The Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Plan Is The Physical

The Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Plan is the physical result of a comprehensive planning process undertaken by the jurisdictions of Isle of Wight County, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Smithfield, Suffolk, Virginia Beach and Windsor. Local officials, citizens and other key stakeholders from across the region all contributed to the planning process that is designed to help communities identify ways to better protect people and property from the effects of natural hazards. By taking action today, we can reduce the likelihood of injuries, loss of life and damage to our communities. That is the primary definition of hazard mitigation - taking action before a hazard event occurs to reduce the impact of the hazard. A core assumption of hazard mitigation is that pre-disaster investments will significantly reduce the demand for post-disaster assistance by lessening the need for emergency response, repair, recovery and reconstruction. Furthermore, mitigation practices will enable local residents, businesses and industries to re-establish themselves in the wake of a disaster, getting the community economy back on track sooner and with less interruption. When hazard mitigation planning is conducted based on a solid understanding of our vulnerabilities, reduction of the impacts of hazards occurs. In addition to developing a framework for action, the Plan enables participating jurisdictions to apply for pre and post-disaster mitigation funding that would not otherwise be available. This funding can help local jurisdictions implement actions that will help them realize the desired goals outlined in the plan. Participants in the Southside Hampton Roads regional planning process formulated the following goals, which categorize the types of mitigation actions ultimately adopted at the local level. Goal #1

Develop plans and studies that will support the implementation of techniques that will aid in the mitigation of natural hazards in the region.

Goal #2

Conduct public education, outreach and awareness programs to help local citizens better understand hazard mitigation and ways to protect lives and property from the impact of natural hazards.

Goal #3

Undertake cost beneficial structural projects across the region that will be beneficial to reducing the impact of natural hazards when they occur.

Goal #4

Implement sound hazard mitigation policies into the framework of local government operations across the region.

From these regional goals, each participating jurisdiction established specific mitigation actions, written in the form of policies and projects. Each mitigation action includes assigned responsibilities, potential funding sources and a timeline for implementation. Action plans link the broad ideas established in the Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Plan with strategic, action-oriented tasks. This Plan provides a blueprint for helping communities reduce damages and save lives in the event of a natural disaster in the region. This Plan is meant to be a living document that is updated and changed on a continual basis.

This section provides a general introduction to the Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Plan and consists of the following four subsections:    

BACKGROUND PURPOSE SCOPE AUTHORITY

BACKGROUND Natural hazards, such as floods, tornadoes and severe winter storms are a part of the world around us. Their occurrence is natural and inevitable, and there is little we can do to control their force and intensity. Jurisdictions participating in this planning process are vulnerable to a hazards that threaten the safety of residents, and have the potential to both public and private property and disrupt the local economy and

wide range of natural damage or destroy overall quality of life.

While the threat from hazards may never be fully eliminated, there is lessen their potential impact. The concept and practice of reducing known hazards is referred to as hazard mitigation.

much we can do to risks associated with FEMA Definition of

Hazard mitigation techniques include both structural measures, such as strengthening or Hazard Mitigation protecting buildings and infrastructure from the destructive forces of potential hazards, “Any sustained action taken to and non-structural measures, such as the adoption of sound land use or floodplain reduce or eliminate the longmanagement policies and the creation of public awareness programs. Effective mitigation term risk to human life and measures are often implemented at the county or municipal level, where decisions on property from [natural] the regulation and control of development are made. A comprehensive hazards.” mitigation approach addresses hazard vulnerabilities that exist today and in the foreseeable future. Therefore it is essential that projected patterns of future development are evaluated and considered in terms of how that growth will increase or decrease a community’s hazard vulnerability over time. Land use is a particularly important theme in the Southside Hampton Roads Plan, where many communities are facing increasing growth rates. Now is the time to effectively guide development away from identified hazard areas and environmentally sensitive locations, before unsound development patterns emerge and people and property are placed in harm’s way. As a community formulates a comprehensive approach to reduce the impacts of hazards, a key means to accomplish this task is through the development, adoption, and regular update of a local hazard mitigation plan. A hazard mitigation plan establishes the community vision, guiding principles and the specific actions designed to reduce current and future hazard vulnerabilities. The Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Plan (hereinafter referred to as “Hazard Mitigation Plan” or “Plan”) is a logical first step toward incorporating hazard mitigation principles and practices into the day-to-day activities of county and municipal governments. The Plan recommends specific actions designed to protect residents as well as the built environment from those hazards that pose the greatest risk. Identified mitigation actions go beyond recommending structural solutions to reduce existing vulnerability, such as elevation, retrofitting and acquisition projects. Local policies on community growth and development, incentives tied to natural resource protection, and public awareness and outreach activities are examples of other actions intended to reduce participating jurisdiction’s future vulnerability to identified hazards.

DISASTER MITIGATION ACT OF 2000 In an effort to reduce the Nation's mounting natural disaster losses, the U.S. Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000). Section 322 of DMA 2000 requires that state and local governments develop a hazard mitigation plan in order to remain eligible for pre- and post-disaster mitigation funding. These funds include the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program, both of which are administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Communities with an adopted and federally approved hazard mitigation plan thereby become pre-positioned and more apt to receive available mitigation funds before and after the next disaster strikes. This Plan was prepared in coordination with FEMA and the Virginia Division of Emergency Management in order to ensure that it meets all applicable state and federal mitigation planning requirements. A Local Mitigation Plan Crosswalk, found in Appendix C, provides a summary of FEMA’s current minimum standards of acceptability and notes the location within the Plan where each planning requirement is met.

PURPOSE The general purposes of this Hazard Mitigation Plan are to:  protect life and property by reducing the potential for future damages and economic losses that result from natural hazards;  qualify for additional grant funding, in both the pre-disaster and post-disaster environment;  speed recovery and redevelopment following future disasters;  integrate existing flood mitigation documents;  demonstrate a firm local commitment to hazard mitigation principles; and  comply with state and federal legislative requirements tied to local hazard mitigation planning.

SCOPE This Hazard Mitigation Plan will be updated and maintained to continually address those natural hazards determined to be of high and moderate risk as defined by the results of the risk assessment (see “Conclusions on Hazard Risk” in Section 6: Vulnerability Assessment). Other natural hazards that pose a low or negligible risk will continue to be evaluated during future updates to the Plan in order to determine if they warrant additional attention, including the development of specific mitigation measures intended to reduce their impact. The planning area1 includes unincorporated areas of Isle of Wight County, the cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach and the towns of Smithfield and Windsor (both located in Isle of Wight County).

AUTHORITY This Hazard Mitigation Plan has been adopted by the jurisdictions noted above in accordance with the authority and police powers granted to counties as defined by the State of Virginia. Copies of all resolutions to adopt the Plan are included in Appendix D. This Plan was developed in accordance with current state and federal rules and regulations governing local hazard mitigation plans. The Plan shall be monitored and updated on a routine basis to maintain compliance with the following legislation:  Section 322, Mitigation Planning, of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as enacted by Section 104 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-390) and by FEMA’s Interim Final Rule published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002, at 44 CFR Part 201.

This section describes the mitigation planning process undertaken by jurisdictions participating in the development of the Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Plan. This section consists of the following seven subsections:       

OVERVIEW OF HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING PREPARING THE PLAN THE PLANNING TEAM COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS INVOLVING THE PUBLIC INVOLVING STAKEHOLDERS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PARTICIPATION

OVERVIEW OF HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING Local hazard mitigation planning involves the process of organizing community resources, identifying and assessing hazard risks, and determining how to minimize or manage those risks. This process results in a hazard mitigation plan that identifies specific 1

Refer to Section 3: Community Profile for maps and other specific geographic details of the planning area.

actions that are designed to meet the goals established by those that participate in the planning process. To ensure the functionality of each mitigation action, responsibility is assigned to a specific individual, department or agency along with a schedule for its implementation. Plan maintenance procedures are established to help ensure that the plan is implemented, as well as evaluated and enhanced as necessary. Developing clear plan maintenance procedures ensures that the Hazard Mitigation Plan remains a current, dynamic and effective planning document over time. Participating in a hazard mitigation planning process can help local officials, and to some extent, citizens achieve the following results:       

save lives and property; save money; speed recovery following disasters; reduce future vulnerability through wise development and post-disaster recovery and reconstruction; enhance coordination within and across participating jurisdictions; expedite the receipt of pre-disaster and post-disaster grant funding; and demonstrate a firm commitment to improving community health and safety.

Mitigation planning represents an important tool to produce long-term recurring benefits by breaking the repetitive cycle of disaster loss. A core assumption of hazard mitigation is that pre-disaster investments will significantly reduce the demand for post-disaster assistance by lessening the need for emergency response, repair, recovery and reconstruction. Furthermore, mitigation practices will enable local residents, businesses and industries to re-establish themselves in the wake of a disaster, getting the community economy back on track sooner and with less interruption. The benefits of mitigation planning go beyond reducing hazard vulnerability. Measures such as the acquisition or regulation of land in known hazard areas can help achieve multiple community goals, such as preserving open space, improving water quality, maintaining environmental health and enhancing recreational opportunities. It is the intent of this document to help identify overlapping community objectives and facilitate the sharing of resources to achieve multiple aims.

PREPARING THE PLAN The multi-jurisdictional planning process recommended by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA Publication Series 386) to develop this Plan. A Local Mitigation Plan Crosswalk, found in Appendix B, provides a detailed summary of FEMA’s current minimum standards of acceptability for compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and notes the location of where each requirement is met within the Plan. These standards are based upon FEMA’s Interim Final Rule as published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002, in Part 201 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The planning process included twelve (12) major steps that were completed over the course of approximately ten months. These steps are illustrated in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Planning Process

Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee, PBS&J

Each of the planning steps illustrated in Figure 2.1 resulted in work products and outcomes that collectively make up the Hazard Mitigation Plan. While these elements have been included as separate sections of the Plan, they are discussed here in order to introduce the concepts. The Community Profile, located in Section 3, describes the general makeup of participating jurisdictions, including prevalent geographic, demographic and economic characteristics. In addition, building characteristics and land use patterns are discussed along with some general historical disaster data. This baseline information provides a snapshot of the planning area and thereby assists participating officials recognize those social, environmental and economic factors that ultimately play a role in determining community vulnerability to natural hazards. The Risk Assessment is presented in two separate sections: Section 4: Hazard Identification and Analysis; and Section 5: Vulnerability Assessment. Together, these sections serve to identify, analyze and assess the overall risk to natural hazards. The risk assessment also attempts to define any hazard risks that may uniquely or exclusively affect localized areas within the participating jurisdictions. The risk assessment builds on available historical data from past hazard occurrences, establishes hazard profiles, and culminates in a hazard risk ranking based on conclusions about the frequency of occurrence, potential impact, spatial extent, warning time and duration of each hazard. FEMA’s HAZUS-MH loss estimation methodology was also used in evaluating known hazard risks according to their relative long-term cost, measured in expected damages. The risk assessment is designed to assist communities seek the most appropriate mitigation actions to pursue and implement—focusing their efforts on those hazards of greatest concern and those structures or planning areas facing the greatest risk(s). The Capability Assessment, found in Section 6, provides a comprehensive examination of participating jurisdictions capacity to implement meaningful mitigation strategies and identifies existing opportunities to increase and enhance that capacity. Specific capabilities addressed in this section include planning and regulatory capability, staff and organizational (administrative) capability, technical capability, fiscal capability, and political capability. Information was obtained through the use of detailed survey questionnaires and an inventory and analysis of existing plans, ordinances and relevant documents. The purpose of this assessment is to identify any existing gaps, weaknesses or conflicts in programs or activities that may hinder mitigation efforts, and to identify those activities that should be built upon in establishing a successful hazard mitigation program. The Community Profile, Risk Assessment, and Capability Assessment collectively serve as a basis for determining the goals for the Hazard Mitigation Plan, each contributing to the development, adoption and implementation of a meaningful Mitigation Strategy that is based on accurate background information. The Mitigation Strategy, found in Section 7, consists of broad goal statements as well as specific mitigation actions for each jurisdiction participating in the planning process. The strategy provides the foundation for detailed Mitigation Action Plans, found in Appendix A, that link jurisdictionally specific mitigation actions to locally assigned implementation mechanisms and target completion dates. Together, these sections are designed to make the Plan both strategic and functional through the identification of long-term goals and near-term actions that will guide day-to-day decision-making and project implementation. In addition to the identification and prioritization of possible mitigation projects, emphasis is placed on the use of program and policy alternatives to help make participating jurisdictions less vulnerable to the damaging forces of nature while improving the economic, social and environmental health of the community. The concept of multi-objective planning is emphasized throughout this document, identifying ways to link hazard mitigation policies and programs with complimentary community goals that may be related to housing, economic development, downtown revitalization, recreational opportunities, transportation improvements, environmental quality, land development, and public health and safety. The Plan Maintenance Procedures, found in Section 8, includes the measures participating jurisdictions will take to ensure the Plan’s continuous long-term implementation. The procedures also include the manner in which the Plan will be regularly monitored, reported upon, evaluated and updated to remain a current and meaningful planning document.

THE PLANNING TEAM A community-based planning team made up of county and local government officials and key stakeholders helped guide the development of the Plan. Officials from the City of Virginia Beach were responsible for engaging local government representatives from the Southside Hampton Roads region to organize a regional hazard mitigation planning committee. This committee was responsible for the oversight of the development of this plan. The committee organized local meetings and planning workshops to discuss and complete tasks associated with preparing the Plan. This working group became formally recognized as the Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Committee. Additional participation and input from residents and other identified stakeholders was sought through the distribution of survey questionnaires and the facilitation of public meetings that described the planning process, the findings of the risk assessment, and proposed mitigation actions. All of the activities of the Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Committee is further documented below.

SOUTHSIDE HAMPTON ROADS MITIGATION COMMITTEE

The participants listed in Table 2.1 represent the members of the Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Committee who were responsible for participating in the development of the Plan. Committee members are listed in alphabetical order by jurisdiction.

TABLE 2.1: HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS NAME Tammy Karlgaard Robert Lawrence Richard Childress Mark Harrup Ron Keys Jeff Raliski James Talbott June Brooks Troy Tilley Jeff Terwilliger Bill Hopkins Jim Judkins Mark Marchbank Jules Robichaud Clay Bernick

JURISDICTION / TITLE Hampton Roads Regional Planning Commission; Regional Emergency Management Planner Hampton Roads Regional Planning Commission; Assistant Regional Emergency Management Planner Isle of Wight County; Director, Emergency Management Isle of Wight County; Long Range Planner City of Norfolk, Director, Emergency Preparedness and Response City of Norfolk; Transportation Planning Manager City of Norfolk; Assistant Director, Emergency Management City of Portsmouth; Division Manager, Planning City of Portsmouth; Deputy Emergency Management Coordinator, Deputy Fire Chief City of Portsmouth; Deputy Emergency Management Coordinator Town of Smithfield; Director, Planning, Engineering and Public Works City of Suffolk; Emergency Management Coordinator City of Virginia Beach; Deputy Emergency Management Coordinator City of Virginia Beach; GIS Analyst City of Virginia Beach; Environmental Planner

COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS The preparation of the Plan required a series of workshops intended to facilitate discussion and initiate with local community officials. More importantly, the workshops prompted continuous input and feedback throughout the drafting of the Plan.

meetings and data collection efforts meetings and from local officials

Below is a summary of the key meetings and workshops Hazard Mitigation Committee.2 Individual meetings each participating jurisdiction and their designated staff various planning tasks throughout the planning process the Local Capability Assessment Survey and mitigation actions beyond those created during the planning committee meeting.

conducted by the were also held by in order to complete including completing identification of second mitigation

FIRST HAZARD MITIGATION COMMITTEE

Members of the Hazard Mitigation Committee gathered to discuss necessary tasks and individual roles and responsibilities for preparing the multi-jurisdictional plan. (PBS&J Project Photo)

MEETING

The first meeting of the Hazard Mitigation Committee meeting was held at the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission on July 25th, 2005. Mark Marchbank, Deputy Emergency Management Coordinator for the City of Virginia Beach opened this project “kick-off” meeting by discussing the importance of the Plan and its role in reducing the potential impacts of future hazard events in the planning area. Hibak Hersi, Mitigation Planning Coordinator for the Virginia Department of Emergency Management attended the meeting and provided guidance on the role of the state in the overall planning process as well as the importance of developing a mitigation strategy that includes both mitigation projects and policies intended to reduce the impacts of identified hazards. Following an introduction of Hazard Mitigation Committee members, Dr. Gavin Smith of project consultants PBS&J presented a review of the Disaster Mitigation Act and state guidelines, the proposed planning approach, the timeline for project completion, the roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in the overall effort and next steps in the process. The roles of the participants in the planning process are as follows: Participating Jurisdictions: •

• •

Active participation in the planning process o Data collection Risk and capability assessments o Hazard Mitigation Committee meetings o Mitigation strategy development o Plan review and feedback Plan adoption Project management o Central point of contact o Communication and coordination across participating jurisdictions o Hosting meetings and workshops o Data collection and exchange

PBS&J: • •

• •

2

Technical assistance o Planning guidance o State and federal compliance Data collection and analysis o Risk assessment o Capability assessment o Report findings Facilitate Hazard Mitigation Committee meetings, workshops and public meetings Plan preparation

Copies of the agendas, sign-in sheets and handout materials for all meetings and workshops are available upon request.

During the meeting, several handouts were provided to committee members and discussed, including a proposed plan outline, the capability assessment survey and a data collection checklist. The proposed plan outline was approved by the committee with no revisions. Dr. Smith then walked committee members through the capability assessment survey, the primary instrument used to collect information from participants about their ability to undertake various mitigation actions. It was agreed that the survey would be completed no later than August 9, 2005. A two-page summary of the planning process, titled “Southside Hampton Roads Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan,” was provided to committee members to be used as an informational tool should elected officials or members of their jurisdiction’s local mitigation committee have questions regarding the nature of the planning process. The document was also intended to be posted on jurisdictional websites if desired. During this meeting it was noted that a GIS Users Group currently exists and will be used to collect relevant GIS data layers that will be used in various sections of this Plan. Jules Robichaud, Systems Analyst for the City of Virginia Beach leads the user group and agreed to coordinate the collection of data. Following all discussions, the next steps in the process were reviewed, and assigned. The steps included:      

Finalization of Hazard Mitigation Committee membership (Hazard Mitigation Committee members) Collection of local data (Hazard Mitigation Committee members) Collection of data from national datasets (PBS&J) Completion of Capability Assessment Survey’s (Hazard Mitigation Committee members) Development of risk and capability assessments (PBS&J) Preliminary identification of potential mitigation actions (Hazard Mitigation Committee members and PBS&J)

SECOND HAZARD MITIGATION COMMITTEE MEETING: “MITIGATION STRATEGY WORKSHOP” The second meeting of the Hazard Mitigation Committee was held on October 18, 2005 in the form of a four-hour “Mitigation Strategy Workshop.” The workshop began with a detailed presentation by PBS&J on the findings of the risk assessment and capability assessment. This overview provided county and municipal officials with a more thorough understanding of the hazard risks in their communities, along with the varied levels of local capabilities available to address them. During the presentation of the risk assessment and capability assessment findings, workshops participants were asked to provide feedback and comments on the findings to address questions and discuss potential concerns. The feedback received from the workshop participants was important in the development of an accurate and well-researched risk assessment.

CARDSTORMING EXERCISE Upon completing the presentation and discussions on the and capability assessments, PBS&J facilitated a exercise—an interactive brainstorming session for workshop building general countywide consensus on the mitigation goals Mitigation Plan. Participants were asked to identify specific their community could undertake to become less vulnerable to through the risk assessment. Each participant was their own jurisdiction’s existing capabilities in mind, to not only mitigation actions they recommend are achievable but to also gaps, weaknesses or opportunities for program enhancement.

findings of the risk “cardstorming” attendees to begin for the Hazard mitigation actions that the hazards identified encouraged to keep ensure that the capitalize on existing

As part of the exercise, workshop participants were asked to mitigation policies or projects with official representatives from instructed to record their proposed mitigation actions on cards posted along the wall of the meeting room. This exercise potential mitigation strategies, goals or actions being on the wall for further review, discussion and consideration by Community officials used this time to elaborate upon each of mitigation action items, and to share concerns and thoughts as a group.

discuss potential their community and that would then be resulted in a variety of submitted and posted the committee. their proposed related to each one

The Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee proposed a variety of possible mitigation actions to consider during the cardstorming exercise. (PBS&J Project Photo)

The cardstorming technique required input from every workshop participant and resulted in both broad and very specific types of proposed mitigation actions for inclusion in the Mitigation Strategy. Following the open discussion, the exercise continued with the categorization of each mitigation action according to the general consensus of the group. Using the cards placed along the wall, workshop participants began to arrange the mitigation actions into agreed upon columns that represented separate mitigation categories. The intended purpose of this categorization was the identification of common themes that could then translate into goal statements for the Plan.

Upon completion of the exercise, four categories were identified and labeled with separate column headings generated by consensus of the group. Workshop participants were informed that these categories would later serve as the basis for goal statements for the Plan. Categories consist of the following:    

Plans and Studies Structural Projects Policies Public Education and Awareness

Another outcome of the cardstorming exercise was the preliminary identification of potential mitigation actions for participating jurisdictions to consider for incorporation into their own individual Mitigation Action Plans. These actions are summarized in Table 2.2. Note that not all of these potential mitigation actions made it into the Mitigation Action Plans for the various jurisdictions.

Table 2.2: Potential Mitigation Actions for the Southside Hampton Roads region PROPOSED ACTION

JURISDICTION

HAZARD Plans and Studies Plans and Studies Plans and Studies Plans and Studies Plans and Studies Plans and Studies Plans and Studies Plans and Studies Plans and Studies Structural Projects Structural Projects

CATEGORY

Develop dam failure mitigation plan Conduct study to support underground utilities expansion

Suffolk

Pre-identification of special needs populations

Portsmouth

Mitigation of urban flooding

Suffolk

Complete Virginia Hurricane and Evacuation Study

Virginia Beach

Establish realistic base flood elevations

Suffolk

Host sheltering plan Modernization and remapping of flood insurance rate maps Study and implement stormwater drainage in DSD's to manage water runoff and flooding

Virginia Beach

Interoperability for communications

Virginia Beach

Roads (vulnerability and structural improvements) Critical infrastructure storm protection and backup power facilitation. Protect windows and provide generator hook-ups/generators for water/sewer, governments buildings, schools, etc.

Virginia Beach

Extend seawall including stormwater pumps Permanent generators for primary shelters and other critical city facilities

Portsmouth

Quick connect capability for infrastructure Buyout of riverine and coastal flood prone properties (A, AE, VE)

Virginia Beach Isle of Wight/Smithfield

Structural Projects Structural Projects Structural Projects Structural Projects Structural Projects

Underground utilities

Portsmouth

Policies

Multiple

Establish natural vegetation mitigation program Voluntary compliance program increasing structural standard: Norfolk Storm Guard Home

Suffolk

Policies

Multiple

Norfolk

Multiple

Public awareness

Norfolk

Increased presentations and public awareness program

Portsmouth

Public education (need materials)

Red Cross

Policies Public Education and Awareness Public Education and Awareness Public Education and Awareness Public Education and Awareness Public Education and Awareness

Flood insurance awareness and education (renter, owner and commercial) Encourage community involvement with jurisdictions for planning (needs to be included in planning process)

Virginia Beach

Virginia Beach Isle of Wight/Smithfield

Isle of Wight/Smithfield

Portsmouth

Virginia Beach

Red Cross

Dam failure Multiple Multiple Flood Hurricanes Flood Multiple Flood Flood Multiple Multiple

Multiple Hurricanes/Coastal Erosion Multiple Multiple Flood

Multiple

Multiple

Multiple

Flood

Multiple

Before the meeting concluded, PBS&J distributed and explained several handouts for workshop participants to use in identifying specific mitigation actions for incorporation into their own respective Mitigation Action Plans. This included Mitigation Action

Worksheets (forms for proposing individual mitigation actions), along with a variety of planning tools and reference guides for considering and evaluating possible mitigation action alternatives.3 Workshop participants were instructed to take these materials back to their individual jurisdictions to identify and prioritize additional mitigation actions as appropriate.4

THIRD MITIGATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING The third meeting of the Hazard Mitigation Committee meeting was held on January 20, 2006 during which the draft Risk Assessment section of the Hazard Mitigation Plan were reviewed, discussed and prepared for final submission to VDEM. At this meeting, emphasis was also placed on addressing any missing information needed from each jurisdiction. The meeting also provided an opportunity for the committee members to add new mitigation actions. This was the final meeting of the Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee. A draft of the entire Plan was presented to committee members on February 20, 2006. All review comments received from the participating jurisdictions are incorporated into the Plan. A final draft of the Plan was delivered to committee members on (tbd). At that time, each jurisdiction began the process of conducting a final public meeting and adoption of the Plan.

INVOLVING THE PUBLIC

An

44 CFR Requirement

important

Part 201.6(b)(1): The planning process shall include an opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval.

component of Southside Hampton Road’s community-based mitigation planning process involves public participation. Individual citizen involvement provides the Hazard Mitigation Committee with a greater understanding of local concerns and ensures a higher degree of mitigation success by developing community “buy-in” from those directly affected by public policy and planning decisions. As citizens become more involved in decisions that affect their life and safety, they are more likely to gain a greater appreciation of the natural hazards present in their community and take personal steps to reduce their potential impact. Public awareness is a key component of an overall mitigation strategy aimed at making a home, neighborhood, school, business or city safer from the effects of natural hazards. Public input was sought using three methods: (1) open public meetings; (2) the creation of a public participation survey instrument; and (3) the posting of the draft Hazard Mitigation Plan on Internet Web sites and at government offices. Public meetings were held at two stages of the planning process; following the Mitigation Strategy workshop and prior to adoption by each participating jurisdiction. Two public meetings were held on the evening of October 18, 2005 at Kempsville Middle School in Virginia Beach and at the Suffolk Fire Department #3 in Suffolk. The meetings were advertised through the posting of a public meeting notice at county and municipal offices, along with a newspaper advertisement (Figure 2.2). Civic leagues were also specifically notified by email of the public meetings. The intent of the meetings was to inform citizens about the importance of hazard mitigation, describe the mitigation planning process and discuss the findings of the risk assessment. Any general issues or concerns that attending members of the public expressed were documented. A Public Participation Survey was created in order to collect additional information from citizens about local hazard concerns. The survey was available at each public meeting and was also made available on the internet. Email notifications were sent to civic leagues in the region to make them aware of the survey’s availability. Hard copies of the survey were distributed at municipal and county offices. A total of 329 surveys were completed and returned. A copy of the survey that was distributed and a summary of results gathered from the survey can be found in Appendix E.

3

Copies of all planning tools and reference guides distributed at the meeting are available upon request. It was agreed by the Hazard Mitigation Committee that prioritizing mitigation actions was to be based on the following five (5) factors: (1) effect on overall risk to life and property; (2); ease of implementation; (3) political and community support; (4) a general economic cost/benefit review; and (5) funding availability. 4

Figure 2.2: Public Meeting Notice

Upon completion of the final draft Plan, the Plan was made available for review at county and municipal offices across the region. Each participating jurisdiction held public meetings before the Plan was officially adopted by their respective governing bodies. The meetings provided citizens with a final opportunity to review the content of each of the Plan’s sections, to ask questions and suggest possible revisions.

INVOLVING STAKEHOLDERS 44 CFR Requirement Part 201.6(b)(2): The planning process shall include an opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and nonprofit interests to be involved in the planning process.

A range of stakeholders, including neighboring communities, agencies, businesses,

academia, nonprofits, and other interested parties were invited and encouraged to participate in the development of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Stakeholder involvement was encouraged through notifications and invitations to agencies or individuals to participate in Hazard Mitigation Committee meetings and the Mitigation Strategy Workshop. The invitation and attendance of these stakeholders at the Mitigation Strategy Workshop are documented in Table 2.4. In addition to the Mitigation Committee meetings, the Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee encouraged more open and widespread participation in the mitigation planning process through the design and publication of newspaper advertisements that promoted the open public meetings. These media advertisements and survey instruments provided local officials, residents and businesses with an opportunity to be involved and offer input throughout the local mitigation planning process.

TABLE 2.4: STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN THE PLANNING PROCESS5 STAKEHOLDER GROUP

INVITED TO MITIGATION STRATEGY WORKSHOP

ATTENDED MITIGATION STRATEGY WORKSHOP

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes

American Red Cross Peninsula Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee National Weather Service Virginia Department of Emergency Management Navy Mid Atlantic Command USACE Norfolk Office

Yes Yes

NOTIFICATION OF NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS In order to meet the FEMA requirement that neighboring jurisdictions be allowed to participate in the hazard mitigation planning process, members of the Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee kept in close contact with the members of the Peninsula Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee6 during the development of this Plan.

5

These individuals were contacted by written letter followed up with e-mail and telephone calls. The Peninsula Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee is comprised of representatives from the neighboring jurisdictions of Hampton, Newport News, Williamsburg, James City County and York County.

6

MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PARTICIPATION

The

44 CFR Requirement Part 201.6(a)(3): Multi-jurisdictional plans may be accepted as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the planning process.

Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Plan is multi-jurisdictional and includes the participation of the following jurisdictions:       

Isle of Wight County City of Norfolk City of Portsmouth Town of Smithfield City of Suffolk City of Virginia Beach Town of Windsor

To satisfy multi-jurisdictional participation requirements, each of the local jurisdictions was required to perform the following tasks: 1. Designate appropriate officials to serve on the Mitigation Planning Committee; 2. Participate in all mitigation planning meetings and workshops; 3. Provide best available data as required for the risk assessment portion of the Plan; 4. Complete the local Capability Assessment Survey and provide copies of any mitigation or hazard-related documents for review and incorporation into the Plan; 5. Support the development of a regional Mitigation Strategy, including the design and adoption of general goal statements for all jurisdictions to pursue; 6. Develop a local Mitigation Action Plan with specific mitigation actions for their jurisdiction; 7. Review and provide timely comments on all draft components of the Plan; 8. Adopt the Hazard Mitigation Plan, including the local Mitigation Action Plan specific to their jurisdiction. Through the completion of these tasks each jurisdiction fully participated in the development of this Plan. Further, through the preparation of their own local Mitigation Action Plans, each jurisdiction was responsible for addressing their most significant hazard concerns. This separate component of the document (Appendix A) provides the opportunity for jurisdictions to monitor and update their own specific Plan implementation responsibilities without necessarily having to meet with the Hazard Mitigation Committee. It also enables each of the jurisdictions to be solely responsible and accountable for those actions that apply to their jurisdiction. All jurisdictions participated in all mitigation planning meetings and workshops, as well as reviewed and provided timely comments on all draft components of the Plan.

This section of the Plan provides a general overview of the Southside of Hampton Roads region, including Isle of Wight County, the cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk and Virginia Beach and the towns of Smithfield and Windsor. This section consists of the following five subsections:  GEOGRAPHY AND THE ENVIRONMENT  POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS  HOUSING, INFRASTRUCTURE AND LAND USE  EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRY  DEVELOPMENT TRENDS

GEOGRAPHY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

The Southside Hampton Roads region is located in the southeastern “Tidewater” region of Virginia and is bounded by the state of North Carolina, the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. The area that comprises the jurisdictions in the region was part of eight shires, or counties established in 1634, and today the seven jurisdictions are located within the Virginia Beach-NorfolkNewport News Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). These jurisdictions are located along the Atlantic Ocean and between the two largest estuaries in the world – Chesapeake Bay and the Albemarle–Pamlico Sound. Numerous military installations, including U.S. Naval Base Norfolk, Naval Air Station Norfolk, Dam Neck U.S. Naval Base, Little Creek U.S. Navy Amphibious Base, Oceana Naval Air Station and U.S. Naval Fleet Training Station, Virginia Army National Guard Camp Pendleton and Fort Story Army Base dot the planning area and comprise a significant part of the local economy. The region is comprised of 1,443 square miles, including 1,061 square miles of land and 382 square miles of inland water. The general topography is best described as relatively flat with slightly rolling hills, and elevations ranging from sea level to several hundred feet above. A moderate climate prevails throughout the region with an approximate average July temperature of 78 degrees, and an average January temperature of 41 degrees. The region averages approximately 47 inches of rainfall per year (mostly in the spring and summer months), and another 8 inches of snowfall during the winter months. The City of Virginia Beach is the largest and fastest growing municipality, while the Town of Windsor is the smallest. The City of Norfolk, with a population of 234,403, including 94,416 housing units, is the most densely developed. Table 3.1 provides a summary of the population, housing and land area present within the Southside Hampton Roads region, as well population and housing densities per square mile. Figure 3.1 provides an orientation map for the Southside Hampton Roads region that illustrates the geographic location of each county and municipal jurisdiction within the planning area, as well as their neighboring jurisdictions. Figure 3.2 illustrates the multiple major water bodies in the region. The following information provides a brief overview of the history, geography and unique characteristics of the seven jurisdictions in the planning area.

Isle of Wight County Isle of Wight County was established as Worrosquoyacke County in 1634, one of eight counties divided from the Virginia colony. The original boundaries of the county included Lawne’s Creek to the north, the James River to the east, the head of Colonel Pitt's Creek to the south and undeveloped wooded area to the west. In 1656, Ragged Island and Nansemond County were incorporated into Isle of Wight County. A long dispute between the counties of Isle of Wight and Nansemond continued until 1674, when the General Assembly established the boundaries that exist today.

TABLE 3.1: SUMMARY OF POPULATION, HOUSING, LAND AREA AND DENSITY

JURISDICTION

Isle of Wight County

POPULATION

HOUSING UNITS

DENSITY PER SQUARE MILE OF LAND AREA

AREA IN SQUARE MILES TOTAL AREA

WATER AREA

LAND AREA

POPULATION

HOUSING UNITS

29,728

12,066

363

47

316

94

38

Norfolk

234,403

94,416

96

43

54

4,363

1,757

Portsmouth

100,565

41,605

47

13

33

3,033

1,255

6,324

2,552

10

1

10

664

268

63,677

24,704

429

29

400

159

62

425,257

162,277

497

249

248

1,713

654

916

422

1

0

1

1,077

496

REGION TOTAL

860,870

338,042

1,443

382

1,061

811

318

VIRGINIA

7,078,515

2,904,192

42774

3180

39594

179

73

Smithfield Suffolk Virginia Beach Windsor

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

Isle of Wight County is thirty-seven miles in length and maintains an average breadth of eleven miles. The county is comprised of approximately 363 square miles, of which 80 percent is land area. The area contains relatively flat, but rolling terrain with average elevation of approximately 80 feet above sea level. The land generally dips to the northeast from a plateau west of Bethel Church, and from that same plateau, the land dips to the northwest and west. Several swamps, ravines and creeks drain to the James River, the Blackwater River and the Nansemond River.

Today, Isle of Wight's residents enjoy the rural nature of the County coupled with the quaint atmosphere of the two incorporated Towns, Smithfield and Windsor. While the local economy remains largely agriculturally-based, the area’s scenic beauty, historic nature and proximity to other attractions in the Hampton Roads area greatly contribute to the tourist draw. In addition, the County is close enough to the transportation hubs and employments of the Norfolk-Virginia Beach area to attract year round residents and businesses alike.

City of Norfolk The City of Norfolk, located on the Elizabeth River, was founded in 1682 but wasn’t incorporated as a city until 1845. Initially comprised of only 50 acres, the city has grown to a total of 96 square miles today. Norfolk is comprised of seven miles of Chesapeake Bay waterfront and a total of 144 miles of shoreline, including lakefront, rivers and the Bay. Naval Station Norfolk, which was established on the old Jamestown Exposition grounds in 1917, is the world’s largest naval base. The city is also home to the North American Headquarters for the North American Treaty Organization (NATO). Norfolk is the most densely developed jurisdiction in the Southside Hampton Roads region at 4,363 people per square mile. Today, Norfolk is a city of more than 100 diverse neighborhoods. It is recognized as the cultural, educational, business and medical center of the Southside Hampton Roads region, and is currently undergoing a successful urban renewal, including new office, retail, entertainment and hotel construction downtown, new residential development along the rivers and bay front, and revitalization projects in many of its neighborhoods.

City of Portsmouth The City of Portsmouth was founded as a town in 1752 on the shores of the Elizabeth River by Colonel William Crawford. In 1858, the town was separated from the county government and given status as an independent city. Portsmouth’s location as an East Coast deepwater port and available business sites in proximity to the nation’s largest shipyard has provided a significant impetus for economic growth in the area. Today Portsmouth is in the middle of the dynamic NorfolkVirginia Beach metropolitan area and home to more than 100,000 people. In addition to the many medical, cultural and recreational facilities within the immediate community, Portsmouth’s newly revitalized downtown is bustling with retail, restaurant and service-related businesses. The historic waterfront neighborhood of Olde Towne lines the Elizabeth River and is easily traversed by the famous downtown seawall, and the City of Norfolk is easily accessible by a quick 5-minute ferry ride across the river.

Town of Smithfield The Town of Smithfield was incorporated in 1752 by Arthur Smith IV who parceled out his family farm into 72 lots and 4 streets in order to house British merchants and ship captains. The town is located on the banks of the Pagan River, which flows into the James River. Smithfield was a river town from its very beginning, and the livelihood of its residents and continued growth over the years has been influenced by the river. The town is comprised of approximately ten square miles. Nurtured by trade and commerce, Smithfield soon became a town of industry with four plants devoted to the art of curing the world famous "Smithfield Ham.” Once a commercial center for shipping, Smithfield has evolved to host one of the area's largest meatprocessing industries as well as the home to one of Hampton Roads' largest employers - Smithfield Foods, Inc. Smithfield has many of the charms associated with Hampton Roads communities, including many historic homes representing 18th & 19th Century architecture, a revitalized historic downtown, and all the character of a former colonial seaport. To preserve the historical charm, the Town of Smithfield and individual property owners took the steps to protect the integrity and history of their ancestors by enacting a Historic Preservation District Ordinance in 1979. Smithfield offers residents a small-town atmosphere, a good school system, affordable housing, a historic downtown, and a new state-of-the-art community/conference center.

City of Virginia Beach The first settlement inside the city limits of Virginia Beach was made on Lynnhaven Bay in 1621, and the area first became incorporated as a town in 1908. In 1963, the Town of Virginia Beach merged with Princess Anne County to form the independent City of Virginia Beach. Today, Virginia Beach is the largest and fastest growing city in the state. The city consists of 249 square miles of inland water and 248 square miles of land. The topography is relatively flat with an average elevation of twelve feet above sea level. The area contains extensive brackish tidal areas, such as the Lynnhaven and Elizabeth River systems, and expansive freshwater tidal areas, such as the North Landing River and Back Bay systems. Due to a combination of the city’s geographic position on the mid-Atlantic coastline and the straddling two of ecologically significant estuaries, Chesapeake Bay and Pamlico Sound, the area serves as the southern limit of many northern plant and animal species. The Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, established in 1938 and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is an 8,000 acre fresh water refuge that borders the Atlantic Ocean on the east and Back Bay on the west. The barrier islands

feature large sand dunes, maritime forests, fresh water marshes, ponds, ocean beach, and large impoundments for wintering wildfowl. Virginia Beach is best known as a major resort destination, with miles of beaches and dozens of hotels, motels, and restaurants. It is also home to several state parks, several long protected beach areas, four military bases, a number of large corporations, and two universities. Much of the land remained undeveloped until World War II when the Navy built Oceana Naval Air Station, followed by three more military bases, including Little Creek, Fort Story, and Dam Neck. Since the end of the war, Virginia Beach has experienced continued rapid growth and is the region’s most populous jurisdiction at more than 425,000 people.

