not tailored to a specific impending. disaster. In. this ,way,
it overlaps �with mitigation.. Preparedi.ss'alsoj involves more immediate
steps;, such, as issu inghurricane warnings, evacuating -people. from flood-
prone areas, :and operating temporary, disasters shelters..

Response activities immediately follow a particular disaster. These
include search and rescue operations, providing temporary housing and emer-
gency medical care, temporarily shutting down damaged utilities, and assess-
ing damages. Response activities assist those injured by the disaster, re-
duce the probability of "secondary" damages (such as from broken electrical
lines), and set the community on the road to recovery.

Recovery involves the full range of rehabilitation and reconstruction
activities which seek to return the community to "normal." These include
financial assistance to cover property damages, economic recovery plans,
reassessment of the community's land development policies, and the repair,
reconstruction, and relocation of damaged structures and utility systems.
In returning all systems in the community to pre-disaster or improved oper-
ating levels, recovery activities may or may not be consistent with a commu-
nity's pre-disaster development plans and may or may not include mitigation
measures which protect the community against future disasters. Recovery
activities may continue for years after a particular disaster. Depending
on the extent of damage and other factors, a community might never achieve
full recovery.

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS
OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Operating throughout this four-phase cycle of activities are two distinct
government functions: emergency management and development management. Both
are part of a community's comprehensive planning process, though they typi-
cally operate independently of one another.

Emergency management deals primarily with activities during the pre-
paredness and response phases which immediately precede and follow a specific
disaster. Its focus is the improvement of operations in the face of dis-
aster by providing a framework in which decisions can be made on-the-spot
and carried out smoothly and quickly as the community faces massive disrup-
tion.

Development management primarily deals with activities during the miti-
gation and recovery phases, where the community deals with longer-term, more
general concerns. Its focus is the improvement of conditions in the face of
disaster by providing a set of guidelines for development which maintains or
improves the economic well-being of the community, protects the lives and
property of its residents, and preserves the integrity of its natural envi-
ronment. -

Emergency management and development management require somewhat differ-
ent skills. The preparedness and response phases require more tactical
skills (National Governors' Association, 1978, pp. 113-114), where different
actors follow pre-designated procedures to ensure smooth operations during an
emergency. Mitigation and recovery require more strategic skills, where the
community sets long-range objectives and designs specific policies and other
measures to achieve them. While emergency management and development manage-
ment each involve tactical and strategic skills, tactical skills predominate
in the emergency management field and strategic skills predominate in the
development management field.

3-2

Unfortunately, most- communities:do- not coordinate their emergency
management activities :with their development management activities..: Imme-,
diately after a natural disaster, long-term concerns are usually dominated
by short-term concerns in the- commun,ty's understandable desire to return ,to
"normal" (the pre-disaster state). as` qui�ckly as possible. Emergency manage-
ment has traditionally focused- on these: short-term concerns.: warning people
of an approaching. disaster, evacuat ing them from lendangered-areas, assessing.
thedamages, and quickly rebuildingffhe.community. Until recently, the emer-
gency management field afforded litt:-le:,(if any) attention -to long -term-con-
cerns by integrating post-disas-terreconstruction into the community's pre-
disaster development plans or by instituting measures :to mitigate the effects
of future disasters. Development:management influences the.location, charac-
ter, and timing of land development-:iai: community. in accordance with a set
of short-term and, long-termcommunity!objectives:. It therefore has an obvious
stake in the redevelopment-patterns--wh ich .ur after a natural ,disaster. It
also offers a.variety of tools (landi:use ~- :ilations, building codes, etc.)
for-mitigating the effeets:of future,natural;disasters.

Since a community's, planning.personnel. (or "development managers'). and
emergency operations personnel (or -"emergency,:managers")- have different
approaches and primary missions, they--usually do, not work together to mini-
mize the risk of disaster- in .the commu ity. (This.has .tended to be. the case
among state-and federal: agencies- as:ell.) ; However, planners :and .emergency
managers can offer valuable. guidancevtoi each other::in, determining howithe.
community can best: avoid the loss:of ,ife andproperty. In managing develop-.
ment with an eye toward zhazard mitig aion, planners need :to bring emergency
operations personnel *into -the- planigp-rocess. Emergency :operations -pepr-
sonnel can make development~ manage ment-imor-eefective -by=,pointing.out prob-
lems or problem-solving app-roaches,.that-,planners may have overlooked. Pro-
per- development management *canikewwe- make-emergency-:operations easier;
when ther-e:is less: damage in-:the community, -emergencymanagers-must overcome:
less disruption dand: handlefewer-.cases of: death and-property oss.

THE TINCREASING EMPHASiS- ON HAZARD MITIGATION

Reducing- the risk of-damages, froina;tural- disasters has always been a
part- of, local plani.ng-gand -poi -: y -Hazard,-mitigation falls under the
-local: government's responsibility- to!ip,:rotect -the public, health,-, safety, and:
general welfare. In turn, many localrad state governments. throughout the'
United -Statses-have--respondedi to nat-ur-al,:hazards, especially flooding and:high
winds,d- by delineating- hazardous:areas anLd-by-instituting land.use controls,
construction standards, and public investmentpoicies-,governing development
within those areas.

Most local mitigation efforts to:-date, have-usedthe local,powers. of
zoning: and subdivision regulationA ,to� control:t-he character :of development in- -
flood-"prone -lands. - For example, in,196;9,-9in response to Hurricane Camille,
Jackson County, Mississippi, institute -a floodplain. district which restricts
land-to open space:uses-or uses elevated-t:o 12:5 feet above mean sea level.
In::1957, Warwick-, Rhode'Island, instituted a two-district zoning ordinance,
for hurricane-prone areas-. In areas of "extreme-danger," the ordinance per-
mits-only open space uses; in -areas of '"lesser danger," the ordinancexre-
quires the first floor of a building designed- for overnight occupation to be

3-3

15 feet above mean sea level. In 1969, Edenton, North Carolina, insti-
tuted a floodplain zone, limiting uses to agriculture and single-family
residences. (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1972, vol. 2, appx. C.)

Building codes have long been used by local and state governments to
reduce the risk of damages from flooding and high winds by setting standards
for flood-proofing, elevation, and wind resistance. For example, in 1967,
Corpus Christi, Texas, adopted a building code requiring all structures to
have a minimum floor elevation of seven feet above mean sea level. In 1955,
Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, adopted a code requiring buildings to be
elevated on piles eight feet above mean high water; the code also governs
the depth, spacing, size, tying, and bracing of piles. (U.S. Water Resources
Council, 1972, vol. 2, appx. C.) Wind-resistance standards appear in most
state and local building codes, establishing some "design wind speed" which
a structure must be able to withstand. The North Carolina State Building
Code establishes "basic desIign wind velocities'! of llO to 120 miles per hour
for the state's oceanfront counties. These velocities were adopted in re-
sponse to the North Carolina coast's exposure to and experience with hurri-
canes.

Local governments also have used a variety of other ordinances to reduce
the risk of damages from hurricanes and other coastal hazards. Such ordi-
nances include shoreline setbacks, standards for the construction of sea-
walls and other erosion protection works, and requirements for preserving
key natural environments. While mitigating the hurricane hazard is not
always the primary goal of these ordinances, they do provide some protec-
tion. Shoreline setbacks can distance buildings from erosion by waves and
currents. Seawall standards can keep erosion protection works from becoming
projectiles during a major storm or accelerating the erosion of adjacent
properties. Environmental protection ordinances can preserve frontal dunes,
wetlands, and other landforms that provide the community with a degree of
natural protection from hurricane forces. 3

Despite the policies mentioned above, local government efforts to miti-
gate the hurricane hazard have, overall, been piecemeal and uncoordinated.
Local governments have often lacked the authority or resources to deal with
different aspects of the hurricane threat and have relied on state and
federal programs to mitigate the hazard. At the same time, economic and
political forces, state and federal aid for public works construction, and
federal disaster relief programs have often led local governments to ignore
the hurricane threat and allow (or encourage) development to occur unimpeded
in hazardous areas. IThe tenure of local government officials is usually
shorter than the amount of time between hurricanes and other major storms
which strike the community; therefore, local officials often perceive hurri-
canes as being much less of a threat to the community than they actually are.

As a result, coastal development continues at a pace that exposes ever-
increasing numbers of people and properties to the forces of hurricanes.
Property losses due to hurricanes continue to climb despite the establishment
of hurricane warning systems, evacuation plans, and seawalls. All of this
points to the need for a coordinated local effort to control the location
and quality of development in coastal hazard areas. Many of North Carolina's
coastal communities have made concerted efforts to reduce the risk of hurri-
cane damages in the past (largely in response to the hurricanes of the 1950s

3-4

: :~~~~~~~~

and 19,60s),and cotie tod otdy(agl nrsos o the-, Natipnal
I ~ ~~Floo~d-Insuirance,.Programl and ~the S~tat!~ CoaLstalArepfatManage,~nt,,Ac~t)i.
The National Floo~dInsurance_,Program was..the, first, broad-scale, nat~ion7-
3 ~~~~wide program to mitigate natural: disasters, by guiding~the location and
quality of develo.pmen~t in. ha4,arddouS,,a _ap., With the" Nat~ional Flood, Insurance,
Act of 196 (Public aw 90-448) ~Q~g~essestablished the prqgram. to reduce,
ever-increasing ann~ual flood losses., boirough more car~eful1 planning Of flood-
rone areas an, to pr~ovde.p propert yo,;poers in, ara ith..affor ab e.
'insurance against. flood, damges:. Theprgawihs adinsedbr
th ,eeral Emergency, ManagemenxtAgeqys Feeral ,Insurance.Administration
(FIA)~, of fers. fl1o~od insurance to~propry,- owers, in designated flood hazard
areas. In return, lcladstat VQenet nc ad..noccmrhn
sive flopan Iaa~n mesue t rtct live andnecosrton
3 f~~~~~~~od looin mnge.n ,mau~s r
from future f lo'These floodplan ma~e~t mieasurjes involve land use
controls andaconstructio stnazs as 1el as other technius, appli3ed
within flood-prone sctosf a. coinm~ui.Te rga' anproei
to reduce, the,'amount of: developed propert expsd toflooding; It reflects
I ~ ~~~the realization,-that "non-- struct-uralll."~mea5,4,res, are~ Just as, important as.
(and ~perap more effective. than), 'struc~tural. measue in mitigating flood:
damages. Even though. many. critics cla-m ~that ;,the. National FlodIsuac
I ~ ~~~~Prgram, .has actuall acelrte~ oc11f ntdevlpm t iths aso siu
late the aopti on, oflocal anStte~ma~s to edce the ik fflo
damages.

The a F paSt fe ye~ars av ;qo ~~I1t, increae dattention to mitigating,
hurricane, hzrsiferadyelopm.~nt assistance -and,,disaster ~assis-tance
programs'. Until: the ate 193C0s, fed~4porm paid -little, heed ,to.th
recu przasentpie fioo1,ro.,aes Feeal developmetass
tance,.programs f unded the_. con s '111,t 6f.,f facilt Ps, (waer lines, sewer,
3 urrent hazards ood-prone areas. Federal~~~~~~~~~ta tx ~tl an
lines. road, public, buildings et.)n, flr
disse a~istance proga~ provjd*A''.~ d fo 'tom ies rbul ol
to tesame condition t~ha ,ezistedx b ef,,e t,~he' di s ast e rwith,-no measures
taken fOr futur potection. Rec~enta~~itgiea4lgs.~~e4rc
tiies~ have, begun to, change~,, the~Se., ;f~.4s.

In 1977,~ President Carter isqpue4 .,Executive .Order 11988--Floodplain.
Mai agFment-.- calling, for, all f edra agpce oaoid direc6tlIy and indirectly
I s~~Ippprting .future unW4~e deeojn im fodpai _ The, order, al$-oQ ad-
caepotecting foopas Io tha3_aualvlus4nohr re
i ssu~e. ..during' the. Carter, adminis~tratrioix-requie l ep~laece
o~considr"o-trcua"
(espeiallyt~he AryCrsof Engineersko
I ~ ~~~altraie in, plannn flo3 prt 4cio proeplepcts.

In 19800,~ the primary federal agenciesv whic prov~ide construction ~fund
and disaster rel ie.f -aid sgdano nstutural;
Flood1 Damage' Redu;E $!~ Te',gp.ctiJon, Meaue "~n~mto t floddamage.~
uq ~ ~ ~~~~~~n .plpst-i". aste _.r~c~overy activtis
The ag;r~eemepnt states, as ,a, connuon policyl tha poqStdisaster relief activei+
ties should Prvn ftre~ losses. and help disastero victims relocate out of..
high' hazard areas rather".tihanr,, ebuild- the r.comuy to it prior, more
vulnerable state The agreteemen also6 en~couqrages ,pre7disater, planning to
reduce future losses,, with special~ attentint lo-roigat~n.a~~
"pno-structural" measures (sluch as development ,regulations ,and. relocation)

3-5

The Interagency Agreement also' establishes "Interagency Regional Hazard
Mitigation Teams" for each of the ten federal regions to recommend specific
mitigation measures in disaster-stricken communities. As part of the com-
munity recovery effort, the team conducts an on-site analysis of mitigation
opportunities and completes a '"Hazard Mitigation Report" which recommends
detailed mitigation measures and outlines how the disaster assistance avail-
able from each federal agency should be coordinated to carry them out.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has recently begun to more
vigorously pursue two. elementst of the National Flood Insurance Program which
provide for the purchase of damaged properties and the relocation of struc-
tures out of flood-prone areas. The "constructive total loss" approach of
settling flood insurance claims occurs when a property is not totally de-
stroyed but has lost all economic value. The process begins when the commu-
nity takes such action as prohibiting the reconstruction of damaged buildings
in areas with a high probability of future flooding. The Federal Insurance
Administration can then declare a damaged property a "constructive total -
loss" and pay the property owner his/her full insurance claim. The owner
can then rebuild on a site outside the flood hazard area and dedicate the
original site to the community for use as open space. Section 1362 of the
National Flood Insurance Act authorizes the Federal Insurance Administration
to purchase insured properties that have been seriously damaged by flooding
and to convey ownership to local'and state agencies. The local government
must guarantee that the site will remain dedicated to open space uses.

Another recent policy change within FEMA should stimulate local and
state governments to plan for reducing hurricane damages before a disaster
occurs. In the past, FEMA would provide the community with 100 percent of
the funds needed to rebuild damaged public facilities. It is now standard
practice for FEMA to require the local and state governments to provide 25 I
percent of the funds. This shifts some of the burden of reconstruction back
to the community. Even though the 25 percent match can come from funds from
other federal and state aid programs, using them for reconstruction would
deny the community the use of these funds for other important purposes. If
the community fails to consider hurricane hazards in the location and design
of public buildings and utility systems, it could face a serious fiscal
drain after a hurricane strikes. .. .

Concern for mitigating hurricane hazards in North Carolina has shown a
marked increase recently within the state government. After the hurricanes
of the 1950s and early 1960s, there was a flurry of concern and activity in
North Carolina for reducing potential hurricane damages; witness the long-
time inclusion of high wind-resistance standards in the N. C. State Building
Code. However,' state government activities in the past ten years (a period
of little hurricane activity) have spurred a better understanding of coastal
hazards and the formulation of more coordinated and comprehensive means of
dealing with them. These activities include those of the Coastal Resources
Commission and Office of Coastal Management (Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development) and those of the Division of Emergency Management
(Department of Crime Control and Public Safety).

the overall mission of the Coastal Resources Commission and the Office
of Coastal Management, as outlined in the Coastal Area Management Act of
1974 (CAMA), is to promote the wise development of the state's coastal 1

3-6

1~ resources..-:- The CAMA :program has twqo key ements:, the .dpvelopment and
adoption of land use"plan Iy, local''governments in. the 20, coastal.counties,
and the regulation of '-developmentw~ithin designated areas of environmental
concern (AE~Cs). The local land`<use plans identify localdt
and way tto fulf ill them;, many, of, theocal plans specifically. address the,,..
need, to mitigate coastal hazards.. f$AE permt system,' administered
jointly by. the local governments.andjthe ,state, cons iders natural, hazards
in the' designation oflspeacific AECs,juch as "ocean. erdbe "ne
-ill seeif~ ' A~~--~- ;:~h: s, h as )dib~-le,: areas "ne
hazard areas, and oceanfront' "fLd Ihazard areas"!. In. addition,: the -
Coastal Resources Commisp ionsconveneAstdisaster Task Force
3 in. 1981 to examinelways 'that coastalco6mmunities can avoid future hurricane.
damages and to formulate, policies,',-fo`m",ting- _this goal.

The Division of Emergency. Managemtis responilfor coordinating,.
I` disaster 'preparedness, and ,responseactivities .Og~out Noth hCarlina.
One of its major activities since: th-.'llate 1970s has been to develop hurri-
* cane evacuation plans to safeguard :,th: lives -of icoastal residents and visi-.
tors. The adoption of local evacuations plans has, led-.to :dobts about the
ability of some communities to 'safe ,,evacuqte and: to, avoid,future,.losses., of
life and property. Thes~e doubts aris~ei.from a combination of four:factors:
the- lack of public awarenessp , theqa pace 'of development in the commu-
nity, the. traffic.d capacity of evacuaan,,:r , an _thd.ampun.,' of w'arning9.
time :available. While the vaction;p.ann ip med atreducingt
~~lk :~~r:.. P _g ~lis aim~ a~~~~n the lqs s
Of* olives, it has created, a greater awar- of. the total threat:: hurricanes.
if present to life and.':7property. Th M6,Divjion of Emergency Management is also
working to have each'- county in, the s'prePare a..local disaster relief and,
assistance plan. to ti pous f emegeiinsc
shelter: operations., .damage, asseqq-t and' other ddis.,sastr eresppnse, ac tii-.
ties.

Local governments "~act ion, in ,resp~p~.q to~ local." exeiec ith coastal,
storms and 'development and ini rqspqflsp sta a ahard, mitiga-'
tion,'progr.ams,isl esp ecially.o', Ti p tin a tfgderah
~~"mprtat. The dFemphasis on, mi~iga'g�ng the:
hurricane, hazard through managing, costl development, is, growing. at. all
leves of na, deral,. A variety -o opportuni-
ties and .techniques\cur rently exi:st irfo,. local gj rmns6 in North' Carolina
to,..reduce,, the risk of f huriAn g Hazar--d.mitigationAis an,.
important respon sibi yf c gq n twcsould guarantees4the
safeBloaction: and desig iof -:cas8tal"'d~ ;�''

HAZARDn M TIGTONTN TO -THEISSUES

Mitigation and, N Neew Developm

Hazard bmitigation, shouldd'tbedo agudost, for-local decisions regarding.
newl: development, be it privateJ 'evel4pjenp or public facilties. As .the-
community grows, it' must protect Itsel frofuturedisasters. It must,
encourage designing..development to. withstanddihhurric'ne" forces, encourage-
locat ;'ing.'development'i away from' high haz~d z ones , or~. pursue s ome�: comb inat ionger
3 off the two.

1 3-.37

A community can use the variety of tools discussed in the next chapter
to guarantee that new development is relatively safe from hurricanes. Most
of these tools (such as zoning regulations and building codes) are tradi-
tional and common components of local government decision-making. Others
are necessarily non-traditional to deal with the unique characteristics of
hurricanes and the unique conditions which exist in each community.

In using these tools, a local government will always face a conflict in
community values; certain issues will arise, just as they do in all other
local government decisions. Local officials will have to walk the fine line
between the "reasonable"'protection of the public health, safety, and general,
welfare and the "unreasonable" infringement of private property rights and
individual risk-taking. Some people in the community will claim that.the
protections adopted by the local government are prohibitively costly. None-
theless, coastal communities must protect themselves from future disasters
and the psychological and economic burdens they bring. Each community can
find a feasible approach, suited to local conditions, for reducing the risk
of future hurricane damages.

Mitigation and Post-disaster Reconstruction

According to well-documented research, the reconstruction process occurs
in four periods which overlap yet follow each other in sequence aftera
disaster strikes (Haas et al., 1979, pp. xxvii-xxviii). Figure 3.2 shows
the sequence and time frame within which these four periods operate; note
that each period overlaps with the next and that they cover both the re-
sponse and recovery phases presented in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.2: The Four Stages of Reconstruction I

Activity: Response Recovery
Phase: I
PERIODS: EMERGENCY RESTORATION RECONSTRUCTION. RECONSTRUCTION RECONSTRUCTII
Major construction
CAPITAL Damaged or Patched Rebuilt (commemorationI
STOCK: destroyed ;replacement) bettermentdevelopment)
NORMAL Ceased or Return and Return at predisaster Improved and
ACTIVITIES: changed function levels or greater developed

Maximal

/, /

COPING
ACTIVITY

l / ,: : A
Minnimal 1 |. ; I
DEast .5 :1 2 3 4 5 10 20 30 40 50 100 200 300 400 500
:Evnt: TIME IN WEEKS FOLLOWING DISASTER
SAMPLE: Completion of search Restoration of Attain predisaster Completetion
INDICATORS: and rescue major urban services level of capital of major
End of emergency Return of Refugees stock and construction
shelter or feeding ubbactivites projects
Clearing rubble
from main arteries

Adapted from Haas et al., 1977, p. 4.
3-8

The emergency period. covers !t-he-Yfirst days or: weeks after .the disaster,
when social and economic.activities~!~are most seriousoly disrupted and- atten-
tion focuses on -the- dead, injured,-,i issing, and homeless. *The restoration
period covers the first weeks or,:months-after -the-disaster, twhen attention
focuses on debris removal.,and -the-,iapid repair of,,damaged utilities, housing,
and commercial structures. : The re-t,-o,rat.ion period marks the transition-from
:,the response.phase to -the recoveryyphase. The replacement reconstruction
period (also known: as .Reconstructioni I,) concentrates- on-i reconstructing,. to
predisaster levels or greater, those-ibuildings :and utilities which- were
damaged beyond repair.: ,This. stage,. begins. several.weeks after- the disaster
and may last for several, years. -:The<;'replacement reconstruction period:ends
when population, employment, :.and ,serrvicesl reacht pre-disaster levels. This
may be& followed. by a commemorative, ;betterment,I and.developmental -recon-
struction period (or Reconstruct'ion-iil).which .occurs. several years after the
d-isaster to memorialize the:disaster,:to .mark the community!s post-disaster
improvement, and/or to enhance: futu-re- growth.

The actual.amount of time.it,-takes for a -community.to recover from a
natural disaster may :be considerabnly-longer or- shorter -than that-.shown :in
Figure 3.2. Some communities :never recover fully-from a'disaster. The key
factors. influencing the, rate pof ,recper y-are,-,,(in rough, order -of their impor-
tance) the extent -of ~damages., pred4ixsaster tr ends -of growth :or decline, the
level of organization:and ldeadershpiin. Ciomunity deceision-making, -and: the
resources (financial, -material, 9andih uman) -:availahle for. reconstruction.

The extent: of damages,, hasithesng,, gest :impact -ona-: cmmunity's, -ability
to :;recover from disaster ,(aaset 'al,,,,1977,a ; to,,wn ,that,.o s;es.n-sixty
percent of its capital, sto'ck. ,homesfndbusinesses)-:will tend .to recover.more
slowly than a town-that:-loses,:tenp, eent. '::Prpedisaster'-trends :of growth or
.decline .in a community tend, to;.be.:aeelerated ::by :a d,.isaster;:. .rapidly-gr.owing
areas recover more. quickly than_.decining :aras&:(Haas :-et:,al.,.:1977, p. 1:9).
This acceleration- of pa:st trends ,?tv wltal,so cur-iamong,,different sections of
. the samecommunity; aferthe-toadinXenia -Ohio ,: -stronger. ,neighborhoods
I.rebuilt at. a fast :pace:while ,'decltningneighborhoods did-.not.. rebuild: at all .
C(Francaviglia, 1978,- p. -20). , Leada ,hip,-and .:organization are::important in
that they reduce uncertainty af ter adisaster:, andexpedite .the decisions
necfor resaryfor recery asI .het .al. , -,,l977,, pp.- 19-20).. Shortages; of finan-
ci: -al ,, mat erial,,-and . humanpresouresll' pundubtedly: amer. a: community's
.recovery efforts; -.however, .the avaiabl lity ;-of'l re.so.urces.' alone is not a. ptrime
f ractor.t in: determining. ,the ,rate: o r,, ctof, nstrtuction (iHaas: et al.,
I1'--977,: pp:.: 18-19) .

�- The -reconstruction .strategies ,,that,: a. community should pursue: after-- a
,-disaster are seldom clearlydef-ined.: -;The: .recovery phase :(that. is,.,:ithe
:,restoration period. and', the two--,recostruc:tion-pe riods) is typically -marked
-by :tension- between three ,forces:-.or- setsoff values within -the community:
-that .pressing for an ,.immediate return .to -'"?normalcy, ", that pressing for.,a
e reduction of future-.,vulnerability,,-:and -that:: pressing -to -seize opportunities
'for improved efficiency, -equity, :.andattractiveness :(Haas, et -al.., 19-7.7,
p. xxvi). IFurtherc�omplications, a:risebecause ,eah: set of values will have
proponents in each of :the three sets -:of. acetors:,which: play a role in, recovery
decision-making: .-residents, busines-s people, and,-government administrators.
Coalitions which existed-.before -the-,,:disaster -may-or..may not continue: aft-er
the: disaster, depending on-; the new. conditions f. acing- :individuals or interest

~I~~~~ 3-9

groups within the community. I

Some people in the community f(especially those whose homes or businesses
are severely damaged or destroyed) will want to rebuild to pre-disaster con-
ditions as soon as possible, whether or not the reconstruction includes safe-
guards against future disasters. This is quite understandable; people long
for a return to familiar surroundings when they face massive social and
economic insecurity. Even for those who suffered little or no damages,
having families occupying temporary quarters and businesses operating out of'
patched-up or temporary locations are constant reminders that the situation
is unsatisfactory, still not back to normal (Haas et al., 1977, p. 43).

Some people in the community (including some whose homes and businesses
are damaged or destroyed) will press for the institution of mitigation mea-
sures during reconstruction to help the community avoid past mistakes and
minimize the damage of the next disaster. Such measures might include more
stringent development management policies. These people are not necessarily
against rapid reconstruction; they are for safer reconstruction. Nonetheless,
deciding on which measures to institute takes time, unless the community
decided on them before the disaster struck. The drive for reconstruction to
"normal" conditions can easily overcome and outpace the drive for hazard
mitigation, leaving the community no safer from disaster.

Some people in the community will see the recovery phase as an un-
paralleled opportunity to rebuild the community in a fashion that will be
more efficient (from the standpoint of merchants and public service admini-
strators), more equitable, and more attractive. The proponents of this set
of values may operate out of self-interest or out of a concern for the total
community well-being. The disaster may create an opportunity for pursuing
projects that were proposed before the disaster (such as public works or
business renovations). Some businesses whose losses were minimal may see a
competitive advantage if competitors were severely damaged (Haas et al.,
1977, p. 43). Some homeowners may have a vested interest in not having
"less-desirable" neighborhoods rebuilt. 3

Some individuals in the community will fall into more than one of the
camps described above. For example, just about everyone will want to see
the community reconstructed as quickly as possible. Expediency is the key
force; the community will begin rebuilding with or without specific guide-
lines. The private sector, using whatever resources it can, will act more
quickly than government administrators. The struggle between the various
forces operating in the community produces a greater tendency toward poorly-
planned, yet rapid, reconstruction than it does toward carefully-planned,,
yet slow, reconstruction. Unless a community prepares itself before the
disaster (carefully assessing hazards in the community, taking appropriate
mitigation measures, and establishing guidelines for new development and re-
development), it can expect to continue suffering damages from one disaster
to the next.

These often-conflicting forces give rise to seven basic issues during
the recovery phase (Haas et al,, 1977, pp. 44-59): 1

3-10

: : 0: ; :d ; ::: \ : : :: i: S :: :: :;: :: :

1. Should there 'be changes .ini'land use?

When particular sections: ofa community are severely damaged by a.
disaster, land use decisions 'are the most important .ones a local government
faces. These decisions can have a f-ar-reaching impact by changing the face
of the community and its opportunities for redevelopment and future growth.
Suggestions for changing land use patterns (by-relocating damaged- structures
and utilities or by redesigning land development policies) primarily come
from those people who: want 'the commUnity to rebuild in a-,safer fashion.
Some people 'will also see land use, .hanges as an opportunity to improve the
community's attractiveness, -and efficiency.

Relocation of the damaged sections: of a community 'offers the best oppor-
tunity to improve the land use. patterl; 'however, such relocation is not
always politically -and economically feasible. Again, the desire for
"normalcy" plays a dominant:role. 'Rebuilding in the high-risk area may be
the most economical choice for a resident, merchant, or public works admi-
nistrator who already owns the land and may not be able to get adequate
disaster assistance or insurance payments to'finance relocation. For example,
the Federal Emergency -Management Agency will-fund 75 percent of the cost of
rebuilding public f acilities as -they ,Vere,. If a community chooses to relo-
cate these damaged facilities,'it ims :::bear the 'costs (such as land acquisi-
tion) above and 'beyond reptacememat. andi acquisition costs usually make
relocation more expensive t:han reconstruction at the original site. The
decision to relocate section's of the :ommunity is further complicated when
homes are destroyed, but water :andsewer lines sustain little damage. 'To
3facilkitate relocaition, ;the :,ommtmun ySit:l 'be able'to 'delineate hazard dareas
where reconstruction should be avoiAded, f-ind:suitable vacant land to accom-
modate reconstruction, and arrange itansfers -of property ownership.

The longer it takes for a. commuaity 'to resolve the land use issue,, the
greater is the chance that pe/opleWe i.act indeependently and quickly rebuild
in' the former, more familiar patterni. If land use c-dhanges. are to occur 'af ter
a-"disaster to make 'the community sadtr, more efficient, or more -attractive,
the local government;muslt institute "them rapidly. 'Preparing a set aof post-
disaster land development guidelinesbefo0re 7disaster 'strikes will help the'
'community 'resolve' these issues bedforhand, : make qu-ick and;:sound decisions
'immeiately 'after the fdisaster,, .and recovZer smoothly from 'the damages.

I 2.: Should !there 'be c!ha:nges~ inheibluilding 'code?

Safe :reconstruction can focer-.on hazaradous. "parcels o'f land if-.buif d-
-ings -are designed to withstand flod,10 waters, high-winds., and wave action. 'A
:natural disaster -provides ;the opportunity:for testing whether or not'the
.community's building code is:adequate to -reasonably protect residential.,
commercial, i:and public- sitructures. -A -communty .must decide whether :it should
maintain the building -code as is, 'or-amend i:t to ,deal with unforeseen prob-
lems. .As with land use changes,: builing codde:decisions need to be-made
quiEkly (or before the 'disaster) i:f: hey are. to have' any effect ron the- coim-
munity's future safety. -Few peoplei ill want to delay reconstruction until
new 'building standards-:are developed.. Buildlng "code decisions will .invo.lv
-an. economic choice, balancing the cost of disaster-proofing measures-and
:the l�evel of risk perceived �by community residents; 'thus, no structure in:a
hazard area will be absolutely immunesfrom- future damage.

.3-11

3. Should there be a concerted effort to make the community more
efficient and more attractive? 3

This issue is closely related to the land use and building code
issues and arises where extensive damages create the possibility for relo-
cating or redesigning transportation and utility networks and residential
and commercial structures. While such changes may occur normally at a slow
pace without a disaster occurring, a disaster will lead some people to re-
assess the overall fabric of the community and attempt to significantly
alter the course of its development. Such post-disaster improvements will
take place incrementally and will be molded by compromise; large-scale plans
for alteration will seldom be followed because of the years it takes to
develop and implement them.

4. Should there be compensation or special financial assistance
for private property losses? I

Major disasters lead to federal, state, and other outside financial
aid being made available to those suffering property damages. Much contro-
versy is likely to surround who should get aid, how much, and for what pur-
poses. For example, if outside agencies provide reconstruction grants and
low-interest loans with no attempt to follow local hazard mitigation guide-
lines, the community will be no safer from disaster than it was before.
These guidelines and stipulations are controlled by the policies of the
agency providing the funds, even though they will have a strong influence
on the level, character, and speed of community recovery.

5. How should increased local public expenditures be financed?

The repair and reconstruction of damaged roads, utilities, and
public buildings after a disaster will substantially increase local govern-
ment expenditures while property damages and reduced business activity will
decrease the flow of local tax revenues. Land acquisition and the enforce-
ment of land use regulations and building codes during reconstruction could
add an additional burden just as local government resources are being
stretched to their limit. Even though federal and state aid will be pro-
vided to severely-stricken communities, the local government will face a
financial burden that influences Iits recovery. Local government officials
may have to reassess and restructure the community's taxation and budgeting
policies--a procedure which creates controversy with or without a disaster
occurring.

6. Should normal or extraordinary decision-making mechanisms be
used to guide post-disaster recovery?

The disruption and ensuing indecision that a disaster imposes on a
community will create conflict over the way recovery decisions should be
made. While the desire for a return to normalcy may support the use of nor-
mal government planning and administrative procedures, the extraordinary
nature of disasters and the need for quick decisions may create pressure to
institute alternative procedures for expediting recovery. Such mechanisms
may include the appointment of' a special task force, with special powers,
which can override normal procedures and avoid delays in redevelopment.
They might also include a set of pre-prepared guidelines for reconstruction

3-12

Iwhich automatically go into eff ect-when. dis-aster strikes. Different-parties
:in the community will seean opprtuntity, to change:the way local government
decisions are made and to moldreconstruction inv'different ways. Unless
there exists some way to reach quik, ompromises: after the 'disaster or to
resolve key issues before the. disaSter, the. community is not likely :to
undergo a speedy recovery.

1 7T. How should disaster-p.rduce:personal and family problems
be handled?

People face, a great deal of stress after a disaster. Their homes and
workplaces are damaged or destroyed. :They face:uncertainty and economic
hardship, which create emotional problems. While insuranee payments and
disaster relief aid can remove some of the economic:hardship, emotional
strain will persist. as disaster vic tims must adapt *to different living-quar-
ters and different:. economic conditions. Community leaders must recognize
and: treat this stress-throughout the-?recovery process.

All of the issues outlined :abov.e'-are: interrelated; some issues 'must bee
resolved before others and-somewill boberesolved simultaneously. For
example, decisions on:the reconstrucct tion and..::reloca.tion ofl homes, businesses:,
� and utilities will innfluence -the loal'government:ss- fiscal planning .'and, the-
amount of financiale assist:ae-:ne ddby :'disaster-victims.. Depending. on the;:
conditions left by; the.l disaster:, certainissues w~ill :be .more. apparent.::and
more critical; not all issues.:wil.'deiand.or receive equal-attention. Some
issues may not bee.:resolved with;in ,;a:reasonab:e time perio:d'to.ensure.?'that
community recovery is ;smooth..and: coodinated. Unfortunately, delayis :the-
norm::rather than .the.exception.

Most communities :alr-eady havegidel;ines: for reeonstruction:in their
lands use regulations and-building cods. These guidelines: apply. to "non-
conforming" land: uses and&:to':.stru-tuIs. which were. built-:be�for.e the building.
code.'was-'adpted. 'They:typically'st:ipulate.that when, a:'property is :amaged
beyond-a certain percentage::of'.itsm:: ket value, .-itmust. complywith exist-
ting: land use and'constrution.stana, dswhether or::not':these. standards allow
th-eowner to rebuild&-on ':thje same 'site Communities:need to pay. more artten-
.tion,':to such commontools. in. adop:tin::easures toreduce future damages'.

'Most of the 'issues which ar'iseiduing: therecovery phase also arise
during the-mitigation phase. :Just-:as-a, commuty.must dec'ided.-on standards'
:forreonstructionso mustit-decidea.on standards, for newand existing
constructi on. In:each:caeasea.:oa 1 governmento must address .-bobtht tehnial
prblems: (such: aslad:imilstering :local- te pevo nti ordinances, adequat-ly:
.inspecting: new construction, and' accurately assessing storm :damages) and
I:politi-cal' problems (sudch-:as .-deciding,--what levelof risk to protect agai.nst'
and'.what measures;to 'take in managin -new, development and reconstruction
to' reduce the potential f or:. storm damges)' .

Recovery' efforts will be enhanced- if key: issues are resolved before;the-
:disaster strikes. Herein lies the' lik :between,.disaster. recovery and hazard.:
mitigation, where.'mitigation measures -adopted before the disaster minimize-.
damages and facilitate.-recovery, and-:.where re-consitruction can build in:fea
tures:-which protect the' community: from future disasters.

3-13 :

Planning Before Disaster Strikes
People don't want to think about hurricanes, but they need to. The in-
stitution of mitigation measures will not be easy lunless people realize that
a high level of hurricane risk exists along the North Carolina coast--a re-
sult of the state's exposure to major storms and the rapid development of its
coastline. The lack of community consensus regarding the level of risk makes
basic issues difficult to resolve either before or after a hurricane strikes.
Some residents will perceive a high level of risk and press for mitigation.
Other residents will perceive a low level of risk or a level which is out-
weighed by whatever benefits (immediate cost savings, peace of mind, etc.)
they derive from not acting to guard against future damages. Many residents
won't think about hurricanes at all. The situation boils down to "out of
sight, out of mind"; communities often don't take steps to protect themselves
in the long run until a massive disaster actually occurs.

~~~3-14
\; .D ; 0 :~~~~

: S i S 0 . : ; :d ::d : tEI

: :;: :\ ;: d; : :::; S : :: ::I

:: ; ~ fff? ' : :: |: ;X; t:I

: :, : ::: D :~ ~ ~
:: : f: : : : :~~~

: : : | :0::t : f:: :::; :I 0D : ::
::S: 2 : : :f d :: :: ' :: f d t: ::I

0 : :: i: : fF i : : ; ;t :;I

: 0 : S : :: X \ : : . : :I
;~~31 1''f ;:f0' f0 ; ':

REFERENCES:;, CHAPTER 3

Francaviglia, RichardF. 19I78. xn Rebuilds: Effects of Pre-dis~ast~ e
Conditioning on: ,Post-disaster. Development"' 'in Journalof the American,,
Institute of Planners 44:1' (Januay 1978). Chicagql. IL: American :jIstif-
5 tute :of' Plannerts)

Haas.,3 J-Eugene, Robert Katesa, and! MartynBowden, edgs. 1977. Reconstruction.I,:
I ' ~FoloingDsatr Cambr~i~dge,. MA: M~IT :Pres~s..
F oll~wJ3~ i~tr
National Governors Association. 1978. 1978-Emergency Preparedness- Project::
Final: Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintngOfice.

I U:.S. Water, ResourcesGCoun cil 1972.R laton, ofFloodHazard- Areas to

Reduce Flood Losses..m Washingtpn D~C: US-.I %Water~ Resources Council...

C:HAP"TE-R 4:

I TOOLS AND PROGRAMS -FOR .,URRICANE H:'HAZARD :MITIGATION

Regulating development within a::atcommunity is a :primary function of local
I government, which is responsible- for:,protecting the public health, safety, and
.general welfare. :Local government,:has available a variety of tools fdr man-
aging development -- these can help, prevent conflicts between adjacent land
: uses, maintain the community's :cap acity to absorb new development, and reduce
hazards posed by unsafe development p~ractices. Development management tools
play a useful and essential:roleIin coastal communities in reducing the risk
of damages from flooding, erosion, and high winds.

This section presents the fullriange of tools which are available to
local governments in North Carolina :,for managing development to reduce the.
risk of hurricane damages. The tools presented ;cover the location of
development and the quality of construction. :They ;cover post-hurricane recon-
struction as well as new developmentiwhich occurs before the storm. While
ultimate responsibility for managing.:development falls on local government,
local: government does not operate .ina vacuum. State and federal programs are
,designed to fulfill state and federal go als which local governments :may 4not be
equipped to handle. The section oplens` with .a :discussion of :the state :and
federal programs which influence:pri�ate development decisions in hazardous
areas and which set the:context for local government actions regarding devel-
opment and post-disaster rtecpnstrucion. :The section then presents the
development management tools and powers available to local governments and how
different communities throughout :thenation are usiag -these tools :to reduce
i the risk of damages from hurrica nes and other major :storms.

I�| 0 B ~Homes in CarolZina Beach after Hurricane HazeZ
(Courtesy of IV. C. Div. of Archives and History)

*:~~~~~~ | 0 ; : 4-1

STATE PROGRAMS INFLUENCING LOCAL DEVELOPMENT

The main state programs which address different aspects of development :
and post-disaster reconstruction with regard to the hurricane hazard are the
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) and the State Building Code. CA4A
addresses the flooding and erosion problems associated with hurricanes through
its requirements for development in areas of environmental concern (AECs).
The State Building Code addresses the high wind problem associated with hurri-
canes through its requirements for wind-resistant construction.

Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)

North Carolina;'s Coastal Area Management Act of 1974 (CAMA) was adopted
by the General Assembly' as a result of increasing pressures placed on coastal
resources by a growing population, industrial development, and recreational
demands. The Act provides two key mechanisms for coordinating resource man- I
agement to more effectively protect and enhance the use of coastal lands and
waters: the formulation of local land use plans and the designation of areas
of environmental concern. CAMA establishes a cooperative program between the
state and local governments., Local governments are assigned the initiative
for planning--developing local land use plans which articulate the objectives
of local citizens and their vision of desired development patterns. The
Coastal Resources Commission is assigned a supportive standard-setting and
review capacity which maintains uniformity in the management of the state's
coastal resources--establishing guidelines for local land use plans and for
development in areas of environmental concern.

The Coastal Resources Commission, in carrying out its CAMA mandate, has
identified four categories of areas of environmental concern (AECs): the
estuarine system, ocean hazard areas, public water supplies, and natural and
cultural resource areas. Within these critical areas, the Coastal Resources
Commission (with its staff, the Office of Coastal Management); administers a
permit system to regulate uncontrolled or incompatible development which might
result in irreversible damage to property, public health, and the natural
environment.

The Coastal Area Management Act divides responsibilities for carrying out
the permit program between local governments and the CRC. Individuals pro-
posing *major" developments within AECs must receive permits directly from the
CRC; a major development is any activity which requires a permit from
another state agency, contemplates drilling for or extracting natural
resources, occupies an area of more than 20 acreses, or proposes structures
which occupy a ground area greater than 60,000 square feet. Individuals
proposing minor" developments 'within AECs must receive permits from the
designated local permit officer; a "minor" development is any development
which is not classified as "major." The standards determining permit approval
are supposed to be identical for both cases. The standards developed by the
CRC include lists of us:es which are and are not appropriate within the dif-
ferent AECs. (The state guidelines, for AECs appear in Title 15, Subchapter 7H
of the North Carolina Administrative Code.)

4-2

:3: : The AEC categories with provisions f or mitigating hurricane damages are
ocean hazard areas and the estuarine system. A description of these areas
follows, including permitted uses and Jother requirements for development
within ocean hazard AECs and estuarine-system AECs.

Ocean Hazard AECs--

Ocean hazard AECs are mos:t-directly related to hurricane hazard mitiga-
tion. These are areas especially vulnerable to erosion and other adverse
effects of sand, wind, and water where uncontrolled or incompatible
development could unreasonably endanger life or proper.ty. "Ocean hazard areas
include:beaches, frontal dunes, inlettlands, and other areas in which geo-
logic, vegetative, -and soil conditions indicate a substantial possibility of
excessive erosion or flood damage" :(:N.. Adm. Code 15::07H.0301). While ~pre-
senting a hazard to development placed& on them, these landforms also afford
natural protection to development located landward of them; this protection of
lives and property would be lost if uncontrolled development were allowed to
significantly alter the beaches, frontal dunes,, -and inlet lands. Therefore,
regulating development within ocean hazard areas benefits -the entire
community.

Absolute safety from the destrudtve forces of .the sea is not possible
f or coastal development; it is also 'not always feasible or desirable to
totally block development with~in'hazadous areas. However, the appropriate
siting and design of structures in -cean hazard areas and the protection of
oceanfront landforms can greatly reduc the riskto ihe rand property.. With
this in mind:, the Coasta-alResources Commission 'has developed "management poli-
cies and standards for ocean ihazard areas that semrve to: eliminate 'unreas~onable
danger to life and .property and :achieve a balance between the financial,
safety, and social factors that are involved in hazard area development" (N.C.
Adm.. Code 15:06HO.303(,a)'). The CRC'si standards, in f urthering.'CAMA's goals,
give particular emphasis to '"milnimizlng -losses to life and :property resulting
from storms and long-term erosion, preventing encroachment of:permanent sstruc-
tures on public beach are-as, and reducing the public costs of inappropriately
sited -development" '(N.C. Adm. CAdm. ode 5:: 0303(b)).

:f X :;The CRC has designated three 'types of ocean hazard.AECs: (1) .ocean
erodible areas, (2) high hazard floodiareas,: and (3) inlet hazard areas.

'The ocean erodible.area is the beachflront zone which exhibits a -.strong
possibility of erosion and shoreline fluctuation. The ocean erodible area
includes all land:'between the mean lowawater line and the CRC'.s erosion set-
back line. The erosion setback line is the distance landward from the firs.t
line of -stable vegetation determined i'hy mltiplying the long-term annual
erosion rate for a .particular segment of beach by.30 (.the average life of a
building). In no case :shall the :erosion setback line be less than 60 -feet
from .the vegetation line;. The ocean 'erodible area also includes a distance
landward of the erosion setback line ';to "the recession line that would be
generated by a storm having a one-percent :chance of being equalled or exceeded
in any -given year" (N,.C. Adm. Code 15::07H.0304(1)(b)).

4-3

The high hazard flood area corresponds to the "V-zones" (VI-V30) which
appear on the Federal Insurance Administration's flood insurance rate maps.
V-zones are those areas subject to high velocity waters (such as hurricane
wave wash) in a one-percent-probability storm (the "base flood"). While V-
zones usually lie along the oceanfront, several communities in North Carolina
have V-zones along their estuarine shorelines; a storm surge can arise from
the state's broad sounds as well as the ocean. However, the CRC's designation
of V-zones as AECs applies only to oceanfront V-zones. Where the Federal
Insurance Administration has not prepared rate maps; for a community, the local
government may use base flood elevation data prepared by federal, state, or
other sources to delineate the high hazard flood area; the data source must be
approved by the CRC. (A more detailed description of the National Flood
Insurance Program and its methods of determining coastal flood hazard areas
appears later in this section.)

The inlet hazard area, due to its proximity to a dynamic ocean inlet, is
especially vulnerable to erosion, flooding, and other adverse natural pro-
cesses. The inlet hazard area is an extension of the ocean erodible area
which encompasses those sites where, based on statistical analysis, the inlet
can be expected to migrate. The delineation of an inlet hazard area includes
such factors as previous inlet territory, a barrier island's "weak spots" near
the inlet (such as overwash fans and unusually narrow areas), and external
influences (such as jetties and channelization projects). Maps designating
inlet hazard areas must be approved by the CRC.

The Coastal Resources Commission has developed standards for the use of
ocean hazard AECs as a guide for state and local permit decisions. The
Coastal Resources Commission's "General Use Standards for Ocean Hazard Areas" I
(N.C. Adm. Code 15:07H.0306) govern development in all three ocean hazard
AECs. The standards protect frontal and primary dunes by enforcing the ocean-
front setback line, keeping structures behind the crests of frontal and
primary dunes, and prohibiting the relocation or removal of these dunes or
their vegetation. The standards prohibit publicly-funded facilities (water
lines, sewers, roads, etc.) from locating in ocean hazard AECs unless they
"(1) clearly exhibit overriding factors of national or state interest and
public benefit, (2) will not increase existing hazards or damage natural
buffers, (3) will be reasonably safe from flood and erosion related damage,
[and] (4) will not promote growth and development in ocean hazard areas" (N.C.
Adm. Code 15:06H.0306(c)). The standards prohibit mobile homes from locating
in the high hazard flood area (V-zone) unless they are placed in-mobile home
parks existing as of June 1, 1979. The standards require all relocations of
structures within ocean hazard areas to obtain a CAMA permit.

The standards for ocean hazard AECs exempt certain uses from the ocean-
front setback requirements. The exempted uses include parking areas with sand
or clay surfaces, beach accessways, elevated decks, unenclosed gazebos, and
storage sheds. These uses' must meet all other standards for development in
ocean hazard areas.

Also exempted from the oceanfront setback requirements are lots recorded
as of June 1, 1979, where the setback would render the lot unbuildable. This
exemption allows permanent structures to be built seaward of the oceanfront
setback line as long:as certain conditions are met. The structure must still
be at least 60 feet landward of the vegetation line, must be entirely behind

4-4

the landward toe of the frontal dune, and must be set back on the existing lot
the maximum feasible distance from thes ocean. The lowest habitable floor of
the structure may cover no more than 1,000 square feet or ten percent of thei
lot's area, whichever is greater. Ali other standards for ocean hazard areas
apply. The exemption pertains only to lots within ocean erodible areas, not
to lots within inlet hazard areas,

In addition to the general use. st'andards, development within inlet hazard
areas: must comply with more stringent- standards due to the extreme dangers:
present there. These specific standaids permit permanent residential and com-
mercial structures' only at a density 'of one unit per 15,000 square feet (for
lots recorded after July 23, 1981). Single-family units, duplexes, and "read-
ily movable" non-residential structures are the only structures permitted in
the inlet hazard area. These must be set back from the shoreline at a dis-
tance equal to the setback required in the adjacent ocean erodible area.
Shoreline stabilization structures aret permitted only as part of a publicly-
funded project.

The standards for ocean hazard AECs include guidelines for specific uses
or projects; these include ocean shoreline erosion control activities:, dune
establishment and stabilization, the construction of beach accessways, and' new
construction and substantial improvements to existing structures. New con-
struction and substantial improvements (increases of 50 percent or more in
value or square footage) in ocean haza'rd AECs must be "designed and placed to
minimize damages due to fluctuationsu in ground elevation and wave action in a
100-year storm" (N.C. Adm. Code 15:0711.0308(d)). Specifically, all new struc-
tures and substantial improvements must be elevated to or above the 100-year
storm elevation and must comply with Appendx D - "Windstorm Resistive
Construction" -- of the Nbrth Carolina Reidential Building Code. All pilings
(1) must be at least eight inches inmdiameter (if round') or eight inches on
each Side (if square), (2) must penetrate more than eight feet below the low-
est ground elevation under the structure and, for those structures nearer to
the ocean, extend to four fet ;below s: level, and (3) must be treated to
resist insects, decay, and corrosion. All exposed structural connections must
be enclosed or rust-proofed. All tility systems must be built to minimize
storm damage. All walls below the 1i0-year base flood elevation must be built
to allow the free rise and flow of storm water, to not cause the accumulation
of waterborne debris, and to not b ecoe watertborne debris themselves.

5Estuarine System AECs--

Estuarine system AECs also bear a direct relationship to hurricane hazard
mit~igation. Where ocean hazard AECs deal e wtth the dynamics of the oceanfront,
esstuarine system AECs deal with the problems attending development in or near
estuarTne lands anrd waters. North Carolina's: extensive estuarine system is a
complicated and i nterdependent sy'stem of biological and geological processes,
whih make it a highly productive and important economic, social, and
aesthetic resource for the state and the naton. 'In addition to being produc-
tive, the system is also dynamic--subject to the full complement of water,
wave, and wind forces. Therefore, development in or near the estuarine system
is subject to erosion and flooding hazards similar to those that accompany
oceanfront development. It must be remembered that a large portion of the

4-5

damages that North Carolina has sustained from hurricanes and other major
storms have been the result of estuarine flooding and erosion, when the storm
surge piled into the state's many sounds.

While the primary intent of the CRC's guidelines for development in estu-
arine system AECs is the preservation of the system's biological productivity,
the guidelines also aim "to minimize the likelihood of significant loss of
private property and public resources" (N.C. Adm. Code 15:07H.0203). The
geological processes and rates of change in the estuarine system are not
always as dramatic or as visible as those along the ocean shore, but they are
nonetheless important in exposing development to the destructive forces of
flooding and erosion. Just as the ocean beaches and dune systems provide pro-
tection to landward development, estuarine shorelines and wetlands help buffer
development from erosion and absorb floodwaters. Significant alterations to
these landforms can weaken the system and put an entire community at risk.

The Coastal Resources Commission has designated four types of AECs within
the estuarine system: (1) coastal wetlands, (2) estuarine waters, (3) public
trust areas, and (4) estuarine shorelines. The management of estuarine shore-
lines and coastal wetlands is most relevant to hurricane hazard mitigation.

Estuarine shorelines are "non-ocean shorelines which are especially vul-
nerable to erosion, flooding, or other adverse effects of wind and water and
are intimately connected to the estuary" (N.C. Adm Code 15:07H.0209(b)).
The Coastal Resources: Commission has designated the estuarine shoreline AEC to
encompass the area along the estuaries, bays, sounds, and other brackish
waters from the mean high water level to a landward distance of 75 feet.
Development within this area can affect the quality of the estuarine environ-
ment and is typically exposed to erosion and flooding damages.

Coastal wetlands are defined as "any salt marsh or other marsh subject to
regular or occasional flooding by tides, including wind tides" but not hurri-
cane or tropical storm tides (N.C.G. S. 113-229(n)(3)). Coastal marshes supply
the nutrients and decayed plant material which support the estuarine system's
high productivity levels and complex food chains. "In addition, coastal
wetlands serve as the first line of defense in retarding estuarine shoreline
erosion. [Wetland] plant stems and leaves tend to dissipate wave action,
while the vast network of roots and rhizomes resists soil erosion. In this
way, the coastal wetlands serve as barriers against flood damage and control
erosion between the estuary and the uplands" (N.C. Adm. Code 15:07H.0205(b)).

The Coastal Resources Commission's use standards for estuarine shorelines
require all development projects to substantially preserve natural barriers to
erosion. Apart from :potential erosion and storm damages, development within
the estuarine shoreline AEC must meet a variety of requirements to avoid
adverse impacts on the environment due to siltation and other forms of
pollution. I

The use standards for coastal wetlands, which are the same for estuarine
waters and public trust areas, list permitted uses and the requirements they
must meet in order to receive a CAMA permit. The standards allow only water-
dependent uses to locate in these areas; these uses include docks and moor-
ings, boat ramps, bridges, bulkheads, and navigational channels. Residences,
motels, restaurants, private roads, trailer parks, parking lots, and other

4-6

activities that are not water-dependent are not permitted. All permitted uses
must be constructed to minimize advers,e impacts :on the productivity and
integrity of the wetlands, estuarine a.t~ers, and public trust areas. Develop-
ment projects in estuarine waters must also comply with the standards for
ocean hazard AECs. The standards for coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, and
public trust, areas include specific eq'uirements for the construction of navi-
gational-canals and boat basins, drainage ditches, marinas, docks:and piers,
and bulkheads and shore stabilization measures. None of those requirements
directly address storm damages, but they are geared toward maintaining the
wetland's integrity and its ability tq. act as a buffer to flooding and-
erosion.

Exemptions for Emergency Maintenance and Repairs--

Especially important in regulating post-disaster reconstruction are the
Coastal Area Management Act policies. governing emergency maintenance and
repairs. The'language of the Act,as amended, specifically excludes from its
definition of development maintenance. or repairs (excluding replacement) nec-
essary to repair damage to. structure�s ,c-aused by the elements or to prevent.
damage to imminently threatened structures by the creation of protective sand
dunes" (N.C.G.S. 113A-103.(5)b.5). Such actions are thus exempt from the CAMA
permit requirement. for areas of enviro.n,tal concern., They include emergency
actions taken during. or after a hguraricane or other ma jor storm to prevent fur-
ther danger to lives or. property or tQo restore an endangered.property to, its
pre-emergency condition, with no additions or expansions_ (N.C. Adm. Code
15:7K.:0101(5)). However, the exepti,n :is limited. The Coastal Resources
Commission has: interpreted the :Act.'-"s: definition.of development to include any
repairs constituting.: 5Qperpcent or :m"ore o.f the structure's, value.. Therefore,,
such repairs must obtain the necessaryL AMA permits if they take: place in
AECs.

The only activity specifically liste as an emerg;ency maintenance action..
in the current CAMA regulations is:be.,eqc bulldozing, seawardl of the vegetation:
line, to, create. a protective, san, 4,dike.:o r to obtaian, materials for any other.
emergency purpose (N..C. Adm. Cosde 1,5:.:O0305(b),-, Other.: actisities may qual-
ify as, emergency mantena nce.and.repais.underp the, statutory exemption cited
above.. The regulations require individuas proposing emergency repairs to.
consult with the local ,AMA.permit officer to, determine whether the proposed
repairs, qualify for exemption.-

Postdisaster Policies,-

In: 19l1, theC:.:astal Resources,.,sssio.n ccnvened a special Post-
disaster Task Force to examine way that state. agencies and coastal
communities can avoid, future storm damgeand to. formulate policies for
meeting this. goal. The. CRC adopted a 'set of "post-disaster" policies, in the
summer of 198.2, following the, principle, that, "adequa.t:e plans. for post-disaster
reconstruction should, be'? prepared by and. cootrdinated between all levels of'S
government prior to the, advent of a disaster" (N.C.: Adm. 'Code 15:07M.0501)I..

The policies call for the.Coastal Resources, Commission to assist the NC.C,
Department of Crime Control and Public. Safety, which is the state's- lead.,!
agency for disaster preparedness and response. To carry this out,, the CRC' is

4- 7

to (1) establish streamlined permit procedures for post-disaster reconstruc-
tion, (2) provide staff support as requested for damage assessment and other
activities, and (3) require local governments to include disaster planning in
their land use plans.

The policies also establish a set of guidelines for hazard mitigation
planning which cover both current development and post-disaster reconstruc-
tion. Under these policies, the CRC is to advise the North Carolina Building
Code Council and the Federal Insurance Administration regarding development
standards in coastal hazard areas. The CRC is to advise the Department of
Transportation and all public utilities regarding its policies governing the
replacement of roads, bridges, water lines, sewer lines, and other utilities
in hazardous areas. The policies require all repairs and reconstruction of
private and public structures to be done in a safe and sound manner. The
policies also call for the CRC to establish guidelines for local governments
to follow in formulating reconstruction plans and policies covering such
things as the relocation of structures, roads, and utilities and the collec-
tion of property information to assist in damage assessment.

State Agency Consistency-- I

Under the Coastal Area Management Act, any state agency policies govern-
ing the acquisition, use, and disposition of land in the coastal area are to
take account of and be consistent with the CRC's planning guidelines
(N.C.G.S. 113A-108).. Thus, the actions of any state agency must comply, to
the maximum extent possible, with the CRC's policies, guidelines, and stand-
ards as well as local CAMA land use plans; this applies to all state
regulatory programs, the use of state-owned lands, financial assistance for
public facilities, and the siting of major public and private growth-inducing
facilities (Office of Coastal Zone Management, 1978, p. 162). 5

N.C. State Building Code 3

Building codes set standards for construction materials, design, and pro-
cedures in order to protect lives and property. Important in safeguarding the
health, safety, and welfare of the public from unsafe construction practices
in normal times, building code standards take on crucial importance during
natural disasters, such as hurricanes, when extraordinary stresses are imposed
on man-made structures. In coastal communities subject to hurricanes, the
building code is one of the most important tools for mitigating hazards to
life and property during both the development that takes place before the
storm and the reconstruction following the storm.

Building codes regulate the construction, alteration, maintenance,
repair, and demolition of buildings and structures. They establish minimally
acceptable conditions or standards for all phases of building construction,
based upon the properties of construction materials, physical and chemical
principles, and engineering and architectural criteria. As legal guides for
engineers, designers, and contractors, building codes are enforced by local
government building inspectors, who check construction plans prior to issuing
building permits and periodically inspect construction sites to ensure that
approved plans are followed.

4-8

The two major types of building codes are performance codes and specifi-
cation codes. A performance code recommends the objective to be accomplished
and allows the designer to select from various materials and techniques to
achieve the desired result. A specification code describes in detail the
exact materials and methods to be used,: In practice, most codes emphasize
performance standards but also include certain specifications for materials
and design.

North Carolinaes State Building Code (Volume I -- General Construction)
applies uniformly to the design, construction, location, and installation of
all new residential and commercial structures throughout the state. Derived
from the Southern Standard Building Code, the North Carolina Code is super-
vised by the North Carolina's Commissioner of Insurance and enforced by local
building inspectors appointed by city;and county governments. An eleven-
member Building Code Council appointed by the Governor has responsibility for
adopting and amending the Code, approving local building regulations which
deviate from the Code, hearing and deciding appeals, and recommending statu-.
tory changes and administrative practices. The Division of Engineering and
Building Codes of the Department of Insuranee serves as staff for the Building
Code Council.

To be legally effective,::any city ot county building code must be
approved by the Building Code Council. In the interests of standardization,
local deviations from the State Building Code; are approved only if a local
government can present compelling evidence of necessity for tlhe deviation.
The North Carolina Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the State Build-
ing Code preempts local building code. authority on grounds of the supremacy of
state laws over local ordinances.

In addition to the State Building Code, the North Carolina Building Code:
Council has adopted the North Carolina Residential Building Code (Volume I-B),
which governs the construction,. alteration, repair, and removal of one and
two-family dwellings. The Residential Buitlding Code does no-t apply to ap'art-
ments or multifamily residences: for three or more families. The Residential
Building Code's Appendix D - "Wind RAsistive COnstruction'" applies to
coastal communities and other areas whete residences are subject to winds; of
greater than 75 miles per ho~ur.

Further construction: stand'ards, have, been adopted by the Coastal Resources.
CommisSion. CAMA, regulations for oceani hazard AE ::require that buildings
comply with Appendix D', except where more restrictive: standards have been. set
by the: CRC. These satandards;include requirements for piling size and, embed=
ment, foundation stability during a" 100yeabr stborm, and floor elevation avboVe:
the 100-year flood height.

Requirements to Reduce S;torm Damage --

I Buildings in coastal areas subject to hurricanesa must be constructed to
resist a number of physicalt hazards and: impacts in order to protect life and
property. These hurricane impacts include:

4-9

1. Storm surge - the increased ocean level due to increased wind
velocity and decreased barometric pressure, producing flooding
of buildings;

2. Waves - the increased height of wind-generated waves (on top of
the storm surge), producing horizontal shock pressure and
vertical uplift pressure on buildings and the scouring of soil;

3. Winds - the increased wind forces, both sustained and gusting,
producing structural failure or movement of buildings;

4. Coastal erosion - the loss of land along shorelines due to storm
surge and wave action, producing overwash, scour, and liquefac-
tion of soils which undermine building foundations; and

5. Debris battering - the floating and wind-borne objects which
strike buildings and produce concentrated battering loads
against buildings.

Fire is an additional hazard that can result from, or be magnified by, high
wind conditions and structural failures during a hurricane. Fire hazards in
wood frame structures, especially multi-story, multi-family modular wood frame
buildings, are an increasing potential danger in hurricane-prone coastal
communities (Sheaffer & Roland, 1981, p.;4).

A recent review of coastal construction standards for Nags Head describes
the forces at work on coastal area buildings during severe storms:

Design considerations for an elevated building in an oceanfront
setting require particular attention to the complex forces and
conditions at work during a severe storm. (It is not sufficient that
the elevated foundation merely bear the gravity weight of the
building. Live forces act directly on the building tending to lift
and overturn it; the greater the height, the greater the tendency to
overturn. Lateral forces from the wind and; waves strike it from
different directions. Wind rising under the building tends to lift
it, pulling the pilings out of the ground; pullout forces must be
resisted by the friction of the pilings in the soil. Waves will
also lift it if the structure is not elevated sufficiently to let
them pass under. The wind forces must;be transmitted from the roof
and walls to the deck, and through the pilings to the ground without
overly stressing the pilings, connections, bracing, and other struc-
tural members.

The depth of pilings affects the ability of the structure to resist
lateral wind and wave forces that act to deflect the building and
its foundation from a vertical position. The length of pilings
affects their ability to resist overturning and to provide friction
with the soil to resist uplift forces. Bracing is needed to give
the structure rigidity, and to take some or all of the lift forces
off the pilings; it is desirable to transmit the forces through the
bracing as close to the supporting soil as possible.

4-10

A:~~~~~

Considerations must be given to erosion of supporting soil from the
base of the foundation, as well as liquefaction of the soil when
immersed, both of which cause the foundation to lose its bearing,
frictional, lateral, pullout, or other resistance. (Sheaffer and
Roland, 1981, p. 19).

In order to reduce damage from hurricane forces, building codes identify
design and construction standards necessary to maintain structural integrity
under storm stress. These include:

1. Structural design loads--live and dead--for roofs, floors, walls
and foundations under the high winds wave, water, and battering
pressures of the design flood event (the 100-year storm);

2. Design standards, including size, spacing, depth, and bracing:
for piles, columns, and'foundations to resist sliding and over-
turning due to scour, soil liquefaction, and other forces;
3. Specifications for water resistance of the structure, materials,
and fasteners to protect them from deterioration due to exposure
to salt spray, groundwater, and submergence;

4. Specifications for anchorage, fasteners, and connections for
roofs, wails, joists, bedlis: pilings, and piers to maintain
structural integrity under high wind and water pressures;

5. Tiedown standards for mobile homes to anchor them against
hurricane winds; and

6. Build-back and inspection re4uirements for conforming and non-
conforming structures that have been storm-damaged beyond 50
percent.

The North Carolina State Building Code (Volume I) contains standards for
minimum design loads under different types of occupancy or use and for differ-
ent geographic areas of the state which are subject to special loads. Basic
design wind velocities are specified in Chapter XII of the Code according to
those locations likely to receive witids of a particular velocity, with the
highest design velocity (120 miles per 'hour) specified for the Outer Banks and
those parts of Carteret, Onslow, Pendder New Hanover, and Brunswick counties
seaward of the Intracoastal Waterway. Design wind velocities are reduced as
the location moves inland from the coast (see Figure 4.1). Design of founida-
tions and piles must be based on subsurface investigations at the building
site, supervised by a gitered engistered engeer or architect (Chapter XIII). Speci-
fications for material strengthl quality, fire resistance, connections, and
protection against decay are provided for masonry, steel, concrete, and wood
construction (Chapters XIV-XVII). Minimum standards are set forth for design
of piers, bulkheads, and waterway structures (Chapter XXXIII). The Code
requires that reconstruction of any existing buildings damaged in excess of 50
percent of their physical value, as determined by; the local building inspec-
tion department, must conform to the Code' requirements for new buildings.

The North Carolina Uniform Residential Building Code (Volume I-B)
contains standards for materials and construction practices for one and two'

