<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<doc callnum="QC945 .B44 1984">
<metadata>
	<titleStmt>
		<mainTitle nfc="0"><title>Before the storm in Beaufort County</title>:<titleExt>avoiding harm&apos;s way</titleExt>/<respStmt>Planning &amp; Design Associates ; [prepared with Beaufort County Board of Commissioners].</respStmt></mainTitle>
		<titleVariant type="portion"><title>Avoiding harm&apos;s way</title></titleVariant>
	</titleStmt>
	<authorStmt>
		<corpAuthor><name>Planning and Design Associates.</name></corpAuthor>
		<corpAuthor><name>North Carolina Coastal Management Program.</name></corpAuthor>
		<corpAuthor><name>National Ocean Survey.</name><subName>Office of Coastal Zone Management.</subName></corpAuthor>
		<corpAuthor><name>Beaufort County Board of Commissioners.</name></corpAuthor>
	</authorStmt>
	<imprint><pubPlace>Raleigh, N.C.</pubPlace>:<pubName>Planning &amp; Design Associates</pubName>,[<pubDate>1984</pubDate>]</imprint>
	<classStmt>
		<locClass>
			<subject cat="top">Hurricane protection</subject>
			<subject cat="geo">North Carolina</subject>
			<subject cat="geo">Beaufort County.</subject>
		</locClass>
		<locClass>
			<subject cat="top">Coastal zone management</subject>
			<subject cat="geo">North Carolina</subject>
			<subject cat="geo">Beaufort County.</subject>
		</locClass>
	</classStmt>
</metadata>

<text xml:space="preserve">
<pb n="1" />

                                                       Before the Storm in Beaufort County:
                                                Avoiding Harms Way

                                     0

                 AMIN&amp;,

                                                                       A@7                                                   4

          Qc
          945
          . B44
          1984                           PLANNING &amp; DESIGNASSOCIATES, PA.
                                                      3515 Glenwood Avenue Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Telepmonel,919)78'11-9004
<pb n="2" />

                                             ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

                    Prepared with:

                    BEAUFORT CoUNTy BOARD OF COMKISSIONERS

                    Ledrue Buck, Chairman
                    Frank Bonner                            U . SDEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
                    Marion Dilday                           COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
                                                            2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                    Mrs. Arthur Lee Moore                   CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413

                    William R. Roberson III

                                        EMERGEYICY MANAGEMENT
                    COUNTY MANAGER         COORDINATOR           COUNTY EITCIEEER

                    Jay Hodges             Daden Wolfe           Earl Bonner

                    Prepared by:

                    Planning and Design Associates, P.A.
                    3515 Glenwood Avenue
                    Raleigh, ITC 27612

                    Terry W. Alford, MRP, AIA
                    President

                    Rex H. Todd, AICP
                    Consultant and Author

                    Janet Roberts, Debbi Wall, Carolyn Cobb
                    Ulord Processing

                    The preparation of this report was financed in part through a
                    grant provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program,
                    through funds provided by the Coastal Zone 'HIanagement Act of 197-25
                    as amended, which is administered by the Office of Coastal Zone
                    Management, 1,Tational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

                                                                      June, 10,84

    4/                      F
                              Property of CSC Library
<pb n="3" />

                            BEFORE THE STORM Ili BEAUFORT COUETY, NORTH CAROLINA

                                            Avoiding Harms Way

                  IMODUCTION

                   A. 'Why do Hurricane Planning?

                   B. Contents of this Document

                   POLICY DEVELOPMW

                   A. Storm Hazard Mitigation

                        1.  The Planning Process
                            a. General
                            b. Specific to Beaufort County

                        2.  I-lapping Hazard Areas
                            a.  Supporting narrative
                            b.  The Beaufort County Fazard Map: Composite of-R.isks
                                (1)  AECs (non-mapped)
                                (2)  Flood Hazard Areas
                                (3)  Highly Erodible Areas
                                     (a)  Shoreline Inventory
                                     (b)  District ASCS
                                     (c)  ECU Study
                                (4)  Wind Hazard Areas

                        3. Assessing the  County's Vulnerability to Hurricane Damages
                            a.  Severity of Risk
                            b.  Magnitude of Risk
                                (1) Inventory of Land Uses
                                (2) Inventory of Structures
                                (3) Assessment of Evacuability

                        4.  Identifying and Ranking Mitigation Problems
                            a. Rationale
                            b. Methodology
                            c.  Findings

                        5.  Reviewing Current Mitigation Measures
                            a. Inventory of Policies
                            b. Analysis of Policies

                        6.  Reviewina Alternative Ileasures
                                     0
                            a. Philosophy Behind Alternatives
                            b. Range of Policy Options

                        7.  Implementing and Monitoring
                            a.  Rationale
                            b. Selected Policies and Measures (Proposed)
                            c. Monitoring Consistency and Effectiveness Over -lime
<pb n="4" />

                    B. Post Disaster Reconstruction Plan

                        1.  Introduction

                        4.  Elements of Preparedness
                            a.   Local Damage Classification Scheme and Damage
                            b.   Permit Procedures
                            c.   Consideration of a "Recovery Task Force"
                            d.   Guidelines for Post Disaster Repair and Reconstruction
                                 (1) Timing and completion of damage assessments
                                 (2) Temporary Moratoria
                                 (3) Development Standards
                            e.   Schedule for Staging and Permitting Repairs and
                                 Reconstruction
                            f.   Implementation of Recovery Task Force Policies
                            g.   Policies for repair and/or replacement of public
                                 utilities and facilities

                    C. Local Evacuation Plans

                        I.  Introduction
                            a.   CAMA regulations and requirements
                            b.   Beaufort County's response

                        2.  The  Natural and Man-Made Impediments to Evacuation
                            a.   Description and Reference to Other Plans
                            b.   Analysis of Major Evacuation Routes (1 - 6 routes),
                                 each analyzed in the following format:
                                 (a)  Areas below flood level
                                 (b)  Surge Inundation Points
                                 (c)  Extent of Impediment to Evacuation
                                 (d)  Reliance by Other Communities
                                 (e)  Estimated Evacuation Time (to be determined)
                                 (f)  Policy Choices
                            c.   Impediments caused by Conflicting Information
                            d.   Impediments caused by Conflicting Evacuation Plans
                            e.   Impediments caused by Attitudes

                    D. Coordination with State and Federal Agencies

                        1. Process

                        2. Contact List
<pb n="5" />

                            BEFORE THE STORM IN BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
                                             Avoiding Harms Way

                                              List of Exhibits

              Exhibit A         A Process for  Mitigating the Hurricane Hazard

              Exhibit B         Flood Hazard Boundary Map

              Exhibit C         National Flood Insurance Program

              Exhibit D         Photo reduced Flood Hazard I-lap

              Exhibit  E        The Beaufort County Hurricane Hazard Map

              Exhibit  F 1      Beaufort County Erosion Study Map

              Exhibit  F 2      Data on Shoreline Erosion Study

              Exhibit  G        Areas with particularly erodible soils and
                                water table between 18" and 24"

              Exhibit  11       Low Bank

              Exhibit  I        Marsh

              Exhibit  J        High Bank

              Exhibit  K        Annual Extreme Fastest Wind Speed in Miles per flour

              Exhibit  L        Severity of Risks in Hazard Areas

              Exhibit  M        Beaufort County Land Classification Map

              Exhibit  1.1      Inventory of Structures in the Hazard Area (unincorporated)

              Exhibit  0        Inventory of Structures in the flazard Area (incorporated)

              Exhibit  P        Evacuation Zones                 -

              Exhibit  0        Hurricane Evacuation Routes and Shelters

              E-hibit  R        Utilization of Primary Roads, 1974 - 1980
              Exhibit  S        Surge Inundation Poin'ts

              Exhibit  T        Evacuation Time Methodology

              Exhibit  U        Preliminary Estimates of Evacuation Time

              Exhibit  V        Ranking of Risks

              Exhibit  W        Priority Mitigation Areas

              Exhibit  X        Checklist for Reviewing 'Mitigation Measures

              Exhibit  Y        Federal Flood Hazard Insurance Resolution
<pb n="6" />

               I - INTRODUCTION

                    A. Why do Hurricane Planning?

             There  are three major reasons to plan to reduce hurricane damage:

                    To save the lives of family, friends and neighbors.

                    To save investments in buildings and equipment.

                    To save irreplaceable natural resources.

             Those  of us in Beaufort County who remember the storm of yesteryear don't

             require too much convincing that some forethought would be worth the trouble

             such planning requires*

                    * The storm of 1913 flooded Washington to a height of 10 feet, hence

                     today's minimum height of the ground floor in the flood hazard areas

                     on Washington (Aurora has a minimum of 9 feet and Belhaven of 7 feet.

                     All other areas of the county except Bath and Chocowinity are

                     assigned the 10 feet designation under the emergency phase of the

                     FEMA program.)

                    * Similar storms of 1933 and 1938 brought significant catastrophies.

                     (On September 15, and 16, 1933, stormwater reached 7.5 feet.)

                    .In 1954, Hurricane Hazel brought Washington to a level of 7 feet.

                    * The County was hit three times in 1955 by Connie (6-4 feet), Diane

                     (7.7 feet), and Ione (7.8 feet).
<pb n="7" />

                  . Donna struck in 1960 flooding to 6-5 feet.

                  . In 1972, Hurricane Ginger brought Washington's waters to a 6. 2 feet

                    level.

            Here it is 1984, nearly 30 years after the blasts of 1955, one generation

            removed from the reality of having to suffer the costs of such losses and of

            rebuilding at higher construction prices. One generation is long enough for

            unwary developers and homeowners alike to invest $20,000 to $30,000 in a lot

            which no responsible person would have even offered for sale, much less

            bought, in 1957.

            May we say at the outset that this plan does not intend to stop development

            on such (usually waterfront) lots, but it does intend to lay out policies

            which will:

                1. Inform developers and homeowners alike of the risks (in dollar terms)

                    of placing investments in the hurricane hazard area.

                2.  Examine policies for directing development into areas of less risk

                    (as a first priority) and for requiring better construction quality

                    (stormworthiness) for construction in the risk area, before and after

                    the storm.

                3.  Provide additional information on the evacuability of the county's

                    major evacuation routes and updates for the DEM Hurricane Evacuation

                    Plan.

                                                 2
<pb n="8" />

                B. Conteuts of this Documeut

            The preceding topical outline details the contents of this plan. In

            overview, Part II presents the data base and findings upon which alternative

            policies are suggested and then presents policy choices of the commissioners.

            Part A presents the Storm Hazard Mitigation planning process which is

            directed at reducing risks of hurricane damage. It answers questions of

             Where is harm's way?" in the County, and "What is in harm's way?". "Are we

            over-exposing ourselves and our citizens to risks of storm damage?" "What are

            ways in which we can reduce that exposure to safer levels?"

            Part B presents the Post Disaster Reconstruction planning process which is

            directed toward replacement of development in a manner which prevents the

            mistakes of the past and can help protect investment for longer periods in

            the future. It answers questions like, "Since we know where harm's way is,

            what can safely be built there?". "How strongly should buildings there be

            built?" "Does it make sense for risk areas to develop at high densities,

            medium, or low densities?" "What level is best, where?" This section

            answers these questions in terms of policy statements for implementation by

            the commissioners.

            Part C presents information collected in the update of the county's

            evacuation plan. Some of this information is presented here, while much of

            the update of the plan itself is found in Annex 0 of the County's Disaster

            Relief Plan, of the Office of the Coordinator of Emergency Management.

                                                3
<pb n="9" />

            Part D documents effort of coordination made during the preparation of the

            document. These contacts may be important in keeping the coordination tight

            among agencies and in updating this plan over time, since this document is to

            become part of the Beaufort County Land Use Plan (by reference).

                                                4
<pb n="10" />

            II* POLICY DKVELOPM1W

                 A. Storm Hazard Mitigation

                     I. The Planning Process

                         a. Generally

            Planning to reduce the risk of hurricane damage before the storm is a lo8ica1

            sequence of steps diagrammed in Exhibit A. This process, beginning with data

            collection and mapping, and ending in implementation steps, ensures that

            policy development is based upon thorough study.

                         b. Specifically in Beaufort County

            Planning to reduce the risk of hurricane damage in Beaufort County follows

            Exhibit A very closely. It is complimented by intense worksessions with

            experienced veterans in the field of emergency management, and gutsy policy

            discussions with the County Commissioners*

            This process began with an 8 day field investigation of the location of

            hurricane hazard areas.

                                                5
<pb n="11" />

                     2. Mapping Hazard Areas

                         a. Supporting narrative from Before the Storm

                         b. The Beaufort County Hazard Map: Composite of Risks

            Hazard areas in Beaufort County include areas of environmental concern as

            described in Subchapter 7H (estaurine waters, estaurine shorelines, public

            trust waters, coastal wetlands, and small surface water supply watershed

            AEC); the A, B, and C zones as designated by the Federal Insurance

            Administration; areas of particularly high rates of erosion (when compared to

            other coastal reaches surveyed (actual, documented erosion rate)) and areas

            with soils which are particularly susceptible to erosion.

                             (1) AEC's (non-mapped)

            In accordance with the principles outlined in Before the Storm and with the

            direction of the Office of Coastal Management regarding location of AEC's,

            the complete set of the Flood Hazard Boundary Maps from the National Flood

            Insurance Program was compiled as the "Hazard Map", which ostensibly includes

            all the areas enumerated above.

                                                 6
<pb n="12" />

                                                                                Exhibit A

                 Figure 5.1: A Process for Mitigating the Hurricane Hazard

                              A: MAPPING  HAZARD AREASI

                                      VULNERABILITY
                                      ASSESSMENT

               Identify Severity                          Identify Magnitu
               Risk in Each Haza                          Risk in Each Haz

                                               Inventory  Land-U7ses
                                                                           Assess
                                                                          iEvacuability
                                              r7lventory  Structur7es

                                    C: IDENTIFYING
                                   MITIGATION NEEDS

                                     D: REVIEWING
                                   CURRENT MEASURES
                        Poor Coverage?]          Poor Enforcement?
                               F
                                  L7E REVIEWING
                                 A TE 14ATIVE MEASURES

                                  F: IMPLEMENTATION
                                    AND MONITORING

                                                 7
<pb n="13" />

                             (2) Flood Hazard Areas

            As shown in Exhibit B (key to Flood maps), a set of 71 separate maps is

            required to cover the unincorporated area of the County. As shown in Exhibit

            C (map order) a set of 12 maps is required to cover the inco rporated areas of

            the County which are flood prone.

            In order to relate to other mapped sources of data, the complete set of 83

            maps was photographically reduced to the scale of the North Carolina

            Department of Transportation map of Beaufort County (1" = 2 miles). Thus,

            maps were reduced from 11" x 17" sheets to retangles 4" x 6" (see Exhibit D)

            and mounted according to Exhibit B on a map sheet. This provided'a base map

            for conducting an overlay method of hazard cognition and prioritazation

            described below. The resulting Hurricane Hazard Map is presented further

            reduced as Exhibit E.

                             (3) Highly Erodible Areas

            Identification of erosion areas was undertaken by collecting information from

            publishing sources, with the following results:

                                  a. Shoreline Erosion Inventory, North Carolina,

            U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Raleigh, North

            Carolina, October, 1975 (See Exhibit Fl: Reach Map of Beaufort County and

            Exhibit F2: Reach Data for Beaufort County). The information in Exhibit

            F2 was ranked and compared to the average width lost to erosion.