Town of Windsor The Town of Windsor is located in the heart of Isle of Wight County. The town’s original name was Corrowaugh and was established as a post office in 1852. Five years later, the Norfolk & Petersburg Railroad company obtained the post office and built a depot called Windsor Station. In 1902, a town charter was granted by the General Assembly and it became the Town of Windsor, Virginia. In 1950 the Windsor Ruritan Club and the Town of Windsor built a "Community House" which has been a valuable asset to the community over the years. In the next three decades the town services improved and expanded. The streets were upgraded and paved, sidewalks extended, additional streetlights installed, drainage improved, and ditches piped and filled in. The privately owned water systems in the town limits were purchased by the town, upgraded, extended and an above ground water storage tower was erected. In 1971 the Windsor Volunteer Rescue Squad was founded and continues to provide service to the town and surrounding community. In July 2001, the Town of Windsor annexed 2.82 square miles of Isle of Wight County. As a result, the total area increased from one square mile to 3.82 square miles and in population increased from approximately 900 to 2,347. Also in 2001, Isle of Wight County helped install a central sewer system in the town which opened up many areas for new homes and businesses. The Town of Windsor remains a small rural town amidst the region’s larger, more populated cities which are easily accessible through two main roads bisecting the town, Route 460 and Route 258.

City of Suffolk In 1742, the Town of Suffolk, which was originally part of the County of Nansemond, was established. The town was burned by the British in 1779 and damaged by other fires throughout the next century, but survived to eventually become incorporated as a city in 1910. In 1974, the City of Suffolk consolidated with the towns of Holland and Whaleyville, and the County of Nansemond. At that point it became the largest city (geographically) in Virginia and the 11th largest in the country, encompassing a total of nearly 430 square miles. This large area is made up of rich land with woods, lakes, rivers, and rolling terrain. The City of Suffolk is located along the Nansemond River, and is still largely recognized as the “Peanut Capital” of the world and as the home of “Mr. Peanut.” In 1912, an Italian immigrant named Amedeo Obici moved from Pennsylvania to Suffolk and opened Planters Nut and Chocolate Company. Today, Suffolk remains a major peanut processing center and transportation hub.

POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS According to 2000 census records, the Southside Hampton Roads region has a population of 860,870 people. Table 3.2 shows total population, percent of children under the age of 18, percent of elderly population (age 65 and over), percent of white population and disability status for participating jurisdictions as compared with the state totals for Virginia. Among the seven jurisdictions in the planning area, the City of Virginia Beach has the highest population, followed by the cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth and Suffolk. The percent of children under the age of eighteen and over the age of 65 in the seven jurisdictions is comparable to statewide averages. The City of Virginia Beach has the largest elderly population, even though the proportion of elderly is lower than other communities. More than 50 percent of the total population in the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth is non-white, and the percentage of disabled persons is higher in all seven jurisdictions than the statewide average of 17.5 percent.

TABLE 3.2: POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

JURISDICTION

TOTAL POPULATION

UNDER 18 YEARS OLD (%)

Isle of Wight County

29,728

25

12.2

71.1

20.1

Norfolk

234,403

24

10.9

48.4

23.5

Portsmouth

100,565

26

13.8

45.8

24.7

6,324

27

13.6

67.2

22.1

63,677

28

11.4

53.8

24.4

425,257

27

8.4

71.4

15.3

916

24

12.4

89.7

19.9

860,870

25.85

11.81

63.91

21.43

7,078,515

25

11.2

72.3

17.5

Smithfield Suffolk Virginia Beach Windsor REGION TOTAL VIRGINIA

65 YEARS AND OVER (%)

WHITE POPULATION (%)

DISABILITY STATUS (%)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Table 3.3 lists the population change experienced by participating jurisdictions (towns excluded) between 1970 and 2000, as well as population projections through 2030. While the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth have experienced a decrease in overall population, other jurisdictions have experienced a steady increase since 1970. Much of this trend may be attributed to suburbanization as residents move outward from the denser city centers. The City of Virginia Beach gained almost a quarter million people between 1970 and 2000 and is expected to continue steadily growing in population size. The experienced and projected changes in population are illustrated below in Figure 3.3.

TABLE 3.3: POPULATION CHANGES AND PROJECTED CHANGES, 1970-2030 JURISDICTION

1980

1990

2000

18,285

21,603

25,053

29,728

33,798

37,500

41,500

Norfolk

307,951

266,979

261,250

234,403

228,300

228,297

228,300

Portsmouth

110,963

104,577

103,910

100,565

97,398

95,900

94,400

45,024

47,621

52,143

63,677

77,801

87,801

97,799

Virginia Beach

172,106

262,199

393,089

425,257

444,802

460,900

477,000

REGION TOTAL

656,299

704,959

837,435

855,630

884,109

912,418

941,029

Isle of Wight County

Suffolk

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

1970

2010

2020

2030

FIGURE 3.3: POPULATION CHANGES AND PROJECTED CHANGES, 1970-2030 500,000 400,000 Population

Isle of Wight County Norfolk

300,000

Portsmouth 200,000

Suffolk Virginia Beach

100,000 0 1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

Year

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

HOUSING, INFRASTRUCTURE AND LAND USE According to the 2000 Census, there are a total of approximately 338,013 housing units in the Southside Hampton Roads region with more than 90 percent of the units classified as occupied. Approximately 48 percent of housing units in the region are located in the City of Virginia Beach. All of the houses in the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth are within designated urban areas, while all of the houses in the Town of Windsor are located non-urban areas. The average age of housing units in the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth is notably older than houses in other areas (the median year of construction is 1959 and 1961, respectively), and the two cities also have the highest percentage of structures built before 1970. Table 3.4 summarizes data on housing characteristics for each jurisdiction within the Southside Hampton Roads region, and more specific information is provided in Section 5: Vulnerability Assessment.

TABLE 3.4: HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS OCCUPIED UNITS (%)

STRUCTURES BUILT BEFORE 1970 (%)

MEDIAN YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT

33.77

93.81

32.41

1980

2.45

100.00

91.31

68.24

1959

41,605

2.51

100.00

91.74

65.83

1961

2,521

2.55

99.01

96.71

33.68

1978

24,704

2.69

70.98

94.25

40.44

1975

162,277

2.7

98.47

95.18

25.31

1980

424

2.35

0.00

91.75

47.17

1971

338,013

2.55

71.75

93.54

44.73

1972

TOTAL HOUSING UNITS

AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE

Isle of Wight County

12,066

2.61

Norfolk

94,416

Portsmouth

JURISDICTION

Smithfield Suffolk Virginia Beach Windsor REGION TOTAL

URBAN AREA (%)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

The Southside Hampton Roads region provides an integrated network of transportation facilities and infrastructure that includes many interstates (I-64, I-264, I-464, I-564, I-664) and highways (U.S. 13, 17, 58, 60, 258, 460 and State Route 164), along with hundreds of secondary roadways and bridges throughout the area. The Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel, which opened in 1964, connects Virginia's Eastern Shore with the Virginia mainland at Virginia Beach and remains one of the world’s modern engineering wonders. Freight rail service is provided through CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Corporation, while the nearest passenger rail is available through Amtrak at the Newport News station. Convenient commercial air service is available through Norfolk International Airport which offers over 260 flights per day, including direct non-stops to 25 airports of which 17 are major hubs. The area also serves as one of the nation’s most critical and fastest growing ports. Over 95 percent of the world's shipping lines call on the Port of Norfolk and Portsmouth linking Virginia and the U.S. to more than 250 ports in over 100 countries around the world. With its four marine terminals, the Port of Hampton Roads is the second largest volume port on the East Coast in terms of general cargo (break-bulk and containerized cargo), and the leading U.S. port in total tonnage.

In addition to transportation facilities, the Southside Hampton Roads region provides a significant amount of critical facilities and infrastructure that include hospitals, schools, police stations, fire stations, energy facilities, water and wastewater facilities and hazardous material facilities (further discussed in Section 5: Vulnerability Assessment and Appendix F). The large scale military presence provides its own significant facilities and infrastructure base, though these are located on federal land and outside the planning area. Electric service is supplied throughout the region by Dominion Virginia Power, and natural gas is provided by Colombia Gas and Virginia Natural Gas. Superior Telecom provides 11 completely independent networks supported by over 650,000 miles of fiber optics. Land use varies significantly throughout the Southside Hampton Roads region, with residential development clustered in higher densities near city centers and along the beach areas of the City of Virginia Beach. While the cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth and Virginia Beach are rather heavily developed, the majority of Suffolk and Isle of Wight County is considered rural and agricultural lands. Table 3.5 provides best available information on existing land classifications for each jurisdiction according to the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey7. This data was acquired through the Geospatial and Statistical Data Center at the University of Virginia Library, and is based on 1992 Landsat thematic mapper imagery and supplemental data. Figure 3.4 illustrates this data in a series of images for each jurisdiction. The cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth and Virginia Beach are the most developed jurisdictions in terms of land use and land cover. According to the NLCD data, more than 70 percent of existing land in Norfolk is classified as residential, commercial or industrial, followed by Portsmouth (60 percent) and Virginia Beach (24 percent). Nearly 35 percent of land cover in Virginia Beach is classified as open water or wetlands, which accounts for the relatively low percentage of developed land. Conversely, the existing land cover for Isle of Wight County and the City of Suffolk are dominated by mostly agricultural lands (row crops), wetlands and forests. Developed areas in these two jurisdictions are concentrated in the incorporated towns of Smithfield and Windsor in Isle of Wight County, and near the north and central portions of Suffolk.

TABLE 3.5: LAND COVER / LAND USE LAND COVER TYPE

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY (%)

NORFOLK (%)

SUFFOLK (%)

VIRGINIA BEACH (%)

Pasture/Hay

12.1

1.3

9.4

3.9

Row Crops

25.3

3

22.9

17.1

Woody Wetlands

13

1.2

27.5

14.6

Open Water

1.8

11.6

10.5

3

11.4

2.3

2.1

5.4

3

8.8

8.2

2.8

37.1

21.2

2.5

12.9

4.2

18.5

0.5

6

29.9

20.2

1.9

5.4

Emerg/Herbaceous Wetlands Urban Recreational Grasses Low Intensity Residential High Intensity Residential Commercial/Indust rial/Transportation Quarries, Strip Mines, Gravel Pits Bare Rock, Sand, Clay

1.6

0.9

4.1

4.9 1.4

Transitional

0.7

1.6

1.8

1.6

Deciduous Forest

15.5

1.8

2.7

11.4

7.7

Evergreen Forest

8.5

3.4

5.9

8.4

4.9

Mixed Forest

18

0.7

0.8

7.4

Source: U.S. Geological Survey

7

PORTSMOUTH (%)

Data not available for the towns of Smithfield and Windsor.

FIGURE 3.4: LAND COVER / LAND USE

Norfolk

Isle of Wight County

Portsmouth

Virginia Beach Suffolk Low Intensity Residential High Intensity Residential Commercial/Industrial/Transportation Quarries, Strip Mines, Gravel Pits Bare Rock, Sand, Clay Transitional Pasture/Hay Row Crops

Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest Mixed Forest Urban Recreational Grasses Woody Wetlands Open Water Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands

Source: U.S. Geological Survey

EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRY Nearly two million people live in or within an hour's drive of the Southside Hampton Roads region, and because of the presence of several naval bases, a large proportion of the total population are employed in military and service related industries. The military bases not only contribute billions of dollars annually to the regional economy but also supply a skilled labor force. Over 15,000 trained and disciplined personnel leave the military installations each year, and many of these persons decide to stay in the area and look for local private sector employment. In addition, there are approximately 40,000 military spouses available to work. The region's tourism industry creates over 10,000 seasonal jobs during summer months. This group provides an additional source of

workers to companies with personnel needs that peak at other times of the year. Lastly, over 86,000 students attend eight universities and four community colleges in the area. Most of these students are permanent residents available for part-time or full-time employment while in school and upon graduation. Table 3.6 shows labor force data, unemployment rates and income and poverty information for each jurisdiction according to the 2000 Census (with the exception of unemployment rates which are shown for the year 2003). Isle of Wight County and the City of Virginia Beach had the lowest unemployment rate in the region (and less than the statewide average), while the City of Norfolk had the highest unemployment rate. The City of Virginia Beach had the highest median household income, approximately $2,000 more than the state average. Also, the poverty level for the city is lower than the state average. The City of Norfolk has the highest poverty level, in which almost one out of five people fall below poverty level.

TABLE 3.6: EMPLOYMENT, INCOME AND POVERTY

JURISDICTION

Isle of Wight Norfolk Portsmouth Smithfield Suffolk Virginia Beach Windsor VIRGINIA

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE (%) (2003)

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

PER CAPITA INCOME

FAMILIES BELOW POVERTY LEVEL (%)

INDIVIDUALS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL (%)

14,851

3.4

$45,387

$20,235

6.6

8.3

123,360

6.5

$31,815

$17,372

15.5

19.4

48,163

6.1

$33,742

$16,507

13.3

16.2

3,028

N/A

$43,224

$19,301

11.8

12.0

30,345

4.5

$41,115

$18,836

10.8

13.2

220,878

3.7

$48,705

$22,365

5.1

6.5

496

N/A

$36,528

$20,999

5.9

8.8

3,694,663

4.0

$46,677

$23,975

7.0

9.6

LABOR FORCE

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Virginia Economic Development Partnership

The City of Virginia Beach is the most populous city in the state and the fastest growing city in the planning area. The city added an average of 100 new businesses per month in recent years and this phenomenal growth can be attributed to the city’s intermodal location between Washington, D.C. and the Atlantic Ocean. In comparison to other cities, Virginia Beach has a higher employment rate in trade and service industries as shown in Figure 3.5. The City of Norfolk is home to the world’s largest naval base and the North American Headquarters for NATO. The city is located within the region of one of the nation’s fastest growing ports. The service industry is the largest employer in the city (38.8 percent), while 23 percent of the city’s labor force works in government and nearly 15 percent is in the armed forces. Norfolk is home of a booming cruise port industry and by 2010 the Norfolk International Terminal will complete a 300-acre expansion, making it the largest inter-model center in the U.S.

FIGURE 3.4: EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION IN PERCENT BY SECTOR, 2003 Government

100.0

Source: Virginia Economic Development Partnership, 2005

Isle of Wight County and its communities, 80.0 including the towns of Financial Smithfield and Information Windsor, are located 60.0 near major industries Manufacturing such as those that produce agricultural, Transportation / Utilities 40.0 paper and lumber Trade products and building materials, meat Construction 20.0 processing plants, as well as information Natural Resources and systems and Mining 0.0 manufacturing and equipment assembly plants. Isle of Wight County is home to Smithfield Foods, Inc., a Fortune 500 Company and the largest hog producer and pork processor in the world. Subsidiaries include Smithfield Packing Company and Gwaltney of Smithfield. The Smithfield Foods and its subsidiaries employ approximately 4,500 people. As shown in Figure 3.5, more than 47 percent of the Isle of Wight County population is employed in manufacturing industries. Services

Virginia Beach

Suffolk

Portsmouth

Norfolk

Isle of Wight

The City of Suffolk has experienced rapid population growth since 1970. The city is becoming a center of industrial and advanced technology. The Virginia Modeling, Analysis and Simulation Center and the U.S. Joint Forces Command are part of northern Suffolk’s high-tech corridor. Over $132 million in new capital investments were made in Suffolk in 2001, including major office and industrial projects such as the Ferguson and Target distribution centers. Suffolk maintains the highest percent employment in transportation and utility industries in the region. The majority of the City of Portsmouth population works in the service industry, the federal government, ship repair, marine engineering and health care due to its location adjacent to the shipyard. Thirty-six percent of the total labor force is employed by city, state and federal government.

DEVELOPMENT TRENDS As discussed earlier in this section, the Southside Hampton Roads region is expected to continue growing steadily with a projected population of nearly 1 million people in the planning area by the year 2030. Most of this residential growth is expected to take place in the large, more spread out cities of Virginia Beach and Suffolk. The more densely concentrated and developed cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth are expected to continue seeing declines in population during this period, thereby suggesting that development trends across the region will differ greatly from one jurisdiction to the next. Details on zoning and comprehensive plans (including future land use plans) can be obtained by contact each jurisdiction directly.

DATA SOURCES The following primary data sources were among those used to collect the information presented in this section. •

City of Virginia Beach (http://www.vbgov.com/default/)

•

City of Portsmouth (http://www.portsmouthva.gov/)

•

City of Suffolk (http://www.suffolk.va.us/citygovt/index.html)

•

City of Norfolk (http://www.norfolk.gov)

•

Town of Smithfield (http://www.co.smithfield.va.us/history.html)

•

Town of Windsor (http://www.windsor-va.gov/history.html)

•

A Brief History of Isle of Wight County, Virginia. 1608 – 1907, by Col. E. M. Morrison (http://www.iwchs.com/IWCHistory.html)

•

Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (www.hrpdc.org/)

•

Hampton Roads Economic Development Alliance (http://www.hreda.com/index.asp)

•

Virginia State/Local Cooperative Population Estimates (http://www3.ccps.virginia.edu/demographics/slcpe/default.shtml)

•

Virginia Economic Development Partnership (http://virginiascan.yesvirginia.org/Data_Center/Community_Profiles/Default.aspx)

•

Virginia Employment Commission (http://www.vec.virginia.gov/vecportal/)

•

Geospatial and Statistical Data Center, University of Virginia Library (http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/index.html)

•

Federal Emergency Management Agency (www.fema.gov)

•

U.S. Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/)

•

U.S. Geological Survey (http://www.usgs.gov/)

•

eGo.com Travel information-Virginia Beach History (http://www.ego.net/us/va/vb/history/index.htm)

INTRODUCTION This section of the Plan describes the natural hazards that can occur in the Southside Hampton Roads region and provides information such as general background information, local data (such as the location and spatial extent) and historical occurences8 for each hazard. This section also presents best available data regarding notable historical damages9 within the region. The hazards discussed in this section are as follows:  FLOOD  HURRICANES AND TROPICAL STORMS 8

Significant historical events are based on information made available through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) unless otherwise cited. In most cases, NOAA information is obtained directly from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), the world’s largest archive of weather data. 9 Historical damage information is based on best available data and should only be considered approximate figures for general analysis and planning purposes. More information on the calculation of estimated property damages is provided in Section 6: Vulnerability Assessment.

 SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS  LIGHTNING  TORNADOES  WINTER STORMS AND NOR’EASTERS  EROSION (COASTAL AND RIVERINE)  EARTHQUAKES  LANDSLIDES  SINKHOLES  DROUGHT  WILDFIRE  DAM/LEVEE FAILURE  TSUNAMIS  EXTREME TEMPERATURES

Some of these hazards are interrelated (for example, hurricane events can cause flooding and tornado activity and nor-easters can cause flooding, coastal erosion and winter storm conditions), and thus discussion of these hazards may overlap where necessary throughout the risk assessment. 44 CFR REQUIREMENT Part 201.6(c)(2)(i): The risk assessment shall include a description of the type, location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events

To a large extent, historical records are used to identify the level of risk within the planning area—with the methodological assumption that the data sources cited are reliable and accurate. This section also provides a series of maps that illustrate the location and spatial extent for those hazards within the region that have a recognizable geographic boundary (i.e., hazards that are known to occur in particular areas of the region such as the 100-year floodplain). For those hazards with potential risk not confined to a particular geographic area (such as winter storms, thunderstorms and tornadoes), historical event locations and/or general information on the applicable intensity of these events across the entire planning area is provided. It is important to note that for most hazards analyzed in this section, some level of property damage was possible during any or all of the hazard events cataloged. However, for events that occurred deeper in the region’s past, historical records in some instances may show no report of property damage. Therefore, totals of past property damages derived from historical records are considered to be estimates and should not be used as a stand-alone indicator of hazard risk. The next section included in this Plan, the Vulnerability Assessment, further expands upon the foundation established in this section and provides information on the vulnerability of the jurisdiction in the region to the hazards presented here.

SUMMARY OF PRESIDENTIAL DISASTER DECLARATIONS A presidential disaster declaration is issued when a disaster event has been determined to be beyond the capabilities of state and local governments to respond. Since 1953— the first year presidential disaster declarations were issued in the United States—the region has been named in seven such declarations (Table 4.1). Under a presidential disaster declaration, the state and affected local governments are eligible to apply for federal funding to pay 75 percent of the approved costs for debris removal, emergency services related to the storm, and the repair or replacement of damaged public facilities. The types of natural hazards that led to these disaster declarations in the Southside Hampton Roads region are ice storms, winter storms and hurricanes. The most recent disaster to impact the region was Hurricane Isabel which made landfall on September 18, 2003. Hurricane Isabel set records for number of disaster victims, breadth of power outages, dollars spent for citizen and local government response and recovery, and the largest grant for mitigation projects for the State. Altogether 100 Commonwealth jurisdictions were declared disaster areas; 93,139 individuals in the declared jurisdictions applied for federal and state assistance; more than $257 million in state and federal assistance has been provided to individuals and business owners for recovering from the storm; $105 million was distributed to local governments for debris removal, emergency protective services and permanent work; and $25,937,544 was provided to support emergency needs such as water, ice, and generators at critical public facilities. The second most recent disaster to impact the region occurred during the night of the 24th and lasted through the 25th of January 2000, when a winter storm produced record breaking snowfall in many areas of the state. A freezing rain storm on Super Bowl Sunday swept through Virginia and coated much of the State in heavy ice. As a result, power lines were down and 285,000 Dominion Virginia Power customers in central Virginia lost power for over three days. The President declared 103 Virginia jurisdictions eligible for federal disaster assistance on February 28th.

TABLE 4.1: PRESIDENTIAL DISASTER DECLARATIONS ISSUED FOR THE SOUTHSIDE HAMPTON ROADS REGION YEAR

DATE

DISASTER NUMBER

DISASTER TYPE

1972

September 8

339

Tropical Storm Agnes

1996

February 16

1086

Blizzard of 1996

1996

October 23

1135

Hurricane Fran

1998

October 9

1242

Hurricane Bonnie

1999

September 24

1293

Hurricane Floyd

2000

February 28

1318

Severe Winter Storm

2003

September 18

1491

Hurricane Isabel

Source: FEMA

CITY/COUNTY Isle of Wight County, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach Isle of Wight County, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk and Virginia Beach Isle of Wight County and Suffolk Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk and Virginia Beach Isle of Wight County, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach Isle of Wight County and Suffolk Isle of Wight County, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk and Virginia Beach

NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER STORM EVENT DATABASE Much of the data on the remaining tables in this section was taken from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA), National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) database. NCDC receives storm data from the National Weather Service who, in turn, receives their information from a variety of sources, including, but not limited to: county, state and federal emergency management officials, local law enforcement officials, skywarn spotters, National Weather Service damage surveys, newspaper clipping services, the insurance industry and the general public. Information on hazard events not recorded in this database is discussed in narrative format in each of the following hazard subsections. Because NCDC data is most accurate beginning from the early to mid 1990’s it is only marginally useful. In most cases, local or anecdotal data was used to help supplement the NCDC data to provide a more accurate depiction of previous hazard occurrences in the region.

FLOOD BACKGROUND Flooding is the most frequent and costly of all natural States, and has caused more than 10,000 deaths Approximately 90 percent of presidentially declared flood-related natural hazard events. Taken as a localized flooding problems that do not meet federal thresholds ultimately cause the majority of damages States.

hazards in the United since 1900. disasters result from whole, more frequent, disaster declaration across the United

Floods are generally the result of excessive be characterized as follows: general floods, in which over a given river basin for a long period of time; and are the product of heavy localized precipitation falling over a given location. The severity of a flood event following factors: a combination of stream and river physiography, hydrology, precipitation and weather moisture conditions, and the degree of vegetative around flood-prone areas.

precipitation, and can precipitation occurs flash floods, which in a short time period is determined by the basin topography and patterns, recent soil clearing in and

Flooding from Hurricane Floyd in Suffolk washes out a road and bridge. Photo courtesy of the City of Suffolk.

General floods may last for several days or even weeks. The primary types of general flooding include riverine, coastal and urban flooding. Riverine flooding is a function of excessive precipitation levels and water runoff volumes within a stream or river. Coastal flooding is typically a result of storm surge, wind-driven waves, and heavy rainfall produced by hurricanes, tropical storms, nor’easters and other large coastal storms. Urban flooding occurs where man-made development has obstructed the natural flow of water and decreased the ability of natural groundcover to absorb and retain surface water runoff. Most flash flooding is caused by slow-moving thunderstorms in a localized area or by heavy rains associated with hurricanes and tropical storms. Flash flooding can also occur due to accelerated snow melt, a dam or levee failure, or from a sudden release of water held by an ice jam. Although flash flooding occurs often along mountain streams, it is also common in urbanized areas where much of the ground is covered by impervious surfaces. Flash flood waters can move at very high speeds and “walls” of water have been known to reach heights of 10 to 20 feet. Flash flood waters and the accompanying debris can uproot trees, roll boulders, destroy buildings, and obliterate bridges and roads. The periodic flooding of lands including and adjacent to rivers, streams, and shorelines, referred to as the floodplain, is a natural and inevitable occurrence that can be expected to take place based upon established recurrence intervals. The recurrence interval of a flood is defined as the average time interval, in years, expected between a flood event of a particular magnitude and an equal or larger flood. As the magnitude of a hypothetical flood scenario increases the recurrence interval increases. That is, the greater the magnitude of a given event, the less likely it will occur over time. Floodplains are delineated by the frequency of the flood that is large enough to cover them. For example, the 10-year floodplain will be covered by a 10-year flood (should it occur) and the 100-year floodplain by the 100-year flood. Flood frequencies such as the 100-year flood are determined by plotting a graph of the size of all known floods for an area and determining how often floods of a particular size occur. Another way of expressing the flood frequency is the chance of occurrence (expressed as a percent) in a given year of a flood event of a given magnitude. For example, the 100-year flood has a 1 percent chance of occurring in any given year. Table 4.2 shows flood damage values by fiscal year from a national perspective.

Table 4.2: National Flood Damage By Fiscal Year (October–September) FISCAL YEAR 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967

DAMAGE $111,168,000 $147,680,000 $86,574,000 $179,496,000 $194,512,000 $1,221,903,000 $116,645,000 $291,823,000

IMPLICIT PRICE DEFLATOR 0.22620 0.22875 0.23180 0.23445 0.23792 0.24241 0.24934 0.25698

DAMAGE IN 1995 DOLLARS $491,000,000 $646,000,000 $373,000,000 $766,000,000 $818,000,000 $5,041,000,000 $468,000,000 $1,136,000,000

U.S. POPULATION (MILLIONS) 180.671 183.691 186.538 189.242 191.889 194.303 196.560 198.712

DAMAGE PER CAPITA (1995 DOLLARS) 2.72 3.51 2.00 4.05 4.26 25.94 2.38 5.71

1968 $443,251,000 1969 $889,135,000 1970 $173,803,000 1971 $323,427,000 1972 $4,442,992,000 1973 $1,805,284,000 1974 $692,832,000 1975 $1,348,834,000 1976 $1,054,790,000 1977 $988,350,000 1978 $1,028,970,000 1979 $3,626,030,000 1980 No data 1981 No data 1982 No data 1983 $3,693,572,000 1984 $3,540,770,000 1985 $379,303,000 1986 $5,939,994,000 1987 $1,442,349,000 1988 $214,297,000 1989 $1,080,814,000 1990 $1,636,366,000 1991 $1,698,765,000 1992 $672,635,000 1993 $16,364,710,000 1994 $1,120,149,000 1995 $5,110,714,000 1996 $6,121,753,000 1997 $8,934,923,000 1998 $2,465,048,000 1999 $5,450,375,000 2000 $1,336,744,000 2001 $7,158,700,000 Source: National Weather Service

0.26809 0.28124 0.29623 0.31111 0.32436 0.34251 0.37329 0.40805 0.43119 0.45892 0.49164 0.53262 0.58145 0.63578 0.67533 0.70214 0.72824 0.75117 0.76769 0.79083 0.81764 0.84883 0.88186 0.91397 0.93619 0.95872 0.97870 1.00000 1.01937 1.03925 1.05199 1.06718 1.08960 1.11539

$1,653,000,000 $3,161,000,000 $587,000,000 $1,040,000,000 $13,698,000,000 $5,271,000,000 $1,856,000,000 $3,306,000,000 $2,446,000,000 $2,154,000,000 $2,093,000,000 $6,808,000,000 No data No data No data $5,260,000,000 $4,862,000,000 $505,000,000 $7,737,000,000 $1,824,000,000 $262,000,000 $1,273,000,000 $1,856,000,000 $1,859,000,000 $718,000,000 $17,069,000,000 $1,145,000,000 $5,111,000,000 $6,005,000,000 $8,597,000,000 $2,343,000,000 $5107,000,000 $1227,000,000 $6418,000,000

200.706 202.677 205.052 207.661 209.896 211.909 213.854 215.973 218.035 220.239 222.585 225.055 227.225 229.466 231.664 233.792 235.825 237.924 240.133 242.289 244.499 246.819 249.464 252.153 255.030 257.783 260.327 262.803 265.229 267.784 270.248 272.691 282.125 284.797

8.24 15.60 2.86 5.01 65.26 24.87 8.68 15.31 11.22 9.78 9.40 30.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.50 20.62 2.12 32.22 7.53 1.07 5.16 7.44 7.37 2.82 66.22 4.40 19.45 22.64 32.11 8.67 18.73 4.35 22.54

LOCATION AND SPATIAL EXTENT Hydrological features are plentiful in the Southside Hampton Roads region. From the Chesapeake Bay, to the Elizabeth River and branches, the Blackwater River in Isle of Wight County and the Atlantic Ocean along the shores of Virginia Beach, water is a major part of the way of life in the region. When heavy or prolonged rainfall events and/or hurricanes, tropical storms and other coastal storms (including nor’easters) occur, these rivers, streams and bodies of water are susceptible to some degree of riverine and coastal flooding. There have been a number of past riverine and coastal flooding events, ranging widely in terms of location, magnitude and impact. Other flood events that occur in the region are localized in nature, resulting from heavy rains occurring in a short period of time over urbanized areas that are not able to adequately handle stormwater runoff. These events typically do not threaten lives or property and do not result in emergency or disaster declarations.10 The coastal flooding hazards associated with hurricanes and tropical storms are included separately under the “flood” hazard. In so doing, the storm surge hazard has been identified as a unique flood and will be addressed separately from the “100-year” coastal and riverine flood hazard in the Hazard Identification and Analysis and Vulnerability Assessment sections. Figures 4.1 through 4.7 show the existing potential flood hazard areas throughout the region based on the best available GIS data for FEMA’s identified 100-year floodplains (areas inundated by a flood with a recurrence interval of once every hundred years, also referred to as the flood with an annual chance of one percent). The official flood maps for each jurisdiction in the region vary in age. Where available, more detailed flood hazard data for each participating jurisdiction within the region is provided in Section 5: Vulnerability Assessment. Figures 4.8 through 4.12 show the storm surge hazard areas that can be expected as the result of Category 2, 3 and 4 hurricanes, based on the Sea, Lake and Overland Surge from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model. SLOSH is a computerized model run by the National Weather Service to estimate storm surge heights resulting from hypothetical hurricanes by taking into account the maximum of maximums of various category hurricanes as it relates to pressure, size, forward speed and sustained winds. The regional analysis represents the composite maximum water inundation levels for a series of parallel tracks making landfall at various points along the coast. The SLOSH model, therefore, is best used for defining the “worst case scenario” of potential maximum surge for particular locations as opposed to the regional impact of one singular storm surge event.

10

The vast majority of flood events in the United States do not meet the per capita damage thresholds required to trigger a presidential disaster declaration and the release of large sums of federal aid. This fact demonstrates the need for local governments to establish a comprehensive mitigation strategy that includes achievable actions that do not rely entirely on assistance from the state and federal government.

SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL EVENTS11 Many of the historical flood events that have have been the result of coastal storms, tropical Other localized flooding occurs when heavy rains fall causing waters that would normally drain quickly to the tides. Based on historical and anecdotal that there is a relatively high frequency of flooding in the notable flood events to impact the region are

occurred in the region storms or hurricanes. during high tide back up because of evidence, it is clear the region. Some of discussed below.

The Storm of 1749 is one of the most notable region. It was responsible for the formation of formation of land approximately two miles long and a This storm created a fifteen (15) foot storm surge the region.

storms to occur in this Willoughby Spit, a quarter mile wide. that flooded much of

An unnamed hurricane struck the region on August a high tide in Norfolk of 9.69 feet above Mean Lower Photo credit: City of Portsmouth. record for the area. Eighteen people were killed by flooded downtown Norfolk and destroyed homes at were recorded at 70 mph in Norfolk, 82 mph at Cape Henry, and 88 mph at the Naval Air Station in Norfolk.

23, 1933 and created Low Water (MLLW), a this storm that also Ocean View. Winds

The Ash Wednesday storm of 1962 produced very high flooding throughout the Southside Hampton Roads region partly because it occurred during "Spring Tide" (sun and moon phase to produce a higher than normal tide). The storm moved north off the coast past Virginia Beach and then reversed its course moving again to the south and bringing with it higher tides and higher waves which battered the coast for several days. The storm's center was 500 miles off the Virginia Capes when water reached 9 feet at Norfolk and 7 feet on the coast. Huge waves toppled houses into the ocean and broke through Virginia Beach's concrete boardwalk and sea wall. Houses on the bay side also saw extensive tidal flooding and wave damage. The beaches and shorefront had severe erosion. Locals indicated that the damage from this storm was worse in Virginia Beach than that caused by the 1933 Hurricane. The islands of Chincoteague and Assateague were completely submerged. Receding water exposed hundreds of thousands of dead chickens drowned by the flooding. The Virginia Department of Health indicated that it was an extreme health hazard and asked all women, children and elderly to evacuate. A million dollars in damage was done to NASA's Wallops Island launch facility and an estimated $4 million in wind and flood damages occurred to the City of Hampton. Winds were recorded at speeds up to 70 mph causing 40-foot waves at sea. This storm also produced Virginia's greatest 24-hour snowfall with 33 inches and the greatest single storm snowfall with 42 inches (these were recorded to the West in the Shenandoah Mountains).

11

Many of the flood events that have occurred in the Southside Hampton Roads Region have been caused by hurricanes, tropical storms or nor’easters that have impacted the region. Therefore, there will be some duplication of discussions about the significant historical events across the different hazards.

In September of 1999, Hurricane Floyd was wind and flood damage in the Southside Hampton Several trees were uprooted as wind speeds were 50 and 80 mph across the region. Flood waters of Route 10 between Isle of Wight County and Suffolk. major evacuation route, was flooded in Suffolk. Suffolk homes and 25 businesses damaged by floodwaters homes and businesses were flooded across the region.

responsible for Roads region. recorded between washed out parts Highway 32, a reported 78 and many other

In September of 2003, Hurricane Isabel caused region that in some areas was as bad as the flooding 1933 hurricane and the Ash Wednesday Storm of 1962.

flooding in caused by

Table 4.3 provides information on 21 significant flood known to have occurred between 1994 and 2004 in the Hampton Roads region. The flood events documented Climatic Data Center resulted in a total within the region deaths or injuries, and only approximately $670,000 in property damages.12

events

Rainfall totals from Hurricane Floyd. Source: NOAA Climate Prediction Center

that are Southside by the National of no known total reported

Table 4.3: Significant Flood Events (1993-2004) DATE OF OCCURRENCE

TYPE OF EVENT

DEATHS/ INJURIES

PROPERTY DAMAGE

Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Hampton Roads, and Isle of Wight County

11/17/1994

Coastal Flooding

0/ 0

$605,000

Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Suffolk, and Isle of Wight County

12/23/1994

Coastal Flooding

0/ 0

$65,000

LOCATION

12

the the

DETAILS Strong easterly flow between Hurricane Gordon, a category 1 storm meandering 150 miles south of Cape Hatteras, and a strong anticyclone over New England, caused significant coastal flooding and damage in the Sandbridge section of Virginia Beach, beginning around noon on November 17th. The worst flooding occurred on the 18th when tides were running up to 4 feet above normal. The heaviest damage occurred along 14th street, where 100 feet of the fishing pier washed away. Several homes suffered minor damage, with two requiring extra work to remain in place. A 1000-foot stretch of road and several protective steel bulkheads were damaged. The abovenormal tides caused other minor flooding in Tidewater. The Nansemond River overflowed its banks in Suffolk and caused minor flooding. High tides on the James and Pagan Rivers caused several roads to be under water in eastern Isle of Wight County. A double-structured storm system produced minor coastal flooding in the Tidewater region. The effects were much less than expected as the main storm moved well east of the mid-Atlantic before curling northwest into Long Island. In the Sandbridge section of Virginia Beach, a beachfront home collapsed into the sea. The combination of pounding surf and wind from Hurricane Gordon in late November and this event finished off the home. In addition, a few more bulkheads were flattened. Several roads in the Tidewater area suffered minor flooding, including Rescue Road in the Town of Smithfield.

Obviously, there has been more monetary flood damage in the region other than that recorded by the National Climatic Data Center.

Table 4.3: Significant Flood Events (1993-2004) DATE OF OCCURRENCE

TYPE OF EVENT

DEATHS/ INJURIES

PROPERTY DAMAGE

Norfolk

7/18/1996

Flash Flood

0/ 0

$0

Virginia Beach

7/18/1996

Flash Flood

0/ 0

0

Portsmouth

7/24/1999

Flash Flood

0/ 0

$0

Suffolk Norfolk

7/24/1999 7/24/1999

Flash Flood Flash Flood

0/ 0 0/ 0

$0 $0

Virginia Beach Portsmouth Norfolk

7/24/1999

Flash Flood

0/ 0

0

8/14/1999 8/14/1999

Flash Flood Flash Flood

0/ 0 0/ 0

$0 $0

Virginia Beach Portsmouth Suffolk

8/14/1999

Flash Flood

0/ 0

0

9/7/1999 9/7/1999

Flash Flood Flash Flood

0/ 0 0/ 0

$0 $0

Norfolk Virginia Beach

9/7/1999 9/7/1999

Flash Flood Flash Flood

0/ 0 0/ 0

$0 0

Virginia Beach, Hampton Roads, Portsmouth and Isle of Wight County

9/15/1999

Flood

0/ 0

$0

Suffolk

9/15/1999

Flood

0/ 0

$0

LOCATION

DETAILS One to two inches of rain within six hours produced flooding along the 300-400 block of East Little Creek Road. Also, people were trapped in cars with water waist high along Campostella Road. Two to four inches of rain within six hours produced flooding in the Kempsville area along Indian River Road and Princess Anne Road. Also, high water was reported in the Oceanfront area along Atlantic Avenue. Parts of Interstate 264 were covered with more than 3 feet of water. Some other roads were impassable. Spotter reported just over 7 inches of rain in 4 hours. Many roads were flooded and impassable. Many roads including Hampton Boulevard were flooded and impassable. Many roads were flooded and impassable. Numerous underpasses flooded. Numerous primary roads flooded. Many underpasses flooded. Numerous primary roads and underpasses flooded. No details available 1500 block of Camp Pond Road flooded out. No details available A slow-moving line of thunderstorms with very heavy rains caused numerous flooded roads throughout the area, with some secondary roads impassable. Very heavy rain from Hurricane Floyd produced widespread flooding and flash flooding across much of central and eastern Virginia, and northeast North Carolina. Rainfall amounts generally ranged from 12 to 18 inches in much of the region. Numerous roads were washed out due to flooding. Many areas normally prone only to flooding of poor drainage and low lying areas experienced significant flash flooding. Also, there were enormous agricultural/crop losses due to the flooding. Very heavy rain from Hurricane Floyd produced widespread flooding and flash flooding across much of central and eastern Virginia, and northeast North Carolina. Rainfall amounts generally ranged from 12 to 18 inches in much of the Virginia Tidewater. Numerous roads were washed out due to flooding. Many areas normally prone only to flooding of poor drainage and low lying areas experienced significant flash flooding. River flooding was extensive and prolonged in the Chowan River Basin. The Blackwater, Meherrin and Nottoway Rivers exceeded flood stage. Also, there were enormous agricultural/crop losses due to the flooding.

