Delaware coastal storm damage report, 1923-1974

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

Z-
-'c'oasta zOne@
information
Center

8 r" "I "I"
WN

GB
459.4
D45
1977

77
74
COASTAL

TECHNICAL REPORT NUMBER 4 SEPTEMBER 1977
DELAWARE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
DOCUMENT NO. 1003-78-01-05

CREDITS
Mi 1 ton, DE Original manuscript prepared by the Department of
March 7, 1962 Geography, University of Delaware:

Susan C. Friedlander
Sara E. Jackson
Judith S. Lansdale
John R. Mather
Donna A. Murray
Peter W. Rees
Elizabeth A. Schellhardt
Frank J. Swave
Massey's Ditch, DE
March 13, 1962

Prepared for the Delaware Coastal Management Program:

David S. Hugg, III, Program Manager
Ken Bessinger
Steve Corazza
Ben Coston
Jerry Homer
Robert MacPherson*.
Rehoboth, DE Nancy Pleasanton
March 8, 1962 John Sherman

Graphics and composition:

Doug Clendaniel
'William F. Fleming
Cora Bonniwell

Rehoboth, DE
March 8, 1962

*Formerly with Program Staff.

The preparation of this report was financed in part
South Bethany, DE through a Coastal Zone Management Program Development
March 13,,1962-@ Grant from the Office of Coastal Zone Management,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under
provisions of Section 305 of the Coastal Z.one Management
Act of 1972.

'* *7

'41

DELAWARE COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REPORT

1923-1974

A Chronicle of Coastal Storms Including
the Perceptions of Coastal Inhabitants
Regarding Their Reactions to the Threat of
Damaging Coastal Storms

With

Recommendations to Reduce the Impact of Future Storms
on Coastal Residents and Resources

MAR 13 1978
Technical Report Number 4

Delaware Coastal Management Program

April 1977

Original Manuscript Prepared By:

Department-of Geography
University of Delaware
Newark, Del aware

Under Contract to

Office of Management, Budget and Planning (formerly State Planning Office)
Dover, Delaware

Never does Nature say one thing

and Wisdom another

Juvenal (C 60 130 A.D.) Satires

ADDENDUM

THE STORM OF OCTOBER 13-15, 1977

As this technical report was being prepared for printing the Delaware

coast experienced a moderately damaging storm. The Delaware Geologic

Survey has provided this addendum compiling data and observations of

the October 13-15, 1977 storm.

The data presented represenIsinformation that the Delaware Geologic

Survey was able to gather from the several sources acknowledgEdin the

report. This is not a detailed study of the event, but rather a compilation

of basic data that should prove helpful in assessing the nature and effects

of the storm and in predicting the impact of similar future events.

This addendum was prepared by John H. Talley, Delaware Geologic Survey

from field observations on October 14 and 17, 1977 and from data supplied

by the U.S. Geological Survey, National Weather Service, U.S. Coast Guard,

Delaware State Division of Hichways, and private citizens.

This draft report has been prepared from observations made during
the storm and from data collected within three days following the
storm. This report, therefore, is subject to revision and modifi-
cation as additional data become available.

The catagorizing of the degrees of coastal erosion as either
minor, moderate, or severe is arbitrary and is based on our visual
observations during and immediately following the storm.

I. Precipitation Data - October 13-15, 1977

Period of Amount
Location Latitude Longitude Measurement linches)

Yorklyn, DE N390481 W75041' Total Storm 0.71
Wilmington, DE (NWS) N390401 W75036' Total Storm 0.74
Dover, DE (DSHD) N390091 W75031' Total Storm 1.16
Bridgeville, DE N38045' W75037' Total Storm 0.92
Milford, DE N380541 W750281 Total Storm 1.04
Georgetown, DE (U of D) N380381 W75027'' Total Storm 1.04
Lewes, DE N380461 W750091 Total Storm 1.39
Selbyville, DE N380281 W75006' Total Storm 2.50*

Oct. 12-15, 1977

II. Selected Predicted High and Low Tides*(EDST), Oct. 14, 1977

Indian R. Inlet Indian R.Inlet Breakwater Murderkill Woodland
(Bridge)_ (C.G. Station) Harbor Bowers Beach-

low 0300 0336 0341 0513 0722
high 1000 1007 1007 1103 1255
low 1533 1609 1622 1754 2000
high 2220 2227 2228 2324

Taken from: U.S. Department of Commerce
Tide Tables 1977
East Coast of North and
South America
Including Greenland

III. Tide Gage Data, Iridian River Inlet (U.S. Coast Guard Station)
October 14-15, 1977.

Predicted Stage Actual Stage Actual Stage Above Normal
Time MLW datum MLW datum NGVD datum MLW datum
(EDST) (feet) (feet) 1929 (feet) (feet)

10/14/77
0100 +0.7 +2.1 +1.3 +1.4
0200 +0.1 +1.6 +0.8 +1.5 (Est.)
0300 -0.3 +1.4 +0.6 +1.7
0400 -0.4 +1.7 +0.9 +2.1
0500 �0.0 +2.1 +1.3 +2.1 (Est.)
0600 +0.7 +2.4 +1.6 +1.7
0700 +1.4 +3.3 +2.5 +1.9
0800 +2.1 +4.1 +3.3 +2.0
0900 +2.5 +4.7 +3.9 +2.2
1000 +2.7 out of service
1007
1100 +2.5 +5.3 +4.5 +2.8
1200 +2.1 +5.2 +4.4 +3.1
1300 +1.4 +5-0 +4.2 +3.6
1400 +0.6 +4.3 +3.5 +3.7
1500 �0.0 +3.6 +2.8 +3.6
1600 -0.3 +3.1 +2.3 +3.4
1609
1700 -0.2 +2.7 +1.9 +2.9
1800 +0.2 +2.9 +2.1 +2.7
1900 +0.9 +3.5 +2.7 +2.6
2000 +1.5 +4.0 +3.2 +2.5
2100 +1.9 +4.1 +3.3 +2.2
2200 +2.2 +4.2 +3.4 +2.0
2227
2300 +2.1 +4.2 +3.4 +2.1
2400 +1.8 +3.4 +2.8 +1.6

10/15/77

0100 +1.2 +2.6 +1.8 +1.4
0200 +0.5 +2.0 +1.2 +1.5
0300 -0.1 +1.2 +0.4@ +1.3

Est. = estimated
= high tide
= low tide

IV. Wind Velocityand Direction at U.S. Coast Guard Station,
1-ndian River Inlet on October 13-15, 1977.

Time Velocity
(EDST) Direction (knots)

October 13, 1977 0200 NNW 18
0500 NNE 30
0800 NE 25
1100 NNE 22
1400 NNE 20
1700 NNE 22
2000 NE 21
2300 N 20

October 14, 1977 0200 NNE 35
0500 NNE 32
0800 NNE 40
1100 N 40
1400 NW 35
1700 NNW 20
2000 WNW 12
2300 W 20

October 15, 1977 0200 W 25
0500 W 20
0800 W 20
1100 W 20
1400 W 15

V. Maximum Heights of Tide

Height Latitude Longitude

A. Smyrna River at Rt. 13 +4.17 MSL N-39018'31" W750361341'

B. Murderkill River at
Bowers +7.18 MSL N39003'30" W75023'51"

C. Cedar Creek near
Slaughter Beach +4.96 MSL N38056'06" W75019126"

D. Indian River at Oak
orchard +4.76 MSL N38035'45" W75010'24"

E. Indian River Inlet at
U.S. Coast Guard Station
1100 hrs., 10/14/77 +4.5 MSL N38037' W75004'

VI. Observed and Reported Road Flooding.

Portions of roads closed by Delaware State Division of
Highways due to high water or reported to have been underwater.

A. Rd. 89, Port Mahon.

B. Rd. 349, Pickering Beach

C. Rd. 68, Kitts Hummock.

D. Rd. 18, Bowers Beach.

E. Rt. 36, north of Cedar Creek Bridge.

F. Rd. 203, off of Rt. 36 to Mispillion Light.

G. Rd. 501, South Shore Marina, Indian River Inlet.

H. Rd. 22, in vicinity of Masseys Landing.

VII. Breached or Washover Areas.

A. Northern end of townhouse complex at North Shores north
of Rehoboth Beach.

B. Dewey Beach - minor washover at New Orleans Street.

C. Bethany Beach - minor washovers at Ist St., 4th St.,
Campbell Place, Hollywood St. at the Bethany Arms.
Moderate to severe washovers at Ashwood St. and Cedarwood
St. with streets under at least one foot of water.

D. South Bethany - along most of Ocean Drive which parallels
the ocean.

SUMMARY

1. Strong, 40 knot northeastly winds, gusting to 60 knots
coincided with a high tide in the morning of Friday
October 14, 1977 resulting in minor to severe beach
erosion from Fenwick Island to Cape Henlopen and
along the western shore of Delaware Bay. more extensive
damage and erosion were averted as the tide remained
above normal for only one to one and one-half tide cycles.
In addition, the strong N-NE winds which pushed waves onto
the beaches and into the bays shifted to NW-W in the

Vii

afternoon and evening of October 14 and tended to
push water out of the bays and away from the coast
thereby preventing a second cycle of wave attack on
the beaches and dunes.

2. The degree of beach erosion from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick
Island was not consistent. That is, some areas experi-
enced severe erosion while other areas remained relatively
unaffected.

a. Fenwick Island to Indian River Inlet - moderate
erosion.

b. Indian River Inlet to Old Coast Guard Station -
severe erosion.

C. Old Coast Guard Station to Key Box Road -
moderate erosion.

d. Key Box Road to Indian Beach - minor erosion.

e. Indian Beach to South Rehoboth Beach -
moderate erosion.

f. Rehoboth Beach - minor erosion.

g. Henlopen Acres, North Shore, and Cape Henlopen
State Park - moderate erosion.

3. As in previous coastal storms, the areas which experi-
enced breaches or washovers were concentrated for the
most part in high density residential locations at
South Bethany Beach, Bethany Beach, Sea Colony and
Dewey Beach. The washovers were focused where the dunes
are either relatively narrow and low in elevation or
non-existent. The high and wide dunes in the undeveloped
areas suffered minor to,severe erosion depending upon
their location along the coast; however, they were not
breached.

4. The most severe property damage appeared to be concen-
trated along Ocean Drive in South Bethany Beach where
bulkheads were damaged, fences were destroyed, parking
areas were undermined, and septic systems were exposed.

5. Natural beach buildup and restoration processes were
observed on Monday, October 17 along the Atlantic coast.
Such processes are expected to continue at a relatively
rapid rate. However, natural restoration of the dunes
is a very slow process and they will have to be recon-
structed for the most part by man.

Viii

6. The maximum height of tide recorded at the tide gage
at the U.S. Coast Guard Station, Indian River Inlet,
was 4.51 above MSL (NGVD 1929) or 2.8' above normal.
This level was approximately one foot higher than the
peak attained during the coastal storm of December 1-2,
1974. The maximum tide level at Oak Orchard was 4.761
above MSL or 0.06 feet lower than that recorded in
December, 1974. The beach and dune system along the
Atlantic Coast prevented the tide levels behind the
barrier beaches from reaching the levels attained in
the open Atlantic Ocean.

Maximum tides in the Delaware Bay areas were only
slightly below (1.38' to 0.63') those recorded in
December, 1974. Nevertheless, several Delaware Bay
communities were surrounded by high waters rising
through the marshes. Roads to several of these
communities were under water and wereclosed by the
Delaware State Division of Highways.

7. The outgoing tides in the late morning and early
afternoon of October 14 along with a change in wind
direction from NE to NW-W prevented the water levels in
the Rehoboth, Indian River, and Little Assawoman Bays
from reaching areawide damaging flood levels.

8. Areas subjected to tidal flooding in the back-barrier
bays included the South Shore Marina, the trailer park
near the Old Inlet Bait and Tackle store along Rt. 1,
and Rd. 22 near Masseys Landing. These areas are
situated close to the Indian River Inlet - the channel
through which ocean waters enter the back-barrier bays.

INTRODUCTION

One of the most important aspects of coastal management is the deter-

mination of areas subject to natural hazards. Development of many of

Delaware's coastal communities has accelerated since the storm of

March 1962 and a new generation of coastal dweller, unfamiliar with such

events, has emerged. Moreover, it can be reasonably expected that without

adequate information regarding the vulnerability of some areas to such

natural phenomena the future potential for damage will increase substantially.

This technical report provides the information necessary to properly man-

age the access to and development of coastal areas suscentible to wave

action, tidal and other flooding phenomena.

The report has two major purposes; first, presentation of data des-

cribing the frequency of coastal storms in chronicle form and assessment

of coastal community flooding and storm damage as a result of the March 1962

and December 1974 storms; and second, an assessment based on personal inter-

views, of individual perceptions of and behavioral reactions in resPonse to

the coastal storm phenomena.

Finally, the report presents conclusions and recommendations for future

research needs, changes in public policy, and hurricane and coastal storm

awareness activities.

This is Technical Report Number 4 prepared for the Delaware Coastal Man-

agement Program. The conclusions and recommendations included are solely

those of the authors of the original manuscript and do not necessarily

reflect the opinions or support of the Office of Management, Budget and

Planning or the Office of Coastal Zone Management of the U.S. Department

of Commerce.

xii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Depa rtment of Geography wishes to express its appreciation to the

Delaware State Planning Office, David Keifer, Director*, for the opportunity

to undertake this study as part of the Delaware Coastal Management Program.

The project was supported by funds made available, in part,through a Coastal

Zone Management Program Development Grant from the Office of Coastal Zone Manage-

ment, NOAA, under provisions of Section 305 of the Coastal Zone Management Act

of 1972 (Public Law 92-583). We are particularly grateful for the encouragement,

guidance and editorial suggestions offered by Mr. David Hugg and Mr. Benjamin

Coston of the State Planning Office.

We wish to acknowledge especially those students and associates of the

University of Delaware who ably conducted the field work, information

gathering and data analyses. Specifically, Dr. Eric Muller who directed

the 1975 field study interview program; George R. Irwin, Sharon Baynes and

Curt Philipp for their help in the compilation of the storm damage chronicle;

Deborah Dunlap, Daniel Reikes, Betsy Calhoun and Elizabeth Schellhardt,

who helped the writers of this report collect and analyze the data from more

than 800 individual interviews; and John Gorton and Edward Dunlop for their

assistance with the computer analyses of the questionnaire responses.

Our sincere appreciation is extended to Mrs. Elizabeth Zimmerman for

cheerfully typing the report under the usual hectic last-minute conditions.

I@As of January 24-.1977, the State Planning Office became part of the Office
of Management, Budget and Planning, Nathan Hayward 111, Director.

Xiii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

1. COASTAL STORM DAMAGE, 1923-1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Types of Coastal Storms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Causes of Coastal Damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The Storm Chronicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Storm Chronicle . . . . . . . . . . . . * * * * * * ' ' * * 16
Damage Summary by County, March 1962 Storm . . . . . . . . 29
Storm Data - December 1-2, 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

11. COMMUNITY FLOODING STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
[laps . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Land Development Overlays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Damage Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Small Scale Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * 48
Special Aerial Photograph Maps From Storm of March 1962. . 48

III. COMMUNITf DAMAGE PROFILES . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 53
Bowers Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Slaughter Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Broadkill Beach. . * * ' * * ' ' * * * * ' ** ' ' * ' * * 68
North Shores and Henlopen Acres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Rehoboth Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Dewey Beach Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . q9
Oak Orchard - Riverdale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Bethany Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
South Bethany Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Fenwick Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

IV. PERCEPTUAL AND BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS TO TH E FLOODING HAZARD. . . 149
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Methodoloay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Analysis and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Scale: Between Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Scale: Individual Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Bowers Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Slaughter Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Broadkill Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Henlopen Acres Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Rehoboth Beach #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Rehoboth Beach #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Dewey Beach Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Oak Orchard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Bethany Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
South Bethany Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Fenwick Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Scale: Within Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Bowers Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Slaughter Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Broadkill Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
Henlopen Acres - North Shores . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Rehoboth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

'Dewey Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Oak Orchard and Riverdale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
Bethany Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M
South Bethany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Fenwick Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Limitations in the Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
Future Research Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Recommendations for Policy Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Hurricane Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

APPENDIX I PERSONAL INTERVIEW QUESIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

APPENDIX II RESPONSES TO SELECTED QUESTIONS BY COMMUNITY. 281

APPENDIX III GRAPHICAL COMPARISONS OF SELECTED RESPONSES BET14EEN
COMMUNITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315

APPENDIX IV GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF STORM TIDE DATA, DELAWARE
COAST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325

APPENDIX V SYMAP MAPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383

APPENDIX VI STORM PHOTOGRAPHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423

xvi

ILLUSTRATIONS
Page

Figure I - Frequency of Coastal Storm Damaging The Eastern United
States (1921-1964) . . . . . . . . ' ' * * * .* ' * ' * * . . 2
Figure 2 - Frequency of Coastal Storms Causing Significant Damage to
the Coastal Zone of Delaware (1923-1974) . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 3 - Regions of Relative Coastal Storm Damage Hazard . . . . . . . 5
Figure 4 - Height and Duration of Coastal Storms at Breakwater Harbor,
Lewes, Delaware.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 8
Figure 5 - Estimated Recurrence Interval of Various Storm Surge
Elevations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 6 - Developed Area of Bowers 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Figure 7 - Developed Area of Slaughters Beach 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Figure 8 - Developed Area of Slaughters Beach 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Figure 9 - Developed Area of Broadkill Beach 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Figure 10 - Developed Area of Broadkill Beach 1972 . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Figure 11 - Developed Area of North Shores/Henlopen Area 1960 . . . . . 76
Figure 12 - Developed Area of Rehoboth Beach 1960 . . . . . . . . . . .. 83
Figure 13 - Developed Area of Dewey Beach 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Figure 14 - Developed Area of Oak Orchard 1962 . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Figure 15 - Forecasting Curves for Shallow-water Waves Constant
Depth = Five Feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . 105
Figure 16 - Forecasting Curves for Shallow-water Waves Constant
Depth - Ten Feet . . . . . * * ' i-',*1*7* * * * ' * * * * 105
Figure 17 - Indian River Power Plant December 3 9 4 . . . . . . . . 108
Figure 18 - Indian River Power Plant December 8-10, 1973 . . . . . . . 109
Figure 19 - Indian River Power Plant September 20-22, 1972 . . . . . . 110
Figure 20 - Developed Area of Bethany 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Figure 21 - Developed Area of South Bethany 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Figure 22 - Developed Area of Fenwick Island 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Figure 23 - Bowers Beach Street Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Figure 24 - Slaughters Beach Street Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Figure 25 - Broadkill Beach Street Hap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Figure 26 - Henlopen Acres/North Shores Street Map . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Figure 27 - Rehoboth Street Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Figure 23 - Dewey Beach Street Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
Figure 29 - Oak Orchard/Riverdale Street Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Figure 30 - Bethany Beach Street Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Figure 31 - South Bethany Street Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Figure 32 - Fenwick Island Street Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Figure 33 - Population Change in the United States By States, Counties
and Subdivisions 1960-1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

xvii

TABLES
Page

Table 1 Storm Data at Atlantic City, New Jersey and the Delaware
Breakwater at Lewes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 2 Extreme Winds . . . . . . * * * * ' * ' * * * ' * * * * ' ' * ' 13
Table 3 Damages Resulting From Storm of March 1962 Cape Henlopen to
Fenwick Island (July 1962 Prices) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Table 4 Storm Data: Duration and Maximum Tide Height for Coastal
Storms (1952-1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 39
Table 5 Broadkill Beach, Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Table 6- The Responses to Three Basic Issues: Flood Hazard Perception,
Preventive Measures and R6sponsibilities at Three Different
Geographical Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Table 7- Population Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Table 8- Selected Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Table 9- Coastal Population With no Mederate or Severe Hurricane
Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

xviii

1. COASTAL STORM DAMAGE, 1923*-1974*

The period since World War II has been marked by an accelerating develop-

ment of the coastal margins of eastern United States. Single family homes,

condominiums, marinas, trailer courts-, motels--nearly every possible type

of dwelling along with the necessary stores and other commerical establish-

ments--have all been built along the barrier island coast fringing the coastal

plains of the eastern United States. Coastal dunes have been leveled to pro-

vide-a better view of the ocean while marsh lands have been filled to provide

land for additional homes. Myriads of canals and waterways have been cut

into the coastal margins providing improved ways for floodwaters to move inland

to the very heart of the coastal communities.

That the rapid, and, in large measure, haphazard development of the

coastal margin has resulted in an increase in flood damage, seems to be borne

out by a recent study of the frequency of coastal storms damaging portions of

the eastern United States (Mather, et al., 1967). Figure I from that study

shows a significant increase in the number of storms bringing damage since

the mid-1940's. While the specific reasons for the rising trend are not

completely clear (due to meteorological changes, better storm reporting or

the human development of the coast), it is certain that there has been a rapid

development of the coast. This factor, if not entirely responsible for the

increase in the incidence of damaging storms, is certainly a significant con-

tributing factor.

*For the purposes of this report, approximately the last fi.fty years of
published records were selected for analysis. While numerous storms
were recorded prior to 1923, data on them is sketchy as is information
about the total number and frequency of damaging storms in earlier periods.
Interested readers are encouraged to send information on pre-1923 damaging
storms to the author or the Office of Management, Budget and Planning.

FIGURE 1
FREQUENCY OF COASTAL STOPd4 DAMAGING THE EASTERN
UNITED STATES
(1921-1964)

13--

12--

10--

9--

7--
LL.
0
of 6--
MA

5--

z
4-

3--

2--

ir,

21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63

YEARS

Courtesy of J. R. Mather

While the Delaware coastline has also experienced rapid development in

the past few decades, there seems to be only a small increase in the fre-

quency of coastal storms causing damage in this area. A graphical repre-

sentation of the frequency of damaging coastal storms in Delaware is

shown in Figure 2. Forty-one coastal storms of various types, all bringing

damage to coastal communities with flooding and/or wave-action, have been

documented during the fifty-one years from 1923 to 1974. During the past

twenty-five years, twenty-four significant storms have occurred. The apparent

increase in the frequency of storms causing damage is probably more related

to the increased coastal development along with more accurate reporting and

greater interest in these coastal areas than an actual increase in the number

of damage-producing storms.

Even if the actual meteorological frequency and severity of storms should

remain constant, the magnitude of damage will continue to rise as a result of

increasing population and development of Delaware's coast. No trend has been

found to indicate an increase in the actual number or severity of coastal storms

in Delaware.

Based on studies of storm hazard potential for the entire eastern sea-

board of the United States, Mather,-et al. (1967), determined that the Delmarva

Peninsula and the New Jersey coast have a "low" storm hazard potential.

Figure 3 summarizes the regions of relative coastal storm damage hazard from

1935 through 1964. Occasional severe storms do occur within the "low" hazard

coastal areas but relative to areas such as Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and the

Cape Hatteras area of North Carolina, Delaware is less likely to experience

severe or repeated storm damage.

swaois jo a3ownN
JL
-A

Fri

on
0
F-3>
w cn
t7l @-3

F@ C-) It
0 F-A
> in C)
U.,0 C--
FA 1-3 pd
F, @> @ m
En

4A
0 C)
>
0- (--
cn
0 P-1
171 z

En
t-4 F-4

F-4

04
-IL

ON
0%

0@
co

FIGURE 3

REGIONS OF RELATIVE COASTAL STORM DAMAGE HAZARD

"1935 1944 '1945 1954, 1955 1964

Hazard Scale Hazard Scale Hazard Scale
V,
low less than 11
low less 40' 6 low less rbon6

6 10 6 10 moderate 11 20

moderate 11 20 nsideroble 21 30
co

great over 3C

TOTAL NUMBER OF STORMS CAUSING SIGNIFICANT a HEAVY
DAMAGE IN PERIOD, WITH HEAVY DAMAGE STORMS BEING
GIVEN DOUBLE WEIGHT.

TYPES OF COASTAL STORMS

Storms of two basic types present a significant threat to Delaware's

coastal zone.

Tropical storms and hurricanes, spawned over the warm ocean waters of

the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean, are probably the best known and

most feared storms. Hurricanes, characterized by winds of seventy-five miles

per hour or greater, and heavy rains plague the Gulf and Atlantic seaboards

in the summer and autumn.

Extratropical storms., often called "northeasters", present a particular

problem to the Atlantic seaboard. Such storms ma.y develop as strong, low-

pressure areas and move slowly offshore into the Atlantic Ocean. The winds,

though not of hurricane force, blow onshore from a northeasterly or easterly

direction for sustained periods of time. The damage wrought by these storms

may ultimately far exceed the destruction from a hurricane. The March 1962

"northeaster" proved that point decisively. Flood height and duration for

extratropical storms have equaled or exceeded those of hurricanes brushing

Delaware. Although hurricanes are significant to Delaware, the extratropical

storms are equally important as damage and flood producing events.

Based on tide gage records, the average storm duration for all storms

recorded at Breakwater Harbor (Lewes) from 1952 to 1973 was approximately forty

hours. Storm duration defined on meteorological records would show a con-

siderably shorter duration. The differences are due to the time lag between

the passing of the storms and the continued elevation of the water along the

shoreline. The return of normal tide levels often requires s6veral hours or
even days. Thus, even though the storm itself has passed, high water and coastal

flooding may persist. By defining storm duration based on hydrographic (tide)

data a more realistic evaluation of coastal flood duration is possible.

In Delaware from 1952 through 1973, twenty-six coastal storms of various

magnitudes have been identified (Figure 4). Fourteen of these storms were

extratropical storms (northeasters) occurring between the months of September

and May. The remaining twelve storms were tropical storms or hurricanes.

Causes of Coastal Damage

The intensity and thus the damage-producing potential of coastal storms,

is related to the following primary meteorologic correlations:

1. Winds - including velocity, direction, fetch and duration;

2. Storm track - including the direction of movement, position relative

to the coastline and speed that the storm moves across the earth's surface;

3. Precipitation - including the volume, duration and rate of precipitation.

Although the factors above are the primary forces, they are not the major

causes of damage or loss of life in the coastal areas. Those factors are the

storm surge and wave action.

Storm surge - The magnitude of the surge involves the interaction between

wind, the surface of the sea and the slope of the near-shore sea bottom. In

shallow coastal waters, the storm winds can produce a surface current that flows

in the direction of the wind movement. These currents are the product of the

shear stresses at the ocean surface caused by the movement of air across the

sea surface. The wind-produced current produces a "piling-up" of water, particu-

larly in the shallow coastal estuaries, bays, canals and near-shore areas

along the leeward coast. A significant rise in water level also accompanies

the marked reduction in atmospheric pressure that occurs with tropical

hurricanes. When the effects of winds or tides are removed, we find

FIGURE 4

HEIGHT AND DURATION OF COASTAL STORMS
AT BREAKWATER HARBOR, LEWES, DELAWARE

100-- (SEPTEMBER 1962 THROUGH DECEMBER 1973) 8

90-- 7

Maximum Tide Level
80-- 6

A erage Storm Tide Level C
----------- 5 :2

E
60--
0
.2

50-- 3
00
Average Storm Duration 2

E
0 30--

20-- MSL
101
0
P M c1d C14 C4 C14 C14
L0
9
00 M N L0 r, 8 C@ tb v) cq a) c,4 v4 0 Ln
r@ *7 17 C@ Q. c@ c@ 7 - 04 d) c@ r@ 1@ c@ cN
0) 0) 00 0) Lr) CY 00 a C14 C14 (6 0 r4 M 0
@ I I I C" C"
Legend:
F-1 Tropical Storm - Hurricane Extra Tropical Storm - Northeaster

1) Storm Duration is defined as the period of time that tide level generated
by each storm exceeded one foot (I ft.) above the.normal tide level.
2) Tide gauge records are incomplete during the 1952 to 1974 period. The tide
gauge was destroyed in 1974 by fire and has not been replaced as of August, 1976.

that sea level rises thirteen inches for each drop of one inch of mercury

in the barometer. Tropical storms and hurricanes may have barometric pressures

well below 28.0 inches in the "eye" of the storm, or nearly 2.0 inches below

normal sea level pressure of 29.92 inches. The result could be a sea level

rise of twenty-six inches from this factor alone. An extreme example was

provided by Hurricane Camille (1969) in which the central pressure was 26.61

inches of mercury. That pressure resulted in a forty-four inch rise in water

level from this factor alone as the "eye" moved onto the Gulf Coast.

The term storm surge, when associated with a hurricane, includes the rise

of water level due to both the wind stress on the water and the rise due to

atmospheric pressure reduction. The effect of the storm surge on the coast

depends on the interaction between normal tidal action and the storm-produced

water level rise. For example, if the time of normal high tides coincides

with the surge, the overall effect will be greater. If the surge occurs at

low or falling tide, the impact will likely be lessened. Slowly moving

'Inortheasters" may continue to build a surge that lasts through several lunar

high tides. Such a condition occurred during the March 1962 storm. That

storm lasted for five high tides with a devastating effect on the coast.

Wave action - Storm damage to a shoreline is primarily the result of
wind generated waves riding landward on the elevated water surface (storm

surge). Waves develop from the shear stress forces between winds and water.

Huge destructive waves can be generated by extreme storms. As waves move

into the shallow waters along the coast they steepen and "break", expending

a tremendous amount of energy. Waves traveling at thirty to fifty miles per

hour in storms are not uncommon. One cubic yard of seawater weighing in

excess of 1,620 pounds and moving at thirty miles per hour presents an obvious

destructive potential to beaches, houses, bridges, roads or other structures

in its path.

The amount of energy in a wave is a function of the product of the wave

length (horizontal distance between successive wave crests) and the square

of the wave height. Thus the energy in three waves, one 4 feet high, one

8 feet high and one 12 feet high has been calculated as 33 foot-tons, 131

foot-tons and 295 foot-tons respectively. With a three-fold increase in wave

height, there is nearly a nine-fold increase in energy. Offshore wave heights

for the March 1962 storm were observed to be of the order of forty feet. The

destructive potential of that storm is almost beyond comprehension.

Actual maximum wind velocity, mean wind direction and measured tide

levels for Atlantic City, New Jersey and Breakwater Harbor, Lewes, Delaware

are given in Table 1 for a thirty-year period between 1933 and 1963. The

data are for eighteen separate storm periods.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers analyzed tide gage records at Atlantic

City, New Jersey, from 1937 through 1963 to calculate the statistical relation-

ship between magnitude and frequency of storm tide levels. Figure 5

illustrates that the probability of a storm surge of the magnitude of the March

1962 storm is five times in each 100 years or a probability of once each twenty

years. The "100-yedr" (still water level) tide level according to this graph

is ten feet above the sea level datum of 1929.*

No realistic or useful definition of the "100-year coastal storm" is

available because of the complexity of meteorologic and oceanographic

*The sea level datum of 1929 is now called the National Geodetic Vertical
Datum of 1929.

FIGURE 5
ESTIMATED RECURRENCE INTERVAL OF VARIOUS STORM SURGE ELEVATIONS

DERIVED FROM A PARTIAL DURATION
:)14 SERIES OF HIGH TIDE STAGES FROM
I.- CONTINUOUS TIDE RECORD (U.S.C.&G.S.
GAGE AT ATLANTIC CITY, NJ 193763)
12 ItI
GRAPHIC EXTENSION TO STANDARD
PROJECT HURRICANE STAGE OF 14 FEET
.410 S.L.U. PLOTTEO AT ASSIGNED FREQUENCY
OF 0.2

>
0
RCH 1962
NOVEMBER 1950

z
2

0
05.1 .2 .5 1 25 10 20 50 so 98 99.9 99.99
FREOLIENCY IN EVENTS PER .100 %E&RS

Source: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (1966) Beach Erosion Control
@NROC HV E

and Hurricane Protection along the Delaware Coast.

TABLE 1

Storm Data at Atlantic City, New Jersey
and the Delaware Breakwater at Lewes

Maximum Wind
at Atlantic City Highest Tide

Storm Type of Atlantic
Date Name Storm Direction Velocityl City Breakwater

feet feet
miles above above
per mean sea mean sea
hour level level

8/33 Tropical E 76 5.0 6.1
11/35 Extratropical NE 66 5.3 --
9/36 Tropical NE 90 4.7
9/36 Tropical W 72 4.1
9/44 Tropical NE 91(q) 7.6 --
N 82(V)
11/50 Extratropical E 72 7.0 7.2
10/53 Extratropical N 29 6.1 6.0
11/53 Extratropical NE 69(G) 5.0 5.4
NE 65(V)
8/54 Carol Tropical NE 57 4.4 3.7
9/54 Edna Tropical NE 65 4.6 --
10/54 Hazel Tropical SE 80(G) 4.6 4.6
SE 66
8/55 Connie Tropical S 65 4.0 4.4
8/55 Diane Tropical SW 49 3.6 4.1
10/55 Tropical E 60 5.0 5.1
9/56 Flossy Tropical E 54 4.9 5.6
9/60 Donna Tropical WNW 83(G) 6.1 5.2
3/62 Extratropical E 58(g) 7.2 7.9
10/63 Flora Tropical NE 30 4.0 4.0

i.Generally fastest mile or highest I-minute value. (G) denotes gust and (V) denotes
5-minute value.

SOURCE: Beach erosion control and hurricane protection along the Delaware coast,
1966. Beach Erosion Control Board, Philadelphia District, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.

variables involved. Predictions of storm-generated tide levels without the

added increment of wave height can be obtained from available empirical ex-

pressions. Table 2 lists the extremes of wind and waves predicted for the

Delaware Bay and Delaware offshore areas for recurrence intervals of five,

ten, twenty-five and fifty-year time periods.

TABLE 2

Extreme Winds

Delaware Bay.Area

Mean Recurrence Interval 5 yrs. 10 yrs. 25 Yrs. 50 yrs.
Maximum Sustained Wind 63 kts. 70 kts. 80 kts. 92 kts.

Offshore Delaware Bay Area

Mean Recurrence Interval 5 yrs. 10 yrs. 25 yrs. 50yrs.
Maximum Sustained Wind 71 kts. 80 kts. 92 kts. 100 kts.

Extreme Waves

Delaware Bay Area

Mean Recurrence Interval 5 yrs. 10 yrs. 25 yrs. 50 yrs.
Max. Significant Wave Ht. 11 yrs. 14 ft. 17 ft. 22 ft.
Extreme Wave Height 20 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. 35 ft.

Offshore Delaware Bay Area

Mean Recurrence Interval 5 yrs. 10 yrs. 25 yrs. 50 yrs.
Max. Significant Wave Ht. 37 ft. 41 ft. 47 ft. 53 ft.
Extreme Wave Height 60 ft. 70 ft. 85 ft. 95 ft.

SOURCE: Rower, et al., 1972

THE STORM CHRONICLE

The following storm chronicle consists of a chronological listing and

synopses of the storms that have brought damage to the coast of Delaware

during the period 1923 through 1974. Information on coastal damage was

collected and summarized from numerous published and unpublished sources

including Federal, State and local governmental agencies and departments as

well as daily and weekly newspapers from the State. A listing of those

newspapers and other published sources that provided significant information

for this study are included at the end of the chronicle.

Although considerable information on storm damage is available, this

chronicle is undoubtedly incomplete. Areas of unreported or undocumented

damage and destroyed or lost records all contribute to defeat any attempt to

reconstruct precisely the history of coastal storm impact in Delaware.

For the purposes of this report, coastal storms are defined as: "those

storms, including hurricanes, "northeasters", tropical storms and cyclones

that caused significant flooding and property damage in the communities

located on the coastal zone of.Delaware". Thus the definition as used does

not limit storms mentioned to only those passing along the coast. Secondly,

storms passing through the mid-Atlantic region that caosed little damage or

caused damage only from large amounts of precipitation and high winds were

not included in this chronicle. Storms of low intensity that caused minor

beach erosion but did not result in washovers, flooding, major erosion or

wave damage to structures were also not included.

Appendix 4 contains a summary of tidal data available from the National

Ocean Survey, Washington, D.C., from the four tidal gaging stations in Delaware

during periods of coastal storm activity. The stations are located at:

1. Breakwater Harbor (Lewes, Delaware);

2. Reedy Point, Delaware (near the mouth of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal);

3. Indian River Coast Guard Station;

4. Delmarva Power and Light Company (Indian River, east of Millsboro,

Delaware).

Many of the comments which follow are excerpts from various published

sources and newspaper accounts. Some have been paraphrased and combined.

No attempt has been made to footnote each comment, however, the bibliography

contains numerous references.

Storm Chronicle

1923

October 24, 1923 East-northeast gale of 50 miles per hour and driving

rain. Along thebeach at Rehoboth much damage was reported to cottages and

the Belhaven Hotel suffered from the buffeting of the waves. Large quantities

of sand from the beach were washed up over the boardwalk. The tide was very

high all along the coast.

1924

March 10-11, 1924 - The northeast winds caused the tides to back up in the

Bay and creeks. Low lands were covered by several inches of water. No damage

reported at Bowers Beach although the tides were higher than experienced there

for many years and waves washed up on the beach within threatening reach of

many of the cottages along the shore.

September 18, 1924 - Rehoboth Beach - At high tide the beach was covered and

waves broke over the top of the pier of the Rehoboth Beach Angler's Club.

The tide was so high that walking was impossible between the beach and the

Lewes life-saving station. The marshes on the fringes of Rehoboth Bay were

also covered.

1927

February 19-21, 1927 - At Delaware City the banks of the Chesapeake and

Delaware Canal were broken in many places. Both entrances to the canal were

badly damaged. Several hundred thousand dollars were needed to repair the

damage. New Castle, Milford, Bowers Beach, Seaford, Lewes and Rehoboth were

also flooded and damage was reported. The gale wind estimated at from 65

to 70 miles per hour caused the highest tides along the coast in 20 years

and floated several wooden bridges along streams leading into Delaware

Bay.

At Bowers Beach, 2 1/2 feet of sand was eroded from the beach. The seas

at the height of the storm reached 20 feet. All the cottages built on floats

were washed into the marshes.

At Slaughter Beach the tide washed over the beach into the marsh and

,tore down a section of the boardwalk. No cottages were destroyed.

At Lewes the wind created a storm tide of an unusually high level.

At Rehoboth, the end of the pier was washed away by waves. The steps

leading from the boardwalk to the beach were washed away and considerable

damage was done to the bulkhead which protects the boardwalk. The water in

Rehoboth Bay rose and flooded areas 200 to 300 feet beyond the normal high

water mark.

Another account of the storm reported:

Delaware suffers from the worst storm of the winter. . . tide highest

since 1918, winds backed the water in the Mispillion, flooded the lumberyards

of D.N. Hearn and Company and I.D. Short; water was within a few inches of

reaching the top of the wharves near the community building . . . Sepples lumber-

yard was underwater. All of Clarence Russel's garages were flooded to a depth

of several feet. Dr. William Marshall's garage was flooded. East Front Street

in North Milford was under several feet of water . . . Draper, David and Company,

fertilizer plant, was under three feet of water. Bowers Beach . . . almost

all of area underwater, buildings were carried well up into the marshes

along the public road leading to Bowers. Slaughter Beach . . . water

broke the high beach line and washed over the marsh land into Slaughter Neck.

The road leading to the beach was covered with water for several days. Wind

direction carried the force of the storm away from Rehoboth. Delaware City

and New Castle were hard hit . . . Heavy spring tides flooded the lower section

along the river.

1928

September 20, 1928 - Outside of the damage done to shipping, Lewes escaped

damage from the storm. At Rehoboth, water came up to the first floor of the

Hotel Henlopen. Beach erosion occurred under the boardwalk but the board-

walk escaped damage. Some of the oceanfront lots were badly damaged by

water washing the sand away.

1929

April 17, 1929 - During this gale the water was exceptionally high at Bowers

Beach and Slaughter Beach. At Bowers Beach a bulkhead was destroyed.

1932

November 11, 1932 - At Delaware City there was "much damage" due to the storm.

At Bayview Beach the water rose so high that it flooded the ground floor of

many cottages; also, a 50 foot pier was washed away.

1933

January 26-27, 1933 - Bowers Beach - the entire town was inundated to a

depth of more than a foot due to high tides and heavy rain. Slaughter Beach

the water reached to beneath the boardwalk. Rehoboth - the storm tide

caused wash-overs but no damage was reported. Delaware City - the ten foot.

tide washed up over the lower end of Clinton Street to a depth of two feet

and extended as far as the Robinson House. Rehoboth Angler's Club - half of

the fishing pier was carried away by the waters ($1,000 damage). The water

at times washed over the boardwalk. Bethany Beach - several hundred feet of

the boardwalk were washed away when water reached the first floor of the Sea-

side Inn but caused no damage.

August 22-23, 1933 - Wind velocities at Breakwater Harbor reached 75 miles

per hour, as estimated by Weather Bureau officials. At Bethany Beach the board-

walk and streets were severely damaged and the drainage systems filled with sand.

Rehoboth Beach suffered severe loss of beach and damage to shore structures.

Total estimated damage in the area was $40,000, exclusive of damage due to

loss of beach and damage to State roads (U.S. Corps of Engineers).

The storm lasted 24 hours. The National Guard Camp at Bethany Beach was

flooded. In Rehoboth - water flooded the streets, Silver Lake was flooded

and water entered in the lower floor of Henlopen and Belhaven hotels . . . most

of area between Rehoboth and Lewes was under water. Seawater traveling inland

between Kitts Hummock and Lewes destroyed crops. People had to be removed from,

second-story windows in Kitts Hummock. Fort Saulsbury north of Slaughter Beach

was flooded and Bowers Beach was completely underwater. Basin Road between

Newport and New Castle was damaged by flooding according to the Delaware State

Highway Department.

1934

June 20, 1934 - Bayview Beach was flooded and many seawalls were washed away,

but none of the cottages were seriously affected.

1934

November 18, 1935 - Lewes and Rehoboth were the hardest hit by the 60 mile per

hour gale (declared worst in 30 years). Fear was felt for the safety of the

summer cottages along the Bay as waves pounded high over the beach. The

Lewes Coast Guard Station was marooned and damaged with water within ten

inches of the first floor. Water washed up over the floor of Queen Anne's

Pier. At Rehoboth, the water washed over the boardwalk. Waves washing over

Angler's Pier were reported as high as ten feet.

Another source reported:

The boardwalk at Rehoboth was damaged. Ocean Boulevard between Rehoboth

and Bethany was also damaged. The road from Lewes Beach was under ten inches

of water for a quarter of a mile. The dunes at Silver Lake were breached. The

road between Bethany Beach and National Guard Camp was under several inches of

water.

1936

September 18-19, 1936 - Lewes - two sections of the Queen Anne pier (about

70 feet in all) were washed away. The boardwalk was partly demolished and

about 100 feet of the structure was carried away by waves. Rehoboth -

waves washed up over the boardwalk but the structure was not damaged. Waves

nearly 15 feet high were breaking as far inland as Surf Avenue. Bethany Beach

a large section of boardwalk was washed away. Bowers Beach - water about the

Bowers Beach Hotel was knee-deep. Ocean Boulevard between Rehoboth and'Bethany

Beach was closed.

1937

April 27, 1937 - At Lewes waves washed under the boardwalk at high tide.

The surf was also swirling around cottages at Dewey Beach. Delaware Bay

resorts suffered more than those on the ocean front. Bowers Beach was under

water as waters washed far inland past the town and residents of the low

sections of Bowers Beach took refuge in a general store in the higher,

northernmost end of town. Slaughter Beach also was flooded and took a severe

battering from waves that washed in under the boardwalk and breached the dune

at the southern end of town.

1943

October 1, 1943 - Waves about 20 feet high battered the beachfront at Rehoboth

Beach and sent water tumbling over the boardwalk. An unusually high tide

caused a section of road between Lewes and Lewes Beach to be under more than

a foot of water.

October 27, 1943 - At Rehoboth Beach waves were washing under the boardwalk.

Some residents of Lewes Beach were isolated during the high tide with more

than a foot of water covering the highway between the beach and the mainland.

At Bowers Beach water washed under cottages and over the boardwalk in some

places but did not enter any homes, since most of the cottages were erected

on piling several feet above the ground. Slaughter Beach was flooded and a

section of the boardwalk was washed out during the height of the storm.

High tide covered the beach and threatened cottages.

Another source reported:

The Ocean Highway between Rehoboth and Bethany Beach was flooded and the

road from Lewes to Fort Miles was under 12 inches of water. Twelve inches of

water covered the highway between Lewes Beach and the mainland. Water flooded

the roads at Broadkill Beach, Leipsic, Kitts Hummock and Woodland Beach.

1944

September 14@15, 1944 - A hurricane passed about 50 miles east of the Delaware

Coast. The ocean front suffered severe damage. Wind damage was high. Gravel

streets were washed out and sand was deposited on streets and property adjacent

to the beach. In Bethany Beach and Fenwick Island every building was damaged

and several were destroyed by the combination of winds and high seas. No

estimate of damage was given. The ocean completely enveloped the one-half

mile length of boardwalk at Bethany Beach and destroyed large sections of it.

The Ringler Theater at Bethany Beach was among the buildings destroyed along

with a large number of summer homes and year-round residences. The Ocean

Highway between Bethany Beach and Rehoboth was washed out in places by the

high waves. Lewes also suffered from the storm and residents in cottages along

the beach had to be evacuated. Many residents of towns along the Delaware

Bay (Bowers Beach, Woodland Beach, Big Stone Beach, Kitts Hummock and

Slaughter Beach) were evacuated and returned to find some damage. At Rehoboth

Beach a freighter was blown ashore and broken in half by 10 foot waves.

Waves swept over the boardwalk at Rehoboth damaging large portions of it and

sweeping away a section near the Hotel Henlopen. A pavilion was also swept away.

Boardwalk damage was estimated at $30,000. Many stores along the boardwalk

were damaged by the water. The lobby of the Hotel Henlopen was flooded and

many windows in Rehoboth buildings were shattered. Streets were flooded by

high waves in an area one block back of the boardwalk.

Losses were estimated at $125,000 at Rehoboth and $100,000 at Bethany. There

was no estimate for Lewes. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reported damage

estimates at $206,000, exclusive of damage to the beach.

October 21, 1944 - 50 miles per hour northeast wind accompanied by heav,y

rain. A pounding surf at Rehoboth tossed water over the boardwalk.

1950

November 25-26, 1950 This storm was termed "the worst storm since 1912". At

Kitts Hummock water entered nearly every cottage. Flood waters were reported as

far inland as one mile. Damage was estimated at $25,000.

The storm brought severe damage to Pickering Beach, a summer resort

less than one year old. Damage to cottages along the beach was estimated at

between $10,000 and $15,000, a figure which does not include the loss of the sand

beach. The beach was entirely washed away.

In Rehoboth the gale was less intense than it was further north. The

only damage was to the north end of the boardwalk. Wind-driven tides were

five feet above normal. At Slaughter Beach water cut a hole in front of Wilson's

Restaurant and covered the road to Cedar Beach. Most of the damage here was

due to high tides. The road to Port Mahon was covered with four feet of water.

The Christina River flooded many roads in Wilmington. Water was a foot deep

in Woodland Beach @40,000 damage). Damage at Kitts Hummock was estimated at

$25,000.

1951

October 4, 1951 - In the Rehoboth area winds of 32 to 35 miles per hour were

reported and when water breached the boardwalk at high tide.

1953

August 15, 1953 - This storm was termed the worst storm since 1944. Waves 12 to

15 feet high pounded the coast and washed over the boardwalk at Rehoboth. Resi-

dents of Fenwick Island and Bethany Beach were evacuated. Despite the force

of the wind there was only minor damage. Power failure and the tie-up of tele-

hone lines were the most serious results of the storm.

1954

September 1, 1954 Hurricane Carol. Winds of 50 miles per hour were reported

in the vicinity of the Lewes Coast Guard Station. Although much damage was re-

ported in New Jersey and northward, little damage was recorded in Delaware.

October 15, 1954 - Hurricane Hazel. Rehoboth reported the worst blow since

the hurricane of 1944. Waves were 15 to 20 feet high and were approaching the

beach from a south by southeasterly direction. Damage here was mainly due to

winds. Winds were measured at Wilmington at a one minute maximum sustained

velocity of 58 miles per hour with gusts up to 98 miles per hour and

broke all previous records.

1955

August 13, 1955 - Hurricane Connie. Damage in the Bethany Beach area was

caused by "twisters". Tides were higher than normal but minimal coastal

damage reported. Winds were recorded at 70 miles per hour.

August 19, 1955 - Hurricane Diane spawned torrential rains which flooded many

homes and highways in northern Delaware.

1956

September 28-29, 1956 - Hurricane Flossy. Lewes road crews placed an estimated

500 tons of broken concrete, gravel and boulders onto the beach in an effort

to hold back the high sea. At Broadkill Beach winds and high tides created

a situation similar to that at Lewes Beach. Residents here said that while

the groins protect the south end of the beach, the north end of the beach is

exposed and houses there are always in danger during a heavy storm. The Ocean

Highway between Bethany Beach and Dewey Beach was flooded where the ocean

breached the-dunes. At Rehoboth Beach the ocean removed thousands of tons

of sand from the beach. Waves were reported splashing over the boardwalk

at high tide but there were no reports of serious damage to the town. Governor

Boggs inspected damage at Lewes and Broadkill. While it was too early to issue

an estimate of the damage in Sussex County, it was expected that "it would

probably total many thousands of dollars".

Another source reported:

The highway from BethanyBeach to Dewey Beach was closed as the ocean had

broken through at many points. The area just north of Indian River Inlet

was extensively flooded. Riverdale, Oak Orchard and other communities along

Indian River were damaged by tidal water. Tides three to five feet above

normal were reported at Indian River Yacht Club. A survey by the chief engi-

neer of the State Highway Department determined that beaches south of Rehoboth

were severely damaged.

October 19, 1956 - High tides and waves again battered the dunes along Ocean

Highway which were severely damaged three weeks before by Hurricane Flossy.

1957

October 7, 1957 - The gale force northeast winds had a strong effect on tides.

On the eastern side of the Delmarva Peninsula tides were abnormally high,

flooding many coastal roads. At Broadkill Beach, one resident reported that

he had never seen a higher tide. It lifted one cottage off its pilings and

pushed it back six feet. Damage was estimated at $1,000.

1960

September 13, 1960 - Hurricane Donna. High tides broke through the barrier

at both the north and south ends of Slaughter Beach. At Broadkill Beach the

causeway was breached by water. At Lewes some cottages were damaged, but

authorities said damage would have been much worse if Donna, with peak winds of

110 miles per hour had hit at high tide. The Rehoboth boardwalk was pounded by

the ocean and threatened until the wind shifted in late morning. The ocean

broke through between the Indian River Inlet and Bethany Beach but the break-

through was not considered a serious one.

1961

October 23-24, 1961 - Northeast winds up to 50 miles per hour and tides five

feet above normal closed roads, washed away thousands of tons of sand and kept

coastal residents on the alert. Wind-whipped waters breached a sand barrier

erected by the Highway Department at Broadkill Beach. About two-thirds of the

road from Dewey Beach to Fenwick Island was under an estimated one to

three feet of water at the height of the flooding. The ocean also broke

through in the Bethany Beach area. At Broadkill Beach waves undermined the

foundations of homes along the shore. Lewes Beach had water to a depth of

two feet as the Bay washed under waterfront cottages. Storm waves destroyed

the north Indian River Jetty light (valued at $10,000). At least half a dozen

Bethany Beach streets were impassible from flooding. The shoreline from

Broadkill Beach to Ocean City, Maryland was severely eroded by the heavy

seas. The storm demolished bulkheads and thwarted attempts by highway de-

partment crews to rebuild sand dunes.

1962

March 6-8, 1962 - Hundreds were evacuated as a vicious northeaster lashed

Delaware with 60 mile per hour winds, heavy rains and snow plus high tides

and floods. The coastal areas of the State bore the brunt of the storm.

Seventeen Slaughter Beach homes were destroyed. The sea breached the dunes at

numerous points along the Ocean Highway including Savage's Ditch and Coin

Road. Residents of Bethany Beach reported that an estimated two feet

of water covered their town and the boardwalk had been ripped apart

in several places from the wind and tides.

March 8, 1962 - Governor Carvel estimated the damage to be 50 million

dollars and asked that the Delaware Coast be declared a federal disaster area.

From Bowers Beach to Fenwick Island nothing escaped damage. The ocean-

front at Rehoboth Beach was a shambles. The entire boardwalk was ripped

away; the Hotel Henlopen dining room, a one story wing of the four

story building was underwater; the wall of the east wing of the hotel

collapsed, exposing rooms on each floor; the oceanfront wall of the

Atlantic Sands Motel also collapsed. Six children drowned in the

flood at Bowers Beach. Twenty-eight of 29 beachfront homes in Bethany

Beach were reported destroyed. Approximately 300 feet of the beach

had been eroded. Many of the new homes on South Bethany Beach were

destroyed. Waves up to 40 feet high eroded about 30 feet of the beach

at Rehoboth. Most of Dewey Beach was underwater. Flood waters in Bethany

Beach were up to five feet deep in places. The boardwalk was totally

destroyed and the famous Holiday House, built in 1932, was demolished.

Waves four feet high were rolling into the grove at Oak Orchard according

to residents. They said that the entire shoreline had been washed away.

From three to four feet of water surrounded the shore front cottages

of Riverdale.

March 9, 1962 Governor Carvel declared a state of emergency after a two-

day survey of Delaware's Coast. It was his opinion that this was the

worst catastrophe Delaware had ever suffered. A total of seven Delawareans

died in the storm.

Table 3 provides a brief summary of the estimated damages suffered at

various places along the Delaware Coast in 1962.

TABLE 3

Damages Resulting from Storm of March 1962
Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island
(July 1962 Prices)

Location Estimated Damages

North of Indian River Inlet

Fort Miles $ 270,000

Fort Miles to Rehoboth Beach 640,000

Rehoboth Beach 3,530,000

Dewey Beach 3,140,000

Dewey Beach to Indian River Inlet 890,000

Total Damages $8,470,000

South of Indian River Inlet

Indian River Inlet to Bethany Beach $ 630,000

Bethany Beach 2,390,000

Bethany Beach to Fenwick Island 3,110,000

Fenwick Island 2,060,000

Total Damages $8,190,000

SOURCE: Delaware Coast Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection.
General Design Memorandum, Phase 1, Department of the Army,
Philadelphia District, Corps of Engineers

Damage Summary By County, March 1962 Storm

New Castle County - New Castle - Homes along the Strand flooded, the

Battery and other waterfront areas were covered with water. Buttonwood

area damaged by high water. Delaware City - Three homes evacuated, some

streets flooded, large areas of open land covered with water. Bay View

Beach - Waterfront flooding, some damage recorded.

Kent County - Bowers Beach - Hardest hit Kent community. In addition

to flooding, some homes were washed 500 yards inland; others were ripped

from their foundations. Kitts Hummock - Battered by tides with some homes

washed from their foundations. Woodland Beach - Flooded, but homes not as

badly damaged as in other@communities because land is generally higher and

wave fetch is very short.

Sussex County - Rehoboth Beach - Hardest hit large Sussex community.