~~~~~~~~1 ~~4-11

Figure 4.1: N.C. State Building Code's Basic I
Design Wind Velocities (in mph)

Source: N.C. Building Code Council, 1981, Volume I - General Construction,

erected within 150 feet of the high water mark of the Atlantic Ocean for
anchoring and fastening, for rloof coverings, and for the type, size, depth,
spacing, tyi g, and bracing of:piles. It is related to the design load
assumptions o f Appendix A -- "Live and Dead Loads -- which contains pro-
cedures for sustaining wind loads of up to 100 miles: per hour.

There appears to be a discrepancy between Appendix D, which sets special
standards for residential buildings in:,areas with winds greater than 75 mph,
and Section 1205 - "Wind Loads" -- of VolumeI of the Code, which establishes
a minimum design wind velocity of 80 mph for counties in the western half of
North Carolina and minimum velocities of 9 0 to 120 mph in counties in the
eastern half of the state. Appendix D appears to be but of date in terms of
its 75 mph wind velocity'cut-off level.

The State Building Code council also maintains the State of North
Carolina Regulations :for Mobile Homes, which: it developed pursuant to the
Uniform Standards Code for Mobile Homes Act (N.C.G.S. 143-144 et seq.). These
regulations set standards for the sound construction of mobile homes and for
inspection and approval of mobile homes at the factory (by Underwriters'
Laboratories or a similar agency approved by the Building Code Council). The - General Construction,

4-12

regulations also ,set requirements foor anchoring mobile homes to withstand ;hgh
winds. These "tie-down" requirements ,ary according to the unit's width,
length, and location. They require mobi:le homes to have both "diagonal" -ties
(frame to foundation ties) and "vertical" ties (over-.the-top ties), both .of
Iwhich must be securely anchored to :the ground or foundation. The -number of
ties required varies throughout the s:ate depending on .whether or not the
:comm unity lies in the state's :uricane zone." The Building-Code Council
designated .the "hurricane zone" in 197; it covers 25 counties in eastern
North Carolina, including all counties in CAMA'.s coastal area except Hertford
County. Table 4.1 lists the number of diagonal and vertical ties required in
:the "hurricane zone" for mobile homes of different lengths.

There is wide :variety in the hurricane-related design and construction
standards contained in building cods adopted by various states. -Part of this
variation is due to local condi.tions, ,but it also may be due to inertia in
revising standards to keep up with :current knowledge about the actual destruc-
tive forces of hurricanes. The North Carolina Building Code Council took :a
position of national leadership in fostering storm-resistant coastal construc-
tion following Hurricane Hazel in 1954,, when it instituted piling regulations
for elevating the standard oceanfront house at least eight feet off the ground
(Sheaffer and Roland., 11981, p.2). n many other states, that elevation
requirement was not instituted until the 197s:, when the National Flood
Insurance Program became effective. No, in the ,1980s, this ,aspect of North
Carolina's Code would be exceeded iby the Federal Emergency Management Agency',s
new requirement that .structures subje: t to wave action in coasital high haz-ard
areas be elevated not just to .the storm sRrge level but also to the expected
wave cres-t level.

Table 4..1: Tie-down ;Requiements for :Mobie Homes
in North naroia's "Hurricane Zone"

Unit Legth

3 (<46' 46'-49' 49'-58' 58'-701' 70'-73' 73'-80'

# diagonal ties per side 4. 5 5 6 7 7

# vertical ties per side .2 2 3 3 3 4

Source: Tharrington, personal communicaltion, 08/23/:82.

I
Limitations and Opportunities for Local
Government Action to Regulate Construction --

North Carolina's -State Building Code may need amendments in order to
provide design standards suitable to resist the 100-year storm on the coast of
North Carolina. A recent analysis for Nags Head points out that Hurricane
Frederic in 1979, which approximates the 100-year storm for North Carolina,
destroyed 73 percent of the first tier of oceanfront houses over a 22-mile

4-:13

stretch of the Alabama coast, where construction standards are similar to |
those of North Carolina. The analysis (Sheaffer and Roland, 1981) recommends
that new coastal construction standards and design criteria for 100-year storm
conditions be adopted, with particular attention to (1) wind, waves, flooding, I
erosion and scour, soils, structural stability, and related conditions, and
(2) special fire and structural hazards associated with multi-story, multi-
family modular wood frame buildings. Local governments, however, are unable
to change the State Building Code in their jurisdictions without approval of I
the N.C. Building Code Council. The Coastal Resources Commission could repre-
sent the collective needs of coastal communities for State Building Code
amendments in a request to the Building Code Council to update the standards
for hurricane-prone areas.

The local building inspector is the link between code standards and I
actual construction. Effectiveness of the code and enforcement depends upon
the inspector's interpretation of the code, his technical competence, and the
adequacy of his time and resources to carry out necessary inspections. Even
in normal times, these factors often are limited in coastal communities where
part-time inspectors with limited training must try to keep up with surges of
development. When demand for enforcement peaks after a hurricane, the
adequacy of qualified inspectors can be a crucial factor in whether or not I
reconstruction is done well or poorly. To assist with this need, a program of
special training and certification for coastal building inspectors could be
encouraged by the Coastal Resources Commission, along with a procedure for I
augmenting local code enforcement personnel in post-hurricane periods.

State Regulations Covering Water Supply 1
and Waste Disposal Facilities

In addition to state regulations governing the quality of building con- i
struction and development in high hazard coastal areas, there are regulations
governing the location and design of public water systems, septic systems, and I
solid waste facilities to protect them from flood damages.

Water wells and storage systems need to be adequately protected from
flooding in order to avoid contamination of drinking water supplies, which is
likely to require costly remedies. The N.C. Division of Environmental Manage-
ment (in DNRCD) maintains well construction standards which require, as a
condition to receiving a well construction permit, that a water supply well I
be located "at a site not generally subject to flooding" (N.C. Adm. Code
15:2C.o007(a)(1)(A)).; The N.C. Division of Health Services (in the Department
of Human Resources) maintains standards for community water systems to protect i
~ti;hem'from~ flooding�f 0The" site used 'fors eany well-:thath �supplies a public water.
sybstWen' is noi`t X:f Xb` 0861 p 3) The
covers ''o f groitnd-lev'T" j mcs
flood levels (N.C. A.XjCode 10 OD.1i005(a)(1)'). inadditin:, the .construc-
tio0n 6'r modificat in fa puic a:sstmistavoidal or part
of :a new or expande a 3ilit.y~ at a-, whh Si "subjet "to'a-signlficant
risk from earthquakes, floods,' fires,:or ther disasers which could cause a
breakdown of the public water system or a portion thereof" (N.C. Adm. Code
10:10D.1612(a)(1)).i

4-14

: : \ : :!

Protecting septic systems from flooding reduces the risk of the community
being without basic sanitary services after a flood. It also reduces the risk
that surface waters and groundwater will become contaminated due to septic
tank failures. The Division of Health Services regulations for septic tanks
with a capacity of less than 3,000 gallons per day stipulate that septic tank
systems "shall not be located in areas subject to frequent flooding" (N.C.
Adm. Code 10:10.1912(c)(3)). The regulations define these areas as those sub-
ject to flooding by the "10-year" flood, or one with a ten-percent probability
of occurring in any given year (N.C. Adm. Code 10:10.1903(5)). These rules
for septic tanks with a capacity of less than 3,000 gallons per day are admin-
istered by local boards of health as part of their permitting procedures.
Septic systems with a capacity greater than 3,000 gallons per day are directly
regulated by the Division of Environmental Management. Environmental Manage-
ment's regulations stipulate that such systems "shall not be located in areas
subject to frequent flooding" (N.C. Admo Code 15:2H.0301(f)(5)); as in the
case of smaller septic systems, such areas are defined as those subject to the
"ten-percent probability" flood.

If solid waste disposal facilities are flooded, significant contamination
of surface waters may occur; the community may also be left without an
adequate and sanitary place to dispose of its solid waste. In issuing permits
for solid waste disposal facilities, the Department of Human Resources
requires information on the location of floodplains to accompany all permit
applications (N.C. Adm. Code 10:1OC.0109(4)). "Floodplains," in this case,
include all lands subject to inundation by the "one-percent probability," or
"100-year" flood (N.C. Adm. Code 10:O:C.0101(4)).

In all the above cases, flood hazard information is used in state-level
decisions regarding the location and 'design of key sanitary facilities.
Damages to these facilities from a hurricane or other major storm can create a
significant threat to public health. The extent to which flood hazard infor-
mation is used undoubtedly varies in the above state regulatory decisions; so
does the extent to which such information influences final decisions regarding
particular facilities. Nonetheless, local officials should remain aware of
the role hazard information plays in state decisions regarding water systems,
sewer Systems, and solid waste facilities in the community.

4-15

FEDERAL PROGRAMS INFLUENCING LOCAL DEVELOPMENT

Several federal programs have a direct bearing on whether or not new
development and post-disasLer reconstruction in a community are safe from
future hurricanes and other coastal storms. The National Flood Insurance
Program sets guidelines for developers, homebuilders, and local governments
to follow in order to qualify for flood insurance; the program also contains
innovative provisions for post-disaster reconstruction which facilitate the
relocation of damaged structures out of hazardous areas. The wide range of
federal disaster assistance programs are designed to ease the burden of
rebuilding after a disaster; the requirements of these programs vary and
provide different opportunities for influencing the character of post-disaster
reconstruction. Executive Order 11988 - "Floodplain Management" -- directs
federal agencies to avoid encouraging unwise development on flood-prone lands.
The Coastal Zone Management Act calls for federal actions to be consistent
with the state's coastal management program, which includes state and local
hazard mitigation and reconstruction policies.

National Flood Insurance Program

Congress established the National Flood Insurance Program with the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-448) to reduce annual
flood losses through more careful planning of flood-prone areas and to provide
property owners in those areas with affordable insurance against flood
damages.

In the nation's earlier days, measures to reduce flood hazards (such as
dikes, levees, seasonal evacuation, and building on stilts) were limited in
range and primarily the result of private or local initiatives (AIA Research
Corporation, 1981, p. 21). In response to a series of disastrous floods in
the 1920s and 1930s, the federal government became directly involved in flood
hazard mitigation by launching a massive program (with the Flood Control Act
of 1936) of building flood protection works to ;contain flood waters and
improve the drainage capacity of rivers and streams. Also, during the past 40
years, Congress has authorized the Army Corps of Engineers to construct hurri-
cane protection and erosion control works along the nation's coastline in an
effort to reduce damages due to coastal storms and natural erosion processes.
While carrying out its program for these structural flood control works, the
federal government stepped up its provision of relief aid to disaster
victims.

Even though the structural flood control projects have yielded signifi-
cant benefits, annual flood losses have continued to climb. Flood control
works often create a false sense of security in a community and development
continues into flood-prone areas, often at more intense levels. When flooding
exceeds the capacity of structural projects, damages can occur at a larger
scale than before the project was built.

In response to ever-increasing annual flood losses and the inability of
many citizens to obtain flood coverage from private insurance companies,
Congress set up the National Flood Insurance Program. The program, which is
administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Federal Insurance

4-16

A: : : : :~~~~~~

Administration (FIA), offers flood insurance to property owners in designated
flood hazard areas. In return, local and state governments enact and enforce
comprehensive floodplain management measures to protect lives and properties
from future flooding. These floodplain management measures typically involve
land use controls and construction standards, as well as other techniques,
applied within flood-prone sections of a community. These include all land
which would be inundated by the "base flood" or "100-year" flood (that is, the
flood which has a one-percent chance of being equalled or exceeded in any
given year). The program's main purpose is to reduce the amount of developed
property exposed to flooding; it reflects the realization that "non-'
structural" measures are just as important as "structural" measures in
mitigating flood damages.

There are two stages of community participation in the National Flood
Insurance Program: the Emergency Phase and the Regular Phase. All of North
Carolina's coastal communities are enrolled in either the Regular Phase or the
Emergency Phase.

Emergency Program--

A community enters the Emergency Phase after the FIA provides it with a
"flood hazard boundary map," which delineates flood hazard areas based on the
best available data. Once the community enters the Emergency Phase, property
owners can obtain limited insurance coverage for flood losses (up to $35,000
for single-family homes and up to $100,000 for all other structures). Subsi-
dized rates are charged for all structures regardless of their flood risk. The
intent of the Emergency Phase is to make coverage available to the community
at subsidized rates until a detailed technical study can more accurately
delineate flood hazard areas.

To be accepted into the Emergency Phase, the community must have in force
preliminary measures for regulating development in designated flood hazard
areas. The community must require permits for all proposed construction in
the community and must review permits to ensure that development is reasonably
safe from flooding. For the flood hazard areas identified by the flood hazard
boundary map, the community must require structures to be properly anchored
and to use construction materials and methods that will minimize flood
damages. New subdivisions must be adequately drained. New or replacement
utility systems must be designed andlocated to prevent flood loss. The
Emergency Phase's requirements are minimal and vague; they leave much to the
discretion of local government.

Regular Phase --

Once the community is in the Emergency Phase, the Federal Insurance
Administration hires an engineering contractor (at no cost to the community)
to undertake a detailed study of the community's base flood elevations (BFEs)
and flood hazard areas:, including the development of a "flood insurance rate
map" (FIRM). Based on this study, the FIA derives a schedule of actuarial
(non-subsidized) flood insurance rates and the community develops more
detailed floodplain management regulations. Once the community adopts these
regulations, it enters the Regular Phase, which provides higher levels of

_ 4-17

insurance coverage for new and existing residential and non-residential struc-
tures. The regulations must protect new construction in designated flood
hazard areas from inundation by the 100-year flood (or "base flood).

Flood insurance rate maps for coastal communities divide the 100-year
floodplain into two adjacent zones: A-zones and V-zones. The delineation of
A-zones and V-zones is based on the best information available on the storm
surge levels a community can expect in a 100-year storm. The A-zone contains
that area of the 100-year floodplain which is primarily subject to "static"
flooding from storm surges (i.e. rising water but little or no wave action).
The V-zone, which lies along the shorefront, contains that area of the 100-
year floodplain which is subject to wave action as well as the storm surge.
The V-zone (also known as the "coastal high hazard flood area") is usually
determined by the inland extent of a three-foot-breaking wave. It is impor-
tant to note that while A-zones are mainly subject to static flooding, certain
sections of them (adjacent to V-zones) are subject to high velocity water due
to the forward momentum of breaking waves (Dames and Moore, Inc., 1981, p. 6).
Since A-zones and V-zones involve different types of hazards, they require
different types of floodplain management regulations to meet the National
Flood Insurance Program's damage reduction requirements.

An important change is currently underway to refine the NFIP's determina-
tion of base flood elevations (BFEs) in V-zones. Flood insurance rate maps
developed before 1982 geared V-zone BFEs to the water level associated with
the 100-year storm surge; this did not account for waves that would appear
atop the surge and damage structures elevated only to the storm surge level.
The Federal Insurance Administration is now using procedures to calculate 100-
year wave crest elevations. These elevations (higher than the 100-year storm
surge levels previously used) will become the BFEs for V-zones on all new rate
maps and will be used to revise the BFEs appearing on existing rate maps.
This adjustment will involve changes in local insurance premium schedules and
regulations governing construction in V-zones.

To enroll in the Regular Phase, a community must adopt and administer a
set of development regulations that meets the National Flood Insurance Pro-
gram's minimum requirements. These regulations must be legally enforceable,
apply uniformly through the community, and take precedence over any less-
restrictive local regulations.: They apply in addition to those regulations
already adopted under the Emergency Phase. The minimum regulations required
in the Regular Phase are listed in Table 4.2. They apply to new construction
and substantial improvements to existing structures. "Substantial improve-
ments" cover any repair, reconstruction, or addition whose cost equals or
exceeds 50 percent of the structure's market value before the damage has
occurred or the improvement is started. The regulations for development in
V-zones are more stringent than those for A-zones; V-zones are subject to a
higher degree of hazard due to their potential for destructive wave action.
Any community may exceed these minimum criteria by adopting more stringent
floodplain management regulations; the National Flood Insurance Program
encourages this, especially when community officials know of particular hazard
conditions that call for higher development standards.

The National Flood Insurance Program also establishes the conditions
under which a community may issue variances from its floodplain management
regulations. Variances are generally limited to lots of one-half acre or less

4-18

,Table 4.2: -Minimum Requirements for Regular Phase Communities

Flood Hazard Zone D -evelopment Requirement

A-zone -Residential structures must be elevated to the base flood level (includes mobile
(base flood : omes outside of existing-parks or subdivisions)..
determined) -Non-residential structures must be elevated .or floodproofed to base flood level
(registered engineer or architect must certify adequacy.of floodproofing methods).
-Mobile homes must be ,elevated:,to the base flood level in mobile home parks .or mobile
home subdivisions that are new or :have been substantially improved (repair,
reconstruction, or expansion exceeding 50 percent of the value of existing streets,
utilities, and pads)..
-Mobile homes must -beanchored by ver-the-top and frame ties to resist flotation,
collapse, and lateral movement.
--Evauation plans for mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions must be filed with
-.. -appropriate 4-sa X i-re .pprednesp s authorities. : '::-
-.N.o new ,cont n pr s ubstan tial i.mprovement may cause the base flood level tto
increase by more than one foot .at any point in the community.
-The community must maintain an accurate and up-to-date record of elevation and
floodproofing heights for al1 new and substantially improved structures.

V-zone All of the above apply, plus the :following:

-All structures must be landward of the mean high *tide line.
-All tructures must be .elevated .to the base filood level on pilings or columns. A
registered engineer or architect must m certify that anchorages between the pilings and
the floor :of the.,structure are ,areadequate to withstand velocity waters and hurricane wave
wash.
-Fill may not be used for structural support.
-The space below the base flood elevation must be free of obstruction or constructed with
"break way walls.":
-Mobile homes may only be placed in existing mobile home parks or mobile home
subdiyisions.
-Man-made alteratioqns of sand dunes are prohibited if they will increase potential flood
damage.

where existing structures on the surrounding lots are constructed below the
base flood level. As the lot size increases beyond one-half acre, the
technical justification required for issuing the variance increases. The
community shall only issue a variance (1) upon a showing of good and suffi-
cient cause, (2) when failure to issue the variance would lead to exceptional
hardship, and (3) when the variance will not increase the threat to public
safety or lead to extraordinary public expense.

Relocation of Damaged Structures--

When a structure is damaged by flooding and the property owner holds a
flood insurance policy, the Federal Insurance Administration determines the
property owner's claim and pays the cost of repairing or rebuilding the struc-
ture up to the policy's limits. Until 1980, the National Flood Insurance
Program paid claims with little or no provision for relocating the structure
out of the flood hazard area. The insurance claim would pay for repairs only
to restore the building to its original condition and location; the property
owner had to bear any costs beyond this for elevating or relocating the
building. Buildings were typically returned to their original condition,
still ripe for damage by the next storm. Around 1980, this pattern began to
change as the Federal Insurance Administration began emphasizing hazard miti-
gation as a high priority and instituted two innovative elements as part of
its claim procedures: the constructive total loss approach and the Section
1362 relocation program.

The constructive total loss approach covers those cases where a property
is not totally destroyed but has lost its economic value. It requires the
full cooperation of the property owner and the local government involved. The
approach is used where the local government takes such action as prohibiting
damaged structures to be cebuilt in areas with a high likelihood of future
flooding. This allows the FIA to declare the property a "constructive total
loss" and pay the owner's claim up to the policy limits even though the actual
damages do not equal the total covered by the policy. The owner can then use
the money to rebuild on a site outside the flood hazard area. Ownership of
the damaged property is then dedicated to the community for open space use.
The Federal Insurance Administrator is responsible for deciding to use the
approach in any given situation. The "constructive total loss" approach is
only used in special situations where damages are particularly severe and the
property owner and local government agree to participate. To date, its use
has been limited, but the approach has proven successful. 3

The FIA first used the "constructive total loss" approach in 1979 in
Conroe, Texas, to relocate approximately 50 flood-damaged structures. Thirty-
five of these had been flooded every year since 1972; their owners had
repeatedly received federal disaster loans and insurance payments. To
relocate the homes, the FIA made available to each owner payments of up to
$35,000. Low-interest loans from the Small Business Adninistration also
helped cover the costs of relocation. (Ralph M. Fields Associates, 1981,
p. 75).

A variation of the "constructive total loss" approach was recently used
in Nags Head, North Carolina, to relocate approximately 14 oceanfront homes

4-20

: : :~~~~~

which faced imminent collapse due to Astorm-induced erosion. Several ocean-
front homes in South Nags Head were damaged by a storm to a point where the
next major storm was certain to erode the land beneath them and cause them to
collapse. The FIA could have simply paid the claims to repair the buildings
to their original condition in their original locations. However, the FIA
realized that this would result in an6ther claims payment after the next storm
and sought a more far-'sighted solution. The FIA, in cooperation with the
homeowners and local government, settled the claims: to pay for moving the
damaged homes back from the rapidly eroding shoreline, yet still on the
owner's lots, and out of the area posing the greatest hazard in future storms.
The decision saved the FIA about $775,000 in future claims (Pasterick 1980,
p. 15).
P.
Section 1362 of the National Flood Insurance Act empowers the FIA to
purchase insured properties that have been seriously damaged by flooding, to
move the damaged structures, and to transfer the land as open space to a state
or local government agency. Asi.with the "constructive total loss" approach,
the Section 1362 program relies on the full cooperation of the property owner
'and the local government. In order to qualify for purchase under Section
1362, the damaged property must be covered by a flood insurance policy and
must meet one or more of the following criteria:

1. damaged by flooding "substantially beyond repair";

2. damaged by flooding no less than three times in the past five
years, where the average cost of repairs was no less than 25
percent of the value of the structure; and

3. damaged to an extent where an existing statute, ordinance, or
regulation prevents it's restoration or allows its restoration
only at a :signif'icantly:higher cost.

The property owner can use the money from the sale to rebuild at another
location outside the flood hazard area. Structures which meet the above
criteria must also show an economic benefit t:o be gained through acquisition
of the property (such as avoiding future damage and reducing flood insurance
claim payments and disaster relief costs).

The FIA :also maintains eight "cdmmunity selection factors" for allocating
Sectin 1362 funds (see Table 4.3). 'A "community does not need to meet all the
faictors. Some of the factors carry more weight than others when the iFIA is
evaluating the community for participation in the program. A community's
ability to rank hi-ghly on these 'criteria- is an important factor in obtaining
funding, especially since overall funding for the program has been limited.
Congre'ss did not appropriate mdney to administer Section 1-362 until '1980, when
it allocated 5.4 mi-llion dollars for Fiscal Year 1980. Subsequent appro-
priations have been as follows: FY81 -- five million dollars-; FY 82 - 1.6
-million dollars; and FY 83 -- 4.8 mi'llion dollars (projected). The community
seeking Section 1362-funds must also submit a "re-use plan" outlining how the
community will manage the acquired land and indicating any changes it expectts
to make in existing land use plans and ordinances to accommodate the uses it
proposes for the acquired properties;.

4-21

Table 4.3: Community Selection Factors for the
Section 1362 Program

1. The permanent removal of flood-prone structures will contribute to exist-
ing, on-going programs for permanent evacuation of flood plains.

2. In addition to hazard mitigation, acquisition will contribute to the
achievement of multiple community development goals (such as environmental
protection, open space/recreation, urban renewal, or some other public
purpose).

3. The acquisition and relocation of flood-prone structures will have an
economic benefit in terms of eliminating future flood insurance claims,
avoiding future damage, reducing future disaster relief costs, avoiding
business interruption, and reducing loss of life:.

4. The distribution of properties to be acquired under Section 1362 (or the
distribution of these properties combined with properties that can be
acquired through other programs) will result in a logical, usable, and
desirable land use pattern.

5. Alternatives to acquisition under Section 1362 have been investigated and
found to be less effective than Section 1362 in meeting the community's
floodplain management and hazard mitigation goals. These alternatives
could include, but are not limited to, floodproofing, structural flood
protection, or acquisition and relocation programs of local, state, or
other federal agencies.

6. The community has undergone a planning process and found acquisition/
relocation to be the most desirable alternative in terms of cost, degree
of flood protection achieved, environmental enhancement, and other
factors.

7. The community has demonstrated, or agreed to pursue, an active program of
sound floodplain management which exceeds the minimum requirements of the
National Flood Insurance Program.

8. The community can actively participate in the planning and implementation
of the Section 1362 program through the provision of either financial or
staff resources.

4-22
: : . D~~~~~

The Section 1362 program has been used more widely than the "constructive
total loss" approach. After the devastation of Hurricane Frederic in 1979,
the FIA used about one million dollars in Section 1362 funds to acquire five
damaged beach properties in Gulf Shores, Alabama. The FIA then conveyed title
to the town and added 3.5 acres to the public beach. In 1980, the FIA used
$500,000 in Section 1362 funds to purchase 16 beachfront lots in Scituate,
Massachusetts, which were severely damaged in 1978 by the most destructive
northeaster to ever hit the Massachusetts coast. The lots are now managed by
the town as recreational beach and conservation areas. (Ralph M. Shields
Associates, 1981, p. 74).

Since the Section 1362 program has dealt mainly with scattered damaged
structures in those communities where it has been used, local governments have
often used other sources (such as the disaster relief programs described in
the next section) to supplement Section 1362 funds in relocating damaged
buildings. Advance planning before a major storm occurs can help the commun-
ity target its efforts and effectively pursue sources of funding for post-
disaster relocation projects. Such planning should account for the hazardous
areas present in the community, local reconstruction policies, and the
different sources of funding available.

Federal Disaster Assistance Programs

The federal government administers over 100 different programs which
provide disaster assistance to individuals, businesses, and state and local
governments (see FEMA's Digest of Federal Disaster Assistance Programs). Many
of these programs are only used in a coimmunity following a Presidential dis-
aster declaration. The others are not geared specifically to major disasters
but can play a role in hazard mitigation planning and post-disaster recovery.
The scope of these programs is broad, designed to meet the many and varied
needs of a disaster-stricken community. Some programs assist emergency opera-
tions and the immediate needs of people in the community (such as search and
rescue, emergency communications, temporary shelter, and health services).
Some programs assist the reconstruction activities following a disaster (such
as debris removal and financing the repair of damaged structures and
utilities). Some programs assist local and state agencies in planning to
mitigate the effects of future disaste'rs

Since the focus of this report is on managing development, the following
discussion of federal disaster assistance programs will focus on those
programs which influence the location and quality of reconstruction in the
community. The discussion opens with a brief description of the main federal
programs assisting reconstruction. It then follows with a description of how
these programs are coordinated after a flood or major coastal storm to ensure
that federal assistance leaves the community safer from damage than it was
before the disaster hit.

4-23

Assistance for Repairs and Reconstruction -- 3

Table 4.4 presents the primary federal programs which help finance
post-disaster repairs and reconstruction. Most of these programs require a
Presidential disaster declaration before they can be used in a community. The
programs provide grants, loans, and insurance claims to aid individuals, busi-
nesses, and government agencies in the repair, reconstruction, or replacement
of private homes, commercial establishments, and public facilities. The types
of assistance available and the eligibility requirements of each program are
described below.

Assistance available to individuals --

Flood Insurance - Any property owner who holds a flood insurance policy
with the Federal Insurance Administration (part of FEMA) and whose
property is damaged by flooding can settle his claim with the FIA to
defray the costs of repairing, reconstructing, or relocating the
damaged structure.

Individual and Family Grants -- This program provides individuals and
families with grants of up to $5,000 to meet necessary disaster-
related expenses which cannot be met through assistance from other
sources. The program is administered by the N.C. Division of Emer-
gency Management, with FEMA providing 75 percent of the funding.

Home/Personal Property Disaster Loans -- The Small Business Administra-
tion offers these loans to homeowners to help repair or replace
property that is damaged by a natural disaster. Coverage for real
property is limited to $50,000 coverage for personal property is
limited to $10,000. If the property is covered by insurance, the
SBA will only fund the difference between the total amount of
damages and the insurance proceeds received by the property owner.

Temporary Housing- For individuals an d families displaced by a
disaster, FEMA offers temporary housing in government, private, or
commercial structures and grants for repairs to owner-occupied
damaged structures. No rental fees are charged for the first 12
months of occupancy. The program also provides temporary assistance
with mortgage and rent payments for persons facing financial
hardship as a result of a disaster. 3

Mobile Home Loans Insurance and Mortgage Insurance - Homes for Disaster
Victims -- The Department of Housing and Urban Development can guarantee
or insure loans to disaster victims for purchasing homes.

Adjustments to Federal Loans - HUD can refinance any loan it has made
when a property owner holding a HUD loan needs refinancing because
of damage to his property caused by a natural disaster.

Assistance available to businesses and private institutions --

Flood Insurance -- (described above) 3

4-24

; : : : X : ::: 0;:: \ : :;I

Table 4.4: Federal Disaster Assistance Programs Aiding Directly in Repairs and Reconstruction

Available to . . . Presidential
OMB Funding Declaration
Program 'Catalog No.* Agency Individual Business Government Required

Flood Insurance 83.100 FEMA X X
Individual & Family Grants 83.300 FEMA X X
Home/Personal Property 59.008 SBA X X
Disaster Loans
Temporary Housing 83.300 FEMA X X
Mobile Home Loans Insurance 14.110 HUD X X
Mortgage Insurance--Homes for 14.119. HUD X X
Disaster Victims
Adjustments to Federal Loans 83.300 :Vet. Adm. X X
Physical Disaster Loans to 59.008 SBA X X
Businesses
Aid to Major Sources o'f Employment 83.300 SBA/FmHA X X
Economic-Injury Disaster Loans 59o'002 SBA X X
Repair and Restoration of Private 83,300 FEMA X X
Non-profit Facilities
Rural Electrification Loans 10.805 REA(USDA) X X X
and Loan Guarantees
Rural Telephone Loans .and 10.851 REA(USDA) X X
Loan Guarantees
Repair and Restoration of 83-.300 FEMA X X
Public Facilities
CDBG Secretary's Fund for 14.218 HUD X X
'Disaster Assistance
Federal-aid Highway Repair ? FHWA(DOT) X
Debris Removal 83.300 FEMA** X X X X

*Refer to the Office of Management and Budget's Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.

**FEMA makes requests for debris removal to the appropriate federal agencies.

Physical Disaster Loans -- Under this program, the Small Business Admin-
istration can make loans of up to $500,000 to businesses and private
non-profit institutions to repair or replace real property, equip-
ment, inventory, and other assets to their pre-disaster condition.
Any insurance proceeds must be deducted from the total amount of
damages to determine the amount an applicant may borrow from the
SBA. These loans are limited to 85 percent of the total verified
damage.

Aid to Major Sources of Employment - The Small Business Administration
offers long-term, low-interest loans to a non-agricultural enter-
prise that constitutes a major source of employment in the community
and is no longer in substantial operation due to the disaster. The
program aims to help major employers resume operations and to help
restore the economic viability of the community. The Farmers Home
Administration conducts the program for agricultural concerns.

Economic Injury Disaster Loans - These SBA loans are available only to
small businesses that have suffered substantial financial injury--
with or without actual physical damage--as a result of a disaster.
The loans provide up to $500,000 to help the business maintain its
working capital position during the disaster period and meet finan-
cial obligations which it could have met if the disaster had not
occurred.

Repair or Restoration of Private Non-profit Facilities - FEMA provides
grants to cover up to 100 percent of the net cost of repairing,
reconstructing, or replacing damaged non-profit facilities to their
pre-disaster condition and in conformity with existing codes and
standards. Private non-profit facilities include schools,
utilities, and medical facilities.

Rural Electrification Loans and Loan Guarantees and Rural Telephone
Loans and Loan Guarantees -- The Department of Agriculture's Rural
Electrification Administration offers guaranteed/insured loans to
electric and telephone companies who have suffered economic hardship
or property damage as a result of a natural disaster.

Assistance Available to Local and State Agencies --

Repair or Restoration of Public Facilities -- FEMA will provide grants to
local and state agencies to help defray the cost of repairing,
reconstructing, or replacing damaged public facilities. "Public
facilities" include public utilities, buildings, recreational
facilities, non-federal-aid streets, and flood control projects.

CDBG Secretary's Fund for Disaster Assistance - When funds from other
sources are not available, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, at the discretion of its Secretary, provides block
grants to disaster-stricken communities. The grants are intended to
meet the community's development needs following a disaster to
restore or maintain the community's safety and economic stability.

4-26

I FederalAid HighwayRepair --'The Federal Highway Administration provides
project grants :to -state highway agencies, ;after a declaration of
emergency by-the�*Governor:, :.for repairing or reconstructing federal-
.aid roads and trails whichslhave:suffered serious damage in anatural
disaster.

Debris Removal - FEMA can issue grantsto state and local governments to
'pay for removing debris 'arid wreckage:from. public and private lands
and waters. -FEMA can also arrange for appropriate federal agencies
(such as .the Coast Guard `or" Corps of Engineers) ,to. perform the work
Idirectly. Individuats, businesses, ,and"government agencies are 'all
eligible for assistance.

3 Most of the programs just 'described require a Presidential disaster
declaration before they may .be: used in.the community. The President-will
declare a "major disaster" only .at the request of the Governor and only when
the situation is of such, severity'i arid:.magnitude that it is: beyond the
Icapabilities of the local and state=governments involved. Immediately after
the Presidential 'declaration,' FEMA's;'Associate1 Director' for;Disaster, Response
and Recovery, based on the, Governor's:.request,,.designates .those communities
-that are eligible for federal. disaster."assistance:'-and-.appoints FEMA;!s Regional
-Director (or another. federal official) ..as:the ,disaster 'area 's Federal Coordi-
nating Officer (FCO). The' FCO, with:.'the ,assistance of .disaster: specialists
from the various' federal. agencies involved, coordinates all 'federal activities
with each other and :with state;,.'.local,.and.private: response' efforts. :He also
:coordinates.all federal :assistance.;programs :and':helps local citizens.and pub-
lic officials obtain the.assistance for'which.they'.are eligible. At the same
I time, the' Governor 'puts 'the state's':,disaster response program in motion and
appoints.a State CoordinatingOfficer (from' the.N;.C.'Division:'off Emergency
Management) as the primary liaison'between the ,state land' federal and .local
-officials. The Governor and-- FEMA's Regional Director.ithen.: execute' a.'`Federal-
State Disaster:Assistance'Agreement'whi'ch toutlines :the'terms :-byiwhich federal
aid'becomes available.

I The Federal'Coordinating'Officer,.usually in. conj unction.with the :State
Coordinating Officer, setsi upa, Disastoer':iField Office twithin:.the stricken. area
which is staffed by representatives, of'the various'federal.and state.agencies
I 'responsible for. 'providing disaster :.ass isstance. In ,addition to, the Disaster
Field.;Office, FEMA..will set'up .one:ormore':Disaster Assistance. Centers where
representatives of federal, state, -and local agencies and private relief
organizations can counsel:disaster victims and help themiapply for -disaster
assistance. 'Informati-on .-about 'sthe types- of : aid available is broadcast'by
radio, television, newspaper, andrpamphlets. FEMA may also send out mobile
teams to assist pers.ons'.in areas lacking access to a Disaster Assistance
Center.

FEMA.representatives'also brief localsand state .off icials: regarding the
types of assistance available to ;them :and the -procedures' for obtaining. disas-
ter' relief funds. After this briefing, -federal personnel prepare Damage
Survey Reports' which document disaster. :damages,. estimate repair costs, rand
recommend the scope: of work to receive: federal assistance. Federal personnel
also' help eligible local and state agencies f-ile:applications for relief'aifd,
which are submitted for:approval through the state's Division of Emergency
:Management to the FEMA Regional Director -(or other appropriate agency head).

4-27

Due to the variety of needs facing a disaster-stricken community and
the variety of disaster relief programs administered by different federal
agencies, coordination appears to be the most difficult task during the period
following a hurricane, flood, or other natural disaster. The creation of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency in 1978 improved the coordination of fed-
eral efforts by assigning one agency lead responsibility and by bringing into
one agency several programs that were previously administered by different
agencies. Nonetheless, responsibility for administering disaster relief
programs is still dispersed.

Until 1980, there was little coordination between agencies to provide
disaster assistance in such a way as to reduce the threat of future damages in
the community by influencing the quality and location of reconstruction.
-Since 1980, Interagency Regional Hazard Mitigation Teams have been assembled
to better coordinate federal response to the needs of a disaster-stricken
community, to avoid duplication in federal relief efforts, and to help the
community identify opportunities for mitigating future losses through land use
controls, relocation, public acquisition, floodproofing, and other means.

Interagency Regional Hazard Mitigation Teams --

In December 1980, the primary federal agencies which provide construction
funds and disaster relief aid signed an "Interagency Agreement on Non-
structural Damage Reduction Measures as Applied to Common Flood Disaster
Planning and Post-Flood Recovery Practices�. The agreement addresses flood
damage reduction, pre-disaster planning, and post-disaster recovery activ-
ities. Twelve agencies sat on a special interagency task force and signed the
agreement: the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Small Business Administration (SBA), the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and the Departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, Defense (Army), Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and
Urban Development, Interior, and Transportation. The agreement states, as a
common policy, that post-disaster relief activities should prevent future
losses and help disaster victims relocate out of high hazard areas rather than
rebuild the community to its prior, more vulnerable state. The agreement also
encourages pre-disaster planning to reduce future losses, with special
attention to floodproofing actions and "non-structural" measures (such as
development guidelines and relocation). The Interagency Agreement is based on
four guiding concepts: ;

1. The importance of non-structural approaches to reducing damages from
flood and other hazards;

2. The value and necessity of planning ahead for actions to reduce
future damages--both before and after disaster strikes;

3. The special opportunities offered by the period immediately following
a disaster for reducing future damages from floods and other natural
disasters; and

4-28

: : f::;l :: f : :: SI

4. Realization that many federal expenditures, particularly expenditures
for disaster relief, have been used simply to restore conditions that
existed before disaster struck. The recipients of these funds remain
subject to flood hazards, and it is only a matter of time until
disaster strikes again and the entire process is repeated.
(FEMA, 1981, p. I-2).

The Interagency Agreement establishes Hazard Mitigation Teams for each of
the ten federal regions to recommend specific mitigation measures in disaster-
stricken communities. The teams consist of representatives from each -agency
which signed the agreement. The FEMA Regional Director mobilizes the region's
team in response to a Presidential declaration of disaster or emergency; the
team is then joined by representatives of the affected state and local govern-
ments. As part of the community recovery effort, the team conducts an on-site
analysis of the extent and severity of damage, identifies mitigation oppor-
tunities, and completes a Hazard Mitigation Report within 15 days of the
Presidential declaration. The reportS recommends detailed mitigation measures
and outlines how the disaster assistance available from each agency should be
coordinated to carry them out. By issuing a report so soon after the
disaster, federal agency representatives have more specific guidance in
deciding how to allocate disaster relief funds and technical assistance before
long-term recovery decisions are made. The team issues a follow-up report 90
days after the initial report to assess whether or not the agencies have
followed the prescribed mitigation program. The Hazard Mitigation Team's role
is advisory; its recommendations are not binding. The team's Hazard Miti-
gation Report complements the long-term Hazard Mitigation Plan required by
Section 406 of the Federal Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-288).
Figure 7.7 illustrates the relative timing of federal disaster assistance
efforts.

One advantage of the Interagency Regional Hazard Mitigation Team is that
it provides a good forum for combining, different disaster assistance programs
into one package to address a specifiic need or mitigation opportunity in the
community. This allows innovation where a single program acting alone might
preclude a constructive and effective long-term response to a particular
hazard. In M!ay 1981, after a flood in Mobile, Alabama, the Interagency Team
recommended the relocation of 50 to 70 dwelling units out of the flood plain.
To follow through on this recommendation, the Interagency Team brought
together an assistance package providing acquisition and relocation funds from
different FEMA, HUD, and Corps of Engineers programs.

The Section 406 Hazard Mitigation Plan --

Section 406 of the Federal Disaster Relief Act requires state and local
governments receiving federal disaster assistance to evaluate natural hazards
in the disaster area and to take appropriate action to mitigate them. To
carry out Section 406, FEMA has developed Hazard Mitigation Regulations (44
CFR 205, Subpart M); these regulations outline a process for federal, state,
and local cooperation in evaluating hazards in the community and in selecting
reasonable and effective measures to mitigate the effects of future disasters.
The process culminates in the development of a Hazard Mitigation Plan, which
the state submits to FEMA's Regional Director 180 days after the Presidential
declaration.

4-29

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Section 406 Hazard Mitigation Plan has three primary goals:

1. To follow-up, in detail, recommendations of the federal/state/local
survey and planning teams and the'Interagency Regional Hazard
Mitigation Teamn;

2. To establish both immediate and long-term planning frameworks for
implementation of hazard mitigation efforts;

3. To recommend hazard mitigation alternatives for local, state and
federal agencies.
(FEMA, 1981, p. C-6).

In meeting these goals, FEMA relies on the Federal-State Disaster Assistance
Agreement, a joint federal/state/local survey team, and a joint federal/state/
local planning team.

Under the Section 406 regulations, FEMA's Regional Director must include
hazard mitigation in the Federal-State Disaster Assistance Agreement as a
condition to state and local governments receiving relief funds. The state
typically agrees (1) to evaluate natural hazards in the disaster area (or have
the local governments applying for aid do so), (2) to follow up with appli-
cants to ensure that they take appropriate actions to mitigate the hazards,
(3) to review and update portions of emergency plans dealing with mitigation,
and (4) to prepare and submit a Hazard Mitigation Plan for the disaster area.

The joint federal/state/local survey team is composed of federal, state,
and local Hazard Mitigation Coordinators which are appointed by the FEMA
Regional Director, the Governor's Authorized Representative, and the local
government applying for aid. The survey team uses information from site
visits, Damage Survey Reports, and the Interagency Hazard Mitigation Report to
identify significant hazards and their impacts and to evaluate and recommend
specific hazard mitigation measures. The survey team submits its recom-
mendations to the FEMA Regional Director and the Governor's Authorized
Representative.

The joint federal/state/local planning team is set up in the same manner
as the survey team, often with the same persons sitting on both. The planning
team evaluates state and local hazard mitigation plans Iand programs to see if
they are effective at avoiding future disasters. Based on this evaluation,
and the survey team's findings, the planning team prepares the Section 406
Hazard Mitigation Plan, which the Governor's Authorized Representative submits
to the FEMA Regional Director. The Regional Director can then require the
local or state government to update or develop appropriate hazard mitigation
measures.

Under the Section 406 regulations, FEMA can approve or prescribe various
hazard mitigation measures as a condition for issuing federal disaster aid.
These measures include land use regulations, construction standards, and other I
methods of avoiding the hazard. Land use regulations may include requiring
facilities to locate outside of high hazard areas as well as other steps to
protect individual facilities andto discourage development in high hazard
areas. Construction standards will include those of the National Flood Insur-
ance Program as well as state and local standards which the joint survey and

4-30

S : : S : :::: At l 0 f S:: : : 0 I

planning teams might recommend. The FEMA Regional Director can deny funding
for the repair or reconstruction of a building in a high hazard area where the
structure would be subject to repeated damage or where a practical alternative
location exists outside the high hazard area.