                                                8
<pb n="14" />

                                           '.R'. NOT                                                              T INCLUDED)
                                                        INCLUOEDI                              TOWN OF WA5        HINGTON PARK                                                                                                                              LEGEND
                                                                                                   I^AE  A NO

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          SPECIAL FLPOD
                                                                                                                                                                          06
                                              01                  02*                                      03*                       04*           05                                                                                     HAZARD AREA
                                                                                                                                             WASHINGTON CO.                                  TOWN Of rANTEGO                                                                         ................
                                                                                                                                              BEAUFORT CO.                                 IAREA NOT INCLUDEDI                                                      .... .... ...
                                           O)'o                                              'Ap,  OAT C-         C7
                                           Q                                                   POf                                                                                                      H OF SEL"AYE-
                                           4                                                 I;f                                                                                               - 'To"
                                              07                  08                  69                   10*                       1]*           12*                    13                      fAAEA NOT INCLUDED)
                                                                                                                                                                  9                                                                  No- T- -p. -V -1 4-1-d- ... 5-... Flood H.-d
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     A- I. I.. o.--.ni'Y. A . . - don.i.W                 In.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Sp-sel flood Hs.ooid Alm, shown on ohm, h,,ps mgy V@
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     -dibod. lona on- .,-. loodod.
                                                             x
                                                                                                                  0
                                                                                                                  0
                                              14                  is                  16*                  17*                       Is*           19                     20,                21                                      CON5ULT kfIA UOVtCI"G COWANY Oft LOCAL INSU04MCI
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     AGENT OR BROKER TO DETERMINE 00 P%OPERTIJS IN THIS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     COMMUNITY ARE ELIGIBLE FOR FLOOD IbMURANCE,

                                                          @23                                      01
                                              22                                                 Q..                                                                        U. S...  ,26A                                                         INITIAL IDENTIFICATION DATE:
                                                                                      24                   25*                       26            27                     28                29                                                            JULY 22. 1977

                                                                                                                                     2

                                                                  31
                                                                                      32
                                              30                                                           3 3                       34            35@@                   36                37

                                                                                                                                                                          0.                   TOWN OF BATH
                                              38                                      40                                                           43                                      JAAEA NOT INCLUDED)
                                                                                                                                     42
                                           0
                                                                                                                                             IV 1%
                                                                                                                                     'ar @@ -f
                                                                  46                                                                 49         (d
                                                                                   M 47,                                                                                    Ile
                                                                                0                                                            '?"c"

                                              52                  53                  54                   55                        56            57,@@                  .5 8              59

                                                                                                                                       STATE       63                     64
                            TOWN 00: CHOCOWINITY                                                                                     62
                             (AREA NOT INCLUDEOI
                                                                                                                                                                33
                                                                                      65*              '-,66                         67            6                      69                                                         DEPARTMENT Of HOUSING AND URRAIN OEVELD"AENT                tT1
                                                                                                                                                0EA OAT CO                                                                                               Isommolocle Adatinisucties              x
                                                                                                           @Ix                            r-            ICO r 0,                                                                                                                                 :3'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      FLOOD HAZARD BOUNDARY MAP H                  01 71         H.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 cr
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 H.
                                                                                                           70                                                                                                                                           MAP IKDEX                                rt
                                                                                                                                     71                         N .1 A1-.0A.
                            *NOT PRINTED                                                                          T                                     1AAEA NOT INCLUDEDo                                                                          BEAUFORT CO.,           NC                  Co
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       IUNINC AREAS)
                                                                                                                                                   12*                    3

                                                                                                                                                   19                     2

                                                                                                                                                                      Z
                                                                                                                                              f2 -7                              Avg

                                                                                                                                                                      'N

                                                                                                                                                                          C
                                                                                                                        @ItJ12                                  @@4 4
                                                                                                                  .44"
                                                                                                                     co

                                                                                                           48

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               COMMUNITY KQ. 370013A
<pb n="15" />

                                                                                                                                                                     Exhibit C

                                                                                          cl h94

                                                                                                       11   National                    PAGE NO. 01
                                                                                   4                        flood
                                    12/23/83                                                                Insurance
                                                                                                                                        ORDER NO. 83356007
                                                                                                            Program                     SEQUENCE NO. 00011

                                                                                 FLOOD `-P 013 r"""JTiOftCfr`TFA
                                                                                 @ 4^4) UN T     MO^O
                                                                                 *Al TWORS

                                                REX        TODD
                                                PLANNING AND ALES IGN ASSOC
                                                3715 GLENWCCO AVE
                                                RALEIGH                            NC 27612

                                               COMMUNITY                                                                             PRIMARY QTY                 QTY
                                 NOTES           CODE                   NAME OF COMMUNITY                                               BIN       ORDERED SHIPPED

                                     01      370014             A    AURORA, CITY OF                                                    36LO707             I             L
                                     02      3700149999         1    AURORAv CITY OF                                                                        1             0
                                     01      370015             A    BELHAVEN9 TOWN OF                                                  3610708             1             1
                                     02      3700159999         2    BELHAVEN# TOWN OF                                                                      1             0
                                     OL      370016             A    PANTEGO, TOWN OF                                                   3610801             1             1
                                     02      3700L7             A    PASHINGTON9 CITY            OF                                                         1             0
                                     OL      370017001A         8    ioASHINGTON. CITY           CF                                     3610802             1             1
                                     01      3?0017003A         8    WASHINGTON, CITY            OF                                     3610803             1             1
                                     Ot      370017004A         8    WASHINGTONP CITY            OF                                     3610804             1             1
                                     02      3700179999         1    WASHIhGTON, CITY            OF                                                         1             0
                                     01      370268             A    WASHINGTON PARK#            TOWN OF                                3800707             1             1
                                     02      3702689999         2    WASHINGTON PARKs            TOWN OF                                                    1             0

                                                                                                                                     TOTALZ               12              7

                              EXPLANATION OF NOTES
                               01      THE REQUESTED MAP IS ENCLOSED. PLEASE NOTE ITS EFFECTIVE DATE.
                               02      WE ARE SORRY WE CAN NOT FILL YOUR ORDER AT THIS TIME. THE MAP REQUESTED IS NOW IN
                                       THE REPRINT PRCCESS. AS S13ON AS COPIES OF THE MAP BECOME AVAILABLE ThEY WILL BE SENT
                                       TO YOU.

                                 cu.&amp; " .d-w -qp&amp; ripo-i r- vip, .0 1 .*-w      Th. 1I.Mu" f 0. -1.0 '-@ .1 Moir 6 lw@w              J.@        hi.-- W.
                                 = :L:= #- " - .0 @ -- -d I- - 0-b&amp;- 1- -1 1-                    "-" i-W b,                -d li,                 -I - Th. k.@ @I' a
                                                      b, pbil-- i. . fW..j Irgi- kkh k             ij

                                                                                                         10
<pb n="16" />

                                                                                                                                    T I

                                                                                                   Jim AIVINAIS Gillis 61111
                                                                                                                                                               Is

                                                                                       tA

                                                                                   j.

                                                                                       V@j

                                                                                                                                                @44
                                                                                                                                                     Ail

                                                   '4TqTqxEj
<pb n="17" />

                                                                                                                               Exhibit E
            z                                                                                                         HURRICANE HAZARDS MAP
                  &lt;
                  z
            0
                  o
                  ce

            LL
                  z

            Lu         0                                                         G 0

                                                                        12
<pb n="18" />

             All of this erosion is occuring within the storm hazard area referenced in

             Exhibit E. Of the 19 reaches studies, the worst erosion occurs on the east

             side of the ferry (south bank) where the width of the eroded bank is 305 feet

             (vs. the average of 53.8 for the county) and height of the bank is 4.0 feet

             (vs. the average of 3.4 feet for the county). Soils there are

             Coxville-Rains-Othello; they support concentrated development, thereby there

             should be high concern for damage due to erosion.

             According to these data, Beaufort County has lost 968.1 acres to erosion over

             a 32 year period, with an average width of eroded area (from shoreline to

             shoreline) of 53.8 feet. Had these shoreline acres developed residentially

             since 1951 at an average of 2 units per acre, by 1972, 1936 dwelling units

             W
              ould have been 'Lost, at an estimated value of $30,000 (assumed),

             approximately $60 million worth of property would have been lost.

             Comparison in this manner indicates that reaches 2, 4, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,

             and 19 are priority areas within the 19 mapped in the hazard area (See

             '@xhibit Fl).

                                   b. District ASCS Office.
                                                      I .

             Mr. Ed Karnowski, plotted the highly erodible soils of the County and the

             soils where the water table is between 18 to 24". These areas, outlined on

             Exhibit G, helped target hazard areas.

                                                 13
<pb n="19" />

                                                                                                                                                          1.4

                                                                                                                                                                                         cl

                                                                                                                                       40.

                                                                                                                                                                                        e?

                                                                                                          lw

                                                                                                                                                                                   %C3
                                                                                                             c                                                                             ro

                                                                                                                                                                              TV '1\

                                                                                                             LEGEND
                                                                                                                                     REACH                 BEAUFORT

                                                                                                                                                                         NORTH CAR
<pb n="20" />

                                                                                               Exhibit F 2

                       REA04 NO. 1                                                    REACH NO. 11
                       Av. width lost to erosion          46.7 feet                   A-v-.-w1-a=tost to erosion       55.1  feet
                       Av. height of bank                  2.4 feet                   Av. height of bank               .4.7  feet
                       Length of shoreline eroding        29.4 miles                  Length of shoreline eroding       4.1  miles
                       Length of shoreline accreting          0miles                  Length of shoreline accreting       0  miles
                       Total length of shoreline          39.0 miles                  Total length of shoreline         4.4  miles

                       REAC21 NO. 2                                                   REACH NO. 12
                       Av. width lost to erosion          77.6 feet                   Av. width lost to erosion        31.9  feet
                       Av. height of bank                  4.6 feet                   Av. height of bank                5.6  feet
                       Length of shoreline eroding         4.9 miles                  Length of shoreline eroding       5.1  miles
                       Length of shoreline accreting          0miles                  Length of shoreline accreting       0  miles
                       Total length of shoreline           S.5 miles                  Total length of shoreline         5.8  miles

                       REACH NO. 3                                                    REACH NO. 13
                       Av. widtF lost to erosion          42.6 feet                   Av. widt       st to erosion     S5.5  feet
                       Av. height of bank                  3.6 feet                   Av. height of bank                3.7  feet
                       Length of shoreline eroding         1.9 miles                  Length of shoreline eroding       4.8  miles
                       Length of shoreline accreting          0miles                  Length of shoreline     accreting   0  miles
                       Total length of shoreline           2.3 miles                  Total length of shoreline         8.0  miles

                       REACH NO. 4                                                    REACH NO. 14
                       Av. wia-tFlbst to erosion          59.7 feet                   Av. width--Fost to erosion       69.6  feet
                       Av. height of bank                  3.1 feet                   Av. height of bank                3.3  feet
                       Length of shoreline eroding         6.2 miles                  Length of shoreline eroding      16.1  miles
                       Length of shoreline accreting          0miles                  Length of shoreline accreting       0  miles
                       Total length of shoreline           7.0 miles                  Total length of shoreline        18.7  miles

                       REACH NO, 5                                                    REACH NO. 15
                       Av. widtF lost to erosion          25.2 feet                   rv. width      t to erosion      76.6  feet
                       Av. height of bank                  3.7 feet                   Av. height of bank                2.9  feet
                       Length of shoreline eroding        10.1 miles                  Length of shoreline eroding       2.2  miles
                       Length of shoreline accreting          0miles                  Length of shoreline accreting       0  miles
                       Total length of shoreline          12.2 miles                  Total length of shoreline         2.3  miles

                       REACH NO. 6                                                    REACH NO. 16
                       Av. widtF lost to erosion          S9.8 feet                   Av. width-rost to erosion        116.5 feet
                       Av. height of bank                  7.6 feet                   Av. height of bank                2.4  feet
                       Length of shoreline eroding         2.1 miles                  Length of shoreline eroding       1.7  miles
                       Length of shoreline accreting          0miles                  Length of shoreline accreting       0  miles
                       Total length of shoreline           2.2 miles                  Total length of shoreline         1.8  miles

                       REACH NO. 7                                                    REACH NO. 17
                       Av. widtfi Iost to erosion         23.5 feet                   Av. width-rost to erosion        S8.3  feet
                       Av. height of bank                  2.8 feet                   Av. height of bank                1.5  feet
                       Length of shoreline eroding        10.7 miles                  Length of shoreline eroding      10.8  miles
                       Length of shoreline accreting          0miles                  Length of shoreline accreting       0  miles
                       Total length of shoreline          11.9 miles                  Total length of shoreline        17.1  miles

                       REACH NO. 8                                                    REACH NO. 18
                       Av. width lost to erosion          53.8 feet                   Av. width lost to erosion        92.5  feet
                       Av. height of bank                  2.0 feet                   Av. height of bank                1.5  feet
                       Length of shoreline eroding         1.0 miles                  Length of shoreline eroding       1.0  miles
                       Length of shoreline accreting          0miles                  Length of shoreline accreting       0  miles
                       Total length of shoreline           1.0 miles                  Total length of shoreline         1.0  miles

                       REACH NO. 9                                                    REACH NO. 19
                       57--wi-a-T-lost to erosion         57.8 feet                   Av. width lost to erosion        102.1 feet
                       Av. height of bank                  1.6 feet                   Av. height of bank                3.5  feet
                       Length of shoreline eroding         6.3 miles                  Length of shoreline eroding       2.1  miles
                       Length of shoreline accreting          0miles                  Length of shoreline accreting       0  miles
                       Total length of shoreline           8.2 miles                  Total length of shoreline         2.1  miles

                       REACH NO. 10
                       Av. width lFst to erosion          S2.5 feet
                       Av'' height of bank                13.9 feet
                       Length of shoreline eroding         6.0 miles
                       Length of shoreline accreting          0miles
                       Total length of shoreline           6.0 miles
<pb n="21" />

                                                                           Exhibit G

                                                                                     =Ir

                                                                S W A

                                   7

                                                                            3

                                                PANK

                                        WITN.TV

                                                                        Af

                                               Q

                             Key:   Areas with
                             particularly erodible
                             soils and-water table
                             between 18" &amp; 24".

                             source: E. H. Karnowski,
                                      District ASCA

                                                                0

                                                                          P-J

                                                  16
<pb n="22" />

                      C. Estaurine Shoreline Types and Erosion

              M     rodible land forms along the Pamlico River System are shown on a chart
              Major e

              produced by Dr. Stanley R. Riggs and Dr. Michael P. O'Connor of the

              Department of Geology and Dr. Vincent J. Bellis of the Department of Biology,

              East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina (1978). This chart,

              while expressly generalized for public information and education rather than

              definitive planning, provided an indication of where in Beaufort County the

              land forms (Swamp Forest, that is Cypress-Cum Swamp Forest, Cypress Fringe),

              Low Banks, Marshes, High Banks, and Bluffs of particular erosion significance

              are located. Of these types, the Low Bank, Marsh, and High Bank forms are

              most succeptible to erosion. Pictures of these three forms, and the

              narrative from that chart are presented in Exhibits 11, 1, and J.