Table 4.3: Significant Flood Events (1993-2004) DATE OF OCCURRENCE

TYPE OF EVENT

DEATHS/ INJURIES

PROPERTY DAMAGE

Norfolk

9/15/1999

Flood

0/ 0

$0

Isle of Wight Countywide

10/17/1999

Flash Flood

0/ 0

$0

Portsmouth

10/17/1999

Flash Flood

0/ 0

$0

Suffolk

10/17/1999

Flash Flood

0/ 0

$0

Norfolk

10/17/1999

Flash Flood

0/ 0

$0

Virginia Beach

10/17/1999

Flash Flood

0/ 0

0

Norfolk

7/26/2000

Flash Flood

0/ 0

$0

Suffolk

7/30/2000

Flash Flood

0/ 0

$0

Portsmouth

8/11/2000

Flash Flood

0/ 0

$0

LOCATION

DETAILS Very heavy rain from Hurricane Floyd produced widespread flooding and flash flooding across much of central and eastern Virginia, and northeast North Carolina. Rainfall amounts generally ranged from near 7 inches from eastern Caroline County to Richmond City to Brunswick, Lunenburg and Mecklenburg counties, to 12 to 18 inches in much of the region. Numerous roads were washed out due to flooding. Many areas normally prone only to flooding of poor drainage and low lying areas experienced significant flash flooding. Primary routes out of service included US 460 near Wakefield, US 58 near Emporia and Franklin, and Interstate 95 south of Petersburg to Emporia. River flooding was extensive and prolonged in the Chowan River Basin. The Blackwater, Meherrin and Nottoway Rivers exceeded flood stage. Water levels in the city of Franklin were estimated to be several feet above the flood of record which occurred in August 1940. The flooding was considered to be a 500 year flood of record. Also, there were enormous agricultural/crop losses due to the flooding. Very heavy rainfall, locally up to 5 to 9 inches, associated with Hurricane Irene, resulted in numerous flooded roads and roads closed due to high water. Very heavy rainfall, locally up to 7 to 12 inches, associated with Hurricane Irene, resulted in numerous flooded roads and roads closed due to high water. Very heavy rainfall, locally up to 5 to 9 inches, associated with Hurricane Irene resulted in numerous flooded roads and roads closed due to high water. Very heavy rainfall, locally up to 7 to 12 inches, associated with Hurricane Irene, resulted in numerous flooded roads and roads closed due to high water. Very heavy rainfall, locally up to 7 to 12 inches, associated with Hurricane Irene, resulted in numerous flooded roads and roads closed due to high water. Heavy rain flooded roadways and caused closure of underpasses on Tidewater Drive in downtown Norfolk. Flooding also occurred at Chesapeake Boulevard and Chesapeake Street in the East Ocean View section of Norfolk. Heavy rain caused flooding of Kings Fork Road in the western part of the city. Very heavy rain caused flooding and the closure of Interstate 264 at Frederick Boulevard.

Table 4.3: Significant Flood Events (1993-2004) DATE OF OCCURRENCE

TYPE OF EVENT

DEATHS/ INJURIES

PROPERTY DAMAGE

Norfolk

8/11/2000

Flash Flood

0/ 0

$0

Virginia Beach

8/14/2000

Flash Flood

0/ 0

0

Norfolk

9/5/2000

Flash Flood

0/ 0

$0

Windsor

6/16/2001

Flash Flood

0/ 0

$0

Suffolk

6/16/2001

Flash Flood

0/ 0

$0

Norfolk

7/23/2001

Flash Flood

0/ 0

$0

Norfolk

8/28/2002

Flash Flood

0/ 0

$0

Virginia Beach

8/28/2002

Flash Flood

0/ 0

0

Norfolk

10/11/2002

Flash Flood

0/ 0

$0

Virginia Beach

10/11/2002

Flash Flood

0/ 0

0

Portsmouth Suffolk Airport

9/3/2003 9/3/2003

Flash Flood Flash Flood

0/ 0 0/ 0

$0 $0

Norfolk

9/3/2003

Flash Flood

0/ 0

$0

Portsmouth

6/10/2004

Flash Flood

0/ 0

$0

LOCATION

DETAILS Extremely heavy rain caused widespread flooding of roads in downtown Norfolk. The intersections of Granby Street and Brambleton Avenue, Princess Anne Road and Monticello Avenue, and City Hall Avenue and Granby Street were all closed due to high standing water. Also, underpasses on Campostella Avenue, Tidewater Drive and Colley Avenue in Norfolk were closed due to accumulated water. In Portsmouth, Interstate 264 at Frederick Boulevard was closed due to standing water. Very heavy rain caused widespread flooding and closure of roads in the vicinity of Princess Anne Plaza. Also, sections of Rosemont Road were closed due to flooding. Heavy rain from slow-moving thunderstorms caused the side of an underpass wall to slide into the road at Granby Street and Interstate 64 resulting in road closure. Knoxville Road, Rose Drive, and numerous other secondary roads impassable around Windsor. Flooding reported near Whaleyville. One street closed. Car submerged at the underpass on Colley Avenue and 21st Street. Also, numerous roads covered by 1 to 2 feet of water. Rainfall amounts of 2 to 3 inches within 2 hours caused roads to be closed or blocked due to high water. Union Street and areas near City Hall and Granby were flooded. Cars were reported stalled out in deep water, also. Rainfall amounts of 2 to 3 inches within 2 hours caused some roads to be closed or blocked due to high water. Rosemont at the Virginia Beach Boulevard and around the Kings Grant area were closed or blocked. Cars were reported stalled out in deep water, also. Rainfall amounts between 3 and 3.5 inches caused flooding of some streets and low lying intersections, including the intersection of Tidewater Drive and Virginia Beach Boulevard. Rainfall amounts between 3 and 3.5 inches caused flooding and closure of Atlantic Avenue between 42nd and 65th streets. Waist high water reported on some roads. Flooding of streets in northern Suffolk. Water as high as mailboxes in a cul-desac. Many roads closed due to high water, including 8000 block of Hampton Boulevard. Six inches of water across road at Airline Boulevard and I264. One foot of water across road at intersection of Oregon and Dakota Roads.

Table 4.3: Significant Flood Events (1993-2004) DATE OF OCCURRENCE

TYPE OF EVENT

DEATHS/ INJURIES

PROPERTY DAMAGE

Isle of Wight

7/25/2004

Flash Flood

0/ 0

$0

Norfolk

7/25/2004

Flash Flood

0/ 0

$0

Portsmouth

8/2/2004

Flash Flood

0/ 0

$0

Norfolk

8/2/2004

Flash Flood

0/ 0

$0

0/0

$670,000

LOCATION

TOTAL

DETAILS Lawnes Creek Bridge on Route 10 near Rushmere reported closed due to flooding. Also, several other roads were closed due to flooding in the northern part of the county. Many streets flooded in downtown Norfolk including Waterside Drive. Duke and Randolph Streets reported closed due to high water. Flooding on I264 and Portsmouth Boulevard. Flooding reported at the intersection of Park Avenue and Virginia Beach Boulevard, and at the intersection of Robinhood Road and I-64 underpass.

Source: National Climatic Data Center (1993 to 2004 data)

PROBABILITY OF FUTURE OCCURRENCES Flooding remains a highly likely occurrence throughout the identified flood hazard areas of the region. Smaller floods caused by heavy rains and inadequate drainage capacity will be more frequent, but not as costly as the large-scale floods which may occur at less frequent intervals, including extended torrential rainfall and storm surge events associated with hurricanes, tropical storms and nor’easters. While the potential for flood is always present, many of the jurisdictions within the region do have policies in place that should help lessen potential property damage due to future floods.13

13

The Capability Assessment section of this Plan provides an overview of the programs and policies that each jurisdiction has in place that are designed to reduce the impacts of the flood hazard.

HURRICANES AND TROPICAL STORMS BACKGROUND Hurricanes and tropical storms, along with nor’easters and classified as cyclones and are any closed circulation low-pressure center in which the winds rotate counterNorthern Hemisphere (or clockwise in the Southern whose diameter averages 10 to 30 miles across. A tropical such circulation that develops over tropical waters. Tropical “safety-valve,” limiting the continued build-up of heat and regions by maintaining the atmospheric heat and moisture tropics and the pole-ward latitudes. The primary damaging these storms are high-level sustained winds, heavy tornadoes. Coastal areas are particularly vulnerable to driven waves, and tidal flooding which can prove more cyclone wind14.

typhoons, are developing around a clockwise in the Hemisphere) and cyclone refers to any cyclones act as a energy in tropical balance between the forces associated with precipitation, and storm surge, winddestructive than

The key energy source for a tropical cyclone is the release of condensation of warm water. Their formation requires a lowwarm sea surface temperature, rotational force from the and the absence of wind shear in the lowest 50,000 feet of majority of hurricanes and tropical storms form in the Atlantic Sea, and Gulf of Mexico during the official Atlantic hurricane encompasses the months of June through November. The hurricane season is in early to mid-September. Based on a approximately six storms reach hurricane intensity per year.

latent heat from the pressure disturbance, spinning of the earth, the atmosphere. The Ocean, Caribbean season, which peak of the Atlantic long-term average,

Hurricane Isabel approaches North Carolina and Virginia in September of 2003. (Photo courtesy of NASA)

Figure 4.13 shows, for any particular location, the chance of a hurricane or tropical storm affecting the area sometime during the Atlantic hurricane season. The figure was created by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Hurricane Research Division, using data from 1944 to 1999. The figure shows the number of times a storm or hurricane was located within approximately 100 miles (165 kilometers) of a given spot in the Atlantic basin.

14

For purposes of this risk assessment, coastal flood hazards associated with hurricanes and tropical storm events are included separately under the “flood” hazard.

Figure 4.13: Empirical Probability of a Named Hurricane or Tropical Storm

Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Hurricane Research Division

As an incipient hurricane develops, barometric pressure (measured in millibars or inches) at its center falls and winds increase. If the atmospheric and oceanic conditions are favorable, it can intensify into a tropical depression. When maximum sustained winds reach or exceed 39 miles per hour, the system is designated a tropical storm, given a name, and is monitored by the National Hurricane Center in Miami, Florida. When sustained winds reach or exceed 74 miles per hour the storm is deemed a hurricane. Hurricane intensity is further classified by the Saffir-Simpson Scale which rates hurricane intensity on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most intense. The Saffir-Simpson Scale is shown in Table 4.4.

TABLE 4.4: SAFFIR-SIMPSON SCALE CATEGORY

MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WIND SPEED (MPH)

1 2 3 4 5

74–95 96–110 111–130 131–155 155 +

MINIMUM SURFACE STORM SURGE PRESSURE (MILLIBARS) (FEET) Greater than 980 979–965 964–945 944–920 Less than 920

3–5 6–8 9–12 13–18 19+

Source: Federal National Hurricane Center

The Saffir-Simpson Scale categorizes hurricane intensity linearly based upon maximum sustained winds, barometric pressure, and storm surge potential, which are combined to estimate potential damage. Categories 3, 4, and 5 are classified as “major” hurricanes, and while hurricanes within this range comprise only 20 percent of total tropical cyclones making landfall, they account for over 70 percent of the damage in the United States. Table 4.5 describes the damage that could be expected for each hurricane category.

TABLE 4.5: HURRICANE DAMAGE CLASSIFICATIONS

STORM DAMAGE LEVEL CATEGORY

1

MINIMAL

DESCRIPTION OF DAMAGES

No real damage to building structures. Damage primarily to unanchored mobile homes, shrubbery, and trees. Also, some coastal flooding and minor pier damage.

MODERATE

Some roofing material, door, and window damage. Considerable damage to vegetation, mobile homes, etc. Flooding damages piers and small craft in unprotected moorings may break their moorings.

3

EXTENSIVE

Some structural damage to small residences and utility buildings, with a minor amount of curtainwall failures. Mobile homes are destroyed. Flooding near the coast destroys smaller structures, with larger structures damaged by floating debris. Terrain may be flooded well inland.

4

EXTREME

More extensive curtainwall failures with some complete roof structure failure on small residences. Major erosion of beach areas. Terrain may be flooded well inland.

2

5

PHOTO EXAMPLE

Complete roof failure on many residences and industrial buildings. Some complete building failures with small utility CATASTROPHIC buildings blown over or away. Flooding causes major damage to lower floors of all structures near the shoreline. Massive evacuation of residential areas may be required.

Sources: National Hurricane Center and the Federal Emergency Management Agency

A storm surge is a large dome of water often 50 to 100 miles wide and rising anywhere from four to five feet in a Category 1 hurricane up to 20 feet in a Category 5 storm. The storm surge arrives ahead of the storm’s actual landfall and the more intense the hurricane is, the sooner the surge arrives. Water rise can be very rapid, posing a serious threat to those who have not yet evacuated flood-prone areas. A storm surge is a wave that has outrun its generating source and become a long period swell. The surge is always highest in the right-front quadrant of the direction in which the hurricane is moving. As the storm approaches shore, the greatest storm surge will be to the north of the hurricane eye. Such a surge of high water topped by waves driven by hurricane force winds can be devastating to coastal regions, causing severe beach erosion and property damage along the immediate coast. Storm surge heights and associated waves are dependent upon the shape of the continental shelf (narrow or wide) and the depth of the ocean bottom (bathymetry). A narrow shelf, or one that drops steeply from the shoreline and subsequently produces deep water close to the shoreline, tends to produce a lower surge but higher and more powerful storm waves. Damage during hurricanes may also result from spawned tornadoes and inland flooding associated with heavy rainfall that usually accompanies these storms. Hurricane Floyd, for example, was at one time a Category 4 hurricane racing towards the North Carolina coast. As far inland as Raleigh, the state capital located more than 100 miles from the coast, communities were preparing for winds exceeding 100 miles per hour. While Floyd made landfall as a Category 2 hurricane it caused the worst inland flooding disaster in North Carolina’s history. Rainfall amounts exceeded 20 inches in certain locales and 67 counties sustained damages. Similar to hurricanes, nor’easters are ocean storms capable of causing substantial damage to coastal areas in the Eastern United States due to their strong winds and heavy surf. Nor'easters are named for the winds that blow in from the northeast and drive the storm up the East Coast along the Gulf Stream, a band of warm water that lies off the Atlantic coast. They are caused by the interaction of the jet stream with horizontal temperature gradients and generally occur during the fall and winter months when moisture and cold air are plentiful. Nor’easters are known for dumping heavy amounts of rain and snow, producing hurricane-force winds, and creating high surf that causes severe beach erosion and coastal flooding. There are two main components to a nor'easter: (1) a Gulf Stream lowpressure system (counter-clockwise winds) generated off the southeastern U.S. coast, gathering warm air and moisture from the Atlantic, and pulled up the East Coast by strong northeasterly winds at the leading edge of the storm; and (2) an Arctic high-

pressure system (clockwise winds) which meets the low-pressure system with cold, arctic air blowing down from Canada. When the two systems collide, the moisture and cold air produce a mix of precipitation and have the potential for creating dangerously high winds and heavy seas. As the low-pressure system deepens, the intensity of the winds and waves increase and can cause serious damage to coastal areas as the storm moves northeast. 15

15

Depending on the location of jurisdictions participating in the Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Plan, nor’easters are viewed as winter storm or coastal events, as the coastal storm characteristics and coastal impacts of nor’easters are limited to coastal communities. The Dolan-Davis Nor’easter Intensity Scale, which shows levels of coastal degradation based on beach and dune erosion, overwash and coastal property damage is particularly relevant to jurisdictions such as Virginia Beach, and to a lesser extent Norfolk, Portsmouth and parts of Isle of Wight County.

LOCATION AND SPATIAL EXTENT Since the mid-1800s, numerous tropical cyclones on a statewide basis, causing the deaths of an and costing the Commonwealth more than a billion The eyes of over 70 storms have tracked directly 11 having made landfall on or within 60 miles of the region is geographically located in an area that can hurricane damage in any given year.

have affected Virginia estimated 228 people dollars in damages. across Virginia with Virginia Coast. The expect to experience

In fact, 106 such storms have passed within 75 miles Hampton Roads region since 1851 (Figure 4.14), 29 directly through the region. 2 Category 3 hurricanes miles of the region (both unnamed storms in 1879 Category 2 hurricanes, 31 were Category 1 were tropical storms. Of the storms that passed Hurricane Ivan was the most recent in 2004.

of the Southside of which crossed passed within 75 and 1899), 14 were hurricanes and 117 through the region,

Remains of a restaurant in Isle of Wight County after Hurricane Isabel. Photo credit: Isle of Wight County

SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL EVENTS16 The National Weather Service began keeping weather records on January 1, 1871. Prior to that, information on past hurricanes and tropical storms to impact the Southside Hampton Roads region were taken from ships logs, accounts from local citizens, newspapers and other source. There are several historical references to major storms that affected coastal Virginia in the 1600's and 1700's17. Some of these storms were strong enough to alter land masses, including the widening of the Lynnhaven River (September 6, 1667) and formation of Willoughby Spit (October 19, 1749). These reports also indicate severe flooding caused by these storms (12-15 feet of flooding in some cases). Better records have been kept since 1871. One for the first of the storms to be well documented was a hurricane that occurred in October 1878 that resulted in Cobb and Smith Islands on the Eastern Shore being completely submerged. One of the worst storms to impact the region occurred in August 1933 when a hurricane known as the Chesapeake-Potomac Hurricane of 1933 passed just west of the Hampton Roads area. The storm made landfall in northeastern North Carolina and moved northwest. This hurricane produced the record high tide for the area which exists today, at a level of 9.69 feet above Mean Lower Low Water. The highest sustained wind was clocked was 88 mph at the Naval Air Station (NAS). Less than a month later, another hurricane struck the area with winds again clocked at 88 mph at NAS, but tides only rose to 8.3 feet above Mean Lower Low Water. Another unnamed storm occurred in September of 1944 creating the fastest 1 minute wind speed to ever be recorded in the area (134 mph at Cape Henry). Gusts were estimated to 150 mph. The local National Weather Service office recorded 72 mph winds with gusts to 90 mph. Although the center of circulation for Hurricane Hazel did not pass within 75 miles of the region, wind speeds of 78 mph were recorded at Norfolk Airport with gusts up to 100 mph and an unofficial reading of 130 mph was also reported in Hampton. In 1960 Hurricane Donna passed through the region with a fastest 1 minute wind speed of 73 mph at Norfolk Airport, 80 mph at CapeHenry and estimated 138 mph at Chesapeake Light Ship. Lowest pressure of 28.65 inches holds the area record for a tropical storm. 3 deaths were documented in association with this hurricane. On August 27, 1998, Hurricane Bonnie tracked over the region after passing over the northern Outer Banks. Winds speeds were sustained at 46 mph with gust to 64 mph at Norfolk Airport. Four to seven inches of rain combined with near hurricane force winds knocked out power to 320,000 customers across Virginia. Highest tide was recorded at 6.0 feet above Mean Lower Low Water. This was the most significant storm to impact the region since 1960 (Hurricane Donna) On September 6, 1999, Hurricane Floyd passed directly over Virginia Beach on a track similar to Hurricane Donna in 1960. Wind speeds were recorded at 31 mph with gust to 46 mph. Rainfall amounts of 12-18" were recorded in portions of eastern Virginia causing extensive flooding in portions of the Southside Hampton Roads region. Just as the rest of the country has experienced, Southeastern Virginia has felt the impacts of very active hurricane seasons for the past ten years. In 1996, Hurricanes Bertha and Fran impacted the region, followed by Hurricane Danny in 1997, Hurricane Bonnie in 1998, and Hurricanes Dennis, Floyd, and Irene in 1999. Although each of these storms were downgraded by the time they reached the Southside Hampton Roads region, they each created problems for the region when they passed through, two of which resulted in Federal Disaster declarations (Bonnie and Floyd) for the region. Tropical storms Helene in 2000 and Kyle occurred in 2002, and most recently, Hurricane Isabel caused major damage in the region in 2003 (winds speeds of 54 mph with gusts to 75 mph in Norfolk and significant beach erosion was reported). Table 4.5 shows the historical storm tracks within 75 miles of Southside Hampton Roads region since 1851 that are the basis for Figure 4.14.

Table 4.5: Historical Storm Tracks Within 75 Miles of the Region (Since 1851) DATE OF OCCURRENCE

STORM NAME

WIND SPEED (MPH)

STORM CATEGORY

8/25/1851 9/10/1854 8/20/1856 9/17/1859 9/27/1861

UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED

45 45 60 60 70

TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM

16

As previously mentioned, many of the significant hurricane, coastal storm and tropical storm events were also significant flooding events. As such, many of the significant historical events for hurricanes may also be discussed in the description of the flood hazard. 17

The first historical reference to a major hurricane that could have affected the Virginia coast was in August 24, 1635.

Table 4.5: Historical Storm Tracks Within 75 Miles of the Region (Since 1851) DATE OF OCCURRENCE

STORM NAME

WIND SPEED (MPH)

STORM CATEGORY

11/2/1861 9/18/1863 10/26/1872 9/29/1874 9/17/1876 10/23/1878 8/18/1879 9/9/1880 9/10/1881 9/11/1882 9/23/1882 9/12/1883 8/26/1885 7/2/1886 9/11/1888 10/12/1888 9/25/1889 6/17/1893 10/23/1893 9/29/1894 10/10/1894 9/23/1897 10/26/1897 8/18/1899 10/31/1899 7/11/1901 6/16/1902 9/15/1904 9/1/1908 8/25/1918 12/3/1925 9/19/1928 8/23/1933 9/16/1933 9/6/1935 9/18/1936 8/2/1944 9/14/1944 10/20/1944 6/26/1945 7/7/1946 8/14/1953 8/31/1954 8/12/1955 9/20/1955 7/10/1959 7/30/1960 9/12/1960 9/14/1961 9/1/1964 9/17/1967 8/28/1971 6/22/1972 7/1/1981 9/30/1983 9/14/1984 9/27/1985 8/18/1986 9/25/1992 7/13/1996 7/24/1997 8/28/1998 9/16/1999 9/24/2000 10/12/2002 9/18/2003 8/14/2004

UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED BARBARA CAROL CONNIE IONE CINDY BRENDA DONNA UNNAMED CLEO DORIA DORIA AGNES BRET DEAN DIANA GLORIA CHARLEY DANIELLE BERTHA DANNY BONNIE FLOYD HELENE KYLE ISABEL CHARLEY

80 70 45 70 90 105 115 80 70 45 45 45 80 40 40 60 45 65 50 85 75 70 60 120 65 80 40 65 50 40 45 45 80 90 75 100 50 105 40 50 65 105 100 80 70 40 50 105 40 45 40 65 50 60 65 60 105 80 65 75 45 85 80 45 45 100 40

CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE CATEGORY 2 HURRICANE CATEGORY 3 HURRICANE CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM CATEGORY 3 HURRICANE TROPICAL STORM CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE CATEGORY 2 HURRICANE TROPICAL STORM CATEGORY 2 HURRICANE TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM CATEGORY 2 HURRICANE CATEGORY 2 HURRICANE CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM CATEGORY 2 HURRICANE TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM CATEGORY 2 HURRICANE CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE TROPICAL STORM CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE TROPICAL STORM CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE TROPICAL STORM TROPICAL STORM CATEGORY 2 HURRICANE TROPICAL STORM

Source: National Hurricane Center

PROBABILITY OF FUTURE OCCURRENCES It is likely that the region will be impacted by hurricanes and tropical storms in the future. The region is less likely to experience the effects of a major (Category 3 or stronger) hurricane, however it remains a possibility. The effects of smaller hurricanes (Categories 1 and 2 with wind speeds from 74-110 miles per hour) and tropical storms (sustained wind speeds of at least 39 miles per hour and torrential rains) will be more frequent, as storms making landfall along the North Carolina and Virginia coastlines could impact the region in any given year.

SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS BACKGROUND According to the National Weather Service, more than 100,000 thunderstorms occur each year, though only about 10 percent of these storms are classified as “severe.” Although thunderstorms generally affect a small area when they occur, they are very dangerous because of their ability to generate tornadoes, hailstorms, strong winds, flash flooding, and damaging lightning. While thunderstorms can occur in all regions of the United States, they are most common in the central and southern states because atmospheric conditions in those regions are most ideal for generating these powerful storms. Thunderstorms are caused when air masses of varying temperatures meet. Rapidly rising warm moist air serves as the “engine” for thunderstorms. These storms can occur singularly, in lines, or in clusters. They can move through an area very quickly or linger for several hours. The National Weather Service collected data for thunder days, number and duration of thunder events, and lightening strike density for the 30-year period from 1948 to 1977. A series of maps was generated showing the annual average thunder event duration, the annual average number of thunder events, and the mean annual density of lightning strikes. Figure 4.15 illustrates thunderstorm hazard severity based on the annual average number of thunder events from 1948 to 1977.

Figure 4.15: Annual Average Number of Thunder Events

Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency

Straight-line winds, which in extreme cases have the potential to cause wind gusts that exceed 100 miles per hour, are responsible for most thunderstorm wind damage. One type of straight-line wind, the downburst, can cause damage equivalent to a strong tornado and can be extremely dangerous to aviation. Figure 4.16 shows how the frequency and strength of extreme windstorms vary across the United States. The map was produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and is based on 40 years of tornado history and over 100 years of hurricane history. Zone IV, the darkest area on the map, has experienced both the greatest number of tornadoes and the strongest tornadoes. As shown by the map key, wind speeds in Zone IV can be as high as 250 MPH.

FIGURE 4.16: WIND ZONES IN THE UNITED STATES

Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency

Hailstorms are another potential damaging outgrowth of severe thunderstorms. Early in the developmental stages of a hailstorm, ice crystals form within a low-pressure front due to the rapid rising of warm air into the upper atmosphere and the subsequent cooling of the air mass. Frozen droplets gradually accumulate on the ice crystals until, having developed sufficient weight, they fall as precipitation—as balls or irregularly shaped masses of ice greater than 0.75 in. (1.91 cm) in diameter. The size of hailstones is a direct function of the size and severity of the storm. High velocity updraft winds are required to keep hail in suspension in thunderclouds. The strength of the updraft is a function of the intensity of heating at the Earth’s surface. Higher temperature gradients relative to elevation above the surface result in increased suspension time and hailstone size. Figure 4.17 shows the annual frequency of hailstorms in the United States.

Large hail collects on streets and grass during a severe thunderstorm. Larger stones appear to be nearly two to three inches in diameter. (NOAA Photo Library, NOAA Central Library; OAR/ERL/National Severe Storms Laboratory)

FIGURE 4.17: ANNUAL FREQUENCY OF HAILSTORMS IN THE UNITED STATES

Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency

LOCATION AND SPATIAL EXTENT Thunderstorms are common throughout the state of Virginia, and have been known to occur during all months of the year. In addition to the high winds associated with these events, thunderstorms can also bring dangerous lightning that can cause fires, property damage and may cause death or serious injury. Thunderstorms can also produce hail, which can cause varying degrees of property and crop damage. According to the National Climatic Data Center, the region has experienced a recorded 112 severe thunderstorm events since 1950 resulting in 1 reported death, 15 injuries and approximately $595,000 in property damage.

SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL EVENTS Table 4.6 provides details of historical severe thunderstorm activity in the region as recorded by the National Climatic Data Center.18

Table 4.6: Significant Severe Thunderstorm Events (1950-2004) LOCATION Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Norfolk Norfolk Suffolk Norfolk Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Suffolk Norfolk Norfolk Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Norfolk Virginia Beach Norfolk Isle of Wight Isle of Wight Isle of Wight Norfolk Virginia Beach

DATE OF MAGNITUDE DEATHS/ OCCURRENCE (KNOTS) INJURIES

PROPERTY DAMAGE

7/9/1956

62 knots.

0/0

$0

8/10/1956

0 knots.

0/0

$0

4/8/1957

55 knots.

0/0

$0

3/13/1958

0 knots.

0/0

$0

2/18/1960 5/17/1960 5/21/1962 2/13/1966

N/A N/A N/A N/A

0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

$0 $0 $0 $0

2/13/1966

55 knots.

0/0

$0

1/27/1967

0 knots.

0/0

$0

4/30/1968

60 knots.

0/0

$0

7/17/1968

0 knots.

0/0

$0

7/1/1969

0 knots.

0/0

$0

7/3/1969 6/21/1970 7/16/1972

N/A N/A N/A

0/0 0/0 0/0

$0 $0 $0

7/10/1973

56 knots.

0/0

$0

8/12/1973

0 knots.

0/0

$0

4/4/1974

N/A

0/0

$0

4/5/1974

0 knots.

0/0

$0

6/20/1974

60 knots

0/0

$0

6/23/1974

N/A

0/0

$0

6/23/1974

N/A

0/0

$0

8/29/1974

N/A

0/0

$0

2/24/1975

N/A

0/0

$0

3/19/1975

0 knots.

0/0

$0

DETAILS No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available

18 While the Severe Thunderstorm hazard is understood to include lightning and hail as hazardous elements, tables are provided with lightning and hail activity presented separately with the understanding that some duplication of deaths, injuries and property damage may occur when comparing all three tables. The Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee determined that the lightning hazard should be discussed and analyzed as a separate hazard, independent from the thunderstorm discussion and analysis.

Table 4.6: Significant Severe Thunderstorm Events (1950-2004) LOCATION Virginia Beach Norfolk Isle of Wight Norfolk Virginia Beach Norfolk Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Portsmouth Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Suffolk Isle of Wight Norfolk Norfolk Virginia Beach Norfolk Norfolk Portsmouth Suffolk Norfolk Norfolk Norfolk Isle of Wight Portsmouth Norfolk Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Isle of Wight Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Norfolk Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach

DATE OF MAGNITUDE DEATHS/ OCCURRENCE (KNOTS) INJURIES

PROPERTY DAMAGE

3/19/1975

0 knots.

0/0

$0

3/24/1975

50 knots

0/0

$0

4/25/1975

N/A

0/0

$0

4/25/1975

55 knots

0/0

$0

4/25/1975

65 knots.

0/0

$0

7/29/1976

65 knots

0/0

$0

10/9/1976

0 knots.

0/0

$0

10/9/1976

0 knots.

0/0

$0

6/6/1977

N/A

0/0

$0

6/6/1977

0 knots.

0/0

$0

6/6/1977

53 knots.

0/0

$0

7/1/1977

0 knots.

0/0

$0

6/3/1978

0 knots.

0/0

$0

5/23/1979

N/A

0/0

$0

2/23/1980

52 knots

0/0

$0

4/4/1980 4/4/1980

52 knots 85 knots

0/0 0/0

$0 $0

4/4/1980

85 knots.

0/0

$0

7/5/1980 8/15/1980 6/16/1982 6/16/1982 6/16/1982 6/16/1982 8/11/1982

61 knots 57 knots N/A N/A 60 knots 60 knots N/A

0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

5/8/1984

N/A

0/0

$0

5/8/1984 5/8/1984

N/A 57 knots

0/0 0/0

$0 $0

5/8/1984

53 knots.

0/0

$0

6/5/1985

60 knots.

0/0

$0

6/5/1985

52 knots.

0/0

$0

10/15/1985

N/A

0/0

$0

7/9/1986

69 knots.

0/0

$0

7/9/1986

69 knots.

0/0

$0

7/9/1986

55 knots.

0/0

$0

6/2/1987

60 knots

0/0

$0

7/31/1987

0 knots.

0/0

$0

6/26/1988

50 knots.

0/0

$0

3/15/1989

60 knots.

0/0

$0

3/15/1989

50 knots.

0/0

$0

DETAILS No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available

Table 4.6: Significant Severe Thunderstorm Events (1950-2004) LOCATION Suffolk Isle of Wight Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Suffolk Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Norfolk Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Isle of Wight Suffolk Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Isle of Wight Isle of Wight Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Isle of Wight Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Isle of Wight Virginia Beach Suffolk Virginia Beach

DATE OF MAGNITUDE DEATHS/ OCCURRENCE (KNOTS) INJURIES

PROPERTY DAMAGE

3/30/1989

N/A

0/0

$0

3/31/1989

52 knots

0/0

$0

3/31/1989

65 knots.

0/0

$0

3/31/1989

54 knots.

0/0

$0

5/6/1989

0 knots.

0/1

$0

5/6/1989

0 knots.

0/0

$0

6/2/1989

N/A

0/0

$0

6/2/1989

70 knots.

0/6

$0

6/15/1989

70 knots.

0/0

$0

9/23/1989

52 knots.

0/0

$0

2/9/1990

N/A

0/0

$0

5/10/1990

0 knots.

0/0

$0

5/10/1990

0 knots.

0/0

$0

6/8/1990

0 knots.

0/0

$0

6/8/1990

0 knots.

0/5

$0

6/22/1990

60 knots.

0/0

$0

6/22/1990

0 knots.

0/0

$0

7/1/1990

N/A

0/0

$0

7/1/1990

N/A

0/0

$0

7/1/1990

55 knots.

0/0

$0

7/1/1990

60 knots.

0/0

$0

7/11/1990

N/A

0/0

$0

7/12/1990

N/A

0/0

$0

7/12/1990

55 knots.

0/0

$0

7/12/1990

0 knots.

0/0

$0

9/7/1990

N/A

0/0

$0

9/7/1990

0 knots.

0/0

$0

10/18/1990

60 knots.

0/0

$0

3/29/1991

52 knots.

0/0

$0

3/29/1991

0 knots.

0/0

$0

5/1/1991

N/A

0/0

$0

5/1/1991

0 knots.

0/0

$0

8/4/1991

N/A

0/0

$0

8/19/1991

60 knots.

0/0

$0

DETAILS No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available

Table 4.6: Significant Severe Thunderstorm Events (1950-2004) LOCATION Virginia Beach Suffolk Virginia Beach Suffolk Isle of Wight Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Isle of Wight Suffolk Portsmouth Portsmouth Portsmouth Norfolk Isle of Wight Isle of Wight Isle of Wight Isle of Wight Isle of Wight Isle Of Wight Portsmouth Norfolk Airport Isle of Wight

DATE OF MAGNITUDE DEATHS/ OCCURRENCE (KNOTS) INJURIES

PROPERTY DAMAGE

8/19/1991

52 knots.

0/0

$0

9/19/1991

N/A

0/0

$0

9/19/1991

0 knots.

0/0

$0

2/15/1992

N/A

0/0

$0

7/18/1992

N/A

0/0

$0

7/18/1992

0 knots.

0/0

$0

7/18/1992

50 knots.

0/0

$0

7/27/1992

55 knots.

0/0

$0

7/31/1992

N/A

0/0

$0

7/31/1992 8/9/1992 8/28/1992 8/28/1992 8/28/1992

N/A N/A 52 knots N/A 55 knots

0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

9/4/1993

N/A

0/0

$1,000

9/22/1994

N/A

0/0

$50,000

9/22/1994

N/A

0/0

$5,000

5/19/1995

N/A

0/0

$0

11/11/1995

N/A

0/0

$75,000

1/19/1996

N/A

0/0

$0

1/19/1996

56 knots

0/0

$0

1/19/1996

54 knots

0/0

$0

3/15/1996

N/A

0/0

$0

Suffolk

3/15/1996

N/A

0/0

$0

Isle of Wight

5/11/1996

N/A

0/0

$5,000

Windsor

6/12/1996

N/A

0/0

$2,000

Smithfield

6/15/1996

N/A

0/0

$3,000

Smithfield

6/15/1996

N/A

0/0

$3,000

Smithfield

6/24/1996

N/A

0/0

$7,000

Norfolk

6/24/1996

N/A

0/0

$10,000

Smithfield

7/18/1996

N/A

0/0

$5,000

Suffolk

7/18/1996

N/A

0/0

$3,000

DETAILS No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available One tree and several large branches were down near Walters on Route 258. Numerous trees and power lines down throughout the county. Several barns are damaged, and small grain silo and tractorsemi trailer overturned in the Orbit/Lake Butler area. Trees down on power lines on Rte. 10 and 258. No description available No description available Numerous large trees were downed. Three to six inch diameter tree limbs were blown off of 12 trees along Route 58 between South Hampton County line and Suffolk. Numerous trees and power lines downed throughout the county. The worst damage was occurred near Rushmore and Windsor. Several trees uprooted onto wires near the Blackwater River. Numerous trees downed. Two telephone poles downed on Route 258. Several trees and storage shed blown down near Route 13 and Route 616. Roof partially blown off a house on Minnesota Avenue. Several trees blown down along Route 10 in Smithfield. Tree was blown down onto a car at Benns Church Golf Course. Numerous trees and power lines blown down.

Table 4.6: Significant Severe Thunderstorm Events (1950-2004) LOCATION

DATE OF MAGNITUDE DEATHS/ OCCURRENCE (KNOTS) INJURIES

PROPERTY DAMAGE

Virginia Beach

7/18/1996

0 knots.

0/0

$2,000

Portsmouth

7/31/1996

N/A

0/0

$3,000

Suffolk

7/31/1996

N/A

0/0

$4,000

7/31/1996

0 knots.

0/0

$2,000

5/1/1997

N/A

0/0

$5,000

7/6/1997

N/A

0/0

$10,000

7/16/1997

N/A

0/0

$2,000

7/16/1997

N/A

0/0

$5,000

Suffolk

7/19/1997

N/A

0/0

$5,000

Portsmouth

4/9/1998

N/A

0/0

$2,000

Suffolk Airport

4/9/1998

N/A

0/0

$100,000

Suffolk

4/9/1998

N/A

0/0

$2,000

Virginia Beach

4/9/1998

52 knots.

0/0

$10,000

Virginia Beach

5/21/1998

82 knots.

0/0

$0

Suffolk

6/3/1998

N/A

0/0

$3,000

Windsor

6/16/1998

N/A

0/0

$3,000

Isle of Wight

6/16/1998

N/A

0/0

$2,000

Portsmouth

6/16/1998

N/A

0/0

$2,000

Portsmouth

6/16/1998

N/A

0/0

$2,000

Portsmouth

6/16/1998

N/A

0/0

$2,000

Suffolk

6/16/1998

N/A

0/0

$3,000

Norfolk

6/16/1998

N/A

0/0

$5,000

Norfolk

6/16/1998

58 knots

0/0

$0

Virginia Beach

6/16/1998

0 knots.