Oceanfront properties were damaged and ruined, little damage to inland

properties. From the Henlopen Hotel to Rehoboth Avenue the shorefront

buildings were undermined by water and were tumbling onto pilings which had

supported the boardwalk. Dewey Beach - High waters washed from the Ocean

to the Bay at some points. On the Bay side several shops and restaurants

seemed to have survived the onslaught. Boardwalks at Wilson's Yacht Basin

were underwater. Sand had been deposited to the second floors of several

cottages. Indian Beach Covered with water. Bethany Beach Cottages

strewn in topsy-turvy manner. South Bethany Beach - Only occasional large

summer homes were untouched by the sea. Middlesex Beach was dotted with over-

turned buildings and debris. Fenwick Island - Only the lighthouse and surrounding

structures were spared from destruction. Water covered the ocean side of the

tiny resort and washed across Route 14 to the foot of high ground where the

lighthouse stands. Lewes Beach - Flooded, but damage to cottages not extensive.

The Lewes and Rehoboth Canal had overflowed its banks and damaged many canal

side structures.

November 5, 1976 - (Northeaster) - Shore damage was estimated at $250,000. At

least two resort communities suffered considerable damage from the high winds

and flood tide which eroded thousands of cubic yards of fill placed along the

oceanfront following the March disaster. Winds peaked at 50 miles per

hour and tides were 3 112 feet above normal. Gaps about 50 feet wide were

opened in the new dune line at two points between Fort Miles and the Indian

River Inlet. A portion of Route 14 between Dewey Beach and the Inlet was

covered with an estimated six inches of sand and was closed until the flood

tide had receded.

Rehoboth was the hardest hit by the storm. Mayor Stamper estimated the

loss of fill along the resort beachfront at about $175,000. Sand was washed

away under the newly rebuilt, mile-long boardwalk along its entire length. Surf

Avenue and other low lying streets were covered by the sea.

Bethany Beach was also hit hard by the storm when heavy seas flooded at

least five streets and swept away nearly all of the fill placed under its new

boardwalk during the summer. At,other places only escarpments remained where

there was a gentle slope of sand before the storm. An unofficial estimate placed

the loss at no less than $70,000. Breaks along the new dune line occurred a few

hundred yards north of the Indian River Inlet and just north of Rehoboth at North

Shores.

There was no damage to the boardwalks at Rehoboth or Bethany Beach.

Route 58 near Fenwick Island was flooded.

November 12, 1962 - Winds up to 75 miles per hour lashed the Delaware and

Maryland coast, leaving freak damage in their wake. Damage to property

was caused primarily by winds since high tide and peak wind velocity did

not coincide. The tide was low just before the storm peaked and by the

time of high tide the wind had shifted to the south.

November 28-29, 1962 - The storm stripped Rehoboth of its shoreline pro-

tection when flood tides swept to sea all of the remaining fill placed on

the beach front during the previous summer. Rehoboth City Manager Frank Buck
said the beach had lost all 300,000 cubic yards of sand dumped there following

the March storm at a cost of about $330,000. The storm failed to damage other

areas of the beachfront. At Fenwick Island sand drifts blocked several streets

to a depth of three feet and the main thoroughfare along the beach was

covered with sand. Rehoboth and Bethany Beach were the hardest hit by the

storm. The two resort communities lost nearly $500,000 in fill as a result

of flood tides and waves.

1964

January 13, 1964 - The morning tide ran as high as four feetabove normal

and breached the dunes at Dewey, Bethany, Slaughter, Rehoboth, Big Stone
and Broadkill beaches and Fenwick Island. the tide broke through at the

south end of Slaughter Beach in the same location as the 1962 storm, but there

were no cottages there.this time. All were carried away in 1962. The water

cut a swath 150 feet wide through the three foot high dune and flooded 500

feet inland.. Three cottages at Broadkill Beach were menaced and the beach

road flooded. The tide at Rehoboth broLethrough north of the Henlopen Hotel

and at the end of the boardwalk. City police reported flooding under the

boardwalk. About 20 feet of sidewalk was washed out in two stretches in

the Henlopen Hotel area, and five feet of sand was washed away along some

sections of the beach.

According to another source:

Water was reported flowing down Ashwood Avenue, Pennsylvania Avenue

and Girard Parkway in Bethany Beach as well as under the Blue Surf Motel.

Route 58 between Ba.yville and Fenwick Island Bridge was also flooded.

1967

September 18, 1967 - Hurricane Doria - reduced to tropical depression

damage along the coastline was limited and was confined primarily to broken

tree limbs and windows. There were relatively few interruptions of telephone

and electric service. Some streets in Bethany Beach were flooded and State

Police closed Delaware 14 between Rehoboth and Bethany for a short time

after water reached its edges.

1968

May 27-28, 1968 - Northeaster - High winds with six foot seas and tides

two to three feet above normal caused local flooding.

November 11-12-13, 1968 - Northeaster - Gale winds and flooding were accom-

panied by four foot tides. The areas most affected were Woodland Beach,

Big Stone Beach and Bowers Beach. Fifty people evacuated from Bowers Beach.

An oil barge went aground on Rehoboth Beach and leaked oil. Damage from

high wind was reported high in oceanfront sections.

1969

August 20, 1969 Hurricane Camille - High tides from Rehoboth to Fenwick

brought minor flooding.

November 2, 1969 - Northeaster - Minor flooding along coast caused by

2.5 foot tides and 70 mile per hour maximum winds. Little or no damage

was caused as the storm skirted Delaware. Water reached the Rehoboth

boardwalk.

1971

April 6, 1971 - Northeaster Three to four foot tides driven by gale force

winds caused flooding and beach erosion. Flooding was reported at Broadkill

Beach, Rehoboth Beach, South Shore Marina, Indian River Inlet, North Bethany

Beach, Bethany Beach, near Fenwick, Fenwick-Bayville Road, Dagsboro, Millsboro

and Frankford. Dune-line beaches occurred at the south end of Broadkill

Beach, the south end of Delaware Seashore Park 'and north Bethany (Wellington

Avenue). Minor beach erosion was reported at Bethany and Rehoboth.,

August 26-28, 1971 - Hurricane.Doria - Tides two to four feet above normal

and 60 mile per hour winds caused minor damage. Flooding was reported at

Bowers Beach, Rehoboth (Wilmington Avenue), Route 14. Wind however, was the

primary cause of damage. Twenty-five people from Bethany, 150 from Henlopen

State Park and 72'from other areas had to be evacuated.

September 2-3, 1971 - Hurricane Ginger - No significant coastal damage.

September.12, 1971 - Hurricane Heidi No significant coastal damage.

September 23-26, 1971 - Northeaster Tides 1.5 foot above normal were re-

corded at Indian River. No major flooding was reported.

1972

February 12-13, 1972-Northeaster - Beach erosion and minor flooding

were reported.

May 14, 1972 - Northeaster - Minor flooding in some coastal areas.

June 20-22, 1972 - Hurricane Agnes - Most of the flooding from this storm

occurred in upland regions of northern Delaware. Tides, however, were two

feet above normal and minor flooding was reported in the Bowers Beach,

Bethany Beach and Lewes areas.

September 21, 1972 Tides two to four feet above normal caused minor flooding

and beach erosion.

December 22, 1972 Northeaster - Tides running 3.5 feet above normal caused

minor flooding and beach erosion. The Lewes/Rehoboth Canal overflowed its

banks.

1973

October 25-26, 1973 Hurricane Gilda - High tides and a heavy surf caused

minor beach erosion.

December 9, 1973 Northeaster - High tides, 30 knot winds and 8 to 13 foot

seas again caused minor beach erosion.

1974

December 1, 1974 Northeaster - East and northeast winds up to 80 mile per

hour driving 10 to 12 foot storm waves caused significant beach erosion and

moderate flooding. The Delaware Coast was fortunate that the brunt of the

storm occurred at low tide. Prior to high tide the wi'nds suddenly shifted

and diminished in intensity. Without this turn of events this storm could

have caused major damage to structures and beaches.

The areas reporting significant damages included: South Bethany Beach,

Broadkill Beach, Slaughter Beach, Whiskey Beach, Dewey Beach, Indian River

Inlet, Fenwick Island, Pickering Beach, Rehoboth Beach, Lewes and Prime Hook.

Damage to the dune line occurred at South Bethany Beach, Indian River Inlet,

Dewey Beach, Whiskey Beach, Lewes, Slaughter Beach, Big Stone Beach, Bowers

Beach and Kitts Hummock. The storm also required the evacuation of about 800

coastal residents including many from Dewey Beach, South Shores Marina and

trailer parks at Indian River Inlet, Pickering Beach, Bowers Beach, Kitts

Hummock and Upper Perins Neck.

South Bethany Beach suffered the most significant damage, primarily

because of substantial development seaward of the primary dune. Moderate

beach erosion was recorded from Lewes to Fenwick Island, but severe erosion

was experienced at most Delaware Bay beaches. At the south end of Slaughter

Beach 30 to 40 feet of beach was lost and bulkhead, which withstood the

March 1962 storm, was destroyed. A major breach of the dune occurred at

McKinley Street in Dewey Beach and caused flooding in the vicinity. Previous

beach fill at Bowers and Kitts Hummock prevented substantial damage, however,

a large quantity of thi.s sand was lost offshore. Rehoboth Beach and Lewes

experienced minor flooding and a few sections of the Rehoboth boardwalk

were damaged.

Damages along the Delaware Coast were estimated to be $2,250,000, including

$150,000 for repair of the Rehoboth boardwalk and $500,000 for beach restoration

between Lewes and Fenwick Island.

Storm Data December 1-2, 1974

I. Maximum Heights of Tide Hei0t*

A. Measured at:

1. Smyrna River at Route 13 +5.11' MSL
2. Murderkill River at Bowers +8.56' MSL
3. Cedar Creek near Slaughter
Beach +5.59' MSL
4. Indian River at Oak Orchard +4.82' MSL
-5. Indian River Inlet at U.S.
Coast Guard Station +3.5' MSL**

*Above Mean Sea Level.
**As computed by National Ocean Survey

B. Estimated from high water marks
observed by Delaware Geological
Survey on 1212174:

1. Woodland Beach, estimated
above each of two 8' bench
marks but below 10' about
contour +9' MSL
2. Bowers-Main Street and
Hubbard Avenue, estimated
approximately 2' above
location of 6' bench about
marks +8'MSL
3. Bowers at Murderkill
River, estimated 2'
above location of about
6' bench marks +8' MSL

II. Observed Highway Flooding:

A. Route 9 at Dragon Creek, north of Delaware City estimated high
water just above level of road.

B. Route 9, 0.4 mile north of Port Penn - maximum high water approxi-
mately 1' above level of road.

C. Route 9, 0.5 mile south of Augustine Beach - maximum high water
approximately I' above level of road.

D. Route 9 at Silver Creek - highest tide over top of highest bridge
railing.

E. Route 9 at Appoquinimink River.

F. Route 9 at Smyrna River of 0.5 mile south of Flemings Landing.

G. Route 9 at Roads 321 and 82.

H. Route 9 at Taylors Gut.

I. Route 6 at Mill Creek, 1.6 mile east of Smyrna - maximum high water
at crest of road.

J. Route 6 at Woodland Beach - high water mark approximately 0.85 mile
east of Route 9 at lane to south.

K. Route 9, north end of Leipsic - maximum high water just over road.

L. Route 9, Little Creek, north of Little River - maximum high water over
highest part of bridge.

M. Road 69, Port Mahon - high water mark approximately 0.9 mile east of
Route 9 - location of destroyed 6' bench mark covered by water.

N. Road 349, Pickering Beach - high water mark 1.3 mile east of Route 9
along road.

0. Road 68, Kitts Hummock- high water mark approximately 0.7 mile
west of Kitts Hummock along road.

P. Route 18, west of Bowers - maximum water level approximately 2.5'
over road.

Q. Route 16 at Broadkill Beach - maximum high water at level of road.

R. Route 14 at Dewey Beach - washover from ocean - no permanent cover.

S. Road 501, south of Indian River Inlet - maximum high water approximately
2' above level of road.

T. Route 54, west of Fenwick Island - over road.

U. Bayside communities in South Bethany and Fenwick Island - many
roads covered with up to at least V of water.

III. Breached Barrier Beach Areas

A. Dewey Beach - along beach front for several blocks including
McKinley Street and Dickinson Street.

B. Bethany Beach - sporadically along several blocks of beach front
including First and Third Streets, Campbell Place, and Ocean View
Parkway.

C. South Bethany - along most of beach front and especially between
North Fifth and South Second Streets.

SOURCE: Delaware Geological Survey

D. North Shores - at site of recently constructed groin immediately
south of State property.

E. Rehoboth Beach - at Deauville Beach between parking lot and
Henlopen Acres.

F. Bethany Beach to Indian River Inlet - numerous locations between
Ocean Village and Cotton Patch Hills.

G. South Bethany between North Fifth Street and Middlesex Beach.

H. Fenwick Island to South Bethany - about three breaks between Fenwick
Towers and South Bethany in the vicinity of the old shooting range.

SOURCE: Mr. Robert Henry, Beach Preservation Section, Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control, State of Delaware.

TABLE 4

Storm Data: Duration and Maximum Tide H eight
For Coastal Storms (1952 - 1974)

Maximum Tide Height
Duration (hours)* (Feet Above MLW)

Date Breakwater Hbr. Indian River Breakwater Hbr. Indian River

Lewes Coast Guard Lewes Coast Guard

9/5/52 85 5.6
8/13/53 44 6.0
9/26/56 62 7.1
9/19/61 45 6.2
3/6, 3/8/62 96 9.5
8/27/62 46 5.2
11/2/62 33 7.7
1/12/64 43 7.5
9/15/67 49 7.0
5/26/58 52 6.3
11/10/68 34 7.1
8/19/69 31 5.8
ll/l/69 45 5.9
12/13/70 24 6.6
4/5/71 37 6.7
8/26/71 13 6.3
11/23/71 48 6.0
2/11/72 31 6.1
2/17/72 19 7.1
6/20/72 32 44 5.9 3.6
9/l/72 32 6.4
9/19/72 54 55 7.4 4.5
12/21/72 20 58 8.1 4.9
3/20/73 42 7.2
10/24/73 42 57 7.4 4.5
12/7/73 42 53 8.0 4.6
12/1/74 67 4.9

Breakwater Mean Standard Deviation

Duration 40.42 hours 16.07 hours
Height +6.77 feet (MLW) .95 feet (MLW)

Indian River
Coast Guard Station

Duration 55.67 hours 7.47 hours
Height

*Duration is defined as the total time period in whcih the storm tide level ex-
ceeded a height of one foot above the predicted normal (astronomical) tide level.

Sources frequently used in compiling the Storm Chronicle were:

Delaware State News, Dover, Delaware

Eastern Shore Times, Ocean City, Maryland

Delaware Coast Press, Rehoboth Beach, Delaware

Maryland Coast Press, Ocean City, Maryland

The Chronicle, Milford, Delaware

Evening Journal, Morning News, Wilmington, Delaware

Storm Data, Environmental Data Service, N.O.A.A., Washington, D.C.

II. COMMUNITY FLOODING STUDIES

METHODOLOGY

The purpose of these studies was to collect information regarding flood

damage and the human perception of flooding hazards along the bay and ocean

coasts of Delaware. Several different approaches were employed to accomplish

these goals. These included the use of a detailed questionnaire, study of

maps and aerial photographs of each area and interviews with community

officials or members of any group who were likely to have information

regarding flood damage in their particular community.

QUESTIONNAIRE

The questionnaire (See Appendix I) consisted of three separate parts

personal information, attitudinal questions and requests for more specific

information about the damage done to an individual's property. There was also
a section of open-ended questions which covered topics that-were not adaptable

to questionnaire form.

Part I (Personal) provided basic background information which established

if the respondent was an owner or renter, whether he or she was a permanent

or non-permanent resident and the number of years that he or she had been

living in or visiting that particular community.

Part If (Attitudes) attempted to explore individual attitudes toward

flooding, as well as the extent of each person's knowledge about flooding in

general. Because of interest in discovering the respondents' definitions

of flooding, as well as their suggestions for coping with floods, it was

important that the questions be phrased as objectively as possible to avoid

influencing the answers. In most cases no responses were suggested. However,

for some questions (e.g., No. 12, definition of.flooding) it was desirable

to obtain a reaction to a variety of possible answers and,therefore,

selection of choices was read to respondents. The questions were ordered

so that changes in attitude towards flooding as a result of answering the

questionnaire could be detected.

Part III (Specific Damages) was given to those people who were owners

of property or permanent residents, as well as to those people who were neither

owners nor permanent residents, but who had been coming to the area for so

long that they were likely to have valuable information regarding past flood

damage. In Part III the word "flood" was deliberately avoided when asking

about the damage incurred on the respondent's property, since each person's

perception of a flood would be different. Instead of "flood", the term "sea

and/or bay water" was used. The questions about damage were structured in

such a way that they might provide a better indication of the actual causes of

damage by differentiating between the effects of standing water, running water,

wave action, salt or freshwater and the presence of sand and/or mud. This

helped to pinpoint the areas which felt the full impact of the storm and

the areas which experienced only some of the storm's effects. Occasionally

a problem arose because of the respondent's confusion concerning the difference

between standing water resulting from seawater encroachment and standing

water resulting from a heavy rainstorm. Certain information gained from these

questions, such as type of damage and depth of water level, were transferred

to a map to provide a better idea of what had actually occurred during the

storm(s).

In addition to the structured questionnaire a number of open-ended

questions were asked. Notes were taken on any information which a respondent

could provide that was not covered by the questionnaire. These open-ended

questions attempted to collect more specific information on the damage which

had occurred, such as dollar estimates of personal loss and detailed descrip-

tions of what had been damaged. Included were damages to boats and cars as

well as grounds and structures. The respondent's knowledge of community-

wide damage was also recorded. Individuals who had lived in the community

for a long time often had an opportunity to observe marked changes in the beach

area or the community as a whole as a result of flooding. If they recommended

particular solutions to reduce flood damage and beach erosion, this was also

noted. These open-ended questions often provided some of the most valuable

information. Respondents were also asked to suggest other members of the

community who might know more about flooding.

In an attempt to gain a more comprehensive understanding of each

community's experiences, interviews were conducted with various mayors,

city managers, Civil Defense officials and representatives of groups who

were likely to know about flooding in their community, especially fire and

rescue squads and volunteer agencies. Respondents were randomly selected

on the street or beach or questioned in their homes through door-to-door

canvassing. No one under fifteen years of age was interviewed.

MAPS

Large scale maps and aerial photographs were used extensively by all

interviewers while in the field. These maps were constructed from various

sources. For Bowers Beach, for example, copies were made of a street map

pr epared by the State Highway Department. The scale was 1:3600. Maps of

Broadkill Beach and Slaughter Beach were constructed from enlargements of

topographic sheets prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey. The scale of

both maps was 1:6856.

Any information which respondents could provide (i.e., areas under

water, depths of water, dry areas and source and direction of floodwaters)

was transferred directly to the maps. Later, the information from each inter-

viewer's maps was consolidated onto one map of the area. Occasionally this

would present problems when contradictory information appeared on the composite

map. In such cases either a return trip to the community was made to clarify

the situation or the conflict was resolved on the basis of what.was known

(or what would be logical or consistent with other information) about the community.

Aerial photographs were also used where possible, since they often made

it easier for respondents to explain and demonstrate what had occurred during

a flood. For most communities aerial photographs were available from flights

conducted in 1954, 1961 and 1968. Using these photographs, land development

maps were constructed to illustrate the change s that had occurred in each com-

munit.y. It had been hoped that contour lines could be transferred from the

aerial photographs to the land development maps, but the expense of this

operation and the quality of the photographs precluded this. In Fenwick

Island, Bethany Beach and South Bethany Beach contour lines were obtained from

sewer district maps. The 1, 3, 5, 10 and 15 foot contours were transferred

onto the large aerial photographs to provide accurate topographic control.

Two acetate overlays were drawn at a scale of 1:2400 for each community;

one showing land development and the other showing inundation and flood damage.

For seven communities overlays were made showing the extent of sand and water

coverage. The information was obtained from a set of aerial photographs taken

on March 8, 1962, immediately following that devastating storm. Overlays were

also constructed for selected communities showing damage and flood conditions

resulting from the December 1, 1974, storm.

LAND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAYS

The information for the land development maps was obtained from an analysis

of panchromatic aerial photographs taken at a 1:20,000 scale by the U.S. De-

partment of Agriculture. Communities for which a damage/inundation overlay

was prepared for the March 1962 storm have accompanying maps illustrating

land development information interpreted from the 1960-61 aerial photographs.

The community of Bowers Beach has a storm damage/inundation map drawn for the

December 1, 1974, storm. Land development information was obtained from 1973

aerial photographs with the same specifications as listed above. Slaughter

Beach has damage maps drawn for both the 1962 and 1974 storms with accompanying

land development maps based on the 1960-61 and 1963 aerial photographs.

The following information is shown on the land development maps:

Developed Areas - Those portions of the community where development

(residential and/or commerical structures including mobile home parks) can

be noted from the aerial photographs; and

Corporate Limits - Community boundary lines for incorporated communities.

DAMAGE MAPS

All information on the flooding/storm damage maps for each community

was obtained from information provided by respondents in the course of the field

surveys. Three types of damage were distinguished: structural, interior and

grounds. First, the houses which suffered damage were indicated on the map.

Zones were drawn around those areas having a majority of one type of damage.

Zone A indicates an area where structural damage was dominant, Zone B represents

the area of primarily interior damage, while Zone C includes the areas that

had only grounds damage or where no damage was reported. The arrows on the

maps indicate only the source and direction of water flow. A long arrow

does not indicate a greater magnitude of water than a short arrow, but merely

that the path of the water flow as greater. The numbers on the damage map

show the depth that the water reached at that point. The depths were

categorized in groups from one to two feet, two to three feet and greater

than three feet above ground level.

SMALL SCALE MAPS

Small scale base maps were prepared for each community for inclusion

in the text. All the information from the large scale damage map was

drawn directly on this base map, except the individual structures and the

depth of inundation. This was done to provide an overview of the damage zones

and the direction and path of water flow in each community. The extent of

sand coverage as indicated by the March 1962 aerial photographs was shown

on the map where such information was avail.able.

SPECIAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH MAPS FROM STORM OF MARCH 1962

Special maps were made from a series of aerial photographs taken

March 8, 1962, immediately after the storm that brought so much damage to

the east coast of the United States. The maps showed: 1) the inland extent

of sand coverage and washover; 2) the areas of inundation in each community;

and 3) the areas where structural damage occurred if such information could

be derived from the aerial photographs. The available aerial photographs

only included North Shores, Henbpen Acres, Rehoboth Beach, Dewey Beach,

Bethany Beach, South Bethany and Fenwick Island.

The following information has been included on the maps:

Sand Line - A solid brown line indicates the boundary or inland extent

to which sand was washed by waves and currents in the community. A dotted

brown line indicates some uncertainty in determining exactly where the sand

stopped. The sand line is also a rough indicator of where the strong wave

and current action dissipated. Some of the communities were, of course,

inundated by a combination of water flowing across the shoreline from the

ocean and water overflowing into the community from the Bay. Brown arrows

show specific places where a breach in the coastal dunes occurred.

Water Line - A solid black line indicates the parts of each community

covered by floodwaters. A dashed black line shows where positive evidence

was difficult to obtain but where flooding was implied. Often it was

not possible to distinguish the source of floodwater.

Damage Area - A red, cross hatched line indicates where structural

damage could clearly be interpreted from the 1962 aerial photographs because

a house had collapsed, or was washed from its original position with only

its foundation remaining. Cross hatched areas generally denote one house

with structural damage but longer lines may represent two or three houses.

Symbols shown in red indicate damage identified during the course of the

interviews (in some cases damage was further verified bythe interviewer

from field evidence).

III. COMMUNITY DAMAGE PROFILES

BOWERS BEACH

Bowers Beach is an incorporated community on the western shore of

Delaware Bay, approximately ten miles southeast of Dover. It is situated

on Pleistocene and alluvial deposits between the St. Jones and Murderkill

Rivers. Bowers Beach covers an area approximately three miles square,

three-fourths of which is occupied land. Within the last decade (1960-1970)

the town has experienced a decline in permanent resident population of 17.3

percent. Housing in Bowers Beach includes cottages, trailers and old,

multi-story homes.

The study area also included South Bowers, a summer community situated

on the south bank of the Murderkill River. There are approximately forty-five

summer cottages extending for three-quarters of a mile along the Bay and

one-quarter of a mile along the river.

The Bowers Beach-South Bowers area along theMurderkill is protected by

bulkheads on both sides. Development along the south bank consists of pri-

vate homes and docks. Development along the north bank is primarily docks,

charter fishing operations and associated commercial facilities. The

northern shore al'so has a public launching ramp with an adjacent parking

lot. The property value in this area was estimated to be $530,000, while

property along the the two beachfronts were valued at $164,000 (U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, 1966).

Bowers Beach and South Bowers are situated on land below ten feet MSL.

The beach at Bowers is forty feet wide with a slope of 1:8. The dunes

are thirty feet wide at the base and range from nine to eleven feet above

mean low water. In South Bowers the beach is also forty feet wide, but the

slope is 1:16. Marsh lands surround both Bowers Beach and South Bowers.

Figure 6

DEVELOPED AREA OF BOWERS BEACH 1973

BOWERS

zi
3t
0

LEGEND*.

DEVELOPED AREA IN 1973

0 Soo 1600 2400

SCALE I"= 800

Twenty-nine interviews were conducted at Bowers Beach. Seventy-five

percent of the respondents owned their own homes and 72 percent were per-

manent residents. More than half of the respondents have lived there for

more than ten years. Dwelling types included 23 percent single story, 49

percent multiple story and 20 percenttrailers. Flood insurance policies

had been required by 50 percent of the property owners interviewed.

Sources of Flooding

Flooding is a common event in Bowers Beach for several reasons. The

proximity of the St. Jones and Murderkill Rivers provides a troublesome

source of floodwater, particularly because they are no longer dredged

periodically as they were in years past. This dredging increased the holding

capacity of the rivers and also helped to build up the banks. The Murderkill

River causes particular problems in the community because high tides fre-

quently inundate Hubbard Avenue. North Flack Avenue is the primary recipient

of floodwaters from the St. Jones River (See Pocket Map A).

The ditch system, which was built as part of a mosquito control program,

extends throughout the marsh area and also contributes to flooding problems.

The ditches provide extensive inland access to floodwaters that might other-

wise be confined to a smaller area.

Erosion of the beach is also a major problem. The State of Delaware

initiated a flood control project for the beach area of Bowers Beach in 1972.

The,purpose was to widen the beach and construct a new dune line for protection

of homes along the beach from storm damage. These dunes, however, proved to

be very unstable and did little to protect homes during the December 1974

storm.

Strorfg winds are also an important factor which affect flooding. The

wind can, in a sense, "pile up" the water inland and keep it there until

the wind changes. This is the type of flooding that occurs most often in

Bowers Beach, and flooding was the result of both river and bay overflow.

In 1962 dunes were breached, resulting in combined river and bay flooding.

During thisstorm, flooding was more severe on the bay front than it usually

is. In 1974, although the dunes were breached somewhat, bay flooding was

not as extensive. Residents attributed the main source of floodwaters to

rising river water.

Bowers Beach was covered by floodwaters in December 1974. The areas

along the ba.y and the river had about two to three feet of water. Further

inland the depths were ususally less, averaging about one to two feetin depth.

Flood Damage

Thi@ section will outline the flood damages that residents of Bowers

Beach have experienced as a result of the storms in March 1962 and December

1974. Emphasis is on these two storms because they have been the most

serious ones in recent history. Residents of Bowers Beach were able to

recall much more about the 1974 storm.

a. 1962 Storm

Five interviews were conducted outside the corporate limits of Bowers

Beach on the southwestern loop of Atlantic Avenue. Residents here recalled

that flooding from the 1962 storm forced people in this area to evacuate

their homes, although the extent of damages was not noted. The area of

Williams Avenue and Main Street received some flooding in 1962, but no

specific damage was mentioned. Three respondents were interviewed north of

Main Street in the vicinity of North Flack Avenue and Bayshore Drive. They

made no mention of specific damage, but they did recall that three children

that lived in the area were drowned while evacuating.

On the southern side of Main Street, along South Flack Avenue to Cooper

Avenue, five interviews were conducted. Here the storm of March 1962 was

remembered especially because of the damage it did to numerous beach front

cottages south of Main Street. Most of these cottages were washed off their

foundations and into the marsh areas. One respondent also reported that a

boat washed into the marsh area from the beach. Only one resident specifically

recalled damage to interior finishings and grounds.

Four interviews were conducted along Hubbard Avenue. The two respondents

who had lived there in 1962 recalled damage that they suffered as a result

of the storm. In one case, the grounds and interior furnishings of a trailer

were ruined. The hotel located on this street had structural damage to the

foundation and the fireplace. Interviews conducted along the north bank of

the Murderkill River failed to provide any detailed information. Respondents

agreed that structural damage was extensive, but they were unable to provide

specifics.

The same held true for the two respondents interviewed in South Bowers.

The interviews established that the damage had been considerable in 1962, but

it is not possible to pinpoint or describe it on the basis of the questionnaire

data. The Corps of Engineers estimated the damage at Bowers Beach and South
Bowers Beach to be $620,000 (1962 prices, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1966).

b. 1974 Storm

A more detailed picture of the December 1974 storm can be outlined.

Property damage in the Atlantic Avenue area was reported by four out of five

respondents. There was considerable ground damage, including plants killed

by saltwater and large deposits of trash, sand and mud. One respondent re-

ported water inside the house which did damage to interior furnishings. Another

individual reported structural damage caused by moving water. She had to pay

for a new water pump which cost $250. In addition, a man leaving Bowers

had his car filled with water, totally destroying it. The cost.of repairing

damage ranged from that required for cleaning up to one case where it was so

expensive that the family never moved back. Further inland five interviews

were conducted at Williams Avenue and Main Street. Standing water, moving

water and mud caused extensive ground damages and interior damage in three

cases. One respondent estimated she had.experienced $600 worth of interior

damage.

According to three respondents in the area of North Flack Avenue and

Bayshore Drive, the December 1974 storm caused extensive damage. Along the

Main Street border of this area, both grounds and interior furnishings

were damaged, as well as a boat and a car. Damages were estimated to be

$2,000. Another house suffered structural damage.

Five interviews were conducted along South Flack Avenue to Cooper Avenue.

People reported structural damage as well as damage to interior furnishings

and grounds. Minor structural damage was concentrated at the south end of

Flack Avenue and was caused by floodwaters from the Murderkill River.

Two of the four respondents on Hubbard Street mentioned specific damage

from the December 1974 storm. One house lost almost all of the furnishings

on the first floor. The second case involved a car which had been ruined by

standing water.

The final area surveyed in Bowers Beach was the north bank of the

Murderkill River. All of the respondents reported damage to grounds and

interior furnishings. The damage suffered by the restaurant on the docks

'was particularly extensive. Other losses included between 200 to 300 rabbits,

several mowers damaged by standing water inside the shed and a water pump.

Sand and mud covered much of this area, requiring a time-consuming cleanup.

The dock along the river was badly damaged by wave action from the storm.

The two South Bowers' respondents reported ground damage. Both also

had their cars destroyed by floodwaters. One respondent estimated a total

of $700 in damages.

It was difficult to delineate different damage zones from the December

1974 storm, even though damage was extensive. This is due to the fact that

all of Bowers Beach is less than ten feet above MSL and that it is surrounded

by the Delaware Bay, the Murderkill River and the St. Jones River. The two

rivers played a major part in the 1974 flood, since floodwaters were carried

inland and caused structural and interior damages there as well as along the

Bay. Only two areas in Bowers Beach (one on Williams Avenue and one on

Church Street) were reported to be on higher ground, and therefore, less

prone to damage.

SLAUGHTER BEACH

Slaughter Beach is an incorporated community of Sussex County, located

on the coast of Delaware Bay below the Mispillion River. The town lies

between two other coastal communities; Cedar Beach to the north, and Primehook

on the south. According to a 1965 population estimate, 130 permanent resi-

dents live in Slaughter Beach (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1966). The population

Fig ure 7

DEVELOPED AREA OF SLAUGHTER BEACH 1960

LEGEND:

DEVELOPED AREA IN 1960

10 0 Boo 1600 2400

SCALE 1" 800

SLAUGHTER
BEACH

increases during the summer months to 430 residents. This influx is due

to private homeowners for the most part, because there are no commercial

hotels or motels for summer residents. Slaughter Beach had an estimated

property value of $910,000 in the mid-1960's. The beachfront property

alone was worth $400,000 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1966).

There is 8,000 feet of beach frontage in Slaughter Beach, all privately

owned. The developed area extends along the beach for 1.5 miles and con-

tains approximately 115 houses in the beachfront section. On the west side

of the main road that runs parallel to the Bay, there are an additional

thirty-five houses which back up to the marsh area. This beach, which

includes a berm of thirty feet, is approximately 100 feet in width. It has

a slope of 1:10. On its western side Slaughter Beach is bounded by wetlands

that extends three to four miles until it reaches Slaughter Creek.

Slaughter Beach has received help from the State and Army Corps of

Engineers for the preservation and protection of its beachfront. The

community has a groin system that extends over the major part of the

community beach. This system includes twenty individual groins placed

at regular intervals along the beach. In 1961, 165,000 cubic yards of

beach fill was deposited on the beach (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1966).

After the 1962 storm this area was declared by the State to be in a "state

of emergency" and aid was given to rebuild the beaches. Since 1962,

approximately forty feet of the beach at Slaughter has eroded. In 1975

the road in Slaughter Beach was raised and ditches enlarged in an attempt

to deal with flood problems.

Thirty-five individuals were interviewed in Slaughter Beach. Property

owners made up 83 percent of the sample, but only 43 percent were permanent

residents. Forty-six percent of the property owners had flood insurance

policies. The dwellings were 40 percent single-story and 60 percent

multiple-story or split level. Over half of those interviewed (57%) had

been in Slaughter for ten years.

Sources of Flooding

Patterns of flooding in Slaughter Beach are fairly uniform throughout

the community. All of the respondents mentioned both bay flooding and back

flooding of the marshes and Slaughter Creek. Those directly on the beach-

front experienced wave action on their property in some instances. There

were breaks in the dunes both in 1962 and 1974. In 1962 the dunes broke

through the north and south sections, while in 1974 the problem seemed to be

concentrated in the south section.

According to information supplied by informed citizens and a town

official, the source of flooding begins in the bay and then travels to the

marsh and creek. This back flooding then becomes the major problem as the

waters continue to rise. Many respondents felt this was the situation,

especially in 1974 when wave action caused less damage than the overflow

of Slaughter Creek into the marsh. Residents in the southern beachfront

portion were concerned about the condition of the beach and its relation

to damage from the storm. One resident attributed the damage in the
southern section to the abrupt end of bulkheads and groin structures at

the south end, allowing water to wash onto properties. Another resident

of this section compared damage between the two storms in light of beach

conditions. This respondent said that in 1962 the beach was wide with a

good grade, so the majority of the water was from the marsh area; however,

in 1974 the beach had eroded considerably, which made it easy for bay water

to wash over. In an effort to protect themselves from storms, several resi-

dents in the south section had sand pushed up around their houses. However,

the 1974 storm destroyed these embankments and made them more vulnerable than

ever.

Flood Damage

The community of Slaughter Beach has suffered severe damage from two

major coastal storms within the past two decades. Many of the individuals

interviewed described damage that occurred during both the storm of March

1962 and of December 1974. Descriptions of damage which occurred concen-

trated mainly on the respondents' personal property loss, but also included

some information regarding damage received by other residents in the

community, as well as public areas of the community.

The following summary of this damage information is organized in terms

of location. The community has bee n divided into north, central and south

sections with the intersection of the main street and Delaware Road 224

acting as the central element. These sections are further separated by

the main road into beachfront houses on the bay side and houses on the

opposite side which are bordered by the marsh areas.

a. 1962 Storm (See Pocket Map B)

In the March storm of 1962 Slaughter Beach received an estimated
total of $473,500 in damage (at July 1962 prices, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, 1962). This estimate includes a total of seventeen destroyed

houses. Of these, thirteen were beachfront homes that washed into the

marsh or out into the Bay.

At the northern end of Slaughter Beach houses from the beachfront

section were carried into the marsh and creek. This section was described

in the Army Corps of Engineers report as, the one which suffered the most

extensive damage within the community. One house in the northern beach-

front section (not located on the map) was totally destroyed by wave action,

and the movement of the water carried parts of it into the Bay. This

structural damage resulted in the death of a woman who had not been evacuated

from the house during the storm. Of the respondents interviewed in this

section, north of the first groin structure, only two were there in 1962.

The one farther north received only ground damage. The other house had

interior damageto both the basement and garage. Farther south, below the

first two groin sections, the amount of damage information was more sub-

stantial. One beachfront house had water damage in the garage from the

nine inches of water. This same respondent also lost three boat ramps due

to structural damage. Total estimated damage for this property was $4,000.

The next beachfront house also received structural damage which cost an

estimated $500 to repair.

The central portion of Slaughter Beach, in the vicinity of the inter-

section between the main street and Delaware 224, experienced less signi-

ficant damage in the beachfront section. Two houses immediately north of

the intersection received structural damage. In both cases wave action was

responsible for the shifting and breaking of structural elements. In this

same area another house received only ground damage. On the south side of

the intersection one respondent reported that the only damage resulted from

the three to four inches of sand that was deposited underneath the cottage.

The garage at the next house was flooded, but there was no appreciable

monetary damage done.

The last beachfront section,at the south end of Slaughter Beach, is

situated below the groin portion of the beach. Six people interviewed

in this area were homeowners at the time of the March storm and only

two of these experienced damage to their houses. Southward from the

end of the last groin, the first four houses received only ground damage

in the form of debris, sand and mud. At the southernmost end one house

received interior damage that amounted to approximately.$300. The last

house at the southern tip of Slaughter Beach experienced structural damage

to bulkheads due to erosion and wave action. The respondent also lost two

boats in the storm having a combined value of $1,700.

On the opposite side of the road the houses lie adjacent to the

marsh area. None of the respondents interviewed in the northern end

above the groin section were there at the time of the 1962 storm.

Farther south below the third groin, one householder reported interior

damage from the flooding that amounted to an estimated $1,000.. The re-

spondent also had a small boat in the yard that was ruined by mud and

water. In the central section of the community one house to the immediate

north of the intersection received interior damage. No monetary estimate

was given for the damage, which also included ground damage. South of

Delaware 224 there are no houses located on the marsh side.

During this storm the main street in Slaughter Beach was covered with

an average of three feet of water. The movemement of this water caused

extensive damage to the road and made costly repairs necessary. Several

feet of beach, much of which had been deposited as beach fill in 1961,

were eroded by the storm. Approximatel.y 56,629 cubic yards of emergency

beach and dune fill were replaced along a 5,000 foot stretch of beach after

the storm (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1963).

b. 1974 Storm (See Pocket Map C)

Slaughter Beach suffered less extensive damage in the December

1974 storm. The section of beachfront north of the groins had only

one house that received more than ground damage. This house experienced

some interior damage caused by three feet of water in the basement. Cost

of damage was estimated at $700. Ground damage was suffered by one

house in this section. South of the first two groins, there is a section

of houses where five interviews were conducted. One resident in this group

suffered structural damage to his pier, costing $2,500 to repair. There

was also some ground damage at this residence, but no interior damage.

Two other respondents reported water on their property, but only minor

ground damage occurred.

In the central area on the northern side of the intersection one

house experienced interior flooding and ground damage, totaling an

estimated $300. Three other houses in this area reported no damage

from the storm. On the south side of the intersection, before the end

of the groin section, four residents were interviewed, and three of the

four reported major damage. The first of these had no damage inflicted

on the house, but the driveway washed out. The next house received

Figure 8

DEVELOPED AREA OF SLAUGHTER BEACH 1973

LEGEND

DEVELOPED AREA IN 1975

0 Boo 1600 2400

Ir
SCALE I" aOO

SLAUGHTER
BEACH

interior damage. including a half-inch of sand in the house. The house next

door had more than $3,200 in structural damage. The last house in this

section suffered structural damage to its boardwalk and bulkhead. In

addition this respondent also lost a car during the storm.

The southern section of Slaughter Beach received minimal damage

from the storm. Of the six respondents interviewed in this area only

one had experienced damage to anything other than grounds. In this

one instance the house located at the southernmost end received

structural damage to its bulkhead, because the storm eroded the sand

around it. The bulkhead on this property has had to be replaced three

times at a total cost of $30,000.

For those houses bordering the marsh area the damage from this storm

was not too severe. Only one respondent in this section reported both

interior and ground damage to his residence. All other residents re-

ported only ground damage.

The roads in the community were flooded during the storm and severe

damage resulted. In the northern section, between a tributary of

Slaughter Creek and the Bay, part of the road was undermined. Areas

of beach were also eroded by the storm. One groin was considered lost

because the storm,had cove'red it with sand. The Marina at the northern

edge of the community also recieved extensive damage from the storm.

BROADKILL BEACH

Broadkill Beach is located on the Delaware Bay above five miles north

of Lewes, Delaware. Route 16 enters Broadkill from the southwest. The

main road, Bayshore Drive, interesects Route 16 and runs parallel to the

shoreline.

Table 5 illustrates the rapid growth of Broadkill Beach between 1954

and 1973. Both the developed beachfront and the total number of homes

increased fourfold during that time. The estimated property value of

Broadkill Beach in 1966 was $550,000. The beachfront alone was valued at

$440,000 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1966).

TABLE 5

Broadkill Beach, Delaware

Length of Number of Number of
Developed Beachfront Set Back Total
Year Beach Homes Homes Homes

1954 .55 mi 46 28 74
1960 1.1 mi 75 43 118
1968 1.3 mi 95 55 150
1973 2.6 179 112 291

Thirty interviews were conducted in Broadkill Beach. Eighty-seven

percent of those interviewed owned property there, but only 43 percent

considered themselves permanent residents. Flood insurance had been taken
out by one-third of the'ownelrs. Half of the dwellings in Broadkill Beach

were single-storY, one fourth were multiple-story, and trailers made up

14 percent of the sample. Thirty-six percent of the people interviewed

had been coming,to Broadkill for more than ten years.

The beach is approximately seventy feet wide. The dunes are thirty

feet wi de at the base and ten to twelve feet above mean low water. They

separate the beach from an extensive marsh area, which lies to the west.

These marshes contain many small creeks and drainage ditches. Most of

the land in Broadkill Beach is less than ten feet above mean sea level.

Before the Broadkill Inlet Jetty cut off Broadkill Sound from the

Delaware Bay, the land between the Sound and the Bay was experiencing

accretion. This partially explains why Broadkill Beach protrudes farther

Figure' 9
DEVELOPED AREA OF BROADKILL BEACH 1960

BROADKILL
BEACH

LEGEND:

DEVELOPED AREA IN 1960

0 Soo 1600 2400

SCALE I"= soo'

towards the Bay than the rest of the coastline. The March 1962 storm

caused the formation of the Broadkill Sound Inlet, which connected Broadkill

Sound with the Delaware Bay. This Inlet has since been closed by littoral

drift and wind-blown sands.

Sources of Flooding

Flooding in Broadkill Beach comes from the Delaware Bay as well as

inland from the marshes and Broadkill Sound. The Bay flooding is caused by

high winds and tides. Floodwaters from the marsh occur only when there are

exceptionally high tides and when the Bay breaks through@into the marsh.

In 1962 the Bay and the marsh were responsible for flooding. There

was a natural inlet south of Broadkill Beach (Broadkill Sound Inlet) which

was said to have caused water to rise behind the barrier, but this has

since filled in. In 1974 flooding came from the Bay only and covered

Bayshore Drive and parts of Route 16.

Flood Damage (See Pocket Map D)

The total damage in Broadkill Beach by the storm of March 1962

was estimated to be about $450,000 (U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers, 1966).

Most of the people interviewed fn Broadkill Beach were not there for

the storm of March 1962. Two respondents from the northern section were

there, but received no damage. These houses were located on Beach Plum

Street and North Mexico Street.

The central section of Broadkill Beach was the most severely damaged

in 1962. This section, between Alabama Street and Route 16, had six

houses with interior and/or ground damage. One home experienced $800

worth of structural, interior and ground damage.

Zone B was established around the central section and indicates primarily

an area of interior damage. The rest of Broadkill Beach was included in

Zone C, because those few people who had been there in 1962 had received

no damage. The majority of the people north of Georgia Street had not

been there in 1962. Not many interviews were conducted in Zone C south

of Route 16, but those who had been there in 1962 had received no damage.

Although the Corps of Engineers survey conducted in April 1962 found

an estimated $450,000 total damage for Broadkill Beach, the present survey

did not find as much damage because most people who were interviewed had

not been there in 1962.

b. 1974 Storm (See Pocket Map E)

Most of Broadkill Beach received little damage in the 1974 storm with

the exception of the southernmost part. In the northern section north of

Arizona Street, six houses which were there in 1974 were surveyed. Two of

these had experienced ground damage. In the section from Alabama Street

to Arizona Street the five houses surveyed had received no damage. The

section from Route 16 to Alabama Street had seven respondents and only

two reported ground damage caused by bay water covering the property.

In the area extending south from Route 16 none of the four respondents

interviewed had any damage, but one had water on his property. There

were five respondent5 in the southernmost section of Broadkill Beach,

which included the unpaved portion of Bayshore Drive. Three houses had

received ground damage. One house experienced damage to a bulkhead totaling

$4,000. Another person reported $100 worth of interior damage as well as $100

worth of damage to a boat. The other house experienced ground damage amounting

to only $50.

The properties which were covered with Bay water in 1974 were those

situated adjacent to the Delaware Bay. The houses further@ inland had no

problem with flooding.

Figure 10

DEVELOPED AREA OF BROADKILL BEACH 1972

LEGEND:

DEVELOPED AREA IN 1972

0 Boo 1600 2400

SCALE 1" 800'

BROADKILL - NIC%
BEACH
lw

All of Broadkill Beach was delineated as Zone C for the flood of

December 1974, since there was only one case of interior damage and

seven cases of ground damage.

NORTH SHORES, HENLOPEN ACRES, REHOBOTH BEACH, DEWEY BEACH

These communities occupy the northern reach of the baymouth barrier

complex that extends along the Atlantic shore from Whiskey Beach south to

the Delaware7Maryland border (Delaware State Planning Office, 1976)@

For the most part, the shoreline fronting these communities is a straight,

narrow sand beach backed by low dunes.- The city of Rehoboth Beach itself is

situated on a Pleistocene headland, which has elevations exceeding twenty

feet above mean sea I evel .This site offers a measure of protection to

most of this community from all but the most extreme storm waves and tides.

Over the long term these headlands and,beaches recede landward particularly

during storm activity. A system of man-made groins built along this shore-

line, however, has apparently stabilized the beach. The Delaware State

Planning Office reported (1975) that between 1929 and 1954 no net recession

was recorded at Rehoboth Beach.

North Shores and Henlopen Acres to the north and Dewey Beach to the

south of the City of Rehoboth Beach are located on a barrier beach. These

communities, built in part on washover deposits, were flooded during the

recent storms of 1962 and 1974. Their topographic position and lower

elevation leave themmore vulnerable to storm waves and flooding than the

higher, more protected Rehoboth Beach area. One can be certain that breaching

of the small, remnant dunes by storm waves will occur during future storms.

Should additional dwelling units be constructed near the dune line, a con-

siderable increase in damage will result. North Shores and Henlopen Acres

are also subject to flooding from the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal and Dewey

Beach is subject to flooding from Rehoboth Bay.

North Shores, Henlopen Acres

The communities of North Shores and Henlopen Acres lie between the

city limits of Rehoboth Beach and the southern boundary of Cape Henlopen

State Park. The combined length of their beaches is 2,000 feet. The

beach consists of a wide sandy berm and low lying dunes which separate

the Atlantic Ocean from tidal marshes to the west. Both communities are

bordered on the west by the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal. This canal is

connected to a small lake in the center of North Shores.

Henlopen Acres is an incorporated town with a permanent population of

124 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1975), while North Shores is not incorporated

and primarily a summer community with only a very small permanent population.

Henlopen Acres consists, for the most part, of single family homes, while

North Shores contains single family homes, cottages, townho,uses and condominiums.

The area of North Shores is situated on filled marshland and is reportedly

subsiding.
The beach in Henlopen Acres is wide, and is protected by groins and

sand fence. After the 1962 storm the dunes.and sand fences along the

entire beach between Cape Henlopen State Park and Rehoboth Beach were

replaced by Operation Five High. Approximately 69,377 cubic yards of

sand fill were replaced along 5,000 feet of beach. The sand used was salvaged

-4
r

RD.
Figure I 1 -4

S.
DEVELOPED AREA ROM
OF
HENLOPEN ACRES
AND VC
0
NORTH SHORES 4k
0
1960

BRoan

LEGEND'

DEVELOPED AREA IN 1960

0 Soo 1600 2400

SCALE I"= 800'

from the original dunes (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1966). As of 1966 the

beach was in good condition and had an irregular line of sand dunes behind

the high water line.

The entire area of North Shores is below ten feet (msl). Approximately

two-thirds of Henlopen Acres is ten feetor higher.

A total of thirty-nine people were interviewed in Henlopen Acres and

North Shores. The two communities were combined for the computer analysis

section and called Henlopen Acres. Slightly more than one-half of those

interviewed had been coming to these communities for over ten years, but

only one-third were permanent residents. Almost 80 percent owned property

in the community.

a. Sources of Flooding

During the 1962 storm North Shores and Henlopen Acres both experienced

flooding from the canal and from the ocean.

The ocean breached the dunes in several places in Henlopen Acres.

The oceanfront blocks along Pine Reach, Rolling Road and Tidwaters Road

were inundated by ocean water which reached depths of about four feet.

Henlopen Acres was also flooded by water from the Lewes and Rehoboth

Canal, especially between Broad Hollow and Zwaanendael Road and along

Tidewaters Road. The canal water was not as deep as the ocean water; in

most cases it covered yards, but did not flood homes.

The dunes in North Shores were in poor condition at the time of the

1962 storm. As a result the ocean easily breached them and inundated the

community in the vicinity of Cedar,'South Rodney, Harbor and Holly Roads.

Along Cedar Road water reached a depth of five to six feet. Rising Canal

water met ocean water at Cedar and Harbor Roads.

In 1974, water rose from the Canal at the Henlopen Acres Yacht Basin.

Ocean water broke through the dunes at the end of Fairview Road in North

Shores and covered Duneway with a few feet of water. The Snug Harbor complex

at the end of Cedar Road in North Shores had water from the Canal on the

sidewalks.

b. Flood Damage
1. 1962 Storm (See Pocket Maps F and G)
The area between Fort Miles and Rehoboth Beach, which includes both

Henlopen Acres and North Shores, received an estimated $640,000 in damage

(July 1962 prices) from the March 1962 storm (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

1966).

Henlopen Acres experienced damage in the oceanfront blocks. All

those respondents between Zwaanendael Road and the ocean who had been

there in 1962 had received damage. Four had interior damage and one

had ground damage. One of the respondents with interior damage estimated

his loss'at $3,000. Another had $500 worth of interfor damage to a

refrigerator and a water pump.. She also had mud deposited on her property

from the Canal.

Between Dodds Lane and Zwannendael Road six respondents were inter-

viewed who had been there in 1962. One person along the Canal had no

damage while one had ground damage due to canal water on the property.

The Yacht Basin along the Canal was also flooded. A respondent on Tide-

waters Road had his back porch washed away. Ground damage was experienced

by a person on Zwaanendael Road from debris deposited by receding canal waters.

The total damage estimate was between $100 and $200. A respondent farther

back from the Canal on Zwaanendael Road had no damage, and a person between

Broad Hollow and Rolling Road also reported no damage.

Five people were interviewed in the area west of Dodd's Lane who had

been there in 1962. None had experienced any damage.

The oceanfront section of Henlopen Acres was included in Zone B

because most of the damage was interior. The low-lying sections along

the Canal were also marked as Zone B as a result of extensive Canal flooding.

The rest of Henlopen Acres was designated as Zone C, an area of ground

damage and no damage. This area is higher in elevation than the low-lying

area in Zone B.

In North Shores only one respondent was found on the oceanfront (between

Duneway and the ocean) who had been there in 1962. Her house was on pilings

and she received ground damage due to the deposition of ten feet of sand

on her property. Information obtained from other respondents indicates that

little damage occurred on the North Shores oceanfront because the homes

were elevated on pilings.

Three respondents along Cedar Road reported interior damage while one

reported structural damage. The respondent with structural damage esti-

.mated a $5,000 loss. The foundation was ruined and furniture and rugs

were damaged. An oil tank, shower and boardwalk were carried away by

water, and most of the foilage was destroyed by salt water. One person

with interior damage estimated about $1,500 in damages to rugs, books and

insulation. According to other respondents in North Shores, one house

along Duneway between Cedar Road and Harbor Road had structural damage.

No one interviewed on Harbor Road had been there in 1962, although

one home in this area was reported to have suffered interior damage.

The northern end of North Shores had not been developed in 1962,

therefore, it was not possible to describe the flooding that occurred there.

All of North Shores, except the northern section, was designated as

Zone B, since the largest number of respondents reported interior damage.

All of North Shores is low-lying and therefore, there are no high points

on which one may be relatively safe from severe flooding.

2. 1974 Storm

Although there was canal flooding in Henlopen Acres, no one reported

any damage. There was also canal flooding in North Shores, and the

ocean broke through the dune at the end of Fairview Road. This caused one

reported case of interior damage to a house on Robins Lane and Fairview

Road.

3. Interpretation of Aerial Photographs - March 1962 Storm

After the completi on of the field survey, a set of aerial photographs

taken of the Atlantic Coastal margin of Delaware immediately following the

March 1962 storm became available. Copies of these photographs were obtained

and examined in detail to determine: 1) the inland extent of sand

coverage and washovers; 2) the areas of inundation in each community; and

3) any areas where structural damage could be observed. Since these photo-

graphs were not examined until after the field survey and the construction

of the damage zone maps, the information from the photographs, when compared

with the results of the survey, provided a very useful check and verification

of the information gathered thirteen to fourteen years after the storm in question.

The photographs showed a nearly continuous line of breached sand dunes

in Henlopen Acres and North Shores. Since there are no streets which run

perpendicular to the beach, as in many of the coastal communities, the sand

did not show the typical pattern of dune breaches at the street ends. Instead,

Duneway, running parallel to the ocean, was entirely covered by sand. The

sand extended from 24 feet to 600 feet west of Duneway. The furthest inland

extent of the sand occurred in North Shores, but these washover fans showed

no trace of debris from damaged homes.

It is difficult to determine what parts of Henlopen Acres and North

Shores were flooded in March 1962, since much of the water had receded

before the photographs were taken. Some of the streets seemed to have

water still on them because they appear darker than other streets. From

this information it would seem that the flooding in Henlopen Acres was

limited to low-lying areas along the Lewes-Rehoboth Canal and a section

adjacent to the beach. All of North Shores experienced floodwaters.