                                                 17
<pb n="23" />

                                                                       Exhibit H

Low bank shorlines are sediment banks
composed of sand and clay which have a relief
of one to five feet above the normal water
level. They are by far the most abundant of the
sediment bank shorelines in thePamilico River
system, as well as the most rapidly eroding.
These shorelines generally consist of a sand or
clayey sand sediment on top of a clay bed which
occures at or slightly below the water level. This clay
bed usually occurs just below the thin surface sands in
the offshore area and controls the bottom slope and water depths. Low banks
are vulnerable to direct wave attack due to the general absence of a major sand
beach and the lack of beach or bank vegetation. Consequently, it does not take
a very high wind tide or strong storm for the waves to break directly on the
bank. Eroded bank top vegitation and treees falling into the water form natural
groins and energy baffles which trap minor amounts of sediments and
occasionally form a nucleus where clumps of marsh grass can grow. If the
scattered marsh grasses can become established and if the wave energy is
not too severe the grasses may expand to produce a fringing marsh
These marsh grasses absorb much of the wave energy, decreasing the rate of shoreline recession.
<pb n="24" />

                                                                        Exhibit I

Marsh
Marsh constitutes the most extensive
type of shorline in the Pamlico River
system and in all other North Carolina
estuaries. It is most prevalent on low-
lying land areas with moderately saline
waters in the eastern half of the Palico River
system and is paticurlarly prominent in Hyde and
Pamlico Counties. Abundant growths of Marsh

vegetation produce a soft black organic peat substrate.
The landward extent of these marshes is limited by the
height of flooding caused by regular astronomical and or
irregular wind tides. The marsh is dominated by several
types of cordgrass (Spartina ) and black needlerush
(Juncus). Marsh shorelines are generally characterized
by vertical scarps which drop abrupt into one to
eight feet of water. These peat scarps are the most
rapidly eroding shorelines in the North Carolina estuaries.
They are actively undercut by  waves during periods of
the massive tangle of living grass roots. The undercut
peat blocks thus formed ultimatelyu break off and
sink to the bottom. There they are slowly broken up,
supplying an important source of organic detritus to
the estuarine food chain.

19
<pb n="25" />

High Bank

Pamlico River system; however, they
are most commonly associated with
the region west of the Suffolk Scarp.
These banks, which are composed
of uncemented sands, are the most
susceptible to erosion. Banks com-
posed of tight clays and iron cemen
ted sands are more resistant. High
banks are generally eroded during
severe storms when onshor waves
overstep the sand beach of the bank.
Teh under cut bank then overhangs
the beach where it eventually col-
lapses. These fresh sediments
are reworked by the waves and
temporarily broaden the beach.
Fallen trees and brush act as
natural groins and help to
stabilize the beach. If vegetation
of andy form can become
established either on the beach
or on the bank, it will absorb
much of the wave enerrgy and
decreade the rate and extent
of shoreline recession

High bank shorelines are composed of sand and clay
sediments and hae a relief of 5 to 20 feet above normal
water level. High banks can occur anywhere within the
<pb n="26" />

                       (4) Wind Hazard Areas:

              VIhile the hazard from flood and erosion is readily mappable, the entire

              county is equally vulnerable to the same wind velocity, because of a

              hurricane's size and power.

              As shown in Exhibit K, Beaufort County is susceptible to annual extreme
                                                     L

              fastest mean recurrence interval of between 120 and 130 miles per hour. (The

              annual extreme designation means that there is a one percent chance of being

              equalled in any one year.)

              In response to this situation, policies usually envoke the state building

              code, and county's supplement it with construction standards adapted to

              mitigate hurricane damages.

                                                  21
<pb n="27" />

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

                                                              el I

                                                            Al

                                                             C

                               41
                                .oo'

                                            -woo,          110

                                                          120
                                             ILI
                                                          130

                                                   130.
                                          C
                                               120

                                        w        1@0
                                                     0

                               1@c 0     120

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

                                                      22
<pb n="28" />

                       3. Assessing the County's Vulnerability to Hurricane Damages

              Once a community like Beaufort County has identified those areas which are

              most subject to hurricane forces, it can begin evaluating the level of hazard

              present throughout the community. Such an assessment of the community's

              vulnerability to hurricane damages is necessary for identifying the most

              important hurricane-related problems in the community and in targeting the

              community's hazard mitigation efforts to its most vulnerable areas.

              A comprehensive assessment of the community's vulnerability to hurricane

              damages must include an identification of both the severity and magnitude

              of risk that exist in each hazard area. The severity of risk is basically

              a function of the number of physical forces (storm surge, wave action, etc.)

              that a hurricane is likely to impose on a particular hazard area. The

              magnitude of risk is basically a function of the size of the population and

              the number and value of developed properties exposed to hurricane forces

              within a hazard area. Put another way, if no development existed in

              hazardous areas, little would be at risk -- either public investments such as

              water systems, and sewer systems, or private investments such as names and

              businesses.

                            a. Severity of Risk

              Exhibit L ranks the severity of risk in each of Beaufort County's hazard

              areas according to the damaging forces which are likely to occur there. This

              breakdown is part of the basis for the ranking of the different hazard areas
              which appear in Exhibit E.          23
<pb n="29" />

                              Exhibit L: Severity of Risk in Hazard Areas

                                                Exposure to Damaging Forces
               Hazard Area            Severity  Erosion/ Wave Action/ Flooding High
                                        Rank      Scour     Battering              Wind

              Estuarine Shoreline AEC     1         0           .0
              "Weak'spots"
              Wetland AEC            1    2         0           0            0       0
              A-zone                      3                                  a       0

              Rest of Community           4

                  Exposure Level: High (o), Moderate (o), Low

              Beaufort County's estaurine shoreline AECs will bear the full force of a
              hurricane since they lie directly on the land-water interface and are among
              the most dynamic features of the coastal landscape. Shoreline erosion poses
              day-to-day hazards for coastal development; hurricanes and other major storms
              accelerate these processes so that drastic changes in the local landscape can
              occur in a few hours. During a hurricane, estaurine shoreline areas will be
              subject to severe erosion and scour, direct wave action, battering by debris,
              inundation by the storm surge and high winds. The coastal wetlands of
              Beaufort County will be subject to wave action, flooding, and high winds, but

              are less susceptible to erosion.

              *Weak spots are areas outside the mapped areas which have particular
              characteristics of vulnerability to hurricane damage. They include overwash
              areas or drainage channels which are repeatedly innundated during major

              storms.

                                                  24
<pb n="30" />

              The A-zones are those parts of the county which have a one percent chance of

              being flooded in any given year. During severe storms, some undermining of

              structures has been known to occur as flood waters rise and recede.(Note:

              These A-zones comprise the Hurricane Hazard Area, Exhibit E.)

              All other sections of the County will be subject to high winds but should

              remain relatively safe from the damaging water forces of a hurricane. Of

              course, a catastrophic hurricane in the form of a Beaufort County landfall

              can unleash the full complement of damaging forces beyond the boundaries of

              any hazard area.

                            b. Magnitude of Risk

              Identifying the magnitude of risk in Beaufort County required identifying the

              characteristics of development with each hazard area by performing a basic

              inventory of land uses and structures, and required assessment evacuability.

                                (1) Inventory of Land Uses

              This inventory, which involved 64 man-hours of effort to complete, took place

              on every major road within the shaded area of Exhibit E, the Hurricane Hazard

              Area Map. This inventory will give local residents and administrators a clear

              picture of the types and levels of development exposed to different levels of

              hazard, thus pointing out particular areas or issues of concern.

              The first level of analysis is an inventory of land use within the hazard

              area. Because of the scale of mapping and the monumental task of
<pb n="31" />

              inventorying at the County level, types of land use, trends, and patterns

              were obtained from existing information, primarily the Beaufort County Land

              Use Plan, Land Use Map (1976) and the Land Classification Map from the 1982

              LUP.

              The 1976 Land Use Map was used to obtain a historical perspective of uses,

              intensities, and patterns of development. Comparison with the 1982 Land

              Classification Map (See Exhibit M) revealed shifts in concentration and

              moreover, plans for future shifts. This comparison showed that most of the

              County's urban or "developed"'area is within the area of most risk (the

              hazard area), and the majority of the future plans for intense development is

              planned to take place in the mapped hazard areas. These shifts identify that

              the counties' shorelines are being developed even in the face of inherent

               risks" due to natural forces; wind, wave action, etc.

              Beaufort County is like every other coastal area in its pressures for

              waterfront development. As can be seen from the hazard map, nearly every

              waterfront lot in the County is within the hazard area. An undeveloped

              hazard area poses no risk to development, but once the area develops, the

              risk increases and will call for some means of hazard miti-iation.

                                (2) Inventory of Structures

              The second level of analysis for identifying the magnitude of risk is an

              inventory of structures in each hazard area. The structural inventory for

              Beaufort County was divided into a residential inventory, a commercial

              inventory, and a public facilities inventory.

                                                26
<pb n="32" />

                                                                                                                                   A

                                                               c

                                                                      %

                         Nk                        F

                                                           c
                                                                                                                                                 N
                                                                                                                                                                                               a

                                                                                A
            LAND CLASSIFICATION
                                                            c
                DDEVELOPED                                                                                                                          A
                T-TRANS1110"
                                                                                                                    R

                S-.3ECONDART TRANSITION
                c-commuNov

                A-RURAL
                                                                                           A
                NCONSERVATION                                                                                                                                                         -7.r"
                                                                                                                                                       %
                   -@ZCIPAL PLANNING AREAS                                                                                                          J*-
                                                                                                                                                                                                   v,

                                                                                                                                                                                    X

                                                                                                                                                                      A

                                                                                J:!
<pb n="33" />

                  The inventory of residential structures concerned itself with number of

                  dwelling units, whether they were built above the flood level (first floor

                  elevation of more than 10 feet above MSQ, whether they were mobile homes or

                  not, and a windshield estimate of market value. Information regarding

                  density was obtained from the aforementioned land use map and land

                  clas sification map, making assumptions about the intended densities within

                  designated land classes. All other things being equal, a more densely

                  developed hazard area presents a greater risk of damages than a less densely

                  developed hazard area.

                  The inventory of commercial structures was similarly concerned with count,

                  and square feet of facility (relative size), and an estimate of the

                  replacement value of the structure. Beaufort County has a stake in

                  ensuring the safety of commercial establishments from hurricane damages; the

                  more damage that is sustained by the business sector, the greater will be the

                  economic disruption caused by a hurricane and the longer it will- take the

                  County to recover.

                  The inventory of public and private facilities, utilities, and private

                  institutions serves two purposes: (1) it provides a basis for assessing the

                  ability of essential community services to function during and after a

                  hurricane disaster) and (2) it helps guide the County Commissioners in the

                  siting and design of public buildings and utilities. Facilities located in a

                  particular hazard area should be designed to withstand the damage forces

                  expected in that area. This is especially true for facilities which play a

                  key role in disaster response operations and are essential to quick community

                  recovery, such as primary roads, water, sewer, electrical, and telephone

                                                       28
<pb n="34" />

               facilities, police stations, fire stations, town halls, the court house and

               schools. The facilities inventory in Beaufort County helped identify the

               location of each facility relative to the different hazard areas, the

               facility's ability to withstand the damage forces expected in its hazard

               area, and the facility's replacement value. There is an absence of "public

               facilities" (water, sewer) in most of the unincorporated areas of Beaufort

               County. Private  II group facilities" include the water system in Bayview and

               proposed package treatment facility in "Pamlico Plantation".

               Exhibit N presents in summary form the results of these inventories in the

               unincorporated areas of Beaufort County.

                                               29
<pb n="35" />

                                                                                   EXHIBIT IN

                                                        INVENTORY OF STRUCTURES IN THE HAZARD AREA

                                              UNINCORPORATED AREAS (buildings only - no land values)

                            sub-area                Conventional       Ubl-wide         Sng-vide         institution   Commerc.      Ind.     Util.
                                                        homes.        Mobile home     Mobile homes

                          Northern Shore
                          of river                     1642               33              494                 2S          44           2         2*

                          Southern Shore
                          of river                      669              24S              373                  4          49           1         D

                          TOTAL                       2311               278              867                 45         164           3        -3

                          Median Value              $42,000          $20,000            $8,500           $45,000       $20,000      $40K      $40K

                          Total Value
                          in millions               $97.062M         $S.S6M             $7.369SM         $2.02SM       $3.28M       $.12      $.20

                          Grand Total Value:

                          Grand Total Value:                 $11S,616,SOO (not counting cities), 1982
                                                             adjusted for 1983 to $127,178,ISO.

                                  These Utilities include the "group facilities" in the county,.such as the
                           private water system in Bavview and would include the proposed package
                           treatment facility at Pamlico Plantation.

                           Note: Detailed data for Exhibit N was collected by state road numbers and by
                           map I-ays (See Exhibit B), since the planning unit had become the individual
                           flood hazard boundary map (or cell in Exhibit B). This detailed data is
                           available in the County Emergency Nanagement Office.

                           Similar to the inventory for the unincorporated area, an inventory of the

                           portion of the municipalities was undertaken. Exhibit 0 presents summary

                           findings:

                                                                                        30
<pb n="36" />

                                                                                  EXHIBIT 0

                                                      IINEVTORY. OF STRUCTURES !N THE HAZARD AREA

                                              il"CORPORATED AREAS (buildings only, no land values)

                               sub-area                Conventional       Dbl-vide        Sng-wide        Institution     Comere.         Ind.       Util.
                                                            homes       Mobile homes    Mobile homes

                               Northern Shore
                               Washington (339S)            113S             137             426                                                     1
                               Washington Park (213)        142                                                                                      0
                               Pantego (82)                   22                3               8                 S          11             0        1
                               Belhaven, .(961)             643               77             241                 16          71             0        2
                               Bath                           24                0               0                 1           6             0
                               Subtotal:                    1966'            234             729

                               Southern Shore
                               Chocowinity (277)               0                0               0                 0           0             0        1
                               Aurora (302)                 101               12              38                                                     1
                               Subtotal:                    101                               38                                                     2

                               TOTAL:                       2067             246             767

                               Median Value                 $42K             $20K            $8.SK             $4SK          $20K         $40K       $40K
                               Total Va  lue
                               in Millions                  $86.81          $24.62           $6.52

                        Note: Detailed data were collected for commercial structures and pitblic
                        facilities. Housing counts (e-rcept Bath) are estimated based upon percentage
                        of city's municipall linits is within the hazard area t1mes the 10,80 census
                        housin- unit count. Estimates of mobile home count (both doitble and                                                  S4     n-le
                        wide) was obtained by applyin3 the percentages for same derived from E:@hibit
                           and applied to the municipal count. (Conv. homes = .6687; Double-wide
                         0804; single-wides = .2509)

                                                                                      31
<pb n="37" />

             In summary, then, by adding the grand totals for the value of       rty in the
                                                                            prope

             hazard area (unincorporated, Exhibit N) and the value of same in the hazard

             area (incorporated, Exhibit 0), it is estimated that $227,941,500 worth of

             residential structures alone is at considerable risk from hurricane hazard.

                                                  32
<pb n="38" />

                                (3) Assessment of Evacuability

              Analysis of evacuability in Beaufort County involved setting up four

              analytical constructs: the identification of major evacuation routes, the

              establishment of evacuation zones, the identification of storm surge

              inundation points (t hat is, areas on the roadway that become flooded first in.

              the early periods of a storm) along the major routes, and the calculation of

              preliminary evacuation times.