0/0

$2,000

Portsmouth

2/28/1999

N/A

0/0

$5,000

Suffolk

2/28/1999

N/A

0/0

$1,000

Norfolk

2/28/1999

70 knots

0/0

$0

Portsmouth

3/3/1999

53 knots

0/0

$0

4/23/1999

76 knots.

0/0

$0

4/23/1999

0 knots.

0/0

$5,000

Virginia Beach Isle of Wight Whaleyville , Suffolk Holland, Suffolk Norfolk

Virginia Beach Virginia Beach

DETAILS Several trees blown down on Atlantic Avenue. Several trees and power lines blown down. Several trees and power lines blown down. Also, sheet metal torn off storage building. Large tree blown down on Back Cove Road. A tree fell down on house. Several trees blown onto power lines. Also, an old two story farm building was collapsed. Several trees fell down. Numerous trees blown down. Metal furniture blown off porch into river and shingles blown off of houses. Trees down on power lines. Damage occurred to three tied down airplanes. One of the planes was lifted up and crashed into the other two. Also, a panel was blown off a hangar and temporary tents were destroyed. Several trees fell down. Sixty MPH straight-line wind caused damages to the part of a metal roof of a fire station and a storage building. Concrete wall of the storage building was caved in when supports gave away. No description available Several trees were down and a few trees limbs fell down on houses. A car was blown a couple hundred feet. Several trees twisted down causing power outages. Several trees were down. Numerous tree limbs and debris blown onto Route 164 in Twin Pines area. Dugout roof at baseball field blown off at Churchland high school. Four pine trees blown down at Churchland high school. Numerous trees were down. Several trees down and damaged a few homes. Wind gust of 58 knots (67 mph) was recorded at Norfolk International Airport. A few trees were down. Trees and wires were down on two houses. Large tree down blocking Route 460. Wind gust of 81 mph reported by Norfolk International Airport Tower. Wind gust to 61 mph reported at WAVY TV 10. Cape Henry Tower reported wind gust of 76 knots (87 mph). A motel on Shore Drive suffered window damages.

Table 4.6: Significant Severe Thunderstorm Events (1950-2004) LOCATION Suffolk Airport Norfolk Virginia Beach Suffolk Isle of Wight

DATE OF MAGNITUDE DEATHS/ OCCURRENCE (KNOTS) INJURIES

PROPERTY DAMAGE

5/24/1999

N/A

0/0

$2,000

5/24/1999

N/A

0/0

$2,000

5/24/1999

0 knots.

0/0

$1,000

7/7/1999

N/A

0/0

$1,000

7/24/1999

N/A

0/0

$2,000

Portsmouth

7/24/1999

N/A

0/0

$1,000

Windsor

7/28/1999

N/A

0/0

$1,000

Norfolk

7/28/1999

N/A

0/0

$1,000

Virginia Beach

7/28/1999

0 knots.

0/0

$1,000

Windsor

8/11/1999

N/A

0/0

$1,000

Suffolk

8/14/1999

N/A

0/0

$2,000

Norfolk

8/20/1999

N/A

0/0

$15,000

Suffolk

8/26/1999

N/A

0/0

$1,000

Norfolk

8/26/1999

N/A

0/0

$2,000

Isle of Wight

5/29/2000

40 knots

1/ 3

$0

Portsmouth

6/18/2000

50 knots

0/0

$2,000

Norfolk

6/18/2000

67 knots

0/0

$100,000

Portsmouth Virginia Beach

6/19/2000

50 knots

0/0

$2,000

6/19/2000

50 knots.

0/0

$4,000

Norfolk

7/19/2000

50 knots

0/0

$2,000

Norfolk

8/1/2000

50 knots

0/0

$0

Suffolk

8/16/2000

N/A

0/0

$2,000

DETAILS Several trees were down near Suffolk Airport. Trees were down Large tree limbs down near Salem Woods. Large trees were down. A few trees were down. A large tree fell down and many tree limbs were down. A large tree fell on power lines. A large tree blocked road and fell on power lines. Large tree was down off Kings Road near London Bridge area. Two large tree limbs were down on Route 460. A few trees were down. Roofs were blown off of a motel and an apartment building in the East Ocean View section of the city. Also, some structural damage occurred to the apartment building. Another hotel in East Ocean View suffered minor roof damage. Numerous power lines were down by large tree branches. Wind blew house off jacks and power lines were down in Ocean View. A powerful storm system off the North Carolina and Virginia coast produced high winds and waves over the James River. One man was killed and three others were treated for hypothermia from the still-cold water when their 16 foot fishing boat capsized in the James River. Effects from the high winds did not extend very far inland. Trees blown down on Linear Crescent. A severe thunderstorm hit downtown Norfolk and Portsmouth as the OpSail 2000 Festival was ending, sending vendors scurrying to fold tents and spectators running for cover. Several tall ships broke free of their moorings and several sailors were knocked into the Elizabeth River. Part of a brick wall was knocked down at Bute and Botetourt Streets, and another wall partially collapsed at a building on Front Street in Norfolk. A large tree fell into the Painted Lady Restaurant at 17th and Monticello Avenue in Norfolk. High winds blew down several trees. High winds blew down several trees onto power lines at Colony Trailer Park. Trees were blown down on power lines and caused power outages in the Colonial Place section of the city. No description available High winds blew down trees on North Lloyd Street near downtown Suffolk. Also, dime-sized hail fell in the Route 460/Route 13-32/North Main Street corridor near downtown Suffolk.

Table 4.6: Significant Severe Thunderstorm Events (1950-2004) LOCATION

DATE OF MAGNITUDE DEATHS/ OCCURRENCE (KNOTS) INJURIES

PROPERTY DAMAGE

Suffolk

8/16/2000

50 knots.

0/0

$2,000

Isle of Wight

12/24/2001

N/A

0/0

$15,000

4/19/2002

61 knots.

0/0

$5,000

5/2/2002

N/A

0/0

$2,000

5/13/2002

N/A

0/0

$2,000

5/13/2002 5/13/2002 5/13/2002

N/A N/A N/A

0/0 0/0 0/0

$2,000 $2,000 $2,000

5/13/2002

0 knots.

0/0

$2,000

Virginia Beach

5/18/2002

0 knots.

0/0

$1,000

Portsmouth

2/22/2003

50 knots

0/0

$2,000

Norfolk

2/22/2003

50 knots

0/0

$5,000

2/22/2003

50 knots.

0/0

$2,000

2/22/2003

50 knots.

0/0

$2,000

5/8/2003

62 knots.

0/0

$0

6/7/2003

50 knots.

0/0

$5,000

Suffolk

6/13/2003

50 knots.

0/0

$2,000

Norfolk Virginia Beach Isle of Wight

7/9/2003

59 knots

0/0

$0

7/9/2003

50 knots.

0/0

$2,000

8/17/2003

50 knots

0/0

$2,000

Suffolk

8/17/2003

50 knots.

0/0

$2,000

Suffolk

8/17/2003

50 knots.

0/0

$5,000

Windsor

3/7/2004

50 knots

0/0

$2,000

Suffolk

3/7/2004

50 knots.

0/0

$4,000

Suffolk

5/23/2004

50 knots.

0/0

$2,000

Holland

5/26/2004

50 knots.

0/0

$2,000

Smithfield

6/10/2004

50 knots

0/0

$2,000

Suffolk

6/10/2004

50 knots.

0/0

$2,000

6/25/2004

50 knots.

0/0

$2,000

6/30/2004 7/7/2004

50 knots. 50 knots.

0/0 0/0

$2,000 $2,000

7/7/2004

50 knots.

0/0

$2,000

7/7/2004

50 knots.

0/0

$2,000

Smithfield

7/14/2004

50 knots

0/0

$2,000

Virginia Beach

7/14/2004

50 knots.

0/0

$2,000

Virginia Beach Suffolk Isle of Wight Portsmouth Suffolk Norfolk Virginia Beach

Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Suffolk

Virginia Beach Suffolk Suffolk Virginia Beach Virginia Beach

DETAILS High winds blew down trees at the 300 block of Drum Hill Road. High winds with the passage of a cold front turned camper upside down and ripped siding off of house in the Smithfield area. Roof and siding peeled off of a building at Back Bay Wildlife Refuge. One foot diameter trees were down. Trees were down. Trees were down. Trees were down. Trees and power lines down. Trees were down. Numerous tree limbs were down in Thoroughgood area. Spotter estimated a wind gust of 55 mph. Trees were down. Numerous trees and power lines were down. Also, some minor damage occurred to houses. Trees and power lines down. Trees and power lines down. No description available Parts of a building blown into the road. One tree down on a house in Holland section of Suffolk. No description available Trees fell on power lines on Northampton Boulevard. Several trees were down on road. Trees down on Everets Road. Trees down on Edwards Road. A tree fell down on a house. Trees were down on Mill Swamp Road causing power outages. Trees were down at 2700 Block of Arches Mill Road and along the Kings Highway Bridge Road. Numerous trees were down throughout city. Trees and power lines were down. Three trees were down along Smithfield Boulevard near Hunter Way. Two trees were down in the vicinity of Trumpet Drive and Okelly Drive. Trees and power lines were down. Trees down on Kings Highway. Trees down. Numerous trees down west of oceanfront. Trees down along 3600 block of Virginia Beach Boulevard. Trees down on Route 10 and Burrells Bay Road. Trees down at North Landing and Princess Anne Road.

Table 4.6: Significant Severe Thunderstorm Events (1950-2004) LOCATION

DATE OF MAGNITUDE DEATHS/ OCCURRENCE (KNOTS) INJURIES

Windsor

3/8/2005

50 knots

TOTAL

PROPERTY DAMAGE

0/0

$2,000

1/15

$595,000

DETAILS Trees down along Central Hill Road.

Source: National Climatic Data Center

Table 4.7 shows a summary of reported hail events for the Southside Hampton Roads region between 1950 and 2004. A total of 48 hail events are known to have impacted the region since 1957, resulting in a total of approximately $15,040,000 in property damage. The size of the recorded hailstones ranged from 0.5 inches to 2.5 inches.

Table 4.7: Regional Hail Activity (1950-2004) DATE OF OCCURRENCE

MAGNITUDE

PROPERTY DAMAGE

Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Isle of Wight Virginia Beach Norfolk Suffolk Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Suffolk Suffolk Suffolk Virginia Beach Isle of Wight Suffolk Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Isle of Wight Portsmouth

1/10/1957 4/8/1957 6/14/1963 5/7/1967 7/3/1968 10/14/1971 6/23/1974 6/23/1974 6/6/1977 8/5/1983 6/27/1985 6/2/1989 6/8/1990 7/1/1990 7/1/1990 7/1/1990 5/1/1991 5/1/1991 5/1/1991 5/1/1991 7/18/1992 7/18/1992 9/4/1993 3/15/1996

0.67 in. 1.00 in. 0.75 in. 1.75 in. 2.00 in. 1.50 in. 1.75 in. 1.00 in. 1.75 in. 1.00 in. 0.75 in. 0.75 in. 1.75 in. 1.00 in. 2.50 in. 2.50 in. 1.75 in. 2.00 in. 1.00 in. 1.00 in. 1.00 in. 1.00 in. 1.75 in. 0.50 in.

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0

Norfolk Virginia Beach Isle of Wight Portsmouth Norfolk

3/15/1996 3/15/1996 6/24/1996 6/24/1996 6/24/1996 6/24/1996

0.88 in. 1.25 in. 1.00 in. 1.75 in. 1.75 in. 0.75 in.

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Virginia Beach Portsmouth Portsmouth Virginia Beach Portsmouth Portsmouth Portsmouth Suffolk Norfolk Virginia Beach Portsmouth

7/3/1996 7/3/1996 7/3/1996 7/18/1996 7/31/1996 3/29/1997 3/29/1997 3/29/1997 3/29/1997 5/1/1997

1.75 in. 0.88 in. 1.00 in. 1.00 in. 0.75 in. 1.00 in. 1.75 in. 1.25 in. 0.75 in. 1.75 in.

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000

Suffolk

5/1/1997

1.50 in.

$0

LOCATION

DETAILS No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. Marble size hail reported in Churchland section of Portsmouth. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. Dime size hail occurred at Bayside Hospital. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. Many homes were damaged by hail. No details available.

Table 4.7: Regional Hail Activity (1950-2004) LOCATION

DATE OF OCCURRENCE

MAGNITUDE

PROPERTY DAMAGE

DETAILS

5/1/1997

1.75 in.

$10,000,000

5/1/1997

1.75 in.

$5,000,000

7/16/1997 9/8/1997 3/21/1998 5/8/1998 5/8/1998 5/8/1998 5/8/1998 6/15/1998 2/28/1999 7/24/1999 9/7/1999 3/11/2000 3/11/2000 3/11/2000 4/17/2000

0.88 in. 1.00 in. 0.75 in. 1.00 in. 1.00 in. 0.88 in. 0.88 in. 0.75 in. 0.75 in. 0.75 in. 0.75 in. 0.75 in. 0.75 in. 1.00 in. 0.75 in.

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

4/17/2000

0.75 in.

$0

4/21/2000

0.88 in.

$0

5/10/2000

1.75 in.

$10,000

5/27/2000 6/18/2000 6/22/2000

1.75 in. 1.00 in. 0.75 in.

$2,000 $0 $0

8/16/2000 8/16/2000

0.75 in. 0 kts.

$0 $2,000

4/15/2002 4/15/2002 4/19/2002 6/1/2002 6/1/2002

0.75 in. 1.00 in. 1.75 in. 0.75 in. 1.75 in.

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

5/3/2003 5/29/2003

1.00 in. 1.00 in.

$0 $0

Hail caused widespread damage to homes, businesses and vehicles. Hail caused widespread damage to homes, businesses, and vehicles. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. 0.75 inch diameter hail reported by a spotter on Carver Road in Smithfield. 0.75 inch diameter hail reported just west of Holland in southwestern Suffolk. 0.88 inch diameter hail reported in Kempsville section of Virginia Beach. Hail up to 1.75 inches reported from Ocean Lakes towards the oceanfront. No details available. No details available. Dime sized hail fell along Sweatt Road. No details available. Dime-sized hail fell in the Route 460/Route 13-32/North Main Street corridor near downtown Suffolk. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. Dime to golf ball size hail between Little Creek and Thoroughgood sections, and west end of Virginia Beach oceanfront. No details available. No details available.

Norfolk

Virginia Beach Norfolk Virginia Beach Norfolk Isle of Wight Suffolk Norfolk Virginia Beach Suffolk Suffolk Portsmouth Suffolk Portsmouth Norfolk Norfolk Smithfield

Suffolk

Virginia Beach

Virginia Beach Suffolk Virginia Beach Suffolk Windsor

Suffolk Isle of Wight Isle of Wight Virginia Beach Norfolk

Virginia Beach Suffolk Portsmouth

Table 4.7: Regional Hail Activity (1950-2004) LOCATION Isle of Wight Virginia Beach Norfolk Norfolk Virginia Beach TOTAL Source: National Climatic Data Center

DATE OF OCCURRENCE

MAGNITUDE

PROPERTY DAMAGE

8/17/2003 8/17/2003 7/7/2004 4/23/2005 4/23/2005

0.75 in. 1.25 in. 0.75 in. 1.00 in. 1.00 in.

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

78 Events

DETAILS No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available. No details available.

$15,040,000

PROBABILITY OF FUTURE OCCURRENCES Severe thunderstorms will remain a highly likely occurrence for region. Hail will also be experienced in the region in the future due to such storms.

LIGHTNING BACKGROUND Lightning is a discharge of electrical energy resulting from positive and negative charges within a thunderstorm, when the buildup of charges becomes strong enough. usually occurs within the clouds or between the clouds A bolt of lightning can reach temperatures approaching Fahrenheit. Lightning rapidly heats the sky as it flashes surrounding air cools following the bolt. This rapid cooling of the surrounding air causes thunder. On people are killed each year by lightning strikes in the

LOCATION AND SPATIAL EXTENT According to the National Lightning Safety Institute, nineteen (19) lightning-related deaths from 1990 to 2003 fourteenth (14th) in the United States in such deaths. down to be 0.19 deaths per million people ranking twenty-seventh (27th) most at risk state in regards to death per population density.

the buildup of creating a “bolt” This flash of light and the ground. 50,000 degrees but the heating and average, 89 United States. Multiple cloud-to-ground and cloud-to-cloud lightning strokes observed during a nighttime thunderstorm. (Photo courtesy of NOAA Photo Library, NOAA Central Library; OAR/ERL/ National Severe Storms Laboratory)

Virginia had ranking the state This breaks Virginia as the lightning-caused

According to the Virginia Department of Emergency Management, lightning has killed 62 people in Virginia and injured at least 252 people between 1959 and 2003. It is believed that many additional injuries go unreported. Nationally, from 1959 through 1994, lightning injured 13,057 people and killed 3,239, mostly men between the ages of 20 and 40. Nationally, most strikes occurred between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. during weekends. The National Lightning Detection System identified an average of seven million cloud-to-ground lightning strikes per year, resulting in one lightning casualty once every 86,000 strikes. Figure 4.18 shows average lightning flash density per square mile, per year as reported by Global Atmospherics, Inc. This graphic shows that the Virginia Beach area is a relative ‘hot spot” for lightning strike activity.

Figure 4.18: AVERAGE LIGHTNING FLASH DENSITY – 1990-1996

Source: Virginia Power, displayed on the NOAA website According to the National Lightning Safety Institute, damage estimates reported by government agencies (such as NCDC) do not accurately represent actual losses due to underestimation or underreporting of actual damages. Nationwide, realistic lightning costs and losses may reach $4 to $5 billion per year including losses associated with forest fires, insurance claims and damages to warehouses, aircraft, electrical infrastructure and nuclear power plants.

SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL EVENTS According to the National Climatic Data Center database of storm events, 12 lightning events not directly associated with a thunderstorm event are known to have impacted the region since 1950, resulting in 3 known deaths, 7 known injuries and over $106,000 in reported property damage, as shown in Table 4.8.

PROBABILITY OF FUTURE OCCURENCES The

Southside

Hampton

Roads

region

will

continue

to

be

at

risk

to

the

lighting

hazard.

Table 4.8: Lightning Activity in the Southside Hampton Roads Region (1950-2004) DATE OF OCCURRENCE

DEATHS/ INJURIES

PROPERTY DAMAGE

Smithfield

6/20/1996

0/0

$0

Portsmouth

5/6/1996

0/0

$5,000

Suffolk

4/1/1998

0/0

$4,000

Suffolk

8/1/1999

0/2

$10,000

Norfolk

6/14/1994

0/2

$0

Norfolk

6/16/1996

0/0

$2,000

Norfolk

8/26/1996

0/2

$0

Norfolk

7/30/2000

0/0

$45,000

Norfolk

8/11/2001

1/0

$0

Virginia Beach

3/15/1996

0/0

Virginia Beach

5/6/1996

0/0

Virginia Beach

7/30/2000

1/1

Virginia Beach

7/1/2004

1/0

LOCATION

$0

$40,000 $0

TOTAL Source: National Climatic Data Center

3/7

$0 $106,000

DETAILS Lightning strike caused power outages to 5,600 customers in the Smithfield area. Lightning strike caused power surge that created problems with city's central computer system. Also it damaged city's radio system. Lightning strike caused damage to a one-story house. Several rooms had plaster blown off the walls due to the strike's force. The roof and boxing were also damaged. Several homes at Blue Teal Court were struck by lightning and several people were hospitalized. A bolt of lightning struck and critically injured a 50year-old woman and a 38-year-old man playing in a golf tournament at Greenbrier Country Club. Both suffered severe burns. Lightning strike knocked down a large oak tree that fell onto a road. Lightning strike seriously injured two boys who were sitting on the bench of a picnic table beneath a tree. Lightning struck six homes in the Ghent and Ocean View sections of Norfolk. One bolt hit a tree on Old Ocean View Road and started a fire. The burning tree then fell into a nearby home. Occupants of the house escaped without injury. A woman struck by lightning while on boat. Lightning started a small fire near Kempsville Road and Centerville Turnpike. About 2000-2500 Virginia Power customers lost power. Lightning strike caused fires that damaged the roofs of two houses. Lightning struck and killed a man doing yard work near a tree in the Great Neck Point section of Virginia Beach. A roofer, working at Providence Road Elementary School, was struck by lightning and later died.

TORNADOES BACKGROUND A tornado is a violent windstorm characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud extending to the ground. Tornadoes are most often generated by thunderstorm activity (but sometimes result from hurricanes and tropical storms) when cool, dry air intersects and overrides a layer of warm, moist air forcing the warm air to rise rapidly. The damage caused by a tornado is a result of the high wind velocity and wind-blown debris, also accompanied by lightning or large hail. According to the National Weather Service, tornado wind speeds normally range from 40 to more than 300 miles per hour. The most violent tornadoes have rotating winds of 250 miles per hour or more and are capable of causing extreme destruction and turning normally harmless objects into deadly missiles. Each year, an average of over 800 tornadoes is resulting in an average of 80 deaths and 1,500 2002). They are more likely to occur during the summer months of March through June and can day, but are likely to form in the late afternoon and tornadoes are a few dozen yards wide and touch small short-lived tornadoes can inflict tremendous destructive tornadoes may carve out a path over a miles long.

reported nationwide, injuries (NOAA, spring and early occur at any time of early evening. Most down briefly, but even damage. Highly mile wide and several

Waterspouts are weak tornadoes that form over most common along the Gulf Coast and Waterspouts occasionally move inland, becoming damage and injury. However, most waterspouts open water causing threats only to marine and Typically a waterspout is weak and short-lived, and common, most go unreported unless they cause

warm water and are southeastern states. tornadoes that cause dissipate over the boating interests. because they are so damage.

The destruction caused by tornadoes ranges from depending on the intensity, size, and duration of the tornadoes cause the greatest damages to structures such as residential homes (particularly mobile remain localized in impact. The Fujita-Pearson was developed to measure tornado strength and and is shown in Table 4.9.

The most comprehensively observed tornado in history, this tornado south of Dimmitt, Texas developed June 2, 1995 curving northward across Texas Highway 86 where it entirely removed 300 feet of asphalt from the road tossing it more than 600 feet into an adjacent field. It also caused F4 damage at an isolated rural residence just north of the road. (NOAA Photo Library, NOAA Central Library; OAR/ERL/National Severe Storms Laboratory)

light to inconceivable storm. Typically, of light construction homes), and tend to Scale for Tornadoes associated damages,

TABLE 4.9: FUJITA-PEARSON SCALE FOR TORNADOES F-SCALE NUMBER

INTENSITY PHRASE

WIND SPEED

F0

Gale tornado

40-72 MPH

F1

Moderate tornado

73-112 MPH

F2

Significant tornado

113-157 MPH

F3

Severe tornado

158-206 MPH

F4

Devastating tornado

207-260 MPH

F5

Incredible tornado

261-318 MPH

F6

Inconceivable tornado

319-379 MPH

TYPE OF DAMAGE POSSIBLE Some damage to chimneys; breaks branches off trees; pushes over shallow-rooted trees; damages to sign boards. The lower limit is the beginning of hurricane wind speed; peels surface off roofs; mobile homes pushed off foundations or overturned; moving autos pushed off the roads; attached garages may be destroyed. Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or uprooted; light object missiles generated. Roof and some walls torn off well-constructed houses; trains overturned; most trees in forest uprooted. Well-constructed houses leveled; structures with weak foundations blown off some distance; cars thrown and large missiles generated. Strong frame houses lifted off foundations and carried considerable distances to disintegrate; automobile sized missiles fly through the air in excess of 100 meters; trees debarked; steel re-enforced concrete structures badly damaged. These winds are very unlikely. The small area of damage they might produce would probably not be recognizable along with the

mess produced by F4 and F5 wind that would surround the F6 winds. Missiles, such as cars and refrigerators would do serious secondary damage that could not be directly identified as F6 damage. If this level is ever achieved, evidence for it might only be found in some manner of ground swirl pattern, for it may never be identifiable through engineering studies. Source: The Tornado Project, 2002

According to the NOAA Storm Prediction Center (SPC), the highest concentration of tornadoes in the United States has been in Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas and Florida respectively. Although the Great Plains region of the Central United States does favor the development of the largest and most dangerous tornadoes (earning the designation of “tornado alley”), Florida experiences the greatest number of tornadoes per square mile of all U.S. states (SPC, 2002). Figure 4.19 shows tornado activity in the United States based on the number of recorded tornadoes per 1,000 square miles.

FIGURE 4.19: TORNADO ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES

Source: American Society of Civil Engineers

The tornadoes associated with tropical cyclones are most frequent in September and October when the incidence of tropical storm systems is greatest. This type of tornado usually occurs around the perimeter of the storm, and most often to the right and ahead of the storm path or the storm center as it comes ashore. These tornadoes commonly occur as part of large outbreaks and generally move in an easterly direction.

LOCATION AND SPATIAL EXTENT When compared with other states, Virginia ranks 29th in number of tornado events, 25th in tornado deaths, 26th in tornado injuries and 28th in damages. These rankings are based upon data collected for all states and territories for tornado events between 1950 and 2003 (Storm Prediction Center, 2003). Figure 4.20 illustrates the approximate location where confirmed tornadoes have touched down in the region. The Fujita Scale classification of each tornado is indicated next to each occurrence.

SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL EVENTS According to National Climatic Data Center records, the region has experienced 50 tornado events from 1950 through December of 2004, causing 1 death, 10 injuries and approximately $5,126,000 million in property damage (Table 4.10). Details for each event, where available, have also been recorded in this table.

Table 4.10: Tornado Events in Southside Hampton Roads Region (1950-2004) LOCATION Norfolk Norfolk Portsmouth Suffolk Isle of Wight Norfolk Norfolk Virginia Beach Norfolk Norfolk Portsmouth Virginia Beach Suffolk Suffolk Suffolk Norfolk Virginia Beach Norfolk Suffolk Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Isle of Wight Suffolk Virginia Beach

DATE OF DEATHS/ MAGNITUDE OCCURRENCE INJURIES

PROPERTY DAMAGE

4/8/1957 5/27/1957 7/10/1959 10/9/1959

F1 F F1 F2

0/2 0/0 0/0 0/0

$250,000 $3,000 $3,000 $25,000

2/18/1960

F1

0/0

$25,000

4/8/1962 4/11/1962

F1 F0

1/0 0/1

$250,000 $3,000

10/25/1967

F1

0/0

$25,000

4/30/1968 8/10/1968 11/3/1971

F1 F1 F1

0/0 0/0 0/4

$250,000 $0 $2,500,000

7/27/1972

F1

0/2

$25,000

5/20/1973 5/28/1973 3/19/1975 6/6/1977

F0 F1 F1 F

0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

$0 $3,000 $25,000 $25,000

10/2/1977

F

0/0

$25,000

4/4/1980 3/30/1981

F1 F2

0/1 0/0

$250,000 $250,000

7/4/1981

F1

0/0

$25,000

8/3/1988

F2

0/0

$250,000

11/28/1988

F2

0/0

$250,000

3/29/1991

F0

0/0

$25,000

8/15/1992

F0

0/0

$0

Isle of Wight

8/6/1993

F0

0/0

$0

Isle of Wight

10/5/1995

F0

0/0

$10,000

Isle of Wight

10/5/1995

F0

0/0

$10,000

Smithfield

7/12/1996

F1

0/0

$25,000

Norfolk

7/24/1997

F1

0/0

$400,000

DETAILS No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available No description available A tornado was sighted at the Franklin Airport. This is open area and no damage was noted. Brief tornado touched down uprooted a large oak tree and several cedar/pine trees. It tore roof off of garage. Tornado touched down briefly in a wooded farm area. Outbuildings were damaged; tree tops blown out; and several trees down just north of Burnt Mills Lake. Small tornado damaged 10-15 homes and several trees in the Moorfield subdivision of Smithfield. Tornado path started just south of Poindexter Street on Guerriere Street in Norfolk. The tornado then continued north-northeast into the Berkley Avenue Industrial Park before crossing into the southern portion of Norfolk and lifting after causing damage on Roseclair and Joyce Streets. One business, a car wash was destroyed, and six buildings sustained major roof damages in the Roseclair and Joyce Street areas of Norfolk.

Table 4.10: Tornado Events in Southside Hampton Roads Region (1950-2004) LOCATION

DATE OF DEATHS/ MAGNITUDE OCCURRENCE INJURIES

PROPERTY DAMAGE

Norfolk

7/24/1997

F0

0/0

$100,000

Smithfield

7/30/1997

N/A

0/0

$0

Portsmouth

7/30/1997

N/A

0/0

$0

Suffolk

7/30/1997

N/A

0/0

$0

Norfolk

7/30/1997

N/A

0/0

$0

Virginia Beach

7/30/1997

N/A

0/0

$0

Virginia Beach

4/9/1998

F0

0/0

$0

Norfolk

4/8/2000

N/A

0/0

$0

Norfolk

6/19/2000

N/A

0/0

$0

Virginia Beach

7/24/2000

F0

0/0

$20,000

Norfolk

8/20/2000

N/A

0/0

$0

Norfolk

10/9/2000

N/A

0/0

$0

Virginia Beach

10/9/2000

N/A

0/0

$0

Suffolk

5/21/2001

F0

0/0

$25,000

DETAILS Tornado first touched down west of Route 460 between Liberty Street and Indian River Road. The tornado tracked northnortheast across Indian River Road and across the eastern branch of the Elizabeth River before lifting east of Harbor Park and south of I-264. It caused minor damages to several residential structures. Several waterspouts were reported over the James River. Several waterspouts were reported just north of Portsmouth at the intersection of the southern Chesapeake Bay and the James River. Several waterspouts were reported over the James River. Several waterspouts were reported just north of Norfolk over the southern Chesapeake Bay. Several waterspouts were reported just north of Virginia Beach over the southern Chesapeake Bay A fairly long tracking tornado touched down in portions of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach. The tornado was first detected in the Riverwalk section of the city of Chesapeake around 4:30 PM. The tornado tracked east-northeastward through the Greenbrier section of Chesapeake and moved through the city of Virginia Beach along a KempsvilleRosemont-Lynnhaven axis. The tornado damage was generally of F0 intensity (weak) along the entire track in both Chesapeake and Virginia Beach. Norfolk emergency manager reported a waterspout north of Ocean View. No description available A waterspout that formed over Back Bay came ashore at Campbell Landing Road and destroyed a 20 by 30 foot outbuilding before dissipating. Many trees were blown down and camper shells and lawn furniture were tossed across the neighborhood. A waterspout formed in Hampton Roads harbor between Norfolk and Newport News. A waterspout formed off Ocean View Beach, and then quickly dissipated. A waterspout was observed by the Coast Guard near Lynnhaven Inlet. Tornado (F0) occurred in the 5000 block of Manning Road. Several small outbuildings were destroyed.

Table 4.10: Tornado Events in Southside Hampton Roads Region (1950-2004) LOCATION

DATE OF DEATHS/ MAGNITUDE OCCURRENCE INJURIES

PROPERTY DAMAGE

Suffolk

6/1/2001

F1

0/0

$15,000

Suffolk

2/22/2003

F0

0/0

$25,000

Virginia Beach

8/8/2003

F0

0/0

$5,000

Norfolk

9/18/2003

F0

0/0

$0

Suffolk

6/25/2004

F1

0/0

$2,000

Suffolk

6/25/2004

F0

0/0

$2,000

Virginia Beach

7/12/2004

N/A

0/0

$0

Virginia Beach

8/14/2004

N/A

0/0

$0

1/10

$5,126,000

TOTAL

50 Events

DETAILS A tornado touched down near Jackson Road about 8:10 PM. The damage path for this tornado was approximately 100 feet wide. The tornado skipped up and down for about a mile along a path to the northeast of Turlington Road. It uprooted a number of trees and took shingles off roofs. The tornado became a funnel cloud which touched down again around 8:15 PM just south of Sleepy Hole Road and passed through a part of Sleepy Hole Golf Club. The tornado continued north northeast through Chatham Woods after causing extensive damage along Burning Tree Lane. The total path length in the northern part of the county was about 1 mile long and 100 yards wide. Numerous trees were down and a number of houses lost siding and some roofing material. Several 50-60 foot trees pushed over into houses. Tornado (F0) briefly touched down with minor damage reported at Salem Crossing Shopping Center. It caused minor damage to a movie theater and adjacent post office knocking down antennae and some mailboxes. Fire department observed narrow funnel and swirling debris at the surface. Brief F0 tornado occurred in association with Hurricane Isabel. No damage was reported. F1 tornado downed numerous trees near intersection of Route 660 and Route 668. F0 tornado downed several trees on Cypress Chapel Road in Whaleyville. Funnel cloud reported between Sandbridge Beach and Back Bay. No damage reported. Originally reported as a tornado, but never touched down.

Source: National Climatic Data Center

PROBABILITY OF FUTURE OCCURRENCES It is likely that the region will continue to experience weak to moderately intense tornadoes. It is unlikely that very strong tornadoes (F3, F4 or F5) will strike the area, though it does remain possible.

WINTER STORMS AND NOR’EASTERS BACKGROUND A winter storm can range from a moderate snow over a period of a few hours to blizzard conditions with blinding wind-driven snow that lasts for several days. Some winter storms may be large enough to affect several states, while others may affect only a single community. Many winter storms are accompanied by low temperatures and heavy and/or blowing snow, which can severely impair visibility. Winter storms may include snow, sleet, freezing rain, or a mix of these wintry forms of precipitation. Sleet—raindrops that freeze into ice pellets before reaching the ground—usually bounce when hitting a surface and do not stick to objects; however, sleet can accumulate like snow and cause a hazard to motorists. Freezing rain is rain that falls onto a surface with a temperature below freezing, forming a glaze of ice. Even small accumulations of ice can cause a significant hazard, especially on power lines and trees. An ice storm occurs when freezing rain falls and freezes immediately upon impact. Communications and power can be disrupted for days, and even small accumulations of ice may cause extreme hazards to motorists and pedestrians. A freeze is weather marked by low temperatures, especially when below the freezing point (zero degrees Celsius or thirty-two degrees Fahrenheit). Agricultural production is seriously affected when temperatures remain below the freezing point. Nor’easters are extra-tropical events that produce strong winds and precipitation in the form of heavy rain, ice or snow. They can cause increases in tidal elevations (storm surge), wind speed, and erosion. These cyclonic storms, called nor’easters because of the direction of the storm winds, can last for several days and can impact very large areas.

A heavy layer of ice was more weight than this tree in Kansas City, Missouri could withstand during a January 2002 ice storm that swept through the region bringing down trees, power lines and telephone lines. (Photo by Heather Oliver/FEMA News Photo)

The presence of the Gulf Stream off the eastern seaboard in the winter season acts to dramatically enhance the surface horizontal temperature gradients within the coastal zone. This is particularly true off the Virginia coastline where, on average, the Gulf Stream is closest to land north of 32 degrees latitude. During winter offshore cold periods, these horizontal temperature gradients can result in rapid and intense destabilization of the atmosphere directly above and shoreward of the Gulf Stream. This air mass modification or conditioning period often precedes wintertime coastal extra-tropical cyclone development. It is the temperature structure of the continental air mass and the position of the temperature gradient along the Gulf Stream that drives this cyclone development. As a low pressure deepens, winds and waves can uninhibitedly increase and cause serious damage to coastal areas as the storm generally moves to the northeast. The coastal counties of Virginia are most vulnerable to the impacts of nor’easters. Since the storms often occur at night, and typically make landfall with less warning than hurricanes (due to their rapid formation along the coast), residents may be caught at home unprepared. On the other hand, nor’easters typically occur during the tourist off-season when fewer non-residents are visiting the coast. As with hurricanes, structural vulnerability to nor’easters is proportional to the strength of the structure, with mobile homes being particularly vulnerable.

TABLE 4.11: DOLAN-DAVIS NOR’EASTER INTENSITY SCALE STORM CLASS

BEACH EROSION

DUNE EROSION

PROPERTY DAMAGE

OVERWASH

1 (Weak)

Minor changes

None

No

No

2 (Moderate)

Modest; mostly to lower beach

Minor

No

Modest

3 (Significant)

Erosion extends across beach

Can be significant

No

Loss of many structures at local

level 4 (Severe) 5 (Extreme)

Severe beach erosion and recession Extreme beach erosion

Severe dune erosion or destruction Dunes destroyed over extensive areas

On low beaches

Loss of structures at community- scale

Massive in sheets and channels

Extensive at regional-scale; millions of dollars

LOCATION AND SPATIAL EXTENT Historical evidence indicates that the Southside Hampton Roads region has been impacted by varying degrees of snow storms and ice storms over the last century. In terms of receiving measurable snowfall, the National Climatic Data Center estimates that there is statistically an 85.8 percent probability that the region will receive measurable snowfall in any given year; a 78.9 percent probability in winter; and a 24.4 percent probability in spring (Table 4.12). Figure 4.X shows the number of days (annually) with snowfall greater than one inch. Figure 4.X shows region’s winter storm hazard risk as determined in the Virginia State Hazard Mitigation Plan.

TABLE 4.12: PROBABILITY OF RECEIVING A MEASURABLE SNOWFALL JURISDICTION Isle of Wight Norfolk Portsmouth Suffolk Virginia Beach TOTALS:

ANNUAL PROBABILITY

WINTER PROBABILITY

SPRING PROBABILITY

FALL PROBABILITY

No data 89.8% No data 92.5% 75% 85.8%

No data 88.7% No data 87.2% 60.7% 78.9%

No data 35.8% No data 26.9% 10.5% 24.4%

No data 5.6% No data 6.9% 2.1% 4.9%

Source: NOAA, National Climatic Data Center, Snow Climatology Page

SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL EVENTS According to the National Climatic Data Center, the Southside Hampton Roads region has experienced 24 significant winter storm events including snow and ice storms, extreme cold, and freezing rain since 1993 (Table 4.13). These events account for $20,120,000 in property damages for the affected areas, which includes multiple counties. The region received presidential disaster declarations from major winter storms in 1996 (the Blizzard of ’96) and 2000. Some of the more significant winter storms to impact the region in the twentieth century are discussed below. On March 1-3, 1927 a nor'easter hit the region with high winds gusting to 62 mph at Cape Henry and 52 mph at Norfolk. Heavy snow fell across North Carolina into Virginia and travel was delayed for two to three days. In Virginia Beach, high tide and heavy surf on March 2 inflicted considerable damage. The beaches in some places were washed back 50 feet and denuded of the overlying sand, exposing the clay beneath.

On April 11, 1956, a severe Nor'easter gave gale winds (greater than 40 mph) and unusually high tides to the Tidewater Virginia area. At Norfolk, the strongest gust was 70 mph. The strong northeast winds blew for almost 30 hours and pushed up the tide, which reached 4.6 feet above normal in Hampton Roads. Thousands of homes were flooded by the wind-driven high water and damages were large. Two ships were driven aground. Waterfront fires were fanned by the high winds. The flooded streets made access to firefighters very difficult, which added to the losses.