There were no visible structural damage areas in Henlopen Acres and

North Shores. The line of floodwater coverage from the storm photographs

corresponds well with the zone of interior damage obtained from the

survey. Those areas of'Henlopen Acres which, according to the photographs,

did not appear to be flooded, also did not receive any interior or structural

damage according to the survey.

Rehoboth Beach

Rehoboth Beach is the largest population center on Delaware's Atlantic

Coast. It is located north of Rehoboth Bay and south of Cape Henlopen. The

community covers an area approximately 1.1 square miles and has a total ocean

frontage of 1 2/3 miles

Rehoboth Beach is an incorporated municipality with a permanent population

of 1,614. Since it is a popular beach resort, the population swells to an

estimated 52,000 during the summer (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1966). There

are numerous commercial establishments located here to serve vacationers. Many

hotels, restaurants and stores line the mile-long boardwalk and main streets.

Aside from these establishments, Rehoboth Beach is primarily composed of single

family homes.

In 1966 the property value of the entire town was estimated to be

$32,044,000. The figure given for the beachfront alone was $3,410,000.

The March 1962 storm caused an estimated $3,530,000 in damages (U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, 1966).

The beach in Rehoboth is about 100 feet wide between the sea and board-

walk and it has a slope of 1:10. There are also two inland lakes in Rehoboth

Lake Gerar and Silver Lake. Lake Gerar, located at the northern end of the

community is the smaller of the two. Silver Lake, located in the southern

section of town, has 1,200 feet of shoreline along the back side of the

barrier beach. The beach and the lake absorb and dissipate wave energy and

reduce flooding effects from storm tides and thus protect inland property.

Rehoboth Beach is located on a Pleistocene highland. Most of the town,

therefore, i-s higher than 10 feet above mean sea level and a large portion

is higher than twenty feet. Consequently storm damage is primarily confined

to a relatively narrow strip of land adjacent to the ocean. The Lewes/

Rehoboth Canal poses no flood threat here.

Many projects to prevent beach erosion have been undertaken in Rehoboth.

Between 1922 and 1962 seventeen groins, mostly of timber, were constructed

Figure 12

DEVELOPED AREA OF REHOBOTH 1960

LEGEND:

DEVELOPED AREA IN 1960

0 Soo 1600 2400

SCALE I"= 800'

D
GERAR ST
AA, Uj

SANDLEWOO
MUNSON ST
AUREL ST.

CKMAN
0
0
J

L4
@4,

EHOBOT
BEAC S-
WX
d AIR N ST.
bi.
C;
SILVER
LAKE
A

OMEGY K

A S
rctwiESA
c CAROL114A

along the beach. The State is responsible for the maintenance of these

groins. The State also protects the dunes by periodically planting dune

grass and providing crossovers for beach users. In spite of these measures

the net annual volumetric sand loss from Rehoboth Beach is 144,500 cubic

yards (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1966).

The surveys conducted in Rehoboth Beach were divided into two separate

groups. Rehoboth survey I is composed of 250 people found on the beach or

the boardwalk while the sixty-seven respondents of Rehoboth survey 2 were

interviewed in their homes. The Rehoboth survey 1 sample is considerably

different from all the other communities included in this study. Only 9

percent of those interviewed owned property in Rehoboth, and only 3 percent

were permanent residents. In fact 61 percent spent only two weeks or less

there. Thirty-five percent of this sample had been coming to Rehoboth for

more than ten years. Rehoboth survey 2 shows that 85 percent own property

there, while 50 percent are permanent residents. Almost 75 percent of this

sample had been coming to Rehoboth Beach for more than ten years.

In addition to these questionnaires some of the local busi nessmen

were interviewed, particularly those whose establishments were close to

the beach. They provided considerable information regarding damage and

flood patterns in Rehoboth.

a. Sources of Flooding

High tides and winds from the northeast were the causes of the March

1962 storm damage. Since Rehoboth Beach is located on a Pliestocene highland,

the immediate beachfront was the only area impacted by waves and floodwater.

The beachfront of Rehoboth was flooded from Pennsylvania Avenue south to

Hickman Street.

The ocean breached the dune at Silver Lake which resulted in elevated

lake levels and flooding to depths of one to two feet around its perimeter

The floodwaters from Silver Lake covered parts of Lake Drive and Route 14A

which parallels the shoreline. King Charles Avenue, extending northward

from Silver Lake, is a low-lying street and was flooded as far inland as

Laurel Street.

The storm of December 1974 was also a northeaster, however, it lacked

the duration of the March 1962 storm. Flooding, therefore, was hot as

severe. Flood damage occurred along the northern section of the boardwalk

in the vicinity of Henlopen Hotel.

Surf Avenue, which tends to flood on unusually high tides, was also

under water.

b. Flood Damage
1. 1962 Storm (See Pocket Map H)
It is estimated that the storm of 1962 caused $3,530,000 worth of

damage to Rehoboth Beach. Most of this damage was concentrated along

a narrow strip next to the beach, extending about 100 feet west of the

boardwalk.

The following is a summary of the location, type, and cost of damages

in Rehoboth Beach. The first section will deal with the oceanfront strip

from Pennsylvania Avenue to Silver Lake and the second section will cover

damage around the perimeter of Silver Lake. The portions of Rehoboth

Beach not covered in these two sections either suffered no damages, or

no respondents could be found who had been in the area in 1962 (See Pocket

Map H).

The first section had ten buildings with structural damage and three

with ground damage. Two homes along Surf Avenue, between Pennsylvania

Avenue and Lake Avenue were destroyed and another one on the beach at Lake

and Surf Avenues was washed away. The house on the corner of Pennsylvania

Avenue and Surf Avenue remained standing but was extensively damaged.

A garage behind the house also received some damage. The second house back

on Pennsylvania Avenue experienced ground damage. The owner said that a

barrier was created by the destroyed home on Surf Avenue and Pennsylvania

Avenue which reduced the damage to her own home. The seawall along Surf

Avenue was also demolished.

The Henlopen Hotel between Lake Avenue and Virginia Avenue received

structural damage. The front section of the east wing was destroyed.

Stuart-Kingston Galleries, next to the Henlopen Hotel, was totally

destroyed. Damage amounted to $250,000. The structure had not been built

on pilings, but merely on concrete foundation. The VIA (Village Improvement

Association) house, located behind Stuart-Kingston Galleries received no

damage due to its location on higher ground even though it was only 100

feet from the boardwalk. The Surf Apartments at the foot of Olive Avenue

were completely destroyed by the undercutting of the ocean waves and tides.

The east wing of the Atlantic Sands Notel, between Baltimore Avenue

and Maryland Avenue, was destroyed. Dolle's, on Rehoboth Avenue, also

received severe structural damage. The front section of the Belhaven

Hotel on the southern side of Rehoboth Avenue was demolished. Playland,

located between Delaware and Wilmington Avenues, had structural damage,

especially to its front section.

The first place that the ocean broke through was at Philadelphia

Avenue where a home at the end of the street received structural

damage.

The last home in this section, located on Penn Street, suffered

ground damage due to the encroachment of ocean water. A tennis court and

driveway were also washed away. In addition, 6.5 feet of sand were washed

away in front of the house.

The storm caused about twelve feet of beach erosion. The federal and

State governments funded a project, Operation Five High, which replaced

much of the sand lost from the beach to make it ready for the summer tourist

season. Approximately 216,189 cubic yards of sand were replaced along a

5,000 foot stretch of beach (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1963).

The second section deals with the area around Silver Lake. In the

area north of the Lake there were two reported cases of basement flooding

between Bayard Avenue and the ocean. One of these respondents (on Norfolk

Street) had interior damage to a freezer. The rest of the respondents in

this area (five) reported no damage. Between Scarborough Avenue and Bayard

Avenue none of the respondents had been living there in 1962, so no infor-

mation was obtained. The area between the Lewes-Rehoboth Canal and Scar-

borough Avenue had not been developed in 1962 and, therefore, flooding

information was unavailable.

In the area south of the lake between the Lewes-Rehoboth Canal and

Scarborough Avenue Extended, there were three respondents who reported

no damage in 1962. Between Scarborough Avenue Extended and Route 14A

one home experienced interior damage and one, on Martin Lane, suffered

basement flooding. There was one case of ground damage on Pine Lane.

Three other respondents on Pine Lane had water on their properties, but

no damage. Three respondents farther back from Silve Lake had no

damage.

On the basis of the above information, two zones were drawn on the

Rehoboth damage map. Zone A extends along the ocean front strip from

Pennsylvania Avenue to Hickman Street and indicates an area of structural

damage. This is the area which bore the brunt of the storm's waves and

floodwaters. The rest of Rehoboth was marked as Zone C, an area of

ground damage or no damage. Although in some sections there was flooding

from Silver Lake and Lake Gerar, damage was generally confined to grounds

and basements.

2. 1974 Storm

The only severe damage to Rehoboth during the December 1974 storm was

a loss of part of the boardwalk from the Henlopen Hotel to Baltimore

Avenue. The damage was estimated to be $75,000.

3. Interpretation of Aerial Photographs - 1962 Storm

Sand inundation in Rehoboth Beach was generally limited to the streets

within one block of the beach. The sand inundation in these sections is

an indication of floodwaters from the ocean, which at the time of the

photograph had receded. The sand reaches fartherest inland along Rehoboth

Avenue where it extends 400 feet west from the boardwalk. There is also

an inland sand extension that crosses from the beach into Lake Gerar.

Fingers of sand inundation also occur from Penn Street to New Castle Street

and from Brooklyn Avenue to Wilmington Avenue which could be related to

weak or unprotected areas at the ends of these streets.

A unique feature in Rehoboth Beach is the occurrence of a sand ridge

along with the sand inundation line. A solid yellow line is used to indicate

this ridge. The ridge extends intermittently along the beach from the

first street below Silver Lake north to Oak Avenue. There are a few areas

that have a ridge of sand backed by a zone of further inundation. This

indicates major breaches of sand dunes at these points. Areas that include

these features occur at: 1) the first block south of Silver Lake;

2) the end of Rehoboth Avenue; and 3) Virginia Avenue to the Henlopen

Hotel.

The aerial photographs indicate visible damage to the boardwalk along

its entire expanse from Brooklyn Avenue to the Henlopen Hotel. Structural

damage areas are also evident from the aerial photographs along the ocean-

front strip next to the boardwalk.

Water inundation, other than the wave action that produced the sand

outline, is limited to a small area surrounding Silver Lake. These flood-

waters are found on the streets from Silver Lake north to Stockley Street

along King Charles Avenue. According to the survey information some base-

ment flooding as well as grounds and interior damage occurred in this area.

Dewey Beach Area

The Dewey Beach Area lies adjacent to the southern edge of Rehoboth

Beach and is approximately five miles north of Indian River Inlet. The

1970 population for this area was estimated to be 330 permanent residents,

and 3,000 summer residents (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1972). Property

value for the entire town has been estimated at $2,420,000. For the beach

front the figure is $1,912,000 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1966). This

area is composed of three unincorporated sections. Extending south from Silver

Lake to Bellevue Street lies the section called Rehoboth-by-the-Sea. This

Figure 13

DEVELOPED AREA OF DEWEY BEACH 1960

cl./

Al.
Co COMEGYS LAY-

co ST.
CHESAPEA ST
CARD' 1 - - .

":RSE"

CUL
0 10

S
WEST

0
'[5

ST 7-
CARO
m BAYVIEW AVE s 0
J,
a
fn
DuTCH CD RD.
ED
SWEDEScn]o 51
M

SALISERRY

DEWEY
BEACH
0

D III

LEGEND'.

DEVELOPED AREA IN 1960

0 Soo 1600 2400
I- 13EDFORD AVE'
SCALE I" - 800' McKEAN AVIE.
1976 STREET BASE MAP
HAZLET A%JE*

community spreads out on either side of Route 14 and is composed primarily

of single family homes. This section is generally higher than ten feet

above mean sea level and has an ocean exposure on the east side.

Sea Breeze, the community which lies to the west of Bayard Avenue, is

situated directly north of'-Rehoboth Bay. This community is also composed

of single family homes, which are, for the most part, located on high ground

more than ten feet above sea level. At the western edge of the community

there are two canals extending inland. The area directly along the Bay has

been privately bulkheaded by the owners of these properties. A new building

code applied to the bay front section of Sea Breeze requires that al.) new

houses must be built on pilings.

The third and major section is the community of Dewey Beach. There

are several commercial establishments along Route 14, including motels and

stores. The Rehoboth Bay Marina is on the bay in Dewey Beach. The rest

of the community is residential, consisting of trailers, cottages, single

homes and apartment houses. Dewey Beach lies on a barrier beach between the

Atlantic Ocean and Rehoboth Bay and is about 1/4 mile wide. Route 14 runs

north-south bisecting the community into an ocean side and a bayside section.

The land here is mostly less than ten feet above mean sea level except for

some sand dunes.

The whole Dewe.Y Beach Area has about 1.3 miles of ocean frontage. The

beach is about 150 feet wide from the seaward edge of the dunes. After the

storm of 1962, Operation Five High was instituted to replace some of the

sand which was washed away from the coast. The Dewey Beach Area received

82,050 cubic yards of sand fill along a 4,700 foot stretch of beach in August

1962 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1963).

There were thirty-nine interviews conducted in the Dewey Beach Area.

Property owners made up 82 percent of the sample and 38 percent were per-

manent residents. Thirty-three percent of the property owners had federal

flood insurance policies. Seventy-one percent of those interviewed had

lived in the area for over ten years.

a. Sources of Flooding

The storm of March 1962 caused ocean water to break through several of

the dunes in the Dewey Beach Area. It was reported that in the late

1950's the dunes, at the ends of the streets running to the ocean, were

flattened because many people desired a better view of the ocean. There-

fore, the ocean was more likely to breach the dunes in these areas in 1962.

The streets fronted by particularly low, weak dunes were New Orleans,

Bellevue, Dagsworthy, McKinley, and Read Streets water depth in this area

averaged two feet. Other areas where the dunes were breached include

Carolina, Cullen, West and Houston Streets. Water-depth in this area,

however was only 0.5 feet. The first break in the dunes occurred at

Rodney Street, where the water level reached four feet. The water also

broke through the sand barrier in front of Silver Lake, causing the lake to

rise and flood Route 14.

Waves crashing on Dewey Beach caused extensive dune destruction as well

as beach erosion. One source noted that the beach has eroded 250 feet since

1949.

Water from the ocean washed over to Rehoboth Bay, which rose and

caused back flooding to depths of three to four feet. At New Orleans

Street water from the ocean washed down the street and emptied into

the bay. The ocean also entered Indian River Inlet, five miles south

of Dewey Beach, causing the bay to rise. On some streets the floodwater

from the bay met floodwater from the ocean. Residents particularly

mentioned water from the bay and the ocean meeting at Rodney and at

Bellevue Streets. Thus, in 1962, the major portion of Dewey Beach was

flooded from both the bay and the ocean. The Rehoboth-b.y-the-Sea section

received mostly ocean flooding, but it also had some lake flooding. The

Sea Breeze section experienced floodwater only from rising bay waters.

In December 1974, the ocean water broke through some of the dunes

and flooded streets and properties, but did little damage. The dunes at

Dagsworthy, McKinley, Rodney and Dickinson Streets were breached. Flooding

was also experienced at Cullen, Swedes, New Orleans and Read Streets. Route 14

also experienced some washover fron the ocean. On the bay side of Bellevue

Street the water level was reported to be one to two feet deep. The water

in the bay rose and washed up in this area which is less than three feet

above sea level.

b. Flood Damage

To organize this material the Dewey Beach Area is divided into the

three sections. The first section, from Silver Lake at Chesapeake Street

south to Bellevue Street (Rehoboth-by-the-Sea), consists of an ocean side

east of Route 14 and a bay area west of Route 14 to Bayard Avenue. The

second section consists largely of a development called Sea Breeze and lies

on the north shore of Rehoboth Bay west of Bayard Avenue. The third section

is the community of Dewey Beach and extends from Bellevue Street south to

Clayton Street near Indian Beach.

1. 1962 Storm (See Pocket Map I)

Rehoboth-by-the-Sea received flooding from the ocean as well as

from the bay and to a lesser extent from Silver Lake. On the ocean

side of Rehoboth-by-the-Sea, five people were interviewed between

Chesapeake Street and Houston Street. Four of these had experienced

no damage while one respondent on St. Louis Street near Route 14

had ground damage due to two to three feet of water on the property;

the water came up to the doorway of the house. The property was

covered by silt and mud and damage occurred to the well pump when it was

covered with water. Of those who received no damage, two respondents,

one on West Street and another on Cullen Street, had water on their property.

Both dewellings were within a half block of the ocean.

Between Houston Street and Bellevue Street on the ocean side, three

residents who were there in 1962 were interviewed. One on Salisbury

Street experienced no damage while two suffered int erior damage. The

structures fronting directly on the ocean at the end of Salisbury Street

were destroyed. Five houses and one hotel were replaced because of

extensive structural damage. One property on the south side of New Orleans

Street had fourteen inches of water inside the house. It cost $370 to re-

place the heating system and remove the sand. The respondent felt that

this house was protected from the storm by a debris barrier that was created

in front of the house. One house on the beachfront at New Orleans Street was

totally destroyed. At the end of New Orleans Street, facing Route 14, a

building received interior damage. On Bellevue Street the respondent

interviewed had interior damage and ground damage from sand and saltwater.

Toward the beachfront, there were two houses between Bellevue Street and

New Orleans Street that residents noted as having experienced structural damage.

On the west side of Route 14 the damage in the Rehoboth-by-the-Sea

section was minimal. From Chesapeake Street to Bellevue Street only one

respondent had damage. The house, located at the intersection of Salisbury

Street and Bayard Avenue, received interior damage estimated to be $500

as a result of the bay water rising to a level of about 3.5 feet. Bay water

traveled up Bayard Avenue as far as Clayton, but the other respondents

interviewed in this section of Rehoboth-by-the-Sea received no damage

or water on their property.

East of Bayard Avenue along the northern end of Rehoboth Bay individuals

in the first two blocks of the Sea Breeze section were interviewed. Two

residents on Swedes Street were there in 1962 and had no damage to their

property. Both respondents noted the higher topography of this area as
the reason for not receiving damage. Another respondent who was there in

1962 was located on Salisbury Street facing the bay. This house, and the

two houses on either side, received water on their properties, but no

damage occurred. The last house on Salisbury Street before Bayard Avenue

received interior damage due to bay water in the first floor of the house.

The main portion of Dewey Beach is found south of Bellevue Street

extending to Collins Street. The community extends from the ocean on

the east of Route 14 to Rehoboth Bay on the west side. On the ocean side

of Route 14, between Bellevue Street and Read Street, damage information

was collected from four respondents who had experienced the 1962 storm.

On the south side of Bellevue Street one house, located midway on the ocean

block, received interior damage. There were six to twelve inches of water

inside the house which resulted in about $150 worth of damage. Dagsworthy

Street, the next street south, received extensive damage from the storm.

The dunes were torn down at the end of this street, causing structural

damage to three properties, interior damage to two properties and

grounds damage to one property. On the north side of Dagsworthy Street

two mobile homes were located in the middle of the block. The one

closest to the ocean received structural damage because the force of the

moving water from the ocean shifted its foundation. The second mobile

home received grounds damage due to the presence of sand and debris.

On the south side of Dagsworthy Street the property closest to the

ocean at the end of the street received structural damage. The next

house inland had interior damage due to two feet of water in the house.

The third house from the ocean had structural, interior and grounds

damage caused by wave action and moving water. Exterior fixtures were

broken and sand and saltwater damaged interior furnishings as well as

the grounds. The last house on the south side of Dagsworthy Street

received interior damage as a result of one foot of water inside the

house. Between Dagsworthy and McKinley Streets two,houses facing the

ocean received structural damage. The damage to one of these houses

was estimated to be between $7,000 and,$8,000. An ocean front property

between McKinley and Road Streets was completely destroyed. Directly

off Route 14, between Read and McKinley Streets, a series of five

cottages received interior damage from ocean flooding. Another house,

located at the intersection of Route 14 and Read Street, experienced

structural damage when moving water shifted its foundation. Damage to

the entire complex amounied to almost $6,000.

From Rodney Street to Collins Street three residents were inter-

viewed who had experienced the 1962 storm. Information gathered in

this section included the mention of eleven homes along the ocean

front that were completely destroyed. These residents also noted

structural damage to one building, interior damage to another, and

four cases of grounds damage. On the beachfront between Read and

Rodney Streets, five houses were washed out to sea. One-half block

from the ocean on the north side of Rodney Street, one house experienced

grounds damage. On the south side of Rodney Street the house facing

the ocean, received structural damage. The house behind this on Rodney

Street had grounds damage to the property. Between Rodney and Dickinson

Streets on the beachfront one house was completely destroyed and the

house behind it received grounds damage. On Van Dyke Street the ocean

broke through the dunes carrying sand and water down the street and

most houses along the street suffered interior damage. On the ocean-

front many of the houses were totally destroyed. A home on the north

side of Van Dyke Street, facing the ocean, was completely destroyed

when the dunes washed out. The cost of rebuilding this house was over

$30,000. The house behind it on the north side of Van Dyke Street

only received grounds damage because sand and debris created a pro-

tective barrier. On the south side of Van Dyke Street near Route 14

one property, which includes both a house and a shop, received $4,000

in interior and grounds damage. At the end of Van Dyke Street and

along the ocednfront to Collins Street five homes were completely

destroyed.

The final section is the ba,y side portion of Dewey Beach west

of Route 14. Some shops and restaurants in this section were damaged,

and the boardwalk at Wilson's Yacht Basin was underwater. Four feet

of water was inside the Bottle and Cork and sand was piled up to

the second floor of several cottages.

More specifically, there were thirteen homes which received damage

in this section. Eleven of these suffered interior damage and two

had structural damage. One respondent on Bellevue Street reported

interior damage worth $3,000. Between McKinley and Read Streets

two respondents reported their homes received interior damage. One

house facing McKinley Street had water four feet high in the house,

which resulted in $3,000 in damages. The house facing Read Street had

interior and grounds damage that amounted to $14,000. Between Read

and Rodney Streets six houses had interi-or damage and one had structural

damage. The house with structural damage also had interior and grounds

damage totalling almost $1,500. The walls in this home were fractured

and sand was evident on the property. Three structures between Dickinson

and Rodney Streets were owned by one respondent who reported $5,000

in damages. The two cottages received interior damage and the trailer
had structural an8 interior damage.

The flood damage in Dewey Beach during the March 1962 storm was

caused by a combination of ocean and bay flooding. The cost of this

damage has been estimated at $3,150,000 (1962 prices, Corps of Engineers,

1966).

Structural damage occurred primarily along the oceanfront. Although

the land there is generally ten feet or higher above sea level, there

was severe flooding due to the fact that several dunes were breached.

In a few cases houses located in the ocean block behind the beachfront

properties received only grounds damage because the houses in front acted

as a barrier to the force of the waves. Houses which were situated

more than 400 feet inland tended to receive interior damage as opposed

to structural damage. The land there is less than ten feet above sea

level. In particular, the homes on the bay side west of Route 14, were

more likely to receive interior rather than structural damage.

2. 1974 Storm (See Pocket Map J)

The December 1974 storm caused flooding in the streets and water

on some properties in the Dewey Beach Area, but caused little property

damage.

In the Rehoboth-by-the-Sea section, several respondents noted

that the ocean came over the dunes and flooded some of the streets,

including Cullen, Swedes, and New Orleans. A few respondents in

the oceanfront area said they received water on their property, but

only one person reported damage. The respondent who reported grounds

damage lived on Swedes Street; the damage was caused by sand on the

property.

None of the residents in the Sea Breeze area received damage from

the 1974 storm. There was no mention of any water on their property.

The private bulkheads placed along the homes facing the bay provided pro-

tection from floodwaters.

The portion of Dewey Beach below Bellevue Street suffered flooding

from the ocean and the bay, but only minor damage was reported. On

the east side of Route 14 one respondent along the oceanfront on

Dagsworthy Street reported grounds damage to a fence when the ocean

washed over the property and under the house. The sea broke through

the dunes at the end of Rodney Street causing flooding of the streets.

On the bay side west of Route 14 some damage did occur, but most areas

just experienced water on the property. The Boat House Restaurant

between Bellevue and Dagsworthy Streets had its dock washed away and there

was one to two feet of water in the surrounding block. A house between

McMnle
y and Read Streets received flooding on the property, but not

in the house. The group of houses on the ocean between Rodney and

Dickinson Streets experienced water on the properties because the sea

broke through the dunes at the end of Rodney Street, but there was no

property damage to homes in the area.

The total damage from the storm included one dock washed away and

two cases of grounds damage, although flooding of the streets may have

caused minor cleanup problems.

3. Interpretations of Aerial Photographs - 1962 Storm

Floodwater in the community of Dewey Beach appear to have inundated

the town from both ocean and bay. The northern boundary of water

inundation occurred at Chicago Street, where the ocean seems to have

reached as far west as Route 14. Route 14 continues to mark the

boundary of the inland extent of water inundation south to Swedes Street.

At this point ocean water combines with bay floodwaters and the entire

community between the bay and the ocean shows evidence of water inun-

dation. The only areas of the community where a definite water boundary

100

could be distinguished were in the streets of the back bay area. Water

flooded Bayard Avenue up to Swedes Street and then closely followed the

bay along the first parallel street. The community south of New Orleans

Street was completely underwater, but it is difficult to distinguish

bay water from ocean water. The path and direction of water flow as re-

ported by our survey respondents corresponds well with the area of flood-

water coverage on the aerial photograph.

The sand inundation line, which covers the length of the community

from Route 14 to the beach, indicates the areas most significantly

influenced by ocean flooding. Sand inundation reaches 640 feet inland

at Van Dyke Street. The pattern of sand inundation is irregular in

shape, with the most obvious inland extensions indicating breaks in

the dunes. These breaches in the sand dunes usually correspond to

streets perpendicular to and terminating at the beach. Some of the

major breaches occurred along McKean, Bedford, Van Dyke, Read, McKinley,

and Salisbury Streets. There are also smaller breaches evident on each

street from Salisbury north to Chicago. In the area between Read and

Beach Streets the identification of the sand inundation boundary was

difficult because the tonal contrasts of the pattern were not as clear.

This effect was most likely due to the presence of water still in this

area when the photograph was taken.

The areas of the aerial photographs that could be identified as

breached dunes at the ends of the streets closely correspond to the

survey information. Even in areas where well defined dune breaching was

not visible in the aerial photographs, the extent of the sand inundation

101

was highly correlated to the damage reported in the survey infor-

mation.

One structural damage area was visible on the aerial photograph

between Salisbury and Swedes Street. Although this area is not directly

related to any specific damage reported from the survey, it does correspond

to the outline of the structural damage zone established by the survey.

The general outline of damage in the community from the survey

information does seem to be highly correlated to the information from

the aerial photographs. The sand inundation line from the beach includes

almost all the structural damage areas reported in the survey. The

interior damage zone, extending from the first ocean block to the bay,

is also in agreement with the areas in the aerial photographs that show

water inundation.

Oak Orchard - Riverdale

Oak Orchard is located on the north shore of the Indian River about

halfwa.y between Millsboro, Delaware and the Indian River Inlet. Riverdale,

an adjacent community, lies to the west of Oak Orchard, also along the

Indian River. Surface elevations in Oak Orchard are generally less

than ten feet above mean sea level, while Riverdale lies on somewhat

higher land with portions of this community situated above ten feet (MSL).

Both towns are unincorporated, primarily residential communities with

few commerical establishments. Approximately sixty families live in Oak

Orchard on a permanent basis.

Twenty-four respondents were interviewed in Oak Orchard and Riverdale.

Eighty-three percent of these respondents owned dwellings and property, but

only 54 percent considered themselves to be permanent residents. Flood

insurance had been obtained by 30 percent of these property owners. More

102

Figure 14

DEVELOPED AREA OF OAK ORCHARD AND RIVERDALE 1962

F- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

OAK ORCHARD
and
RIVERDALE
UNINCORPORATED

f-ft

LEGEND@

DEVELOPED AREA IN 1962

0 800 1600 2400

SCALE 1"= 800'

than half (54 percent) of the people interviewed had been in the area for

more than ten years. The mix of dwellings owned by respondents was 43

percent single story, 52 percent multiple story, and 5 percenttrailer.

Sources of Flooding

Among the communities covered in this project the Oak Orchard-Riverdale

area is unique in several ways. Both communities lie in a relatively pro-

tected location on the northern bank of Indian River, approximately six

miles west of Indian River Inlet and the Atlantic Ocean. Although storm

surges, tides and waves affecting these communities are generated primarily

in the Atlantic, they are strongly modified by hydrographic conditions

prevailing in the Indian River-Rehoboth Bay complex. The followinq

factors are of importance:

a. Indian River Bay is shallow; generally a maximum of six to

eight feet deep; and

b. The fetch across Indian River Bay (distance of open water

across which the wave-generating winds blow) is six miles for

easterly winds and considerably shorter for all other directions.

The shallowness of the bay and the limited fetch p@eclude the develop-

ment of extreme wave heights. Figures 14 and 15 indicate that for water

depths of five to ten feet, winds with a fetch of six miles, and sus-

tained speeds of 50 miles per hour, wave heights of 2 to 3.5 feet can

be expected. Increasing the wind speed to 80 miles per hour yields waves

of 2.5 to 4 feet depending on water depths. Significantly, the magnitude of

damage expected in this area from wave attack should be much less than for

104

I FIGURE 15
FOREM)IINb CURVES FOR SHALLOW-WATER WAVES
CONSTANT DEPTH 5 FEET

100 .75feet__
90
H -
80 Ad feet'
70 5 e c!-_4 H 2.1251feet
60 Auto
H = 2.00 feet
50
CL
E 1.75
ec. feet
40

1-50 feet
30
CL
0 25 /.00 feet

20 sec.

50
15

Sec
e 11 . -_ -1 %@ @_ @@Z' 0
10 et *@. _@ '@_ IL@@ I .. I Ll I
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1.5 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
X 1,000 Fetch F feet X 10,000

SCALE IN MILES 2 4 10 1E. 1� J!k lot
-11 13
3 5

100 H=4.5 fe t rI
90 low se-c-.j-j-j
feet
80 ! i
70
3.5 feet
60

50
MEMO -77 r7O s e c'-
CL
E fe
40

3 0

25
0

0
@-Sd feet
15 1
H 0 25 feet see.
@= ).6 sec.
10 F@ _t I I T_ -
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 1.5 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
X 1,000 Fetch (F) feet X'0,000

FIGURE 16
FORECASTING CURVES FOR SHALLOW-WATER WAVES
CONSTANT DEDTH = 10 FEET

Maximum Fetch Oak Orchard
i4@

Source:
Shore Protection Manual, University of Delaware,
U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center,
Corps of Engineers, 1973

105

the Delaware Bay and Atlantic Shore communities where deeper waters and

virtually an unlimited wind fetch is possible.

Offsetting the shallowness and limited fetch conditions is the fact

that the bay is shaped like an irregular funnel with Oak Orchard-Riverdale

lying in the constricted portion. The open, broad end of the "funnel" faces

the Atlantic. Flood tides and storm surges may enter Indian River Bay

through the Indian River Inlet, Assawoman Canal, Lewes-Rehoboth Canal and

through storm-caused washovers or breaches in the barrier beach along the

Atlantic shore. If these waters are blown inland (westward) by strong

sustained easterly winds into the constricted portion of the bay, the

water level in the western portions of the bay will rise and cause flooding

in adjacent coastal areas. The causes and magnitude of damaging waves,

currents and floodwaters affecting these communities situated several miles

from the open coast involves a complex set of interacting meteorologic and

hydrographic variables.

The most severe flooding in Oak Orchard-Riverdale will develop when a

coastal storm with sustained strong northeasterly, easterly or southeasterly

winds coincides with abnormally high spring tides that occur approximately twice

each month along the Delaware coast.

During the storm of March 1962, Oak Orchard was under two to three feet

of water. Many homes on the riverfront were surrounded by as much as

five feet of water. The flood caused severe beach erosion in places along

the river front. Lots in Riverdale were also covered with a few feet of

water. The houses further back from the river were not flooded although there

was water in some streets. Some parts of Riverdale are more than ten feet

above mean sea level and are thus immune to most flooding. Waves were

reported f rom the ri ver i n both Oak Orchard and Ri verdal e. Flooding in this

106

area was intensified by two high tides.

With the stablilization of the Indian River Inlet in 1939, tidal forces

within the Indian River Bay complex have become stronger. One resident

believed that because of this fact, tidal flooding could be controlled

by regulating flows at the Inlet.

In the absence of a well documented history of storms affecting the

area, an alternative source of information on flood tide heights may be

obtained from the records of a tide gage located at the Indian River Power

Plant, three miles west of Oak Orchard. For example, during the December

1974 coastal sotrm (Figure 16), water levels in Indian River at the

power plant reached a maximum of 4.4 feet above mean low water or 3.5 feet

above the normally expected high tides for that time. During the December

8 to 10, 1973 (Figure 17) storm, tide levels rose to 2.2 feet above

normal on December 9. On September 20 and 12, 1972, water rose 2.6 feet

above normal (Figure 18). None of these storms was particularly severe.

Only the December 1974 storm created widespread coastal damage.

Nevertheless it is likely that tide levels of two to five feet above normal

can be expected to occur frequently in this area with subsequent flooding.

The following storms have been identified as causing coastal flooding

and damage in Oak Orchard - Riverdale:

September 18, 1924

Reports of high tides and flooding in Rehoboth Bay and Indian River

Bay. Probable flooding in low lying areas of Oak Orchard.
No documented damage (published or written reports) was noted between

September 1924 and September 1956. It is unlikely, however, that the

Oak Orchard-Riverdale area escaped flooding during those years because

107

Z5U L

HEIGHT (FT.)

lo@

cn..
\1

m
N-

rn "n
r-Z < -
FO G)
m
< --i ril T ;a c
mom m
Q m 0i m
m z -u
0
m CD * -
2( m -4

z 0
0 -4
c

rvi rn

m rvl
ril < <
0 rvl ryl

60L

HEIGHT FT)

N CA
0

M
0

0.-

rn 1-100'
rri 0 N)
> OD M C
/00 0 m
m
0 0
OD
C: > 0
-4 m CD
rn
m rn
rn
z
0 rn
rn <
rn rn
N7 rn Z, r-
OD rn(
a
rn
z
0-- 0
rn
<
> m

r
m

0 L L

K
HEIGHT (FEET)

m
0

0
OD zo

0-- n
am
M MM
m rn <
M-- r, z M G)
M 0
cn 0 < M c:
M m --A 0 ;u
10 m M
0
o z -flo
ILO

/001

IM m
m r- m
a m <
< rn
M

0 T

several major coastal storms occurred. The most severe in terms of

damage elsewhere wer e reported on:

January 26, 27, 1933
September 18, 19, 1936
September 15, 16, 1944
August 15, 1953
August 3, 1955

September 27, 28, 1956

Hurricane Flossy; flooding in several communities along Indian

River and Rehoboth Bay was reported including Riverdale and Oak Orchard.

Tides ranged three to five feet above normal at the Indian River Yacht

Club.

March 6-8, 1962

During the height of this devastating storm, waves four feet high

rolled into the grove at Oak Orchard. Sands along the shoreline were

entirely stripped away. From three to four feet of water covered all

the shorefront cottages at Riverdale. Piers along the shoreline were

destroyed and some dwellings and shops were lifted off their foundations

(see following section for more details).

Flood Damage (See Pocket Map K)

The following is a brief summary of damages experienced in the Oak

Orchard area during the storm of March 1962 showing the location, type, and

cost of damages. The report is divided into two sections: the first part

covers Oak Orchard and the second covers Riverdale.

Eleven interviews were conducted in Oak Orchard. One resp'ondent living

on the river front reported that exterior fixtures on the house were torn

away and that running water caused interior and grounds damage. The total

cost of all damage done to the house and grounds was $2,000. Another

respondent, also on the river front, said that some house walls were knocked

down due to wave action. Another individual, who owned five homes along

the river, experienced $70,000 in damages. This included broken foundations,

walls and exterior fixtures as well as interior and grounds damage. Damage

was primarily caused by saltwater running through the homes when the waves

broke on them. Two other houses on the river front also experienced

structural damage.

Some homes which are further back from the Indian River in Oak Orchard

also received considerable damage. One respondent said that although his

house had not been built in 1962, there had been water on the property.

Another person said that his trailer was knocked off its foundation as a

result of running water and the interior furnishings were damaged. The

total cost came to $600. Another homeowner said that he had experienced

$3,000 worth of damage because the walls of his house were fractured and

the interior furnishings and grounds received damage due to the saltwater.

Twelve interviews were conducted in Riverdale. Manly people alluded to

the fact that Riverdale is on higher ground than Oak Orchard, so that fewer

people in Riverdale had received severe damage. One respondent along Road

312 received interior and ground damage as a result of running saltwater.

Another explained that his house was on high ground and although there was

water in the streets and on the property, it did not reach his house. One

home near the end of Pocahantas Street received no damage and did not even

have water on the property. A house just behind Road 312 on Ok-waw Street

had interior and grounds damage, which amounted to $1,000, due to saltwater.

112

A respondent who lived slightly further back from the river on Ok-waw Street

experienced no damage. A respondent even further back on the same street

received no damage to his house. A respondent who lived on Clarke Avenue

about 200 yards from the river also experienced no damage. However, a

homeowner between Nanticoke and Clarke Avenue lost all his interior fur-

nishings. A respondent between Wyankiki Street and Mohowk Avenue and one

on Cherokee Street both said that since their homes were on high ground

(20 feet above sea level), they had experienced no damage. The last house

in this section received structural, interior and grounds damage totalling

$8,000 due to running saltwater. This house was on the river front in a

low area.

In Oak Orchard there were eleven homes with structural damage. In

Riverdale there was one home with structural damage and four with interior

damage. All of Oak Orchard is under ten feet (MSL) and this fact seems

to be correlated with the amount of damage received. The eastern section

of Riverdale is under ten feet (MSL) and tended to receive interior and

grounds damage. A section in west-central Riverdale is about ten

feet (MSL) and did not experience any water on the grounds. Further to

the west is a section which is under ten feet (MSL) and again structural,

interior and grounds damage was experienced.

Of particular interest is the apparent effect of coastal orientation

on flooding. Most of Oak Orchard lies on a portion of the Indian River
Bay running northeast-southwest. The western portion of Riverdale (from

about Nanticoke Avenue westward) also lies on a northea st-southwest oriented

coast. East of Nanticoke Avenue to the border of Oak Orchard the coast runs

more east-west. Southeast storms especially would strike the two low lying

coastal segments oriented in the northeast-southwest direction more perpendicu-

larly and hence could result in more flood damage. The east-west coast,

however, would be somewhat more protected from the direct force of either

a southeast or a,northeast storm. Thus the zones of damage seem to reflect,

in part, both coastal orientation and elevation differences.

Two respondents on the Oak Orchard river front said that they had

experienced some flooding of their properties in December 1974. A home-

owner further inland from the river in Oak Orchard had interior and grounds

damage due to the storm of 1974. In general, however, the 1974 storm did

not bring a great deal of flood damage to the Oak Orchard area.

Bethany Beach and South Bethany

Both Bethany Beach and South Bethany are situated on a section of a

dynamic and rapidly changing baymouth barrier complex that extends from

Cape Henlopen southward to Fenwick Island (Kraft, 1976). Specifically,

Bethany Beach is situated on the seaward end of an "upland" comprised of

Pleistocene age sands and gravels. These deposits, when eroded and

transported along the shore provide a critical source of sediment to

naturally "nourish" Delaware beaches.

South Bethany occupies an adjacent portion of the long baymouth barrier

that extends from Fenwick Island northward to Bethany Beach. Unlike Bethany

Beach, the community of South Bethany is backed by coastal marshes, dredged

and natural channels and shallow bays and as a result, is more vulnerable to

flooding than Bethany Beach. Little natural protection is provided by the

existing dunes since they have been essentially destroyed or modified as a

consequence of development within the dune-field along this shore line.

Coastal erosion rates in the Bethany area are high with an annual loss

of 69,000 cubic yards of sand coupled with a shoreline retreat rate of

one to three feet per -year (Delaware State Planning Office, 1976).

Bethany Beach

Bethany Beach is an incorporated town which extends 7/8 of a mile along

the long sandy beach/barrier island complex which extends from Cape Henlopen to

Chincoteague, Virginia. It is located six miles, north of the Maryland State

line and four miles south of Indian River. The town has grown considerably

in recent years; half of the single family residences now located there have

been built in the last decade. The 1962 population was estimated to be 200

permanent residents and 4,600 summer residents (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

1962).

According to a Corps of Engineers study published in 1966, the estimated

property value for the entire town of Bethany Beach was $5,500,000. The

estimated value of the beach front area was $1,870,000. -

Bethany Beach has a timber boardwalk which extends about 2,000 feet along

the beach. Behind it are discontinuous low coastal dunes ranging from ten to

thirty feet in height. Where the beachfront has been.developed, many of these

dunes have been removed. Thus, the natural coastal defenses against storms

have diminisbed and Bethany Beach is very likely to experience inundation and

flood damage in the future. The shoreline has also continued to recede

Figure 20

DEVELOPED AREA OF BETHANY BEACH 1960

0 4'V44.
..THANY

BETHANY
BEACH

41
3 w

.ts

0
ROSEW L-J
CAS
Olt
A" c

L-L
pof

4
cr
C Ry HILL Z4
AtOON J
DORA, EKI!cs
LX
Ir 'ANOR MAPLEWO

ST
qA Aii@IW6'
--4 1 jry LfmirS

Soo 1600 2400 LEGEND:

SCALE 1" 800' DEVELOPED AREA IN 1960

.despite a system of nine groins that have been installed to combat beach

erosion. Even artificial beach and dune fill have not solved the problem.

In 1966 the beach was losing an average of 69,000 cubic yards of sand per

year (U.S. Arrny Corps of Engineers, 1972).

One hundred and thirty-six interviews were conducted at Bethany Beach.

Forty-seven percent of the respondents owned their own residences, but only

14 percent of them considered themselves permanent residents. Of those who

owned property in Bethany, 57 percent had some type of flood insurance

policy. The dwellings in which they resided were almost entirely single

family residences (90 percent). Sixty percent of those who answered the

questionnaire had been spending time in Bethany Beach for over ten years.

a. Sources of Flooding

1. 1962 Storm (See Pocket Map Q

Residents who were familiar with the 1962 storm claimed that

flooding occurred due to massive waves which broke along the town's

entire coast. There was no gradual breaking of the dune line. Instead,

respondents recalled that the ocean had risen in two huge waves (estimated

at thirty feet) which crashed onto the beachfront properties. When the

waters cleared, the entire dune line had been wiped out, with the ex-

ception of one small area, and approximately thirty-five homes had been

destroyed. It was estimated that water extended as much as four miles

inland in the area north of Route 26, as well as in the area directly

south of it: Residents of the more southwestern sections had no water

on their properties. This can be more easily understood by reference

117

to the map of the area. To the north of Route 26 the Bethany Beach Canal

connects with the Assawoman Canal, which originates at Indian River Bay.

A large body of water referred to as the Salt Pond lies directly north

of the Bethany Canal. Considerable flooding occurred in this area be-

cause these canals and marsh areas filled with waterand flooded. One

resident explained that the ocean waters pass through Indian River Inlet

and fill the bay which, in turn, backs up the canals and results in

flooding. Flooding of this type was severe enough in the 1962 storm that

the ocean and bay waters actually met. The extent to which these two

sources were responsible for damage is indicated on the flood damage

map. It has been estimated that water coming directly from the ocean

affected the,area extending inland from the beach front to within a half-

block of Pennsylvania Avenue. Markings on the map indicate the extent of

.this overwash fan. The overflowing canal was responsible for the damage

done in other areas. The process by which the canal fills also explains

why both salt and brackish water reached these properties.

Strong winds blowing from the northeast for several days also

contributed significantly to the large extent of the area covered by

floodwaters. Even as far inland as Route 14, wave action was strong
enough'to break the bridges which cross the Bethany Beach Canal. Water

as deep as three to four feet covered Route 14 as far as Indian River

Inlet.

As would be expected, water depths were generally higher in the

oceanfront area and in the area surrounding the Bethany Beach Canal,

averaging about five feet. Further inland and away from the Canal,

118

the water depths dropped to an average of about two to three feet,

except for the intersection of Garfield Parkway and Pennsylvania

Avenue, where an exceptional depth of water, twelve feet, was

reported.

2. 1974 Storm

The flooding which occurred in December 1974 was of much smaller

magnitude than that which occurred during the March 1962 storm. Flood-

waters were confined primarily to the beach front properties situated

between the ocean and Atlantic Avenue. The dune line broke in two

specific areas according to information supplied in interviews;

these were at Ocean View Parkway and at Third Street. Openings

in the dunes under the boardwalks were also cited as a reason that

water was able to reach inland properties. While ocean water did

come as far inland as Pennsylvania Avenue, it was confined primarily

to the paved streets.

The flooding which occurred in December 1974 could have been far

more serious if the wind had not diminished when it did. As a re-

sult, floodwaters went down quickly as the receding tide carried the

water back out to sea.

b. Flood Damage

The purpose of this section is to outline the damage which residents

of Bethany Beach have experienced as a result of storm flooding. Damage

to residences located along the ocean front will fi-rst be described.

This will be followed by an analysis of damage in the blocks immediately

behind the ocean front strip. Finally, damage to places located on the

western side of Route 14 will be considered (See Pocket Map L).

119

According to information obtained from six interviews conducted

between Ashwood Street at the southern end of Bethany Beach and

Parkwood Street on the ocean front, three homes were damaged and two

others were destroyed as a result of the March 1962 storm. One respon-

dent stated that he suffered $25,000 in damages as a result of the under-

mining of the foundation of his house. Steel pilings were the only

thing that prevented the house from washing away. In another case,

the pilings broke and the house shifted forward.

A hotel-apartment complex was situated along the ocean front between

Parkwood Street and Garfield Parkway to the north. The owner said he

suffered $300,000 in damages to his property as a result of the

March 1962 storm. Two of his cottages and their boardwalks were

completely washed out. The strong waves and currents brought in five
to six feet of sand and mud which were deposited on the roads. The water

above these sand deposits was as deep as six feet (the ceiling in the

respondent's office was wet). The damage he suffered was a result of

sand, mud, and saltwater. Some of his cottages had been secured before

the storm and they survived without extensive damage. The respondent

also noted that the beach itself was eroded as a result of the storm and

many of the dunes were lost.

Five interviews were conducted along the beach from Garfield Parkway

northward to Central Boulevard. One respondent said that although he

experienced some water seepage into the house in March 1962, no interior

damage was done because the water did not accumulate inside. The exterior

damage which resulted; repainting of the house, the removal of two feet

of sand from the property and the replacement of shingles. Another house

120

located in this area survived the 1962 storm, but since the respondents

did not own the house at that time, they could not provide any additional

information regarding damage that the house might have experienced. In

the section between Central Boulevard and Second Street, there was a

house that survived the storm, but had fifteen feet of sand washed out

from under it.

Five respondents were interviewed in the beach front area from Second

Street north to Fifth Street. They reported structural damage to three

'houses, one house that was completely destroyed and one house that

experienced only interior damage as a result of the March 1962 storm.

One respondent said that total damage done to his property cost $5,000

to repair. Damage to another house totalled $6,000 as a result of a

flooded basement and structural damage to the front proch.

The extent of damage that occurred along the beach front based on

the interviews in that area do not give a totally accurate picture.

Information gained from interviews in other parts of Bethany Beach

indicate that some thirty-five homes were washed out between Ashwood

Street and Fifth Street. This disparity is undoubtedly explained by

the fact that some of the residents interviewed had moved to Bethany

Beach after the March 1962 storm, while others who were interviewed

spent only a few weeks in the community every summer.

A large number of interviews were undertaken in thestrip of houses

located one block west of the beach between Atlantic and Pennsylvania

Avenues. While these houses were not as severely damaged as the

oceanfront houses, damage was still extensive throughout the whole strip..

121

Between Ashwood Street at the southern end of the town and Oakwood

Street to the north, three of seven houses at which interviews were

conducted experienced property damage due to large deposits of sand.

One respondent reported structural damage which involved the destruction

of a garage wall by floating debris and cost $500 to replace. His lawn

was also ruined b.y the deposit of three to four feet of sand.

None of the individuals between Oakwood Street and Parkwood Street

who were interviewed reported that they had experienced any actual

damage to their houses, although two mentioned slight damage done to

grounds. They have had water on their property as deep as two to three

feet.

There were eleven interviews conducted in the two block area between

Parkwood Street and Garfield Parkway, but there was very little damage

reported. There was one incident of grounds damage, and one of structural

damage. The latter involved an outside post that was knocked down, while

sand on the property was as deep as five feet.

The damage reported by four of the eight respondents between Garfield

Parkway and Central Boulevard was somewhat more extensive. A total of

four houses were destroyed, one additional house had structural damage,

one experienced damage to interior furnishings, and one had only its

grounds damaged. One man operated a garage. During the 1962 storm,

he lost an ice machine which, in turn, knocked over his gas pumps and

he lost all of the gas in his tanks. The supplies kept in the garage

were ruined by saltwater. Another respondent lost three cottages and he

had a large amount of sand in his own house. In another case a house had

122

its stairs ripped off and a wall under the house was damaged by an ice

chest which was thrown up against it. There was also a considerable

amount of debris deposited on the property including stoves, washing

machines and refrigerators.

Fifteen respondents were interviewed between Central Boulevard and

Second Street. Two houses were completely destroyed, while four houses

received structural damage. One woman reported the loss of interior

furnishings as well as the front steps to her home. She also owned

four other cottages in the general vicinity, all of which lost their

first floor furnishings. She estimated the total damage to be approxi-

mately $10,000. The same respondent also pointed out other nearby houses

that were damaged. Across the street from her a house was washed off

its foundation and deposited on an adjoining lot. Down the street a house

was completely destroyed. Another man reported that he experienced structural

and interior damage to his house. The front end of the house shifted

approximately three to four feet off its foundation, although the back

end remained stable. He also lost a stove, a refrigerator and most of

his furniture. Total damage was estimated at$3,000-$4,000. A third

individual lost interior furnishings and his porch steps. His major com-

plaint, however, was that too much sand was bulldozed off his property

after the March 1962 storm so that his property is now lower than the

surrounding area.

A total of twenty individuals were interviewed between Second Street

and Ocean View Parkway. They reported three incidences of structural

damage, four of interior damage and one of ground damage. One house

was being built at the time of the storm and it was damaged considerably.

All of the building materials were washed away and the floor had to be

123

replaced. Another house lost its floor as well as stairs that were

washed away and the floor had to be replaced. Another house lost its

floor as well as stairs. A third individual reported $4,000-$5,000

in damages.

The damage described in the nine interviews conducted between Ocean

View Parkway and Fifth Street was not as extensive. One respondent

reported some structural damage to his house while two reported interior

damage. One estimated his damage at $500, but the other placed his damage

at $6,000.

The following section deals with properties located farther inland

between Pennsylvania Avenue and Delaware Avenue (Route 14). The eight

interviews conducted between Parkwood Street and Garfield Parkway showed

that four homes experienced interior damage. One respondent estimated

that it cost her $4,000 to replace furniture, an air conditioner and a

refrigerator. She also had damage done to the grounds. Another respondent

was preparing to move into a new house prior to the 1962 storm, and although

the structure itself remained secure, she lost $4,000 in furnishings. A

cottage situated on Delaware Avenue had $6,000 in damages done to grounds

and furnishings.

Between Central Boulevard and Ocean View Parkway respondents

reported interior damage to six homes. One respondent claimed damage

of $5,000 due to loss of furnishings and appliances in two of his cottages.

Only three of the eight respondents had no damage of any kind.

The thirteen interviews conducted between Ocean View Parkway and

Fifth Street provided little information regarding flood damage. Only

124

one respondent reported damage from the 1962 storm. This involved severe

losses due to saltwater damage to antiques and other furnishings. He was

unable to move back into his house for four and one-half months.

On the western side of Route 14 six interviews were conducted in

the vicinity of Pine Street, Maryland Avenue and Gibson Street.

Although water reportedly reached depths of six feet, the only damage

reported was to interior furnishings according to one respondent. Several

of the homes which are now located there had not yet been built in 1962,

which may explain the apparent lack of damage in spite of the considerable

water depths.

Two interviews were conducted farther west in the vicinity of

Tingle Road and First Street. One of these respondents reported damage

to interior furnishings. In addition six interviews scattered throughout

the southwestern section of Bethany Beach indicated that there was no

real damage done in the March 1962 storm despite water depths of two to

three feet.

In summary the patterns of damage resulting from the 1962 storm

seem to be quite consistent. By far the most extensive damage occurred

in the beach front areas with an especially large area of heavy damage

in the vicinity of the Bethany Canal (Zone A on the damage map). In

light of the patterns of flooding previously described, this is not

particularly surprising. In general the extent of damage decreased as

distance from the ocean increased.

After the March 1962 storm Operation Five High was put into effect

by the Corps of Engineers to repair the eroded beach area. Approximately

69,649 cubic yards of sandfill were replaced along a 4,800 foot stretch

of beach (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1966).

125

Damage caused by the storm of December 1974 was extremely limited.

Of the 136 respondents interviewed only two mentioned any damage and

both of them were situated on beach front properties. At the southern

end of the beach, between Ashwood and Parkwood, the steps of one house

were ripped away and the sand dune was pushed back approximately twenty

feet. In the other incident an apartment complex located between

Parkwood Street and Garfield Parkway had its wooden walkways washed

out, as well as the existing dune line. No damage was done to the

building itself.

Thus, there was considerable difference between the effect of the

March 1962 and December 1974 storms in Bethany Beach. The reason

.for this difference has already been discussed in the section dealing

with flood patterns in the community.

c. Interpretation of Aerial Photographs - 1962 Storm

The aerial photographs that were taken of the Bethany Beach area

provide less information than do the photographs of the other coastal

areas, because the photographic flight line shifted somewhat inland.

This alteration in flight line pattern, probably due to the pilot drifting

off course, resulted in the elimination of the beach and first 1.5-2.5

blocks from the photographs covering Bethany Beach. A dotted blue line

is used to mark the extent of water inundation covered by the photographs.

It is assumed from the pattern of this water inundation that the area between

the dotted line and the beach has also been inundated and that the ocean

as well as the Salt Pond have contributed to this flooding. This assumption

is confirmed by our survey data as illustrated on the damage map.

126

Inland, the extent of water inundation seems to encompass the major

sections of the community. Water has flooded sections of the community

as far inland as five thousand feet from the beach along Route 26.

The northern section of the community from the entrance to Route 26 has

been totally inundated, except for a section from Evans Road to the

back marsh of Salt Pond. This area seems to have been protected by

the trees that line the pond, however this vegetation cover also makes

it difficult to note the exact extent of the water in this area. To

the south of Route 26 the extent of the flooding is most evident in

the streets that parallel the beach. There is a section extending west of

Pennsylvania Avenue between Wellington and Ashwood that was not inundated.