- Executive Order 11988 - Floodplain Management

President Carter issued Executive.:Order 11988 - "Floodplain Manage-
ment" -- in 1977 as an initiative for., coordinating federal policies to protect
lives and property and to preserve and restore the natural Values of flood-
prone lands. The order directs federal agencies to lead the nation by
demonstrating a comprehensive approach to floodplain management and to prepare
administrative procedures that achieve the order's goals. The order's primary
objective is:

to avoid to the extent possible the long- and short-term adverse
impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of flood-
plains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain
development wherever there is a practicable alternative (U.S. Water
Resources Council, 1978, p. 2).

The order is broad-ranging; it applies to all actions conducted,
supported, and permitted by the federal government. For each action, the
responsible federal agency must:

1. determine if the action is in or affects the base floodplain
(at a minimum, the area subject to inundation by the one-percent
or 100-year flood);

2. avoid the base floodplain unless it is the only practicable
alternative;

3. if the base floodplain cannot be.avoided, adjust the action to
minimize hazards to life ,and property and to minimize impacts on
the natural environment;, and

4. notify the public about possible federal actions in the base.
floodplain.

The order also requires federal agencies to amend or issue regulations and
procedures to carry.out these four directives.

As part of its long-term effort to establish a unified national program
for floodplain management, the U.S. Water Resources Council issued Floodplain
Management Guidelines for Implementing E.O.:11988 in 1978. The guidelines
are designed to assist federal agencies in the preparation and implementation
of procedures to carry out the order. The guidelines are intended to create a
consistent federal policy discouraging floodplain development even though it
does not in all cases prohibit federal or federally-assisted floodplain devel-
-opment. Like the National Flood Insurance Program's minimum development
regulations the guidelines seek to break the cycle of flooding-disaster
relief-flooding-disaster relief by which development continues in flood-prone

4-31

areas only to be bailed out by federal assistance when damages occur. By.
minimizing federal involvement in floodplain development, E.O. 11988 and its�
guidelines seek to reduce the risk of flood damages.

The guidelines set up an eight-step decision-making process that federal
agencies can use to comply with the order. The process and its individual
steps can be adapted to meet the particular needs of an individual agency or
in response to a particular problem. The eight steps of the process are as
follows:

1. determine if a proposed action is located in the base
floodplain;

2. early public review of the proposed action;

3. identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to locating in
the base floodplain; ;

4.- identify impacts of the proposed action;

5. minimize the impacts, or restore and preserve the base
floodplain;

6. reevaluate alternatives;

7.. issue findings and public explanation of the decision; 0and'

8. implement the action.

The steps follow the pattern illustrated in Figure 4.2. The decision-making
process is also designed to satisfy the requirements of Executive Order
11990 -- "Protection of Wetlands" -- which calls for federal actions to have
minimal impacts on the nation's wetlands, most of which. fall in. riverine
and coastal floodplains. However, the only action E.O. 11990 covers is new
construction.

The impact of E.O. 11988 and the Water Resources Council's floodplain
management guidelines on federal agency procedures has been, understandably,
quite broad. The order and guidelines apply to all federal actions: to:

1.; acquire, manage, or dispose of federal lands and facilities;;

2. undertake, finance, or assis t:construction and improvements;
and

3. conduct activities and programs affecting land use, including
planning, regulating, and licensing (U.S. Water Resources
Council, 1978, p. 2).:

Responsibility for applying the guidelines rests with individual federal
agencies which have adopted procedures to guide their own actions as they
occur in or affect the nation's floodplains.

4-32

: : : : : : :f: ; : fI

Figure- 4. 2: Decision-making Process, for; E.' 11988

U ~~~~~~~~~~STEPS DTNIEIPOOE ACTION
L~f jJ4-I SAIN hE~ ASE* FLOD0PLAIN
2.1 EARLY PFUBLIC REVIEW I

~~~~~~~~~~~~~I IDNTF 3. EV A UAT ALTERNATIVES, MCI
31. 0 ITLCT 'IN-THE- BASE* FLOODPLAIN - ACTO

~~~~~~~~~~~IINT
A~~~~~~~~~~~~FODLI DEVELPMEN
5.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7;S IMNIMTZE. RETDEANPRSE*V
6.~vDNIY IMREEACUT&EO ALTRNATIVEDS ACT.4
N ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~DE THEMI ACTION --EUNT TP3
I L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~FODLMEELOPM I
7. tMINDMIZENG RSTOEAND PUBLREIC DALAAIU1

8.AEALAEATRAIE

*Forv 'citical actio~ns, 'substitute~ "510,0-~,YeAr ' for "bas." A "cri tical- act ion
is One' for which eVen~ a;~slightP c6h~nancebf "floodingiAs~ thoog great. Critical
f acilities include'~hospitals,' power,-g"Ilants, 'stortage' for 'essential 1or. ikre-
placeable re-cords,".,~-an~d'faci~liti-Les ~-coh-'t~~iniing.-~v6olTti~le,,-tokic,"'f'lamm~able, -or
wter-reactive matil.

I ~~Source: "U.S. Wtreore oni,1-8 .0

~~The', procedures--~adopted by the-`Fedderal Emergency Management; Agency t
calrry-outiE.O. 11988; should-hl lusrt o h re nlecsaec
aftions:: -and :shoulde provride -~sokne'-insiJght int 'o'herdrifuences~ hzar
muwitigation and post-dis'aster'reconstruction. l'MAissued its -finall r-e~gula-
tions" -for:implementing~'E.0. 11:988, on Sep'tember.'9, 1980: (45 F.,R. 59520-59537);
I ~~~~these aetioe o E~sato aan oedtaie' 'thnteWater
Resources Council's~ 'guide-lines. They, daklmiainly- with' FEMAs's disaster':assi3.1t-
anne- - program, thought-sm provisions. cover ~the`:National' Flood Insurance
I ~~~~Program and, place -rstritoso the-'valbility; of ,f loo'd insurance. Not
~all FEMA actions-~are ~~subj ect to the~'regulatiiofs, only those whic-h'affect
flo-od-plains -or: present a `haza~rd by: locating 'in the. floodplain.

I ~~~~~'In accordance wth'the terms ofIE.~0. 11988,F-M ha 6xmpted certain
actions from the regula~tions, such as- emergency work~ essential -to~ save- liVes
and to protect property and-public health-and safety. FEMA has also'exempted

14-33

a category of minor actions offering no potential for floodplain management,
such as assistance of up to $3,750 for home repairs and assistance of up to
$5,000 for repairs to public facilities. (The exemption for repairs to a
public facility does not apply if the facility is located in a coastal high
hazard area -- i.e., a V-zone -- or constitutes new construction or a
substantial improvement.)

FEMA's regulations essentially follow the Water Resources Council's I
eight-step decision-making process. In determining if the proposed action is
in the base floodplain (Step 1), FEMA relies on the flood insurance rate maps
(FIRMs) and flood hazard boundary maps (FHBMs) prepared by the Federal Insur-
ance Administration to provide information on floodplain boundaries, base
flood elevations, and the locations of floodways and coastal high hazard
areas. The more costly the action or the greater the damage potential it
creates, the more information FEMA requires to make its decision.

In providing early public notice of a proposed action (Step 2), FEMA
bases its decision regarding the type and timing of public notice on the scale
of the action, its anticipated impacts, the degree of public need for the
action, the number of affected agencies and individuals, and the potential for
controversy. Larger actions and ones with broader impacts require something
more than a legal notice in the local newspaper, and may even involve a public
hearing and direct notice to affected individuals.

In determining whether the base floodplain is the only practicable I
location (Step 3), FEMA considers alternative sites outside the floodplain,
alternative actions with less impact on the floodplain, and the "no action"
alternative. If an alternative site or action appears practicable, FEMA will
conduct a more thorough evaluation of the proposed action and alternatives.
If this preliminary determination selects an action in the floodplain, FEMA
gathers additional information (Steps 4 and 5) to determine if the proposed
action is the only practicable alternative. "Practicable" is a somewhat loose
term, which includes an evaluation of existing natural constraints, social and
economic concerns, and legal restrictions; the need to locate in the
floodplain must clearly outweigh the need to minimize flood hazards and
impacts on the natural environment.

In identifying the impacts of the proposed action (Step 4), FEMA collects
more information for larger project and for projects with a greater potential
for flood damages or impacts on the natural environment. The amount and
detail of information collected will depend on what information is necessary 3
to avoid development in the floodplain or to minimize its impacts. The types
of impacts identified include those on lives, property, public health and
safety, and the natural environment; this may include collecting more informa-
tion on flood depth, water velocities, flooding duration, warning times, and
evacuation routes. FEMA must also look at the impacts that the proposed
action could have on other properties in the floodplain, such as increasing
flood heights, stimulating erosion, and causing debris problems.

In modifying the proposed action to minimize hazards and adverse impacts
in the floodplain and to restore or preserve the floodplain's natural values
(Step 5), FEMA balances the need to locate in the floodplain against several I
"minimization factors." These factors include reducing, to the extent fea-
sible, (1) the risk of harm to lives and property from the 100-year flood,

4-34

: 4 : : :: : : :: :: : : : \I

(2) potential adverse impacts the action may have on others, and (3) potential
adverse impacts on the floodplain's natural values. In addition to the
general requirement to reduce the above impacts, FEMA must meet specific self-
imposed requirements governing development in flood hazard areas.(such asrthe
FIA's elevation and floodproofing requirements and regulations for development
in V-zones).

In reevaluating the alternatives (Step 6), FEMA must determine whether
the proposed 'action is'still practicable in the floodplain location in light:
of its evaluation of alternative sites and actions and its assessment of the
proposed action's impacts. If hazards and other impacts cannot be minimized
within the floodplain, the practicability of the proposed action is highly
questionable. In determining that the proposed action is the best alterna-
tive, FEMA must again demonstrate that the benefits of locating in the
floodplain clearly outweigh the hazards and impacts it creates. The hazards
and impacts may be reduced by incorporating into the proposed action the
"minimization" techniques identified in Step 5.

If FEMA decides to carry out an:action in or affecting the floodplain, it
must notify the public of its final decision (Step 7). This notice must
include an explanation of the factors that were considered in making the
decision. In carrying out the action (Step 8), FEMA must review its progress
to ensure that it meets its goals and incorporates appropriate features to
minimize hazards and impacts.

As with FEMA, other federal agencies must follow similar procedures to'
comply with E.O. 11988 in undertaking activities in floodplains. These
procedures apply both to new construction and to reconstruction following a
hurricane, flood, or similar disaster. The procedures adopted pursuant to
E.O. 11988 have imposed a new set Of requirements for: new development and
reconstruction to follow and, possiby, created some delays in permitting
such. However, the procedures have:also made the actions of federal agencies
more consistent by providing a common set of standards and guidelines for all
to. follow. They also provide a means.of ensuring that the risk of flood
damages is minimized to the extent, possibiefor any activities undertaken' or
assisted by the federal government.

Barrier Islands Legislation

Recognizing the significant subsihdies :that the federal government.
provides to development on barrier islands, while at the same time trying to:
mitigate coastal hazards and promote the protection of fragile coastal ecosys-
tems, a movement has risen in Congress since 1980: to limit federal involvement
in barrier island development. The philosophy guiding this movement is that
the federal government should decrease its subsidization of barrier island.
development (through: the National Flood. Insurance Program, federal disaster
assistance programs, construction aid.programs, etc.) and transfer the.
financial risks associated with building on barrier islands -- a rather
hazardous environment -- to the private sector. This is an attempt to. break
,the recurring cycle of federal subsidies for barrier island development
followed by federal subsidies for post-disaster repairs and reconstruction.

4-35

While it recognizes that the federal government should not determine what
private owners can do with their property, it also recognizes that the
nation's taxpayers should not be subsidizing the recurring costs and high
risks of private investment on coastal barriers (U.S. Department of the
Interior, 1982, p. 15). Since the North Carolina coastline is predominated by
barrier islands, recent Congressional actions regarding barrier islands can
have a definite impact on how well new development and post-disaster recon-
struction in North Carolina are protected against hurricane damages.

In April of 1981, two bills (H.R.3252 and S.1018) were introduced in
Congress that would prohibit nearly all federal expenditures and financial
assistance on undeveloped coastal barriers. These two bills, proposed as the
"Coastal Barrier Resources Act,"attempt to reconcile federal development
programs with federal environmental protection and hazard reduction programs
to provide a consistent federal policy regarding undeveloped coastal
barriers.

As an outgrowth of this movement, Congress has enacted a prohibition on
federal flood insurance coverage for coastal barriers, or portions thereof,
that have been designated as "undeveloped" by the Department of the Interior.
When the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 was signed into law, it
included a section prohibiting, as of October 1, 1983, the issuance of new
federal flood insurance policies for any new construction or substantial
improvements on undeveloped coastal barriers. Section 341(d) of the Act
assigned to the Secretary of the Interior the responsibility of designating
those areas to which the restriction applies.

In designating those coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts I
that are "undeveloped," the Secretary of the Interior assembled a Coastal
Barrier Task Force consisting of representatives from the U.S. Geological
Survey, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1981 defined "coastal barrier" as a depositional geological feature (barrier
island, barrier spit, bay barrier, or tombolo) which (1) consists of unconsol-
idated sedimentary materials, (2) is subject to wave, tidal, and wind action,
and (3) protects landward aquatic habitats from direct wave attacks. The
statute defined "undeveloped" areas as those coastal barriers, or portions
thereof, containing few man-made structures and where human structures and
activities do not significantly impede geomorphic and ecological processes.
The Department of the Interior refined this definition to cover areas that
(1) are not part of a phased development project, (2) have a density of less
than one structure per five acres of fastland, and (3) lack a full complement
of development infrastructure (vehicle access to each lot and a water supply,
sewer disposal system, and electrical service reasonably available to
each lot).

Using these definitions of "undeveloped coastal barriers," the Department
of the Interior designated 188 coastal barrtes and portions of coastal
barriers from Texas to Maine (covering sor '50 miles of ocean beach) as
"undeveloped" and, therefore, ineligible for new federal flood insurance
policies after October 1, 1983. The designations were based on the level of
development on the ground in each area as of March 15, 1982. Ten of these
areas are in North Carolina and cover about 56 miles of ocean beach. They are
located at Currituck Banks, the Duck Research Center, Bodie Island (Nags

4-36

: \i ; 0 : -:; 0 \ 'W? y ; d l : : ,: :SS | : 0: : :I

Head), Hatteras Island.(Buxton), Shackleford Banks, the Onslow Beach Complex,
Topsail Island (West Onslow Beach), the Lea Island Complex, Wrightsville
Beach, and Masonboro Island.

While the restriction on.flood insurance does not prohibit development in
these areas, it is likely to have some: impact on the level and quality of
development in them. This new,policy transfers the risk of paying for flood
damages in the designated areas from.; the federal government back to the.
private sector. The policy will affect the level of development in these
areas only to the extent that land development depends on the availability of
flood insurance. If the private sector is willing to assume the risk, then
development in the designated "undeveloped coastal barriers" will continue
(subject to local and state policies).

If Congress adopts the more comprehensive Coastal Barrier Resources Act,
private development on..undevelopedzcoastal barriers is more likely to falter.
The Coastal Barriers Resources Act would designate undeveloped areas similar
to, if not identical to, those designated under the Omnibus Budget Recon-
ciliation Act. It would restrict not only flood insurance, but other forms of
federal assistance as well.. If federal construction projects, development
grants and loans, and disaster assistance were denied in the designated areas,
then private development would be much less likely to occur there. Again, the
Coastal Barrier Resources Act would not .prohibit private development; it would
simply remove any federal subsidies-. .. Stricter controls over the location and
quality of development would remain primarily the responsibility of local
government.

Coastal Zone Management Act: Consistency Requirements-

The Coastal Zone Management:Act of 1972 (CZMA), as amended, includes a
set of requirements for federal actions to: be consistent with federally-
approved state coastal management programs. These: requirements are designed
to coordinate federal and state policies and decision-making concerning
activities in the state's designated coastal area. Since North Carolina's
coastal management program was approved by the federal government in 1978, the
CZMA's consistency: requirements give the state and local governments con-
siderable leverage over federal activities in North Carolina's coastal area.

Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act defines four categories of
federal activities which must comply with. the stat:e's coastal management
program:

1. direct federal activities,, such as construction and acquisition
projects;

2. federal licensing and permitting of public and private activi-'
ties (excluding those on the outer continental shelf), such as
Section 404 dredge and fill permits and NPDES permits to
: discharge water pollutants;

4-37

3. federal licensing and permitting ofactivities on the outer
continental shelf which would significantly affect the lands
and waters of the state's coastal zone;

4. federal assistance to state and local governments.

While direct federal activities must comply with the state's coastal manage-
ment program to the maximum extent practicable, the other three categories
require a full certification of consistency. The procedures for certifying
consistency vary slightly from one category to the next,. but they all center
on North Carolina's Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
(NRCD) reviewing proposed actions and determining if they comply with the
state's coastal management program.

For example, notice of proposed direct federal activities must be
provided by the federal agency to NRCD 90 days before final federal approval
of the action; NRCD then has 90 days to review the project for consistency and
initiate any modifications should it deem the project inconsistent. Final
approval rests with the federal agency (Office of Coastal Zone Management,
1978, pp. 235-236). An applicant for a federal license or permit must
supply the federal agency with a state-issued "certification of consistency";
the applicant must apply for certification to the N.C. Office of Coastal
Management. A consistency determination will not be issued until the appli-
cant has obtained all state permits required for the project; in those cases
requiring a CAMA major development permit, issuance of the permit constitutes
a consistency determination. In all other cases, a separate "certification of
consistency" must be obtained from the Office of Coastal Management (Office of
Coastal Zone Management, 1978, pp. 233-235). Applications for federal
assistance to state and local agencies are routinely forwarded to the Office
of Coastal Management by the state's A-95 clearinghouse. Within the time
frame allowed for A-951 proposals, the Office of Coastal Management notifies
the state clearinghouse whether or not the project is consistent with the
state's coastal management program; this is followed by a 90-day review period
(Office of Coastal Zone Management, 1978, pp. 236-239). I

The consistency requirements do not apply to activities on federally-
owned lands (such as national seashores and military bases) unless these
activities have impacts beyond federal boundaries. In exchange for federal
consistency with the state's coastal management program, the state is respon-
sible for considering larger national interests in reviewing activities for
consistency and in managing coastal resources. Such national interests
include defense and environmental protection. Where national interests
conflict with each other (as is often the case) and with state coastal poli-
cies, the state and federal governments must reach a compromise in allowing a
particular activity to occur.

In judging the consistency of federal activities, NRCD compares them to
the following state coastal management policies:

1. present and future statements of policy contained in the CAMA
guidelines (North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15,
Chapter 7);

4-38
7 0 : : :: 0 ::: f : ,;I

2. policies of relevant state agencies, in addition to the Office
of Coastal Management, .which are considered part of, the state' s
coastal management program (such.as. the Division -of Environmen-
tal Management 's pollution control regulations and the Division
of: Marine Fisheries'"regulations);

: 3. ,CAMA's policies: and istandards; :for development in-AECs;: and

4. local land use: plans-adopted pursuant to CAMA and.approved by
the Coastal Resources :Commission.

This gives- local' governments direct,:'influence over federal activities in
coastal communities. .The: local lando-use plan, as a formal: statement' of local
goals and ,policies and the..,desired-pattern of local development, is binding.'.on
both federal and state decisions. that.involve "critical uses" :and, public
investment expenditures. With "critical uses" (i.e., those identified as
being of state interest); managementidecisions are:made in accordance with the
local land use plan unless: this: confli'cts-with state coastal policy. Where' a
conflict arises, state policy.. prevails. "The same holds true for -federal
public investment expenditures ::(Office. of Coastal. Zone Management, 1978,
pp. 231-232).

Following the consistency requirements set up by- the'Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Act and the 7review. procedures "established by'- NRCD, the local land use
plan can have significant influence.over federal activities in the community.
Local ,governments should' bear~ this :W iin,. mind while: decveloping :.and::adopting
policies for hurricane' hazard: mitigation and, post-disaster reconstruction.
These policies should be :incorporated into the:local land..use' plan.-since any
policies which appear, in, the plan must:-,be adhered. to. by federal- and state
agencies (unless there is an overriding national interest involved'.or' a
conflict.with state policy). By :havi-ngi hazard mitigation.:and reconstruction
policies. in the local land euse.plan, ;'the.community: can i:influence federal
development. and acquisitionL projects: ,federal licensing and permitting deci-
sions, and the nature of federal, assistance to state and&local: agencies.
'These federal activities. can all'affect :the. community's.safety from
storm damages.

I 4

I .

4-39

LOCAL PROGRAMS TO MANAGE DEVELOPMENT |
IN HAZARD AREAS

Whenever development presents a hazard to the public, creates conflicts
between adjacent land uses, or overburdens the community's capacity to absorb
it, then the local government has a duty to regulate development to reduce or
eliminate these problems. In addition to this protective function, the local
government can promote socially desirable uses of land to improve the economic
well-being or quality of life of the community. A community's goals, or
visions of its future, determine the tone of local government's policies and
actions regarding development. Each community will have different problems
and needs arising from the pattern and character of development within each
community. People within each community will have different perceptions of
how great particular problems are or whether problems exist at all.

Coastal communities may have several objectives related to managing
development to reduce the risk of storm damages. In directly regulating the
location, type, elevation, and design of structures, the local government may
want:

1. to prevent destruction by wind, flooding, waves, and erosion
that threaten the health, safety, and economic well-being of
community residents;

2. to prevent water-borne or wind-borne debris from damaging adja-
cent properties;

3. to minimize the public expense required for seawalls, groins,
flood relief, and so forth;

4. to allocate lands to their most appropriate uses; and

5. to prevent the victimization of unwary purchasers of flood-prone
lots or structures.

In regulating the removal of sand and shoreline vegetation, and the construc-
tion of groins, seawalls, and bulkheads, to protect the community's natural
defenses against storm damage, the local government may want:

1. to prevent accelerated beach erosion;

2. to protect dunes and other natural protective barriers;

3. to protect natural sources of sand supply which nourish beaches
and prevent beach erosion; and

4. to prevent modifications to natural wave and current patterns
which will increase damage by erosion, waves, or flooding
(U.S. Water Resources Council, 1972, Vol. 2, pp. 130-131).

Local public policy regarding coastal storm hazards provides the ration-
ale underlying the development management tools chosen by the community to

4-40
: t : ::~~~~~~~~

reduce the risk of storm damages. Public policy includes the goals-, objec-
tives, and policy statements adopte'di.bythe community to manage development.
The general goal of reducing the risk of storm damages will be shared by most
residents of the community; however,i conflicts arise when this goal is refined
and translated into specific polic iesS which: guide local government actions. and
place requirements-on new development and post-disaster reconstruction.

Some of this conflict will arise over the extent to which government
should protect the individual from his own actions: If a property owner wants
to build a house where :it will probably be: washed away in a major storm, why
shouldn't he be able to build there-an&d face the consequences? This is a
valid point, but it fails to consider' the threat -the individual's actions may
present to the rest of-the community.. For example, during a hurricane, debris
from a poorly-built or poorly-sited house- 'may float or-:blow onto neighboring
properties and cause damage to othe'rt buildings. AXperson who removes a
frontal dune to build a home' or business removes:not bnly his own first line
of defense against- flood3ing:, wavesy, and erosion, 'but also that of surrounding
- property owners. These are valid' -concerns of the community which justify
local government action to control-the:location and quality of development.
As the- basis for local' government actsions', the astated 'goals:, objectives, and
policies of the community must show ho deelopment - regulations serve the
3 public purpose and -not just; protectan h'in dividual- -from his own actions.

Conflict may also arise in det-ermining :what- is an appropriate level' of
risk to protect against.' Regilations Wihich" require safeguards against very
low-probability events, (such as- the'500O-year 'flood)-' may" be judged unreason-
able, since the -low probabiblity" of' s'ch a level: of" damages- occurring may not
justifythe costshe costs' required to p'ofeve the Thvarous measures to
reduce hurricane damages must be heighed against the level of damages::the com-
munity, can reasonably- expectl to face.J- Any' loca-l government: 'effort to mitigate
future losses must balance publi& needs and 'the desired: level of protection
against the costs of such- protection annd the willingness of individuals to'
assume risks.

K:'While the above- concerns deal: rimarimly with': the: political: and' economic
acceptability of local deve.lo'pmentmn'ement'efforts', these' efforts must 'also
'meet a number' of minimum legalreqeements. Local development regulations
-must- be' adopted: according to the.-i,4delines established.- by state enabling
' legislation. They-must' also 'serve valid -poice1, 'power' obje-ctives-and- reason-
ably' aid in meeting these objectives.-' The'regulations -must not discriminate.
b -between similarly' situated indivi'duals" or:amount to a "taking of private
pr-operty: without just compensation.

Development management tools play 'a useful 'and- ess'ential role-- in' reducing
the risk of storm :damages' in a coastal community. Local government' officials
'and: administrators -are:familiar withthe- basic tools of-development manage-
t-ment:, such as zoning,- 'subdivision :regulations, construction standards,
environmental permit-requirements, and public works policies. These measures
typically govern new construction and reconstruction within the community:and
can be used to reduce' the potential for storm damages.

Reducing the risk of storm:' damages: can be a -valuable part: of a broader,
comprehensive development managementl program'which regulates or influences
- many aspects of the community's physical development to achieve a variety- of

; : : 4-41 :

community goals. Such a comprehensive approach is preferable because it can
avoid duplicative or piecemeal regulations, address and balance the full range
of needs in the community, and allow some development controls to resolve more
than one problem at, the same time.

The following discussion presents the different tools that local govern-
ment can use to manage development and post-disaster reconstruction to reduce
the risk of storm damages. The description of each tool presents the tool's
general purpose, its applicability to hurricane hazard reduction, the legal,
political, and economic issues surrounding the tool,: and its relationship to
current state and federal programs.

Zoning Regulations

Zoning is probably the most common device employed by local government to
manage development. The general purpose of zoning is to avoid undesirable
side effects of development by segregating incompatible uses and by maintain-
ing adequate standards for individual uses to comply with the community's
development goals. Zoning is used to control the use of land and structures
on it, with more detailed standards concerning the area of a lot which may be
developed (setbacks and separation of structures), the density of development
(minimum lot sizes, etc.), and the height and bulk of buildings and other
structures.

In North Carolina, authority to zone has been given to municipalities
under N.C.G.S. 160A-381 and to counties under N.C.G.S. 153A-340. The zoning
power is administered;by the elected legislative body of the locality,
although certain aspects may be delegated. The permissible purposes for
zoning are set out in the statute as lessening congestion in the streets;
securing safety from fire, panic, and other dangers; promoting health and
general welfare; providing adequate light and air; preventing overcrowding of
land; avoiding undue concentrations of population; and facilitating adequate
provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public
services. Any zoning technique applied by the local government which is found
not to serve these purposes is considered illegal, because the locality may
not exceed the authority granted to it by the stateo.

Reducing the risk of hurricane damages is a valid objective for zoning in
North Carolina; witness the number of communities along the coast that have
minimum elevation and beachfront setback requirements as part of their zoning
ordinances and floodplain management regulations.

The main elements of a zoning ordinance are: I

1. the identification of different zoning districts; 3

2. a list of uses permitted by right or conditionally in each
district;

3. special requirements governing building placement, height, and
other factors;

4-42

4. procedures for granting permits and variances; and

5. standards and procedures:: governing non-conforming uses and
structures.

There is room in each of these elements to address hurricane hazards.

The delineation of hazard areasis an important first step in using
zoning to reduce the risk of hurricane.damages. CAMA AEC's, National Flood
Insurance Program V-zones and A-zonesi and other hazard areas can be used as
districts in and of themselves or can be used as overlays to more traditional
zoning districts, which separate different uses (residential, commercial,
etc.) rather than different levels of hazard.

In determining which uses are permitted to locate in high hazard areas,
the local government can restrict high-density uses which would be susceptible
to greater levels of damage than low-density uses.. It could also restrict
uses in high hazard areas to:those which.most seriously depend on locating in
that area. For example, while the oceanfront faces the greatest risk of hur-
ricane damages, it is the only logical location for a fishing pier. The level
of restriction placed on the location of different uses. is primarily a choice
local government must:make based on the.goals of the community (within the
confines of state and federal programs.governing high hazard areas).

For those uses. permitted in different hazard areas, the local government
may adopt special requirements governing construction which reasonably protect
against the hazards present in each:area. For example, elevation requirements
and beachfront setbacks can keep buildings above expected flood levels and out
of reach from erosion as well- as proteet sand dune-s and other natural safe-
guards. Elevation requirements and. beachfront or dune setbacks are. the two
most common hurricane hazard mitigation: tools that appear in local zoning
regulations. In using either one, the: local government needs accurate
information on the flood levels and;amount of erosion that are likely to occur
during a major storm.

Coastal communities that are enrolled in the Regular Phase of the
National Flood Insurance Program.have usually adopted as the minimum elevation
the 100-year storm surge levels identi�ied on- their flood insurance rate maps.
Those maps developed before 1982 fail to- account for the height of waves that
appear atop the surge and can increase surge elevations by up to 50 or 100
percent. To overcome this problem, many communities throughout the country
have adopted minimum elevations.that exceed the basic 100-year storm surge:
level and offset expected wave heights. Southamptonj New York, has- a zoning
ordinance that requires- new structulres,: to :be, elevated to-: 15 feet, even though
the 100-year surge elevation is about 12. feet.. (Kusler, 1982, p. 46). East
Providence, Rhode Island, requires structures along the beach to be elevated
to 15 feet, even though, the 100-year surge- elevation is about ten, feet.
Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, requires buildings to be elevated at least
one foot above the 100-year flood elevation.

Beachfront or dune setbacks are designed to place structures out of reach
from stormn-induced erosion, out of reach from breaking waves, and/or behind
protective dunes. The setbacks established by the-N.C. Coastal Resources
Commission for ocean erodible AECs, inlet hazard AECs, and estuarine shoreline

4-43

AECs help achieve these purposes. A community along the coast can, of course,
adopt even more restrictive setbacks if it feels they are necessary to protect
the community from damages. Such setbacks are widely used :in coastal communi-
ties throughout the country. A setback can be used not only to prohibit
development but also to delineate an area within which only certain uses are
permitted or certain standards apply owing to the severity of risk present.

The treatment of non-conforming uses and structures in local zoning regu-
lations is especially relevant in dealing with post-hurricane reconstruction.
Theoretically, the goal of identifying non-conforming situations is to have
them eventually conform to existing regulations as they are expanded or
repaired following significant damages. If not properly handled, non-
conforming uses and structures can present an obstacle to reducing the risk of
hurricane damages. If non-conformities remain unprotected, they will remain
subject to repeated damage and may exert pressure for public expenditures to
continue in high hazard areas. Of course, a local government may'choose not
to apply any requirements that non-conforming uses and structures eventually
conform to development regulations. However, this could leave much of the
community vulnerable to repeated damage. Local zoning regulations usually
include some provisions with which non-conforming situations must comply. A
local government basically has three options for having non-conforming uses
and structures eventually meet the community's development standards:

1. requiring existing uses to conform when they are re-established
after being destroyed or abandoned;

.2. requiring existing uses to conform when repairs, alterations,
or extensions exceed some percentage of the structure's value;

3. requiring existing uses to be elevated, floodproofed, or
eliminated within some period of time whether or not they are
damaged or expanded.

For various political and legal reasons, most communities opt for one or both
of the first two approaches. These approaches are not without their
problems.

First, the community must decide on what level of damage must occur for ;
the use or structure to be brought into conformity with existing development
standards. This is usually stated as some percentage of structural or market
value. Such a figure should be low enough that it will reasonably require
most, if not all, non-conforming situations -to eventually be corrected. It
must ::also be high enough to avoid what many people in the community might con-
sider an unreasonable or costly restriction on minor repairs and additions.

The second problem involves interpretation and enforcement on the part of
local inspectors. In order to determine if repairs to a non-conforming struc-
ture exceed the minimum value which would require the structure to conform,
local officials must be able to accurately assess the base market or struc-
tural value as well as the value of any repairs. Such a task may prove
overwhelming if a hurricane strikes the community and causes widespread
damage, which local property owners will want to repair as quickly as

4-44
\ : : : : : : : :: :: :: :':: : 0 \ : I

possible. Communities need to explore ways to expedite this process while
still requiring non-conforming uses and structures to meet current development
standards.

I Using local zoning regulations to reduce the risk of hurricane damages
can be quite effective if appropriate development standards are enacted and
enforced. Many communities in North Carolina have enacted special "floodplain
management regulations" to address flooding problems and to qualify for the
National Flood Insurance Program. These regulations typically identify sepa-
rate flood hazard zones, permitted uses, elevation, floodproofing, setback
requirements, and requirements for non-conformities. The regulations tend to
supplement existing zoning regulations; for example, the community may adopt
A-zones and V-zones as overlays to the local zoning map. The development
standards are similar to those which appear in the local zoning ordinance,
but more directly address the flood hazard. There is no reason that different
hazard zones and. related development standards could not appear in the zoning
ordinance itself. Similarly, local governments administer the Coastal
Resources Commissions's development standards for minor projects in designated
AECs. The AECs essentially represent another set of "districts" overlain
on the local zoning map, and the CRC standards supplement local zoning
regulations.

Subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulations

Local subdivision regulations can be used to reduce the risk of flood
and erosion damages and to protect buyers of hazardous building sites. Sub-
division regulations are most effective at reducing flood and erosion losses
if they are used in combination with zoning, construction codes, and other
regulations to ensure that lands, subject to flooding and other hazards are
identified and developed in ways that a:djust land uses and building con-
struction to ameliorate the hazard.

Subdivision regulations control the conversion of raw land into building
sites. They can 'establish effective requirements and standards for public
improvements (such as streets, drainage. systems, and water lines). They can
require the subdivider to dedicate some portion of land for public purposes
(such as parks and schools,). They can.also regulate development to reduce
burdens on existing public facilities, to prevent environmental degradation,
5 and to mitigate natural hazards.

Cities in North Carolina have authority to regulate subdivision pursuant
to N.C.G.S. 160A-371. The regulations are developed and administered by the
local city council or a designated planning agency. County subdivision regu-
lations are enabled by N.C.,G.S. 153A-330 and may be exercised by the Board of
County Commissioners or their appointed agency. A "subdivision, is defined as
"all divisions of a tract or parcel of- land into two or more lots, building
sites, or other divisions'for the purpose of sale or building development
(whether immediate or future) and shall include all divisions of land involv-
ing the dedication of a new street or a change in existing streets" (N.C.G.S.
160A-376).

4-45

Subdivision regulations can be used to reduce the risk of flood damages
by several means:

1. prohibiting the subdivision of high hazard lands unless specific
steps are taken to overcome the hazard;

2. requiring the demarcation of hazard areas on subdivision plats;

3. requiring that hazard information appear in the deeds for
building sites; I

4. requiring that each lot be filled or otherwise protected to
provide a building site elevated above expected flood levels;

5. requiring that streets, water lines, sewers, and other public
facilities be floodproofed or elevated; and

6. encouraging the clustering of buildings out of high hazard areas
and the preservation of these areas in their natural state or
other low-risk uses. 1

These means are geared to two primary objectives. They can restrict develop-
ment in high hazard areas by either prohibiting it or requiring that it be
adequately protected from damage. They can also ensure that a prospective
buyer of a lot is adequately informed of the risk present and thus takes
whatever action he feels is necessary.

Planned unit development (PUD) regulations, as a sort of hybrid of zoning
and subdivision regulations, can also be used to protect development from
flood and erosion hazards., PUDs are generally attractive to developers of
large tracts of land. In their simplest form, PUD regulations aim to cluster
development in order to preserve or avoid some section of the property in-
volved. For example, a developer might have a 20-acre parcel of land which he
could divide into 80 quarter-acre lots given existing zoning and subdivision
regulations. PUD regulations could give the developer the option of clus-
tering the 80 units on one part of the site, like-away from a high hazard
area, provided that the overall number of units does not exceed 80. The open
space saved by clustering can be left for the common use of residents. In
more complicated forms,: PUD regulations can allow a variety of housing types
as well as commercial and other uses. Planned unit developments are usually
subject to zoning ordinances as well, and must comply with appropriate use and
density requirements. However, the local government can allow some mixing of
uses and increases in density. ,

PUD ordinances are not specifically authorized by enabling legislation in
North Carolina. However, many local jurisdictions, some of them in the
coastal area, have such ordinances. Their validity has not been tested in the
courts. Although the possibility exists that PUD ordinances may be upheld in
the absence of an enabling provision, such enabling legislation is needed on
the state level to remove all doubts as to jiheir validity.

Different forms of PUD regulations have been frequently championed as
measures to protect the coastal environment by clustering development away
from sensitive areas, dunes, marshes, and flood hazard areas. Currituck

4-46
r: r f X0 Off: 00 A;: ;

County has made extensive use of 'a variation of the.PUD process in developing
a land use plan designed to protect and enhance the county's coastal
resources.

As with zoning regulations, local subdivision and PUD regulations. can; be
designed to mirror and supplement the minimum development standards that:,the
Coastal Resources Commission maintains for AECs and the National Flood, Insur-
ance Program maintains for A-zones an dV-zones. It must be remembered that:
these state and federal standards areminimum standards, which local standards
can exceed if the community wants an additional level of protection against
3 flooding and erosion.

Construction Standards

Building codes are especially important in protecting development from
natural hazards in that they set standards for construction materials, tech-
niques, and procedures in order to protect lives and property. Building: codes.
vary significantly in hurricane-prone:, communities throughout the country.
Communities in Texas do not have to adopt construction standards at. all,
though many, such as Galveston, have in order to protect themselves against
hurricane damages. All communities. in .F lorida must - adopt a state minimum
building code, but are free to. choose,_from among five different codes that- are;
acceptable to the state. North Carolina. maintains a,,uniform State Building
Code, with which all communities hav buinga b uilding inspection program must
comply.

The North Carolina Building Code Council is authorizedby N.C.GS. 143-
138 to establish the North Carolina._ State Building Code, The.;Building Code
Council also is responsible for making ,csanges in the.State ,Building Code and,
for reviewing building laws. The Insurance Commissioner, through the Division
of Engineering of the Department of Insurance., is responsible ,for enforcing
the State Building Code.: Inspection., and enforcement responsibilities:are:: :
relegated to local governments. Local;,governments:.may not amend the State
Building Code, even by imposing stricter standards, unless such, amendments
are approved by the Building Code Council. All North Carolina cities are
authorized (N.C.G.S. 160A-411) 'to have ,abuilding inspection department and
must appoint building inspectors, electrical inspectors, plumbing inspectors,
andother. inspectors as appropriate to enforce state:and local laws .relating.
to: () the construction :of buildings and other. -structures;, (2) the
installation of such facilities as plumin eletric systems,ystems,
refrigeration systems, and air conditioning '-systeims; (3): the maintenance. of,;
buildings and otherstructures: in a safe, sanitary, and healthful condition;,
and (04):o0ther matters that, maby the city council. Counties/
also are authorized :to establish buildi ng' inspection departments, but are not
required to do so (N.C.G.S. 153A-350):.,

The local building inspector is the link between. ,code standards and,:
actual construction. The effectiveness of the building code depends. on the,
inspector's interpretation of the code, his experience and technical compe-.,
tence, and the availability of his time and other resources needed to carry.
out inspections. Even in normal times, these factors are often limited in.,
coastal communities, where part-time inspectors with limited.training must'try

4-47:

to keep up with rapid rates of development. When the demand for damage I
assessment, inspections, and building permits skyrockets after a hurricane,
the availability of qualified and competent inspectors is a crucial' factor in
determining whether or not- reconstruction leaves the community any safer from
the next disaster.. The local CAMA permit officer (often the same person as
the building inspector) is responsible for enforcing the Coastal Resources
Commission's construction standards for buildings in ocean hazard AECs. The
same concerns in enforcing the State Building Code in coastal communities
apply to enforcing the CRC's standards, even though they are simpler and more
straightforward.

A key obstacle to local regulation of construction materials and prac-
tices is local government's inability to adopt stricter requirements without
the consent of the Building Code Council. The State Building Code, as it now
stands, falls short in adequately protecting buildings from the damaging
forces of hurricanes and other coastal storms. The Building Code Council, in
seeking to maintain uniformity of regulation across the state, has been resis-
;tant in the past to allowing more stringent local standards. Another problem
small coastal communities are likely to face is a lack of fiscal and staff
resources to sponsor the engineering and architectural studies that the
Building Code Council requires to justify any local variations to the code.

Of course, the community may rely on educating local builders and
architects about building materials and practices that would provide more pro- t
tection from hurricane forces than currently exists in the State Building
Code. A technical manual or set of suggested guidelines could inform builders
about the hazards present in the community and different ways of designing and I
constructing buildings to mitigate them. Such an approach could be effective, i
even though it depends on voluntary compliance by local builders.

Environmental Protection Regulations I

Many regulations which communities adopt to protect public health and
important features of the natural environment can also protect against hurri-
cane damages. Regulations which protect dunes, wetlands, and vegetation help
maintain the community's natural defense against flooding, wave action, ero-
sion, and high winds. Regulations whichiprotect private water supplies and
sewer disposal systems from flooding and erosion can help minimize disruption
and threats to public health when a hurricane or other major storm strikes the
community.

Dunes and beaches provide the first line of defense against ocean waves
and erosion. Beaches and dunes provide the supply of sand that fuels coastal
geological processes and helps buffer development from erosion. Dunes -can act
as barriers to oncoming storm waves, at least until they wash away, and pro-
vide some degree of protection to development behind them. Local regulations
to maintain dunes may entail setbacks from primary and frontal dunes and pro-
hibitions against alterations to dunes by construction activities and vehicle
and pedestrian traffic.:

Wetlands fulfill a -similar function in buffering development from wave
action and erosion. Their dense vegetation and root networks help hold

4-48

estuarine shorelines- in. place.. They also:provide large and shallow areas.
where storm waves are likely to. break :and loose force before reaching
buildings and other structures. Most local-wetlands protection regulations
either prohibit dredging and filling, restrict permitted uses to those which
are water-dependent, or otherwise maintain very strict standards for develop-:
ment. in and near wetlands. While the primary purpose of such regulations is
usually to maintain their biological, productivity, economic value, and
aesthetic value, the regulations;also: provide a degree of protection against
storm hazards.

Vegetative-cover can dissipate the. energy of waves and high winds,
helping shield development from:dest-ruction. Vegetation bplays a key role in
the formation and stability of dunes.and wetlands. Maintaining vegetative
cover is important not only in dunes and wetlands but. in other areas of the
community. For example, homes built..:in dense stands of maritime forest can
achieve some protection against. high winds by maintaining the forest cover
around the house instead of tearing it down during construction. Of course,
wind and waves that are severe enough;'ill destroy vegetative cover; fallen:
trees can cause a great deal of damage, to buildings. Nonetheless, some types
of vegetation, such as maritime forest, are adapted to withstand high winds
and can provide protection. Most dense: vegetation will help. dissipate wave.
energy. Local regulations to .protect: vegetative, cover usually-appear in.
zoning, subdivision:, and: PUD, regulations, though :-some- communities, such as:
Sanibel, Florida, have separate regulations prohibiting: the removal of certain.
types; of vegetation.

I Regulations governing. the loeation. .and design; of private water. supplies
and: sewage disposal systems> can:a-l&so' address :hurricane hazards.- Protecting
water and sewer systems from damage accomplishes two objectives: (1) it
ensures that sanitary facili.ties :ca-n mber: brought back into operation. more,
quickly. after the storm, and (2) it reduces the probability. that. sewerage
releases will contaminate surface waters and groundwater. and: create a threat.
to public health. Local regulations: can require water systems to. be designed.
with stop valves and other; devices to.;keep wells from-being contaminated-by
floodwaters. Local regulations cane:require septic tanks. to be located away
from areas ,with high erosion :potential ;and .to be: designed to: prevent releases
into floodwaters.

Local-environmental ::prote:ction ..regutations.usually:act in concert with-or
are adopted: in response.:to' state government regulations addressing .the::same-
resources. For example, the Coastal Resources:.Commission's AEC regulations
and dredge and fill regulations help. protect dunes and wetlands. The N.C�.
Division3 of Environmental Management :(in NRCD) administers regulations for.
large sewer disposal systems and: water. wells. The:N.C. Department of Human-.
Resources maintains standards for septic tanks and'for the location and pro-
tection of public water. supplies. Local. governments are responsible for.
administering CRC regulations for minor development projects in AECs. They
are: also responsible for regulating-septic tanks with a capacity of less than
3,000 gallons per day. and water wells with a capacity of less than 100,000:
g:allons per day.

4-49

Development Moratoria and Interim Development Regulations I

A development moratorium can be extremely useful during post-hurricane
reconstruction. It gives the local government time to assess damages and make
sound decisions regarding reconstruction before people are permitted to repair
and rebuild homes, stores, and other facilities. Without setting aside some
period of time where little reconstruction or new development can occur so
local officials can assess damages and review development policies and regula-
tions, reconstruction is likely to occur haphazardly and with little regard
for the community's long-term safety. V

Local officials may want time to make a full and accurate assessment of
damages and local development and reconstruction policies. Local officials
may also want to make development requirements stricter based on whether or 5
not existing regulations effectively minimized the level of damages. Local
officials may also want time to formulate more detailed plans and policies
addressing particular reconstruction problems. Development moratoria and |
interim development regulations provide this time.

A moratorium can be used to slow or freeze new development and
reconstruction in a certain area until proper planning can take place and a
permanent scheme of controls can be devised and implemented. A moratorium can
be used to restrict development during a period, such as that following any
natural disaster, in which extreme pressures are placed on local admini-
strative and environmental resources. Moratoria are most commonly used in
periods of rapid community expansion to give local government time to "catch
up"; however, moratoria are also common in communities that have experienced
massive destruction. Moratoria may also be used before disaster actually
strikes the community to slow and assess development in high hazard areas.

Development moratoria do not always entail absolute prohibition of
development. The term often describes a scheme of temporary prohibition and
interim development regulations designed to retard development in hazardous
areas and/or reorient local development and reconstruction policies.

NorthCarolina's enabling legislation does not explicitly grant local
governments the power to use development moratoria. Total prohibition of
development is not likely to be found legal, unless conditions in the com-
munity are extreme enough to warrant such. However, interim development
controls, if reasonably related to the needs of the community, may be accom-
plished quite legally through such processes as special use permits and zoning
amendments. To be valid, a moratorium must be temporary and reasonable. An
indefinite moratorium is especially questionable, unless the local government
can demonstrate extreme conditions and a good faith effort to strike a
balance between these conditions and pressures for reconstruction and new
development.

Interimdevelopmentregulations must determine what types of development
and reconstruction will be allowed or prohibited during a moratorium. Interim
development regulations serve three functions:

1. allowing planning and ordinance writing to proceed relatively
free of development pressures;

4-50 . ?

2. preventing the establishment or re-establis:hment' of uses that
will be contrary to :the long-term planning and regulatory scheme
before that scheme:goes- into effect:;? and

3. allowing public debate'-4on issues related to changes in develop-
ment and reconstruction'.

Interim development regulations in'-a'-hurricane-stricken community might con-
sist of several elements. They could:.prohibit new development for a specified
period of time after the storm in which reconstruction of existing buildings
can begin and local officials can deal with more pressing concerns rather
than spending time reviewing new development proposals. Interim development
regulations can also dictate which::types of uses or structures may be rebuilt
or repaired during the moratorium period. For example, they may allow the
immediate repair of buildings :sufering "minor" damages (below some pre-
specified value) while delaying or-p'rohibiting the repair of buildings
suffering "major" damages (such as-those which may have been non-conforming
I before the storm but must now meet; local development standards). Once interim
development standards are devised,?.ithey can be. administered. through regular
permitting processes. 'While interim;istandards:are often adoptedafter damages
occur, they can also be adopted beforehand in preparation for a storm.

Moratoria and interim regulations:have proven. to be useful: in'disaster-
stricken communities. In 1961,:Hi.lo, Hawaii,'adopted a'seven-month moratorium
on new buildings . and 'rebuilding :(where damage: to, an existing structure
exceeded 60 percent of market value)?'after the city was 'struck by a 35-foot
tsunami which killed 61 people :and':caused 30 million dollars in property
damage (Kusler, '1982,. p.:.44). .: Afterisuffering--heavy damages in a severe
winter storm in 1978, 'Scituate, Massachusoe'tts,:. adopted a,'moratorium on new
buildings and reconstruction of :old:buildings along heavily 'damaged "beach
areas. Interim regulations adopted during the moratorium :required new and
reconstructed :buildings to be elevated to' 2t1 feet' (above-:expected surge
levels and wave heights).

: -Land Acquisition

-rLand acquisition .gives a localagovernment:more control over development
in -hazard areas. than any other technique. If. the local: government 'owns ;full
I title' or 'substantial, interests -inland in i'hazrd ,areas, it:has' full' control
over 'the 'use of that land. While: land 'acqu:isition- has obvious advantages, it
.can' also have -high. costs, especially in oceanfront :communities. -There are,
-however, federal programs that provide:funds for, land acquisition in high
:hazard: areas after the community oriAndividual property owners have suffered
significant damage.

The interests in land that a :loca'l government: can acquire fall into two
categories:': 'fee-simple and less-than-fee: simple. Property ownership consists
of a::bundle of rights which:may be purchased in whole or in part. Fee;:simple
'ownership includes the entire bundle: of:rights, while a less-than-fee simple
interest constitutes some lesser. bundle of rights. Fee simple acquisition is
usually used in situations which will involve full public use of the property,
such as for recreation or public buildings. When full use of the property is

4-51

not needed to meet some public goal, such as limiting development in flood- I
plains, then local governments tend to explore cheaper less-than-fee
interests. An easement is an example of a less-than-fee interest in land.
Easements convey some set of legal rights over land to a second party while I
retaining basic title with the first party. Easements may be affirmative or
negative. An affirmative easement is a right to use land, such as when a
government body purchases easements for hiking trails. A negative easement |
prevents the primary owner from using the land in certain ways, such as when
a government body purchases: a scenic: easement to prevent the owner from doing
anything that would impair the aesthetic attractiveness of the land.
Easements are particularly useful tools when regulation will not do the job I
and fee simple acquisition is not necessary, desirable, or cost-effective.

The general authority to acquire interests in real property is granted to |
North Carolina's counties and municipalities by N.C.G.S. 153A-158 and N.C.G.S.
160A-11. These general grants of authority are sufficient to empower a local
government to acquire land for a public purpose, but other statutes outline I
specific purposes for which local governments may acquire land. N.C.G.S.
160A-457 authorizes any city to acquire property for "the conservation of open
space, natural resources, and scenic areas, the provision of recreational
opportunities, or the guidance of urban development." N.C.G.S. 160A-401
authorizes cities and counties to acquire easements "to preserve, through
limitation of their future use, open spaces and areas for public use and
enjoyment." Any acquisition, even if authorized by statute, must be able to
meet the "public purpose" test. Article XIV, Section 55, of the North Carolina
State Constitution clarifies the status of open space as a public purpose by
authorizing the State and all local governments to acquire fee simple or
lesser interests in property, by purchase or donation, "to conserve and
protect its land and water for all its citizenry."; The amendment mentions
wetlands, beaches, open lands, and recreational areas as types of open space,
eligible for public acquisition.

Local governments may acquire full or partial title to land by purchase,
donation, dedication, or condemnation. While local governments may purchase
land at full fair market value, there are a number of ways that interests in
land can be' obtained for a lower cost.

A community may be able to exchange publicly-owned property in another I
location for property it wishes to acquire; however, the publicly-owned prop-
erty must be suited to the needs of the other property owner. If land values 3
are substantially different at the two sites, the local government may need to
pay the difference. An exchange agreement requires the full cooperation of
all parties and is only feasible where the local government already has title
to a good deal of land.

A bargain sale is part sale and part donation, where the local government
obtains title for less than fair market value. If a property owner is willing
to sell his land to the local government for less than market value, he may
often obtain federal and state income tax deductions for a donation equal to
the difference between the market value and the sale price.

A simple donation could also grant property rights to the local govern-
ment. Donations usually arise out of the property owner wanting to maintain
the land in a certain way or to obtain tax benefits. ;

4-52
C: i \ W f :i: ::: \ l

Local' subdivision regulations may include a mandatory dedication, or
"set-aside," requirement. This requires subdividers (1) todonate a certain
percentage of area of land to the- community as open space, recreational. land,
or for some similar purpose, or (2) to. set aside' land' for. such purposes while
keeping it in private ownership. Stuch a provision could prove useful in
minimizing development in high hazard -areas.

Local governments can also obtain title to land by using their powers of
eminent domain (condemnation). Condemnation, though usually unpopular when
used on a large scale, may be necesgsary when property owners are not willing
to sell or when the property owners. and the local government cannot agree 'upon
a fair market price. Condemnation' can be' lengthy, costly, and cause political
tension in the community. It is usually used'as a last resort.

Land acquisition has clear advantages in controlling development in high
hazard areas and'in meeting the related objectives of protecting sensitive
natural environments and ensuring public access to them. However, land
acquisition has some: disadvantages-which could affect its viability and
effectiveness.

The clearest' disadvantage. to acquiring land'in coastal communities is the
cost of land. Thosea areas' which are-the- most' hazardous (the oceanfront and
soundf ront) are4 also the most expensive. Acquiring fee simple title to large
tracts of hazardous lands would be financially imipossible' for a small coastal
community to undertake on its' own without assistance from outside sources.
The local government can pursue le's s'c<stily means.o'f" acquiring'land' (dona
tions, state and federal funding, easements, etc.);' these require: a certain
level of: technical -expertise in arrang ng' donations and easements from private
owners, securing state, federal, and-private funds for acquisition, and hand-
ling appraisals, negotiations, and other phases of the: acquisition procedure.

Some communities may be reluctant to acquire property not only because of
its high cost but also because acquisition could remove' high-value properties
from local tax rolls. When local goVernment purchases a fee simple interest,
the land is removed from- the tax roiles. When an easement. is-purchased, the
property is" still taxed, but at a lower level. However, even' when the taxes
are-reduced, the local government ma come-out ahead for two reasons. First,
the' restricted property is not likely to require muniCipal services. Second,
the taxes may be recovered by increases inthe value of a'djacent developed
properties.

The political viability of purchasing property is largely determined iby
the local- political climate, the costs of acquiring land, and the use for'
which the property is purchased. Land'acquisition is a sensitive operation
due to the amount of public funds; involved: and the complicated's nature of
transactions between"' a local government and: its citizens. Most of the general
public is unfamiliar with the various procedures local government can use to
acquire interests in land and may be reluctant to support them. The use of
condemnation is, of course, more politically volatile than acquiring land by
other means.