On January 30-31, 1966, a blizzard struck Virginia and the Northeast U.S. It was the second snowstorm to hit Virginia in a week. The first storm dumped 9 inches in Norfolk. With fresh snow on the ground, arctic air settled in and temperatures dropped into the teens. The second storm dumped one to two feet of snow over a large part of the state. Intense winds and drifting snow continued and kept roads closed for several days after the storm. Temperatures dropped into the single digits with some falling below zero. Wind chill temperatures were dangerously low. The winter of 1976-1977 was the coldest winter on the East Coast of the past century. Storms across the state dropped a few more inches every few days to keep a fresh coating on the streets that were just clearing from the previous storms. The average temperature for the month of January in Norfolk was 29.2°F which was 12° below normal. The prolonged cold wave caused oil and natural gas shortages and President Carter asked people to turn thermostats down to conserve energy. The major elements of this winter were the cold temperatures. There was little snowfall associated with this winter in the Southside Hampton Roads region. The “Presidents Day Storm” of February 1979 dropped 7 inches on snow on Norfolk on February 18-19 and 13 inches of snow were recorded for the entire month. The following winter, 20 inches fell in Virginia Beach and a foot of snow fell in Norfolk in a storm that hit the region in February. On March 1, another foot of snow fell in Norfolk and the total snowfall amount of 41.9 inches for Norfolk was the snowiest winter ever recorded in eastern Virginia.

The “Superstorm of March ’93,” was also known as “The Storm of the Century” for the eastern United States, due to its large area of impact, all the way from Florida and Alabama through New England. Impacts in the Southside Hampton Roads region were not as severe, but this storm still caused major disruption across a large portion of the country. The “1996 Blizzard” from January 6 to January 13, 1996 affected much of the eastern seaboard. In Virginia, the winter storm left up to 36 inches of snow in portions of the state. In the Southside Hampton Roads region, most of the communities saw at least a foot of snow between January 6 and January 12. Many other descriptions of historical occurrences of http://www.vaemergency.com/newsroom/history/winter.cfm

winter

storms

and

nor’easters

can

be

found

online

at

Table 4.13: Winter Storm Activity in the Southside Hampton Roads Region (1998-2004) LOCATION

DATE OF OCCURRENCE

TYPE OF EVENT

Isle of Wight County 9 jurisdictions, including Isle of Wight 17 jurisdictions, including Isle of Wight 20 jurisdictions, including Isle of Wight 33 jurisdictions, including Isle of Wight 40 jurisdictions, including Isle of Wight

12/28/1993 Winter Weather 1/6/1996 Winter Storm

25 jurisdictions, including Isle of Wight

1/19/2000 Winter Storm

7 jurisdictions, including Isle of Wight

1/25/2000 Winter Storm

4 jurisdictions, including Isle of Wight

27 jurisdictions, including Isle of Wight

2/2/1996 Winter Storm

2/16/1996 Winter Storm

3/7/1996 Winter Storm

12/23/1998 Ice Storm

12/3/2000

2/22/2001

Winter Storm

Winter Storm

PROPERTY DAMAGE

DETAILS

$0 No description available. $50,000 No description available.

$0 A winterstorm tracked northeast from the gulf coast states to off the Virginia coast. It spread a mixture of snow, sleet and some freezing rain from the lower Chesapeake Bay southwest into south central Virginia. $0 A storm tracked northeast from western South Carolina Thursday night to off the North Carolina coast Friday morning. Then it moved off north and spread heavy snow across Virginia. $0 A low pressure area developed over the Carolinas and then tracked off Virginia coast. It spread light snow across central and eastern Virginia. $20,000,000 A major ice storm affected central and eastern Virginia from Wednesday into Friday. A prolonged period of freezing rain and some sleet resulted in ice accumulations of one half inch to one inch in many locations. The heavy ice accumulations on trees and power lines caused widespread power outages across the region. Approximately 400,000 customers were without power during the maximum outage period. Some customers were without power for about ten days. Many accidents occurred due to slippery road conditions, especially bridges and overpasses. Many secondary roads were impassable due to fallen tree limbs or whole trees. $0 Two to three inches of snow fell overnight as an area of low pressure passed south of the region. The highest amounts were measured along a line from Caroline county in the north, through the city of Richmond, then along the southern shore of the James River. $20,000 A significant winter storm dropped 8 to 12 inches of snow across portions of eastern Virginia. There was blowing and drifting of snow from winds which gusted over 40 mph at times. The snow mixed with sleet and freezing rain occasionally during the late morning hours. In Isle of Wight County, strong winds pushed the Pagan River onto South Church Street. Isle of Wight County snowfall totaled 7 to 8 inches. $50,000 A winter storm struck parts of extreme southern and southeastern Virginia. The storm affected a relatively small area, but the areas that had snow received some hefty totals. Windsor reported 4 inches of snowfall. Local law enforcement agencies reported scores of accidents, several of which involved injuries. Schools were closed the following day. A winter storm produced 1 to 4 inches of snow across south central and eastern Virginia. Local law enforcement agencies reported numerous accidents, some of which involved injuries. Many schools were $0 dismissed early on the day of the storm, and several schools in the area were either closed or had a delayed opening the following day due to slippery road conditions.

Table 4.13: Winter Storm Activity in the Southside Hampton Roads Region (1998-2004) LOCATION

DATE OF OCCURRENCE

TYPE OF EVENT

PROPERTY DAMAGE

18 jurisdictions, including Isle of Wight

1/2/2002

Winter Storm

$0

19 jurisdictions, including Isle of Wight

12/4/2002

Winter Storm

$0

43 jurisdictions, including Isle of Wight

1/6/2003

Winter Weather/ mix

$0

27 jurisdictions, including Isle of Wight

1/16/2003

Winter Storm

0

12 jurisdictions, including Isle of Wight

1/23/2003

Winter Weather/ mix

$0

17 jurisdictions, including Isle of Wight

2/15/2003

Winter Storm

$0

24 jurisdictions, including Isle of Wight

1/9/2004

Winter Storm

$0

14 jurisdictions, including Isle of Wight

1/25/2004

Winter Storm

$0

2/15/2004

Winter Storm

$0

12/19/2004

Winter Weather/ mix

$0

10 jurisdictions, including Isle of Wight

12/26/2004

Winter Storm

$0

43 jurisdictions, including Isle of Wight

1/19/2005

Winter Weather/ mix

$0

22 jurisdictions, including Isle of Wight 43 jurisdictions, including Isle of Wight

DETAILS A winter storm produced 8 to as much as 12 inches of snow across south central and southeast Virginia. Local law enforcement agencies reported numerous accidents. Most schools in the area were closed Thursday and Friday due to very slippery road conditions. A winter storm produced 1 to 4 inches of snow along with 1/4 to 1/2 inch of ice from south central Virginia northeast through the middle peninsula and Virginia northern neck. Numerous trees and power lines were reported down due to ice accumulations, resulting in scattered power outages. Local law enforcement agencies also reported numerous accidents. Most schools in the area were closed Thursday and Friday due to power outages and very slippery road conditions. A weak winter storm produced only a dusting to 1 inch of snow across portions of central and eastern Virginia. Accumulations from this storm were mostly on cars and grassy areas, with roadways remaining generally wet although some slush was reported. A winter storm produced 4 to 8 inches of snow across portions of central and eastern Virginia. Local law enforcement agencies reported numerous accidents. Most schools in the area were closed Friday due to very slippery road conditions. A winter storm produced around one inch of snow across portions of south central and southeast Virginia. Local law enforcement agencies reported several accidents. A winter storm produced 1 to 3 inches of snow, along with sleet and 1/4 to 1/2 inch of ice accumulation, across central and eastern Virginia. Local law enforcement agencies reported numerous accidents. Most schools in the area were closed Monday due to very slippery road conditions. Two to as much as five inches of snow fell across portions of central, south central, and southeast Virginia. The snow produced very slippery roadways, which resulted in several accidents. Two to as much as four inches of snow and sleet fell across portions of eastern and southeast Virginia. The snow and sleet produced very slippery roadways, which resulted in numerous accidents and school closings for a few days. One to three inches of snow fell across portions of south central and southeast Virginia. The snow produced very slippery roadways, which resulted in several accidents and school closings for a few days. One half inch to as much as three inches of snow fell across central and eastern Virginia. The snow produced slippery roadways, which resulted in several accidents. A winter storm produced a narrow band of six to as much as fourteen inches of snow across the Virginia Eastern Shore, Hampton Roads, and interior southeast Virginia. The snow caused very hazardous driving conditions, which resulted in numerous accidents. Smithfield in Isle of Wight county reported 12 inches and Isle of Wight reported 11 inches. One half inch to as much as two inches of snow fell across central and eastern Virginia. The snow produced slippery roadways, which resulted in several accidents.

Table 4.13: Winter Storm Activity in the Southside Hampton Roads Region (1998-2004) DATE OF OCCURRENCE

TYPE OF EVENT

41 jurisdictions, including Isle of Wight

1/20/2005

Winter Weather/ mix

$0

36 jurisdictions, including Isle of Wight

2/3/2005

Winter Weather/ mix

$0

TOTAL

24 Events

LOCATION

PROPERTY DAMAGE

DETAILS One half inch to as much as three inches of snow fell across much of central and eastern Virginia. The snow produced slippery roadways, which resulted in several accidents. . One half inch to two inches of snow fell across much of central and eastern Virginia. A few isolated areas reported close to four inches. The snow produced slippery roadways, which resulted in several accidents. Smithfield in Isle of Wight county reported 2.3 inches of snow.

$20,120,000 19

Source: National Climatic Data Center

PROBABILITY OF FUTURE OCCURRENCES Winter storms will remain a likely occurrence for the region. While storms will be more likely to produce small amounts of snow, sleet or freezing rain, larger storms, though less frequent in occurrence, could also impact the region.

19

Damages are based on the methodological assumption that damages were equally distributed among impacted counties. While this may not produce an exact estimate of property damage within the region, it is deemed sufficient for planning purposes within this context.

EROSION (COASTAL AND RIVERINE) BACKGROUND Erosion is the gradual breakdown and movement of land due to both physical and chemical processes of water, wind, and general meteorological conditions. Natural, or geologic, erosion has occurred since the Earth’s formation and continues at a very slow and uniform rate each year. Major storms such as hurricanes and tropical storms may cause more sudden, rapid erosion by combining heavy rainfall, high winds, heavy surf and storm surge to significantly impact river banks and the shoreline. As it relates to natural hazards that threaten property damage, erosion to be concerned: riverine erosion and coastal erosion. The both riverine and coastal erosion is the gradual removal of rock, sediment materials from river banks, stream beds and shorelines instability and possible damages to property and infrastructure.

there are two types of primary concern of vegetation and other that result in soil

Riverine erosion is a long term geologic process that reshapes stream banks as sediment is excavated and transported Typically, it occurs faster during periods of high velocity flows rainfall, stormwater runoff and/or dam releases. Riverine erosion mitigated through local sediment and erosion control projects, such armored revetments and bulkheads or the replacement of serves to stabilize eroding soils. The riverine erosion hazard is minimized through the designation of riparian buffers and the regulatory setbacks from eroding river banks.

river

beds and downstream. brought on by heavy is most often as the construction of vegetation that also greatly enforcement of

Coastal erosion is a significant, long term hazard that threatens to undermine waterfront homes, businesses, and public facilities along our all of our nation’s shorelines, Erosion threatens to damage a eventually rendering them uninhabitable or unusable. Coastal erosion is driven by waterfront home. (Photo number of natural influences such as rising sea level, large storms such as tropical courtesy of FEMA) storms, nor’easters and hurricanes, storm surge, flooding and powerful ocean waves. Manmade influences such as coastal development, offshore dredging or shoreline stabilization projects can also exacerbate coastal erosion, even when initially intended to minimize immediate or erosion effects. According to FEMA, coastal erosion has been a factor in more than 25 federal disaster designations during the past twenty years. The average annual erosion rate on the Atlantic coast is roughly 2 to 3 feet per year. States bordering the Gulf of Mexico have the nation’s highest average annual erosion rates (6 feet per year). That being said, erosion rates vary greatly from location to location and year to year. Both the Atlantic and Gulf coasts are bordered by a chain of roughly 300 barrier islands, which are composed primarily of loose sand and are the most dynamic land masses along the open-ocean coast. Barrier island coastlines have been retreating landward for thousands of years in response to slowly rising sea levels. A recent study by The Heinz Center (2000), Evaluation of Erosion Hazards, states that over the next 60 years, erosion may claim one out of four houses within 500 feet of the U.S. shoreline. It also states that nationwide, erosion may be responsible for approximately $500 million in property loss to coastal property owners per year, including both damage to structures and loss of land. To the homeowners living within areas subject to coastal erosion, the risk posed by erosion is comparable to the risk from flooding and other natural hazard events. While not as sudden, coastal erosion clearly influences the stability and condition of coastal property and beaches when such other events occur.

LOCATION AND SPATIAL EXTENT Although some riverine erosion occurs in various locations along the rivers that flow through the Southside Hampton Roads region, there are no riverine erosion hazard data or maps available at this time to conduct a region-wide analysis. Riverine erosion concerns are localized in nature and are best suited for site-specific analyses. Coastal erosion is a significant concern in the Southside Hampton Roads region. According to the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences (VIMS), the Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay coasts surrounding the area are very dynamic in terms of shoreline change and sediment transport processes. VIMS and other agencies occasionally perform studies to determine long term shoreline change patterns for various locations across the region. However, these studies are largely intended to track shoreline and dune evolution through natural and manmade alterations, and not designed to determine erosion rates or areas of coastal erosion. While the Federal Emergency Management Agency does not map erosion hazard areas, it does map the highest risk areas for

coastal flooding with wave action (“V zones”)20. For purposes of this analysis it can generally be assumed that areas identified as coastal high hazard zones are also at risk to the effects of coastal erosion. While coastal flooding is typically a short term event, coastal erosion may best be described as a relatively slow natural process occurring over the long term, with occasional major impacts wrought by coastal storm and flooding hazards.

Another complicating factor in accurately coastal erosion hazard areas is the continuous shoreline reinforcement or nourishment projects state and local government agencies. Typically, with regard to long term erosion are addressed hardening or stabilization projects, such as seawalls, sand replenishment. For example, in 2002, the Control and Hurricane Protection Project was more than six miles from the imminent hazards of sand renourishment. Many other projects have been and still others are pending approval and/or to continue successfully mitigating the effects of hazards throughout the region will depend on regular and the design and implementation of site-specific done in the past.

HISTORICAL OCCURENCES

This photo, taken while the Virginia Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project was underway, shows the significant difference between the unimproved area and the area of the widened beach berm already completed (Source: City of Virginia Beach)

determining specific implementation of completed by federal, areas of high concern through shoreline breakwaters and beach Virginia Beach Erosion completed, protecting coastal erosion through completed in the region funding21. The ability coastal erosion shoreline monitoring solutions, as has been

No significant riverine erosion events have been recorded in the region. Coastal erosion events often occur in conjunction with hurricanes, tropical storms and nor’easters.

PROBABILITY OF FUTURE OCCURENCES Over time, riverine and coastal erosion will continue to occur in the Southside Hampton Roads region. Coastal erosion will be more immediate and severe during hurricanes, tropical storms and nor’easters.

20 21

For more information on FEMA V-zones, refer to the Flood hazard. In countering the effects of coastal erosion, Virginia Beach’s shoreline has been renourished annually since 1951.

EARTHQUAKES BACKGROUND An earthquake is the motion or trembling of the ground produced by sudden displacement of rock in the Earth's crust. Earthquakes result from crustal strain, volcanism, landslides or the collapse of caverns. Earthquakes can affect hundreds of thousands of square miles; cause damage to property measured in the tens of billions of dollars; result in loss of life and injury to hundreds of thousands of persons; and disrupt the social and economic functioning of the affected area. Most property damage and earthquake-related the failure and collapse of structures due to ground damage depends upon the amplitude and duration of are directly related to the earthquake size, distance regional geology. Other damaging earthquake landslides, the down-slope movement of soil and regions and along hillsides), and liquefaction, in loses the ability to resist shear and flows much like case of liquefaction, anything relying on the can shift, tilt, rupture or collapse.

deaths are caused by shaking. The level of the shaking, which from the fault, site and effects include rock (mountain which ground soil quick sand. In the substrata for support

Most earthquakes are caused by the release of as a result of the rupture of rocks along opposing Earth’s outer crust. These fault planes are typically of the Earth's 10 tectonic plates. These plate follow the outlines of the continents, with the North following the continental border with the Pacific but following the mid-Atlantic trench in the east. As in the mid-Atlantic trench usually pose little danger to earthquake threat in North America is along the

stresses accumulated fault planes in the found along borders borders generally American plate Ocean in the west, earthquakes occurring humans, the greatest Pacific Coast.

Many roads, including bridges and elevated highways, were damaged by the 6.7 magnitude earthquake that impacted the Northridge, California area January 17, 1994. Approximately 114,000 structures were damaged and 72 deaths were attributed to the t D t ti t d t $25

The areas of greatest tectonic instability occur at the perimeters of the slowly moving plates, as these locations are subjected to the greatest strains from plates traveling in opposite directions and at different speeds. Deformation along plate boundaries causes strain in the rock and the consequent buildup of stored energy. When the built-up stress exceeds the rocks' strength, a rupture occurs. The rock on both sides of the fracture is snapped, releasing the stored energy and producing seismic waves, generating an earthquake. Earthquakes are measured in terms of their magnitude and intensity. Magnitude is measured using the Richter Scale, an openended logarithmic scale that describes the energy release of an earthquake through a measure of shock wave amplitude (see Table 4.14). Each unit increase in magnitude on the Richter Scale corresponds to a 10-fold increase in wave amplitude, or a 32fold increase in energy. Intensity is most commonly measured using the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale based on direct and indirect measurements of seismic effects. The scale levels are typically described using roman numerals, with a I corresponding to imperceptible (instrumental) events, IV corresponding to moderate (felt by people awake), to XII for catastrophic (total destruction). A detailed description of the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of earthquake intensity and its correspondence to the Richter Scale is given in Table 4.15.

TABLE 4.14: RICHTER SCALE RICHTER MAGNITUDES Less than 3.5 3.5-5.4 Under 6.0

EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS Generally not felt, but recorded. Often felt, but rarely causes damage. At most slight damage to well-designed buildings. Can cause major damage to poorly constructed buildings over small regions.

6.1-6.9

Can be destructive in areas up to about 100 kilometers across where people live.

7.0-7.9

Major earthquake. Can cause serious damage over larger areas.

8 or greater

Great earthquake. Can cause serious damage in areas several hundred kilometers across.

Source: United States Geological Survey

TABLE 4.15: MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE FOR EARTHQUAKES SCALE

INTENSITY

DESCRIPTION OF EFFECTS

I

Instrumental

II

Feeble

Some people feel it

III

Slight

Felt by people resting; like a truck rumbling by

IV

Moderate

V

Slightly Strong

VI

Strong

VII

CORRESPONDING RICHTER SCALE MAGNITUDE

Detected only on seismographs <4.2

Felt by people walking Sleepers awake; church bells ring

<4.8

Trees sway; suspended objects swing, objects fall off shelves

<5.4

Very Strong

Mild Alarm; walls crack; plaster falls

<6.1

VIII

Destructive

Moving cars uncontrollable; masonry fractures, poorly constructed buildings damaged

IX

Ruinous

X

Disastrous

XI

Very Disastrous

XII

Catastrophic

Some houses collapse; ground cracks; pipes break open Ground cracks profusely; many buildings destroyed; liquefaction and landslides widespread Most buildings and bridges collapse; roads, railways, pipes and cables destroyed; general triggering of other hazards Total destruction; trees fall; ground rises and falls in waves

<6.9 <7.3 <8.1 >8.1

Source: United States Geological Survey

Figure 4.21 shows the probability that ground motion will reach a certain level during an earthquake. The data show peak horizontal ground acceleration (the fastest measured change in speed, for a particle at ground level that is moving horizontally due to an earthquake) with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. The map was compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Geologic Hazards Team, which conducts global investigations of earthquake, geomagnetic, and landslide hazards.

FIGURE 4.21: PEAK ACCELERATION WITH 10 PERCENT PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE IN 50 YEARS

Source: United States Geological Survey

LOCATION AND SPATIAL EXTENT Virginia is affected by both the New Madrid Fault in Missouri and the Charleston Fault in South Carolina. During the last 200 years, both of these faults have generated earthquakes measuring greater than 8 on the Richter Scale. There is also an area of frequent, yet very weak, earthquake activity located to the southwest of Charlottesville, Virginia. Figure 4.22 shows the earthquake intensity level associated with the Southside Hampton Roads region, based on the national U.S. Geological Survey map of peak acceleration with 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. According to this data, the entire region can be considered to be in a low earthquake risk zone, with a peak ground acceleration value (%g) of 1 and 2.

SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL EVENTS Table 4.16 lists the 7 significant earthquake events that have impacted the Southside Hampton Roads region as compiled from National Geophysical Data Center records for the period 1638 to 1985.

Table 4.16: Significant Seismic Events in the Southside Hampton Roads Region LOCATION

Norfolk Norfolk Norfolk Norfolk Norfolk Norfolk Norfolk Suffolk Suffolk

DATE OF OCCURRENCE

MMI22

DISTANCE FROM EPICENTER (MILES)

12/16/1811 8/28/1833 9/1/1886 2/21/1916 4/21/1918 3/1/1925 9/5/1944 9/1/1886 4/21/1918

5 3 5 3 2 2 3 5 2

1188 N/A 560 581 N/A 1339 881 527 N/A

Source: National Geophysical Data Center

PROBABILITY OF FUTURE OCCURRENCES Earthquakes of significant magnitude are unlikely occurrences for the Southside Hampton Roads region, though the proximity of the region to the Charleston Fault could increase the possibility of feeling some impact of a large earthquake if it were to occur along that fault line.

22

Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale for earthquakes.

LANDSLIDES BACKGROUND A landslide is the downward and outward movement of slope-forming soil, rock, and vegetation, which is driven by gravity. Landslides may be triggered by both natural and human-caused changes in the environment, including heavy rain, rapid snow melt, steepening of slopes due to construction or erosion, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and changes in groundwater levels. There are several types of landslides: rock falls, rock flows. Rock falls are rapid movements of bedrock, bouncing or rolling. A topple is a section or block of tilts before falling to the slope below. Slides are or rock along a distinct surface of rupture, which material from the more stable underlying material. sometimes referred to as mudslides, mudflows, lahars avalanches, are fast-moving rivers of rock, earth, and saturated with water. They develop when water rapidly ground, such as heavy rainfall or rapid snowmelt, into a flowing river of mud or "slurry." Slurry can flow or through channels, and can strike with little or no avalanche speeds. Slurry can travel several miles growing in size as it picks up trees, cars, and other way. As the flows reach flatter ground, the mudflow broad area where it can accumulate in thick deposits.

Landslides can damage or destroy roads, railroads, pipelines, electrical and telephone lines, mines, oil wells, buildings, canals, sewers, bridges, dams, seaports, airports, forests parks and farms (Photo by Lynn

topple, slides, and which result in rock that rotates or movements of soil separates the slide Mudflows, or debris other debris accumulates in the changing the soil rapidly down slopes warning at from its source, materials along the spreads over a

Landslides are typically associated with periods of heavy rainfall or rapid snow melt and tend to worsen the effects of flooding that often accompanies these events. In areas burned by forest and brush fires, a lower threshold of precipitation may initiate landslides. Some landslides move slowly and cause damage gradually, whereas others move so rapidly that they can destroy property and take lives suddenly and unexpectedly. Among the most destructive types of debris flows are those that accompany volcanic eruptions. A spectacular example in the United States was a massive debris flow resulting from the 1980 eruptions of Mount St. Helens, Washington. Areas near the bases of many volcanoes in the Cascade Mountain Range of California, Oregon and Washington are at risk from the same types of flows during future volcanic eruptions. Areas that are generally prone to landslide hazards include previous landslide areas; the bases of steep slopes; the bases of drainage channels; and developed hillsides where leach-field septic systems are used. Areas that are typically considered safe from landslides include areas that have not moved in the past; relatively flat-lying areas away from sudden changes in slope; and areas at the top or along ridges, set back from the tops of slopes. In the United States, it is estimated that landslides cause up to $2 billion in damages and from 25 to 50 deaths annually. Globally, landslides cause billions of dollars in damage and thousands of deaths and injuries each year. Figure 4.23 delineates areas where large numbers of landslides have occurred and areas which are susceptible to landsliding in the conterminous United States. This map layer is provided in the U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1183, Landslide Overview Map of the Conterminous United States, available online at: http://landslides.usgs.gov/html_files/landslides/nationalmap/national.html.

FIGURE 4.23: LANDSLIDE OVERVIEW MAP OF THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

Source: United States Geological Survey

LOCATION AND SPATIAL EXTENT Figure 4.24 shows general indication of areas that may be susceptible to landslides according to the United States Geological Survey. Minor landslide events are possible in localized, steep-sloped areas during extremely wet conditions. Portions of eastern Isle of Wight County and Suffolk are moderately at risk to landslides. This is an area where bluffs are present along the James River.

SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL EVENTS There is no history of significant landslide events in the region.

PROBABILITY OF FUTURE OCCURRENCES Landslides remain a possible occurrence in localized areas of the Southside Hampton Roads region, but impacts from such events would likely cause minimal localized damage.

SINKHOLES BACKGROUND Sinkholes are a natural and common geologic feature in areas with underlying limestone and other rock types that are soluble in natural water. Most limestone is porous, allowing the acidic water of rain to percolate through their strata, dissolving some limestone and carrying it away in solution. Over time, this persistent erosive process can create extensive underground voids and drainage systems in much of the carbonate rocks. Collapse of overlying sediments into the underground cavities produces sinkholes. The three general types of sinkholes are: and collapse. Collapse sinkholes are most common overburden (the sediments and water contained in surficial aquifer system, and the confining layer thick, but the confining layer is breached or absent. can form with little warning and leave behind a deep, Subsidence sinkholes form gradually where the only a veneer of sediments is overlying the sinkholes form where no overburden is present and exposed at land surface.

subsidence, solution, in areas where the the unsaturated zone, above an aquifer) is Collapse sinkholes steep sided hole. overburden is thin and limestone. Solution the limestone is

Sinkholes occur in many shapes, from steep-walled holes to bowl or cone shaped depressions. Sinkholes are dramatic because the land Collapses, such as the sudden formation of generally stays intact for a while until the underground spaces sinkholes, may destroy buildings, roads, and get too big. If there is not enough support for the land above the utilities. (Photo: Bettmann) spaces, then a sudden collapse of the land surface can occur. Under natural conditions, sinkholes form slowly and expand gradually. However, human activities such as dredging, constructing reservoirs, diverting surface water, and pumping groundwater can accelerate the rate of sinkhole expansions, resulting in the abrupt formation of collapse sinkholes. Although a sinkhole can form without warning, specific signs can signal potential development:     

Slumping or falling fence posts, trees, or foundations Sudden formation of small ponds Wilting vegetation Discolored well water Structural cracks in walls, floors

Sinkhole formation is aggravated and accelerated by urbanization. Development increases water usage, alters drainage pathways, overloads the ground surface, and redistributes soil. According to FEMA, the number of human-induced sinkholes has doubled since 1930, insurance claims for damages as a result of sinkholes has increased 1,200 percent from 1987 to 1991, costing nearly $100 million.

LOCATION AND SPATIAL EXTENT Existing soil types in the Southside Hampton Roads region are not conducive to the formation of natural sinkholes. There is a higher potential for soil piping and/or erosion caused by leakage from drainage pipes, culverts, etc.

SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL EVENTS There have been no reported sinkhole occurrences in the region. Most sinkholes in this region are caused by pipes underneath the ground that form cracks due to age and over time leaks erode the dirt and soil around it.

PROBABILITY OF FUTURE OCCURRENCES Sinkholes remain a possible occurrence in localized areas of the region, but impacts from such events would likely cause minimal localized damage.

DROUGHT BACKGROUND Drought is a natural climatic condition caused by an limited rainfall beyond that which occurs naturally in area. High temperatures, high winds and low drought conditions, and can make areas more Human demands and actions can also hasten impacts.

extended period of a broad geographic humidity can worsen susceptible to wildfire. drought-related

Droughts are frequently classified as one of four types: meteorological, agricultural, hydrological or socio-economic. Meteorological droughts are typically defined by the level of “dryness” when compared to an average or normal amount of precipitation over a given period of time. Agricultural droughts relate common characteristics of drought to their specific agricultural-related impacts. Emphasis tends to be placed on factors such as soil water A USGS streamflow gaging station at the deficits, water needs based on differing stages of crop development, Ogeechee River near Eden, Georgia in July and water reservoir levels. Hydrological drought is directly related to the 2000 illustrates the drought conditions that effect of precipitation shortfalls on surface and groundwater supplies. can severely affect water supplies, Human factors, particularly changes in land use, can alter the hydrologic agriculture, stream water quality, characteristics of a basin. Socio-economic drought is the result of water recreation, navigation and forest resources. shortages that limit the ability to supply waterdependent products in the marketplace. Figure 4.25 shows the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) summary map for the United States from 1895 to 1995. PDSI drought classifications are based on observed drought conditions and range from -0.5 (incipient dry spell) to -4.0 (extreme drought). As can be seen, the Eastern United States has historically not seen as many significant long-term droughts as the Central and Western regions of the country.

FIGURE 4.25: PALMER DROUGHT SEVERITY INDEX, 1895-1995 PERCENT OF TIME IN SEVERE AND EXTREME DROUGHT

Source: National Drought Mitigation Center

LOCATION AND SPATIAL EXTENT Drought typically impacts a large area that cannot be confined to geographic boundaries; however, some regions of the United States are more susceptible to drought conditions than others. According to the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) Summary Map for the United States, the Commonwealth of Virginia as a whole is in a zone of 5 percent to 9.99 percent PDSI less than or equal to -3 (-3 indicating severe drought conditions) meaning that drought conditions are a relatively low to moderate risk for the Southside Hampton Roads region. Furthermore, it is assumed that the region would be uniformly exposed to this hazard and that the spatial extent of that impact would potentially be large. It is important to note however, that drought conditions typically do not cause significant damage to the built environment.

SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL EVENTS The drought of record for Virginia occurred in 1931 when the statewide average rainfall amount was 7.64 inches compared to an average mean rainfall amount of 17.89. This was during this period that also saw the Great Dust Bowl that helped lead to the Great Depression. Since 1993, the National Climatic Data Center has recorded only 2 instances of drought to impact the Southside Hampton Roads region (Table 4.17).23 Though instances are recorded on a monthly basis by the National Climatic Data Center, events are usually part of ongoing drought conditions that last several months or years. In addition to this official drought record, periods of drought-like conditions are also known to have impacted the region in 200, 2002, 2003 and 2005. Water restrictions have been put into place as far back as three years and shallow wells are known to have lost water in and around the region. According to State of Virginia records, a declaration of a State of Emergency Due to Extreme Drought Conditions was executed by the Governor of Virginia on August 30, 2005. The Executive Order was to be effective from August 30, 2002 through June 30, 2003. Isle of Wight County is currently (2005) seeking federal disaster drought aid because of drought conditions effecting crop production.

Table 4.17: Occurrences of Drought in the southside hampton roads region (1993-2004) LOCATION 17 jurisdictions, including Isle of Wight 20 jurisdictions, including Isle of Wight

DATE OF OCCURRENCE 10/31/1993

9/1/1997

DETAILS Unusually dry weather during the summer and early fall led to many communities in southeastern Virginia to place water conservation measures into effect in October 1993. A very dry period from May through September resulted in drought-like conditions across much of central and eastern Virginia. Monthly rainfall departures from normal for Norfolk included: -2.21 inches in May, -2.73 inches in June, -3.05 inches in August, and -1.93 inches in September. This caused significant crop damage throughout much of the area which was estimated to be around $63.8 million.

Source: National Climatic Data Center

PROBABILITY OF FUTURE OCCURRENCES Based on current and seasonal outlook drought maps available through the National Weather Service’s Climate Prediction Center and the National Drought Mitigation Center24, there is no concern for imminent or forecasted drought occurrences. However, based on past events, it certainly remains possible over the long-term that the Southside Hampton Roads region will experience recurring drought conditions when precipitation falls below normal for extended periods of time. Based on climate data, the region will likely continue to experience occasional periods of extreme heat, but not nearly as severe as other regions of the country.

23 Drought occurrences recorded by the National Climatic Data Center are not necessarily unique events, as many instances of drought persist through multiple reporting periods. This is reflected in the details provided for some long-enduring occurrences in Table 4.17. 24 Current and seasonal drought outlook maps are made available by the National Drought Mitigation Center at www.drought.unl.edu/dm/index.html.

WILDFIRE BACKGROUND A wildfire is any fire occurring in a wildland area (i.e., grassland, forest, brush land) except for fire under prescription.25 Wildfires are part of the natural management of the Earth’s ecosystems, but may also be caused by natural or human factors. Over 80 percent of forest fires are started by negligent human behavior such as smoking in wooded areas or improperly extinguishing campfires. The second most common cause for wildfire is lightning. There are three classes of wildland fires: surface fire, crown fire. A surface fire is the most common of and burns along the floor of a forest, moving slowly damaging trees. A ground fire (muck fire) is usually human carelessness and burns on or below the fires spread rapidly by wind and move quickly by tops of trees. Wildland fires are usually signaled by the area for miles around.

ground fire, and these three classes and killing or started by lightning or forest floor. Crown jumping along the dense smoke that fills

State and local governments can impose fire safety sites and developments to help curb wildfire. Land such as fire access roads, water storage, helipads, firebreaks, fuel breaks, and fuel management can be overall fire defense system to aid in fire control. Fuel prescribed burning, and cooperative land can also be encouraged to reduce fire hazards.

regulations on home treatment measures safety zones, buffers, designed as part of an management, management planning

On Sunday, August 6, 2000, several forest fires converged near Sula, Montana, forming a firestorm that overran 100,000 acres and destroyed 10 homes. Temperatures in the flame front were estimated at more than 800 degrees. (Photo by John McColgan/U.S. Forest Service Firefighter)

Fire probability depends on local weather conditions, outdoor activities such as camping, debris burning, and construction, and the degree of public cooperation with fire prevention measures. Drought conditions and other natural disasters (hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.) increase the probability of wildfires by producing fuel in both urban and rural settings. Forest damage from hurricanes and tornadoes may block interior access roads and fire breaks, pull down overhead power lines, or damage pavement and underground utilities. Many individual homes and cabins, subdivisions, resorts, recreational areas, organizational camps, businesses, and industries are located within high fire hazard areas. The increasing demand for outdoor recreation places more people in wildlands during holidays, weekends, and vacation periods. Unfortunately, wildland residents and visitors are rarely educated or prepared for the inferno that can sweep through the brush and timber and destroy property in minutes.

LOCATION AND SPATIAL EXTENT In July 2003, the Virginia Department of Forestry released a GIS-based wildfire risk assessment for the Commonwealth of Virginia. While this assessment is not recommended for site-specific determinations of wildfire vulnerability, the data was utilized in this Plan as an indicator of potential areas of wildland/urban interface concern within the Southside Hampton Roads region, as shown in Figure 4.26. Essentially, potential wildfire risk areas are presented in three categories indicating the relative level of threat to the community: High, Moderate and Low. There are 679 areas that are classified High wildfire threat areas. When compared with aerial imagery it appears that these areas are lightly developed wooded areas, including some marshland and other forms of undeveloped land. There are 563 relatively large areas that are classified as Moderate wildfire threat areas. These areas include both undeveloped and developed land. Most of the land area of Isle of Wight County and the western two-thirds of Suffolk have been classified as Moderate or High wildfire threat areas. Much of the remainder of the region, including most of Portsmouth, Norfolk and Virginia Beach, are classified as Low wildfire threat areas. This includes heavily developed commercials areas and several residential areas. These more heavily developed areas represent a slightly greater threat with regard to the spread of urban fires.

SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL EVENTS According to Virginia Department of Forestry records, the region experiences an average of 12 wildfire events per year, the majority of which are caused by open burning, arson and smokers. The majority of recorded events have taken place in Isle of Wight County and no events have been recorded in Portsmouth and Norfolk. Only minor property damages—generally amounting 25

Prescription burning, or “controlled burn,” undertaken by land management agencies is the process of igniting fires under selected conditions, in accordance with strict parameters.)

to less than $15,000 per year—have been recorded as resulting from wildfire events. Table 4.18 shows the damages of wildfire events in the region between 1995 and 2002.

Table 4.18: Occurrences of Wildfire in the Southside Hampton Roads Region JURISDICTION

Virginia Beach

YEAR

FREQUENCY

BURNED ACRES

DAMAGE

1995 1996 1997 2001

1 1 2 4 8

10 0.5 28 225 263.5

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

10 3 8 4 3 5 17 50

17.5 1.25 8.5 9 1.5 6.5 61.65 105.9

$0 $0 $500 $600 $0 $3,000 $0 $4,100

1995 1996 1997 1999 2000 2001

14 2 5 3 2 1 27

154.7 121 132 10.5 30 38 486.2

$33,750 $8,000 $20,960 $5,400 $0 $3,000 $71,110

85

855.6

$75,210

Virginia Beach Total

Isle of Wight County

Isle of Wight County Total

Suffolk

Suffolk Total TOTAL Source: Virginia Department of Forestry

PROBABILITY OF FUTURE OCCURRENCES Wildfires remain a highly likely occurrence for the region, though most will likely continue to occur in less urban areas and be small in size before being contained and suppressed.

DAM / LEVEE FAILURE BACKGROUND Worldwide interest in dam and levee safety has risen significantly in recent years. Aging infrastructure, new hydrologic information, and population growth in floodplain areas downstream from dams and near levees have resulted in an increased emphasis on safety, operation and maintenance. There are approximately 80,000 dams in the United States today, the majority of which are privately owned. Other owners include state and local authorities, public utilities and federal agencies. The benefits of dams are numerous: they provide water for drinking, navigation and agricultural irrigation. Dams also provide hydroelectric power, create lakes for fishing and recreation, and save lives by preventing or reducing floods. Though dams have many benefits, they also can pose a risk to communities if not designed, operated and maintained properly. In the event of a dam failure, the energy of the water stored behind even a small dam is capable of causing loss of life and great property damage if development exists downstream of the dam. If a levee breaks, scores of properties are quickly submerged in floodwaters and residents may become trapped by this rapidly rising water. The failure of dams and levees has the potential to place large numbers of people and great amounts of property in harm’s way.

Lake Burnt Mills in Suffolk. (Photo courtesy of City of Suffolk)

LOCATION AND SPATIAL EXTENT According to the National Inventory of Dams maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers26, there are 37 major dams located in the Southside Hampton Roads region (Table 4.19). Major dams are defined as dams being 50 feet or more in height, or with a normal storage capacity of 5,000 acre-feet or more, or with a maximum storage capacity of 25,000 acre-feet or more. Of the major dams located in the region, three are classified as “high” hazards where failure or mis-operation of the dam could cause loss of human life. It is important to note that these hazard classifications are not related to the physical condition or structural integrity of the dam (nor the probability of its failure) but strictly to the potential for adverse downstream effects if the dam were to fail. The state regulatory agency for dams is the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation through the Dam Safety and Floodplain Management Program.

Table 4.19: Major Dams in the Southside Hampton Roads Region NAME OF DAM

HAZARD CLASSIFICATION

YEAR BUILT

NORMAL STORAGE (ACRE FEET)

High High High Significant Low Significant

1942 1963 1959 1962 1921 1912

7,449 14,620 6,372 1,000 10,600 6,025

Lake Burnt Mills Dam Western Branch Dam Lake Mead Dam C-Pond Dam Lake Prince Dam Lake Cohoon Dam Source: National Inventory of Dams

Figure 4.27 shows the location of all major and state-regulated dams in the region, and notes which of those are classified as high, intermediate and low hazard.

SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL EVENTS In Suffolk, during Hurricane Floyd in 1999, Speight’s Run spillway was compromised rendering Turlington Road impassable. Other dams in Suffolk were overtopped by what was reported as 8 feet of water. There is no other record of any damages, deaths or injuries associated with dam failure in the Southside Hampton Roads region.

PROBABILITY OF FUTURE OCCURRENCES Dam failure remains an unlikely occurrence for all major and non-regulated dams in the Southside Hampton Roads region. The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation is tasked with monitoring the routine inspection and maintenance of those dams that present the greatest risk or are in need of structural repair.

26

The National Inventory of Dams was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in cooperation with FEMA's National Dam Safety Program. The full inventory contains over 75,000 dams, of which 7,700 are classified as major, and is used to track information on the country's water control infrastructure.

TSUNAMI BACKGROUND The word tsunami is Japanese and means “harbor wave.” A tsunami is one or a series of great waves that are created by an earthquake, landslide, volcanic eruption, submarine earthquake or other undersea disturbances. From the area of disturbance, tsunami waves will travel outward in all directions. Tsunamis can originate hundreds or even thousands of miles away from coastal areas. A tsunami is not the same as a tidal wave. The time between wave crests may be five to 90 ocean wave speed may average 450 miles per approach shallow coastal waters, they appear to Although the waves slow down as they reach energy remains constant. When tsunami waves they may be as high as 100 feet. Areas at than 50 feet above sea level and within one mile changes in the ocean water level may indicate that approaching. Most deaths during a tsunami are Associated risks include flooding, polluted water gas lines. In the United States, tsunamis have historically (Figure 4.28), but the threat of tsunami inundation Atlantic Coast. Pacific Ocean tsunamis are regional, or Pacific-wide. Regional tsunamis are wide tsunamis are much less common, with the in 1964, but are larger waves that have high destruction.

Tsunami Hazard Zone signs are posted at coastal access points or other low-lying areas that would clearly be vulnerable to a large, locally generated tsunami. Signs are placed at locations agreed upon by local and state governmental authorities. Tsunami Evacuation Route markers are used to designate the evacuation routes established by local jurisdictions in cooperation with emergency management officials. (Photos courtesy of Washington State Department of Transportation)

minutes and the open hour. As tsunami waves be of normal size. shallow water, the crash into the shoreline, greatest risk are less of the shoreline. Rapid a tsunami is the result of drowning. supplies, and damaged

affected the West Coast is also possible on the classified as local, most common. Pacificlast one being recorded potential to cause

The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center was established in 1949 at Ewa Beach, Hawaii to monitor conditions in the Pacific Ocean and to provide warnings in case of tsunamis. According to the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center Laboratory in Novosiirsk, 796 tsunamis were observed or recorded in the Pacific Ocean between 1900 and 2001. Approximately 117 caused casualties and damage and at least nine caused widespread destruction throughout the Pacific. The greatest number of tsunamis during any one-year was 19 in 1938, but all were minor and caused no damage. There was no single year of the period that was free of tsunamis.

FIGURE 4.28: PRIMARY TSUNAMI HAZARD AREAS

LOCATION AND SPATIAL EXTENT There is no historical evidence of tsunami events directly affecting the Southside Hampton Roads region. However—although tsunamis are more frequently associated with Pacific Rim states—historical evidence does indicate that tsunamis have affected the Eastern United States. In fact, 40 tsunamis and tsunami-like waves have been documented in the Eastern United States since 160027. Tsunami events along the East Coast are not the result of traditional sources of tsunami waves (i.e., subduction zones such as the Cascadia Subduction Zone), but rather are typically the result of slumping or landsliding associated with local earthquakes or with wave action associated with strong storms such as hurricanes. Other possible causes of tsunami-like activity along the East Coast could include explosive decompression of underwater methane deposits, the impact of a heavenly body (i.e., an asteroid, comet or oceanic meteor splashdown) or a large underwater explosion. One significant contributing factor to tsunami-related damage is the massive amount of moving debris possible during a tsunami event—including manmade debris such as boats and also on-shore debris as the tsunami strikes land.

SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL EVENTS To cite one commonly referenced example in terms of Atlantic tsunamis, a severe earthquake registering 7.2 on the Richter Scale on November 18, 1929 in the Grand Banks of Newfoundland generated a tsunami that caused considerable damage and loss of life at Placentia Bay, Newfoundland and is also known to have impacted upon the New England shoreline and was recorded as far south as Charleston, South Carolina. Tsunamis were also generated by the Charleston Earthquake of 1886 and the New Madrid earthquakes of 1811 and 1812. Additionally, a magnitude 8 earthquake in November 1755 may have caused 10-foot waves along the East Coast. Two off-shore areas are currently under investigation according to a 2002 National Geophysical Data Center report. One area of interest consists of large cracks northeast of Cape Hatteras that could foretell of the early stages of an underwater landslide that 27

This was documented in an article written by representatives from the National Geophysical Data Center in Volume 20, Number 3 of The International Journal of The Tsunami Society.

could result in a tsunami. The other area of interest consists of submarine canyons approximately 150 kilometers from Atlantic City, New Jersey. Significant factors for consideration with regard to these areas are recent discoveries along the East Coast that demonstrate the existence of pressurized hydrates and pressurized water layers in the continental shelf. This has produced speculation among the scientific community on possible triggers that could cause sudden and perhaps violent releases of compressed material that could factor into landslide events and the resulting tsunami waves.

PROBABILITY OF FUTURE OCCURRENCES There is still much uncertainty as to the severity of the tsunami threat to the East Coast. With only 40 events recorded since 1600, the probability of future occurrences, while possible, is unlikely. However, this does not mean that jurisdictions in the region should not plan for a tsunami occurrence.

EXTREME TEMPERATURES BACKGROUND Extreme heat is defined as temperatures that hover ten degrees or more above the average high temperature for the region and last for several weeks. Humid conditions may also add to the discomfort of high temperatures. Health risks from extreme heat include heat cramps, heat fainting, heat exhaustion and heat stroke. According to the National Weather Service, heat is the leading weather-related killer in the United States and has killed more people than lightning, tornadoes, floods and hurricanes combined in the last 10 years. However, most deaths are attributed to prolonged heat waves in large cities that rarely experience hot weather. The elderly and the ill are most at-risk, along with those who exercise outdoors in hot, humid weather. Extreme cold is generally associated with extreme winter storms. deceptive killer as it indirectly causes injury and death resulting from overexertion, hypothermia and frostbite from wind chill and

LOCATION AND SPATIAL EXTENT

Extreme cold exhaustion asphyxiation.

is a and

Photo courtesy of Environmental Protection Agency

According to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for the Commonwealth of Virginia, there were 30 deaths recorded in Virginia that were the result of extreme heat or cold. Summertime temperatures in the Southside Hampton Roads region can easily climb into the high 90 to low 100 degree range with high humidity rates. The region is also vulnerable to extreme winter weather occurrences that can bring extreme cold temperatures and wind-chill.

SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL EVENTS While temperature extremes occur fairly frequently in the region, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) has only recorded two extreme temperature events recorded that have impacted the region. The first was in August of 1995 and the second was in May of 1996. There are no reported instances of extreme cold weather recorded by NCDC.

PROBABILITY OF FUTURE EVENTS It is possible that the Southside Hampton Roads region will experience periods of extreme temperatures in the future.

DATA SOURCES The following primary data sources were among those used to collect the information presented in this section. •

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), “Facts About Windstorms” (www.windhazards.org/facts.cfm)

•

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior (www.usbr.gov/)

•

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (www.fema.gov)

•

Lin Cao, Wei-Ning Xiang, and Joseph C. Wilson, Department of Geography and Earth Sciences University of North Carolina at Charlotte (www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/GIS_study.html)

•

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html)

•

National Drought Mitigation Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln (www.drought.unl.edu/index.htm)

•

National Geophysical Data Center (www.ngdc.noaa.gov)

•

National Hurricane Center, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (www.nhc.noaa.gov)

•

National Lightning Safety Institute (www.lightningsafety.com)

•

National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (www.nssl.noaa.gov)

•

National Weather Service (NWS), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (www.nws.noaa.gov)

•

North Carolina Geological Survey (www.geology.enr.state.nc.us)

•

Storm Prediction Center (SPC), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service (www.spc.noaa.gov)

•

The Tornado Project, St. Johnsbury, Vermont (www.tornadoproject.com)

•

United States Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Department of the Interior (www.usgs.gov)

INTRODUCTION The Vulnerability Assessment section builds upon the information provided in the Hazard Identification and Analysis by identifying community assets and development trends in the region, then assessing the potential impact and amount of damage (loss of life and/or property) that could be caused by each hazard event addressed in this risk assessment. The primary objective of this level of vulnerability assessment is to prioritize hazards of concern to the region adding to the foundation for mitigation strategy and policy development. Consistent with the preceding sections, the following hazards are addressed in this assessment:  FLOOD  HURRICANES AND TROPICAL STORMS  SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS  LIGHTNING  TORNADOES  WINTER STORMS AND NOR’EASTERS

 EROSION (COASTAL AND RIVERINE)  EARTHQUAKES  LANDSLIDES  SINKHOLES  DROUGHT  WILDFIRE  DAM/LEVEE FAILURE  TSUNAMIS  EXTREME TEMPERATURES To complete the vulnerability assessment, best available data was collected from a variety of sources, including local, state and federal agencies, and multiple analyses were applied through qualitative and quantitative means (further described below). Additional work will be done on an ongoing basis to enhance, expand and further improve the accuracy of the baseline results, and it is expected that this vulnerability assessment will continue to be refined through future plan updates as new data and loss estimation methods become available. The findings presented in this section with regard to vulnerability were developed using best available data, and the methods applied have resulted in an approximation of risk. These estimates should be used to understand relative hazard risk and the potential losses that may be incurred; however, uncertainties are inherent in any loss estimation methodology, arising in part from incomplete scientific knowledge concerning specific hazards and their effects on the built environment, as well as incomplete data sets and from approximations and simplifications that are necessary in order to provide a meaningful analysis. Further, most data sets used in this assessment contain relatively short periods of records which increases the uncertainty of any statistically-based analysis.

METHODOLOGIES USED Two distinct risk assessment methodologies were used in the formation of this vulnerability assessment. The first consists of a quantitative analysis that relies upon best available data and technology, while the second approach consists of a qualitative analysis that relies more on local knowledge and rational decision making. Upon completion, the methods are combined to create a “hybrid” approach for assessing hazard vulnerability for the region that allows for some degree of quality control and assurance. The methodologies are briefly described and introduced here and are further illustrated throughout this section. For each hazard addressed in this section, vulnerability is summarized in part by an annualized loss estimate specific to that hazard, along with a “PRI” value (described in detail below).

QUANTITATIVE METHODOLOGY The quantitative assessment consists of utilizing Hazards U.S. Multi-Hazard (HAZUS-MH) software, a geographic information system (GIS)-based loss estimation tool available from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), along with a statistical risk assessment methodology for hazards outside the scope of HAZUS-MH. For the flood hazard, the quantitative assessment incorporates a detailed GIS-based approach using best available local data from the jurisdictions in the region. When combined, the results of these vulnerability studies are used to form an assessment of potential hazard losses (in dollars) along with the identification of specific community assets that are deemed potentially at-risk.

Explanation of HAZUS-MH and Statistical Risk Assessment Methodology HAZUS-MH is FEMA’s nationwide standardized loss estimation software package, built on an integrated GIS platform with a national inventory of baseline geographic data (including information on the region’s general building stock and dollar exposure). Originally designed for the analysis of earthquake risks, FEMA has expanded the program to allow for the analysis of multiple hazards: namely the flood and wind (hurricane wind) hazards. By providing estimates on potential losses, HAZUS-MH facilitates quantitative comparisons between hazards and may assist in the prioritization of hazard mitigation activities. HAZUS-MH uses a statistical approach and mathematical modeling of risk to predict a hazard’s frequency of occurrence and estimated impacts based on recorded or historic damage information. The HAZUS-MH risk assessment methodology is parametric, in that distinct hazard and inventory parameters—such as wind speed and building type, for example—were modeled using the HAZUS-MH software to determine the impact (damages and losses) on the built environment. Figure 5.1 shows a conceptual model of HAZUS-MH methodology. More information on HAZUS-MH loss estimation methodology is available through FEMA at www.fema.gov/hazus.

Figure 5.1: Conceptual Model of HAZUSMH Methodology

Sources: Federal Emergency Management Agency; PBS&J

This risk assessment utilized HAZUS-MH to produce regional profiles and estimated losses for two of the hazards addressed in this section: hurricane winds and earthquakes. For each of these hazards, HAZUS-MH was used to generate probabilistic “worst case scenario” events to show the maximum potential extent of damages. It is understood that those events which could occur of less severe magnitude would likely result in fewer losses than those calculated here.

Explanation of GIS-based (Non-HAZUSMH) Risk Assessment Methodology For hazards outside the scope of HAZUS-MH, a specific statistical risk assessment methodology was designed and applied to generate potential loss estimates. The approach is based on the same principals as HAZUS-MH, but does not rely on readily available automated software. First, historical data is compiled for each hazard to relate occurrence patterns (frequency, intensity, damage, etc.) with existing hazard models. Statistical evaluations are then applied in combination with engineering modeling to develop damage functions that can generate annualized losses.

The use of the statistical risk assessment methodology provides a determination of estimated annualized loss28 for the following hazards:            

Severe Thunderstorms Lightning Tornadoes Winter Storms and Nor’easters Erosion Landslides Sinkholes Drought Wildfire Dam/Levee Failure Tsunamis Extreme Temperatures

When possible, quantitative hazard loss estimates are compared with historical damage data as recorded through the National Weather Service/National Climatic Data Center and other reliable data sources. To determine annualized losses for the flood hazard (both riverine and surge), a detailed GIS analysis was conducted using local tax parcel data and maps of flood hazard areas to determine at-risk properties. This analysis was conducted independent of the HAZUS-MH program. The first step in conducting this analysis included the collection of relevant GIS data from local, state and national/federal sources. These sources include the various Town, City and County GIS Departments, federal agencies such as FEMA, the United States Geological Survey (USGS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Once all data was acquired, ESRI® ArcGIS™ 9 was used to assess specific risks to people, public buildings and infrastructure utilizing digital hazard data in combination with the locally-available GIS data layers. Primary data layers include Census 2000 data, along with geo-referenced point locations for public buildings, critical facilities, hazardous materials sites and infrastructure elements. Using these data layers, risk was assessed and described by determining the parcels and/or point locations that intersected with the delineated flood hazard areas.

28

By annualizing estimated losses, the historic patterns of frequent smaller events are coupled with infrequent but larger events to provide a balanced presentation of the overall, long-term risk.

QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGY The qualitative assessment relies less on technology, but more on historical and anecdotal data, community input and professional judgment regarding expected hazard impacts. The qualitative assessment completed for the Southside Hampton Roads region is based on the Priority Risk Index (PRI), a tool used by PBS&J to measure the degree of risk for identified hazards in a particular planning area. The PRI is also used to assist community officials in ranking and prioritizing those hazards that pose the most significant threat to their area based on a variety of factors deemed important by the Mitigation Planning Committee and other stakeholders in the hazard mitigation planning process. While the quantitative assessment focuses on using best available data, computer models and GIS technology, the PRI system relies more on historical data, local knowledge and the general consensus of the Mitigation Planning Committee. The PRI is used for hazards with no available GIS data or relevant information to perform quantitative analyses, and also provides an important opportunity to compare, crosscheck or validate the results of those that do have available data. The PRI results in numerical values that allow identified hazards to be ranked against one another (the higher the PRI value, the greater the hazard risk). PRI values are obtained by assigning varying degrees of risk to five categories for each hazard (probability, impact, spatial extent, warning time and duration). Each degree of risk has been assigned a value (1 to 4) and an agreed upon weighting factor29, as summarized in Table 5.1. To calculate the PRI value for a given hazard, the assigned risk value for each category is multiplied by the weighting factor. The sum of all five categories equals the final PRI value, as demonstrated in the example equation below: PRI VALUE = [(PROBABILITY x .30) + (IMPACT x .30) + (SPATIAL EXTENT x .20) + (WARNING TIME x .10) + (DURATION x .10)] According to the weighting scheme applied for the Southside Hampton Roads region, the highest possible PRI value is 4.0. Prior to being finalized, PRI values for each hazard were reviewed and accepted by the Mitigation Planning Committee.

SUMMARY Using both the qualitative and quantitative analyses to evaluate the hazards that impact the region provides members of the Mitigation Planning Committee with a dual-faceted review of the hazards. This allows officials to not only recognize those hazards that may potentially be the most costly, but also to plan and prepare for those hazards that, although may not cause much monetary damage, could put a strain on the local resources needed to recover after their impact on the county. All conclusions of the vulnerability assessment completed for the region and participating jurisdictions are presented in “Conclusions on Hazard Risk” at the end of this section. Findings for each hazard are detailed in the hazard-by-hazard vulnerability assessment that follows, beginning with an overview of general asset inventory and exposure data for the Southside Hampton Roads region.

29

The Mitigation Planning Committee based upon any unique concerns for the planning area may also adjust the PRI weighting scheme.

Table 5.1: Summary of Priority Risk Index (PRI) DEGREE OF RISK

PRI CATEGORY

Probability

LEVEL

Less than 1% annual probability

1

Possible

Between 1 and 10% annual probability

2

Likely

Between 10 and 100% annual probability

3

Highly Likely

4

Negligible

100% annual probability Very few injuries, if any. Only minor property damage and minimal disruption on quality of life. Temporary shutdown of critical facilities. Minor injuries only. More than 10% of property in affected area damaged or destroyed. Complete shutdown of critical facilities for more than one day. Multiple deaths/injuries possible. More than 25% of property in affected area damaged or destroyed. Complete shutdown of critical facilities for more than one week. High number of deaths/injuries possible. More than 50% of property in affected area damaged or destroyed. Complete shutdown of critical facilities for 30 days or more. Less than 1% of area affected

1

Small

Between 1 and 10% of area affected

2

Moderate

Between 10 and 50% of area affected

3

Large

Between 50 and 100% of area affected

4

More than 24 hours

Self explanatory

1

12 to 24 hours

Self explanatory

2

6 to 12 hours

Self explanatory

3

Less than 6 hours

Self explanatory

4

Less than 6 hours

Self explanatory

1

Limited Impact Critical

Catastrophic

Warning Time

Duration

INDEX VALUE

Unlikely

Minor

Spatial Extent

CRITERIA

30%

1

2 30% 3

4

Less than 24 hours

Self explanatory

2

Less than one week

Self explanatory

3

More than one week Self explanatory Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee; PBS&J

ASSIGNED WEIGHTING FACTOR

4

20%

10%

10%

OVERVIEW OF SOUTHSIDE HAMPTON ROADS VULNERABILITY DEMOGRAPHICS According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the total population of Southside Hampton Roads region in 2000 was 860,870. (For comparison, the total population in 2000 for the state of Virginia as a whole was 7,078,515) The average number of persons and housing units per square mile, according to the 2000 census, is 811 and 318 respectively. These numbers are significantly higher than the state average. The City of Virginia Beach contains the greatest population and housing units among cities and towns in the planning area. Table 5.2 provides a summary of population and demographic characteristics for the region.

TABLE 5.2: POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

JURISDICTION

TOTAL POPULATION

UNDER 18 YEARS OLD (%)

Isle of Wight County

29,728

25

12.2

71.1

20.1

Norfolk

234,403

24

10.9

48.4

23.5

Portsmouth

100,565

26

13.8

45.8

24.7

6,324

27

13.6

67.2

22.1

63,677

28

11.4

53.8

24.4

425,257

27

8.4

71.4

15.3

916

24

12.4

89.7

19.9

VIRGINIA 7,078,515 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000)

25

11.2

72.3

17.5

Smithfield Suffolk Virginia Beach Windsor

65 YEARS AND OVER (%)

WHITE POPULATION (%)

DISABILITY STATUS (%)

Figure 5.2 shows the distribution of this population across the planning area based on the number of persons per census block.30

30 It is important to note that with this type of GIS-based map the graduated coloring method used to show the number of persons living within each census block can in some instances be visually misleading at first glance, as highly populated areas may appear to be scarcely populated due to the fact that the population is divided into many small census blocks. The same can be true for large census blocks that show large numbers of persons but that cover more land area than the smaller census blocks.

GENERAL ASSET INVENTORY The total dollar exposure of buildings within the Southside Hampton Roads region is estimated to be approximately $66,439,169,000. This figure is based on an estimated 261,035 residential, commercial, industrial and other buildings located throughout the region, derived from HAZUS-MH data31 (Table 5.3). The total dollar exposure accounts for both building value ($42,014,402,000) and contents value ($24,424,767,000). Taken together, the building and contents values provide an estimate of the aggregated total replacement value for the region’s assets. Figures 5.3 through 5.5 illustrate geographically the concentration of commercial, industrial, and residential dollar exposure in the Southside Hampton Roads region based on HAZUS-MH data.

Table 5.3: Building Inventory in Southside Hampton Roads NUMBER OF BUILDINGS JURISDICTION RESIDENTIAL Isle of Wight County Norfolk Portsmouth Suffolk Virginia Beach TOTAL

COMMERCIAL

OTHER

TOTAL

73 920 214 122

3 117 18 15

10 250 79 40

11,793 59,146 30,811 21,745

135,766 257,400

1,393 2,722

115 268

266 645

137,540 261,035

BUILDING AND CONTENTS VALUES

JURISDICTION RESIDENTIAL Isle of Wight County Norfolk Portsmouth Suffolk Virginia Beach Total Building Value Total Content Value GRAND TOTAL Source: HAZUS-MH

INDUSTRIAL

11,707 57,859 30,500 21,568

$1,206,987,000 $9,998,217,000 $4,211,183,000 $2,480,542,000 $18,256,280,000 $36,153,209,000 $18,087,270,000 $54,240,479,000

COMMERCIAL $102,689,000 $1,663,410,000 $314,477,000 $230,951,000 $2,170,665,000 $4,482,192,000 $4,734,868,000 $9,217,060,000

INDUSTRIAL $17,911,000 $237,610,000 $49,765,000 $39,958,000 $271,859,000 $617,103,000 $794,635,000 $1,411,738,000

OTHER $23,701,000 $226,515,000 $88,866,000 $52,654,000 $370,162,000 $761,898,000 $807,994,000 $1,569,892,000

TOTAL $1,351,288,000 $12,125,752,000 $4,664,291,000 $2,804,105,000 $21,068,966,000 $42,014,402,000 $24,424,767,000 $66,439,169,000

CRITICAL FACILITIES There is no comprehensive database of critical facilities and infrastructure for the Southside Hampton Roads region. Moreover, there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes critical facilities and infrastructure nor is one associated with FEMA and DMA 2000 planning requirements. However, for purposes of this Plan, critical facilities and infrastructure are identified as “those facilities or systems whose incapacity or destruction would present an immediate threat to life, public health, and safety or have a debilitating effect on the economic security of the region.”32 This includes the following facilities and systems based on their high relative importance for the delivery of vital services, the protection of special populations, and other important functions in the Southside Hampton Roads region:  Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs)  Hospitals and medical care facilities  Police stations  Fire stations  Schools (particularly those designated as shelters)  Hazardous materials facilities  Potable water facilities 31 HAZUS-MH uses Census 2000 and Dunn and Bradstreet (2002) data for its default inventories. Any values unavailable in the current version of the HAZUS-MH software are not reflected. 32 It should be noted that Dominion Power (the region’s electric power provides) maintains a listing of critical facilities for the participating jurisdictions in the Southside Hampton Roads region. This listing is separate from the one included in this Plan.

 Wastewater facilities  Energy facilities (electric, oil and natural gas)  Communication facilities In preparing the inventory of critical facilities for the Southside Hampton Roads region, each participating jurisdiction was asked to submit best available GIS data layers for their primary critical facilities to be used in combination with HAZUS-MH inventory data33. This resulted in the identification of hundreds of critical facilities for the region. It is understood that this listing is incomplete due to data limitations associated with both the local GIS and HAZUS-MH inventories, but that further enhancements to the data will be made over time and incorporated during future plan updates. Because of the sensitive nature of critical facility information, this listing has been made an appendix of this plan (Appendix B). The data was acquired from the HAZUS-MH database of critical facilities for each jurisdiction and verified by local jurisdiction officials for accuracy. Figures AB1 through AB-5 (located in Appendix B) show the general location of critical facilities in each jurisdiction. Table 5.4 shows the results of a general analysis of the critical facilities that are located in the high wildfire risk area, 100-year floodplain, Flood Zone VE and the Storm Surge Zone for a Category 3 hurricane. The critical facility data-points from the HAZUSMH software were used for this analysis except where better local GIS data was available. In those cases, the GIS data points from the local GIS departments were used instead of the HAZUS-MH data.

TABLE 5.4: CRITICAL FACILITIES LOCATED IN HAZARD AREAS Jurisdiction Isle of Wight County

Norfolk

Portsmouth

100-year Floodplain

Flood Zone VE

Storm Surge Category 3

Facility Type

High Wildfire Risk

Fire/Rescue Station

1

1

0

1

Police Facility

0

0

0

0

Water Plants

0

2

0

2

Fire/Rescue Station

0

2

0

13

School

0

2

0

88

Water Plants

0

0

0

3

Wastewater Facilities

0

0

0

3

Police Facility

0

0

0

5

Medical Facilities

0

0

0

7

Wastewater Facilities

0

1

0

1

Schools

0

4

0

13

Police Facility

0

1

0

3

Fire/Rescue Station

0

1

0

3

Suffolk

Water Plants

0

0

0

1

Schools

0

1

0

0

Smithfield

None

0

0

0

0

Windsor

None

0

0

0

0

Virginia Beach

Fire/Rescue Station

0

3

0

4

Police Facility

0

0

0

9

Water Plants

0

0

0

2

Wastewater Facilities

0

0

1

2

Schools

0

8

0

64

Medical Facilities

0

0

0

1

ZONING AND LAND USE In order to regulate current and future land use and guide overall development patterns, all of the jurisdictions in the Southside Hampton Roads region have adopted a zoning ordinance that enforces standards for designated zoning districts. Zoning maps are useful planning tools, demonstrating the type and location of projected community development. Because of the number of jurisdictions participating in this Plan, and the many differences in zoning designations across the region, it is not feasible to show a regional map of the various zoning districts across the region. However, each jurisdiction should compare their zoning, land use maps and future land use maps with the known hazard area maps to determine if future development is being encouraged in these hazardous zones. 33

For purposes of this assessment, local GIS data submitted by participating jurisdictions was considered best available data (over HAZUS-MH inventory data). If no local GIS data was submitted, then HAZUS-MH inventory data was considered best available data.

MANUFACTURED HOUSING AND THE AGE OF BUILDINGS The vulnerability of manufactured homes versus those built on-site can vary due to several factors. These include the age of construction, the materials and construction techniques used, the adherence to past and current building codes, and the method of installation. In the case of manufactured housing, their proper installation can significantly affect vulnerability. For instance, with regard to wind-related hazards such as tropical cyclones, severe thunderstorms and tornadoes, estimates based on regional trends show that 50 percent of manufactured homes built prior to 1976 (pre-HUD structures) are not secured with tie downs. Of the manufactured homes built between 1976 and 1993, 25 percent have no tie downs. Of those built from 1994 to 2004, 1 percent have no tie downs. These statistics demonstrate that older manufactured homes—specifically those with no tie downs— are at greater risk from high wind hazards (Blue Sky Foundation of North Carolina). A similar logic applies to the age of buildings and flood hazard vulnerability. As shown in Table 5.5, the communities in the Southside Hampton Roads region joined the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) either in the early 1970’s or early 1990’s. In order to join the NFIP, each participating jurisdiction is required to adopt and enforce its own floodplain management ordinance. As a result, structures built after joining the NFIP are assumed to be less vulnerable to future flood hazards than pre-FIRM construction, assuming other environmental conditions remain constant. It is important to note, however, that continued development, for example, can cause a significant rise in flood elevations.

TABLE 5.5: NFIP ENTRY DATE AND CURRENT EFFECTIVE FIRM JURISDICTION Isle of Wight County Norfolk Portsmouth Smithfield Suffolk Virginia Beach Windsor Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency

NFIP ENTRY DATE 8/19/1991 8/1/1979 7/2/1971 12/5/1990 11/16/1990 4/23/1971 8/1/1990

CURRENT EFFECTIVE FIRM 9/4/2002 7/16/1996 11/2/1983 9/4/2002 9/4/2002 12/5/1996 9/4/2002

DEVELOPMENT TRENDS Two factors that contribute to an overall understanding of development trends are population change and economic growth. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the average rate of population growth in the Southside Hampton Roads region 1990 and 2000 was 7.1 percent. This rate is slower than the state average of 14.4 percent. Suffolk experienced the greatest population growth rate with a 22.1 percent increase followed by Isle of Wight County with 18.7 and Virginia Beach with an 8.2 percent increase. Norfolk experienced a loss in population with a -10.3 percent growth rate from 1990 to 2000, as did Portsmouth with a -3.2 percent growth rate. There is an interesting dynamic taking place in the region as populations increase for some of the jurisdictions and decrease for others. As discussed in Section 3, these trends are expected to continue. In the areas of population increase, new housing construction will also increase which creates jobs and increases the inflow of dollars to the local economy. Local employment and retail sales for these communities continue to look positive for the immediate future. However, in the areas of population decline, unemployment and loss of businesses could continue to negatively impact the area in terms of economic growth.

AGRICULTURAL VULNERABILITY While most of the Southside Hampton Roads region is urbanized or developed, much of Isle of Wight County, Suffolk and portions of Virginia Beach remain undeveloped and used for agricultural purposes. As discussed in the Community Profile section of this Plan, row crops constitute 13.7% of the total land use in the Southside Hampton Roads region (Isle of Wight County 25.3%, Suffolk, 22.9% and Virginia Beach 17.1%). The following crops are grown in Isle of Wight County, Suffolk and Virginia Beach:      

Corn Cotton Peanuts Soybeans Tall Fescue Wheat

Areas where agriculture is the primary land use are typically more vulnerable to the drought hazard because of the dependency of agriculture on water. These areas can also experience losses that are difficult to capture for other hazards such as flooding and hurricanes.

FLOOD FLOOD (100-YEAR) PRI Value: 3.5 Annualized Loss Estimate: $48,172,702 FLOOD (STORM SURGE) PRI Value: 2.7 Annualized Loss Estimate: $206,624,689 The vulnerability assessment for the flood hazard includes the findings of the qualitative assessment conducted, an overview of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) statistics, repetitive loss properties (as defined and identified by the NFIP), estimates of potential losses, and future vulnerability and land use. As described in detail in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section, the National Climatic Data Center only has records for 21 significant flood events in just the past 10 years for the Southside Hampton Roads region, amounting to approximately $670,000 in reported property damage. Also discussed in the Hazard Identification and Analysis are historic storms such as Hurricanes Isabel, Floyd and the 1933 hurricane that each caused flooding in the region. Historically, the region is vulnerable to the flood hazard and floods events occur on a fairly frequent basis. According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the flood hazard scored a PRI value of 3.5 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.6 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.

Table 5.6: Qualitative Assessment for Flood (100-year) PROBABILITY

IMPACT

SPATIAL EXTENT

WARNING TIME

DURATION

Highly Likely

Catastrophic

Moderate

More Than 24 Hours

More Than 1 Week

Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee

The storm surge hazard was analyzed separately from the 100-year riverine / coastal flood hazard, and scored a PRI value of 2.7 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.7 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.

Table 5.7: Qualitative Assessment for flood (STORM SURGE) PROBABILITY

IMPACT

SPATIAL EXTENT

WARNING TIME

DURATION

Possible

Catastrophic

Moderate

More than 24 Hours

Less than 24 Hours

Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee

NFIP STATISTICS AND REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES Regionwide there are currently 32,766 flood insurance policies in place, providing a total amount of $5,793,863,900 in coverage. Table 5.8 provides details for each jurisdiction with regard to the community’s date of entry into the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), date of the community’s current effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), average number of losses, number of repetitive loss properties, total losses, total dollar amount of payments and average payment per loss. Reducing the number of repetitive loss properties insured by the NFIP is a nationwide emphasis of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. A total of 502 repetitive loss properties as defined by the NFIP34 are known to exist within the Southside Hampton Roads region. These 502 properties have experienced a total of 1,240 individual insured losses.

34

Under the NFIP, FEMA defines a repetitive loss property as “any NFIP-insured property that, since 1978 and regardless of any change(s) of ownership during that period, has experienced: a) four or more paid flood losses; or b) two paid flood losses within a 10-year period that equal or exceed the current value of the insured property; or c) three or more paid losses that equal or exceed the current value of the insured property.“

Table 5.8: NFIP Statistics and Repetitive Loss Properties JURISDICTION

NFIP ENTRY DATE

CURRENT EFFECTIVE FIRM

Isle of Wight County 8/19/1991 9/4/2002 Norfolk 8/1/1979 7/16/1996 Portsmouth 7/2/1971 11/2/1983 Smithfield 12/5/1990 9/4/2002 Virginia Beach 4/23/1971 12/5/1996 Windsor 8/1/1990 9/4/2002 TOTAL Sources: National Flood Insurance Program (as of 12/31/2003)

AVERAGE NUMBER OF LOSSES 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.8 2.6 N/A 2.0

NUMBER OF REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 6 180 43 4 260 N/A 493

TOTAL LOSSES

TOTAL PAYMENTS

AVERAGE PAYMENT PER LOSS

12 420 101 11 676 N/A 1220

$476,483 $5,056,529 $1,001,498 $291,108 $8,051,288 N/A $14,876,906

$238,241 $2,137,576 $438,799 $121,063 $2,929,339 N/A $977,503

ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Following a detailed analysis of the study area using best available GIS data including the existing 100-year floodplain, 35,482 properties were determined to be flood-prone amounting to a total net present worth of approximately $11,032,679,686 billion in exposure. Table 5.9 provides a detailed listing of the number of structures, number of structures determined to be pre-FIRM35 based on year built, and the assessed value of structures within the existing 100-year floodplain. An annualized loss estimate of $48,172,702 was determined using best available local property tax data, and assuming the 100-year flood event occurs once every 100 years.

TABLE 5.9: OVERVIEW OF POTENTIALLY AT-RISK PROPERTIES FOR FLOOD (100-YEAR) EXISTING 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN NUMBER OF NUMBER OF PRE- VALUE OF PRE-FIRM ASSESSED VALUE STRUCTURES FIRM STRUCTURES STRUCTURES 36 Isle of Wight County 374 $124,445,000 Unknown Unknown Norfolk 14,037 $3,014,779,700 11,207 $2,791,581,500 Portsmouth 8,292 $4,541,637,210 Unknown Unknown Smithfield 51 $16,258,300 Unknown Unknown Suffolk 1,612 $206,889,500 595 $70,567,300 Virginia Beach 11,114 $3,128,490,076 4,182 $1,152,243,064 Windsor 2 $179,900 Unknown Unknown TOTAL 35,482 $11,032,679,686 15,984 $4,014,391,864 Sources: Federal Emergency Management Agency (Q3 flood data); Local GIS data JURISDICTION

35

“Pre-FIRM” indicates that the structure was built prior to the local enforcement of NFIP standards and is therefore considered to be at potentially greater risk from the flood hazard. 36 In jurisdictions where the year-built date of structures was not provided, Number and Value of Pre-FIRM Structures has been marked as “Unknown.”

Following a detailed analysis of the study area using best available GIS data including SLOSH model data37, 156,042 properties were determined to be at risk to storm surge from a Category 3 hurricane amounting to a total net present worth of approximately $25,828,086,183 billion in exposure. Table 5.10 provides a detailed listing of the estimated number of parcels, number of developed parcels, number of structures and assessed values of structures at risk to surge from a Category 3 event. An annualized loss estimate of $206,624,689 was determined using best available local property tax data, and assuming that the worst case scenario storm surge event for a Category 3 hurricane occurs once every 150 years.

TABLE 5.10: OVERVIEW OF POTENTIALLY AT-RISK PROPERTIES FLOOD (STORM SURGE) CATEGORY 3 STORM SURGE INUNDATION ZONE NUMBER OF DEVELOPED NUMBER OF VALUE OF PARCELS PARCELS STRUCTURES STRUCTURES Isle of Wight County 2,437 591 653 $54,221,100 Norfolk 115,535 91,358 85,754 $16,293,288,040 Portsmouth 35,343 22,733 49,102 $1,240,970,150 Smithfield 793 91 94 $21,886,200 Suffolk 3,723 1,481 2,069 $313,003,000 Virginia Beach 42,941 39,788 74,373 $7,904,717,693 Windsor 0 0 0 $0 TOTAL 200,772 156,042 212,045 $25,828,086,183 Sources: Southside Hampton Roads Planning District Commission / National Weather Service (SLOSH data); Local GIS data JURISDICTION

FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE For both the riverine and storm surge flooding hazards, future vulnerability will be determined, in part, by local officials. Flood hazard and SLOSH maps have been developed to indicate what areas of the jurisdictions are most vulnerable to these hazards. While these maps are often outdated, efforts are being made across the region to improve or update many of these maps. It is the responsibility of the local officials to enforce local floodplain regulations, flood damage prevention ordinances or other forms of development policies that either limit or restrict development to varying degrees in these hazard areas.

37

The SLOSH model is described in Section 4: Hazard Identification and Analysis.

HURRICANES AND TROPICAL STORMS PRI Value: 3.2 Annualized Loss Estimate: $33,546,000 Historical evidence shows that the Southside Hampton Roads region is vulnerable to damaging hurricane and tropical storm-force winds.38 As discussed in detail in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section, 106 hurricanes and tropical storms have passed within 75 miles of the region since 1851, 29 of which crossed directly through the region. This translates into an estimate of a 68% chance that a storm may potentially impact the region on an annual basis. According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the hurricane and tropical storm hazard scored a PRI value of 3.20 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.11 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.

Table 5.11: Qualitative Assessment for Hurricanes and Tropical Storms PROBABILITY

IMPACT

SPATIAL EXTENT

WARNING TIME

DURATION

Likely

Catastrophic

Large

More than 24 Hours

Less than 24 Hours

Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee

ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Detailed loss estimates for the hurricane and tropical storm hazard (as these hazards relate to wind) were developed based on probabilistic scenarios using HAZUS-MH (Level 1 analysis).39 Table 5.12 shows estimates of potential building damage for the 100and 500-year return periods, as well as annualized losses, by building occupancy type. In summary, Southside Hampton Roads region may be susceptible to an estimated total of approximately $664 million in building damages from a 100-year wind event, increasing to up to $3.6 billion for a 500-year event. Annualized losses are estimated to be approximately $33 million. These figures are based on “worst-case” scenarios.