However, this protected area does not include the entire back section,

as there is floodwater on the streets west of Route 14 as far back as

Collins and Lekites Streets. The overall coverage of flooding in the

inland areas is difficult to determine from standing water because

vegetation and farm crops mask the exact surface conditions.

Sand inundation within the parts of the community that are covered

in the photographs appears to be limited to small patches spread throughout

the community. These patches seem to concentrate around buildings or

vegetated areas. Most of these sand deposits are located between Parkwood

and the canal adjacent to the pond. The texture and the contrasting tones

within the deposits are indications that these patches are most likely a

combination of sand and debris washed in with the floodwaters.

Although there are deposits of debris indicating that structural

damage occurred from flooding, there is no visible structural damage in

the sections of the community viewed by the aerial photographs. Those

areas that were inundated by water correspond to the survey information

showing interior damage. The areas that did hot show inundation on the

aerial photographs were areas in which no damage was reported by the survey.

127

Thus, there is a high degree of correlation between the survey data and

the aerial photographs for the areas that were covered by both.

South Bethany Beach

South Bethany Beach is located south of Bethany Beach and Middlesex

Beach approximately five miles north of Fenwick Island. Often South Bethany

and fork Beach are considered as one unit, having a total ocean frontage of

.1 2/3 miles. In fact, however, South Bethany Beach is a town in its own

right, having been incorporated in 1969. It later annexed York Beach.

As of 1966 there were approximately 170 houses located in South Bethany

Beach, with 70 situated on the ocean side and 100 on the west side of Route

14 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1966). This western section contains

several hundred acres of marsh land which were reclaimed and developed

into a residential area. Canals were constructed to provide water front

access to the properties located there. This has, in turn, created new

channels for storm flooding to enter the community. The current population

for South Bethany Beach is estimated to be 100 permanent residents and 3,000

summer residents (The Sun Bulletin; July 27, 1975).

South Bethany Beach is a community of beach homes and cottages. There

are very few commercial establishments within the town. The 1966 value of

the beach front property was estimated at $560,000, while the value of

the entire town was estimated at $1,440,000. Accurate damage estimates for

South Bethany Beach due to the March 1962 storm are not available although

$3,110,000 has been given an estimate of damage incurred in the area between,

but not including, Bethany Beach and Fenwick. Since South Bethany Beach is

the only established community located between these two points, it is

reasonable to assume that the damage to South Bethany Beach constituted a

major portion of the total damage estimate. The figure seems somewhat

128

FIGURE 21
DEVELOPED AREA OF SOUTH BETHANY 1960.

IL-

SOUTH rs
BETHANY

0 z
At4CI40RAGE
w ;T
IT. z

T. w

T.
0
La N. @k
T

S. I ST T

S. 2N T.

S. 6

S. 7
S. ST 1@-
z
S. 9

P ST.

ST.
LEGEND.
mm DEVELOPED AREA IN 1960
I

0 Soo 1600 2400

SCALE I"= 800'

high in view'of the present estimated value for property there (U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, 1966).

The beach area of South Bethany was described in a 1966 Corps of

Engineers study as being backed by well-developed dunes. Today, however,

these dunes have been completely leveled in the process of home construc-

tion which has occurred literally on top of them. There is no longer a

significant dune line in there.

A total of sixty-four interviews were conducted in South Bethany Beach.

Of those interviewed 56 percent owned their own homes. However, only 6

percent considered themselves permanent residents. Only one-third of the

respondents had been residing in or coming to South Bethany Beach for

over ten years. On the whole, the residents were relatively newcombers.

Eight percent of the respondents were living in single story dwellings,

while the remainder were living in single family, multiple story dwellings.

Some form of flood insurance policies are held by 64 percent of the property

owners interviewed in South Bethany Beach.

a. Sources of Flooding

1. 1962 Storm (See Pocket Map M)

Unfortunately, very little was learned from the interviews regarding

the flooding patterns that developed during the 1962 storm. This was to

be expected, since many of the residents have only owned homes there for

the past five to ten years. They were unaware of what had happened

there previously. Also, since only 6 percent of those interviewed live

permanently in the community, even though they may have had damage

130

done to their property, they would not be particularly familiar with

the specifics of the 1962 storm.

The following information was developed through the interviews.

In March 1962 the primary source of floodwater was the ocean. One

respondent reported waves as high as thirty feet breaking on Route 14.

The thirty-two houses that were destroyed on the beachfront are evidence

of the intensity of these floodwaters. The entire dune area that fronted

the ocean was flattened. A respondent living in the canal section of

South Bethany Beach stated that sand from the beach front was carried

inland into this section. Average water depths in the area east of

Route 14 ranged from two to three feet. In the canal section itself

floodwaters were thought to be one to two feet deep.

2. 1974 Storm

Somewhat more detailed information was available concerning the

December 1974 storm because more of the respondents owned property at

that time.

In 1974 South Bethany Beach was flooded when the dunes were

breached, particularly in the area between North Fifth Street and

South Second Street. This is supported by the fact that damage was

most severe in that area. The dunes in the vicinity of North Sixth

Street were also washed away, probably explaining why ocean water

moved at least 300 feet inland along Petherton Drive. However at

the south end of town ocean water advanced only halfway up Jamaica

Street.

131

In most instances the floodwaters were confined to the road

sections and left deposits of sand after the waters subsided. What

little water did reach the canal section seems to have come from

the ocean. Respondents living there said that the canals did not

flood, although the water came within inches of the top of the bulk-

heads which line the canals. It is possible that, if the storm had

lasted longer, more significant flooding problems would have developed.

b. Flood Damage

Damage experienced by residents of South Bethany Beach during the

two most recent major storms, March 1962 and December 1974, will be dis-

cussed separately. For the purpose of organization the discussion will

be presented within a locational framework, beginning first with the

strip of land directly abutting the ocean (Part I), then proceeding

to the blocks found between Ocean Drive and Route 14 (Part II) and

finally dealing with those areas on the western side of Route 14 (Part III).

1. 1962 Storm

I. The five ocean front property owners interviewed were not

living in South Bethany Beach at the time of the March 1962 storm,

and they knew nothing about flood damage that might have occurred

prior to their coming to the community. However, information

provided by other permanent residents of the community indicated

that as a result of the March 1962 storm, a total of thirty-two

houses were destroyed along this ocean front strip. Sand dunes

as high as fourteen feet were completely leveled.

II. More extensive interviewing was done throughout the blocks

which lie between Ocean Drive and Route 14. While thirty respondents

132

were questioned, little information was obtained regarding the March

1962 storm since most of the residents in this area are either

renting for a few weeks, or they had only been living in South

Bethany Beach for a few years. One individual on Jamaica Street knew

that it had been necessary to have the well on his property replaced

after the storm. A respondent on South Ninth Street experienced

damage to rugs and furniture but was unable to give a dollar

estimate of the damage. Another respondent located on South Second

Street stated that part of his fence was washed away during the

storm, as well as the dune which had stood in front of his property.

There was debris for two blocks in either direction. This included

telephone poles, wires, rooftops, and household furnishings. Clearing

the area cost him approximately $700.

III. On the western side of Route 14 there are a large number of

houses situated along man-made canals. Interviews were conducted

throughout this area. In the southwest section (Bristol Road,

Victoria Drive, Kimberley Street) none of the six respondents had

ever experienced any damage from flooding, although some of them

had had water on their property. Six interviews were conducted

on Bayshore Drive. One individual reported that he had suffered

several thousand dollars in damage done to furniture and a boat

motor. There was also considerable debris left behind by the

moving water. Another house located on Bayshore Drive had also

suffered interior damage. The other respondents had not experienced

any damage in 1962, although in some cases they had had water on

their property as well as deposits of sand. Between Layton Drive

133

and Petherton Drive twelve interviews were conducted. A respondent on

Layton Drive stated that he had spent $300 after the 1962 storm to replace

beds and do some repainting. On Brandywine Drive there was one case of

ground damage.

One further interview was conducted outside the town limits of

South Bethany Beach on Hassell Road. Floodwaters in that area cracked

a house foundation causing the southwest corner of the house to settle.

The pattern of damage which resulted from the March 1962 storm

indicates that the ocean front properties bore the brunt of the damage.

Essentially all of the structural damage occurred in this area. Else-

where throughout South Bethany Beach, damage was rather scattered and

not as serious, involving primarily damage to furnishings and grounds.

In light of the population density of South Bethany Beach today,

damage on the whole may not seem very great. It is important to note,

however, that many of the houses now standing have been constructed since

March 1962.

After the storm Operation Five-High was put into effect to repair

the eroded beach. Approximately 65,067 cubic yards of sand were replaced

along a 3,700 foot stretch of beach (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1963).

2. 1974 Storm

I. Despite the fact that South Bethany Beach has been described as

having suffered greater damage than most Delaware beach communities

during the December 1974 storm, information supplied in interviews

failed to reveal any extensive damage. Along the beach front the only

section reporting damage was located between Division Street and North

134

Sixth Street. This is one area where the dunes were breached. There,

two respondents experienced damage. In one case, a bulkhead in front

of the house was lost and had to be replaced. The other resident reported

damage not only to his bulkhead but also to his garage and septic system.

Several pilings were also destroyed. There was an estimated three feet

of water on the property. The other three respondents interviewed in this

area did not report any damage.

II. In the entire area of South Bethany Beach between Route 14 and

Ocean Drive, there were two reported instances of ground damage (thirty

interviews were conducted). The most serious damage reported was to

a house which lost some of the fill dirt from around the pilings. In

general, many of the people living in this area had water on their pro-

pertY, but it seemed to do no real damage.

III. On the western side of Route 14 a total of twenty-four interviews

were conducted, but there was just one reported case of damage from the

December.1974 storm. A residence on Henlopen Drive experienced interior

damage.

For South Bethany Beach as a whole, the roadways themselves probably

experienced the most serious damage. Several buckled in a number of places

on the ocean side of Route 14 and required expensive repairs. Many of

the roads were also covered with sand deposited by floodwaters. Pieces

of piling were also strewn about.

c. Interpretation of Aerial Photographs - 1962 Storm

Several streets in South Bethany Beach had clearly breached dunes.

These included Kewanee, Indian, South Seventh, South Sixth, South Fourth,

135

South Third, Division, North Second, North Third, North Fifth and North

Sixth Streets. Sand covered most of Route 14, but stopped about 100

feet west of it.

All of South Bethany Beach was flooded. At the time the photographs

were taken there was water on all the streets along the canals west of

Route 14, but the land itself was not under water any longer. The ocean

still covered the beach up to and including Ocean Drive.

There are ten areas'of structural damage that can be seen in South

Bethany Beach. Five of these are between Ocean Drive and the ocean at

the ends of South Ninth, South Eighth, Division and North First Streets and

between South Seventh and South Sixth Streets. Three damage areas occur

along the west side of Ocean Drive between Kewanee Street and Jamaica

Street, between Indian Street and South Ninth Street and between South

Seventh Street and South Sixth Street. Two damage areas are just east

of Route 14 on Logan Street and between Kewanee Street and Jamaica Street.

Of the five ocean front damage areas, all of them, except the South Seventh

Street area, include homes which were washed away, with only the foundation

remaining.

The southern end of South Bethany Beach, in particular from Logan Street

to Indian Street, experienced extensive washover. This area experienced

damage which extended further inland than anywhere else. All of the breached

dunes carried debris from damaged homes.

The damage area shown on the serial photographs corresponds well with

the structural damage zone derived from the survey. The interior damage

zone derived from the survey also seems to be in agreement with the storm

136

photographs. It covers all of South Bethany Beach not included in the

structural damage zone. From the storm photographs, it can be seen that

all of South Bethany Beach was flooded in March 1962.

Fenwick Island

.Fenwick Island is located on a long baymouth barrier beach extending

southward from South Bethany Beach'to the Maryland-Delaware State boundary.

The community is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean on one side and by the

Little Assawoman Bay on the other. On the bay side there are a series of

small man-made canals that separate the streets in the northern and central

areas. These canals provide direct access to the bay for the residents in

Fenwick Island. Where the canal banks are not stabilized with bulkheads, the

properties can be inundated durin'g abnormally high tides.

The town of Fenwick Island is incorporated and extends for about a

mile northward along Route 14 from the Maryland-Delaware border to the

southern end of the State Park. It has a permanent population of fifty-six

people. Fenwick Island is a well developed summer resort and during the

summer months the population swells to 7,000. Many commerical establishments

are located along Route 14 to service this resort community. In 1966

Fenwick Island contained approximately 250 homes (U.S. Corps of Engineers,

1966) and more than half of these were located on the beach front. Many

of the houses on the west side of Route 14 are situated along the canals

that connect to the bay. The total property value in 1966 was estimated

at $2,550,000. The beach front alone was valued at $506,000 (U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, 1966). Zoning laws for the town of Fenwick Island

restrict the residential section to only one house per lot. A portion

of the community south of Atlantic Avenue is unincorporated and zoning

laws are not as restrictive there. This section contains several trailer

parks on the bay side of Route 14. 137

Figure 2 2

DEVELOPED AREA OF FENWICK ISLAND 1960

TOWN LIMITS

-FA ING

-S

CANN

AYARD

U
LIGHTHOUSE 0
i COVE Ll z

C
foe

RT. 54
W@7--
LEGEND' DEL RE
MARYLAND
DEVELOPED ARtA IN 1960

0 Soo 1600 2400
lommommmommmmod

SCALE I" = 800'

There were 161 interviews conducted in Fenwick Island. Sixty-three

percent of those surveyed owned property in the community. Thirty-seven

percent of the property owners are covered by flood insurance of some type.

A sizeable number of the respondents (42 percent) spend three months or

more in Fenwick, while of those who spend less time there, a significant

number have been coming to Fenwick for over ten -years. Those people

interviewed lived primarily in single story dwellings (49 percent), but

there was also a significant number living in multiple story dwellings
(35 percent) and a few in trailers (7 percent).

Sources of Flooding_

a. 1962 Storm

Fenwick Island was flooded in March 1962 by water both from the ocean

and the Little Assawoman Bay. The dunes on the ocean front were first

breached by ocean waves described as high as 40 feet. The breaching of

the dunes had been facilitated by earlier ocean encroachment onto the

dunes through erosion and by the leveling of some dunes to provide

residents with a better view of the ocean.

The first break in the dunes occurred at the north end of Fenwick

Island around Indian Street. Ocean water driven across the island into

the bay caused the gradual rising of bay water which, in turn, filled the

canals on the bay shore of the island. The rising bay water then flooded

into town from the west to meet.the ocean water coming through various

breaks in the coastal dunes. Route 14 was covered with about five feet

of water and sand. The town itself was covered fairly uniformily with from

two to four feet of water both from the ocean and from the bay.

139

b. 1974 Storm

Along the ocean front, waves washed over the dunes in a few places

but there were few significant breaks in the dune line. The high water

was not accompanied by winds high enough or waves or currents strong enough

to result in severe damage. Some properties west of Route 14 along the

canals experienced minor flood damage.

Flood Damage (See Pocket Map N)

This section will outline the damage which occurred in Fenwick Island

during the March 1962 storm. The December 1974 storm flattened the coastal

dunes somewhat and resulted in some erosion on the ocean side, but otherwise

little real damage was reported.

In describing the 1962 damage the area will be divided into three

sections. The first section includes those dwellings within one block of the

ocean. The second section includes all of Fenwick Island between Bunting

Avenue and Route 14, and the final section includes all areas west of Route 14.

Twenty-five houses were surveyed between Bunting Avenue and the ocean.

Four permanent residents were interviewed between King Street and Farmington

Street and additional information about this area was obtained from other

Fenwick residents. Four houses in this area were completely destroyed and

two suffered structural damage. One of the respondents whose home suffered

structural damage estimated his loss at $9,000. Three permanent residents

were interviewed between Farmington and Bayard Streets. The homes of each

experienced structural damage. An estimated $7,500 in damages was reported

for one. This respondent reported that forty foot waves actually broke upon

140

his house. Six permanent residents were interviewed between Bayard Avenue

and the southern end of Fenwick Island. Additional information about this

area was given by other Fenwick residents. There were four homes totally

destroyed, one suffered structural damage and one suffered interior damages.

One of these homes was reportedly spl'it in half due to thirty-five foot

waves breaking upon it. One respondent had experienced damages of $20,000

when his home was totally destroyed. Ocean water carried this house inland

towards the bay. The respondent with interior damage had experienced a

$10,000 to $12,000 loss. The original dune between South Carolina and

Atlantic Streets had been very high, but it had been leveled to give

residents a better view of the ocean. The earlier removal of this

dune resulted in great damage during the 1962 storm to houses nearby.

Thirty-nine houses were surveyed in the area between Bunting Avenue

and Route 14. In the area south of Maryland Avenue, four permanent residents

were interviewed. In each case, their homes received structural damage.

One respondent had less than $100 damage due to broken water pipes. The

foundation of another house had shifted. All four houses were located

on Bunting Avenue.

Between Maryland Avenue and South Carolina Avenue four permanent residents

were interviewed. Four homes in this area experienced structural damage and

one suffered interior damage. One respondent said that the front steps

were broken off her home. Another received $300 damage to a patio. A

third person had a total loss of $43,000 which resulted form structural

damage to his own home and to six cottages. Another owner experiencing

structural damage said that his windows and porch had been broken and re-

quired $3,500 to repair. Between South Carolina Avenue and Farmington Streets

141

there were eight permanent residents interviewed. Two respondents reported

structural damage, another had interior damage, and five respondents ex-

perienced damage to their grounds. A respondent on Cannon Street experienced

structural damage to a storm door, while one on Dagsboro Street had damage

done to outside s-tairs. North of Farmington Street two permanent residents

were interviewed. One respondent reported no damage in 1962 while the other

reported structural damage. The home with structural damage washed inland

and caused damage to the wing of a hotel behind it.

West of Route 14 ninety-six interviews were conducted. In the trailer

park along Route 54 there were only two permanent residents out of thirteen

interviewed. No one reported any personal damage, but some were aware of

what had happened in this area during the 1962 storm.

Along West Virginia Avenue two permanent residents were interviewed,

and each had experienced interior damage to his home. This damage was

caused by standing water, sand and mud. Along South Carolina Avenue and

Madison Avenue there were four permanent residents i'nterviewed. One

home suffered structural damage due to broken exterior appointments, and

one house experienced interior damage. Two respondents had experienced

112 foot of water ontheir property from the bay. Although one resident

had not lived there at the time, he knew that there had been three to

four feet of water covering some areas with resultant structural damage.

In the area along Atlantic Avenue only one permanent resident was inter-

viewed. His home experienced interior damage.. Another respondent said

that in 1962 this area was covered with three feet of water. No permanent

residents along Bayard Avenue had been there in 1962, so no damage was

reported.

142

In the area of Dagsboro, Essex, and Farmington Streets west of Route 14

eighteen permanent residents were interviewed. Three homes had structural

damage, six had interior damage and one resident experienced grounds damage.

Eight respondents reported no damage. One respondent on Schultz Street attri-

buted structural damage to the force of the wind. Another near Dagsboro Street

had $1,000 in damages to a boat and boat pump. The other respondent reporting

structural damage had a broken water pump and a damaged wall. A respondent

on Dagsboro Street reported interior damage of $3,000 to a washer, water

pump and car. On Essex Street a respondent had $300 in interior damages

to a freezer and a water pump. Another person on Essex Street had $700-$800

in interior damages, also to a freezer and a water pump. Two respondents

on Farmington Street each noted $150 of interior damage to their water pumps.

North of Georgetown Street there were ten permanent residents interviewed.

Four houses had suffered structural damage, three had interior damage and

three had no damage. One respondent had $200 in structural and ground

damages. Another respondent reported $12,000 in wind damage to the roof of

his house.

In the ocean front section there were a total of fourteen homes with

structural damage and one with interior damage. In the section between

Bunting Avenue and Route 14 there were eleven homes with structural damage,

two with interior damage, and four with ground damage. In the section west

of Route 14 there were seven homes with structural damage, eleven with

interior damage, and two with ground damage.

There is a clear pattern of severe damage along the ocean front, which

took the brunt of the storm waves. The area of structural damage extends, in

143

general, quite far inland. In some areas this is due to the lack of pro-

tection from the dunes, some of which had been removed before the time of the

storm. In some areas it is due to the fact that Fenwick Island's ten foot

high dune line extends far inland, so that when the dunes were breached

sand and water would be carried further inland. Houses in the northern

section of Fenwick Island, where the dunes broke first, experienced

structural damage extending inland to the bay areas. The homes on the west

side of Route 14 showed a marked contrast in damage. The majority of these

homes suffered interior damage, since the flood waters had insufficient

velocity and depth to cause damage to structures.

The total cost of damage in Fenwick Island during the 1962 storm has

been estimated at $2,060,000 (1962 prices, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

1966).

After the 1962 storm Operation Five High was established to repair

damaged dunes. Fenwick Island received approximately 67,549 cubic yards

of sand fill along a 6,000 foot stretch of beach (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

1963).

Interpretation of Aerial Photographs - 1962 Storm

Each street perpendicular to the ocean front in Fenwick Island had a

breached sand dune. The pattern was very discontinuous with almost all

the sand deposits being along the street and not covering the areas in

between. The exception to this pattern occurred at the northern end of

Fenwick Island from Georgetown Street to Indian Street. The sand extended

inland as far as 200-400 feet west of Route 14.

144

All of Fenwick Island was flooded, except for the southern portion west

of Route 14, between Route 54 and Virginia Avenue. Many homes along the

canals were still flooded by bay water at the time of the photograph. The

ocean still covered a portion of the beach up to fifty feet east of Bunting

Avenue which parallels the ocean.

There are sixteen visible damage areas in Fenwick Island, eleven of

which are between Bunting Avenue and the ocean. The other damage areas are

west of Bunting Avenue, along Virginia Street, Farmington Street, Houston

Street, Indian Streetj and between Indian and James Streets.

Most of the damage areas are between Virginia and-Ba rd Avenues and
ya

between Essex and King Streets. Debris carried by the ocean water is

visible on the breached sand dunes, mainly between Essex and James Streets.

Damage areas which are located west of Bunting Avenue are found in the

northern section of Fenwick Island where washover sand extended fartherest

inland.

The damage areas from the storm photographs correspond to the general

outline of the structural damage zone derived from the survey; they both

indicate structural damage in the area from halfway between Route 14 and

Bunting Avenue to the ocean. In the northern section of Fenwick Island the

structural damage zone extends from west of Route 14 to the ocean according

to the surve.y. The damage areas shown in the photographs also extend farther

inaldn there, although not as far as the damage zone derived from the survey.

Many of the structures reported by residents to have suffered structural

damage did not appear to have structural damage on the storm photographs.

The structural damage to these homes may not be of a type which is easily

visible on an aerial photograph.

145

All of Fenwick Island not included in the structural damage zone was

classified as a zone of interior damage from the survey information. Since

the storm photographs showed that all of Fenwick Island was covered by

floodwaters in March 1962, the zone designated as interior damage seems

reasonable.

146

IV. PERCEPTUAL AND BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS
TO THE FLOODING HAZARD

INTRODUCTION

The coastal flooding hazard involves not only the flooding event

itself but also the collective reaction of the affected residents. Therefore,

planning measures designed to respond to future flood hazards should consider

not only the likely degree of actual flooding, based on estimates of

previous floods, but also the perceptual and behavioral reactions of the

population to an anticipated flood. In particular, knowledge of the degree

to which concerned individuals perceive the potential flood hazard can be

an important element in evaluating human behavior during a flood, or the

likelihood that individuals will initiate prior preventive measures. Such

factors obviously need to be considered in any planning procedure which is

designed to integrate government and private measures to minimize future

flood damage.

In this part of the report concerning perceptual and behavioral re-

actions to flooding, three basic issues may be posed concerning the

attitudes of Delaware's coastal residents:

1. To what extent is the flood hazard perceived?

2. What sort of preventive measures should be taken?

3. Who is responsible for flood prevention?

Clearly there is a relationship between each of these issues. The strength-

of flood hazard perception influences the extent and nature of preventive

measures which individuals believe to be necessary. Moreover, the extent

and nature of preventive measures may influence the degree to which different

agencies (individual, local, state, federal) are felt to bear responsibility.

149

One of the frustrations frequently encountered by planning agencies is

the difficulty of identifying which segment of a population holds a par-

ticular attitude. In attempting to delineate the responses to the three

basic issues noted above, it is here hypothesized that the attitudes of

the population will differ according to certain variables, and that different

variables will be significant at several geographical scales. Thus, at the

scale level of comparisons between communities, those variables most likely

to be responsible for different attitudinal responses on the part of the

population would include location factors (whether the community was on the

bay shore or on the ocean, whether it was protected or unprotected), and

residence factors (whether a majority of respondents were owners or renters).

At the scale of the individual community, the most important variable would

be residence history (long-term or short-term, summer season or other,

permanent or temporary, owner or non-owner) and flood history (recently

exposed to flooding or not). Finally, at the most detailed scale within

the community, the most significant variable is the discontinuity of the

local hazard environment (degree of past flooding in one part of the

community but not in others).

This section of the report, therefore, deals with the responses of

the population to the three basic issues (i.e., flood hazard perception,

preventive measures, and responsibility) in terms of the variable listed

above, at three different geographical scales, as indicated in the following

graphical summary:

150

TABLE 6

BETWEEN COMMUNITIES

INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY

WITHIN COMMUNITY

Variables Variables Variables Issues

Flood Res-
Hazard Preven. ponsi-
Percep. Meas. bjjj@y

Bay shore or Perm. resident Local dif.
Ocean or nonpermanent in the
resident hazard
environment

Protected or Summer or other
unprotected

Owner or renter Long-term or
short-term

Owner or renter

Flood history

METHODOLOGY

The analysis and conclusions of this section of the report were based on a

survey questionnaire. The questions were first analyzed to determine which

were most logically related regarding perception of the respondents. Selection

of those questions ultimately used in the analysis was also determined using

standard statistical tests of significance, which indicate how well the

responses to each question are correlated.

At the "individual community" scale, five questions were selected to

be correlated with all other questions. These five variables were: question

6, distinguishing residents (those living in the community year-round)

from nonpermanent residents (those visiting or living in the community for

151

only a portion of the year); question 7, which separated those respondents

who were present in the community only in the summer months, from those others

present during other seasons; question 8, which identified long-term
residents (those present in the community for five years or more) and
short-term residents (those present in the community for only one or two

years); question 3, which divided property owners from non-owners; and

question 10, which distinguished those who had experienced a flood from those

without such experience.

Not all questions from the questionnaire were compared in terms of

the five variables noted above. Some were deleted because they were inappro-

priate to the topic of this section of the report, while others were not

used because the sample size of the responses was insufficient to draw

reasonable conclusions.

The comparisons selected for emphasis at the scale of the "individual

community" then formed the base for additional analyses made at the two

other scales. Thus, the conclusions resulting from the examination of each

community became the data upon which comparisons were made at the scale

"between communities". And selected questions used at the scale of the

"individual community" were plotted by individual respondent to provide

the data base for analysis at the scale "within community". In this

latter analysis, maps of the responses to certain questions were created

with the SYMAP computer mapping program,and the resultant distributions were

compared with flood damage maps.

152

ANALYSIS ANn CONCLUSIONS

Scale: Between Communities

a. Sample Population Profile

Table 7 summarizes the distribution of interviews completed during the

project and contrasts these with estimated population statistics for the

communities studied.

Respondents interviewed for the project totalled 875. The largest

number of interviews were made in Fenwick Island, Bethany Beach, and Rehoboth

Beach. Of the total number of respondents, 165 (about 19 percent) were

permanent residents while the rest were generally either short-term beach

users or part-time (summer) residents. The SYMAP sample size differs from the

total number of interviews because beach users, short-term renters, and

those who did not own property were eliminated.

b. Discussion of Answers to Questionnaire

A large percentage of the respondents in Rehoboth Beach #1, Bethany

Beach, South Bethany, and Fenwick Island were nonpermanent residents, who

only visit during the summer months and do not own property in the

communities (3, 6, 7).* Bowers Beach and Oak Orchard/Riverdale areas are

distinguished by having a predominantly permanent resident population in the sur-

vey sample. In all of the communities at least 60 percent of the respondents

were "long-term" (five years or more) residents or visitors, with the

exception of Rehoboth Beach #1 which had only 52 percent "long-term"

visitors (8).

With the exceptions noted above, the "typical" respondent was a property

*Number in parenthe s refer to question numbers in Table 8 or on the
questionnaire in Appendix 1. Graphical comparisons of the responses of
each community to selected questions are found in Appendix II.

153

owner; a "long-term", nonpermanent resident; or a visitor who inhabited

the coastal community during one or more seasons of the year.

Flood experience of the respondents was the greatest in Bowers Beach

(90 percent), Slaughter Beach (70 percent), and Oak Orchard (62 percent).

In the other communities, flood experiences ranged between 45-50 percent

(10). A large percentage of people in Bowers Beach, Slaughter Beach, and to

a lesser degree Bethany Beach, believed.that flooding was a problem in their

community (11). Bowers Beach and Slaughter Beach had many respondents with

flood experience and many who believed flooding to be a problem, but Bethany

Beach had a slight majority with no flood experience yet nearly two-thirds

of the respondents believed flooding to be a problem. Rehoboth Beach #1

and South Bethany had the highest percentages of individuals who had no

opinion on whether flooding was a problem or not. Respondents in Rehoboth

Beach #1, Bethany Beach, and South Bethany defined less threatening

environmental conditions (such as water in the streets) as a flood (12).

This may explain why so many in Bethany Beach believe flooding to be a

problem. Individuals in Bowers Beach, Dewey Beach and Henlopen Acres, at

the other extreme, are most likely to define a flood as a more serious

event such as the occurence of structural damage. Bowers Beach

and Slaughter Beach had the highest percentage of people who thought flooding

had increased over the years, which may also help explain why those two
communities think that flooding is a problem (37).

Bowers Beach and Slaughter Beach were flooded the most (once a year
or more), according to respondents (24), and also received the most damage

of any type due to flooding (29). Those two communities also have the highest

percentage of individuals who think that there will be floodwaters on their

154

TABLE 7

Population Profile

1973
Estimated* Interviewed Total Column B
Permanent Permanent "SYMAP11 Number Divided By
Communities Residents Residents Sample Size Interviewed Column A-

Bowers Beach 290 21 27 33 7%

Bethany Beach 196 19 63 136 9%

Fenwick Island 57 19 104 158 33%

Henlopen Acres 124 13** 29** 39**

Rehoboth
Sample 1 -- -- -- 250 --

Rehoboth
Sample 2 1,489 33 55 67 2%

Slaughter
Beach 85 15 31 35 18%

South
Bethany 24 4 33 64 17%

Oak Orchard/ Unincorporated
Riverdale N/A 13 19 24 Communities

Dewey Beach
Area N/A 15 32 39 Unincor. Comm.

Broadkill Beach N/A 13 27 30 Unincor. Comm.

North Shores N/A Combined/W Combined/W Combined/W
Henlopen Acr. Henlopen Acr. Henlopen Acr.

Total 165 420 875

"Population Es ates and Projections", U. S. Department of Commerce, May
1975.
Includes residents of North Shores.

Rehoboth Sample #1 - Interviews with people on the beach, Summer 1975.
Rehoboth Sample #2 - Interviews with people at their.homes, rental units,
etc., Summer 1976.

155

TABLE 8

Selected Questions
(Percent)

Henlopen
Acres South
Bowers Slaughter Broadkill North Rehoboth Rehoboth Dewey Bethany Bethany Oak Fenwick
Selected Questions Beach Beach Beach Shores #1 #2 Beach Beach Beach Orchard Island

3. Property Owner 76 83 87 77 9 85 82 47 56 83 63
6. Nonpermanent Resident 28 57 57 67 97 50 62 86 94 46 88
Permanent Resident 72 43 43 33 3 50 38 14 6 54 12
7. Resident or visitor:
summer only 16 36 20 26 89 26 34 71 56 21 55
Resident or visitor:
other season(s) 84 64 80 74 11 74 66 29 44 79 45
8. Long-term residents or
visitors (+ 5 years) 73 77 60 64 52 85 82 70 62 87 81
Short-term residents or
visitors (1-2 years) 10 6 26 15 26 4 5 18 28 8 9
Ln
ONIO. Respondents with previous
flood experience 90 73 57 43 47 56 56 50 48 62 51
Respondents with no flood
experience 10 27 43 57 53 44 44 50 52 38 49
11. Flooding problems do exist 82 77 47 42 27 26 36 60 42 48 37
No flooding problems exist 7 23 43 45 13 70 59 24 38 43 52
12. Definition of a flood:
Water above normal; not in
inhabited areas 27 27 24 10 26 20 19 21 17 27 22
Water in the streets 21 24 31 33 39 32 24 42 47 27 28
Water on your property 3 33 24 23 12 21 19 16 8 23 21
Minor structural damage
caused by floodwaters 34 6 17 23 18 18 32 16 25 18 24
Major structural damage
caused by floodwaters 10 6 3 8 3 5 3 3 3 4 5
16. Damage can be reduced @Y:
Protective devices (bulk-
heads, dunes, etc.) 48 73 51 58 22 35 44 32 35 30 37

TABLE 8 (continued)

Henlopen
Acres South
Bowers Slaughter Broadkill North Rehoboth Rehoboth Dewey Bethany Bethany Oak Fenwick
Selected Questions Beach Beach Beach Shores #1 #2 Beach Beach Beach Orchard Island
18. Responsibili:@y for re
'Suildin@ funds:
Individual 14 15 23 10 4 8 11 4 8 13 9
Government 54 54 53 60 47 55 75 41 45 26 43
19. Would a coastal flood
alter your plans to visit
or live here:
Yes 14 14 14 8 13 9 3 10 5 4 5
No 83 83 86 82 79 88 79 77 87 91 87
24. Perceived frequency
of floodiE:
Once a year or more 49 44 23 17 2 6 11 16 9 30
Once every ten years 29 28 23 21 9 47 40 23 33 29
27. Highest level of coastal
floodwater on your prop.:
At least one foot or
greater (no upper limit) 63 50 26 30 33 59 84 45 87 66
29. Damage incurred during
coastal storm:
Structu amage 20 26 8 10 2 13 36 12 36 30
No damage 7 23 42 65 19 48 24 54 37 43
34. Preventive measures taken:
Raising dwellings on
pilings or blocks 14 10 47 43 15 37 20 26 61 40
Storing belongings in
safe place 17 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Nothing done 59 0 37 43 83 60 57 35 17 29
35. Preventive measures were
taken:
BeTore damage occurred 61 50 88 93 87 73 71 78 67 71
36. Action to take if storms
and flooding is preF-cted:
Evacuate 25 41 48 31 27 30 36 45 23 52
Do nothing 25 14 15 31 28 17 5 12 12 4

TABLE 8 (continued)

Henlopen
Acres South
Bowers Slaughter Broadkill North Rehoboth Rehoboth Dewey Bethany Bethany Oak Fenwick
Selected Questions Beach Beach Beach Shores #1 #2 Beach Beach Beach Orchard Island

37. Perceived frequency
of floodin-q:
To change in recent yrs. 41 42 65 67 85 76 68 64 84 72
39. Perceived chance of,
floodinq next year:
Not likely 30 37 68 83 95 64 54 51 50 54
Highly probable 41 30 18 0 0 16 11 18 0 19
40. Financial aid souqht
after storm damage/flooding:
None 73 80 96 91 100 87 83 100 94 91
43. Know someone who left
00 community due to experience
I-
Wit"loodinq:
Te- s 32 41 4 15 9 19 32 18 6 28
No 68 59 96 85 91 81 68 82 94 72
45. Did you know of potential
TO-F flood' .n community
before moving in:
Yes 62 63 67 75 63 50 74 72 56 61
No 38 37 33 25 37 50 26 28 44 39
46. If no, would t have changed
your decision to move he-rer
Yes 44 36 33 23 0 19 14 22 25 13
No 44 64 56 62 90 75 86 56 50 78
Don't know 11 0 11 12 10 6 0 22 25 8
47. Respondents with Federal
Flood Insurance:
Yes 50 46 33 50 13 33 57 64 20 37

prope rty within the next year (39). Respondents in Oak Orchard and Bethany

Beach rank high: a) among those thinking that flooding occurs only once

every ten years (24); b) among those who have never received more than one

foot of water on their property (27); and c) among those who have received

structural damage (29). Individuals in Rehoboth Beach #2, South Bethany,

Broadkill Beach and Henlopen Acres all tended to report that they: a) did

not experience flood damage; or b) seldom experienced flooding, or if they do,

the floodwaters reach only up to the property (29, 24, 27). The same four

communities rank high among those who believe that flooding on their property

within the next year is unlikely.

When asked to suggest the most effective measure to reduce storm and

flood damage, individuals in all communities except Oak Orchard overwhelmingly
selected protective devices as their first choice (16). Slaughter Beach

residents had the highest percentage of respondents (seventy-
three percent) suggesting protective devices. Thirty-seven percent of

the respondents in Oak Orchard, on the other hand, (the largest percentage in

any community) suggested that no measures could be effective in reducing

damage from flooding. It is interesting to note that Oak Orchard respondents,

a very large percentage of whom had experienced some structural damage and

water one foot or more deep during the March 1962 storm have taken the

attitude that nothing can be done to prevent this type of damage from storm

flooding. When other measures were suggested by the interviewer, the most

frequently accepted choice was the flood proofing of homes (17). However,

many times this response was given in combination with one or more other

measures, so that no community had more than a 33 percent response to flood

proofing alone.

I Fla

Rehoboth Beach #2, followed by Dewey Beach, Bowers Beach,and Bethany

Beach are the communities where respondents have done the least to take

preventive measures (34). It is notable that of these communities, Rehoboth

Beach #2 and Dewey Beach do not think flooding is a problem, while Bowers

Beach and Bethany Beach do think it is a problem but still have not taken

preventive measures. Oak Orchard, Slaughter Beach, and Broadkill Beach

are the communities that have taken the most preventive measures, and a high

percentage of individuals in these communities think that flooding is a

problem. The most popular preventive measure selected by all the communities,

except Bowers Beach and Slaughter Beach, was the use of pilings and the

raising of structures above ground level. Oak Orchard had the highest

response (61 percent) of those opting for pilings and raising structures to

prevent damage. Interestingly, 47 percent of the respondents in Slaughter

Beach and 17 percent of the respondents in Bowers Beach opt for the storing

of belongings in a safe place as a measure to reduce damage. One half to

two-thirds of all the co-.munities took preventive measures prior to damage

occurring (35).

If a flood were forecast for their community, a fairly high proportion

of individuals in Rehoboth Beach #2, Henlopen Acres, and Bowers Beach would

do nothing (36). The residents of Fenwick Island and Bethany Beach would be

least likely to react by doing nothing. The highest proportion of individuals
who would want to evacuate is found in Fenwick Island (52 percent) followed
closely by Broadkill Beach (48 percent). Respondents in Oak Orchard and

Bowers Beach expressed the least interest in evacuation, 23 and 25 percent,

respectively.

160

Federal, State, and local governments were consistently chosen by all

the communities as the proper bodies to be responsible for providing money

to rebuild a flood damaged community (18). In Broadkill, 23 percent of the

respondents did feel that the individual should be responsible. Inter-

estingly, private insurance is rarely mentioned by respondents as a source

of aid in time of flooding damage. A very large proportion of individuals

in all communities have not sought aid (40). Only in Bowers Beach, which also

has the largest proportion of individuals with flood experience, did a

significant minority (25 percent) seek aid after a flood. The small sample

responding to questions 41 and 42 makes detailed conclusions from these

questions uncertain.

Dewey Beach, Oak Orchard and to a lesser degree Bowers Beach and Slaughter

Beach had the highest proportion of respondents who were not aware of any

flood potential in their community before moving there (45). Bowers Beach

and Slaughter Beach respondents rated highest in stating that if they had

been aware of the flood potential, it would have affected their decision to

move to the community (46). Approximately one-third of the respondents in

Bowers Beach, Slaughter Beach, and Bethany Beach had known people who had

left the community due to their flood experience (43). Only a minority in

all communities knew of anyone who had left their community for this reason.

When the respondents were asked if they would change their own plans about

living in the community if a flood occurred, the consistent response in all

communities was that it would not alter their plans (19),

Scale: Individual Community

a. Bowers Beach

1. Perception of Flood Hazard

161

The inhabitants of this communit1v were primarily property

owners, long-term residents and present throughout the year (3,

6, 7, 8)*. Experience seems to play an important role in the flood

perception of these residents. A slightly larqer percentage than

usual, 38 percent, had been present for the 1962 storm (9), and

a very high 90 percent had experienced a flood (10). Half had

encountered water reaching the property at least once a year,

although a 25 percent minority believed this occurred only once

every ten years (24). The impact of severe floods was strong in

the respondents' feelings. Nearly 60 percent stated that in the

worst flooding water had reached a depth of at least one foot

over their property (27), and one-half experienced structural and

interior damage (29). It is not surprising, therefore, that with

this greater background of severe flood experience, the respondents

tended to define flooding in terms of a threatening

environmental condition. Only one-half of the sample would regard

water reaching the property, but not the residence, as a flood

since this is apparently a frequent occurrence. On the other hand,

fully one-third do not consider conditions as a flood unless some

minor structural damage occurs (12) (Table 8 ). For this reason

the view of the community, which overwhelmingly stated that flooding

was a problem in the area (11), should be accepted with some

seriousness. It also explains why only 30 percent stated that it

was unlikel_y that water would reach their property in the next

year (39).

*Numbers in parentheses refer to appropriate questions from the questionnaire,
Appendix I and Appendix 11.

162

The small sample size does not allow meaningful comparisons

of residential variability in response to the questions. However,

it may be possible to discern a somewhat greater flood concern

among nonpermanent residents, even though they experienced slightly

less severe flood damage than did permanent residents (11).

Furthermore, nonpermanent residents perceived a higher frequency

of minor flood conditions reaching their property (24). Such

distinctions may suqqest that it is the frequency with which flood

conditions are perceived rather than their severity which determines

the degree to which individuals perceive flooding as a problem in

the area.

2. Preventive Measures

Protective devices (levees, dunes, jetties, groins, etc.) were

volunteered by half the sample as measures that might be taken to

prevent storm damage, while fully 40 percent believed no measures

would be adequate or had no suggestions (16). When various

alternative measures were suggested by the interviewer, 40 percent

opted for flood proofing of homes and in some cases early warning

was added. Ten percent felt zoning might be a useful measure while

15 percent continued to believe there were no solutions (17). Other

than the slightly greater variety of op"Cions selected than in some

other communities, the generally more-sensitized perception of

flooding by Bowers Beach residents did not result in startlingly

different opinions regarding preventive measures. Even more

surprising, fully 60 percent indicated that they had taken no

163

Preventive measures. Of those that had, the measures ranged from

storing belongings safely, to the use of pilings and the raising

of structures (34). It is interesting to note that among the small

minority who took some individual preventive measures, most did

so before damage occurred (35). However, when the responses to

these two previous questions are disaggregated by type of resident,

a clear pattern emerges in which a much larger proportion of non-

permanent, summer-only, and short-term residents were among those

taking preventive measures. Long-term, other season, and permanent

residents,who make up a majority of the total and whose experience

of flooding is r,@iuch greater constitute most of those who had taken

no measures. This latter, long-term group saw evacuation or the moving

of belongings to a safe place as the most reasonable reaction to a

flood warning. Nonpermanent residents, sumner-only residents and

short-term residents were more likely to be among the 25 percent of

the total sample who would do nothing in the face of such a warning

(36).

3. Responsibility

A wide variety of responses existed to the questions concerning

responsibility for flood damage reconstruction. The largest group,

some 40 percent, believed funds should be provided by Federal and

State sources, while only 14 percent believed the individual should

carry the responsibility. There was little or no suggestion that

responsibility should be shared between the individual and the
government (18). Only one-quarter had applied for such aid (40).

Of these, a mere 14 percent had obtained federal aid. A large

164

majoritv, some 70 percent, had relied on family and friends, while

only 14 percent had used a combination of State government aid and

help from family and friends (41). This suggests thatwhile indi-

viduals believe government aid should be forthcoming in such

circumstances, their expectation is not borne out by prior experi-

ence.

b. Slaughter Beach

1. Perception of Flood Hazard

The Slauqhter Reach community is well established. Over three-

quarters of the sample responding to the questionnaire had been

residents for five years or more (8)* and more than 80 percent

were property owners (3). Moreover, although permanent residents

were slightly outnumbered by nonresidents (defined as those spending

less than the whole vear in the community) (6), a substantial

part were in the community for more than just the summer months (7).

Because of this background, the sample's flood experience is

substantial. Over one-third were present for the March 1962 storm

(9) while two-thirds claimed they had experienced a flood (10)

and one-half indicated that they recalled at least one time when

floodwaters reached a depth of at least one foot on the property
(27). However, there is some discrepency in the responses concerning

flood history. For instance, in the question concerning damaqe,

a little more than half the respondents indicated either no damage

had been encountered or damage to the grounds only (29). Yet, at

the same time, two-thirds of the respondents felt that flooding

*Numbers in parent es refer to appropriate questions from the questionnaire.
Appendix I and Appendix II.

165

was a problem in Slaughter Beach (11). Resolution of these apparently

conflicting opinions may be possible by focusing on the definition of
flooding. Response to question 12 (see/ Table 8 ) indicates that over

80 percent perceive a flood condition as existing once water has

reached the edge of the property but before any structural damage

has occurred (12). This tendency to consider environmental conditions

as a flood when those conditions fall considerably short of producing

sinnificant damaqe, is an important context in which to evaluate

the sample's flood prognostications and behavior.. Thus, the fact

that over half believe it probable or highly probable that flood-

water will reach their property in the next year (39) (a view which

correlates closely with the 44 percent who experienced this condition

at least once a year in the past) (24), does not necessarily imply

a population ready to undertake preventive measures.

Distinctions between different categories of residents do not

appear to cause great differences in response to the questions.

There is some indication that those present for the summer-only,

and therefore less familiar with the first hand experience of

flood conditions, are slightly more likely to perceive higher

frequency of flooding and to believe flooding is a problem in the

area (10, 11, 24).

2. Preventive Measures

Reactions to questions 16 and 17 reveal that most residents do

not envisage prevention in terms of measures directly pertinent to

the individual property, but rather to the community at large.

This is consistent with the view of a flood as not being immediately

166

and personally threatening. Thus, when asked to suggest preventive

measures,a strikinq two-thirds volunteered protective devices:

levees, dunes, breakwaters, jetties, groins, etc. (16). Only when

other measures were suggested by the interviewer was flood proofing

of homes most frequently mentioned and then by only on e-third (17).

Reflecting this lack of individual orevaration, nearly half the

respondents stated that they had taken no preventive measures; of

those who had there was an even division between work undertaken

before and after the damage occurred (34, 35).

Reaction of the sample to a flood forecast, on the other hand,

may reflect the more extreme perceptual range of flood definition.

Since half indicated that evacuation and movement of belongings

would be their response to a flood warning (36), such a warning is

perhaps seen in the definitional context of a flood as a severe threat

to person and property. While differences between nonpermanent,

summer, permanent and other season residents were generally

slight, it is interesting to note that the former were slightly

less likely to evacuate in the face of a flood warning, even though

they tended to perceive the nature of a flood as somewhat more

threatening.

3. Responsibility

Consistent with the tendency of the sample to choose community

preventive measures over individual measures, 50 percent of the

respondents felt that Federal and State government (but significantly

not county or city government) should provide the funds for rebuilding

following flood damage; only 15 percent suggested that the individual

167

should be responsible (18). On the other hand, this reaction was

somewhat hypothetical since only 20 percent of respondents had ever

sought such aid.

c. Broadkill Beach

1. Perception of Flood Hazard

Distinctive features characterize the Broadkill Beach community.

Most of the sample are owners (3)*, only a few restrict their
residency to the summer season alone (7) and more than half are long-term res,
dents (five years or more) (3). However, there is an almost even

division between those who are permanent residents and those present

for less than twelve months (6).

In terms of flood perception, more than half the respondents

defined a flood as those environmental conditions which would produce

standing water in the streets; conditions which are substantially

less than those likely to produce structural damage (12) (see Table 8

The reason for this generous definition of flood may be explained

by the general residential flood history of the community. When

asked about the effects of the most severe flood experienced, over

half the respondents stated that the water had reached the property

or grounds but not the residence (27). Furthermore,

80 percent stated that there was either no damage or damage to the

grounds only (29). This view of flooding as a less significant

and threatening event may explain why only a minority considered

flooding a problem (11). Other reasons for this view include an

overall lack of flood experience by the sample as a whole:

*Numbers in parentheses refer to the appropriate question from the questionnaire,
Appendix I.

168

three-quarters of the respondents were not present for the 1962

flood (9) and only a little more than half had experienced any
flooding at all (10). It is not surprising, therefore, that as

many as 63 nercent believe that there is little likelihood of
floodwaters reaching their property in the next year (39).

Evaluation of questionnaire responses in terms of certain

residence history variables reveal differences of perception which

are obscured in the overall Broadkill Beach totals. Thus, more long-term

and other season residents than short-term and summer-only residents

had experienced flooding and believed flooding was a problem in

the area. Similarly, while the amount of flooding experienced by

permanent and nonpermanent residents was about the same, far fewer

permanent residents thought flooding was a problem than did non-

permanent residents (10, 11). The latter distinction was compounded

by the fact that while nonpermanent residents had experienced a higher

frequency of flooding in the past (24), permanent residents had
experienced more damage from the most severe storms (29). Yet,

when the expectation of future flooding is examined, many more
permanent residents believe waters are unlikely to reach their

property in the next year than nonresidents (39). However, more

summer and short-term residents felt that waters were unlikely to

reach their properties next year than long-term or other season
residents (39). The confusion in responses among the different

residential variables may be simplified by considering flood

perception as a continuum. First there are nonpermanent and

summer residents whose experience with floods is generally

169

limited. They express some concern for the possible

effects of flooding and its frequency of occurrence. Next, there

are the short-term, and permanent residents whose experience with

more severe floods is greater. As a consequence, they perceive

the more frequent minor water expansion as unimportant by comparison.

It may be that exposure to considerable damage from floods

results in a fatalistic view of flooding in which the inability

of human actions to effect much protection predominates. Finally,

there are long-term residents whose more substantial experience

of severe flooding may lead them to a more realistic concern for

flooding and a greater perception of flood-producing environmental

phenomena. For this reason, this latter group of residents may

react similarly to the nonpermanent and summer residents, but for

different reasons (12).

2. Preventive Measures

The residential distinctions made above become useful in

explaining the differences in response to questions concerning

preventive measures. When asked what measures might reduce storm

damage, one-half responded that protective devices (levees, dunes,

jetties,@grQins, etc.) should be used, while one-third either said

nothing would be of use or had no idea (16). Furthermore, when

other methods were suggested by the interviewers, 10 percent still

answered "none", while one-fifth endorsed flood proofing of

homes (17). However, when these questions are disaggregated by

residence variables,it can be seen that permanent residents and

short-term residents are much less likely to volunteer protective

170

devices and more likely to believe that no specific measures will

be of value (16). Again, the fatalistic approach of these residents

may explain the contrast with the view of long-term and nonpermanent

residents. When questioned concerning individual measures taken,

pilings and the raising of structures were preferred by a majority

and most had undertaken such measures prior to the occurrence of

damage. But once more, many nonpermanent residents had taken such

measures while many more permanent residents had done nothing (34,

35). Finally, in reaction to a flood forecast, approximately one-half

would evacuate. However, in terms of residential variables, many

more nonpermanent, summer only, and long-term residents would be in

the evacuation category, while more permanent, other season, and

short-term residents would be in the category to do nothing (36).

3. Responsibility

The State and Federal governments should bear the cost of flood

damage repair according to about one-half of the total residents,

while on'@ ane-fifth believe the individual had responsibility.

Slightly more permanent, other season, and short-term residents

felt the individual had responsibility than did nonpermanent residents,
summer only and long-term residents (18). However this

distinction was hypothetical since an extremely small proportion of

the sample had ever sought such aid (40).

d. Henlopen Acres Area

1. Perception of Flood Hazard

The people interviewed in Henlopen Acres were primarily owners,

nonpermanent residents or long-term residents, who lived in the

171

community for longer than just the summer (3, 6, 3, 7)*.

The flood experience of the inhabitants of Henlon.en Acres will

be discussed firstso that their perceptions of the flood hazard

in the area can be better understood. Most of the people had not

experienced any flooding and only 40 percent had been in Henlopen

Acres in March 1962 (9, 10). Sixty percent had never received sea

or canal water on their property, while 20 percent received it about

once every ten years and 20 percentreceived water once a year

or more (24). About 30 percent had some type of flood damage,

equally divided between structural, interior, and ground damage

while 65 percent have had no damage (29). In 40 percent of the cases,

some floodwaters had reached the property but not up to the

residence. Almost 25 percent of the sample had water depths of over

two feet (27).

Most people in Henlopen Acres have not been affected by flooding

at all. A minority of about 40 percent have experienced some flood-

waters and damao-.e. These figures correlate fairly well with the

perception of flood hazard. About 40 percent said that flooding is

a problem and 10 percent had no opinion (11). Eight percent agreed

that it was not likely that floodwaters would reach their Property

next year (39). Respondents in Henlopen Acres had a fairly rigorous

definition of flooding, in that 33 percent said that only when the
water caused structural damage could it be considered a flood (12)

(see Table 8 ).

*Numbers in parentheses refer to the appropriate question from the questionnaire,
Appendix I and Appendix 11.

172

The sample in Henlopen Acres can be disaggregated into

different types of residents in order to show how certain factors

affect perception of flood hazard. The nonpermanent residents in

this case responded quite differently from permanent residents.

More frequent flooding, higher water levels and more damage was

experienced by nonpermanent residents than by permanent residents.

Yet,permanent residents are more likely to be aware of a flooding

problem, while more nonpermanent residents had no opinion about

flooding as a problem.

2. Preventive Measures

Almost 60 percent agreed that protective devices (levees and
dunes) would be effective in reducing flood damage and 20 percent

had no idea of any effective measures (16). When preventive measures

were suggested to the respondents, 20 percent decided that a com-

bination of flood proofing homes, protective devices, zoning and

an early warninq system would be effective (17). Forty percent had

personally taken preventive measures by putting their homes on

pilings or raised structures and 40 percent had done nothing (34).

Almost every one who took preventive measures did so before damage

occurred (35). One-third would evacuate if a flood were forecast

while one-third would do nothing (36).

Here again,prominent differences between nonpermanent residents

and permanent residents can be seen. Nonpermanent residents

were more likely to have taken the preventive measure of putting

their homes on pilings and to evacuate. Permanent residents were

more likely to have taken no preventive measures and to do nothing

173

if a flood were forecast. Therefore, the flood experience on

the part of nonpermanent residents shows up clearly in the area

of preventive measures.

3. Responsibility

Sixty percent felt that financial responsibility to rebuild

a flood damaged community should be taken care of by the Federal
government, the State government or a combination of the two (18).
The response was the same when flood damaged public areas (boardwalk,

beach, etc.) were specified. However, flood damaged private homes

were a different matter. Almost one half thought that the individual

home owner ought to be responsible. Less than 10 percent of those in

Henlopen Acres had ever sought financial aid after flooding (40).