It is not likely that coastal communities will use acquisition alone to
control development in hazard areas, or use only one acquisition technique.
Local acquisition programs, especially ones that involve large tracts of land,

1 : 4-53

are likely to combine fee simple acquisition with bargain sales, donations, I
and condemnation. Acquisition to control development in hazard areas works
best in combination with development regulations and public works policies to
constitute a comprehensive hazard mitigation program. While development regu-
lations and public works policies can control the character of development in
hazard areas and require certain protections against damage, acquisition may
be used to deal with those areas which are most susceptible to :damage and
might also serve other public purposes (such as recreation, beach access, and
environmental protection). Other measures may deal more effectively with less
hazardous areas or lands which the public does not need for other purposes.

The period immediately following a hurricane presents a special
opportunity to acquire land to prohibit further development in hazard areas
and to relocate existing uses. During this time, people may be more amenable
to selling, swapping, or donating their land because they have suffered
significant damages and can see more clearly the hazards attending any recon-
struction or further development in the area. This period is made even more
opportune by the availability of various federal disaster assistance programs
designed to help the local government acquire land in hazard areas and relo-
cate existing uses (such as the Section 1362 and "constructive total loss" l
programs administered by the Federal Insurance Administration).

Over one hundred communities throughout the nation have used local, 1
state, and federal funds to acquire flood-prone lands after floods, hurri-
canes, and other major storms and to relocate damaged and destroyed buildings
(Kusler, 1982, p. 38). These communities usually adopted development
moratoria to prohibit the rebuilding of structures in high hazard or heavily
damaged areas. Nearly all relied substantially on federal financial assist-
ance. After serious flooding in 1972, Rapid City, South Dakota, acquired
1,400 properties in the 100-year floodplain at a cost of 60 million dollars; 1
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development provided 48 million
dollars of this through an urban renewal grant (Kusler, 1982, p. 38). With
4.5 million dollars provided by a HUD Community Development Block Grant and
the Corps of Engineers, Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, is purchasing and
relocating 128 repeatedly-damaged properties (Kusler, 1982, p. 38). After the
Ash Wednesday storm in 1962, Sea Isle, New Jersey, adopted restrictions on
rebuilding a heavily-damaged strip of coastal development; the town used
$600,000 from the state's "Green Acres" program to acquired183 of the prop-
erties for a park (Kusler, 1982, p. 53). After Hurricane Frederic in 1979,
Gulf Shores, Alabama, is combining donations, funds from the Section 1362 I
program and Department of the Interior, and development restrictions to
acquire certain heavily damaged oceanfront properties.

Compensatory Regulations and Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)

Both of these techniques are hybrids of development regulation and land I
acquisition in that they compensate landowners in exchange for restrictions
on the use of their land; compensation is provided to save very restrictive I
regulations from being struck down by the courts as a "taking" of private
property. Both techniques could be used to restrict development in hazard
areas; however, neither technique has been widely used, and their usefulness
remains uncertain. I

4-54
S \ 0 X : i: ::0: :: S:0: : : SE |0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Compensatory regulations are drafted to give the local government the
option of compensating a landowner for the restriction of his property. The
State of Rhode Island has adopted legislation which compensates owners of wet-
lands for restrictions on their use.:. The City of: Dayton, Ohio, has passed an
ordinance restricting the land surrounding an airport to low-density uses and
providing an administrative procedure .by which "taking" claims can be filed
and compensated.

It is not clear whether existing North Carolina legislation enables local
governments to use this type of compensatory scheme. Zoning enabling legisla-
tion combined with the power of eminent domain could, arguably, allow a local
government to enact compensatory land use regulations, but their legal status
remains unclear. Compensatory regulations could be challenged as authorizing
public expenditures for non-public purposes and being beyond. the scope of
enabling legislation.

Compensatory. regulations have heretofore not been used: in North Carolina.
They would appear to be politically feasible in that they compensate property
owners for severe land use restrictions. The main problem facing compensatory
regulations is funding, especially:if a local government applies them widely.

Transferable development rights{..(TDR) schemes compensate restricted land-
owners less directly; instead of haing the. local government pay restricted
landowners, TDR schemes have other landowners paye restricted landowners..
The basic concept underlying TDR is :that ownership of land gives the owner a
bundle of rights,: each of which may be separated from the rest and transferred
to someone else. The right to develoap the land is one of these rights. Under
a TDR system, an owner can sell his development rights to another property
owner who is required by statute to !collect a specified number of development
rights before developing his or: heer .own property:.

Under a typical TDR system, the, government awards a certain number of
development rights to each parcel of:,:developable land, in the community based
on the acreage or value of the land., The system is usually set up so that no
owner possesses enough development rights to develop all of his property with-
out buying some rights from someone ,else. Persons can sell their development
rights on the open market because. they do not want to develop their property
or are prohibited. by some regulation; from: developing their property. Land
from which development rights have .been, sold cannot be developed.

The initial decision on the ,nuber .of development rights. to be issued
sets the overall density of the community as, well as, the maximum quantity of
new development (at least until there is an affirmative decision to issue more
development rights)-. Under some TDR proposals the quantity of different types
and subtypes of development is controlled by restricting the amount of land
that, can be developed for particular :uses. Alternatively, the mix of uses can
be controlled by: a system which. allocates commercial rights, residential
rights, and other types of development. rights instead of "general purpose"
development rights.

TDR is designed to reduce the value shifts and inequities, of traditional
zoning by allowing the market to compensate owners who, under a normal zoning
scheme, would have the development potential of their land restricted with no
compensation. In addition to being proposed as a basic replacement for

4-55

zoning, TDR has been suggested as a means of preserving open space, ecologi-
cally sensitive areas, and hazardous areas. TDR proposals generally suggest
that the local government designate some areas where, for environmental or
other reasons, development is not allowed.

New state enabling legislation will probably be required in North
Carolina before a local government could implement a TDR system. The novelty
of the TDR concept and its break with traditional notions of property rights
present political obstacles to its use in North Carolina, even though a TDR
scheme could, if properly designed, be :quite effective and fair.

TDR schemes require a high level of expertise and staffing to design and
administer them. Studies would be needed (1) to investigate the costs and
inefficiencies of current development practices, (2) to document and analyze
the objectives to be obtained through better regulations, (3) to outline the
rights of property owners under the TDR system, (4) to equitably allocate
initial development rights, and (5) to design an equitable and manageable
market system for the sale and exchange of development rights. Despite these
complications, a TDR, scheme is currently being used effectively in the small
town of St. Georges, Vermont (with about 500 residents) to focus its growth
and preserve its village atmosphere.

Collier County, Florida, uses a variation on TDR as part of its zoning
regulations. The county authorizes the transfer of development rights from
its "Special Treatment Overlay Zone" (which includes wetlands, beaches, and
barrier islands) to areas which are better suited to development. Some of the
difficulties the county has faced are ithe high costs of designing and applying
the TDR scheme, law suits over property valuations, and a lack of under-
standing by property owners (Ralph M. Fields and Associates, 1981, p. 55).

Public Facilities Siting and Design l

Local governing the siting and design of
public facilities to influence development in hazard areas. Local policies
restricting the provision of public services to hazard areas, or requiring
that public facilities be located and designed to withstand hurricane forces,
can work toward three goals:

1. limiting the type and density of development in hazard areas;

2. minimizing the disruption of water, sewer, and other services
when a storm strikes the community; and :

3. reducing the costs of providing and repairing public
facilities. ;

By coordinating its utility siting and extension policies with land use
regulations, the community can exercise substantial control over the type,
density, and amount of development in high hazard areas. The location of
public utilities, such as water lines, sewer lines, and roads, has a strong
influence on the location of development. A decision not to extend services
to a specified area can make development there either more expensive or less

4-56

feasible if property owners must rely on individual water supplies and septic
systems. Areas where the local government supplies water and sewer services
are likely to develop at higher densities than areas without these services,
unless the services are supplied by a private developer (as is often the case
in North Carolina's coastal communities). Using utility location and
extension policies to control development in hazard areas is less expensive
than land acquisition and less subject to legal challenges than highly
restrictive land use regulations. While there are a number of advantages to
this approach, it has its limits. Unless land use regulations are also
applied in hazard areas, development will continue in these areas, albeit at
lower densities, by relying on private water supplies, septic systems, and
roads.

Local policies governing the location and design of public facilities can
also minimize service disruptions caused by major storms and reduce the cost
of providing these services by avoiding repeated damage to public facilities
and utility networks. Local governments can minimize disruptions and long-
term maintenance costs by requiring public facilities to be adequately
protected from hurricane damages, such as requiring them to be adequately
buried and not locating them in erosion-prone areas. The same requirements
that apply to public facilities and utility systems could be made to apply to
private utilities. For example, local subdivision regulations can require the
subdivider and developer to locate and design roads, water lines, and sewer
systems to resist damage by flooding, winds, and erosion. A local government
could also require electrical lines to be buried to minimize storm damages and
the danger of downed power lines.

I Using public facilities policies to control growth in hazard areas is
somewhat limited by the statutory and, case laws of North Carolina. Once it
provides service to any inhabitants within the city limits, a city must
provide equal service to all inhabitants. A local government may be subject
to "equal protection" challenges if it fails to provide services to one
property owner after it has granted Service to a similarly situated property
owner. The key here is whether or not property owners in high hazard areas
are situated similarly to people in less hazardous areas; one could argue that
they are not. A local government can exercise discretion over whether or not
it extends services into a particular area, especially when such an extension
creates disproportionate costs for the local government. The costs of damage
prevention measures and the likelihood of repair costs for utility extensions
may impose a disproportionate expense on the local government and justify its
decision not to provide some facilities in high hazard areas; such a justifi-
cation will depend on the particular situation. Further justification for
limiting services in high hazard areas can come from showing that such a
policy is part of a more comprehensive scheme of development policies (land
use regulations, etc.) that the local government is using to limit development
in hazardous areas. The law is less clear in'determining whether or not the
local government is obliged to rebuild or reinstall facilities after they are
substantially damaged in high hazard areas where the local government wants to
restrict development. Again, the legality of such a decision would be
enhanced if the local government also had land use or building regulations
restricting the reconstruction of private homes and businesses in heavily
damaged areas.

4-57

I~~S

The political viability of using public facilities policies to limit I
development in hazard areas will depend on how restrictive they are. Moder-
ately restrictive policies will be more palatable to local developers and-
property owners than will highly restrictive policies. Local governments
may feel compelled to extend utilities to hazardous areas that are already
developed, even though they may not be legally required to do so.

Any public facilities extensions must comply with state and federal laws.
There are state regulations governing the location and design of roads, public
water supplies, and sewer facilities (outlined in the previous section on
state programs); these provide some measure of protection against flood and
erosion damages. Any public facilities involving the expenditure of federal
funds must comply with federal floodplain management regulations (namely,
Executive Order 11988) to reduce the risk of damages. Regarding the recon-
struction of public facilities after a major storm, federal disaster relief is
made available to local governments, primarily under FEMA's "Repair or Restor-
ation of Public Facilities" program which currently covers only 75 percent of
the cost of repairs.

Comprehensive Planning

Before formulating and adopting regulations, land acquisition programs,
public facilities standards, and other policies addressing hurricane hazards,
the community should engage in a comprehensive planning effort. By incor-
porating and analyzing hazard information in a comprehensive plan, the local
government can provide a sound basis and justification for those approaches
that it decides to pursue in managing development and post-disaster recon-
struction. Comprehensive planning also gives the community a forum for
addressing and balancing a full range of local development objectives, not
just those related to natural hazards. Local economic, social, and environ-
mental objectives and policies may conflict with each other, be slightly
inconsistent, or duplicate each other. The comprehensive plan should be the
place where such problems are resolved and specificcourses of action are
charted to reach local objectives.

Regarding storm hazards, comprehensive planning performs two functions: 1

1. it balances hazard mitigation against the community's other
objectives to determine what level of protection the community
wants; and

2. it helps the community identify particular hazard mitigation
problems and select the approach, or approaches, that it wants
-to take to address them.

Local governments will probably not be using any one one of the techniques
described above in isolation; they will probably be using a variety of tech-
niques to control different aspects of new development and reconstruction.
Most communities in North Carolina's coastal area already have basic land use
regulations in place (zoning, subdivision, etc.). These can be amended to
include protections against high winds, flooding, wave action, and erosion if
they do not already provide such protection. Some communities may want to

4-58

: : : : ::~~~~~~

explore new techniques that can help reduce the raisk of storm damages effec-
tively and efficiently. A good comprehensive plan ,will take steps to identify
hazard areas, to assess the community's vulnerability to storm damages, to
identify hazard mitigation needs;, to review current local measures governing
new development and reconstruction, ,and::to review other approaches the
community could pursue.

,Local land use plans prepared in,,compliance with the Coastal Area
Management Act, as basic comprehensie planning documents, provide .a logical
place for ,cmmunities to identify Ian address hazard mitigation and recon-
struction problems. By incorratinga more detailed analysis of the
community':shurricane hazards into the local land use plan, the local govern-
ment will be prepared to;balance haza, mitigation against other needs and
objectives. The local government ill also be prepared to select an appro-
priate course of action that will mae the community safer from hurricanes and
other major storms.

The following chapters describe processes to use in analyzing hazards in
the community and in planning for hazard mitigation and post-disaster recon-
struction. To be most effective, these processes should be incorporated into
a local comprehensive plan. The approaches chosen by the community to reduce
the risk of storm damages may satipsfy te: r needs in the community (such as
protecting fragile natural areas or providing beach access); a good compre-
hensive plan will point out such opprtities. Te approaches chosen :by the
community to reduce ,the risk of storm damages may also conflict with other
needs of the community (such as maintaiing the' tax base or reducing the costs
0fidevelopment regulations); aa good:comprehensiye plan will iron out such
conflicts and identify approaches Mthe ommunity should .take t o meet, different
objectives.

1 S 4-59
I:: d:

REFERENCES: CHAPTER 4

American Institute of Architects Research Corporation. 1981. Design Guide-
lines for Flood Damage Reduction. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency
Management Agency (Report No. FEMA-15). ;

Dames and Moore, Inc. 1981.0 Design and Construction Manual for Residential
Buildings in Coastal High Hazard Areas. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency
Management Agency (Report No. FIA-7).

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1980, Digest of Federal Disaster
Assistance Programs.: Washington, DC: FEMA (Report No. DR&R-9).

1981. Flood Hazard Mitigation: Handbook of Common Procedures--
Interagency Regional Hazard Mitigation Teams. Washington, DC: FEMA
(Report No. FEMA-14).

Kusler, Jon. 1982. Innovation in Local Floodplain Management: A Summary of
Community Experience. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado--Institute of
Behavioral Science (Special Publication No. 4).

N.C. Building Code Council. 1981. North Carolina State Building Code, 1978
Edition, including amendments through June 9, 1981. Volume I, General
Construction. Raleigh, NC: N.C. Department of Commerce.

. 1981. North Carolina Uniform Residential Building Code, 1968
Edition, with amendments 1968-1981. Volume I-B, Residential (One and Two-
Family Dwellings). Raleigh, NC: N.C. Department of Insurance.

Office of Coastal Zone Management. 1978. :State of North Carolina Coastal
Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Washington,
DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-OCZM. 3

Pasterick, Edward. 1980. "Redirection is Progress Against Flood Hazards"
in Emergency Management (Fall 1980). Washington, DC: Federal Emergency
Management Agency.

Ralph M. Fields Associates, Inc. 1981. State and Local Acquisition of Flood-
plains and Wetlands: A Handbook on the Use of Acquisition in Floodplain
Management. Washington, DC: U.S. Water Resources Council.

Sheaffer and Roland, Inc. 1981. Coastal Construction Standards for Nags
Head, North Carolina (Draft). Nags Head, NC: Town of Nags Head.

Tharrington, Owen, NC. Department of Insurance. Telephone Communication,
8/23/82. 3

U.S. Water Resources Council. 1972. Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas to
Reduce Flood Losses. Washington, DC: U. S Water Resources Council.

1978. Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing E.O.
11988. Washington, DC: U.S. Water Resources Council. 3

4-60

3 ;~~~ ; CHAPTER 5:

: PLANNING FOR HURRICANE HAZARD MITIGATION

Up to this point, this report has presented information on the hazards
that hurricanes and other major storms pose to coastal communities. It has
also presented information on local, state, and federal programs which address
these hazards by influencing new development and reconstruction in the com-
munity. This chapter presents a process that the community can use before
disaster occurs to mitigate the hurricane hazard. It helps the community tie
together information on storm hazards and information on development manage-
ment measures as a basis for local hazard mitigation and reconstruction
planning. The process consists ofsix major steps (see Figure 5.1) to
identify the community's vulnerability to hurricane forces, to identify and
select hazard mitigation measures, and to implement these measures and
integrate them into the community's existing land use, capital improvements,
and emergency operations plans.

The process allows individual communities to come up with approaches for
managing new development and reconstruction that are tailored to their own
unique conditions. Each community has different problems in the face of the
hurricane hazard which must be addressed differently. For example, a
relatively undeveloped community will probably be more interested in guide-
lines for new development; a community that is already heavily developed will
probably be more interested in guidelines for reconstruction. The process can
apply equally to formulating guidelines for new development and guidelines for
post-disaster repairs and reconstruction. Certain techniques for managing new
development and reconstruction to reduce the risk of future storm damages will
be more politically acceptable and/or more administratively feasible in some
communities than in others. Using the process, a local government can address
these issues, identify its particular hazard-related problems, and take action

to resolve them.

MAPPING HAZARD AREAS

The first step in any hurricane hazard mitigation effort is the iden-
tification and mapping of those sections of a community which are most
vulnerable to hurricane damages. The coastline of North Carolina is in a
state of flux in response to constant water, wave, and wind forces. During a
hurricane, all of these forces are temporarily intensified, creating a signi-
ficant hazard for human activities along the coast. Even though the entire

especially during a hurricane. Delineation of these areas serves as a neces-
sary guide for managing development in a coastal community, regardless of
-whatever planning tools (such as zoning or building standards) are used to
reduce potential hurricane damages.

Hazard area delineation could pose a formidable task for the typical
local government due to the amount of scientific and probabilistic information
about hurricane forces required to estimate storm surge elevations, wind
speeds, and other "design" criteria. Fortunately, most of this technical work

5-1

Figure 5.1: A Process for Mitigating the Hurricane Hazard

A: MAPPING HAZARD AREAS

B: VULNERABILITY
ASSES S:MENT

Identify Severity of Identify Magnitude of 3
Risk in Each Hazard Area [Risk in Each Hazard Area

[ Inventory Land Usesss
Assess
, I I:: :::Evacuability
: Inventory Structures :

I U
C: IDENTIFYING
MITIGATION NEEDS

D: REVIEWING
CURRENT MEASURES

Poor Coverage? [ ' : Poor Enforcement?

E: REVIEWING
ALTERNATIVE MEASURES

F: IMPLEMENTATION
AND MONITORING

5-2
: W: f~~~~~~

has already been done or sponsored (and is continually modified) by federal
and state agencies in response to legislative and administrative directives.
This work has led to the widespread acceptance of certain "design events"
(such as the 100-year flood or 100-year wind storm) as guidelines for federal,
state, and local decision making. Similar work has been done to identify
environmentally sensitive areas and areas of potential future erosion or
shoreline change. All of this work must determine some threshold levels or
boundary lines to delineate where protective public policy is to take effect
in order to reduce hurricane damages.

The two state and federal programs which provide the most guidance for
delineating hazard areas in North Carolina's coastal communities are the North
Carolina Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) and the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP). Local governments have already adopted some hurricane hazard
mitigation techniques in response to local needs, CAMA's regulatory program
for development in areas of environmental concern (AECs), and federal require-
ments for particiapation in the NFIP.. .In addition to the hazard areas
identified by CAMA (AECs) and NFIP (V-zones and:A-zones), a community wishing
to reduce future hurricane damages may consider other vulnerable areas (espe-
cially on barrier islands) in its standards for hurricane hazard mitigation.

The boundaries of the five AEC categories relevant to hurricane hazards
(ocean erodible areas, high hazard flood areas, inlet hazard areas, coastal
wetlands, and estuarine shorelines) have to a :large extent already been
determined by the Coastal Resources Commission and the local governments along
the coast to carry out CAMA's land use planning initiative and to administer
the AEC development permit program. Referring to the community's CAMA land
use plan and the CAMA regulations for AECs (Title 15, Subchapter 7H.of the
N.C. Administrative Code) will give local administrators, an excellent starting
point for identifying areas in the community most subject to hurricane forces
and for identifying methods by which the community can avoid or resist these
forces.

The North Carolina coast contains- .communities that are enrolled in either
the Emergency Phase or the Regular Phase of the National Flood Insurance
Program. In Regular Phase communities, the FIA's flood insurance rate maps
are important references for delineating hurricane hazard areas in that they
define A-zones and V-z:ones which are subject to flooding and wave action in
the. 100-year storm. A-zones, V-zones:, and AECs may be used singly or in
combination to develop:local hazard mitigation measures that are geared to the
different types and levels of risk which exist in these different zones.

Communities enrolled in the Emergency Phase must operate with slightly:
less sophisticated information in delineating hurricane hazard areas. The
Emergency Phase's flood hazard boundary maps identify preliminary "special
flood hazard areas" but do not include the more accurate estimates of base
flood elevation that determine the A-zones and V-zones appearing in the
Regular Phase's flood insurance rate maps.. Local administrators in Emergency
Phase communities should keep well apprised of the progress made by the
technical studies leading to the development of flood insurance rate maps and
the community's enrollment in the Regular Phase. While it is still enrolled
in the Emergency Phase, a community that wants to begin delineating hurricane
hazard zones and formulating hazard mitigation measures can begin with the
preliminary flood hazard areas designated on its flood hazard boundary maps.

5-3

As with A-zones and V-zones, these areas can be used singly or in combination I
with AECs to identify areas where different levels of risk exist. This should
provide a good starting point for developing local hazard mitigation guide-
lines. The boundaries within which these guidelines apply can always be
adjusted in the future as more accurate information on flood levels becomes
available, A-zones and V-zones are delineated, and the community enters the
Regular Phase. The Federal Insurance Administration is scheduled to have
flood insurance rate maps completed for all oceanfront communities in North
Carolina by the end of 1983, paving the way for their entry into the Regular
Phase.

It is important -to note thatt the hazard areas identified under CAMA and
the National Flood Insurance Program provide a base set of hazardous areas
that all communities should use for hurricane hazard mitigation. Each
community could delineate other areas which it considers hazardous in the face
of major storms based on local history, geological studies, and other local
information. Such areas may not always be located within AECs or the NFIP's
designated flood hazard areas.

The discussion above has dealt with hazard area delineation only with
respect to the water forces associated with hurricanes (flooding, waves, and
shoreline erosion). Powerful winds are the other key hurricane force pre-
senting a hazard to coastal communities. (Indeed, they are what make
hurricanes unique.) However, wind hazard areas within a coastal community
cannot be delineated to the same detail as flood hazard areas. There may be
some minor variation in hurricane wind speeds among different sections of the
community (due to topography and vegetative barriers), but the entire com-
munity will, by and large, be subject to the same wind velocity because of a
hurricane's size and power.

Even though it is not possible to differentiate estimated hurricane wind
speeds within a single community, it appears that some variation exists within
the state of North Carolina. The design wind speeds used in the State
Building Code illustrate this variation (Figure64.1). Also, in 1972, the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) determined the "100-year fastest
wind speeds" for different parts of the country. This is the wind speed that
has a one-percent chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given year.
This information is intended for the establishment of building code require-
ments for withstanding wind loads. As shown in Figure 5.2, annual extreme
fastest wind speeds in coastal North Carolina range from 110 to over 130 miles
per hour. This is not much of a variation, but ANSI's wind speed determi-
nations should play a major role in any construction standards a community
adopts to mitigate hurricane damages.

The boundaries of AECs, V-zones, A-zones, and flood hazard boundary map
"special flood hazard areas" can be combined in simple overlay fashion to
determine different areas in the community where different levels of hurricane
risk appear (see Figure 5.3). Identifying these hazard areas will not only
facilitate the formulation of mitigation measures appropriate to the level of
risk in each area; it will also provide a guide for reconstruction activities
(when a major storm does occur) and for public works investment decisions. '

5-4
A:~~~~~~

Figure, 5.2: Annual Extreme Fastest Wind Speed in Miles Per-Hour
(39' Feet Above Ground, 100-Year Mean Recurrence Interval)

U,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T

I-n~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A.

______ _____ American National Standard buinlc od's. -4ndreq~rnents for minimurn design loads inbuligan
__________ -- _____ _______ other structures Amer-ican National Standards Institute A58.11-11972 F~igure 2, Page 14

Source- Dames and Moore, 1981, p. 42.

Figure 5.3: Composite Hazard Overlay

sound ocean sound ocean

Ocean
Erodible
Estuarine Area
Shoreline
I

+ I*$.Wetland

Zone

B~~ ~
-A Ir.
:~~ci:ri:S:::S:: ~".'.'~
.......... ? :'.':"
Hazard~.
-h V ..:Are
inlet inlet
National Flood Insurance Program Zones CAMA Areas of Environmental Concern
(also includes oceanfront V-zones)

sound illiii riiocean
" i'illi'~iii'iii''i',

Hazard Area Level of Risk
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I

::: * :.. ' _::-2 High
' -3' ~:~:%): ::%" ,Moderate
':::::::::: . :::L,' :Ii.f

: -4:::: Lowest

inlet

COMPOSITE H::AZARD .
5-6
I

ASSESSING THE COMMUNITY'S-VULE RABILITY TO HURRICANE DAMAGES

Once the community has identified' those areas which are most subject to
hurricane forces, it can begin-evaluating the level of hazard present through-
out the community. Such an a'sses'sment 'of the commu-nity':s vulnerability to
hurricane damages is necessary 'for."i:'ent'ifying themost important hurricane-
rel'at'ed �problems in the commun ty a4 :in targeting 'the community's hazard
mitigation efforts to its most vuilnie;ble areas.

A comprehensive asse'ssment of:: thecommunity's vulnerability to hurricane
damages must include an 'identificati-cn of both the severity and magnitude of
risk that-exist in 'each hazard area, 'The severity of risk is :basically a
function :of the number of physiical ;:fordces (storm surge, wave action, etc..)
that 'a hurricane is likely 'to i'mpose 'on '-a particular 'hazardard area. The
,magnitude of risk is basically 'a fundtion-of the .size of the population and
the number and value of developed piro:erties exposed to hurricane forces
within 'a hazard area.

Severity'of Risk

-'Figure 5.4 ranks the severity of "risk in each :hazard area according 'to
the damaging force's 'which :are likely to ':occur :there. This br'eakdown is the
3:basis for the ranking ,of the diff erent .'hazard areas 'which :appear in
'Figure '5.3.

'Figur5e '5 4: Severity 'o6f R>isk ;in Hazard ~Areas

E;xposure to Damaing' Forces
Hazard Area Severity iEroHsion/ Wave Actfon :Flooding~ 'High
..... : ..... , ' .Rank . ;cour,.,.,0 -'.Battering R t c W. !ind:
Ocean Erodible AEC 1
Inlet Hazard AEC 1
�uEstuarine Shoreline'IAEC. ' . .e
: 'V-z'nde 2

'wetlad AEC : 2 o .' '
..b..e. . : :3 o ,
a-Rest of Community : 4 i

3Exposure Level: :High (o), Moderatpe:(o), Low'( )

CAMA' s ;ocean erodible AECs, inltethazard: AECs, .and: estuarine shoreline
C AECswill bear the:':full force- of a'hurricane :since- they lie directly on the
land-water interface and'arethe most !dynamic ':features of the coastal land-
scape. Shoreline'erosion, inlet i igtratiion, 'and -inlet formation pose::'day-
to-'day hazards for coastal development; hurricanes and other major stbrtis
accelerate these processes softhat-diastic changes:in: the local landscape:-can
,oOcdurLin'a few hours. :During a hurricane, development in ocean erodible

:5-7
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

areas, inlet hazard areas, and estuarine shorelines areas will be subject to
severe erosion and scour, direct wave action, battering by debris, inundation
by the storm surge, and high winds.; Erosion and wave action present a sizable I
hazard along the shores of North Carolina's broad sounds, where large areas of
open water promote significant surges and high waves during a major storm.
As with the ocean shoreline, the estuarine shoreline is in a constant state of
flux, and major storms accelerate the everyday process of shoreline change.
Wetlands will be subject to wave action, flooding, and high winds, but are
less susceptible to erosion.

The National Flood Insurance Program's V-zones will overlap with ocean
erodible AECs and inlet hazard AECs and will be subject to similar damaging
forces, They will in some cases also overlap with estuarine shoreline AECs.
Those portions of the V-zone farthest from the beach will be somewhat less
prone to severe scouring; nonetheless, the V-zone is still an area of
especially high hazard. 5

The National Flood Insurance Program's A-zones are subject to inundation
and high winds. A-zones are those parts of the community which have a one-
percent chance of being flooded in any given year. A-zones are not likely to
be affected by significant scour and wave action, although some undermining of
structures has been known to occur in A-zones as flood waters rise and recede.
Development along the A-zoneY/V-zone boundary may be subject to the forward
momentum of breaking waves.

All other sections of the community will be subject to high winds but
will remain relatively safe from the other damaging forces of a hurricane. Of
course, a catastrophic hurricane can unleash the full complement of damaging
forces beyond the boundaries of any hazard area. One must bear in mind that
the delineation of V-zones and A-zones is based on probabilistic information
regarding the elevation of a flood that has a one-percent chance of occurring
in any given year.: Hurricanes frequently exceed this "one-percent" or "100-
year" event even though the "one-percent" flood, las a flood which can be
reasonably expected to occur in a community, is the commonly accepted basis
for analysis and regulation. Likewise, the delineation of AECs under the CAMA
program is based on scientific information regarding coastal geology, ecology,
winds, water currents, and waves. A major hurricane can easily cause exten-
sive damages outside ocean erodible areas, inlet hazard areas, and estuarine
shoreline areas due to unforeseen and unaccounted characteristics or "weak
spots" of the local landscape. 5

Depending on the amount of scientific and historical information avail-
able in the community regarding such 'weak spots," the community may delineate
locally-important hazard areas that are not covered by AECs, ;A-zones, or V-
zones. Such locally-important hazard areas might include overwash areas or
drainage channels which have been repeatedly inundated during major storms.
The severity of risk occurring in these areas can then be judged and ranked
among the other hazard areas as a guide for targeting hazard mitigation
efforts.

5-8

3 Magnitude of Risk

Identifying the magnitude of ri:k in the community requires identifying
the characteristics of development within .each hazard area by .performing a
basic inventory of land uses and structures. This inventory will give local
residents and administrators -a clearer ;picture of .the types and levels of
development exposed to different leves of hazard, thus pointing out partic-
Iular areas or issues of concern. JBy .keeping it up to date, decision.maker.s
can have an accurate basis for plans ,,and actions when a severe storm hits the
,community.

The .first level of analysis for .identifying the magnitude of riskis .a
simple inventory of land .uses in each:hazard area. The land use inventory can
.determine-the :types .and acreage of -different land uses in each hazard area to
* identify development trends which may yincrease :the .potential for :damages and
need to be addressed in the community',s hazard ,mitigation and reconstruction
planning. The land use inventory should not require much time or effort since
-the information can be readily drawn from existing land use ,maps (such as
Uthose prepared under CAMA). In addition to looking at ,existing patterns., the
inventory needs to consider expected futu.re land ,use patterns. An undeveloped
hazard area poses no risk to development, but once .the area develops, the risk
:increases �and will call for some means of hazard mitigation.

The second: level of analysis for identifying .the magnitude -of risk is ,an
inventory of structures in -each hazard area. .This will require ,more .effort
-than the land use inventory but will yield more: detailed information and a
more specific understanding of he types of hazars ofhazards esent. The structural
inventory can be divided into a residential inventory, a commercial inventory,
and a public facilities inventory.

An inventory of residentiial structures begins with a count of the .number
I of dwelling units and density .present (and ,expecte'd) in each hazard area. All
other things :being equal, a more densely developed:hazard area presents -a
greater .risk of damages .than ,a -less densely -developed -hazard area. It would
-be useful to take the residential .nqentory a few steps further to identify
such conditions as (-1) .the number of -.mobile homes in reach hazard zone, (:2) the
replacement or structural value of individual .buildings, and. (3) the number of
.residences .pre-dating existing build.ing .codes or ,not built in accordanqe wth
guidelines for floodinsurance or otri lo.cal and: state programs. Some.of
this detailed information will be aiabe rom .local property tax.:and
building inspection records. :Gathering it w:ill require more time and .ef.rtt
bPut-wiIi . refine 'the .local zgoyvernment' underst.anding of the types ,and levels
:of hazard. present in -the community.

3 - ,.An inventory .of commercial structures begins with a count of the number
of business establshments 'in each .hazard area. The magnitude of .risk ~to,
commercial development can be more sharplydefined by accounting :for the
number of people employed at each es-tab;ishment . and the - structural or replace-
ment ,value of each es.tablishment. The commercial inventory should also
account for the number .of structures which .pre-date existing construction
standards and/or do not comply with local ,construction guidelines which
reasonably guard against flooding, erosion, and ::wind damage. Communities ,have
a stake. in .ensuring the safety of commercial establishments from hurricane
damages; -the more damages that are sustained :by ithe business sector, the

5-9

I:: :

greater will be the economic disruption caused by a hurricane and the longer I
it will take the community to recover.

An inventory of public facilities, utilities, and private institutions 5
will serve two purposes: (1) it will provide a basis for assessing the
ability of essential community services to function during and after a hurri-
cane disaster, and (2) it will guide; the local government in the siting and I
design of public buildings and utilities. Facilities located in a particular
hazard area should be designed to withstand the damage forces expected in that
area. This is especially true for facilities which play a key role in
disaster response operations and are essential to quick community recovery. I
Primary roads must be adequate to permit the safe and timely.evacuation of
residents and tourists. Water, sewer, electrical, and telephone facilities
need to withstand the storm and be brought back on line quickly afterward.
Police stations, fire stations, town halls, and county courthouses usually are
headquarters for emergency operations and should be safe from storm forces.
Schools, which usually serve as temporary shelters during a disaster, should I
also be safely designed and located. Similar concerns apply to public and
private health care facilities. The facilities inventory should identify
the location of each facility relative to the different hazard areas, each I
facility's ability to withstand the damage forces expected in its hazard area,
and the facility's replacement value. The inventory should also consider each
facility's importance to disaster operations and the function and population '
each facility will have to serve during the recovery stage. '

Community Evacuability -- I

In addition to assessing the community's vulnerability to property
damages, the local government should assess the community's ability to evac- I
uate in the event of a major storm and thus avoid losses of life. The amount
of time it takes for the community to safely evacuate depends on the level of
development and number of people in the community at any one time. It depends
on the condition of roads and bridges along the evacuation route. It also
depends on the attitudes of local residents and visitors and the strength of
a particular storm.

Evacuation time has four components: mobilization time, travel time, I
queueing delay time, and pre-landfall hazards time.

Mobilization time is that period between the issuance of the evacua-
tion order and the departure time of the last vehicle from the vul-
nerable area. It depends to a large extent on the attitudes and
response time of residents. Travel time is the period necessary for
the vehicles to travel the length of the evacuation route at an
anticipated operating speed assuming no traffic delays (queueing).
Queueing delay time is defined as the time spent by vehicles in *
traffic jams resulting when the capacities of the evacuation routes
are exceeded by the number of vehicles entering those routes.
(Stone, 1982, p. 8) I

Mobilization time, travel time, and queueing delay time together constitute
the community's "clearance time" -- the total time needed to move all evacuees
to temporary shelter once an evacuation order is issued. Pre-landfall hazards 5

5-10

I time is the time before the eye of the hurricane reaches the community^ when',
the: storm surge or sustained high. 'winds: :render evacuation routes impassable.
The National Hurricane' Center issues. warnings :based on its predictions of: the,-
time the eye is expected:to reach. land. However, the storm surge and
sustained winds can strike the. communiity hours before: the eye does., This.
pre-landf all hazards time cannot. be, used& for safely. moving evacuees; it. is;.
greater. for more. intense : storms,

Estimating -these various: components iof evacuation' time remains a compli-
cated task due to uncertainty regarding the intensity, timing, and other.
characteristics of any particular storm and uncertainty regarding the willing-
ness. of local residents and visitors to,.evacuate.: Ani effort is'. currently'
underway: in North Carolina;: to :.simplify ;evacuation: time estimation techniques.
(see Stone, 1982). Current. estimation.:-techniques involve:

1. estimating storm surge;levels', wind: speeds, and their time of
: arrival: before the; eyes ' landfall f or: storms - of:; different .
intensities;

2. identifying points along&,ithe' evacuation route that are subject:
to flooding;

3. estimating. the total0 number. of ::people l andi automobiles that, must
;I Rbe evacuated;

4. estimating the carrying&,capacity of. roeads. along: the. evacuation
route;

5. identifying any' bottlenecks :or other poit:s along the route that
: could' delay traffic;

6. estimating the -;timing iof. tra fic movement and,, traffic movemenand trafic levels
along the .route;- and,i:

7. estimating the time -it'will- take'. people~ to' respond to an
evacuation; :order.,

Nearly all communities. in :the -CAM coasta-l reggion have. prepared hurricanes
evacuation plans: with' guidance from: the',-N.C. Division of Emergency Management;
these: plans.. include estimat-es of .'-needed :'evacuation tim'es. Coastal communities
need; toa-. include :all of - the&: considerations". listed abouve'- in. deriving ,thesea
esatimates&., While. estimaftion remaiunsan.,inexaet: science , the- community ne-eds6
to derive �the best: testimate: pos'si-blie .soY' it' can plan. to6 have enough time, to .
3 saf ely evacuate.;

Much :of. the:-evaucation-. time.: neededw botils' down to- the: level .of, develop-'
ment, resident. population, and 'visitor: population> in:: areas 'that. need&.:to be:
evacuated,; relative.,to the carrying: capacity of :'the, evacuation route. If. the,
level of development in 'high hazard areas,:,exceeds'. the- route' s . capacity for,:
safe: and .timely 'evacuation., the community: can:expect.'to suffer:numerous
casualties during a major storm. Local,:officials. should bear -in mind that-.,the-'
National Hurricane 'Center's :hurricane-,'warnings: (usually used as.' the signal'.

5-l11

I
to evacuate) are issued 12 hours before the eye is expected to hit land.
Flooding and hurricane-strength winds can precede the landfall by several
hours, depending on the storm's size and intensity.

If the community's evacuation time exceeds this standard warning time,
the local government needs to take steps to either reduce the evacuation time
or increase the warning time available. Reducing the evacuation time may
entail (1) staging evacuation and controlling traffic better to ensure a
smoother and earlier flow of traffic, (2) improving the capacity of the
evacuation route, especially any bottlenecks, and/or (3) limiting the level of
development in areas that will have to be evacuated.;; The local government may
also want to take such steps as keeping denser developments closer to bridges
and wider roads so they can be evacuated more quickly and avoid "squeezing
through" narrower routes farther away from major roads.

IDENTIFYING AND RANKING MITIGATION PROBLEMS

The levels of effort devoted to particular hazard mitigation problems
should be a function of both the severity of risk and the magnitude of risk
present. During the inventories described above, certain issues or problem
areas will begin to stand out from the rest by presenting a high severity of
risk and/or a high magnitude of risk. Balancing the severity of risk and
magnitude of risk in each hazard area will help the community rank its pri-
orities for hazard mitigation by enabling it to identify the more important
problems, address them first, and thus use local resources more effectively I
and efficiently.i

The community should direct a greater level of effort in planning for
hazard mitigation to an area with a high severity of risk and a high magnitude
of risk (such as an ocean erodible AEC having a large number of structures not
designed to withstand hurricane forces). Less effort will be called for in an
area exhibiting a lower severity of risk and a lower magnitude of risk (such
as part of an A-zone where little development exists or is expected to occur).
Most of the problem areas a community identifies will fall between these two
extremes. Some areas will have a high severity and low magnitude of risk;
some areas will have a low severity and high magnitude of risk.

The assessments of risk severity and risk magnitude, and the balancing of
the two, should culminate in a ranked list of hazard mitigation problems the
community must address. This list of priorities will guide the community in
its evaluation of current hazard mitigation measures and its evaluation of
other mitigation options which could fulfill those needs not adequately
addressed by existing local policies.

Determining an Acceptable Level of Risk

Deciding what kind of development the community will allow in each hazard
area involves balancing the benefits of development with hazard mitigation
against the benefits of development without hazard mitigation. Hazard mitiga-
tion does not necessarily seek to limit the total amount of development which

: 0 Voccurs in the community. It does see~k'to control' the location and structural
integrity of development in the community to ensure that any development
within hazard areas is built to withstand the damaging forces of hurricanes
and other major storms.:

Conflicting demands for the use of scarce coastal land call for fair and
well-reasoned local planning to guide, the location and quality of development.
: The "locational benefit" concept is: helpful in determining whether or not
certain uses should be allowed in different hazard areas. The "locational
benefit" concept is based on the fact.:that the: benefits of some types of
development can be retained regardless of where those activities locate in.
the community; therefore, the risk of hurricane damages can:'be reduced by
channeling these activities away from high hazard areas. On the other hand,
some activities have strong locational requirements (such as a waterfront
I site) that necessitate the' use of hazard-prone land. In such cases, the
benefits of locating in a high hazard' area a can outweigh the risk of damages:.
In all development management decisio ns, communities use this "locational
benefit" test to determine which uses'are inappropriate and discouraged in
certain areas and which uses are appropriate and- encouraged. Lists of
"permitted uses" for different sections of a community are. common; they appear
in local zoning ordinances, state regulations for development in AECs, and
National Flood Insurance Program. guidelines..

Determining which activities are' appropriate in each hazard area will
depend on the level of risk existing' in each: area and the' level of damage
protection the community desires, Some: communities will be able to sustain
the same level of development: and a lower level of risk by channeling certain
activities away from hazardous areas. Some communities will be able to
sustain the same level of developmen't and a lower level of risk 'by- enforcing-
stricter construction standards for activities permitted in hazardous areas;.
There are cases on the North Caroiina;coast:, especially' on the barrier
islands, where the entire community ais within a flood hazard area (or
A-zone) designated by the National FlFod Insurance Program. As development
continues in these communities, it, must be built to withstand hurricane forces
and reduce the risk of damages. Other :communities will have tracts of land
that do not fall in a& high hazard. area;: these. tracts will be able to safely
sustain: a greater level of development than will high hazard areas. Most
communities: are: likely to: use a. combination of land: use controls and con-
struction requirements to permit certain uses. and require certain building
practices: in each hazard area. Land"i: use and construction guidelines must be
in: keepi ng with the severity of risk -:present in each hazard area.

The: community must make value judgments to determine what levels" of risk
are acceptable and to decide what kinds of development are appropriate for
each hazard area. Different people in the community will have different per-
ceptions' of what level of: risk is acceptable. If the local planning process-
accounts for these' different perceptions,. the community can reach a consensus
on what approach it should take to mitigate the hurricane hazard. However,
the decision should not be purely subjoective; it must be based on sound in for-
mation on how hurricane forces affect the local landscape, accounting for
past storm damages and the likelihood of future damages. Even though this
information is not detailed and deterministic enough to say with absolute
certainty which building will be washed away and which building won't, it does'

5-:13
I

provide a reasonable and defensible basis for the development and enforcement
of land use and construction guidelines.

REVIEWING CURRENT MITIGATION MEASURES

Once the community has identified its key hurricane hazard problems, it
must examine policies and programs that are currently in place to reduce the
risk of future damages. This includes not only an identification of various
local, state, and federal policies and programs, but also an assessment of how
well they meet the goal of hazard mitigation. Existing policies, development
standards, and enforcement procedures may already be meeting the community's
hazard mitigation needs; even if these actions fall short, they may still be
used as a basis for adopting new actions to reduce the risk of future
hurricane damages.

An examination of existing policies will give the community a clearer
understanding of any conflicts in policy within the local government and
between the local government and state and federal agencies. It will also
identify whether or not local government efforts at managing the location and
quality of development are adequately addressing the specific mitigation needs
identified previously.

Two types of shortcomings can exist in the ability of existing policies
to meet the community's mitigation needs: problems in coverage and problems
in enforcement. Problems in coverage arise when local policy fails to account
for a particular characteristic of development, or a particular hurricane
force (wind, waves, etc.), which increases development's risk of future
hurricane damages. Problems in enforcement arise when local policy adequately
covers a particular characteristic of development but, for some reason, is not
carried out in the local government's day-to-day decisions and operations.
Ideally, a community will have no problems in coverage or enforcement. Such a
case is rare. The multitude of financial, political, and legal constraints
under which local governments operate typically preclude ideal situations and
complete protection from future damages.

Coverage Problems

Coverage problems arise due to a lack of information regarding a par-
ticular hazard (and how best to address it), other political or economic
interests of the community overriding concern about the hazard, and a lack of
coordination between local, state, and federal policies. Communities need to
take stock of those local, state, and federal policies and actions that
influence the location and quality of development and either increase or
decrease the risk of damages. To reduce the risk of damages, a local govern-
ment can then maintain or strengthen policies known to decrease risk and amend
or avoid actions known to increase risk. Different policies will influence
different characteristics of development and guard against different hazards.
In order for development regulations to help reduce hurricane damages, they
must:

1. recognize different areas in the; community which facediffeent
levels~' of risk;

2. *account for the'diff'erent forces' operating in these areas (high
wind, flooding, wave,'-ac'tion,- and-,'erosion);.: and

:3. outline- .standards'.f'or.developmient to" follow in 4ther. avoing
I hazardous lo~cations'> orbuilding tolwithstand hurricane' 'forces.

The communit y needs to ask: itself "certain questions in reviewing its
~de elaoment policies~ to,,' see'z if ~'My vhe"'equately protect:.against hurricane
damages. These' questions" a-ppear: in, Table 5.1.

.'S~ate.:and;federal -jp'po'licies':andlprgr-ams: can 'have., a-strong'_.impact; -on
''developm6ent. ;Unf'orrtunately,':~some c~mmunities. fail to consider:t'hese::.effects
in their local government 'operatios8 and* endl. UP 'with a' misguideds or inefec-
tive-program for' managing development. ' While it is not' nces.sary for the
Ilocal : government to :, catalog every'state and1f ederal: program th'at directly.- or
indirectly influences land'Ausde'-Or~bilding :construction, it':,should_'be.:aware:of
thoseT programs:thathave majorl; J'Iimnpcts;,,on o1cal;- development% and ithat proviae 'a
I 'context 'within which loal actions opgerate , to 'reduce 'the riskof hurricane
amages. Some,' state And f ede ral"blicies wl I'complementobr enhance: local
: haziard: mitigation 'efforts. Ots';'might Del deter local 9ffort by stilating
'unwise " develoopme6nt migh-tapproac he uricane 'hard W a f rom a' different
*angle,: :or might :lignore �~thhe ,hazard altogether. 'Indiidual' policies ':can: create
:an opportunity forT local c action or".an:bstale'for local efforts to overcme.

: "Federal p'r o:gr'amsi 'whi.ch'direcl 'and'indretly :ffect 'the location'. ad
quality of local development 'fall> into three'categores: assistance 'programs,
c:eonst~rurction prograims, and regulatory~:~~~~~a progams. iAt~; a -minimum, ",most ":federal
I actiohs must, under the 'Coastal Z'd'Management Act of 1972, comply with'the
'state's coastal area mpanagemenlt program and the loca plas ..adopted."as tlpart of
"it. pThis - could" l'give local .,;haz'ar'.dii- gatlion p::�olicies. a:.good"deal'.Of leverage
"'over "federal' agency,--actins6. ''Federal actions mustalsoomply'with-he pro-
I 'cedures' outilned in Executive 'Oder 1188 - "Floodplaini-,Managemeiit" -- which
calls for :federal 'agencies to'expictly. deal -with flolod rhazards 'in' their
'de:cision-makingw proc dedures.

'Ascsi8-stance proSgrms providefi�nani and/or'-technical ,assis'tance? ifor
locall 'development projects andlocal gvernment ope rations. They run:te
'<g'- al mutefreopme nity " deelopmentd block: granits ('BGs) togran't~s-in-aid 'a'and
loans tat:hatninividuail- agencies,. iof~:f Oer : for tr ng public'faciliti'es
roadswater-and sewer"pantsI,"-tc.i)tso npo ing& housing conditions,'and
'for assisting 'smll 'businesses 'Assistance progams include, disaste r, elief
I~ ~~~A ai'.programs, "w'hich ~have ~a 'prof'ound "impact ~on ~redevelpmet following: a
disaster. They '.also -;include t-h'ei atinal''Flood;; Insurance' 'Ptogram,"Vh'JChichmbost
"explicitly deals with 'ood' hastwit. ahe Natl'na:l' Flood' ,Insu rance.. Program
I 'requires-; participating commnties;to 'tae� action tOmitigatei':flood.>hiazards;
'fblod prote'ction: reqiirements in' o:ther assistance programs are less sringnt,
if-they exist at all.
I

5-15

Table 5.1: Checklist for Reviewing Current Mitigation Measures

For development throughout the community:

Do existing policies and regulations recognize the existence of different
hazard areas that are subject to different forces?

Do they cover all types of structures (single-family, multi-family,
commercial, etc.)?

Do they cover public facilities as well as private?

Do they encourage higher-density uses to locate outside of the most
hazardous areas?

Are non-conforming uses and structures to be brought into conformity
after they are damaged?

Do existing policies and regulations relate the level of development in
the community to the capacity of existing evacuation routes and the
time it would take to evacuate the community?

For areas subject to high winds (Area 4): : :

Do existing policies and regulations require structural connections and
bracing adequate to withstand hurricane-force winds (or "annual
extreme fastest wind speeds")?

Do they require mobile homes to be tied down?

For areas also subject to flooding (Area 3): 3

Do existing policies and regulations require buildings and utilities to
be elevated or floodproofed to or above expected flood levels?

Do they require structural connections which withstand the flotation and
lateral movement of structures?

For areas also subject to wave action (Area 2):'

Do existing policies and regulations require buildings to be elevated to
or above:the expected wave height?

Do they require structural connections and bracing adequate for the
building to withstand battering by waves?

Do the regulations prohibit building on fill which could easily be washed
away?

For areas also subject to severe erosion (Area 1):

Do existing policies and regulations require an adequate setback from the
oceanfront or soundfront? :

Do they require a safe depth for embedding pilings?

Do they prohibit the removal of sand dunes and other natural barriers to
erosion?

5-16

In construction programs;, federal agenciesdirectly undertake con-
* 0 struction of some facility. The facility .could be a federal office building
or an erosion control project. The ,cquisition of land and construction of
recreational facilities for national seashores .and wildlife -refuges will also
affect the character of development in the community.

Regulatory programs seek to control some aspect of development in order
to achieve some national goal (such as navigability of waterways or environ-
mental protection). These include the Corps of Engineers' Section 404 dredge
*I 0and fill permits and the facility permits issued by EPA (or a, signaed state
agency) under the Federal Water Pol'lution Control Act. Local officials
should, based on their experience,; bpe able to recognize other regulatory
i programs that influence development in the community. Construction and
regulat:ory programs, like assistance programs, will vary in the attention
they give to the hurricane hazard.

The same patterns hold true for state programs, the effects of which are
usually 'broader, stronger, and more direct. As with federal programs, state
f programs which affect the location and quality of development fall into three
basic categories: regulatory, cons~trution, and assistance. Since the state
has greater power and responsibility than the federal government for con-
trolling the impacts of develpment a d:for pro iding public services, state
programs are geared more heavily tard regulation and construction.

The: state regulatory program in North �Carolina which most strongly influ-
ences coastal development and mst dir:;ectly addresss the hurricane hazard is
that instituted by the Coastal AreaManagement Act; especially CAMA's AEC
regulations and coastal construction standards. The State Building Code has a
direct bearing on the quality of construction in the Commtnity. Other permit
i programs (for pollution discharges, dredge and fill, etc.) administered by the
Division of Environmental Management, the Office of.Casta!lManagement, and
other agencies can also affect the charact r of development.

State construction projects, suh as roads and bridges built by the N.C.
Department of Transportation, can have a strong influence on.the location of
develo:pment, either channeling it into or away from hazard areas. The acqui-.
I sition of l and for state parks a structio of recreatin
:............... and f or~ skco nstructiforn of rato.n facliti..e..s.
can also. influence the over all c :rcter of a community and the use of
hazardous lands.

U-Local officials should be able to (1) identify those state and federal
programs with.major impacts on :development in hurricane hazard areas and
(2) identify the specific characterisftics: of development (location, strucctural
I . .integrity, etc.) that each progrm affects. While ::federal and state progAms,
can always change, loca l officials should remain aware of th eir influence and
kep track of any relevant shifts in federal and state policy. Even though
I the community may not be able to change: the focus of state and federal pro-
grams, it can adjust its planning ;andqperations to account for the impact of
federal and state programs.

The community may find that existing federal and state programs reinforce
local policies regarding the hurricane, hazard. In fact, federal and state
regulatory programs. may prove adequate in and of themselves to reduce the risk
of hurricane damages by controlling a characteristic of development that is of

: : 0 0 0 D ; Qf00 ; 5-17

particular local concern. This could eliminate the need for direct local
action and help the community avoid duplicative regulation. The community
could then channel its hazard mitigation efforts to those aspects of develop-
ment which are not covered by state and federal programs. The examination of
state and federal policies might also point out conflicts with local policy
that could hinder the community's hazard mitigation efforts and would need to
be overcome.

Local policies exert the most direct control over development in
hazardous areas. In addition to identifying state and federal policies, the
community must identify and assess how its own policies affect development, in
hazard areas. Local policies include regulatory programs and construction
programs. Regulatory programs include zoning and subdivision ordinances,
building codes, environmental protection ordinances (covering sand dunes,
septic tanks, etc.), and procedures for permitting 'Iminor" projects in desig-
nated AECs. Construction programs include all capital improvements decisions
(public buildings, recreation facilities, and utility systems). The analysis
should include the specific characteristics of development and the specific
areas of the community that each policy covers.

After comparing the community's hazard mitigation needs to the charac-
teristics of development covered by local, state, and federal policies, the
local government can identify any shortcomings in coverage that could be
resolved by amending existing policies and/or adopting new ones. The com-
munity can also identify any needless duplication of policies or planning
efforts, where two or more existing programs deal with the same characteristic
of development.

Throughout its examination of existing policies, the local government
must bear in mind that the intended effect of a policy may not match its
actual effect on development within hazard areas. Local governments want
tools that work the way they are supposed to; local officials should therefore
pay attention to the actual effects of public policy. Disparity between the
actual and intended effects of a local policy can spring from (1) incorrect
base data regarding the characteristics of development, (2) the measure's
inadequacy in covering a particular characteristic of development, or (3) poor
enforcement of the policy.

