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 wide range of natural
hazards that threaten the safety of residents, and have the potential to damage or destroy
both public and private property and disrupt the local economy and overall quality of life.
While the threat from hazards may never be fully eliminated, there is much we can do to
lessen their potential impact. The concept and practice of reducing risks associated with
known hazards is referred to as hazard mitigation.
FEMA Definition of
Hazard mitigation techniques include both structural measures, such Hazard Mitigation as strengthening or
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 reduce or eliminate the long-
or floodplain
management policies and the creation of public awareness programs. term risk to human life and Effective mitigation
measures are often implemented at the county or municipal level, property from [natural] where decisions on
the regulation and control of development are made. A hazards.” comprehensive
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.
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
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:
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:
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.
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
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.
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.
Tammy Karlgaard Hampton Roads Regional Planning Commission; Regional Emergency Management Planner
Hampton Roads Regional Planning Commission; Assistant Regional Emergency
Robert Lawrence
Management Planner
Richard Childress Isle of Wight County; Director, Emergency Management
Mark Harrup Isle of Wight County; Long Range Planner
Ron Keys City of Norfolk, Director, Emergency Preparedness and Response
Jeff Raliski City of Norfolk; Transportation Planning Manager
James Talbott City of Norfolk; Assistant Director, Emergency Management
June Brooks City of Portsmouth; Division Manager, Planning
Troy Tilley City of Portsmouth; Deputy Emergency Management Coordinator, Deputy Fire Chief
Jeff Terwilliger City of Portsmouth; Deputy Emergency Management Coordinator
Bill Hopkins Town of Smithfield; Director, Planning, Engineering and Public Works
Jim Judkins City of Suffolk; Emergency Management Coordinator
Mark Marchbank City of Virginia Beach; Deputy Emergency Management Coordinator
Jules Robichaud City of Virginia Beach; GIS Analyst
Clay Bernick City of Virginia Beach; Environmental Planner
COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS
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:
PBS&J:
• 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
2
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:
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 findings of the risk
and capability assessments, PBS&J facilitated a “cardstorming”
exercise—an interactive brainstorming session for workshop attendees to begin
building general countywide consensus on the mitigation goals for the Hazard
Mitigation Plan. Participants were asked to identify specific mitigation actions that
their community could undertake to become less vulnerable to the hazards identified
through the risk assessment. Each participant was encouraged to keep
their own jurisdiction’s existing capabilities in mind, to not only ensure that the
mitigation actions they recommend are achievable but to also capitalize on existing
gaps, weaknesses or opportunities for program enhancement.
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
Plans and
Develop dam failure mitigation plan Suffolk Studies Dam failure
Conduct study to support underground utilities Plans and
expansion Virginia Beach Studies Multiple
Plans and
Pre-identification of special needs populations Portsmouth Studies Multiple
Plans and
Mitigation of urban flooding Suffolk Studies Flood
Plans and
Complete Virginia Hurricane and Evacuation Study Virginia Beach Studies Hurricanes
Plans and
Establish realistic base flood elevations Suffolk Studies Flood
Plans and
Host sheltering plan Virginia Beach Studies Multiple
Modernization and remapping of flood insurance rate Plans and
maps Virginia Beach Studies Flood
Study and implement stormwater drainage in DSD's Isle of Plans and
to manage water runoff and flooding Wight/Smithfield Studies Flood
Structural
Interoperability for communications Virginia Beach Projects Multiple
Structural
Roads (vulnerability and structural improvements) Virginia Beach Projects Multiple
Critical infrastructure storm protection and backup
power facilitation. Protect windows and provide
generator hook-ups/generators for water/sewer, Isle of Structural
governments buildings, schools, etc. Wight/Smithfield Projects Multiple
Structural Hurricanes/Coastal
Extend seawall including stormwater pumps Portsmouth Projects Erosion
Permanent generators for primary shelters and other Structural
critical city facilities Portsmouth Projects Multiple
Structural
Quick connect capability for infrastructure Virginia Beach Projects Multiple
Buyout of riverine and coastal flood prone properties Isle of Structural
(A, AE, VE) Wight/Smithfield Projects Flood
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
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.
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.
4
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.
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
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.
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.
6
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.
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PARTICIPATION
Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Plan is multi-jurisdictional and includes the participation of the following jurisdictions:
To satisfy multi-jurisdictional participation requirements, each of the local jurisdictions was required to perform the following tasks:
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:
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 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 Norfolk-
Virginia 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 meat-
processing 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.
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.
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
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.
Isle of Wight County 18,285 21,603 25,053 29,728 33,798 37,500 41,500
400,000
Isle of Wight County
Population
300,000 Norfolk
Portsmouth
200,000 Suffolk
Virginia Beach
100,000
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Year
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
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.
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.
ISLE OF
VIRGINIA
LAND COVER WIGHT NORFOLK PORTSMOUTH SUFFOLK
BEACH
TYPE COUNTY (%) (%) (%)
(%)
(%)
7
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
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.
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 inter-
modal 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.