Half said they did have Federal Flood Insurance and half did not

(47), which correlates well with the fact that there was also an

equal split between those who did think flooding was a problem

and those who didn't. Finally, nonpermanent residents, who had

more flood experience, were more likely to have flood insurance

than permanent residents, who had less flood experience.

e. Rehoboth Beach #1

1. Perception of Flood Hazard

Rehoboth Beach will be analyzed in two sections. The people in

Rehoboth Beach #1 were interviewed on the boardwalk and the beach,

while those in Rehoboth Beach #2 were interviewed in their homes.

Rehoboth #1 consisted almost entirely of nonpermanent residents,

non-owners and people who are there only during the summer (3, 6, 7).

174

However, one-half had been coming to Rehoboth Beach for five years

or longer (8).

Only 10 percent had been in Rehoboth Beach in March 1962, but

almost 50 percent had experienced a flood (although not necessarily

in Rehoboth Beach) (9, 10).

Most of the people in this sample had no flood experience in

Rehoboth Beach upon which they could base their perceptions of

flooding there. It is not surprising that

40 percent had no opinion about whether flooding was a problem

in the area. Thirty percent thought that flooding might be a

problem (11). When asked to define a flood, more than half

cited standing water in the streets. Twenty percent mentioned a

stricter definition, by saying that only when water caused

structural damage could it be called a flood (12).

The responses to the preceding questions can be disaggregated

by type of resident to show how flooding experience may affect

flooding perception. Those people who had been coming to the

community for five years or longer were more likely to have flood

experience and thus to have some opinion on whether flooding is

a problem or not (10, 11). The people who had only been coming

to Rehoboth Beach one or two years and those with no flood experience

were more likely not to venture an opinion on the flooding problem

of Rehoboth Beach (11).

2. Preventive Measures

Twenty percen t thought that protective devices (levees, dunes)

might be effective in reducing flood damage, but 40 percent thought that

175

nothing would be effective or had no idea (16). When certain

possible preventive measures were suggested to respondents almost

20 percent agreed that a combination of flood proofing homes,

protective devices, zoning and an early warning system would be

an effective way to reduce flood damage (17). The people with no

flood experience were the ones most likely to say that nothing could

be done or had no idea of what could be done to prevent flood

damaqe (16).

3. Responsibi ity

A total of 40 percent of those interviewed felt that the Federal

government, the State government or a combination of the two should

be financially responsible for rebuilding flood damaged communities.

The rest of the people were divided between different

governmental agencies, the individual, and insurance (18).

f. Rehoboth Beach #2

1. Perception of Flood Hazard

Most of the people in Rehoboth #2 were property owners, long-

term residents and were in the community for longer than just the

summer (3, 7, 8). There was an equal number of permanent residents

and nonpermanent residents (6).

The flood history of Rehoboth #2 will be examined to determine

how it affects the community's awareness and concern with flooding.

Slightly more than half the people had experienced a flood (though

not necessarily in Rehoboth Beach)(10). Although almost 60 percent

had been in Rehoboth Beach in March 1962, fully 90 percent had

never experienced seawater on their property nor damage due to

176

sea flooding (9, 24, 29). Of those who had received water on

their property,,most reported that the water at its maximum depth

had not reached to the level of the residence. Only 33 percent had

maximum water depths of one to three feet and none had over three

feet of water on their property (27).

Since flooding in Rehoboth's residential sections had not been

severe at all, it would be expected that few people would consider

flooding as a threatening environmental condition. In fact, only

30 percent thought that flooding was a problem (11). It is not

surprising that nearly everyone in Rehoboth Beach felt it unlikely
that seawater would reach their property next year (39). When asked

how they would define a flood, half of the sample said either a

water level above normal or water in the streets. Eighteen percent

thought that a flood occurred only when there was structural damage

due to water level (12) (see Table 8

Flooding perceptions in Rehoboth Beach can be further analyzed

by comparing differences in perception as a result of different

residence experience. The permanent residents, long-term residents,

property owners and people with flood experience were more likely

to report that flooding does occur in Rehoboth Beach (although only

once every ten years), to have experienced water depths of one to

three feet and to think that flooding was a problem (24, 27, 11).

2. Preventive Measures

One-third of the people mentioned protective devices such as

levees and dunes as measures which might be effective in reducing

flood damage, while another third thought that nothing could be

177

done or had no idea of any effective preventive measures (16). The

low concern for flooding, shown by the people of Rehoboth Beach,

is reflected in the fact that 80 percent had taken no preventive

measures. Only 15 percent had put their homes on pilings or

raised structures (34). However, most people who took preventive

measures did so before damage occurred (35). When asked what they

would do if a flood were forecast, one-third would evacuate and

one-third would do nothing (36).

A pattern of consistency again emerges among permanent residents,

long-term residents, property owners and those with flood experience.

More of these people believed that a combination of flood proofing

homes, zoning and an early warning system would be an effective way

to reduce flood damage (17). Although this group was more concerned

that flooding is a problem, more of them said

that they would do nothing if a flood were forecast (36).

3. Respon si bi I i ty

Almost one-half felt that the financial responsibility for flood

damage reconstruction should fall to either the Federal government,

the State government, or a combination of the two (18). When asked

to differentiate between who should pay for the public areas (boardwalk,

beach, schools, etc.) of a flood damaged community, most people again

mentioned the Federal and State governments. Opinion was much more

divided on who should pay for a private home damaged in

a flood. Almost 25 percent cited the individual, 33 percent said

insurance and 30 percent said that the Federal and State governments

should be financially responsible. Since so few in Rehoboth had

178

received any damage, there were no instances where people had ever

sought financial aid after flooding occurred (40). Only a small

minority had Federal Flood Insurance (47). The long-term residents,

owners and those with flood experience were more likely to have

flood insurance, again reflecting a higher degree of concern for

fl.ooding.

g.- Dewey Beach Area

1. Perception of Flood Hazard

The community of Dewey Beach is overwhelmingly composed of

owners with 82 percent of those interviewed being in this category

(3). Another distinctive feature of the Dewey Beach sample is that 82

percent are long-term (five or more years) residents (8). Although

62 percent are nonpermanent residents (6), the majority are present

in the community for longer than just the summer (7).

Flood experience within the Dewey Beach community is almost

evenly split--56 percent said they had experienced a flood and
44 percent had not (10). Yet, 61 percent of the residents said they

were there for the 1962 storm (9). This can either be due to the

fact that some of those who were there in 1962 came down after the

storm was over to survey the damage or they were referring to their

house being present and not to themselves personally. In either

case the experience and contact with environmental conditions

associated with severe flooding are familiar to most of the residents

in the community. This statement is reinforced by the respondents

rather severe definition of a flood (12). The majority of the

community did not consider environmental conditions to be a flood

179

until water had reached their property. Even more surprising was

the 32 percent of the residents who considered tile occurrence of

minor structural damage as their definition of a flood (see Table 8

Though the community has a rigorous definition of a flood, the

threat of such a condition is offset by the fact that 60 percent
of the po@ulation does not consider flooding to be a problem (11).

To understand the reasons behind the community's low concern for

the serious flood conditions they define, it is necessary to

examine the flood history of Dewey Beach. Almost 60 percent of tile

residents have experienced water on their property over one foot

high, 43 percent of the entire community has never received damage,

and only 13 percent has received structural damage

(27, 29). So,with a definition of flooding conditions that includes

structural damage, this may explain why tile majority do not show

concern for the flooding problem. The frequency of flooding in the

community was seen as low by the residents--47 percent said it occurred

every ten years and 31 percent had never experienced it (24). Thus,

the majority, 64 percent, of the population did not think it likely
that water would reach their property next year @(39). This could

also be a factor in the response that flooding is not a

problem.

Divisions by residency status show different aspects of the

community for evaluation. It was found that permanent residents,

other season residents, and those who had not experienced a flood

thought flooding was more of a problem (11). There appears to be

a correlation between permanent and other season

180

residents, the amount of interior and/or structural damage

received from flooding, and concern for the flood problem (11, 29).

The relationship between those with no flood experience and their

concern for the flood problem may be attributed to their lack of

knowledge about the environmental conditions of a flood, and the

threat of the unknown.

2. Preventive Measures

When asked to suggest measures that could be effective in reducing

damage from storms or flooding, 44 percent of the community said
protective devices (dunes, jetties) (16). The next largest
group (17 percent) thought no measure could be effective. Though

nonpermanent residents and permanent residents had almost an equal

percentage who said protective devices would be an effective solution,

permanent residents were more likely to chose "none", as their response.

In addition to the responses above, residents were asked what

measuresthey thought could reduce damage. From these responses 55

percent of the community agreed that flood proofing, either alone

or in combination with other responses, would be effective in

reducing damage. Even with this list, 10 percent of the permanent

residents still thought that nothing could be done to prevent

damage (17).

The residents of the community were also asked what measures

they had taken to reduce damage (34). Thirty-seven percent had

their house on pilings or raised structures, and 60 percent had

done nothing. People who had experienced a flood were more likely

to have their houses raised on pilings. However, when asked if the

181

preventive action was taken before or after damage, a higher

percentage of the flood experienceiresidents and the nonpermanent

residents had taken action before damage (35). The information also

indicates that nonpermanent residents are more likely to try to

prevent damage, than permanent residents who feel nothing can be

done. If a flood were forecast for this community, 30 percent said

they would evacuate, 20 percent would keep informed of warnings and

17 percent would do nothing (36). Only 15 percent of the permanent

residents said they would evacuate and 31 percent of them would do

nothing. Permanent residents are less likely to take preventive

measures, and they also seem unwilling to leave the community even

if a threatening storm does occur.

3. Responsibi ity

The community thought that government should bear the most respGnsibilty

for rebuilding a flood damaged community-36 percent said

Federal government, 17 percent said State government and 19 percent

said both Federal and State government. Only 11 percent of the

community said that the individual himself should be responsible

(.18). However,.when asked specifically about who should be

responsible for private property, 39 percent thought the individual

should pay for the damage. Only 33 percent of the community have
Federal Flood Insurance to cover damage (47). The nonpermanent

residents and flood experience groups have a higher percentage of

insurance holders than the permanent and no flood experience

residents. It is interesting to note that while permanent residents

182

are aware that flooding is a problem, and received more damage than

nonpermanent residents, they are less likely to have Federal Flood

Insurance. It is difficult to determine the quality of aid that has

been offered to this community in the past, since only 12 percent

have sought aid after flooding (40). This aid was sought from the

Federal government. While 66 percent were somewhat satisfied with

aid received, 33 percent were not at all satisfied (41, 42).

h. Oak Orchard

1. Perception of Flood Hazard

Oak Orchard is an old and stable community. A majority of

the respondents were permanent dwellers who had been present in the

community for more than just the summer months (6, 7)*. Almost

all owned their own homes and lived there for more than five

years (3, 3). Consequently, as might be expected, the population

possessed considerable flood experience. More than two-thirds had

been exposed to flooding and a similarly high proportion had been

present for the 1962 storm (9, 10).

Oak Orchard, however, appears to be a community which demonstrates

that flood perception by a population with considerable flood

experience results in a wide variety of observations and opinions

that are frequently inconsistent. For instance, with regard to

flood frequency, although approximately one-half the respondents

believed floodwaters and reached their property at least once in

the previous ten years (24), only half of these respondents believed

this would not occur in the coming year and one-third believed it was

*Numbers in parenthE7ses refer to the appropriate question from the questionnaire,
Appendix I and Appendix II.

183

probable (39). With regard to flood severity, 87 percent stated

that the highest water had reached at least one foot in depth over

their property and half of these stated the depth as over three

feet (27). Damage to property or belongings resulting from such floods

affected 63 percent of the respondents (29). Yet, when attention was directed

from flood experience to opinion only 48 percent of the respondents
believed that flooding was a problem in the community (11).

Resolution of considerable flood experience with this relatively

limited view of flooding as a problem is not achieved by examining

the definition of a flood. Over half the population believe water

standing in the streets constitutes a flood, while a little more

than three-quarters would define a flood as water on the property
(Table 8 ) (12). Many of the environmental conditions included

within the community's flood definition would not be expected to

produce the level of damage which the community has experienced.

Perhaps one explanation for the dichotomy between flood experience

and flood perception may lie in the tendency of long-term residents,

who have encountered-and perhaps survived severe flooding in the

past,to minimize flooding as a specific threat to their existence

in the community.

Unfortunately, no resolution of this issue is achieved by

investigating the responses to questions in terms of the residential

variables. Rather, such an exercise merely compounds the impression

of inconsistency. Thus, for instance, fully 67 percent of those who

claim not to have experienced a flood, report water on their property

184

at a depth of over three feet, and 20 percent indicated damage to

interior furnishings (10, 24, 27). In part this may be explained

by the small sample size and in part by the possibility that some respon-

dents interpreted flood experience in question 10 to refer to

their person alone and not their property. But such inconsistency

may also be reflective of the general tendency for highly diverqent

opinions to result from a population with substantial flood

experience.

2. Preventive Measures

The conclusions regarding the Oak Orchard community already

hypothesized.are further reflected in their responses to questions

dealing with preventive measures. When asked to volunteer ideas,

only 30 percent suggested protective devices (jetties, groins, levees,

dunes, etc.) while 35 percent said no measures would be effective

and 22 percent had no idea (16). After the interviewer offered

suggestions, there was a wide scattering of responses with 46 percent

including flood proofing of homes (17). Interestingly, a much higher

proportion of those who had previously experienced a flood,than those

who had not, included early warning among the suggested measures.

Less than one-fifth of the population had taken no preventive

measures themselves, while a large number (61 percent) had opted

for pilings and raised structures. Examining the responses among

residential variables, a slightly larger number of those who had not

experienced flooding had erected pilings and raised structures,

while a slightly higher proportion of owners than non-owners had done

185

nothing (34). About two-thirds of those who had taken measures

did so prior to incurring damage (35).

It may be that the tendency of many people to

rely on substantial protective devices encourages a sense of

security which could explain their view of flooding as being somewhat

less of a problem than in other communities. It may also explain

why there is a diverse reaction to a potential flood warning. With

such an occurrence only 23 percent indicated that they would

evacuate and all in this group had experienced flooding.

Conversely, 50 percent of those who had not experienced

flooding would do nothing in the face of a flood warning (36).

3. Responsibility

Responses to the question concerning financial responsibility

for the repair of flood damage were quite diffuse. Twenty-six

percent suggested Federal and State entities should bear the burden

(18). However, almost no one had sought such aid (40). Federal Flood

Insurance was carried by 20 percent of the residents and most of those had

previously experienced flooding. A surprisingly high proportion,

also 20 percent, did not know whether or not they carried such

insurance. The bulk of those who did not carry insurance were

also those who claimed not to have previously experienced flooding

(47).

186

Bethany Beach

1. Perception of Flood Hazard

A majority of respondents spend only the summer months in the

community and are, therefore, nonpermanent residents. Most, however,

have also been returning to the town for over five years and in this

sense are categorized as long-term visitors (6, 7, 8)*. There is an

even division between those who own and those who rent their

properties, as well as a similar division regarding those who have

and have not experienced a flood (3, 10).

As might be expected with such a background of temporary visi-

tation, the experience of flood frequency by the respondents seems

to be limited. Only 21 percent were present for the 1962 flood (9).

Forty percent stated that water reached their property only once

every ten years and another 40 percent indicated that either this
condition never occurred or they simply did not know (24). Con-

sequently, it is not surprising that over one-half predicted that

it would be unlikely for floodwaters to reach their property in the

coming year (39). In contrast, the experience of flood severity

appears to be considerable. ETght
./-four percent stated that at least

one time the water level reached over one foot in depth on their

property and a large minority (46 percent) indicated a depth of
over three feet (27). Under these circumstances damage was

*Numbers in paren-t-Fe-ses refer to appropriate questions from the questionnaire,
Appendix I and Appendix II.

187

considerable. Over half indicated that they had received structural

.damage or destruction of interior furnishings (29).

The high flood severity factor appears to outweigh the factor

of low flood frequency in influencing the population's opinion

regarding flooding in general. Although the respondents had a

rather limited definition of flooding (over half viewed less than

damaging environmental conditions as a flood (12) (Table 8

60 percent believed flooding to be a problem in the area (11).

Interestingly, among the variables only the distinction between

owner and nonowner produced a variation of more than 12 percent

between'the categories in response to this last question.

2. Preventive Measures

Opinions concerning appropriate preventive measures were quite

varied with no strong,consistent trend. Protective devices (levees,

dunes, jetties, groins, etc.) were volunteered by 32 percent of the

population as the most likely method to reduce damage. This was the largest
proportion of respondents to favor any one measure (16). When other

alternatives were suggested the response was even more variable,

with the largest proportion (20 percent) deciding that a combination

of flood proofing of homes, zoning and early warning broadcast by

radio or TV would be the most effective (17).

The undecided nature of the respondents' opinions regarding

prevention was mirrored in their personal actions to reduce damage,

where 57 percent said they had done nothing (34). Of the minority

who had taken some action, the largest proportion (20 percent)
mentioned pilings and raising structures (34). Most had taken

188

such measures prior to damage occurring (35).

The general lack of action concerning prevention is perhaps

due to the nature of the flood experience of the community, which

involves infrequent but severe flooding. This might explain why

a majority of those responding would agree to evacuate and move

belongings to a safe place if a flood warning was forecast (36).

3. Responsibility
There was considerable division of opinion regarding
responsibility for repairing flood damage. Forty percent believed the

Federal and State governments should be responsible and only 6

percent felt the individual should bear the cost (13). A rather

high proportion, nearly 60 percent, had taken out Federal Flood

Insurance; a factor which might explain why 60 percent stated that
they had taken no personal preventive measures (47, 34).

j. South Bethany Beach

1. Perceptions of Flood Hazard

Almost all the South Bethany Beach respondents were nonpermanent

residents,yet nearly two-thirds had been visiting the community for

more than five years (6, 8)*. In the other variable categories,

there was*an even division between owners and renters, summer only

and other season residents and among those who had experienced

flooding and those who had not (3, 7, 10).

The 1962 flood contributed little to the community's flood

experience,since a mere 13 percent had been present at the time (9).

*Numbers in parentheses refer to appropriate questions from the questionnaire,
Appendix I and Appendix II.

189

Furthermore, 69 percent stated that they had experienced no damage,

or damage to the grounds only, from the most severe flood (29).

Nearly half stated that water had never even reached the edge of

their property (24) and only a minority of the population indicated

that water had stood at a depth of more than one foot on their
property from any storm (27). It is this background of limited

experiences with flooding which explains why more than half of the

population do not expect floodwater to reach their property in

the next year and why only 42 percent believe flooding to be a

problem in the community, compared with 38 percent who believe

it is not a problem and as many as 20 percent who are uncertain

(11). Moreover, this minority opinion of flooding as a problem

is held in spite of the fact that the respondents have a modest

definition of flooding. Sixty-four percent believe a flood to be

represented by environmental conditions which would not result

in any significant damage (12) (Table 8

It might be anticipated that these conclusions based on the

total responses hide variations in flood perception among the various cate-

gories of resident, and particularly it would be expected that more owners
would perceive flooding as a problem. However, this is not the case.

Only a minority of owners believe flooding to be an issue in

South Bethany Beach (11).

2. Preventive Measures

Perhaps because flooding is not thought of as the threat it is

in some communities, no clear trends emerged from replies to the

190

questions concerning preventive measures. Protective devices

(levees, dunes, jetties, groins, etc.) were the most frequently

volunteered suggestions, but only by 35 percent of the respondents;

only one-quarter stated "none" or "no idea" (16). When the

interviewer suggested other measures, flood proofing of homes

was most frequently mentioned, but again only by one-fifth of the

respondents (17). With regard to the measures individuals themselves

had already taken, only a very small proportion of the population

(less than one-quarter) had done anything, and of those, bulkheads

and seawalls were chosen by more of the respondents who had

experienced flooding,while pilings and raised structures were-,

preferred by thosewho had not previously experienced flooding (34).

About three-quarters of those who had taken preventive measures had

done so prior to the occurrence of any damage (35).

Only one-half of those interviewed answered the question on

their reaction to a flood warning. However, among these respon-

dents, close to half indicated that they would evacuatewhile a

mere 12 percent suggested that they would do nothing (36). The

overall impression gained from the response to this last question

suggests thatwhile the population, in general, does not perceive

flooding as a particular problem, the fact that their prior

flood experience is limited results in their more immediate and

radical response to a flood warning.

3. Responsibility

Forty-five percent of the respondents believed that the Federal

and State governments should be responsible for providing funds

191

to rebuild following flood damage and only 8 percent believed the

individtial was responsible (18). Of course, the question was entirely

hypothetical as none of the respondents had ever sought aid (40).

The profile of the South Bethany Beach community, which emerges

from the responses to the questionnaire, is of a population with

limited flood experience, a majority view that flooding is not a

problem and a consequent set of mild opinions and lack of specificity

concerning preventive measures and responsibility. Nevertheless,

it appears to be a cautious community, for 64 percent of the owners
state that they carry Federal Flood Insurance (47).

k. Fenwick Island

1. Perception of Flood Hazard

A very large proportion of the population of Fenwick Island does not reside

there permanently. These people, however, have been visiting the area for five

years or longer (6, 8)*. In the other residential categories

is a fairly even division between those visiting only for the summer

and those in residence during other seasons, a slight preponderance

of owners over non-owners and an even split between those

who have and have not experienced a flood (3, 7, 10).

The flood experience of the respondents was moderate relative to

some other communities. A little less than one-third (29 percent)

were present for the 1962 flood and their definition of a flood was somewhat

more realistic; only 50 percent would view standing water in the

streets as a flood,while the other 50 percent defined a flood in

*Numbers in parentheses refer to appropriate questions from the questionnaire,
Appendix I and Appendix II.

192

terms of more severe environmental conditions (12) (Table 8). The

experience of respondents to flood frequency was highly varied.

Approximately one-third experienced water on their property at

least once a year, while at the other extreme, an additional one-

third experienced this condition only once every ten years. An

additional ore-;third had never experienced this phenomenon (24).

This preponderance of opinion implying a rather low flood frequency

is reflected by a majority (54 percent) who believe it is highly

unlikely that floodwaters will reach their property in the coming

year (39). With regard to flood severity two-thirds had

experienced water to a depth of at least one foot over their

property and a little more than half had suffered some form of
damage to structures, interior furnishings, or grounds (27, 29).

Relative to other communities, Fenwi,ck Islanct flood experience

would appear to be modest as reflected in the responses of the

community as a whole. Consequently, it is hardly surprising that

only a minority (37 percent) believe flooding to be a problem in

the area (11). However, masked by this majority view of relative

unconcern.a number of trends become apparent upon examination of

residential variables. For instance, more individuals with flood

experience see flooding as more of a problem than those without ex-
perience (11, 39). In contrast, a higher proportion of long-term

residents believed flooding was not a problem and floodwaters would

not reach their property in the coming year (11, 39). Since

193

slightly more short-term residents than long-term residents also

had experienced flooding (3, 10), it would appear that there is

a minority of the population who perceive the threat of flooding

and its effects more clearly, but whose views are obscured by the

majority opinion.

2. Preventive Measures

Few strongly held views were expressed regarding measures which

might prevent flood damage. Thirty-seven percent volunteered
protective devices (jetties, groins, levees, dunes, etc.) while an

additional 30percent had no idea or said nothing could be done (16).

When considering suggestions offered by the interviewer, a wide

variety of measures were chosen by the respondents, most frequently

as combinations (17). More than two-thirds of the respondents had

taken some individual measures, with a similar proportion of these

individuals-taking action prior to experiencing flood damage.

Here, clearer preferences emerged with fully 40 percent utilizing

pilings and/or raised structures (34, 35). In spite of taking

such protective measures, over 60 percent of the population

would evacuate and move belongings to a safe place if a flood were

forecast (36).

3. Responsibility

The Federal and State governments were thought by over 40 percent

of the respondents to be financially responsible for rebuilding a

flood damaged community (18). Only 9 percent felt the responsibility be-

longed with the individual. Almost none of the respondents, however,

had ever sought such aid (40). Federal Flood Insurance was carried

194

by only 37 percent and only relatively low 9 percent were uncertain

regarding their participation in the insurance program (47).

There is an interesting,if understandable,relationship between insurance
c;verage and flood perception in Fenwick Island. Approximately 50

pL-rcent of the residents do not carry insurance and the same

approximate percentage do not believe flooding to be a problem
(11, 47).

Generally, Fenwick Island is a community with moderate flood

experience and a modest concern for flooding. This overall view,

however, hides a smaller percentage of residents for whom flooding

is more of an issue, as expressed by preventive measures taken

and insurance carried. For the most part this small minority

seems to be composed of those who have experienced flooding but,

at the same time, have a relatively shorter history of residence

in the community.

Scale: Within Community

The purpose of the SYMAP computer-drawn maps presented in Appendix V and dis-
cussed i n thi s secti on i s to determi ne whether the di stri buti on or pattern cf responms to se-

lected questions on the questionnaire offers further insight into a community's

perception of coastal flooding and their reaction to this natural hazard.

While each mapped response does not always display or produce an obvious and

explainable pattern, it is hypothesized that the geographical location of

replies might be in general accord with the localized patterns of the flood

hazard. The storm damage maps can be compared with the SY14AP computer maps

195

and perceptual attitudes and opinions of the population can be contrasted

with the reality of flooding. The computer maps of questionnaire

responses can also be compred with each other. In the analysis of the maps

for each community which follows, the major objective will be to evaluate the ex-

tent towhich the pattern of responses is consistent with the area(s) of sig-

nificant or extraordinary storm damage. Thishypothesis is based on the assumption that

within each community there should be a "zone of concern" in which perception

of flooding is more developed and opinions on future flooding and techniques

for prevention clearly held. Such a zone might be thought to correspond with

the area(s) of significant previous damage. Beyond this zone, perceptions

by individuals within the community might be expected to be less clearly de-

veloped and less accurate. Conversely, the extent to which this hypothesis

may not be borne out by the mapped distributions would indicate the degree

to which perceptions of flooding and suggestions for prevention are inconsis.-

tent.

An understanding of the method by which the maps were constructed

is most important in order to avoid any misunderstanding in their inter-

pretation. Each map was produced by identifying the location of each res-

pondent within the community and assigning specific values to those data

points depending upon the particular response to a question. The SYMAP

computer program then interpolates the hypothetical values of all other

areas of the community between the data points and shades area's of the same

value with an identifying pattern. The interpolation of perceptions and

opinions held by residents who were not interviewed is similar to any other

196

form of statistical sampling in which conclusions drawn from a certain

proportion of the population are projected to represent the whole community.

In the case of a geographical sample the selected opinions are projected

over the adjacent area to include those zones within the community where no

interviews were obtained. This is an importantassumption,but one which

must be made unless every individual in the community is interviewed. Such an

assumption, furthermore, is reasonable when dealing with an individual's

perceptions, since opinions concerning behavior in the face of natural

hazards are frequently influenced by communication and interaction between

neighbors. Nevertheless, the assumption leads to a number of_significant

qualifications which must constantly be borne in mind when interpreting

the maps which have been produced for this project.

Since the maps are based on only a @.@_@le of the community, they cannot

be viewed as completely accurate and precise in the sense of, for example,

property survey maps. Rather, the patterns are designed to convey a

generalized impression based upon the assumption that people located

close to a respondent may tend to hold similar views.

The sample size obviously influences the validity of the patterns
produced and it is important to be.aware, therefore, that some communities

had a lower density of respondents than others. The sample size also varied

with the question. Thus, in some cases it is possible for only one respondent

to substantially influence the interpolated pattern around that data point.

Consequently the interpretation and comparison is aided by noting that each

197

map prints the actual location of each respondent by means of a numeral.

The particular numeral used a a location indicates the category into which

the respondent falls, as indicated by the map key.

Not all questions in the questionnaire are amenable to this type of

anal.ysis. Thus, only those questions which could be scaled, or reduced

to an "either-or/.yes-no" response, were mapped. Of the ten questions chosen

for SYMAP analysis, four have been isolated in each community to exemplify

the type of consideration that all maps received. These four questions

(11, 24, 35, 47)* were selected for their value in highlighting the

three basic issues of study: the extent of flood hazard perception;

the sort of preventive measures that should be taken; and the matter

of who holds the responsibility for flood protection in each community.

a. Bowers Beach

The distribution of interviews conducted in Bowers Beach did not lend

itself well to SfMAP analysis. Interviews tended to be clustered spatially

and large areas were devoid of data. Thus, distortion in the appearance

of these maps is greater than that in other communities surveyed. Due

to the small number of interviews in South Bowers Beach, this area was

not included in the community analysis.

Almost all property owners interviewed in Bowers Beach were aware of a

local flooding problem (9)*. Only two residents of those sampled said

they had never experienced ba.y water on their property (24). The most

*Number in parentheses refers to appropriate questions from the questionnaire,
Appendix I and Appendix II. SYMAPs are included in this report for only these
four questions. Others are on file at the Office of Management, Budget and
Planning.

198

frequent inundation was reported by property owners on Hubbard Avenue and

North Flack Avenue. However, the majority of respondents in this area have

taken no preventive measures against flood damage (35). Where such measures

had been implemented, action was taken prior to experiencing any storm

damage. Since only 11 percent of those questioned gave a response regarding
their holding of Federal Flood Insurance (47), the corresponding SYMAP was

not produced.

If only the flood damage maps are considered, it would be expected

that most of the community would pose a "zone of concern" as defined earlier.

However, the preliminary analysis of SYMAP indicates a different trend. As

a whole, Bowers Beach appears more uniform in opinion than other bay

communities studied. Upon closer inspection of the computer maps three

attitudinal areas become evident.

1. Atlantic Avenue area. This area although outside the

corporate limits of Bowers Beach, shares the town's moderate level of

flood experience. Flooding has occurred since 1962 (9, 10) and is
perceived as a local problem by the residents sampled (11). Inundation

by bay water is perceived to be less frequent than in the remainder
of the community (24), but higher maximum water levels have been
experienced (27). Damages were incurred primarily on grounds and

interior furnishings (29). In spite of their admission of flood

hazard, most inhabitants did not appear to feel threatened, and thus

had taken no protective measures (35).

2.. Hubbard Avenue and William Avenue vicinity This area

contains most of those residents present for the 1962 flood (9).

Significant flooding has occurred since that time

199

FIGURE 23

BOWERS

CIP
0

z
3t

F--
ol

0 Soo 1600 2400

SCALE I" z 900'

200

respondents report flood experience (10). Both high water and

extensive damages have been suffered in the area (27, 29). When com-
bined with frequent flooding (24), sudi conditions would appear to be 9fficient reamn
for the property owners to be concerned about the flood hazard (11).

In spite of their perception of a flooding problem, however very few of those

interviewed had taken action to protect their property (35).

3. Northeast area. East of Flack Avenue and north of Cooper

Street. The majority of the population here has had flood experience

in the years since 1962 (9, 10). Water from the St. Jones River

reaches their property quite frequently, although at low depths (24,

27). Property owners interviewed have experienced a variety of damage

levels (29) and feel that such conditions could recur in the near future

(39). Their perception of the flooding problem (11) and construction

of preventive measures (35), indicate a greater degree of concern for

flood hazard than is shown by the remainder of the community.

4. Conclusion. From the SYMAP analysis it is evident that the

residents interviewed in the northeastern portion of Bowers Beach have

a greater awareness of flooding and the need for protection. The

remainder of the community expressed concern, yet had taken little or

no protective or preventive actions. It appears that, in spite of a

history of extensive flood damage, those sampled did not feel threat from

coastal storms to be significant enough to instigate preventive measures.

.b. Slaughter Beach

Slaughter Beach has suffered severe damage from two major coastal

floods in the past twenty years. The beach has receded some forty feet;

201

several homes have been washed away or damaged beyond repair, and nearly

every property has received some form of flooding. The greatest destruction

.occurred during the March storm in 1962 when seventeen homes were destroyed
and many others were damaged. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, report (1962)

cites the northern section of Slaughter Beach (see SYMAP for divisions), as

receiving the greatest damage. A less severe storm,

in December 1974, caused considerable property damage to residences in the

central section of Slaughter Beach. The southern beach lost thirty to

forty feet of sand during this storm, but little property damage occurred.

With such extensive destruction in the Northern part of Slaughter

Beach, it would be expected toemerge as a "zone of concern". The

Central section might also show a high degree of sensitivity, while the

Southern section, with milder damages to properties in both 1962 and 1974,

would understandably be less concerned. The residents interviewed,

however, showed the opposite trend in their responses.

Two of the major questions of perception and reaction to flooding as

a hazard (35 and 47)* show "zones of concern" corresponding more closely

to areas containing residents who had experienced the March 1962

storm than to the areas known to have suffered most. Every resident

interviewed in the southern section of the community has taken precautions

against flood damage while only half of those interviewed in the central

zone and even fewer in the north have taken such measures 05). Of the

people asked about Federal Flood Insurance, two-thirds of southern

Slaughter Beach, none of the central residents and half of the northern

*Numbers in parentheses refer to the appropriate questions from the
questionnaire, Appendix I and Appendix II.

202

area residents hold flood insurance policies (47).

The questions concerning perception of flooding as a problem (11) and

the frequency of bay water flooding (24) do not seem to show the same

distinction between 1962 and later residents. Nearly everyone in the

northern and southern portions of Slaughter Beach said they perceive flooding to

be a problem in their area. Half of the central respondents agreed while

the rest said they perceived no problem (11). Yet, the central residents

reported the mostfrequent water on their properties, at least once every

two to five years. Only a few in the north and south reported water that

often, most of them saying that water reaches their properties only once in

ten years (24).

Looking at the sections of Slaughter Beach individually, it becomes

more apparent that those actually present for the storm in 1962 show

greatest concern for flooding regardless of geographic location or whether

they suffered damage in the 1974 northeaster.

1. Northern Section: north of the sixth groin. This section,

while known to have suffered severe damages in 1962, shows only minor

damage or none at all on the SYMAP of damages (29). This is due to

the small portion (35 percent) of the present-day residents sampled

who experienced that storm (9). The heavy damages indicated in

Question 29 were reported by those few people present in March 1962.

The remainder of the northern residents have had minor grounds damage

or no damage at all. Most of those in the northern section said they had

experienced a flood (10) and consider flooding to be a problem in the

Slaughter Beach community (11). The majority also consider it probable

203

FIGURE 24

0 Soo 1600 2400

SCALE I Soo'

0
UN

CA
'0

SLAUGHTER
BEACH

4/
204

that bay waters will reach their properties "next year" (39). However,

only the residents from 1962 have taken preventive measures (35) and
only half of the residents have Federal Flood Insurance (47).

2. Central Section: sixth to the thirteenth groin. Slightly

more 1962 residents (45 percent of the sample) are still living in the

central area of Slaughter Beach (9). Their damages in 1962 were less

severe, though substantial, and the greatest damages in the 1974 flood

occurred here. Most of these respondents said they have experienced

a flood (10), though their definitions of a flood are fairly mixed -

ranging from "water level above normal" to "major structural damage"

(12). Most central residents expect water on their property at least

every two to five years (24); two-thirds of them considering it

probable that it will happen next year (39). All have had at least

six inches of water, most considerably more, on their property (27).

Everyone interviewed had experienced at least grounds damaged by

bay waters (29). Yet, only half of those interviewed have taken

preventive measures (35).

-3. Southern Section: south of the thirteenth groin. In contrast

to the north and central sectiorE, residents of the southern part of

Slaughter Beach seem to represent a "zone of concern". A majority

of those interviewed have been residents since 1962 (9) and have

experienced flooding (10). Their definition of a flood is consistently

more conservative than the other sections; half defining it as "water

level above normal" (12). The frequency of bay waters reaching their

properties varies from once a year to once in ten years (24) and their

damage experiences range from severe structural disturbances, with

205

water over three feet, to no damage at all (27 and 29). Their

expectations of flooding next year vary from "highly probable" to

"not likely" (39). In spite of these extremes of experience, all but

one resident feels that flooding is a problem for the area (11). They

have all taken some flood preventive measures (35), and two-thirds of

those questioned about Federal Flood Insurance hold such insurance

policies (47).

4. Conclusion. The southern Slaughter Beach residents interviewed

stand out as those with the greatest concern about flooding, though

they have been, geographi call _y te least endangered by past f I oods. The

sample of central residents shows less concern in terms of flood

precautions, yet this section has experienced greater damages and more

frequent flooding than southern Slaughter Beach. The present northern

residents sampled express even less concern, although their part of town

is known to have been devastated in 1962.

The departure of older residents who felt the brunt of the

March 1962 storm is probably the cause of this inverse relationship.

Newer residents, experiencing the northeaster in December 1974, may

feel they have seen the flooding and damage brought by coastal storms

and found it less threatening than older residents know it to be.

c. Broadkill Beach

The community of Broadkill Beach has suffered relatively minor damage

from flooding in the years since 1960 with the significant exceptions of

the coastal storms occurring in March 1962 and December 1974. The most severe

destruction from coastal storms has been concentrated between West Virginia

206

Street and Florida Street and to a lesser extent in the area south of Route

16 along Bayshore Drive. The remainder of the community has been affected

by floodwaters to a much lesser degree. If a "zone of concern" exists in

Broadkill Beach, it would seem likely that the area most heavily damaged

would exhibit the greatest awareness of hazard and subsequent protective

reactions. On closer examination this simple hypothesis does not appear

to hold true.

The majority of residents in the southern portion of the community and a small

group in the northern portion on the bay side (eastof Bayshore Drive) believe there

is a coastal flood problem. In contrast, most respondents in the north and

a few in the south indicate no perception of a-flood, hazard (11)*.

It is apparent that the southern portion of the community receives water more

frequently than the north. Residents interviewed north of Louisiana Street

had never experienced water from Delaware Bay.on their property. Residents

in the blocks between West Virginia and Florida Streets consistently responded
that they had experienced coastal flooding at least once every ten years (24).

Flood prevention measures have been taken by occupants of the extreme

northern and southern portions of the community. A distinct contrast is

presented by people in the West Virginia to Florida Street area and several

others on the marsh side of Bayshore Drive who have taken no measures at

all (35). Patterns of Federal Flood Insurance holdings are indistinct

because only twelve residents were asked this question. "Bay

side" residents (located east of Bayshore Drive) are the primary carriers

of this flood insurance. Most respondents in the West Virginia to Florida

Street locale indicated they did not have coverage (47).

*Numbers in parentheses refer to the appropriate question from the
questionnaire, Appendix I and Appendix II.

207

From these and other questions for which SYMAP was produced, distinct

patterns of attitudes emerge. It is important to note that no residents

were sampled in the central portion of Broadkill Beach immediately south

of the intersection of Delaware Roed 16 and Bayshore Drive. Thus, this

area of the community must be ignored in the following analysis.although it

was a developed area prior to 1962 and is reported to have sustained flood

damage.

1. West Virginia Street to Florida Street vicinity. This area

corresponds very closely with the most severe damage zone represented on

the 1962 flood damage map. The residents interviewed had experienced the

storm conditions in 1962 (9, 10) but did not perceive flooding as an

important community problem (11). This attitude is reflected by an ab-

sence of flood prevention measures and Federal Flood Insurance (35, 47).

Although storm tides occur infrequently (24), this area did

experience the greatest depth of floodwaters when they occurred (27)

and flooding had caused the most damage (29) here. In this area, a
flood is viewed as a serious event causing much damage (12),but

nevertheless,it is not frequent enough to merit protective

action or excessive concern.

2. Southern area.-This area is located at the extreme southern

end of Broadkill Beach and is bounded on the north by the older section

developed prior to 1962 near the junction of Delaware Route 16 and

Bayshore Drive. Although not a developed area until after the March

1962 storm (9), the southern section has since experienced significant

coastal flooding (10) and damage. Floodwaters are believed to be fairly
frequent (24), although the depth of flooding has been very low (27).

2 O@3

FIGURE 25

BROADKILL
BEACH

0 Soo 1600 2400

SCALE 1"- 800'

2 0 9

Even though flood damage has been slight (29), the majority of resi-

dents believe flooding is a significant problem and have undertaken

preventive measures prior to flood damage (35). Awareness of the flood

hazard is more prevalent in this area than in any other portion of the

communi'CY and has been demonstrated by the preventive measures taken.

3. Northern area-north of Florida Street. Reactions here are the most

variable in the community. There appears to be a slight difference in

flood experience between residents on the bay side and those on the

marsh side (west of BaYshore Drive). Although most inhabitants had

never experienced bay water on their property (27) the inhabitants on

the marsh side of this area indicated previous experience with flooding

(10). In spite of the fact that flooding is considered a problem pri-

marily by bay side people (11), protective measures have been taken

throughout the area (35). A lack of flood damage (29) and limited

experience with flooding appears to prevent these people from being

accutely aware of flood hazard without impairing their sensitivity to

the possibility of flooding in the future.

4. Conclusion. Among residents of Broadkill Beach, the greatest

awareness of flooding and need for protection is evident in the southern

portion of the community. In this case, awareness is coupled with the

frequent low floods and minor damages sustained in the area. Conversely,

the residents of the area receiving the most severe damages and infre-

quent, deep floodwaters do not perceive a flooding problem or a need

for protection. Frequency of flooding appears to be a more important

variable to flood hazard awareness than the potential severity of

subsequent flooding.

210

d. Henlopen Acres - North Shores

Most of North Shores exists on filled marsh land and is, therefore, less than

ten feet above mean sea level. When dunes were breached in March 1962,

the southern section North Shores became a basin in which the ocean

and rising canal wate MeL The depth of floodwater reached at least five
7
feet in some places. The northern part of.North Shores was undeveloped
in 1962, so that there@ iwere no reports of water depths in that section.
Some of the area was co vered in December 1974 when the dunes were breached
at the end of Fairview Road, and enough ocean water came through to cover

Duneway with a few feet of water.

Henlopen Acres has some higher elevations. Parts of this community are

over ten feet above mean sea level. This includes most properties west of

Zwaanendael Avenue, where the majority of residents were above the 1962 flood

waters. East of Zwaanendael Avenue, however, between Tidewaters and Henlopen

Avenue and further north on Tidewaters to the Yacht Basin, some residents

reported from one to five feet of water in March 1962.

On the basis of this past experience, southern North Shores and the

northeastern section of Henlopen Acres might be expected to be "zones of

concern . With very little flooding in 1962, residents in southwestern

Henlopen Acres are likely to show less concern about a flood hazard. Mixed reactions

would be expected in northern North Shores where no one has experienced personal

property damage,but some may realize a potential for future flooding.

Most residents interviewed in both communities said they felt that
flooding is a problem for their area (11)*. The only notable exceptions

*Numbers in parentheses refer to the appropriate question from the question-
naire, Appendix I and Appendix II.

211

were in northern North Shores and along Zwaanendael Avenue in Henlopen

Acres. The property owners interviewed in these areas replied that they

do not consider flooding to be a problem.

Respondents along the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal in southern North Shores

and northeastern Henlopen Acres expect canal waters to reach them

at least once a -year (24). Most other residents interviewed

in these sections said that canal or ocean waters reach them about once

every ten years. Everyone interviewed in northern North Shores and

southwestern Henlopen Acres said they had never experienced canal or

ocean water on their property.

The preventive measures taken do not seem to correlate well with the

areas of most frequent flooding. Home-owners in northern North Shores,

for example, said they do not consider flooding a problem and have never

had seawater on their properties, yet all of these people reported taking

preventive measures (35). In contrast to this, only half of the

respondents in southern North Shores, where flooding caused considerable

damage, said they have taken preventive measures of some kind.

Residents of the most frequently flooded area in Henlopen Acres

have not, in general, taken flood prevention measures. Instead

less frequently flooded residents along Zwaanendael Avenue reported having

taken such measures. In the southwestern section of Henlopen Acres, where

most homes were above floodwaters, nearly all of the respondents had taken

preventive measures.

Possession of Federal Flood Insurance shows still another distribution

of responses. Fifty percent of respondents in northern North Shores and 66

percent in southern North Shores said they have Federal Flood Insurance (47).

212

In northeast Henlopen Acres, the respondents who have these policies are

mostly the same people who did not take preventive measures, while those

who did take preventive measures do not have flood insurance. Most

respondents in southwestern Henlopen Acres do not have Federal Flood Insurance

policies.

For further discussion of local reactions to the flood hazard in

Henlopen Acres and North Shores, the communities will be broken into the

sections used in the above discussion. Henlopen Acres will be divided into

northeastern and southwestern areas. Two respondents on Tidewaters, in the

northeast section will be included in the southwestern discussion because

they have had no flood experience. North Shores will be broken into

northern and southern sections:

Southwestern Henlopen Acres: west of a line drawn from

Henlopen Yacht Basin to the intersection of Zwaanendael Avenue and

Henlopen Avenue. Due to higher elevations, these respondents have had

little flood experience (24, 29). They have taken precautions (35),
but do not expect water to reach them next year (39) and have not

bothered with Federal Flood Insurance (47).

2 . Northeastern Henlopen Acres: east of the line described above.

Most of these respondents experienced the March 1962 northeaster

(9, 10) and have suffered some combination of grounds, interior, or

structural damages (29). The one resident on the Lewes and Rehoboth

Canal said he has water on his property at least once a year (24) and

expects, the same next year (39). The rest of the respondents in this

area expect to have floodwaters no more than once every decade. They

213

\Y1.

RD. z
--4
FIGURE 26
S.
RODN

HENLOPEN ACRES
c:
AND z
rn
.0
NORTH SHORES
0
0

BROAD

Cie

0 Soo 1600 2400

SCALE I"= 800'

214

do not expect this to happen next year. Despite the greater frequency,

residents closest to the canal said they have not taken preventive

measures (35). The respondents closest to the ocean, however, expecting

seawater to reach them much less often, have all employed some kind of

protective device(s). Ownership of Federal Flood Insurance, as mentioned

above, is the reverse of preventive measures taken. Those who have

these policies have not taken preventive measures and those who have

taken measures do not have Federal Flood Insurance (47).

3. Southern North Shores: south of South Rodney Street. This area appears

to have a smaller portion of long-term residents than the Henlopen Acres

sections. Only 50 percent of those interviewed experienced the March

1962 storm (9, 10). Although most of the respondents said they have had

water from the ocean or canal on thei r properties (24), only 40 percent

have had as much as one foot of water or damages of any kind (27, 29).

Only those with flood experience have taken preventive measures (35)

and only 10 percent of the respondents felt there was a fair chance of
ocean or canal water reaching them next year (39). Nevertheless, 80

percent said they consider flooding to be a problem (11), and 70

percent have Federal Flood Insurance (47).

4. Northern North Shores: north of South Rodney. This section was

not developed in 1962. Most of the people interviewed here did not

experience the March storm of 1962 and most have never

had water on their property (24, 27). All but one said that flooding

is not a problem (11) and everyone said they consider it unlikely

that ocean or canal water will reach their property next

year (39). In spite of this dearth of flood

215

experience, every respondent said his property is protected with some

kind of preventive measures (35) and 50 percent said they own Federal

Flood Insurance (47).

5. Conclusion. Southwestern Henlopen Acres is the only section with

a very low threat of future flooding. Respondents from this area have taken

preventive measures in spite of this and show more than enough concern

for such a mild flood hazard.

The hazard is greater in northeastern Henlopen Acres, yet a smaller

percentage of these respondents said they have taken preventive measures.

The residents in the canal area were the people without protective

measures, even though they said the canal floods far more frequently than

the ocean. This kind of flooding may be quite harmless by contrast

with ocean flooding, but the situation warrants further attention with

the severe fifty and one hundred year floods in mind.

Northern and southern North Shores are also in need of attention

based on the property owners' attitudes towards flooding. Only the

respondents who experienced the high waters and damages of March 1962

consistently express a high degree of concern. Their community is very

low in elevation and certain to receive future washovers, as it did

in 1962.

e. Rehoboth Beach

Rehoboth Beach is generally situated on ground more than ten feet above

mean sea level; thus destruction from even the most severe storms has been

limited to the boardwalk and buildings which front on the ocean. High tides,

wind-driven waves and extreme beach erosion during the "northeaster" of

216

March 1962 caused the destruction of the boardwalk and many commercial

establishments. Minor flooding occurred in the southern portion of Rehoboth

Beach as Silver Lake overflowed and sent water down King Charles Avenue.

Damage from more recent storms, including that of December 1974, has been

much less significant.

Considering only the damage maps (See Pocket
raps), one would expect the greatest degree of flood concern to be expressed

by property owners along the ocean front and those in the Silver Lake-King

Charles Avenue area. This hypothesized trend appears only partially true

when responses to the questionnaire are examined by SYMAP computer analysis.

Perception of flooding as a concern is most prevalent north
of Lake Gerar and in the vicinity of Silver Lake (11)*. Very few residents

interviewed had ever experienced sea orlake water on their property. The

majority of people who had experienced these conditions perceive them to
recur infrequently (24). Property owners who reported sea orlake water on

their property live in the vicinity of Silver Lake. Preventive measures,

although uncommon in Rehoboth Beach, have been taken primarily,by residents

sampled on the northern shore of Silver Lake. The majority of people who

had taken action did so prior to damaging floods (35). Ownership of Federal

Flood Insurance is dispersed throughout the community. The largest

concentration of flood insurance carriers is on the northern shore of

Silver Lake (47).

Examination of responses given to the questions outlined above reveals

an overall trend in Rehoboth Beach. Opinions expressed in the city appear

*Numbers in parenth es refer to the appropriate question from the
questionnaire, Appendix I and Appendix 11.

217

FfGURE 27

SCALE goo.

OCEAN

ERA G ST AVE z

AVE,
'IVE Q
'a 0
AVE
NIARYLAND AVE.
BALTIMORE
sussEx
OTH E.
REMOB
c==@

cSANDLEWOOcn
ST
BROOKLYN AVE.
MUNSON ST@jr_

LAUREL ST. LAUREL ST..

ST
-ST

ST.

C, ST,
ci -9
ST.

ST.
EH080TH
BEACH x\
da@
ci M T" PROS CT ST
N ST,

SILVEI?
LAKE

WESAKAK ST
CAROLINA

2 1 8Q

to be unified with regard to perception of flood hazard. Only one

distinctive attitudinal area was identified as separate from the community

as a whole:

1. North shore of Silver Lake in King Charles Street vicinity.

Property owners interviewed in this area experienced the "northeaster"

in March 1962 (9, 10). Minimal flooding and damages were reported by

these people (27, 29). They believed such events to be unlikely (24),

yet many residents had taken preventive measures (35) and about one half

also hold Federal Flood Insurance (47). Although these people did not

report very extensive flood experience, their actions indicated a

relatively high degree of concern for flood hazards.

2. Remainder of community. The majority of residents interviewed

in Rehoboth Beach were present for the March 1962 storm (9),

yet only one-half of them claim to have flood experience (10). In the

few areas reached by ocean water, depths were reported as shallow (27)
and little damage was suffered (29). Accordingly, flooding was not
believed to be a problem by most property owners sampled'(11). Since

flooding was believed to be an unlikely occurrence (39), few people

interviewed had taken preventive measures (35) or carried Federal Flood

Insurance (47).

3. Conclusion.. Due to the fact that ocean front property is

primarily commercial in nature, very few interviews were obtained in

this portion of Rehoboth Beach. Thus, SYMAP does not accurately portray

the zone of severe damage suffered along the boardwalk or the attitudes

held by property owners there. The opinions expressed by the rest of

the community appear very consistent with their minimal flood experience.

219

Residents in the Silver Lake - King Charles Street area reported the

greatest degree of flood experience and concern for the flood hazard.

f. Dewey Beach

The Dewey Beach area is composed of the residential communities of Sea

Breeze and Rehoboth-by-the-Sea as well as Dewey Beach proper. Much of this

land is less than ten feet in elevation and thus is vulnerable to coastal

storm flooding. Wave action in March 1962 caused beach erosion, dune

destruction and subsequent extensive flooding over much of the area.

Structural damage was prevalent along the ocean front in Dewey Beach, while

farther inland damage was incurred from floodwaters, primarily to the interior

and the furnishings of dwellings. Rehoboth-by-the-Sea and Sea Breeze

suffered only exterior property and "grounds" damage in the same storm.

If only the damage maps (see "Flood Damage") are considered, it would

be expected that residents of those areas which experienced most of the severe

and frequent damage would express the greatest concern for future flood

hazard. -However, this hypothesized trend does not appear consistent when

responses to the questionnaire (Appendix I) are examined by SYMAP.

Flooding is considered a problem by the majority of respondents south

of Bellevue Street. Several people between Swedes Street and New Orleans

Street, west of Route 14, also perceive a flood hazard (,11)*. North of

Dagsworthy Street, flooding is perceived to be infrequent. Between

Dagsworthy Street and Rodney Street, flood conditions recur as often as

once a year. Flooding is perceived by those interviewed to be less frequent

south of Rodney Street (24). Few respondents had taken flood preventive

*Numbers in parentheses refer to the appropriate question from the
questionnaire, Appendix-I and Appendix II.

220

measures in Sea Breeze or south of Bellevue Street. North of Bellevue

Street, on the ocean side of the community (east of Route 14), preventive

measures had been taken, often before damage occurred (35). Federal

Flood Insurance was held primarily by respondents on the ocean side of

Dewey Beach (47).

Opinions in Dewey Beach appear varied with regard to perception of

flood hazard. Several distinct attitudinal areas emerge on

inspection of the SYMAP computer maps:

1. Sea Breeze: west of Dodd Street.. The majority of respondents
in this area experienced the flood in March 1962 (9, 10). Most property

owners interviewed had never experienced sea or bay water on their land

(24), or suffered flood-related damage (29). Since they consider the

possibility of future flooding unlikely (39), none had taken preventive

measures (35) or carried Federal Flood Insurance (47).

2. Southern: south of Bellevue Street. This is the area of

most severe damage from the March 1962 storm. Many respondents
in this area experienced significant flooding in that storm (9, 10).

Residents interviewed perceive flooding to occur quite frequently (24).

Maximum water depths reported by property owners average two to three
feet and associated property damage has been quite severe (27, 29).

The area's extensive flood history provides ample reason for residents' feeling

that flooding is a problem (11). Even though future flooding -was con-
sidered probable (39), few respondents had taken preventive measures (35)

and only half of them carry Federal Flood Insurance (47).

221

FIGURE 28

COMEGYS LAK

010 4 CVjFSAPEAK ST.
CAROLINA
3ERSE'y ST.
T.
CULLEN @@S
ST.
f
CHICAGO [!;z
ST,
WEST
-4
ST.
S- U
CARLA AVE. HoUSTO 4 ST. z
CD ST.
BAyviEW E. v< AV
CLAYTON
ST.
DUTCH RD. EDES
I ST.
SWEDES C @r
SALISBURf
ST.
4
SALISBURY NEW ORLE
z
BELLEVUE S-T'
DAGSWORTH ST.