Enforcement Problems

The adoption of a policy to manage development in a certain way does not
necessarily mean that the policy will be implemented effectively. Even though
local policies may cover all the characteristics of development creating a
hurricane hazard, problems in enforcing these policies may keep the community
in serious danger of future damages. Local land use plans and other planning
documents are formal declarations of policies for managing development;
however, meeting their policy objectives usually requires formulating stand-
ards for development that have the force of law. These standards are the
guide for local permit-letting activities, local government construction
projects, and other local government decisions. Zoning ordinances, sub-
division regulations, building codes, and other permit requirements enact the
standards needed to carry out local development policies. Enforcement pro-
cedures are just as important as the standards themselves and should not be

5-18
: :~~~~~~

overlooked in reviewing the community's current system of managing develop-
ment. How the standards are applied -or carried out in the local government's
day-to-day operations has a direct:,.bearing on the -effectiveness of 'local
5 policies at reducing the communitys :,potential for storm damages.

Enforcement problems can crop :up for a numbe:r of reasons. First,
the community: may simply lack a set o:::standards or prescribed actions::for
carrying out a policy. Second,,existing standards may be too complex and hard
to understand, thus obstructing timely- and efficient permit decisions and
other local government actions. Third, the local government may not be
allocating or may not have enough .trff time, technical skills, and finances
to administer the standards. Fourth:, :political and economic pressures in the
community may be causing the local government to allow a large number of
variances from the standards'. All:of"the above could indicate that the
community,.needs: to pursue another approach (either adopting a different
procedure or standard. or.:amending the'.existing ones) or that it needs to
devote more attention and resources :to, administering development standards.'

The community's overall-assessment of existing development policies, by
comparing them to the characteristics;'of development it needs- to control,
should point out improvements in bothW;coverage and enforcement that are needed
to. protect: the community from future ,hurrieane:-damages. The analysis' may
point out needless duplications asa well as shortcomings. If existing policies
and .:enforcement procedures are inadequate:for protecting-:the community 'from
the hurricane hazard, then modificationsn may -be in :order. These modifications
could involve amending existing policies;:and procedures or adopting -new ones.

REVIEWING ALTERNATIVE MEASURES

To overcome any shortcomings.in .he:coverage or enforcement of existing
policies, the community will nee;d to review other techniques that could .be
used effectively:and efficiently to. reduce the risk of future hurricane
damages. Different techniques are sui-ted to different development and' rede-
velopment problems; certain techniques. will be more practical and more
effective than others in. addressing .the community's particular hazard
mitigation :needs.

The first step of this review-:should be a comparison of the charac-
teristics of, development or reconstructionn the community .needs to; control to
:the, different mitigation tools and: programs :described in Chapter 4.. This
comparison should. produce. a list of alternative measures- meriting further
; examination by the community. For. example, if the community's main concern is
the quality: of construction in hurricane hazard -areas, then it might::want to
look at what different construction. methods and standards are available. If'
the, community's main concern is the. location of new development within hazard
areas, then it might consider. a variety-'of land use controls. If the com-
munity's.main concern is the reconstruction of buildings after a hurricane,
then it might want to look at different relocation programs, land use
controls, and construction standards.

After identifying the basic categories of techniques applicable to local
hazard conditions, the community should undertake a more thorough 'evaluation

I0~~~ 0 00 5 95-19

I~~~~~~

of individual techniques to see which ones are most practical, given local
conditions, and which ones could be refined to suit local needs. Unfamili-
arity with a particular tool or technique should not automatically exclude it
from consideration; the community might come up with a variation of the
technique which quite effectively addresses local hurricane problems.

The local government should pursue techniques which are targeted toward
the particular characteristics of development creating a hazard, which are
palatable or acceptable to the general community, which are within the realm
of local authority, and which are within local administrative capabilities.
Each technique the community considers should be evaluated with respect to
five factors:

1. the community's development situation (that is, the conditions
which need to be modified to reduce the risk of hurricane
damages);

2. the technical and administrative expertise available;

3, the availability of fiscal resources to administer the measure;

4. the local political situation (that is, local attitudes toward
planning and development controls); and,

5. the legal status of the technique.

Understanding the.community's development situation is necessary for
selecting any tools to, influence the pattern and quality of development. The
analysis performed up to this point should give the community a strong idea of
the specific conditions which it needs to modify. Different measures are
better suited to controlling different characteristics of development. Some
influence the location of private development and public works; some influence
the quality of construction. The community should use tools that will
directly influence the conditions it wants to maintain or change.

Each tool will require a certain level of technical and administrative
capability. Measures that require extensive planning studies and monitoring
systems may not be practical for a small community which lacks the necessary
technical support, unless the community can obtain technical assistance from
state and federal agencies. By the same token, measures that involve com-
plicated or lengthy permit and appeal procedures may not be practical for a
community which uses part-time inspectors and citizen boards to regulate
development. Simple procedures, based on clear development standards that can
be easily understood and administered by existing personnel, should be a key
element in any community's effort to reduce the risk of hurricane damages.
The community needs to assess what it can and cannot do with its current staff
and, therefore, look for tools that are suited to its current administrative
capabilities. Selecting a measure that requires more personnel and financial
resources will require outside assistance or a greater financial commitment
for local programs that manage development. ;

The cost of using a particular tool is closely related to the technical
and administrative resources needed by the community. Some tools may require
hiring full-time inspectors and other personnel. Some tools may require a I

5-20

reserve of public funds to relocate buildings, roads, and public utility
lines. While state and federal aid may be available to help, offset costs,
instituting a particular measure could&:require a shift in local budget
priorities. In any case, the local government needs to weigh any tools under
consideration against its ability to finance their administration.

Local attitudes toward planning and development controls can render
certain tools politically unacceptable. Many local residents will'see any
attempt to manage development as a threat to private property rights. These
feelings may intensify as the local government introduces new or complicated
techniques which residents do not understand. Increasing local taxes to cover
the costs of administering a development regulation can also render it
unacceptable. The local government can overcome some of these problems by
getting citizens involved in the selection and adoption of different tools and
by ensuring that a variety of local interests are represented in the local
government's decision:to pursue a particular measure. Even toug though the
community as a whole may welcome the adoption:of a particular tool., different
interest groups can hamper its effectiveness by pressuring local decision
makers (local commissioners, planning board members, etc.) to grant variances
and otherwise skirt development standards. In adopting:any technique, the
local government needs to strike a balance between what will be politically
acceptable and what will do an effective job at reducing hurricane risks.

A tool's political acceptability is closely related to its legal status.
Some tools will have:clear authority under current enabling legislation; the
authority for others will be less certain. Even though a commu nity.must
sometimes be innovative to::deal with a, unique problem, it is wise to stick to
techniques that have clearer authority and have been used successfully else-
: where. (Chapter 4 discusses the authority underlying different measures and
ways they:: have been used in communities throughout the ::country.) It is also
wise to stick to techniques that fall withi the framework of existing state
and federal programs dealing with hurricane hazards (such as CAMA, the N.C.
State Building Code, and the National;.Flood Insurance Program), each of which
leaves room for more stringent local standards and has a sound legal fo.oting.
As the state adopts new enabling legislation and as different: tools withstand
court challenges,, the range of options open to local governments will expand.
Legal challenges can arise, regarding both substantive issues (that is, what a
tool does or controls) and procedural ,issues (that is, how the local govern-
m nt applies the tooJl in: its day-to-day operations). While the mere
possibility of legal challenges should. not automatically keep the community
from considering certain tools, the community should be aware of the legal
issues involved in adopting and administering any tool for managing
development.

After comparing the above factors to the different measures available,
I :the local government must balance a number of constraints in choosing which
tools:: to use. Ideally, the measures selected will be legally defensible,
politically acceptable, and compatible with local administrative, technical,
and financial capabilities. In pursuing any particular measure, the community
will probably have to undergo an adjustment in current politics or adminis-
trative procedures to work the measure into its existing program for managing
development. The magnitude of this adjustment will depend on how the tool
compares to local political, administrative, and fiscal conditions.

I : 0: 5-21

At this point in the process, the community should have several products.
First is a list of hurricane hazard mitigation needs or development charac-
teristics the community needs to control. Second is a compilation of measures
which are currently in place to mitigate the hurricane hazard. Third is a
compilation of measures which the community can adopt to cover any needs that
current measures fail to address. The next step in the process involves
blending these into a coordinated local program for reducing the risk of I
hurricane damages.

IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING

Implementation of local policies is the final step in formulating a
hazard mitigation program, as it is with any good planning effort. Once local
policies are implemented and hazard reduction measures are being carried out,
the community needs to monitor development to ensure that prescribed measures
are being followed.

Implementation involves adopting those policies and ordinances necessary
to put hazard mitigation measures into effect. The selection of different
hazard mitigation measures should be based on an analysis of the community's
susceptibility to storm damages (Steps A and B), an identification of key
mitigation problems (Step C), and an analysis of local measures that address
these problems (Steps D and E).

Certain policies will put hazard mitigation measures into continuous
operation as a means of managing development in the community, such as zoning
requirements and construction standards. Other policies will put hazard
mitigation measures into effect only in response to disaster, such as relo-
cation programs and temporary moratoria on development and reconstruction.
All policies which guide development and reconstruction should recognize the
different levels of risk that exist in different parts of the community and
in different types of structures.

These policies should be adopted and in force before a disaster actually
occurs in the community. This allows the community to formulate and enact
different ordinances and programs in a more rational manner, rather than
responding to problems and trying to resolve them at the "heat of the moment"
immediately after disaster strikes. Such advance planning gives the community
time to examine storm hazards and formulate workable and effective means of
mitigating them. It also gives the community time to follow normal adminis-
trative procedures in adopting new policies and to include full public
participation in local government decision making. This time does not exist
after disaster strikes; people begin rebuilding immediately and tend not to
protect themselves against future damages by relocating or building more
strongly unless local policies guide them to do so. Local efforts to adopt
hazard mitigation measures immediately after a disaster run headlong into this
rush to rebuild; in 1982, Gulf Shores, Alabama, adopted a strong zoning ordi-
nance in response to Hurricane Frederic (which occurred in 1979), but only
after 80 percent of the community was already rebuilt. Communities need to
plan carefully and adopt appropriate hazard mitigation measures ahead of time
so that post-disaster reconstruction follows prescribed guidelines to
adequately reduce the risk of future damages.

5-22

Implementing hazard mitigation measures before disaster strikes also
ensures that development taking place -now is reasonably safe from storm
damages. There is little sense in waiting for a disaster to occur when a
community can take steps beforehand:toi;:reduce the impact of a disaster and to
save the community a good deal of money :and emotional stress. The lack of
time for good planning after a hurricane or other disaster further points out
the need for good planning before disaster strikes. Reducing the risk of
future damages lfrom hurricanes and other major storms should be a primary goal
of a vulnerable coastal community; measures to mitigate these damages should
be a primary element of the community's regular planning and decision-making
procedures.

Local hurricane hazard mitigation measures need to be integrated with
other local plans, policies, and programs which cover other aspects of
development in the, community. Local officials need to bear in mind how hazard
mitigation relates to other goals and. policies of the community. For example,
local land use policies may advocate a level or density of development that
exceeds the community's capacity for safe and timely evacuation. Local
policies that regulate development: to reduce the risk of hurricane damages can
help local emergency operations plans: be carried out smoothly by reducing the
overall level of damage in the community. Hazard mitigation policies
governing the location and design of -public facilities directly affect.local
capital improvement planning. Land:acquisition programs can affect local
planning for beach access, and other open space uses. Hazard mitigation
planning should consider how various.,hazard mitigation, land use, emergency
operations, capital improvements, beach access, and:other plans and; policies.
affect each other. It should als~o consider how local hazard mitigation
policies and programs relate to state and federal programs which help manage
development and reconstruction in thel.community and help reduce the risk of
storm damages.

The local government should continuously observe:how development is
proceeding in the community once hazard mitigation measures, are adopted and
implemented. Keeping track of development helps the. community see if hazard
mitigation policies. are being followed and if hazard mitigation policies need
to be-modified in any way to make the moreworkable andeffective. Such
Smonit"oring can identify further problems in:coverage and enfo~rcement that the
community needs to resolve. Monitoring efforts can involve less formal,
continuous observations::or more formal, periodic evaluations. In whatever
form, monitoring efforts should pay attention to where development is locating
(relative to different hazard areas) and how development is being, built
(relative to the forces, expected in each hazard. area).

5-23

REFERENCES: CHAPTER 5

Dames and Moore, Inc. 1981. Design and Construction Manual for Residential
Buildings in Coastal High Hazard Areas. Washington, DC: Federal Emer-
gency Management Agency (Report No, FIA-7).

Stone, John R. 1982 (forthcoming). Hurricane Emergency Planning: Estimating
Evacuation Times for Non-metropolitan Coastal Communities. Raleigh, NC:
UNC Sea Grant College Program.

~5-24~~I
5-24~~~~~~

CH PTiER 6:

TOPSAIL ISL;ND CASE STUDY

A case study conducted on Topsail' Island, North Carolina, illustrates the
hurricane hazards present in coastal communities and the ways local government
can manage development to mitigate these hazards. The case study applies the
process outlined in the preceding chapter to map hazard areas, assess the
community's vulnerability to damage, identify mitigation needs, and review
mitigation measures. The case study demonstrates some of the issues facing a
community which is trying to manage development to reduce the risk of
hurricane damages. It also points out the need for coastal communities to
plan for reconstruction before the Istorm to min inize the chaos that attends
any natural disaster, to facilitate reconstruction, and to ensure that
reconstruction leaves the community safer from the next storm.

Topsail Island is a coastal barrier located midway between Cape Lookout
and Cape Fear (see Figure 6.1). The island is about 26 miles long and runs
northeast to southwest. It is- bouded on the south by the Atlantic Ocean, on
the north by the Intracoastal Waterway, on the east by New River Inlet, and on
the west by New Topsail Inlet. The eastern half of the island lies in Onslow
County; this section is known as West O'nslow Beach and is unincorporated. The
western half of the island lies in :Pender County and is divided between the
Town of Surf. City and the Town of Topsail Beach (ssee Figure 6.2). The island
has a year-round population of about '820 and a peak seasonal (summer)
population of about 19, 950 (1980W estimates'). The island is connected to the
mainland by two two-lane bridges.: ,:A swing bridge built in the 1950s runs from
Surf City across the Intracoastal Waterway. A newer andi higher bridge runs
from West Onslow B'each across theIntracoastal Waterway. A two-lane main
road (N.C. 50 and 210) runs the length of the island, with side roads and
*parallel roads in the more develope'd areas (such as Surf City and Topsail
Beach).

;The island has been called Topsail Island s'ine the 1700s. According to
local legend, the name originated'during the years when pirates hid their
ships in the back channels and waited to attack passn merchant ships. After
the merchant ships became aware of this hiding place, -they began to watch for,
the topsails of the pirate Ships showing over the dunes -- hence the isltand's
name. During World War Two, the federali government possessed the island as
part of nearby Camp Davis and installed a pontoon bridge, roads, power lines;,
and 'buildings. The government also built concrete towers 'and launch pads as
the initial location for' its Missile Launching Project, which was later moved
to Cape Capnaveral, Florida. In 1949,: the island returned to private hands and
began to develop as an ocean resort. Surf City incorporated in 1951. Topsail-
Beach incorporated in 1963.

3 i:::~~~~~~~~6-1

Figure 6.1: Location of Topsail Island, North Carolina3

es~~~~~

Bertle~~~~~

N 3~~~~~~~~~Hd

TOPSAIL ISLAND
New ~ex

6-9

Figure 6. 2

TOPSAIL ISLANNC

~~~~~~WetOnslow BeCh;ut

* ~~~~Tlown~ of Topsail Beach 3.. .

Miles

MAPPING HAZARD AREAS

Topsail Island contains the full array of hurricane hazard areas
identified in the preceding chapter. Its vulnerability to damages from scour,
wave action, flooding, and high winds differs at different sections of the
island. The entire ocean shoreline is characterized by a beach and dune
system which acts as a buffer to absorb the forces of the sea but is also very
fragile. The beach along Topsail Island is gradually eroding inland, at a
rate averaging about two to three feet per year. The inlets at each end of
the island are also highly dynamic and bordered by low-lying land with little I
dune protection. Most of the island is less than ten feet above mean sea
level, with higher elevations occurring mainly in Surf City and West Onslow
Beach. The 100-year flood level, as determined by the Federal Insurance
Administration, is roughly 13 feet above mean sea level. The island also
contains some overwash fans, where past storms have breached the dunes and
flattened the land behind them. The island also has three sets of finger
canals, one very close to New Topsail Inlet, which create weak points in the
island's resistance to hurricane forces. The island's estuarine shoreline is
low-lying and mainly left in its natural state, though there is extensive
bulkheading in Topsail Beach and along the finger canals, where homes have
been built along the sound shore.

Several sources of information were used to map hazard areas on Topsail
Island: the Coastal Resources Commission's AEC designations, the National
Flood Insurance Program's rate maps and flood hazard boundary maps, and aerial
photographs which identified overwash fans and finger canals. This infor-
mation was combined into a Composite Hazard Map showing the different hazard
areas and the level of risk associated with each.

National Flood Insurance Program Information I

As participants in the Regular Phase of the National Flood Insurance
Program, the Towns of Topsail Beach and Surf City had detailed flood insurance
rate maps available; these identified A-zones (subject to flooding by the 100-
year flood) and V-zones (subject to flooding plus wave action) in each town
(see Figure 6.4). They also identified the relatively safer B-zones (subject
to flooding by the 500-year flood) and C-zones (land above the 500-year flood
elevation). Elevations in Topsail Beach and Surf City are generally less than
ten feet above mean sea level. However, the flood insurance studies for
Topsail Beach and Surf City determine the 100-year flood elevation to be 12.6
feet.

Because of Topsail Beach's uniformly low elevation and the low height of
the frontal dunes along its beachfront, approximately 95 percent of the town's
land area is in the V-zone, subject to flooding and wave action by the
100-year storm. The remaining five percent of the town is in the A-zone.
The entire town can expect to be inundated by a major hurricane.

Surf City has a higher and more developed dune system and a more exten-
sive soundside marsh. Thus only about fifty percent of the land in Surf City
falls into the V-zone. Another forty percent falls into the A-zone. Only
about ten percent of the land area is in the B and C-zones.

6-4

I: ::

Onslow County is enrolled in the Emergency Phase of the National Flood
I Insurance Program; therefore, no detailed flood insurance rate.maps are avail-
able for West Onslow Beach, only the less-detailed flood:hazard boundary, maps.
These maps show only the "special flood hazard area" (also called ZoneIA)
which is subj.ect to flooding by the, ,100-year flood; they do not break this
area down into A-zones :.and V-zones (see Figure 6.4). Such a breakdown will
occur when the Federal Insurance Administration prepares its final flood
insurance study for Onslow County and issues flood insurance rate maps. The
f lood hazard boundary maps for West Onslow Beach show the "special flood
hazard area" as covering over 90 percent of the land in West Onslow Beach.

CAMA Information

The next step involved mapping the four areas of environmental concern
addressing hurricane hazards: ocean erodible AECs, inlet hazard AECs, flood.
hazard AECs, and the estuarine shoreline AECs (see Figure 6.5). The Office of
0I 0:Coastal Management in Raleigh maintains aerial photographs demarcating ocean
hazard AECs (ocean erodible areas, inlet hazard areas, and flood hazard
areas). The flood hazard areas correspond to the National Flood Insurance
Program's V-zones (but only those:V-zones bordering the ocean). Estuarine
shoreline AECs are set: by: Coastal Resources Colmmission regulations as all land
within :75 feet of an es-tuarine: sho reine. Ocean erodible areas, inlet hazardi
areas, and estuarine shorelines are-,subj.ectt to the full .complement of hurri-
cane hazards (erosion, wave action,:flooding, and high winds). Flood hazard
areas are subject to essentially the same hazards, but with less potential for
serious erosion.

The ocean erodibleAE.C . is bas:ed :on .a setback from ;the first line..of
stable natural vegetation: plus an additional area where erosion can be
expected from storm surges and wave, action during the 100-year storm. The :
setbackis determined by multiplying the annual erosion rate for a particular
section of beach by.30; the.setbackon Tqopsail Island ranges from 60 to 76
feet for different segments of, the. beach The total ocean erodible AEC for
Topsail Island, as, designated by the Office of Coastal Management, encompasses
a strip ranging in width from 195.. feet in the center of the island (Surf City)
to 2.15 feet at the western end (Tqpsail Beach) and 286 feet at the easetern- end
(West Onslow Beach).

Topsail Island also contains, tio inlet hazard AECs, bordering New River
Inlet:: and New Topsail t. Ea-let : of : these: inlets is very dynamic, subject- .to
large-scale shifts.. New River -Inlet is presently :migrating southwest, causing
erosion. at the eastern::end of the island: at: a rate: of abou.t 20 feet. ,per :year
(Onslow.County Planning Department, 1981, p. 33). New Topsail Inlet is also
migrating: to:thesouthwest, gaining land for Topsail:Beach. Inlets, however:,
are very unstable, formations. Changes in, the, direction of migration .are not
unknown; hence, the: generous setbacks used in the inlet hazard AECs.

0I t:00 ;0fAn historical analysis of the geologic history of New Topsail Inlet
indicates a very unstable past. A:compilation of historical charts, maaps:.,
aerial photographs and geomorphic features shows that Topsail Island has grown
at the southern end, by almost 5 miles in the past 250 years as the inlet has:.
migrated. This means that most of the town of Topsail Beach is on recently
formed land.

6-5

I 0f ; 0::; - t:t 0 f t:; :: ; d

The land contained in the inlet hazard areas is low-lying, with little or
no dune protection. In a major storm, these areas will be washed over by
water entering and leaving the sounds behind the island. The inlet hazard
area bordering New Topsail Inlet also covers a set of three finger canals,
which are cut so far into the island that they are separated from the ocean by
only a two-lane road and a narrow strip of duneless beach.

Information from Aerial Photographs

The Office of Coastal Management's aerial photographs showed other haz-
ardous areas which are not designated as AECs and are not directly addressed
by flood insurance studies, namely overwash fans and finger canals. Overwash
fans can be easily identified from aerial photographs by a breach in the dune
system and an area of little or no vegetation which spreads inward from the
beach. Several such areas were found on Topsail Island. Since these areas
have low elevations, they are covered by the flood insurance maps as either
A-zones or V-zones. However, the lack of dune protection makes these areas
particularly vulnerable to future damage.

The aerial photographs also clearly showed the location and extent of
finger canals on Topsail Island. Finger canals are artifically dredged areas,
with housing typically placed on the narrow strips of land between them.
Finger canals weaken a barrier island's resistance to erosion in a storm.
Finger canals create weak spots which can easily become new inlets during
major storms, as water that has collected in the sound funnels and pushes
through the canals to the ocean. The danger is greater the deeper canals cut
into an island and the less distance there is between the canals and the
ocean. This recently happened in a normal winter storm with the finger canals
near New Topsail Inlet, where water washed across the road to connect one of
the canals to the ocean. While this washover was temporary, it points out the
dangers that a larger storm will present. The land in this section of Topsail
Island is low and without dunes or anything else that would prevent a breach.

Composite Hazard Map

The information from the flood insurance maps, AEC designations, and
aerial photographs was integrated into a single Composite Hazard Map in order
that all hazard areas could be identified together (see Figure 6.6). This
compilation led to the designation of four general hazard areas, each with a
different level of risk from the damaging forces of a hurricane. As shown in
Table 6.1, Area 1 consists of the ocean erodible AECs, inlet hazard AECs, and
estuarine shoreline AECs, each of which is subject to erosion, wave action,
flooding, and high winds during a major storm. Area 2 consists of the flood
insurance V-zones, which are subject to wave action, flooding, and high winds.
Area 3 consists of the flood insurance A-zones, which are subject to flooding
and high winds. Area 4 covers the rest of Topsail Island, which would still
be subject to high winds during a hurricane though not likely to suffer
flooding, wave action, or erosion. The Composite Hazard Map also pinpoints
finger canals and overwash fans on the island as locations that are partic-
ularly hazardous for development; each of these is covered by one of the
hazard areas listed above, but each still must be kept in mind in seeing how
development on the island is or is not protected against hurricane damages.

6-6

Figure 6.3

INDEX TO, HAZARD AREA MMAPS

Town of, Topsail Be'ach 0 1 2

Mile's

Figure 6.4

FLOOD INSURANCE ZONES

TOWN OF TOPSAIL BEACH

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. .....................
TB 2 .. *.xX' .'. *::.2

T~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... .~. .,..... ... ......

Scale: 1-inch equals 1600-feet

F-igure 6.4

FLOD INSURANC ZOES

TOWN OF SURF ~CITY

SC-2

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.......

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.......:~...

SC- I ~ ~~~-

Scale. 1-inch, euals 1600-feet

* Figure 6.4
FLOOD INSURANCE ZONES
I 4,
4
* WEST ONSLOW BEACH

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OB-1 1�7**

I
I
I �1 _

I Scale 1 inch equals 1600 feet
I

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Figure 6.4

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~FODINUACZOE
WEST 0NSLOW BEACH

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-----
Ar~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.....
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.....

* D- A~~~~~~O-

I~ OB

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'-sa
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~........

Scale: I-inch equals 1600-feet

Figure 6.5

CAMA AEC MAP

Estuarine Shoreline AEC (7 5 f t.)

24 ~ ~ ~ ~~15 Oca Erodible 'AEC1
Ocean Erodible AEC
Flood Ha~zard AEC

inlet, Hazard AEC

TB- I

25' Oce~an Erodible AEC

Scale: 1-inch eqals160fe

Fiure 6.5

CAMA AEMA

SC-2 Estuarine Shorel~~~~eine AEC (75 FT.)

195' Ocean uEroibl~e AECo -ie~E 75

~~~~~~~190' Ocean Erodible AEC

Sclale: 1-in chequals 1600-fe'et

Figure 6.5
CAMA AEC MAP
k

Estuarine Shoreline AEC (75 ft.)

201:Ocean Erodible A:EC

216 Ocean Erodible AE

111 Estuarine Shoreline AEC (7J f .)
2410 Ocean Erodible AEC 2 0.0' Ocean Erodible AEC

210' Ocean Erodible: -inch equals 00feEoible AEC

I Scale: 1-inch equals 1600-feet

Figure 6.5
I r CAMA AEC MAP

| Innlet Hazard AEC

Estuarine Shoreline AEC (75 ft.)

| I 0 0 Scale: 1-inch equals 1600-feet

I 7

I 0 0 oB-3 286' Ocean Erodible AEC

I(~/ ) ; : Estuarine Shoreline AEC (75 ft.)

Ir 236' Ocean Erodible AEC

- :-- -- :- :- 0- -R- --: - :-- ::- m - m
Figure 6. 6 4

CO, MPOSITE H.AZMARD MAP : :

: 4 : : 75:' S ack
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TB-2

'Area 1. '~.& S~etbacks as noted

A r e a 2 ;"
f� z

A re a 3 - ""~:

TB-i"
'? . s ::::~::::::~~::-I: ..... ......

? ~" _-" . ." .1S' Setback '

Scale: 1-inch equ als 1600-feets nad
:; 0 X 5 A~~~~8r~ea 3;f- u

TB-I ~~

0 i t 0 $0 0 0 0 0 2i5' 5eftbac
A~~~e~~a ~~~ ~~~A

. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Z~~~~~�-1fcae l-inc equ-l I cs0-::

Figure 6.6

COMPOSITE HAZARD MAP

L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~: 19 Setbac 210' Setac

Area 1' Setbacks as noted Ae

Area 2 Ae
Scale:"1-inch"equals"1600-feet
i~~~~~~~~~~~~n~ 7
s-~~~~ S e t b a ck���~�:~�~
~~~s S: �:z;,�� ..,.,x;-::c -~I

:�: :s~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~ r;~~~~~~~:�:�:�:�~~~~~~~~~~

~~~Sae 1-nc equals 1600-feet~~:�~~�~�:�~

H|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ : : - t V 2Figure 6.6
COMPOSITE HAZARD MAP

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r'r
* : : : : 0 : : : f : : f : :: Q~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"'"''.--.-- :. ............. ......--.........
~..

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~� :: : :

1~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~0 :;0;;0*, _ : :: 0' Setbackk7\
,,>:i... -:s^._..:> .
..:.~.:.~:.~ -:.:.:.::. :,.:.:.:
:::i:i:::::::i :i:::::::?:: ::::~:~:~::::::::::::
~:i:~~::ij:i:i ~:~:,~::i :i:::i:~:ilii:i:

-~~rea
|~~~~~~~~~~ 0 O'ef B sBf a ~ s af R1O JCt ;\0 Area e t b acks a:s n o t
I 4, ~ BfB-f-ffSSS~5 a~f~a~sa s~ba aawaasfSfaafaaf
I~~~~~~~~~~~~

L : : 200' BB B Setbacak

ScalI 0' Setb: 200'ch Setback
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

'I Scale: lih e as 60 e
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ae 1 -~i~ Setbacks asirtX noted~l
I~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~w:: t~~~~iijl:::"-~~~~~~'~�:j::j:::jj~::~

I~~~:j~::: _____1 :I
L~ ~ :::: 210' Setback:~::~:1~:8~~:
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~iiiiii:;~ii8~i
I~~F Scalej~ 1 inch equals 1600 feet
I~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~iiii:::::::i :i:: :i~:i:~i.~~~i~i~iii~~iiit~

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Figure 6.6
COMPOSITE HAZARD MAP

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Area 1I- Setbacks as noted

*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Are a 3......
Area 4-

75' Setback

Scale:. 1-inch equalis 1600-feet

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4.....
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.......

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~26 ebc
U~~O

H Ti ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~236' Setback

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

Severity of Risk

The severity of risk is basically a function of the number of physical
forces (erosion, wave action, etc.) that a hurricane is likely to impose on a
particular hazard zone. The Composite Hazard Map shows different hazard .areas
with different levels of risk (see Table 6.1). Area l is the area at most
severe risk due to its being subject. to the full complement of hurricane

:I ' V : Table 6.1: Definition of' Hazard Areas'

Forces Present/Expected
Wave High
Area Erosion Action Flooding Winds Boundaries

1 : X X 6X X Ocean erodible AECs-, inlet
hazard AECs, estuarine
shoreline AECs.

2 X X X Flood insurance V-zones

3 X X Flood insurance A-zones:

34 X Rest of community

forces. Area 4 faces the least severe risk. on the island since, in a majlor
storm, it can reasonably be expected to :suffer only high winds.. (This by no*
means implies that Area 4 is risk-free; hurricane winds are a serious force to
contend with and must be accounted for in any hurricane-related planning,
effort. In the event of a hurricane,,, all of Topsail Island will face severe
damage.) :Using the Composite Risk Map as a guide to the location of.hazard
areas and the levels of risk they entail, it:was then possible to get a. rough
idea of the magnitude of risk flacingeach community on Topsail Island by
comparing the Composite Hazard- Map tfo :the pattern: of existing and expected
development on the island.

Magnitude of Risk

The magnitude of risk is baSically a function of the size of the popula-
tion and the number and value of developed properties exposed to the hurricane
forces likely:to :affect: a hazard area. Toestimate the--magnitude of ri.sk
facing Topsail Island, the Composite Hazard Map was overlain with the land
use maps of each community on the island.

3 Topsail Beach, Surf City, and Onslow County each had land use map:s
identifying the location of all buildings on the island; the maps were :coded
to indicate residential and commercial structures.. Although the land use

6-7

I : 0 t : if 0; \f 0

maps for Surf City and Topsail Beach were prepared for the 1980 land use plan
update, they were compiled from 1977 survey data. Thus it was necessary to
conduct "windshield surveys" to update the maps. Unless a community has a
recently completed land use map, it will probably be necessary to update the
maps through an inspection of the community. The Onslow County Planning
Department maintains an up-to-date inventory of structures for:West Onslow
Beach showing property lines, zoning districts, and whether or not a property
is developed. This map is kept current as new construction occurs, buildings
are moved, or buildings are torn down. Maintaining an on-going inventory such
as this is a good idea for other communities. It provides a ready source of
information concerning the development pattern of the community and is useful
for policy decisions.

Existing Development --

An assessment of the magnitude of risk facing existing development on
Topsail Island was obtained by counting the number of residential and com-
mercial structures in each of the three jurisdictions which were located in
the various hazard areas identified on the Composite Hazard Map. The location
of roads, utilities, and public buildings was also examined.

The entire town of Topsail Beach falls into hazard areas 1, 2, and 3. Of
the 611 residential units in Topsail beach, 49 percent (or 298) are in Area 1
(the ocean erodible AEC, inlet hazard AEC, and estuarine shoreline AEC).
Fifty-one percent (or 312) are in Area 2 (the flood insurance V-zone), subject
to flooding and wave action during a 100-year flood. Thus, every home but one
is in either Area 1 or Area 2; the other home is in Area 3 (the flood insur-
ance A-zone). Eleven of the 37 commercial structures in the town are located
in Area 1; the remaining 26 are in Area 2.

In Surf City, 282 (28 percent) of the town's 995 residential units are in
Area 1. Another 217 (22 percent) are in Area 2. Another 437 (or 44 percent)
fall into Area 3, with the remainder falling int'o Area 4. Ten of the 70
commercial structures in Surf City are located in Area 1; another twenty are
located in Area 2. The rest are in Area 3.

Because Onslow County is not yet enrolled in the Regular Program of the
National Flood Insurance Program, rate maps delineating V-zones do not yet
exist; therefore, the Composite Hazard Map does not show an Area 2 for West
Onslow Beach. Area 3 covers the land in West Onslow Beach that is classified
as the "special flood hazard area" (A-zone) by the flood hazard boundary map
for Onslow County. Of the 1,225 residential units in West Onslow Beach, about
315 (26 percent) fall into Area 1. Another 790 (65 percent) fall into Area 3.
Forty-five percent of the residential units lie in an area of extensive finger
canals that appear in Area 3 but are likely to suffer more storm forces than
just flooding and high winds. A large condominum development containing 180
units lies at the eastern end of the island, partially in the ocean erodible
AEC and very close to the inlet hazard area.

Table 6.2 shows the number of residential and commercial units in each
jurisdiction that fall into the various hazard areas.

6-8

Table 6.2: Number of Structures in Hazard Areas

Topsail Beach." Surf City: West Onslow Beach
Number :%: Number % Number %
Residential Units
Area 1 298 49; 282 28 315 26
Area 2 312 51 217 22 N/A -
Area 3 1 <1 437 44 790 64
Area 4 0 0 59 6 . 120 10

Total 611 100 995 100 1,225 100

Commercial units
Area 1 11 30 10 14 6 35
Area 2 26 70 20 29 N/A
Area 3 0 0:: 40 57 11 65
Area 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 37 100:: 70 1:00 17 100

The roads, utilities, and other public facilities on Topsail Island were
also examined for vulnerability. There:is a single primary road (N.C. 50 and
210) along the length of the island. Through Surf City, the road is located
as far inland as possible, the right-of-way having ;been.moved from its
original location along the oceanfront. One section of the road floods :
consistently in minor storms. In Topsail Beach, the primary road remains
along the oceanfront and, due to the: narrowness of the island at this point

Onslow Beach, the' road runs. directly adjacent t;o the dunes. and oceanfront.
Tkhis, sectionh:'of;the: road 'hasd long been.: recognized: as hazardous:, and private.
developers working in'this farea have already. begun taking steps to move it..
Everywhere on the island,: the primary'road is,subject. to inundation by the:
100-year flood. :In Topsail Beach:,: the road lies,: entirely in, Areas 1I ands 2
and is subject to the more severe. damaging forces of wave action and erosion.
The: location of secondary: roads, on the island-basically coincides with; the
location of homes and: businesses,.

The Jones-Onsiow:Electric Membership Corporation's electric lines are
situated on overhead poles along the- primary roads. These poles pose a danger
on the island:'in. the event of a hurricane; with a single route of evacuation,:
a fallen pole could be d:isastrous.

The towns on Topsail Island have limited community facilities. All
schools, health care facilities, and courthouses are located on the mainland,,
a sufficient distance inland to: be relatively safe from hurricane damage.'
Topsail Beach and Surf City do, however, each have a town hall, housing the.
municipal offices and police departments. Topsail Beach's town hall is not.

6"9
::I~ ' f

elevated and lies in Area 2 (the V-zone), where it will be subject to wave
action, flooding, and high winds. (The town originally intended to build a
two-story structure, with the upper floor safe from flooding, but could not
afford to install an elevator to provide the required access for handicapped
persons.) Surf City's town hall is located in Area 3 (the A-zone); it is a
two-story building, with the upper floor used for administrative offices and
the lower floor housing the police and public works departments.

Overhead power lines threaten
:ei Topsail Beach's sole
evacuation route.

A study conducted in the spring of 1982 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers sheds light on the cost of damages that existing development on Topsail
Island could expect to suffer during a hurricane. The Corps's Wilmington
District office surveyed nearly every existing structure on the island, esti-
mated its value, and estimated the damages to each structure from flooding at
different levels (the 500-year storm, the 100-year storm, the 50-year storm,
etco). The results of the study (see Table 6.3) indicate that, in the
100-year storm, the town of Topsail Beach can expect almost 13 million dollars
in damages, the town of Surf City can expect over seven million dollars in
damages, and West Onslow Beach can expect over 15 million dollars in damage.
The study dealt with damages from flooding only, not including the further
damages that erosion, wave action, and high winds would cause.

An assessment of the vulnerability of existing development on Topsail
Island pointed out four sites of special concern on the island due to the
severity of hazards present and the density of development at each site.

The first site of special concern is the western mile of beachfront
development in Topsail Beach, which faces high erosion rates and contains
finger canals which cut very close in to the main road and the beach. In
1974, with the assistance of the N.C. Department of Water and Air Resources,
a system of seven sand bag groins was installed along this section of beach to
help retard erosion. More recently, sand has been pumped in from the sound in
an attempt to renourish the beach and dunes. However, erosion continues along
this stretch of beach; attempts to stabilize a highly unstable area may prove
futile. Most of this stretch of beach has few dunes to protect it. Several
homes at this end of the island have already been moved after ocean erosion
exposed their septic tanks and rendered the lots unbuildable. The ground
floor of the Sea Vista Motel, an unelevated structure along this stretch of
beach, was flooded by high tides in the fall in 1981. The future of buildings
in this area remains uncertain. Normal erosion threatens their existence;
a hurricane would seal their fate.

6-10

~~~~~

Table 6.3: Estimates of Damages on Topsail Island from
Storms of Different Frequencies

Damage Values
Storm (Real & Personal Property)
Frequency in thousands of dollars*
Jurisdiction (in years). Residential Commercial Total

Topsail Beach 500 18,088.1 4,052.6 22,140.7

100 10,125.8 2,580.4 12,706.2

50 7,342.7. 1,706.8 9,049.5

25 2,27-6.6 201.9 2,478.5

Surf City 500 13,220.7 3,394.4 16,615.1

100 5,545.6 1,711..6 7,257.2

50 631.9 134.3 766.2

25 269.5 29.5 299.0

West Onslow Beach 500 23,749.0 2,237.2 25,986.2

100 13,588.8 1.,485.7 15,074.5

50 6585.0 1,112.0 7,697.0O

25 2:-87528 700.9 3,576.7

TOTAL
(all jurisdictions) 500 55,057.8 90,684.2 64,742.0

100 29,.260..2 5,777.7 35,037..9

50 14,559.6 2,95:3.1 17,512,.7

25 5,421.9 932.3 6,354.2

*Values reflect March 1982 price levels.

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District, 1982.

6-11

Severe erosion on the
island's western tip leaves
this motel and these homes
extremely vulnerable to
storm damages. Several
homes along this stretch
have already been moved to
other parts of Topsail Beach.

Looking soundward from the I
scene above, only a two-lane

beach separate this finger
canal from the ocean.

flood level) and thus have some protection against flooding. Nonetheless, the
threat of the island being breached and extensive damage to homes, businesses,
roads, and water lines occurring at this point is very strong. I

The second site of special concern is the mobile home parks located in
Surf City. Mobile homes are often situated very close together and are seldom
elevated. One large park is located in Surf City at Barnacle Bill's Pier, on
oceanfront land where the dunes are broken and elevations are generally less
than ten feet. Several other mobile home parks are located in Surf City along
the soundfront, on either side of the Highway 50 swing bridge. The mobile
homes here are also unelevated, grouped close together, and set very close to
the water without protection. These mobile homes are all in the V-zone, and
many are in the estuarine shoreline AEC as well.

6-12

The third site of special concern is an extensive finger canal system in
West Onslow Beach, just north of the Town of Surf City. This site consists of
seven finger canals lined with about'500 homes. Most of these homes are
I mobile homes set directly on the ground. Since finger canals involve arti-
fically dredged and filled land, thisl land could easily shift and erode under
the forces of a hurricane. Adjacent to these finger canals, on the oceanfrbnt
just north of the Scotch Bonnet Pier,, is a large mobile home subdivision
located on a flat strip of land with broken dunes and low elevations. This
area was washed over by Hurricane Hazel and remains as a potential overwash
3 pass.

The final site of special concern is the Topsail Reef condominium
U- development at the eastern end of thel'island in Onslow County. Here, 240
residential units have been built 1,000 feet from the New River Inlet, which
is migrating towards them at a rate.of 20 feet per year. In addition to
bordering the inlet hazard area, the dunes along this section of beach are
particularly low and discontinuous, so storm surge flooding and wave battering
are highly likely. As a result, the highest density development on Topsail
Island is located at one of its most- hazardous areas.

Future Development::--

In addition to existing development and the hazards facing it, signi-
ficant future growth can be expected on Topsail Island, mainly in West Onslow
Beach.

M obile homes are common
in Surf City.

The same is true for
West Onslow Beach,
where low-lying mobile t
homes line an extensive
system of finger canals.

I :; r ; X C ::

West Onslow Beach contains approximately 3,292 acres of land. Of this,
1,789 acres are zoned as a Conservation District where little or no develop-
ment is allowed to occur. Of the remaining 1,503 acres, 1,250 acres are
presently undeveloped (Onslow County Planning Department, March 1982 data).
This includes about 70 percent of the oceanfront -- a total of 8.4 miles. The
development of Topsail Reef condominiums at the eastern end of the island
foretells the scale of development West Onslow Beach can expect as this
stretch of relatively undeveloped island appeals to developers and potential
homeowners. The developer of Topsail Reef condominiums has, with the approval
of the N.C. Division of Environmental Management, begun construction on a
privately-financed and privately-maintained one-million-gallon-per-day sewage
system for West Onslow Beach, with the capacity for expansion to three million
gallons per day. This system would serve a 582-unit condominium development
he plans to build just west of Topsail Reef, as well as a 600-unit development
that another developer has proposed for Permuda Island (a low-lying soundside
island that is connected to Topsail Island by a low, narrow, and unpaved
causeway). A large portion of West Onslow Beach has been designated as
"undeveloped coastal barrier" by the U.S. Department of the Interior in
response to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981; this portion of the
island will be ineligible for federal flood insurance after October 1, 1983.

The towns of Surf City and Topsail Beach can also expect to continue
developing, though not as dramatically. While the sort of large-scale,
multi-unit development which characterizes Atlantic Beach and Wrightsville
Beach has not affected Surf City or Topsail Beach, their smalltown characters
cannot be guaranteed. With 470 acres available for development in Surf City
(John J. Hooton and Associates, 1981, p. 8) and 164 acres available in Topsail
Beach (John J. Hooton and Associates, 1980, p. 22), the pressures to build
will continue.

Evacuation of Topsail Island in the event of a hurricane is not seen as a
problem at the present time. The 'two bridges leading off the island -- Route
210 at the northern end and Route 50 in the middle -- are collectively able to
transport at least 1,500 vehicles per hour given ideal conditions. With a
12-hour warning time, 18,000 vehicles could be safely evaucated from the
island. While this is substantially greater than the number of vehicles
present on Topsail Island at any given time now, the future growth and resort
popularity of the Island could greatly increase traffic. The capacities of
the roads and bridges of Topsail Island for hurricane evacuability must be
recognized and monitored in the future.

REVIEWING CURRENT MITIGATION MEASURES

Mitigation measures currently in place on Topsail Island reflect the
different goals and objectives of the three jurisdictions involved and, to a
certain extent, the differing levels of vulnerability along the island. Local
policies in Topsail Beach, Surf City, and West Onslow Beach therefore offer
three different approaches to hurricane hazard mitigation in covering both new
development and the reconstruction of damaged buildings.

6-14

Most of West Ons low Beach
remains undeveloped.

Construction there
proceeds at a hearty
pace.

These condominiums fore-
fl :: I ~ : ::

shadow things to come on
the eastern end of West
Ons low Beach.

This narrow and poorly-
maintained road is their
only route out.

3:: :::: : :::~6-15

Topsail Beach

Topsail Beach, at the southern end of the island, is the most vulnerable
to hurricane damages. With 99 percent of all buildings in the V-zone, Topsail
Beach has the greatest amount to lose. Perhaps it is not surprising, then,
that Topsail Beach has adopted the most extensive and effective measures for
protecting against hurricane damages.

The Topsail Beach Land Use Plan (adopted 1976, updated 1980) provides
guidelines for the town's future development, including land classifications
and natural resources and community development policies which deal with the
type, location, and timing of development.. The plan stresses the objectives
of maintaining only single-family development in Topsail Beach and protecting
the community from damage by long-term erosion and storm forces.

Within the Town Code, and adopted as the force of law, are Topsail
Beach's floodplain management regulations. Using the town's flood insurance I
rate map as an overlay for the zoning map, the floodplain management regu-
lations require that: ;

1. Non-residential structures must be elevated or flood-
proofed to 13 feet above MSL;

2. Structures in the V-zone must have open space or breakaway I
walls below base flood elevation;

3. Pilings, anchorages, and breakaway walls must be approved |
by the building inspector;

4. No dunes may be altered;

5. No use of fill for structural support shall occur
in the V-zone; and 3

6. No mobile homes may locate in the V-zone.

The regulations mirror the minimum regulations required by the National Flood 3
Insurance Program for participation in its Regular Phase. All new con-
struction and those structures undergoing "substantial improvements" (repairs
or reconstruction greater than 50 percent of fair market value) must comply
with the floodplain management regulations.

Topsail Beach has also adopted a zoning ordinance and subdivision regu-
lations which strictly regulate mobile homes and multi-family dwellings. The I
establishment of a mobile home park or the building of multi-family structures
(such as condominiums) is not permitted by right anywhere on the zoning map.
To do so requires a special use permit from the Town's Board of Commissioners.
The zoning policies governing non-conforming uses and structures are partic-
ularly relevant for post-hurricane reconstruction. Non-conforming uses may
not be rebuilt in a residential district if reconstruction exceeds 50 percent
of replacement cost. Non-conforming uses may not be rebuilt in any other
zoning district if reconstruction exceeds 70 percent of replacement cost.
Non-conforming structures (i.e. those not meeting setbacks and other require- I
ments) may not be rebuilt in any district if reconstruction exceeds 75 percent

6-16 1

I -of replacement cost. These requirements supplement those in thei-floodplain
management regulations governing: the repair of damaged structures. These
requirements ensure that, in the event of destruction by- a hurricane or other-
disaster, hazardous uses and structures will not be re-established and the.
town's development goals:,.as outlined in the land use plan, the floodplain
management regulations, and the zoning ordinance, will be furthered.

Surf City'

;I: : Surf City's policies are in many ways similar to those of Topsail :Beach,
but allow a broader scale: ofdevelopment. The town's land use plan expresses
Surf City's desire to "maximize a structure's protection from wind.and water,
and to minimize damage to the protective land .forms of dunes and beaches,"
(John J.:Hooton and Associates, 1981,.::.p. 26). Within the:Surf City Town Code
is a flood damage prevention ordinance which is essentially identical to
Topsail Beach's floodplain management. regulations.'. It too requires that:

1. residences new construction, or substantial improvements
(repairs or recons:truction:worth 50 percent of market value).
must be elevated at or:above base-flood level (13 feet above.
MSL) in V:and A-zones;

2. commercial buildings;:must- be elevated .or floodproofed to:the.
base flood level in these zones';

3.: open space or breakaway,:.wails must be used be-low base flood
elevations in the:V-zones;

4. anchorings and pilings:must be certified, by a registered:
engineer or architect;

5. no alteration of dunes'or use of fill for structural support
shall occur in the V-zone.

In Surf City, mobile homes are not as 'strictly regulated: as in Topsail
Beach. Because over 30 percent of the: housing stock in Surf City is presently.
mobile :homes, stringent regulation is not as. politically feasible. Instead,
Surf City's zoning ordinance has designated specific' districts in the. town
where trailers and mobile homes are permitted. Additionally, mobile homes
cannot locate in the high hazard: f lood area (V-zone') except . in an existing:
'mobile home- park or subdivision. All Inew' parks :and subdivisions: (and
extensions to existing ones') and mobile homes not in a park or subdivision:
must have the lowest floor elevated to base flood level (13 feet above MSL).
3 Mobile homes which are substantially damaged must be elevated to 13 feet and
be: no closer than 15 feet to another structure. Mobile homes may not be'
rebuilt outside the Town's R5M:-zoning district (which exists in only three-
areas in town where there are. already mobile home developments)..

Surf City's zoning ordinance also allows more liberally for multi-family.:
structures than does Topsail Beach's zoning ordinance. The ordinance allows:
multi-family construction in residential: districts, as:long as it meets ther
town's height and lot size restrictions.

6-17

Whereas non-conforming structures must meet the town's elevation, lot
size, and height requirements if they are substantially damaged, the zoning
ordinance allows non-conforming uses to rebuild provided no further non-
conformity occurs (that is, without increasing space or further violating
dimensional requirements).

West Onslow Beach

The eastern half of Topsail Island is the unincorporated area of West 3
Onslow Beach, administered by Onslow County. Since West Onslow Beach is
largely undeveloped, the policies there reflect a more growth-oriented
attitude towards development than those in Topsail Beach or Surf City, and a
lesser recognition of the hurricane hazard. The Onslow County Land Use Plan
recognizes that "West Onslow Beach will grow by leaps and bounds barring
problems associated with hurricanes" (Onslow County Planning Department, 1981,
p. 81). The County expects development to occur at a high pace, including
single-family residences, condominiums, and hotels. The County maintains no
floodplain regulations or elevation requirements for West Onslow Beach. The
County does have zoning and subdivision regulations and planned unit develop-
ment (PUD) standards in force on West Onslow Beach, but these are vague and
ineffective at addressing hurricane hazards. Mobile homes and multi-family
condominiums are permitted at West Onslow Beach, subject to the zoning ordi-
nance's lot size restrictions. For reconstruction following a hurricane, the
Onslow County zoning ordinance states that non-conforming structures and uses
may not be reconstructed if damaged beyond 60 percent of replacement cost.

The County does have a "conservation" zone in place that is designed to
protect floodplains and estuaries. This district covers over half of the land
in West Onslow Beach, entirely on the soundside of the island. The County's
land use plan supports the use of elevation and setback requirement& to pro-
tect development from flood hazards; it also states that the County intends to
adopt more stringent floodplain management regulations (similar to those in
Topsail Beach and Surf City) once the Federal Insurance Administration has the
County's flood insurance rate maps prepared and the County enters the Regular
Phase of the National Flood Insurance Program. However,: the rate maps will
not be ready before autumn of 1983, if not later. Meanwhile, development in
West Onslow Beach continues; most new construction is fortunately elevated to
take advantage of lower flood insurance rates. The state's CAMA regulations
also play a major role in determining whether or not new development reason-
ably protects itself against hurricane damages by enforcing the ocean erosion
setback and standards for construction in ocean hazard AECs.

In addition to the above local regulations, the three jurisdictions on
Topsail Island operate under the various requirements that state agencies use
to govern development (as described in the preceding chapter). Each juris-
diction administers CAMA's standards for minor development projects in areas
of environmental concern. The Office of Coastal Management handles major
projects in AECs as well as proposals to dredge and fill in estuarine waters
and wetlands. All development must comply with the State Building Code, which
is administered by the local governments. None of the three jurisdictions
varies from the code.

6-18

Table 6.4: Local Policies .In Effect on Topsail Island

Local Policy Topsail Beach Surf City West Onslow

1., Floodplain regulations X X

.I a elevation or flood-
proofing required X X.

* open space, breakway
walls below .flood.
level in V-zone X X

I a � no alteration;of dunes X : X X

2. Zoning ordinance X:; X X

e restrictions on
mobile homes: : strict moderate slight

�*..restrictions, on:
multi-family strict moderate, slight

1 3. Subdivision regulations X X X

4. Land:Use Plan X: X X

� development: outlook single-family mixed, high-density.

| 5. Destruction level to 50 75%: 50% for 60%.
deny rebuilding non- structures;
conformities none for uses.

1 6; :6. National Flood
Insurance Program: Regular RegRular Emergency:

Even though each jurisdictionon onTopsail Islands exercises some level of
control over development that. coyers the different hazards associated with
hurricanes., each jurisdiction,:suffers.:to, some., degree,. from problems in
enforcing:local and:CAMA. regulations. Enforcement :problem arise for., three
|i | S reasons. First is the :ill-defined role ..of local government in regulating
development, which grows out of public attutides toward the use of privateo
property. Second is.the lack of compliance on the. part of developers. Third
i is the lack ofs:taff and other resources:for carrying out enforcement acions.
By..and large, development on Topsail Island: has complied with:,the appropriate
regulations. However,: a few concerns surfaced during discussions with local
officials in Topsail Beach, ::Surf' City, and Onslow County. These concerns :have.

6-19:

I
a definite bearing on whether or not development on Topsail Island is reason-
ably safe from damage and whether or not Topsail Island officials can rest
assured that post-hurricane reconstruction will be expedient and leave the
community safer than it was before the storm.

The role of local government in regulating development is not strongly
defined on Topsail Island. Part of this stems from the lack of public
acceptance that such a role should exist. The attitude of each jurisdiction
varies as each has grown accustomed to different types of development and has
faced different development problems. Topsail Beach, which wishes to remain
primarily a single-family residential community, maintains the strictest
control over the type and location of development and invests a good deal of
effort in formulating and enforcing development regulations given the limited
resources that it has available. Surf City, which is a more diverse resi-
dential and business community maintains a slightly less restrictive attitude
towards development and thus tends to channel its attention to other pri-
orities. Onslow County, which governs relatively undeveloped West Onslow
Beach, expects its half of the island to grow significantly in the next five
to ten years and has so far taken little action to ensure that this
development enjoys maximum protection from hurricane damage.

AllZ of the communities on the island are taking action to protect the
oceanfront' dunes -- their first Zine of defense.
Enforcement efforts in each community are hampered by the efforts of
those-who seek to evade the regulations. Stories of construction at odd hours
or on weekends to avoid building inspection are common. It is impossible for
each jurisdiction to achieve 100 percent enforcement given the limited
resources each has on hand.