                                    (a) Evacuation Zones. -- Demand for
                                                              Evacuation Capacity

              As defined in Stonel ) evacuation zones are "delineations of the vulnerable

              areas with common hazard vulnerability and common evacuation routes" (p.6).

              Based upon the assessment of magnitude and severit@ of risk of hurricane

              damage, the location of major evacuation routes, the update of the County's

              Evacuation Shelter Plan, and the years of experience of the Emergency

              Management Coordinator (Mr. Daden Wolfe) and that of the recently retired

              Coordinator for the Area A of the Division of Emergency Nanagement, Col.

              David W. Spivy, eight evacuation zones were established (see Exhibit P).

                John R. Stone, Hurricane Emergency Planning: Estimating Evacuation Times
                                                          0            0
              for Non-lietropolitan Coastal Communities, U17C Sea Grant College Program
              Working Paper 83-2, NCSU, Raleigh, NC 27650.

                                               33
<pb n="39" />

                                                                                                                             Exhibit P
                                                                                                                            EVACUATION ZONES (I-VIII)
                                                                                                                            SURGE INUNDATION POINTS (A-M).

                     zo

              Lu
                                                                                            G a

                                                                             @Ljl @l
                                                                                   I  v  I

                                                                                        34'
<pb n="40" />

                                        (1) County-wide

              The first consideration i's the population in the entire hazard area (Exhibit

              E) which will need to be evacuated. To arrive at a working figure in

              Beaufort County, the number of housing units (from Exhibit N plus Exhibit 0:

              6,536) was multiplied by the County's 1980 census count for persons per

              household (2.37), rendering an at-risk population of 15,490. Since the July,

              1982 population for Beaufort County (41,836) is 3.67% larger than the 1980

              census figure, we apply this increase to the at-risk population (15,490 x

              1.0367) to estimate a 1983 population at-risk of 16,058. This amounts to

              38.38% of the County's people residing in the hazard area. (This number, of

              course, fluctuates at different times of day and at different times of year,

              and with consideration of whether population is counted in commercial

              establishments (the workforce) or residences, as calculated here). If a

              hurricane struck at ni-ght, as in the recent tornado disasters, more people

              would be at risk, whereas if it struck at day, possibly fewer would be at

              risk. At any rate, there is considerable potential for loss of life from

              storm hazard in Beaufort County.

              The county should also keep in mind that it may also be the recipient of

              out-of-county evacuees from Hyde, Pamlico, etc. and these "swells" may

              further affect the actual times needed to evacuate the population.

                           (2) Within each evacuation zone.

              Exhibit P presents a map of the eight evacuation zones, overlaid with the

              grid system from Exhibits B and E. This area coincides with the County's

              Evacuation Routes and Shelter Plan (see Exhibit Q).

                                                 35
<pb n="41" />

                                                                                 maw.

                                                  PINCTOM
                                                        It I's AM
                                                                Sit t's 12

                                                        2                                TEGO

                            4                                                                   264
                                  8
                                                                              264
                          su.                                                        92
                     33
                                                    264
                                                                                              id
                    ('CHOCO                              (U 92                                -po
                            5
                                                                     RIM                       A
                                  33
                           10
                                                               P4

              HURRICANE EVACUATION                        33
              ROUTES AND SHELTERS                                              33        CRE3
             BEAUFORT, COUNTY                                         AURORA
                  NORTH CAROLINA
<pb n="42" />

                                                                          Exhibit Q (con't.)

                                              BEAUFORT COUNTY
                                 HURRICANE EVACUATION ROUTES AND SHELTERS

            AREA                              ROUTES                              SHELTER

                        West End of Washington take nearest route to         Eastern Elementary
                        15th Street, then East on 15th Street. East          School, 264 East
                        End of Washington take nearest route to Char-        and Hudnell Street
                        lotte Street,, North on Charlotte to 264, East
                        on 264.

              2         Washington Park and East of Washington Park          Beaufort County
                        to Broad Creek, take Brick Kiln Road to 264,         Technical School
                        West on 264.                                         Bunyan

              3         Upper Goose Creek, Duck Creek, West Side of          Bath High School
                        Bath Creek take nearest route to 264 then
                        West on 264.

              4         East Side Bath Creek, St. Clair Creek, North         Pantego High School
                        Creek, Pamlico Beach, Wright Creek, Jordan
                        Creek,, take 92 to Bath.

              5         Pungo- Creek nearest route to 264, 264 East          Chocowinity High
                        to Pantego, Leechville, Belhaven take 264            School
                        West to Pantego.

              6         Whichards Beach 1166 to U.S. 17, U.S. 17             Aurora High School
                        South to Chocowinity. Chocowinity Bay to
                        Blounts Creek Bay nearest route to 33, then
                        33 West to Chocowinity.

              7         Hickory Point 1946 to 1942, 1942 to 1940,            John Cotten Tayloe
                        1940 to Aurora. South Creek, Spring Creek            School
                        1912 to Aurora, Campbell Creek West on 33.

              8         Township 4 (Goose Creek Island) Pamlico County,      National Guard
                        Take State Road 33 to Aurora. If Aurora              Armory
                        shelter is filled then continue on 33 to
                        Chocowinity.

              9         Take nearest route to Pinetown-Residents             Pinetown Elementary
                        in area.                                             School

              10        Residents from eastern area of county                Chocowinity Primary
                        (southside of river) take nearest route              School
                        to 33 then west to Chocowinity

              11        Overflow Pantego/Belhaven area                       Beaufort County
                                                                             Elementary School

              12        These shelters will not be utilized                  Belhaven High and
                        in a hurricane _t_H_rezCt__to Beaufort County        Elementary School
                        due to rising water. May be used as needed
                        for other disasters.

                                                     37
<pb n="43" />

                                                                 Exhibit   (con't.)

                                            BEAUFORT COUNTY
                                       INSTRUCTIONS FOR EVACUEES

           When your local government advises evacuation, keep calm, and follow these
           procedures promptly:

           1.  Shut off main gas valve and pull main power switch before leaving home.

           2.  Head for the designated shelters or evacuation points indicated for your
               area, as directed on your Evacuation Plan maps and by broadcasts during the
               emergency. Follow routes indicated on maps. Drive up to shelter entrance,
               unload, and park car as police instruct. If on foot, proceed to nearest
               loading station and board busses. No fare will be charged.

           3.  Take only clothing, food, and special medicine that is necessary; do not
               try to bring household equipment. Evacuated areas will be policed to
               prevent looting.

           4.  Follow instructions of shelter personnel, and volunteers to help with any
               tasks needed for efficient shelter operation.

           5.  Remain at the shelter until informed that you may leave. People will not
               be allowed back into evacuated areas until advised by official public
               announcement.

           Questions should be directed to the Beaufort County Emergency Management
           Coordinator, P.O. Box 124, Washington, North Carolina 27889
           (Phone:  919/946-2046).

                                                 38
<pb n="44" />

                               (b) Evacuation Routes - Supply of Evacuation Capacity

                Ideally, these routes would be subject of a Road Network Capacity and Demand
                Analysis1 and each of the critical points would be the subject of an
                Evacuation Analysis  2.  However, because of the limited scope of this study,

                information will be provided which allows the Board of Commissioners to

                direct energy toward the most severe capacity limitations first.

                                     /l/ Roadway Capacity Information

                Supplementing the information presented in the Beaufort County Land Use Plan,
                the capacities of the primary roads are presented in Exhibit R. These
                figures are based on a free-flow situation of typical traffics at 35, 45, and
                55 mph.                              Exhibit R
                                          UTILIZATION OF PRIMARY ROADS
                                                    1974 - 1980
                                                                                             1980
                               Pavement     Design Capacity           24 hr. Average        Percent
                     Road        Width    35 mph  45 mph   55 mph     1974        1986'  Utilization

                     us 17       24  ft   10,920    7,500   3,000     6,900     7,981          73%
                     US 264      24  ft   10,920    7,500   3,000     5,400     5,564          51%
                     NC 32       24  ft   10,920    7,500   3,000     1'S50     1,16S          11%
                     NC 33       24  ft   10,920    7,500   3,000     2,450     2,455          23%
                     NC 99       16  ft    7,150    4,500   1,800     1,200     1,250          17%
                     NC 92       16  ft    7,150    4,500   1,800     1,425     1,337          18%
                     NC 306*     22  ft    9,060    6,200   2,400        900    1,398          15%

                     *  Ferry can handle   a maximum of 380 automobiles per day.
                     SOURCE: N.C. Department of Transportation, from the Beaufort County
                               CAMA Land Use Plan, 1981; Dr. Marion R. Poole, 1984.

                       1Carrying Capacity Study, Currituck County, UNC-CH, 1983, p. A@30.
                       2Ibid., p. A -25.

                                                      39
<pb n="45" />

               Worksessions with the Emergency Management Coordinator and the recently

               retired Area A Coordinator indicate that these capacities are adequate for

               evacuation purposes, unless the routes are inhibited at the critical "surge

               inundation points". It is clear to both these persons that while elevation

               is the fundamental factor in such surge points, adequate warning time is the

               primary factor in using the adequate roadway capacity illustrated above.

                                   /2/ Surge Inundation Points

               Exhibit S below presents the twelve most important blockage points along the

               County's evacuation routes, by evacuation route and zone. Identified by the

               -Emergency Management Coordinator and the former Area A Coordinator, they

               represent primary focal points in the County's evacuation implementation

               strategy and policy development. (Points A - L refer to Exhibit P.)

                                                  EXHIBIT S
                                           SURGE INUNDATION POINTS

               Evacuation Area Major Evacuation Routes     Critical Area and Points
                                      in this area

                                 Hwy. 264 By-Pass          Stretch of 264 .25 miles on
                                                           either side of lower Dowery Creek
                                                           culvert near intersection of SR
                                                           1709.

                                                           Portion I mile east of the inter-
                                                           section with Hwy. 92 in Belhaven,
                                                           to that intersection.

                                 Business 264              Portion inside Belhaven.

                                Hwy. 264 By-Pass           Portion 1.5 miles on either side
                                                           of Cuckolds Creek Bridge toward
                                                           Pantego (Point A).

                                                    40
<pb n="46" />

                                Flwy- 92                  Prom intersection with 26A in
                                                          Belhaven to Sidney Crossroads,
                                                          over the Pantego Creek Bridge,
                                                          (Point B), the Pungo Creek
                                                          Bridge, (Point Q.

                                Hwy. 92                   Portion from Pungo Creek Bridge
                                                          to Sidney Crossroads, over the
                                                          Jack Creek Bridge (Point D).

                                                          Portion from the St. Clair Creek
                                                          Bridge (Point E) to a point
                                                          approximately 1 mile east of
                                                          SR 1734 (to Bayview).

                                                          The Back (Point F) and Bath Creek
                                                          Bridges (Point G) at Bath.

                 III            Hwy- 92                   none

                                Hwy. 264                  none

                  IV            SR 1300                   Portion of State Road 1300 that
                                                          feeds 264, and all State Roads that
                                                          feed SR 1300, from Broad Creek
                                                          to Washington (through Washington
                                                          Park) across Runyons Creek Bridge
                                                          on Park Drive in Washington (Point
                                                          H).

                                Hwy. 264                  Portion .25 miles on either side
                                                          of Runvons Creek Bridge (Point
                                                          U.

                  V             Hwy. 264                  Area inside the flood hazard area
                                                          inside Washington (that is, the
                                                          area from an imaginary line
                                                          drawn from the intersection of
                                                          Oak Drive &amp; Hillcrest Drive due
                                                          west to where it would intersect
                                                          Hwy. 17, soxith to and including
                                                          the Pamlico River Bridge
                                                          (lower half of city)(Point J.)

                VI              Hu-j- 33                  From the Pamlico County line to
                                                          Campbell Crossroads, including
                                                          crossing the Smith Creek Bridge
                                                          (Point K) and the Campbell Creek
                                                          Bridge (Point Q.

              VII               HxTy 3 3                  none

                                                41
<pb n="47" />

              VIII              Hwy- 33                   From the Chocowinity City limits
                                                          to the Pamlic o River Bridge.

                                SR 1166                   Entire road from Oak Point to
                                                          Hwy. 17 intersection, and all
                                                          feeder roads.

                                                  a2
<pb n="48" />

                                     /3/ Evacuation Time', Methodology

              Ideally, all of these critical points would be the subject of detailed "surge

              roadway inundation analysis," consisting of a time history study of the

              expected time of inundation of each critical point on each evacuation route,

              relative to hurricane landfall (Stone, page 6). However, since such detail

              is well beyond the scope of this initial work, several priority surge

              inundation points (A, B, E, F, G, K, and L) along three major evacuation

              routes (NC 264, NC 92, and NC 33) have been selected for estimation of

              "Preliminary Evacuation Time".

              In order-to develop these preliminary estimates of the time required to

              evacuate each of the Beaufort County Evacuation Zones, the methodolozy

              developed in UNC Sea Grant College Publication UITC-SG-83-2 is applied

              (Hurricane Emergency Planning: Estimating Evacuation Times for

              Non-Metropolitan Coastal Communities, John R. Stone, PhD., NCSU, Raleigh,

              N.C., April 1983). Many of the assumptions used in that methodology were

              applied in Holden Beach. Stone's method is accepted for Beaufort County's

              preliminary analysis, in instances where similarity of capacities and other

              conditions were judged strong enough. In other cases, such as road capacity

              and traffic demand, data from Beaufort County is used.

              Any use of this analysis for strategic planning of evacuation route

              improvement must refine this application beyond this preliminary stage. We

              use it here to (1) present how such a method can be used, (2) to determine

              preliminary "broad-brush" estimates of evacuation time, and (3) to illustrate

              how bottlenecks constrain evacuation routes.

                                                43
<pb n="49" />

              The methodology itself is outlined (stepwise) below.

                                                                    Exhibit T

                     Cut-off Time

                   A complete analysis for the surge and gale-force wind hazards time
                   components of evacuation time would require a computer simulation
                   of the storm. However, the Saffir/Simpson Scale description of a
                   Category 4 storm suggests that low-lying escape routes may be cut
                   by rising water as early as three to five hours before the
                   hurricane eye arrives.* This estimate for roadway inundation time
                   is consistent with a storm which moves at a typical 10 mph forward
                   speed and has a surge that extends about 30 miles out from the
                   hurricane eye. The estimate also seems reasonable as a "worst case
                   situation" for Beaufort County since the approaches to many of its
                   bridges are at low elevations.

                   Gale-force winds and blinding rain can also combine to make it
                   virtually impossible to drive a vehicle on an evacuation route.
                   Wind analysis for barrier islands and coastal areas in Florida
                   suggest that gale-force winds may precede landfall of the eye by
                   six hours.

                   Since Beaufort County is not a barrier island, we assume the lower
                   end of the range will be required for evacuation, that is, 3
                   hours.

                     Mobilization Time

                   The mobilization time for a community may vary somewhat. However,
                   actual data suggests that it may take over five hours for everyone
                   to begin the evacuation. A value of three to four hours would
                   find 80% to 90% of the evacuees on their way. We select the
                   midpoint of this range (3-5 hours) for this Study of Beaufort
                   County.