ST.
DEWEY --4; TOUIT] READ ST.
BEACH I
--4 -ST- 0
ROD.,,, 0

ST.
DI ENSON

YKE SIT
AN, @D@'

LLINS ST.
ic-C 0 L I aNs S
BEACH AVE,
@Rl-
9 A@y lo 91 E,
9:A:l @ LPALMER
0 Soo 1600 2400 9ERR'f
iiiiiiia BEDFORD AVE.
SCALE I"= 800, McKE N E.
1976 STREET BASE MAP
aHAZ T AVE.

222

3. Central ocean front: east of Route 14 between Bellevue

Street and Salisbury Street. These people were present for the storm

in March 1962. Although sea or bay water

was perceived to inundate local property infrequently (24). When

floodinq has occurred, moderate damage and water depths of one to

two feet have occurred (29, 27). In spite of the fact that the majority of

respondents did not consider flooding a local problem (11), many had

taken precautionary action before flooding occurred (35). Few residents

sampled carried Federal Flood Insurance (47).

4. Northern oceanfront: east of Route 14 and north of Salisbury

Street. The majority of these people, although present in March 1962,

did not claim flood experience (9, 10). Those respondents who reported

sea or bay water on their property suffered very little damage and only
shallow water depths (29, 27). Water on local property is perceived to

be an infrequent occurrence (24), thus flooding is not considered a

problem (11). The majority of residents interviewed had taken

preventive measures (35) and carried Federal Flood Insurance (47). They

anpear to be cautious in nature.

5. Northern bay side: west of Route 14 and north of Bellevue Street.

Residents interviewed in this section reported very little flood

experience. Most of these people did not experience the flood in

March 1962 (9, 10). The majority of them had never suffered flood-related

damage (29) or received sea or bay water on their property (24). Coastal

storm flooding was considered unlikely (39) and thus was not a cause for

concern (11). Since this area was perceived to be relatively immune to

223

flood hazard, most respondents had taken neither preventive measures

(35), nor Federal Flood Insurance (47).

6. Conclusion. Attitudes held by respondents in Dewey Beach

appear to be closely allied with general hypothesized trends. The

outstanding exception is that of the southern area. In this locale,

concern for flood hazard was voiced,Yet no preventive or protective

actions have been taken. This portion of Dewey Beach proved to be

flood prone and severe damage will likely occur again.

g. Oak Orchard and Riverdale

Oak Orchard and Riverdale have been mapped together because of their

geographic proximity on the Indian River. Their flooding histories are,

nevertheless,different from one another and their residents' perceptions

reflect these differences.

Average elevations in Riverdale are greater than ten feet above mean

sea level while in Oak Orchard they are ten feet or less. This difference

has kept most Riverdale properties above floodwaters except for the beach

front. The March 1962 storm covered most of Oak Orchard with two to three

feet of water while the river front experienced water depths of five feet

and four foot waves. Only the beach front in Riverdale had floodwaters

three to four feet deep. In both communities, these river front areas

were designated as "zones of concern". The inland area of Oak Orchard might

also be such a zone although flooding is less severe than along the

shoreline.

Most Oak Orchard residents expressed the opinion that flooding is a

problem in their areawhile most Riverdale residents felt it was not (11)*.

*Numbers in paren es refer to appropriate questions from the
questionnaire, Appendix I and Appendix II.

224

However, neonle along the river front in Oak Orchard tended to think that

flooding is not a problem, while those along the river in Riverdale tended

to think that flooding is a problem.

The residents' perceptions of flooding frequency also follow the

Riverdale-Oak Orchard distinction. Few respondents in Riverdale have ever

experienced floodwaters on their properties. Everyone interviewed in Oak

Orchard has (24). Only in the river area of Riverdale did respondents

report high water experience. The perceptions of frequency varied without

consistency. The Oak Orchard responses were not divided by river and back

areas. Instead, there was a graded change in the frequency reported from

11once in ten years" in the southwest to "at least one a year" in the

northeast (24).

The Oak Orchard respondents showed the greatest caution with regard

to flood damage. Everyone reported the employment of preventive measures

(35). Most of these people, including all river frontresidents, took

these measures before damage occurred. In Riverdale nearly all residents

interviewed said they have taken preventive measures, but only 30 percent,

all inland area residents, took these measures before they incurred damage.

A small number of respondents in both communities reported the

possession of Federal Flood Insurance (47). In Oak Orchard, these people

were concentrated in the sections reporting the most frequent flooding.

Riverdale's two policy-holding respondents are central beach

residents.

Although there are a few discrepancies in perception, the river front

residents interviewed in Oak Orchard and Riverdale exhibit distinctions and

225

will be discussed separately from their respective communities.

1. Oak Orchard river front.

Most of these residents were here for the March 1962 storm

(9). Although not all have been personally present for a flood (10),

everv resident has had over one foot of water on his property (27) and

has experienced some flooding damage (29). The extreme eastern and

western beach front respondents report the most frequent flooding and

most believe they have water on their property at least once every five

years (24). They define a flood as. "water in the streets" or on private

property (12), which all have experienced, but only half say they consider

floodinn to he a problem (11). All, of these people have taken preventive

measures before damage (35), but few have purchased Federal Flood Insurance
(47) and most would express no opinion on the likelihood of flooding next

vear (39).

2. Oak Orchard inland area.

the residents interviewed were in Oak Orchard for the March 1962 storm

(9). Most, however, say they have experienced a flood (10) and consider

flooding a problem (11). Seventy-five percent have had over two feet of

water (27) and some form of damage to their properties (29).

Those interviewed did not report river waters reaching their properties

very frequently (24) or expect this to happen next year (39). They

exhibit a fairly high degree of caution in terms of preventive measures

(35), and half of the respondents have Federal Flood Insurance (47).

3. Riverdale river front. Half of these respondents moved

to Riverdale after the March 1962 storm (9). Just over half

226

FIGURE 29

OAK ORCHARD
and
RIVERDALE

UNINCORPORATED

Ike

00 0

0 Soo 1600 2400

SCALE 1" 800'

227

of them have flood experience (10) and consider
flooding a problem in their area (11). Although two-thirds of the

respondents said they have had as much as two feet of water on their

properties and report water reaching them at least once in two to five

years (24, 27), the majority do not expect river waters to reach them

next year (39). Damage has been sparse (29), few preventive measures

have been taken (35), and only one resident has Federal Flood

Insurance (47).

4. Riverdale inland area. All of

these resnondents were present in March 1962 (9). They reported no

flooding or damage to their properties (24, 29). They do not expect

river waters to reach them next vear (29), but half say they consider

flooding a problem (11), and all have taken preventive measures (35).

Only one resident has a Federal Flood Insurance policy (47).

5. Conclusion. The river front area of Oak Orchard exhibits

elements of a "zone of concern", as defined earlier, but may not actually

be such an area. These property owners have clearly experienced the

most severe flooding in the area and all said they have taken preventive

measures before damage. Yet, only half of those interviewed said they

consider flooding a problem and most expressed no opinion on the

likelihood of river waters reaching their properties next year. It

is' possible that the residents questioned were not seriously threatened

by the flooding and damage incurred in March 1962. They may have no

opinion on the likelihood of flooding next year because they realtze

the difficulty of predicting when the right conditions will combine

to cause another flood in their area. If their lack of opinion is due

2 200

to apathy, however, because they do not expect to see another flood,

then this area presents a problem that must be remedied by educational

programs.

h. Bethany Beach

The community of Bethany Beach has experienced extensive coastal flooding.

Since 1960, at least eleven storms have hit its shores and caused severe beea6h

erosion, flooding, and property damage (see "Coastal Storm History").

The March storm of 1962 destroyed thirty-five homes, damaged many others,

and removed 300 feet of sand from the beach.

Although the primary source of coastal flooding is the ocean, the

Bethany Beach canal in north central BethanY Beach is an additional source

of floodwaters. This canal links the town with Indian River Bay

and permitted bay water to extend as far as four miles in-

land.

In March 1962, southwestern Bethany Beach was the only major portion

of town to escape inundation. In subsequent storms, the beach front blocks,

east of Atlantic Avenue, have been flooded most often. Some portions of the

second block east of the beach front (Atlantic to Pennsylvania Avenues) have

also been flooded. These sections correspond roughly to the "A" zone on
the damage map (see Pocket Map L), the region of most severe floodinq

history. Further inland, residents of the third block (between Pennsylvania

and Delaware Avenues) and those northwest of the Delaware Avenue-Route 26

intersection received substantial flooding only in March 1962.

Considering the severity and frequency of flooding along the beach

front, one would expect these property owners to express a greater degree

229

of concern about coastal storm damage and the flooding hazard than those

in western and southwestern sections of the community. One may

hypothesize that the.area along the Bethany Canal should also comprise a

"zone of concern". The distribution of responses to the questionnaire

(Appendix I), displayed by SYMAP analysis, demonstrate partial verification

of this hypothesis.

Flooding is considered a problem in Bethany Beach by 75 percent of

the residents interviewed (11)*. The remaining 25 percent are scattered

through the community in no particular pattern. The only consistency among

these respondents is that most of them were not in Bethany Beach for the

March storm in 1962.

A distinct gradation is evident when perception of flooding frequency

is examined. The percent of residents who have never had water on their

property decreases greatly from west to east in the community (24). Eighty

percent of those interviewed west of Delaware Avenue said they had never

experienced water on their property, 62 percent in the next block east,

33 percent in the next block, and none along the beach front. Of

those with high water experience, the beach block residents reported the

greatest frequencies. Half of these said water reaches their property at

least once a year. Most of the remainder said sea or bay water reaches them

once every ten years.

Few preventive measures have been taken by any of the property owners

interviewed west of Atlantic Avenue (35). Half of the residents along the

canal, a strong potential flood source, have taken steps to avoid flood

damage. By way of contrast, all but one beach front respondent have taken

preventive measures.

*Numbers in pare es refer to the appropriate question from the
questionnaire, Appendix I and Appendix II.

230

Federal Flood Insurance is owned by a much larger percentage of the

residents interviewed (47). Over 50 percent of respondents east of Delaware

Avenue said they have flood insurance (47). Most of the much smaller group

interviewed to the west of Delaware Avenue said they did not have flood

insurance.

Four general areas of similar flood experience and reaction to the flood

hazard can be distinguilied in the above discussion. These areas include the area west

Pennsylvania Avenue, the section next to or near the Bethany Canal, the section

between Pennsylvania and Atlantic Avenues; and the area east of Atlantic Avenue

along the beach frontt

1. West of Pennsylvania Avenue. The only time flooding has

reached this section of Bethany Beach was during the March 1962

northeaster. About half of the residents interviewed were here at that

time (9). Many of them said they have experienced a flood (10) and

most consider flooding a problem for the area (11). Some residents to

the north of Route 26 reported water levels of one to three feet or
higher (27), with various types of property damage (29). However, the majority

felt flooding would not occur more often than once every ten years (24)

and it is not likely to happen next year (39). Seventy percent have

taken no preventive measures (35) and about half have Federal

Flood Insurance (47).

Z. Bethany Beach Canal. Residents in this section differ from

those interviewed west of Pennsylvania Avenue. Onlv one of the

seven property owners was there in March 1962 (9), and very few said they

have experienced a flood (10). Even though all say they have never per-

sonally experienced water on their grounds (24), they felt very high water

231

FIGURE 30

6 4 AfAl
'V4 ST-
BETHANY ST.
7 x

sr.
OCEAN
BETHANY
BEACH 3 RD ST
4
z

3 ?.ND
Lij
I ST ST- 0
Is
Ar
ST. CENTRA BLVD.
W CAMPBEL LST.
PKW
C4S
IF c@ GARFIELD PKWY
C@z

HOLLYWO ST
CZ

lVLIjAjS
C, OPI S,
-AR
S7. pARKWOO
Cr. WELLINGT PK. E
Ry -::=@ @ 4
HILL
MOON Z,
OAKWOOD
-4 C, 0 @0"', Pr
sr
0
0 ir
0 m ir M4AIoR MAPLEWO ST.
OR
ASHWOOD
ES T.

CITY LIMITS

0 800 1600 2400
M%iiiiiiiii-ow

SCALE I"= 800'

('23 2

levels are possible on their properties (one foot to over three feet (27))

and could result in various types of damage. Half consider it

unlikely that sea or bay water will reach their property next year

(39). The same half own Federal Flood Insurance (47) and have taken no

preventive measures (35). Those that consider floodwaters probable

have taken preventive measures.

3. Between Pennsylvania and Atlantic Avenues. Less than half of

these respondents claimed to have been in Bethany Beach in March 1962
(9), yet 75 percent said they have had over one foot of water on their
property (27) and some type of damage (29). Eighty percent do not
expect floodwaters to reach their properties next year (39). Only
24 percent have taken preventive measures (35), and slightly more than

50 percent have Federal Flood Insurance (47).

-4. Beach front block: east of Atlantic Avenue. A majority of the

,residents interviewed here were in Bethany Beach during the March 1962

storm (9). Nearly everyone said he considers flooding a problem (11).

Most have had over three feet of water on their properties (27) and

some type of property damage (29). All but one have taken

preventive measures before damage (35) and over half have Federal Flood

Insurance (47).

5. Conclusion. The beach front respondents clearly express the

greatest concern aboutthe flood hazard. Their flooding experience has

been the most severe, most of them consider flooding a problem, and almost

all have taken measures to prevent future damage.

Contrasted with this section of property owners are the canal area

residents. While most of them did not experience the March 1962 storm,

233

they seem to be aware of the water levels and damage that their area

received. Half of them do not expect floodwaters to reach them next

year and have not bothered to take preventive measures. The seven

residents interviewed may have had less flood experience than their

neighbors by chance of random sampling. Assuming that they are typical,

however, this represents a potential problem area and should be examined

further for need of preventive measures and further awareness of the

possible flood hazard.

i. South Bethany Beach

The South Bethany flood damage map suggests an approximate division

along Route 14 with areas receiving structural damage located to the east

or on the ocean side, and those receiving interior damage located to the

west or towards the bay. Nevertheless, the actual flood experience of the

community has been considerable and the entire study area would be expected

to represent a "zone of concern" as defined earlier. Some gradation in

intensity of perception might be expected as one proceeds away from the

oceanfront. Actually, however flood experience and perception as stated by

the residents is more complicated and frequently in conflict with this

simple, hypothesized distinction.

Flooding is perceived as a local problem by most respondents north of

Henlopen Drive and by those residents south of South Ninth Street. The

majority of residents interviewed west of York Road also believe coastal

flooding is a problem (11)*. The majority of respondents have never

experienced sea or bay water on their property. West of Route 14, between

Bristol Road and New Castle Drive, flooding was believed to occur as often

*Numbers in par@-ntheses refer to the appropriate question from the questionnaire,
Appendix I and Appendix II.

234

FIGURE 31

SOUTH BETHANY

N
SOUTH rs
BETHANY

AWE,
z ANCHORAGE
r Li w
N. 6 TH -eST
EST. z
4
N. 4 ST. ILI

ST.
0
N. 2N ST

DIVISI ST.
ST

ST
SH ST.
ST
lot S, 5T ST.
cl 0 S. ro TH ST.
ST,

ST,
Z<
ST.

p IAN ST,
ST. di
jAMAI ST
KEWAN ST.

ui
T

T
U
T

Tl-
ST-
ST

235

as once a year (24). Property owners east of Route 14 and those north of

New Castle Drive are most likely to have taken protective measures, often

prior to damage (35). Most respondents who hold Federal Flood Insurance

reside in a broad band, stretchinq southwest from the ocean front to the

canals (47). In general, the SYMAP computer maps suggest a number of

identifiable areas within the community in which attitudes and opinions differ.

1. North-central: in the Petherton Drive vicinity. The population

here is composed lcygely of those who were present for the 1962 flood

(9). They are among the residents who perceive flooding to be a problem

Yet admit that this realization came only after damage occurred. They

also undertook preventive measures after damage had occurred (35).

Although they believe floodwaters to be quite hiqh when they occur

(27), they perceive such occurrences to be unlikely (24) and do not

expect such conditions with any frequency in the future (39). This

may explain why most of the respondents do not bother with Federal

Flood Insurance (47).

2. Northeast: between the ocean front and Route 14. This area

experienced flooding during the 1974 northeaster.

Their experience is reflected in their view that

past floods occurred

with hiqher frequency than the north-central area (24) and at higher

levels (27). They believe they have experienced moderate levels of

damage (29), and have the feeling that such conditions could recur

again in the near future (39). Their greater sensitivity to flood

hazards is borne out by the number who have taken preventive measures

prior to the occurrence oVdiamage (35) and who also

236

carry Federal Flood Insurance (47).

3. The Western bay shore area from Bristol Road to New Castle

Drive. This was the third and last area to experience substantial

flooding (10) and to perceive it as a problem (11). Flooding here

appears to be of variable frequency (24),although at low levels (27).

Yet this part of the community has no opinion on the likelihood of

future flooding (39). Perhaps because of this indecision, some have

taken no protective measures (35) and do not carry Federal Flood

Insurance (47).

4. Central area. In this area, west of Route 14 near Bayshore Drive.

This area produced the greatest inconsistencies in response. It

is qenerally an area that has experienced flooding (10) buttle responderts do not

believe flooding to be a oroblem (11). Yet, the area reportedly

experiences floodwater most frequently (241 although these waters are of the

lowest levels (27). While they claim to have encountered the most

damage (29), and expecting flooding in the near future to be highly

probable (39), a considerable proportion of the residents have neither taken

preventive measures (35) nor acquired Federal Flood Insurance (47).

In general, it appears to be an area in which there is a decided

awareness of the potential for a flood,yet, this is not sufficient to

generate a protective reaction.

5. Southeast area: south of South Ninth Street,, and east of Route 14.

This is the converse of the central area. For the most part, the inhabitants

of the southeast claim not to have flood experience (10), yet, they
,view flooding as a problem (11), and believe waters will reach their

properties with great frequency (24), although at a moderate level (27).

237

But in contrast to the central area, this area is quite sensitive to

protective measures. Thus, the inhabitants carry Federal Flood Insurance

(47) and have taken preventive measures prior to damage occurring

(35). From their statements alone, one would conclude that the

inhabitants of this section of the community may have had less

experience of flooding conditions, yet are more highly sensitive to the

need for protective measures.

6. Conclusion. Since the east-central area along the waterfront

(approximately in the area of Division Street) has almost no

respondents, it can be generalized that a greater awareness of flooding

and the need for protection occurs oceanward of Route 14. The ba%Aqard

side of the communit1v seems to have less concern and awareness of the

possibilities of flood damage, with the exception of those who

experienced the 1962 flood. In this latter case, awareness remains,

but consequent action appears to have diminished with time. One

final point which emerges is the influence on the community of the

greater flood potential in the northeast section rather than the southeast.

This directional effect can also be discerned in a number of the maps,

sucha; the one indicating perceptions of the likelihood of future
flooding (39). It is also suggested by the orientation of the map

indicating past highest flood levels (27) and,together, they may explain

a similar directional orientation to those who presently carry Federal

Flood Insurance (47).

j. Fenwick Island

The town of Fenwick Island, flanked on the east by the Atlantic Ocean

and on the west bv Little Assawoman Bay, experiences fairly frequent storm
tide flooding and beach erosion (see "Storm Chronicle")

238

Some coastal storm flooding has occurred in this area

nearly every year since 1960. High water, encroaching from both sea and bay

shores, caused widespread destruction in the "northeaster" of March 1962.

Structural damage, varying from demolished houses to broken

porches and steps, stretched inland from the Atlantic beaches to the bay

shore in the northern sector of the community. In the area south of

Farmington Street, structural damage was mainly confined to the eastern side

of Route 14. The remainder of Fenwick Island suffered flooding and damage

to interior furnishings and grounds in this storm. Damages from more recent

storms, including that of December 1974, were much less significant; and were

nrimarilY confined to beach erosion and minor flooding.

If only the accompanying damage maps are considered (see "Flood Damage'

one would expect that property owners east of Route 14 would express greatest

concern fbrlbe flood hazard and those west of Route 14 would show a lesser

degree of concern. However, this hypothesized trend does not appear to hold

true when responses to the questionnaire (Appendix I) are examined by SYMAP

computer analysis.

Perception of flooding as a regional concern is most prevalent on the

western side of Route 14 (11)*. Although several respondents east of Route

14 also think flooding is a r)roblem, this area exhibits more uncertainty in

the opinions expressed. Property to the west of Route 14 is perceived by

those interviewed as more flood-prone than that east of Route 14 (24).

Residents interviewed on the ocean side (east) of Route 14 claim they receive

water on their property on an average of once every five years, whereas

*Numbers in paren es refer to the appropriate question from the
questionnaire, Appendix I.

239

almost half of the bay side residents (west of Route 14) interviewed have

flooding about once a year.

The majority of inhabitants interviewed who have taken preventive

measures against flood damage reside west of Route 14 along the canal system

(35). The greatest percentage of these measures were taken prior to the

occurrence of flood damage. East of Route 14, most property owners sampled

had taken no Protective action or only had done so after suffering damage.

In contrast, Federal Flood Insurance is carried primarily by home owners

on the ocean side of Route 14 (47). Several bay side residents interviewed con-

sider flood insurance as an additional Protective measure, especiallv along

South Carolina Street, Bay Street, Schultz Street and Farmington Street.

In Fenwick Island, attitudinal areas do not appear to be distinct.

Much overlap occurs in the opinions expressed, thus interpretations must

necessarily be very generalized. Several sections have been identified which

appear to have some degree of consistency. Interviews were conducted through-

out the community. The total number of property owners sampled included 33

percent of the total estimated resident population in 1974; therefore, the

computer maps present an accurate, yet complex, overview of the opinions

held by residents.

1. Southern coastal area - east of Route 14 and south of Virginia

Street. The ocean block from Virginia Street north to Atlantic Street

also is included in this area. A large percentage of the population
interviewed were present in March 1962 (9), and they are the same people
who claim to have experienced flooaing (10). Past water levels of over

three feet (27) and widespread structural damage are indicated (29).

Water inundates the land at least once every two to five years (24).

240

In spite of such extensive flood experience, few home owners sampled

believe that coastal flooding is a significant problem (11). Their

confidence is reflected in a lack of protective measures (35) or

Federal Flood Insurance (47).

2. Northern area - east of Route 14 from Virginia Street to

King Street and west of Route 14 from Indian Street north. Substantial

water depths (27) and associated damages, ranging from cracked

foundations to sand deposition (29), were suffered here

in 1962. Few home owners interviewed personally experienced the March

1962 storm (9, 10), which may help explain their limited concern for the

flooding hazard (11). Most residents have Federal Flood Insurance (47),

but protective action, when taken, was primarily after these residents

had experienced damage to their property (35).

3. Central bay area - west of Route 14 between Houston

Street and Cannon Street. The population here composes a large portion

of those who were present for the 1962 flood (9) and who have substantial

flood experience. Flooding occurs frequently (24) and at moderate levels

(27). The majority of residents were aware of a flood hazard prior to

damage and took protective action (11, 35). However, Federal Flood

Insurance was not a popular form of protection among those interviewed

(47).

4. Bayard Street to South Carolina Street and west

of Route 14. The inhabitants interviewed in this area claim to have

flood experience (10) and believe waters reach their properties at

least once a year (24). A large proportion of those interviewed do

not perceive a flood problem (11), possibly because few of them were

241

<x
rn 0 1 ULI
c
(A (n
CD rn
0 0
> 0
r
m (A 1> cn
0
z rn BORO - BORO ST.
H 0
N) I - (n
4@:- < rn z G)
DO 0 FO x 0 m
A 0 0 BAY
C@ 0 0 c
0 z cn
0
z
J L I I U

rn
Z 10EEOEEE6:1
BUNTING AVE.
> Z t
rn rn M

A T L A N T I C 0 C E A N
AVL
A r @IA U 1.

present in March 1962 (9) and had never suffered flood-related damage
(29). Even though few residents admitted their community's flood

potential, virtually all had taken preventive measures (35).

5. Southwest area-west of Route 14 from North Carolina Street to the State

line. This area, a large portion of which comprises a trailer

park, is essentially new since 1962 (9). Residents report the least

flood experience of any portion of Fenwick Island (10). The majority

of peonle interviewed have never had water on their property (24) and

thus have had no flood experience. Only half of these people have

taken protective action (35) and none carry Federal Flood Insurance (47).

6. Conclusion.. Attitudinal regions in Fenwick Island appear

inconsistent in terms of their concern for coastal flooding. Those

areas which have received the most severe destruction from flooding
(29) rely primarily on the Federal government for financial protection

(47). Individual preventive measures (35) were emploved by residents

suffering less severe damage (29). There is some evidence that flooding

is more likely to be perceived as a problem if the respondent was

physically present for the storm of March 1962. The emotions experienced

during an actual storm seem to make a greater impression on an individual

than observations of damage after a storm has Occurred. Frequency of

flooding appears to have a more direct bearing on flood concern than

does the extent of damage sustained. The bay side of Fenwick, with

the exception of the southeast area, experiences the most frequent

flooding and also exhibits the greatest degree of hazard concern.

The trailer park in the southwest area appears to be a danger zone

for future flood damage. The people in this region have very limited

243

flood experience and have taken few preventive measures, yet on the

north side of Route 54, the land is low in elevation (less than five

feet above mean sea level) and located next to the bay. Some flooding

did occur here in 1962.

244

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INTRODUCTION

The present survey of the magnitude and extent of storm damage and

coastal flooding as well as of the individual and community reaction to

storm hazards must be viewed in the light of Delaware's somewhat unique position

in regards to coastal storm damage potential and the real flooding experience

of its inhabitants. A detailed study of the storm hazard potential along

the entire east coast of the United States led Mather, et al., (1967) to

conclude that the Delmarva peninsula and the New Jersey coastal area had a

"low" storm hazard potential based on the frequency of damaging storms from

1935 to 1964. Occasional severe storms do occur on "low" hazard coasts but

relative to such areas of "high" hazard potential as Cape Cod, Massachusetts,

or the outer banks of North Carolina, Delaware's coast is much less likely to

experience devastation from storms.

While the loss of life from hurricanes and other coastal storms has been

greatly reduced over the past few decades, largely as a result of better storm

warninq systems, communications, and transportation routes, property losses

from such storms have greatly increased as a result of the tremendous

building boom that has occurred in the coastal area. Such a trend is likely

to continue at least in the near future as incomes and leisure time increase.

In 90 percent of the cases, the loss of life that occurs in coastal storms is

the result of drowning in the floodwaters of the storm surge.

Durinq the period from 1960 to 1970, the population of the United States

increased by about 12 percent. The population of the east coast states, of

the coastal counties, of the coastal subdivisions, and finally of the beach

subdivisions all increased substantially more than did the population of the

247

United States. Population of beach subdivisions increased by some.42 percent

during the 1960-1970 period (see Figure 34).

Studies of the coastal states from Maine to Texas, carried out by the

National Hurricane Center in Miami, Florida, showed that almost 62 percent

(nearly 21 million people) of the population in the coastal counties of these

states have never experienced a moderately strong hurricane. Most individuals

who go through a hurricane only experience "fringe" conditions rather than

the more severe core conditions. This leads to a false sense of security and

a resistance to warnings about the need for positive protective measures

(see Table In the last fifty years, the coast of Delaware has not

experienced a direct hit by a hurricane; most such storms pass by offshore

as they move northward. Virtually none of the present coastal dwellers of

Delaware, therefore, have experienced the damage and destruction of a severe

hurricane (Frank, 1974).

Kraft (1976) has described the general environmental and geologic

conditions presently existing along the Delaware coast. Of interest to this

project is the fact that the sea level is rising slowly relative to the land.

Evidence of this continued and long-term inundation of the coast is well

documented in the surface and subsurface geologic record. The natural

response of the coastline is one of landward retreat. However, with human

development on the "ocean floodplain", attempts have been made to halt the

natural erosive forces and the retreat of the coast. All such projects and

attempts are ultimately doomed to failure unless the present trend of sea

level rise reverses.

Storm waves and surges punctuate the normal slow coastal erosion with

periods of intensive energy, bringing major changes to the coast regardless

243

FIGURE 33

POPULATION CHANGE IN THE UNITED. STATES BY
STATES, COUNTIES, AND SUBDIVISIONS, 1960-1970

UNITED STATES
ATLANTIC AND
GULF COASTS

COASTAL STATES

COASTAL COUNTIES

COA,STAL

SUBDIVISIONS

BEACH

SUBDIVISIONS

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

SOURCE': THE INSTITUTE OF BEHAVIORAL SCIERCE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO
(FROM FRANK,1974)

TABLE 9

Coastal Population With no Moderate or
Severe Hurricane Experience

County Population by State
(Coastal'Counties)
At Lasti
Major Percent to
State 1970 Hurricane Increase 1970 Total

Texas 2,899,895 2,362,466 537,429 18.5
Louisiana 1,385,438 1,145,440 239,998 17.3
Mississippi 239,944 167,463 72,481 30.2
Alabama 376,690 136,330 240,360 63.8
Florida 5,388,107 1,667,304 3,720,803 69.1
Georgia 281,108 - 281,108 100.0
S. Carolina 429,900 377,764 52,226 12.1
N. Carolina 414,850 380,930 33,920 8.2
Virginia 674,068 - 674,068 100.0
Maryland 1,357,393 - 1,357,393 100.0
Delaware 548,104 - 548,104 100.0
New Oersey 3,498,389 - 3,498,389 100.0
New York 9,802,763 2,984,651 6,818,112 69.6
Connecticut 1,882,926 1,071,157 311,769 43.1
Rhode Island 946,725 744,766 201,959 21.3
Massachusetts 2,862,290 1,838,913 1,023,377 35.8
New Hampshire 138,951 - 138,951 100.0
Maine 464,833 464,883 100.0

All 33,592,424 20,715,330 61.7

1State totals are based on individual county populations at time of last major
hurricane (different years).

Coastal population which has never experienced a direct hit by a major hurricane.
The 1970 population total was used when the last major hurricane was prior to 1900..

Source: Frank, 1974.

250

of whether man's works are present or not. Thus periodic devastation of

portions of the Atlantic coast is a certainty not just a probability.

Viewing the situation in a long-term (50-100 years) perspective, storms

will likely have an increasingly profound effect as encroachment by the sea

places the shoreline closer to the core of the communities lining the

Atlantic coastline.

LIMITATIONS IN THE PRESENT STUDY

The present fifteen month study of coastal communities in Delaware has

provided a significant body of new knowledge concerning damage from coastal

storms and flooding as well as human reactions to flood hazards. While the

study has been carried out as carefully as possible, certain limitations

exist that must be pointed out in order that the results can be viewed most

objectively.

A. A limited number of people from each community make up the sample

for the research data. This selective group of respondents could possibly

bias the image of the community if their flood experience was greatly

different from the community as a whole. Although we feel that the sample

used for this project is representative, similar research projects should be

repeated in coastal communities every few years to act as a check on the

consistency of previous results and as an assessment of changing attitudes

and perceptions.

B. Gaps exist in the completed study of a whole community in those areas

where there were no houses or land development in 1962. The type of damage

that could have occurred in those areas cannot be reported. There is also

limited information for certain areas that were developed in 1962 but were

not owned by the current residents. Many of the respondents who were not

present for the 1962 storm could provide little damage or water level

information about their house during floods. Local officials cooperated

significantly in this respect by providing a great deal of information about

community flooding and damage patterns. Project workers were all agreed

that the cooperation by elected officials helped to fill many of

the gaps in our knowledge of flooding patterns in a community and to smooth

the survey work.

C. The communities that comprise this research study represent only a

portion of Delaware's coastal zone that could be devasted by coastal storms

and flooding. Many of the small communities, both incorporated and unincor-

porated, along the ocean and bay were not included in this study of storms and

flood hazards. These areas should be considered as sites for further flood

research projects, so that the storm and flood hazard information for the en-

tire Delaware coast is complete.

D. There is a general lack of adequate, large scale contour maps for

many of the coastal communities. No large scale contour maps were available

for the communities along Delaware Bay, and there were none for the unincor-

porated coastal communities included in this study. Additional contour

maps, of a quality equal to the Sewer District maps, should be made

available for all coastal communities within the regions of the Coastal

Management Program.

E. Incomplete tide gage records and meteorological data on storm winds

and wave action made the study of coastal storms and their effects on

communities difficult. Detailed meteorologic data would be necessary if

2- 5 2

work on estimating the actual extent of flooding and flood levels were to

be attempted particularly for non-hurricane events.

F. The chronicle of storm events prepared during the project was

greatly hampered by the lack of any systematic local documentation of storm

events. National Weather Service records and newspaper accounts were used,

but coverage by local newspapers was incomplete and often provided only

generalized information.

G. The prediction of the 100-year storm is really not possible because

of the numerous meteorological and oceanographic variables that are required

for such a prediction. Prediction of 100-year storm tide levels is possible

but whether the 1962 storm damage was a once in,100-year event cannot be

determined since damage done depends on the exact combination of wind
direction, duration, angle of wave attack, fetch, air pressure, tidal

condition, community development, and other conditions at the time of the

storm.

FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS

The present study has, of course, pointed up a number of areas in which

significant future research is needed. Chief among these are the following:

A. In order to update and confirm the information and results of this

study, similar studies should be conducted every few years to survey a

different sample of residents of coastal Delaware.

B. The developed areas and communities on Delaware's coast that were

not included in the present project should be the first objective for future

storm and flood hazard projects. A complete study of all of Delaware's

coastal communities, in regard to coastal storm hazards, should be the goal

of any continuing research in this area.

253

C. A detailed review and evaluation of the current building codes in

the different coastal communities, and their effect in providing protection

for homes from storms, should be undertaken.

. D. Future research should include a study of the role of canals

(including those i.n marinas and bay shore developments) in the flooding

potential of coastal communities. The flood hazards from construction of

canals in these communities should be determined before permitting the

construction of more canals, or the enlargement of present ones.

E. All construction projects proposed for the coastal area should be

reviewed in light of beach protection and erosion forces. The potential

damage that storms could cause to these structures, the cost of repair or

maintenance of such structures, the value of such structures in protecting

the coastal inhabitant or dwelling should all be considered in such a study.
It would appear that many construction projects (such as for jetties, groins,

bulkheads) are suggested without adequate (and realistic) cost-benefit

projections and with no real understanding of future costs to maintain the

structure in a condition to provide adequate protection to the coastal area.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICY CHANGES

Many different and often conflicting views were expressed by coastal

dwellers concerning present and future programs recommended by local, State,

or Federal authorities for the protection and development of the coast. A

synthesis of the more significant recommendations for future coastal

policies, developed from a study and evaluation of the results of the

present investigation, follow:

A. One or more volunteer observers should be selected in each

21 5 4

coastal community to document all storms and any consequent damage and/or

beach erosion. This observer should be instructed to record and collect

all available records of coastal flooding, storm damaqe, water depths,

meteorologic conditions, photographs, accounts, etc., during and after all

flooding events in order to begin to build an adequate coastal storm impact

study for each community.

B. A State agency should be established to act as a clearinghouse for

all storm information in Delaware. For example, this agency would gather and

record the storm data which would be sent in by all volunteer community

observers. The Delaware Geological Survey seems to have undertaken some

of these functions at present. A clear designation of the responsible agency

to serve as a clearinghouse should be made to avoid confusion or duplication

of effort.

C. The State of Delaware should strictly enforce conservation measures

such as maintaining snow fencing and dune vegetation that are so necessary

to keep coastal sand dunes from being eroded or breached. This requires

constant vigilance by both State and local individuals. Observing and

reporting problem areas could be an important duty of the above-mentioned

community observers.

D. It is especially important to maintain sand dunes at the ends of

streets which run perpendicular to the beach and "dead end" at the dune

line. People weaken the dunes at these spots by walking over them. Some

of the first places that ocean water broke through the dune line during the

March 1962 and December 1974 storms were at the ends of such streets which

subsequently caused washover fans and flooding along these streets and into

the communities. Therefore, it is recommended that construction and

255

maintenance of pedestrian crossovers be encouraged. They should be carefully

designed to encourage people to use them to cross the dunes in order to reduce

dune deterioration.

E. In general, only natural defenses against storm damage should be built

or maintained along Delaware's coast. These include improving sand dunes,

planting dune vegetation, and hydraulic pumping of sand to maintain the

normal size of the beach/dune system. Some jetties and groins have clearly

been effective but many bulkheads and other elaborate man-made devices tend

to be expensive, difficult to maintain, and although they may provide some

benefit to the beach in one particular area, they may result in problems

in other areas. An example is the Indian River Inlet jetties which cause

accretion of sand on the south side, with subsequent erosion of beach sand

on the north side.

People who live along the coast or who are familiar with the beach also

tend to favor natural protection rather than man-made protection. Most of the

survey respondents suggested maintaining the dune line, when asked to name

protective measures which could be taken to prevent storm damage. Opinion

was much more divided on whether such things as bulkheads and jetties would

be of any help.

Another problem with building and maintaining protective devices, natural

or man-made, is that they generally act to build-up confidence among coastal

dwellers, so they believe that no storm will be able to breach whatever

protective device has been built. Thus, more and more people are encouraged

to build in the coastal area and when a storm finally does breach the

protective device, the damage is greatly increased simply because of the

concentration of inhabitants and dwellings. The Beach Erosion Control and

256

Hurricane Protection plan which is being considered for Delaware would

involve building massive, reinforced bulkheads along Delaware's coast. If

implemented, not only would yearly maintenance costs be prohibitively higho

but the presence of such a man-made defense would tend to build a false

confidence as mentioned above and the inevitable resulting damage would be

disastrous.

A final recommendation concerning natural defenses against storm damage

is that it is important to maintain the existing tidal marshes which act as

buffer zones to absorb wave energy and to help reduce flooding via the inland

bays, rivers, creeks, and canals.

F. The State of Delaware should develop regulations and building

standards which only permit structures and land use options that are deemed

compatable with the natural storm hazard potential of the areas. Contingency

plans should also be developed which would provide for a rational rebuilding

or a prohibition of new construction in some areas if another

storm similar to that of March 1962 again devastates the coastal communities.

These plans and building standards should be prepared for oceanfront areas as

well as for places which are subject to bay, river, and/or canal flooding

on an individual community basis. Each one has its own storm

hazard problems which require different regulations based on considerations

of location, topography, past flood history, and future flood hazard potential.

G. Trailers and mobile homes should receive special attention concerning

construction and anchoring. They are more easily damaged by stoms than most

other residential structures, and can potentially do damage by floating off

their foundations and battering other buildinqs. Mobile homes are not

satisfactory places in which to ride out storms since their walls are easily

257

crushed or pierced by floating debris. At the same time, trailers and mobile

homes should not be moved at times of flood warnings since evacuation highways

should be kept open for passenger and emergency vehicles. Thus, residents

of trailer courts and mobile home parks must be carefully instructed concerning

their actions and responsibilities at times of flood warnings. Special

building and evacuation rules should be established.

H. All newcomers to the coastal areas who plan to buy property or to

build homes should be informed of any flood hazard potential in the area as

well as the past flood history of the property that he/she intends to

purchase. All flood hazard zone maps and damage reports which have been

drawn up for that area should be made available so that all new residents

are fully informed about local flooding conditions.

I. The early warninq system in use during recent hurricane Belle seemed

to be quite effective. However, great care must be exercised in the handling

of future emergencies for too many warnings followed by no flooding or damage

can only serve to erode public confidence in the warning system and will

result in less future reaction by coastal dwellers to storm warnings. Thus,

State and local Civil Defense directors must be fully briefed by those who

issue storm warningsso that there is complete understandinq concerning the

meaning of each term such as "watch" or "warning". Civil Defense directors

should have a series of contingency plans for each level of seriousness of

the storm,so that they do not over react to storm warnings. Every effort

should be made to improve communications between the National Weather

Service personnel and local officials charged with executing evacuation

plans.

25S

J. Many coastal dwellers do not fully understand the Federal Flood

Insurance Program. Many confuse it with Federal Disaster Loans at low interest

rates. Therefore, part of the education program that should be made available

for coastal dwellers should be to explain fully the benefits and provisions

of the Federal Flood Insurance Program.

K. The State of Delaware should strictly enforce its present policy not

to use State (public) funds to protect private beach front property from

natural hazards such as storms, erosion or flooding. Those individuals

wishing to develop and occupy the "oceanic floodplain" must be willing to

accept personally the risks involved. Taxpayers throughout Delaware should

not be burdened with having to support or subsidize the rebuilding of

privately owned structures or the building and maintenance of protective

works that will benefit only those residents choosing to live within this

high risk area.

259

V. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, L. G., and C. B. Kellog, 1975, Economic considerations of storm
protection, Unpublished paper, College of Marine Studies, University
of Delaware, Newark, Delaware.

Annonymous, 1974, Building boom in coastal area increases potential hurricane
toll, Commerce Today, June 24.

Baker, E. J., and D. J. Patton, 1974, "Attitudes toward hurricane hazards on
the Gulf coast," in Natural Hazards, G. F. White (ed.), New York, Oxford
University Press.

Bascom, Willard, 1964, Waves and Beaches, New York, Doubleday and Company,
267 p.

Baumann, D. D., and R. W. Kates, 1972, "Risk from nature in the city," in
Urbanization and Environment, by T. R. Detwyler and.M. G. Marcus, Belmont,
Califor-RIT'a, DU-xbury Press.

, and J. H. Sims, 1974, "Human response to the hurricane,"
in Natural Hazards, G. F. White (ed.), New York, Oxford University Press.

Beach, J., 1962, Delaware's March 1962 coastal storm, Delaware State News,
Dover, Delaware.

Boggs, F. C., 1926, The Delaware River from Philadelphia to the sea. Trans.
Amer. Soc. Civil.fM., (Paper No. 1702), pp. 218-61.

Brower, W. A., et al., 1972, Environmental Guide for Seven 1). S. Ports and
Harbor Approaches, NOAA En'vironmentaT-DaFa-serMice, -r1atio_n__a_rCTir_m_a_tiT_
Center, Asheville, North Carolina.

Burton, I., and R. W. Kates, 1964, The floodplain and the seashore, A
comparative analysis of hazard-zone occupance, Geographical Review,
LIV, pp. 367-85.

J. R. Mather, and R. E. Snead, 1965, The
shores of megalopolis, c-o-as-t-a-1 occupance and human adjustment to flood
hazard, Publications in Climatology, Laboratory of Climatology, (Vol. 18,
No. 3), pp. 435-90T.-

Crosland, P. F., 1973, It's ill-wind time along the coast, Evening Journal,
June 13, 1973.

Davis, J. H., 1956, "Influences of man upon coastlines," in W. L. Thomas, Jr.
(ed.), Man's Role in Chanqinq the Face of the Earth, The University of
Chicago-7-ress-,pp. -504-21:

263

Dean, R. G., 1972, "Storm characteristics and effects," in Proceedings Of
Seminar on Planning and Engineering in the Coastal Zone, Coastal Pla?T-S
Center for Marine Develo'pment Services, -wil-mington, q-o-rth Carolina, op.
1-15.

Delaware Geological Survey, 1974, Summary report and data compilation of
the storm of December 1 and 2, 1974, Delaware Bay and Atlantic Ocean
coastal areas. Unpublished report, 5 p.

Delaware State Planning Office, 1973, Public Land Use Controls in Delaware's
Coastal Zone, Delaware State Planni'@q _0ffi_Fe__,9T_p._

, 1975, Delaware's Changing Shoreline, Delaware State Planning
Office, 21 p.

9 1975, Lewes CCD Pilot Study, Coastal Storm Hazards, Delaware
State Planning Offic_e,9 p.

1976, Delaware's Chanqinq Shoreline (Kent County and Northeast
Sussex County), Delaware State .PlanAin@ UTf-1"E"e,4 -IT.-

1976, Delaware's Changing Shoreline, (South Coastal Sussex
County), Delaware State Planning Off"ice,_T9 _p.

Disney, L. P., 1955, Tide Heights along the coasts of the United States,
Proc. Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., (Volume 81), Separate 666.

Frank, N., 1974, Hard facts about hurricanes, NOAA (National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration), U. S. Departm6n-tof Commerce.

Governorls Task Force on Marine and Coastal Affairs, 1972, The Coastal
Zone of Delaware, Colleqe of Marine Studies, University -7-D-eTaware,
467 p..

Henry, R. D., 1974, So you want to build a cottage at the beach! The
Delaware Conservationalist, (Volume XVII, No. 4), Dover, Delaware.

Herbich, J. B., and R. E. Schiller, 1976, Shore Protection, Marine Advisory
Bulletin, Sea Grant Program, Texas A & 11 University, 5 p.

Inman, D. L., and B. M. Brush, 1973, The coastal challenge, Science, (Volume
131), pp. 20-31.

Irwin, G. R., 1972, Man's impact on damaging coastal storms in Delaware,
Unpublished report, 6 p.

Kolars, J. F., and J. D. Nvstuen, 1975, Physical Geography. Environment and
Man, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Compan@_, 344.

Kraft, J. C., 1971, A Guide to the Geology of Delaware's Coastal Environments,
College of Marine STuldies, University of Delaware, 220 p.

264

1973,'Delaware vs. the Sea, Are we Losing the Battle?
T T-@7
Mari ne-7dvisory Services, No. -4, '@-ea T'r_`ani_P-ro@g-ram, Co q of Mar ne
Studies, University of Delaware, 4 p.

1976, The Geologic Structure of the Shorelines of Delaware,
ColleqT of-marine St7ud-ie-sUniversity of Delaware, 106 p.

Laporte, L. F., 1975, Encounter With the Earth, San Francisco, Canfield
Press, 538 p.

Charles T. Main, Inc., 1973, Master Plan Report, Cape Henlopen State Park
Preserve, Sussex County, Delaware-,Charles T. TIain, Inc., B @_to_n, Ra-s-s.

1974, Master Plan Report, Delaware Seashore State Park Preserve,
Sussex County, Delaware, CharTes T.-Main, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts.

Mather, J. R., R. T. Field, and G. A. Yoshioka, 1967, Storm damage hazard
along the east coast of the United States, Jour. Applied Meteorology,
(Volume 6, No. 1), pp. 20-30.

Maurer, D., and H. Wang, 1973, Environmental vulnerability of the Delaware
Bay to supertanker accommodations, Volume III, Unpublished Report, College
of Marine Studies, University of Delaware.

Mitchell, J. K., 1974, Community response to coastal erosion, University of
Chicago, Research Paper No. 156.

Moody, D. W., 1964, Coastal morphology and processes in relation to the
development of submarine sand ridges off Bethany Beach, Delaware,
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
Maryland, 167 p.

Rowntree, R. A., 1974, "Coastal erosion: the meanings of a natural hazard
in the cultural and ecological context," in Natural Hazards, G. F. White
(ed.), New York, Oxford University Press.

Schwartz, M. L., 1967, The Bruun theory of sea level rise as a cause of more
erosion, Jour. Geol., Volume 75, p. 76-92.

Simpson, R. H., 1973, Hurricane prediction: progress and problem areas,
Science, Volu. 181, pp. 899-907.

Swaye, F. J., 1975, Coastal storm hazard awareness--A must for effective
coastal zone management, "News," Delaware Coastal Zone Management
Program, (Volume 1, No. 2, Septem_be_r_/_0c_tob_erT,_T-p.

Truitt, R. V., 1968, High winds . . . High tides, Educational Series, No. 77,
University of Maryland Press, 35 p.

U. S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1966, Shore Protection,
Planning and Design, Technical Report No. 4, Washington, IT -C.

265

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1956, Beach Erosion Control Report on
Cooperative Study (Survey) of the Delaware Coast, U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Philadelphia District.

1956, Delaware Coast From Kitts Hummock to Fenwick Island,
Beach Erosion Control Study, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadephia
District, 47 p., Appendices A-H.

, 1960, Beach erosion control report and survey of the New
Jersey coast along Delaware Bay between the entrance to Cape May Canal
and Maurice River, Unpublished Report, Philadelphia.

1960, Report on the comprehensive survey of the water
resources of the Delaware River basin, Unpublished 12 Volume Report,
Philadelphia.

1962, Postflood Report, Coastal Storm of 6, 7 March 1962,
Southern New Jersey and Delaware, u. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Philadelphia District.

1963, Operation Five-High, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Philadelphia District.

1966, Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Along
the Delaware Coast, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District.

,1968, Delaware Coast, Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane
Protection, Senate Doc. 90, 90th Congress, 2nd Session, Philadelphia,
110p.

1969, Composition of Delaware estuary bottom sediments,
Preliminary report, unpublished.

1970, "Floods in the town of Cape Charles, Virginia," from
Flood Plain Information, Coastal Flooding, Town of Cape Charles, Virginia,
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District.

, 1970, Report on Hurricane Camille 14-22 August 1969,U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana, 146 p.

1971, National Shoreline Study Regional Inventory Report,
North Atlantic Region, Volumes I,II, and III, U. S. Army Engineer
Division,North Atlantic, Corps of Engineers, New York, New York, 120 p.,
various pagination Volume II and III.

,1972, Delaware Coast Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane
Protection, General Design Memorandumn Phase I, Philadelphia.

,1972, Flood Insurance Study, Sussex County, Delaware
(Coastal Areas), U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District.

U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1960, Tidal Current Charts for Delaware Bay
and River, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 12 p.

266

U. S. Department of Commerce, 1964, Land Against the Sea, U. S. Department
of Commerce/National Bureau of Standards, 43 p.

, 1971, Hurricane: yes or no, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Volume 1, No. 3.

, 1975, Population Estimates and Projections, U. S. Department
of Commerce, Social and Economic Statistics Administration, Bureau of the
Census, 11 p.

1959-1975, Storm Data, U. S. Department of Commerce,
National 0ceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Data
Service, Volume 1-17, Asheville North Carolina.

, 1975-1976, Tide Tables, High and Low Water Predictions 1975,
1976, East Coast of North and South America, U. S. Department of Commerce,
Nattional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

1974, Mandatory Purchase of Flood Insurance, Federal
Insurance Administration, Federal Register, Volume 39, Nos. 26186-93.

U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1975, Director of Disaster
Related Technology, U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

1975, National flood insurance program; Federal Insurance
Administration, (Federal Register, Volume 40, No. 59).

University of Delaware, 1973, Sea Grant Program for September 1974 to
August 1973, College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware.

White, G. F. (ed.), 1974, Natural Hazards, New York, Oxford University
Press, 288 p.

Weigal, R. L., 1953, Waves, Tides, Currents, and Beaches, Glossary of Terms
and List of Standard Symbols, Council on Wave Research, The Engineering
Foundation, 113 p.

1964, Oceanographical Engineering, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey,Prentice Hall, 532 p.

267

APPENDIX I

Personal Interview Questionnaire

271

STATE OF DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
COASTAL FLOODING PROJECT
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY

PERSONAL INTERVIEW

SECTION I

1. Age

1) Used as guide only to assure some
2) age balance among respondents
3) (not tabulated).

2. Sex

1) female
2) male

3. Do you own property in this community?

1) yes
2) no

4. If yes, what type? (Read)

1) living accommodations
2) undeveloped land
3) business

5. What are your living accommodations within this community at present?

1) house
2) apartment
3) mobile home or trailer
4) hotel or motel
5) camping
6) none of the above

6. How much time do you spend in this community over a one year period?

1) less than two weeks
2) two weeks to a month
3) one to three months
4) over three months
5) permanent resident

7. During what part of the year are you here?

1) summer
2) fall
3) winter
4) spring

272

3. How long have you been a resident or cominq to this community?

1) over ten years
2) five to ten years
3) three to five years
4) one to two years
5) this is the first year

9. Were you here for the storm of March 1962?

1) yes
2) no
3) uncertain

SECTION III

10. Have you ever experienced a flood?

1) yes, here
2) yes, elsewhere along coast
3) yes, river or other
4) no

11. Do you think flooding is a problem in this area?

1) yes
2) no
3) no opinion

12. Which of these conditions would you consider to be a flood? (Read)

1) water level above normal but not in inhabited areas
2) standing water in the streets
3) water on your property
4) minor structural damage due to water level
5) major structural damage
6) other

13. How often does flooding occur in this community?

1) more than once a year
2) once a year
3) once every few years
4) once every five years
5) once every ten vears
6) less than once in ten years
7) never
8) no idea

273

14. If there were a flood this year in this community, what would you expect
next year? Would there be a greater or lesser risk of flood or would it
make no difference?

1) greater
2) lesser
3) no difference
4) don't know

15. Where have you found out about the flooding potential of this community?
(Read)

1) neighbors, friends, family
2) newspaper
3) radio, television
4) real estate agents
5) Chamber of Commerce
6) government
7) personal observations
3) volunteer groups
9) other
10) can't remember

16. What measures do you think can be effective in reducing damages from storms
and flooding in this community? (Do not suggest possibilities)

1) flood proofing of homes
2) protective devices (levees, dunes)
3) zoning
4) early warning
5) none
6) no idea
7) other

17. What measures do you think can be effective in reducing damages from
storms and flooding in this communit.v? (Read)

1) flood proofing of homes
2) protective devices (levees, dunes)
3) zoning
4) early warning
5) none
6) no idea
7) other

274

18. Who should be responsible for providing money to rebuild a flood-damage
community?

1) federal government
2) state government
3) county government
4) city government
5) individual
6) federal insurance
7) private insurance
8) other

19. Would experiencing a flood in the future in this community make you change
your plans about returning in other years or living here?

1) yes
2) no
3) depends on degree of flooding

20. Blank - Never used space (no question).

SECTION III

21. What type of dwellinq do you reside in?

1) single-family house: single-story
2) single family house: split-level
3) single-family house: multiple-story
4) town house
5) apartment/hotel
6) motel
7) motor home/camper
8) trailer
9) farm
10) other
22. Which of the following features apply to your dwelling? (Read)

1) raised structure but not on pilings
2) piling
3) basement
4) wood
5) concrete block
6) stone
7) brick
8) none of the above

23. Is the value of your residence in this community:

1) below $30,000
2) above M,000

275

24. How frequently does sea and/or bay water reach your property?

1) more than once a year
2) one time a year
3) approximately once every two years
4) approximately once every five years
5) approximately once every ten years
6) never experienced
7) don't know

25. When was the last time that sea and/or bay water reached your property?

26. Did sea and/or bay water reach your property at any other time?

27. What is the highest level sea and/or bay water has reached?
(Put answer in lesser category)

1) on property, but not up to residence
2) on the house - 6 inches
3) 6 - 12 inches
4) 1 - 2 feet
5) 2 - 3 feet
6) over three feet
7) don't know

28. Has any flooding that you have experienced or heard of in this community
occurred during any particular season of the year?