Source: Virginia Economic
FIGURE 3.4: EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION IN PERCENT BY SECTOR, 2003 Development Partnership,
2005
Government
100.0
Services
Isle of Wight County
and its communities,
80.0 Financial including the towns of
Smithfield and
Information Windsor, are located
60.0 near major industries
Manufacturing
such as those that
Transportation / Utilities produce agricultural,
40.0 paper and lumber
Trade products and building
materials, meat
20.0 Construction processing plants, as
Natural Resources and well as information
Mining systems and
0.0
manufacturing and
Isle of Wight
Norfolk
Portsmouth
Suffolk
Virginia
Beach 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.
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.
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
44 CFR REQUIREMENT hazards are
Part 201.6(c)(2)(i): The risk assessment shall include a description of the type, location and
interrelated (for
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
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.
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.
1996 October 23 1135 Hurricane Fran Isle of Wight County and Suffolk
2000 February 28 1318 Severe Winter Storm Isle of Wight County and Suffolk
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 hazards in the United
States, and has caused more than 10,000 deaths since 1900.
Approximately 90 percent of presidentially declared disasters result from
flood-related natural hazard events. Taken as a whole, more frequent,
localized flooding problems that do not meet federal disaster declaration
thresholds ultimately cause the majority of damages across the United
States.
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.
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 occurred in the region
have been the result of coastal storms, tropical storms or hurricanes.
Other localized flooding occurs when heavy rains fall during high tide
causing waters that would normally drain quickly to back up because of
the tides. Based on historical and anecdotal evidence, it is clear
that there is a relatively high frequency of flooding in the region. Some of
the notable flood events to impact the region are discussed below.
The Storm of 1749 is one of the most notable storms to occur in this
region. It was responsible for the formation of Willoughby Spit, a
formation of land approximately two miles long and a quarter mile wide.
This storm created a fifteen (15) foot storm surge that flooded much of
the region.
An unnamed hurricane struck the region on August 23, 1933 and created
a high tide in Norfolk of 9.69 feet above Mean Lower Photo credit: City of Portsmouth. Low Water (MLLW), a
record for the area. Eighteen people were killed by this storm that also
flooded downtown Norfolk and destroyed homes at Ocean View. Winds
were recorded at 70 mph in Norfolk, 82 mph at Cape Henry, and 88 mph at the Naval Air Station in Norfolk.
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 responsible for
wind and flood damage in the Southside Hampton Roads region.
Several trees were uprooted as wind speeds were recorded between
50 and 80 mph across the region. Flood waters washed out parts
of Route 10 between Isle of Wight County and Suffolk. Highway 32, a
major evacuation route, was flooded in Suffolk. Suffolk reported 78
homes and 25 businesses damaged by floodwaters and many other
homes and businesses were flooded across the region.
12
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)
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 typhoons, are
classified as cyclones and are any closed circulation developing around a
low-pressure center in which the winds rotate counter- clockwise in the
Northern Hemisphere (or clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere) and
whose diameter averages 10 to 30 miles across. A tropical cyclone refers to any
such circulation that develops over tropical waters. Tropical cyclones act as a
“safety-valve,” limiting the continued build-up of heat and energy in tropical
regions by maintaining the atmospheric heat and moisture balance between the
tropics and the pole-ward latitudes. The primary damaging forces associated with
these storms are high-level sustained winds, heavy precipitation, and
tornadoes. Coastal areas are particularly vulnerable to storm surge, wind-
driven waves, and tidal flooding which can prove more destructive than
cyclone wind14.
The key energy source for a tropical cyclone is the release of latent heat from the
condensation of warm water. Their formation requires a low- pressure disturbance,
warm sea surface temperature, rotational force from the spinning of the earth,
and the absence of wind shear in the lowest 50,000 feet of the atmosphere. The
majority of hurricanes and tropical storms form in the Atlantic Hurricane Isabel approaches North Ocean, Caribbean
Sea, and Gulf of Mexico during the official Atlantic hurricane Carolina and Virginia in September of season, which
encompasses the months of June through November. The 2003. (Photo courtesy of NASA) peak of the Atlantic
hurricane season is in early to mid-September. Based on a long-term average,
approximately six storms reach hurricane intensity per year.
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
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.
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 low-
pressure 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 have affected Virginia
on a statewide basis, causing the deaths of an estimated 228 people
and costing the Commonwealth more than a billion dollars in damages.
The eyes of over 70 storms have tracked directly across Virginia with
11 having made landfall on or within 60 miles of the Virginia Coast. The
region is geographically located in an area that can expect to experience
hurricane damage in any given year.
In fact, 106 such storms have passed within 75 miles of the Southside
Hampton Roads region since 1851 (Figure 4.14), 29 of which crossed
directly through the region. 2 Category 3 hurricanes passed within 75
miles of the region (both unnamed storms in 1879 and 1899), 14 were
Category 2 hurricanes, 31 were Category 1 hurricanes and 117
were tropical storms. Of the storms that passed through the region,
Hurricane Ivan was the most recent in 2004.