                     Travel Time

                   Evacuation travel is based on the length of the evacuation route
                   and the assumed uninterrupted operating speed of the evacuation
                   vehicles. For each surge inundation point, we assume a starting
                   point at the eastern most end of a road upon which traffic is
                   likely to converge on the bridge in question. For instance, for
                   surge inundation Point A (Cuckolds Creek Bridge), we assume that
                   Leechville is the start point (19 miles away). lie further assume
                   that traffic (i.e. all vehicles (unless otherwise stated) in the
                   area east of Point A) will converge on Point A. (This is unlikely,
                   but it provides a worst case for this study.)

                     This factor could double for the eastern-most sections of the county,
                     thereby increasing estimates of total evacuation time shown on page 47.

                                                  44
<pb n="50" />

                                                                    Exhibit T continued

                   Assuming storm conditions and evacuation traffic, yet uninterrupted
                   travel, an average operating speed of 35 mph could be maintained on
                   the two-way, two-land rural roads of the evacuation area. The
                   "free-flow" travel time is, therefore:

                                        Travel Time = Distance/Speed
                                        (Example)   = 19 miles/35 mph
                                                    = .54 hours
                                                    = 32 minutes

                   This estimate does not include queuing delay which is determined
                   below.

                     Queuing Delay Time

                   For this study, we assume that practically all of the evacuees on
                   the Northern Shore will originate in Beaufort County, with a few
                   from Hyde County. Evacuees on the Southern Shore are assumed to
                   begin in Pamlico County. 1980 population data will be used to
                   estimate that demand.

                   In order to estimate the queuing delay time (that is, delay
                   experienced as cars wait in a line to pass a certain point one at a
                   time) during a particular time period of the evacuation, the
                   traffic demand and the bottleneck capacity must be known. For the
                   purposes of this analysis, the following will be assumed:

                   1. The number of persons evacuating is determined by allocating
                                                      0
                       housing count data from Exhibit P to each surge inundation
                       point along likely evacuation routes.

                   2.  The average automobile occupancy is 2.5 persons per vehicle.

                   3.  20% of the evacuees leave before the order is given.

                   4.  The remaining 80% of the evacuees leave over a 3.5 hour period.

                   5.  Traffic control officers will be stationed at major
                       intersections thereby mitigating the usual intersection
                       capacity constraints.

                   6.  Intersection turning traffic is negligible compared to the
                       evacuation traffic.

                   7.  Traffic moves at a "level of service D to E."

                   The evacuation rate or traffic demand is thus,

                   Evacuation Traffic Demand = (No. of evacuees/Vehicle occupancy) x
                   (% remaining after order) x (1/Evacuation period).

                                                45
<pb n="51" />

                                                                      Exhibit T continued

                   Example:

                   ETD = (10,000/2.5) (.80) (1/3-5)
                       = 900 vehicles/hour (3,200 vehicles in 3.5 hours)

                   These vehicles must be accommodated by each surge inundation point
                   which is determined by dividing the 24 hour capacity shown in
                   Exhibit R for NC 264 and NC 92 by 24, and applying the following
                   additional assumptions:

                   Ideal Capacity NC 264 = 10,920 / 24 hours = 455 veh./hr.
                                   NC 92 = 7$150 / 24 hours = 298 veh./hr.

                   If it is assumed that storm conditions exist, the bridge capacity
                   will be reduced by fluctuations in traffic demand, wind-blown
                   debris and storm conditions (Appendix B of Sea Grant working paper
                   83-2). Thus, the capacity calculation for the bridge becomes:

                        Evacuation capacity = Ideal capacity x 0.50
                        Evacuation capacity = 455 veh./hr. (NC 264) x .50 = 222
                        Evacuation capacity = 298 veh./hr. (NC 92) x .50 = 149

                   According to Chapter 8 in Reference 19 of Sea Grant working paper
                   83-2, the maximum amount of individual vehicular delay is given by
                   the following formula:

                   Queuing delay time = (Duration of bottleneck) x (1 - Bottleneck
                                         capacity/Average demand)

                   Hence, the following examples:

                   Queuing delay time:
                   Bridges on NC 264 = (3.5) (1 - 222/900) = 2.64 hours
                   Bridges on NC 92 = (3.5) (1 - 149/900) = 21.90 hours

                     Total Evacuation Time

                   .Lhus, the total evacuation time is the summation of the following
                   components: Cut-off time           3   hours (given)
                               Mobilization time      3.5 hours (given)
                               Travel time            0.5 hours (to be calculated)
                               Queuing delay time     2         (to be calculated)

                               Total (example)        9.0 hours

                                                 46
<pb n="52" />

                                                                     -45-

                                                     /4/ Evacuation Time, Preliminary Estimates

                    Exhibit U presents a summary of the application of the aforementioned

                    methodology as applied to the priority surge inundation points:

                                                                    Exhibit U

                                               Preliminary Evacuation Time to Selected
                                                           Surge Inundation Points

                                                           Cut-off     Mobilization Travel        Queuing        TOTAL
                     Point   Name                         time (hrs)       Time*        Time   Delay Time (C '+ M + T +
                       A     Cuckolds Creek Bridge             3           3.5          .54         1.9          8.94 hrs.
                       B     Pantego Creek Bridge              3           3.5          .14         1.15         8.29
                       E     St. Clair Creek                   3           3.5          .46         1.19         8.1s
                       F.    Back Creek Bridge                 3           3.5          .67         1.49         8.66
                       G.    Bath Creek Bridge                 3           3.5          .7s         1.55         8.80
                       K.    Campbell's Creek                  3           3.5          .69         0            7.19
                       L.    Wildlife Management Area          3           3.5          .54         0            7.04

                       *See note on page 44 of this document.

                                                                      47
<pb n="53" />

              Review of Exhibit U reveals that from 8 to 9 hours of evacuation time is

              required to get to each surge inundation point on the northern shore while

              just over 7 hours is required to get to the major points on the southern

              shore. ADDITIONAL TIME IS REQUIRED TO GET FROM THESE ISOLATED POINTS FURTHER

              I1,1-A11D. THESE ESTIMATES OF EVACUATION TIME ARE MEASURES OF ONLY THE TIMES

              REQUIRED TO GET TO THESE POINTS, NOT THE  TOTAL AMOUNT REQUIRED TO GET TO

              SAFETY.

              In Exhibit U, travel time (T) varies with distance from the surge inundation

              points, and queuing delay time (Q) varies with population of the evacuation

              zone and evacuation capacity of NC 264 (222 vehicles per hour) vs. INC 92 and

              NIC 33 (which are both at 149 vehicles per hour).

              Sensitivity analysis should be done by changing the values placed on each

              variable in Exhibit T (such as assuming that 4 or 5 hours cut-off time

              instead of the 3 shown in Exhibit R). In this manner, assumptions which are

              closer and closer to reality may be introduced in estimating evacuation time

              for county residents.

              In summary, this analysis shows that much evacuation in Beaufort County,

              particularly that in the eastern areas of the County both North and South of

              the River, is approaching the time the National 1,7eather Service is capable of

              predicting for effectively mobilizing an evacuation effort (12 hours).

                                                 48
<pb n="54" />

              This leaves the county with the opportunity to consider adopting policies

              which would improve the capacity of evacuation routes, or limit the level of

              development in areas to be evacuated, or otherwise to reduce the amount of

              time needed to safely evacuate. It is recognized that many factors affecting

              local evacuation are beyond the control of the local unit of government.

              Nevertheless, it is vital that the local plan be cognizant of these factors

              and that regional efforts be initiated to mitigate them.

                                                 49
<pb n="55" />

                                4. Identifying and Ranking Mitigation Problems.

                                    a. Rationale

              The levels of effort devoted to particular-hazard mitigation problems should

              be a function of both the severity of risk and the magnitude of risk present.

              During the inventories described above, certain issues or problem areas be-an
                                                                                        0

              to stand out from the rest by presenting a high severity of risk and/or a

              high magnitude of risk. Balancing the severity of risk and magnitude of risk

              in each hazard area will help the County rank its priorities for hazard

              mitigation by enabling it to identify the more important problems, address

              them first, and thus use local resources more effectively and efficiently.

              The County should direct a greater level of effort in planning for hazard

              mitigation to an area with a high severity of risk and a high magnitude of

              risk (such as a flood hazard area having a large number of structures not

              designed to withstand hurricane forces such as the area from Washington to

              Broad Creek). Less effort will be called for in an area exhibiting a lower

              severity of risk and a lower magnitude of risk (such as part of an A-zone

              where little development exist or is'expected to occur like the area around

              the mouth of the inter-coastal waterway on the Pungo River). Most of the

              problem areas in the County will fall between these two extremes. Some areas

              will have high severity and low magnitude of risk; some areas uill have a

              low severity and high magnitude of risk.

              The assessments of risk severity and risk magnitude, and the balancing of the

              two, culminated in a ranked list of hazard mitigation problem the community

                                               so
<pb n="56" />

              must address. This list of priorities will guide the County in its

              evaluation of current hazard mitigation measures and its evaluation of other

              mitigation options which could fulfill those needs not adequately addressed

              by existing local policies.

                                   b. Methodology

              Exhibit V presents the methodology with which the data from the

              aforementioned analyses were combined. Without providing the complete data

              here, the following generic grid will illustrate how "planning units" (the

              cells of Exhibit B) were prioritized to focus attention of the County

              Commissioners on areas of greater mitigation problems.

                                               51
<pb n="57" />

                                                                                            Exhibit V

                                                             RANKINC OF RISKS
                                  -----Magnitude of Risk---                             --Severity of Risk-----
                            @Inventory of Land Use      jinventory of Structures       @Erosion         jFlood@
                            @Real Estate     Trend             j# Comm.!# insts.1      :Shoreline!         in        jPriorityj
                Map Cell      Value      I(Land Class)  j# Res:&amp; Ind.  !&amp; utils.:Evac.:   Type    lwave:area   :Wind:(yes/no)l
                 Number          A            B            C       D       E     1  F      G         H     I     J       K    1

               INorth Shore!
               122
                23
                31
                32
                41
                34
                49
                50
                42
                44
                51
                43
                35
                36
                27
                28
                29
                19
                20
                13

               @South Shore!
                31
                40
                41
                48
                56
                62
                67
                57
                63
                58
                64

 'A

                                                               52
<pb n="58" />

              Footnotes for Exhibit V.

              Column A. Real Estate Value comes from worksheets of detai   led data that were
              compiled for preparation of Exhibits N and 0.

              Column B. Trend means the planned land classification for future development
              presented in the Beaufort County Land Use Plan. A scoring system was devised
              which assigned points to each land class. The percentage of each map cell in
              a particular class was multiplied by the points on that class and summed to
              get a cell score. For instance, the Developed Class was assigned 21 points;
              Transition, 18; Secondary Transition, 15; Community, 12; Rural, 01; and
              Conservation, 6. Map cell number 31 consists of 70% Developed, 10% Secondary
              Transition, and 20% Conservation. Thus, to determine the trend score for
              cell 31, multiply .70 x 21 points + .10 x 15 points + .20 x 6 points, for a
              total of 17.4 points. This total is then compared with similar scores in all
              other cells to determine the priority cells under the trend (or future growth
              area) column.

              Column C, D, E are the raw data from Exhibit 11, and 0, recombined into the
              categories presented here.

              Column F was not actually used, but could receive a scoring system to rank
              cells by the number of miles of routes under the flood level, or some other
              measure of constraint on evacuability (such as known bottlenecks, etc.)

              Column G. This column received points in each cell if the cell contained one
              of the highly erodible land forms presented in Exhibits H, I, or J. Simply,
              3 points each were assigned to a cell if it had low banks, marsh, or High
              Banks as presented in the East Carolina University Chart discussed above.
              For example, cell 31 has all three forms, so it receives 9 points.

              Column H (Wave Action) was assigned a nominal score of high, medium, or low
              if the area was sucseptible to wave action.

              Column I contains a percentage score indicating the amount of the cell in the
              hazard area (the % of the cell covered by the A zone).

              Column J was included to point out that every cell is equally susceptible to
              high winds.

              Column K was determined by "eyeballing" across each of the columns and making
              a judgement about the relative position of cells. The top 9 most heavily
              scored cells were selected for focus, 9 because of the limits of the budget
              and requirements of attention to post disaster reconstruction and evacuation
              planning pending.

                                                   53
<pb n="59" />

                                    c.  Findings

              Exhibit W presents priority areas selected from Exhibit V. It is upon these

              areas that the remainder of the mitigation analysis and planning will

              concentrate (i.e., reviewing current mitigation measures, reviewing

              alternative measures, and selection of implementation and monitoring

              measures).

                                                 54
<pb n="60" />

                                                                            m.1m mom= m @.

                                                                             Priority Mitigation Areas (shaded cells)
                                     CITY Of WAS-ONGTON -1
                                    1AREA NOT INCLUDED)                        TO@fd OF VVASHiNGTON PARK
                                                                                 1AREA NOT INCLUDED)
                                        01              0J                              03*             04*              05*           06
                                                                                    C, , -   4@   - - - - -n-A 2" -,N C i@.N C 0
                                                                                     0                              BEAUFOATio- IF\
                                        0                                         0 q ra.
                                     0. 0                                          0  -      e                                   I
                                                                                        10*             B*               12*
                                        07              08
                                     ,%0

                                        14              15              16*             17                               19            20'

                                                                               .0
                                        22                              2@Z            25*              26
                                                 t             -1
                                                                                                        264
                                                                                           Hwy.

                                        30
                                                                                                        34               3.            36

      ul
      Ln
                                                        39
                                                                        40              41                                             44
                                   V-  C.
                                        38

                                             A
                                        45              46                                                        -f(5
                                                                                                        49
                                                        53              5               55r             56                             58
                                        52                                                                                 .41

                                                                                                               STA E
                          To N Of CHOCOWINITY                           40*                                 62 A         63            64
                          IAWREA NOT INCLUDED$
                                                                        65*          %%66               6;\\             68            69
                                                                                                                      BEA%ULI;Oft,r CO.
                                                                                                                           L,CO
                                 -(.0  @O---
                                                                                           r
                                                        08

                                                                                          0                                            2,

                                                                                       70               71                     OVWN OF AURORA
                          *NOT PRINTED                                                                                      IAREA NOT INCLUDEDI
<pb n="61" />

                                5. Reviewing Current Mitigation Measures

              Havin(, identified Beaufort County's major hurricane hazards of erosion, wave

              actionl flooding and wind damage, related these to the magnitude of risk on

              the landscape and identified the nine (9).priority areas, and estimated

              evacuation time, the planning effort turns toward reviewing current policies

              and programs which purport to reduce the risk of future damages. This review

              is intended to give the Commissioners a clearer understanding of any

              conflicts in policy within the local government and between the local

              aovernment and state and federal agencies.

              It is also intended to identify whether or not local government efforts at

              managing the location and quality of development are adequately addressing

              the specific mitigation needs list identified previously.

                                                   56
<pb n="62" />

                                   a. Inventory of Policies

             The various local, state, and federal policies and programs related to

             hurricane mitigation are identified from the Beaufort County Land Use Plan

             Update, CAMA, Revised September 16, 1981, pages 1-20 thru 1-28.

                 The Land Use Plan itself

                 Community Facilities Plan, 1979

                 Capital Improvements Program, 1979

                 Hurricane and Flood Evacuation, 1979

                 Water System Plan, 1977

                 Sanitary Sewer (201 Plan)

                 Building Code

                 Septic Tank Regulations

                 Flood Insurance

                 Mobile Home and Travel Trailer Ordinance

                 CAMA Implementation and Enforcement

                 Recreation Policy

                 Utility Extensions

                 Transportation Improvement Program, 1980-1986.