1) winter
2) spring
3) summer
4) fall
5) none

29. What, if any, specific damages were incurred on your property or
belongings during sea and/or bay flooding? (Read)

1) structural
2) interior furnishings
3) grounds
4) none

30. If structural damage was incurred, was it: (Read)

1) concentrated in specific areas
2) foundation breaking or shifting
3) exterior fixtures broken, such as porches, shutters, lamps
4) fracturing or tearing away of walls or entire structure

276

31. If interior furnishing damages were incurred, were they: (Read)

1) damaged or destroyed simply by the presence of standing water
2) damaged or destroyed by flowing water and/or waves
3) damaged due to the presence of mud and/or sand
4) not sure
5) damaged due to saltwater

32. If ground damages were incurred, were they: (Read)

1) due to the presence of standing water
2) due to the movement of water
3) due to the presence of sand and/or mud
4) not sure
5) damaqed due to saltwater

33. To the best of your recollection, during any sea and/or bay flooding you
have experienced on your property, were any of the following observable
and where? (Read)

1) standing water
2) running water
3) wave action
4) don't know

34. What preventive measures have you taken to reduce damages?

1) boarding up of your home
2) securing the structure
3) sand bags
4) bulkheads and seawalls
5) protective dunes
6) pilings and raising structures
7) storing belongings in a safe place
8) nothing

35. If you have taken any preventive measures, were they: (Read)

1) before damage occurred
2) after damage occurred

36. What action would you take if a flood were forecast?

1) evacuate
2) move belongings to a safe place
3) secure belongings
4) boarding up of house
5) seek shelter
6) keep informed of warnings and precautions
7) pray
8) nothing
9) other

277

* 37. Have you noticed a change in the frequency of sea and/or bay water
flooding in this community?

1) stayed the same
2) increased
3) decreased
4) don't know

* 38. If you have noticed a change, do you think there is a reason for it?

1) urbanization
2) channelization
3) dune destruction
4) natural causes
5) preventive measures
6) other

* 39. What do you think are the chances of sea and/or bay waters reaching your
property next year? (Read)

1) not likely (less than 30%)
2) probable (31% - 60%)
3) highly probable (more than 60%)
4) no opinion

40. Have you ever sought aid after sea and/or bay flooding?

1) yes
2) no

41. If yes, from whom? If no response, suggest:
1) federal government
2) state government
3) county government
4) local government
5) family
6) friends
7) volunteer qroups (specify)

42. Were you satisfied overall with the help you received from these sources:

1) completely
2) somewhat
3) not at all

43. Do you know anyone who has left this community due to their experiences
with sea and/or bay flooding?

yes
2) no

44. Did they give a specific reason why? Explain.

278

* 45. Were you aware of the fact that this community did or did not have a
potential for sea and/or bay floodinq before you move here?

1) yes
2) no

* 46. If no, would it have affected your decision to move here?

1) yes
2) no
3) don't know

* 47. Do you have Federal Flood Insurance?

1) yes
2) no
3) don't know

279

APPENDIX II

Responses to Selected Questions by Community

281

Length of
Time Spent Part of Residence Property Total
in Community the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Experienced a Flood? Community
(Question 6 (Question 7) (Question 8) (Question 3) (Question 10) Respondents
Bowers Not
Beach Permanently Resident Summer Other Long Short Owner Nonowner Flood Experience No Experience Number Percent

Percentage 28% 72% 16% 84" 73% 10% 76*1 240' 90% 100,
Total Number 3 21 5 25 21 3 22 7 26 3 33

3. 1) 5()-
86% 6 M, 8011- 81% 677, 100% 0% 77% 67%. 29 76%
2) 50 14 40 20 19 33 0 100 23 33 24
9. 1 ) 38 38 40 38 52 0 41 29 42 0 29 38
2) 62 62 60 62 43 100 59 71 58 100 62
3) 0 0 0 0 0
10. 1) 75 95 80 92 100 33 91 86 100 0 29 90
4) 25 5 20 3 0 67 9 14 0 100 10
11. 1) 100 75 100 78 90 100 81 85 84 67 28 82
2) 0 10 0 9 5 0 9 0 3 0 7
3) 0 15 0 13 5 0 9 14 8 33 11
13. 1) 25 4 40 4 14 0 9 14 11 0 29 10
3) 62 33 60 37 43 33 36 57 42 33 41
5) 0 52 0 45 38 33 45 14 38 33 38
7) 0 0 0 0
8) 12 9 0 12 4 33 9 14 8 33 10
16. 2) 37 52 40 50 52 66 50 43 50 33 29 43
4) 12 0 20 0 - - 4 0 4 0 3
5) 25 14 0 20 14 0 13 14 19 0 17
6) 12 19 20 16 10 33 18 14 11 67 17
7) 0 0 0 0 0
1,2) 12 0 20 0 0 14 4 0 3
2,3) - - 0 0 0 0 0
2,7) 4 0 4 0 3
1,2,7) 0 0 0 0 0
17. 1) 37 9 20 17 19 0 14 29 19 0 29 17
2) 12 0 20 0 - 4 0 4 0 3
3) 25 4 40 4 14 0 9 14 11 0 10
4) 0 14 0 12 - 9 14 7 33 10
5) 0 19 0 16 19 0 18 0 15 0 14
6) 0 0 0 0 0
1.2) 0 0 0 0 0
1 ,3) 0 0 0 0 0
1,4) 12 19 0 20 14 66 18 14 15 33 17
2,4) - - 4 14 7 0 7
3,4) 4 0 4 0 3

Lengthof
Time Spent Part of Residence Property Total
in Communi the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Experienced a Flood? Community
Sa@@jion (Question 7) (Question 8) (Question 3) (Question 10) Respondents
Bowers Not
Beach Permanently Resident Summer Other Lon-q Short Owner Nonowner Flood Exnerience No Experience Number Percent

17. (continued)
1,2,3) % % % - 4% 0./ 4ol 0-/ 4%
,j
1,3,4) 12 4 0 33 9 0 4 33 7
1,2,3,4) - - 0 0 0 0 0
18. 1) 12 30 20 26 25 33 29 14 24 33 28 25
2) 25 15 20 17 20 0 14 29 20 0 13
5) 50 0 60 4 10 33 14 14 12 33 14
6) 5 0 4 0 4
1,2) 0 0 0 0 0
1,2,5) 5 0 4 0 4
1,2,6) 0 0 0 0 0
1 2 3,7) 5 0 4 0 4
1:2:3,4) 0 15 0 13 10 0 5 29 12 0 11
24. 1) 71 38 60 41 - - 45 50 50 0 31 49
3) 14 14 20 12 - - 9 33 15 0 13
5) n 43 0 37 - - 36 17 31 50 29
6) 14 4 20 8 - - 9 0 4 50 10
7) 0 0 0 0 0
27. 1 ) 33 24 50 22 29 17 23 100 29 24
2) 16 9 25 8 9 17 11 0 10
3) 16 0 - - 0 17 4 0 3
4) 0 24 0 22 24 0 19 0 21
5) 33 24 25 26 24 33 27 0 28
6) 0 19 0 17 14 17 15 0 14
7) 0 0 0 0 0
29. 1) 0 0 0 0 30 0
2) 5 0 4 0 3
3) 33 35 50 30 33 40 36 0 30
4) - - - - 5 0 0 100 7
1,2) 0 0 0 0 0
1,3) 0 15 0 13 T4 0 12 0 10
2,3) 66 30 50 35 33 60 40 0 40
1,2,3) 0 10 - - 9 0 8 0 10
34. 2) 0 5 5 0 4 0 29 3
4) 0 0 0 0 3
6) 57 0 so 0 9 33 16 0 14
7) 0 25 0 .22 19 17 20 0 17
8) 43 65 20 68 62 50 56 100 59

35. 1) 50%* 75% 501, 75" 73% 33% 67% 33% 13 61%
2) 50 25 50 25 22 67 0 0 38
36. 1) 0 33 0 30 24 0 23 33 27 0 28 25
2) 14 24 20 22 24 50 27 0 23 0 21
3) - - - - 0 0 0 0 0
6) - - 20 8 9 50 9 17 7 50 11
8) 57 14 60 17 28 0 18 50 27 0 25
9) 0 0 0 0 0
1,2) 0 19 0 17 - - 18 0 11 50 14
39. 1) 29 36 40 27 - - 25 33 21 100 27 30
2) 14 10 20 9 - - 10 17 12 0 11
3) 57 37 40 41 - - 45 33 46 0 41
4) 0 26 0 23 - - 20 17 21 0 18
40. 1) 17 30 25 27 25 100 29 20 28 0 26 27
co 2) 83 70 75 73 75 0 71 80 72 100 73
41. 1) 0 17 0 17 0 100 17 0 14 0 7 14
6) 0 33 0 33 40 0 33 0 29 0 29
7) 0 50 0 50 40 0 33 100 43 0 43
2,5,6,7) ino 0 100 0 20 0 17 0 14 0 14
42. 1) 50 50 100 43 60 0 50 50 50 0 7 57
2) 50 33 0 43 40 0 33 50 37 0 29
fl 0 17 0 14 0 100 17 0 12 0 14
47. 1 50 - 50 0 100 50 0 50 0 2 50
2) 50 - 50 100 0 50 0 50 0 50
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*Figures ne-present percentages of responses to selected questions by column label (i.e., not permanently resident, permanent resident, etc.).
In most cases, the percentages do not total 100 percent since if the total for at least one category (i.e., not permanently resident or
permanent resident) was less then 10 percent, the response was omitted and indicated with a

I
Percentage 57% 43% 36% 64% 77% 6" 3391 17% 73% 27%
'o
Total Number 20 15 12 21 27 2 29 6 24 9 35

3. 1) 74%* 93% 75% 86% 92% 0% 100% 0% .83% 73% 35 83%
2) 26 7 25 14 8 100 0 100 17 22 17
9. 1) 37 36 42 33 43 0 41 17 50 0 35 37
2) 58 64 58 62 48 100 59 66 50 89 60
3) 5 0 0 5 4 0 0 17 0 11 3
10. 1) 68 78 66 75 72 50 74 67 100 0 33 73
4) 32 22 34 25 28 50 26 33 0 100 27
1) 79 79 83 76 80 50 82 67 75 39 35 77
2) 21 21 17 24 20 50 18 33 25 11 23
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13. 1) 10 23 16 15 20 0 19 0 13 22 34 13
3) 47 30 50 35 33 50 39 so 43 33 42
5) 16 23 25 15 20 0 19 17 17 22 18
co
U1 7) - - - - - - 0, 0 0 0 0
8) 26 23 8 35 25 50 23 33 26 22 24
24. 1) 47 38 40 45 44 - 41 67 36 62 32 44
3) 23 23 40 15 20 - 22 33 23 25 22
5) 23 30 20 30 32 - 30 0 32 12 28
6) 0 7 4 4 0 4 0 3
7) 6 0 4 0 4 0 3
27. 1) 18 50 30 33 30 35 0 29 43 30 30
2) 12 0 - - - 4 50 9 0 7
3) 0 16 0 11 - 8 0 5 14 13
4) 37 0 40 11 22 23 0 19 29 20
5) 4 4 0 5 0 3
6) 25 33 20 33 34 27 50 33 14 27
7) 0 0 0 0 0
29. 1) 4 0 4 0 30 3
2) 4 0 4 0 3
3) 35 23 40 25 20 26 67 32 25 30
4) 23 23 30 20 28 26 0 18 38 23
1,2) 0 0 0 0 0
1,3) 12 15 20 10 16 15 0 14 12 13
2,3) 17 15 10 20 16 15 33 18 12 17
1,2,3) 6 15 0 15 12 11 0 9 12 10

Lo L.) uj co LA
@n (D V
9w
CO 14 M t\) W r,3 W r, r, @ _.4 M U) r,3 w
'P. I;. .-@ %
- - - - - - - - rD
w Lo 4 -1

-V

C) C:) ra m PQ C) W LI) LI) 0 -'.,1

C+ V) 0 rD

CD
:5
CD a) C+ C+
W ON ul I @.q
if 6 r) rIj -.-@ --j
W 14 4@ LIM -4 co w w C@
rD

t'l ul I I I I I I co CD I I I Ln I I I I I I Co - Lj r-j
CD C@ C> => CD C) m a) CD a) Lo CD C=) C) C. 3 rD =r -0
Z@-, rD LA (D 0)
I @: -< -1
CD
ul ul (.rl I a I I I I I r)
Ln Ln (.n 0
C, CD CD Ul co m -4 CO -4 C@; 14 --j
Z@ -1 (D

.p. Ul I I I I t - CD i t I I I r\@ w I I I I 1 1 --4 @ W rQ 0 :3 0 70 r-
r) cc r.) N) L.) CD 1.0 :3 -1 M (D

(D
I I I i I I I ul ul I I I I I I I I I I Ln I L;j I I I I =r 0 - =
C=) CD CD CD ZD C= C=) C:) C) 0 C+ 0 0
.,j rD

nQ
C:@
CD CD CD C) CD a) C-Ij CD C) C) -j -j CD co m cc C:) a)
zz M
rD -1
(A rD 0

0
w C', Lo w a) 0 5 c
CD w -4
C) C) CD w -4 CD CD CD @:D CD C1 CD CD C> w C) CD Z) CD C) @,l w CD C@ C) :E
m

0
0
w M
C) CD Ul C:) 1.) -0 -0 co 14 C) C) CD CD cc C:) P@. @o C) -1:- Z) C> -A- -4 CD W 1@0 W M -5
Zra x
_0 M
M x
-(D
(D CD

rD
0
(D
0

WI L@ (JI r'O W r\) -4 _0
CD C) C@, CD CD CD CD _3 CD --j
CD C:) CD N) rj CD LI) CD CD CD CD C:) r) C) CD cc, -P. 4@ Pb M
2L
.,j

LI) U) w
a) CD w L.) C:) 01 (D n
CD (A 0
1 s a 2 --1
0 0
C+

rD rD
(JI VI 1 4' 1 1 1 14 w rl-a LI) -1 = rt
C, C) --4 CD -4 '-J o rj W W W W C) W W o r1a C-)w w C) C) -4 n 1@ 1<
rD 'A

Length of
Time Spent Part of Residence Property Total
in Community? the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Experienced a Flood? Communitv
(Ouestion 6) (Question 7) (Ouestion 3) (Question 3) (Question 10) Respondenis
Slaughter To-t
Beach Permanently Resident Summer Other Long Short Owner Nonowner Flood Experience No Experience Number Percent
36. 1) 29%* 58% 4 01@1 42% .4 6 'Z 0'/ 38% 50, 29 41
2) 4 0 5 0 3
3) 12 8 20 5 3 33 10 12 10
6) 12 0 10 5 8 0 5 12 7
8) 0 17 0 0 48 - 8 0 10 0 14
9) - - 10 10 - - 4 0 5 0 7
1,2) 13 8 0 21 - - 11 33 19 0 3

18. 1) 11 14 8 14 16 0 11 17 8 22 33 12
2) 26 14 8 28 24 0 22 17 25 11 21
5) 16 14 25 9 16 0 18 0 17 11 15
6) 5 14 0 14 0 50 7 17 8 11 9
1,2) 26 14 33 14 16 50 13 33 21 22 21
1,2,5) 0 0 0 0
1,2,6) 0 0 0 0
N) 1,2,3,7) 0 0 0 0
ca
1,2,3,4) 0 0 0 0 -
40. 1) 19 25 10 28 26 - 24 0 24 14 30 20
2) 81 75 90 72 74 - 76 100 76 86 30
41. 1) 33 0 0 20 17 - 17 0 20 0 6 18
2) 33 67 100 40 50 - 50 0 40 100 50
7) 33 33 0 40 33 - 33 0 40 0 33
42. 1) 67 0 100 20 33 - 33 0 20 100 6 33
2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3) 33 100 0 80 67 67 0 80 0 67
47. 1) 60 37 50 44 42 46 0 50 40 13 46
2) 40 50 59 44 50 46 0 37 60 46
3) 0 13 0 11 8 8 0 13 0 8

*Figures represent percentages of responses to selected questions by column label (i.e., not permanently resident, permanent resident, etc.).
In most cases, the percentages do not total 100 percent since if the total for at least one categorv (i.e., not permanently resident or
permanent resident) was less then 10 percent, the response was omitted and indicated with a

Length of
Time Spent Part of Residence Property Total
in Community? the Year? or Visit? Ownershi 'r)? Ever Experienced a Flood? Community
(Ouestion 6) (Ouestion 7) (Question 8) (Question 3) (Question 10) Respondents
Broadkill Not
Beach Permanently Resident Summer Other Long Short Owner Nonowner Flood Experience No Experience Number Percent

Percentage 57% 43% 20% 80% 60% 26% 87% 13% 57% 43%
Total Number 13 13 6 24 18 8 26 4 17 13 30

3. 1) 88%* 84% 83% 87% 940 62% 100% 0% 88% 85% 30 87%
2) 12 16 17 13 6 38 0 100 12 15 13
9. 1 ) 29 25 16 30 44 0 32 0 41 8 29 28
2) 71 75 83 70 56 100 63 100 59 92 72
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10. 1) 59 54 16 66 72 25 58 50 100 0 30 57
4) 41 46 84 34 28 75 42 50 0 100 43
11. 1) 58 30 50 45 50 12 54 0 53 38 30 47
2) 30 62 33 45 44 62 46 25 41 46 43
3) 12 8 16 9 5 25 0 75 6 15 10
13. 1) 29 15 16 25 28 0 27 0 30 24
rQ, 3) 6 30 16 16 22 12 19 0 16
CO 5) 41 8 33 25 23 25 27 25 27
7) 0 15 - - 11 0 8 0 7
8) 24 30 33 25 11 62 19 75 27
16. 2) 70 39 50 58 61 37 58 50 53 61 30 57
4) 0 0 0 0 0
5) 11 23 16 16 16 25 15 25 23 7 17
6) 5 50 16 16 6 38 15 25 12 23 17
7) 4 0 6 0 3
1,2) 11 0 16 4 8 0 6 8 7
2,3) - - 0 0 0 0 0
2,7) 0 0 0 0 0
1,2,7) 0 0 0 0 0
17. 1 ) 29 15 33 20 28 25 23 25 23 23 30 23
2) 4 0 6 0 3
3) 8 0 12 0 7
4) 0 15 - 6 12 4 25 6 8 7
5@ - 0 12 11 12 8 25 6 15 10
6 0 0 0 0 0
1,2) 6 15 0 12 11 0 11 0 18 0 10
1,3) 18 0 16 8 - - 11 0 6 15 10
1,4) 0 15 - - 0 25 8 0 0 15 7

Length of
Time Spent Part of Residence Property Total
in Community? the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Experienced a Flood? Community
(Question 6) (Question 7) (Question 8) (Question 3) (Question 10) Respondents
Broadkill Not
Beach Permanently Resident Summer Other Long Short Owner Nonowner Flood Experience No Experience Number Percent
T77.-Tc-ontinued)
2,4) - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
3,4) 16 0 4 0 0 7 3
1,2,3) 0 0 0 0 0
1,3,4) - - 11 0 8 0 12 0 7
1,2,3,4) - - 16 0 - - 4 0 0 8 3
18. 1) 41 0 33 28 28 0 23 25 29 15 30 23
2) 6 15 0 12 11 12 8 25 6 15 10
5) 23 23 0 29 22 38 23 25 29 15 23
6) 4 0 6 0 3
1,2) 6 38 16 20 16 25 19 25 18 23 20
1,2,5) 0 0 0 0 0
1,2,6) 0 0 0 0 0
1,2,3,4) 0 0 0 0 0
1,2,3,7) 0 0 0 0 0
24. 1) 33 8 20 21 19 50 29 9 30 23
3) 0 0 0 0 0
N) 5) 26 23 40 21 27 0 29 13 23
C-1
6) 26 33 40 30 31 50 18 54 33
7) 13 30 0 26 23 0 23 13 20
27. 1 ) 60 25 66 40 41 100 43 50 19 47
2) 20 0 0 13 12 0 14 0 10
3) 0 12 - - 6 0 0 25 5
4) 20 12 33 13 18 0 21 0 16
5) 0 25 0 13 12 0 7 25 10
6) 0 0 0 0 0
7) 0 25 0 13. 12 0 14 0 10
29. 1) - - - - 0 0 0 0 26 0
2) 0 16 0 10 9 0 7 10 8
3) 50 25 25 40 35 100 50 20 38
4) 25 58 25 45 43 0 29 60 42
1,2) 0 0 0 0 0
1,3) - - 25 0 4 0 0 10 4
2,3) - - - 4 0 7 0 4
1,2,3) - - 25 0 4 0 7 0 4
34. 2) - - - 0 0 0 0 30 0
4) 0 0 0 0 0
6) 60 38 60 48 54 0 35 73 47
7) 0 0 0 0 0
8) 13 54 20 35 27 100 41 18 37

Length of
Time Spent Part of Residence Pronerty Total
in Community? the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Experienced a Flood? Community
(Ouestion 6) (Ouestion 7) (Question 3) (Ouestion 3) (Question 10) Respondents
Broadkill TO -t
Beach Permanently Resident Summer Other Lonq Short Owner Nonowner Flood Experience No Experience Number Percent.

35. 1) 33%* 100% 1001/ol 851.1 83" 100% 387, 0% 80% 10011, 17 33%
2) 17 0 0 14 17 0 12 0 20 0 12
36. 1) 60 33 so 40 50 42 43 50 44 54 27 48
2) 0 0 0 0 0
3) 0 0 0 0 0
6) 12 0 8 0 12 0 7
8) 0 33 0 18 6 23 16 0 12 is 15
,g) - - - - 0 14 0 so 6 .0 4
1,2) 13 8 0 13 6 14 12 0 6 is 11
39. 1) 53 84 30 65 53 85 69 50 59 32 23 63
2) 13 0 0 8 12 0 8 0 12 0 7
3) 20 16 20 17 23 14 15 50 13 18 13
4) 13 0 0 a 6 0 3 0 12 0 7
M) 40. 1) 0 10 0 5 6 0 4 0 0 10 26 4
2) 100 90 100 95 94 100 96 100 100 90 96
-41. 1.2) 0 100 0 100 100 0 100 0 0 100 1 100
42. 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3) 0 100 0 100 100 0 100 0 0 100 100
47. 1) 17 50 33 33 22 66 33 0 14 60 12 33
2) so 50 33 55 55 33 50 0 71 20 so
3) 33 0 33 11 22 0 17 0 14 20 17

*Figures represent percentages of responses to selected questions bv column label (i.e., not permanently resident, permanent resident, etc.).
In most cases, the percentages do not total 100 percent since if the total for at least one category (i.e., not permanently resident or
was less then 10 percent, the response was omitted and indicated with a

Length of
Time Spent Part of Residence Property Total
in Communit 7 the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Experienced a Flood? Community
North Shores (Ques ion T. (Question 7) (Question 8) (Question 3) (Question 10) Respondents
and Not
Henlopen Acres Permanently Resident Summer Other Long Short Owner Nonowner Flood Experience No Experience Number Percent

Percentage 67% 33% 26% 74% 740 15% 77% 23% 43% 57%
Total Number 26 13 10 29 29 6 30 9 16 21 39

3. 1) 69%* 92% 20% 97% 90% 33% 100% 0 1% 94% 62" 39 77%
2) 31 8 80 - 10 67 0 100 6 38 23
9. 1) 42 46 10 55 59 0 57 0 69 19 39 43
2) 58 54 90 45 41 100 43 100 31 81 56
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10. 1) 44 42 11 54 48 50 54 11. 100 0 37 43
4) 56 58 89 46 52 50 46 89 0 100 57
11. 1) 36 54 10 54 43 50 52 11 53 29 38 42
2) 44 46 50 43 50 17 45 44 40 52 45
3) 20 0 40 - 7 33 3 44 7 19 13
16. 2) 60 54 67 56 54 100 59 50 50 60 31 58
4) - 0 17 0 - 0 0 25 0 - -
5) 0 - - 0 0
IR 6) 20 18 17 20 19 0 18 25 14 27 19
7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,2) 10 0 0. - - 0 - 0 14 0 -
2,3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2,7) 0 18 0 - - 0 0 14 0
1,2,7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17. 1) 0 11 0 - 0 0 11 0 32
2) 0 0 0 0
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,4) 17 11 22 13 22 0 17 11 10 16
2,4) 0 11 0 - - 0 - 0 0 - -
3,4) - 33 0 17 13 0 17 0 - 16 12
1,2,3) 11 11 - 0 40 0 22 0 10 -
1,3,4) - 22 11 13 - 20 13 11 18 10 12
1,2,3,4) 26 0 33 13 13 40 13 33 27 16 19

Length of
Time Spent Part of Residence Pro 'nerty Total
in Community? the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Experienced a Flood? Community
North Shores (Question 6)- (Question 7) (Ouestion 3) (Ouestion 3) (Question 10) Respondents
and Not
Henlopen Acres Permanently Resident Summer Other Long Short Owner Nonowner Flood Experience No Experience Number Percent

18. 1) 35%* 46. 56"1 2 9". 38% 50/1. 29% 56"1 36% 33% 30 37%
2) - 20 0 14 - 33 - 11 is - 10
5) 20 0 14 14 0 14 0 - 11 10
6) 0 11 0 - 0 0 11 0
1,2) 20 0 0 19 14 0 19 0 18 11 13
1,2,5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,2,6) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,2,3,4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,2,3,7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24. 1) 17 17 0 18 10 67 13 100 18 18 24 17
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5) 33 3 50 18 26 0 22 0 36 0 21
6) 42 75 50 59 58 33 61 0 45 73 58
rQ 7) 8 0 0 4 - 0 4 0 0 9 4
27. 1) 30 50 100 33 36 50 33 100 20 60 16 37
2) 0 17 0 - - 0 7 0 0 20 6
3) 30 0 0 20 21 0 20 0 20 20 19
4) 10 0 0 - - 0 7 0 10 0 6
5) 10 17 0 13 - 50 13 0 20 0 12
6@ 20 0 0 13 14 0 13 0 20 0 12
7 0 17 0 - - 0 7 0 10 0 6
29. 1) - 0 50 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 29 -
2) 12 0 0 - - 0 - 0 14 0 -
3) 19 0 0 11 12 0 11 0 14 - 10
4) 50 85 so 67 62 67 64 100 50 85 65
1,2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,3) 0 0 0
2,3) 0 33 0 14 0
1,2,3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
34. 2) - 0 0 0 0 - 0 23
4) 0 0 0 0 0
6) 60 23 50 42 43 33 44 0 43 50 43
7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8) 27 62 50 42 39 67 41 100 36 42 43
35. 1) 89 100 100 92 92 100 93 0 87 100 14 93
2) 11 0 0 8 8 0 7 0 12 0 7

Length of
Time Spent Part of Residence Propert 'v Total
in Community? the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Experienced a Flood? Community
North Shores (Ouestion 6) (Question 7) Ouestion 8) (Question 3) (Question 10) Respondents
.and Not
Henlopen Acres Permanently Resident Summer Other Long Short Owner Nonowner Flood Experience No Experience Number Percent

36. 1) 3 7'1.1 23% 50,11, 30% 3 7% 0% 32% 0% 29% 38% 29 31%
2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6) 0 - 0 0
8) 25 38 0 33 33 0 32 0 43 15 31
9) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
39. 1) 87 77 100 81 87 33 86 0 71 92 29 83
2) 6 7 0 - - 33 4 100 - - 7
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4) 6 15 0 11 - 33 10 0 21 0 10
40. 1) 12 0 0 9 10 0 9 0 18 0 23 9
2) 87 100 100 91 89 100 91 100 82 100 91
41. 1) 100 0 0 100 100 0 100 0 100 0 1 100
2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LO 42. 1) 50 0 0 50 50 0 50 0 50 0 2 50
2) 50 0 0 50 50 0 50 0 50 0 50
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
47. 1) 69 25 50 50 43 67 52 0 50 50 28 50
2) 31 75 50 50 56 33 43 100 50 50 50
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*Figures represent percentages of responses to selected questions by column label (i.e., not permanently resident, permanent resident, etc.).
In most cases,the percentages do not total 100 percent since if the total for at least one category (i.e., not permanently resident or
permanent resident) was less then 10 nercent,the response was omitted and indicated with a

Lennth of
Time Spent Part of Residence Property Total
in Community? the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Experienced a Flood? CommunitY
(Ouestion 6) (Question 7) (nuestion 8) (Question 3) (Question 10) Respondents
Rehoboth Not
Beach (1) Permanently Resident Summer Other Lono Short Owner Nonoviner Flood Experience No Experience Number Percent

Percentage 97%' 3 89@ 11,11 52% 26' 9W 91, 47% 53'
Total Number 241 3 222 27 130 66 22 224 117 131 250

3. 1) 8%* 5 0% 6" 3 3.1 12% 1@/ 1001, 0,/ 1M 9% 246 91/
2) 92 50 94 67 88 99 0 100 90 91 91
9. 1) 7 62 6 37 7 0 3 2 7 18 1 250 9
2) 92 38 93 63 82 100 64 92 80 99 90
3) 1 0 1 0 1 0 4 4 2 0 1
10. 1) 46 87 44 78 50 44 50 47 100 0 248 47
4) 54 13 56 22 50 56 50 53 0 100 53
11. 1) 26 50 24 48 35 18 36 25 29 25 250 27
2) 33 37 32 41 40 20 45 32 38 28 33
3) 41 13 44 11 25 62 18 43 33 47 40
rQ 16. 2) 20 62 20 30 24 16 28 21 25 19 218 22
4) 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 2
5) 10 0 11 4 10 13 6 10 8 13 10
6) 30 38 30 30 28 31 22 31 24 36 30
7) 15 0 14 18 15 13 11 15 16 13 14
1,2) 2 0 3 0 2 3 0 3 5 0 2
2,3) 2 0 3 0 3 2 6 2 3 2 2
2,7) 1 0 1 4 1 0 6 1 2 0 1
1,2,7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17. 1) 6 25 6 12 6 6 27 4 5 7 233 6
2) 6 0 6 7 6 5 0 7 5 7 6
3) 2 0 1 4 1 3 0 2 4 0 2
4) 4 0 3 7 3 5 0 4 6 2 4
5) 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 1
6) 2 0 1 4 1 3 0 2 1 2 2
1,2) 9 13 9 7 9 10 0 10 7 10 9
1,3) 4 12 3 7 6 2 4 4 5 2 4
1,4) 4 12 3 11 5 2 9 4 5 3 4
2,4) 3 0 3 0 2 3 0 3 3 2 3
3,4) 5 0 5 0 6 2 0 5 6 3 5
1,2,3) 7 0 7 0 6 5 4 6 5 7 6
1,3,4) 9 13 10 4 9 10 9 10 9 10 9
1,2,3,4) 18 .0 19 11 20 14 14 18 16 20 18

S62

C+

C@' CD
C) w CD C-- C> CD CD C) C-- C) C) @D C) C, CD CD c:- CD CD CD CD CD CD C) - - - - --- C) 0
CD C+ a
0

0 a:3

CD ra
CD CD (=> C. C@ CD <D C> CD CD C, CD -'> CD CD C:@ C:@ CD :::I CD CD C:> Cl CD CD CD C@ CD @n C-- C@ r1a L." Q.

C:@ CD
CD CD C@) CD CD (D Z) CD C:l CD C) CD CD C) I-D C@ c;l CD C=@ CD CD CD CD C:@ CD CD CD CD -W @w

w <n w m (D CD -S
-4 w => -j CD CD CD CD CD CD C) CD CD CD CD CD CD (D C@ CD CD CD CD C@ CD @D C) CD CD (D Z) co @;c --j --j

Lp Cn C% w C:) --D 0-lj r-
CD @D W CD ID C> CD @D CE CD 0 0 CD CD C) CD CD C) CD CD C) C) C) C, @2 m m
Z CA
(A -:z
C+ 1+

cm) C:) CD CD CD C) QD CD C) CD C) C) CD C) CD Cl C) C:) CD CD C) CD C) C_- 0 CD C) C) r1l) Uri -.0 0

w C) U-) Ln CD CD
w -4 (z) CD C) C) CD (D CD _-D CD CD C) C) CD 1--) CD CD CD CD CD C) CD CD CD (Z) CD C) C, Iz, C) Iz @o ca
I (D
(A
rj @ ;@: S@ -S -Z
V)
0 C)

@:D CD CD CD CD CD QD CD Cl CD @:D CD C) CD @D CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CO CD CD CD (D w w
rb

0 rri
Cl- <
un Ul (n un CD N) rD
CD CD C@ CD cm) CD CD (D CD @Z) CD CD 0 @D CD 0 C) CD 0 0 CD 0 0 CD C) 0 CD CD r\) 0 w r\) rri
X
Z3 M
ri) X
(D
M rD
:3 4A
r) = rD
M
C)n
ro

rrl
X -n
CD ul Ln C) 0
CD CD C) CD CD CD CD CD C) CD CD C) CD CD (Z) CD CD CD (D C@ CD CD C) (D CD C) C) C:) - - - 41 ro
2.
C-1
(D
:3
C)

rQ
4@- VI @o 0' (Dn
(A0
-0 23 --A
0230
=C: C-@
r
-0 cn-
o (D
w (71 ul C) C) -S =3
w -4 0 C) C) CD CD C) C) (D CD C) CD C) CD C@, C@, (Z> C:) CD (Z) r"3 -P. Lo n 1+
(D (A

Length of
Time Spent Part of Residence Pro.nerty Total
in Community? the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Experienced a Flood? Community
(Question 6) (Question 7) (Question 8) (Question 3) (Question 10) Respondents
Rehoboth Not
Beach (1) Permanently Resident Summer Other Long Short Owner Nonowner Flood Experience No Experience Number Percent
36. 1) 50%* 1000% 0% 7 5". 50% 0% 6 0'% 0-/ 67% 5 0 % 5 60%
2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8) 25 0 100 0 25 0 20 0 0 50 20
9) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
39. 1) 100 0 100 75 75 0 80 0 67 100 5 80
2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4) 0 100 0 25 25 0 20 0 33 0 20
40. 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0
2) 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 0 100 100 100
41. 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
42. 1 ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
47. 1 ) 25 0 0 25 0 0 20 0 0 50 5 20
2) 50 100 100 50 75 0 60 0 67 50 60
3) 25 0 0 25 25 0 20 0 33 0 20

*Figures represent percentages of responses to selected questions ky column label (i.e., not permanently resident, permanent resident, etc.).
In most cases, the percentages do not total 100 percent since if the total for at least one category (i.e., not permanently resident or
permanent resident) was less then 10 percent, the response was omitted and indicated with a

Length of
Time Spent Part of Residence Property Total
in Community? the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Experienced a Flood? Community
(Question 6) (question 7) (Question 8) (Question 3) (Question 10) Respondents
Rehoboth riot
Beach (21 Permanentlv Resident Summer Other Long Short Owner Nonowner Flood Experience No Experience Number Percent

Percentage 62% 38% 34" 66% 82% 5% 82" 181, 56% 44%
Total Number 24 15 13 25 32 2 33 7 21 17 39

3. 1) 78%* 87% 61 39% 93% 50"" 100% 0% 86% 76" 39 32%
2) 22 13 92 8 7 50 0 100 14 24 18
9. 1) 52 73 46 53 74 0 71 29 67 53 39 61
2) 48 27 68 32 25 100 14 86 33 47 39
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10. 1) 61 47 61 52 58 50 58 43 100 0 38 56
4) 39 53 33 48 42 50 42 57 0 100 44
11. 1) 26 47 15 44 32 50 35 29 29 41 39 36
2) 65 53 69 56 64 0 61 57 62 59 59
3) 9 0 15 0 3 50 3 14 9 0 5
16. 2) 45 43 42 46 45 0 45 43 53 35 36 44
4) 4 0 0 4 3 0 3 0 0 6 3
5) 9 27 0 25 21 0 21 0 21 12 17
6) 9 7 17 4 10 0 7 14 11 6 8
7) 14 7 17 8 3 100 7 27 5 18 11
1,2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2,3) 9 7 8 8 10 0 10 0 10 6 3
2,7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,2,7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17. 1) 4 20 0 15 12 0 12 0 12 7 32 9
2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3) 0 10 0 5 0 0 0 14 0 7 3
4) 4 0 8 0 4 0 4 0 6 0 3
5) 0 10 0 5 4 0 4 0 0 7 3
6) 4 0 8 0 4 0 4 0 0 7 3
1,2) 0 10 0 5 4 0 4 0 6 0 3
1,3) 9 0 8 5 8 0 4 14 6 7 6
1.4) 14 10 25 5 12, 0 12 14 23 0 12
2,4) 4 0 8 0 4 0 4 0 0 7 3
3,4) 14 0 8 10 12 0 12 0 12 7 9
1,2,3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,3,4) 14 20 8 20 12 0 16 14 6 27 16
1,2,3,4) 14 0 8 10 12 0 12 0 18 0 9

Lenqth of
Time Spent Part of Residence Propert 'v Total
in Cqmmunity? the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Experienced a Flood? Community
(Question 6) (Question 7) (Question 8) (Question 3) (Question 10)
Rehoboth Not
Beach (2) Permanently Resident Summer Other Lonq Short Owner Nonowner Flood Experience No Experience Number Percent

18. 1) 32@* 43% 25% 42", 33' 0-/ 41" 1411 33% 40% 36 36%
2) 27 0 33 a 17 3 10 43 9 27 17
5) 9 14 8 12 14 0 14 0 19 0 11
6) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,2) 14 29 17 21 14 50 14 0 19 20 19
1,2,S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,2,6) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,2,3,4) 4 0 0 4 0 50 3 0 0 7 3
1,2,3,7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24. 1 ) 6 7 0 8 7 0 7 0 12 0 32 6
3) 12 7 23 4 7 0 7 100 12 7 9
5) 41 50 57 42 50 0 47 0 35 57 47
6) 29 36 14 37 32 100 33 0 35 29 31
7) 12 0 0 8 3 0 6 0 6 6 6
27. 1) 27 22 33 21 21 0 21 100 10 40 21 24
co
2) 9 0 17 0 5 0 5 0 0 10 5
3) 0 22 0 14 10 0 11 0 10 10 9
4) 27 11 17 21 21 0 21 0 20 20 19
5) 18 11 33 7 16 0 16 0 30 0 14
6) 18 33 0 36 26 0 26 0 30 0 26
7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
29. 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0
2) 12 7 0 12 11 10 0 6 14 10
3) 23 7 43 8 18 0 17 0 12 21 16
4) 47 50 43 50 43 100 47 100 47 50 48
1,2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2,3) 6 21 0 17 14 0 13 0 18 7 13
1,2,3) 12 14 14 12 14 0 13 0 18 7 13
34. 2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0
4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6) 41 31 57 30 41 a 38 0 50 21 37
7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8) 59 61 43 65 56 100 57 100 50 71 60
35. 1) 100 60 100 75 80 0 80 0 33 75 11 73
2) 0 40 0 25 20 0 20 0 17 25 27

Length of
Time Spent Part of Residence Property Total
in Community? the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Experienced a Flood? Community
(Question 6) (Question 7) (Question 3) (Question 3) (Question 10) Respondents
Rehoboth Not
Beach (2) Permanently Resident Summer Other Lonq Short Owner Nonowner Flood Experience No Experience Number Percent

36. 1) 41%* 15% 43% 26% 300 100% 31% 0% 25% 36% 30 30%
2) 6 8 0 9 7 0 7 0 12 0 7
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oe
6) 6 38 15 22 22 0 21 0 19 21 20
8) 6 31 14 17 15 0 14 100 12 21 17
9) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
39. 1) 69 64 71 65 64 100 65 100 56 79 31 64
fl 12 7 0 13 11 0 10 0 12 7 13
3 19 14 28 13 18 0 17 0 25 7 16
4) 0 14 0 9 7 0 7 0 6 7 6
40. 1) 6 14 14 8 11 0 10 0 18 0 32 12
2) 94 86 86 92 89 1 Or) 90 100 82 100 37
41. 1) 0 100 0 100 100 0 100 0 100 0 1 100
2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
42. 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0
2) 0 100 0 100 67 0 67 0 67 0 67
3) 100 0 100 0 33 0 33 0 33 0 33
47. 1) 39 21 37 29 31 100 32 0 39 21 33 33
2) 56 79 62 67 65 0 64 100 56 79 64
3) 5 0 0 4 3 0 3 0 5 0 3

*Figures represent percentages of responses to selected questions by column label (i.e., not permanently resident, permanent resident, etc.).
In most cases, the percentages do not total 100 percent since if the total for at least one cateqory (i.e., not permanently resident or
permanent resident) was less then 10 percent, the res.ponse was omitted and indicated with a

Length of
Time Spent Part of Residence Property Total
in Communit ? the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Experienced a Flood? Community
Dewey (Ques ti on U' (Question 7) (Question (Question 3) (Question 10) Res2ondents
Beach Not
Area Permanently Resident Summer Other Lonq Short Owner Nonowner Flood Experience No Experience Number Percent

Percentage 50% 50% 26% 74% 8 5%. 4 85% 15 *11 56% 44%
Total Number 33 33 17 49 56 3 56 10 37 29 67

3. 1 ) 73%* 97% 71% 90% 8700 33% 100% 0% 86% 83% 66 85%
2) 27 3 29 10 12 67 0 100 13 17 15
9. 1 ) 45 70 47 61 68 0 62 30 76 34 66 58
2) 54 30 53 39 32 100 37 70 24 65 42
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10. 1 ) 39 73 29 65 62 33 57 50 100 0 66 56
4) 61 27 71 35 37 67 43 50 0 100 44
11. 1 ) 18 33 18 29 27 0 30 0 32 17 66 26
2) 76 64 76 67 70 67 66 90 65 76 70
3@ 6 3 6 - 4 33 - 10 - 4
16. 2 31 39 35 35 38 33 38 20 43 25 65 35
CD 4) 0 0 0 11 5
CD
5) 12 15 - 17 14 0 13 20 11 18 14
6) 22 - 29 10 13 33 13 30 - 25 15
7) 16 12 12 13 0 11 20 16 - 12
1,2) 0 0 0 0 0
2,3) 0 0 0 - 0 0
2,7) 0 0 0 - 0 - 0
1,2,7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17. 1 ) - - - - - 0 - 0 - - 53
2) 0 12 0 - 0 - 11 0
3) 0 0 - 0 0 0
4) 10 12 12 11 11 33 11 11 11 12 11
5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,2) 0 0 0 0 0
1,3) 0 0 0 0
1,4) 0 11 0
2,4) - 0 0 0 -
3,4) 10 12 33 0 12
1,2,3) 0 0 11
1,3,4) 10 21 12 17 18 0 18 0 21 - 15
1,2,3,4) 17 0 - 11 - 0 - 33 - 12 -

Length of
Time Spent Part of Residence Property Total
in Community? the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Exverienced a Flood? Community
Dewey (Question 6) (Question 7) Muestion 3) (Question 3) (Question 10) Respondents
Beach Not
Area Permanently Resident Summer Other Lonn Short Owner Nonowner Flood Exnerience No Experience Number Percent

18. 1) 31%* - 37% 13% 19% 50% 13 'z 56% 20% 18% 62 19%
2) 19 10 - 17 13 0 15 11 - 22 14
5) 0 0 11
6) 0 0 0 0
1,2) 22 17 19 20 21 0 23 0 20 12 19
1,2,5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,2,6) 0 0 0 11
1,2,3,4) 0 0 0 0
1,2,3,7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24. 1) 0 - 0 - 0 0 50 - 0 54 2
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5) - 14 0 12 - 0 - 0 17 0 9
6) 92 86 92 88 90 0 90 50 79 100 89
7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0@
27. 1) 100 44 100 54 67 0 50 100 58 0 12 58
2) 0 11 0 - - 0 10 0 - 0 8
C@ 3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4) 0 33 0 27 18 0 30 0 25 0 25
5) 0 11 0 - - 0 10 0 - 0 8
6) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7) 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
29. 1) 0 0 - - 0 - 0 0 - 56
2) 0 0 0 0 0
3) 0 0 0 0
4) 92 90 100 89 90 100 91 100 87 96 91
1,2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2,3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,2,3) @O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
34. 2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 0
4@ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 22 - - 17 15- 0 16 0 21 - 15
7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8) 78 87 .92 81 33 100 32 100 77 92 83
35. 1) 100 67 0 87 86 0 87 0 83 100 8 87
2) 0 33 0 12 14 0 12 0 17 0 12

Length of
Time Spent Part of Residence Property Total
in Community? the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Experienced a Flood? Community
Dewey (Question 6) (Question 7) (Question 3) (Question 3) (Question 10) Respondents
Beach Not
Area Permanently Resident Summer Other Long Short Owner Nonowner Flood Experience No Experience Number Percent

36. 1) 39%* 16% 46"' 2111. 24% 01/1, 29% 0% 29% 24% 60 27%
2@ 0 - - 0 - 50 - 12 -
3 0 - - 0 0 0
6) 0 19 0 13 - 100 11 0 11 - 10
8) 14 41 - 34 32 0 30 0 31 24 28
9) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,2) 0 0 - - 0 0 0
39. 1) 96 94 92 95 96 100 95 100 94 96 60 95
2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
fl 0 5 0 5
40. 1 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0
2) 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
41. 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CD 2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PO
7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
42. 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
47. 1) 11 16 0 17 13 0 14 0 18 - 59 13
2) 78 72 33 72 73 100 73 100 71 80 74
3) 11 12 17 11 13 0 12 0 12 12 12

*Figures represent percentages of resnonses to selected questions by column label (i.e., not permanently resident, permanent resident, etc.).
In most cases, the percentages do not total 100 percent since if the total for at least one category (i.e., not permanently resident or
permanent resident) was less then 10 percent, the response was omitted and indicated with a

Lenqth of
Time Spent Part of Residence Propertv Total
in Community? the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Experienced a Flood? Community
(Question 6) (Question 7) (Question 8) (Question 3) (Question 10) Respondents
Oak Not
Orchard Permanently Resident Summer Other Long Short Owner Nonowner Flood Experience No Experience Number Percent

Percentage 46% 54% 21% 79% 87% 8% 33% 17% 62% 3 8','
Total Number 11 13 5 19 21 2 20 4 15 9 24

3. 1) 73%* 92% 40% 95%. 86% 50% 100% 0% 87% 78% 24 83%
2) 27 8 60 5 14 50 0 100 13 22 17
9. 1) 54 69 20 74 67 50 65 50 80 33 24 62
2) 46 31 80 26 33 50 35 50 20 67 38
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10. 1) 54 69 40 68 62 50 65 50 100 0 24 62
4) 46 31 60 32 38 50 35 50 0 100 38
11. 1) 36 58 20 56 45 50 53 25 57 33 23 48
2) 45 42 60 39 50 0 42 50 43 44 43
3) 18 0 20 6 5 50 5 25 0 22 9
16. 2) 20 39 0 37 30 50 32 25 33 25 23 30
4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5) 50 23 50 32 35 0 32 50 27 50 35
CD
6) 10 31 25 21 20 50 21 25 20 25 22
7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2,3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2,7) 10 0 0 5 5 0 5 0 7 0 4
1,2,7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17. 1) 0 17 0 9 8 0 10 0 0 14 13 8
2) 14 0 50 0 0 100 0 33 0 14 8
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4) 14 17 0 18 17 0 20 0 33 0 15
5) 14 0 0 9 8 0 10 0 0 14 8
6) 14 0 50 0 8 0 0 33 0 14 8
1,2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,3) 29 0 0 18 17 0 20 0 33 0 15
1,4) 0 17 0 9 8 0 0 33 17 0 8
2,4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3,4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,2,3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,3,4) 14 17 0 18 17 0 20 0 0 29 15
1,2,3,4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18. 1) 0 31 0 21 20 0 16 25 27 0 23 17
2) 10 8 0 10 5 50 10 0 7 12 9

Length of
Time Spent Part of Residence Property Total
in Communitv? the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Experienced a Flood? Community
(Question 6) (Question 7) (Question 8) (Question-3) (Question 10) Respondents
Oak Not
Orchard Permanently Resident Summer Other Long Short Owner Nonowner Flood Experience No Experience Number Percent
T97TE-ontinued)
0.1 15&
5) 10%* 15% 16% 0% 16% 0% 13% 12% 13%
6) 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 . 0 0 0 0
1,2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,2,5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,2,6) 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0
1,2,3,4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,2,3,7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24. 1) 0 31 0 22 10 100 21 0 21 14 21 9
3) 12 15 0 17 16 0 16 0 21 0 9
5) 38 31 67 28 37 0 26 100 43 14 33
6) 50 15 33 28 32 0 32 0 14 57 29
7) 0 a 0 6 5 0 5 0 0 14 5
27. 1) 0 9 0 8 8 0 0 50 8 0 15 7
2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CD
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4) 25 18 50 15 23 0 15 50 25 0 20
5) 0 36 0 31 23 0 31 0 25 33 27
6) 50 36 0 46 38 100 46 0 33 67 40
7) 25 0 so 0 8 0 3 0 8 0 7
29. 1) 17 0 0 6 6 0 6 0 7 0 19 5
2) 0 8 0 6 6 0 6 0 0 20 5
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4) 50 31 100 29 41 0 29 100 36 40 37
1,2) 17 0 0 6 6 0 6 0 7 0 5
1,3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2,3) 0 31 0 23 18 0 23 0 21 20 21
1,2,3) 17 31 0 29 23 100 29 0 29 20 26
34. 2) 0 8 0 6 6 0 6 0 7 0 18 6
4) 17 8 0 12 12 0 12 0 7 25 11
6) 67 58 50 62 56 100 69 0 57 75 61
7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8) 17 18 50 12 19 0 6 100 21 0 17
35. 1) 80 60 100 64 61 100 67 0 64 75 15 67
2) 20 40 0 36 39 0 33 0 36 25 33
36. 1) 33 18 50 20 20 0 19 100 31 0 17 23
2) 0 9 0 7 7 0 6 0 8 0 6
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6) 0 18 0 13 13 0 12 0 15 0 12

Length of
Time Spent Part of Residence Property Total
in Communitv? the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Experienced a Flood? Community
(Oues ion 6) (Question 7) (Question 8) (Question 3) (Question 10) Respondents
Oak riot
Orchard Permanently Resident Summer Other Long Short Owner Nonowner Flood Experience No Experience Number Percent
36. (co tinued)
8) 17%* 9% OW 13% 13% 0% 12% 0-1 0% 50% 12%
9) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
39. 1) 60 46 50 50 56 0 50 50 46 60 18 50
2) 20 38 50 31 25 100 31 50 31 40 33
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4) 20 15 0 13 19 0 19 0 23 0 17
40. 1) 0 8 0 6 6 0 6 0 0 20 18 6
2) ion 92 100 94 94 100 94 100 100 80 94
41. 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7) 0 100 0 100 100 0 100 0 0 100 100
42. 1 ) 0 100 0 100 100 0 100 0 0 100 1 100
2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
47. 1 25 33 33 29 22 100 33 0 31 29 20 20
2) 62 50 33 59 61 0 50 100 46 71 60
3) 12 17 33 12 17 0 17 0 23 0 20

*Figures represent percentages of responses to selected questions by column label (i.e., not permanently resident, permanent resident, etc.).
In most cases, the percentages do not total 100 percent since if the total for at least one category (i.e., not permanently resident or
permanent resident) was less then 10 percent, the response was omitted and indicated with a

Length of
Time Spent Part of Residence Property Total
in Communitv? the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Exnerienced a Flood? Community
(Question 6) (Question 7) (Question 8) (Question 3) (Ouestion 10) Respondents
Bethany Not
Beach Permanently Resident Summer Other 12n2 Short Owner Nonowner Flood Exnerience No Experience Number Percent

Percentage 86% 14% 71% 29% 70" 18% 47% 53% Sol, 50%
Total Number 116 19 32 33 95 24 64 72 66 67 136

3. 1) 39%* 951/1 23% 98% 61% 8% 100% 0% 6 0% 34% 136 47%
2) 61 5 77 2 39 92 0 100 40 66 53
9. 1) 15 63 10 46 31 0 42 3 41 1 136 21
2) 85 37 90 54 69 100 53 97 58 98 79
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10. 1) 46 79 43 67 so 48 63 38 100 0 133 50
4) 54 21 57 33 50 52 37 62 0 100 50
1) 60 63 57 68 62 50 70 52 62 53 135 60
2) 22 32 22 26 24 12 25 22 28 21 24
3) is 5 21 5 12 37 5 26 11 21 16
13. 1) 11 28 11 20 14 4 14 12 135 13
C) 3) 25 55 21 45 40 0 49 11 29
cr,
5) 7 16 3 20 7 12 13 4 8
7@ 3 1 2
8 55 0 62 15 36 79 21 71 47
16. 2) 30 39 25 42 36 18 45 19 34 32 122 32
4) 0 0 0 0 0
5) 3 5 2 7 4
6) 26 5 31 8 15 45 10 35 19 27 23
7) 15 16 18 10 14 27 10 21 17 13 16
1,2) 8 3 3 7 6
2,3) 2 0 2 0 1
2,7) 6 11 5 10 9 0 10 3 8 5 7
1,2,7) 1 11 5 0 5 0 2
17. 1) 5 11 9 4 8 3 127 6
2) 0 0 0 0 0
3) 3 0 3 0 2
4) 2 1 2 2 2
5) 0 0 0 0 0
6) 2 1 3 0 2
1,2) 3 7 3 8 5
1,3) 7 6 7 6 6
1,4) 5 12 2 13 12 1 8 5 6
2.4) - 2 0 2 0 1

Length of
Time Spent Part of Residence Property Total
in Community? the Year? -or Visit? Ownership? Ever Experienced a Flood? Community
(Question 6) (Question 7) (Question 8) (Question 3) (Ouestion 10) Respondents
Bethany 70-t
Beach Permanently Resident Summer Other Long Short Owner Nonowner Flood Experience No Experience Number Percent
3,4) - - - 101, 4% 12% 6% 5% 13% 9%
1,2,3) 6 18 7 11 8 13 7 9 8 8 3
1,3,4) 18 25 17 22 20 22 24 16 18 11 20
1,2,3,4) 18 6 2.1 8 11 26 9 23 20 13 16
18. 1) in 26 8 20 11 17 14 10 14 11 132 12
2) 14 0 13 10 13 13 11 13 9 15 12
5) 2 21 2 10 1 13 6 3 6 3 4
6) 8 0 6 1 4
1,2) 17 10 19 7 12 22 8 23 14 18 16
1,2,5) 3 1 2 3 2
1,2,6) 2 0 2 0 1
1,2,3,7) 0 0 0 0 0
1,2,3,4) 2 0 2 0 1
24. 1) 12 10 10 12 10 50 10 100 10 5 62 11
3) 4 10 - - 5 50 6 0 10 0 7
5) 36 52 35 45 43 0 41 0 49 29 40
6) 33 16 40 20 27 0 30 0 18 52 29
7) 14 10 10 15 13 0, 13 0 13 14 13
27. 1) - - - - - 4 0 6 0 50 4
2) 0 0 0 0 0
3) 2 0 .3 0 2
4) 18 18 0 24 18 0 18 0 15 21 18
5) 15 25 26 15 20 0 20 0 21 21 20
6) 48 44 53 45 43 100 45 100 50 36 46
7) 12 6 6 12 10 0 10 0 6 21 10
29. 1) - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 50 0
2) 9 12 12 10 10 0 10 0 9 7 10
3) 21 12 29 12 16 50 18 0 18 13 18
4) 24 25 6 35 25 0 24 0 2.4 27 24
1,2) 9 12 17 9 12 0 12 0 9 20 12
1,3) - - 6 10 - - 8 0 12 0 8
2,3) 9 18 0 12 10 50 12 0 12 13 12
1,2,3) 18 12 29 9 16 0 16 0 15 20 16
34. 2) - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 56 0
4) 2 0 0 5 2
6) 28 5 10 20 19 0 20 0 20 20 20
7) 0 0 0 0 0
8) 42 84 52 63 57 50 58 0 51 70 57