Table 5.12: Estimates of Potential Building Damage BUILDING OCCUPANCY TYPE

100-YEAR EVENT

Isle of Wight County Norfolk Portsmouth Suffolk Virginia Beach TOTAL Source: HAZUS-MH

$2,668,000 $454,774,000 $174,718,000 $32,010,000 $881,106,000 $664,170,000

500-YEAR EVENT $104,213,000 $2,532,914,000 $732,457,000 $210,317,000 $5,667,053,000 $3,579,901,000

ANNUALIZED $1,258,000 $21,510,000 $7,736,000 $3,042,000 $46,592,000 $33,546,000

HAZUS-MH was also used to produce building damage estimates based on percentage of damage (by damage state) for the 100and 500-year return periods (Table 5.13). In summary, for the 100-year event 11.4 percent of the total building area might potentially suffer minor damage with 0.3 percent buildings being completely destroyed. For the 500-year event, 15.2 percent of the total building area might potentially suffer minor damage with 3.3 percent being completely destroyed.

Table 5.13: Estimates of Potential Building Damage by Damage State40 BUILDING TOTAL SQUARE OCCUPANCY TYPE FEET 38

MINOR (%)

MODERATE (%)

SEVERE (%)

DESTRUCTION (%)

Refer to the Hazard Identification and Analysis section of this risk assessment for detailed historical information. According to FEMA’s HAZUS Web site, “a Level 1 analysis yields a rough estimate based on the nationwide database and is a great way to begin the risk assessment process and prioritize high-risk communities.” 40 For detailed definitions of the four damage states, please refer to the HAZUS-MH User Manual for the Hurricane Model. 39

Table 5.13: Estimates of Potential Building Damage by Damage State40 MINOR (%)

Isle of Wight County Norfolk Portsmouth Suffolk Virginia Beach TOTAL Source: HAZUS-MH

11,793 59,146 30,811 21,745 137,540 261,035

100-YR 1.0 30.2 29.3 12.5 30.3 11.4

500-YR 29.8 30.9 35.8 31.3 30.0 15.2

MODERATE (%) 100-YR 0.0 10.8 9.3 1.8 9.4 3.7

500-YR 12.0 31.0 24.5 12.6 27.9 11.5

SEVERE (%) 100-YR 0.0 1.1 1.0 0.1 1.2 0.4

500-YR 2.7 13.0 8.2 3.1 14.5 4.3

DESTRUCTION (%) 100-YR 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.1 1.0 0.3

500-YR 2.5 9.9 6.2 2.8 13.5 3.3

FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE All future structures built in the Southside Hampton Roads region will likely be exposed to hurricane and tropical storm-force winds and may also experience damage not accounted for in the loss estimates presented in this section. However, continued enforcement of building codes, flood damage prevention ordinances and other local regulatory tools and policies is expected to minimize future losses as construction and planning continue to seek higher standards.

SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS PRI Value: 2.8 Annualized Loss Estimate: $387,961 Historical evidence shows that Southside Hampton Roads region is vulnerable to severe thunderstorm activity, including related hazardous elements such as lightning and hail that often accompany these severe weather events. According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the severe thunderstorm hazard scored a PRI value of 2.8 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.14 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.

Table 5.14: Qualitative Assessment for Severe Thunderstorms PROBABILITY

IMPACT

SPATIAL EXTENT

WARNING TIME

DURATION

Highly Likely

Minor

Large

Less than 6 Hours

Less than 6 Hours

Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee

ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Because it cannot be predicted where severe thunderstorms may occur, it is not possible to map geographic boundaries for this hazard or produce detailed loss estimates. Therefore, the total dollar exposure figure of $66,439,169,000 for all buildings and contents within the planning area is considered to be exposed and could potentially be impacted on some level by this hazard. Based on historic property damages for the past 55 years (1950 to 2004), an annualized loss estimate of $387,961 was generated for severe thunderstorm damages combined with an annual probability of 563.6 percent in the planning area. These annualized loss and probability are presented in Table 5.15 by jurisdiction.

Table 5.15: Estimated Annualized Losses JURISDICTION Isle of Wight County Norfolk Portsmouth Smithfield Suffolk Virginia Beach Windsor TOTAL Source: Statistical Risk Assessment Methodology

ANNUALIZED LOSSES

ANNUAL PROBABILITY

$2,295 $251,306 $1,318 $2,357 $4,626 $125,817 $242 $387,961

63.6% 100.0% 56.4% 14.5% 109.1% 207.3% 12.7% 563.6%

FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE All future structures built in the Southside Hampton Roads region will likely be exposed to severe thunderstorms and may experience damage not accounted for in the estimated losses presented in this section. Based on projections of population growth in the Southside Hampton Roads region, the planning area may experience an estimated $426,757 in annualized losses by 2030.

LIGHTNING PRI Value: 2.7 Annualized Loss Estimate: Negligible Historical evidence shows that the Southside Hampton Roads region is vulnerable to lightning activity, which is often associated with severe thunderstorms that impact the region. According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the lightning hazard scored a PRI value of 2.7 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.16 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.

Table 5.16: Qualitative Assessment for LIGHTNING PROBABILITY

IMPACT

SPATIAL EXTENT

WARNING TIME

DURATION

Highly Likely

Limited

Small

Less than 6 Hours

Less than 6 Hours

Source: Southside Hampton Roads region Planning Committee

ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Because it cannot be predicted where lightning may strike, it is not possible to map geographic boundaries for this hazard or produce detailed loss estimates. Therefore, the total dollar exposure figure of $66,439,169,000 for all buildings and contents within Southside Hampton Roads region is considered to be exposed and could potentially be impacted on some level by the lightning hazard.

FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE Because of the random nature of occurrence of the lightning hazard, it is difficult to assess future vulnerability and land use with regard to this particular hazard. In general, all buildings built in the future in this region and all future populations will be exposed and therefore at risk to the lightning hazard.

TORNADOES PRI Value: 3.0 Annualized Loss Estimate: $309,725 Historical evidence shows that the Southside Hampton Roads region is vulnerable to tornado activity, which often is associated with other severe weather events such as thunderstorm or tropical cyclone activity. According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the tornado hazard scored a PRI value of 3.0 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.17 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.

Table 5.17: Qualitative Assessment for Tornadoes PROBABILITY

IMPACT

SPATIAL EXTENT

WARNING TIME

DURATION

Highly Likely

Critical

Small

Less than 6 Hours

Less than 6 Hours

Source: Southside Hampton Roads region Planning Committee

ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Because it cannot be predicted where a tornado may strike, it is not possible to map geographic boundaries for this hazard or produce detailed loss estimates. Therefore, the total dollar exposure figure of $66,439,169,000 for all buildings and contents within Southside Hampton Roads region is considered to be exposed and could potentially be impacted on some level by the tornado hazard. Based on historic property damages for the past 55 years (1950 to 2004), an annualized loss estimate of $309,725 and annual probability of 89.1 percent were generated for the tornado hazard. These annualized loss and probability are presented in Table 5.18 by jurisdiction.

Table 5.18: Estimated Annualized Losses MAGNITUDE OF EVENT Isle of Wight County Norfolk Portsmouth Smithfield Suffolk Virginia Beach Windsor TOTAL Source: Statistical Risk Assessment Methodology

ANNUALIZED LOSSES

ANNUAL PROBABILITY

$11,786 $96,921 $167,236 $641 $17,875 $15,266 N/A $309,725

9.1% 29.1% 3.6% 3.6% 21.8% 21.8% N/A 89.1%

FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE All future structures built in Southside Hampton Roads region are likely to be exposed to the tornado hazard and may experience damage not accounted for in the estimated losses presented in this section. Based on projections of population growth in the Southside Hampton Roads region, the planning area may experience an estimated $340,698 in annualized losses by 2030.

WINTER STORMS PRI Value: 3.0 Annualized Loss Estimate: $1,416,633 Historical evidence shows that Southside Hampton Roads region is vulnerable to winter storm activity, including heavy snow, ice, extreme cold, freezing rain, and sleet.

According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the winter storm hazard scored a PRI value of 3.0 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.19 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.

Table 5.19: Qualitative Assessment for Winter Storms PROBABILITY

IMPACT

SPATIAL EXTENT

WARNING TIME

DURATION

Likely

Critical

Large

More than 24 Hours

Less than 1 Week

Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee

ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Because winter storms typically affect large areas beyond county and municipal boundaries, it is not possible to map geographic locations within the region at specific risk from this hazard or produce detailed loss estimates. Therefore, the total dollar exposure figure of $66,439,169,000 for all buildings and contents within the Southside Hampton Roads region is considered to be exposed and could potentially be impacted on some level by the winter storm hazard. Based on historic property damages for the past twelve years (June 1993 to May 2005), an annualized loss estimate of $1,416,633 was generated for the winter storm hazard. This annualized loss is presented in Table 5.20 along with annual probability. It should be understood that with the winter storm hazard, potential losses may be inflated by additional, difficult to calculate factors such as the costs associated with the removal of snow from roadways, debris clean-up, indirect losses from power outages, etc. Because winter weather impacts the region uniformly, no winter storm vulnerability maps have been created. For maps of critical facilities and infrastructure that could potentially be impacted, see Appendix AB.

Table 5.20: Estimated Annualized Losses ANNUAL PROBABILITY

ANNUALIZED LOSSES

2.0

$1,416,633

Source: Statistical Risk Assessment Methodology

FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE All future structures built in Southside Hampton Roads region are likely to be exposed to the winter storm hazard and may experience damage not accounted for in the estimated losses presented in this section. Based on projections of population growth in the Southside Hampton Roads region, the jurisdictions may experience an estimated $1,558,296 in annualized losses by 2030.

EROSION (COASTAL AND RIVERINE) PRI Value: 2.1 Annualized Loss Estimate: Undetermined As documented in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section, the Southside Hampton Roads region is vulnerable to the long term effects of both riverine and coastal erosion. While riverine erosion presents a limited to moderate risk to property, coastal erosion remains a significant hazard of concern that must continue to be addressed through sustained shoreline management practices. To date, existing strategies for shoreline hardening and the implementation of numerous renourishment projects have been successful in eliminating major coastal erosion losses41. According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the erosion hazard scored a PRI value of 2.1 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.21 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.

Table 5.21: Qualitative Assessment for EROSION PROBABILITY

IMPACT

SPATIAL EXTENT

WARNING TIME

DURATION

Likely

Minor

Small

More than 24 Hours

More than 1 Week

Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee

ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSS It is difficult to determine the amount of property or the number of structures that are vulnerable to the erosion hazard. The jurisdictions in the region have demonstrated, through past projects such as the Virginia Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project, that they are willing to take on projects to protect the coastal residences and commercial buildings located along the beach. Riverine erosion is a highly localized hazard concern and without accurate riverine erosion hazard maps, it is difficult to determine the number and value of properties at risk.

FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE It is difficult to assess future vulnerability and land use in regard to this hazard. Generally speaking, future vulnerability is going to depend greatly on appropriate local site planning and permitting where applicable. The jurisdictions in the region and the associated federal assistance will also need to continue to support the beach renourishment practices in order to avoid coastal erosion losses in the future.

41

The Norfolk District of the Army Corps of Engineers estimates that $82 million in damages were prevented during Hurricane Isabel in 2003 through the Virginia Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project. This includes $52 million in damages to residential property, $15 million to commercial interests and $15 million to infrastructure.

EARTHQUAKES PRI Value: 1.9 Annualized Loss Estimate: $1,775,000 The annual probability of an earthquake event impacting the study area is estimated at 5 percent based on historical data. While the probability of an earthquake occurrence is relatively low, moderate losses should a significant earthquake event occur are possible. According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the earthquake hazard scored a PRI value of 1.9 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.22 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.

Table 5.22: Qualitative Assessment for Earthquakes PROBABILITY

IMPACT

SPATIAL EXTENT

WARNING TIME

DURATION

Unlikely

Minor

Large

Less than 6 Hours

Less than 6 Hours

Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee

ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Table 5.23 provides generalized building damage estimates by jurisdiction for the 100-, 500- and 1,000-year return periods as well as annualized losses based on probabilistic scenarios using HAZUS-MH. The annualized building damage estimate for the earthquake hazard is $93,000, and in that estimate residential properties suffer more than 98 percent of the total damage.

Table 5.23: Estimates of Potential Building Damage BUILDING OCCUPANCY TYPE Isle of Wight County Norfolk Portsmouth Suffolk Virginia Beach TOTAL Source: HAZUS-MH

100-YEAR EVENT Negligible42 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

500-YEAR EVENT $408,000 $2,785,000 $1,358,000 $833,000 $4,468,000 $9,852,000

1,000-YEAR EVENT $1,092,000 $7,422,000 $2,851,000 $2,104,000 $11,911,000 $25,380,000

ANNUALIZED $5,000 $28,000 $11,000 $8,000 $41,000 $93,000

HAZUS-MH was also used to produce building damage estimates based on percentage of damage (by damage state) for the 500, and 1,000-year return periods (Table 5.24). According to the HAZUS-MH model assumptions, there should be no building damage from 100-year earthquake event.

42

Damage less than $1,000

TABLE 5.24: ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL BUILDING DAMAGE BY DAMAGE STATE43 SLIGHT (%) JURISDICTION Isle of Wight County Norfolk Portsmouth Suffolk Virginia Beach TOTAL Source: HAZUS-MH

MODERATE (%)

EXTENSIVE (%)

COMPLETE (%)

500-YRr

1,000-YR

500-YR

1,000-YR

500-YR

1,000-YR

500-YR

1,000-YR

2.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 1.4 1.5

5.1 3.5 3.5 4.2 3.3 3.5

0.7 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4

1.8 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0

0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1

0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE All future structures built in the Southside Hampton Roads region will be exposed to and on some level vulnerable to seismic events and may also experience damage not accounted for in the estimated losses presented in this section.

43

For more detailed description of the four damage states, please refer to the HAZUS-MH User Manual for the Earthquake Model.

LANDSLIDES PRI Value: 1.5 Annualized Loss Estimate: Negligible (less than $5,000) As documented in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section, historical evidence shows no significant landslide events in Southside Hampton Roads region. The United States Geological Survey classified most of the planning area as a low incidence zone. The northeastern portion of Isle of Wight County and the Town of Smithfield are recognized as moderate incidence zones. In these areas, minor landslide events are considered possible in localized, steep-sloped areas during extremely wet conditions. According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the landslide hazard scored a PRI value of 1.5 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.25 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.

Table 5.25: Qualitative Assessment for Landslides PROBABILITY

IMPACT

SPATIAL EXTENT

WARNING TIME

DURATION

Unlikely

Minor

Small

Less than 6 Hours

Less than 6 Hours

Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee

ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Due to the lack of any historical landslide damage data, estimates of potential losses due to landslides are expected to be negligible.

FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE Given that there is no historical evidence of landslide activity resulting in measurable damages, and that potential loss estimates for this hazard are considered to be negligible, it is difficult to assess what future vulnerabilities may exist or how land use may factor into this.

SINKHOLES PRI Value: 1.8 Annualized Loss Estimate: Negligible (less than $5,000) As documented in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section, existing soil types in Southside Hampton Roads region are not conducive to the formation of natural sinkholes. There is a higher potential for soil piping and/or erosion caused by leakage from drainage pipes, culverts, etc. According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the sinkhole hazard scored a PRI value of 1.8 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.26 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.

Table 5.26: Qualitative Assessment for Sinkholes PROBABILITY

IMPACT

SPATIAL EXTENT

WARNING TIME

DURATION

Possible

Minor

Negligible

Less than 6 Hours

Less than 1 Week

Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee

ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Due to the lack of historical sinkhole damage data as it relates to any common occurrences of this hazard, estimates of potential losses due to sinkholes are assumed to be negligible.

FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE Given that there is little historical evidence of common sinkhole activity resulting in measurable damages, and that potential loss estimates for this hazard are considered to be negligible, it is not possible to assess what future vulnerabilities may exist or how land use may factor into discussion of this hazard.

DROUGHT PRI Value: 2.2 Annualized Loss Estimate: $2,215,839 Drought can impact natural systems as well as the ability of cities, towns and neighborhoods to function effectively. Specific effects may include a reduction in the production of food grains and other crops, the size and quality of livestock and fish, available forage for livestock and wildlife, and the availability of water supplies needed by communities and industry. As evidenced by previous occurrences, the Southside Hampton Roads region is vulnerable to the drought hazard. According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the drought hazard scored a PRI value of 2.2 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.27 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.

Table 5.27: Qualitative Assessment for Drought PROBABILITY

IMPACT

SPATIAL EXTENT

WARNING TIME

DURATION

Possible

Minor

Large

More than 24 Hours

More than 1 Week

Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee

ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES While drought greatly impacts agricultural, recreational, and manufacturing industries, estimating losses to the built environment due to drought is difficult because drought causes little physical damage to buildings. It is assumed that all buildings and facilities are exposed to drought but would experience negligible damage. This study focuses on agricultural loss estimation, since the agricultural sector is often the most directly affected and data is readily available. Total annualized losses due to drought in the City of Virginia Beach, Isle of Wight County and City of Suffolk are estimated at $2,215,839. This is based on information on previous occurrences as recorded by the National Climatic Data Center. Table 5.28 shows the total harvested crop land, irrigated land, market value of crops, percent of non-irrigated land and total annualized loss. Due to a lack of agricultural information for other jurisdictions, drought vulnerability analyses for the towns of Smithfield and Windsor and cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth were not conducted.

Table 5.28: Estimated Annualized Losses for drought TOTAL HARVESTED CROPLAND (acres)

IRRIGATED LAND (acres)

MARKET VALUE OF CROPS ($1,000)

PERCENT NONIRRIGATED LAND

TOTAL ANNUALIZED LOSS

Isle of Wight County

49,373

790

$13,458

98.4%

$526,095

Suffolk

53,954

1,167

$35,745

97.8%

$1,389,336

JURISDICTION

Virginia Beach

21,609

432

$7,716

98.0%

$300,407

TOTAL

124,936

2,389

$56,919

98.1%

$2,215,839

Source: The 2002 U.S. Census of Agriculture and Statistical Risk Assessment Methodology

FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE According the U.S. Census of Agriculture, the total harvested croplands in the City of Virginia Beach, Isle of Wight County and City of Suffolk have decreased 38, 7.2 and 7.9 percent respectively between 1992 and 2002. It is estimated that annualized losses will decrease by 14.8 percent by 2012 based on the previous trend of -14.8 percent change from 1992 to 2002.

WILDFIRE PRI Value: 2.5 Annualized Loss Estimate: $10,744 As documented in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section, the Southside Hampton Roads region experiences an average of 12 wildfire events per year with only minor property damages (generally less than $15,000 per year) reported. According to Virginia Department of Forestry (VDOF) statistics, Virginia has more than 4,000 woodland home communities. These areas are defined by VDOF as “clusters of homes located along forested areas at the wildland-urban interface that could possibly be damaged during a nearby wildfire incident.” In the Southside Hampton Roads region, forty six woodland home communities have been identified. Nineteen are located in Isle of Wight County, twenty-six are located in Suffolk and one is located in Virginia Beach44. Table 5.29 lists the number of woodland home communities for the Southside Hampton Roads region that are located in areas identified as being either high or moderate risk for wildfires. Figure 4.26 shows the location of these woodland home communities in relation to the identified wildfire hazard areas. More information on these communities is readily available through the VDOF.

TABLE 5.29: AT-RISK WOODLAND COMMUNITIES IN THE SOUTHSIDE HAMPTON ROADS REGION Jurisdiction

High Risk Communities

Moderate Risk Communities

Isle of Wight County Suffolk Virginia Beach Total

6 3 0 9

12 17 1 30

Source: VDOF

According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the wildfire hazard scored a PRI value of 2.5 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.30 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.

Table 5.30: Qualitative Assessment for Wildfire PROBABILITY

IMPACT

SPATIAL EXTENT

WARNING TIME

DURATION

Highly Likely

Minor

Small

Less than 6 Hours

Less than 24 Hours

Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee

ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Table 5.31 shows wildfire events from 1995 to 2002 in Southside Hampton Roads region (according to the Virginia Department of Forestry) that contribute to an annualized loss estimate of $10,744 for the wildfire hazard. During the period, no wildfire events were reported in the towns of Smithfield and Windsor and city of Norfolk.

Table 5.31: Estimated Annualized Losses for wildfire JURISDICTION

44

FREQUENCY

Property Damage

Annual Probability

Annualized Loss

Isle of Wight County

50

$4,100

7.14

$586

Portsmouth

1

$0

0.14

$0

Suffolk

27

$71,110

3.9

$10,159

Virginia Beach

8

$0

1.14

$0

TOTAL

86

$75,210

12.3

$10,744

A current listing of Virginia’s woodland home communities can be made available by VDOF upon request.

Sources: Virginia Department of Forestry; Statistical Risk Assessment Methodology

FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE Given that the potential loss estimates for this hazard are generally fairly low, it is difficult to assess what significant future vulnerabilities may exist or how land use may factor into discussion of this hazard.

DAM/LEVEE FAILURE PRI Value: 2.2 Annualized Loss Estimate: Negligible (less than $5,000) As documented in the Hazard Identification Analysis section, there are 37 major dams in the Southside Hampton Roads region, defined as being 50 feet or more in height, or with a normal storage capacity of 5,000 acre-feet or more, or with a maximum storage capacity of 25,000 acre-feet or more. There is no record of any damages, deaths or injuries associated with dam failure in the region. According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the dam/levee failure hazard scored a PRI value of 2.2 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.32 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.

Table 5.32: Qualitative Assessment for Dam/Levee Failure PROBABILITY

IMPACT

SPATIAL EXTENT

WARNING TIME

DURATION

Unlikely

Critical

Small

Less than 6 Hours

Less than 24 Hours

Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee

ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Generally speaking, failure or mis-operation of a dam classified as “high” hazard would result in the probability of at least one death and more than $200,000 in economic damages. As documented in detail in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section, there are three major dams in the Southside Hampton Roads region classified as high hazard. Table 5.33 shows the surface area, primary purpose and owner of the three major high hazard dams in the county. Annualized loss estimates for this hazard are considered to be negligible (less than $5,000). Officials from the City of Suffolk have recognized that development downstream of many of their dams (namely Western Branch, Burnt Mills, Lake Prince, Lake Cahoon, Lake Meade, Lake Kilby, Speight’s Run and Camp Pond) has increased in recent years. As a result, they have listed as one of their mitigation actions that a study be conducted to better determine the amount of vulnerability in this hazard area. If such a study is conducted, future updates of this plan will provide information on the findings.

Table 5.33: Inventory and Details of Major High Hazard Dams in the Region DAM NAME Lake Burnt Mills Dam Western Branch Dam Lake Mead Dam Source: National Inventory of Dams

SURFACE AREA (ACRES)

PRIMARY PURPOSE

596 1,282 590

Water Supply Water Supply Water Supply

OWNER City of Norfolk City of Norfolk City of Portsmouth

FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE Future updates to this Plan will attempt to address dam failure vulnerability in greater detail, if warranted. This may include a detailed analysis of properties directly downstream of high hazard dams in order to better determine the number of people and value of properties located in potential inundation zones and thereby vulnerable to dam failure. Once a baseline of this detail is established, it should become easier to then assess future vulnerability and land use.

TSUNAMI PRI Value: 2.6 Annualized Loss Estimate: Undetermined According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the tsunami hazard scored a PRI value of 2.6 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.34 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.

Table 5.34: Qualitative Assessment for TSUNAMI PROBABILITY

IMPACT

SPATIAL EXTENT

WARNING TIME

DURATION

Unlikely

Catastrophic

Moderate

Less than 6 Hours

Less than 6 Hours

Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee

ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Losses that could occur based on a tsunami event would probably be very similar to those experienced by a coastal flooding/storm surge event (discussed earlier in this section). However, because of the lack of information on previous occurrences of this hazard, it is not possible to determine an annualized loss estimate.

FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE All future development in the Southside Hampton Roads region that is located close to the coast or tidal rivers could be exposed to the tsunami hazard at some point in the future.

EXTREME TEMPERATURES PRI Value: 2.1 Annualized Loss Estimate: Negligible According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the extreme temperature hazard scored a PRI value of 2.1 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.35 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.

Table 5.35: Qualitative Assessment for EXTREME TEMPERATURES PROBABILITY

IMPACT

SPATIAL EXTENT

WARNING TIME

DURATION

Possible

Minor

Large

More than 24 Hours

Less than 1 Week

Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee

ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL LOSSES Based on the previous historical occurrences, annualized losses to the built environment for this hazard are considered to be negligible (less than $1,000). Similar to the lightning hazard, loss to human life is a greater concern with extreme temperatures than is property damage.

FUTURE VULNERABILITY AND LAND USE All future structures built in the Southside Hampton Roads region will be exposed to extreme temperatures on a comparable level to existing structures; however, this hazard typically has little to no physical impact on the built environment in terms of substantial damage to structures, essential facilities or infrastructure elements. Given the lesser nature of this hazard within the planning area, it is not expected that significant changes will be seen in the planning or construction of future building stock in response to this hazard.

CONCLUSIONS ON HAZARD RISK The vulnerability assessment performed for the Southside Hampton Roads region provides significant findings that allow the Mitigation Planning Committee to prioritize hazard risks and proposed hazard mitigation strategies and actions. Prior to assigning conclusive risk levels for each hazard, the Mitigation Planning Committee reviewed the results of quantitative and qualitative assessments shown in the following tables. Table 5.36 summarizes the degree of risk assigned to each category for all identified hazards in the region based on the application of the Priority Risk Index (PRI) tool fully introduced in “Methodologies Used.” Assigned risk levels were based on historical and anecdotal data, as well as input from the Mitigation Planning Committee. The results were then used in calculating PRI values and making conclusions for the qualitative assessment.

Table 5.36: Summary of Qualitative Assessment CATEGORY/DEGREE OF RISK HAZARD PROBABILITY Flood (100-Year) Highly Likely Flood (Storm Surge) Possible Hurricanes and Likely Tropical Storms Severe Thunderstorms Highly Likely Lightning Highly Likely Tornadoes Highly Likely Winter Storms Likely Erosion Likely Earthquakes Unlikely Landslides Unlikely Sinkholes Possible Drought Possible Wildfire Highly Likely Dam/Levee Failure Unlikely Tsunami Unlikely Extreme Temperatures Possible Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee

IMPACT

SPATIAL EXTENT

WARNING TIME

DURATION

Catastrophic Catastrophic

Moderate Moderate

More than 24 Hours More than 24 Hours

More than 1 Week Less than 24 Hours

Catastrophic Minor Limited Critical Critical Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Critical Catastrophic Minor

Large Large Small Small Large Small Large Small Negligible Large Small Small Moderate Large

More than 24 Hours Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours More than 24 Hours More than 24 Hours Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours More than 24 Hours Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 hours Less than 6 Hours More than 24 Hours

Less than 24 Hours Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 hours Less than 6 Hours Less than 1 Week More than 1 Week Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours Less than 1 Week More than 1 Week Less than 24 Hours Less than 24 Hours Less than 6 Hours Less than 1 Week

Table 5.37 summarizes the annualized loss estimates that were generated for the applicable hazards based on the quantitative assessment and compares them with the PRI values determined for each hazard based on the qualitative assessment. The results and comparisons of both assessments aided the Mitigation Planning Committee in determining the final conclusions on overall hazard risk for the Southside Hampton Roads region.

Table 5.37: Comparison of Annualized Loss Estimates and Priority Risk Index (PRI) Values QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT FINDINGS

QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FINDINGS

ANNUALIZED LOSS ESTIMATES

HAZARD Flood (Storm Surge)

$206,624,689

Flood (100-year)

$48,172,02

Hurricanes and Tropical Storms Drought Winter Storms Severe Thunderstorms Tornadoes Earthquakes Wildfire Erosion Tsunami Lightning Extreme Temperatures Dam/Levee Failure Sinkholes Landslides

$33,546,000 $2,215,839 $1,416,633 $387,961 $309,725 $93,000 $10,744 Undetermined Undetermined Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

HAZARD

PRI VALUE

Flood (100-Year) Hurricanes and Tropical Storms

3.5

Winter Storms Tornadoes Severe Thunderstorms Lightning Flood (Storm Surge) Tsunami Wildfire Drought Dam/Levee Failure Erosion Extreme Temperature Earthquakes Sinkholes Landslides

3.0 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.5

3.2

The conclusions drawn from the qualitative and quantitative assessments, combined with final determinations from the Mitigation Planning Committee, were fitted into three categories for a final summary of hazard risk for the region based on High, Moderate or Low designations (Table 5.38). It should be noted that although some hazards are classified as posing Low risk, their occurrence of varying or unprecedented magnitudes is still possible and will continue to be reevaluated during future updates of this Plan.

Table 5.38: Conclusions on Hazard Risk for the Southside Hampton Roads Region

HIGH RISK

Flood (100-Year) Hurricanes and Tropical Storms Winter Storms

MODERATE RISK

Tornadoes Severe Thunderstorms Lightning Flood (Storm Surge) Tsunami

LOW RISK

Wildfire Drought Dam/Levee Failure Erosion Earthquakes Extreme Temperatures Sinkholes Landslides

Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee, PBS&J

This section of the Plan discusses the capability of participating jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities. The Capability Assessment section consists of the following six subsections:    

WHAT IS A CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CONDUCTING THE CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT FINDINGS PREVIOUSLY IMPLEMENTED MITIGATION MEASURES

 CONCLUSIONS ON LOCAL CAPABILTIY  LINKING THE CAPABILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENTS TO THE MITIGATION STRATEGY

WHAT IS A CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT The purpose of conducting a capability assessment is to determine the ability of a local jurisdiction to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy, and to identify potential opportunities for establishing or enhancing specific mitigation policies, programs or projects.45 As in any planning process, it is important to try to establish which goals and actions are feasible, based on an understanding of the organizational capacity of those agencies or departments tasked with their implementation. A capability assessment helps to determine which mitigation actions are practical and likely to be implemented over time given a local government’s planning and regulatory framework, level of administrative and technical support, amount of fiscal resources, and current political climate. A capability assessment has two primary components: an inventory of a local jurisdiction’s relevant plans, ordinances or programs already in place and an analysis of its capacity to carry them out. A careful examination of local capabilities will detect any existing gaps, shortfalls or weaknesses associated with ongoing government activities that could hinder proposed mitigation activities and possibly exacerbate hazard vulnerability. A capability assessment also highlights the positive mitigation measures already in place or being implemented at the local government level, which should continue to be supported and enhanced if possible through future mitigation efforts. The capability assessment serves as a critical part of the planning process, including the development of an effective multijurisdictional hazard mitigation strategy. Coupled with the Risk Assessment, the Capability Assessment section helps identify and target meaningful mitigation actions for incorporation into the Mitigation Strategy. It not only helps establish the goals for those participating in the Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Plan to pursue, but also ensures that those goals and the mitigation actions that follow are realistically achievable given local conditions.

45

While the Interim Final Rule for implementing the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 does not require a local capability assessment to be completed for local hazard mitigation plans, it is a critical step to develop a mitigation strategy that meets the needs of each jurisdiction while taking into account their own unique abilities. The Rule does state that a community’s mitigation strategy should be “based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools” (44 CFR, Part 201.6(c)(3)).

CONDUCTING THE CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT In order to facilitate the inventory and analysis of local government capabilities throughout the Southside Hampton Roads region, a detailed Capability Assessment Survey46 was distributed to departments across participating jurisdictions. The survey questionnaire, which was completed by local government officials, requested information on a variety of “capability indicators” such as existing local plans, policies, programs or ordinances that may reduce, or in some circumstances, increase the community’s hazard vulnerability. Other indicators included information related to each jurisdiction’s fiscal, administrative and technical capabilities such as access to local budgetary and personnel resources necessary to implement mitigation measures. Survey respondents were also asked to comment on the current political climate in their jurisdiction to implement mitigation actions, an important consideration for any local planning or decision making process. At a minimum, survey results provide an extensive inventory of existing local plans, ordinances, programs and resources in place or under development in addition to their overall effect on hazard loss reduction. Local officials were also required to conduct a self-assessment of their jurisdiction’s specific capabilities. The survey instrument thereby not only helps to accurately assess each jurisdiction’s degree of local capability, but also serves as a good source of introspection for those jurisdictions wishing to improve their capability as identified gaps, weaknesses or conflicts can be recast as opportunities to implement specific mitigation actions. The information provided by participating jurisdictions was incorporated into a database for further analysis. A general scoring methodology47 was then applied to quantify and rank each jurisdiction’s overall capability relative to one another. According to the scoring system, each indicator was assigned a point value based on its relevance to hazard mitigation. Additional points were added based on each jurisdiction’s self-assessment of their own planning and regulatory capability, administrative and technical capability, fiscal capability and political capability. A general capability rating of “High,” “Moderate” or “Limited” was then determined for each jurisdiction according to the total number of points received. These classifications are designed to provide a general assessment of each individual jurisdiction’s local capability relative to one another. In combination with the narrative responses provided by local officials, the results of this multi-jurisdictional capability assessment lend critical information for developing an effective and meaningful mitigation strategy.

CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT FINDINGS The findings of the capability assessment are summarized in this Plan in order to provide insight into the abilities of participating jurisdictions to implement a feasible hazard mitigation strategy. All information is based upon the input provided by local government officials through the Capability Assessment Survey and during meetings of the Hazard Mitigation Committee.

PLANNING AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY Planning and regulatory capability is based on the implementation of plans, ordinances and programs that demonstrate a local jurisdiction’s commitment to guiding and managing growth, including reconstruction following a disaster. Examples include emergency response, mitigation and recovery planning, comprehensive land use planning, transportation planning and capital improvements planning. Additional examples include the enforcement of zoning or subdivision ordinances and building codes that regulate how land is developed and structures are built. These planning initiatives present significant opportunities to integrate hazard mitigation principles and practices into the local decision making process. This assessment is designed to provide a general overview of the key planning and regulatory tools in place or under development for jurisdictions in the planning area, along with their potential effect on hazard loss reduction. This information will help identify opportunities to address existing gaps, weaknesses or conflicts with other initiatives in addition to integrating the implementation of this Plan with existing planning mechanisms, where appropriate. Table 6.1 provides a summary of the relevant local plans, ordinances and programs already in place or under development among participating local governments. A checkmark indicates ( ) that the item is currently in place and being implemented and integrated by the local jurisdiction (or in some cases by the County on behalf of that jurisdiction), or that is currently under development.

46

The Capability Assessment Survey instrument used to assess county and municipal capabilities, as well as individual surveys completed by participating jurisdictions are available upon request. 47 The scoring methodology used to quantify and rank each jurisdiction’s capability is fully described in this section of the Plan.

JURISDICTION NFIP Community Rating System

NFIP

Fire Code

Building Code

Post-disaster Redevelopment / Recovery Ordinance

Unified Development Ordinance

Subdivision Ordinance

Zoning Ordinance

Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance

Historic Preservation Plan

Economic Development Plan

Capital Improvements Plan

Disaster Recovery Plan

Evacuation Plan

Continuity of Operations Plan

Radiological Emergency Plan

SARA Title III Plan

Emergency Operations Plan

Stormwater Management Plan

Open Space Management Plan

Floodplain Management Plan

Comprehensive Land Use Plan

Hazard Mitigation Plan

TABLE 6.1: RELEVANT PLANS, ORDINANCES AND PROGRAMS

Isle of Wight County

Norfolk

Portsmouth

Smithfield

Suffolk

Virginia Beach

Windsor

A more detailed discussion of each jurisdiction’s planning and regulatory capability follows, along with the incorporation of additional information based on the narrative comments provided by local officials in response to the survey questionnaire.

Emergency Management Hazard mitigation is widely recognized as one of the four primary phases of emergency management. The three other phases include preparedness, response and recovery. In reality, each phase is interconnected with hazard mitigation as Figure 6.1 suggests. Opportunities to reduce potential losses through mitigation practices are ideally implemented before a disaster strikes. Examples include the acquisition or elevation of flood-prone structures or the enforcement of regulatory policies that limit or prevent construction in known hazard areas. In reality, the post-disaster environment provides an important “window of opportunity” to implement hazard mitigation projects and policies. During this time period, federal disaster assistance, including the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), may be available. In addition, elected officials and disaster victims may be more willing to implement mitigation measures in order to avoid similar events in the future.

Figure 6.1: Four Phases of Emergency Management

Sources: Federal Emergency Management Agency; PBS&J

Planning for each phase is a critical part of a comprehensive emergency management program and a key to the successful implementation of hazard mitigation actions. As a result, the Capability Assessment Survey asked several questions across a range of emergency management plans in order to assess each jurisdiction’s willingness to plan and their level of technical planning proficiency. Hazard Mitigation Plan: A hazard mitigation plan represents a community’s blueprint for how it intends to reduce the impact of natural and human-caused hazards on people and the built environment. The essential elements of a hazard mitigation plan include a risk assessment, capability assessment and mitigation strategy. •

Prior to the development of this Plan, none of the participating jurisdictions had developed a hazard mitigation plan. Once this project is complete, all of the communities participating in the development of this Plan will have a hazard mitigation plan in place. This Plan should be updated regularly to reflect changing conditions in the area and to capture new ideas for mitigation projects as they are identified by local officials.

Disaster Recovery Plan: A disaster recovery plan serves to guide the physical, social, environmental and economic recovery and reconstruction process following a disaster. In many instances, hazard mitigation principles and practices are incorporated into local disaster recovery plans with the intent of capitalizing on opportunities to break the cycle of repetitive disaster losses. Disaster recovery plans can also lead to the preparation of disaster redevelopment policies and ordinances to be enacted following a hazard event.

•

Isle of Wight County (also covers Smithfield and Windsor), Portsmouth, Suffolk and Virginia Beach have Disaster Recovery Plans in place.

Emergency Operations Plan: An emergency operations plan outlines responsibilities and the means by which resources are deployed during and following an emergency or disaster. •

All of the jurisdictions in the Southside Hampton Roads region are covered by some sort of Emergency Operations Plan.

Continuity of Operation Plan: A continuity of operations plan establishes a clear chain of command, line of succession and plans for backup or alternate emergency facilities in case of an extreme emergency or disaster. •

None of the jurisdictions in the region have a Continuity of Operations Plan.

Radiological Emergency Plan: A radiological emergency plan delineates roles and responsibilities for assigned personnel and the means to deploy resources in the event of a radiological accident. •

All of the jurisdictions in the Southside Hampton Roads region are covered by a Radiological Emergency Plan. Many times this is found as an element of the Emergency Operations Plan.

SARA Title III Emergency Response Plan: A SARA Title III Emergency Response Plan outlines the procedures to be followed in the event of a chemical emergency such as the accidental release of toxic substances. These plans are required by federal law under Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Re-authorization Act (SARA), and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). •

All of the jurisdictions in the Southside Hampton Roads region are covered by a SARA Title III Emergency Response Plan. Many times this is found as an element of the Emergency Operations Plan.

General Planning The implementation of hazard mitigation activities involves departments and individuals beyond the emergency management profession. Stakeholders may include local planners, public works officials, economic development specialists and others. In many instances, concurrent local planning efforts may complement hazard mitigation goals even though they are not designed as such. Therefore, the Capability Assessment Survey also asked questions regarding each jurisdiction’s general planning capabilities and the degree to which hazard mitigation is integrated into other planning efforts. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: A comprehensive land use plan establishes the overall vision for what a community wants to be and a guide to future governmental decision making. Typically a comprehensive plan is comprised of demographic conditions, land use patterns, transportation elements and proposed community facilities. Given the broad nature of the plan and its regulatory standing in many communities, the integration of hazard mitigation measures into the comprehensive plan can serve as a far reaching, long-term risk reduction tool. •

Commonwealth of Virginia law requires that all communities have a comprehensive land use plan.