             Also from the CMIA Land Use Plan is the following selection of State and

             Federal regulations which are most closely related to storm mitigation in

             Beaufort County-(see Land Use Plan, pages 1-29 thru 1-32).

                                                 57
<pb n="63" />

                State: -Permits for septic tanks with a  capacity over 3000

                         gallons/day.

                         Permits for construction of complexes, e.g.

                         parking lots, subdivisions, stadiums, etc.

                        .Permits to dredge and/or fill in estuarine

                         waters, tidelands, etc.

                        .Permits to undertake development in Areas of

                         Environmental Concern.

                        -Sedimentation erosion control plans for any land

                         disturbing activity of over one continguous acre.

                         Easements to fill where lands are proposed to be

                         raised above the normal high water mark of

                         navigable waters by -filling.

                         Approval for construction of any public water

                         supply facility that furnishes water to ten or

                         more residences.

              Federal: -Permits required under Sections 9 and ILO of the

                         Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899; permits to

                         construct in navigable waters.

                         Permits required under Section 202 of the Federal

                         Water Pollution Control Act of 1972; permits to

                         undertake dredging and/or filling activites.

                         Permits for bridges, causeways, pipelines over

                         navigable waters; required under the General

                         Bridge Act of 1946 and the Rivers and Harbors

                         Act of 1899.

                                                  58
<pb n="64" />

                                 (b) Analysis of Policies

              Having identified pertinent policies, the next step is to analyze the     extent

              to which they are directed at reducing the risks of hurricane damage in

              Beaufort County.

              Before the Storm recommends a framework for analyzing the potential

              effectiveness of existing policies. It offers two criteria which we apply to

              the overall list of Beaufort County policies mentioned above:

                   Criteria 1: Coverage: Problems in coverage arise when local policy

              fails to account for a particular characteristic of development, or a

              particular hurricane force (wind, waves, etc.), which increases development

              risk of future hurricane damaaes.

                   Criteria 2: Enforcement: Problems in enforcement arise when local

              policy adequately covers a particular characteristic of development but, for

              some reason, is not carried out in the local government's day-to-day

              decisions and operations.

              From the foregoing analysis of magnitude and severity of risks for hurricane

              damage, we examine the aforementioned policies to determine whether, in

              general terms, there are coverage problems, and enforcement problems related

              to the following factors, (located primarily in cells 23,31, 32, 27, 28, 42)

              43, 51, and 57 of Exhibit V).

                                                59
<pb n="65" />

              Magnitude of risk in the Hurricane Hazard Area:

                   Real Estate Value (existing development)
                   Trends in Development (future real estate value)
                   Inventory of structures (count)
                   Evacuability

              Severity of Risks in the Hurricane Hazard Area:

                   Erosion of Shoreline (by type of shoreline land form)
                   Susceptibility from wave action
                   Flood proneness
                   Wind susceptibility

              To assist in grasping the idea of coverage and enforcement problems related

              to these factors, Before the Storm presents Table 5.1 (herein referred to

              as Exhibit X) for our reflection.

              Exhibit X has been modified to become an answer sheet which helps us begin to

              identify problems toward which to direct alternative policies and policy

              selection.

 W

                                                 60
<pb n="66" />

                                                                            Exhibit X

                 Checklist for Reviewing Current Mitigation Measures            Beaufort
                                                                               Co. status

           For development throughout the community:
                Do existin policies and regulations recognize the existence
                     of dNferent hazard areas that are subject to different
                     forc@s?                                                      yes
                Do they cover all types of structures (single-family, multi-
                     family, commercial, etc.)?                                   yes
                Do they cover public facilities as well as private?               yes
                Do they encourage higher-density uses to locate outside of
                     the most hazardous areas?                                    no/yes
                Are non-conforminZ uses and structures to be brought into
                     conformity after they are damaged?                           no
                Do existing policies and regulations related the level of
                     development in the community to the capacity of
                     existing evacuation routes and the time it would
                     take to evacuate the community?                              no
           For areas subjec t to high winds (Area 4):
                Do existing poli cies and regulations require structural
                     connections and bracin adequate to withstand hurricane-
                     force winds (or "annuay extreme fastest wind speeds")?       no

                Do they require mobile homes to be tied down?                     yes
           For areas also subject to flooding (Area 1):
                Do existing policies and regulations require buildings and
                     utilities to be elevated or floodproofed to or '3bove
                     expected flood levels?                                       no
                Do the require structural connections which withstand the
                     fyotation and lateral movement of structures?                no

           For areas also subject to wave action (Area 3):
                Do existing policies and regulations require buildings to be
                     elevated to or above the expected wave height?               no
                                                                0

                Do they require structural connections and bracing adequate
                     for the building to withstand battering by waves?            no
                Do the regulations prohibit building on fill which could
                     easily be washed away?                                       no
           F          !so subject to severe erosion (Area 2):
                Do existing policies and re@ulations require an adequate
                     setback from the oceanfront or soundfront?                   no

                Do they require a safe depth for embedding pilings?               yes
                Do they prohibit the removal of sand dunes and other
                     natural barriers to erosion?                                 yes

                                             -1, page 5.16
           SOURCE: Before the Storm, Table 5       el

 A                                               61
<pb n="67" />

                       6. Reviewing Alternative Measures

                           a. Philosophy Behind Alternatives

              A coverage issue is found on page 2-4 of the Land Use Plan with regard to the

              County's basic position on the issuance of permits for minor development

              within the AECs.

                  By so choosing, it agreed that the uses permitted under state
                  administrative regulations were necessary and represented the best
                  available information. Iqo information has since become available
                  to the county which would allow it to argue effectively for a less
                  restrictive set of uses. Nor has any information come to the
                  county which make apparent the need for a higher level of
                  protection than offered by existing regulations. Therefore, it is
                  the county's intent to continue to guide the development of AECs in
                  accordance with existing regulations.

              After discussing the underlined sentence above, and in light of the

                                                                                       g
              information regarding the manitude and severity of risk of hurricane damae

              provided in Section II, Part 3, A2, A3 and A4 of this document, the County

              considered the following set of policy choices from which to reconsider (1)

              maintainina the existing philosophy outlined above, or (2) taking advantage

              of the opportunities to protect its tax base and tax payers.

                                                  62
<pb n="68" />

                           b. Range of Policy Options.

             As recommended in Before the Storn, "to overcome the shortcomings in

             coverage or enforcement of existing policies, a community should review other

             techniques that could be used effectively and efficiently to reduce the risk

             of future hurricane damaaes. Different techniques are suited to different

             development and redevelopment problems; certain techniques will be more

             practical and more effective than others in addressing the community's

             particular hazard mitigation needs" (BTS, page 5.19).

             Consistent with this analytical approach, the following list of choices among

             policies and measures is presented. It is from this list and others

             generated by consideration of it, that the selection of workable hazard

             reduction measures is to be selected.

                               (1) Objective: To maintain or strengthen existing
                                                policies known to decrease the risk of
                                                hurricane damage.

               The County now administers parts of the state building code with an

               inspections program. This program has recently expanded attention into

               construction standards for footings, framing, plumbing (including well and

               septic), and insulation, as well as electrical.

               The commissioners could choose to adopt the conplete state building code

               and administer it county-wide, so as to upgrade the quality of construction

               and the extent to which it is hurricane worthy.

                                                   63
<pb n="69" />

               The.construction standards of the Federal Emergency Management Agency are

               required for areas that are participating in the regular phase of the flood

               insurance program. Only Washington, Washington Park, Belhaven and Aurora

               are participating in the regular phase, with the remainder of the

               unincorporated county, Pantego, Bath, and Chocowinity participating in the

               emergency phase.

               The option facing the commissioners is one of using the best available 100

               year flood level from the emergen cy phase (10 ft.) and requiring the

               elevation of the first floor of buildings in the hurricane hazard area

               (Exhibit (D)) now, with refinement after the regular phase is official.

               The state's Sedimendation Control Act (15 NCAC 04A) requires an erosion

               and sedimentation control plan to be prepared and filed with the

               Environmental Management Commission or the County Commissioners prior to

               the commencement of any land disturbing activity of more than one acre.

               This policy allows two important types of development to go untended in the

               flood hazard area, agriculture and small lot residential development.

               The commissioners have the choice of (1) decreasing the land area to

               one-half acre, thereby locally requiring residential development on

               waterfront lots (of at least this size) to take adequate precautions

               against erosion, and (2) including agriculture and forestry as land uses

               that in fact cause "a change in the natural cover or topography that may

               cause or contribute to sedimentation".

                                              A A
<pb n="70" />

                CAMA includes a buffer of 75 feet in the Estaurine Shoreline AEC (15 ITCAC

                7HI 0209 (b) and (d) in which developed is monitored and regulated in terms

                of siting. Some types of development may be prohibited depending on the

                specific site carrying capabilities.

                Since the tightening of these standards could be beyond the administrative

                capacity of the county, the choice facing the commissioners is likely one

                of changing the "buffer" provision to a "setback" provision, which would

                require that uses which could otherwise be built more than 75 feet from the

                shoreline must be; otherwise the regulations of CAMA would operate as now

                written.

                                               65
<pb n="71" />

                               (2) Objective: To create policies which REDUCE risk.

               As indicated in the 1982 CANA Land Use Plan, the commissioners have no

               subdivision regulations which govern the design of developments or the

               quality of construction of roads in subdivisions. Subdivision of.land is

               traditionally regulated because it transforms large acreages from a rural

               character to a suburban/urban one.

               The county commissioners have an option to adopt subdivision regulations

               (without zoning). Into these, provisions of floodplain management,

               adequate lot size, and drainage could be written. These regulations would

               require plats which show the first floor elevated above the best

               information available regarding the 100 year flood.

               The County has a detailed soils analysis underway through the District SCS

               (Mr. E. H. Karnowski's office). This i nformation could be used to develop

               soils overlay districts within which to set density standards based upon

               soil characteristics and their carrying capacities in terms of abilities to

               accept septic effluent, and load bearing capabilities to bear development

               (see Exhibits G, H, I, and J).

               Since natural solutions are often the best, the commissioners could

               consider establishing a vegetation or landscaping ordinance for

               shorefront property that requires careful development, recognizing the

               value of retaining vegetation, retaining trees as a buffer on the shoreline

               between the wind and water of a storm and buildings. This would include

               retaining the wind-clipped trees closest to the water, which protect the

               rest of the shorefront lot (Caring for the Land, Environmental Principles for

                                                     66
<pb n="72" />

               Site Design and Reviewl by Bruce Hendler, ASPO, 1977, #328, page 24.)

               while still allowin g undergrowth trimming as long as the major shorefront

               stabilizing vegetables remained.

                                               67
<pb n="73" />

                Since much of the area within the hazard area (Exhibit E) is in

                agricultural use, the commissioners could establish an Exclusive Farm Use

                Zone in a Development Options Ordinance. This approach was used as part

                of the Land Resource Management Program, Oregon State University Extension

                Service. It guarantees continued agricultural uses and also contains and

                restricts urban uses in areas which are high in erosion and which have low

                tolerance for high densities and impervious surfaces, and which otherwise

                have sensitive environments.

                Since the taxation of land is a fundamental influence in development

                patterns, the Commissioners could implement one of the 1982-83 objectives

                of the North Carolina Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts

                Land Use Planning Committee. The Association recommended that plans, such

                as this Storm Mitigation Plan should make provisions for consideration of

                equitable assessments of land use for agricultural, wildlife, recreational

                aesthetic, or other uses which are significant (hurricane risk reducing)

                interest and importance to the general public. (Source: NC Association,

                Soil and I-later Conservation Districts, Raleigh, NC, June, 1932, page 7).

                Taxation could be strategically designed to guide development away from

                hurricane risk areas (or perhaps,the higher risk areas w1thin the flood

                zone), by placing a "hazards premium" on development placed in areas of

                excessive risk, or conversely, allowing a preferential assessment

                ("hazard-avoidance discount") on property back away from the shoreline or

                otherwise outside areas of extreme risk. This could minimize present and

                future unnecessary public expenses to serve such areas (e.g. fire and

                sheriff services) and also prevent unnecessary public expenses to "clean up

                                                     68
<pb n="74" />

               the mess" following a major storm. While not exactly transferable, the

               recent March 1984 tornado disasters in neighboring counties emphasize the

               public costs involved in clean up and reconstruction.

                                                 69
<pb n="75" />

               The Commissioners could consider establishing an erosion and runoff

               ordinance for only the most sensitive areas. This would involve the

               development of a drainage overlay district which would locate critical

               drainage channels, particularly those which often become overwashed and

               inundated during moderate storms. (Such areas are known as "weak spots",

               and are a type of hurricane risk hazard included in the county's hazard

               area (Exhibit (D)).

               This overlaydistrict would assist in the preservation and protection of

               the natural environment by: regulating the alteration of land and

               topography; regulating the removal of vegetation; specifying standards for

               drainage system construction; requiring erosion and sedimentation control;

               assuring the continued, efficient operation of the drainage system; (and)

               protecting county streams and floodplains from substantial alteration of

               their natural functions. (Source: Thurow et al., p. 104.)

                                                 70
<pb n="76" />

                Since the County has traditionally resisted county-wide land use zoning in

                any form, the commissioners may consider: (1) developing a flood-hazard

                area ordinance which would incorporate many of the aforementioned

                provisions that could otherwise be put into separate ordinances or (2)

                zoning a small er portion of the county where development is intense but

                subject to no guiding influence. This targeted approach directed at the

                priority risk areas in the County could become the foundation piece of a

                thoughtful way of supportively directing development without stifling it.

                In many cases, developers are more likely to bring their investments to a

                county which offers them proper protection through ordinances. A selective

                zoning ordinance could indicate that the commissioners are working to

                protect whoever's investment goes into the hazard hurricane hazard area,

                and is doing all it can to lessen the costs to developers, the federal

                insurance agency, and most importantly, the tax payers for they foot the

                bill to "clean up the mess."

                                                     71
<pb n="77" />

                                (3) Objective: To amend or avoid actions known to
                                                 increase risks.

              Exhibit Y indicates that there is clear responsibility taken in 1972 by the

              County Commissioners to "adopt and maintain in force for areas having special

              flood hazards, adequate land use and control measures..."  This storm

              mitigation, Post Reconstruction and Evacuation Plan is an additional step in

              that direction.

              Avoiding actions known to-increase risks is an objective the Commissioners

              can address through education of the public about the risks of locating in

              the hazard area. It is the intention of the Conmissioners to provide that

              information through this planning effort and its Office of Emergency

              Management.

                                                   72
<pb n="78" />

                                                                                                      Exhibit Y

                                  NORTH CAROLINA - BEAUFORT COUNTY         RECEIVED FEB 1, 1984             5
                                             On motion by M. D. Whinnant, seconded by Calvin Fittmo
                                  the rollowing resolution was unanimously adopted:

                                                       R E S 0 L U T 1 0 N

                                                 The County of Beaufort in applying for Federal Flood Insura

                                    by Resolution dated November 1, 1971, does agree to adopt and maintain

                                    in force for areas having special flood hazards, adequate land use and con-

                                    trol measures with effective enforcement provisions Consistent with the

                                    criteria set forth in Part 1910 of the Department of housing and Urban

                                    Development, Federal Flood Insurance regulations.
                                                 That the County of Beaufort shall recognize and duly evaluat-

                                    flood hazards In all official actions relative to land use in the,areas having

                                    special flood hazards and to take such other official action an may be reaso

                                    ably necessary to carry out the objectives.of the program.