Length of
Time Spent Part of Residence Propertv Total
in Community? the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Experienced a Flood? Community
Bethany (question 6) (Question 7) (question-n) (Question 3) (Question 10) Respondents
Not
Beach Permanentlv Resident Summer Other Long Short Owner Nonowner Flood Experience No Experience Number Percent

35. 1) 71%* 67% 71% 80% 68% 100%, 70% 1 001Z 72% 50% 24 71%
2) 29 33 29 20 32 0 30 0 28 50 29
36. 1) 35 33 50 30 34 50 36 0 19 67 59 36
2) 3 0 6 0 3
3) 0 0 0 0 0
6) 2 11 5 0 3 9 5
8) 5 0 6 5 5
9) 0 0 0 0 0
1,2) 15 11 15 13 14 0 14 0 19 0 14
39. 1) 50 60 53 54 54 0 54 0 42 76 56 54
2) 17 13 21 11 15 50 16 0 18 14 16
3) 15 0 10 11 10 50 11 0 15 0 11
4) 17 27 16 23 21 0 20 0 24 9 20
40. 1) 12 26 17 18 17 0 15 100 14 25 53 17
2) 88 74 83 82 83 100 85 0 86 75 83
41. 1) 50 100 100 67 75 - 71 100 50 100 8 75
2) 25 0 0 16 12 - 14 0 25 0 12
7) 25 0 0 16 12 - 14 0 25 0 12
42. 1) 50 60 33 67 55 - 50 100 60 50 8 56
2) 25 20 33 16 22 - 25 0 40 0 22
3) 25 20 33 16 22 - 25 0 0 50 22
47. 1) 56 57 63 52 59 0 57 100 58 57 61 57
2) 31 42 16 42 32 100 35 0 34 33 34
3) 12 0 16 5 9 0 8 0 8 9 8

*Figures represent percentages of responses to selected questions by column label (i.e., not permanently resident, permanent resident, etc.).
In most cases,the percentages do not total 100 Percent since if the total for at least one category (i.e., not permanently resident or
permanent resident) was less then 10 percent, the response was omitted and indicated with a

Length of
Time Spent Part of Residence Pro 'nert'v Total
in Community? the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Experienced a Flood? Community
South (Question 6) (Ouestion 7) (Question 8) (Question 3) (Ouestion 10) Respondents
Bethany Not
Beach Permanently Resident Summer Other Long Short Owner Nonowner F7ood Experience No Experience Number Percent

Percentage 94% 6-f 56" 44% 62" 28% 56% 44% 48% 52%
Total Number 60 4 36 28 40 18 36 28 31 33 64

3. 1) 57%* 5 0' 33% 86% 720 16% 100% 0% 58% 54% 64 56%
2) 43 50 67 14 28 84 0 100 42 46 44
9. 1) 10 50 6 21 20 0 19 4 23 3 64 13
2) 90 50 94 79 80 100 81 96 77 97 87
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10. 1) 45 100 42 57 45 44 50 46 100 0 64 48
4) 55 0 58 43 55 56 50 54 0 100 52
11. 1) 38 100 33 54 47 27 44 39 52 33 64 42
2) 40 0 33 42 42 22 50 21 26 48 38
3) 21 0 33 4 10 50 6 39 22 18 20
13. 1) 16 0 16 14 20 0 22 7 19 12 64 16
3) 22 25 11 35 35 0 31 11 19 24 22
5) 10 25 5 18 12 5 17 4 13 9 11
CD
7) - - 11 4 2 16 6 11 3 12 8
8) 43 50 55 23 30 79 25 68 45 42 44
16. 2) 35 33 41 26 30 41 34 36 38 32 60 35
4) 3 0 4 0 2
5) 10 33 12 11 13 12 9 14 10 13 12
6) 14 0 20 4 8 29 3 25 14 13 13
7) 11 3 11 7 6 7
1,2) 3 4 4 3 3
2,3) 12 0 3 23 18 0 22 0 7 16 12
2,7) 3 33 0 11 - 9 0 7 3 5
1,2,7) 0 0 0 0 0
17. 1) 19 0 15 20 22 12 23 12 17 18 57 17
2) 0 0 0 0 0
3) 0 12 7 8 10 4 7
4) 3 0 0 4 2
5) 30 25 0 12 - - 10 0 3 7 5
6) - - - 0 12 0 8 7 0 3
1,2) 7 25 3 16 14 0 10 8 13 4 9
1,3) 7 4 3 7 5
1,4) 13 4 3 15 9
2,4) 0 25 3 0 3 0 2

Lenqth of
Time Spent Part of Residence Pronertv Total
in Community? the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Experienced a Flood? Community
South (Question 6) (Question 7) (Ouestion 3) (Ouestion 3) (Question 10) Respondents
Bethany Not
Beach Permanently Resident Summer Other Long Short Owner Nonowner Flood Experience No Experience Number Percent
T7-.-7o-ntinued)
3,4) 2%* 25% 3% 4% 7% 0% 3%
1,2,3) 3 8 7 4 5
1,3,4) 22 0 31 a 22 25 16 30 17 30 21
1,2,3,4) - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0
18. 1) 16 18 12 28 17 18 16 18 64 17
2) 16 10 15 16 11 18 10 18 14
5) 11 4 6 11 6 9 8
6) 6 0 3 3 3
1,2) 11 13 15 11 17 11 26 3 14
1,2,5) 0 4 3 0 2
1,2,6) 3 0 3 0 2
1,2,3,7) 0 4 3 0 2
1,2,3,4) 0 0 0 0 0
24. 1) 12 50 27 8 14 0 15 0 18 12 34 16
3) 12 0 9 13 11 33 12 0 23 0 12
5) 22 50 27 22 29 0 24 0 29 18 23
6) 50 0 36 52 40 66 47 0 29 65 47
7) 0 4 - - 3 0 0 0 3
27. 1) 25 50 14 36 31 0 28 0 42 0 18 28
2) 0 0 0 0 0
3) 18 0 28 9 18 0 17 0 0 50 17
4) 25 0 0 36 25 0 22 0 )5 17 22
5) - - 14 0 - - 6 0 3 0 6
6) 12 50 23 9 12 0 17 0 17 17 17
7) 12 0 14 9 6 100 11 0 8 17 11
29. fl 8 0 12 5 5 0 8 0 15 0 26 8
2 16 0 37 5 20 0 15 0 15 15 15
3) 16 0 0 22 20 0 15 0 23 8 15
4) 56 0 37, 61 45 100 54 0 39 70 54
1,2) 0 0 0 0 0
1,3) 0 0 0 0 0
2,3) - 12 0 4 0 0 8 4
1,2,3) 0. 100 0 5 4 0 8 0 4
34. 2) - - - - 0 0 0 0 31 0
4) 17 0 11 18 16 0 16 0 25 7 16
6) 24 50 33 22 24 100 26 0 19 33 26
7) 0 0 0 0 0
8) 34 50 33 36 44 0 3 55 0 37 33 35

Length of
Time Spent Part of Residence Propert.v Total
in Community? the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Experienced a Flood? Communi,ty
South (Ouestion 6) (Question 7) Ouestion 3) (Ouestion'3) (Ouestion 10) Respondents
Bethany Not
Beach Permanently Pesident Summer Other Long Short nwner Monowner Flood Experience No Experience Number Percent

35. 1) 82%* 0% 83" 75% 71% 100 78 0 56 100 18 78
2) 17 100 17 25 29 0 22 0 44 0 22
36. 1) 45 50 60 39 50 0 46 0 4 44 33 45
2) 0 0 0 0 0
3) 0 0 0 0 0
6) - - 10 8 7 33 9 0 6 12 9
8) 13 0 20 3 4 66 12 0 18 6 12
9) 0 50 - - - 3 0 6 0 3
1,2) - - 10 3 - 9 0 6 12 9
39. 1) 54 0 50 52 50 67 52 0 35 69 33 51
2) 12 0 20 8 11 33 12 0 18 6 12
.3) 12 100 10 21 19 0 18 0 29 6 18
10
4) 19 0 20 17 19 0 13 0 18 18 U
40. 1) - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 20 0
2) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 100 100
41. 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
42. 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2) n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
47. 1) 64 50 30 56 61 66 64 0 59 69 33 64
2) 29 50 20 35 30 33 30 0 35 25 30
3) 7 0 0 9 7 0 6 0 6 6 6

*Figures represent percentages of responses to selected questions by column label (i.e., not permanently resident, permanent resident, etc.).
In most cases, the Percentages do not total 100 percent since if the total for at least one category (i.e., not permanently resident or
permanent resident) was less then 10 percent, the response was omitted and indicated with a

Lennth of
Time Spent Part of Residence Property Total
in Community? the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Experienced a Flood? Community
(nuestion 6) (Question 7) (Question 3) (Question 3) (Question 10) Respondents
Fenwick Not
island Permanently Resident Summer Other Long Short Owner Nonowner Flood Experience No Experience Number Percent

Percentage 8M M 55@ 4 5" 31% go 63"' 37% 51% 49%
Total Number 142 19 34 68 130 14 101 59 78 7G 158
3. fl 58%* 61 % 45% 82% 7 0% 31% 10011. 0% 69% 56% 160 63%
2 42 39 55 13 30 69 0 100 31 41 37
9. 1) 24 56 14 43 33 8 43 3 49 7 160 29
2) 76 44 35 57 67 92 57 97 51 93 71
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10. 1) 49 67 46 56 52 57 56 42 100 0 154 50-
4) 51 33 54 44 48 43 44 58 0 100 50
11. 1) 35 44 35 40 37 36 40 31 43 30 160 37
2) 53 56 49 54 55 36 52 53 47 53 52
3) 12 6 16 6 8 29 8 15 10 12 11
16. 2) 38 29 34 40 4D 23 42 29 37 37 150 37
4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5) 3 18 10 9 - - 11 7 10 8 9
6) 23 23 27 17 21 38 16 32 20 25 23
7) - - - - - - - 10 5 8
1,2) 4 18 6
2,3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2,7) - - 5
1,2,7) 0 0
17. 1) - - 146 5
2) - 12 2
3) 1
4) 4
5) 1
6) 0 11 4
1,2) 14 - - - - 3
1,3) 9 12 4 16 12 0 11 7 8 11 10
1,4) 10 6 11 8 10 14 10 9 11 8 10
2,4) - - - - - - - - - - 5
3,4) 5 14 6 11 7
1,2,3) 3
1,3,4) 17 23 17 17 19 14 22 11 17 19 18
1,2,3,4) 13 18 17 10 13 21 12 16 14 14 14

Length of
Time Spent Part of Residence Property Total
in Communit.0 the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Experienced a Flood? Communit *v
Muestion 6) (Ouestion 7) (Ouestion 8) Ouestion 3) (Ouestion 10) Respondents
Fenwick Not
Island Permanentlv Resident Summer Other Long Short Owner Nonowner Flood Exoerience No Experience Number Percent

18. 1) 19%* 11 25% 9% 17% 29% 16"1 23% 15% 21% 154 18%
2) 12 6 14 9 9 29 10 14 11 11 12
5) - - - 10 0 11 5 8 10 9
6) 3 4 3
1,2) 10 17 8 15 12 7 10 10 14 8 11
1,2,5) 4 3 3
1,2,6) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,2,3,4) - - - - - - - - 0 4 2
1,2,3,7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24. 1) 30 40 28 33 32 40 32 27 38 25 99 30
3) 1 7 3 2 1 20 3 9 4 0 4
5) 26 40 19 33 30 0 32 0 34 23 29
6) 35 13 44 26 32 20 29 54 19 45 30
7) 7 0 6 5 5 20 5 9 4 7 6
27. 1) 11 7 16 8 9 25 11 0 10 11 82 10
2) 3 6 a 2 3 0 1 25 2 4 2
3) 10 21 12 12 11 25 12 0 10 14 11
4) 19 21 16 20 21 0 18 50 21 18 21
5) 16 14 20 14 16 25 15 25 17 14 16
6) 27 29 24 31 30 0 29 0 31 21 29
7) 13 7 12 12 10 25 12 0 8 18 11
29. 1) 8 0 12 2 - - 7 0 - - 96 6
2) 9 12 12 9 11 0 11 0 14 5 9
3) 10 19 0 19 11 40 13 0 14 9 11
4) 44 37 54 36 40 40 36 100 26 63 43
1,2) 6 0 3 7 6 0 6 0 6
1,3) 13 19 15 14 15 0 16 0 20 7 13
2,3) 5 6 3 7 5 20 6 0 8 2 5
1,2,3) 4 6 0 7 5 0 4 5 5
34. 2) - - - - 1 18 - - 59 3
4) 12 12 14 10 10 40 11 18 9 13 11
6) 42 .37 46 37 44 20 41 45 45 38 40
7) 2
8) 27 31 29 29 23 40 29 18 31 24 29
35. 1) 72 67 71 70 68 100 68 87 60 83 65 71
2) 28 33 29 30 32 0 31 12 40 15 29

Length of
Time Spent Part of Residence Property Total
in Community? the Year? or Visit? Ownership? Ever Experienced a Flood? Community
(Ouestion 6) .(Ouestion 7) (Question 8) (Question 3) (Question 10) Respondents
Fenwick Not
Island Permanently Resident Summer Other Long -Short -Owner Nonowner Flood Experience No Experience Number Percent

36. 1) 57%* 25% 63% 45% 5111 6 0% 54" 30% 53% 50% 95 52%
2) - 12 0 5 3 0 - - - - 3
3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6) 4 12 5 6 0 - - 5
8) 4 6 5 5 (1 z 20 4
9) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,2) 9 19 3 15 9 20 11 10 8 14 10
39. 1) 56 50 58 52 55 46 54 70 46 66 101 54
2) 10 12 6 14 12 0 12 0 10 11 11
3) 17 31 12 24 18 40 18 30 24 14 19
4) 17 6 24 10 15 20 17 0 20 9 15
40. 1) 8 14 11 8 7 50 9 0 13 3 78 9
2) 92 86 39 92 93 5 0 90 1,M) 87 97 91
41. 1) 50 50 67 33 50 50 50 0 50 0 6 50
2) 25 0 33 0 25 0 17 0 17 0 17
7) 0 50 0 33 0 50 17 0 17 0 17
1,7) 25 0 0 33 25 0 17 0 17 0 17
42. 1) 20 100 50 40 33 100 43 0 60 0 6 50
2) 60 0 50 40 50 0 43 0 40 50 33
3) 20 0 0 20 17 0 14 0 0 50 17
47. 1) 36 47 34 40 39 40 43 0 37 39 99 37
2) 55 40 31 53 54 40 48 91 55 50 53
3) 9 13 14 7 7 20 9 9 8 11 9

*Figures -represent percentages of responses to selected questions by column label (i.e., not permanently resident, permanent resident, etc.).
In most cases, the percentages do not total 100 percent since if the total for at least one category (i.e., not permanently resident or
permanent resident) was less then 10 percent, the response was omitted and indicated with a

APPENDIX III

Graphical Comparisons of Selected Responses

Between Communities

315

QUEST ION 6
Percentage of Respondents Who were Residents vs. Non-Permanent Residents
and Visitors.
ONE Non - Permanent Residents
Residents
100 _M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
90

60
50 11 ME In 111 1111
40-- 111 111 INIM 11

30--

0
Bowers Slaughter Broadkill N. Shores Rehoboth Dewey Bethany S. Bethany Oak Fenwick
Beach Beach Beach Henlopen A. Beach Beach Beach Beach Orchard island
#1 #2

QUESTION 8
How long have you been a resident or coming to this community ?

Long Term more than 5 years
Short Term I - 2 years
100

60-
50- 11 IN III III I

40-

30-

20-

10-
0- Ill 11 .1-001 moll III Ill in
Bowers Slaughter Broadkill N. Shores Rehoboth Dewey Bethany S.Bethany Oak Fenwick
Beach Beach Beach Henlopen A. Beach Beach Beach Beach Orchard island
#1 #2
316

QUESTION 10
Have you ever experienced a flood?
Yes
No
100

so
70- HIM
60 -

50 ---,
40- HIM HIM
30 - HIM HIM
20 -

10-

0
Bowers Slaughter Broadkill N. Shores Rehoboth Dewey Betharry S. Bethany Oak Fenwick
Beach Beach Beach Henlopen A. Beach Bea ch Beach Beach Orchard Island
#1 #2

QUESTION 11
Do you think flooding is a problem
Yes Don't know
100 No No responses to this category

50
40 HIM

10
rM
0
Bowers Slaughter Broodkill N. Shores Rehoboth Dewey Bethany S.Bethany Oak Fenwick
Beach Beach Beach. Henlopen A. Beach, Beach Beach Beach Orchard Island
#1
317

QUESTION 16
What measures do you think can be effective in reducing damages from
storms and flooding in this community

Protective Devices
100

20-

10-

0-
Bowers Slaughter Broadkill N.Shores Rehoboth Dewey Bethany S.Bethany Oak Fenwick
Beach Beach Beach Henlopen A. Beach Beach Beach Beach Orchard Island
#1 #2

QUESTION 18
Who should be responsible for providing money to rebuild a flood damaged
community ?
Individual

Government
100

40-

30-

Bowers Slaughter Broadkill N. Shores Rehoboth Dewey Bethany S. Bethany Oak Fenwick
Beach Beach Beach Henlopen A. Beach Beach Beach Beach Orchard Island
#1 #2
313

QUESTION 24
How frequently does sea and / or bay water reach your property
once a year or more
Once every ten years
100

10
0- Bowers Slaughter Broodkill N. Shores Rehoboth Dewey Bethany S.Bethany Oak Fenwick
Beach Beach Beach HenlopenA. Beach Beach Beach Beach Orchard Island
#2

QUESTION 27
What is the highest level sea and or bay wafer has reached
on your property ?
On the house over I foot
100

0
Bowers Slaughter Broodkill N.Shores Rehoboth Dewey Bethany S.Bethany Oak Fenwick
Beach Beach Beach HenlopenA. Beach Beach Beach Beach Orchard Island
2
319

QUESTION 29
What , if any , specific damages were incurred on your property or
belongings during sea and or bay flooding ?
Structural Damage
None
100

10
0 Bowers Slaughter Broadkill N. Shores Rehoboth Dewey Bethany S.Bethany Oak Fenwick
Beach Beach Beach HenlopenA. Beach Beach Beach Beach Orchard Island
2

QUESTION 34
What preventive measures have you taken to reduce damages ?
Pilings and raising structures
Storing belongings in a safe place
Nothing
No responses to this category
100

.70

50 -

40 -

20
a

10 j J]@
0
Bowers Slaughter Broadkill N. Shores Rehoboth Dewey Bethany S.Bethany Oak Fenwick
Beach Beach Beach HenlopenA. Belach Beach Beach Beach Orchard Island
2

QUESTION 35
If you have taken any preventive measures , were they taken
before or after damage occurred 2
Before damage occurred
too

20-7

10-

0-
Bowers Slaughter Broadkill N. Shores Rehoboth Dewey Bethany S. Bethany Oak Fenwick
Beach Beach Beach Henlopen A. Beach Beach Beach Beach Orchard Island
2

QUESTION 36
What action would you take if a flood were forecast P
Evacuate
Nothing
100

0
Bowers Slaughter Broadkill N.Shores Rehoboth Dewey Bethany S. Bethany Oak Fenwick
Beach Beach Beach Henlopen A. Beach Beach Beach Beach Orchard Island
2
321

QUESTION 39
What do you think are the chances of sea and / or bay water
reaching your property next year
Not likely
Highly probable
100 No responses to this category

80
70 HIM
60 0 m
50 mom
40 11011001110110110

20
10 m IN IN m
0 Bowers Slaughter Broadkill N.Shores Rehoboth Dewey Bethany S. Bethany Oak Fenwick
Beach Beach Beach Henlopen A. Beach Beach Beach Beach Orchard Island
2

QUESTION 40

Have you ever sought aid after sea and or bay flooding ?

No
100

20
HIM
0
HIM
MIN .10 0

0
Bowers Slaughter Broadkill N.Shores Rehoboth Dewey Bethany S. Bethany Oak Fenwick
Beach Beach Beach Henlopen A. Beach Beach Beach Beach Orchard Island
2

QUESTION 47

Do you have Federal Flood Insurance

Yes
100

0
Bowers Slaughter Broodkill N.Shores Rehoboth Dewey Bethany S. Bethany Oak Fenwick
Beach Beach Beach Henlopen A. Beach Beach Beach Beach Orchard Island
2

323

APPENDIX IV

Graphical Representation of Storm
Tide Data, Delaware Coast

325

Plotted on the graphs are: a) the normal astronomical tide regime;

b) the actual (recorded) tidal and/or storm surge conditions that prevailed

during the storm period; c) the difference (storm surge) between the predicted

normal tides and the actual tide conditions during the storm.

Figure A, B, C, D below are examples that illustrate typical plots for

some significant coastal storms. Each plot uses mean low water as the zero

datum. Mean tide (sea) level is also plotted on the graphs for each tide

station. These plots are also repeated in the Storm Chronicle.

At present, continuous tide level recording stations in the project area

exist only at Reedy Point, Indian River Coast Guard Station, and the Indian

River Power Plant. The gage at Lewes has not been operated since the pier

on which it was located was destroyed by fire in 1974.

The Chronicle is organized in chronological order beginning with 1952

data at Breakwater Harbor. The legends for all plots are consistent with

those shown on Figure A. The plots presented here are not a complete record

of tide data at all observation points, but rather a selection of significant

events corresponding to the occurrence of damaging storms.

326

FIGURE A
Reedy Point , DELAWARE
March 4 - 6,1962

LEGEND:

ACTUAL ( STORM SURGE ) TIDE LEVEL

PREDICTED TIDE LEVEL

DIFFERENCE ACTUAL MINUS PREDICTED

uj 6
LL

MEAN 3
SEA 3
LEVEL
2

MEAN LOW 0
WATER

-2
0 6 12 18 24 6 12 is 24 6 12 18 24
March 4 0 March 5 0 March 6 0
( HOURS
10 March 7-9, 1962

7
ui
ui
u- r
,\ / I
5
it
MEAN SEA,3 Z4
LEVEL

I
MEAN LOW 0
WATER
UT-

-2
0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
March 7 0 March 8 0 March 9 0
HOURS

327

9ZE

> Z
A
rn r-
2 ( FEET
0 (A -P@

0.4

CD
OD

ooo,
CD m
m

m
0 z
10
oe

op
a) m
M
%C

N
(D I-V
c

Ole

6ZE

m FEET)
0

0 -4

>
m 0 or F.)
rn -1
0 C:
5 > 0
-4 r- UD-
M

0 o N
dol
rri

C a)
M M 0
CD
< G) 0
m m (D
r- - 3 - A . CD
a F)
-4
cr
a
m -% CD
r- (A -I-
m 0-0
<
M c
r, C 0 *
(D (1)

cr 0

C
U)
.Q
0 Fo
.r (o G)
m
-4

CL
OD
C4

FIGURE D
Breakwater Harbor, LEWES, DELAWARE
March 4 - 6 , 1962

8 -A

7
W
LLJ
LL 6

4
v

3
SEA
MEAN -1 4-
LEVEL

MEAN Low
WATER
0

0 6 12 is 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0
March 4 March 5 March 6

HOURS

March 7 - 9, 1962

10-
9- A
8 A

7'
ui
ui
LL

5
f f r
4
ij v
3
MEAN SEA
LEVEL

MEAN LOW 0
WATER T--r-

0 6 12 Is 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0
March 7 M arch8 March 9
HOURS

330

STORM TIDE RECORDS FOR SELECTED

OBSERVATION POINTS AND TIMES

Reedy Point, Delaware

Breakwater Harbor, Lewes

Indian River Inlet, Coast Guard Station

Indian River Power Plant, Millsboro

331

Breakwater Harbor
August 31 - September 2, 1952

Uj
w 5
LL

4
3 zl@ I hl
MEAN SEA -L J.
LEVEL 2
k kk --J-.-
0
MEAN LOW ............ . .
WATER

-2
0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0
August 31 SeptemberI September2

( HOURS)

ACTUAL (STORM SURGE) TIDE LEVEL

- - - - - -PREDICTED TIDE LEVEL

DIFFERENCE ACTUAL MINUS PREDICTED

332

Breakwater Harbor
August 13 -15, 1953

5
W
LLJ
LL
4

MEAN SEA
LEVEL
..... . ....

MEAN LOW 0
WATER

-1

0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 is 24
0 0 0
August 13 August 14 August 15

HOURS

333

Breakwater Harbor
September 26 - 28 j 1956

ACTUAL (STORM SURGE) TIDE LEVEL
PREDICTED TIDE LEVEL
DIFFERENCE; ACTUAL MINUS PREDICTED
10

L
5
d
LL

MEAN SEA
LEVEL 2

MEAN LOW
WATER
0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0
September 26 September 27 September 28

HOURS

Reedy Point
September 26 - 28 1956
10

ui
W 5
LL

MEAN SEA 3
LEVEL
2
% %
MEAN LOWO,
WATER 0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0
September 26 September 27 September 28

334 ( HOURS )

Reedy Point
August 15-17, 1959

1421 A
6
W
W
5 -

3 -
MEAN SEA
L EVEL

MEAN LOW o 01-00P.
WATER N-14,

-2
0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
August 15 0 August 16 0 August 17 0
( HOURS )

Breakwater Harbor
August 15-17, 1959

W
W 5, N
4 4%

3 -
MEAN SEA 2 -L-1- L -I. I- Al
LEVEL ly t,
MEAN LOW 0 1 t # N
WATER m vow,
-2 - I a_lllot@- V-@
0 6 12 Is 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
August 15 0 August 16 0 August 17 0
( HOURS
335

Reedy Point
September 19-21 1961

W
W 6
u-

5
4 1! A

MEAN SEA 3
LEVEL
2

0-00
MEAN LOW 0
WATER

-2
0 6 12 Is 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
September 19 0 September 20 0 September 21 0
( HOURS )

Breakwater Harbor
September 19-21 , 1961

W. 5
W

4
hl I

MEAN SEA
LEVEL 2

MEAN LOW 0
WATER

0 6 12 18 24 6 Q 18 24 6 12 IS 24
September 19 0 September 20 0 September 21 0
(HOURS
336

Ready P(kt DELAWARE
March 4 - 6,1962
LEGEND:

ACTUAL ( STORM SURGE ) TIDE LEVEL

PREDCTED TIDE LEVEL

D4FFERfDCFE ACTUAL MINUS PREDICTED

8 too

uuji6
u-
5 tf

MEAN SEA 3
LEVEL In

MEAN LOW
0 'oooo
WATER

L
0 6 12 0 24 6 12 is 24 6 12 IS 24
I*orc* 4 0 March5 0 March 6 0
( HOURS )
10 March 7 - 9, 1962

7
w
w
6

MEAN SEA 3
X k4- 7
LEVEL I
2

MEAN LOW
WATER 0

-21 1
0 6 12 is 24 6 12 is 24 6 12 Is 24
March 7 0 M arch 8 0 March 9 0
HOURS

337

Breakwater Harbor, LEWES,, DELAWARE
March 4 - 6 , 1962

10-
9 - A

8 - -A

4 YI Z "N i
3 '17 k I t Ili 1@ I
MEAN SEA
2
LEVEL

MEAN LOW 0
WATER
K/

0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 Is 24

March 4 March 5 March 6

( HOURS

March 7 - 9, 1962

10-
9- A
8 - A

W
ui
u- 6
5 v
hr, /1'
4-
i v
3 1 1; fl 11
MEAN SEA i I f 11 A I
I J--
LEVEL 2

MEAN LOW
0
WATER
-1Q
0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0
March 7 March 8 March 9
(HOURS

338

Reedy Point
August 27 - 29, 1962

Uj 5
W
U-
- 4

MEAN SEA 3
LEVEL
2

MEAN LOW 0 -
WATER

-21 1 1 1 1
0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 - 18 24
August 27 0 August 28 0 August 29 0
.( HOURS )

Breakwater Harbor
August 27 - 29, 1962

W
W 5
U-

3 -

MEAN SEA
LEVEL 2

MEAN LOW 0
WATER

-2-
ILI

0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
August 27 0 August 28 0 August 29
1( HOURS
339

Reedy Point
November 2 - 4 , 1962

W
W 6
LL
5 A
4

MEAN SEA 3
LEVEL

MEAN LOW 0
WATER

0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
November 2 0 November 3 0 November 4 0
( HOURS )

Breakwater Harbor
November 2-4, 1962
9

8
7 A

6
W
W I Aft
u- 5

3
MEAN SEA A h, V/
LEVEL
A
47 @@./i N
MEAN LOWO,
WATER

-2 1 L
0 6 12 IS 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 Is 24
November 2 0 Na"mber 3 0 November 4 0
( HOURS
340

Breakwater Harbor
January 12 - 14 1964

Ul
Uj5

4
17 NN
3

MEAN SEA
LEVEL

MEAN LOW
0
WATER

-2
0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
January 12 January 13 0 January 14 0

( HOURS )

ACTUAL (STORM SURGE) TIDE LEVEL

PREDICTED TIDE LEVEL

DIFFERENCE: ACTUAL MINUS PREDICTED

341

Breakwater Harbor
September 15 - 17, 1967

10- -

W
ui 5
u-
4 0%
A "\A
3

MEAN SEA
LEVEL 2

MEAN LOW 0
WATER

-1

-2
0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0' 0
September 15 September 16 September 17

HOURS

342

Breakwater Harbor
May 26 - 29, 1968

W
W
LL IL
3
MEAN SEA Lill
LEVEL 2

M EAN LOW 0
WATER

0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 is 24
May 26 0 May 27 0 May 28 0 May 29 0
it P--\\v

HOURS

z
rn r-
2 ( FEET
0 to 41k@ Ch
0

0 CL

0
10

cn aD Z

>
z
OD -N ;u
Z
m

G)
m
z
m
10

cn
rn
rn

m m
> >
> z M Z
I <
m m
r- r- (n
0 m
FEET

0
0

0
OD

0 N

z ---
0

or rlo
ai
0

ED
cr

N
CD

00
<

o N

Indian River Power Plant
November 10- 13, 1968

5 "WN

4 000,

00,

ui
W
u- 2 00" 000\

O'@
op,-",% -, . / /,0-% *4
MEAN LOW 0 #0 %, #0 A@ op A#"**-
WATER

0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0 0
November 10 November 11 November 12 November 13

HOURS

Breakwater Harbor
August 19 - 21, 1969

Uj 5
W
U-
4
3 hl 1A A-A
MEAN SEA
LEVEL 2

MEAN LOW 0
WATER

-2
0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0
August 19 August 20 August 21

HOURS

ACTUAL (STORM SURGE) TIDE LEVEL

PREDICTED TIDE LEVEL

DIFFERENCE: ACTUAL MINUS PREDICTED

347

Indian River Power Plant
August 19 - 21 19 6 9

W 3
W
U-

-04 0
10
MEAN LOW 0
WATER

0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0, 0 0
August 19 August 20 August 21

HOURS

Breakwater Harbor

November 1- 3 1969

ui 5
u-
4

MEAN SEA
LEVEL -
@*fto/

MEAN LOW 0
WATER
T-
-2
0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0
November I November 2 November 3

(HOURS)

349

Indian River Power Plant

November 1- 3 1969

4-
Un
CD

W
W 3
u-

MEAN LOW 0 01 .1p 01
WATER

0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0
November I November 2 November 3

HOURS

Breakwater Harbor

December 13 - 15 1970

W
W 5
LL

MEAN SEA
LEVEL 2
777

MEAN LOW 0 1
WATER \09,

-1

-2
0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0
December 13 December 14 December 15

HOURS)

ACTUAL (STORM SURGE) TIDE LEVEL

PREDICTED TIDE LEVEL
DIFFERENCE: ACTUAL MINUS PREDICTED
@
r
v

351

Breakwater Harbor
April 5-7, 1971

uj 5
W
u-
4

3 001. .
MEAN SEA
LEVEL 2@

MEAN LOW 0
WATER7

.-2
0 6, 12 18 24 6 12@ 10, 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0
April 5 April 6 April7

HOURS

352

Indian River Power Plant

April 5 - 7, 1971

uj 3
W
LL

'0
LOW
MEAN 0
WATER

0 6 12 18 24 6 12 1 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0
April 5 April 6 April7

HOURS

Breakwater Harbor
August 26-28,1971

Uj 5
Ld
LL 0.0 N
4

3
MEAN SEA h"
LEVEL 2

MEAN LOW
0
WATER

-2
0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0
August 26 August 27 August 28
( HOURS )

ACTUAL (STORM SURGE) TIDE LEVEL

PREDICTED TIDE LEVEL
DIFFERENCE ACTUAL MINUS PREDICTED

354

Indian River Power Plant
August 26 - 28,1971

W 3
W
U-

'OON I
MEAN LOW .1 yv
WATER 0

0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0
August 26 August 27 August 28

HOURS

Breakwater Harbor

October 23 - 26 1971

W
W
LL

dd
3

MEAN SEA
LEVEL 2

MEAN LOW 0 1 L L L -j-
WATER 0 6 12 IS 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0 0
October 23 October 24 October 25 October 26

HOURS)
71--t to

>z
-4
MF
FEET

m -4

0
cr

-IS

OD
4c

0
c
m -ob
(A
0

0 %@%@
or -4
(D
"N

W
Ul

0
cr

co
de

FEET

0 (A
0

Ch
-n
I >

-n
cr 10

001-
cr

"n
(D
cr

Indian River Power Plant
June 21 - 24, 1972

W 3
W
U.

MEAN LOW
WATER 0

0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0 0
June 21 June 22 June 23 June 24

HOURS

Indian River -Power Plant
September T-9,(972

W 3
W
U-

.0 of
MEAN LOW 0
WATER

0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0
September 7 September 8 September9

HOURS

Breakwater Harbor
February 11 - 14,1972

Ui
U-
It\
3

MEAN SEA
LEVEL 2
/fit'
T

MEAN LOW
WATER 0 1.0
%,doI
0 6 12 18 24 6 1@ 1,8 24 6 2 18 24 1 L2 IL8 24
0 0 0 0
February 11 February 12 February 13 February 14

U
i@ IL ( HO RS

X
rn rn
> r- >
z rn z
<
m
rn FEET

r,) N (.0 0 a) -4 co

OD
cr
ai
7r

c
M
cn

CY) cl
-n I
cr
-4 0

-jowl'

Breakwater Harbor

June 20 - 23, 1972

op.,"i
I T)
I dOo% do
W 3
W
LL
IL
MEAN @EA 2 ;-.L-
LEVEL

MEAN LOW I
WATER 0

0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0 0
June 20 June 21 June 22 June 23
HOURS

ACTUAL (STORM SURGE) TIDE LEVEL

PREDICTED TIDE LEVEL

DrFFERENCE ACTUAL MINUS PREDICTED

Breakwater Harbor
September 1- 4 1972

W
W
u- 3

J-
MEAN SEA 4.-
LEVEL

\.0
MEAN LOW 0 11W/
WATER

0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0 0
September I September 2 September 3 September 4

HOURS

SON

m m
> > m >
-4 z < z
m m
FEET
I a) -4

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

or
CD CD

-4
OD 2w

cr
OF (D
0
c 0
m
cn

0)
C/)
(D cr
V .41 0
(D
3 F\)
CD
I

OD
OD

0 N)

a)
Un)
(D
V
CD OF
3
rr
CD

90c,

rn rn
> r >
z rn z
<
rn rn
m r- U)
rn FEET

0 N w .4 (A 0) -4 OD

0 N

cr
CD

0 ED

0 rv

cn 0)
w cr

.age-

0 N

Breakwater Harbor
December 21 - 23, 1972

W
W
u-

MEAN SEA 2
LEVEL V iv I

MEAN LOW
0
WATER

0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0
December 21 December 22 December 23

HOURS)

K
m
> z
i
m
FEET

rlo 0

C-

X
0 0

C/)

00 10
0

C-

1-00
0
.10

69C

m
I*>z
i
m
FEET

Ch -4

10
Wool ooo/

wo.

t7
CD

C'n

3
cr

Indian River Coast Guard Station
September 7 - 9, 1972

Uj
Uj
LL 3

CD .01
2

MEAN LOW %
WATER 0 .0,

0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0
September7 September 8 September 9

( HOURS )

ACTUAL (STORM SURGE) TIDE LEVEL

- - - - - - -PREDICTED TIDE LEVEL
DIFFERENCE ACTUAL MINUS PREDICTED

Indian River Coast Guard Station
September 20 - 22, 1972

w 3
w

MEAN LOW %
WATER 0

0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0
September 20 September 21 September 22

HOURS

Indian River Coast Guard Station
December 21 - 23,1972

w 3
w
LL Opp
Op

00OF

MEAN LOW
0
WATER

0 6 12 is 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0
December 21 December 22 December 23

H
U
0 RS

Breakwater Harbor
March 20-23,1973

W 4
ui
LL
V
3

MEAN SEA 4-
2
LEVEL

MEAN LOW 0
WATER

0 6 12 Is 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0
March 20 March 21 March 22 March 23

(HOURS)

Indian River Coast Guard Station
March 20-@ 23,1973

w 3
w
LL

.00

MEAN LOW
"Ift \1A
WATER 0

0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0 0
March 20 March 21 March 22 March 23

(HOURS)

ACTUAL (STORM SURGE) TIDE LEVEL
------ PREDICTED TIDE LEVEL
DIFFERENCE: ACTUAL MINUS PREDICTED

Breakwater Harbor
July 31 August 2,1973

W
W
LL

MEAN SEA 2
LEVEL

MEAN LOW 0
WATER
V

0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0
July 31 August I August 2

( HOURS )

Breakwater Harbor
October 24 - 27, 1973

6 A

3
i

MEAN SEA
LEVEL 2
I fill
jv
MEAN LOW 0 1%30/
WATER

-10 6 12 is 24 6 12 18 24- 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
October 24 0 October 25 October 26 October 27

HOURS

Indian River Coast Guard Station
October 25 - 27, 1973

w 3
w

0
MEAN LOW
WATER

0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0
October 25 October 26 October 27

( HOURS

ACTUAL (STORM SURGE) TIDE LEVEL

PREDICTED TIDE LEVEL
DIFFERENCE: ACTUAL MINUS PREDICTED

Breakwaier Harbor
December 7 - 10,1973

7*-

w
'00\
w

L
L 4
Co
/ I F
3

MEAN SEA
LEVEL 2

MEAN LOW 0-
WATER Ivi
'A NI

0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0 0
December7 December 8 December 9 December 10

(HOURS)

Indian River Coast Guard Station
December 8- 10,1973

w 3
w
U.

14@
MEAN LOW
0
WATER

0 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24
0 0 0
December8 December 9 December 10

HOURS

APPENDIX V

The purpose of the SYMAP computer-drawn maps presented in this
Appendix is to determine whether the distribution or pattern of responses

to selected questions on the questionnaire offers further insight into

a community Is perce ption of coastal flooding and their reaction to this

natural hazard. While each mapped response does not always display or

produce an obvious and explainable pattern, it is hypothesized that the

geographical location of replies might be in general accord with the

localized patterns of the flood hazard. These maps should be only

used as an indicator of perception, not as definitive measures of coastal

flooding experience.

381

BOWERS

N
VA

QUESTION 11
DO YOU THINK FLOODING IS A PROBLEM IN THIS AREA
NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS 26

YES NO

NO OPINION NO INTERVIEWS

383

BOWERS

SOUTH
BOW RS

QUESTION 24

HOW FREQUENTLY DOES -SEA AND OR BAY WATER REACH YOUR PROPERTY

NU MBER OF INTERVIEWS: 27

AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR

APPROXIMATELY ONCE EVERY TWO TO FIVE YEARS

APPROXIMATELY ONCE EVERY TEN YEARS

NEVER EXPERIENCED

NO INTERVIEWS

384

BOWERS

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

............. .....
.............. .:.;.; ..... ....
.............. ...........
... ..... ... ... ....... .... .
.... .... . .
........... **** .....
. . .. ...
............
. ...... ........... .. ..
. .........
... ............ ........-..
..... ...... ....N
.........
.........
. ........... --- .......
....................
...............

QUESTION 35
IF YOU HAVE TAKEN ANY PREVENTIVE MEASURES, WERE THEY:
NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS; 26

BEFORE DAMAGE OCCURED AFTER DAMAGE OCCURED

NO MEASURES TAKEN NO INTERVIEWS

385

SLAUGHTER BEACH

QUESTION 11; DO YOU THINK FLOODING IS A
PROBLEM IN THIS AREA
NUMBER OF INTERVIEWED-31
YES C7
OD

NO OPINION
c1f,

SLAUGHTER BEACH

QUESTION 24
HOW FREQUENTLY DOES SEA AND OR BAY
WATER REACH YOUR PROPERTY
... ... NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS 18
AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR
APPROXIMATELY ONCE EVERY
TWO TOFIVE YEARS
APPROXIMATELY ONCE EVERY
TEN YEARS

NO INTERVIEWS

SLAUGHTER BEACH

QUESTION 35
IF YOU HAVE TAKEN ANY PREVENTIVE
MEASURES WERE THEY
NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS 31
m
BEFORE DAMAGE OCCURRED

AFTER DAMAGE OCC@3PRED

NO MEASURES TAKEN

NO MTERVIEWS

SLAUGHTER BEACH

QUESTION 47 DO YOU HAVE FEDERAL FLOOD
INSURANCE ?
N-14

YES

NO
00

DONT KNOW

QUESTION NOT ASKED
c1f,

BROADKILL BEACH

cb 5
G

QUESTION 11:

DO YOU THINK FLOODING IS A PROBLEM
IN THIS AREA?

NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS 27

YES

NO OPINION

NO INTERVIEWS

390

BROADKILL BEACH,

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

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

QUESTION 24:

HOW FREQUENTLY DOES SEA AND/Oll BAY
WATER REACH YOUR PROPERTY?

NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS 21
21

AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR

APPROXIMATELY ONCE EVERY
TWO TO FIVE YEARS

APPROXIMATELY ONCE
EVERY TEN YEARS

NEVER EXPERIENCED

NO INTERVIEWS

391

BROADKILL BEACH

...........

-cb

QUESTION 35:
IF YOU HAVE TAKEN ANY PREVENTIVE 0
MEASURES, WHERE THEY-

NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS 25

BEFORE DAMAGE OCCURRED

AFTER DAMAGE OCCURRED

NO MEASURES TAKEN

NO INTERVIEWS

392

BROADKILL BEACH

ell,

QUESTION 47:

DO YOU HAVE FLOOD INSURANCE?

NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS 12

YES

DON'T KNOW

QUESTION NOT ASKED

393

HENLOPEN ACRES AND
NORTH SHORES

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

QUESTION 11
DO YOU THINK FLOODING IS A PROBLEM IN THIS AREA
NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS: 29
m YES NO

NO OPINION NO INTERVIEWS

394

HENLOPEN ACRES AND
NORTH SHORES

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

..... ......

..........

ILA

..........

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

QUESTION NUMBER 24
HOW FREQUENTLY DOES SEA AND OR BAY WATER REACH YOUR PROPERTY
NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS 24

AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR APPROXIMATELY ONCE EVERY TWO
TO FIVE YEARS

APPROXIMATELY ONCE NEVER NO
I
EVERY TEN YEARS EXPER ENCED INTERVIEWS

395

HENLOPEN ACRES AND
NORTH SHORES

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

QUESTION 35

IF YOU HAVE TAKEN ANY PREVENTIVE MEASURES WERE THEY:
NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS 28

BEFORE DAMAGE AFTER DAMAGE
OCCURRED OCCURRED

NO MEASURES TAKEN NO INTERVIEWS

396

HENLOPEN ACRES AND
NORTH SHORES

QUESTION 47
DO YOU HAVE FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE

NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS: 29

YES No NO INTERVIEWS

397

REHOBOTH BEACH

100,

10' Ise/-

0
REHOBOTH AVE. 0
rn

QUESTION I I
DO YOU THINK FLOODING IS A
PROBLEM IN THIS AREA
NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS: 55

YES NO

NO OPINION NO INTERVIEWS

398

REHOBOTH BEACH

.. ..... .. .

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

AVE.
REHOSO-f"
..........

X
... . . . . ........
. ..........

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

.... . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .... . . . . . . ..
x
% . . . . . . ...... . . .

QUESTION 24
HOW FREQUENTLY DOES SEA AND/OR BAY WATER REACH YOUR PROPERTY
NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS: 53

APPROXIMATELY ONCE EVERY TWO TO
AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR FIVE YEARS

EVERY TEN YEARS EXPER INTERVIEWS
APPROXIMATELY ONCE NEVER IENCED F NO

*Note: This catagory does not apply in this community.

399

REHOBOTH BEACH

...... ...

......... -4
.oo,

oo,

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

Ali E. .......
..... *** .... :::::*:*:*..*"*."**"",***..*.
V400 OT
RE
N . .....
:***,-"*"*,*.,*,****,**'*::.*.,.*: .... .....
....................
....... rn

...........

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

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

.5
. . ............. ...
.... . .. X

...........

QUESTION 35
IF YOU HAVE TAKEN ANY
PREVENTIVE MEASURES WERE THEY
NUMBER.OF INTERVIEWS! 51
m
BEFORE AFTER
DAMAGE DAMAGE
OCCURED OCCURED

NO NO
MEASURES INTERVIEWS
I

TAKEN

400

REHOBOTH BEACH

AvE.
116MOBOTH

QUESTION 47
DO YOU HAVE FEDERAL FLOOD
INSURANCE
NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS 55

YES NO

INTERVIEW
DON'T KNOW F NO

401

DEWEY BEACH

4eA D >
OF SAY CoVje z

QUESTION 11
DO YOU THINK FLOODING IS A PROBLEM IN THIS AREA
NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS,' 32

YES NO

NO OPINION NO INTERVIEWS

402

DEWEY BEACH

.... ......

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

op ............
J94 y
co
VIE-

QUESTION 24
HOW FREQUENTLY DOES SEA AND OR BAY WATER REACH YOUR PROPERTY
NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS: 30

AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR APPROXIMATELY ONCE EVERY TWO TO
FIVE YEAR-S

APPROXIMATELY ONCE NEVER NO
EVERY TEN YEARS EXPERIENCE
D INTERVIEWS

403

A T L A N T 1 0 C E A N

bi
C)

"M
DEW EY BEAC

'@EAD
or 84Y Cov

QUESTION 47
DO YOU HAVE FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE
NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS: 32

YES NO
DON'T KNOW NO INTERVIEWS

405

OAK ORCHARD -RIVERDALE.

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

QUESTION

DO YOU
IN THIS
t2 NUMBER

rlvDIAN

OAK ORCHARD -RIVERDALE

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

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

....................... QUESTION 24
HOW FREQUENTLY DOES SEA AND /OR BAY
..............
WATER REACH YOUR PROPERTY

NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS 18
.............

.............. NCE A YEAR
AT LEAST 0

..............
............ APPROXIMATELY ONCE EVERY
.............. .........
......... TWO TO FIVE YEARS
pV -0 1A APPROXIMATELY ONCE EVERY
TEN YEARS

NEVER EXPERIENCED

NO INTERVIEWS

OAK ORCHARD - RIVERDALE

QUESTION 35
IF YOU HAVE TAKEN ANY PREVENTIVE
'Romp-IF MEASURES WERE THEY
VC f2 NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS 16
BEFORE DAMAGE OCCURRED
1A IV
AFTER DAMAGE OCCURRED

NO MEASURES TAKEN

NO INTERVIEWS

SM31A831NI ON

MONX i,NOG

ON IV VIG A/l

S 3,k

81 SM31A831NI JO 83sr4nN

430NvHnSNI 000-1-A -IV83(13A 3AVH nok oo

:Lt, NOUS3no

7@3 .......
31VC1113AIII CRIVHNIO NVO

BETHANY BEACH

QUESTION 11
DO YOU THINK FLOODING IS A PROBLEM IN THIS AREA
NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS: 62

YES NO

NO OPINION NO INTERVIEWS
Air 0-@\

410

BETHANY BEACH

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

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

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

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

.. ........ ..
. ............ MY
.............

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

QUESTION 24
HOW FREQUENTLY DOES SEA AND OR BAY WATER REACH YOUR PROPERTY
NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS: 51

AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR APPROXIMATELY ONCE EVERY
TWO TO FIVE YEARS

APPROXIMATELY ONCE NEVER NO
EVERY TEN YEARS EXPERIENCED INTERVIEWS

411

BETHANY BEACH

.. ..... .

..........

00.0,

...........

QUESTION 35
IF YOU HAVE TAKEN ANY PREVENTIVE MEASURES WERE THEY.
NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS: 37

BEFORE DAMAGE AFTER DAMAGE
OCCURRED OCCURRED

NO MEASURES TAKEN NO INTERVIEWS

BETHANY BEACH

3-;@ P XF

QUESTION, 47
DO YOU HAVE FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE
NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS: 62

YES NO

DON'T KNOW NO INTERVIEWS

413

SOUTH BETHANY

QUESTION 11.
DO YOU THINK FLOODING IS A PROBLEM
IN THIS AREA

YES

NO OPINION
E] NO INTERVIEWS

414

SOUTH BETHANY

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

QUESTION 24.
HOW FREQUENTLY DOES SEA AND/OR BAY
WATER REACH YOUR PROPERTY

AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR

ONCE EVERY TWO TO FIVE YEARS

ONCE EVERY TEN YEARS

NEVER EXPERIENCED

NO INTERVIEWS

415

SOUTH BETHANY

... . .......

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

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

... ...... .

QUESTION 35.
IF YOU HAVE TAKEN ANY PREVENTIVE
MEASURES, WERE THEY:

BEFORE DAMAGE OCCURED ....
m
..... ....
AFTER DAMAGE OCCURED

NO MEASURES TAKEN

NO INTERVIEWS

416

SOUTH 86THANY

QUESTION 47:
Do
YOU HAVE FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE
YES

DON'T KNOW
E:J No INTEF?VjCWS

417

ATLA N T I C 0 C E A N

Ld
U-

w
CL
0

w
:5
0
A T L A N T I C 0 C E A N x
0
r) w
cc

W CD
Ld @A ..
LL w 3t
0 w

tr
w

w
ej m LL
00
z w
0 w cr
LL w
co
W :E
0 m
x z

A T L A N T I C

Ld
LL

A T L A N T I C 0 C E A N

z
<

Ile

Ld
LL-

422

APPENDIX VI

The following photographs were taken following the
March 6, 1962 and December 3, 1974 Coastal Storms.
They are examples of the type of destruction that
took its toll on the Delaware seashore and beaches.

423

A
PV
i 4

-wig

Photo 1 Bowers Beach, March 22, 1962. Credit:
Department of Transportation

A"I

Photo 2 Mispillion Light, March 22, 1962.
Credit: Department of Transportation

425

Photo 3 Slaughters Beach, March 22, 1962.
Credit: Department of Transportation

WAL,

F-' ME

Photo 4 Slaughters Beach, March 22, 1962.
Credit: Department of Transportation

426

4.
-ool
kl-v

-f

Photo 5 Slaughters Beach, March 22, 1962.
Credit: Department of Transportation

Photo 6 Broadkill Beach, March 22, 1962
Credit: Department of Transportation

427

Photo 7 Cedar Creek Bridge, North Slaughters
Beach, March 22, 1962. Credit:
Department of Transportation

Photo 8 Rehoboth, Henlopen Hotel, March 13,
1962. Credit: Deoartment of
Transportation
428

lilt

Ai@

@.V

Photo 9 Rehoboth, Rehoboth Avenue, March 13,
1962. Credit: Department of
Transportation

Photo 10 Rehoboth, Atlantic Sands, March 2,
1962. Credit: Department of
Transportation
429

&.7-y g!'Oewaa a

0' Ws

Photo 11 Rehoboth - North of Henlopen Hotel,
March 6, 1962. Credit: Department
of Transportation

. ........ CC

'03

Photo 12 Rehoboth, South of Rehoboth Avenue,
March 13, 1962. Credit: Department
of Transportation
430

AK,*A.I

Photo 13 Delaware Seashore, South of Rehoboth
Avenue, March 13, 1962. Credit:
Department of Transportation

V* AVI

k
-

74-
41

-W

Photo 14 Dewey Beach - Bottle and Cork,
March 7, 1962. Credit: Department
of Transportation
431

Photo 15-- South side Indian River Inlet,
March 13, 1962. Credit: Department
of Transportation

Photo 16 North side Indian River Inlet
Burton Island, March 13, 1962. Credit:
Department of Transportation
432

"g!
zA

ZOO

Photo 17 Bethany Beach, March 13, 1962. Credit:
Department of Transportation

4Lt-- -11--L--

OW --vv,
K'
7 7

Photo IS Bethany Beach, March 13, 1962. Credit:
Department of Transportation

433

Photo 19 Fenwick Island, March 13, 1962. Credit:
Department of Transportation

A@,

Photo 20 Fenwick Island, March 13, 1962. Credit:
Department of Transportation

434

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

t 544

mom

,.Eck,

Photo 21 Undermining and damage to dwellings built
seaward of the duneline at Broadkill Beach,
DE, December 3, 1974. Credit: F.J. Swaye

Photo 22 Flood damage and mud deposits from the
storm of December 1, 1974 in Bowers Beach,
DE. Credit: F.J. Swaye
435

Photo 23 Aerial photograph of washovers and mobile
homes swept from their foundations during
the December 1, 1974 storm at Broadkill
Beach, DE. Credit: Gary Davis

Photo 24 Autos, mobile homes and roads partially
covered with washover sands at Broadkill
Beach, DE after the December 1, 1974
coastal storm. Credit: F.J. Swaye

'@v

Photo 25 As the storm of December 1, 1974 subsides,
the risk of building too close to the beach
becomes evident. Credit: Department of
Transportation

...........
I@wn J-1
kA

Photo 26 A typical mobile home park carved from
the tidal marshlands. Such developments
are particularly vulnerable to future
coastal storms. Credit: F.J. Swaye
417

Ps'

Photo 27 North side of Indian River Inlet,
[larch 8, 1962. This photo is an example
of the series used for photo interpretation
in preparing the storm damage map in this
report.
438

NIX

Lie
151

_7@
"C
IF

Photo 28 Southern area of South Bethany, March 8,
1962. Notice the limited amount of develop-
ment in 1962 and washover dunes from the
ocean. This photo is an example of the
series used for photo interpretation in
preparing the storm damage map in this
report. 439

T@,
VL
I -Zlt w,, , " J@,"".

_M,

Photo 29 Northern area of Fenwick Island, March 8,
1962. This photo is an example of the
series used for photo interpretation in
preparing the storm damage map in this
report.
440

ZZ,
7; AM

Photo 30 Southern area of Fenwick Island, March 8,
1962. This photo is an example of the
series used for photo interpretation in
preparing the storm damage map in this
report.
441

This publication is available in microfiche
from the Bureau of Archives and Records, Hall
of Records, P.O. Box 1401, Dover, DELA 19901

Printed in U.S.A.

442

liff, 011111,11
3666 14109 957