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)
WIND SPEED
DATE OF OCCURRENCE STORM NAME STORM CATEGORY
(MPH)
8/25/1851 UNNAMED 45 TROPICAL STORM
9/10/1854 UNNAMED 45 TROPICAL STORM
8/20/1856 UNNAMED 60 TROPICAL STORM
9/17/1859 UNNAMED 60 TROPICAL STORM
9/27/1861 UNNAMED 70 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)
WIND SPEED
DATE OF OCCURRENCE STORM NAME STORM CATEGORY
(MPH)
11/2/1861 UNNAMED 80 CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE
9/18/1863 UNNAMED 70 TROPICAL STORM
10/26/1872 UNNAMED 45 TROPICAL STORM
9/29/1874 UNNAMED 70 TROPICAL STORM
9/17/1876 UNNAMED 90 CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE
10/23/1878 UNNAMED 105 CATEGORY 2 HURRICANE
8/18/1879 UNNAMED 115 CATEGORY 3 HURRICANE
9/9/1880 UNNAMED 80 CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE
9/10/1881 UNNAMED 70 TROPICAL STORM
9/11/1882 UNNAMED 45 TROPICAL STORM
9/23/1882 UNNAMED 45 TROPICAL STORM
9/12/1883 UNNAMED 45 TROPICAL STORM
8/26/1885 UNNAMED 80 CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE
7/2/1886 UNNAMED 40 TROPICAL STORM
9/11/1888 UNNAMED 40 TROPICAL STORM
10/12/1888 UNNAMED 60 TROPICAL STORM
9/25/1889 UNNAMED 45 TROPICAL STORM
6/17/1893 UNNAMED 65 TROPICAL STORM
10/23/1893 UNNAMED 50 TROPICAL STORM
9/29/1894 UNNAMED 85 CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE
10/10/1894 UNNAMED 75 CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE
9/23/1897 UNNAMED 70 TROPICAL STORM
10/26/1897 UNNAMED 60 TROPICAL STORM
8/18/1899 UNNAMED 120 CATEGORY 3 HURRICANE
10/31/1899 UNNAMED 65 TROPICAL STORM
7/11/1901 UNNAMED 80 CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE
6/16/1902 UNNAMED 40 TROPICAL STORM
9/15/1904 UNNAMED 65 TROPICAL STORM
9/1/1908 UNNAMED 50 TROPICAL STORM
8/25/1918 UNNAMED 40 TROPICAL STORM
12/3/1925 UNNAMED 45 TROPICAL STORM
9/19/1928 UNNAMED 45 TROPICAL STORM
8/23/1933 UNNAMED 80 CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE
9/16/1933 UNNAMED 90 CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE
9/6/1935 UNNAMED 75 CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE
9/18/1936 UNNAMED 100 CATEGORY 2 HURRICANE
8/2/1944 UNNAMED 50 TROPICAL STORM
9/14/1944 UNNAMED 105 CATEGORY 2 HURRICANE
10/20/1944 UNNAMED 40 TROPICAL STORM
6/26/1945 UNNAMED 50 TROPICAL STORM
7/7/1946 UNNAMED 65 TROPICAL STORM
8/14/1953 BARBARA 105 CATEGORY 2 HURRICANE
8/31/1954 CAROL 100 CATEGORY 2 HURRICANE
8/12/1955 CONNIE 80 CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE
9/20/1955 IONE 70 TROPICAL STORM
7/10/1959 CINDY 40 TROPICAL STORM
7/30/1960 BRENDA 50 TROPICAL STORM
9/12/1960 DONNA 105 CATEGORY 2 HURRICANE
9/14/1961 UNNAMED 40 TROPICAL STORM
9/1/1964 CLEO 45 TROPICAL STORM
9/17/1967 DORIA 40 TROPICAL STORM
8/28/1971 DORIA 65 TROPICAL STORM
6/22/1972 AGNES 50 TROPICAL STORM
7/1/1981 BRET 60 TROPICAL STORM
9/30/1983 DEAN 65 TROPICAL STORM
9/14/1984 DIANA 60 TROPICAL STORM
9/27/1985 GLORIA 105 CATEGORY 2 HURRICANE
8/18/1986 CHARLEY 80 CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE
9/25/1992 DANIELLE 65 TROPICAL STORM
7/13/1996 BERTHA 75 CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE
7/24/1997 DANNY 45 TROPICAL STORM
8/28/1998 BONNIE 85 CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE
9/16/1999 FLOYD 80 CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE
9/24/2000 HELENE 45 TROPICAL STORM
10/12/2002 KYLE 45 TROPICAL STORM
9/18/2003 ISABEL 100 CATEGORY 2 HURRICANE
8/14/2004 CHARLEY 40 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.
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
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)
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.
DATE OF
LOCATION MAGNITUDE PROPERTY DAMAGE DETAILS
OCCURRENCE
Virginia Beach 1/10/1957 0.67 in. $0 No details available.
Virginia Beach 4/8/1957 1.00 in. $0 No details available.
Virginia Beach 6/14/1963 0.75 in. $0 No details available.
Virginia Beach 5/7/1967 1.75 in. $0 No details available.
Virginia Beach 7/3/1968 2.00 in. $0 No details available.
Virginia Beach 10/14/1971 1.50 in. $0 No details available.
Isle of Wight 6/23/1974 1.75 in. $0 No details available.
Virginia Beach 6/23/1974 1.00 in. $0 No details available.
Norfolk 6/6/1977 1.75 in. $0 No details available.
Suffolk 8/5/1983 1.00 in. $0 No details available.