                                                  That the County of Beaufort shall assist the Administrator,

                                    at his request, in delineating the limits of the areas having special flood

                                    hazards on available local maps of sufficient scale to identify the location of;
                                    building site. That the County of Beaufort shall provide such information at
                                    the Administrator may request concerning present uses andoccupancy of

                                    the flood plain area.

                                                  That the County of Beaufort shall maintain for public inspecti

                                    and furnish upon- request, with respect to each area having special flood

                                    hazards. information on elevations in relation to mean sea level of the lowe

                                    floors of all new or substantially improved structures and,where there is a

                                    basement, the distance between the first floor and the bottom of the lowest

                                    opening where water flowing on the ground will enter.
                                                  That the foregoing'Resolution is passed pursuant to request
                                    from the Federal Insurance Administration of the Department of Housing

                         A MAYO     and Urban Development for purposes of designating the County of Beaufort
                    FS AT LAW
                       CQM, M.C.    an being eligible for Federal Flood Insurance.

                                                  This the 4th day of January. 1972.

                                                                   73
<pb n="79" />

                       7.  Implementation and Monitoring

                           a. Rationale

              At this point in the hurricane planning process, Beaufort-County has several

              products.  First is a list of hurricane hazard mitigation needs or

              development characteristics the community needs to control. Second is a

              compilation of measures which are currently in place to mitigate the

              hurricane hazard. Third is a compilation of measures which the community can

              adopt to cover any needs that current measures fail to address. The next

              step in the process involves blending these into a coordinated local program

              for reducing the risk of hurricane damages.

              Implementation of local policies is the final step in formulating a hazard

              mitigation program, as it is with any good planning effort. But beyond that

              work and after local policies are implemented and hazard reduction measures

              are being carried out, the County will need to monitor development to ensure

              that prescribed measures are being followed.

              In this case, implementation involves adopting policies and ordinances

              selected by The Board of County Commissioners as necessary to put hazard

              mitigation measures into effect.

              Some of the policy choices would put hazard mitigation measures into

              continuous operation as a means of managing development in the community,

              such as subdivision requirements or construction standards. Other policies

              would put hazard mitigation measures into effect only in response to

              disaster, such as relocation programs and temporary moratoria on development

                                               74
<pb n="80" />

             and reconstruction. All policies which guide development and reconstruction

             recognize th e different levels of risk that exist in different parts of the

             county and in different types of structures.

                           b. Selected Policies and Measures.

             I. Continue to enforce the State building code.

             2. Adopt the regular phase of the FEMA flood insurance program at the

                 appropriate time (when the final mapping is completed).

             3.  Conduct a risk-avoidance education program through the Office of

                 Emergency Management to advise current and prospective developers and

                 buyers of the hurricane risks in Beaufort County.

             4.  Establish a procedure in the Inspections Department of determining, at

                 the time that building permits are requested, whether the permit is for

                 construction within the Hurricane Hazard Area shown in Exhibit E. If so,

                 advise the applicant of the potential hurricane hazards, discuss

                 recommended construction techniques for such areas, and suggest that he

                 contact the Federal Emergency Management Agency (through local financial

                 institutions providing construction loans) for information on reduced

                 insurance premiums under the FEMA program for construction with the first

                 floor above the 100 year flood (10 feet).

                                                 75
<pb n="81" />

                                c. Monitoring Consistency and Effectiveness Over Time

              It is the intent of the County Commissioners that local hurricane hazard

              mitigation be integrated with other local plans, policies,.and programs which

              cover other aspects of development in the county.

              Through the Office of the Emergency Management Coordinator, the County will

              continuously observe how development is proceeding in the community once

              these hazard mitigation measures are adopted and implemented. Keeping track

              of development will help the County see if hazard mitigation policies are

              being followed and if hazard mitigation policies need to be modified in any

              way to make them more workable and effective. Such monitoring can identify

              further problems in coverage and enforcement that need to be resolved. Such

              monitoring,efforts may involve less formal, continuous observations or more

              formal, periodic evaluations. In these forms, monitoring efforts will pay

              attention to where development is locating (relative to different hazard

              areas) and how development is being built (relative to the forces expected in

              each hazard area).

              T-lith the recent March, 1984 tornado disasters in neighboring counties, the

              county should be highly alerted as to possible and pending damage when a

              hurricane strikes. An areawide assessment of the "institutional ability" of

              local government to deal with these natural disasters might be made.

                                               76
<pb n="82" />

                      B. Post Disaster Reconstruction P           lan

                             1. Introduction

              Before the Storm (Chapter 7) outlines the optimal process and elements of a

               post disaster reconstruction plan as follows:

                              As an official statement of principles and policies for the community to
                         follow in rebuilding after a hurricane or similar disaster, a reconstruction
                         plan has four purposes:

                                    1. to expedite community recovery by outlining procedures and
                                       requirementn for repairs and reconstruction before damages
                                       occur;

                                    2. to establish a procedural framework for putting hazard mitiga-
                                       tion measures into effect after disaster strikes the community
                                       and buildings and utilities are being repaired and rebuilt;

                                    3. to gather and analyze information concerning the location and
                                       nature of hurricane damages in the community; and

                                    4. to assess the community's vulnerability to hurricane damages and
                                       guide reconstruction to minimize this vulnerability.

                         The plan should outline damage assessment and reconstruction permitting
                         procedures that the community will follow after a disaster occurs. It should
                         identify information that the local government w1ll need to make sound permit
                         decisions regarding repairs and reconstruction and to get state and federal
                         disaster assistance. Some specific topics that the plan should address
                         include:

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

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

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

                         By identifying and clarifying all of these policies, procedures, and infor-
                         mation requirements, local officials will have a ready set of guidelines by
                         which they can make wise and expedient decisions regarding reconstruction.
                         The plan will help avoid delays as well as make the community safer from
                         damages in the long run.

                                                                  77
<pb n="83" />

              Since the bulk of the effort on this initial plan has been directed at Storm

              Mitigation, the following initial Post Reconstruction Plan relies heavily

              upon the Beaufort County Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan adopted in

              September, 1982.

              Sections of that plan which pertain most to Post Disaster Reconstruction are

              Annex F (Beaufort County Damage Assessment Plan); Annex G (Disaster

              Assistance Center Plan); Annex H (Disaster Assistance Program Summary); and

              Annex I (Beaufort County Plan for Temporary Housing).

              While attention is given to the optimal reconstruction planning guidance of

              Before the Storm, close attention is given to the CAMA Regulations 15 ETCAC

              7B .0203 (a) (6) (B) and is presented in the outline form of the latter.

                                                  78
<pb n="84" />

                        2. Elements of Preparedness

                            a. Local Damage Classification Scheme and Damage Assessment
                                Teams.

              The aforementioned regulations require (1) the establishment of a local

              damage classification scheme which is consistent with those of state and

              federal disaster assistance agencies. Before the Storm additionally

              suggests that (2) these procedures should be designed to indicate, according

              to local hazard mitigation policies, which structures may be repaired or

              rebuilt with no changes, may be repaired or rebuilt with structural changes,

              or may not be rebuilt at the same site.

              From review of Annex F of the Beaufort County Disaster Relief and Assistance

              Plan, and intense work sessions with the County's Emergency Management

              Coordinator (Mr. Daden Wolfe) and the former DEM Area Director (Col. David W.

              Spivy), it was determined that the county has adequate damage assessment

              procedures regarding purpose, authority, organization, concept of operation,

              articulation of responsibilities (including designation of Damage Assessment

              Teams), and setting forth instructions for timely action and phased reporting

              (that is, the detail of the reports increases with time after a disaster).

              The document provides detailed appendices to Annex F regarding the

              identification of team damage assessment worksheet; damage estimation guides

              which records. extent of habitability, based on percentage of damage; damage

              assessment property values and estimate percentage of insurance coverage by

              type of property and values (note: this form was used in the survey of

              structures for the storm mitigation plan, first portion of this document);

              and provides extensive damage assessment report forms.

                                                79
<pb n="85" />

                            b. Permit Procedures

              On this point, Before the Storm uses an approach typically found in zoning

              ordinances.for dealing with damaged structures or situations which do not

              conform to the ordinance. If the  Commissioners do adopt such regulatory

              ordinances, then the following suggested additional steps could be carried

              out by the standing damage assessment teams.

                  . identify those structures that must be demolished or that require
                    a development permit before being repaired or rebuilt;

                  . identify, for each damaged structure, the cause of damages; and

                  . identify repairs needed for individual private and public
                    facilities.

                  "This information can be translated onto property tax maps to
                  readily identify those areas where repairs and reconstruction must
                  meet certain requirements. When the damage assessment is completed,
                  the damage assessment team could fill out a form identifying the
                  level of damages sustained, or damage classification, of each
                  property and any special requirements for repairs and
                  reconstruction; the form could then be mailed or otherwise delivered
                  to the property owner. The form@ could include any other information
                  the property owner should know regarding recovery procedures (such
                  as permit requirements, filing deadlines, and public meeting
                  dates)." (Before the Storm, p. 7.31, 7.32)

              Building permits for whichever level of reconstruction would be let under the

              County's normal permit issuing procedures. Efforts to streamline the

              handling of large numbers of permits will be undertaken in Accordance with

              Before the Storm (page 7.32). Several of the suggestions presented there

              are incorporated in this initial plan as follows:

                  * repair and rebuild essential service facilities first (such as
                    electricity, water and sewer).

                  * repair other public facilities as necessary for shelter, etc.

                                                  80
<pb n="86" />

                    use a triage (o r worst damage last) approach to staging the
                    reconstruction effort. Those properties with little damage would be
                    permitted immediately, if they complied with permit requirements
                    already. Next, those with moderate damage, meeting permit
                    requirements. Followed by those with moderate damage, requiring permit
                    decisions. Those with extensive damage requiring permit decisions or
                    demolition decisions would receive treatment last, since their work
                    would more likely interfere with the reconstruction of essential public
                    utilities and facilities.

                    be prepared to adopt a temporary moratorium on all new development for
                    a specified period of time. This would allow the county to deal with
                    more pressing community recovery and reconstruction permitting problems
                    without devoting its resources to reviewing new development proposals.

              These initial priorities are provided in this document to set forth a

              beginning point for reconstruction efforts. They will necessarily be refined

              over time through the Office of Emergency Management.

              Future efforts should emphasize Emergency Management responsibilities for

              immediate clean up and removal activities to minimize health and safety

              hazards and the County should develop local policies which will direct

              reconstruction over a longer period of time.

                                                  81
<pb n="87" />

                            C. Consideration of a "Recovery Task Force"

              The County Commissioners considered appointing a "recovery task force" to

              oversee the reconstruction process and work on any policy questions that

              might arise. The recovery task force will work with state and federal

              representatives on the Interagency Regional Hazard Mitigation Team and the

              Section 406 Hazard Mitigation Survey and Planning Teams. Like these joint

              federal/state/local teams, the task force can review the nature of damages in

              the community, identify and evaluate alternative approaches for repairs and

              reconstruction, and formulate their own recommendations for handling

              community recovery. The task force's efforts can lend valuable information

              and guidance to state and federal efforts and ensure a strong local voice in

              decisions reaardina state and federal disaster assistance.

              Formerly appointed in advance of a disaster (as of this writing), the initial

              recovery task force will comprise the following individuals:

                  the Beaufort County Commissioners

                  the County Engineer and Building Inspectors

                  the County Manager

                  the City Managers and Engineers of each 'Municipality

                  the County Emergency Management Coordinator

                  the County Health Department

              The task force could be given any number of duties which are to be worked out

              in the future. However, the authority to approve or deny permits for repairs

              and reconstruction remains with the group that normally handles development

              decisions (that is, the local commission, planning board, or board of

              adjustments).

                                                   82
<pb n="88" />

                           d. Guidelines for Post-Disaster Repair and Reconstruction.

                                (1) Timing and completion of damage assessments.

             As indicated above, these will be conducted in accordance with Annex F of the

             Disaster Relief and Assistance Program and-will be completed in a phased

             manner (general reports first, detailed as time permits) as soon as safety

             conditions permit. Rapid and general reports are to be submitted by radio

             regarding immediate problems, within one hour after the assessment begins.

             This provides a windshield survey or snapshot of the extent of damage.

             Within six hours more detailed reports, including private property summaries

             will be near completion (see Annex F).

                                (2) Temporary Moratoria.

             As indicated above, the Commissioners are prepared to adopt a temporary

             noritorium on new development if conditions warrant such, especially if it is

             required to assure the reconstruction of essential public services. The

             intent is any such moratorium is to stage reconstruction activities and to

             ensure that repairs and reconstruction will leave the community safer from

             the next storm. The Commissioners may declare such a rioritorium on any

             development if the County gets a federal disaster declaration stipulating the

             type and extent of reconstruction that the federal insurance agency will pay

             for.

                                                83
<pb n="89" />

                                (3) Development standards.

              The development standards to which repairs and reconstruction shall conform

              include those presented in the Policy Statements section of the Storm

              'Mitiaation Plan section of this document. At present, these include the

              major portions of the State Building code and any other policy provisions

              adopted in the Storm Mitigation Plan.

                            e. Schedule for Staging and Permitting Repairs and
                                Reconstruction.

              As indicated by the former DEM Area A Coordinator, reconstruction would be

              undertaken for essential service s first (that is, power, water, telephone,

              street and bridges), then minor repairs, major repairs and last, new

              development. (See part 2, this section). Emphasis then, is on following

              schedules (policies) which require repair reconstruction of infrastructure

              for the long-run, rather than immediately going back into an area and

              duplicating what was there before the storm.

              Timing of actual event depends upon the extent of damage and the type of

              service requiring repair or rebuilding.

                            f. Implementation of Recovery Task Force Policies

              The Beaufort County Commissioners are hereby designated as the local

              legislative body in charge of implementing the policies and procedures

              contained in this Post-Disaster Reconstruction Plan.

                                                84
<pb n="90" />

                                Policies for Repair and/or Replacement of Public Utilities
                                and Facilities.

              The policies for replacement of these facilities, including possible

              relocation to less hazardous areas, are outlined in the ordinances or other

              measures adopted as part of the Storm I-litigation Plan (this document).

              Additionally, such facilities are placed in priority within this section,

              depending on their importance, type, and state of disrepair. (See sections 2

              and 5).

                                               85
<pb n="91" />

                           C. Local Evacuation Plan

                               1. Introduction

                                   a. CAKA Regulations and Requirements

               The CAMA regulations for Storm Hazard Mitigation, Post-Disaster Recovery and

               Evacuation Plans (15 114CAC 7B .0203(a)(6)(C) set forth the following

               requirements:

                      The local government shall, in cooperation with the
                      Division of Emergency Management, assure that the local
                      evacuation plan is adequate and based on a sound
                      analysis of existing situations. In particular, the
                      local government should consider all natural and
                      man-made impediments to evacuation such as roadways
                      below expected flood level, development which exceeds
                      road capacity and reliance of other communities on the
                      same evacuation route. If the local government
                      determines that the required evacuation time exceeds the
                      standard warning time as provided by the National
                      Weather Service, it should consider adopting policies
                      which would improve the capacity of evacuation routes,
                      or limit the level of development in areas to be
                      evacuated, or otherwise reduce the amount of time needed
                      to safely evacuate.