A problem common to all three jurisdictions is the limited number of
qualified personnel and resources for enforcement purposes. As small towns
with limited revenues, neither Topsail Beach nor Surf City employs a full-time
inspector or planner. Each town has a part-time building inspector. Sub-
division reviews and requests for zoning variances go directly to the Board of

6-20

Commissioners. Onslow County has; a, :full-time planning department, but with
one inspector responsible for all of:Onslow County, there is limited time
available for West Onslow Beach projects.

The three jurisdictions on Topsail Island can expect to have serious
problemsin.managing post-hurricane reconstruction. The local inspectors
have had little if:any training and experience in damage assessment. To
determine if non-conforming structures must be rebuilt to current require-
ments, an inspector must be able to s::pecify the level of destruction. The
lack of experience in damage assessment, togetherwith the widespread
destruction that will accompany a hurricane, presents a nearly impossible task
for local inspectors and other local officials on Topsail:Island, especially
since the will all be called on in the emergency to fulfill a variety of
5 responsibilities.

I . fIDENTIFYING MITIGATION PROBLEMS

An identical question was posedto officials in each of the three juris-
dictions. in separate meetings and their responses: were listed and ranked
according to priority. The. questionwas:, What are the.most serious problems
that your commnity facesin influencing private and public development and
reconstruction to minimize hurricane hazards to life and property? Not
surprisingly:, they identified many co mmonproblems which they felt impeded
their efforts :to mitigate the effects of ::hurricanes.. The problems: fall :into
two, categories: philosphical an ad administrative.

Philosophical Problems:

The main philosophical problem in:managing development to reduce the risk
of hurricane damages involves determning.g an acceptable level of risk for
individuals and the. community to take, and determining an.,acceptable level of
government control over development' in, the community. The popular concept:ion
of. hurricanes along the. North. Carplina coast:is that ofi a low-probability
event. This is due to the unusual lull in hurricane activity of the past 2.5
years. This attitude. is further exacerbated by:the availability of federal
flood insurance. The .certainty of enjoying a l:house :insured from damages.seemse
to ,.o,utweighithe. threat of:: potentialdamages. Mayors in both Surf City and
Topsail Beach feel that a major problem in their communities is the attitude
of citizens towards private property rights and the role. of, government..
People tend to resent government regulationin what they -feel are individual
decisions of risk-taking with private. property. This. individualistic attitude.
towards risk-taking has made attempts.,.at collective standard-setting a
constant battle. It also creates ;a posliticatl climate that works against 'the
adoptioni of stringent regulations which.prkotect development and post-disaster
reconstruction from.,storm damages.

Another major problem Topsail Island faces in influencing or managing
development is the many different pressures which exist to develop. These
pre~ssures can take the form of internal pressures within local, government ito
grow and expand its tax base, especially as thecost. of government services:
j continues to:rise. Pressures also come from outside developers who recogniz.e

6-21

the large amount of developable land on Topsail Island and seek a profit.
State and federal agencies are a third source of development pressure in that
they award grants-in-aid to communities for projects which will accommodate
growth, such as roads and wastewater treatment systems. On Topsail Island,
the upgrading of the primary road and the construction of the second,
fixed-span bridge opened up the island for more extensive development. This
implicit state and federal philosophy of encouraging expansion has contributed
to local difficulties in managing development.

These philosophical problems were the first and most obvious for offi-
cials on Topsail Island to identify, and are no doubt shared by communities
all along the North Carolina coast. However, these basic problems are the
hardest to address and lie at the core of hazard mitigation efforts.
Agreement can be widely found on the need for hurricane protection and pre-
paredness, but deciding on a specific approach for meeting the need remains a
difficult decision for local officials in each of the three jurisdictions.

Administrative Problems

A major administrative problem facing each jurisdiction is their
inability to lobby for changes at the state and federal level, even though
state and federal programs (CAMA, the State Building Code, and the National
Flood Insurance Program) play major roles in controlling the location and
quality of development on Topsail Island. For example, officials in the Town
of Topsail Beach felt that as a small town of only 130 voters, they had little
or no political clout with Pender County, the state, or federal agencies. The I
Mayor and Board of Commissioners are concerned about the adequacy of the State
Building Code for coastal communities. They feel that requiring sprinkler
systems in the town's motels and condominiums would help to save lives and
avert damages, but such a regulation must come from the State Building Code
Council. The Town lacks the resources to prepare the engineering study
required by the Council before it will permit a variance to the state code. 3

Surf City officials identified another problem which reflects each juris-
diction's constrained resources and is relevant for other coastal communities.
It is presently a small community of single-family houses, mobile homes, and
small businesses. If proposals for large-scale developments or subdivisions
are brought forward, the Town has no personnel with the experience to
adequately review such a project. The subdivision regulations were written
under contract, by professionals, but must be administered by part-time local
officials. A program of technical assistance for project review would be
helpful. A similar problem can be expected to occur during post-hurricane
reconstruction, where the experience and technical expertise of local
administrators will be insufficient to handle the burden of regulating
reconstruction. i

For West Onslow Beach, the primary problem identified by the Onslow
County Planning Department is the lack of input into or control over the
development process. Development regulations were seen as vague and needing
to be further defined and strengthened. A new development project at West
Onslow Beach will relocate part of the primary road and new sewer system along
a better protected right-of-way located farther from the oceanfront. Onslow
County would prefer the entire right-of-way to be located farther in from the

6-22 3

:: :; :beach, es:pecially if the sewer system is later to be transferred over to
County ownership and:maintenance. "The Planning Department could have been
used to coordinate: efforts among:- the-developers, ;.the N.C. Department of
Transportation and the N.C.::Division of Environmental Management. Instead,
the County has been left outside of the process and decisions regarding the
project are proceeding on a piecemealbasis.

A private developer is
moving the road along the
eastern end of the island
so he can set new ocean-
front homes back f rom rrieHazelin 954
the beach.reconstruction. Duringand

after problem common :toallthree jurisdictions, andone thatlocal offiucials
felt should be a top priority, .is the lack of a plan or set of guidelines for
reconstruction following a hurricane'. or, other major 'storm. Local officials on

regarding the character, location, iKand timing of reconstruction. During and
after .a hurricane, local officials:in a small coastal .community,.such as Surf
City or Topsail: Beach, must fill a myriad of roles, not only. in managing
reconstruction but also in managing the full range of-emergency activities and
services. With "such divided attention, ::it is difficult for local officials to
oversee reconstruction activities ;lto-.make sure that'they:comply with the
requirements and long-term .goals-of, the community and help".reduce .the risk of
future damages. With local officials facingipressure from the public. to allow
;rapid reconstruction and pressure <.from their other emergency functions, it is
not unusual for rebuilding to occur in a :haphazard fashion that leaves the
.community only as safe, or unsafe, ias it .was before.

3 The three communities: on:Topsail'Island, as separate political juris-
dictions, :each need to develop a renonstruction plan. The levels ::of hazard
present on the island, 'and .the limited resources each� community .has available
to'.handle reconstruction, call for'the communities to prepare themselves,
:taking stock of the policies they will use :to guide reconstruction:and:the
jprocedures by which these policies- will :be: applied.' While each jurisdiction
would prepare its own reconstruction plan, the three ::plans will need to be
:coordinated with:each other. The three communities share one island,:one
primary road, and two bridges. The actions of one community will affect 'con-
ditions in the others. In the event of a hurricane, jurisdictional.'boundaries
will quickly lose their importance as residents-and visitors evacuate- the
island and people return to repair and rebuild damaged properties. "Well
thought-out and carefully 'designed recons~truction plans will lessen the--chaos,
,I ,allow people to rebuild reasonably quickly, and require them.to rebuild
safely.

6-23

REFERENCES: CHAPTER 6

John J. Hooton and Associates. 1980. Town of Topsail Beach Coastal Area
Management Act Land Use Plan. Topsail Beach, NC: Town of Topsail
Beach.
John J. Hooton and Associates. 1981. Town of Surf City Coastal Area Manage-
ment Act Land Use Plan. Surf City, NC: Town of Surf City.
Onslow County Planning Department. 1981. Onslow County Land Use Plan.
Jacksonville, NC: Onslow County Board of Commissioners.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District. 1982. Summary of Poten-
tial Hurricane Damages on Topsail Island, North Carolina. Wilmington,
NC: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

6-24
' : :~'

: i :~~~~

: : 5 :~~~~

:~~~~

: of:~~~

: A: IS:~~

: ;~~~~

A:~~~

plan has four purposes:

1. to expedite communit covery:outlining procedures nd
requirements for:epairs and rec nstructionibefore damages
occur;

2. to establish ;a, procedural framework .for putting hazard, mitiga-
tio n measuresl sttoeffect afterdisaste r strikes the community
an d rebuilding s a nd utilities are o being repaired and re built;

3. to gather and �analyze :;information concerning the location :-and
natlan has fo ureofhurricane community; and
: . to expsessdi the communitys recovery byablity t o eursic andamages and

guide reconstructioto minimize ,,this obeforenedambility.ages

The plan should utlinesha re dural rameork ssment and econstruction permitti ng
procedures thatthe communit, l llo w ::after a disaster ocstrikes thecommunity
identifygather andinformation atconcerningthee locationgo nt need tomake dpermit
;': nature ofhurricane :.damagesr int the community; and mit

decisions regarding repairs and reconstruction ;,and to get state and .federal
disaster assistance. Some:specific::opics that the plan should address
include: : :

1 ;0 : : 1. identifying cases where repairs and reconstruction will not be
permitted, ;$or.,will be :permitted .only if they-,:meet certain
conditions;

2. guidelines (drawn from 'the analysis of 'hazards :and mitigation
measures) for the repair and rebuilding of damaged structures
3: .:and utilities;, and

3. plansf or possi-ble, public ac:quisition of high .hazard .areas :,.and
I R ;the relocation.: of,:highly vulnerable and damaged sstructures.

By' identiififyingand clarifyin:all :of these policies, procedures:, and.: infor-
mation requirements, local officials will have a ready set of guidelines by
which they can make wise and expedient:,.decisions regarding reconstruction.
The plan. will :help avoid delays as well as make the community .safer from
damages in the long. run.

;:f0;;I 0 Since it is crucial for local officials to understand federal and state
procedures for assessing damages and: applying for disaster relief aid, this
chapter begins.with a discussion of current procedures followed by .the: Federal
Emergency Management Agency, the N.C. Division .of Emergency ::Management., and
other federal and state agencies.when disaster :strikes the community. These
procedures provide the context for 'local recovery activities. Whilel they
include specific things that local governments must do to receive.federal -and

7-1
3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

state disaster assistance, they also provide a basis for other actions that
local governments can take to implement their own hazard mitigation policies.

After presenting federal and state emergency response procedures, this
chapter discusses the local role in disaster recovery and outlines important
topics for local governments to cover in establishing post-hurricane damage
assessment and reconstruction permitting procedures. These local procedures,
which constitute the local reconstruction plan, should be based on carrying
out the community's hazard mitigation policies (see Chapter 5) during recovery
from a major storm. I

This hotel in WiZmington Beach and this house in CaroZina Beach were damaged
beyond repair by Hurricane HazeZ, making damage assessment pretty easy. Most
cases aren't as simple. (Courtesy of N. C. Div. of Archives and History)

THE FEDERAL ROLE IN EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND PROCEDURES FOR
OBTAINING FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE

Federal disaster assistance programs are designed to supplement local,
state, and private resources when these are a insufficient to repair damages and
to alleviate hardship in the wake of a major disaster. The various types of
federal assistance available were briefly discussed in Chapter 4. The key I
federal legislation dealing with disasters is the Disaster Relief Act of 1974
(P.L. 93-288), which authorizes a wide range of financial and direct assist-
ance to state and local governments and private individuals. While other a

variety of federal agencies, the Disaster Relief Act and the regulations
adopted to administer it set the guideines and procedures by which federal aid
is issued and vests the Federal Emergency Management Agency with primary 1

7-2
: :: f: :~~~~~~~.

responsibility for coordinating and providing disaster relief. FEMA follows
a standard-set of procedures governing federal responsibilities,,damage
assessments, applications for assistance, the granting of assistance, and
post-disaster hazard mitigation planning.

The-Presidential tDeclaration

FEMA's disaster response procedures are set into motion by a Presidential
declaration of "emergency" or "major disaster," as authorized by P.L. 93-288.
IAn "emergency" is any natural disaster which calls for emergency federal
assistance to supplement state and local efforts to avert the threat of a
disaster or to protect lives, publicihealth, and property. A "major disaster"
is onethat causes damages of a sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant
major federal assistance above and beiyond emergency services.

FEMA keeps close track of potential disasters, such as the development
and path of a hurricane; it maintai ns close contact with the Governor's
office and the N.C. Division of Emergency Management, as :;well as other federal
agencies responsible for disaster assistance, as the threat increases and
disaster strikes. ,After an initial reconnaissance, local officials in a
disaster-stricken community should immediately report the nature and extent of
damages to the N.C. Division of Emergency Management (DEM). DEM then advises
Ithe Governor on the'seriousness of the'situation;the Governoron the eriousness hesituation;theGovernormay declare a
state of 'emergency, put the state's sdisaster relief and assistance plan into
operation, and direct state resources to' where they;are; needed. If it:becomes
apparent that the situation is of a severity or magnitude that exceeds state
and local capabilities, the Governor -can ask the President, via FEMA, to
declare an "emergency" or "majoradisaster." Only the Governor (or Acting
Governor) can make this request.

.Preliminary Damage:Assessment

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

1 '1. survey the Aaffected--4areas, jointly with local officials'*and
(if possible) FEMA's'-regional disaster specialists, to determine
the extent of damages;

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

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

4. *advise' FEMA's Regional'Di-retor of the st ate's intent -to 'request
a Presidential declaration.

The Governor's 'request for a Presidential-declaration will include a certi-
fication of reasonable state and local expenditures for disaster reliefri-anderan
-'estimate of the federal assistance required for the state and each affected
county. The Governor's request, addressed to the President, is: submitted to
FEMA's Regional Director, who evaluates the: estimates of damage and assistance

7-3

needs and makes a recommendation to the Director of FEMA. The Director then I
recommends a course of action to the President, who issues the declaration
and sets in motion the machinery for issuing federal disaster assistance to I
eligible public agencies, individuals, and businesses.

FEMA's Post-disaster Procedures -

Once the President declares an "emergency" or "major disaster," the
Governor and FEMA's Regional Director sign a Federal-State Disaster Assistance
Agreement which specifies 'where and how federal disaster relief will become
available. FEMA's Associate Director for Disaster Response and Recovery
designates those counties and municipalities that are eligible for federal
disaster assistance'and appoints another federal official (usually FEMA's
Regional Director) as the Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO). The FCO
performs a number of functions: t

1. determining the types of assistance most urgently needed;

2. coordinating all federal disaster relief efforts;

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

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

5. setting up and operating disaster field offices; and

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

The FCO is usually supported by one or more deputies who are delegated to
perform some of these functions.

FEMA sets up a temporary Disaster Field Office in the stricken area as a I
base for federal disaster relief operations. The Disaster Field Office is
usually located in conjunction with a similar state office operated by the
State Coordinating Officer (from the N.C. Division of Emergency Management), I
who is the primary liaison between the FCO and state and local officials.
The location and telephone number of the Disaster Field Office is publicized I
widely to allow applicants to visit or call when problems arise. The Disaster
Field Office is staffed by representatives of FEMA and all other federal
agencies with disaster assistance responsibilities in the area. These field
representatives are responsible for providing prompt assistance to disaster
victims and advising local and state agencies on eligibility requirements,
surveying and reporting damages, and applying for federal assistance. In
addition to these agency representatives, the FEMA Regional Director may I
dispatch Emergency Support Teams to provide specialized counseling, to help
operate the Disaster Field Office, and to temporarily supplement local and
state emergency response and damage assessment efforts. _

7-4 1

The types of federal disaster assistance fall into two general cate-
gories: individual assistance (for.individuals, families, and businesses)
I .and public assistance, (for local and:state agencies). FEMA disseminates
information about available aid programs via local radio, television, ;news-
papers:,, and pamphlets. FEMA will establish a Disaster Assistance Center in
the area to help individual disaster victims.more easily get information and
guidance from the various federal agencies. FEMA may dispatch mobile teams to
help persons in the areawho lack easy access to: the Disaster Assistance
3 Center. At the center, disaster victims apply for assistance from the various
federal programs mentioned in Chapter,4. In addition to operating the
Disaster Assistance Center (mainly for. providing individual assistance), FEMA
and NCDEM personnel hold an applicant briefing for local and:state officials
to inform them of the public assistance available and the procedures and
eligibility requirements :involved. Items covered at the briefing include:

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

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

j; : : 3. filing a Project Application; and

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

The Notice of; Interest (see Figure 7.1) is basically, a checklist on which
local and state officials identify the- types of damage s,ustained by public
3 facilities. It provides the basis by which FEMA schedules damage surveys.

Damage Survey Reports (see Figure 7.2) document the extent of damages to
different facilities, identify needed and eligible repairs, and .assess in
detail .the costs; of repairing or rebuilding them. The DSRs are, prepared by a
Damage Assessment Team consisting of:federal, :state, and local personnel, and
are submitted toFEMA and the N.C. Division of Emergency.Management. The DSR
is the basis for FEMA's approval of applications forpublic assistance. The
Damage Assessment Team.depends on lo:cal officials, damage assessments to
measure the severity and magnitude of damage; it is therefore very important
ffor .the local government to maintain: accurate property records and conduct its
own damage :survey before the.Damage Assessment Team arrives(:Rogers, Golden,
and Halpern, 1981, p. 4-23). Photographs, maps, and drawings are. often
u included in the DSR to provide more complete descript:ions ,and.documentation.

FEMA classifies damages that are eligible for public,-assistance into
seven categories of "permanent" work:and two categories of "emergency" work
(-see Table 7.1). :A. separate DSR is prepared for each category of work and for
each damage site; separate DSRs are required for different categories of work
at the same site.

3:: :0: A DSR does not constitute an approval of repair work or a commitment of
federal funds. It simply provides the most accurate information available on
the extent of damages and estimated repair costs, which FEMA uses to approve
3 or deny specific line items requested in the Project Application.

10~~~~~~ .: S;07-5

Figure 7.1: FEMA. Notice of Interest FormI

ForM Apprewd
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FEMA DECLARATION NUMBERMN. 0-R03I
DISASTER RESPONSE AND RECOVERY

.NOTICE OF INTEREST DAT
FIP IU1E
INAPPLYIN'G FOR FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTANCEPPENMR
The purpose of this form is to list the damages to property and facilities so that inspectors may be appropriately assigned for a
formal survey.

REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL DAMAGE SURVEYS
A. DEBRIS CLEARANCE IF. PUBLIC UTILITY SYSTEMS
El On Public Roads & Streets including ROW En Water EJ Storm Drainage
El Other Public Property 171 Sanitary Sewerage E l glst/Power
ED Private Property (When undertaken by El Other*
local Government forces)
C3 Structure DemolitionI
B. PROTECTIVE MEASURES G. FACILITIES UNDER CONSTRUC`TION
El Life and Safety El Health El Public Facilities*
El Property El Stream/Drainage, Channels El Private Non-Profit Facilities *

C. ROAD SYSTEMS H. PRIVATE NON-PROFIT FACILITIES0
El Roads El Streets El Educational El Medical1
El Brdges El Culverts El Emergency El Custodial Care
E.Traffic Control El Other0 ElUtilityI

D. WATER CONTROL FACILITIES I. OTHER (Not in above categories)
El Dikes aEl Levees El Dams El Park Facilities
El Drainage Channels El Irrigation Works ElRecreational Facilities3

E. PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT
El Public Buildings
El Supplies or inventoryI
El Vehicles or other equipment
El Transportation Systems5
El Higher Education Facilities
*Indicate typ of facatty;
--j'ro wde name of the facuthy andof pnr-te non-proftore?..,
NAME AND TITLE OF REPRESENTATIVE WHO WILL ACCOMPANY THE SURVEY TEAM.I
NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OR ELIGIBLE APPLICANT ICUNTY
BUSINESS ADDRESS - zip CODEI

PUSINESS TELEPHONE (Ami Code/Ngsmhar-J HOME TELEPHONE (Area Cad*/Nrurbshr)
AFFUCANT'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE RUISNESS TELEPHONE (Ar.. C"de/Nrmbber)5

PUIMA FORM 00-0413/00)

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

7-6

5 ~~~~~~Figure 7.2: FEMA Damage Survey ,Report Form

Form Approved
0BNo. ~306700DV
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 3.DECLARATION NO.
-OAMAGE $U.RVEYRfEfpRlT FM
DISASTER RESPONSE AND RECOVERY 4. INSPECTION DATE

S. WORK ACCOMPLI.SH-ED B3Y
I. T.00* ________'FEDERALEMERGENCY ANAGEEN AGENCY
2,APPLICANT .-.-..-A..enc, County, City.m ;...PA NO. MFORCE ACCOUNT

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

59im~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~e~ Box) DS No.

B. DAGEDSFCRILITIES OF ato DAMAGE A _

10. SCOPE OF PROPOSED WORK

QUANTITY UNIT MATERIAL AND"O DESCRI!PTION UNIT PRICE COST (dollars)
() (b)(e lc d) lei

12. EXISTING INSURANCE(Trype) ~ AMOUNT TTL

13. RECOMMENDATION BY FEDERA )INSPECTOR (Sijmwtv,eAec.~ae ELIGIBLE J ATTACHMENTS
DyESDN
14. 'CONCURRENCE INFREPORT BY STATE INSPECTR (Sgew.Agny ge)jCNU ATTACHIMENTS

15. CONCURRENCE IN REPORTBY LOCAL REPREgENYATIVE (SigntureAgenydate) CONCUR ATTACHMENTS
16. FEDERAL REVIEW~fif~m~ *v if~t IF.MAiREVIEW f~ft" jand date)

FEMA Form M052, JAN S1(FormerIv)HU Fwrm 484
I . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~COPY I~ FEMA PAGKOM

3 ~~~~~~~~~~Source: FEMA, 1981, Handbook for Applicants, p. F-i.

1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7 7-

Table 7.1: Categories of Public Assistance Available from FEMA

"Emergency" Work "Permanent" Work

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

The Project Application (see Figure 7.3) is the formal request for aid
that a local government or state agency submits to FEMA's Regional Director
through the N.C. Division of Emergency Management (or the Governor's
Authorized Representative). The Project Application summarizes and combines
the Damage Survey Reports for various repair projects for public facilities
damaged in the community. The Project Application also provides the formal
record of FEMA's and NCDEM's review and approval of the different projects for
which federal funds are committed. The Project Application is signed by the
applicant's authorized representative and is accompanied by a form designating
this representative (see Figure 7.4). The Project Application is also
accompanied by the complete Damage Survey Report for each project listed. The
application must be submitted to FEMA's Regional Director within 90 days of
the Presidential declaration of a "major disaster"; the deadline is 30 days
for an "emergency" declaration. Local officials should keep in mind that,
under current FEMA policy, the federal government will only fund up to 75
percent of the eligible cost of repairs to public facilities.

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

As work on a project ends, the recipient notifies the Governor's
Authorized Representative, who arranges for federal or state personnel to make
a final inspection of the work in each category of funding (i.e. "emergency"
or "permanent"). The Final Inspection Report (see Figure 7.5) documents the

: .7-8I
7-8

Figure 7.3: FEMA Project Application Form

OM S No. 026-ROO51
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 12. APPLI-' a PA 3. STATE _1. FEMA
(PART II ~~~~~~CANrE 2s APPLICA-I
(PART 1) ~ APPLI- .. TION
1. PREAPPLICATION .CAIN b. SUPP IDENTI-
ACTION.j APPLICATION I Ib
5~~~~~~~~~~Wl (Mrp- QNOTIFICATION OP INTENT IOPt.I JOBLIGATION LOGINUMBER C .FIPS No~
EREPORT OF FEOERAL ACTION
4.LEGAL APPLICANT RECIPIENTF jO A I ~ N.

S. PRO- a.NUMBER
GRAM 1 ( 1

d. Civ.* otty 1F],0deal b. TITLE
COO.: ~~~~~~~Catalog
Disaster Assistancee

I~~ ~~~~~~~ 7. TITLE AND DESCRI[PTION OF APPLICANT'S PROJECT (Pi. 93w288) S. TYPE OP APPLICANTIRECIPIEN1
Pefer to D$R's attachedas Part 11 lo tltjs applicatiso A Stoe:- Com~w. I ungh Act.i .. Agency
D-C.-Vn K - Otnet (Sp clify
E - City
F D col Di.tic
G SDiwt utO EnterPP ap rorae lettr
B. TYPE OF ASSISTANCE Eoee,-poto-
A - Basic G,.nt 0 - I neutanc prate letreWt
B - Suopl~n.n..u G-at S E 0c

5-~~~~~~~ - Loo
*ENEPZIHG a A~nonot 0-Coni-oumto Erne-pprop"'tee

OX 00OPSE0 FU$0ND IN 14 CONGRESSI[ONAL DISTRICTS OF: 5 YEO~ING ~a ~o 2
*~*E@RAL J$ APPLICANT Ib PROJECT .A-aeanDllr F..seipoiI

22. " A. oae. h_ 1to oolao n blo tNf~I~ BYOI esAotor Day Baa. EXISIoieotlonAwoo ENTFlheT. O 'NnMto- R

F ~ TAT~ tto aollcne wil ootpl wih t*Seoiad, t.o.f

ACERTIYIGIeaMoh a
ETHATIV
24. AGENCYi NAME M1,1. APPLICA-dYa o~teD
'ING1 T Y P E Y .., month Day~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-1IO

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) .RCIO1
26. ORGANIZATION UNIT . 270.*ADMIIHISTRATIVE OFFICE - - 26.. FEDERAL APPLICATION
Disaster Response and Recovery R e giosn t2.IETPCTO
3. 269. ADDRESS 40 3. FEDERAL GRiNT
w. ..J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`~,DgNTIFICATION
( 31. ACTION TAKEN 32. FUNDING :$...cK~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~3. V. IR o ~ ~ Yar Month Day'
. . STARTING.
iii a AWARDED 8. FEEA SGO AT0'fl 1 c . DATE 19
C3 b. REJECTEED b. APPLICANT. O D j35. =T 'FODDITIONAL 36s M13 year, mont
C, ~~~~~SATEnt
AMENDMENT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(Name ald rtelp/tone number) DATE 1 9
AMENDMNT if~LOCAL .00 37. REMARKS ADDED
C)d DEFERRED eo'OTIIER al .
13 WITHDRAWN I. TOTAL Is$~ .PORA EiCA- OP~C

I P~~~~~~~~EMA Porn 90.4 2120)6 Standaad Foe, 424 (Modifitl Pogo I of 6 popes

3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~Source: FEMA, 1981, Handbook for Ap~plicants, p. G-1.

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

Fig ure 7.3: FEMA Project Application Form (continued)

3"e. PART I (Continued) I FEMA Agreement No. ____ _P.A. No.______ Sup. NO.-___
39b. Project Summary (Based on Part 11 of this application)
AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT
REQUESTED BY APPROVED BY APPROVED BYI
APPLICANT STATE FEMA

A. Debris Clearance _______
B. Protective Measures
C.Road SystemsIII
D.~ Water Control Facilities
E. Public Buildings and EquipmentI ______ _______
F. Public Utilities~
G. Facilities Under Construction _______
M. Private Nonprofit Facilities I
1. Other Damages (Not included in above categories)
TOTAL

40. Funding (please check)
APPLICANT STATE FEMA
REQUEST APPROVAL APPROVAL
Small Project Grant (in-lieu Contribution) 13 El El
Flexible Funding Grant Ml 1:1E
Advance of Funds ElElE
Categorical Grant E lE
Advance of Funds E lE

41. Approved by Governor's Authorized Representative

(Date Received) (Date Approved) (Signature)I
42. Approved by FEMA

(Date Received) (Date Approved) (Signature)I
43. Remarks (Reference application Part and item Number as appropriate. Attach additional sheets when necessary).

44. ~ ~~~~~ PART 11I- PROGRAM NARRATIVE
(fAttach Damlar Survey RAW01" (FEMA Fomn 90-52) to docu~ment fully and support this applicationi)
FEMA Form WA- (VW60 Pop 3 of 6 PM"s

7-10

5 ~~~~~~Figure 7.4: FEMA Applicanlt's Agent:,Designation Form

WEIT RESOLVED? BY OF
I ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(GovemlV Boy) Pbi ni
THAT
* (Name of Incumbent) OR(Officil Positiont)
4c (Nae of ncumbet) .,Governor's Authorized Representat~ive,
isherebysauthorized to execute forand in behalff of
a public entity egtablished under thejlaws of te state of______
thi aplictio an tofile itin the approprate Sttateofflice or the purpose of obtaining certain Federal financial
assstace nde th Diastr Rlif Act (Publc Lawv 288j, 93rd Congress) or otherwise available from the President's

THAT ,a public entity established under the laws of the State
I ~~~ ~ ~~Of ,hereby authiories it, agent to provide to the. State and to the Federal,
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for aimtespringtosuch Federal disaster assistance, the assurances
and ag~~r'eet pited on the'reverse aide hereof.

5 ~~~~~~~Passedanda~pproved this day~of 1

(N~ame and Tite),

U (Name wad ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ltite).

CEATIF!CATION

,doherby ertfyth'at~he above is altue and correct copy-of a
U ~ ~~~~~resolution passed and approved by the Of
(Ooremnn oy (Publc Etiy

I~~~~~~~o cthe_______ dof
Date.

IINW air "ofhambext fieed not bep"i'~ded 1W dww.. " .,* joef hoodqf puk entit desms fa s wmozey I,,cmbent

Source: FEMA, 19,81, Hand-book for Applicants, p. H-i.

Figure 7.5: FEMA Final Inspection Report Form
Form ApproWd
OMB NO.
026-R0056
DECLARATION NUMBER AND DATE
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY RATION NUMBER AND DATE
DISASTER RESPONSE AND RECOVERY
: FINAL iNSPECTION REPORT . SUPPLEMENT NO.

TO: FEDERAL EMERGENCY FROM: (Agency and/orBurewm mdLocation) I
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
REGION
1. APPLICANT

2. TYPE OF FUNDING,
0 CATEGORICAL 0 FLEXIBLE ; SMALL PROJECT GRANT
3. INSPECTED WORK
CAT. ITEM DATE DATE INSURANCE APPROVED PA REPORTED CONTRACT/ SCOPE OF WORK I
COMPLETED INSPECTED SETTLEMENT COST ESTIMATE COST FORCE ACCT. (Report Changes)

4. INSPECTOR STATE FEDERAL
YES NO YES NO
a. Did you personally inspect each item of completed work? .......... ....................
b. Did you review and utilize applicable Damage Survey Reports? . ..............................
c. Did you review and utilize applicable FEMA Engineering Analyses?... .. .......... . . .. I
d. Did you review and utilize applicable Applicant's Documentation?. . .. . ........... .........
e. Did you evjmriala any pirlir ections.o any of these workitema ? ........ ... ... .....,
CERTIFICATION
The above item(s) in the project application for the category of work shown has been inspected and certification is hereby made that the
work has been completed as approved therein, except as noted above.

FEDERAL INSPECTOR (Sgnallwe and T1tle) (Federml Agency) (Date) I FEMA REVIEW

STATE INSPECTOR (Sign.we and 7tle)r (State Agency) Dante) INITIALS I

LOCAL REPRESENTATIVE (SfWI and ~T l) (Eleet) iDATE

FEUMA FORM 90.4 (SMO) Son" Of

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

7-12

completion of work and is essential to the recipient's being reimbursed for
the cost of repairs. A project that does not exceed $10,000 usually does not
require a final inspection.

Once the Final Inspection Report is completed and approved, the recipient
files a Request for Reimbursement (see Figure 7.6), attaching a listing of
completed line items and their costs. This same form can be used to request
advance payments as welluas reimbursements. It is the final formal claim for
the reimbursement of costs for all repair and reconstruction projects eligible
and approved under FEMA's disaster assistance program.

Throughout the damage assessment/grant application/project adminis-
tration/reimbursement process, it is :es-sential for the local government to
maintain detailed records. Records' pertaining to damage assessment and repair
5 : ; costs should be well organized and contain accurate documentation. Damage
SurveyReports should be accompanied by photographs, sketches, and property'
information (value, ownership, etc.); unsalvageable damaged equipment should
even be retained for inspection bysutrvey teams (FENA, 1981, Documenting
Disaster Damage, p. 5)1. Other records should be maintained to document repair
costs that are contracted out or borne by the local government itself; this
would include time sheets, equipment use schedules, and invoices should local
staff and financial resources beexpended for any project. These local
expenditures may apply to the 25 percent match required of local and state
governments under FEMA's: public assistance program. (See FEMA!s Documenting
Disaster Damage, Report No. DR&R-7, for an excellent, brief discussion of
record-keeping requirements and project application procedures)-.

In addition to funding local repair and reconstruction projects, the
federal government may deploy its own personnel and equipment to perform
emergency work if local and state personnel and equipment are inadequate to do
so. To obtain this "direct" federal: assistance, the local government or state
agency must submit a request to FEMA's Regional Director, via the Governor's
Authorized Representative, within ten. days after the Presidential declaration.
The request takes the form of a resolution by the local governing body (or
body governing a state agency) accompanied by a statement of why the work
cannot be conducted with local or state resources. Local government budget.,
constraints are not considered a sufficient cause for receiving direct federal
assistance (FEMA, 1981, Handbook for. Applicants, p. 5-1). FEMA's Regional
Director will either approve. or deny-the request or, if the requested work:
falls under the mission of another federal agency, refer the request to that
agency.

At the same time that local governments and state agencies are applying
for federal disaster assistance, FEMA's Interagency Regional Hazard Mitigation
Team conducts its analysis of damages in the community, identifies oppor-
tunities for hazard mitigation, and issues its report recommending certain
actions for federal, state, and local agencies. Also, FEMA's joint survey
team and joint planning team, operating under Section 406 of the Federal
Disaster Relief Act, evaluate hazards in''the community, recommend specific
mitigation measures, and prepare the Section 406 Hazard Mitigation Plan.
(See Chapter 4 for more information on the Interagency Teams and Section 406
Plans.)

Ur~~~~~~~ ~~~7-13

Figure 7.6: FEMA Request for Reimbursement Form1

Anornod ft Qk.n of M~---mio ed PAE O
REQUEST FOR ADVANCE Rdn.N.EREB AE
OR REIMBURSEMENT F. bb- It TnO., . tnth Boo . 12. BASIS OF REQUEST
OR REIMBURSEMENT ~~~TYpED C)DAC QIREMBRS OCASH
l~np~iattnceinononbonkU EQ 3FINAL QPARTIAL.
3. PEOERIALSPONSORING AGENCY ANtOAOGANIZATIONAL A.FESERAL GRANT GE ROTHER,.N PARTIAL PAYNIENT REQUEST
ELEMAENT TO WHICH TRIS REPORITIS SUBMITTED IDENTIFYING NUMBER ASSIGN NUMBER FOS THIS REQUEST
ES BY FEDERAL AG ENCY
B. EMPLOYER RDNIIAIN ,FECIPIENT'S ACCOUNT B. PEBIOD COVERED BY THIS BEQUEST
IDETPCTIN.IENTIFYING NUMBERIU

a, RESCFIENTORGANIZATION lB. PAYEE(I'CUIEthttjdfroitottoi

Anna., Mon~~~~~~~~~~~~AF.,I

and Stretntdtte
Oitt. Sr.n Ott Sate
a.d ZIP CoO: .aejnC.*.:
II. ~~~COBWUTATIOR OF AMOGUNT OF EEIMBURSBMIFITB/AOVARICEE REOUEETBD

PRIDGRAMS(FUINCTIONSIACTIVITIES TOTAL *

0. Lao . ....anon Fo iAm 1ootn

NRot.tono, IW

Fedoann W.in ITnl hhM n
ToM,.. Sno bv.-Fen 1d

0 ea.' X'jNtnntflot.9" na

b.~~~~~~ T..,ma

P.' Fenof uNoned FIEMA F-ndio IL'oa tT/I w
13 CERITIFICATION
k-Mp SIGNATURE OF AUTHOBISBO CERTIFYING OFFICIAL DATE REQUEST

ashdt M.,0 ootso on OiWt TYPED1 OR RIFISNTEG NAME ANCITITLE
Men PRienotI teo-ed. All weiNt h.

I -teell M.Rite Rn eatelniden- lE ooF, e -.se. W TO: FIRMA NATIONAL OFFICE

AM- Ate- Sn ApeR osaeeEoeAn eeed

lGo-',mn A.aIal e,aentao'e (Coal Ifeotonl Di-,-tI IW..l
REMARKS FEMA U.

P~IeRMPone -273110 ISIBIIERPTION YRO ETAN.AeD FOR. Bi70t10R 70I

Source: FEMA, 1981, Handbook for Applicants, p. I-i.I

7-141

If there is no Presidentialdeclaration, certain types of federal
disaster assistance are still made available to the community (see Table 4.4).
The procedures for receiving such aidvary, as these programs are administered
Iby separate federal agencies. FEMA plays less of a coordinating function when
there is no Presidential declaration.

Figure 7.7 illustrates the timetable under which FEMA's disaster
assistance procedures operate. It includes deadlines for damage surveys,
project applications, and project completion.

THE STATE ROLE IN EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND PROCEDURES
5 f DFOR OBTAINING STATE DISASTER ASSISTANCE

The state role in disaster situations is to allocate the state resources
needed to cope with a disaster and avert losses of life and property. As with
federal disaster assistance efforts, state actions are considered supplemen-
tary to local actions and are taken only if local resources are inadequate to
deal with the situation. The state does play an active and important role in
coordinating federal, state, and local disaster relief efforts. All requests
by local governments for federal disaster assistance must go through and be
coordinated by the state government to ensure that proper procedures are
3 ffollowed and that assistance reaches "the community as quickly as possible.

The lead state agency for disaster preparedness and response is the
Division of Emergency Management in the N.C. Department of Crime Control and

of Emergency Management has developed and maintains the North Carolina
Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan, under authority of the N.C. 'Civil Prepar-
edness Act (N.C.G.S. Chapter 16'6). The Plan outlines -procedures for the state
and local governments to follow in planning for disasters, responding to
disasters, and seeking outside 'assistance.

The stated purpose of the N.C. Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan
(NCDRAP) is "to provide direction and guidance to State and local governments
for preemergency preparedness, emergency response, and postemergency recovery
action" (N.C. Division of Civil Preparedness, 1976, p. 1). The plan sets the
procedures and principles for 'state and local agencies to follow in responding
to disaster by:

I 1. defining the roles. and; responsibilities of state and local
officials;

2. defining the emergency-related missions of local governments and
state agencies;

3. directing the execution of measures to provide relief anud
assistance; and

4. outlining forms 'of recovery assistance available from state and
federal agencies and the local actions required to get it.

7-15

Figure 7.7: Timing of Federal Disaster Assistance Activities

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

Disaster Event x

Preliminary Damage __
Assessment

Pres. Declaration x

Establishment of Field
Offices & Applicant
Briefings

Damage Survey Reports

Project Applications
and Approvals*

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

Interagency Reg. Haz.
Mitigation Team
Recommendations ___
Progress Report

Section 406 Planning
Survey
Plan

*Thirty-day deadline if only an "emergency" is declared, not a "major disaster."

Adapted from: FEMA, 1981, Flood Hazard Mitigation: Handbook of Common Procedures, p. I-5.

The NCDRAP identifies four::levels: of response to an emergency or
disaster, each of which entails different levels and types of state involve-
ment. Level A -- Local Response --'applies to those situations:that local
resources: can handle on their own. Level B --:Local Response with State
Assistance -- applies to those situations where the local government has
declared a "state of emergency" and some assistance is needed from different
state agencies to supplement local :efforts. Level .C -- State. of Disaster
Response :-- applies:to those situations that are'so severe that they call for
a G:ubernatorial declaration of a "state of disaster" and a full commitment'of
state resources. Level D -- Response with Federal Assistance under the
Disaster Relief Act.-- applies to ::those situations which state resources
cannot handle on their own and which call for a Presidential declaration-of
disaster and for federal disaster relief. The N.C.. Disaster Relief: and
5 ; Assistance Plan is geared to procedures for Levels B. C, and:D.

Local governments bear primary .responsibility for emergency response-
within their respective jurisdictions'. The four levels of response identified
above set up a hierarchy :of. actions that address disaster situations of
different intensities. "Assistancei :from higher levelss of government is -
obtained by requests from tehehead of the affected local government to the
head of the next higher level of government when (1) local resources are fully
committed and found to be inadequate: to- cope with the situation [and] (2) a
particular capability is required andais not locally available" (N.C. Division
I : *: of Civil Preparedness, 1976, p. 15).

In the event of a disaster, the':Governor has overall respionsibility for
directing state resources to disaster'stricken communities and in requesting'
federal disaster assistance. The Governor isg assisted in this task' by the
Secretary of the Department of Crime' Control and: Public Safety, who oversees
the Division of Emergency Management.' The State. Emergency Management Coordi-
nator (the Director of the Division of Emergency Management) coordinates
I lresponse operations, maintains response and assistance procedures, and guides
and assists local and state agencies. (Either the:Director:of DEM or the
Assistant Secretary for Public Safety will serve as the State Coordinating:
I Officer and Governor's Authorized'Representative if there is a Presidential
declaration.) ArealEmergency Management Coordinators monitor':state and'
federal field activities in their respective. regions, provide a liaison
between local governmentsand: the State EMC, help coordinate the' state's
response, and provide situation inf6rmation to:the State EMC.0 The heads. of
other state departments' and agencieslcarry out their own contingency plans-and
cooperative agreements, provide assistance at the State Emergency Operating
Center, receive functional assignmentse:from the Governor and .the State EMC,
and direct their own resources, as appropriate, to the community. County
Emergency Management Coordinators are the principal operatives at the local
government level; it is their responsibility to coordinate all local govern-
ment activities in' their respectivel :counties (including emergency operations,
damage assessment and reporting, and'd requests for state and federal
* 0 assistance).

The key "command center" for disaster activities is the State Emergency
Operating Center (EOC), located at the Division of Emergency Management's
Raleigh office. The State EO:C is usedby the Governor and other state
officials to direct and coordinate emergency response activities. A Disaster
rn 0 2Field Office (DFO) may be set up in the region during:and after a disaster to

7-17

facilitate communication between state and local personnel and to expedite
the assignment of state resources to different problems. The DFO is staffed
by the State Emergency Management Coordinator and other state employees as
required for damage surveys, public and individual assistance, and public
information. The DFO is usually co-located with the federal Disaster Field
Office when there is a Presidential disaster declaration. In addition to the
DFO, the state is likely to set up Field Emergency Operating Facilities
throughout the damaged region to provide on-the-scene coordination, staff,
and equipment. Each county will also have a Local Emergency Operating Center
where county and municipal officials direct local response activities and
maintain communications with the other state and federal emergency centers.

Requests for state assistance are made to the Governor by the local
governing body (see Figure 7.8 for the standard format); the Governor then
directs the Division of Emergency Management and other state agencies to
provide various types of assistance. Personnel from different state agencies
may be called to help in the disaster relief effort by providing specific
skills or expertise pertaining to their different departments. Special teams,
made up of personnel from several departments, may be called on to address
particular problems. State personnel may be called on to help with damage
assessment, counselling applicants for state and federal aid, debris removal,
and other disaster response and recovery tasks. Figure 7.9 illustrates the
chain of command by which the Governor assigns disaster responsibilities to
different state agencies.

To the maximum extent feasible, state agencies receive assignments that
are closely related to their regular missions. For example, the N.C. Depart-
ment of Transportation typically plays the primary role in debris removal,
especially on public roads. The Division of Health Services (Department of

Figure 7.8: Format for Requesting State Disaster Assistance

REQUEST

Jurisdiction (County/Municipality) Date _ 3

A. Purpose (Statement of need - why the assistance is requested)

B. Type of Assistance (Form of assistance - what assistance is requested)

C. Amount (In terms of personnel, material, equipment, facilities and
duration - how much assistance)

D. Statement that necessary written clearances, releases, indemnifications
have been or will be obtained.

E. Request is made on the authority of (Chairman,
Mayor, other official) acting for the governing body of the jurisdiction.

Source: N.C. Division of Civil Preparedness, 1976, p. D-I-1.

7-18 : :

Figure 7.9: State Assistance Flow Chart

REPNEEE RESPONSE LEVELSA BC&D

I I ~~~~~ALTERNATE FLOW-RESPONSE LEVEL B REQUEST

STATE
LOCAL ~~~~~~EOC
~REQUESTS C M4GOVERNOR DIRECTION
GOVERNMENT ICENTER

EVALUATION RESOURCES -RECOMMENDTO IETO

PERA~~UNTION ALSTE AE

STATE~~~~~~~~1'pP6A

DEPTs.___

DIRECTION -

* - Source: N. C. Division of Civil Preparedness, 197 6, p. D-1Il

Human Resources) will test water supplies and help assess damages to public
water systems. Several departments will provide engineering services to help
with surveying damages, identifying the feasibility of repairs and safety
considerations, and recommending ways to restore essential public services.
The Governor can call on the North Carolina National Guard, which can provide
communications and transportation, search and rescue, food and water, sanitary
and medical services, shelter, property protection, electricity generation,
damage assessment, debris clearance, and repair of roads and bridges. The
State Emergency Management Coordinator can call on the Civil Air Patrol, which
can provide aerial surveillance of surface routes and traffic as well as
aerial photography and reconnaissance to aid in damage assessment.

The N.C. Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan outlines local responsi-
bilities for the three phases of disaster activity: the warning phase, the
emergency operations phase, and the post-emergency phase (see Table 7.2). The
Plan authorizes local governments to:

1. assign employees and equipment for emergency operations;

2. establish local emergency operating centers; 3

3. establish mutual aid agreements with other local governments and
mutual understandings with public and private agencies; and

4. declare a "local state of emergency" which (a) activates any
local emergency plans and agreements, and (b) implements provi-
sions of local emergency ordinances. (N.C. Division of Civil
Preparedness, 1976, p. 10)

The Plan encourages local governments to prepare local disaster plans which
cover:

1. vulnerability analysis;

2. situation reporting and damage assessment procedures;

3. functional assignments for local staff;

4. emergency operation and evacuation procedures;

5. mutual aid agreements and agreements with private agencies; and

6. procedures for requesting assistance from other levels of
government. (N.C. Division of Civil Preparedness, 1976, p. 20)

Throughout all phases of disaster activity, the local government must appoint
one or more persons to act as chief coordinators of local activities and
liaisons with state and federal personnel. The local government must also
provide space for federal disaster assistance centers. It must also maintain
procedures for accurate reporting, recordkeeping, and accounting to identify
and document funds it expended which may be reimbursed by the state and
federal governments or may fulfill any match requirements for federal disaster
assistance.

7-20

3 ; ;: 0-::: : 00Table 7.2: Local Actions :During Three Phases of Disaster

WARNING PHASE - increased readiness

1. Establish situation monitoring in local EOC and staff: as -appropriate.
Conduct communications checks.
:2. Alert and brief key officials :and department personnel.
3. Disseminate appropriate warnings to the :-public:and:verify warning effec-
tiveness.
4. Advise utilities, business, and: industry.
5. Maintain liaison wit:h local Red Cross and: other local relief agencies.
I6. If evacuation indicated, insureiroute marking and shelter designation.
: Deploy shelter management teams:--in conjunction with the Red:Cross and
:open shelters for voluntary .use when situation' indicates.
7.1 Meet with local news media to :review public information policy.
8. Keep the public informed and provide necessary instructions.
9. Keep the State EOC informed and.:advise.adjacent jurisdictions of the
situation.,
10. Maintain liaison with the Area EMC.
11. 0Be prepared to proclaim a local "state of emergency" when warranted.

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PHASE

: 1. Take necessary, measures to protect :lif e :and property as conditions
permit.
2. Report situation to State 'EOC and maintain liaison with Area EMC.
3. Maintain contact with adjoining:jurisdictions and provide information:on
own situation to the:extent practicable.
:4. Based :on own:. capability and severity of the situation, activate mutual
aid agreements.
5. If situation is beyond local capabilities, request assistance from next
higher level of government.
6. Keep situation reports and damage assessments current-and establish
priorities for repair and restoration of essential:services.
7. Keep public informed and provide instructions.
:8. 'Proclaim a local "State of Emergency" if. warranted.

; POST-EMERGENCY PHASE - immediate recovery Iand rehabilitation

1. 'Continue emergency operations 'asa6,necessary.
: 2. *Evaluate situation:-from:%reports: received and initiate:-damage assessment.
* Use photography to the-extent feasible.
3. 'Determine requirements for : outside assistance -and request :such. as:istance
when .beyond. locals capabilities.
4. Keep the State EOC -and Area EMC informed: using:'Situation-and'Damage
I:Reports.
5. Keep the public informed and provide: instructions.
:6. Assemble and'maintain records of: :actions taken and expenditures and
3 : y obligations incurred.
7. -Proclaim a.local ':state:of emergency" if:warranted.
8. 'Commence cleanup, debris removal.and utility restoration. Coordinate and
;facilitate restoration by private utility:companies.
9. Undertake repair and restoration of essential...public facilities and."ser-
vices :in:accordance with :-priorities.developed:through the situation'.eval-
uations.

3 : ::Source: N.C. Division of Civil Preparedness, 1976, pp. 25-27.

:7-21

In requesting and receiving state assistance, the local government must
file a series of three reports: the Situation Report, the Damage Assessment
Report, and the Expenditure/Obligation Report.

County and municipal governments submit initial Situation Reports to the
State EOC immediately upon the threat or occurrence of a disaster. Follow-up
reports may be submitted or requested as the situation develops. The
Situation Report contains any information and preliminary assessments which
local officials deem are appropriate to let the state know the severity and
magnitude of the situation and what types of assistance the community might
need. The Situation Report follows the form shown in Figure 7.10.

The Damage Assessment Report is submitted by the county government no
later than 48 hours after the disaster event.. While the county government and
any municipal governments in the county individually assess damages in their
respective jurisdictions, the county government is responsible for consoli-
dating all data for the entire county into one Damage Assessment Report. If
a local government wants state assistance, the county transmits the report to
the State EOC and the Area Emergency Management Coordinator. The Damage
Assessment Report groups damages by property ownership and use according to
the following:

1. public property -- state, local, and private non-profit; and

2. private property -- agricultural, residential, and business/
industrial.

The report presents damages for each category in:

1. total number of properties;

2. degree of damage (destroyed, major, minor); and

3. total dollar losses (as best estimates).

The Damage Assessment Report follows the form shown in Figure 7.11. The
State EOC uses it to determine what types of assistance to provide to the
community.

The Expenditure/Obligation-Report is submitted by the county government
to the State EOC at the state's request. The report presents data for the
entire county (municipalities included). It presents the extent of local
response in financial terms, including that "local commitment" for which no
reimbursement will be requested and which can be used to meet any state or
federal match requirements. The Expenditure/Obligation Report follows the
form shown in Figure 7.12. The N.C. Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan
stresses that local governments must keep "records of actions taken and expen-
ditures and obligations of funds . . . from the outset despite the stress and
urgency of an emergency situation" (N.C. Division of Civil Preparedness, 1976,
p. C-1). Local records will be subject to state and federal audits if the
local government receives outside disaster assistance. Once the Expenditure/
Obligation Report is approved by the state, the local government can be
reimbursed or credited for its expenditures.

I
7-22
:~~~~~~

Figure 7.10: DEM Situation Report Form

SITUATION REPORT
Number Date

Section A. Description
1. Name of political subdivision (county, city, town) 11. EMERGENCY REPAIRS
2. Time and date(s) of occurrence 12. TEMPORARY HOUSING
3. Type(s) of destructive force(s) (tornado, flood, etc.) 13. TRANSPORTATION
4. Deaths and injuries which haveresulted 14. COMMUNICATIONS
5. General description of damage (adjective description 15. OTHER
of damages to homes, mobile homes, public facilities,
S utillties- ti~n~dustry, agriculture ,'-etc.-),0 f :; I "1Section D. 'Assistance Which Has Been Requested
Section B. Individuals 1. Mutual Aid Assistance
1; CASUALTIES: dead, missing, inured, sick 2. Quasl-governmental and relief agencies (Red Cross,
; Salvation Army, etc.)
2. EVACUEES: Number evacuated and number aged or requir-
ing special care ::; . 3. State agencies
3. UNEMPLOYED: Number who may be unemployed and an esti- . Federal agenc. s
mateofthe duratlon ofunemployment : -
...... S~ .........~ 5. Other
Section C. Actions Taken or Pending/Resoures- Used
(personnel, material;:facilities) - Section E. Agriculture
1. WARNING 1. Stuation (In terms of acreage, crops, facilities,
livestock and poultry affected).
2. PUBLIC INFORMATION
2. Actions (belng taken and by whom).
3. EVACUATIOnh
3. Assistance which has been requested and response to
4. SHELTER, such requestss. ,
5. FOOD AND CLOTHING Section F. Remarks
6. MEDICAL SERVICES 1. Additional information as necessary including urgent
requirements,.. or responses to speciflc requests for
7. HEALTH SERVICES ,, form tion, not otherwise provided above.
B. SEARCH AND RESCUE 2. Additional considerations which support the necessity
Sfortate or Federal assistance (Previous disasters,
9. PROTECTIVE MEASURES 5etc.to include statement of the economic impact of
this disaster on the comnunity). :
10. DEBRIS REMOVAL

Source: N. C. Division of Civil Preparedness, 1976, pp. C-I-2 to C-I-3.

Figure 7.11: DEM Damage Assessment Report Form

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT REPORT Section C. Public Property (including private nonprofit facilities)
County Number Date DOLLAR
NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL LOSS
TYPE NUMBER MAJOR MINOR DOLLAR COVERED BY
PROPERTY DESTROYED DAMAGE DAMAGE LOSS INSURANCE
Section A. Private Property - Nonagriculture
1l. Buildings
DOLLAR 2. Utility Systems See Note f
NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL LOSS 3. Drainage
TYPE NUMBER MAJOR MINOR DOLLAR COVERED BY Facilities NA
PROPERTY DESTROYED DAMAGE DAMAGE LOSS INSURANCE 4. Levees/Dikes NA
5. Irrigation Works NA
1. Houses 6. Municipal Streets NA
2. Mobile Homes 7. Bridges and
3. Multiple Culverts NA
Dwelling Units 8. Equipment
4. Businesses 9. Communications
5. Utilities 10. Public
6. Other (Specify) Transportation
-j XV I11. Schools
12. Other (Specify)
Section B. Private Property - Agriculture
DOLLAR
NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL LOSS NOTES: a) "DESTROYED" - indicates replacement required.
TYPE NUMBER MAJOR MINOR DOLLAR COVERED BY b) "MAJOR DAMAGE" - extensive repairs required, cannot be
PROPERTY DESTROYED DAMAGE DAMAGE LOSS INSURANCE used until repaired or a home is uninhabitable.
c) "MINOR DAMAGE" - damaged but usable or operable a
1. Houses dwelling is habitable.
2. Mobile Homes d) "TOTAL DOLLAR LOSS" - in terms of replacement/repair
3. Farm Buildings costs at current prices and current standards.
4. Equipment e) "DOLLAR LOSS COVERED BY INSURANCE" - estimate of the
5. Livestock dollar loss covered by insurance by type of property.
6. Poultry e.g. houses in an affected area average 50% coverage;
7. Timber therefore, the entry on that line would be one-half of
8. Crops the total dollar loss.
9. Farm Fencing f) Utility distribution systems are not normally insur-
10. Other (Specify) able.
g) NA - indicates Not Applicable.