Virginia Beach 6/27/1985 0.75 in. $0 No details available.
Virginia Beach 6/2/1989 0.75 in. $0 No details available.
Suffolk 6/8/1990 1.75 in. $0 No details available.
Suffolk 7/1/1990 1.00 in. $0 No details available.
Suffolk 7/1/1990 2.50 in. $0 No details available.
Virginia Beach 7/1/1990 2.50 in. $0 No details available.
Isle of Wight 5/1/1991 1.75 in. $0 No details available.
Suffolk 5/1/1991 2.00 in. $0 No details available.
Virginia Beach 5/1/1991 1.00 in. $0 No details available.
Virginia Beach 5/1/1991 1.00 in. $0 No details available.
Virginia Beach 7/18/1992 1.00 in. $0 No details available.
Virginia Beach 7/18/1992 1.00 in. $0 No details available.
Isle of Wight 9/4/1993 1.75 in. $1,000 No details available.
Portsmouth 3/15/1996 0.50 in. $0 Marble size hail
reported in
Churchland section
of Portsmouth.
Norfolk 3/15/1996 0.88 in. $0 No details available.
Virginia Beach 3/15/1996 1.25 in. $0 No details available.
Isle of Wight 6/24/1996 1.00 in. $0 No details available.
Portsmouth 6/24/1996 1.75 in. $0 No details available.
Norfolk 6/24/1996 1.75 in. $0 No details available.
6/24/1996 0.75 in. $0 Dime size hail
occurred at Bayside
Virginia Beach Hospital.
Portsmouth 7/3/1996 1.75 in. $0 No details available.
Portsmouth 7/3/1996 0.88 in. $0 No details available.
Virginia Beach 7/3/1996 1.00 in. $0 No details available.
Portsmouth 7/18/1996 1.00 in. $0 No details available.
Portsmouth 7/31/1996 0.75 in. $0 No details available.
Portsmouth 3/29/1997 1.00 in. $0 No details available.
Suffolk 3/29/1997 1.75 in. $0 No details available.
Norfolk 3/29/1997 1.25 in. $0 No details available.
Virginia Beach 3/29/1997 0.75 in. $0 No details available.
Portsmouth 5/1/1997 1.75 in. $25,000 Many homes were
damaged by hail.
Suffolk 5/1/1997 1.50 in. $0 No details available.
Table 4.7: Regional Hail Activity (1950-2004)
DATE OF
LOCATION MAGNITUDE PROPERTY DAMAGE DETAILS
OCCURRENCE
5/1/1997 1.75 in. $10,000,000 Hail caused
widespread damage
to homes,
businesses and
Norfolk vehicles.
5/1/1997 1.75 in. $5,000,000 Hail caused
widespread damage
to homes,
businesses, and
Virginia Beach vehicles.
Norfolk 7/16/1997 0.88 in. $0 No details available.
Virginia Beach 9/8/1997 1.00 in. $0 No details available.
Norfolk 3/21/1998 0.75 in. $0 No details available.
Isle of Wight 5/8/1998 1.00 in. $0 No details available.
Suffolk 5/8/1998 1.00 in. $0 No details available.
Norfolk 5/8/1998 0.88 in. $0 No details available.
Virginia Beach 5/8/1998 0.88 in. $0 No details available.
Suffolk 6/15/1998 0.75 in. $0 No details available.
Suffolk 2/28/1999 0.75 in. $0 No details available.
Portsmouth 7/24/1999 0.75 in. $0 No details available.
Suffolk 9/7/1999 0.75 in. $0 No details available.
Portsmouth 3/11/2000 0.75 in. $0 No details available.
Norfolk 3/11/2000 0.75 in. $0 No details available.
Norfolk 3/11/2000 1.00 in. $0 No details available.
Smithfield 4/17/2000 0.75 in. $0 0.75 inch diameter
hail reported by a
spotter on Carver
Road in Smithfield.
4/17/2000 0.75 in. $0 0.75 inch diameter
hail reported just
west of Holland in
Suffolk southwestern Suffolk.
4/21/2000 0.88 in. $0 0.88 inch diameter
hail reported in
Kempsville section of
Virginia Beach Virginia Beach.
5/10/2000 1.75 in. $10,000 Hail up to 1.75
inches reported from
Ocean Lakes
towards the
Virginia Beach oceanfront.
Suffolk 5/27/2000 1.75 in. $2,000 No details available.
Virginia Beach 6/18/2000 1.00 in. $0 No details available.
6/22/2000 0.75 in. $0 Dime sized hail fell
Suffolk along Sweatt Road.
Windsor 8/16/2000 0.75 in. $0 No details available.
8/16/2000 0 kts. $2,000 Dime-sized hail fell in
the Route 460/Route
13-32/North Main
Street corridor near
Suffolk downtown Suffolk.
Isle of Wight 4/15/2002 0.75 in. $0 No details available.
Isle of Wight 4/15/2002 1.00 in. $0 No details available.
Virginia Beach 4/19/2002 1.75 in. $0 No details available.
Norfolk 6/1/2002 0.75 in. $0 No details available.
6/1/2002 1.75 in. $0 Dime to golf ball size
hail between Little
Creek and
Thoroughgood
sections, and west
end of Virginia Beach
Virginia Beach oceanfront.
Suffolk 5/3/2003 1.00 in. $0 No details available.
Portsmouth 5/29/2003 1.00 in. $0 No details available.
Table 4.7: Regional Hail Activity (1950-2004)
DATE OF
LOCATION MAGNITUDE PROPERTY DAMAGE DETAILS
OCCURRENCE
Isle of Wight 8/17/2003 0.75 in. $0 No details available.
Virginia Beach 8/17/2003 1.25 in. $0 No details available.
Norfolk 7/7/2004 0.75 in. $0 No details available.
Norfolk 4/23/2005 1.00 in. $0 No details available.
Virginia Beach 4/23/2005 1.00 in. $0 No details available.
BACKGROUND
Lightning is a discharge of electrical energy resulting from the buildup of
positive and negative charges within a thunderstorm, creating a “bolt”
when the buildup of charges becomes strong enough. This flash of light
usually occurs within the clouds or between the clouds and the ground.
A bolt of lightning can reach temperatures approaching 50,000 degrees
Fahrenheit. Lightning rapidly heats the sky as it flashes but the
surrounding air cools following the bolt. This rapid heating and
cooling of the surrounding air causes thunder. On average, 89
people are killed each year by lightning strikes in the United States.
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
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.
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.
Waterspouts are weak tornadoes that form over warm water and are
most common along the Gulf Coast and southeastern states.
Waterspouts occasionally move inland, becoming The most comprehensively observed tornado in tornadoes that cause
damage and injury. However, most waterspouts history, this tornado south of Dimmitt, Texas dissipate over the
open water causing threats only to marine and developed June 2, 1995 curving northward across boating interests.
Typically a waterspout is weak and short-lived, and Texas Highway 86 where it entirely removed 300 because they are so
common, most go unreported unless they cause feet of asphalt from the road tossing it more than damage.
600 feet into an adjacent field. It also caused F4
The destruction caused by tornadoes ranges from damage at an isolated rural residence just north of light to inconceivable
depending on the intensity, size, and duration of the the road. (NOAA Photo Library, NOAA Central storm. Typically,
Library; OAR/ERL/National Severe Storms
tornadoes cause the greatest damages to structures of light construction
Laboratory)
such as residential homes (particularly mobile homes), and tend to
remain localized in impact. The Fujita-Pearson Scale for Tornadoes
was developed to measure tornado strength and associated damages,
and is shown in Table 4.9.
TABLE 4.9: FUJITA-PEARSON SCALE FOR TORNADOES
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 winter storms and nor’easters can be found online at
http://www.vaemergency.com/newsroom/history/winter.cfm
Table 4.13: Winter Storm Activity in the Southside Hampton Roads Region (1998-2004)
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, there are two types of
erosion to be concerned: riverine erosion and coastal erosion. The primary concern of
both riverine and coastal erosion is the gradual removal of rock, vegetation and other
sediment materials from river banks, stream beds and shorelines that result in soil
instability and possible damages to property and infrastructure.
Riverine erosion is a long term geologic process that reshapes river beds and
stream banks as sediment is excavated and transported downstream.
Typically, it occurs faster during periods of high velocity flows brought on by heavy
rainfall, stormwater runoff and/or dam releases. Riverine erosion is most often
mitigated through local sediment and erosion control projects, such as the construction of
armored revetments and bulkheads or the replacement of vegetation that
serves to stabilize eroding soils. The riverine erosion hazard is also greatly
minimized through the designation of riparian buffers and the enforcement of
regulatory setbacks from eroding river banks.
Coastal erosion is a significant, long term hazard that threatens to undermine waterfront
homes, businesses, and public facilities along our all of our Erosion threatens to damage a nation’s shorelines,
eventually rendering them uninhabitable or unusable. Coastal waterfront home. (Photo erosion is driven by
number of natural influences such as rising sea level, large storms courtesy of FEMA) such as tropical
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.
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.
20
For more information on FEMA V-zones, refer to the Flood hazard.
21
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.
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 open-
ended 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 32-
fold 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
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.
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
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
DISTANCE FROM
LOCATION DATE OF OCCURRENCE MMI22
EPICENTER (MILES)
Norfolk 12/16/1811 5 1188
Norfolk 8/28/1833 3 N/A
Norfolk 9/1/1886 5 560
Norfolk 2/21/1916 3 581
Norfolk 4/21/1918 2 N/A
Norfolk 3/1/1925 2 1339
Norfolk 9/5/1944 3 881
Suffolk 9/1/1886 5 527
Suffolk 4/21/1918 2 N/A
Source: National Geophysical Data Center
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 topple, slides, and
flows. Rock falls are rapid movements of bedrock, which result in
bouncing or rolling. A topple is a section or block of rock that rotates or
tilts before falling to the slope below. Slides are movements of soil
or rock along a distinct surface of rupture, which separates the slide
material from the more stable underlying material. Mudflows,
sometimes referred to as mudslides, mudflows, lahars or debris
avalanches, are fast-moving rivers of rock, earth, and other debris
saturated with water. They develop when water rapidly accumulates in the
ground, such as heavy rainfall or rapid snowmelt, changing the soil
into a flowing river of mud or "slurry." Slurry can flow rapidly down slopes
or through channels, and can strike with little or no warning at
avalanche speeds. Slurry can travel several miles from its source,
growing in size as it picks up trees, cars, and other Landslides can damage or destroy roads, materials along the
way. As the flows reach flatter ground, the mudflow railroads, pipelines, electrical and telephone spreads over a
broad area where it can accumulate in thick deposits. lines, mines, oil wells, buildings, canals,
sewers, bridges, dams, seaports, airports,
Landslides are typically associated with periods of forests parks and farms (Photo by Lynn 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
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.
Although a sinkhole can form without warning, specific signs can signal potential development:
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.
BACKGROUND
Drought is a natural climatic condition caused by an extended period of
limited rainfall beyond that which occurs naturally in a broad geographic
area. High temperatures, high winds and low humidity can worsen
drought conditions, and can make areas more susceptible to wildfire.
Human demands and actions can also hasten drought-related
impacts.
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)
DATE OF
LOCATION DETAILS
OCCURRENCE
17 10/31/1993 Unusually dry weather during the summer and early fall led to many communities
jurisdictions, in southeastern Virginia to place water conservation measures into effect in
including October 1993.
Isle of Wight
20 9/1/1997 A very dry period from May through September resulted in drought-like conditions
jurisdictions, across much of central and eastern Virginia. Monthly rainfall departures from
including normal for Norfolk included: -2.21 inches in May, -2.73 inches in June, -3.05 inches
Isle of Wight 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
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, ground fire, and
crown fire. A surface fire is the most common of these three classes
and burns along the floor of a forest, moving slowly and killing or
damaging trees. A ground fire (muck fire) is usually started by lightning or
human carelessness and burns on or below the forest floor. Crown
fires spread rapidly by wind and move quickly by jumping along the
tops of trees. Wildland fires are usually signaled by dense smoke that fills
the area for miles around.
State and local governments can impose fire safety regulations on home
sites and developments to help curb wildfire. Land treatment measures
such as fire access roads, water storage, helipads, safety zones, buffers,
firebreaks, fuel breaks, and fuel management can be On Sunday, August 6, 2000, several forest fires designed as part of an
overall fire defense system to aid in fire control. Fuel converged near Sula, Montana, forming a firestorm management,
that overran 100,000 acres and destroyed 10
prescribed burning, and cooperative land management planning
homes. Temperatures in the flame front were
can also be encouraged to reduce fire hazards. 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.
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.
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.
1995 1 10 $0
1996 1 0.5 $0
Virginia Beach
1997 2 28 $0
2001 4 225 $0
Virginia Beach Total 8 263.5 $0
1995 10 17.5 $0
1996 3 1.25 $0
1997 8 8.5 $500
Isle of Wight County 1998 4 9 $600
1999 3 1.5 $0
2000 5 6.5 $3,000
2001 17 61.65 $0
Isle of Wight County Total 50 105.9 $4,100
1995 14 154.7 $33,750
1996 2 121 $8,000
1997 5 132 $20,960
Suffolk
1999 3 10.5 $5,400
2000 2 30 $0
2001 1 38 $3,000
Suffolk Total 27 486.2 $71,110
TOTAL 85 855.6 $75,210
Source: Virginia Department of Forestry
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.
NORMAL
NAME OF DAM HAZARD CLASSIFICATION YEAR BUILT STORAGE
(ACRE FEET)
Lake Burnt Mills Dam High 1942 7,449
Western Branch Dam High 1963 14,620
Lake Mead Dam High 1959 6,372
C-Pond Dam Significant 1962 1,000
Lake Prince Dam Low 1921 10,600
Lake Cohoon Dam Significant 1912 6,025
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.
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 minutes and the open
ocean wave speed may average 450 miles per hour. As tsunami waves
approach shallow coastal waters, they appear to be of normal size.
Although the waves slow down as they reach shallow water, the
energy remains constant. When tsunami waves crash into the shoreline,
they may be as high as 100 feet. Areas at greatest risk are less
than 50 feet above sea level and within one mile of the shoreline. Rapid
changes in the ocean water level may indicate that a tsunami is
approaching. Most deaths during a tsunami are the result of drowning.
Associated risks include flooding, polluted water Tsunami Hazard Zone signs are posted at coastal supplies, and damaged
gas lines. 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
In the United States, tsunamis have historically by local and state governmental authorities. affected the West Coast
(Figure 4.28), but the threat of tsunami inundation Tsunami Evacuation Route markers are used to is also possible on the
Atlantic Coast. Pacific Ocean tsunamis are designate the evacuation routes established by classified as local,
regional, or Pacific-wide. Regional tsunamis are local jurisdictions in cooperation with emergency most common. Pacific-
wide tsunamis are much less common, with the management officials. (Photos courtesy of last one being recorded
in 1964, but are larger waves that have high Washington State Department of Transportation) potential to cause
destruction.
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
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.
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.
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. Extreme cold is a
deceptive killer as it indirectly causes injury and death resulting from exhaustion and
overexertion, hypothermia and frostbite from wind chill and asphyxiation.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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:
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 ASSIGNED
PRI
INDEX WEIGHTING
CATEGORY LEVEL CRITERIA
VALUE FACTOR
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.
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.
NUMBER OF BUILDINGS
JURISDICTION
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL OTHER TOTAL
Isle of Wight County 11,707 73 3 10 11,793
Norfolk 57,859 920 117 250 59,146
Portsmouth 30,500 214 18 79 30,811
Suffolk 21,568 122 15 40 21,745
Virginia Beach 135,766 1,393 115 266 137,540
TOTAL 257,400 2,722 268 645 261,035
BUILDING AND CONTENTS VALUES
JURISDICTION
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL OTHER TOTAL
Isle of Wight County $1,206,987,000 $102,689,000 $17,911,000 $23,701,000 $1,351,288,000
Norfolk $9,998,217,000 $1,663,410,000 $237,610,000 $226,515,000 $12,125,752,000
Portsmouth $4,211,183,000 $314,477,000 $49,765,000 $88,866,000 $4,664,291,000
Suffolk $2,480,542,000 $230,951,000 $39,958,000 $52,654,000 $2,804,105,000
Virginia Beach $18,256,280,000 $2,170,665,000 $271,859,000 $370,162,000 $21,068,966,000
Total Building Value $36,153,209,000 $4,482,192,000 $617,103,000 $761,898,000 $42,014,402,000
Total Content Value $18,087,270,000 $4,734,868,000 $794,635,000 $807,994,000 $24,424,767,000
GRAND TOTAL $54,240,479,000 $9,217,060,000 $1,411,738,000 $1,569,892,000 $66,439,169,000
Source: HAZUS-MH
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:
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 HAZUS-
MH 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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
AVERAGE NUMBER OF
NFIP CURRENT AVERAGE
NUMBER REPETITIVE TOTAL TOTAL
JURISDICTION ENTRY EFFECTIVE PAYMENT
OF LOSS LOSSES PAYMENTS
DATE FIRM PER LOSS
LOSSES PROPERTIES
Isle of Wight County 8/19/1991 9/4/2002 2.0 6 12 $476,483 $238,241
Norfolk 8/1/1979 7/16/1996 2.3 180 420 $5,056,529 $2,137,576
Portsmouth 7/2/1971 11/2/1983 2.3 43 101 $1,001,498 $438,799
Smithfield 12/5/1990 9/4/2002 2.8 4 11 $291,108 $121,063
Virginia Beach 4/23/1971 12/5/1996 2.6 260 676 $8,051,288 $2,929,339
Windsor 8/1/1990 9/4/2002 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
TOTAL 2.0 493 1220 $14,876,906 $977,503
Sources: National Flood Insurance Program (as of 12/31/2003)
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.
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.
37
The SLOSH model is described in Section 4: Hazard Identification and Analysis.
HURRICANES AND TROPICAL STORMS
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.
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 100-
and 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.
BUILDING OCCUPANCY
100-YEAR EVENT 500-YEAR EVENT ANNUALIZED
TYPE
Isle of Wight County $2,668,000 $104,213,000 $1,258,000
Norfolk $454,774,000 $2,532,914,000 $21,510,000
Portsmouth $174,718,000 $732,457,000 $7,736,000
Suffolk $32,010,000 $210,317,000 $3,042,000
Virginia Beach $881,106,000 $5,667,053,000 $46,592,000
TOTAL $664,170,000 $3,579,901,000 $33,546,000
Source: HAZUS-MH
HAZUS-MH was also used to produce building damage estimates based on percentage of damage (by damage state) for the 100-
and 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.
38
Refer to the Hazard Identification and Analysis section of this risk assessment for detailed historical information.
39
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.
Table 5.13: Estimates of Potential Building Damage by Damage State40
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.
Highly Likely Minor Large Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours
Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee
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.
Highly Likely Limited Small Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours
Source: Southside Hampton Roads region Planning Committee
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
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.
Highly Likely Critical Small Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours
Source: Southside Hampton Roads region Planning Committee
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.
WINTER STORMS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
BUILDING
100-YEAR EVENT 500-YEAR EVENT 1,000-YEAR EVENT ANNUALIZED
OCCUPANCY TYPE
Isle of Wight County Negligible42 $408,000 $1,092,000 $5,000
Norfolk Negligible $2,785,000 $7,422,000 $28,000
Portsmouth Negligible $1,358,000 $2,851,000 $11,000
Suffolk Negligible $833,000 $2,104,000 $8,000
Virginia Beach Negligible $4,468,000 $11,911,000 $41,000
TOTAL Negligible $9,852,000 $25,380,000 $93,000
Source: HAZUS-MH
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 (%) MODERATE (%) EXTENSIVE (%) COMPLETE (%)
JURISDICTION
500-YRr 1,000-YR 500-YR 1,000-YR 500-YR 1,000-YR 500-YR 1,000-YR
Isle of Wight County 2.3 5.1 0.7 1.8 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0
Norfolk 1.5 3.5 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Portsmouth 1.7 3.5 0.5 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0
Suffolk 1.9 4.2 0.5 1.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0
Virginia Beach 1.4 3.3 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
TOTAL 1.5 3.5 0.4 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
Source: HAZUS-MH
43
For more detailed description of the four damage states, please refer to the HAZUS-MH User Manual for the Earthquake Model.
LANDSLIDES
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.
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.
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.
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 MARKET
PERCENT NON-
HARVESTED IRRIGATED VALUE OF TOTAL
JURISDICTION IRRIGATED
CROPLAND LAND (acres) CROPS ANNUALIZED LOSS
LAND
(acres) ($1,000)
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.
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.
Highly Likely Minor Small Less than 6 Hours Less than 24 Hours
Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee
Portsmouth 1 $0 0.14 $0
44
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
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.
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
SURFACE AREA
DAM NAME PRIMARY PURPOSE OWNER
(ACRES)
Lake Burnt Mills Dam 596 Water Supply City of Norfolk
Western Branch Dam 1,282 Water Supply City of Norfolk
Lake Mead Dam 590 Water Supply City of Portsmouth
Source: National Inventory of Dams
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
CATEGORY/DEGREE OF RISK
HAZARD
SPATIAL
PROBABILITY IMPACT WARNING TIME DURATION
EXTENT
Flood (100-Year) Highly Likely Catastrophic Moderate More than 24 Hours More than 1 Week
Flood (Storm Surge) Possible Catastrophic Moderate More than 24 Hours Less than 24 Hours
Hurricanes and
Tropical Storms Likely Catastrophic Large More than 24 Hours Less than 24 Hours
Severe Thunderstorms Highly Likely Minor Large Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours
Lightning Highly Likely Limited Small Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 hours
Tornadoes Highly Likely Critical Small Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours
Winter Storms Likely Critical Large More than 24 Hours Less than 1 Week
Erosion Likely Minor Small More than 24 Hours More than 1 Week
Earthquakes Unlikely Minor Large Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours
Landslides Unlikely Minor Small Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours
Sinkholes Possible Minor Negligible Less than 6 Hours Less than 1 Week
Drought Possible Minor Large More than 24 Hours More than 1 Week
Wildfire Highly Likely Minor Small Less than 6 Hours Less than 24 Hours
Dam/Levee Failure Unlikely Critical Small Less than 6 hours Less than 24 Hours
Tsunami Unlikely Catastrophic Moderate Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours
Extreme Temperatures Possible Minor Large More than 24 Hours Less than 1 Week
Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee
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
HAZARD HAZARD PRI VALUE
ESTIMATES
Flood (Storm Surge) $206,624,689 Flood (100-Year) 3.5
Hurricanes and Tropical
Flood (100-year) $48,172,02
Storms 3.2
Hurricanes and Tropical
$33,546,000
Storms Winter Storms 3.0
Drought $2,215,839 Tornadoes 3.0
Winter Storms $1,416,633 Severe Thunderstorms 2.8
Severe Thunderstorms $387,961 Lightning 2.7
Tornadoes $309,725 Flood (Storm Surge) 2.7
Earthquakes $93,000 Tsunami 2.6
Wildfire $10,744 Wildfire 2.5
Erosion Undetermined Drought 2.2
Tsunami Undetermined Dam/Levee Failure 2.2
Lightning Negligible Erosion 2.1
Extreme Temperatures Negligible Extreme Temperature 2.1
Dam/Levee Failure Negligible Earthquakes 1.9
Sinkholes Negligible Sinkholes 1.8
Landslides Negligible Landslides 1.5
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
Flood (100-Year)
Hurricanes and Tropical Storms
HIGH RISK Winter Storms
Tornadoes
Severe Thunderstorms
MODERATE RISK Lightning
Flood (Storm Surge)
Tsunami
Wildfire
Drought
Dam/Levee Failure
Erosion
LOW RISK Earthquakes
Extreme Temperatures
Sinkholes
Landslides
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:
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 multi-
jurisdictional 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.
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.
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.
Suffolk
Norfolk
County
Windsor
Smithfield
Portsmouth
Isle of Wight
Virginia Beach
JURISDICTION
Evacuation Plan
Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance
Zoning Ordinance
Subdivision Ordinance
Fire Code
NFIP
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.
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.
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.
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
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 45%
2 40%
3 35%
4 30%
5 25%
6 20%
7 15%
8 10%
9 5%
10 0
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency
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.
TABLE 6.5: RELEVANT STAFF / PERSONNEL RESOURCES construction practices related to buildings
Floodplain manager
caused hazards
Land surveyors
or grant writers
and/or HAZUS
to hazards
practices
JURISDICTION
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.
Intergovernmental Agreements
Partnering arrangements or
Development Impact Fees
Grants
JURISDICTION
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.
JURISDICTION COMMENTS
Isle of Wight County 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.
Technical Capability
Administrative and
Political Capability
Overall Capability
Fiscal Capability
Capability
JURISDICTION
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.
Isle of Wight County 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
Norfolk 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
Virginia Beach
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.
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
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.
HAZARD RISK
High
OVERALL
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.
57
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.
IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION TECHNIQUES
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
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 cost-
effectiveness 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.
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
60
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.
44 CFR REQUIREMENT It is the responsibility
of each participating
Part 201.6(c)(4)(ii): The plan maintenance process shall include a process by which local
governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms
jurisdiction to
such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. determine additional
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.