                      It is recognized that many factors affecting local
                      evacuation are beyond the control of the local unit of
                      government. Nevertheless it is vital that the local
                      plan be cognizant of these factors and that regional
                      efforts be initiated to mitigate them.

               Appropriately, in Part (D), these reaulations require the presentation of the

               Storm Mitigation Plan before the presentation of the Post Disaster

               Reconstruction Plan, before the Hurricane Evacuation Section. This, plus

               other explicit guidance and logic of the planning process equipped the

               Beaufort County Commissioners to meet the analytical requirement for

               consideration of the natural and man-made impediments to evacuate enumerated

               above.

                                                   OA
<pb n="92" />

              Thus, in this.section,, the County has chosen to neet the aforementioned

              regulations and their purpose of adequate evacuation through referencing the

              Storm I-litigation Plan and the Post Disaster Reconstruction Plan for

              foundation analytical and policy work, and to provide update to the County's

              1982 Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan (particularly Annex 0) as needed.

                                 b. Beaufort County's Response

              For meeting this section of the CA11A regulations and satisfying their intent

              of adequate evacuation preparedness, the "local evacuation plan" shall mean

              the portions of the Beaufort County Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan

              (September, 1982) which pertain most closely to the task at hand. These

              include, but are not limited to:

                        Annex A Emergency Powers Ordinance

                        Annex B  Organization Chart

                        Annex C  Communications

                        Annex D  Warning and Alerting

                        Annex E  Beaufort County Emergency Shelter Plan

                        Annex 0  The Hurricane Plan

                        Annex U  Emergency Broadcast System Plan

              Each of these Annexes was examined for completeness, relationship with the

              U11A regulations, and consistency with the guidelines for the "Carolina

              County Emergency Management Hurricane Response Plan Prototype" and the

              guidelines for the "Carolina County Disaster Relief and, Assistance Plan,

              Annex 0 - Hurricane Response Plan" (provided by the State Civil Defense

              Office). Worksessions with the County Emergency Hanagement Coordinator

                                                   87
<pb n="93" />

              (Daden Wolfe), the former Area A Coordinator (Col. David W. Spivy) and the

              planning chief for the State Civil Defense Office (Bob Buchanan), can assure
                     0

              the citizens of Beaufort Countv that the aforementioned Annexes are adequate

              and based upon sound analysis of existing situations.

              The remainder of this section presents work done to supplement Annex 0 as

              evidence of this assertion of adequacy.

                                                 88
<pb n="94" />

                        2. The Natural and Man-Made Impediments to Evacuation

                            a. Description and Reference to Other Plans.

              In this section, several natural and man-made impediments to evacuation which

              have already been analyzed in the Storm Mitigation Plan and the Disaster

              Relief and Assistance Plan are discussed. The reader is referred

              particularly to sections A2 and A3 of the Storm Mitigation Plan (this

              document) and to Annex 0 of the Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan for

              analyses and findings from those perspectives.

                            b. Analysis of 'Major Evacuation Routes

              Lhe following section considers the major routes in the following format:

                          Areas below flood level.

                        0 Surge Inundation Points.

                        . Extent of Impediment to Evacuation

                        . Reliance by Other Communities

                        . Estimated Evacuation Time (see Storm Mitigation Plan, part 11, 3,

                          6, 3 /4/)

                        . Policy Choices

                                                   89
<pb n="95" />

                                (1) Highway 264 from Hyde County Line to Washington

                                      (a) Areas below flood level: See Exhibit E

                                      (b)  Surge Inundation Points: See Exhibit S

                                      (c)  Extent of Impediment to Evacuation:

                                           ITC 264 floods in the entire Belhaven Area, and

                                           between Belhaven and Pantego, even from the rains

                                           of a moderate storm. Water rises above the

                                           approaches to the Cuckolds Creek Bridge (point A

                                           on Exhibits P and S) preventing the use of the

                                           bridge. According to local DEM Officials, the

                                           bridge itself is of adequate height. The water

                                           source is from the Pungo River and Pamlico Sound

                                           waters backing up because of storm winds.

                                           People from Manteo will use NC 64; however,

                                           evacuees from Stumpy Point and south will use NC

                                           264 through Hyde County into Beaufort at

                                           Leechville. If Belhaven is flooded, people in

                                           Belhaven or from Leechville can take SR 1709 and

                                           turn north to SR 1700 and go west.to Pantego,

                                           though 1709 is unpaved (and should be improved as

                                           an evacuation route). Or they may choose to go

                                           north on Highway 45 to a point 5 miles south of

                                           Plymouth, and there may choose to go into

                                           Plymouth and turn south 31 miles to Washington,

                                           depending on storm conditions.

                                                     90
<pb n="96" />

                                          Another critical surge inundation point (point I

                                          on Exhibits P and S) is at the Runyan Creek

                                          Bridge. Although Runyan Creek is only about 12

                                          feet wide, the bridge is in a bottom area which

                                          floods easily. In the event of such flooding,

                                          evacuation would have to be accomodated by

                                          turning at Sherwood Forest community onto the old

                                          Bath Highway (1501), traveling to 3-507, and

                                          turning north onto 1516 to Cherry Road, and then

                                          to Washington, bypassing the bridge.

                                     (d)  Reliance by Other Communities: High Reliance,
                                          see (3) above.

                                     (e)  Estimated Evacuation Time. (See Storm Mitiga-)
                                          tion Plan, Part 11, 3, 6, 3 /4/.)

                                     (f)  Policy Choices:

                                          . Regarding VC 264, choices include elevating the

                                            bridges, earlier warnings, better cooperation

                                            with the officials in Belhaven regarding the

                                            reality of their floodproneness.

                                          . Capacity of route '1164 is adequate except at

                                             pre-landfall time" when surge inundation

                                            points A and I are flooded.

                                          . SR 1709 should be improved, if not paved, in

                                            order to provide an evacuation route from 264

                                            to SR 1700, so that flooded Belhaven.can be

                                            avoided or evacuated.

                                                   91
<pb n="97" />

                                            Other solution rests in early warning and

                                            cooperative evacuation.

                                (2) Highway 92 from Belhaven to Bath

                                     (a) Areas below flood level: See Exhibit E

                                     (b) Surge Inundation Points: See Exhibit S

                                     (c) Extent of Impediment to Evacuation:

                                          * In Belhaven, when the water crests the railroad

                                            tracks, Highway 92 is impassible for evacuation
                                                      Z'

                                            of the town.

                                          * This means that the Pante-o Creek bridge (or
                                                                     471

                                            approach to it is flooded, as is the Pungo

                                            Creek Bridge access, and an area approximately

                                            3 miles on either side of where the road to the

                                            Ferry is (SR 176).

                                          * There is concern at Back Creek and Bath Creek

                                            bridges, even though Bath itself is largely

                                            above the flood elevation. In the event that

                                            Back Creek floods, evacuation -j*s. possible on

                                            1743 (Possom Hill Road), which can bring

                                            traffic into the Bath High School Shelter.

                                            This northerly approach provides access without

                                            the use of either bridge.

                                                 92
<pb n="98" />

                                            If the storm.is severe enough to warrant

                                            by-passing the Bath High School shelter,
                                                     0

                                            traffic can take SR 1741 to NC 264 and turn

                                            left into Washington.

                                     (d) Reliance by Other Communities:

                                          None. Residents of Hyde County would use NC 264,

                                          not Highway 92.

                                     (e)  Estimates Evacuation Time. (See Storm Mitiga-
                                          tion Plan, Part 11, 3, 6, 3 /4/.)

                                                 93
<pb n="99" />

                                     (f)  Policy Choices:

                                          According to the road capacity analysis in the

                                          Storm Mitigation Plan, the capacity of Highway 92

                                          is adequate, limited only by the surge inundation

                                          point s.

                                          The level of development on Highway 92 is not an

                                          impediment, except in the towns.

                                          Strategy for reducing evacuation time is to (1)

                                          alert people as soon as possible; (2) educate

                                          them to the need to believe the announcement and

                                          promptly begin evacuation.

                                                   94
<pb n="100" />

                               (3) SR 1300 from Washington Yacht and Country Club

                                     to the Runyans Creek Bridge.

                                     (a) Area below flood level: See Exhibit E.

                                     (b) Surge Inundation Points: See Exhibits P and S

                                     (c) Extent of Impediment on Evacuation:

                                         Major area of concern is from Washington Yacht

                                         and Country Club to the Runyans Creek Bridge at

                                         the Washington City limit (point F on Exhibits P

                                         and S).

                                         If this is flooded, all the area riverside of SR

                                         1300 will have no way to evacuate.

                                     (d) Reliance by Other Communities:

                                         None, though this is itself a heavily populated

                                         area.

                                         (e) Estimated Evacuation Time. (See Storm
                                         Mitigation Plan (Part 11, 3, b, 3 /4/.)

                                     (f) Policy Choices:

                                           improve capacity of route: not realistic

                                                  9S
<pb n="101" />

                                           limit development: up to the Town of

                                           Washington Park and County. This is already an

                                           issue requiring attention.

                                           increase evacuation notice time: a must.

                               (4) NC 17 and NIC 33 in and through Washington, North

                                     Shore of Pamlico River.

                                     (a) Area below flood level: See Exhibit E.

                                     (b) Surge Inundation Points: Primarily thePamlico

                                          River Bridge (see Exhibits P &amp; S).

                                     (c)  Extent of Impediment to Evacuation:

                                          This area is heavily populated and there is much

                                          business development. If flooded, evacuees would

                                          have to take 15th Street to NC 17 and turn north.

                                     (d)  Reliance by Other Communities:

                                          Very heavy, since Highway 92 and 264 durp into

                                          Washington.

                                          Routes around the city should be taken to avoid

                                          overloading what will already be a severe

                                          evacuation problem in many sections of the flood

                                          area (lower half of the city).

                                          (e) Estimated Evacuation Time: (See Storm
                                               M

                                                itigation Plan, (Part 11, 3, b, /4/)

                                                96
<pb n="102" />

                                   M Policy Choices:

                                        Since routes have adequate capacity, and level of

                                        development is prescribed by the City of

                                        Washington, reliance upon early warning and early

                                        mobilization of rescue and evacuation efforts is

                                        required.

                              (5) Hwy.  17 South from Washington to Chocowinity

                                   (a)  Area below flood level: See Exhibit E.

                                   (b)  Surge Inundation Points: See Exhibits P and S.

                                   (c)  Extent of Impediment to Evacuation:

                                        Nearly the entire area from the Pamlico River

                                        Bridge to the town limits of Chocowinity is

                                        threatened by surge inundation. Many businesses

                                        are located there.

                                   (d)  Reliance by Other Communities:

                                        Heavy, since all of the development on SR 1-166

                                        from Hwy. 17 to Oak Point has no other evacuation

                                        route.

                                   (e) Estimated Evacuation Time: (See Storm Mitiga-
                                        tion Plan, Part 11, 3, b, 3 /4/.)

                                                97
<pb n="103" />

                                          (f) Policy choices:

                                          Efforts could be made, through policies developed

                                          in the Storm Mitigation Plan to limit or better

                                          allocate development on SR 1166. The remainder

                                          of the solution rests with early warning and

                                          willing evacuation.

                                (6) Hwy. 33 South from the Pamlico County Line to Hwy. 17

                                     (a)  Area below flood level: See Exhibit E.

                                     (b)  Surge Inundation Points: See Exhibits P and S.

                                     (c)  Extent of Impediment to Evacuation:

                                          If evacuation starts early enough, there is no

                                          problem. The route has adequate capacity.

                                          However, if critical points L and K are flooded,

                                          there is no way out.

                                     (d)  Reliance by Other Communities:

                                          Very heavy. The Lowlands and Hoboken communities

                                          of Pamlico County must evacuate along this route.

                                          This route serves one of the most erodible areas

                                          and most industrial areas in the County.

                                                98
<pb n="104" />

                                    (e) Estimated Evacuation Time. (See Storm Hitiga-

                                         tion Plan, Part 11, 3, b, 3 /4/.)

                                    (f) Policy Choices:

                                         Since routes have adequate capacity, evacuation

                                         depends on warning time and willing evacuation.

                                                 99
<pb n="105" />

                            c. Impediments Caused by Conflicting Information.

              Beyond the physical terrain and facilities (routes), an impediment will

              always exist because people will choose who they want to listen to in the

              event of a storm. There is no way to ensure that the information is

              accurate. Emphasis should be placed on recognition of official vs.

              unofficial sources and actions taken to get the correct word into informal

              communication networks at the neighborhood level.

                            d. Impediments caused by Conflicting Evacuation Plans.

              Currently, there exists a situation*in Beaufort County of conflicting plans.

              Ideally, each town should have both a control group of elected officials and

              a support group comprising chiefs of services. Each town should appoint a

              liason officer who would oo to the County's Emergency Operation Center when

              the EOC is activated to any degree. This liason should be a member of the

              town council and a respected community leader. He/she is the key link

              between the overall operation of the EOC (County Headquarters) and the smooth

              evacuation of the townspeople. Through this liason, the town can be kept

              informed with the latest information and the EOC can have an advocate from.

              the Town on hand.

                                                    100
<pb n="106" />

                            e. Impediments Caused  by Attitudes.

              There is a strong resistance among us to leave our valued property even in

              the threat of diaster. The example is given of a boat owner who threatens

              his life in an oncoming storm to guard his boat. While this phenomonen is

              almost impossible to rectify, an appeal to the' higher values of life and

              adequate evacuation should be instilled through early education, as well as

              ways to secure property (or evacuate it) through ready and prompt response to

              early hurricane warning. Cooperation and thoughtful, timely action is the

              key.

                                                   101
<pb n="107" />

                   D. Coordination with State and Federal-Agencies.

                       1. Process

             Throughout the preparation of this storm hazard mitigation, post disaster

             reconstruction and evacuation plan, the Office of Coastal Management, the

             Consultant (Planning and Design Associates, P.A.), and the County (Office of

             the Emergency Management Coordinator) have been contacting state and federal

             agencies for data, opinions on adequacy of local provisions, direction in

             policy development, regulations, and suggested points to be covered. Efforts

             to coordinate plans with practical were undertaken.

             As mentioned at several points in this document, one of the keys to this

             coordination process care when Daden Wolfe brought Col. David W. Spivy to the

             project. Colonel Spivey's 22 years of experience as Area A Coordinator for
'A           the Division of Emergency Management have proven invaluable in terms of

             content and coordination.

                                                  102
<pb n="108" />

                       2. Contact List.

             The following contacts were ma de during the preparation of this document.

                 Office of Coastal Management              John Crew
                                                           Grants Manager

                 NC Division of Emergency Management       Bob Buchanan
                                                           Natural Disaster Planner

                 Department of Transportation              Dr. Marion R. Poole, Thorough-
                                                           fare Planning Engineer
                                                           (733-4705)

                                                           Dr. Larry Goode, Project
                                                           Engineer (733-4705)

                                                           Ed Shular, Traffic Surveys
                                                           Engineer (733-4131)

                                                           Gerald Fleming, DEM Liaison,
                                                           Traffic Engineer (733-7512)

                                                  103
<pb n="109" />

                                                                                                                                         DATE DUE

                                                                                                                GAYLORDINo. 2333                                                 PRINTED IN U S A

                                                                                                                                      6668 14106 2267
</text>
</doc>