Source: N. C. Division of Civil Preparedness, 1976, pp. C-I-5 to C-I-6.

m m m m m m m m - - m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Figure 7.12: DEM Expenditure/Obligation Report Form

EXPENDITURE/OBLIGATION REPORT

Date

Section A. Debris Clearance EXPENDED/ LOCAL Section G. Public Safety
OBLIGATED COMMITMENT
1. Public roads/streets and right- i. Search and Rescue
of way 2. Fire Fighting
2. Other Public Property 3. Law Enforcement
3. Private Property (in the public 4. Security and Protection
interest)
4. Within Channels Section H. Private Nonproftt Facilities
Section B. Protective Measures 1. Buildings and Structures
2. Supplies and-Equipment
1. Flood fighting
2. Emergency health measures and Section I. Mass Care
vector control
3. Demolition of unsafe structures :1. Shelter
4. Warning of further risks and 2. Food and water
hazards 3. Medical
4. Clothing
Section C. Road Systems 5. Mortu Services
cn~s~ ~ 1. Municipal streets and roads Section J. Transportation
* n LI' - 2. Detours and bypasses
3. Bridges and culverts O. Own Equipment
4. Traffic control 2. -Rental and Contract
Section D. Water Control Facilities . Section K. Temporary Housing
1. Dykes and levees 1i Dwelling Provided
2. Dams 2. Rental-Spaces
3. Drainage Channels 3. Site preparation and utility
4. Irrigation Works -connections
Section E. Public Buildings and Equliment Section L. Other Expenditures and Obligations

1. Public buildings including (Specify)
schools and higher education
facilities (Including rental
of alternate space)
2. Supplies and inventory TOTALS
3. Vehicles and other equipment : EXPENDED/ LOCAL
OBLIGATED - COMMITMENT
Section F. Government Owned Utilities

1. Water System.
2. Sewage System
3. Storm Drainage System
4. Power/Light System
5. Coamiunication System

Source: N. C. Division of Civil Preparedness, 1976, pp. C-I-8 to C-I-10O.

THE LOCAL ROLE IN EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Judging from the discussion above, it is apparent that state and federal
policies call for local governments to bear the ultimate responsibility for
emergency operations, assessing and reporting damages, requesting outside
assistance, and managing reconstruction. While state and federal agencies set
the procedures for granting assistance to a disaster-stricken community, such
assistance will not be available unless local government acts properly and
quickly according to state and federal guidelines. In a disaster situation,
the local government can expect to commit all of its resources to different
response and recovery activities.

To help local governments cope with this task, the N.C. Disaster Relief
and Assistance Plan calls for local governments in the state to prepare their
own disaster relief and assistance plans. These plans are to outline the
responsibilities of local officials during disaster response and recovery and
to outline procedures for various emergency activities, damage assessment, U
disaster assistance centers, and public information. To aid local governments
in developing such plans, the N.C. Division of Emergency Management has
written a Carolina County Prototype Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan (N.C.
Division of Emergency Management, 1981). The prototype plan applies to all
disasters (from tornadoes to nuclear reactor accidents) and must be tailored
by the local government to fit its individual geography, governmental
organization, and hazards.

The prototype plan is primarily geared toward:

1. the assignment of local staff responsibilities during the
emergency preparation and response stages;

2. identifying communications and warning systems;

3. setting up emergency shelters and moving people to them; 3

4. establishing damage assessment procedures;

5. setting up disaster assistance centers; and

6. providing information to the public about the extent of
damages and available assistance.. -3

The prototype plan does not deal with reconstruction policy and decisions,
or permitting procedures.

The prototype plan contains a number of "annexes" which address different
tasks related to emergency response. Annex A contains a model ordinance for
setting up basic civil preparedness functions within the local government, a
model mutual aid agreement between the local government and other juris-
dictions, and model agreements between the local government and the American
National Red Cross. Annexes C and D outline a basic set of procedures for
communication and warning systems. Annex E identifies emergency shelters and
procedures for transporting, registering, feeding, and bunking persons using
them. Annex G designates the Disaster Assistance Center, outines DAC pro-
cedures, and identifies the responsibilities of federal, state, and local

7-26

personnel as well as personnel from private relief organizations. Annex I
sets up a plan for temporary housing which identifies available housing units
(such as hotel spaces, private rental properties, and government-provided
trailers), sites appropriate for temporary mobile homes, and the respon-
sibilities of federal, state, and local personnel.

The section of the prototype plan most relevant to local reconstruction
decisions is Annex F -- the Damage Assessment Plan -- which assigns respon-
sibilities and provides instructions for on-the-scene damage surveys. These
procedures are designed to be consistent with state and federal requirements
for reporting damages to receive state and federal assistance. The annex
establishes the responsibilities of the county's Emergency Management Coordi-
nator, Damage Assessment Officer, and damage assessment teams. The annex also
calls for designating damage assessment teams before the disaster strikes so
people know their responsibilities and are prepared to act. The annex also
suggests the types of persons which could be used for damage assessment (see
Table 7.3). The annex provides sample worksheets which the teams can use to
assess damages by one of two methods: the "direct dollar estimate method" and
the '"percentage of value method" (see Figures 7.13 and 7.14). The annex also
outlines procedures for filing Damage'Assessment Reports with the state. The
3 procedures break damages into four categories:

1. destroyed (repairs costing more than 80 percent of value);

If 2. major (repairs more than 30 percent of value);

3. minor (repairs less than 30 percent which render the structure
uninhabitable); and

4. habitable (repairs less than 15 percent of value).

Table 7.3: Prototype Damage Assessment Teams

Public Property Survey Team Business and Industry-Survey Team
(Direct Dollar Method) (Percentage of Value Method)

0I 0Building and Grounds Engineer Tax Supervisor
Parks Dept. :Representative Building Inspector
Architect Realtor
Building Code Officer Fireman

Private Dwellings Survey Team
(Direct Dollar Method) (Percentage of -Value Method)

Building Contractor Tax Supervisor
Civil Engineer Realtor
Realtor Fireman
Architect

U! : :Source: N.C. Division of Emergency Management, 1981, p. F-l-1.

I ;0 0 ; 00;0000 00 0 if; l 0 X 7-27

::I: :: ::: 0 : A::: : :D : e f

Figure 7.13: Damage Assessment Worksheet (Direct Dollar Estimate)

Incident Area Covered Date of lnsp.
Damage Assessment Worksheet
(Direct Dollar Estimate Method) Assessor Sn. No. 10t

Bldg. a,. Description Estimated % Insurance
Property Address Name of Owner Type , of Damage Dollar Loss Coverage

4.
S 0 5.
6.
7,

12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

18.
19,
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Building Type Code: R-Residence M-Mobile Home B-Business P-Public N-Nonprofit S-School
Damage Code: 1. Habitable 2. Minor (Uninhabitable) 3. Major (Uninhabitable) 4. Destroyed
Remarks: (Continue on reverse if necessary.)

form EM - 38
9-81

Source: N.C. Division of Emergency Management, 1981, p. F-5-1.

7-28
L \ :~~~~~~

'Figure 7.14: Damage Assessment Worksheet (Percentage of Value Method)

check ()Type Ghects Wv) Extent of Damage For Use By Damage Assessment Officer
*of Building M

~~ w o ~~~~~Unusable/Uninhabitable Usablel
o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Habitable
Property Address Name of Owner oesfotreyd or Extensive E~rterior t'xnrxgto MosEtri Vona
S ~~~~~Eaoorrtiatis co oIo Entaror-nd Sortese Damesg.. Building Estinmated % tasexrsrm
D.strYad. Smelt .aag. Melortin tsOf tsuch Brokten Window (E. . 1 Wietsieat ols Lox. conarg.
Pxr-arrtge 0t o St oot on Wetta M~agrritude to G 1m. ato. Lead. Coorntasls
SarvlooRmei Dla'ed WotrI RadaSitlrr Buildn xusabile
ntto td Food ' Weo in. a Linesot. or Fod FloodWtrLie
WtrLnsFast Fxt Atron Floor. Waler Li- 3 Foot Aloo- Poos.
Abt onItti x 0.0) A.. Fl

32.

14.

19.

20.
7. e : I c d n t A e / o e D a e o np
-1~ ~~~~~~~1 heki igeaiy etrnme ffmle

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~fr .M 9..

10~~~~~~Sore .C.DvsoofEegnyMnemt,98 pF61

While the local Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan outlines procedures
for damage assessment, it does not go to the extra step and determine how
repairs and reconstruction in the community will proceed. It provides no
avenues for making the community safer from the next disaster. Local govern-
ments along the North Carolina coast need to establish damage assessment
procedures to be prepared for a hurricane or other major storm; they also need
to integrate these procedures (1) with current policies governing repairs and
reconstruction and (2) with procedures for permitting reconstruction and
requiring reconstruction to include features that protect against future
damages. The following section outlines a process that local governments
can use to plan for reconstruction.

ESTABLISHING POST-HURRICANE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
AND RECONSTRUCTION PERMITTING PROCEDURES

The planning process described in Chapter 5 helps a local government
evaluate storm hazards in the community and determine appropriate policies for
hazard mitigation and reconstruction. Recall that the process involved six
steps:

1. mapping hazard areas;

2. vulnerability assessment;

3. identifying mitigation needs;

4. reviewing current mitigation measures;

5. reviewing alternative measures; and

6. implementation and monitoring.

The process leads to the adoption of policies td reasonably protect new
development from storm damages and to ensure that reconstruction leaves the
community safer from damage than it was before. The policies can be achieved
through a variety of techniques available to local government, from zoning to--
relocation (see Chapter 4). These hazard mitigation policies and programs
should form the basis for local damage assessment activities and recon-
struction permitting decisions.

Establishing Damage Assessment Procedures

Local damage assessment procedures should be designed (1) to comply with
the documentation requirements of state and federal disaster assistance
programs, and (2) to indicate, according to local hazard mitigation policies,
which structures may be repaired or rebuilt with no changes, may be repaired
or rebuilt with structural changes, or may not be rebuilt at the same site.
The damage assessment procedures established for state and federal emergency
management programs provide the basis for local damage assessments. The key
to these procedures is speed; to avoid delays in receiving outside disaster

7-30

assistance and in rebuilding the community, the local government needs to be
prepared before the storm to act quickly after it.

Damage assessment procedures require a damage classification scheme which
categorizes damages into different levels (such as habitable, minor, major,
and destroyed). At a minimum, the local damage classification scheme will
need to be consistent with the guidelines set forth by state and federal
disaster programs (which define different damage categories by:different
Ipercentage of value" figures and which classify damaged facilities as resi-
dential, commercial, and public). In addition to meeting state and federal:
guidelines, local governments should set up their own damage categories based
on local hazard mitigation and reconstruction policies. For example, if the
local zoning ordinance requires non-conforming structures to meet current
standards after being damaged beyond 50 percent:, then the local government may
want to identify "major" damages as those exceeding 50 percent. Perhaps a
zoning permit or other permit would be required for such "major" repairs.
Local governments need to list any such levels of damages which require a
permit for repairs or invoke a set of standards for those repairs to meet.
Such a list, or damage classification scheme, could accompany the damage
assessment forms required by state: and federal disaster programs. It could be
used by damage assessment teams to identify those structures or facilities
subject to local repair and reconstruction standards as they make their
structure-by-structure inventories of damages in the community.

It is a good idea for local governments to designate damage assessment
teams before a storm strikes the community, saving time in the wake of a
disaster. Different teams could be assigned to different sections of the
community and/or different types of facilities (residential, commercial, and
:public). A team assessing residential and commercial damages could include a
building inspector, a tax supervisor,' a building contractor, an architect/
engineer, a realtor, and a fireman. A team assessing damages to public
facilities could include a public works supervisor, an engineer/architect, and
other related personnel. (See Table .7.3 for model assessment teams set forth
in the Division of Emergency Management's Carolina County Prototype Disaster
Relief and Assistance Plan.) Each damage assessment team should include
individuals who are qualified to give reliable estimates of the original value
of the structure and the value of damages sustained, as well as to identify.

are needed to bring the structure up .to the required standards.

The local government should identify a set of procedures for putting the
damage assessment teams and damage classification scheme into action. These
procedures should follow those set up by state and federal disaster programs
and local disaster relief and assistance plans. As the teams are deployed and
making their rounds in the community, they should:

1. identify those structures. that must be demolished or that
require a development permit before being repaired or rebuilt;

:I - .- :-: Be 02. identify:, for each damaged structure, the cause of damages; and

3. identify repairs needed for individual private and public
I : : X : facilities.

3 ;~~~~~ : S :;7-31

fI : f - f W A ': '

This information can be translated onto property tax maps to readily identify I
those areas where repairs and reconstruction must meet certain requirements.
When the damage assessment is completed, the damage assessment team could fill
out a form identifying the level of damages sustained, or damage classi-
fication, of each property and any special requirements for repairs and
reconstruction; the form could then be mailed or otherwise delivered to the
property owner. The form could include any other information the property
owner should know regarding recovery procedures (such as permit requirements,
filing deadlines, and public meeting dates).

Establishing Reconstruction Permitting Procedures

For those structures suffering substantial damages or which must be
repaired in conformance with current local development standards, the local
government must have on hand a well-defined set of procedures for reviewing
permit applications, issuing permits in accordance with local hazard miti-
gation policies, and inspecting repair work. Except for the number of permits
which would have to be processed in the wake of a major disaster, these pro-
cedures should be essentially the same as the community's normal development
permit procedures.

There are some things the local government can do to streamline permit
procedures and handle a large number of applications quickly and effectively.
Having the damage assessment teams identify, as part of their initial recon-
naissance, what repairs are necessary for individual properties to meet local
development standards will give the local government ready information on the
conditions required for permit approval. For damaged structures which met all
local standards before the storm, the local government might want to auto-
matically issue permits to rebuild or repair the structures to their original
condition.

The timing of permitting decisions during reconstruction is especially
important. The local government may have certain time periods required for
public review and comment on permit applications before it can issue a permit.
If these time requirements are too long, the public will feel that recon-
struction is being unnecessarily delayed and may try to circumvent local
development regulations in order to repair or rebuild structures.

The local government may want to coordinate its reconstruction permitting
procedures with a list of priorities for repair and reconstruction. For
example, the local government may want to prohibit rebuilding and significant
repairs in a particular section of the community until essential service
facilities (such as electricity, water, and sewer) can be repaired or re-
placed. The local government can establish such priorities before a disaster
occurs so it can concentrate on other problems after a storm hits and expedite
reconstruction decisions. Essential public services need to be re-established
as quickly as possible; private reconstruction efforts could easily hamper
utility repairs (with problems such as people rebuilding driveways over water
lines which may have to be torn out and replaced). Less crucial services
(such as schools and recreation facilities) can be repaired after essential
services are back on line and reconstruction is well underway.

7-32

;I :Just as local government can establish priorities for restoring public'
services, it can also establish priorities for private repairs. For example,
the local government may allow property owners suffering minor damages to
begin repairs immediately, while thosesuffering. heavier damages must wait a
short while to obtain the necess:ary:permits and, if desired, negotiate any
relocations of structures. .Staging recovery in thisway allows some people to
make progress immediately, setting the. community on the road to recovery.

Adopting temporary development- moratoria can. greatly :aid in community
recovery by allowing different activities (such as damage assessment and
public facility repairs) to proceed unobstructed and by allowing the local
government to stage its reconstructions decisions.

The local government could adopt.a temporary moratorium on all repairs.
until the full damage assessment is completed, which in no case should; take
longer than five .to seven days:; certain minor repairs could be exempt from
this moratorium (such as replacing windows and the like). After the assess-
ment is finished, the moratorium could be lifted for all properties classified
as receiving "minor" damages but remain in place for all properties classified
as;recieving "major" damages. The moratorium on "major" repairs could be
lifted for individual properties as their owners *receive the necessary
permits; it could also remain in inplace:for several weeks, until local offi-
cials can formally reassess hazards .in :the community and, if they want to,
amend hazard mitigation policies based on the type and extent of damages
suffered.

The local government could also adopt a temporary moratorium on all new
development for a.specified period of time. This would let the local':govern-
ment deal with more pressing community recovery :and reconstruction-permitting:
problems without devoting its resources to reviewing new development pro-
posals. It also could give the local igovernment time to amend its hazard
mitigation policies before allowing..any new development to:occur, thus
ensuring that new-development is reasonably:safe from:future damages.

The local government might alsdo:'consider appointing a "recovery task
force" to oversee the reconstruction process and:work on any'policy questions
that: might arise. The. recovery task. f:orce could: be useful in working with
state and federal, representatives on the Interagency0 Regional Hazard
Mitigation Team and: the Section 406Haazard Mitigation Survey and Planning
Teams (see Chapter 4). Like: these joint federal/state/local teams, the task
force could review the nature :ofdamages in the community, identify and
evaluate alternative approaches:for repairs and reconstruction, and formulate
their own recommendations for handling community recovery. The task.force's
efforts could lend valuable information and guidance to state:and federal
efforts and, ensure a stronglocal voice in decisions regarding state: and
federal disaster -assistance. The :recovery task force could be formally
designated in advance.of the disast:erand composed of whatever individuals the
local government thinks are appropriate. It could consist of only planning
board members and local commissioners, or it could include other members of
the general public and key local employees (suchlas the town or county
manager, public works supervisor, or:building:inspector). The task force;
could be given any number of duties.; :however, the authority to approve or
deny permits for repairs and reconstruction should remain with the group that

7:7-33

normally handles development decisions (that is, the local commission,
planning board, or board of adjustments).

The Sequence of Events, or Timetable, for
Assessing Damages and Permitting Reconstruction

It is not possible to firmly fix a time schedule for local recovery
decisions in advance of a storm; the amount of time it takes to assess damages
and make reconstruction decisions will depend on the level of damage the com-
munity suffers. However, it is possible to establish the sequence of events
the community should follow in assessing damages and permitting repairs and
reconstruction. This allows the community to see the various steps it must
carry out and develop a rough idea of the amount of time each step takes in
relation to 'the others.

Figure T.15 outlines the sequence of different local government activi-
ties described in previous sections of this chapter. The two most critical
events are:

1. the timely completion of damage assessments (to receive state
and federal disaster relief and to identify which properties are
subject to particular local hazard mitigation requirements);
and

2. the imposition of development moratoria (or some similar measure
to stage permit decisions and place firm control over repairs
and rebuilding).

These provide the lynchpins of the community reconstruction effort. The
timely completion of damage assessments (which should take no longer than one
week) will set the community on the road to recovery as soon as possible. The
development moratoria and permit requirements will allow the local government
to stage reconstruction activities and ensure that repairs and reconstruction
will leave the community safer from the next storm.

The sequence of events includes a decision on setting a calendar of
milestones for reconstruction permitting decisions to meet. This places
specific deadlines on each event. These milestones can be set once damages
are assessed and the local government has a better idea of the tasks at hand
and the amount of time and staff resources needed to carry out these tasks.

Documents to Prepare in Advance of a Major Storm

Local governments should prepare several documents in advance of a dis-
aster in order to make repairs and reconstruction move as smoothly, quickly,
and efficiently as possible. These documents include:

1. a hazard mitigation plan;

2. a reconstruction plan;

7-34

Figure 7.15: Sequence of Local Activities in Assessing Damages and Permitting Reconstruction

Weeks

Events 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Disaster and Declaration x

Damage Assessment --

Deploy Assessment Teams x
Assess, Classify, and Map Damages
Submit Damage Survey Reports to State and
Federal Agencies
Notify Property Owners of Damage Classifications
and Repair Requirements
Attend Applicant's Briefing and Submit Requests
-I- Sfor State and Federal Assistance: - - -

Reconstruction Permitting --

Deploy Recovery Task Force x
Declare Moratorium on Repairs and New Development x
Set Calendar of Milestones for Other Tasks x
Begin Repairs to Critical Utilities and Facilities ------- - ? -
Lift Moratorium for "Minor" Repairs -� ---------------- >
Lift Moratorium for "Major" Repairs to Conforming . - - - ?--------- . >
Structures
Evaluate Hazards and the Effectiveness - ? - ->
of Mitigation Policies
Amend Policies - ? >
Initiate Negotiations for Relocations - -->
and Acquisitions
Lift Moratorium on "Major" Repairs (with changes - -- ? --- ------>
to conform)
Participate in Federal Hazard Mitigation Planning --->
Lift Moratorium on New Development - - - -

3. ordinances and resolutions dealing with hazard mitigation and
reconstruction;

4. detailed and accurate property information.

The hazard mitigation plan will identify hazard areas in the community,
the community's vulnerability to damages, and policies and principles guiding
new development, repairs, and reconstruction to be reasonably safe from storm
damages. The plan could include policies calling for and/or governing the
relocation of buildings, roads, and utilities. The plan should be backed up
by formally adopted development management measures (zoning regulations,
public works policies, land acquisition programs, etc.). The hazard miti-
gation plan, and the policies adopted pursuant to it, provide the foundation
for how reconstruction takes place -- the standards for reconstruction to
follow.

The reconstruction plan will identify personnel responsibilities and
procedures for assessing damages and permitting repairs and reconstruction.
It should designate, in advance of disaster, damage assessment teams, a
recovery task force (if one is desired), and the roles different local
citizens and employees will play during community recovery. It should outline
procedures for assessing and mapping damages, for notifying property owners,
for reviewing the effectiveness of local hazard mitigation policies, and for
issuing permits to repair and rebuild damaged structures. At a minimum, the
reconstruction plan should contain three sections:

1. the procedures to follow (and their sequence and timing) in
assessing damages and permitting repairs and reconstruction;

2. the standards for development that repairs and reconstruction
must follow to reduce the risk of future damages (referring to
the hazard mitigation plan); and

3. the identification of particularly hazardous areas which are
likely to need special treatment (such as the relocation of
buildings, roads, and utility lines) after a hurricane strikes,
as well as the types of action that could be taken.

The reconstruction plan cannot cover all contingencies and make all
decisions beforehand since nobody can accurately predict the exact type,
amount, and location of damages the community will suffer. Therefore, the
plan needs to embody a policy framework and a procedural framework for the
specific decisions that can only be made during reconstruction, such as those
dealing with the relocation of roads and utilities. To facilitate these
decisions, the reconstruction plan should spell out (1) who is to make these
decisions (such as the local legislative body, the planning board, or a
special "recovery task force") and (2) what criteria they shall use to make
the decisions (such as hazard area maps and the community's hazard mitigation
policies). Even though the decisions themselves cannot be made until after
disaster strikes, the reconstruction plan can lay the foundation of policies,
priorities, and procedures on which these decisions are based.

7-36

3 Sfnc0 ~1~8Ordinances and resolutions dealing with hazard mitigation and recon-
struction should, to the maximum extent possible, be adopted and in force
before disaster strikes the community. This allows the community to formulate
and enact policies and programs in a more rational manner, rather than
responding to problems and trying to.resolve them at the "heat of the moment"
immediately after disaster strikes. Advance planning firmly establishes the
policies, guidelines, and standards for reconstruction to follow. It reduces
delays in community recovery because larger issues have already been resolved
beforehand regarding what should be required of development and what pro-
cedures local government should follow in managing repairs and reconstruction.
By formulating ordinances, regulations, and other measures before the storm,
the local government also has adequate time for public review and comment and
for following proper administrative procedures governing newlaws and
programs. Ordinances and resolutions: can be designed to invoke certain
standards and procedures (for damage assessment, repairs, and reconstruction)
when the local government has declared a "state of emergency"; these could
remain in effect for whatever period ::of time the local government deems
appropriate. The local government could have a temporary. development mora-
torium already designed and on the books before the storm and have it go into
effect when a "state of emergency" is declared. Again, having policies,
standards, and procedures ready and in place when disaster strikes will reduce
confusion and delays in the disaster's aftermath.

Maintaining detailed property information as part of the local govern-
ment's normal operations will greatly?!'jassist in damage assessments and
reconstruction permitting decisions. x..Having this information on hand when,
disaster strikes will, again, reduce delays and confusion. The local govern-
ment should have a complete and easily interpretable set of property maps and
a corresponding list of property owners and their addresses. This will help
in identifying damaged properties and in notifying property owners of any
needed repairs. The maps and list of owners should be accompanied by photo-
graphs of individual properties or oblique aerial photographs of all sections
of the community. This will help in dentifying damaged structures, espe-
cially if they are barely recognizable or washed onto another site. It will
also help in determining the structure'1s initial market value, which is
usually the base value used in assessing damages and in determining whether a
nonconforming structure must comply with existing development regulations when
3 it is rebuilt or repaired.

7-37

: ',

REFERENCES: CHAPTER 7

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1981. Federal Disaster Assistance
Program: Documenting Disaster Damage Pursuant to Public Law 93-288.
Washington, DC: FEMA (Report No. DR&R-7).

. 1981. Federal Disaster Assistance Program: Handbook for
Applicants Pursuant to Public Law 93'288. Washington, DC: FEMA (Report
No. DR&R-1).

� 1981. Flood Hazard Mitigation: Handbook of Common Procedures
-- Interagency Regional Hazard Mitigation Teams. Washington, DC: FEMA
(Report No. FEMA-14).

N.C. Division of Civil Preparedness (now Emergency Management). 1976.
North Carolina Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan. Raleigh, NC:
N.C. Department of Military and Veterans Affairs.

N.C. Division of Emergency Management. 1981. Carolina County Prototype
Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan. Raleigh, NC: N.C. Department of
Crime Control and Public Safety.

Rogers, Golden, and Halpern. 1981. Hurricane Evacuation and Hazard Mitigation
Study. Sanibel, FL: City of Sanibel.

7-38

I : >

CHAPTZR 8:

CONCLUSIONS

This report has provided local'gbovernments in coastal North Carolina with
information to use in managing development and post-disaster reconstruction to
reduce the risk of future storm damages. It has discussed important issues
surrounding hazard mitigation and reconstruction planning. It has presented
various state and federal programs that help protect development against
hurricane damages and that help the community recover from disaster. It has
presented numerous measures that local governments can adopt to manage new'
development and reconstruction. It'has presented procedures for a local
government to follow in assessing its vulnerability to storm damages, in
selecting appropriate development palicies to reduce this vulnerability,
and in planning for post-disaster reconstruction.

This information is intended to' help a local government wed two of its
most important, roles -- managing emergencies and managing development. All
too often, a local government approaches these roles in isolation from ones
another without seeing how measures to manage development can help reduce the
burdens a community will face in the wake of disaster. The documents
mentioned at the end of the last charter (a hazard mitigation plan, a recon-
struction plan, appropriate ordinances and resolutions, and detailed property
records) should prove to be valuable'aids in helping the community manage
development and facilitate reconstruction.

Hazard mitigation and reconstruction plans should not be prepared
separately; they should operate together as part of a more comprehensive local
planning effort. Comprehensive planning gives the community a forum for
addressing and balancing a full range:of local development objectives, not
just those related to storm hazards. It allows the community to chart
specific courses of action consistent with different development objectives.
Local land use plans prepared in compliance with the Coastal Area Management
Act, as basic comprehensive planning'documents, provide a logical place for
communities to identify and address hazard mitigation and reconstruction
problems. By incorporating a more detailed analysis of the community's storm
hazards and reconstruction permitting~ procedures into the local land use plan,
the local government will be able to balance hazard mitigation against other
development needs and objectives. The local government will be well-prepared
to select an appropriate course of action that will make the community safer
from hurricanes and other major storms.

Ordinances and resolutions concerning new development and post-disaster
reconstruction will put the community's hazard mitigation policies into
effect. They translate abstract plansa and policies into concrete action.
Maintaining detailed property information will not only help the community'
assess damages and make reconstruction permitting decisions; it should also
prove valuable to the, local government's other development management
activities.

While hazard mitigation and reconstruction planning should be incor-
porated into the community's comprehensive land use planning efforts, they'
should also be coordinated with the community's emergency planning efforts.

8-1

Local evacuation plans, emergency operations plans, and disaster relief and I
assistance plans deal mainly with short-term concerns surrounding a disaster,
but they also affect and are affected by the community's development
decisions. Development conditions in the community will dictate what emer-
gency actions a local government must take in the face of a major storm.
Emergency plans set up the special roles local officials must play and the
special procedures local government must follow during and immediately after
a disaster; these can easily influence the character of post-disaster
reconstruction.

In order to facilitate local hazard mitigation and reconstruction
planning, state agencies must also take a more active role and examine their
policies more closely. State agencies should serve as a source of support for
local efforts, providing technical assistance, arranging financial assistance,
and training local officials in such things as damage assessment. State
agencies should cooperate with each other more to establish a more consistent
framework of state policies and programs within which local governments can
operate. For example, the Coastal Resources Commission and the Building Code
Council could work together to establish more consistent standards for con-
struction in the coastal region. State agencies should be flexible in
allowing a community to pursue different measures that protect against storm
damages, such as construction standards more stringent than the State Building
Code. State agencies should also provide a model for coordinating development
planning and emergency planning. For example, the Office of Coastal Manage-
ment and the Division of Emergency Management could work together more on
hurricane-related problems, such as evacuation, disaster assistance, and
reconstruction procedures. Such state actions would make local actions more
effective at reducing the risk of storm damages.

This report represents an important beginning for North Carolina's
coastal communities. It identifies the tools that local governments can use
to manage development and post-disaster reconstruction to minimize the damages
resulting from future hurricanes, northeasters, and other major storms. As
the primary guardian of the public health, safety, and general welfare,
local government faces an important responsibility to reduce the risk of
property damages and loss of life attending coastal development. It must
start planning now for the storms yet to come.

8-2
S 0 : S~~.

:I~ n~APPENDIbXl A:

NORTH CAROLINA STORMS OF THE 20TH CENTURY

The following list is taken from Storms, People and Property in
Coastal North Carolina by Simon:..Baker (UNC Sea Grant Publication
Number UNC-SG-78-15), pp. 70 - 77.

COASTAL HURRICANES OF THE 20TH CENTURY

The following list represents those tropical storms
which were of full hurricane strength at the time they
reached coastal North Carolina. The decayed stages of
hurricanes reaching this area are not listed. Storms
passing close enough off shore to affect land areas
are included even though they did not make landfall.

1901 July 11: Made landfall near Oregon Inlet. No
record of damage.

1903 September 15: Passed off shore but affected the
northern Outer Banks.

1904 September 14: Miade landfall between Charleston,
South Carolina, and the North Carolina state line.
Damage to crops in eastern ,and central North Carolina
from wind and,rain. '

1904 November 13: Passed off shore near Cape Hatteras.
Three wrecked schooners. Several persons drowned on land
and at sea.

1906 September 17: Made landfall near Myrtle Beach,
South Carolina. Property damage at Wrightsville Beach.

1908 July 30: Passed up the coast close to Cape Hatteras.
Heavy rainfall caused flooding in the eastern counties.
Considerable property damage at Wrightsville Beach.

1913 September 3:1 Made lanrdfall between Hatteras and
Beaufort. Storm surge in Pamlico Sound washed away
railroad bridges at Washington and New Bern. Wind and
rain, caused severe damage to crops as far west as Durham.

1920 September 22: Made landfall between Wilmington
and Morehead City. One person killed and many injured
in Pitt County.

1924 August 25: Passed off shore just east of Hatteras*.
Two people drowned and Ocracoke partially flooded.

1930 September 12: Passed off shore causing minor wind
damage from Atlantic Beach to Hatteras.

193'3 August 22-23: Made landfall at Cape Hatteras. High
tides and; winds caused great damage in northeastern
counties estimated at $250,000.

1933 September 15-16: Made landfall west of Hatteras.
Storm surge in Piamico and Albemarle Sounds caused 21
deaths and $3 million in damage. New Bern flooded.

I :: :: A--I
A-i

1936 September 18: Passed up the coast slightly east I
of Hatteras. Estimated damage of $55,000 to the northern
coast. Heavy damage to crops.

1938 September 21: Passed off shore on its way north
where it did considerable damage and was called "The
Great New England Hurricane of 1938." No damage or
loss of life reported in North Carolina.

1944 August 1: Made landfall near Southport. Heavy
damage to structures at Carolina Beach. Considerable
crop damage in the southern coastal counties. Estimated
total damage was $2 million.

1944 September 14: Passed a short distance east of
Cape Hatteras moving northward. On the central and
northern coastal areas 108 buildings were destroyed
and more than 600 damaged. Estimated damage to crops
at $1 million. Heavy damage in Elizabeth City and
Nags Head. One person killed.

1949 August 24: Passed off shore at Cape Hatteras
directly over the Diamond Shoals Lightship. An estimated
$50,000 in property damage occurred, mostly in the
vicinity of Buxton. Two persons died.

1953 August 13: Hurricane Barbara made landfall between
Morehead City and Ocracoke. Estimated property damage
was $100,000 while the crop loss was $1 million. One
person died.

1954 August 30: Hurricane Carol passed just to the east
of Cape Hatteras. Widespread light damage came to an
estimated $250;000.

1954 September 10: Hurricane Edna passed abbut 60 miles
east of Cape Hatteras. Minor but widespread damage
was estimated at $75,000 for property and $40,000 for
crops.

1954 October 15: Hurricane Hazel made landfall right
on the South Carolina line. From that point northward
to Cape Lookout, the ocean front was ravaged by storm
surge. At Long Beach 352 of the existing 357 buildings
were totally destroyed. Nearby beaches suffered similar
damage. Miles of grass covered dunes disappeared. Flooding
occurred in Washington, New Bern and Elizabeth City. Heavy
wind damage experienced all over eastern North Carolina
and record amounts of rainfall were recorded. Nineteen
people, most of whom were in beach locations died. Total
property damage amounted to approximately $125 million.

1955 August 12: Hurricane Connie made landfall close
to Cape Lookout. Caused severe flooding in low-lying
coastal areas and around the sounds. Heavy beach
erosion also occurred. No deaths were reported. Hurricane
Diane followed in five days and made it impossible to
assess the damage caused by this storm.

1955 August 17: Hurricane Diane made landfall near
Carolina Beach and passed over Wilmington. Winds caused
crop damage as far west as Raleigh. Heavy flooding
occurred in Belhaven, Washington and New Bern. Crop
damage in the eastern counties caused by this storm
and Connie came to more than $2S million much of it
due to salt water flooding and rivers overflowing their
banks. No deaths were reported.

A-2

1. l55 September 19: Hurricane Ione made landfall near
Salter Path gue Banks.' In spite of high winds,
damage from this source was minor. Heavy rains falling
on already waterlogged soils were responsible for the
most damage. Storm surge was responsible for the
flooding of thousands of acres, and in New Bern 40
city blocks Owere inundated, Hundreds of homes were
washed away. Seven people died. Estimated damage
to crops and property was about $88 million.

1958 September 27: Hurricane Helene passed off the coast
from WIlmimigton to Cape Hatteras. Very high winds were
responsible for damage to crops and structures estimated
at $11 million.

1960 September 11: Hurricane Donna made landfall between
Wilmington and Morehead City and moved up the coast.
Heavy damage was experienced by coastal communities from
Wilmington to Nags Head. PBeach erosion was considerable,
and the corn crop in the coastal counties suffered severe
wind damage. Eight people -died, and damage was estimated
at several millions of dollars.
1964 September 1: Hurricane Cleo passed from western
North Carolina out to sea in the vicinity of Elizabeth
City. Heavy rains caused flooding and damage to crops
in the northeast.

1964 October 16: Hurricane:i:Isbell made landfall near
iMorehead City and moved northward over the eastern counties.
Caused some flash flooding and damage to the peanut crop.

1968 October 20: Hurricane, Gladys moved up the coast
and out to sea in the vicinity of Cape Hatteras. Damage
was light and the state benefited from two days of
moderate rainfall.

1.971 September 30: Hurricane Ginger made landfall near
Morehead City and began to dissipate as it moved inland.
Tides were six feet or morei-above normal at Washington,
Aurora, New Bern and Cherry Point. Thousands of acres
of-corn and soybeans in the eastern counties were affected.
Damage was estimated at $lO million.

1976 August 9: Hurricane Belle passed east of Cape
Hatteras on ts way north. Beaches were evacuated but
only scattered minor damage occurred.

: A ';A-3

SOME SEVERE 20TH CENTURY EXTRATROPICAL STORMS

The following list of noteworthy storms has been
compiled because tropical storms are not the only
significant weather disturbances experienced on the
North Carolina coast. These non-tropical storms generally
occur during the winter and spring months of the year.
Singe they are numerous and vary in strength and
destructiveness, only major storms are included in this
list. The compilation is based on a study of published
records of the National Weather Service and its prede-
cessor organizations from 1900 to the present. Information
was obtained from various issues of the Monthly Bulletin,
the Monthly Weather Review, Climatological Data of the
U.S. by Sections, Climatological Data and Storm Data.

1902 December 4-5: An inland storm caused dangerous
gales on the coast. Considerable waterfront damage
occurred at Southport, Wilmington, Beaufort and
Morehead City. Communications were interrupted because
of damage to telephone and telegraph lines. Some
wharves were blown or washed away, and several small
vessels were wrecked.

1903 February 16: An inland storm caused gale winds
throughout the state. Wilmington, New Bern and Washington
experienced damage. Land between Pamlico Sound and the
Atlantic Ocean was flooded. Seventeen persons died in
the sinking of the passenger steamer "Olive" in the
Chowan River.

1903 October 8-10: A severe storm formed off the North
Carolina coast. Winds of 63 miles per hour were recorded
at Hatteras.

1910 February 24-25: A northeast storm off the coast
generated winds of -60 miles per hour at Hatteras.

1917 September 14-15: Heavy damage to property and crops
was caused by a storm moving inland over the southern coast
of North Carolina and then out to sea north of Hatteras.
Roads and small bridges were washed out by a rainfall
of four to eight inches.

1924 March 11: A storm moving northward along and near
the coast generated winds of 66 miles per hour at Hatteras.
These off shore winds caused unusually low water levels
at New Bern and other places on western Pamlico Sound.

1932 March 6: An inland storm brought gale winds to
the Atlantic and sound shores. Fishing nets, small
boats, wharves, bridges, roads, buildings and telephone
poles were damaged or destroyed. Dare County received
more than half of the damage, and on the Outer Banks
three new inlets were formed.

1932 November 28: More than $50,000 in damage was
caused on the south coast because of strong winds
and high tide.

1933 January 25-29: Gale winds were reported at Hatteras.
Coastal damage to roads and small craft reported.

1947 November 2-3: A northeast storm caused coastal
damage as a result of the combination of strong winds
and high tides. Morehead City and other coastal cities
experienced flooding and several boats were grounded
and destroyed.

A-4

1948 February 1: A northea st storm brought heavy snow
to: the eastern part of thei state. Some coastal cities
were practically isolated,' nd Wilmington reported more
than $1 million in damage.,: High tides and northeast
winds caused damage along the coast.

1954 May 13: An inland storm which moved off the coast
of North Carolina generated'winds causing over $100,000
damage to beaches. A 14,000-ton freighter was destroyed
as a result of this storm near Cape Hatteras.

1956 January 8-12: Wind-driven water caused by a coastal
stor m resulted in $50,000 Property damage on the northern
Outer Banks. Five cottages! were destroyed in the area
of Kitty Hawk. On Hatteras':Island, a three-mile stretch
of highway pavement was washed out.

1956 October 16-18, 27-30:, :.These two northeast storms
caused damage to beach highways, small craft and piers
as a result of high tides. .:In the second storm three
people were lost from fishing vessels.
1957 October 5-6: Winds reached 50 miles per hour along
the northern coast during this- off shore storm. High tides
caused by prolonged easterly winds drove water over the
Outer Banks highway and caused considerable beach erosion.

1958 October 19-23: A low pressure storm about 200 miles
east of Cape Hatteras created wind gusts to 70 miles
per hour from Cape Fear to the Virginia line. High tides
affected beaches and cut the: road from Oregon Inlet to
Hatteras in several places. High water pushed into the
Neuse River causing some flooding in New Bern.

1962 March 5-8: This- gigantic "Northeaster" known as
the Ash Wednesday Storm caused erosion-on the coast
from Hatteras northward greater than in any previously
known storm. It opened an inlet 200 feet wide on
Hatteras Island and destroyed ,miles of protective
dunes. Miles of paved highways were either washed out
or buried in sand. Beach homes by the hundreds were
destroyed or damaged and hundreds of automobiles were
either buried in sand or submerged in water. Waves
more than 20 feet high on top of 10 foot tides were
responsible for most of the damage. At Nags Head wind
gusts near 70 miles per hour'were recorded. Two people
were known to have died as alresult of the storm.
Preliminary property damage estimates came to $12 million.

1962 June 29: An off shore low pressure storm caused
torrential rains in the central coastal counties.
Amounts varied from four to 17 inches in 24 hours.
Agricultural losses were high, particularly in the
tobacco crop. High tides and winds were responsible
for some beach erosion.

1962 November 25-Decembermber 5: A persistent low pressure
storm off the coast caused very heavy beach erosion.
Beaches were cut back as much as 50 feet in some places
and sand dunes were damaged.' Several buildings were
destroyed and many damaged.

1964 February 12: An off-shore low pressure storm
generated rough seas which eroded the beach at Kill
Devil Hills.

A-5

1964 May 3: The southeast coast was affected by a
low pressure storm off shore. Gusts to 100 miles
per hour were reported. Some wind damage occurred but
beach erosion was slight.

1967 December 28: A coastal low pressure storm caused
moderate damage from Wilmington to Morehead City. Wind
gusts to 76 miles per hour were reported in Wilmington.

1968 May 26-27: A coastal low pressure storm caused heavy
rain and strong winds in the northern coastal area.
Widespread damage to boats and waterfront structures such
as docks and piers was reported.

1969 November 1-2: A low pressure coastal storm moving
northeastward was responsible for 60 mile per hour wind
gusts. Moderate beach erosion occurred.

1970 December 31: On the southern coast some beach
erosion and damage to piers was caused by a low pressure
storm moving northward. Gales and high seas were reported.

1972 .Yay 22-27: The northern coast was affected by a
low pressure storm. Heavy beach erosion occurred and
winds up to 50 miles per hour were recorded on shore.

1973 February 9-10: High winds and seas along the coastwere
caused by a low pressure storm off shore. Heavy beach
erosion and property damage in various places resulted.

1973 March 22: A northeast storm blew up 10-12 foot
seas. Highways were damaged along with some beach front
property.

1976 February 1-2: A severe wind storm affected the
northern coast particularly from Ocracoke through
Manteo. Wind driven tidesiat the time covered two thirds
of Hatteras Island. Portions of Manteo were flooded.
Gusts of 70-90 miles per hour were reported at various Outer
Banks locations.

A-6

A-6 I

APP'NDI. B:
ANNOTATED BBIOGRAPHY

This bibliography contains a comprehensive collection of literature
dealing with natural hazards and community planning. The bibliography
breaks the literature into several categories:
Natural Hazards in General (p. B-2)
Hurricanes in General (p. B-4)
Coastal Development and Coastal Hazards (p. B-6)
Hurricane Hazard Mitigation (p. B-8)
- General
- Land Use Management
- Building Design and Construction
- Evacuation
Disaster Assistance (p. B-19)

B-!
I ~ ~ 0; 0t00 fX l. ;

I ~ t ,
I

:I :
I~ | : X :0

I~ ~ : ::
I ~:0 ;,
I ~ :::f0
I~~~ : f ;
f: : : iS 00 . : :B::
I ~ ~ : ; 'f 0 f0

Natural Hazards in General

Bolt, B.A., W.L. Horn, G.A. MacDonald, and R.F. Scott. 1977. Geological Hazards I
(Revised, 2nd Edition), New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

A clear and comprehensive presentation of seven types of natural hazards: 1
earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, landslides, ground subsidence, avalanches,
and floods. Presents the geology of these hazards and the nature of human
response to them. Concludes with a chapter on hazard mitigation and con- I
trol (risk zoning, etc.) that lacks detail but raises good points about
risk assessment. Offers no specific guidelines for planning other than
the recognition and identification of hazards. 1

Foster, Harold D. 1980. Disaster Planning: The Preservation of Life and
Property. New York: Springer-Verlag (Series on Environmental Management).

Presents the full range of elements that comprise disaster planning.
Includes excellent discussions of the range of issues facing communities
during reconstruction and of methods for identifying and mapping high-risk
areas. Also presents suggestions for the design of disaster warning sys-
tems and a variety of methods for predicting disasters and the community's
response to them. I

Francaviglia, Richard F. "Xenia Rebuilds: Effects of Pre-disaster Conditioning
on Post-disaster Development" in Journal of the American Institute of
Planners 44:1 (January 1978). Chicago, IL: American Institute of Planners.

Excellent, concise article on the forces that kept Xenia from changing its
land use patterns after much of the city was destroyed by a tornado. Em-
phasizes the need for governmental planning to keep pace with private
redevelopment pressures in order for a coordinated recovery or improve-
ment to occur. Points out the role played during reconstruction by the
citizenry's images of what Xenia was and should be.

Haas, J.E., R.W. Kates, and M.J. Bowden, eds. 1977. Reconstruction Following
Disaster. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (Environmental Studies Series).

Broad and insightful presentation of the issues facing communities that
have been stricken by natural disasters. Draws heavily on case studies
in four cities that have gone through disaster reconstruction (San
Francisco, Anchorage, Rapid City, and Managua). Of particular interest
are the introductory and concluding chapters, which make inferences
from the four case studies to chart the sequence of events common after
disaster strikes a community, including some useful "dos and don'ts" that
apply during the recovery process.

National Governors' Association. 1978. 1978 Emergency Preparedness Project:
Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office
(Stock #008-040-00080-0):.

Reports the findings of the NGA's broad-ranging assessment of state
emergency management programs. Highlights the lack of coordination between
state preparedness and response functions (usually handled by a central
state emergency office) and state mitigation and recovery functions

B-2 I

I
(usually handled by many individual agencies). Uncovers a variety of
other problems facing state emergency management agencies, such as the
lack of inter-governmental communication and the need to clarify and/or
modify federal financial aid procedures. Includes a number of recommen-
dations for state emergency management officials. More of interest to
state program managers than to local administrators.
National Governors' Association. 1979. Comprehensive Emergency Management:
A Governor s Guide. Washington,' DC: U.S. Government Printing Office
(Stock #008-040-00079-6).

3 Points out the need for more coordinated emergency management at the
state level (covering mitigation., preparedness, response, and recovery).
Outlines the role of federal, state, and local agencies with regard to
different types of emergencies. Presents brief suggestions (geared
toward a governor's responsibilities) for the establishment of a state
comprehensive emergency managemeit program and for obtaining federal
assistance during an emergen agers
than to local officials. ;V.

Rubin, Claire B. 1979. Natural Disaster Recovery Planning for Local Public
Officials. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency
(Report No. MP-85).

Briefly describes local disaster recovery experiences and research obser-
vations "with the hope of sparing other communities the expense and
anguish of learning first-hand." ?Presents issues that commonly arise dur-
ing disaster recovery and influence the integration of reconstruction into
5 ; comprehensive community planning. Includes useful sections on t"Decision-
making Under Extreme Pressure" and "Warning Signs of Insufficient Prepara-
tion. "

Very general approach, designed to: orient local elected officials and
administrators to some basic disaster planning concepts and issues.

Rubin, Claire B., et al. 1981 (September). Long-term Recovery from Natural
Disasters: A Comparative Analysis of Six Local Experiences. Washington,
DC: Academy for Contemporary Problems.

Presents six case studies of community response to flooding, three of
which deal with coastal flooding. Draws comparisons on (1) the size of
the disaster, (2) the nature of response and the beginnings of long-term
recovery, (3) previous disaster experience, (4) external resources, (5)
local public .capacity and leadership, (6). intergovernmental relations, and
(7) mitigation efforts. The descriptions deal mainly with -local government
operations during the response phase immediately following the disaster.
While the authors do an adequate job at presenting the issues which exist
in each community, they provide no insight or recommendations regarding
the design of recovery and mitigation measures or local policy adoption.

Each community's identity is disguised, making it difficult for the reader
to follow up on or more deeply explore the recovery and mitigation efforts
by contacting the case study comunities directly. The report includes
no listing of relevant local plans.

B-3..

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:

Hurricanes in General

Baker, Simon. 1978 (August). Storms, People, and Property in Coastal North
Carolina. Raleigh, NC: UNC Sea Grant College Program (Publication
No. UNC-SG-78-15).

Short and simple booklet designed for the average coastal resident.
Briefly describes the history of hurricanes and northeasters in North
Carolina and the damaging forces associated with them (storm surge,
freshwater flooding, and high winds). Presents basic rules of thumb for
evacuation and safety before and immediately after a flooding disaster
and a few tips on hurricane-resistant home construction. Appendices in-
clude a list of local civil preparedness agencies in N.C.'s coastal
counties (some addresses and phone numbers may be out-of-date) and a
list of "Disaster Fact Sheets" available from the North Carolina Agricul-
tural Extension Service.

Provides good information for local residents, but offers few insights
for local administrators.

Brinkmann, Waltraud. 1975. Hurricane Hazard in the United States: A Research
Assessment. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado - Institute of Behavioral
Science.

Briefly outlines the status (as of 1975) of hurricane research. Breaks
research into five areas: I

1. modifying the hazard (e.g. seeding hurricanes to reduce their
strength);
2. strengthening the physical environment (e.g. man-made shore
protection works);
3. altering coastal development practices (e.g. land use management,
building codes, and forecasting/warning systems);
4. designing insurance programs (e.g. the structure and impacts
of the National Flood Insurance Program);
5. disaster relief and rehabilitation (e.g. federal aid programs
and community recovery processes).

Calls for greater attention to development management tools as the key
means of hurricane protection.

Dunn, G. E. and B. -I, Miller. 1960. Atlantic Hurricanes. Baton Rouge, LA:
Louisiana State University Press.

A detailed historical analysis of all Atlantic hurricanes through 1958
from about 1700. Presents an account of the path of Hurricane Hazel
through North Carolina in 1954. Also presents maximum rainfal, flood and
surge levels for different coastal areas through 1958.

B-4

Herbert, Paul J. and Glenn Taylor. 1975. Hurricane Experience Levels of
3 Coastal County Populations - Texasi to Maine. Coral Gables, FL: National
Hurricane Center.
Examines population statistics for: the entire Atlantic coastline and com-
pares the history of hurricane strikes in individual coastal counties
with the history of development in those counties, covering up to 1970.
The combined statistics show that over 75% of all Atlantic and Gulf
;coast residents have never experienced a direct hit by a major hurricane.

Herbert, Paul J. and Glenn Taylor. 1978. The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most
U.S. Hurricanes of the Century. Coral Gables, FL: National Hurricane
Center.

Presents graphs, charts, tables and figures of major hurricanes in the
U.S. since 1900, covering their strength, cost of damages, and spatial
distribution. Concludes that a future disaster is inevitable due to the
increased development and low hurricane experience of coastal area resi-
dents.

Simpson, R. H. and H. Riehl. 1981. The Hurricane and Its Impact. Baton
I ; Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.

An exhaustive and authoritative book on the nature of hurricanes, their
formation, structure and impacts. "Everything one needs to know about
the physical storm itself; what is missing is an account of how to deal
with it.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Mobile District. 1981. Hurricane Frederic -
Post Disaster Report. Mobile, AL:: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Description of the meterological history of the hurricane and its impacts
on six coastal communities. Outlines damages in terms of causes (winds,
waves, floods), and effects (residential, commercial, public, utilities).
Examines emergency preparedness and response activities and detailed
costs of these activities. Does not discuss rebuilding or mitigation
actions.

(I;

I: : 0

I;: - :
I~~ :

Coastal Development and Coastal Hazards

Brower, David, Francis Parker, and Dirk Frankenberg. 1976. Ecological
Determinants of Coastal Area Management. Raleigh, NC: UNC Sea Grant
College Program (Publication No. UNC-SG-76-05).

Divides the coastal area into barrier island systems and lagoon-estuary
systems. Discusses dominant processes of each and their interactions.
The dynamic nature of coastal areas is stressed. Man's activities
serve to increase the vulnerability of an island to changes by lessen-
its ability to react naturally to daily and storm activities.

The Conservation Foundation. 1980. Coastal Environmental Management: Guide-
lines for Conservation of Resources and Protection against Storm Hazards.
Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality. 1

Offers 36 policy recommendations for local coastal government, geared
towards developing coasts. Gives a good description of the character-
istics, ecological features, and hazards of coastal uplands, coastal
floodplains, saltwater wetland banks and bluffs, dunelands, beaches,
coastal waters and basins. Discusses each separately with specific
policies, means of implementation, and relevant federal policies.

Dolan, Robert and Bruce Hayden. "Templates of Change: Storms and Shoreline
Hazards" in Oceanus 23:4 (Winter 80/81). Woods Hole, MA: Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute.

Briefly presents results of research into storm damage patterns on Mid-
Atlantic barrier islands. Identifies long-term rates of shoreline change
(erosion and accretion) for 100-meter segments of the Mid-Atlantic coast
(North Carolina to New Jersey). Finds that storm surge damage on the
barrier islands increases in proportion to the magnitude of shoreline
erosion for a particular stretch of beach. 'Concludes that "sections of
sedimentary coasts, which have experienced storm damage and serious
erosion in the past, are likely to experience more of the same in the
future."

French, Steven. "The Urbanization of Hazardous Areas: Flood Plains and
Barrier Islands in North Carolina," in 1979 Proceedings: The First
Annual Urban Affairs Conference of the University of North Carolina.
Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Urban Studies Council.

Briefly describes the nature and extent of flood-hazard areas in North
Carolina. Identifies increasing development in these areas as the key
factor behind the rising trend in annual flood losses. Data in the
article indicate that while recent flood losses have been concentrated
in the mountains, development in flood hazard areas and potential future
losses are greatest in the state's coastal region.

B-6

3 0; Leatherman, Steven P. 1979. Barrier Island Handbook. Amherst, MA: National
Park Service.

goI 0A short book of barrier island ecology. Heavily illustrated throughout,
the book presents basic scientific information in a manner that can be
understood by anyone. Comprehensively covers barrier island origins,
ecological processes and functions, and the natural and man-made forces
acting to change barrier islands.

Very useful as:an introduction to the ecology of barrier islands. Has
a good bibliography where more information can be found.