Capital Improvements Plan: A capital improvements plan guides the scheduling of spending on public improvements. A capital improvements plan can serve as an important mechanism to guide future development away from identified hazard areas. Limiting public investment in hazardous areas is one of the most effective long-term mitigation actions available to local governments. •

All of the jurisdictions in the Southside Hampton Roads region have a Capital Improvements Plan in place.

Historic Preservation Plan: A historic preservation plan is intended to preserve historic structures or districts within a community. An often overlooked aspect of the historic preservation plan is the assessment of buildings and sites located in areas subject to natural hazards to include the identification of the most effective way to reduce future damages.48 This may involve retrofitting or relocation techniques that account for the need to protect buildings that do not meet current building standards, or are within a historic district that cannot easily be relocated out of harms way. •

Isle of Wight County, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Smithfield and Suffolk have either a Historic Preservation Plan in place or have a Historic District where development regulations are in place to protect historic properties.

Zoning Ordinances: Zoning represents the primary means by which land use is controlled by local governments. As part of a community’s police power, zoning is used to protect the public health, safety and welfare of those in a given area. A zoning ordinance is the mechanism through which zoning is typically implemented. Since zoning regulations enable municipal governments to limit the type and density of development, it can serve as a powerful tool when applied in identified hazard areas. 48

See Protecting the Past from Natural Disasters. 1989. Nelson, Carl. National Trust for Historic Preservation: Washington, D.C.

•

All of the jurisdictions participating in the development of this Plan have adopted Zoning Ordinances.

Subdivision Ordinances: A subdivision ordinance is intended to regulate the development of housing, commercial, industrial or other uses, including associated public infrastructure, as land is subdivided into buildable lots for sale or future development. Subdivision design that accounts for natural hazards can dramatically reduce the exposure of future development.49 •

All of the jurisdictions participating in the development of this Plan have Subdivision Ordinances.

Building Codes, Permitting and Inspections: Building Codes regulate construction standards. In many communities, permits are issued for, and inspections of work take place on, new construction. Decisions regarding the adoption of building codes (that account for hazard risk), the type of permitting process required both before and after a disaster, and the enforcement of inspection protocols all affect the level of hazard risk faced by a community. •

The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC) is a state regulation promulgated by the Virginia Board of Housing and Community Development for the purpose of establishing minimum regulations to govern the construction and maintenance of buildings and structures. As of October 1, 2003, the 2000 version of the International Building Code and International Fire Code were adopted by the Commonwealth of Virginia.

•

As provided in the Uniform Statewide Building Code Law, the USBC supersedes the building codes and regulations of the counties, municipalities and other political subdivisions and state agencies.

The adoption and enforcement of building codes by local jurisdictions is routinely assessed through the Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS) program developed by the Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO).50 Under the BCEGS program, ISO assesses the building codes in effect in a particular community and how the community enforces its building codes, with special emphasis on mitigation of losses from natural hazards. The results of BCEGS assessments are routinely provided to ISO’s member private insurance companies, which in turn may offer ratings credits for new buildings constructed in communities with strong BCEGS classifications. In conducting the assessment, ISO collects information related to personnel qualifications and continuing education as well as the number of inspections performed per day. This type of information, combined with local building codes, is used to determine a grade for that jurisdiction. The grades range from 1 to 10, with the lower grade being more ideal. A BCEGS grade of 1 represents an exemplary commitment to building code enforcement, and a grade of 10 indicates less than a minimum level of recognized protection. Table 6.2 provides the BCEGS ratings for the jurisdictions participating in the development of this Plan.

TABLE 6.2: BCEGS RATINGS BY JURISDICTION JURISDICTION Isle of Wight County

BCEGS PERSONAL (RESIDENTIAL) 3

BCEGS COMMERCIAL

YEAR

3

2000

Norfolk

4

4

1997

Portsmouth

5

5

1997

Suffolk

4

4

2004

Virginia Beach

3

3

2000

Regional Planning: Because this region is such a highly developed and populated region with several independent jurisdictions in close proximity to one another, it is important that regional planning take place. In many cases, jurisdictional boundaries abut an adjacent jurisdiction and it is difficult to tell where one city begins and another ends. There are several regional planning efforts in place across the Southside Hampton Roads region. Many of these efforts are coordinated through the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission. The Hampton Roads Planning District Commission facilitates the Regional Emergency Management Technical Advisory Committee (REMTAC) which is comprised of emergency management officials from all member jurisdictions. Another regional emergency management partnership is the Hampton Roads Emergency Management Committee. This committee was established to increase emergency awareness and preparedness across the Southside Hampton Roads region. It is comprised of a variety of regional partners including, city and county officials, American Red Cross, and federal, state and military organizations51. 49 For additional information regarding the use of subdivision regulations in reducing flood hazard risk, see Subdivision Design in Flood Hazard Areas. 1997. Planning Advisory Service Report Number 473. American Planning Association: Washington, D.C. 50 Participation in BCEGS is voluntary and may be declined by local governments if they do not wish to have their local building codes evaluated. 51 More information on the Hampton Roads Emergency Management Committee can be found at: http://www.hremc.org/.

The development of this Plan is the result of a regional collaboration and demonstrates the ability of the participating jurisdictions to work in partnership.

Floodplain Management Flooding represents the greatest natural hazard facing the nation. At the same time, the tools available to reduce the impacts associated with flooding are among the most developed when compared to other hazard-specific mitigation techniques. In addition to approaches that cut across hazards, such as education, outreach, and the training of local officials, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) contains specific regulatory measures that enable government officials to determine where and how growth occurs relative to flood hazards. Participation in the NFIP is voluntary, but is promoted by FEMA as a crucial means to implement and sustain an effective hazard mitigation program. In order for a county or municipality to join the NFIP, they must adopt a local flood damage prevention ordinance that requires jurisdictions to follow established minimum building standards in the floodplain. These standards require that all new buildings and substantial improvements to existing buildings will be protected from damage by the 100-year flood, and that new floodplain development will not aggravate existing flood problems or increase damage to other properties. Another key service provided by the NFIP is the mapping of identified flood hazard areas. Once prepared, the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) are used to assess flood hazard risk, regulate construction practices and set flood insurance rates. FIRMs are an important source of information to educate residents, government officials and the private sector about the likelihood of flooding in their community. Table 6.3 summarizes NFIP participation of participating jurisdictions along with general NFIP policy data.52

TABLE 6.3: NFIP PARTICIPATION AMONG JURISDICTIONS IN THE SOUTHSIDE HAMPTON ROADS HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN NFIP ENTRY DATE

CURRENT EFFECTIVE MAP

Isle of Wight County

08/19/91

09/04/02

201

$41,738,600

Norfolk

08/01/79

07/16/96

8,914

$1,531,270,100

Portsmouth

07/02/71

11/02/83

3,122

$458,221,500

Smithfield

12/05/90

09/04/02

32

$7,540,300

Suffolk

11/16/90

09/04/02

521

$113,325,500

Virginia Beach53

04/23/71

12/05/96

19,976

$3,641,767,900

Windsor 8/1/1979 7/16/1996 Sources: Federal Emergency Management Agency (As of September 2004)

NP

NP

JURISDICTION

NUMBER OF POLICIES

AMOUNT OF COVERAGE

An additional indicator of floodplain management capability is the active participation of local jurisdictions in the Community Rating System (CRS). The CRS is an incentive-based program that encourages counties and municipalities to undertake defined flood mitigation activities that go beyond the minimum requirements of the NFIP, adding extra local measures to provide protection from flooding. All of the 18 creditable CRS mitigation activities are assigned a range of point values. As points are accumulated and identified thresholds are reached, communities can apply for an improved CRS class rating. Class ratings, which run from 10 to 1, are tied to flood insurance premium reductions as shown in Table 6.4. As class ratings improve (decrease), the percent reduction in flood insurance premiums for NFIP policy holders in that community increases.

52

General NFIP policy data (number and coverage) is current as of September 2004 and is provided by the Virginia Department of Emergency Management. 53 The City of Virginia Beach has the most insurance policies in place in the Commonwealth of Virginia (19,976 of 83,134 total policies).

TABLE 6.4: CRS PREMIUM DISCOUNTS, BY CLASS PREMIUM CRS CLASS

REDUCTION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency

45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0

Community participation in the CRS is voluntary. Any community that is in full compliance with the rules and regulations of the NFIP may apply to FEMA for a CRS classification better than class 10. The CRS application process has been greatly simplified over the past several years in order to make the program more user friendly, and extensive technical assistance is available for communities who request it. •

The cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth participate in the CRS. Both have achieved Class 9 status.

Floodplain Management Plan: A floodplain management plan (or a flood mitigation plan) provides a framework for the identification and implementation of corrective and preventative measures specifically designed to reduce flood-related impacts. •

The cities of Portsmouth, Suffolk and the Town of Windsor have floodplain management plans in place. All of the participating jurisdictions have some sort of flood damage prevention ordinances, policies and/or codes that are in place or under development as part of other community planning and regulatory programs.

Open Space Management Plan: An open space management plan is designed to preserve, protect and restore largely undeveloped lands, and to expand or connect areas in the public domain, including parks, greenways and other outdoor recreation areas. In many instances open space management practices are consistent with the goals of reducing hazard losses, such as the preservation of wetlands or other flood-prone areas in their natural state. •

Isle of Wight County, Suffolk and Virginia Beach have Open Space Management Plans in place.

Stormwater Management Plan: A stormwater management plan is designed to address flooding associated with stormwater runoff. The stormwater management plan is typically focused on design and construction measures that are intended to reduce the impact of more frequently occurring minor urban flooding. •

All of the jurisdictions participating in the development of this Plan have a Stormwater Management Plan in place.

Administrative and Technical Capability The ability of a local government to develop and implement mitigation projects, policies and programs is directly tied to its ability to direct staff time and resources for that purpose. Administrative capability is evaluated by determining how mitigation-related activities are assigned to local departments and if there are adequate personnel resources to complete these activities. The degree of intergovernmental coordination among departments will also affect administrative capability associated with the implementation and success of proposed mitigation activities. Technical capability is evaluated by assessing the level of knowledge and technical expertise of local government employees, such as personnel skilled in using geographic information systems (GIS) to analyze and assess community hazard vulnerability. The Capability Assessment Survey was used to capture information on administrative and technical capability through the identification of available staff and personnel resources. Table 6.5 provides a summary of the results for each jurisdiction. A checkmark ( ) indicates that local staff members are tasked with the services listed. Additional information on administrative and technical capability is provided in the completed surveys.

Isle of Wight County Norfolk Portsmouth Smithfield Suffolk Virginia Beach Windsor

Resource development staff or grant writers

Personnel skilled in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and/or HAZUS

Staff with education or expertise to assess the community’s vulnerability to hazards

Scientist familiar with the hazards of the community

Land surveyors

Floodplain manager

Emergency manager

Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural and/or humancaused hazards

Engineers or professionals trained in construction practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure

JURISDICTION

Planners with knowledge of land development and land management practices

TABLE 6.5: RELEVANT STAFF / PERSONNEL RESOURCES

Fiscal Capability The ability of a local government to take action is often closely associated with the amount of money available to implement policies and projects.54 This may take the form of grant funding or locally-based revenue and financing. The costs associated with mitigation policy and project implementation vary widely. In some cases, policies are tied to staff time or administrative costs associated with the creation and monitoring of a given program. In other cases, direct expenses are linked to an actual project such as the acquisition of flood-prone homes, which can require a substantial commitment from local, state and federal funding sources. The Capability Assessment Survey was used to capture information on each jurisdiction’s fiscal capability through the identification of locally available financial resources. Table 6.6 provides a summary of the results for each jurisdiction. A checkmark ( ) indicates that the listed fiscal resource is locally available for hazard mitigation purposes (including match funds for state and federal mitigation grant funds). Additional information on fiscal capability is provided in the completed surveys, which can be obtained through Virginia Beach.

Partnering arrangements or Intergovernmental Agreements

General Obligation Bonds

Development Impact Fees

Stormwater Utility Fees

Water / Sewer Fees

Gas / Electric Utility Fees

Special Purpose Taxes

Community Development Block Grants

JURISDICTION

Capital Improvement Programming

TABLE 6.6: FISCAL CAPABILITY

Isle of Wight County Norfolk Portsmouth Smithfield Suffolk Virginia Beach Windsor

54

Gaining access to federal, state or other sources of funding is often an overriding factor driving the development and implementation of hazard mitigation plans. However, an important objective of local governments seeking a more sustainable future is the concept of self-reliance. Over time, local jurisdictions should seek the means to become less dependent on federal assistance, developing a more diversified approach that assesses the availability of federal, state and locally generated funding to implement mitigation actions. Additional assistance may be available from the business and corporate sector as well as certain non-profit organizations. A broad-based mitigation strategy should also include an attempt to identify mitigation measures that cost little or no money, yet may compliment the larger array of actions identified in the Plan.

POLITICAL CAPABILITY One of the most difficult capabilities to evaluate involves the political will of a jurisdiction to enact meaningful policies and projects designed to reduce the impact of future hazard events. The adoption of hazard mitigation measures may be seen as an impediment to growth and economic development. Or mitigation in general may not generate the same level of interest among local officials when compared with competing priorities. For example, the adoption of a countywide stormwater utility fee represents a policy measure that requires a significant level of commitment from elected officials and public support of hazard mitigation principles. The Capability Assessment Survey was used to capture information on each jurisdiction’s political capability. Survey respondents were asked to identify examples of political capability, such as guiding development away from identified hazard areas, restricting public investments or capital improvements within hazard areas, or enforcing local development standards that go beyond minimum state or federal requirements (i.e., building codes, floodplain management, etc.). Table 6.7 provides a summary of the individual responses for each jurisdiction.

TABLE 6.7: POLITICAL CAPABILITY JURISDICTION Isle of Wight County

COMMENTS HMGP projects (buyouts, elevations) post Floyd (1999) and Isabel (2003)

Norfolk Portsmouth Smithfield Suffolk

No history in this area.

Virginia Beach Windsor

No comments.

Jurisdictional Self Assessments of Capabilities In addition to the inventory and analysis of specific local capabilities, the Capability Assessment Survey required each local jurisdiction to conduct its own self assessment of its capability to implement hazard mitigation activities. As part of this process, county and municipal officials were encouraged to consider the barriers to implementing proposed mitigation strategies in addition to the mechanisms that could enhance or further such strategies. In response to the survey questionnaire, local officials classified each of the capabilities as either “limited,” “moderate” or “high.” TABLE 6.8 SUMMARIZES THE RESULTS OF THE SELF ASSESSMENT PROCESS FOR EACH JURISDICTION IN SOUTHSIDE HAMPTON ROADS REGION. AN “L” INDICATES LIMITED CAPABILITY; AN “M” INDICATES MODERATE CAPABILITY; AND AN “H” INDICATES HIGH CAPABILITY.

Planning and Regulatory Capability

Administrative and Technical Capability

Fiscal Capability

Political Capability

Overall Capability

TABLE 6.8: SELF ASSESSMENT OF LOCAL CAPABILITY

Isle of Wight County

H

M

M

M

M

Norfolk

M

H

M

H

M

Portsmouth

M

M

L

M

M

Smithfield

L

L

L

M

L

Suffolk

M

H

M

L

M

Virginia Beach

M

H

M

L

M

Windsor

L

L

L

L

L

JURISDICTION

PREVIOUSLY IMPLEMENTED MITIGATION MEASURES The success of future mitigation efforts in a community can be gauged to some extent by its past efforts. Previously implemented mitigation measures indicate that there is, or has been, a desire to reduce the effects of natural hazards, and the success of these projects can be influential in building local government support for new mitigation efforts. Table 6.9 lists some of the recent mitigation measures undertaken by participating jurisdictions.

TABLE 6.9: MITIGATION MEASURES IN PLACE JURISDICTION Isle of Wight County Norfolk Virginia Beach

MITIGATION ACTIVITIES COMPLETED Numerous HMGP projects (buyouts and elevations) post Floyd (1999) and Isabel (2003) Wind retrofit the Fleet Maintenance Facility and the Solid Waste Facility, numerous HMGP projects (buyouts and elevations) post Floyd (1999) and Isabel (2003), automated flood data collection system Participated in the Project Impact program, wind retrofit a fire station and four schools, Hurricane Protection Project , generator quick-connect capabilities for critical sewer pump stations

CONCLUSIONS ON LOCAL CAPABILITY In order to form meaningful conclusions on the assessment of local capability, a scoring system was designed and applied to the results of the Capability Assessment Survey. This approach, further described below, assesses the level of capability for each jurisdiction. It is important to note that the score received by each participating jurisdiction is not intended to compare one to the other. Rather, the scoring system is intended to assist each jurisdiction develop mitigation actions that reflect their abilities and help to identify areas that can be improved through the adoption of specific mitigation actions addressing these weaknesses.

Points System for Capability Ranking Scoring: 0-24 points = Limited overall capability 25-49 points = Moderate overall capability 50-82 points = High overall capability I. Planning and Regulatory Capability (Up to 46 points) Yes=3 points Under Development or Under County Jurisdiction=1 • Hazard Mitigation Plan • Comprehensive Land Use Plan • Floodplain Management Plan • Participate in CRS Program • BCEGS Grade of 1 to 5 Yes=2 points Under Development or County Jurisdiction=1 • Open Space Management / Parks & Rec. Plan • Stormwater Management Plan • Emergency Operations Plan • SARA Title III • Radiological Emergency Plan • Continuity of Operations Plan • Evacuation Plan • Disaster Recovery Plan • Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance • BCEGS Grade of 6 to 9 Yes=1 point No=0 points • Capital Improvements Plan • Economic Development Plan • Historic Preservation Plan • Zoning Ordinance • Subdivision Ordinance • Unified Development Ordinance • Building Code • Fire Code • Participate in NFIP Program

No=0 points

No=0 points

II. Administrative and Technical Capability (Up to 15 points) Yes=2 points No=0 points • Planners with knowledge of land development and land management practices • Engineers or professionals trained in construction practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure • Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural and/or human-caused hazards • Emergency manager • Floodplain manager Yes=1 point No=0 points • Land surveyors • Scientist familiar with the hazards of the community • Staff with education or expertise to assess the community’s vulnerability to hazards • Personnel skilled in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and/or HAZUS • Resource development staff or grant writers

III. Fiscal Capability (Up to 11 points) Yes=1 point No=0 points • Capital Improvement Programming • Community Development Block Grants • Special Purpose Taxes • Gas / Electric Utility Fees • Water / Sewer Fees • Stormwater Utility Fees • Development Impact Fees • General Obligation Bonds • Revenue Bonds • Special Tax Bonds • Other

IV. Self-Assessment of Overall Capability (Up to 10 points) High=2 points Moderate=1 points • Technical Capability • Fiscal Capability • Administrative Capability • Political Capability • Overall Capability

Low=0 points (Self-ranked by jurisdiction)

Note: This methodology is based on best available information. If a jurisdiction does not provide information on any of the above items, a point value of zero (0) will be assigned for that item. Table 6.10 shows the results of the capability assessment using the designed scoring system.

TABLE 6.10: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT RESULTS JURISDICTION Isle of Wight County

CAPABILITY SCORE

CAPABILITY RATING

55

High

City of Portsmouth

61

High

Town of Smithfield

37

Moderate

City of Suffolk

61

High

City of Virginia Beach

61

High

Town of Windsor

12

Limited

City of Norfolk

The scoring methodology used to conduct this assessment is meant to provide a general understanding of local capability for each jurisdiction. The results are based on the information provided by local officials in response to the Capability Assessment Survey, an instrument designed to measure local capability based on those indicators determined to be most relevant for mitigation purposes and referenced in FEMA planning guidance. According to the results of this assessment, overall capability within the region is high. As can be expected, there are some differences in the capabilities between various jurisdictions. While some municipalities have significant “in-house” staff resources, others depend on outside sources, such as the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission or private contractors to perform certain local functions or services. Smaller local

governments typically combine multiple job responsibilities, such as a planning director serving as the floodplain manager, or the town manager serving as the local emergency manager. This Hazard Mitigation Plan provides a vehicle to begin and institutionalize hazard mitigation. However, in order to succeed, it will require clearly articulating the benefits of participating in and sustaining the mitigation planning process. One of the best ways to obtain local buy-in and long-term success is to identify and implement achievable mitigation actions (as listed in each jurisdictions’ individual Mitigation Action Plans) that will facilitate continued intergovernmental coordination not only across the region, but with state and federal agencies as well.

LINKING THE CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT WITH THE RISK ASSESSMENT AND THE MITIGATION STRATEGY The conclusions of the risk assessment and capability assessment serve as the foundation for a meaningful hazard mitigation strategy. During the process of identifying specific mitigation actions to pursue, each jurisdiction must consider not only their level of hazard risk but also their existing capability to minimize or eliminate that risk. Figure 6.2 shows a Risk vs. Capability Matrix that is used to illustrate each jurisdiction’s overall hazard risk55 in comparison to their overall capability.

Figure 6.2: Risk Vs. Capability Matrix HAZARD RISK

OVERALL CAPABILITY

Limited

Moderate

High

High Moderate Limited

In jurisdictions where the overall hazard risk is considered to be HIGH, and local capability is considered LIMITED, then specific mitigation actions that account for these conditions should be considered. This may include less costly actions such as minor ordinance revisions or public awareness activities. Further, if necessary, specific capabilities may need to be improved in order to better address recurring threats. Similarly, in cases where the hazard vulnerability is LIMITED and overall capability is HIGH, more emphasis can be placed on actions that may impact future vulnerability such as guiding development away from known hazard areas.

This section of the Plan provides the “blueprint” for participating jurisdictions to become less vulnerable to natural hazards. It is based on the general consensus of the Hazard Mitigation Committee along with the findings and conclusions of the Capability Assessment and Risk Assessment. The Mitigation Strategy section consists of the following four subsections:    

INTRODUCTION MITIGATION GOALS IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION TECHNIQUES SELECTION OF MITIGATION TECHNIQUES

INTRODUCTION

The intent of the Mitigation Strategy is to provide participants with the goals that will serve as the guiding principles for future mitigation policy and project administration, along with a list of proposed actions deemed necessary to meet those goals and reduce the impact of natural hazards. It is designed to be comprehensive and strategic in nature. The development of the strategy included a thorough review of all natural hazards and identified policies and projects intended to not only reduce the future impacts of hazards, but also to assist the county and participating municipalities achieve compatible economic, environmental and social goals. The development of this section is also intended to be strategic, in that all policies and projects are linked to established priorities assigned to specific departments or individuals responsible for their implementation and assigned target completion deadlines. Funding sources are identified that can be used to assist in project implementation.

55

Overall hazard risk was determined for each jurisdiction using the results of the risk assessment (estimated losses for all natural hazards) combined with specific information on the following factors: total population, population growth rate, land area, historical disaster declarations, unique hazard risks, NFIP participation and the value of existing pre-FIRM structures. More information on the methodology used to determine overall hazard risk is available upon request.

The first step in designing the Mitigation Strategy includes the identification of regional mitigation goals. Mitigation goals represent broad statements that are achieved through the implementation of more specific, action-oriented tasks listed in each jurisdiction’s Mitigation Action Plan. These actions include both hazard mitigation policies (such as the regulation of land in known hazard areas), and hazard mitigation projects that seek to address specifically targeted at-risk properties (such as the acquisition and relocation of flood-prone structures). The identification of mitigation actions is an ongoing process begun during the cardstorming exercise conducted at the Mitigation Strategy Workshop.56 Additional mitigation measures will be considered over time as future risk reduction opportunities are identified, new data becomes available, technology improves and mitigation funding becomes available. The last step in designing the Mitigation Strategy is the creation of jurisdictionally specific Mitigation Action Plans (MAPs).57 The MAPs represent the key outcome of the mitigation planning process. MAPs include a prioritized list of proposed hazard mitigation actions (policies and projects) for each participating jurisdiction, including accompanying information such as those agencies or individuals assigned responsibility for their implementation, potential funding sources and an estimated target date for completion. The MAPs provide those individuals or agencies responsible for implementing mitigation actions with a clear roadmap that also serves as an important tool for monitoring progress over time. The collection of actions listed in each jurisdiction’s MAP also serves as an easily understood synopsis of activities for local decision makers. In preparing their own Mitigation Action Plans, each jurisdiction considered their overall hazard risk and capability to mitigate natural hazards, in addition to meeting the adopted regional mitigation goals. Prioritizing mitigation actions for each jurisdiction was based on the following five factors: (1) effect on overall risk to life and property; (2) ease of implementation; (3) political and community support; (4) a general economic cost/benefit review;58 and (5) funding availability. MITIGATION GOALS

The goals of the Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Plan were crafted as part of a facilitated discussion and brainstorming session with the Mitigation Committee (for more details, please see the summary of the second committee meeting in Section 2: Planning Process). Each of the following goal statements represent a broad target for members of the Southside Hampton Roads planning area to achieve through the implementation of their specific Mitigation Action Plans. Goal #1

Develop plans and studies that will support the implementation of techniques that will aid in the mitigation of natural hazards in the region.

Goal #2

Conduct public education, outreach and awareness programs to help local citizens better understand hazard mitigation and ways to protect lives and property from the impact of natural hazards.

Goal #3

Undertake cost beneficial structural projects across the region that will be beneficial to reducing the impact of natural hazards when they occur.

Goal #4

Implement sound hazard mitigation policies into the framework of local government operations across the region.

A stated objective of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 is to improve the coordination of risk reduction measures between state and local government authorities. Linking local and state mitigation planning goals is an important first step. It has been determined that the goal statements for the Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Plan are consistent with the State of Virginia’s current mitigation planning goals as identified in the State Mitigation Plan.

56

Additional information on the Mitigation Strategy Workshop is available in Section 2: Planning Process. Mitigation Action Plans are found in Appendix A. 58 A general economic cost/benefit review was conducted as part of selecting and prioritizing mitigation actions for each jurisdiction. Mitigation actions with “high” priority were determined to be the most cost effective and most compatible with each jurisdiction’s unique needs. A more detailed cost/benefit analysis will be conducted as part of an application for funding, as appropriate. 57

IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION TECHNIQUES

44 CFR REQUIREMENT Part 201.6(c)(3)(ii): The mitigation strategy shall include a section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effect of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure.

were considered in order to help achieve the regional goals and the specific hazard concerns of All activities considered by the committee can be classified under one of the following six techniques:

In formulating Southside Hampton Road’s Mitigation Strategy, a wide range of activities each participating jurisdiction.59 broad categories of mitigation

1. Prevention Preventative activities are intended to reduce the impact of future hazard events, and are typically administered through government programs or regulatory actions that influence the way land is developed and buildings are constructed. They are particularly effective in reducing a community’s future vulnerability, especially in areas where development has not occurred or capital improvements have not been substantial. Examples of preventative activities include: • Planning and zoning • Building codes • Open space preservation • Floodplain regulations • Stormwater management regulations • Drainage system maintenance • Capital improvements programming • Shoreline/riverine/fault zone setbacks 2. Property Protection Property protection measures involve the modification of existing buildings and structures or the removal of the structures from hazardous locations. Examples include: • Acquisition • Relocation • Building elevation • Critical facilities protection • Retrofitting (i.e., windproofing, floodproofing, seismic design techniques, etc.) • Safe rooms, shutters, shatter-resistant glass • Insurance

59

For more details on the specific activities discussed and considered by the Hazard Mitigation Committee, please see the summary of the second committee meeting in Section 2: Planning Process.

3. Natural Resource Protection Natural resource protection activities reduce the impact of natural hazards by preserving or restoring natural areas and their protective functions. Generally speaking, natural areas may include floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes, barrier islands and sand dunes. Parks, recreation or conservation agencies and organizations often implement these measures. Examples include: • Land acquisition • Floodplain protection • Watershed management • Beach and dune preservation • Riparian buffers • Forest and vegetation management (i.e., fire resistant landscaping, fuel breaks, etc.) • Erosion and sediment control • Wetland preservation and restoration • Habitat preservation • Slope stabilization • Historic properties and archaeological site preservation 4. Structural Projects Structural mitigation projects are intended to lessen the impact of a hazard by modifying the environment using a number of construction techniques. They are usually designed by engineers and managed or maintained by public works staff. Examples include: • Reservoirs • Dams/levees/dikes/floodwalls/seawalls • Diversions/detention/retention • Channel modification • Beach nourishment • Storm sewers 5. Emergency Services Although not typically considered a “mitigation” technique, emergency services reduce the impacts of a hazard event on people and property. These actions are often taken prior to, during, or in response to an emergency or disaster. Examples include: • Warning systems • Evacuation planning and management • Emergency response training and exercises • Sandbagging for flood protection • Installing temporary shutters for wind protection 6. Public Education and Awareness Public education and awareness activities are used to advise residents, elected officials, business owners, potential property buyers, and visitors about hazards, hazardous areas, and mitigation techniques they can use to protect themselves and their property. Examples of measures used to educate and inform the public include: • Outreach projects • Speaker series/demonstration events • Hazard mapping • Real estate disclosure • Library materials • School children educational programs • Hazard expositions • Inter-governmental coordination

SELECTION OF MITIGATION TECHNIQUES

In order to determine the most appropriate mitigation techniques for participating jurisdictions, local government officials reviewed and considered the findings of the Capability Assessment and Risk Assessment. Other considerations included each mitigation

action’s effect on overall risk reduction, its ease of implementation, its degree of political and community support, its general costeffectiveness and funding availability.60 FEMA guidance for meeting the planning requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 also specifies that local governments should prioritize their mitigation actions based on the level of risk a hazard poses to the lives and property of a given jurisdiction. In response to this requirement, a Mitigation Technique Matrix (Figure 7.1) was completed to make certain that those hazards posing the greatest threat are addressed. The matrix provides the committee with the opportunity to cross-reference each of the priority hazards (as determined through the Risk Assessment) with the comprehensive range of available mitigation techniques, including prevention, property protection, natural resource protection, structural projects, emergency services, and public education and awareness. It is important to note that individual Mitigation Action Plans include an array of actions targeting multiple hazards, not just those classified as either high or moderate risk.

FIGURE 8.1: MITIGATION TECHNIQUE MATRIX HIGH RISK HAZARDS MITIGATION TECHNIQUE

Flood (100 Year)

Hurricanes and Tropical Storms

MODERATE RISK HAZARDS

Winter Storms

Tornadoes

Severe Thunderstorms

Lightning

Flood (Storm Surge)

Tsunami

PREVENTION PROPERTY PROTECTION NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STRUCTURAL PROJECTS EMERGENCY SERVICES PUBLIC EDUCATION AND AWARENESS

This section discusses how the Mitigation Strategy will be implemented by participating jurisdictions and how the overall Hazard Mitigation Plan will be evaluated and enhanced over time. This section also discusses how the public and participating stakeholders will continue to be involved in the hazard mitigation planning process in the future. This section consists of the following three subsections:  IMPLEMENTATION  MONITORING, EVALUATION AND ENHANCEMENT  CONTINUED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

IMPLEMENTATION 44 CFR REQUIREMENT Part 201.6(c)(4)(i): The plan shall include a plan maintenance process that includes a section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle. 60

In addition to the assignment of a lead department or agency, an

Mitigation actions may or may not require external funding to accomplish. For example, the modification of a given policy to better address identified hazard concerns may require staff time and internal resources, whereas the large-scale acquisition of flood-prone properties may necessitate seeking state or federal funding assistance.

implementation time period or a specific implementation date has been established in order to assess whether actions are being implemented in a timely fashion. The jurisdictions that participated in the development of this Plan will seek outside funding sources to implement mitigation projects in both the pre-disaster and post-disaster environments. When applicable, potential funding sources have been identified for proposed actions listed in each Mitigation Action Plan. It is important to note that while the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) are important sources of assistance and a community’s ability to apply for such funding is directly linked to the development of a hazard mitigation plan, other federal funding sources are identified as appropriate.

It is the responsibility of each participating Part 201.6(c)(4)(ii): The plan maintenance process shall include a process by which local jurisdiction to governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms determine additional such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. implementation procedures beyond those listed within their Mitigation Action Plan. This includes integrating the Hazard Mitigation Plan into other local planning documents such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. The members of the Mitigation Planning Committee will remain charged with ensuring that the goals and strategies of new and updated local planning documents (such as Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Ordinances) are consistent with the goals and actions of the Hazard Mitigation Plan, and will not contribute to an increased level of hazard vulnerability in the region. 44 CFR REQUIREMENT

Opportunities to integrate the requirements of this Plan into other local planning mechanisms shall continue to be identified through future meetings of the Mitigation Planning Committee and through the five-year review process described in this section. Although it is recognized that there are many possible benefits to integrating components of this Plan into other local plans, the development and maintenance of this stand-alone Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan is deemed by the Mitigation Planning Committee to be the most effective and appropriate method to implement local hazard mitigation actions. The primary means for integrating mitigation strategies into other local planning documents will be accomplished through the revision, update and implementation of each jurisdiction’s Mitigation Action Plan that require specific planning and administrative tasks (i.e, plan amendments, ordinance revisions, capital improvement projects, etc.). In addition, the participating jurisdictions will incorporate existing planning processes and programs addressing flood hazard mitigation into this document by reference.

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND ENHANCEMENT Periodic revisions and updates of the Plan are required to ensure that the goals of the Plan are kept current, taking into account potential changes in hazard vulnerability and mitigation priorities. In addition, revisions may be necessary to ensure that the Plan is in full compliance with applicable federal, state and local regulations. Periodic evaluation of the Plan will also ensure that specific mitigation actions are being reviewed and carried out according to each jurisdiction’s individual Mitigation Action Plan. The Mitigation Planning Committee will meet biannually and following any disaster events warranting a re-examination of the mitigation actions being implemented or proposed by the participating jurisdictions.61 This will ensure that the Plan is continuously updated to reflect changing conditions and needs within the region. If determined to be appropriate or as requested, an annual report on the Plan will be developed and presented to the local governing bodies of participating jurisdictions in order to report progress on the actions identified in the Plan and to provide information on the latest legislative requirements. The report may also highlight proposed additions or improvements to the Plan.

ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORTS The Mitigation Planning Committee will be responsible for producing an annual progress report to evaluate the Plan’s overall effectiveness.

FIVE-YEAR PLAN REVIEW At a minimum, the Plan will be reviewed every five years (more exhaustively than by the annual progress reports) by the Mitigation Planning Committee in order to determine whether there have been any significant changes in the region that may, in turn, necessitate changes in the types of mitigation actions proposed. New development in identified hazard areas, an increased exposure to hazards, the increase or decrease in capability to address hazards, and changes to federal or state legislation are examples of factors that may affect changes in the content of the Plan. The plan review provides community officials with an opportunity to evaluate those actions that have been successful and to explore the possibility of documenting potential losses avoided due to the implementation of specific mitigation measures. The plan review also provides the opportunity to address mitigation actions that may not have been successfully implemented. The Mitigation Planning Committee will be responsible for reconvening and conducting the five-year review. During the five-year plan review process, the following questions will be considered as criteria for assessing the effectiveness and appropriateness of the Plan: • 61

Do the goals and actions address current and expected conditions?

The Mitigation Planning Committee will determine on a case-by-case basis which events necessitate convening a meeting to consider modifying existing Mitigation Action Plans. It is understood that the committee will meet following all state and federally declared disasters which impact the area.

•

Has the nature or magnitude of hazard risk changed?

•

Are current resources adequate to implement the Plan?

•

Should additional local resources be committed to address identified hazard threats?

•

Are there any issues that have limited the current implementation schedule?

•

Have the implementation of identified mitigation actions resulted in expected outcomes?

•

Has the Mitigation Planning Committee measured the effectiveness of completed hazard mitigation projects in terms of specific dollar losses avoided?

•

Did the jurisdictions, agencies and other partners participate in the plan implementation process as proposed?

Following the five-year review, any revisions deemed necessary will be summarized and implemented according to the reporting procedures and plan amendment process outlined in this section. Upon completion of the review and update/amendment process, the Southside Hampton Roads Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan will be submitted to the Virginia Department of Emergency Management State Hazard Mitigation Officer for review and approval. The State Hazard Mitigation Officer will submit the Plan amendments to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for final review as required by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.

DISASTER DECLARATION Following a state or federal disaster declaration, the Mitigation Planning Committee will reconvene and the Plan will be revised as necessary to reflect lessons learned or to address specific circumstances arising from the event. In some circumstances it may also be necessary for the committee to convene following localized emergencies and disasters in order to determine if changes in the Plan are warranted.

REPORTING PROCEDURES The results of the five-year review will be summarized by the Mitigation Planning Committee in a report that will include an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Plan and any required or recommended changes or amendments. The report will also include a brief progress report for each mitigation action, including the identification of delays or obstacles to their completion along with recommended strategies to overcome them. Any necessary revisions to the regional Plan must follow the plan amendment process outlined herein. For changes and updates to the individual Mitigation Action Plans, appropriate local designees will assign responsibility for the completion of each task.

PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS Upon the initiation of the amendment process, the participating jurisdictions will forward information on the proposed change(s) to all interested parties including, but not limited to, all affected county and municipal departments, residents and businesses. Information will also be forwarded to the Virginia Department of Emergency Management. This information will be disseminated in order to seek input on the proposed amendment(s) for not less than a 45-day review and comment period. At the end of the 45-day review and comment period, the proposed amendment(s) and all comments will be forwarded to the Mitigation Planning Committee for final consideration. The committee will review the proposed amendment along with the comments received from other parties, and if acceptable, the committee will submit a recommendation for the approval and adoption of changes to the Plan to each appropriate governing body within 60 days. In determining whether to recommend approval or denial of a Plan amendment request, the following factors will be considered by the Mitigation Planning Committee: • • •

There are errors, inaccuracies or omissions made in the identification of issues/needs in the Plan; New issues/needs have been identified which are not adequately addressed in the Plan; There has been a change in data or assumptions from those upon which the Plan is based.

Upon receiving the recommendation from the Mitigation Planning Committee and prior to adoption of the Plan, each local governing body will hold a public hearing. The governing body will review the recommendation from the committee (including the factors listed above) and any oral or written comments received at the public hearing. Following that review, the governing body will take one of the following actions: • • • •

Adopt the proposed amendments as presented; Adopt the proposed amendments with modifications; Refer the amendments request back to the Mitigation Planning Committee for further revision; or Defer the amendment request back to the Mitigation Planning Committee for further consideration and/or additional hearings.

CONTINUED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 44 CFR REQUIREMENT

Public participation is an integral component of the mitigation planning process. As described above, significant changes or amendments to the Plan shall require a public hearing prior to any adoption procedures. Part 201.6(c)(4)(iii): The plan maintenance process shall include a discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process.

Other efforts to involve the public in the maintenance, evaluation and revision process will be made as necessary. These efforts may include: •

Advertising meetings of the Mitigation Planning Committee in the local newspaper, public bulletin boards and/or City and County office buildings;

•

Designating willing citizens and private sector representatives as official members of the Mitigation Planning Committee;

•

Utilizing local media to update the public of any maintenance and/or periodic review activities taking place;

•

Utilizing City and County Web sites to advertise any maintenance and/or periodic review activities taking place; and

•

Maintaining copies of the Plan in public libraries or other appropriate venues.