U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Community Development Association, and.
Urban Land Institute. 1979 (February). The Private Development Process:
A Guidebook for Local Government. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development - Office of Policy Development and Research
-I . X (Rep ort No. HUD-PDR-352-2).:
The guidebook is designed to help local officials understand how private
housing developers make investment decisions. It briefly explains such
things as market analysis, site -selection, financing, the rehabilitation
of existing structures, and the private developer's role in subsidized
housing. It is a brief and easyTto-understand introduction to the mechanics
of residentialdevelopment decision-making.

White, Gilbert F., Earl J. Baker, et al. 1976. Natural Hazard Management in
Coastal Areas. Washington, DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini-
stration-Office of Coastal Zone Management.

Presents all major coastal hazards (hurricanes, floods, erosion, land-
slide, earthquakes,:etc.), discussing the nature of: the hazard, its
destructive components, the population at risk, and the probability of
occurrence. Discusses possible adjustments to each hazard, but does not
3 compare their effectiveness.

Gives list of responsible agenc.ies administrative policies in each

1 s~state.

IB-
I

B-7
I~~ .

Hurricane Hazard MitiRation ;

General --

Baker, Earl J., ed. 1980. Hurricanes and Coastal Storms. Gainesville, FL:
University of Florida Sea Grant College Program (Report No. 33).

Proceedings of a 1979 national conference presenting 35 papers covering
warning and evacuation, local disaster response planning, National Flood
Insurance Program, land use and growth management, coastal construction,
post-disaster hazard mitigation, hurricane protection and awareness,
public participation in policy formation, and computer models of disaster
effects. Authors are from government, academia, and private sectors.
Because of the length of each paper (4-6 pages), detail is lacking, but
this is a useful overview of state-of-the-art knowledge in hurricane
planning, circa 1980.

Brower, David, Candace Carraway, and Thomas Pollard. 1981 (December). Develop-
ing a Growth Management System for Rural Coastal Communities. Raleigh, NC:
UNC Sea Grant College Program (Publication No. UNC-SG-WP-9).

This report describes a process for devising programs in North Carolina's
rural coastal communities for managing the location, quantity, rate, and
quality of development, It does not provide a ready-made system, since
local development objectives vary from place to place, but briefly de-
scribes a set of six basic steps for communities to follow in their land
use planning. An extensive appendix describes the various techniques that
can be used in North Carolina to manage growth: land acquisition, public
spending, taxation, and development-regulation.

Campbell, William A. and Milton. S. Heath, Jr. 1979 (February). Legal Aspects
of Flood Plain Management. Raleigh, NC: U.N.C. Water Resources Research 1
Institute (Report No. UNC-WRRI-79-137).

Critically analyzes existing North Carolina legislation which determines
what the state and local governments can do to manage development in
flood-prone areas. Outlines the major elements of an effective flood-
plain management program at the state and local levels. Contains good
descriptions of the National Flood Insurance Program and its interaction
with North Carolina's Coastal Area Management Act and other coastal legis-
lation. Includes a clear and concise presentation on "Flood Plain Manage-
ment and the Taking Issue." Well-written, brief, and easy to understand,
though a little dated in its discussion of CAMA regulations.

Coastal Area Planning and Development Commission. 1980. A Coordination,
Education and Mitigation Model for Disaster Preparedness in Coastal
Areas. Brunswick, GA: Coastal Area Planning and Development Commission.

This report outlines the role that substate regional planning agencies can
play in disaster planning, recognizing that local plans are often uncoordi-
nated and that local governments often lack the resources for adequate
disaster planning. The report identifies the responsibilities of state
and local governments in disaster preparedness and presents the results of

B-8

3 t; a nationwide survey identifying'lthe roles that substate regional planning
agencies play in disaster preparedness and response. It then defines a
disaster preparedness program for the Coastal Area Planning and Development
Commission that includes communications/warning systems, evacuation, public
awareness, hazard mitigation, and the coordination of local, regional,
and state efforts.

Federal Emergency Management Agency -Federal Insurance Administration and U.S.
Department of Housing and UrbaniDevelopment - Office of Policy Develop-
ment and Research. 1981 (March)j'. Evaluation of the Economic, Social, and
Environmental Effects of Floodplain Regulations. Washington, DC: FEMA
(Report No. FIA-8). s
This study analyzed the impacts of floodplain regulations on 23 communities
(covering different locations, :sizes, flood hazard types, and economic
conditions). Regulations were evaluated by projecting development for
1980 and 1990 under three scenarios: (1) no regulations, (2) moderate
regulations similar to current FIA requirements, and (3) stringent regu-
lations forbidding new development and substantial improvements to exist-
ing structures. The study found that moderate regulations will greatly
reduce the rate of increase increase in flood losses, but will not cause them to
decline.

Ralph M. Field Associates, Inc. and Abeles, Schwartz, Haeckel, and Silverblatt,
Inc. 1981 (March). Evaluation 'of Alternative Means of Implementing Section
1362 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. Washington, DC: Federal
Emergency Management Agency (Repiot No. M&R-4).

This study examines the Section 1362 acquisition/relocation program by (1)
identifying alternative means for carrying it out, (2) estimating the num-
ber of structures eligible for purchase under it, (3) identifying its
effects on individuals and communities, (4) identifying its relationship
to other federal policies, and () estimating the federal costs involved.
The report defines the role of the Section 1362 program and the benefits
it provides.

Kusler, Jon. 1982. Innovation in Local Floodplain Management: A Summary of
Community Experience. Boulder, i'CO: University of Colorado - Institute
of Behavioral Science (Special Publication No. 4).
- 0 This report presents local programs that are innovative" in that they
exceed the standards of the National Flood Insurance Program and appli-
cable state regulations. These programs include ones with strong en-
forcement provisions, regulations establishing elevation requirements
and other requirements exceeding state and federal standards, and combin-
ing regulations with land acquisition and other non-regulatory measures.
The report briefly touches- on some of the problems encountered in 'admi-
nistering these programs. Unlike most floodplain management reports,
it talks about inland communities and coastal communities separately in
presenting the approaches they have used to deal with floodplain develop-
ment. The report includes a brief chapter on how these programs have
fared in court. Its appendix contains brief profiles of how over 70
communities throughout the country (18 of them coastal) have used "inno-
vative" floodplain management measures.

B-9
::

Kusler, Jon and Thomas Lee. 1972 (February). Regulations for Flood Plains.
Chicago, IL: American Society of Planning Officials (Planning Advisory
Service Report No. 277). 1

This report is a good introduction to the terms and concepts involved in
floodplain land use management. It describes common legal questions sur-
rounding floodplain regulations and suggests steps to include in develop-
ing a local floodplain management program. It includes a useful section
on tailoring zoning ordinances to flood hazard data. The report deals
primarily with riverine communities and fails to account for some of the
special problems coastal communities encounter.

Platt, Rutherford H. and George M. McMullen. 1980 (May). Post-flood Recovery
and Hazard Mitigation: Lessons from the Massachusetts Coast, February
1978. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts--Water Resources Research
Center (Publication No. 115). 1

Calls for fuller integration of hazard mitigation into post-disaster re-
covery activities at all levels of government. Reviews the progress made
after the Great Blizzard and Coastal Storm of 1978 by federal, state, and
local governments in developing and executing mitigation strategies (e.g.,
acquisition, relocation, land use regulations, and construction standards).

Describes recovery activities in Scituate (a coastal community where 95 1
homes were destroyed and over 1,000 homes were damaged) as a "key example
of the need and opportunity to practice hazard mitigation." Highlights
conflicts between mitigation and rapid reconstruction and the shortcomings
of existing federal, state, and local policies.

May be a little dated in its description of federal disaster programs,
but a good, brief case study of the issues involved in hazard mitigation.

Office of Emergency and Energy Services. 1980 (July). Hurricane Hazard Miti-
gation in Coastal Virginia. Richmond, VA: Office of Emergency and
Energy Services.

Offers local officials a brief discussion of the hurricane threat, im-
proved construction standards, and land use management tools available I
to local governments in Virginia. Includes checklists for developing
public "hurricane awareness" programs, for evaluating hurricane pre-
paredness plans, and for residents' actions in the face of a storm.
Sketchy in its presentation of mitigation techniques, but clear and
simple.

Owen, James H. and Glenn R. Wall (for U.S. Water Resources Council). 1981
(September). Floodplain Management Handbook. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office. 5

Provides very general guidance to local officials and concerned citizens
for developing and implementing a floodplain management program. Out-
lines the full range of structural and non-structural measures to reduce I
flood losses and maintain the natural values of floodplains. Brief and
comprehensive, but needs detail to make it more useful and interesting
to local administrators. Deals with riverine and coastal flooding. 5

B-10
: : : :: : X~~

Rogers, Golden, and.;Halpernr 1981 (November). Hurricane Evacuation and Hazard
Mitigation Study. Sanibel, FL: 'City of Sanibel.

This study addresses the hurricane-related development problems facing
Sanibel Island and suggests ways that the local government can alleviate
them. The first two chapters of. the report examine the hurricane hazards
facing Sanibel and Sanibel's ability to evacuate in a major storm; they
culminate in an innovative program for staging evacuation from the island
given different 'time windows" iin advance of a storm's projected landfall.
The report then examines the community's building code and land use regula-
tions to see if they adequately protect development from storm damages. It
also outlines procedures for assessing damages, permitting repairs, and
other response and recovery activities to be carried out after a hurri-
cane strikes. The report defines a set of specific measures that
Sanibel can adopt to improve its evacuation, damage reduction, and re-
covery programs, including each zmeasure's advantages and disadvantages.

0XI An excellent and thorough analysis of hazard conditions in the community
and local government programs that deal with them. Even though the report
is specific to Sanibel, it holds many insights for other communities.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development--Federal Insurance Administra-
tion. 1977. Coastal Flood Hazards and the National Flood Insurance
Program. Washington, DC: HUD. ..

This report describes the National Flood Insurance Program, its history,
the impetus behind it, and its requirements. It presents .the results
of a field survey contrasting coastal residents' attitudes toward flood-
ing with those in riverine communities. The survey found that people
are more likely to rebuild in the same place in coastal communities, even
though coastal flood damages are generally greater. The survey found
that flood insurance rates generally do no affect the demand for coastal
property. It also showed that local officials tend to be willing to
adopt more stringent floodplain development regulations, but that commu-
nities have no impetus to go bey'hd the minimum standards of the NFIP.

U.S. Department of the Interior - Office of Water Research and Technology.
1979 (November). A Process for Comnunity Flood Plain Management (Plan-
ning Manual OWRT-TT/79-9). .Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.

Suggests a series of steps communities can take to identify flood hazards
and to plan for avoiding them. The process is very general--geared toward
riverine and coastal communities throughout the country--but it presents
a well-balanced and objective approach to the wide variety of issues and
available management techniques a community might face. The process
touches on planning for post-disaster recovery., though its main thrust
3 is pre-disaster mitigation. Includes brief, yet comprehensive, descrip-
tions of available federal financial and technical assistance (a little
dated) and sources of legal information. Appendix D--Notes on Obtaining
Federal Assistance--offers several useful suggestions for local admini-

I
strators. ~ ;-

B-l-
I~ :: .a

U.S. Water Resources Council. 1972, Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas to
Reduce Flood Losses (Volumes One and Two). Washington, DC: U.S. Water
Resources Council. |

This report presents a comprehensive analysis of the use of various
development regulations at the state and local levels to reduce the 1
risk of flood damages. It discusses in depth the basic regulations
(zoning, subdivision, etc.) that comprise state and local floodplain
management programs and the legal issues surrounding them. The report
contains lists of how communities and states throughout the country are
using land use and building regulations to reduce flood losses, includ-
ing excerpts of selected state and local legislation.

Wilson, John, Daniel Trescott, DeeEll Fifield, and Vera McIntyre Hayes. 1980. 1
Hurricane Hazard &Mitigation at the Local Government Level. Tallahassee, FL:
Florida Department of Community Affairs -- Bureau of Disaster Preparedness. 3

Good compilation of information which briefly describes the damaging
forces of hurricanes and presents ways that building codes and other
development management techniques can reduce hurricane losses. Concen- 3
trates on building code modifications as the key to hazard mitigation,
relying on results from a statewide (Florida) survey of local building
officials and modifications suggested in other reports. Provides little |
insight into the use of land use controls.

Geared toward conditions in Florida in discussing the state's damage I
potential, current hazard mitigation practices, and strategies available
to local governments.

Land Use Management --

Chdatham, Leo R. 1979 (October).: An Assessment of Some Economic Effects of
FIA Land Use Requirements on Urban Coastal Zone Development. Mi$ssissippi
State, MS: Mississippi State University - Water Resources Research Insti-
tute.

This study sought to determine if restrictions on construction, repairs,
and land use in flood hazard areas had affected community growth and
development, focusing on the construction industry, property values, and
local property tax revenues. Using towns along Mississippi's Gulf Coast i
as the study population, the author found that floodplain land use regula-
tions had not caused any significant decreases in residential and commercial
construction in coastal floodplains or any decreases in property values and
tax revenues, I

B-12 3

Ralph M. Fields Associates, Inc. 1981 (September). Stateand Local Acquisi-
tion of Floodplains and Wetlands!!: A Handbook on the Use of Acquisition
in Floodplain Management. Washington, DC: U.S. Water Resources Council.
(Available from Natural Hazards information Center -- University of
Colorado.) .!:

An excellent overview of the use of acquisition, different techniques of
acquiring land, and funding sources. Describes common reservations about
the use of acquisition and important factors a community should consider
before pursuing acquisition. Outlines key elements and steps to follow
in setting up an acquisition program. Describes different levels of prop-
erty rights (fee simple and less-than-fee simple) and the advantages and
disadvantages of each.

I Presents ten case studies of communities throughout the nation which have
implemented different floodplain .acquiSition'p-rograms. Each case study
discusses the flooding problems facing each community and how each program
was formulated to seize unique opportunities and meet unique needs. Un-
fortunately, the case studies deal mainly with riverfront, rather than
oceanfront, communities, so the discussion fails to account for the
strong development pressures and land constraints facing coastal communi-
ties. Otherwise, the book is clear, concise, and highly informative.

'French, Steven P. and Raymond J. Burby. 19'80 (January). Managing Flood Hazard
Areas: The State of Practice. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Center for Urban and
Regional Studies.

This brief booklet reports the findings of a nationwide survey of local
government and regional planning :agency experiences with floodplain land
use management. The survey covered such topics as the types of measures
being used, program effectivenesS, and obstacles to more effective
management.

Pilkey, Orrin H. and William J. Neal. "Barrier Island Hazard Mapping" in
Oceanus 23:4 (Winter 80/81). Woods Hole, MA: Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institute.

Presents ways of identifying sections of barrier islands that pose hazards
to development. Identifies key ~data sources for mapping island hazards,
natural factors influencing island safety (erosion rate, topography,
storm response, etc.), and man-made hazards influencing island safety
(road constructionj sand iremoval, finger canals, etc.). Points out the
importance of island safety maps in government programs "concerning the
wisdom of spending tax money to save threatened houses" and to give citi-
zens "the opportunity to avoid building or buying-a home in a dangerous
location."

B-13

I
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Galveston District. 1975 (June). Guidelines
for Identifying Coastal High Hazard Zones. Galveston, TX: U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. -

Designed to provide uniform methods for identifying coastal high hazard
zones (V-zones) in FIA Flood Insurance Studies (FIA did not adopt them).
Outlines two methods for estimating wave heights and the inland extent
of wave action during major storms. Identifies the three-foot breaking
wave as the minimum size wave capable of causing major damage to a con-
ventional wood frame structure. Mentions factors determining the inland
extent of wave action (e.g. topography and vegetation). Intended "for
application and use by technically oriented individuals with a general
but limited knowledge of wave theory." ,

William Spangle and Associates, Inc. (for U.S. Geologic Survey). 1974 February).
Application of Earth Science Information in Urban Land Use Planning:
State-of-the-Art Review and Analysis. Washington, DC: National Techincal I
Technical Information Service (Report No. USGS-GD-74-038).

General assessment of the application of earth science information to
land use planning. Includes an overview of the land use planning process
and discussions of various natural resources and hazards. Lists sources
of earth science information (may be a bit dated) plus different types of I
maps and other data.

Building Design and Construction -- I

American Insitute of Architects Research Corporation. 1981 (December). Design
Guidelines for Flood Damage Reduction. (Prepared for FEMA, Report No.
FEMA-15). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Excellent overview of the general information needed and the tools avail- I
able for design in flood-prone areas. Clearly and briefly presents the
basic dynamics of riverine and coastal-flooding and the evolution of
flood protection policy in the United States. Chapter 4 -- Design Analysis
for Flood Damage Reduction -- identifies two types of information to be
used in floodplain management and design: regulatory information (e.g.
National Flood Insurance Program maps and rates, local land use planning
and construction guidelines, and other state and federal programs) and
flood hazard data (e.g. data on streamflow and flood elevation, site
characteristics, and the nature of existing development). Chapter 5 --
Design Techniques for Flood Damage Reduction -- outlines some basic site
design and building design variations based on building use, site density,
and new vs. existing construction. Includes a "Resource Index" with a
glossary of key terms and a directory of state and regional offices of
key agencies (FEMA, Corps of Engineers, USGS).

Not very technical; good general reading that everyone can understand. 3

B-14

Dames and Moore, Inc. 1981 (January).: Design: and Construction Manual for
Residential Buildings in Coastal:.HiRh Hazard Areas (Report No. FIA-7).
Washington, DC: HUD - Office ofi ;Policy Development and Research, and
FEMA - Federal Insurance Administration.

An excellent manual for the design and:construction of homes to resist
coastal flood, erosion, and: wind i.hazards based on a comprehensive,
nationwide evaluation of existing beach houses, common construction
practices, and building codes. It briefly describes environmental
I conditions and construction practices in different coastal regions of
the United States. It discusses-;various structural forces to be re-
sisted, the adequacy of different:materials, and recommended construc-
tion methods. It: includes many well-ll-ustrated design details and
provides information on costs, and demonstrates the use of the design
data tables contained in the appendices. The appendices provide clear
and complete data on required piling sizes, embedment depths, bracing
details, etc. While the manual concerns residential construction, most
of the principles can be applied -to non-residential buildings. A "must"
for coastal builders-and local officials.

Defense Civil Preparedness Agency. 1974, (February). Protecting Mobile Homes
from High Winds (Report No. TR-75). 'Washington, DC: U.S. Government
3I~ ~ Printing Office.

A little dated, but an excellent.':description of a mobile home's vul-
nerability to high winds and recommended means of protection. Illu-
5strates different types of tiedowns, anchors,, and footings. Brief and
easy to understand--designed far:�homeowners.

Defense Civil Preparedness Agency. 1975 (June).; Wind-resistant Design Concepts
for Residences (Report No. TR-83),. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-
ing Office.

3 ; ;Briefly outlines four risk-based design concepts, with useful examples
of how each could be carried out ,in residential construction. Three of
these four concepts have occupant safety as their main objective (de-
3 signing in-home shelters); these are more appropriate for tornado-prone
areas than for hurricane-prone :aeas (where there is adequate warning
time to evacuate residents to other shelters), The fourth design con-
cept--improved construction practices--has property damage reduction as
its main objective. Following this concept, the booklet presents simple
practices (bracing and joint connections) which protect against wind
forces.

Illustrates different wind-induced pressures that act on a building and
different types of'structural failure. Includes a technical section on
"How to Calculate Wind Forces and Design Wind-resistant Residences"
v aimed at homebuilders and architects .

B-15

Federal Emergency Management Agency--Flood Insurance and Hazard Mitigation.
1979 (June). Economic Feasibility of Floodproofing--Analysis of a
Small Commercial Building (Report No. HUD-508-FIA). Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.

Points out the practicality of flood protection measures by showing how
the cost of floodproofing a building can be outweighed by reduced flood
insurance premiums and reduced average annual flood damages. Examines
the costs and benefits of three floodproofing alternatives: elevating
on fill to the base flood elevation, elevating on fill with watertight
closures, and elevating on pilings. Even though the report deals with
a specific case study (a 3,500 square foot retail building in Jersey
Shore, Pennsylvania), the analytical methods used can be helpful in
other communities for evaluating the economic feasibility of floodproof-
ing commercial structures. Points out that the feasibility of different
alternatives will depend on such local conditions as topography, soils,
development density, construction budget, aesthetics, and the depth,
duration, and frequency of flooding.

Straightforward and easy to understand.

Sheaffer and Roland, Inc. 1980 (July). Elevating to the Wave Crest Level --
A Benefit: Cost Analysis. Written for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (Report No. FIA-6). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.

Finds that elevating a new house to the wave crest level associated with
a 100-year storm surge reduces both average annual flood damages and
flood insurance premiums to a point where each more than offsets the
added costs of elevating to that height. Assesses three design alterna-
tives with regard to cost and safety: rigid frame construction, semi-
rigid frame with grade beam, and semi-rigid frame without grade beam.
Uses conditions in Gulf Shores, Alabama (hit by Hurricane Frederic) as
the basis for analysis, finding conditions there to be typical of the
shoreline dynamics and construction practices along the South Atlantic
and Gulf coasts.

Sheaffer and Roland, Inc. 1981. Coastal Construction Standards for Nags
Head, North Carolina (Draft): A Report to the Mayor, Board of
Commissioners, and Town Manager -- Town of Nags Head, North Carolina.
Nags Head, NC: Town of Nags Head.

Clearly and concisely discusses the physical conditions found on the
Outer Banks and current local, state, and federal regulations governing
coastal-construction (especially with regard to severe storm conditions).
Recommends actions to amend the State Building Code and CAMA regulations
and for the town to adopt minimum housing standards to supplement the
state code. Briefly presents the evolution of current construction
standards, what power local governments in North Carolina have to regu-
late construction, and recent developments in the National Flood Insurance
Program's guidelines for construction in coastal high hazard areas (V-
zones).

Excellent reading for local officials in North Carolina's oceanfront
communities.

B-16

I : ::

3 0 Texas Coastal and Marine Council. 1981 (June). Model Minimum Hurricane
Resistant Building Standards for :the Texas Gulf Coast. Austin, TX:
Texas Coastal and Marine Council."

Explains natural hazards in Texas's: coastal zone. Outlines a procedure
for delineating four categories of hazard zones based on the different
hurricane forces each is subject .ito:
Zone A -- scouring, battering (by:waterbone debris), flooding,
and high wind
Zone B-- battering, flooding, and high wind
3 Zone C -- flooding and high.Watind
Zone D -- high wind only.
Presents detailed building standards (designed:to serve as an amendment
to local building codes- which cover construction in the four zones.
Standards include administrativeliprocedures and design requirements (in the
face of the forces listed above).: for different zones and different types
3i 0of construction (wood, masonry, etc.).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Office:of the Chief of Engineers. 1972 (Junie).
3 Flood-proofing Regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.

Recommends minimum standards .of design and construction for flood-
proofing buildings. Deals only with the "static" forces associated
with riverine flooding; gives no consideration to the "special problems
of wave impact, corrosion and erosion associated with coastal flooding."
Prepared in "a form that could be. used to supplement existing building
codes and regulations." Outlines:administrative procedures and struc-
tural flood-proofing measures that a community may want to require of
flood plain construction. Contains useful cilassifications of the damage-
I resistance of different flo oring,. wall, and ceiling :materials and guide-
lines for the design and locatioWnof plumbing, heating, and ventilation
systems.

Marginally useful for coastal communities, but an adequate reference
for becoming familiar with some;of the engineering concepts involved
in flood-proofing.:

U.s:. Department of Housing and Urban;Development - Flood Insurance Administra-
tion. 1976 (September). Elevated Residential Structures: Reducing
Flood Damage Through Building Design. Washington, DC:: U.S. Government
Printing: Office.

Provides a good overview and evaluation of common elevation techniques.
Part 2 -- Designing Elevated Foundations -- presents design and construc-
tion guidelines for :wood post, wood pile, and reinforced concrete/
masonry construction. Ample illustrations accompany the concepts de-
scribed (regarding site conditions, utilities placement, insulation,
breakway walls, bracing techniques, framing, and connections). Part 3 --
A Brief Survey of Design Improvements -- illustrates a few sample designs
for various housing. types, various heights.above grade, and various
regions of the country. Part 4 -- Cost Analysis of: Elevating Foundations --
presents an approach (and samplevworksheets) for estimating and: comparing
costs of different modes of construction.

B-17
I : :

Evacuation -- 3

N.C. Division of Civil Preparedness (now Division of Emergency Management). |
1977 (March). Carolina County Civil Preparedness Hurricane Evacuation
Plan. Raleigh, NC: N.C. Department of Crime Control and Public Safety.

A brief and simple model for evacuation planning in coastal North 1
Carolina. Designed for use by local government administrators. Con-
tains a good "Increased Readiness Action Checklist" that lists responsi-
bilities of different local officials during different stages of a hurri-
cane threat. Local evacuation plans in North Carolina have followed
this prototype.
Stone, John R. 1982 (forthcoming). Hurricane Emergency Planning: Estimating |
Evacuation Times for Non-metropolitan Coastal Communities. Raleigh, NC:
UNC Sea Grant College Program.

This brief and easy-to-follow report presents simplified, non-computerized U
methods of estimating evacuation times in coastal communities that have
few evacuation zones and an uncomplicated set of evacuation routes. It
describes the different components of evacuation time and a way of analyz-
ing them that could be used in local evacuation planning. The study applies
this methodology to two communities in coastal North Carolina (Holden
Beach and Goose Creek Island) to illustrate different analytical techniques
and considerations that go into evacuation planning.

Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. 1981 (November). Southwest
Florida Regional Hurricane Evacuation Plan. Fort Myers, FL: Southwest
Florida Regional Planning Council.

This comprehensive, multi-county evacuation plan is based on computer I
simulations of wind speeds and storm surge levels (using NOAA's SLOSH
model) for hurricanes of different intensities that can be expected to
strike the region. It uses recent advances in storm flooding predictions |
to more accurately identify the time needed for evacuation. The plan
identifies different evacuation zones based on the different flooding
levels that can be expected for storms of different strengths. It esti-
mates the population in each zone that would need to evacuate, inventories
temporary shelters and their capacities, identifies evacuation routes, and
estimates needed evacuation times.

The plan is thorough and a good model for similar efforts elsewhere. I
Whether or not evacuation planners have such an advanced set of data on
expected flood levels, they can follow some of the procedures and consider-
ations used in southwest Florida.

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Jackson-
ville District. 1981 (June). Tampa Bay Region, Florida, Hurricane Evacua-
tion Plan. St. Petersburg, FL: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council.

This plan uses essentially the same procedures as the Southwest Florida
RPC's plan, incorporating advanced data an expected storm surge levels and
their timing to estimate needed evacuation times. Like the Southwest
Florida plan, it applies to a heavily populated, multi-county region
(around Tampa and St. Petersburg) which faces a strong threat of hurricane
damages.

B-18

I: ::

Disaster Assistance :

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1981 (September). Flood Hazard Mitiga-
tion: Handbook of Common Procedures--Interagency Regional Hazard Mitigation
Teams. Washington, DC: FEMA (Report No. FEA-14) .

This handbook describes the procedures for Interagency Regional Hazard
Mitigation Teams to follow in thei survey and planning efforts both before
and after a flooding disaster (including: a hurricane) occurs. The procedures
and information :in the handbook are designed to help a.team produce a
practical, technicaly sound, and implementable Hazard Mitigation Report.
Insofar as local officials will participate on these teams, the guide is
:3-0;; aa useful document for local gove rnents to have.

Federal EmergencyManagement Agency. 1981 (August). Federal Disaster
Assistance Program: Documenting Disaster Damage Pursuant to Public Law
93-288. Washington, DC: Federa ,Emergency Management Agency (Report
No. DR&R-7).
This short companion to the Handbook for Applicants (DR&R-1) will help
applicants for federal disaster assista nce avoid accounting problems and
funding delays. It clearly and briefly presents the'key documents in-
volved (Damage Survey Report, Project Application, Final Inspection
Report, Project Listing, and Request for Advance or Reimbursement) and
uses hypothetical examples to sh:owhow the forms should be filled out.
It also preslents simple "Suggesteodi Records Systems" which can help local
governments organize their recordsto file claims and meet audit re-
quirements with a minimum of time, and effort.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1981 (July).. Federal Disaster Assistance
Program: Eligibility Handbook Pursuant to;Public Law 93-288. Washington,
DCi: FEMA (Report No. DR&R-2).

This handbook, designed primarilyfor federal and state inspectors, de-
fines FEMA's guidelines for determining whether applicants are eligible
to receive public assistance or other work authorized by the Disaster
Relief Act of 1974.' It also outlines policies and procedures for prepar-
ing Damage Survey Reports and inspecting completed work. It includes
samples of the forms used in administering FEMAs public assistance pro-
gram.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1981 (March). Federal Disaster Assistance
Program: Handbook for APDlicants-:.Pursuant to Public Law 93-288. Washington,
DC-: Federal Emergency ManagementiAgency-(Report No. DR&R,-1).

Describes procedures for local.governments to follow in requesting,
obtaining, and administering federal (FEMA) grants for public assistance
after a presidential disaster declaration. Local government officials
will find this volume useful; it brings the guidelines established in
various FEMA regulations under onre cover and. contains sample copies of
the forms one must use to apply for: federal disaster assistance.

An excellent reference that all local administrators should have..

B-19
:I :E

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1981 (March). Federal Disaster Assistance I
Program: Insurance Handbook for Public Assistance Pursuant to Public Law
93-288. Washington, DC: FEMA (Report No. DR&R-3). 3

-Public agencies and certain non-profit organizations are required to main-
tain general hazard insurance or flood insurance on certain projects as a
condition to receiving disaster assistance from FEMA. This handbook de- 3
fines FEMA's policies and procedures for administering its insurance
requirements; it covers only public sector projects, not those classified
as "individual assistance". It includes samples of the forms to be used
by FEMA and the applicant.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1981 (January). Federal Disaster Assistance I
Program: Community Disaster Loan Handbook Pursuant to Public Law 93-288.
Washington, DC: FEMA (Report No. DR&R-5).

The Disaster Relief Act authorizes FEMA to make "Community Disaster Loans" |
to local governments in the aftermath of disasters. This handbook de-
scribes this loan program, its eligibility requirements, and its admini-
strative procedures. It includes samples of the forms a loan applicant I
must submit to FEMA.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1980 (June). Digest of Federal Disaster
Assistance Programs. Washington, DC: FEMA (Report No. DR&R-9). I

This digest catalogs the full range of federal disaster assistance programs
that are available to private individuals and public agencies, running the
gamut from crop insurance to the donation of federal surplus property. The
description of each program includes the purpose and nature of assistance
available, the responsible federal agency, and the program's eligibility
requirements. This is an excellent source of information on disaster
assistance programs, However, since federal programs can change easily
(by having appropriations cut or being legislated out of existence), the
information on some programs may be obsolete. 3

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1980 (February). Program Guide.
Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency '(Report No. I
MP-91).

Briefly outlines the procedure for requesting a Presidential declaration
of "major disaster" or "emergency", describes federal actions after the
declaration, and lists categories of federal assistance available to
individuals, local and state governments, and private non-profit insti-
tutions. Also outlines categories of federal assistance available without I
a Presidential declaration.

B-20 3

N.C. D:ivision of: Civil Preparedness (now Emergency Management). 1976.
North Carolina Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan. Raleigh, NC:
N.C. Department of Military and:. Veterans Affairs.

This plan "establishes the concepts:. under which State and local
governments will operate in response to disasters by:
a. Defining the responsibilities and authorities of local
governments:and state departments and agencies;
b. Defining the emergency roles and missions of local
governments and state departments ans agencies; and'
c. Providing direction for- the execution of measures to
provide relief and a:ssistance."
It is the basic:document setting forth the State's disaster
response procedures. The plan has been continuously updated
since it was first adopted in 1976.

N.C. Division of Emergency Management. 1981. Carolina County Disaster
Relief and Assistance Plan. Raleigh, NC: N4.C. Department of Crime
Control and Public Safety.
This plan was designed as a prototype for local governments to use in
developing relief and assistance procedures for disasters. The plan
outlines the procedures, roles, and responsibilities of different local,
state, and federal agents in communications/warnings, damage assessment,
and the operation of shelters and..disaster assistance centers. Includes
model ordinances and interagency agreements for local governments to
adopt to facilitate disaster relief operations. Includes several annexes
dealing with particular disasters ,(from flash floods to plane crashes).
General in scope; can apply to any or all natural disasters a community
faces.

I
I0:: 0 :0\Q: ::

:I ,i . :::

I ~ ~ ~ f . .

I~~~~

I ~. ::
3~~~ :B | : :- , -

APPNWDIX C:

5 : SAMPLE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS

Following are two examples of local ordinances which deal with the location
and design of buildings in storm hazard areas.
First is a set of amendments adopted by the Town of Scituate, Massachusetts,
establishing standards for the reconstruction of buildings destroyed by wave
action. These were adopted in response to the massive damage Scituate suffered
in the Great Blizzard and Coastal Storm of February 1978, a northeaster which
destroyed over 90 homes in the town and damaged over 1,000 others.

Shores, Alabama, establishing standards for the design and construction of-
buildings in coastal high hazard areas. The code was adopted in response to the
extensive damage Gulf Shores suffered from? Hurricane Frederic in September 1979.
I These standards are:not presented as models for North Carolina's coastal
communities to duplicate blindly or verbatim. They are presented as approaches
that coastal communities could consider in developing their own storm hazard
reduction policies. Each set of standards does; a good job of relating building
design criteria to the hazards present in certain sections of the community
(:considering expected flood elevations, wave heights, and high winds).

C-1
:I S:t
I ~ ~ t :i0

I X0\ X\ f

I:f ::f :.:

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ID\ 0 f :: .-:

I~::;
I~ XV :

I ~ ~ ~ E

ciA TA 4 ;t

s 7 o7SIA CONSERVATION COMMISSION

S C 1 T U A IT 9 M A S S A C H U $ I I I S
June 7, 1979

Amendments made by Building Commissioner, Conservation Commission,
Planning Board/CZM Representative as Preliminary Storm-Damage
Mitigation Effort
Guidelines for reconstruction of residences destroyed by coastal wave action:
1. For any residence with a septic system, written certification of
inspection of the existing system from the Scituate Board of Health,
Health Agent, or a registered professional engineer or a design for a
system approved by the Board of Health shall be submitted with the
Notice of Intent.
2. First floor sill elevation of structure shall be at or above 17 ft MSL
(Mean Sea Level) or at least 5 ft above ground level, whichever is
higher.
3. Structures located in coastal areas as, designated on a map on file
with the Building Inspector and Conservation Commission shall have
plans drawn by a registered professional engineer or architect and
shall be designed to be anchored to piles and meet all other require-
ments of the Massachusetts State Building Code, section 748.1.
4. Pile foundations shall conform to sections 735 through 744 of the
State Building Code. The bottom elevation of all piles shall be
below -5.0 ft MSL.
5. When the foundation consists of timber piles and beams, the headers
or joists shall be secured to the beams with anchors at intervals not
exceeding four feet. The anchors shall not be less than 1" x 1/8"
steel strap, nailed to each member with three 16d nails. All anchors
and nails shall be hot-dip galvanized. Gusset plates and bolts secur-
ing the beams to the pilings shall be hot-dip galvanized or the
equivalent.
6. Structures located in coastal areas other than those designated on the
map on file with the Building Inspector and the Conservation Commission
may be constructed on piles or a poured concrete foundation wall. Pile
foundations shall conform to sections 4 and 5 above. Poured concrete
walls shall conform to section 7 below.
7. Where poured concrete foundation walls are permitted, the walls shall
conform to the following:
a. The footings of the wall shall be at elevation 5 ft MSL or at least
4 ft below finished grade, whichever is lower.
b. The foundation wall of the structure shall be not less than 12"
thick and 7einforced to resist lateral loading from wave action. The
reinforcement shall consist of not less than No. 3 bars located 6" on
center vertically and horizontally or the equivalent.

C-2
: { :: : '~~~~~~~~

c. The structure shall be securely anchored to the foundation walls
by, "'diameter galvanized bolts1':spaced not over 4 ft on center and
embedded not less than 7"in the'masonry.
8. All utilities except service lines shall be located above elevation
17.0 MSL.
9. When the structure is raised onpiles above grade, all soil pipe
below elevation 17 ft MSL shall be of cast iron and securely attached
to the shoreward side of a pile.
10. Fuel tanks shall be buried or securely anchored in place or shall be
located within the concrete foundation walls. Vent and fill pipe
openings shall be located at or abo'b elevation 12.0 MSL and approved
by the Fire Department.
11. A survey of the site prepared by a registered land surveyor with 1 ft
contoUs and all existing or proposed structures shown shall be
submitted with the Notice of Intent.
12. Architectural or structural plans drawn to scale of the foundation of
the structure shall be submitted with the Notice of Intent.
13. When the structure is raised on0 pilings, there shall be no obstruction
between the pilings that would prohibit the free passage of wave or
eflood waters. However, after prior approval by the Conservation
Commission, breakaway skirting may be used where it meets these
objectives.
14. No liquid or gas burning equipment shall be located below elevation
17 ft MSL.
3 15. When a project has been completed in accordance with plans stamped by
a Registered Professional Engineer, Architect, Land-Surveyor, or
Landscape Architect, a written statement by the aforesaid professional
people, certifying compliance with the plans shall accompany the said
request for a Certificate of Compliance.
16. When a foundation has been completed, certification shall be furnished
to the Commission by a registered land surveyor or professional engi-
neer indicating that the elevation of the top of the foundation is in
accordance with the plans as approved by the Conservation Commission
in the Orders of Conditions.

After evaluating potential adverse effects of the reconstruction, the Con-
servation Commission may impose additional conditions if necessary to pro-
tect the interests of GL Ch. 131, s. 40.

~~~I~~~~~~~~~

I
I::

ORDINANCE NO. 222
AN ORDINANCE DESIGNED TO SET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
AND GIVE GUIDANCE TO DESIGNERS, BUILDERS, AND HOME
OWNERS WHO WISH TO BUILD STRUCTURES THAT WILL
SURVIVE HURRICANE FORCE WINDS AND WATER SURGE IN
GULF SHORES COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS.

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF GULF
SHORES, ALABAMA, AS FOLLOWS:
SUPPLEMENTAL BUILDING CODES Section 1. SCOPE
1. The requirements stated herein are supplements to the
FOR COASTAL CONSTRUCTION Southern Standard Building Code, latest edition, a code that was adopted
by the Town of Gulf Shores in compliance with the Federal Flood Control
IN HIGH HAZARD AREAS Act of 1968.
2. The areas governed by this code supplement shall be the Town
of Gulf Shores coastal high hazard areas: more particularly, those areas
designed as V-zones by the Flood Hazard Boundary Maps issued by the
Federal Insurance Administration.
3. The provisions of this code supplement are primarily addressed
to construction of wood frame, raised on piling for one or two family
structures. Other structures are covered, but not to the same degree or
detail.
Section 2. DEFINITIONS
1. Coastal High Hazard Areas
The portion of a coastal flood plain having special flood
hazards, especially those areas subject to high velocity waters, including
hurricane wave wash and winds associated with a 100-year storm event
(i.e., FIA V-ZONES).
2. Design Wind Speed
That velocity associated with the 100-year recurrence of the
fastest wind mile. For these regulations, the wind velocity mop published
in the Southern Standard Building Code, latest edition, shall govern.
3. Fastest Wind Mile
sTown of ~GuIf Skhores - IThe average speed of one mile of air passing an anemometer.
Example: A fastest mile windspeed of 120 MPH means that a "mile" of
Adopted Oct. 26, 1:981 wind passed the anemometer during a 30-second period.
4. FIA
Flood Insurance Administration
Ordinance No. 222 Fod aza Unry Mp (FM
5. Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM)
Maps issued by the Federal Insurance Administration
illustrating the degree of flood hazard for all areas of a community.
6. Habitable Floor
Any floor used for living, which included working, sleeping,
eating, cooking, recreation, or combination thereof.
7. Mean Sea Level (MSL)
For these regulations, mean sea level shall be taken as the
National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD).

-II -----mm----- : '- msI -I sil PII 1II Is �11 830 I1:- II II 111

8. substantial Improvements
8. Substantypia l Improvements oto collapse and/or lose substantial resistance to overturning.
Any repair, reconbtruction, or improvement of a structure, the The requirements of this code supplement are intended to
cost of which equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure significantly increase the likelihood of structure survival during 100 year
before the improvement Is started. t u t r u v v a u i g 10ya
Sbef ore the improvement is started. Pstorm events, without placing the construction cost of ordinary cottages
Section. Procedure APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT or homes beyond the point of economic feasibility
I. Procedure for Submission Section 5. RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. ONE- OR TWO-FAMILY.
a. Submit two (2) copies of construction drawings and WOOD FRAME
specifications; elevation showing ground elevation above MSL and 1. Fundamental Rule. All structural elements must be fastened
temporary bench mark signed by a land surveyor or engineer registered together and anchored to the ground in such a manner as to resist design
to practice in the State of Alabama, bearing his seal and signature. forces, regardless of which direction these forcess may come from.
b. For two-family structures, the requirements of The 2. Foundations. Only timber supports are addressed in this
Registration Act, No. 79-676, State of Alabama, passed July 30, 1979, section. Other materials and methods may be used if the requirements of
must be met when applicable. Section 6 are met.
2. Plans Required for Approval a. The lowest horizontal member supporting the lowest floor
a. Plot Plan. Submit two (2) copies attached to the construction must be elevated above the 100 year base flood elevation plus the wave
drawings, showing the dimension and bearings of the property lines and height dictated by the National Flood Insurance Administration.
dimensioned location of the proposed structure. b. Piles shall be pressure treated to prevent decay and resist
b. Foundation Plan. This plan shall show construction details attack from insects.
of ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~thStackue s u prt ami nem b es.
af the structures suppor t members. c. Minimum tip of round piling shall be 8" and square piling
~~~~~~~~~~c. Floor Plan ~shall be 8".
C~I:~~~~ d. ElevatIons d.Piling must be designed to provide dead load support as
e. Wall Sections and Construction Details. Drawings indicating well as the anticipated live loads associated with the 100 year flood
in detail the connectors and/or methods used to provide continuous event.
interconnection from the foundation support to the roof framing(Figures e.. Piling shallhave a minimum :embSedentf5'bl sea:-
:li ::ad VIII);:shovwing!2 x!8 Xi brocing on pilesi(Figure !il);a-nd '3/";o-r level or a minimum of 10' 0", whichever:is t$he gieater. The:only
1/2" galvanized bolts with 2" washers on both ends of bolts. Show 1" x 4" exception to this would. be where structure loads or characteristics
let-in bracing (Figure V), or diagonal shething (Figure IX). require greater embedment to meet the provisions of Section 4.
f. Roof Framing Plan. Plans shall include a view of the roof f. Piles shall be bolted to all structural support members with
structure, indicating the size, spacing, and bracing of all roof members, not less than two 5/8" diameter galvanized bolts with minimum 2"
Where prfbricted truseare used, a manufacturer's drawing of the diameter washers.
truss shall be attached to the plans and shall bear the seal and signature g. No two girders shall join on the same piling unless it is on
of the engineer approving them. the outside piling.
g. Electrical, Plumbing, and Mechanical Details. h. Alternate pile bracing as shown in Figure III A.
h. SpecificatIons. 3. Floor Framing.
Section 4. DESIGN CRITERIA a. Maximum spacing of all framing shall be 16" o.c.
Design criteria stated herein are supplements to the existing b. All floor joists shall be fastened into girders or beams with
Southern Standard Building Code and supersede where overlapping galvanized hurricane clips or straps at each joist and nailed with four ad
occurs. WdLod.galvanized nails.
1. Wind Loads. All components of the framing envelope of a c. Boxed floor joists may be allowed (see Figure IV), or canti-
structure shall be designed to withstand the wind loads stipulated in the lever floor systems if it does not go beyond the girder or beam more than
Southern Standard Building Code with a 2:1 factor of safety. The 12". Longer cantilever could be permitted at discretion of Building
overturning moment and uplift forces calculated from wind pressure Official (see Figure II).
shall not exceed 50% of the sturcture's resistance. d. Subflooring shall be 3/4" tongue and groove, 6" boards. or
2. Storm Waves. The forces of a wave may be realized when one 3/4" plywood nailed with 2-8d nails to each joist or nailed 6" apart on
considers that a cubic yard of water weighs over three-fourths of a ton, plywood of minimum of 3/4" thickness, using a combination of 1/2"
Therefore, when a breaking wave moves shoreward at speeds of up to 50 plywood and particle board or masonite.
MPH, the resultant forces can be one of the most destructive elements of e. Where boxed floor joists are used, all joists shall rest on 2" x
a hurricane. Waves also cause damage by impacting structures with 4" ledger. Use 3-16d galvanized nails at each joist. If joists larger than 8"
floating debris and by undermining support members causing sturctures are utilized, undercut bearing end to fit ledger (Figure IV).

4. Wall Construction.
4. MWall Consruction. 0 <Section 7. CHANGE TO EXISTING STRUCTURES
a. Maximuib spacing of all wall studs shall be 16" o.c. Non-substantial improvements to existing structures may be per-
b. Each stud shall be fastened to floor and roof framing with 1" mitted if, in the opinion of the Gulf Shores Building Official, the
x 24" - 18 gouge galvanized hurricane straps with 4-8d galvanized nails at reuirements of this code supplement are met.
each end (see Figure X), except where siding ties floor joists together Section B. INSPECTIONS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~with studs. ~Inspections are made at various intervals of construction, and no
c. Corner bracing shall be as in Figures V and VI. All corners work shall be done beyond these stages. Two days' notice is required for
shall be braced and where partition joins outside walls. the inspection.
d. Horizontal straps shall be installed at top and bottom plates 1. First Inspection. If on pilings, the first inspection shall be when
on all exterior corners. Minimum strap size shall be 1" x 24" - 18 gouge. pilings are set in place, all floor framing, braces, and sub-floor installed.
Straps shall be fastened with 8d galvanized nails at each end (see Figure If a building is built on slab or on piers, the first inspection shall be made
VII). after trenches are excavated and forms erected, all rod, wire mesh,
e. Windows and exterior doors must have manufacturer's vapor barrier, and termite treatment made and bond presented.
certification that the unit will withstand the wind loads stipulated in the 2. Second Inspection. When all roof, wall framing, braces, outside
Southern Standard Building Code. sheathing, roof sheathing, and all plumbing and electrical rough-in are
5. Roof Framing complete.
a. Each truss or rafter shall be connected to the nearest stud 3. Final Inspection. The final inspection is made after the building
below with I" x 24" - 18 gauge galvanized metal straps, or approved is complete and ready for occupancy. The building shall not be occupied
hurricane straps. until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. The Building Inspector will
b. Roof decking shall be 3/4" tongue and groove 6" boards issue this on the final inspection, if the structure passes all code
nailed with 2-8d galvanized nails into each rafter and/or truss or 1/2' requirements.
plywood (4-ply) nailed no more than 6" o.c. Plyclips shall be used with Section 9. EXHIBITS
plywood. Exhibits A (Piling Spacing), B (Detail Thru-Joists), C (Piling Cross
c. All asphalt or fiberglass asphalt shingles shall be of the Bracing), D (Typical Section - Alternate Pile Bracing), E (Floor Joist
"Seal-Tab" type and shall have a maximum exposure of 4". Details), F (Detail Let-in Corner Bracing), G (Detail Plywood Corner
6. Plumbing Bracing), H (Wall to Floor Framing), I (Wall to Roof Framing), J and K, are
a. Septic tanks and absorption fields shall be installed attached hereto and are specifically made a part of this ordinance.
according to Baldwin County Health Department regulations. ADOPTED, this the 26th day of October, 1981,
b. Water heater shall not be placed below finished floor
elevation.
c. Supply and drain piping shall be securely fastened to floor ff1Z _4
members, and all vertical runs to ground level shall be strapped to MAYOR
support piles.
7. Mechanical/Electrical. No electrical appliance shall be install- ATTEST:
ed below finished floor level. Air conditioner compressors may rest on
cantilever floor joists. Fastening shall be provided to accomplish the
provisions of Section 4, 4.01.
Section 6. BUILDINGS OTHER THAN ONE- OR TWO-FAMILY WOOD own Ca rk/Adistrator
FRAME STRUCTURES
1. This section is intended to cover commercial buildings, condo- I, Don E. Howell, Town Clerk/Administrator of the Town of Gulf Shores,
miniums, apartments, etc. Also included are one- and two-family units Alabama, dohereby certify that the fregoing is true and correct cpy
utilizingabama do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy
utilizing non-wood structural components. of Ordinance No. 222, which was duly and legally adopted at a regular
2. All structures in this category shall be designed by an architect meeting of the Town Council on October 26. 1981. Posted, via, Municipal
or engineer to meet the requirements of the Southern Standard Building Building, Pubic Library, Polie Station, and nited States Po st Officipal
Code for coastal high hazard areas. He/She shall affix his/her official Building, Public Library PoliceSttion and UnitedStates PostOffice, all
seal and signature to all drawings, specifications, and accompanying n Gulf Shores Alabama.
data. See The Registration Act No. 79-676, State of Alabama, passed July
30, 1979. Cr/Ai
Town Clerk/Administrator

-s: :-- :m : : : - :

PIIIr, VA

II II '~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~WAHRSC;THROUG0Ht: - JOISTS ATRGIDR

Pd Plt IAT
11M P(''A. rOP 1101110. Ci

PILTIM,~ ~ ~ -POU 2-51. 2-/0 LV BOLTS. DETSI

ii liii ii~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A.f WASHEY A THROUGHF JOISTS A

[~~~~~~rrip I

L.E.P. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~LE5 0/224180b.FIREI

-CROSS-RRACMN

/18" GALV BOLTS
VITH TWO WASHERS
EACH AS SHOWN
THROUGH BRACING
2" all' SYP PRESSURE L~i
TREATED CROSS-BRACITIG AT
EACH CORNER flID CENTER RO
AT OUTSIDE JOINIT.

CORNER WILDI WNG
BEACH SIDE

PILING CROSS-BRACING
PL.AN VIEW
FIGUEIII
PILING CROSS-BR-ACIN

FIGURE I11-A

L.E.S. 9/24/SO L.E.S. 9/24/80

111~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LVTID ONR N 1SD

UNSDERCUIT FILE RELOV! DECKING 1, NI. VALLS O!JTStECRERSECI WITH OUTSIDE

~2-5/R" GALv. BOLTS
JOIST x L 12" GIBIDERS
NOTCH PILE FOR GIRDERS DETAIL
2"4. PRESS!!
TREATED LEDGELE-NCRRBAIG
USE13- 16d E-14C E BRALIN
NAILS AT EACH 3 ST PILING FIGURE V

DETAIL
-. BOXED JOISTS

FIGURE IV

L.E.S. 9124180 L.E.S. 9/24/80

CUT ~"PLYWOOD AS REQuIRES
TO COVER PLATES
CORNER STARPS. I'-x 24". lB GA
GALVAIIIZED KETA

PLYWOOD. FLUSH WITH \I kN
MOTTOP OF OGRDERIS N~J~

FASTEN4 CORNED' PLYW'OOD VITH
Rd GALVANIZED WAILS AT
PILING 4" Oil CENTER Of! EDGES AND
B" Off CENTER ON: STWSS.
LET-I!.! BACIT.'O, 1"' 4' * IF
REQUIRED Of! INTERIOR V'ALLS
INTERSECTING WITH OIITSIr oC
WALLS. ALI, CTRAPS rHALL IEFRMNFIS "x2,10G
IIUSTALLED S INIG FIX (6) TRML SITHA S'x4" tG
Rd WAILS EACH STRA AN
INSTALLED ITUDER SHEATHING

DrTAIL

PLYWOOD CORNVER BRACING

FIG U R E VI 'ALL TO LOOR FRAMNG

FIGURE VII

L.E. 9148 LE.S 9124190

m - m - m - m m m - m m m m -R--TER

CEILING JOIN;T

TOP PLATES.

I-i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~s
CTARPF SHALL. Pr, PLAC~t r:D DEEFvy
- RAFTEMR JI"pr.R

TEIIS JOIY!T PLATE

LEASTI 0O Rd VAILS PER STIlE MPE
TOP AIL BAD

OVERIIATIG IE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1TENCEETIrJG 111711 OUTSIDE:4WALLS.
Ov': ~~~~~~~~~TP PLATES

MI.AEGIIAL EHN.ZATHSlfrC

* IETAL PLAIN. CO'WECTORFIU X

b. TPUSIISEL

WALL TO UKOF FRIJ:Ijr,

Fl~~~lijip VIII l.A - I - 5121/I" ~~~~~~~~~~~~L. E. S. 9/24/80

3/4-- T 9, G SVBFLO~~I
STRUCTURAL~~
SHEATUING ~~ ~
V- x 24", ~~IS AG
GALVA~n~rD STFIMI

IST O 2N FLOR ITERCMIECIOI
FIGU~~~~~r x~

C-12~~~~~~~

APPENDIX D:

DIRECTORY OF STATE AND FEDERAL-AGENCIES

N.C. OFFICE OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT

State Office: Office of Coastal Management
Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611 (919) 733-2293

Field Offices: Office of Coastal Management
DNRCD
108 South Water'Street
Elizabeth City, NC 27909 (919) 338-0206

Office of Coastal Management
DNRCD
P.O. Box 769
Morehead City, NC 28557 (919) 733-2160

Office of Coastal Management
DNRCD
1502 North Market Street
P.O. Box 1507
Washington, NC 27889 (919) 946-6481

Office of Coastal Management
DNRCD
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28401 (919) 256-4161

N. C. DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

State Office: Division of Emergency Management
Department of Crime Control and
Public Safety,
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27611 (919) 733-3867

Area Offices: * For planning regions Q and R--
Area Emergency Management Coordinator
N. C. Division of Emergency Management
607 Bank Street
Washington, NC 27889 (919) 946-2773

D~i

D-1

� For planning regions M, N, O, and P--
Area Emergency Management :Coordinator
N. C. Division of Emergency Management
Route 3, Box 8F
Wallace, NC 28466 (919) 285-2871

N. C. DIVISION OF COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE (National Flood Insurance Program Information)

Flood Insurance Coordinator
Division of:Community Assistance
Department of Natural Resources :
and Community Development
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611 :(919) 733-2850

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

National Office: Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC :20472

Public Information: (202) 287-0300
Publications Department (202) 287-0689

Regional Office: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Region IV
1375 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309

Public Information (404):881-2000
Disaster Assistance Prog. (404) 881-3641
Flood Insurance Program (404) 881-2391

D-2
. 0 0 X t; l 0 0 \ t y SI

f ; 0 t~~~

: ; ; ::~~~~~~~~

: : . \ 0 : : l:S; S S;: DD :S

: : E : ::0 X :: f t C: 0 ;: I

: : : ':; : i; : :: : :::::: :::0:: :: ::::;:I
f : f: - ;: Xf :'; t : t: ; \ f :f t fD-2: