TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction...... SECTION 1
Planning Process..…...…………………………………………...... SECTION 2
Community Profile………………………………………………...SECTION 3
Hazard Identification………………………….…………………...SECTION 4
Hazard Analysis.………………….…………………..…………….SECTION 5
Vulnerability Assessment…………………………………………...SECTION 6
Capability Assessment………………………………………………SECTION 7
Mitigation Strategy.....…………………………………………….....SECTION 8
Mitigation Action Plans………………………………...... SECTION 9
Plan Maintenance…………………………………………………..SECTION 10
Plan Adoption...... APPENDIX A
Planning Tools...... APPENDIX B
Local Mitigation Plan Crosswalk...... APPENDIX C
Planning Process Documentation...... APPENDIX D
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION This section provides a general introduction to the New Hanover County Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. It 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. We must consider these hazards to be legitimate and significant threats to human life, safety and property.
New Hanover County is vulnerable to a wide range of natural hazards, including flooding, hurricanes and tropical storms, tornadoes, winter storms and earthquakes. These hazards threaten the life and safety of county 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 hazardous events may never be fully eliminated, there is much we can do to lessen their potential impact upon our community and our citizens. By minimizing the impact of hazards upon our built environment, we can prevent such events from Hazard Mitigation: resulting in disasters. The concept and practice of reducing risks to Any sustained action taken to people and property from known hazards is generally referred to as reduce or eliminate the long- hazard mitigation. term risk to human life and property from hazards. Hazard mitigation techniques include both structural measures, such as strengthening or protecting buildings and infrastructure from the destructive forces of potential hazards, and non-structural measures, such as the adoption of sound land use policies and the creation of public awareness programs. It is widely accepted that the most effective mitigation measures are implemented at the local government level, where decisions on the regulation and control of development are ultimately made. A 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 overall hazard vulnerability.
As a community formulates a comprehensive approach to hazard mitigation, a key component is to develop, adopt, and update as needed, a local hazard mitigation plan. A hazard mitigation plan establishes the broad community vision and guiding principles for reducing hazard risk, and further proposes specific mitigation actions to eliminate or reduce identified vulnerabilities.
The New Hanover County Multi-jurisdictional 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 routine government activities and functions of New Hanover County and its municipalities. At its most inner core, the Plan recommends specific actions to combat the forces of nature and protect its residents from losses to those hazards that pose the greatest risk. These mitigation actions go beyond simply recommending structural solutions to reduce existing vulnerability, such as elevation, retrofitting and acquisition projects. Local policies on community growth and development, incentives for natural resource protection, and public awareness and outreach activities are examples of other actions considered to reduce New Hanover County’s future vulnerability to identified hazards. The Plan is designed to be a living document, with implementation and evaluation procedures included to help achieve meaningful objectives and successful outcomes over time.
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 In an effort to reduce the Nation's mounting natural disaster losses, the U.S. Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) to invoke new and revitalized approaches to mitigation planning. Section 322 of DMA 2000 emphasizes the need for state and local government entities to closely coordinate on mitigation planning activities, and makes the development of a hazard mitigation plan a specific eligibility requirement for any local government applying for federal mitigation grant funds. These funds include the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and the newly created Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program, both of which are administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under the Department of Homeland Security. Communities with an adopted and federally approved hazard mitigation plan thereby become pre-positioned and more apt to receive available mitigation funds before and after the next disaster strikes.
Additionally, the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-264) created two new grant programs: the Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL), and Repetitive Flood Claim (RFC). The Act also modified the existing Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program. One of the requirements of this Act is that a FEMA-approved
INTRODUCTION Hazard Mitigation Plan is now required if communities wish to be eligible for these FEMA mitigation programs. Communities with an adopted and federally-approved hazard mitigation plan thereby become pre-positioned and more apt to receive available mitigation funds before and after the next disaster strikes.
This Plan was prepared in coordination with FEMA and the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management to ensure that it meets all applicable DMA 2000 planning requirements. A Local Mitigation Plan Crosswalk, found in Appendix C, provides a summary of FEMA’s current minimum standards of acceptability and notes the location within the Plan where each planning requirement is met.
Purpose The general purpose of this Hazard Mitigation Plan is to:
• Protect life and property by reducing the potential for future damages and economic losses that result from natural hazards; • Qualify for additional grant funding, in both the predisaster and post-disaster environment; • Speed recovery and redevelopment following future disaster events; • Demonstrate a firm local commitment to hazard mitigation principles; and
1:2 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
INTRODUCTION • Comply with federal legislative requirements for local hazard mitigation plans. Scope Beginning in July of 2009, this plan was updated as required by NCEM and FEMA. After a review of FEMA’s requirements for local hazard mitigation plan updates, the Mitigation Advisory Committee reviewed and analyzed each section of the plan and determined that each section needed to be updated to some degree to meet the requirements. Changes made to each section were clearly marked until such time that it was determined that all parties were in agreement on the changes.
This Hazard Mitigation Plan will be updated and maintained to continually address those hazards determined to be of high and moderate risk through the detailed vulnerability assessment for New Hanover County (see Section 6: Vulnerability Assessment). Other hazards that pose a low or negligible risk will continue to be evaluated during future updates to the Plan, but they may not be fully addressed until they are determined to be of high or moderate risk to New Hanover County.
The geographic scope (i.e., the planning area) for the Plan includes unincorporated areas of New Hanover County, the City of Wilmington, the Town of Kure Beach and the Town of Carolina Beach (added to the Plan in 2009-2010). The remaining municipality within the county—the Town of Wrightsville Beach—is not participating in this Plan as they are meeting hazard mitigation planning requirements for their jurisdictions independently. The University of North Carolina at Wilmington (UNCW) has a hazard mitigation plan, which was finalized and approved in June 2008.
Authority This Hazard Mitigation Plan has been adopted by New Hanover County in accordance with the authority and police powers granted to counties as defined by the State of North Carolina (N.C.G.S., Chapter 153A). This Hazard Mitigation Plan has also been adopted by New Hanover County’s participating municipal jurisdictions under the authority granted to cities and towns as defined by the State of North Carolina (N.C.G.S., Chapter 160A). Copies of all local resolutions to adopt the Plan are included in Appendix A.
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. • National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq; and • North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 166A: North Carolina Emergency Management Act, as amended by Senate Bill 300: An Act to Amend the Laws Regarding Emergency Management as Recommended by the Legislative Disaster Response and Recovery Commission (2001).
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 1:3
SECTION 2 PLANNING PROCESS
This section of the Plan describes the mitigation planning process undertaken by New Hanover County in preparation of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. It consists of the following nine subsections:
• Overview of Hazard Mitigation Planning • History of Hazard Mitigation Planning in New Hanover County • Preparing the 2010 Plan • The Planning Team • Community Meetings and Workshops • Involving the Public • Involving Stakeholders • Multi-jurisdictional Participation • Progress Report
Overview of Hazard Mitigation Planning Local hazard mitigation planning is the process of organizing community resources, identifying and assessing hazard risks, and determining how to best minimize or manage those risks. This process results in a hazard mitigation plan that identifies specific mitigation actions, each designed to achieve both short-term planning objectives and a long-term community vision. 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 for the routine monitoring of implementation progress, as well as the evaluation and enhancement of the mitigation plan itself. These plan maintenance procedures ensure that New Hanover County’s Hazard Mitigation Plan remains a current, dynamic and effective planning document over time.
Mitigation planning offers many benefits, including:
• Saving lives and property; • Saving money; • Speeding recovery following disasters; • Reducing future vulnerability through wise development and post-disaster recovery and reconstruction;
• Expediting the receipt of predisaster and post-disaster grant funding; and • Demonstrating a firm commitment to improving community health and safety.
Typically, mitigation planning is described as having the potential to produce long-term and recurring benefits by breaking the repetitive cycle of disaster loss. A core assumption of hazard mitigation is that predisaster 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 solely 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, maintaining environmental health and enhancing recreational opportunities. Thus, it is vitally important that any local mitigation planning process be integrated with other concurrent local planning efforts, and any proposed mitigation strategies must take into account other existing community goals or initiatives that will help complement or hinder their future implementation.
History of Hazard Mitigation Planning in New Hanover County New Hanover County’s first formal hazard mitigation planning efforts began in 2004 with the preparation of the County’s first FEMA-approved Hazard Mitigation Plan. These efforts were in response to the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) and NC Senate Bill 300 that required adoption of a hazard mitigation plan to remain eligible for certain State and Federal financial assistance. The initial plan was led by the mitigation planning team, formally named the New Hanover County Mitigation Advisory Committee (MAC). The committee included planning consultant PBS&J and representatives from New Hanover County, Town of Kure Beach, the City of Wilmington and other stakeholders. The guidelines used for the development of the plan were those recommended by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management (NCEM) for hazard mitigation plans. The final plan was adopted by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners and the governing bodies of the participating jurisdictions. FEMA approved the plan on June 29, 2005, validating it until June 29, 2010.
In 2009, New Hanover County hired planning consultant PBS&J to update the 2004 plan. This plan update included the Town of Carolina Beach in addition to the Town of Kure Beach and the City of Wilmington who had participated in the previous planning process. The Mitigation Advisory Committee (MAC) was reconvened to lead to planning process. The MAC followed the planning steps outlined in the mitigation planning guidebooks produced by NCEM and met two times between July 2009 and November 2010 to review and discuss various components of the plan. One public meeting was held during the planning process on February 10, 2010. The final plan was adopted by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners on (to be added) and subsequently adopted by the participating jurisdictions.
A more thorough description of the plan meetings can be found 44 CFR Requirement below in the “Community Meeting and Workshops” subsection. 201.6(c)(1): The plan shall PLANNING PROCESS include documentation of the planning process used to Preparing the 2010 Plan develop the plan, including how Hazard mitigation plans are required to be updated every five years to it was prepared, who was involved in the process and remain eligible for certain State and Federal mitigation and public how the public was involved. assistance funding. In preparation of the 2010 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan update, New Hanover County hired PBS&J as an outside consultant to provide professional mitigation planning
2:2 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
PLANNING PROCESS
services. Per the contractual scope of work1, the consultant team followed the mitigation planning process recommended by FEMA (Publication Series 386) and recommendations provided by NCEM mitigation planning staff. The Local Mitigation Plan Crosswalk, found in Appendix C, provides a detailed summary of FEMA’s current minimum standards of acceptability for compliance with DMA 2000 and notes the location where each requirement is met within this 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.
This section of the Plan provides the description of the process that was used to develop the 2010 plan update. For information about how previous versions of this plan were developed it will be necessary to review the previous version of this plan.
Plan updating and review procedures were established in the previous versions of this plan and were used, in addition to the requirements discussed above, to prepare the 2010 update. These procedures provide the general guidelines for the updating and reviewing the plan on a regular basis. These procedures state that the plan will be evaluated for effectiveness and appropriateness by addressing the following questions:
a. Do Plan goals and objectives continue to address current and expected conditions? b. Has the nature or magnitude of risks changed? c. Are current resources sufficient and appropriate for Plan implementation? d. Are there any implementation problems, i.e., technical, political, legal or coordination issues with other agencies? e. Are implementation outcomes as expected? f. Have other agencies and partners participated as proposed? These questions were considered and addressed to the best extent possible by the MAC during the 2010 plan update process. Each section of the updated plan includes information on how the plan was reviewed and updated and the results of the plan update evaluation.
The planning process included several steps that were completed over the course of approximately six months. These steps are illustrated in Figure 2.1.
1 A copy of the negotiated contractual scope of work between New Hanover County and PBS&J is available through the County upon request.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2:3
Figure 2.1 New Hanover County Hazard Mitigation Planning Process PLANNING PROCESS
2:4 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
PLANNING PROCESS
Each of the planning steps illustrated in Figure 2.1 resulted in critical products and outcomes that collectively make up the Hazard Mitigation Plan. These work elements have been included as separate sections of the Plan, and are further discussed here for introductory purposes.
The Community Profile, located in Section 3, describes the general makeup of New Hanover County and local municipalities, 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 countywide planning area and thereby assists New Hanover County and municipal 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 three separate sections: Section 4: Hazard Identification; Section 5: Hazard Analysis; and Section 6: Vulnerability Assessment. Together, these sections serve to identify, analyze and assess New Hanover County’s overall risk to natural hazards. The Risk Assessment also attempts to define any hazard risks that may uniquely or exclusively affect the individual municipal jurisdictions. The Risk Assessment builds on available historical data from past hazard occurrences, establishes hazard-by-hazard profiles, and culminates in a hazard risk ranking based on conclusions about the frequency of occurrence, spatial extent and potential impact of each hazard. FEMA’s HAZUS®MH loss estimation methodology was also used in evaluating known hazard risks by their relative long-term cost in expected damages. In essence, the information generated through the Risk Assessment serves a critical function as communities seek to determine the most appropriate mitigation actions to pursue and implement—enabling communities to prioritize and focus 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 7, provides a comprehensive examination of New Hanover County and the participating municipalities’ 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 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 and sustainable community 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 8, consists of broad goal statements as well as specific mitigation actions for each local government jurisdiction participating in the planning process. The strategy provides the foundation for detailed Mitigation Action Plans, found in Section 9, that link specific mitigation actions for each jurisdiction to locally-assigned implementation mechanisms and target completion dates. Together, these sections are designed to make the Plan both strategic (through the identification of long-term goals) but also functional through the identification of short-term and immediate actions that will guide day-to-day decision-making and project implementation.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2:5
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 New Hanover County 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 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 10, includes the measures New Hanover County and its participating municipal 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 evaluated and updated to remain a current and meaningful planning document.
The Planning Team In order to guide the development of this plan update, New Hanover County reconvened its Mitigation Advisory Committee (MAC). Consistent with the initial plan development, the MAC represents a community-based planning team that contributed heavily to the development of this Plan. In cooperation with the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management (NCEM), New Hanover County engaged local government officials throughout the community in local meetings and planning workshops to discuss and complete tasks associated with preparing the Plan. This working group coordinated together on all aspects of the plan development process and became formally recognized as the New Hanover County Mitigation Advisory Committee. In addition to regular meetings, committee members routinely communicated and were kept informed through a dedicated e-mail distribution group.
Additional participation and input from county residents and other identified stakeholders was sought through the distribution of survey questionnaires and the facilitation of public meetings (public involvement is further discussed later in this section).
New Hanover County Mitigation Advisory Committee The participants listed in Table 2.1 represent the members of the New Hanover County Mitigation Advisory Committee who were responsible for participating in the development of the Plan. The planning process was led at the County level by the New Hanover County Emergency Management Director. The project consultant’s Project Manager is a certified professional planner and facilitated all meetings of the MAC. Committee members are listed in alphabetical order by agency / jurisdiction.
PLANNING PROCESS Table 2.1 Mitigation Advisory Committee Members
Name Agency/ Jurisdiction
Gary Koster American Red Cross, Cape Fear Chapter Autumn Mihm American Red Cross, Cape Fear Chapter Connie Nelson Cape Fear Coast Convention and Visitors Bureau Buddy Martinette City of Wilmington Fire Department George Perkins City of Wilmington Police Department John Fullerton City of Wilmington Zoning Department
2:6 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
PLANNING PROCESS
Name Agency/ Jurisdiction
Margo O’Mahoney Figure Eight Island Steve Pfaff National Weather Services Mark Bennett New Hanover Regional Medical Center Bill Hance New Hanover County Board of Education Kristen Wingenroth New Hanover County Emergency Management and 911 Communications Warren Lee New Hanover County Emergency Management and 911 Communications Wayne Pearce New Hanover County Emergency Management and 911 Communications Jim Iannucci New Hanover County Engineering John Hubbard New Hanover County Environmental Management Matt Davis New Hanover County Fire Services Kim Roane New Hanover County Health Department Janet McCumbee New Hanover County Health Department Eric Ireland New Hanover County Health Department Diane Harvell New Hanover County Health Department Denis Ihnat New Hanover County Human Resources Don Ross New Hanover County Information Technology Andre’ Mallette New Hanover County Manager’s Office Dennis Bordeaux New Hanover County Planning and Inspections Chris O’Keefe New Hanover County Planning and Inspections Jane Daughtridge New Hanover County Planning and Inspections Shawn Ralston New Hanover County Planning and Inspections Ann Hines New Hanover County Planning and Inspections Mark Boyer New Hanover County Public Information Office Jeremy Hardison Town of Carolina Beach David Heglar Town of Kure Beach Jim Dugan Town of Kure Beach Stan Harts University of North Carolina at Wilmington Jodie Ruskin University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Community Meetings and Workshops The preparation of the Plan required a series of meetings and workshops for facilitating discussion and initiating data collection efforts with local community officials. More importantly, the meetings and workshops prompted continuous input and feedback from local officials throughout the drafting stages of the Plan.
Below is a summary of the key meetings and community workshops for the multi-jurisdictional Mitigation Advisory Committee.2 In many cases, additional meetings were held by the individual participating jurisdictions to accomplish planning tasks specific to their community, such as the approval of locally- specific mitigation actions for inclusion in their Mitigation Action Plan.
2 Copies of the agendas, sign-in sheets and handout materials for all meetings and workshops are available through New Hanover County upon request.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2:7
First Mitigation Advisory Committee Meeting The first meeting of the Mitigation Advisory Committee was held on July 13, 2009 during which the mitigation plan update process was presented to all participating municipal jurisdictions and invited stakeholders. The intent of this meeting was to educate officials from all participating municipal jurisdictions on the mitigation plan update process being sponsored by New Hanover County, as well as to explain the DMA 2000 multi-jurisdictional planning requirements and the individual roles being required and assigned to each of the committee members. The meeting also served to initiate the preliminary data collection efforts for the risk and capability assessment tasks associated with the development of the Plan.
The meeting began with a detailed presentation on the mitigation plan update process led by the project team from PBS&J.3 During the presentation, the concept of hazard mitigation was reviewed, followed by a more detailed discussion of the local mitigation plan update process to be followed in New Hanover County. Ideas on how to improve and/or expedite the process were solicited from committee members, along with potential strategies for overcoming known barriers to accomplishing project tasks in a timely fashion. Specific data collection needs were thoroughly explained, including the need for any unique local hazard risk data available for specific areas of concern. PBS&J also reviewed the roles and responsibilities of New Hanover County and PBS&J. The proposed outline for the New Hanover County Multi- jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan was also shared with the committee for review and comment. In addition to the presentation, PBS&J led an icebreaker exercise to get the Mitigation Action Committee thinking about mitigation.
Ice Breaker Exercise Participants were given $20.00 in fake FEMA money to spend in the categories of Prevention, Property Protection, Natural Resource Protection, Structural Projects, Emergency Services, and Public Education/Awareness. The money could be divided in any way to show interest in a single or multiple mitigation categories. The results were shared, but were to be discussed further in the next meeting. The intent of the exercise is to show where the community’s mitigation priorities may lie. Such knowledge may help formulate new mitigation actions for the Mitigation Action Plan. The results from the ice-breaker exercise were as follows:
Prevention: $104 Emergency Services: $58 Property Protection: $36 Natural Resource Protection: $36 Public Education/Awareness: $34 Structural Projects: $29
PLANNING PROCESS Following the presentation on the mitigation planning process, the project team from PBS&J addressed any questions and concerns raised by the committee. These were primarily related to the hazards to be addressed in the planning process, the methodologies and data requirements for completing the risk and capability assessments, and the types of mitigation actions each jurisdiction should consider adding to their Mitigation Action Plans.
3 Copies of all Microsoft® PowerPoint® presentation slides are available through New Hanover County upon request.
2:8 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
PLANNING PROCESS
Second Mitigation Advisory Committee Meeting— “Mitigation Strategy Workshop”
The second Mitigation Advisory Committee meeting
was held on November 17, 2009 in the form of a “Mitigation Strategy Workshop.” The workshop began with a detailed presentation by PBS&J on the findings of the Risk Assessment and Capability Assessment. By
providing county and municipal officials with a more thorough understanding of the hazard risks in their communities, along with the varied levels of local Members of the New Hanover County Mitigation Advisory Committee learn more about their capabilities available to address them, the stage became community’s hazard risks at the Mitigation set for the next step in the update process: the review of Strategy Workshop. (PBS&J Project Photo) the current mitigation planning goals and specific mitigation actions designed to reduce future impacts of the identified hazards.
To summarize, the following general findings were presented and discussed during the workshop.4
Risk Assessment Findings: • There is approximately $16 billion in total building exposure across the county, based on the estimated building value and contents value for 84,566 residential, commercial and industrial structures. • The top five natural hazards based upon the qualitative assessment are: (1) Flood; (2) Hurricanes and Tropical Storms; (3) Wildfire; (4) Severe Thunderstorm; and (5) Storm Surge. • The top five natural hazards based upon the quantitative assessment (ranked by estimated annualized loss) are: (1) Hurricanes and Tropical Storms; (2) Flood; (3) Earthquakes, (4) Tornadoes and (5) Severe Thunderstorm. • Based upon a combination of the qualitative and quantitative assessments, the two “high” risk hazards for New Hanover County are the hurricanes and tropical storms hazard and the flood hazard.
Capability Assessment Discussion • New Hanover County and the three participating municipalities actively participate in the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). • New Hanover County participates in the NFIP’s Community Rating System (CRS), as a Class 8 community (10% premium reduction for NFIP policy holders). Carolina Beach also participates in the CRS as a Class 7 community (15% premium reduction for NFIP policy holders). • All participating jurisdictions have adopted and implement/enforce a comprehensive plan, building codes and zoning ordinances. • All participating jurisdictions have prepared Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) plans as required by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management.
4 For more detailed information on the findings presented at the Mitigation Strategy Workshop, please refer to the PowerPoint slides available through New Hanover County upon request.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2:9
• Both New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington have prepared a Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP). • New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington have significant administrative and technical capability, with adequate staff and personnel resources to implement local government programs. The Town of Kure Beach does not have the same level of administrative and technical capability, but does maintain a high degree of capability considering the smaller size of the town. • The City of Wilmington generally has a higher fiscal capability to implement hazard mitigation projects than New Hanover County and the Town of Carolina and Kure Beach. • Using the scoring methodology applied to the Capability Assessment Surveys, New Hanover County, City of Wilmington, and Carolina Beach have a “High” degree of overall capability. The Town of Kure Beach has a “Moderate” degree of overall capability.
Following the presentation of the Risk Assessment findings, an interactive session was held to address questions and discuss potential concerns.
Most of the questions raised at this point of the meeting were related to the data sources for information used to generate the loss estimation results. In response to these questions, PBS&J further explained the methodologies used to conduct both the qualitative and quantitative risk assessments. For example, some concern was expressed with the loss estimates generated for hurricanes and tropical storms (not high enough based on the relatively high coastal property values), and it was explained that the estimates were based on best available data as provided in FEMA’s state-of-the-art loss estimation methodology, HAZUS®MH (further described in Section 6: Vulnerability Assessment). Committee discussions at this point also circled around the need for New Hanover County to begin looking at additional work to analyze potential hazard threats, such as more detailed information on how future development would affect their community’s vulnerability to flooding levels or how current development patterns are affecting exposure in wildfire hazard areas. It was also suggested that more analysis should be performed on evaluating the tsunami hazard, a highly unlikely threat, but one that has gained significant attention in the scientific community for communities along the East Coast of the United States. In addition, the MAC added Rip Current and Sea Level Rise as hazards in the Risk Assessment.
It was very beneficial to have committee members with local knowledge of historic hazard occurrences share their input during this meeting, as well as committee members with scientific knowledge of natural hazards elaborate on the information covered in the presentation. For example, Steve Pfaff with the National Weather Service provided valuable information regarding several hazards including rip current drownings, hail, and hurricanes. Matt Davis, with the New Hanover County Fire Service also provided additional information regarding wildfires.
PLANNING PROCESS Review of Existing Mitigation Plan Goals, Objectives and Actions
The existing goals from the 2004 New Hanover County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan were presented to the committee during the Mitigation Strategy Meeting. The committee agreed that these goals were chosen for good reason and still captured what our plan means to accomplish. The goals are listed in Section 8 of this plan.
Each municipality was asked to send updates on their current mitigation actions, created in 2004, and to develop any new actions that should be included in the plan. The group spent some time brainstorming ideas and discussing possible new actions.
2:10 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
PLANNING PROCESS
Before the meeting concluded, PBS&J distributed and explained the “Mitigation Action Worksheets”, (forms for proposing new individual mitigation actions and providing a status update for existing mitigation actions (completed, deleted, deferred)5. Workshop participants were instructed to take these materials back to their individual jurisdictions to begin updating existing actions and proposing and prioritizing6 new mitigation actions for final submission to New Hanover County no later than December 18, 2009.
Involving the Public 44 CFR Requirement A fundamental component of New Hanover County’s community- 44 CFR Part 201.6(b)(1): The planning process shall include based mitigation planning process involves public participation. an opportunity for the public to Individual citizen involvement provides the Mitigation Advisory comment on the plan during the Committee with a greater understanding of local concerns and ensures drafting stage and prior to plan approval. a higher degree of mitigation success by developing community “buy- in” from those directly affected by the planning decisions of public officials. 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 potential effects of natural hazards.
For the 2010 plan update, public input was sought using three methods: (1) open public meetings; (2) survey instruments; and (3) posting of the draft Hazard Mitigation Plan on Internet Web sites and at government offices and public libraries. County-level public meetings were held at two stages of the planning process; following the second planning meeting and following the completion of the draft Plan. County-level public meetings were held to present the findings of the risk and capability assessments and to garner input regarding unique hazard concerns and possible mitigation actions that could be included in the Hazard Mitigation Plan, including ideas for both policies and projects.
The first public meeting was held the evening of February 18, 2010 at the Carolina Beach Town Hall. The meeting was advertised through the posting of a public meeting notice at county and municipal offices, along with a newspaper advertisement posted in the Wilmington Star-News and the Island Gazette (Kure Beach) the week of February 10. (Figure 2.2). While the Island Gazette’s readership is limited to the Kure Beach area, the Wilmington Star-News has widespread local and regional circulation which ensured local officials, residents, businesses, academia and other private interests in New Hanover County and its neighboring communities became notified on how to be involved in the local mitigation planning process. The meeting
was also advertised on the New Hanover County, City of Wilmington, Town of Carolina Beach and Town of Kure Beach websites.
5 Copies of all planning tools and reference guides distributed at the meeting are available through New Hanover County upon request. 6 It was agreed by the Mitigation Advisory 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.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2:11
Figure 2.2 Public Meeting Notice As Published in the Island Gazette February 10, 2010
New Hanover County was also successful in getting citizens to provide input to the mitigation planning PLANNING PROCESS process through the use of the Public Participation Survey. The Public Participation Survey was designed to capture data and information from residents of New Hanover County that might not be able to attend public meetings or participate through other means in the mitigation planning process. The survey was made available online through a link on the County’s website and hard copies of the survey were distributed by local county and municipal officials and made available for citizens to complete at local county and municipal offices, and an electronic version of the survey was posted on the official local government Web sites for New Hanover County (see Figure 2.3) and the Town of Carolina Beach, Town of Kure Beach and the City of Wilmington. The online survey was available from January 11, 2010-February 26, 2010. A total of 1,033 responses to the Public Participation Survey were submitted to New Hanover County, which provided valuable input for the Mitigation Advisory Committee to further consider in the development of
2:12 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
PLANNING PROCESS
their Mitigation Action Plans. A summary of the survey findings are provide below complete survey results are available through New Hanover County upon request.
Summary of Public Participation Survey Results
A majority of the survey respondents, 67 percent, are somewhat concerned that a disaster will impact their community. This is compared to 32 percent of the respondents who are extremely concerned about the impact of a disaster, and 5 percent who are not concerned at all. Over 85 percent of the respondents consider hurricanes and tropical storms the greatest threat to New Hanover County. Despite overwhelming concern of a hazard impact, only 40 percent of respondents have taken action to make their home or neighborhood more resistant to hazards. Finally, when asked what community-wide activities to reduce hazards were most important to them, the results were fairly even with Structural Projects (dams, levees, and seawalls) and Property Protection (acquisition, relocation, and elevation) being tied for the highest average rating. Several other questions and responses about property located in the floodplain, flood insurance, methods to reduce or eliminate hazard risk can be obtained from New Hanover County.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2:13
Figure 2.3 New Hanover County Public Participation Web Site
The second public meeting was held prior to the County’s adoption of the Plan on (date to be added) during a regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. Citizens were notified about the meeting through regular public notices which were posted in county and municipal buildings as well as the County’s website. Prior to the public hearing, a detailed presentation was conducted by PBS&J to introduce the Plan to the Commissioners and all meeting attendees. The presentation emphasized a description of the process used to prepare the Plan as well as its key findings and recommendations (e.g., proposed mitigation actions). The open public hearing provided citizens of New Hanover County with the opportunity to ask questions and suggest possible revisions to the Plan prior to being submitted to FEMA for final approval. Similar opportunities for public comment were also provided through the local
PLANNING PROCESS adoption procedures of the City of Wilmington, Town of Carolina Beach and the Town of Kure Beach. Prior to each of these local public meetings the Plan was made available for citizen review through the New Hanover County Emergency Management as well as the City of Wilmington, the Town of Carolina Beach and Town of Kure Beach. This section will be updated once the second public meetings have been held.
2:14 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
PLANNING PROCESS Involving Stakeholders A range of stakeholders were invited and encouraged to participate in 44 CFR Requirement the development of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Stakeholder 44 CFR Part 201.6(b)(2): The planning process shall include involvement was encouraged through New Hanover County’s an opportunity for neighboring notifications and invitations to select agencies or individuals to communities, local and regional participate in Mitigation Advisory Committee meetings. These agencies involved in hazard notifications and invitations were sent via e-mail on June 29, 2009, mitigation activities, and agencies that have authority to July27, 2009 and to the following individuals: regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and • Victoria Kling, American Red Cross, Cape Fear Chapter other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the • Vicki Chapman, American Red Cross, Cape Fear Chapter planning process. • Gary Koster, American Red Cross, Cape Fear Chapter • Autumn Mihm, American Red Cross, Cape Fear Chapter • Glen McIntosh, Army Corps of Engineers • Connie Nelson, Cape Fear Coast Convention and Visitor’s Bureau • Kim Hufham, Cape Fear Coast Convention and Visitor’s Bureau • Becky Porter, Cape Fear Community College • Eric Mckeithan, Cape Fear Community College • Carl Brown, Cape Fear Community College • Jane Jones, Cape Fear Council of Governments • Chris May, Cape Fear Council of Governments • Haskell Rhett, Cape Fear Public Utility Authority • Buddy Martinette, City of Wilmington Fire Department • Sterling Cheatham, City of Wilmington Manager’s Office • Ralph Evangelous, City of Wilmington Police Department • George Perkins, City of Wilmington Police Department • Randy Pait, City of Wilmington Police Department • Richard King, City of Wilmington Public Services • John Fullerton, City of Wilmington Zoning Department • Allen Turner, Corning • David Kellam, Figure Eight Island • Margo O’Mahoney, Figure Eight Island • Earl Anderson, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy • Mike Caropolo, National Weather Service • Steve Pfaff, National Weather Service • Anthony Law, North Carolina Department of Transportation • Joe Chance, North Carolina Department of Transportation • Leonard Holden, North Carolina Emergency Management • Meagan Honnold, North Carolina Emergency Management • Paula Brown, North Carolina Emergency Management • Mark Bennett, New Hanover Regional Medical Center • Patricia Fields, New Hanover Regional Medical Center EMS • Spencer Rogers, North Carolina Sea Grant • Bill Hance, New Hanover County Board of Education • Harris McIntyre, New Hanover County Board of Education • Al Hight, New Hanover County Cooperative Extension • Patty Cain, New Hanover County Cooperative Extension
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2:15
• Kristen Wingenroth, New Hanover County Emergency Management and 911 Communications • Warren Lee, New Hanover County Emergency Management and 911 Communications • Wayne Pearce, New Hanover County Emergency Management and 911 Communications • Jim Iannucci, New Hanover County Engineering • John Hubbard, New Hanover County Environmental Management • Avril Pinder, New Hanover County Finance Department • Donnie Hall, New Hanover County Fire Department • Matt Davis, New Hanover County Fire Department • Kim Roane, New Hanover County Health Department • David Rice, New Hanover County Health Department • Janet McCumbee, New Hanover County Health Department • Eric Ireland, New Hanover County Health Department • Dianne Harvell, New Hanover County Health Department • Dennis Ihnat, New Hanover County Human Resources • Leslie Stanfield, New Hanover County Information Technology • Don Ross, New Hanover County Information Technology • Mike Arkinson, New Hanover County Information Technology • Andre’ Mallette, New Hanover County Manager’s Office • Chris Coudriet, New Hanover County Manager’s Office • Bruce Shell, New Hanover County Manager’s Office • Steve Still, New Hanover County Planning and Inspections • Dennis Bordeaux, New Hanover County Planning and Inspections • Chris O’Keefe, New Hanover County Planning and Inspections • Jane Daughtridge, New Hanover County Planning and Inspections • Shawn Ralston, New Hanover County Planning and Inspections • Ann Hines, New Hanover County Planning and Inspections • Jerome Fennell, New Hanover County Property Management • Mark Boyer, New Hanover County Public Information Office • Bob Keenan, New Hanover County Radiological Officer • Bunnie Brush, New Hanover County Senior Resource Center • Ben Brow, New Hanover County Senior Resource Center • Ed McMahon, New Hanover County Sherriff’s Office • Donnie Long, North Carolina Port Police • Nathan Slaughter, PBS&J • Caroline Cunningham, PBS&J • Michelle Parkin, PPD • John Elliot, Progress Energy
PLANNING PROCESS • Butch Mallard, Salvation Army • Amy Clark, Salvation Army • James Chen, Sunny Point Military Terminal • John Rorie, Town of Carolina Beach Fire Department • Tim Owens, Town of Carolina Beach Manager’s Office • Gary Ferguson, Town of Carolina Beach Planning and Development Department • Jeremy Hardison, Town of Carolina Beach Planning and Development Department • William Younginer, Town of Carolina Beach Police Department • John Batson, Town of Kure Beach Building Inspections Department • Kaysie Pralle, Town of Kure Beach Clerk • David Heglar, Town of Kure Beach Emergency Management • Harold Heglar, Town of Kure Beach Fire Department
2:16 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
PLANNING PROCESS
• Mac Montgomery, Town of Kure Beach Mayor • Jim Dugan, Town of Kure Beach Mayor Pro Tem • Dennis Cooper, Town of Kure Beach Police Department • Sonny Beaker, Town of Kure Beach Public Works Department • Ron Stirrat, United States Army Corps of Engineers • John Nadeau, United Sate Coast Guard Wilmington Marine Safety Unit • Stan Harts, University of North Carolina at Wilmington • Kevin Madsen, University of North Carolina at Wilmington • Jodie Ruskin, University of North Carolina at Wilmington • Stephen Meinhold, University of North Carolina at Wilmington • Albert Eby, WAVE Transit
In addition to the Mitigation Advisory Committee meetings, New Hanover County encouraged more open and widespread stakeholder participation in the mitigation planning process through the design and publication of persuasive newspaper and radio advertisements that promoted the open public meetings, and the posting of the Public Participation Survey on the Web sites for New Hanover County, the Town of Carolina Beach and the City of Wilmington. These media advertisements and survey instruments provided local officials, residents, businesses, academia and other private interests in New Hanover County, and its neighboring communities, the opportunity to be involved and offer input throughout the local mitigation planning process.
Multi-Jurisdictional Participation The New Hanover County Hazard Mitigation Plan is multi- 44 CFR Requirement jurisdictional and includes the participation of New Hanover County 44 CFR Part 201.6(a)(3): Multi- and three of its incorporated municipalities—the City of Wilmington, jurisdictional plans may be accepted as long as each the Town of Kure Beach and the Town of Carolina Beach. To satisfy jurisdiction has participated in multi-jurisdictional participation requirements, each of the local the planning process. jurisdictions was required to perform the following tasks:
1. Designate an appropriate official(s) to serve on the Mitigation Advisory Committee; 2. Participate in all mitigation planning meetings and workshops; 3. Provide best available data as required for the risk assessment portion of the Plan; 4. Complete the local Capability Assessment Survey and provide copies of any mitigation or hazard- related documents for review and incorporation into the Plan;
5. Support the development of a countywide Mitigation Strategy, including the design and adoption of general goal statements for all jurisdictions to pursue; 6. Develop a local Mitigation Action Plan with specific mitigation actions for their jurisdiction; 7. Review and provide timely comments on all draft components of the Plan; 8. Adopt the New Hanover County Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, including their specific local Mitigation Action Plan.
Through the completion of these tasks, each participating municipality fully participated with New Hanover County 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 through actions of their own choosing. This separate component of the planning document provides the
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2:17
opportunity for jurisdictions to monitor and update their own specific Plan implementation responsibilities without necessarily having to meet with the countywide Mitigation Advisory Committee. It also enables each of the jurisdictions to be solely responsible and accountable for those actions that apply to their jurisdiction.
Progress Report New Hanover County and the participating jurisdictions have been active at implementing and updating the Hazard Mitigation Plan over the last 5 years. Examples of how this has occurred are as follows: • The County, as a participant in the CRS program, submits annual reports on the implementation of mitigation actions. • As part of the 5-year update, each action for each jurisdiction, found in Section 9, was updated with an implementation status update. Actions were identified as completed, deleted, deferred or otherwise updated with more detailed information. These updated indicate how the mitigation plan has been implemented over the past 5 years. PLANNING PROCESS
2:18 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
SECTION 3
COMMUNITY PROFILE This section of the Plan provides a general overview of New Hanover County and its incorporated municipal jurisdictions. This information has been updated to reflect the community profile for the 2010 plan. It consists of the following five subsections:
• Geography and the Environment • Population and Demographics • Housing, Infrastructure and Land Use • Employment and Industry • Disaster Declarations
Geography and the Environment New Hanover County, North Carolina was formed in 1729 from Craven County and was named in honor of the royal family of England—members of the House of Hanover. New Hanover County is located in the southeastern coastal area of North Carolina and is bordered by Pender County to the north, the Cape Fear River and Brunswick County to the west, and the Atlantic Ocean to the south and east. The City of Wilmington is the county seat of New Hanover County and is the county’s most populous city with 91,458 residents in 2002. Figure 3.1 shows a map of New Hanover County with the location of its municipal jurisdictions.
Figure 3.1 Map of New Hanover County
New Hanover County has a total area of 220 square miles, of which approximately 2.1 square miles is comprised of water and wetlands areas. The area’s topography is relatively level with an average elevation of less than 40 feet above sea level, with the highest peak at 75 feet.
New Hanover County has a mild climate, with an average annual maximum temperature of 73.8 degrees Fahrenheit, and a mean daily high temperature range from 56 degrees in January to 90 degrees in July. The county’s normal annual precipitation is approximately 54 inches per year, as well as approximately two inches of snowfall.
New Hanover County lies within three (3) distinct watersheds: the New, Lower Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear. Geologically, New Hanover County lies within the Coastal Plain, comprised mostly of tertiary rock. Nearly 42 percent of the county’s acreage is wooded, of which nearly 85 percent is privately owned.
Population and Demographics The total population of New Hanover County in 2000 was 160,307 persons. The North Carolina Economic Development Intelligence System (EDIS) estimates New Hanover County’s 2008 population to be 193,458, which represents a 20% increase from 2000 to 2008 with an annual growth rate of 2.3%. New Hanover County is the ninth most populous county in the state and is ranked 16th in growth rates of all North Carolina counties.
There are four incorporated municipalities in New Hanover County. The City of Wilmington is the largest with a 2008 total land area of approximately 49 square miles and an estimated population of 101,526 persons (52 percent of the total county population). Table 3.1 shows the population for each of the incorporated municipalities in New Hanover County and the unincorporated area according to the 2000 U.S. Census and the 2008 estimates from the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management (NCOSBM). Table 3.1 Municipal Populations for New Hanover County, 2000 and 2008 Estimates Jurisdiction April 2000 July 2008 Increase % Growth New Hanover 160,327 193,458 33,131 20.70 Carolina Beach 4,778 5,952 1,174 24.57 Kure Beach 1,542 2,200 658 42.67 Wilmington 75,838 101,526 25,688 33.90 Wrightsville Beach* 2,593 2,698 105 4.05 *Not participating in this Plan COMMUNITY PROFILE Source: U.S. Census and NCOSBM
According to the 2000 census, the median age for persons in New Hanover County is 36.3 years, slightly older than the statewide average of 35.3 years. The 2008 EDIS estimates that the median age is 39. Nearly 14 percent of the county population is comprised of persons that are 65 years old and over.
Caucasians constitute 78.4 percent of the New Hanover County population followed by Black or African Americans making up 17.4 percent. Figure 3.3 displays the most recent estimates for demographic data on race distribution for New Hanover County.
3:2 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
COMMUNITY PROFILE
Figure 3.3 Race Percentages in New Hanover County, 2008 Race People Percent White 151,689 78.4% Black 33,739 17.4% American Indian/Alaska Native 830 0.4% Asian 2,220 1.1% Pacific Islander 152 0.1% Other Race 2,256 1.2% Two or More Races 2,572 1.3% Total Hispanic Population (ethnicity) 5,343 2.8% Source: NC EDIS
Housing, Infrastructure and Land Use In 2008, there were 99,730 housing units in New Hanover County, a 22 percent increase from 2000. Of these, 85,520 are inhabited, 55,588 units are owner occupied (65%) and 29,932 are renter occupied (35%).The average household size for the county is 2.0 persons. Median home values in New Hanover County in 2008 were $230,589 for owner-occupied units, a 70 percent increase from 2000. Despite the recent increase in foreclosure activity across the nation, the median single family home sales price in New Hanover County for 2008 held fairly steady at $204,148.
Transportation networks are vital to New Hanover County, not only for local transportation but for encouraging tourism as well as serving industries requiring transportation infrastructure for the shipment of goods. New Hanover County is the eastern terminus of Interstate 40, which connects the transcontinental route with Barstow, California. Interstate 40 offers a connection to Interstate 95, within a one-hour drive. Interstate 73/74 (currently under construction), located within a 30-minute drive via Interstate 40, will connect the region with Detroit and the Midwest. Highway 17 is a major north-to-south thoroughfare, which also leads travelers down the North Carolina Coast. The Port of Wilmington is located along the Cape Fear River, approximately 26 miles from open sea, and provides easy vehicular and railway access. Wilmington International Airport, located approximately three miles north of Wilmington, is the regional airport serving the people of southeastern North Carolina. Airlines serving the Airport are: USAir with six daily jet flights through their Charlotte hub and Delta Air Lines with three ASA commuter flights a day to the Atlanta hub. In addition, WAVE Transit serves the County with ten bus routes, van services for handicapped persons, a shuttle that is primarily dedicated to University of North Carolina at Wilmington students and faculty, and downtown trolley services.
The density of New Hanover County is approximately 973.08 persons per square mile, well above the 2008 statewide average of 189.33 persons per square mile. Development and economic growth in the area increased in the 1990s, prompted by the completion of Interstate 40. Between 200 and 2008, New Hanover County’s population increased nearly 21 percent and is projected to continue growing, increasing by about 36.5% by the year 2030.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 3:3
Table 3.2 lists the projected population counts for New Hanover County at five-year intervals between 2000 and 2030. Table 3.2 Projected Population Growth for New Hanover County, 2000–2030 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
160,307 178,754 196,508 214,393 231,402 248,320 264,231
Source: North Carolina State Data Center
Employment and Industry In 2008, the median household income for New Hanover County was $52,601 (the state median household income was $51,411) and median per capita income was $30,387 (the state median per capita income was $26,823).. The state unemployment rate for 2008 was 6.3 percent, and for New Hanover County the rate was 5.3 percent. 13.9 percent of people in New Hanover County are reportedly below the federal poverty level (which is just below the State’s average of 14.6 percent).
New Hanover County sustains a diversified economy, with 80.5% of employment being concentrated in the private sector. ). This is followed by strong workforce in retail trade, accommodation and food services, and educational services respectively. Table 3.3 provides an overview of employment in New Hanover County by economic sector.
Table 3.3 Employment by Sector for New Hanover County, First Quarter 2003
Employment Sector Workforce Percentage
Health Care and Social Assistance 15,385 16% Accommodation and Food Services 13,444 14% Retail Trade 13,307 13% Educational Services 7,892 8% Professional and Technical Services 6,904 7% Construction 6,629 7% Manufacturing 6,234 6% Administrative and Waste Services 5,078 5% Public Administration 5,010 5% COMMUNITY PROFILE Wholesale Trade 2,999 3% Transportation/Warehousing 2,930 3% Finance/Insurance 2,924 3% Other Services (except Public Administration) 2,776 3% Information 2,696 3% Arts/Entertainment/Recreation 1,739 2% Real Estate/Rental and Leasing 1,706 2% Management of Companies and Enterprises 497 <1%
3:4 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
COMMUNITY PROFILE
Employment Sector Workforce Percentage
Utilities 263 <1% Unclassified 321 <1% Agriculture/Forestry/Fishing/Hunting 103 <1%
Total—Federal Government 968 1% Total—State Government 4,575 5% Total—Local Government 11,952 12% Total—Private Industry 81,389 82% Total—All Industries 98,884 100% Source: North Carolina Department of Commerce (EDIS).
Table 3.4 New Hanover County Top Private Sector Employers Approximate Company or Institution Product or Service Number of Employees New Hanover Regional Medical Hospitals 4,480 1 Center/Cape Fear Hospital 2 New Hanover County Schools Education 3,950 General Electric Wilmington (GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy 2,000 3 and GE Aviation) 4 University of North Carolina Wilmington Education 1,888 5 PPD Contract Research Organization 1,500 6 New Hanover County Government Government 1720 7 Verizon Wireless Call Center Wireless Communications Technology 1,300 8 Cape Fear Community College Education 1,053 9 City of Wilmington Government Government 1,000 10 Wal-Mart Retail 971 Source: The Employment Security Commission of North Carolina (ESC) 2009 2nd quarter
Numbers reflect only employees working in New Hanover County and not employees who work in neighboring counties but for the same company. This data collected via phone surveys January 2010 and includes both full-time and part-time employees.
Disaster Declarations Since 19651, New Hanover County has experienced a total of eight (8) presidential disaster declarations, shown in Table 3.5. Two new disasters, Hurricane Ophelia and Tropical Storm Hanna occurred since the completion of the 2004 plan. The county has also experienced additional emergencies and disasters that were not severe enough to require federal disaster relief through a presidential declaration.
1 Prior to January 1, 1965, presidential disaster declarations did not have county designations.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 3:5
Table 3.5 Presidential Disaster Declarations for New Hanover County, 1965–2003 Event Declaration Date Declaration Number Hurricane Diana 09/21/1984 DR-724 Hurricane Bertha 07/18/1996 DR-1127 Hurricane Fran 09/10/1996 DR-1134 Hurricane Bonnie 08/27/1998 DR-1240 Hurricane Floyd 09/21/1999 DR-1292 Hurricane Isabel 09/18/2003 DR-1490 Hurricane Ophelia 10/7/2005 DR- 1608 Tropical Storm Hanna 10/8/2008 DR-1801 Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency COMMUNITY PROFILE
3:6 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
SECTION 4 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
The United States and its communities are vulnerable to a wide array of natural hazards that threaten life and property. Upon a review of the natural hazards suggested under FEMA planning guidance, New Hanover County has identified sixteen (16) hazards that are addressed in this Plan. For the 2010 Update, two new hazards were added (Sea Level Rise and Rip Current), and several hazards were separated out from hazards. This includes Hail and Tornado hazards being separated from Severe Thunderstorm and Earthquake being separated out from Sinkhole and Landslide hazard. Further, the hazards were categorized into Atmospheric, Geologic, Hydrologic, and Other.
The hazards addressed in this plan include:
• Atmospheric 44 CFR Requirement • Drought and Extreme Heat 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(2)(i): • Hail The risk assessment shall • Hurricane and Tropical Storm System (including include a description of the type, location and extent of all Nor’easter) natural hazards that can affect • Lightning the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous • Severe Thunderstorm occurrences of hazard events • Tornado and on the probability of future • Winter Storm and Freeze hazard events.
• Geologic • Earthquake • Landslide and Sinkhole • Tsunami • Volcano
• Hydrologic • Dam and Levee Failure • Erosion • Flood • Rip Current • Storm Surge
• Other • Wildfire • Sea Level Rise
Some of these hazards are interrelated (i.e., hurricanes can cause flooding and tornadoes), and some consist of hazardous elements that are not listed separately (i.e., severe thunderstorms can cause lightning; hurricanes can cause coastal erosion). It should be noted that some hazards, such as severe winter storms, may impact a large area yet cause little damage, while other hazards, such as a tornado, may impact a small area yet cause extensive damage. Table 4.1 provides a brief description of the aforementioned hazards.
Table 4.1: Descriptions of Identified Hazards
Hazard Description ATMOSPHERIC Drought and Extreme A drought occurs when a prolonged period of less than normal precipitation results in Heat a serious hydrologic imbalance. Common effects of drought include crop failure, water supply shortages, and fish and wildlife mortality. High temperatures, high winds, and low humidity can worsen drought conditions and also make areas more susceptible to wildfire. Human demands and actions have the ability to hasten or mitigate drought- related impacts on local communities.
A heat wave may occur when temperatures hover 10 degrees or more above the average high temperature for the region and last for several weeks. Humid or muggy conditions, which add to the discomfort of high temperatures, occur when a “dome” of high atmospheric pressure traps hazy, damp air near the ground. Excessively dry and hot conditions can provoke dust storms and low visibility. A heat wave combined with a drought can be very dangerous and have severe economic consequences on a community. Hail Hail is formed when updrafts in thunderstorms carry raindrops in to parts of the atmosphere where the temperatures are below freezing. This results in ice pellets that are least 0.75 inch in diameter but may reach the size of softballs. Hurricane and Hurricanes and tropical storms are classified as cyclones and defined as any closed Tropical Storm circulation developing around a low-pressure center in which the winds rotate counter- Systems (including clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere (or clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere) and Nor’easters) with a diameter averaging 10 to 30 miles across. When maximum sustained winds reach or exceed 39 miles per hour, the system is designated a tropical storm, given a name, and is closely monitored by the National Hurricane Center. When sustained winds reach or exceed 74 miles per hour the storm is deemed a hurricane. The primary damaging forces associated with these storms are high-level sustained winds, heavy precipitation and tornadoes. Coastal areas are also vulnerable to the additional forces of storm surge, wind-driven waves and tidal flooding which can be more destructive than cyclone wind. The majority of hurricanes and tropical storms form in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico during the official Atlantic hurricane season, which extends from June through November.
Nor’easters are a particularly devastating type of coastal storm, named for the winds that blow in from the northeast and drive the storm up the U.S. East Coast alongside 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. Coastal storm events are known for dumping heavy amounts of rain and snow, producing hurricane-force winds, and creating high surf that causes severe beach HAZARD IDENTIFICATION erosion and coastal flooding. Lightning 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
4:2 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
between the clouds and the ground. A bolt of lightning can reach temperatures HAZARD IDENTIFICATION 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, 73 people are killed each year by lightning strikes in the United States. Severe Thunderstorm 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. Tornado A tornado is a violently rotating column of air that has contact with the ground and is often visible as a funnel cloud. Its vortex rotates cyclonically with wind speeds ranging from as low as 40 mph to as high as 300 mph. Tornadoes are most often generated by thunderstorm activity when cool, dry air intersects and overrides a layer of warm, moist air forcing the warm air to rise rapidly. The destruction caused by tornadoes ranges from light to catastrophic depending on the intensity, size and duration of the storm. Winter Storm and Severe winter storms may include snow, sleet, freezing rain, or a mix of these wintry Freeze forms of precipitation. Blizzards, the most dangerous of all winter storms, combine low temperatures, heavy snowfall, and winds of at least 35 miles per hour, reducing visibility to only a few yards. Ice storms occur when moisture falls and freezes immediately upon impact on trees, powerlines, communication towers, structures, roads and other hard surfaces. Winter storms and ice storms can down trees, cause widespread power outages, damage property, and cause fatalities and injuries to human life. GEOLOGIC Earthquake, Landslide, A sudden, rapid shaking of the Earth caused by the breaking and shifting of rock and Sinkhole beneath the surface characterizes an earthquake. This movement forces the gradual building and accumulation of energy. Eventually, strain becomes so great that the energy is abruptly released, causing the shaking at the earth’s surface which we know as an earthquake. Roughly 90 percent of all earthquakes occur at the boundaries where plates meet, although it is possible for earthquakes to occur entirely within plates. 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.
Landslide is defined as the movement of a mass of rock, debris or earth down a slope when the force of gravity pulling down the slope exceeds the strength of the earth materials that comprise to hold it in place. Slopes greater than 10 degrees are more likely to slide, as are slopes where the height from the top of the slope to its toe is greater than 40 feet. Slopes are also more likely to fail if vegetative cover is low and/or soil water content is high.
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 erosional 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. Tsunami A tsunami is a series of waves generated by an undersea disturbance such as an earthquake or moving plate tectonics. The speed of a tsunami traveling away from its source can range from up to 500 miles per hour in deep water to approximately 20 to 30 miles per hour in shallower areas near coastlines. Tsunamis differ from regular ocean waves in that their currents travel from the water surface all the way down to the sea floor. Wave amplitudes in deep water are typically less than one meter; they are
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 4:3
often barely detectable to the human eye. However, as they approach shore, they slow in shallower water, basically causing the waves from behind to effectively “pile up”, and wave heights to increase dramatically. As opposed to typical waves which crash at the shoreline, tsunamis bring with them a continuously flowing ‘wall of water’ with the potential to cause devastating damage in coastal areas located immediately along the shore. Volcano A volcano is a mountain that opens downward to a reservoir of molten rock below the surface of the earth. While most mountains are created by forces pushing up the earth from below, volcanoes are different in that they are built up over time by an accumulation of their own eruptive products: lava, ash flows, and airborne ash and dust. Volcanoes erupt when pressure from gases and the molten rock beneath becomes strong enough to cause an explosion. HYDROLOGIC Dam and Levee Failure Dam or levee failure is the collapse, breach, or other failure of a dam structure resulting in downstream flooding. 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 severe property damage if development exists downstream of the dam. Dam failure can result from natural events, human-induced events, or a combination of the two. The most common cause of dam failure is prolonged rainfall that produces flooding. Failures due to other natural events such as hurricanes, earthquakes or landslides are significant because there is generally little or no advance warning. Erosion 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. Coastal erosion is a landward displacement of a shoreline caused by the forces of waves and currents and is measured as the rate of change in the position or horizontal displacement of a shoreline over a period of time. It is generally associated with episodic events such as hurricanes and tropical storms, nor’easters, storm surge and coastal flooding but may also be caused by human activities that alter sediment transport. Flood The accumulation of water within a water body which results in the overflow of excess water onto adjacent lands, usually floodplains. The floodplain is the land adjoining the channel of a river, stream ocean, lake or other watercourse or water body that is susceptible to flooding. Most floods fall into the following three categories: riverine flooding, coastal flooding, or shallow flooding (where shallow flooding refers to sheet flow, ponding and urban drainage). Rip Current Rip currents are typically narrow currents that develop in the surf zone that flow away from the beach. They are a result of the local bathymetry, beach material type, breaking wave height in the surf zone, and can be enhanced by the tidal cycle, especially a few hours either side of low tide. There are different types of rip currents: travelling, fixed, permanent, and flash and New Hanover County can experience all of these. Storm Surge 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 more than 30 feet in a Category 5 storm. Storm surge heights and associated waves are also dependent upon the shape of the offshore 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. Storm surge arrives ahead of a storm’s actual landfall and the more intense the hurricane is, the sooner the surge arrives. Storm surge can be devastating to coastal regions, causing severe beach
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION erosion and property damage along the immediate coast. Further, water rise caused by storm surge can be very rapid, posing a serious threat to those who have not yet evacuated flood-prone areas. OTHER
4:4 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Sea Level Rise According to NOAA, sea level rise is defined as a mean rise is sea level. As the ocean HAZARD IDENTIFICATION warms, sea water expands and continental ice sheets melt, thus inundating areas with sea water that were previously above sea level. Wildfire An uncontrolled fire burning in an area of vegetative fuels such as grasslands, brush, or woodlands defines wildfire. Heavier fuels with high continuity, steep slopes, high temperatures, low humidity, low rainfall, and high winds all work to increase risk for people and property located within wildfire hazard areas or along the urban-wildland interface. Wildfires are part of the natural management of forest ecosystems, but most are caused by 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.
Data Sources
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), “Facts About Windstorms.” Web site: www.windhazards.org/facts.cfm
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior Web site: www.usbr.gov
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Department of Homeland Security Web site: www.fema.gov
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Web site: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
National Drought Mitigation Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Web site: www.drought.unl.edu/index.htm
National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Web site: www.nssl.noaa.gov
National Weather Service (NWS), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Web site: www.nws.noaa.gov
Storm Prediction Center (SPC), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service Web site: www.spc.noaa.gov
The Tornado Project, St. Johnsbury, Vermont Web site: www.tornadoproject.com
United States Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Department of the Interior Web site: www.usgs.gov
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 4:5
SECTION 5
This section of the Plan describes the hazards identified by New Hanover County to pose a threat to the people and the property located within the county and its participating jurisdictions. Further, an assessment of risk has been developed which includes background information, location and spatial extent, notable historical occurrences and the probability of future occurrences for each hazard. Readily available online information from reputable sources such as Federal and state agencies was also evaluated to supplement information from these key sources.
Once the hazards have been analyzed, conclusions on hazard risk are presented. This includes HAZARD ANALYSIS the extent of each hazard as it pertains to New Hanover County and the Priority Risk Index which assigns a risk level to each hazard in the county.
The following natural hazards were identified:
• Atmospheric 44 CFR Requirement • Drought and Extreme Heat • Hail 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(2)(i): The risk assessment shall • Hurricane and Tropical Storm System (including Nor’easter) include a description of the • Lightning type, location and extent • Severe Thunderstorm of all natural hazards that • can affect the jurisdiction. Tornado The plan shall include • Winter Storm and Freeze information on previous occurrences of hazard • Geologic events and on the • Earthquake probability of future hazard events. • Landslide and Sinkhole • Tsunami • Volcano
• Hydrologic • Dam and Levee Failure • Erosion • Flood • Rip Current • Storm Surge
• Other • Sea Level Rise • Wildfire
Study Area 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 New Hanover County and its participating jurisdictions that have a recognizable geographic boundary (i.e., hazards that are known to occur in particular areas of New Hanover County such as the 100- and 500-year floodplains, storm surge inundation areas, etc.). For those hazards not confined to a particular geographic area such as thunderstorms and tornadoes, general information on the applicable intensity of these events across the entire planning area is provided.
Figure 5.1 provides a countywide base map for the New Hanover County hazard risk assessment. The study area includes the participating jurisdictions of Carolina Beach, Kure Beach, and Wilmington, as well as, the unincorporated area of the county. These areas are addressed in the risk assessment. However, the non-participating are not analyzed.
HAZARD ANALYSIS
5:2 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 5.1: New Hanover County Base Map HAZARD ANALYSIS
Source: New Hanover County
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:3
ATMOSPHERIC HAZARDS
Drought/Extreme Heat
Background Drought is a normal part of virtually all climatic regions, including areas with high and low average rainfall. Drought is the consequence of a natural reduction in the amount of precipitation expected over an extended period of time, usually a season or more in length. High temperatures, high winds, and low humidity can exacerbate drought conditions. In addition, human actions and demands for water resources can hasten drought-related impacts.
Droughts are typically classified into one of four types: 1) meteorological, 2) hydrologic, 3) agricultural, or 4) socioeconomic. Table 5.1 presents definitions for these different types of drought.
Table 5.1: Drought Classification Definitions
The degree of dryness or departure of actual precipitation from an expected Meteorological Drought average or normal amount based on monthly, seasonal, or annual time scales. The effects of precipitation shortfalls on stream flows and reservoir, lake, and Hydrologic Drought groundwater levels.
Agricultural Drought Soil moisture deficiencies relative to water demands of plant life, usually crops.
The effect of demands for water exceeding the supply as a result of a weather- Socioeconomic Drought related supply shortfall. Source: Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment: A Cornerstone of the National Mitigation Strategy, FEMA
Droughts are slow-onset hazards, but over time can have very damaging affects to crops, municipal water supplies, and recreational uses. Additionally, drought conditions may lead to increased wildfire vulnerability. If droughts extend over a number of years, the direct and indirect economic impact can be significant. HAZARD ANALYSIS The Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) is based on observed drought conditions and range from -0.5 (incipient dry spell) to -4.0 (extreme drought). Evident in Figure 5.2, the Palmer Drought Severity Index Summary Map for the United Stated, droughts affect most areas of the United States, but are less severe in the Eastern United States.
5:4 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 5.2: Palmer Drought Severity Index Summary Map for the United States HAZARD ANALYSIS
Source: National Drought Mitigation Center
Extreme Heat may exacerbate or induce drought conditions. Differing from drought, extreme heat can have devastating effects on health. Extreme Heat is often referred to as a “heat wave.” According to the National Weather Service, there is no universal definition for a heat wave, but the standard U.S. definition is any event lasting at least three (3) days where temperatures reach ninety (90) degrees Fahrenheit or higher. However, it may also be defined as an event at least three days long where temperatures are 10 degrees greater than the normal temperature for the affected area. Heat waves are typically accompanied by humidity but may also be very dry. These conditions can pose serious health threats causing an average of 1,500 deaths each summer in the United States1.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, heat is the number killer among natural hazards, followed by frigid winter temperatures1. The National Weather Service devised the Heat Index as a mechanism to better inform the public of heat dangers. The Heat Index Chart, shown in Figure 5.3, uses air temperature and humidity to determine the heat index or apparent temperature. Table 5.2 shows the dangers associated with different heat index temperatures. Some populations, such as the elderly and young, are more susceptible to heat danger than other segments of the population.
1 http://www.noaawatch.gov/themes/heat.php
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:5
Figure 5.3: Heat Index Chart
Source: NOAA
Table 5.2 Heat Disorders Associated with Heat Index Temperature
Heat Index Temperature Description of Risks (Fahrenheit)
80°‐ 90° Fatigue possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity
Sunstroke, heat cramps, and heat exhaustion possible with prolonged 90°‐ 105° exposure and/or physical activity Sunstroke, heat cramps, and heat exhaustion likely, and heatstroke
HAZARD ANALYSIS 105°‐ 130° possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity
130° or higher Heatstroke or sunstroke is highly likely with continued exposure Source: National Weather Service, NOAA
In addition, NOAA has seventeen metropolitan areas participating in the Heat HealthWatch/Warning System in order to better inform and warn the public of heat dangers. A Heat HealthWatch is issued when conditions are favorable for an excessive heat event in the next 12 to 48 hours. A Heat Warning is issued when an excessive heat event is expected in the next 36 hours. Further, a warning is issued when the conditions are occurring, imminent, or have a high likelihood of occurrence. Urban areas participate in the Heat Health Watch/Warning System because urban areas are at greater risk to heat affects. Stagnant atmospheric conditions trap pollutants, thus adding unhealthy air to excessively hot temperatures. In addition, the “urban heat island effect” can produce significantly higher nighttime temperatures because asphalt and concrete (which store heat longer) gradually release heat at night.
5:6 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Location and Spatial Extent Drought typically covers a large area and cannot be confined to any geographic or political boundaries. According to the Palmer Drought Severity Index (Figure 4.2), North Carolina has a relatively low risk for drought hazard. However, local areas may experience much more severe and/or frequent drought events than what is represented on the Palmer Drought Severity Index map. It is also notable that drought conditions typically do not cause significant damage to the built environment. HAZARD ANALYSIS
Similar to drought, extreme heat can occur anywhere in the U.S. and has no geographic or political boundaries. New Hanover County is in a region where extreme heat is common in the summer months. However, coastal areas may be a slightly reduced risk due to ocean winds, a natural temperature stabilizer. It is assumed that New Hanover County is uniformly exposed to drought and extreme heat with a potentially widespread spatial extent.
Historical Occurrences Data from the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) and the North Carolina Drought Management Advisory Council were used to ascertain historical drought and extreme heat events in New Hanover County through May 31, 2009. According to NCDC, two drought events have been reported in New Hanover County:
November 15, 2001: Drought The National Weather Service declared North Carolina in a moderate drought in November. Since January, the weather office in Wilmington NC received only 35.84 inches of precipitation, about 14 inches below normal. Similar rainfall deficits were being experienced around the state. The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources reported many areas in North Carolina were participating in either voluntary or mandatory water conservation measures. NCDC reported six affected counties. No deaths or injuries, property damage, or crop damage was reported.
August 7, 2001: Extreme Heat High humidity and temperatures in the mid 90s caused afternoon heat indices between 105 and 110 degrees (measured by ASOS) in New Hanover County.
June 1, 2002: Drought The National Climate Data Center (NCDC) reported that a drought event was declared on this date for 6 counties but provided no additional information.
In addition to NCDC, the North Carolina Drought Management Advisory Council was used to determine drought conditions from January 2000 to October 2009. It classifies counties on a scale of D0 to D4:
• D0: Abnormally Dry • D1: Moderate Drought
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:7
• D2: Severe Drought • D3: Extreme Drought • D4: Exceptional Drought
New Hanover County did not experience an Exceptional Drought (D4) event during this period. However, the county has experienced Extreme Drought (D3), Severe Drought (D2), Moderate Drought (D1), and Abnormally Dry (D0) events. Table 5.3 list the most severe drought condition reported in a year between 2000 and 2009. For years not recorded in the table, no drought conditions were reported. It should be noted that classifications are made frequently and this table does not indication the duration of drought events.
Table 5.3: North Carolina Drought Monitor Summary for New Hanover County
D0 D1 D2 D3 D4 Abnormally Severe Exceptional Dry Moderate Drought Drought Extreme Drought Drought 2000 2009 2001 2007 2004 2002 2008 2005 2006 Source: North Carolina Drought Monitor
Probability of Future Occurrences Given uniform exposure and a history of previous occurrences, it is assumed that there is a likely probability of future drought and heat wave occurrence in New Hanover County. HAZARD ANALYSIS
5:8 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Hail
Background Hailstorms are a potentially damaging outgrowth of severe thunderstorms. Early in the development of a hailstorm, ice crystals form within a low-pressure front due to the rapid rising of warm air into the upper atmosphere and the subsequent cooling of HAZARD ANALYSIS the air mass. Frozen droplets gradually accumulate on the ice crystals until having developed sufficient weight they fall as precipitation in the form of ball or irregularly shaped ice masses greater than 0.75 inches in diameter. The size of hailstones is a direct function of the size and severity of the storm. High Large hail collects on streets and grass during velocity updraft winds are required to keep hail in a severe thunderstorm. Larger stones appear suspension in thunderclouds. The strength of the to be nearly two to three inches in diameter. updraft is a function of the intensity of heating at (NOAA Photo Library, NOAA Central Library; the Earth’s surface. Higher temperature gradients OAR/ERL/National Severe Storms Laboratory) relative to elevation above the surface result in increased suspension time and hailstone size.
Location and Spatial Extent A hail event may occur anywhere throughout the county and is not confined to any geographic boundaries. Often accompanying thunderstorms, these events are typically widespread. Therefore, New Hanover County is uniformly at risk to hail hazard.
Historical Occurrences According to the National Climatic Data Center, there have been 58 recorded hail events in New Hanover County since 1950. Of these events, 28 were in the study area of unincorporated areas in New Hanover County and participating jurisdictions (Table 5.4). No casualties, injuries, or crop damage was reported from these events. However, $2,752 in property damages were reported (2009 dollars). Hail sizes for these events range from 0.75 inches to 1.75 inches in diameter. Most hail occurrences in New Hanover County is penny to nickel-sized. The locations of the historically recorded hail events in New Hanover County are presented in Figure 5.4.
Table 5.4: Historical Hail Impacts in New Hanover County
Deaths/ Property Damage Location Date Magnitude Injuries (2009 dollars0
New Hanover County 08/12/57 1.00 in. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 09/04/61 1.75 in. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 08/17/65 0.75 in. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 05/25/69 0.75 in. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 06/16/71 2.50 in. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 04/22/76 0.75 in. 0/0 $0
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:9
Deaths/ Property Damage Location Date Magnitude Injuries (2009 dollars0 New Hanover County 06/19/77 1.00 in. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 04/04/80 1.75 in. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 04/16/85 1.00 in. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 06/02/86 1.00 in. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 06/20/86 0.75 in. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 07/15/87 1.75 in. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 04/24/88 1.00 in. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 06/08/88 0.75 in. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 06/21/92 0.88 in. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 07/11/95 1.75 in. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 04/01/96 1.00 in. 0/0 $0 Castle Hayne 05/06/96 1.00 in. 0/0 $0 Wilmington Arpt 06/12/96 1.00 in. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 06/25/96 1.00 in. 0/0 $0 Carolina Beach 04/22/97 0.88 in. 0/0 $0 Wilmington Arpt 07/07/97 1.00 in. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 08/18/97 1.00 in. 0/0 $0 Carolina Beach 05/04/98 1.75 in. 0/0 $0 $2000 (not Murraysville 05/07/98 2.00 in. 0/0 adjusted) Wilmington 05/17/98 1.00 in. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 05/23/98 2.00 in. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 05/27/98 1.00 in. 0/0 $0 Wilmington Arpt 06/13/98 2.00 in. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 09/08/98 0.75 in. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 02/19/99 1.00 in. 0/0 $0 Castle Hayne 08/19/99 0.88 in. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 04/18/00 0.75 in. 0/0 $0 Myrtle Grove 04/28/00 0.88 in. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 05/22/00 0.75 in. 0/0 $0 Myrtle Grove 07/16/00 1.00 in. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 04/01/01 0.88 in. 0/0 $0 HAZARD ANALYSIS Wilmington 05/28/01 1.00 in. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 04/03/02 0.75 in. 0/0 $0 Myrtle Grove 05/10/02 1.00 in. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 07/31/02 0.75 in. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 03/11/03 1.25 in. 0/0 $0 Murraysville 05/29/03 0.75 in. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 05/31/03 1.00 in. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 08/23/03 1.00 in. 0/0 $0 Wrightsboro 06/03/04 1.25 in. 0/0 $0 Myrtle Grove 07/17/04 1.00 in. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 07/13/05 0.75 in. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 01/02/06 0.75 in. 0/0 $0 Carolina Beach 04/03/06 1.75 in. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 06/06/06 0.88 in. 0/0 $0
5:10 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Deaths/ Property Damage Location Date Magnitude Injuries (2009 dollars0 Wilmington 06/08/06 1.75 in. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 08/08/06 0.75 in. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 06/25/07 0.75 in. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 03/15/08 1.00 in. 0/0 $0 Masonboro 04/21/08 0.75 in. 0/0 $0
Wilmington 06/22/08 0.88 in. 0/0 $0 HAZARD ANALYSIS Sea Breeze 05/11/09 1.75 in. 0/0 $0 Source: NCDC
Figure 5.4: New Hanover County Hail Occurrence Locations
Source: New Hanover County
Probability of Future Occurrences Severe thunderstorm events will remain a very frequent occurrence in New Hanover County. Therefore, the probability of a future hail occurrence is high. It can be expected that future hail
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:11
events will continue to cause minor damages to property and vehicles throughout New Hanover County.
Hurricane and Tropical Storm System (including Nor’easter)
Background Hurricanes and coastal storms are classified as cyclones and defined as any closed circulation developing around a low-pressure center in which the winds rotate counter-clockwise (in the Northern Hemisphere) and the diameter averages 10 to 30 miles across. The primary damaging forces associated with these storms are high-level sustained winds, heavy precipitation, and tornadoes. Coastal areas are also vulnerable to the additional forces of storm surge, wind-driven waves and tidal flooding which can be more destructive than cyclone wind.
The majority of hurricanes and tropical storms form in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico during the official Atlantic hurricane season, which encompasses the months of June through November. The peak of the Atlantic hurricane season, averaging six hurricane strength storms, is in early to mid-September.
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- Wind and rain from Hurricane Lili damage road signs pressure disturbance, warm sea surface temperature, along I‐10 in Louisiana on October 3, 2002. (Photo by rotational force from the spinning of the earth and Lauren Hobart/FEMA News Photo) the absence of wind shear in the lowest 50,000 feet of the atmosphere. 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,
HAZARD ANALYSIS and is closely 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 (Table 5.5), which rates hurricane intensity on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most intense.
Table 5.5: Saffir-Simpson Scale
Maximum Sustained Minimum Surface Storm Surge Category Wind Speed (MPH) Pressure (Millibars) (Feet) 1 74–95 Greater than 980 3–5 2 96–110 979–965 6–8 3 111–130 964–945 9–12 4 131–155 944–920 13–18 5 155 + Less than 920 19+ Source: National Hurricane Center
5:12 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The Saffir-Simpson Scale categorizes hurricane intensity linearly based upon maximum sustained winds, barometric pressure and storm surge potential, which are combined to estimate potential damage. Hurricanes of category 3, 4, or 5 strength are classified as “major” hurricanes. Hurricanes within this range comprise only 20 percent of total tropical cyclone landfalls, but they account for over 70 percent of the damage in the United States. Table 5.6 describes the damage that could be expected for each category of hurricane. Damage during hurricanes may also result from spawned tornadoes, storm surge, and inland flooding due to the heavy rainfall that usually accompanies these storms. HAZARD ANALYSIS
Table 5.6: Hurricane Damage Classifications
Storm Damage Photo Description of Damages Category Level Example No real damage to building structures. Damage primarily to 1 MINIMAL unanchored mobile homes, shrubbery, and trees. Also, some coastal flooding and minor pier damage.
Some roofing material, door, and window damage. Considerable damage to vegetation, mobile homes, etc. 2 MODERATE Flooding damages piers and small craft in unprotected moorings may break their moorings. Some structural damage to small residences and utility buildings, with a minor amount of curtainwall failures. 3 EXTENSIVE Mobile homes are destroyed. Flooding near the coast destroys smaller structures, with larger structures damaged by floating debris. Terrain may be flooded well inland. More extensive curtainwall failures with some complete roof 4 EXTREME structure failure on small residences. Major erosion of beach areas. Terrain may be flooded well inland. Complete roof failure on many residences and industrial buildings. Some complete building failures with small utility 5 CATASTROPHIC buildings blown over or away. Flooding causes major damage to lower floors of all structures near the shoreline. Massive evacuation of residential areas may be required. Sources: National Hurricane Center; Federal Emergency Management Agency
Similar to hurricanes, coastal storms are ocean-fueled storm events capable of causing substantial damage to coastal areas due to their associated strong winds and heavy surf. The nor'easter is a particularly devastating type of coastal storm, named for the winds that blow in from the northeast and drive the storm up the U.S. East Coast alongside 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.
Coastal storm events 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
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:13
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 will increase and cause serious damage to coastal areas as the storm moves northeast.
Table 5.7 shows the Dolan-Davis Intensity Scale (1993). Strong nor’easters have increased in recent years.
Table 5.7: Dolan-Davis Nor’easter Intensity Scale Storm Class Beach Erosion Dune Erosion Overwash Property Damage
1 Minor changes None No No (Weak)
2 Modest; mostly to lower Minor No Modest (Moderate) beach
3 Erosion extends across Loss of many structures Can be significant No (Significant) beach at local level Loss of 4 Severe beach erosion Severe dune erosion or structures at On low beaches (Severe) and recession destruction community-scale
5 Dunes destroyed over Massive in sheets and Extensive losses on a Extreme beach erosion extensive areas channels regional-scale (Extreme)
Location and Spatial Extent Hurricanes and tropical storms threaten the entire Atlantic and Gulf seaboard of the United States. Although coastal areas are most directly exposed to the brunt of landfalling storms, their
HAZARD ANALYSIS impact is often felt hundreds of miles inland. New Hanover County is located in a region of the country that is susceptible to all of the hazards wrought by hurricanes and tropical storms. All areas throughout the county are susceptible to the accompanying hazard effects of extreme wind, flooding and tornadoes. However, the county’s coastal areas are at an elevated risk due to the added effects of storm surge, wave action, coastal erosion and tidal flooding2.
Historical Occurrences On average, North Carolina experiences a hurricane approximately once every two years. According to NOAA historical storm track records, 99 hurricane or tropical storm tracks have passed within 75 miles of New Hanover County since 18503. This includes: no (0) Category 5 hurricanes; two (2) Category 4 hurricanes; seven (7) Category 3 hurricanes; thirteen (13)
2 Distinct hazard area locations for flooding and erosion are discussed elsewhere in this section. 3 These storm track statistics do not include tropical depressions or extratropical storms. Though these related hazard events are less severe in intensity, they may indeed cause significant local impact in terms of rainfall and high winds.
5:14 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Category 2 hurricanes; twenty-three (23) Category 1 hurricanes; and fifty-four (54) tropical storms. According to NCDC, those storms passing through the county since 1986 have caused over $380 million in property damages4. Table 5.8 provides the date of occurrence, name (if applicable), maximum wind speed (as recorded within 100 miles of New Hanover County) and category of the storm based on the Saffir-Simpson Scale. Figure 5.5 shows the track of each recorded storm in relation to New Hanover County.
Table 5.8: Significant Hurricane History Storm Tracks within 75 Miles of HAZARD ANALYSIS New Hanover County (1851–2009)
Maximum Wind Speed Name of Storm Date of Occurrence Storm Category (Knots) Not Named 08/25/1851 Tropical Storm 40 Not Named 08/28/1852 Tropical Storm 40 Not Named 10/10/1852 Tropical Storm 50 Not Named 09/09/1854 Tropical Storm 50 Not Named 09/01/1856 Tropical Storm 50 Not Named 09/12/1857 Category 2 90 Not Named 09/13/1857 Category 2 90 Not Named 09/27/1861 Category 1 70 Not Named 11/02/1861 Category 1 70 Not Named 09/18/1863 Tropical Storm 60 Not Named 06/23/1867 Tropical Storm 50 Not Named 10/05/1868 Tropical Storm 50 Not Named 08/29/1871 Tropical Storm 50 Not Named 07/10/1871 Tropical Storm 40 Not Named 10/24/1872 Category 1 70 Not Named 09/20/1873 Tropical Storm 60 Not Named 09/28/1874 Category 1 80 Not Named 09/17/1876 Category 1 80 Not Named 10/11/1878 Tropical Storm 50 Not Named 10/23/1878 Category 2 90 Not Named 08/18/1879 Category 3 100 Not Named 09/09/1880 Category 1 70 Not Named 09/09/1881 Category 2 90 Not Named 09/22/1882 Tropical Storm 50 Not Named 10/12/1882 Category 1 70 Not Named 09/11/1883 Category 2 90 Not Named 08/25/1885 Category 2 90 Not Named 07/01/1886 Tropical Storm 45 Not Named 08/20/1887 Category 3 105
Not Named 10/11/1888 Tropical Storm 60 Not Named 06/18/1889 Tropical Storm 45 Not Named 06/16/1893 Tropical Storm 50 Not Named 10/04/1893 Tropical Storm 40 Not Named 10/13/1893 Category 3 105
4 Many hurricanes and tropical storms affected more than just New Hanover County. Therefore the reported damage amount was distributed equally over the affected counties to provide an estimate for each when a specific county was not available.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:15
Maximum Wind Speed Name of Storm Date of Occurrence Storm Category (Knots) Not Named 09/27/1894 Category 1 65 Not Named 10/09/1894 Tropical Storm 60 Not Named 09/22/1897 Tropical Storm 60 Not Named 10/31/1899 Category 2 95 Not Named 07/11/1901 Tropical Storm 50 Not Named 09/18/1901 Tropical Storm 35 Not Named 09/17/1906 Category 1 80 Not Named 06/29/1907 Tropical Storm 55 Not Named 09/29/1907 Tropical Storm 35 Not Named 05/29/1908 Category 1 65 Not Named 07/30/1908 Category 1 70 Not Named 09/01/1908 Tropical Storm 45 Not Named 10/20/1910 Tropical Storm 60 Not Named 09/03/1913 Category 1 75 Not Named 05/16/1916 Tropical Storm 35 Not Named 09/06/1916 Tropical Storm 45 Not Named 08/24/1918 Category 1 65 Not Named 09/23/1920 Category 1 65 Not Named 09/18/1928 Tropical Storm 60 Not Named 09/15/1932 Tropical Storm 35 Not Named 07/21/1934 Tropical Storm 40 Not Named 07/31/1937 Tropical Storm 45 Not Named 08/01/1944 Category 1 80 Not Named 10/20/1944 Tropical Storm 40 Not Named 06/05/1945 Tropical Storm 60 Not Named 07/05/1946 Tropical Storm 40 Hazel 10/15/1954 Category 3 110 Connie 08/11/1955 Category 2 90 Diane 08/17/1955 Category 1 75 Ione 09/19/1955 Category 3 100 Not Named 06/09/1957 Tropical Storm 45 Helene 09/27/1958 Category 4 115
HAZARD ANALYSIS Brenda 07/30/1960 Tropical Storm 50 Donna 09/12/2960 Category 2 95 Not Named 09/14/1961 Tropical Storm 35 Alma 08/28/1962 Tropical Storm 50 Ginny 10/26/1963 Category 2 85 Not Named 06/07/1964 Tropical Storm 35 Dora 09/13/1964 Tropical Storm 45 Alma 06/11/1966 Tropical Storm 40 Gladys 10/19/1968 Category 1 75 Dora 08/27/1971 Tropical Storm 55 Ginger 09/30/1971 Category 1 75 Agnes 06/21/1972 Tropical Storm 40 Hallie 10/27/1975 Tropical Storm 45 Dennis 08/20/1981 Tropical Storm 55 Diana 09/12/1984 Category 4 115
5:16 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Maximum Wind Speed Name of Storm Date of Occurrence Storm Category (Knots) Isidore 09/28/1984 Tropical Storm 45 Kate 11/22/1985 Tropical Storm 50 Charley 08/17/1986 Category 1 65 Arthur 06/19/1996 Tropical Storm 40 Bertha 07/12/1996 Category 2 90 Fran 09/05/1996 Category 3 100 Bonnie 08/26/1998 Category 3 100 HAZARD ANALYSIS Dennis 08/30/1999 Category 2 90 Floyd 09/16/1999 Category 2 90 Irene 10/18/1999 Category 1 80 Helene 09/23/2000 Tropical Storm 35 Kyle 10/11/2002 Tropical Storm 35 Alex 08/03/2004 Category 1 70 Charley 08/14/2004 Category 1 65 Ophelia 09/14/2005 Category 1 75 Ernesto 08/31/2006 Tropical Storm 60 Cristobal 07/19/2008 Tropical Storm 45 Hanna 09/06/2008 Tropical Storm 60 Sources: National Hurricane Center, National Climatic Data Center, National Weather Service and NOAA Coastal Services Center
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:17
Figure 5.5: Historical Storm Tracks in New Hanover County
Source: NOAA
Some of the more notable historical tropical cyclone events for New Hanover County are HAZARD ANALYSIS described below (Information from National Climatic Data Center.):
July 12, 1996: Bertha The eye of Bertha moved north on the coast between 2:00pm and 4:00pm on July 12, 1996. The strongest winds gusts (92 MPH) were reported at Kure Beach, where 3 roofs were blown off and all structures damaged. Four piers were seriously damaged, and 2 feet of water covered Carolina Beach. Wrightsville Beach and Figure 8 Island sustained minor damage. Mandatory evacuation of 40,000 people was enacted at the beaches. Damage to New Hanover County Regional Medical Center was $2 million. Further, 1,500 homes and 250 businesses were damaged. Raw sewage escaped into Burnt Mill Creek. The area was declared a Federal Disaster Area.
5:18 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
September 5, 1996: Hurricane Fran The center of the eye of Hurricane Fran, about 25 miles across, passed up the Cape Fear River during the evening... with winds gusting around 110 mph, storm surge 12 feet MSL, and 40 ft beach erosion destroying most docks and piers. County infrastructure suffered $5 million in damages, and schools suffered $2 million in damages. Power outages exceeded 1 week in some areas. Pleasure Island was hard hit, as 25 homes were carried off foundations and many others badly damaged. Wrightsville Beach was not hit as hard, but 15 homes were at least 75% damaged. In Wilmington, 14 homes were destroyed and 385 homes suffered major damage. The HAZARD ANALYSIS 197 foot tall steeple of 130-year-old First Baptist Church fell. Evacuation Shelters housed 880 people.
August 26, 1998: Hurricane Bonnie The eye of slow-moving Hurricane Bonnie made landfall at Cape Fear during the late afternoon and moved up the coast, with the stronger east side of the storm remaining offshore. Wind gusts were generally around 100 MPH along the coast and lighter inland. At the Wilmington Airport, gusts reached 74 MPH. Rainfall amounts were around 10 inches, causing ponding of water and flooding across the north end of the county around Castle Hayne. Storm surge was 7 to 9 feet, with most barrier island overwash from the sound side, not the ocean side. A Federal Disaster was declared.
September 15, 1999: Hurricane Floyd Hurricane Floyd, with wind gusts around 90 mph, affected five North Carolina counties, causing downed trees and power outages. In New Hanover County, housing losses were near $25 million - 8 homes were destroyed and more than 200 sustained major damage. Ocean storm surge was 9 to 10 feet, inundating barrier islands and causing extensive dune erosion. Record rainfall distinguished Floyd - the most rain ever in 24 hours at the Wilmington Airport (14.84") and a storm total of 19.06", causing widespread flooding.
August 14, 2004: Hurricane Charley Hurricane Charley initially made landfall on the west coast of Florida between Fort Myers and Tampa as a category four hurricane. The storm crossed Florida, and exited the coast as a category one storm. It continued northeast and made landfall again near Cape Romain as a weak category one hurricane with sustained winds at 75 mph. It moved up the coast and then inland around Myrtle Beach, devastating Horry and Georgetown Counties. As Charley moved northeast, Brunswick County was hit hardest, followed by New Hanover county was the next hardest hit, with many business damaged in Wilmington and surrounding cities. The majority of the county had power outages from downed limbs on power lines. Rainfall ranged from two inches near the coast. Vegetative debris was widespread, plugging storm drains further contributing to ponding and flooding the next day. Storm surge was minimal, with some minor overwash. Thankfully, only a few minor injuries were reported.
September 14, 2005: Hurricane Ophelia At 11:00 am on September 14th, Category 1 Ophelia was centered about 25 miles southeast of Cape Fear. The storm mainly affected Brunswick, Pender, and New Hanover counties. The large eyewall (50 miles in diameter) was over New Hanover with hurricane strength wind gusts reported at Wrightsville Beach of 79 MPH. There were unofficial reports of wind gusts to 84 mph at Bald Head Island and Kure Beach. Most other stations reported gusts between 35 and 50 MPH. Average rainfall over Brunswick, New Havover, and Pender counties ranged from 6 to
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:19
10 inches. Damage over the area was mainly minor roof damage and flooding. Cosmetic and minor damage to beach homes was reported throughout the affected area. Beach erosion was also a problem. A longshore current gouged a 5 ft escarpment along the coast of New Hanover and Pender counties. Damage to the area and the cost for clean up would be $6 million for Pender and New Hanover counties, primary for removing debris.
No historical nor’easter events were reported by the National Climatic Data Center for New Hanover County.
Probability of Future Occurrences The probability of future hurricane and tropical storm events for New Hanover County is high. Figure 5.6 shows what the chance is that a tropical storm or hurricane will affect an area sometime during the Atlantic hurricane season. This illustration was created by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Hurricane Research Division using data from 1944 to 1999 and counting hits when a storm or hurricane was within approximately 100 miles (165 km) of each location. According to this figure, New Hanover County (located at approximately 33N, 75N) is in an area with an annual probability of a named storm between 36 and 48 percent.
Figure 5.6: Empirical Probability of a Named Hurricane or Tropical Storm HAZARD ANALYSIS
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
The probability of storm occurrences will vary significantly based on the return interval for different categories of magnitude. The probability of less intense storms (lower return periods) is higher than more intense storms (higher return periods). Table 5.9 profiles the average potential peak gust wind speeds that can be expected in New Hanover County during a hurricane event for various return periods according to FEMA’s HAZUS-MH®.
5:20 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 5.9: Average Peak Gust Wind Speeds by Return Period
10‐YEAR 20‐YEAR 50‐YEAR 100‐YEAR 200‐YEAR 500‐YEAR 1,000‐YEAR 68 88 104 115 111 136 146 Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency (HAZUS-MH, MR4)
Lightning HAZARD ANALYSIS
Background
Lightning, an accompanying element to a thunderstorm event, 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 the thunder which often accompanies lightning strikes. While most often affiliated with thunderstorms, lightning can strike outside of heavy rain and might occur as far as 10 miles away from any rainfall.
According to FEMA, lightning results in an average of 300 injuries and 80 fatalities in the United States each year. Direct lightning strikes also have the ability to cause significant damage to buildings, critical facilities and infrastructure. Lightning is also responsible for igniting wildfires that can result in widespread damages to property.
New Hanover County is located in a region of the country that is particularly susceptible to lightning strike. Figure 5.7 shows a lightning flash density map for the years 1996-2000 based upon data provided by Vaisala’s U.S. National Lightning Detection Network (NLDN®).
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:21
Figure 5.7: Lightning Flash Density in the United States
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Location and Spatial Extent It is assumed that all of New Hanover County is uniformly exposed to lightning risk. Lightning occurs randomly in very specific, localized areas. It is therefore impossible to predict where it will strike.
Historical Occurrences According to the National Climatic Data Center, there were 12 recorded lightning events in New Hanover between 1993 and May 2009. These events resulted in 7 injuries and over $347,000 in property damages (2009 dollars), as listed in Table 5.10. Most of the property damage is a result
HAZARD ANALYSIS of lightning strike causing fires.
Table 5.10: Historical Lightning Occurrences
Location Date of Occurrence Deaths/Injuries Property Damage Wilmington 07/11/94 0/0 $7,572 Wilmington 08/05/94 0/0 $75,724 Carolina Beach 06/12/96 0/0 0 Wilmington 07/14/96 0/0 0 Wilmington 07/30/96 0/1 0 Wilmington 07/29/97 0/1 0 Wilmington 08/11/00 0/0 $138,306 Wilmington 06/16/01 0/0 $19,002 Carolina Beach 07/06/02 0/3 0 Wilmington 07/20/02 0/1 0
5:22 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Location Date of Occurrence Deaths/Injuries Property Damage Wilmington 03/05/05 0/0 $22,510 Wilmington 07/28/07 0/0 $84,872 Source: National Climatic Data Center
Probability of Future Occurrences The probability of occurrence for future lightning events in New Hanover County is highly likely. According to NOAA, the majority of New Hanover County is located in an area that experiences 4-8 lightning flashes per square kilometer per year (approximately 20,224 to 40,448 HAZARD ANALYSIS flashes countywide per year). However, some areas of the county have received up to 16 flashes per square kilometer per year. Given this regular frequency of occurrence, it can be expected that future lightning events will continue to threaten life and cause minor property damages throughout New Hanover County.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:23
Severe Thunderstorm Background Thunderstorm events and can pose serious risk to a community. Thunderstorms are capable of generating hail, tornadoes, flooding, and lightning, making them particularly dangerous5.
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.
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.” A thunderstorm is classified as severe when it produces at least one of three elements: 1) a tornado, 2) hail at least 0.75 inches in diameter, or 3) winds of at least 58 miles per hour.
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 these regions are most favorable for generating powerful storms. The National Weather Service collected data for the duration of thunder events and lightning strike density for the 30-year period from 1948 to 1977. Figure 5.8 illustrates thunderstorm hazard severity based on the annual average number of thunder events.
Figure 5.8: Average Annual Number of Thunder Events HAZARD ANALYSIS
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency
5 Hail, tornadoes, flooding, and lightning are discussed elsewhere in this section. The severe thunderstorm hazard includes thunderstorm and thunderstorm wind events.
5:24 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Location and Spatial Extent It is assumed that all of New Hanover County is uniformly exposed to thunderstorm hazard. Thunderstorms vary tremendously in terms of size, location, intensity and duration but are considered frequent occurrences New Hanover County.
Historical Occurrences
According to the National Climatic Data Center, there were 86 thunderstorm events in New HAZARD ANALYSIS Hanover County between January 1950 and May 2009. These events resulted in over $1.6 million in property damage (2009 dollars). Table 5.11 lists each thunderstorm event and the relative property damage.
Table 5.11: Severe Thunderstorm Events in New Hanover County
Date of Type of Deaths/ Property Damage Location Magnitude Occurrence Event Injuries (2009 dollars) New Hanover County 02/28/56 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 04/05/57 Tstm Wind 63 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 08/12/57 Tstm Wind 61 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 04/09/61 Tstm Wind 51 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 07/28/63 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 09/10/64 Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 05/13/65 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 07/09/66 Tstm Wind 80 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 11/24/67 Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 12/28/67 Tstm Wind 66 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 12/07/68 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 04/02/70 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 07/27/71 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 02/03/74 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 03/16/74 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 08/18/75 Tstm Wind 56 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 08/31/75 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 05/13/78 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 03/24/79 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 07/04/79 Tstm Wind 60 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 07/15/79 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 02/23/80 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 04/27/80 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 08/25/82 Tstm Wind 60 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 06/04/83 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0/0 $0
New Hanover County 06/25/83 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 07/22/83 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 06/07/85 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 04/08/86 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 07/15/86 Tstm Wind 68 kts. 0/3 $0 New Hanover County 07/23/86 Tstm Wind 55 kts. 0/0 $0
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:25
Date of Type of Deaths/ Property Damage Location Magnitude Occurrence Event Injuries (2009 dollars) New Hanover County 04/15/87 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 07/27/87 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 03/10/88 Tstm Wind 51 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 02/21/89 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 07/01/90 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 03/02/91 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0/0 $0 Near Seabreeze 09/18/94 Tstm Wind N/A 0/0 $0 Wilmington and Wrightsboro 05/15/95 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 06/07/95 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0/1 $220,856 Wilmington 06/12/95 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0/0 $128,096 Wilmington and Myrtle Grove 07/03/95 Tstm Wind 61-65 kts. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 07/11/95 Tstm Wind 60 kts. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 10/28/95 Tstm Wind 60 kts. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 11/11/95 Tstm Wind 0 kts. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 04/26/96 Tstm Wind 65 kts. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 07/02/96 Tstm Wind 55 kts. 0/0 $28,593 Wilmington 07/03/96 Tstm Wind 60 kts. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 07/28/96 Tstm Wind 60 kts. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 06/14/97 Tstm Wind 63 kts. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 07/05/97 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0/0 $0 Castle Hayne, Murraysville, and Wrightsville Beach 07/07/97 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 08/18/97 Tstm Wind 60 kts. 0/0 $0 Castle Hayne 03/09/98 Tstm Wind 60 kts. 0/0 $6,881 Myrtle Grove 04/09/98 Tstm Wind 77 kts. 0/0 $2,752 Wilmington 05/07/98 Tstm Wind 60 kts. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 05/27/98 Tstm Wind 55 kts. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 06/17/98 Tstm Wind 60 kts. 0/0 $11,009 Wilmington 06/19/98 Tstm Wind 70 kts. 0/0 $27,523 Wilmington 09/08/98 Tstm Wind 80 kts. 0/0 $20,643 HAZARD ANALYSIS Castle Hayne 09/06/99 Tstm Wind 65 kts. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 02/14/00 Tstm Wind 54 kts. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 08/24/00 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0/0 $39,143 5 Counties, including New Hanover 12/17/00 High Wind 52 kts. 0/2 $65,239 3 Counties, including New Hanover 03/06/01 High Wind 50 kts. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 06/07/01 Tstm Wind 60-62 kts. 0/0 $0 New Hanover and Pender Counties 01/06/02 High Wind 45 kts. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 05/10/02 Tstm Wind 53 kts. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 06/14/02 Tstm Wind 78 kts. 0/0 $307,468 Wilmington 07/20/02 Tstm Wind 55 kts. 0/0 $6,149 Wilmington 03/20/03 Tstm Wind 51 kts. 0/0 $0 Wilmington Airport 05/08/03 Tstm Wind 62 kts. 0/0 $0
5:26 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Date of Type of Deaths/ Property Damage Location Magnitude Occurrence Event Injuries (2009 dollars) Wilmington 05/31/03 Tstm Wind 87 kts. 0/0 $895,539 New Hanover County 10/29/03 Strong Wind 43 kts. 0/0 $2,388 5 Counties, including New Hanover 03/07/04 Tstm Wind 57 kts. 0/0 $11,593 Murraysville 07/09/04 Tstm Wind 55 kts. 0/0 $0
Wilmington 03/05/05 Tstm Wind 51 kts. 0/0 $0 HAZARD ANALYSIS Wilmington 03/08/05 Tstm Wind 77 kts. 0/1 $168,826 New Hanover County 03/23/05 High Wind 58 kts. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 04/03/06 Tstm Wind 60 kts. 0/0 $0 Castle Hayne 04/17/06 Tstm Wind 63 kts. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 07/15/06 Tstm Wind 60 kts. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 08/08/06 Tstm Wind 60 kts. 0/0 $0 Murraysville 06/22/08 Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0/0 $0 South Wilmington 07/10/08 Tstm Wind 50 kts. 0/0 $0 Wilmington 04/11/09 Tstm Wind 52 kts. 0/0 $8,000 TOTAL 0/7 $1,643,231 Source: National Climatic Data Center
Probability of Future Occurrences The probability of occurrence for future severe thunderstorm events in New Hanover County is highly likely.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:27
Tornado
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 other tropical storms. Tornadoes form 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 miles per hour to more than 300 miles per hour. The most violent tornadoes have rotating winds of 250 miles per hour or more and are capable of causing extreme destruction and turning normally harmless objects into deadly missiles.
Each year, an average of over 800 tornadoes are reported nationwide, resulting in an average of 80 deaths and 1,500 injuries (NOAA, 2007). 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. Figure 5.9 shows tornado activity in the United States based on the number of recorded tornadoes per 1,000 square miles. North Carolina and New Hanover County are in an area that received 1 to 5 tornadoes per 1,000 square miles.
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 tornadoes that cause damage and injury. However, most waterspouts dissipate over the open water, causing threats only to marine and boating interests. Typically, waterspouts are weak and short- lived and, because they are so common, most go unreported unless they cause damage.
HAZARD ANALYSIS
5:28 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 5.9: Tornado Activity in the United States HAZARD ANALYSIS
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Tornadoes are most likely to occur during the months of March through May. They can occur at any time of day, but are likely to form in the late afternoon and early evening due to cooling. Most tornadoes are a few dozen yards wide and touch down briefly, but even small short-lived tornadoes can inflict tremendous damage. Highly destructive tornadoes may carve out a path over a mile wide and several miles long.
The destruction caused by tornadoes ranges from The most comprehensively observed tornado light to inconceivable depending on the intensity, in history, this tornado south of Dimmitt, size and duration of the storm. Typically, tornadoes Texas developed June 2, 1995 curving northward across Texas Highway 86 where it cause the greatest damage to structures of light entirely removed 300 feet of asphalt from the construction, including residential dwellings road, tossing it more than 600 feet into an (particularly mobile homes). Tornadic magnitude is adjacent field. It also caused F4 damage at an reported according to the Fujita and Enhanced isolated rural residence just north of the road. (NOAA Photo Library, NOAA Central Library; Fujita Scales. Tornado magnitudes prior to 2005 OAR/ERL/National Severe Storms Laboratory) were determined using the traditional version of the
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:29
Fujita Scale (Table 5.12). Tornado magnitudes that were determined in 2005 and later were determined using the Enhanced Fujita Scale (Table 5.13).
Table 5.12: The Fujita Scale (Effective Prior to 2005)
F-SCALE WIND INTENSITY TYPE OF DAMAGE DONE NUMBER SPEED
GALE Some damage to chimneys; breaks branches off trees; pushes over F0 40–72 MPH TORNADO shallow-rooted trees; damages to sign boards. The lower limit is the beginning of hurricane wind speed; peels surface MODERATE F1 73–112 MPH off roofs; mobile homes pushed off foundations or overturned; TORNADO moving autos pushed off the roads; attached garages may be destroyed. Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes SIGNIFICANT F2 113–157 MPH demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or uprooted; light TORNADO object missiles generated.
SEVERE Roof and some walls torn off well-constructed houses; trains F3 158–206 MPH TORNADO overturned; most trees in forest uprooted.
DEVASTATING Well-constructed houses leveled; structures with weak foundations F4 207–260 MPH TORNADO blown off some distance; cars thrown and large missiles generated.
Strong frame houses lifted off foundations and carried considerable INCREDIBLE distances to disintegrate; automobile sized missiles fly through the air in F5 261–318 MPH TORNADO excess of 100 meters; trees debarked; steel re-enforced concrete structures badly damaged. These winds are very unlikely. The small area of damage they might produce would probably not be recognizable along with the mess produced by F4 and F5 wind that would surround the F6 winds. INCONCEIVAB Missiles, such as cars and refrigerators would do serious secondary F6 319–379 MPH LE TORNADO damage that could not be directly identified as F6 damage. If this level is ever achieved, evidence for it might only be found in some manner of ground swirl pattern, for it may never be identifiable through engineering studies. Source: National Weather Service
HAZARD ANALYSIS
5:30 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 5.13 The Enhanced Fujita Scale (Effective 2005 and Later)
EF- INTENSITY 3 SECOND SCALE TYPE OF DAMAGE DONE PHRASE GUST (MPH) NUMBER
Some damage to chimneys; breaks branches off trees; pushes F0 GALE 65–85 over shallow-rooted trees; damages to sign boards. HAZARD ANALYSIS The lower limit is the beginning of hurricane wind speed; peels surface off roofs; mobile homes pushed off F1 MODERATE 86–110 foundations or overturned; moving autos pushed off the roads; attached garages may be destroyed. Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile F2 SIGNIFICANT 111–135 homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or uprooted; light object missiles generated.
Roof and some walls torn off well-constructed houses; trains F3 SEVERE 136–165 overturned; most trees in forest uprooted.
Well-constructed houses leveled; structures with weak DEVASTATIN F4 166–200 foundations blown off some distance; cars thrown and large G missiles generated. Strong frame houses lifted off foundations and carried considerable distances to disintegrate; automobile sized F5 INCREDIBLE Over 200 missiles fly through the air in excess of 100 meters; trees debarked; steel re-enforced concrete structures badly damaged. Source: National Weather Service
Location and Spatial Extent Tornadoes occur throughout the state of North Carolina and New Hanover County. When compared with other states, North Carolina ranks 22nd in the Nation in number of tornado events, 20th in tornado deaths, 17th in tornado injuries, and 21st in damages. These rankings are based upon data collected for all states and territories for tornado events between 1950 and 1994.6 Figure 5.7 shows total tornado occurrences for all North Carolina counties. The illustration indicates that 21 events have been recorded in New Hanover County from 1950 to 1999.7
6 Storm Prediction Center, 2003 7 For purposes of comparison, there are three counties in North Carolina which have had no recorded tornado events, and one county has reported as many as 41.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:31
Figure 5.7: Tornado Occurrences in North Carolina by County
Source: State Climate Office of North Carolina
Historical Occurrences According to the National Climatic Data Center, there have been a total of 15 recorded tornado events and 3 waterspouts in New Hanover County since 1950. It is likely that a high number of occurrences have gone unreported over the past 58 years. Over $3,000,000 in property damage has resulted from these tornado events (2009 dollars) which caused 5 injuries. Table 5.14 reports the tornado events, and Table 5.15 reports the waterspout events. The magnitude of HAZARD ANALYSIS these tornadoes ranges from F0 to F1 in intensity, with approximate locations for each shown in Figure 5.10.
Table 5.14: Historical Tornado Impacts
Deaths/ Location Date of Occurrence Magnitude Property Damage Injuries New Hanover County 06/23/54 F1 0/0 $2,090,166 New Hanover County 06/12/58 F1 0/0 $194,249 New Hanover County 10/15/59 F1 0/1 $193,199 New Hanover County 08/01/72 F0 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 05/13/78 F1 0/0 $10,335 New Hanover County 05/13/78 F0 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 07/16/91 F0 0/0 $0
5:32 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Deaths/ Location Date of Occurrence Magnitude Property Damage Injuries South Wilmington 10/08/96 F0 0/0 $0 Wilmington 01/08/98 F1 0/3 $240,830 Wilmington 05/07/98 F1 0/0 $55,047 Wilmington 05/23/98 F1 0/1 $68,809 Wilmington 06/19/98 F1 0/0 $206,426 Murraysville 09/15/99 F0 0/0 $0 HAZARD ANALYSIS Wilmington 09/15/99 F0 0/0 $0 Kirkland 05/11/08 F0 0/0 $0 TOTAL 0/0 $3,059,061.00 Source: NCDC
Table 5.15: Historical Tornado Impacts
Deaths/ Location Date of Occurrence Magnitude Property Damage Injuries Coastal Waters 07/10/98 N/A 0/0 $0 Coastal Waters 09/08/98 N/A 0/0 $0 Kure Beach 09/30/98 N/A 0/0 $0 TOTAL 0/0 $0
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:33
Figure 5.10: Locations of Historical Tornado Events in New Hanover County HAZARD ANALYSIS
Source: National Climactic and Data Center
Probability of Future Occurrences The probability of future tornado occurrences affecting New Hanover County is high. While the majority of these events have been historically small in terms of size, intensity and duration, they do pose a significant threat should New Hanover County experience a direct tornado strike.
5:34 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Winter Storm and Freeze
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. HAZARD ANALYSIS
Winter storm events may include snow, sleet, freezing rain, or a mix of these wintry forms of precipitation. Sleet is a raindrop that freezes into an ice pellet formation before reaching the ground, where it usually bounces upon hitting the surface and does not stick to objects. However, sleet can accumulate like snow and cause a hazard to motorists. Freezing rain is rain that falls to the ground when the temperature is below freezing, forming a glaze of ice on roadways and other surfaces. An ice storm occurs when freezing rain falls and freezes A heavy layer of ice was more weight than this tree in immediately upon impact. Even small Kansas City, Missouri could withstand during a January accumulations of ice can cause a significant 2002 ice storm that swept through the region, bringing hazard, especially on power lines, roads, and down trees, power lines and telephone lines. (Photo by trees. Heather Oliver/ FEMA News Photo)
A freeze event is weather marked by low temperatures below the freezing point (zero degrees Celsius or thirty-two degrees Fahrenheit). Freeze events are particularly dangerous as they are the second biggest killer among natural hazards (extreme heat being first). Further, agricultural production can be seriously affected when temperatures remain below the freezing point for an extended period of time, particularly in areas when vulnerable crops or livestock are located.
Location and Spatial Extent New Hanover County is located in a region of the country that is not particularly susceptible winter storm and freeze events. When such events do occur, the effects will felt over a widespread area. The inland areas of New Hanover County may have a slightly higher risk to storms since the ocean serves a natural temperature regulator on the coastal communities. The effects of extreme temperatures will be primarily limited to the elderly and homeless populations, with occasionally minor, sporadic property damages.
Historical Occurrences The National Climatic Data Center has reported five winter storm events in New Hanover County between 1950 and 2009. These storms caused over $77 million (2009 dollars) throughout the state of North Carolina. Further, there were 10 and two injuries deaths as a result of winter storm and freeze events, but none were reported in New Hanover County. Since these events affect multiple counties, an average of the total property damage is reported. New
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:35
Hanover County has incurred over $800,000 in damages from winter storm and freeze events (2009 dollars).8 Table 5.16 shows the date and damage for the five winter storm events.
Table 5.16: Winter Storm and Freeze Events Affecting New Hanover County
Average County Deaths/ Property Location Date of Occurrence Inches Injuries Damage (2009 Dollars) Statewide 03/12/1993 2/10 $776,996 6 Counties, including New Hanover 01/17/2000 0/0 1 ‐ 3 inches $0 6 Counties, including New Hanover 01/25/2000 0/0 4 ‐ 6 inches $0 6 Counties, including New Hanover 01/02/2002 0/0 1 ‐ 3 inches $0 6 Counties, including New Hanover 01/23/2003 0/0 2 ‐ 3 inches $29,851 TOTAL 2/10 $806,847.00 Source: National Climatic Data Center
Probability of Future Occurrences The probability of a future winter storm freeze event in New Hanover County is moderate. In terms of receiving measurable snowfall, there is statistically a 53.2 percent probability that New Hanover County will receive measurable snowfall in any given winter, and a 10.6 percent probability in Spring. The month of February has the highest single probability at 25.8 percent, with January a close second at 24.2 percent, December third with an 18.5 percent probability and March fourth with a 10.6 percent probability. All other months (April through November) have a zero percent probability. (NOAA Snow Climatology Project).
HAZARD ANALYSIS
8 Since specific information was not available for New Hanover County, this figure was determined by calculating an average amount per county. Given that coastal areas are likely to experience a less severe event than the mountain or piedmont region, this is likely an inflated estimate of actual damages.
5:36 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Earthquake
Background
An earthquake is the motion or trembling of the ground produced by sudden displacement of HAZARD ANALYSIS rock in the Earth's crust. Earthquakes result from crustal strain, volcanism, landslides or the collapse of caverns. Earthquakes can affect hundreds of thousands of square miles, cause damage to property measured in the tens of billions of dollars, result in loss of life and injury to hundreds of thousands of persons; and disrupt the social and economic functioning of the affected area.
Most earthquakes are caused by the release of stresses accumulated as a result of the rupture of rocks along opposing fault planes in the Earth’s outer crust. These fault planes are typically found along borders of the Earth's 10 tectonic plates. 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.
Most property damage and earthquake- related deaths are caused by the failure and collapse of structures due to ground shaking. The level of damage depends upon the amplitude and duration of the shaking, which are directly related to the earthquake size, distance from the fault, site and regional geology. Other damaging earthquake effects include landslides, the down-slope movement of soil and rock (mountain regions and along hillsides), and Many roads, including bridges and elevated highways, liquefaction, in which ground soil loses the were damaged by the 6.7 magnitude earthquake that impacted the Northridge, California area on January 17, ability to resist shear and flows much like 1994. Approximately 114,000 structures were damaged quick sand. In the case of liquefaction, and 72 deaths were attributed to the event. Damage anything relying on the substrata for costs were estimated at $25 billion. (FEMA News Photo) support can shift, tilt, rupture or collapse.
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.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:37
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 (Table 4.17). 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 typically measured using the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale which is 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 5.18.
Table 5.17: Richter Scale Magnitudes
RICHTER MAGNITUDES EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS
LESS THAN 3.5 Generally not felt, but recorded.
3.5 TO 5.4 Often felt, but rarely causes damage.
At most slight damage to well‐designed buildings. Can cause major UNDER 6.0 damage to poorly constructed buildings over small regions. Can be destructive in areas up to about 100 kilometers across where 6.1 TO 6.9 people live.
7.0 TO 7.9 Major earthquake. Can cause serious damage over larger areas.
Great earthquake. Can cause serious damage in areas several hundred 8 OR GREATER kilometers across. Source: North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Table 5.18: Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale for Earthquakes
HAZARD ANALYSIS CORRESPONDING SCALE INTENSITY DESCRIPTION OF EFFECTS RICHTER MAGNITUDE I INSTRUMENTAL Detected only on seismographs.
II FEEBLE Some people feel it. < 4.2 Felt by people resting; like a truck rumbling III SLIGHT by. IV MODERATE Felt by people walking. SLIGHTLY V Sleepers awake; church bells ring. < 4.8 STRONG Trees sway; suspended objects swing, objects VI STRONG < 5.4 fall off shelves.
5:38 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CORRESPONDING SCALE INTENSITY DESCRIPTION OF EFFECTS RICHTER MAGNITUDE VII VERY STRONG Mild alarm; walls crack; plaster falls. < 6.1 Moving cars uncontrollable; masonry VIII DESTRUCTIVE fractures, poorly constructed buildings damaged.
Some houses collapse; ground cracks; pipes HAZARD ANALYSIS IX RUINOUS < 6.9 break open. Ground cracks profusely; many buildings X DISASTROUS destroyed; liquefaction and landslides < 7.3 widespread. Most buildings and bridges collapse; roads, VERY XI railways, pipes and cables destroyed; general < 8.1 DISASTROUS triggering of other hazards. Total destruction; trees fall; ground rises and XII CATASTROPHIC > 8.1 falls in waves. Source: North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Location and Spatial Extent Approximately two-thirds of North Carolina is subject to earthquakes, with the western and southeast regions most vulnerable to an earthquake resulting in some damage. North Carolina is affected by both the Charleston Fault in South Carolina and the New Madrid Fault in Missouri. Both of these faults have generated earthquakes measuring greater than a magnitude of 8 on the Richter Scale during the last 200 years. New Hanover County is most at-risk from the Charleston Fault, as evidenced by the fact that the Great Charleston Earthquake of 1886— epicentered 241 miles away—registered as an 8 on the Modified Mercalli Scale of Earthquake Intensity.9
Figure 5.11 is a map showing geological and seismic information for North Carolina. This indicates that the county as a whole exists within a uniform area of relatively limited seismic risk.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:39
Figure 5.11: Geological and Seismic Information for North Carolina
Source: North Carolina Geological Survey
HAZARD ANALYSIS
5:40 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Historical Occurrences The following list of earthquake events which have impacted New Hanover County since 1875 has been compiled from National Geophysical Data Center records (Table 5.19.).
Table 5.19: Significant Seismic Events in New Hanover County
HAZARD ANALYSIS Location Recording Distance from Epicenter Date of Occurrence Modified Mercalli Intensity Occurrence (Miles)
12/23/1875 Wilmington 376 6 01/18/1884 Wilmington N/A 5 09/01/1886 Wilmington 241 8 06/12/1912 Wilmington 249 3 02/21/1916 Wilmington 438 3 11/22/1928 Wilmington N/A 2 02/14/1958 Wilmington N/A 3 02/17/1958 Wilmington N/A 3 02/18/1958 Wilmington N/A 3 02/18/1958 Kure Beach N/A 3 02/19/1958 Wilmington N/A 3 02/19/1958 Kure Beach N/A 3 03/05/1958 Wilmington 18 5 03/05/1958 Kure Beach 31 5 03/05/1958 Wilmington N/A 3 03/08/1958 Wilmington N/A 3 03/15/1958 Wilmington N/A 4 12/09/1974 Wilmington N/A 2 12/09/1974 Wilmington N/A 2 Source: National Geophysical Data Center
Probability of Future Occurrences The probability of a future earthquake event in New Hanover County is moderate.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:41
Landslide and Sinkhole
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 mudflows. Rock falls are rapid movements of bedrock, which result in bouncing or rolling. A rock 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, lahars or debris avalanches, are Landslides can damage or destroy roads, railroads, fast-moving rivers of rock, earth, and other pipelines, electrical and telephone lines, mines, oil wells, debris saturated with water. They develop buildings, canals, sewers, bridges, dams, seaports, airports, forests, parks, and farms. (Photo by Lynn when water rapidly accumulates in the ground, Forman) 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 materials along the way. As the flows reach flatter ground, the mudflow spreads over a broad area where it can accumulate in thick deposits.
Landslides are typically associated with periods of heavy rainfall or rapid snow melt and tend to worsen the effects of flooding that often accompanies these events. In areas burned by forest and brush fires, a lower threshold of precipitation may initiate landslides. Some landslides move
HAZARD ANALYSIS slowly and cause damage gradually, whereas others move so rapidly that they can destroy property and take lives suddenly and unexpectedly.
In the United States, it is estimated that landslides cause up to $2 billion in damages and from 25 to 50 deaths annually. An additional geologic hazard that is naturally occurring but may be exacerbated by human activity is sinkhole.
Sinkholes form in areas with underlying limestone and other rock types that are soluble in natural water. The collapse of overlying sediments into the underground cavities produces sinkholes. Most underlying limestone is porous, allowing the acidic rain water to percolate through their strata, dissolving some limestone and carrying it away in solution. It is for this reason that sinkholes contribute to groundwater contamination, rapidly carrying away contaminated water. Over time, this persistent erosional process can create extensive underground voids and drainage systems in much of the carbonate rocks.
5:42 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The three general types of sinkholes are: subsidence, solution, and collapse. Subsidence sinkholes form gradually where the overburden (the sediments and water that rest on the limestone) is thin and only a veneer of sediments is overlying the limestone. Solution sinkholes form where no overburden is present and the limestone is exposed at land surface.Collapse sinkholes are most common in areas where the overburden is thick, but the confining layer is breached or absent. Collapse sinkholes can form with little warning and leave behind a deep, steep-sided hole.
Sinkholes occur in many shapes, from steep- HAZARD ANALYSIS walled holes to bowl or cone shaped depressions. Sinkholes are dramatic because the land generally stays intact for a while until the underground spaces get too big. If there is not enough support for the land above the spaces, then a sudden collapse of the land surface can occur. Under natural conditions, sinkholes form slowly and expand gradually. They may fill with water forming lakes and ponds. Human activities such as dredging, Collapses, such as the sudden formation of sinkholes, constructing reservoirs, diverting surface water may destroy buildings, roads, and utilities. (Photo: and pumping groundwater can accelerate the Bettmann) rate of sinkhole expansions, resulting in the abrupt formation of collapse sinkholes.
Sinkhole formation is exacerbated 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 and insurance claims for damages as a result of sinkholes has increased 1,200 percent from 1987 to 1991, costing nearly $100 million.
Location and Spatial Extent Landslides in the coastal plain region of region of North Carolina are rare. Although more than 250 landslide sites have been identified in North Carolina, but all are located in the western portion of the state. 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. Figure 5.12 indicates that there is little landslide activity occurring in New Hanover County, North Carolina. Therefore, it is assumed that the county is at low, but uniform risk to a landslide event. Further, data from the U.S. Geological Survey indicates that the entire County is within a zone of low incidence and low susceptibly. This means that any landslide event would, at most, affect less than 1.5 percent of the total land area of the county.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:43
Figure 5.12: Landslides Activity in the United States
Source: USGS
Due to soil conditions, sinkholes present a greater threat to New Hanover County than landslides do. According to the North Carolina Division of Water, many sinkholes have occurred in New Hanover County, predominately in coastal areas. The susceptible areas are HAZARD ANALYSIS shown in Figure 5.13. In addition to natural processes and conditions resulting in sinkholes, areas of groundwater pumping may acceleration their formation.
5:44 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 5.13: Sinkhole Activity in Coastal North Carolina
HAZARD ANALYSIS
Source: North Carolina Division of Water Resources, DENR
Historical Occurrences There is no recorded historical evidence of any significant landslide activity or reported sinkhole events in New Hanover County.
Probability of Future Occurrences There is a low probability that a landslide event will occur in New Hanover County. According to the USGS, there have been incidents throughout the county (less than 1.5 percent of the area has been affected). Conversely, there is a moderate risk of sinkhole occurrence in New Hanover County.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:45
Tsunami
Background The word tsunami is Japanese and means “harbor wave.” A tsunami is a wave or series of waves most commonly caused by an earthquake or by a large undersea landslide, volcanic eruption or other undersea disturbances. From the area of disturbance, tsunami waves will travel outward in all directions and can originate hundreds or even thousands of miles away from affected coastal areas.
In the open ocean, tsunami waves travel at speeds of up to 600 miles per hour but are too small to be observed, and the time between wave crests may be five to 90 minutes. As the waves approach shallow coastal waters, they slow down and may rise to several feet or, in rare cases, tens of feet. Although the waves slow down as they reach shallow water, the Tsunami Hazard Zone signs are posted at coastal energy remains constant and when tsunami access points or other low-lying areas that would waves crash into the shoreline they may be as clearly be vulnerable to a large, locally generated high as 100 feet. The first wave is almost never tsunami. Signs are placed at locations agreed upon the largest; successive waves may be spaced tens by local and state governmental authorities. Tsunami Evacuation Route markers are used to of minutes apart and continue arriving for many designate the evacuation routes established by local hours. The coastal areas at greatest risk are less jurisdictions in cooperation with emergency than 50 feet above sea level and within one mile management officials. (Photos courtesy of of the shoreline. Tsunamis can cause great loss Washington State Department of Transportation) of life and property damage where they come ashore, and most tsunami deaths are the result of drowning. Associated risks include water pollution, damaged gas lines, and flooding.
Tsunami activity is possible along the East Coast of the United States, but is a greater risk along the Pacific Rim states (Washington, Oregon, California Alaska and Hawaii). As many as 40 tsunami or tsunami-like events have been reported along the East Coast since the early 1600s. Although an East Coast tsunami would be rare, two off-shore areas are currently under
HAZARD ANALYSIS investigation according to a 2002 National Geophysical Data Center report. One area of interest consists of large cracks northeast of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina that could foretell of the early stages of an underwater landslide resulting 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.
Location and Spatial Extent The potential location and extent of the tsunami hazard for New Hanover County is similar and slightly more extensive than the established flood hazard area.
5:46 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Historical Occurrences Historical records do not indicate any past significant tsunami occurrences for New Hanover County, and such an event is generally considered possible but unlikely. However, the potential for tsunami impacts along the entire Eastern United States coast does exist as evidenced by other recorded tsunami occurrences in the area.
Probability of Future Occurrences The probability of a future tsunami event affecting New Hanover County is considered to be HAZARD ANALYSIS very low, though coastal areas are at the greatest risk. Even upon impact, the consequences of a tsunami strike are thought to be low for New Hanover County given off-shore terrain. Therefore, there is no indication that this hazard is a significant enough threat to the state or the county to warrant further analysis or a detailed vulnerability assessment.
Volcano
Background
Over 75 percent of the Earth's surface above and below sea level, including the seafloors and some mountains, originated from volcanic eruption. Emissions from these volcanoes formed the Earth's oceans and atmosphere. Volcanoes can also cause tsunamis, earthquakes, and dangerous flooding.
A volcano is a vent in the Earth’s crust that emits molten rock and steam. They are evidence that the physical makeup of our planet is ever-changing. Volcanoes are relatively site specific, but the molten rock, steam, and other gases they release can have an impact on much larger areas.
Lahar is the mudflow of debris and water caused by a volcano. It is also known as debris flow or volcanic mudflow. Lahar is most often The May 18, 1980 eruption of Mount Saint Helens triggered by rainfall washing down the debris created an eruptive cloud that rose to an altitude of from the slopes of volcanoes. However, lahar more than 12 miles in 10 minutes. The swirling ash flows can also be triggered by rapidly melting particles in the eruptive cloud generated lightning which in turn ignited forest fires. Other fires were snow and ice, debris avalanches and breakouts ignited by the initial blasts and later pyroclastic of lakes that were dammed by volcanic debris. flows. Nearly 550 million tons of ash fell over a 22,000 square mile area. (Photo courtesy of Department of Natural Resources, State of Tephra is the general term used to describe the Washington)
ash and other materials that are released into the air after a volcanic eruption. Tephra ranges in size from fine powder to larger rock-sized particles. Volcanic ash can contaminate water supplies, cause electrical storms, collapse roofs, and can affect people hundreds of miles away.
Volcanic explosions which are directed sideways are called lateral blasts. Lateral blasts can throw large pieces of rock at very high speeds for several miles. These explosions can kill by impact,
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:47
burial, or heat and may have enough force to knock down entire forests of trees. The majority of deaths attributed to the Mount St. Helens volcano were a result of lateral blast and tree blow- down.
There are more than 500 active volcanoes in the world. More than half of these volcanoes are part of the "Ring of Fire," a region that encircles the Pacific Ocean. Over 50 volcanoes in the United States have erupted one or more times in the past 200 years. The danger area around a volcano covers approximately a 20-mile radius. Some danger may exist 100 miles or more from a volcano. However, there are no active volcanoes in North Carolina
Location and Spatial Extent The most volcanically active regions of the nation are in Alaska, Hawaii, California, Oregon, and Washington (Figure 5.14). There are no known volcanoes in North Carolina.
Figure 5.14: Locations of Active Volcanoes in the United States
Source: Global Volcanism Program HAZARD ANALYSIS Historical Occurrences There are no active volcanoes in North Carolina. Therefore, no historical evidence of volcanic activity exists for New Hanover County.
Probability of Future Occurrences Given that there are no active volcanoes in North Carolina, there is no probability of a future volcano event. There is no indication that this hazard is a significant enough threat to the state or the county to warrant further analysis or a detailed vulnerability assessment.
5:48 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Hydrologic Hazards
Dam and Levee Failure
Background Worldwide interest in dam and levee safety has risen significantly in recent years. Aging infrastructure, new hydrologic information, and population growth in floodplain areas downstream from dams and near levees have resulted in an increased emphasis on safety, HAZARD ANALYSIS 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. If a levee breaks, scores of properties may become submerged in floodwaters and residents may become trapped by 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.
The state regulating agency for the dam is the North Carolina Division of Environment and Natural Resources. This Division classifies dams for hazard potential. There are three hazard classifications- high, intermediate, and low- that correspond to qualitative descriptions and quantitative guidelines. Table 5.20 explains these classifications.
Table 5.20: North Carolina Dam Hazard Classifications
Hazard Description Quantitative Guidelines Classification Interruption of road service, low volume roads Less than 25 vehicles per day Low Economic damage Less than $30,000 Damage to highways, Interruption of service 25 to less than 250 vehicles per day Intermediate Economic damage $30,000 to less than $200,000 Loss of human life* Probable loss of 1 or more human lives
High Economic damage More than $200,000 *Probable loss of human life due to breached 250 or more vehicles per day roadway or bridge on or below the dam. Source: North Carolina Division of Land Resources
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:49
Location and Spatial Extent There are a total of three dams in New Hanover County. According to the National Inventory of Dams and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, there is only one state-regulated dam in New Hanover County—Greenfield Lake Dam located on the Cape Fear River. This is a low hazard dam is owned by the City of Wilmington and was completed in 180010. There are also two privately owned dams- Diamond Shamrock Dam in Diamond Shamrock and The McCrory Pond Dam on Burnt Mill creek. Both of these dams are low hazard.
Historical Occurrences According to official records, no historical evidence of a dam breach or failure exists for the Greenfield Lake Dam. There are some local statements however that suggest that the dam may have been overtopped during Hurricane Floyd in September 1999. At most, this would have caused minor traffic disruptions in the immediate area. The McCrory Pond Dam on Burnt Mill Creek is a 26-acre pond dam that is not state-regulated. This dam has been in existence for 10 years. No breaches or failures are known to have occurred at either location.
Probability of Future Occurrences There is a low probability of dam or levee failure in New Hanover County. Given that all dams in the county are low hazard, no further analysis is necessary.
Erosion
Background Erosion is a hydrologic hazard defined as the wearing away of land and loss of beach, shoreline or dune material. It is measured as the rate of change in the position or horizontal (landward) displacement of a shoreline over a period of time. Short-term erosion typically results from episodic natural events such as hurricanes and storm surge, windstorms and flooding hazards, but may be exacerbated by human activities such as boat wakes, removal of dune and vegetative buffers, shoreline hardening and dredging. Long-term erosion is a function of multi-year impacts such as wave action, sea level rise, sediment loss, subsidence and climate change. Climatic trends can change a beach from naturally accreting to eroding due to increased episodic erosion events caused by waves from an above-average number of storms and high tides, or the long-term HAZARD ANALYSIS effects of fluctuations in sea level.
Natural recovery from erosion can take years to decades. If a beach and dune system does not recover quickly enough naturally, coastal and upland property may be exposed to further damage in subsequent coastal erosion and flooding events. Human actions to supplement natural coastal recovery, such as beach nourishment, dune stabilization and shoreline protection structures (e.g., sea walls, groins, jetties, etc.) can mitigate the hazard of coastal erosion, but may also exacerbate it under some circumstances.
Death and injury are not associated with coastal erosion; however, it can cause the destruction of buildings and infrastructure and represents a major threat to the local economies of coastal communities that rely on the financial benefits of recreational beaches.
10 A low hazard classification is given by the North Carolina Division of Land Management and described in Table 5.19 in the Dam and Levee Background section.
5:50 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Location and Spatial Extent All of New Hanover County’s coastal and riverine areas are susceptible to the erosion hazard. For the purposes of this plan, only coastal areas are addressed. (The City of Wilmington is aware of any significant erosion problems, and therefore chose to focus on coastal areas.) Figure 5.15 and Figure 5.16 show the areas of coastal erosion and accretion in New Hanover County. Figure 5.14 shows the entire county while Figure 5.15 provides a close-up of Kure Beach (left) and Carolina Beach (right) including building footprints. The data used to indicate erosion was
provided by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Resources. Each point represents a 5 point HAZARD ANALYSIS average. In other words, the value of a single point is its value averaged with the erosion rate of the two neighboring points on each side (5 points).
According to the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, most of New Hanover County’s coast averages less than two feet of erosion per year. However, due to effective beach nourishment practices much of New Hanover’s coast is stable and is actually accreting as opposed to eroding. GIS analysis shows that there are two areas—south of the Town of Kure Beach and north of the Town of Carolina Beach—that are potentially at greatest risk of erosion.
Figure 5.15: Erosion Rates in New Hanover County
Source: North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:51
Figure 5.16: Kure Beach and Carolina Beach Erosion Rates
Source: North Carolina Division of Coastal Resources
HAZARD ANALYSIS
5:52 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Historical Occurrences The severity of coastal erosion is typically measured through a quantitative assessment of annual shoreline change for a given beach cross-section of profile (feet or meters per year) over a long period of time. Erosion rates vary as a function of shoreline type and are influenced primarily by episodic events, but can be used in land use and hazard management to define areas of critical concern.
According to NCDC data, there were three events that caused beach erosion in New Hanover HAZARD ANALYSIS County:
September 5, 1996: Hurricane Fran Forty (40) feet of beach erosion destroyed most docks and piers.
September 15, 1999: Hurricane Floyd Ocean storm surge was 9 to 10 feet, inundating barrier islands and causing extensive dune erosion.
September 14, 2005: Hurricane Ophelia A longshore current gouged a 5 ft escarpment along the coast of New Hanover and Pender counties.
Probability of Future Occurrences Coastal erosion remains a natural, dynamic and continuous process for the coastal areas in New Hanover County and thus has a high probability of future occurrence. The damaging impacts of coastal erosion are lessened through continuous (and costly) beach nourishment and structural shoreline protection measures; however, it is likely that the impacts of coastal erosion will increase in severity due to future episodic storm events as well as the anticipated slow onset, long-term effects of climate change and sea level rise.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:53
Flood Background Flooding is the most frequent and costly natural hazard in the United States, a hazard that has caused more than 10,000 deaths since 1900. Nearly 90 percent of presidential disaster declarations result from natural events where flooding was a major component.
Floods generally result from excessive precipitation, and can be classified under two categories: general floods, precipitation over a given river basin for a long period of time along with storm- induced wave or tidal action; and flash floods, the product of heavy localized precipitation in a short time period over a given location. The severity of a flooding event is typically determined by a combination of several major factors, including: stream and river basin topography and physiography; precipitation and weather patterns; recent soil moisture conditions; and the degree of vegetative clearing and impervious surface.
General floods are usually long-term events that may last for several days. 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 the watershed of a stream or river. Coastal flooding is typically a result of storm surge, wind-driven waves and heavy rainfall produced by hurricanes, tropical storms and other large coastal storms. Urban flooding occurs where manmade development has obstructed the natural flow of water and decreased the Entire communities lie underwater for days—and in ability of natural groundcover to absorb and some cases weeks—as a result of Hurricane Floyd, which impacted the East Coast in September 1999. (Photo retain surface water runoff. courtesy of North Carolina Division of Emergency Management) A flash flood is typically caused by slow- HAZARD ANALYSIS moving thunderstorms in a local area or by heavy rains associated with hurricanes and tropical storms. However, flash flooding events may also occur from a dam or levee failure, within minutes or hours of heavy amounts of rainfall, or from a sudden release of water held by a retention basin or other stormwater control facility. Although flash flooding occurs most often along mountain streams, it is also common in urbanized areas where much of the ground is covered by impervious surfaces.
The periodic flooding of lands adjacent to rivers, streams and shorelines (land known as 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. Flood magnitude increases with increasing recurrence interval.
5:54 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Floodplains are designated by the frequency of the flood that is large enough to cover them. For example, the 10-year floodplain will be covered by the 10-year flood 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 in a given year, which is the percentage of the probability of flooding each year. For example, the 100-year flood has a 1 percent chance of occurring in any given year, and the 500- year flood has a 0.2 percent chance of occurring in any given year. These floods are referred to HAZARD ANALYSIS as the 1 percent annual chance and 0.2 percent annual chance floods, respectively.
Table 5.21 shows flood damage values by fiscal year from a national perspective.
Table 5.21: National Flood Damage by Fiscal Year Damage (Thousands Implicit Price Damage (Millions U.S. Population Damage Per Capita Fiscal Year of Current Dollars) Deflator of 1995 Dollars) (Millions) (1995 Dollars) 1960 111,168 0.22620 491 180.671 2.72 1961 147,680 0.22875 646 183.691 3.51 1962 86,574 0.23180 373 186.538 2.00 1963 179,496 0.23445 766 189.242 4.05 1964 194,512 0.23792 818 191.889 4.26 1965 1,221,903 0.24241 5,041 194.303 25.94 1966 116,645 0.24934 468 196.560 2.38 1967 291,823 0.25698 1,136 198.712 5.71 1968 443,251 0.26809 1,653 200.706 8.24 1969 889,135 0.28124 3,161 202.677 15.60 1970 173,803 0.29623 587 205.052 2.86 1971 323,427 0.31111 1,040 207.661 5.01 1972 4,442,992 0.32436 13,698 209.896 65.26 1973 1,805,284 0.34251 5,271 211.909 24.87 1974 692,832 0.37329 1,856 213.854 8.68 1975 1,348,834 0.40805 3,306 215.973 15.31 1976 1,054,790 0.43119 2,446 218.035 11.22 1977 988,350 0.45892 2,154 220.239 9.78 1978 1,028,970 0.49164 2,093 222.585 9.40 1979 3,626,030 0.53262 6,808 225.055 30.25 1980 No data 0.58145 0 227.225 0.00 1981 No data 0.63578 0 229.466 0.00 1982 No data 0.67533 0 231.664 0.00 1983 3,693,572 0.70214 5,260 233.792 22.50 1984 3,540,770 0.72824 4,862 235.825 20.62 1985 379,303 0.75117 505 237.924 2.12 1986 5,939,994 0.76769 7,737 240.133 32.22 1987 1,442,349 0.79083 1,824 242.289 7.53 1988 214,297 0.81764 262 244.499 1.07 1989 1,080,814 0.84883 1,273 246.819 5.16
1990 1,636,366 0.88186 1,856 249.464 7.44 1991 1,698,765 0.91397 1,859 252.153 7.37 1992 672,635 0.93619 718 255.030 2.82 1993 16,364,710 0.95872 17,069 257.783 66.22 1994 1,120,149 0.97870 1,145 260.327 4.40 1995 5,110,714 1.00000 5,111 262.803 19.45 1996 6,121,753 1.01937 6,005 265.229 22.64 1997 8,934,923 1.03925 8,597 267.784 32.11
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:55
1998 2,465,048 1.05199 2,343 270.248 8.67 1999 5,450,375 1.06718 5107 272.691 18.73 2000 1,336,744 1.08960 1227 282.125 4.35 2001 7,158,700 1.11539 6418 284.797 22.54 2002 1,116,959 1.12854 990 287.974 3.44 2003 2,405,685 1.14730 2097 290.810 7.21
Location and Spatial Extent
There are approximately 143,488 acres (224 square miles) in New Hanover County. Of these, there are approximately 35,579 acres (55.59 square miles) in the one-percent annual chance flood zone (100-year floodplain), 2,463 acres (3.85 square miles) in the 0.2-percent annual chance flood zone (500-year floodplain), and 15,669 acres (24,48 square miles) in the coastal V zone. This totals approximately 53,710 acres (83.92 square miles), or approximately 37 percent of the county’s entire area. Figure 5.17 shows these special flood hazard areas throughout the county based on best available FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM), which was updated in 2006. It is important to note that while FEMA digital flood data is recognized as best available data for planning purposes, it does not always reflect the most accurate and up-to-date flood risk. Flooding and flood-related losses often do occur outside of delineated special flood hazard areas.
HAZARD ANALYSIS
5:56 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 5.17: Special Flood Hazard Areas in New Hanover County HAZARD ANALYSIS
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:57
In order to provide an additional level of detail with regard to the spatial extent of the flood hazard for the county’s individual jurisdictions, Figure 5.18, Figure 5.19, and Figure 5.20 were produced to show flood hazard areas within each municipality along with building footprints and roads.
Figure 5.18: Special Flood Hazard Areas in Carolina Beach HAZARD ANALYSIS
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency
5:58 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 5.19: Special Flood Hazard Areas in Kure Beach HAZARD ANALYSIS
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:59
Figure 5.20: Special Flood Hazard Areas in Wilmington
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency
HAZARD ANALYSIS Historical Occurrences According to the National Climatic Data Center, New Hanover County experienced 42 flood events between 1950 and 2009. The 42 floods referenced below resulted in a total of four deaths, two injuries, none were reported in New Hanover County. These events also resulted in approximately $100,000 (2009 dollars) in reported property damages. Specific information about these events including location, date, type of event, reported deaths or injuries, and property damage is reported in Table 5.22. The worst flooding in the county’s history occurred during Hurricane Floyd—a Category 2 hurricane strongly associated with heavy rains—in September 1999.
5:60 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 5.22: Historical Flood Impacts
Deaths/ Property Damage Location Date of Occurrence Type of Event Injuries (2009 dollars) Statewide 03/23/93 Flash Floods 0/0 $0 7 counties including New Hanover County 12/23/94 Flooding 0/0 $0 Burgaw 06/02/95 Flooding 0/0 $29,447 HAZARD ANALYSIS Wilmington 07/03/95 Urban Flood 0/0 $0 Wilmington 07/21/95 Urban Flood 0/0 $0 Carolina Beach 09/09/95 Coastal Flood 0/0 $0 East Wilmington 06/25/96 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Wilmington 07/16/96 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Wilmington 07/21/96 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Castle Hayne 08/04/96 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 South Wilmington 09/11/96 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Wilmington 09/11/96 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Castle Hayne 09/12/96 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Ft Fisher 10/08/96 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Wilmington 06/27/97 Urban/sml Stream Fld 0/0 $0 Wilmington 07/07/97 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Wilmington 08/21/97 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Wilmington 09/15/97 Urban/sml Stream Fld 0/0 $0 Wilmington 01/23/98 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Carolina Beach 02/03/98 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Castle Hayne 02/17/98 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Wilmington 05/27/98 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Wilmington 07/05/98 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Wilmington 07/18/98 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Wilmington 08/19/98 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 South Wilmington 09/03/98 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Carolina Beach 05/01/99 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Wrightsville Beach 07/11/99 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Carolina Beach 08/30/99 Flood 0/0 $0 Wilmington 09/15/99 Flood 0/0 $0 Carolina Beach 10/17/99 Flood 0/0 $0 Carolina Beach 09/21/00 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Carolina Beach 09/23/00 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Wilmington 03/20/01 Flash Flood 0/0 $63,339
Wilmington 07/02/01 Urban/sml Stream Fld 0/1 $0 Castle Hayne 07/11/01 Urban/sml Stream Fld 0/0 $0 Wilmington 08/14/2001 Flooding 0/0 $0 Wilmington 09/01/2002 Flooding 0/0 $0 Wilmington 09/15/2002 Flooding 0/0 $0 Wilmington 08/31/2006 Flash Flood 0/0 $0
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:61
Deaths/ Property Damage Location Date of Occurrence Type of Event Injuries (2009 dollars) New Hanover County 06/22/2009 Coastal Flood 0/0 $0 New Hanover County 06/23/2009 Coastal Flood 0/0 $0 Wilmington 07/06/2009 Flash Flood 0/0 $0 Source: NCDC
Historical Summary of Insured Flood Losses According to FEMA flood insurance policy records as of July 2009, there have been more than 5,521 flood losses reported in New Hanover County through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) since 1978, totaling more than $85.9 million in claims payments. Table 5.23 indicates the losses by participating jurisdictions. These losses include both inland (freshwater) and coastal flooding events. It should be emphasized that these numbers include only those losses to structures that were insured through the NFIP policies, and for losses in which claims were sought and received. It is likely that many additional instances of flood losses in New Hanover County were either uninsured, denied claims payment, or not reported.
Table 5.23: NFIP Claims for New Hanover County (1978-2009)
Jurisdiction Total Losses Total Payments Carolina Beach 2,399 $30,531,277 Kure Beach 472 $14,991,942 Wilmington 234 $3,152,064 Unincorporated County 2,416 $37,256,302 TOTAL 5,521 $85,931,585
Repetitive Loss Properties
FEMA defines a repetitive loss property as any insurable building for which two or more claims of more than $1,000 were paid by the NFIP within any rolling 10-year period, since 1978. A repetitive loss property may or may not be currently insured by the NFIP. Currently there are over 122,000 repetitive loss properties nationwide. HAZARD ANALYSIS According to FEMA repetitive loss property records as of January 31, 2010, there are 1,320 “non-mitigated” repetitive loss properties located in New Hanover County. There are 311 repetitive loss properties in the Town of Carolina Beach, 71 in the Town of Kure Beach, 249 in unincorporated New Hanover County, and 95 in the City of Wilmington.
All of the repetitive loss properties in the county have accounted for a total of 3,292 losses and more than $89 million in claims payments under the NFIP. The average claim amount for these properties is $27,239. Without mitigation, these properties will likely continue to experience flood losses.
Probability of Future Occurrences Flood events will remain a frequent occurrence in New Hanover County, and the probability of future occurrences is high and certain. The probability of future flood events based on
5:62 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
magnitude and according to best available data is illustrated in Figure 5.17, which indicates those areas susceptible to the 1 percent annual chance flood (100-year floodplain); the 0.2 percent annual chance flood (500-year floodplain); and the coastal V zone. As described in other hazard profiles, it is highly likely that New Hanover County will continue to experience inland and coastal flooding associated with large tropical storms, hurricanes and storm surge events.
It should also be noted that anticipated sea level rise will increase the probability and intensity of future tidal flooding events in years to come. Rising sea level over time will shorten the return HAZARD ANALYSIS period (increasing the frequency) of significant flood events. For example; sea level rise of 1 foot over a typical project analysis period (50 years) may cause a flood event currently of annual probability 2 percent (50-year flood) to become an event of 10 percent annual probability (10- year flood). This rise in sea level will not only increase the probability and intensity of tidal flooding events, but will also contribute to the loss of coastal wetlands and erosion of sand beaches that act as protective buffers against flood events.
Rip Current
Background A rip current is an extremely dangerous hazard, killing approximately 100 people each year.11 Rip currents form in the surf-zone as waves disperse. According to NOAA, waves break on the sandbar, move towards the beach and then return to the ocean through a channel. Water becomes trapped between the beach and the sandbar, causing the water to move away from the beach in a narrow, river-like channel. There are three parts to a rip current: 1) the feeder; 2) the neck; and 3) the head. The feeder current flows parallel to the shore, converging at the neck and flowing, as a rip current, towards the head. At the head, the current expands and releases slack. Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Rip currents are typically mushroom-shaped and brown in color due to sand being picked up. However some may have no color at all. Rip currents also vary in size and shape.
There are four different types of rip currents including traveling, fixed, permanent, and flash.12 • Flash: A flash current is short in duration (less than 10 minutes) and is enhanced by large swell. This causes unpredictable conditions where they occur. A rip current in Florida after Hurricane Jeanne. (Photo Dennis Decker, WCM, NWS Melbourne, FL) 11 National Weather Service 12 This information is provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:63
• Permanent: This type of rip current develops along jetties, groins, and piers. • Fixed: These rip currents are dependent upon the shape of bays, coasts, reefs, or sandbars. • Traveling: This type of rip current forms along long beach currents which run parallel to the beach. The long beach current pushes the rip away from its original location, weakening it.
Location and Spatial Extent A rip current forms in along coastal areas of large bodies of water including oceans and the Great Lakes. All of the coastal areas in New Hanover County are uniformly at-risk to rip currents. Further, these areas are equally susceptible to any of the four types of rip currents. The Fort Fisher revetment is notorious for permanent rip current occurrences. Piers throughout New Hanover County also have permanent rip currents. The most dangerous rip currents of any type occur during high surf when wave height and wave period are the highest.
Historical Occurrences According to the National Weather Service in Wilmington, North Carolina there have been ten (10) rip current drownings since May 2002. Seven (7) of these events occurred in the participating areas of New Hanover County as listed in Table 5.24.
Table 5.24: Rip Current Drownings in New Hanover County Jurisdiction Date Carolina Beach 10/05/2002 Carolina Beach 07/27/2005 Carolina Beach 06/16/2007 Fort Fisher 08/31/2008 Kure Beach 06/06/2009 Carolina Beach 06/27/2009 Fort Fisher 08/08/2009
Probability of Future Occurrences The probably of future rip current occurrences is highly likely. This hazard occurs naturally along the shoreline of New Hanover County. Inclement weather conditions may hasten the HAZARD ANALYSIS severity of this hazard. A rip current forms in along coastal areas of large bodies of water including oceans and the Great Lakes. All of the coastal areas in New Hanover County are uniformly at-risk to rip currents. Further, these areas are equally susceptible to any of the four types of rip currents. The most dangerous rip currents occur during high surf when wave height and wave period are the highest.
This is a very dangerous natural hazard in New Hanover County that, unlike other hazards, only affects life instead of property. Therefore, no vulnerability assessment will be performed in Section 6: Vulnerability Assessment.
5:64 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Storm Surge
Background Storm surge occurs when the water level of a tidally influenced body of water increases above the normal astronomical high tide, and are most common in conjunction with coastal storms with massive low-pressure systems with cyclonic flows such as hurricanes, tropical storms and nor’easters. The low barometric pressure associated with these storms cause the water surface to rise, and storms making landfall during peak tides have surge heights and more extensive flood HAZARD ANALYSIS inundation limits. Storm surges will inundate coastal floodplains by dune overwash, tidal elevation rise in inland bays and harbors, and backwater flooding through coastal river mouths. The duration of a storm is the most influential factor affecting the severity and impact of storm surges.
This hazard is often described as a wave that has outrun its generating source and become a long period swell. It is often recognized as a large dome of water that may be 50 to 100 miles wide and generally rising anywhere from four to five feet in a Category 1 hurricane to over 20 feet in a Category 5 storm. The storm surge arrives ahead of the storm center’s actual landfall and the more intense the storm 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. he surge is always highest in the right-front quadrant of the direction in which the storm is moving. As the storm approaches shore, the greatest storm surge will be to the north of the low-pressure system or 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 shoreline.
Storm surge heights and associated waves are dependent on not only the storm’s intensity but also upon the shape of the offshore 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. The storms that generate the largest coastal storm surges can develop year-round, but they are most frequent from late summer to early spring.
Location and Spatial Extent Storm surges can be extremely dangerous to coastal communities in North Carolina—in some instances causing a greater threat than the high winds produced by the hurricane or tropical storm. In fact, nationwide statistics show that nine out of 10 fatalities associated with hurricanes are directly attributable to storm surge. There are many areas in New Hanover County subject to potential storm surge inundation.
Figure 5.21 and Figure 5.22 illustrates hurricane storm surge inundation zones for fast and slow moving storms in the participating areas of New Hanover County. The information used to create these maps was derived from geo-referenced SLOSH (Sea, Lake and Overland Surge from Hurricanes) data produced by the USACE in coordination with NOAA. SLOSH is a modeling tool used to estimate storm surge for coastal areas resulting from historical, hypothetical or predicted hurricanes taking into account maximum expected levels for pressure, size, forward speed, track and winds. Therefore, the SLOSH data is best used for defining the potential maximum surge associated with various storm intensities for any particular location.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:65
Figure 5.21: Storm Surge Inundation Areas for Slow Moving Storms
Source: USACE
HAZARD ANALYSIS
5:66 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Figure 5.22: Storm Surge Inundation Areas for Fast Moving Storms HAZARD ANALYSIS
Source: USACE
As shown in the figures, areas closest to coastal areas are at high risk to storm surge inundation in addition to most riverine floodplains along major rivers. While areas not located immediately along the coast or major rivers may not be directly impacted by storm surge inundation except in extreme storm events, they might experience flooding caused by storm surge and extremely high tides that affect the drainage of areas further inland.
Historical Occurrences According to the National Climatic Data Center, there have been three reported storm surge
events which have affected New Hanover County since 1996, as shown in Table 5.25.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:67
Table 5.25: Historical Storm Surge Impacts in New Hanover County
Location Date Magnitude Description Hurricane Fran caused storm surge of 12 feet MSL. Between the storm surge and the expansive beach New Hanover County 09/15/1996 12 feet erosion, most docks and piers were destroyed.
Hurrican Bonnie caused storm surge between 7 to 9 feet with most barrier island overwash from the New Hanover County 08/26/1998 7 – 9 feet south side, not the ocean side.
Hurricane Floyd caused storm surge between 9 and New Hanover County 09/15/1999 9 ‐ 10 feet 10 feet, inundating barrier islands. Source: NCDC
Probability of Future Occurrences It is likely that New Hanover County will continue to experience storm surge associated with large tropical storms, hurricanes and squalls combined with high tides. As noted in the preceding section (under Flood), anticipated sea level rise will increase the probability and intensity of future storm surge events in years to come. This rise in sea level will not only increase the probability and intensity of tidal flooding events, but will also contribute to the loss of coastal wetlands and erosion of sand beaches that act as protective buffers against storm surge events.
HAZARD ANALYSIS
5:68 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
OTHER HAZARDS
Sea Level Rise
Background Sea Level Rise is defined as the mean rise in sea level. It is caused by two factors: 1) as the
ocean warms, sea water expands in volume; 2) continental ice shelves melt, increasing the HAZARD ANALYSIS amount of water in the oceans. This leads to a greater area of land being inundated by sea water.
Rising sea level contributes to the loss of coastal wetlands (which provide protective buffers from flood events), beach erosion, population and property in low areas, coastal habitats and species. Further, flooding and hurricane events are more severe and effect a greater area.
Given that 600 million people live in an area that is less that 10 meters or 33 feet above sea, level and the coastal population has doubled in the last 50 years, there is great vulnerability to people and property from sea level rise hazard.
Location and Spatial Extent Sea level rise is occurring at a global scale. However, it does not affect areas uniformly and will be more severe in some places. Figure 5.23 shows a hypothetical situation of sea level rise where the sea rises at 1 meter, 2 meter, 4 meter, and 8 meter scenarios throughout the Southeastern United States.
Figure 5.23: Hypothetical Situation in New Hanover County
Source: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/climate_dynamics/climate_impact_webpage.html
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:69
Historical Occurrences No historical occurrences of sea level rise have been reported in New Hanover County. However, as better tracking and reported methodologies are implemented, this section will be updated.
Currently, a major study is underway in North Carolina to better determine the risk of sea level rise. According to NOAA, North Carolina is one of three states with the greatest vulnerability to sea level rise. Therefore, a $5.0 million grant was awarded to the state to study the change in risk to natural and built environments. This sea level rise study is scheduled to complete in 2011, providing valuable information for future hazard mitigation plan updates on history, risk, and vulnerability resulting from sea level rise.
Probability of Future Occurrence The probability of future sea level rise impacts for New Hanover County is likely. More information regarding the probability and vulnerability of sea level rise will be available upon the completion of the North Carolina Sea Level Risk Management Study in 2011. Due a lack of data, no vulnerability assessment will be performed for this hazard in Section 6: Vulnerability Assessment. As more information becomes available, both Section 5 and Section 6 will be updated to provide the best assessment of the sea level rise hazard.
Wildfire
Background A wildfire is any fire occurring in a wildland area (i.e. grassland, forest, brush land) except for fire under prescription13. Many areas, particularly in the south, are experiencing rapid population growth, leading to increased wildfire dangers in wildland-urban and HAZARD ANALYSIS suburban interfaces. Wildfires are part of the natural management of forest ecosystems, but may also be caused by human factors. Nationally, over 80 percent of forest fires are started by negligent human behavior such as On Sunday, August 6, 2000, several forest fires smoking in wooded areas or improperly converged near Sula, Montana, forming a firestorm that overran 100,000 acres and destroyed 10 homes. extinguishing campfires. The second most Temperatures in the flame front were estimated at more common cause for wildfire is lightning. than 800 degrees. Note the elk, gathering near the East Fork of the Bitterroot River. (Photo by John There are three classes of wildland fires: McColgan/U.S. Forest Service Firefighter) 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,
13 Prescription burning, or “controlled burn,” undertaken by land management agencies is the process of igniting fires under selected conditions, in accordance with strict parameters.
5:70 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
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. Wildfires are usually signaled by dense smoke that fills the area for miles around.
Wildfire 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 hazards (such as tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.) HAZARD ANALYSIS increase the probability of wildfires by producing fuel in both urban and rural settings. Other natural features of the landscape, such as topography, may make areas more prone to wildfires or more challenging to suppress them.
Many individual homes and cabins, subdivisions, resorts, recreational areas, organizational camps, businesses and industries are located within wildfire hazard areas. Further, 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 wildfire events that can sweep through the brush and timber and destroy property within minutes.
Wildfires can result in severe economic losses as well. Businesses that depend on timber, such as paper mills and lumber companies, experience losses that are often passed along to consumers through higher prices, and sometimes jobs are lost. The high cost of responding to and recovering from wildfires can deplete state resources and increase insurance rates. The economic impact of wildfires can also be felt in the tourism industry if roads and tourist attractions are closed due to health and safety concerns.
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 designed as part of an overall fire defense system to aid in fire control. Fuel management, prescribed burning and cooperative land management planning can also be encouraged to reduce fire hazards.
Location and Spatial Extent All areas of the county may be susceptible to wildfire, and the wildland-urban interface is an area of concern as more property may be at risk to fire damage in these areas. Further, drought conditions may exacerbate the risk of wildfire in New Hanover County.
Historical Occurrences There are approximately 49,000 acres of forest lands in New Hanover County, accounting for about 42 percent of the county’s total land area. Private ownership accounts for 84 percent of
these forest lands. According to the North Carolina Division of Forest Resources, New Hanover County experiences an average of 73 small wildland fire events (“brush fires”) per year averaging about 3.4 acres in size14. The annual average of total acres burned is about 288 acres. Many of these occurrences are small brush fires, approximately 42 percent of which are caused by
14 The North Carolina Division of Forest Resource data dates from - 1978 to 2008. Note: A longer history or reporting may reflect this increase in wildfire occurrence.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:71
children. Other sources of ignition include lightning strikes and arson. There are no known records of any deaths, injuries or significant property damage attributed to a wildfire event in New Hanover County.
Data from the Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment (SWRA) was used to complete the wildfire profile, analysis, and vulnerability for the 2010 udpate. Figure 5.24 shows the Fire Occurrence Areas (FOA) based on data from the Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment. This data is based on historical fire ignitions and is reported as the number of fires that occur per 1,000 acres each year.
Figure 5.24: Historic Wildfire Events in New Hanover County HAZARD ANALYSIS
Source: Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment (SWRA)
5:72 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Probability of Future Occurrences There is a moderate probability of future wildfire events in New Hanover County, which is higher during drought cycles and abnormally dry conditions.
HAZARD ANALYSIS
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:73
Conclusions on Hazard Risk
The hazard profiles presented in this section were developed using best available data and result in what may be considered principally a qualitative assessment as recommended by FEMA in its “How-to” guidance document titled Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses (FEMA Publication 386-2). It relies heavily on historical and anecdotal data, stakeholder input, and professional and experienced judgment regarding observed and/or anticipated hazard impacts. It also carefully considers the findings in other relevant plans, studies and technical reports.
Hazard Extent
Table 5.26 describes the extent of each hazard identified in New Hanover County. The extent of a hazard is its severity or magnitude, as it relates to the county.
Table 5.26 Extent of New Hanover County Hazards
Atmospheric Hazards Drought extent is defined by the North Carolina Drought Monitor Classifications which include Abnormally Dry, Moderate Drought, Severe Drought, Extreme Drought, and Exceptional Drought (in ascending order). According the North Drought and Extreme Carolina Drought Monitor Classifications, the most severe drought condition is Heat Exceptional. However, New Hanover County has not received this ranking in the ten year reported history. It has, however, been in an Extreme Drought condition, which was reported in 2007 and 2008. Hail extent is defined by the size of the hail stone. The largest hail stone reported Hail in New Hanover County was 2.50 inches on June 16, 1971. It should be noted that future events may exceed this. Hurricane extent is defined by the Saffir‐Simpson Scale which classifies hurricanes into Category 1 through Category 5 (Table 5.5). Two Category 4 hurricanes have Hurricane and Tropical passed within 75 miles of New Hanover County. Further, two Category 2 storms Storm System and one Category 1 storm have traversed directly through the county. However,
HAZARD ANALYSIS it should be noted that a Category 5 hurricane is possible in the county. According to the NOAA flash density map (Figure 5.7), the majority of New Hanover County is located in an area that experiences 4‐8 lightning flashes per square kilometer per year (approximately 20,224 to 40,448 flashes countywide Lightning per year). However, some areas of the county have received up to 16 flashes per square kilometer per year. It should be noted that future lightning occurrences may exceed these figures. Thunderstorm extent is defined by the number of thunder events and wind speeds reported. According to the Average Number of Thunder Events map provided by FEMA (Figure 5.8), New Hanover County experiences between 110 Severe Thunderstorm and 120 thunder events per year. Further, according to a 60‐year history from the National Climatic Data Center, the strongest recorded thunderstorm wind was reported on September 9, 1998 at 80 knots. It should be noted that future events may exceed these historical occurrences. Tornado hazard extent is measured by Tornado Occurrences in North Carolina Tornado provided by the State Climate Office of North Carolina (Figure 5.7) as well as the
5:74 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Fujita/Enhanced Fujita Scale (Table 5.12). The State Climate Office map indicates that 16 tornadoes have been observed in New Hanover County between 1950 and 2003. The greatest magnitude reported was an F1 (last reported on June 19, 1998). However, a greater frequency and/or stronger tornadoes may affect the county in the future. The extent of winter storms can be measured by the amount of snowfall received Winter Storm and (in inches). For the five events recorded in New Hanover County between 1950 Freeze and 2009, the greatest amount of snowfall received was three inches. However,
it should be noted that future events may exceed these snowfall totals. HAZARD ANALYSIS Geologic Hazards Earthquake extent can be measured the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale (Table 5.18) and the distance of the epicenter from New Hanover County. The county as a whole has relatively limited seismic risk but is affected by the Charleston Fault in South Carolina. According to data provided by the National Earthquake Geophysical Data Center, the Charleston Earthquake of 1866 was the greatest MMI to impact New Hanover County (the epicenter was 241 miles away). The earthquake with the closest epicenter to New Hanover County occurred 18 miles away with an MMI of 5. There is no recorded historical evidence of any significant landslide activity or reported sinkhole events in New Hanover County. According to the United States Geological Survey, less than 1.5 percent of the area has been affected by a Landslide and Sinkhole landslide. However, according to the North Carolina Division of Water Resources, sinkholes have occurred along the coastal areas of New Hanover County. Please note that since no historical occurrences of sinkholes have been reported in the county, it is difficult to define an extent for the sinkhole hazard in terms of size. The probability of a future tsunami event affecting New Hanover County is considered to be very low. In the event that an impact does occur, the Tsunami consequences of a tsunami strike are thought to be low for given off‐shore terrain that would stifle the hazard’s strength. Volcano It was determined that this hazard does not threaten New Hanover County. Hydrologic Hazards Dam Failure extent is defined using the North Carolina Division of Land Resources criteria (Table 5.20). Of the three dams in the county only one is state regulated, and it is classified as a low hazard dam. A low hazard dam failure indications that Dam and Levee Failure there would be no loss of life, less than 25 vehicles per day would be impacted by the interruption of road services, and there would be less than $30,000 in economic damage. Although no dam failures have been reported, a future event may occur. The extent of erosion can be defined by the rate (in feet) of erosion that occurs according to the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management. As of 2004, the Erosion highest rate of erosion was a 30.1 to 42.5 feet per year in a small area of New Hanover County (Figure 5.15). It should be noted that areas may experience a higher rate, and thus great extent, of erosion in future years. Flood extent is measured by the amount of land and property in the floodplain. There are approximately 143,488 acres (224 square miles) in New Hanover County. Of these, there are approximately 35,579 acres (55.59 square miles) in the one‐percent annual chance flood zone (100‐year floodplain), 2,463 acres Flood (3.85 square miles) in the 0.2‐percent annual chance flood zone (500‐year floodplain), and 15,669 acres (24,48 square miles) in the coastal V zone. This totals approximately 53,710 acres (83.92 square miles), or approximately 37 percent of the county’s entire area. Further, a total of 10,824 buildings are exposed to the flood hazard ($8,601,415,415 in value).
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:75
The National Weather Service records rip current events when deaths are involved. In New Hanover County, there have been 10 rip current drownings Rip Current since May 2002 (an average of 1.25 deaths per year). Despite a strong public education and information campaign, this number could increase in future years. The worst case scenario for storm surge is indicated by SLOSH data for a fast‐ moving category 4 or category 5 hurricane. For New Hanover County, there are Storm Surge 13,912 buildings totaling $3,101,292,570 vulnerable to storm surge under these conditions. Other Hazards According to a hypothetical scenario provided by NOAA, New Hanover County would only be impacted by the worst case scenario of an 8 meter rise in sea level. Sea Level Rise At this point, low lying areas would be expected to experience land loss, property loss, and an increased flood risk. According to the North Carolina Division of Forest Resources, New Hanover County experiences an average of 73 small wildland fire events (“brush fires”) per year averaging about 3.4 acres in size (1978 ‐2008). The annual average of total Wildfire acres burned is about 288 acres. Further, there are 16,319 buildings located in moderate or high risk wildfire zones according to the South Wildfire Risk Assessment Data. This number may increase in future years depending on wildfire susceptibility in the county.
Priority Risk Index In order to draw some meaningful planning conclusions on hazard risk for New Hanover County’s unincorporated areas, the results of the hazard profiling process were used to generate countywide hazard classifications according to a “Priority Risk Index” (PRI). The purpose of the PRI, described further below, is to categorize and prioritize all potential hazards for New Hanover County as high, moderate or low risk. Combined with the asset inventory and quantitative vulnerability assessment provided in the next section, the summary hazard classifications generated through the use of the PRI allows for the prioritization of those high hazard risks for mitigation planning purposes, and more specifically, the identification of hazard mitigation opportunities for New Hanover County jurisdictions to consider as part of their proposed mitigation strategy.
The prioritization and categorization of identified hazards for New Hanover County is based
HAZARD ANALYSIS principally on the PRI, a tool used to measure the degree of risk for identified hazards in a particular planning area. The PRI is used to assist the New Hanover Mitigation Advisory Committee (MAC) in gaining consensus on the determination of those hazards that pose the most significant threat to New Hanover County based on a variety of factors. The PRI is not scientifically based, but is rather meant to be utilized as an objective planning tool for classifying and prioritizing hazard risks in New Hanover County based on standardized criteria.
The application of 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 factor, as summarized in Table 5.2715. To calculate the
15 The LMPT, based upon any unique concerns or factors for the planning area, may adjust the PRI weighting scheme during future plan updates.
5:76 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
PRI value for a given hazard, the assigned risk value for each category is multiplied by the weighting factor. The sum of all five categories equals the final PRI value, as demonstrated in the example equation below:
PRI VALUE = [(PROBABILITY x .30) + (IMPACT x .30) + (SPATIAL EXTENT x .20) + (WARNING TIME x .10) + (DURATION x .10)]
According to the weighting scheme, the highest possible PRI value is 4.0. Applying the weighting scheme to New Hanover County, the highest score of 3.4 was given to the flood hazard. Prior to being finalized, HAZARD ANALYSIS PRI values for each identified hazard were reviewed and accepted by the members of the MAC.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:77
Table 5.27 Priority Risk Index for New Hanover County
Degree of Risk Assigned PRI Category Weighting Level Criteria Index Value Factor Unlikely Less than 1% annual probability 1
Possible Between 1 and 10% annual probability 2 Probability 30% Likely Between 10 and 100% annual probability 3
Highly Likely 100% annual probability 4 Very few injuries, if any. Only minor property Minor damage and minimal disruption on quality of 1 life. Temporary shutdown of critical facilities. Minor injuries only. More than 10% of property in affected area damaged or Limited 2 destroyed. Complete shutdown of critical facilities for more than one day. Impact Multiple deaths/injuries possible. More than 30% 25% of property in affected area damaged or Critical 3 destroyed. Complete shutdown of critical facilities for more than one week. High number of deaths/injuries possible. More than 50% of property in affected area Catastrophic 4 damaged or destroyed. Complete shutdown of critical facilities for 30 days or more. Negligible Less than 1% of area affected 1
Small Between 1 and 10% of area affected 2 Spatial Extent 20% Moderate Between 10 and 50% of area affected 3
Large Between 50 and 100% of area affected 4
More than 24 hours Self explanatory 1
12 to 24 hours Self explanatory 2 Warning Time 10% HAZARD ANALYSIS 6 to 12 hours Self explanatory 3
Less than 6 hours Self explanatory 4
Less than 6 hours Self explanatory 1
Less than 24 hours Self explanatory 2 Duration 10% Less than one week Self explanatory 3
More than one week Self explanatory 4
5:78 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
PRI Results
Table 5.28 summarizes the degree of risk assigned to each category for all initially identified hazards based on the application of the PRI. Assigned risk levels were based on the detailed hazard profiles developed for this section, as well as input from the Mitigation Advisory
Committee (MAC). The results were then used in calculating PRI values and making final HAZARD ANALYSIS determinations for the risk assessment.
Table 5.28: Summary of PRI Results for New Hanover County
Category/Degree of Risk Hazard PRI Probability Impact Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration Score Atmospheric Hazards Drought and Extreme Heat Likely Minor Small Less than 6 hours Less than 6 hours 2.1 Hail Likely Minor Moderate Less than 6 hours Less than 6 hours 2.3 Hurricane & Tropical Storm Likely Critical Large More than 24 hours Less than 24 hours 2.9 Lightning Highly Likely Minor Negligible Less than 6 hours Less than 6 hours 2.2 Severe Thunderstorm Highly Likely Limited Large Less than 6 hours Less than 6 hours 2.9 Tornado Likely Minor Small Less than 6 hours Less than 6 hours 2.1 Winter Storm and Freeze Unlikely Minor Large More than 24 hours Less than 24 hours 2.0 Geologic Hazards
Earthquake Unlikely Minor Moderate Less than 6 hours Less than 6 hours 1.7 Landslide and Sinkhole Unlikely Minor Negligible Less than 6 hours Less than 6 hours 1.5 Tsunami Unlikely Limited Small Less than 6 hours More than one week 1.9 Hydrologic Hazards Erosion Unlikely Limited Small Less than 6 hours Less than 6 hours 1.6 Dam and Levee Failure Highly Likely Minor Small More than 24 hours More than one week 2.4 Flood Highly Likely Critical Moderate 6 to 12 hours More than one week 3.4 Rip Current Highly Likely Minor Small Less than 6 hours Less than 6 hours 2.4 Storm Surge Likely Critical Moderate More than 24 hours Less than 24 hours 2.7 Other Natural Hazards
Sea Level Rise Highly Likely Critical Moderate More than 24 hours More than one week 3.2 Wildfire Highly Likely Minor Moderate Less than 6 hours Less than one week 2.8
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 5:79
Final Determinations
The conclusions drawn from the hazard profiling process for New Hanover County, including the PRI results and input from the HMPT, resulted in the classification of risk for each identified hazard according to three categories: High Risk, Moderate Risk and Low Risk (Table 5.29). For purposes of these classifications, risk is expressed in relative terms according to the estimated impact that a hazard will have on human life and property throughout all of New Hanover County. A more quantitative analysis to estimate potential dollar losses for each hazard has been performed separately, and is described in the Vulnerability Assessment section. It should be noted that although some hazards are classified below as posing low risk, their occurrence of varying or unprecedented magnitudes is still possible in some cases and their assigned classification will continue to be evaluated during future plan updates.
Table 5.29: Conclusions on Hazard Risk for New Hanover County
Flood Sea Level Rise Hurricane, Tropical Storm System, Nor’easter HIGH RISK Severe Thunderstorm Wildfire Storm Surge Rip Current Dam and Levee Failure Hail MODERATE RISK Lightning Tornado Drought Erosion
HAZARD ANALYSIS Winter Storm and Freeze Tsunami LOW RISK Earthquake Landslide and Sinkhole
5:80 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
SECTION 6
The 2010 update of this section was revised substantially from the previous plan to reflect new data and methodologies. For example, the latest version of HAZUS was used to complete the earthquake, flood, and wind vulnerability assessments (described in detail under the Methodologies Used subsection), Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment data was used to complete the wildfire vulnerability assessment, and the Priority Risk Index (PRI) (from the previous section) has been incorporated. The New Hanover County Mitigation Action Committee (MAC) felt this was the best approach to update the findings from the previous plan while utilizing the latest techniques and methodologies.
Based on the Hazard Analysis conducted for New Hanover County, the hazards listed below have been chosen for inclusion in a high-level, detailed vulnerability assessment. The following hazards are addressed in this section:
• Atmospheric 44 CFR Requirement • Drought and Extreme Heat 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(2)(iii): The risk assessment shall • Hail include a description of the • Hurricane and Tropical Storm System (including jurisdiction’s vulnerability Nor’easter) to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this • Lightning section. The description • Severe Thunderstorm shall include an overall • Tornado summary of each hazard and its impact on the • Winter Storm and Freeze community. The plan should describe • Geologic vulnerability in terms of: (A) The types and • Earthquake numbers of existing • Landslide and Sinkhole and future buildings, infrastructure, and • Tsunami critical facilities located in identified • Hydrologic hazard areas; (B) An estimate of the • Erosion potential losses to • Flood vulnerable structures • Storm Surge identified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section and a • Other description of the • Wildfire methodology used to prepare the estimate; (C) Providing a general description of land
These hazards were chosen from the previous sections due to the higher level of risk for these hazards compared to others. It is important to note that this risk assessment is based on best available data and represents a base-level assessment for the planning area. Additional work will be done on an ongoing basis to enhance, expand and further improve the accuracy of the baseline established here.
Methodologies Used This vulnerability assessment was conducted using two distinct methodologies: (1) utilizing a geographic information system (GIS)-based analysis; and (2) applying a statistical risk assessment methodology. Each approach provides estimates for the potential impact of hazards by using a common, systematic framework for evaluation, including historical occurrence information provided in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section. The results of the vulnerability assessment for the aforementioned hazards are provided following the information on hazard identification and analysis.
A GIS-based analysis was conducted for seven hazard groups:
Earthquake Erosion Flood Hurricane and Tropical Storm System (including Nor’easter) Landslide and Sinkhole Storm Surge Wildfire
A statistical risk assessment approach was used to analyze eight hazard groups:
Drought and Extreme Heat Hail Lightning Rip Current Severe Thunderstorm Tornado Tsunami Winter Storm and Freeze
A brief description of these two different approaches is provided below.
GIS-Based Analysis For the GIS-based analysis, digital data was collected from local, regional, state and national sources. ESRI® ArcGIS™ 9.2 was used to assess hazard vulnerability utilizing this digital data, including local tax assessor records for individual parcels and buildings and geo-referenced point locations for identified assets (critical facilities and infrastructure, special populations, etc.). Using these data layers, hazard vulnerability can be quantified by estimating the assessed building value for parcels VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT and/or buildings determined to be located in identified hazard areas. FEMA’s HAZUS-MH software (further described below) was also used to model hurricane winds, riverine flood and estimate potential losses for these hazards. To estimate vulnerable populations in hazard areas,
6:2 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT digital Census 2000 data by census block was obtained and census blocks intersecting with hazard areas were used to determine exposed population counts.
The objective of the GIS-based analysis was to determine the estimated vulnerability of people, buildings and critical facilities to the identified hazards for New Hanover County and its participating jurisdictions using best available geospatial data. Local databases were made available through New Hanover County including tax assessor records, parcel records, building footprints, and critical facilities data, as well as other regional, state, and federal government data sources were used in combination with digital hazard data as described in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section. The results of the analysis provided an estimate of the number of people, buildings, and critical facilities, as well as the value of buildings, determined to be potentially at risk to those hazards with delineable geographic hazard boundaries. A more specific description of the GIS-based analysis conducted for each particular hazard is provided in the individual hazard sections.
HAZUS-MH
HAZUS-MH is a standardized loss estimation software program developed by FEMA. It is built upon an integrated GIS platform to conduct analysis at a regional level (i.e., not on a structure-by-structure basis). The HAZUS-MH risk assessment methodology is parametric, in that distinct hazard and inventory parameters (e.g., wind speed and building types) can be modeled using the software to determine the impact (i.e., damages and losses) on the built environment.
This risk assessment for New Hanover County applied HAZUS-MH to produce countywide profiles and estimate losses for three hazards for the planning area. At the time this analysis was completed, HAZUS-MH MR-4 (August 2009) was used to estimate potential losses from earthquakes, hurricane winds and riverine flood using HAZUS-MH methodology.
Figure 6.1 illustrates the conceptual model of the HAZUS-MH methodology as applied to New Hanover County.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:3
Figure 6.1: Conceptual Model of HAZUS‐MH Methodology
Statistical Risk Assessment Methodology The statistical risk assessment methodology was applied to analyze hazards of concern that were outside the scope of HAZUS-MH and the GIS-based risk assessment. This includes the drought and heat wave, hail, lightning, thunderstorm, tornado, tsunami and winter storm and freeze hazards (these hazards do not have geographically-definable boundaries and are therefore excluded from spatial analysis through GIS). This methodology 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 (presented in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section). Historical data for each hazard as described in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section was used and statistical evaluations were performed using manual calculations. The general steps used in the statistical risk assessment methodology are summarized below: 1. Compile data from local, state and national sources, as well as literature; 2. Clean up data, including removal of duplicate records and update losses to account for inflation; 3. Identify patterns in frequency, intensity, vulnerability and loss
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 4. Statistically and probabilistically extrapolate the patterns; and 5. Produce meaningful results, including the development of annualized loss estimates.
6:4 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Figure 6.2 illustrates a conceptual model of the statistical risk assessment methodology as applied to New Hanover County.
Figure 6.2: Conceptual Model of the Statistical Risk Assessment Methodology
The vulnerability assessment findings are presented in terms of potential annualized losses, whenever possible. In general, presenting results in the annualized form is useful in three ways: 1. This approach accounts for the contribution of potential losses from all future disasters; 2. Annualized results for different hazards are readily comparable, thus easier to rank; and 3. The use of annualized losses is the most objective approach for evaluating mitigation alternatives.
Annualized losses for the hazards where the parametric approach was utilized were computed in a three-step process: 1. Compute/estimate losses for a number of scenario events with different return periods [e.g., 10-year, 100-year, 200-year, 500-year, etc.]; 2. Approximate the Probability versus Loss Curve through curve fitting; and 3. Calculate the area under the fitted curve to obtain annualized losses.
This approach is illustrated graphically in Figure 6.3. For other hazards where the statistical approach was used, the computations are based primarily on the observed historical losses.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:5
Figure 6.3: Graphical Representation of the Annualized Loss Methodology
Where possible, economic loss results are presented here using Annualized Losses. The Annualized Loss is the estimated long-term weighted average value of losses to property in any single year in a specified geographic area (i.e., municipal jurisdiction).
The estimated Annualized Loss (AL) addresses the key idea of risk: the probability of the loss occurring in the study area (largely a function of building construction type and quality). By annualizing estimated losses, the AL factors in historic patterns of frequent smaller events with infrequent but larger events to provide a balanced presentation of the risk.
Loss estimates provided in this vulnerability assessment are based on best available data, and the methodologies applied result in an approximation of risk. These estimates should be used to understand relative risk from hazards and potential losses. Uncertainties are inherent in any loss estimation methodology, arising in part from incomplete scientific knowledge concerning natural hazards and their effects on the built environment. Uncertainties also result from approximations and simplifications that are necessary for a comprehensive analysis (e.g., incomplete inventories, demographics or economic parameters). VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT All conclusions 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.
6:6 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Study Area Definition
The study area for the New Hanover County Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan includes the unincorporated areas of New Hanover County and the participating jurisdictions of Carolina Beach, Kure Beach, and Wilmington. For a map of the participating areas, please refer to the Hazard Analysis section, Figure 5.1: The New Hanover County Base Map. Areas that fall into non- participating boundaries will not be assessed for vulnerability to each identified hazard.
Asset Inventory An inventory of geo-referenced assets in New Hanover County was compiled in order to identify and characterize those properties potentially at risk to the identified hazards1. By understanding the type and number of assets that exist and where they are located in relation to known hazard areas, the relative risk and vulnerability for such assets can be assessed. Under this assessment, two categories of assets were created and then further assessed through GIS analysis. The two categories of assets consist of:
1. Improved Property: Includes all improved properties in the participating areas of New Hanover County according to local parcel data provided by New Hanover County2. The information has been expressed in terms of the number of parcels, number of buildings (based upon building footprint data), and total assessed value of improvements (buildings) that may be exposed to the identified hazards.
2. Critical Facilities: Includes medical facilities (hospitals, EMS, nursing homes), fire stations, police stations, supportive and public infrastructure (airports, highways, bridges, dams, water and sewer facilities), government service buildings, shelters, schools, and public and private utility services. Certain critical facilities are vital to the response and recovery efforts in the wake of a disaster resulting from a natural or technological hazard. These include fire and rescue facilities, hospitals, major transportation corridors, communication facilities, and public water and sewer infrastructure located within participating areas of New Hanover County.
The following tables provide a detailed listing of the geo-referenced assets that have been identified for inclusion in the vulnerability assessment for New Hanover County. While this listing is not all inclusive for assets located in the county, it is anticipated that it will be expanded during future plan updates as more geo-referenced data becomes available for use in GIS analysis.
Improved Property
1 While potentially not all-inclusive for New Hanover County, “geo-referenced” assets include those assets for which specific location data is readily available for connecting the asset to a specific geographic location for purposes of GIS analysis. The primary source of this data is the New Hanover County GIS Department. 2 Improved properties in non-participating areas are not included in any way in this vulnerability assessment.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:7
Table 6.1 lists the number of parcels, the estimated number of buildings and the total assessed value of improvements for participating areas in New Hanover County3.
Table 6.1: Improved Property in New Hanover County
Estimated Number of Total Assessed Value of Jurisdiction Number of Parcels Buildings Improvements Carolina Beach 4,836 3,625 $567,966,072 Kure Beach 2,107 1,756 $314,843,014 Wilmington 39,278 39,787 $8,192,177,468 Unincorporated County 40,686 39,398 $6,954,966,226
Critical Facilities
Table 6.2 lists the number of fire stations, police stations and hospitals, emergency medical services (EMS) facilities, government services buildings, shelters, airports, infrastructure, and supportive facilities in New Hanover County based on location. This listing does not include critical facilities located in the non-participating areas of New Hanover County. Figure 6.4 shows the location of New Hanover County’s critical facilities. In addition, Table 6.32 near the end of this section lists each critical facility by name and indicates the risk posed by each hazard to the structure.
Table 6.2: Essential Facilities in New Hanover County
Location Number Fire Stations Carolina Beach 2 Kure Beach 1 Wilmington 12 Unincorporated County 6 Police Stations Carolina Beach 1 Kure Beach 1 Wilmington 7 Unincorporated County 0 Hospitals Carolina Beach 0 Kure Beach 0 Wilmington 2 Unincorporated County 0 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
3 Total assessed values for improvements is based on 2008 tax assessor records as joined to digital parcel data. This data does not include dollar figures for tax-exempt improvements such as publicly-owned buildings and facilities.
6:8 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Location Number EMS/Rescue Carolina Beach 1 Kure Beach 0 Wilmington 3 Unincorporated County 4 Emergency Communication Center Carolina Beach 1 Kure Beach 1 Wilmington 7 Unincorporated County 2 Shelters Carolina Beach 0 Kure Beach 0 Wilmington 3 Unincorporated County 5 Emergency Operations Center Carolina Beach 0 Kure Beach 0 Wilmington 2 Unincorporated County 0 Coast Guard Carolina Beach 0 Kure Beach 0 Wilmington 0 Unincorporated County 2 National Guard Carolina Beach 0 Kure Beach 0 Wilmington 3 Unincorporated County 0 Government Services Buildings Carolina Beach 2 Kure Beach 1 Wilmington 20
Unincorporated County 9 Schools (Public, Private, College) Carolina Beach 1
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:9
Location Number Kure Beach 0 Wilmington 29 Unincorporated County 12 Airports/Heliports Carolina Beach 0 Kure Beach 0 Wilmington 1 Unincorporated County 2 Bridges Carolina Beach 0 Kure Beach 0 Wilmington 0 Unincorporated County 4 Electrical Substations Carolina Beach 0 Kure Beach 0 Wilmington 5 Unincorporated County 5 Telephone Switching Stations Carolina Beach 1 Kure Beach 0 Wilmington 3 Unincorporated County 2 Radio and Television Stations Carolina Beach 0 Kure Beach 0 Wilmington 10 Unincorporated County 0 Nursing Homes Carolina Beach 1 Kure Beach 0 Wilmington 24 Unincorporated County 4 Jails Carolina Beach 0 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Kure Beach 0 Wilmington 1
6:10 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Location Number Unincorporated County 3 Life Stations Carolina Beach 6 Kure Beach 8 Wilmington 70 Unincorporated County 47 Well Sites Carolina Beach 30 Kure Beach 5 Wilmington 0 Unincorporated County 0 Water Storage Tanks Carolina Beach 1 Kure Beach 1 Wilmington 1 Unincorporated County 3 Waste Water Treatment Plants Carolina Beach 0 Kure Beach 0 Wilmington 2 Unincorporated County 1
Figure 6.4: Asset Inventory for New Hanover County
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:11
Population and Social Vulnerability In addition to identifying those assets potentially at risk to identified hazards, it is important to identify and assess those particular segments of the resident population in New Hanover County that are potentially at risk to these hazards. Through further demographic and geospatial analysis of best available population datasets, it becomes possible to identify some level of social vulnerability for New Hanover County.
Population change is a factor that contributes to an overall understanding of vulnerability and development trends (discussed further below). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the rate of population growth in New Hanover County between 1990 and 2000 was 33.3 percent, somewhat higher than the state average population growth of 21 percent. Between 2006 and 2008, the population grew 15 percent, representing continued population growth in the county. Much of this growth can be seen in the communities of Wrightsville Beach and Carolina Beach, as well as along VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
6:12 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT the I-40 corridor and the City of Wilmington4. There are a variety of vulnerable groups among this population.
According to the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau, New Hanover County had an estimated median age of 36.3 years and average household size of 2.29 people. This is compared to a 2006-2008 median age estimate of 37.4 years and estimated average household size of 2.25 persons. Table 6.3 lists several population groups for comparative purposes
Table 6.3: Vulnerable Population Group Estimates in New Hanover County
Vulnerable Population Group 2000 2006 ‐2008 estimate
Total Population 160,307 189,860 Under Age of 5 years 9,177 12,111 Age 65 years or older 20,567 25,082 Individuals Below the Poverty Level 13.1% 13.9% Disability Status 28,842 Not Available
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the total population of New Hanover County in 2000 was 160,307. 5 (The total population in 2000 for the state of North Carolina as a whole was 8,049,313.) Figure 6.5 shows the distribution of this population across the county’s geographic area. The highest concentrations of people are in the Wilmington area.
4 Additional information on population growth and community characteristics can be found in Section 3: Community Profile. For the purposes of this section, 2000 Census data was analyzed given that HAZUS-MH uses 2000 Census data. 5 Census block level is not available for 2006/2007 estimates. While it is recognized that more people are living in unincorporated areas in 2007, the density patterns have not likely changed significantly since 2000. Further, HAZUS-MH analysis utilizes on 2000 Census data.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:13
Figure 6.5: Population Density by U.S. Census Block in New Hanover County
Source: HAZUS - MH
Development Trends A general analysis of land uses and development trends within the planning area is an important factor in formulating mitigation options that influence future land use decisions. This, combined with the previous topic on population growth and social vulnerability, presents a complete picture of vulnerability in New Hanover County.
In order to regulate land use and guide future development patterns, New Hanover County and its municipal jurisdictions have each adopted a zoning ordinance that enforces standards for designated districts as shown on an official zoning map. Zoning maps are useful planning tools in considering how and where community development takes place. The figures below show zoning maps for New Hanover County the participating jurisdictions with known hazard zone overlays for flood, storm VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT surge, and wildfire. The Town of Kure Beach does not maintain a digital version of its zoning map, but general parcel classifications are illustrated. Table 6.4 presents a list of figures to be found in this subsection.
6:14 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Table 6.4: List of Zoning Maps for New Hanover County
Location Page
New Hanover County Figure 6.6: New Hanover County Zoning Map 6:16 Figure 6.7: New Hanover County Zoning Map with Flood Hazard 6:17 Figure 6.8: New Hanover County Zoning Map with Storm Surge 6:18 Figure 6.9: New Hanover County Zoning Map with Wildfire 6:19 Carolina Beach Figure 6.10: Carolina Beach Zoning Map 6:20 Figure 6.11: Carolina Beach Zoning Map with Flood Hazard 6:21 Figure 6.12: New Hanover County Zoning Map with Storm Surge 6:22 Figure 6.13: Carolina Beach Zoning Map with Wildfire 6:23 Kure Beach Figure 6.14: Kure Beach Zoning Map 6:24 Figure 6.15: Kure Beach Zoning Map with Flood Hazard 6:25 Figure 6.16: Kure Beach Zoning Map with Storm Surge 6:26 Figure 6.17: Kure Beach Zoning Map with Wildfire 6:27 Wilmington Figure 6.18: City of Wilmington Zoning Map 6:28 Figure 6.19: City of Wilmington Zoning Map with Flood Hazard 6:29 Figure 6.20: City of Wilmington Zoning Map with Storm Surge 6:20 Figure 6.21: City of Wilmington Zoning Map with Wildfire 6:21
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:15
Figure 6.6: New Hanover County Zoning Map
Zoning O&I: Office and Industrial RFMU: River Front Mixed Use
A‐I: Airport Industrial PD: Planned Development SC: Shopping Center
AR: Airport Residential R‐10: Residential ‐ 10k sqft lots Wrightsville Beach
B‐1: Business District R‐15: Residential ‐ 15k sqft lots Wilmington
B‐2: Highway Business District (heavy commercial) R‐20: Residential ‐ 20k sqft lots FF: Fort Fisher
I‐1: Industrial District (light) R‐20S: Residential Surrounding Counties I‐2: Industrial District (heavy) RA: Rural Agricultural VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
6:16 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Figure 6.7: New Hanover County Zoning Map with Flood Hazard Areas
Flood Zones
1 percent annual chance (Zone AE) Zoning R‐15: Residential ‐ 15k sqft lots 0.2 percent annual chance flood A‐I: Airport Industrial R‐20: Residential ‐ 20k sqft lots Coastal VE zone AR: Airport Residential R‐20S: Residential B‐1: Business District RA: Rural Agricultural B‐2: Highway Business District (heavy commercial) RFMU: River Front Mixed Use I‐1: Industrial District (light) SC: Shopping Center I‐2: Industrial District (heavy) Wrightsville Beach O&I: Office and Industrial Wilmington PD: Planned Development FF: Fort Fisher R‐10: Residential ‐ 10k sqft lots Surrounding Counties
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:17
Figure 6.8: New Hanover County Zoning Map with Storm Surge Hazard Areas (fast-moving storm)
Surge Zones FAST ‐ category 4 and 5 storms Zoning R‐15: Residential ‐ 15k sqft lots FAST ‐ category 3 storms A‐I: Airport Industrial R‐20: Residential ‐ 20k sqft lots FAST ‐ category 1 and 2 storms AR: Airport Residential R‐20S: Residential B‐1: Business District RA: Rural Agricultural B‐2: Highway Business District (heavy commercial) RFMU: River Front Mixed Use I‐1: Industrial District (light) SC: Shopping Center I‐2: Industrial District (heavy) Wrightsville Beach O&I: Office and Industrial Wilmington PD: Planned Development FF: Fort Fisher R‐10: Residential ‐ 10k sqft lots Surrounding Counties
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
6:18 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Figure 6.9: New Hanover County Zoning Map with Wildfire Hazard Areas
Wildfire Risk Zones
Zoning Low R‐15: Residential ‐ 15k sqft lots
Moderate A‐I: Airport Industrial R‐20: Residential ‐ 20k sqft lots AR: Airport Residential High R‐20S: Residential B‐1: Business District RA: Rural Agricultural
B‐2: Highway Business District (heavy commercial) RFMU: River Front Mixed Use I‐1: Industrial District (light) SC: Shopping Center
I‐2: Industrial District (heavy) Wrightsville Beach
O&I: Office and Industrial Wilmington PD: Planned Development FF: Fort Fisher
R‐10: Residential ‐ 10k sqft lots Surrounding Counties
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:19
Figure 6.10: Carolina Beach Zoning Map
CAROLINA BEACH ZONING Neighborhood Business District PARTICIPATING AREAS Conservation District Residential, Manufactured Home District Carolina Beach Tourist District Residential ‐ Multi‐Family Kure Beach Marina Business District Residential (R‐1) Wilmington Industrial District Residential (R‐1B) Unincorporated Area Central Business District Residential (R‐2) Highway Business District Residential (R‐3) Mixed Use, Transitional
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
6:20 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Figure 6.11: Carolina Beach Zoning Map with Flood Hazard Zones
FLOOD ZONES
1 percent annual chance (Zone AE) Highway Business District PARTICIPATING AREAS 0.2 percent annual chance flood Mixed Use, Transitional Carolina Beach Coastal VE zone Neighborhood Business District Kure Beach CAROLINA BEACH ZONING Residential, Manufactured Home District Wilmington Conservation District Residential ‐ Multi‐Family Unincorporated Area Tourist District Residential (R‐1) Marina Business District Residential (R‐1B) Industrial District Residential (R‐2) Central Business District Residential (R‐3)
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:21
Figure 6.12: Carolina Beach Zoning Map with Strom Surge
SURGE ZONES FAST ‐ category 4 and 5 storms Highway Business District PARTICIPATING AREAS FAST ‐ category 3 storms Mixed Use, Transitional Carolina Beach FAST ‐ category 1 and 2 storms Neighborhood Business District Kure Beach CAROLINA BEACH ZONING Residential, Manufactured Home District Wilmington Conservation District Residential ‐ Multi‐Family Unincorporated Area Tourist District Residential (R‐1) Marina Business District Residential (R‐1B) Industrial District Residential (R‐2) Central Business District Residential (R‐3)
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
6:22 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Figure 6.13: Carolina Beach Zoning Map with Wildfire Risk Zones
WILDFIRE RISK
Low Highway Business District PARTICIPATING AREAS Moderate Mixed Use, Transitional Carolina Beach High Neighborhood Business District Kure Beach CAROLINA BEACH ZONING Residential, Manufactured Home District Wilmington Conservation District Residential ‐ Multi‐Family Unincorporated Area Tourist District Residential (R‐1) Marina Business District Residential (R‐1B) Industrial District Residential (R‐2)
Central Business District Residential (R‐3)
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:23
Figure 6.14: Kure Beach Zoning Map
Parcels Participating Areas Carolina Beach Kure Beach Wilmington
Unincorporated Area
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
6:24 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Figure 6.15: Kure Beach Zoning Map with Flood Zone Hazard
Flood Zones
1 percent annual chance (Zone AE) Participating Areas
0.2 percent annual chance flood Carolina Beach
Coastal VE zone Kure Beach Parcels Wilmington
Unincorporated Area
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:25
Figure 6.16: Kure Beach Zoning Map with Storm Surge Hazard
Surge Zones
FAST ‐ category 4 and 5 storms Participating Areas
FAST ‐ category 3 storms Carolina Beach
FAST ‐ category 1 and 2 storms Kure Beach Parcels Wilmington
Unincorporated Area
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
6:26 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Figure 6.17: Kure Beach Zoning Map with Wildfire Risk Zones
WILDFIRE RISK
Low Carolina Beach Moderate Kure Beach High Wilmington Parcels Unincorporated Area
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:27
Figure 6.18: City of Wilmington Zoning Map
Wilmington Zoning MX: Mixed Use R‐10: Residential AI: Airport Industrial MSMU: Main Street Mixed Use R‐20: Residential CB: Community Business District MF‐H: Multi‐Family High Density R‐5: Residential O&I‐1: Office and Institutional MF‐L: Multi‐Family Low Density R‐7: Residential CBD: Central Business District MF‐M: Multi‐Family Medium Density RB: Regional Business District CS: Commerical Services District MF‐MH: Multi‐Family Medium High Density RFMU:River Front Mixed Use District HD: Historic District MHP: Manufactured Housing PD: Planned Development HD‐MU: Historic District‐Mixed Use HD‐R: Historic District‐Residential CEM: Cemetery IND: Industrial District Central City Residential District Wrightsville Beach LI: Light Industrial R‐15: Residential New Hanover County
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
6:28 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Figure 6.19: City of Wilmington Zoning Map with Flood Zones
Flood Zones 1 percent annual chance (Zone AE) IND: Industrial District R‐15: Residential 0.2 percent annual chance flood LI: Light Industrial R‐10: Residential Coastal VE zone MX: Mixed Use R‐20: Residential Wilmington Zoning MSMU: Main Street Mixed Use R‐5: Residential AI: Airport Industrial MF‐H: Multi‐Family High Density R‐7: Residential CB: Community Business District MF‐L: Multi‐Family Low Density RB: Regional Business District O&I‐1: Office and Institutional MF‐M: Multi‐Family Medium Density RFMU:River Front Mixed Use District CBD: Central Business District MF‐MH: Multi‐Family Medium High Density PD: Planned Development CS: Commerical Services District MHP: Manufactured Housing CEM: Cemetery HD: Historic District HD‐R: Historic District‐Residential Wrightsville Beach HD‐MU: Historic District‐Mixed Use Central City Residential District New Hanover County
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:29
Figure 6.20: City of Wilmington Zoning Map with Storm Surge Hazard
Surge Zones FAST ‐ category 4 and 5 storms IND: Industrial District R‐15: Residential FAST ‐ category 3 storm LI: Light Industrial R‐10: Residential FAST ‐ category 1 and 2 storms MX: Mixed Use R‐20: Residential Wilmington Zoning MSMU: Main Street Mixed Use R‐5: Residential AI: Airport Industrial MF‐H: Multi‐Family High Density R‐7: Residential CB: Community Business District MF‐L: Multi‐Family Low Density RB: Regional Business District O&I‐1: Office and Institutional MF‐M: Multi‐Family Medium Density RFMU:River Front Mixed Use District CBD: Central Business District MF‐MH: Multi‐Family Medium High Density PD: Planned Development CS: Commerical Services District MHP: Manufactured Housing CEM: Cemetery HD: Historic District HD‐R: Historic District‐Residential Wrightsville Beach HD‐MU: Historic District‐Mixed Use Central City Residential District New Hanover County VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
6:30 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Figure 6.21: City of Wilmington Zoning Map with Wildfire Risk Zones
Wildfire Risk Zones High IND: Industrial District R‐15: Residential Moderate LI: Light Industrial R‐10: Residential Low MX: Mixed Use R‐20: Residential Wilmington Zoning MSMU: Main Street Mixed Use R‐5: Residential AI: Airport Industrial MF‐H: Multi‐Family High Density R‐7: Residential CB: Community Business District MF‐L: Multi‐Family Low Density RB: Regional Business District O&I‐1: Office and Institutional MF‐M: Multi‐Family Medium Density RFMU:River Front Mixed Use District CBD: Central Business District MF‐MH: Multi‐Family Medium High Density PD: Planned Development CS: Commerical Services District MHP: Manufactured Housing CEM: Cemetery HD: Historic District HD‐R: Historic District‐Residential Wrightsville Beach HD‐MU: Historic District‐Mixed Use Central City Residential District New Hanover County
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:31
ATMOSPHERIC HAZARDS
Drought and Extreme Heat
PRI Value: 2.1 Annualized Loss Estimate: Negligible
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the drought and heat wave hazard scored a PRI value of 2.1 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 6.5 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.
Table 6.5 : Qualitative Assessment for Drought and Extreme Heat
Probability Likely Impact Minor Spatial Extent Small Warning Time Less than 6 hours Duration Less than 6 hours
Although the state of North Carolina as a whole is vulnerable to drought, estimated potential losses are difficult to calculate because drought causes little damage to the built environment and values for crops and farmlands are not immediately available for New Hanover County. Therefore, it is assumed that all buildings and facilities are exposed to drought but would experience negligible damage in the occurrence of a drought event.
Asset Vulnerability All of the assets in New Hanover County are exposed to drought and heat wave affects and may exceed the total figures reported in Table 6.1. Specific critical facilities are listed in Table 6.32 at the end of this section. However, it is unlikely that this hazard will cause structural damage.
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
6:32 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Hail PRI Value: 2.3 Annualized Loss Estimate: Negligible
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the hail hazard scored a PRI value of 2.3 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 6.6 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.
Table 6.6 : Qualitative Assessment for Hail
Probability Likely Impact Minor Spatial Extent Moderate Warning Time Less than 6 hours Duration Less than 6 hours
Although the state of North Carolina as a whole is vulnerable to hail, estimated potential losses are difficult to calculate due to reporting. It is assumed that while one major event could potentially result in significant losses, annualizing structural losses over a long period of time would most likely yield a very low annualized loss estimate for the focus area.
Asset Vulnerability All of the assets in New Hanover County are exposed to hail events and damages may exceed the total figures reported in Table 6.1. Specific critical facilities are listed in Table 6.32 at the end of this section.
Hurricanes, Tropical Storm Systems, and Nor’easters PRI Value: 2.9 Annualized Loss Estimate: $29,676,000
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the hurricane and coastal storm hazard scored a PRI value of 2.9 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 6.7 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.
Table 6.7: Qualitative Assessment for Hurricane and Coastal Storm
Probability Likely Impact Critical Spatial Extent Large Warning Time More than 24 hours
Duration Less than 24 hours
Because hurricanes and tropical storms often impact large areas and cross jurisdictional boundaries, all existing and future buildings, facilities and populations are considered to be exposed to this
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:33
hazard and could potentially be impacted. Hurricanes and tropical storms can cause damage through numerous additional hazards such as flooding, coastal erosion, high winds and precipitation, thus it is difficult to estimate total potential losses from these cumulative effects. However, the current HAZUS-MH hurricane model only analyzes hurricane winds and is not capable of modeling and estimating cumulative losses from all hazards associated with hurricanes; therefore only hurricane winds are analyzed in this section. Vulnerability to storm surge resulting from hurricanes is addressed in a separate section.
A probabilistic scenario was created using HAZUS-MH to assess the vulnerability of New Hanover County to hurricane winds. Default HAZUS-MH wind speed data and damage functions, and methodology were used to determine the potential annualized losses at the census block level. Historical evidence shows that New Hanover County is vulnerable to damaging hurricane and tropical storm-force winds.6 Loss estimates for wind were developed based on probabilistic scenarios using HAZUSMH (Level 1 analysis).7 Table 6.8 estimated losses for 50, 100 and 500-year return periods.
Table 6.8: Estimates of Potential Losses for Hurricane-force Winds
Level of Event Estimated Losses
50‐year Storm (113–119 MPH Winds) $255,209,000 100‐year Storm (127–133 MPH Winds) $678,171,000 500‐year Storm (152–160 MPH Winds) $2,866,117,000 Source: HAZUS MH
Table 6.9 shows total assessed value of improvements and the potential expected annualized property losses resulting from hurricane winds for New Hanover County and the participating jurisdictions.
Table 6.9: Total Exposure and Potential Annualized Losses from Hurricane Winds
Annualized Expected Total Assessed Value of Location Property Losses from Improvements (Buildings)* Hurricane Winds
Carolina Beach $567,966,072 $1,741,000 Kure Beach $314,843,014 $604,000 Wilmington $8,192,177,468 $15,299,000 Unincorporated County $6,954,966,226 $346,000 *Local Data Source: HAZUS-MH
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 6 Refer to the Hazard Analysis section of this risk assessment for detailed historical information. 7 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.”
6:34 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Asset Vulnerability All of the assets inventoried in New Hanover County are exposed to hurricane and tropical storm wind (Table 5.1). However, damage may exceed these figures. Specific vulnerabilities for these assets will be greatly dependent on their individual design and the mitigation measures in place, where appropriate. Such site-specific vulnerability determinations are outside the scope of this assessment but will be considered during future plan updates.
Lightning PRI Value: 2.2 Annualized Loss Estimate: $10,316
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the lightning hazard scored a PRI value of 2.2 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 6.10 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.
Table 6.10: Qualitative Assessment for Lightning
Probability Highly Likely Impact Minor Spatial Extent Negligible Warning Time Less than 6 hours Duration Less than 6 hours
Because it cannot be predicted where lightning may strike, all existing and future buildings, facilities and populations in New Hanover County are considered to be exposed to this hazard and could potentially be impacted. It is important to note that only reported lightning strikes have been factored into this vulnerability assessment.
To estimate losses due to lightning, NCDC historical lightning loss data for occurrences in unincorporated areas was used to develop a lightning stochastic model. In this model: Losses were scaled for inflation; Average historic lightning damageability was used to generate losses for historical lightning events where losses were not reported; Expected annualized losses were calculated through a non-linear regression of historical data.
Asset Vulnerability
Since it cannot be predicted where lightning may strike, all of the inventoried assets and property in New Hanover County are equally exposed to the lightning hazard. Total property figures are
presented in Table 6.1 while identified assets are listed in Table 6.29. In addition, damages may exceed what is reported in this assessment.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:35
Severe Thunderstorms PRI Value: 2.9 Annualized Loss Estimate: $27,410
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the thunderstorm hazard scored a PRI value of 2.9 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 6.11 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.
Table 6.11: Qualitative Assessment for Thunderstorm
Probability Highly Likely Impact Limited Spatial Extent Small Warning Time Less than 6 hours Duration Less than 6 hours
Because it cannot be predicted where thunderstorm events may occur, all existing and future buildings, facilities and populations in New Hanover County are considered to be exposed to this hazard and could potentially be impacted.
To estimate losses due to thunderstorm events, NCDC historical thunderstorm loss data for occurrences in unincorporated areas was used to develop a thunderstorm stochastic model. In this model: Losses were scaled for inflation; Average historic thunderstorm damageability was used to generate losses for historical thunderstorm events where losses were not reported; Expected annualized losses were calculated through a non-linear regression of historical data.
Asset Vulnerability
All of the inventoried assets and property in New Hanover County are equally exposed to the thunderstorm hazard. Total property figures are presented in Table 6.1 while identified assets are listed in Table 6.32. In addition, damages may exceed what is reported in this assessment. VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
6:36 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Tornado PRI Value: 2.1 Annualized Loss Estimate: $50,984
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the tornado hazard scored a PRI value of 2.1 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 6.12 provides a summary of the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.
Table 6.12: Qualitative Assessment for Tornado
Probability Likely Impact Minor Spatial Extent Small Warning Time Less than 6 hours Duration Less than 6 hours
Historical evidence shows that the county is vulnerable to tornadic activity. This hazard can result from severe thunderstorm activity or may occur during a major tropical storm or hurricane. Because it cannot be predicted where a tornado may touch down, all existing and future buildings, facilities and populations are considered to be exposed to this hazard and could potentially be impacted. It is important to note that only reported tornadoes have been factored into this vulnerability assessment8.
To estimate losses due to tornadoes, NCDC historical tornado loss data for occurrences in unincorporated areas was used to develop a tornado stochastic model. In this model: Losses were scaled for inflation; Average historic tornado damageability was used to generate losses for historical tornadic events where losses were not reported; Expected annualized losses were calculated through a non-linear regression of historical data.
Asset Vulnerability Given the atmospheric nature of a tornado and thus the inability to predict its affected area, all of the structures and inventoried assets in New Hanover County are exposed to the tornado hazard as shown in Table 6.1 and Table 6.32, respectively. In addition, there may damage beyond that assessed in this section. Specific vulnerabilities for these assets will be greatly dependent on their individual design and the mitigation measures in place, where appropriate. Such site-specific vulnerability determinations are outside the scope of this assessment, but will be considered during future plan updates.
8 It is possible that additional tornado events may have occurred since 1950 that were not reported to NCDC and are not accounted for in this analysis.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:37
Winter Storm and Freeze PRI Value: 2.0 Annualized Loss Estimate: $13,447
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the winter storm and freeze hazard scored a PRI value of 2.0 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 6.13 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.
Table 6.13: Qualitative Assessment for Winter Storm and Freeze
Probability Unlikely Impact Minor Spatial Extent Large Warning Time 12 to 24 hours Duration Less than 24 hours
Historical evidence shows that the county is vulnerable to winter storm and freeze events. Unlike hazards such as tornadoes that typically impact a specific location, winter storms most often affect large geographic areas and often impact multiple counties. Because it cannot be predicted where a winter storm or freeze may occur, all existing and future buildings, facilities and populations are considered to be exposed to this hazard and could potentially be impacted structurally and through loss of services.
To estimate losses due to winter storm and freeze, NCDC historical winter storm and freeze loss data for occurrences in unincorporated areas was used to develop a winter storm and freeze stochastic model. In this model: Losses were scaled for inflation; Average historic winter storm and freeze damageability was used to generate losses for historical winter storm and freeze events where losses were not reported; Expected annualized losses were calculated through a non-linear regression of historical data.
Potential losses may be further inflated by additional factors not represented in this estimate, such as costs associated with the removal of snow from roadways, debris clean-up, some indirect losses from power outages, etc.
While there is historical data on winter storm losses, the widespread nature of the event makes it impossible to identify specific assets at risk. Therefore, it is assumed that while one major event could potentially result in significant losses, annualizing structural losses over a long period of time would most likely yield a negligible annualized loss estimate for New Hanover County.
Asset Vulnerability VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT All structures within New Hanover County are likely to be exposed to the winter storm and freeze hazard and may experience damage not accounted for in the estimated losses presented in this
6:38 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT section (Table 6.1). The critical facilities that are vulnerable to winter storm and freeze hazard are presented in Table 6.32 at the end of this section.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Earthquake PRI Value: 1.7 Annualized Loss Estimate: $89,202
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the earthquake hazard scored a PRI value of 1.7 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 6.14 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.
Table 6.14: Qualitative Assessment for Earthquake
Probability Unlikely Impact Minor Spatial Extent Moderate Warning Time Less than 6 hours Duration Less than 6 hours
According to the findings from the Hazard Identification and Analysis section, the County’s risk to earthquakes can be considered limited. HAZUS-MH was used to determine expected annualized losses from earthquakes for New Hanover County. Most of the damage is anticipated in the southern portion of the county, closest to South Carolina, where seismic activity is more frequent.
Table 6.15 provides generalized loss estimates for the 100-, 500-, 1,000- and 2,500-year return periods based on probabilistic scenarios using HAZUSMH. A breakdown of potential damages by building type and building number is not provided as no substantial damage would be likely to occur in the lesser return periods and the generalized loss estimates provided are sufficient for current long-term planning purposes. These estimates are substantially lower than the previous plan estimates, reflecting improved HAZUS modeling capabilities. In addition, the annualized loss estimates are provided below.
Table 6.15: Estimates of Potential Building Losses for Earthquake
Level of Event Estimated Losses 100‐year Event Less than $1 million 500‐year Event $16,943,000 1,000‐year Event $84,972,000
2,500‐year Event $355,352,000
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:39
Table 6.16 provides annualized loss estimates for the probabilistic earthquake scenarios using HAZUSMH. The annualized loss estimate for the earthquake hazard is $89,202. This is analysis also shows the results for residential, commercial, and other areas.
Table 6.16: Estimated Annualized Losses for Earthquake
Building Type Estimated Annualized Losses Residential $40,215 Commercial $36,028 Other $12,959 Total $89,202
Asset Vulnerability All current and future development in New Hanover County will be exposed to seismic events (Table 6.1 and Table 6.32). Damage from earthquake hazard may vary tremendously based on location to the epicenter and building construction. Given the lesser nature of this hazard within the planning area, it is not expected that significant changes will be seen in the construction of future building stock in response to seismic concerns. VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
6:40 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
LANDSLIDE AND SINKHOLE
PRI Value: 1.5 Annualized Loss Estimate: Negligible
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the landslide and sinkhole hazard scored a PRI value of 1.5 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 6.17 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.
Table 6.17: Qualitative Assessment for Landslide and Sinkhole
Probability Unlikely Impact Minor Spatial Extent Negligible Warning Time Less than 6 hours Duration Less than 6 hours
Given the lack of historical loss data on significant landslide and sinkhole damage occurrences in New Hanover County, it is assumed that while one major event could potentially result in significant losses, annualizing structural losses over a long period of time would most likely yield a very low annualized loss estimate for the focus area.
Any damage resulting from a sinkhole or landslide would be localized and, due to the uniform nature of risk to these hazards on a countywide scale, it is not possible to generate maps or tables showing potential loss estimates or particularly at-risk structures or properties.
Asset Vulnerability While landslide and sinkhole occurrence is rare in New Hanover County, all structures are considered to be at risk (shown in Table 6.1 and Table 6.32).
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:41
TSUNAMI
PRI Value: 1.9 Annualized Loss Estimate: Negligible
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the tsunami hazard scored a PRI value of 1.9 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 6.18 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.
Table 6.18: Qualitative Assessment for Tsunami
Probability Unlikely Impact Limited Spatial Extent Small Warning Time Less than 6 hours Duration More than one week
At the time of this writing, no standard loss estimation models or methodologies exist that would apply to the East Coast of the United States. As a general guideline, vulnerability to the tsunami hazard can be compared to the vulnerability assessments provided in this section for storm surge inundation, flooding, and tropical cyclone events, particularly with regard to critical facilities.
Given the lack of historical loss data on tsunami occurrences in New Hanover County, it is assumed that while one major event could potentially result in significant losses, annualizing structural losses over a long period of time would most likely yield a very low annualized loss estimate for the focus area. However, because of the lack of information on previous occurrences of this hazard, it is not possible to determine an annualized loss estimate.
Asset Vulnerability All current and future coastal and riverine development in New Hanover County could be exposed to the tsunami hazard at some point in the future.
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
6:42 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT HYDROLOGIC HAZARDS
Erosion
PRI Value: 2.4 Annualized Loss Estimate: Negligible
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the coastal and riverine erosion hazard scored a PRI value of 2.4 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 6.19 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.
Table 6.19: Qualitative Assessment for Coastal Erosion
Probability Highly Likely Impact Minor Spatial Extent Small Warning Time More than 24 hours Duration More than one week
Unlike other hazards, the coastal erosion hazard is best described as a relatively slow natural process occurring over the long term, with occasional major impacts wrought by episodic natural events such as hurricanes and tropical storms. Another complicating factor in accurately determining specific coastal erosion hazard areas is the continuous implementation of shoreline reinforcement or nourishment projects completed by federal, state and local government agencies. Typically, areas of high concern with regard to long term coastal erosion are addressed through stabilization projects, such as beach nourishment. The ability to continue successfully mitigate the effects of coastal erosion hazards throughout New Hanover County will therefore depend on regular shoreline monitoring and the design and implementation of site-specific solutions, as has been done in the past through maintenance of the sand beach in coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Shoreline data from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management was used to estimate exposure to coastal erosion for purposes of this assessment. The determination of properties and values at-risk to coastal erosion was calculated through GIS analysis by summing the count and total improved values for those parcels that were confirmed to have at least one building located within 200 feet of the identified eroding shoreline. This distance was determined to be a reasonable yet conservative estimate for defining erosion hazard areas.
This analysis yielded forty-seven (47) buildings totaling over $23.5 million within 200 feet of the eroding shoreline (in participating areas). Table 6.20 presents the results for all of the participating areas in New Hanover County. In addition, Figure 6.22 and Figure 6.23 show areas vulnerable to
erosion in Carolina Beach and Kure Beach.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:43
Although structures are known to be threatened by erosion, is unlikely that any significant damages will occur on an annual basis. Therefore any damages directly attributable to the erosion hazard would be considered negligible for the purposes of this risk assessment.
Table 6.20: Buildings Vulnerable to Erosion
Value of Improvements Location Number of Buildings At Risk (Buildings) At Risk Carolina Beach 4 $295,371 Kure Beach 7 0 Wilmington* N/A N/A Unincorporated County 35 $23,363,230 Total 46 $23,658,601 *The City of Wilmington is unaware of any significant areas of erosion and chose to focus on coastal areas.
Figure 6.22 & Figure 6.23: Erosion Vulnerability in Carolina Beach and Kure Beach
Asset Vulnerability Those assets at greatest risk to erosion are those closest to the shoreline. This analysis did not indicate any at-risk critical assets in the participating areas of New Hanover County (Table 6.32).
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT However, as noted above, 46 structures are at risk.
6:44 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Flood
PRI Value: 3.4 Annualized Loss Estimate: $5,093,000
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the flood hazard scored a PRI value of 3.4 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 6.21 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.
Table 6.21: Qualitative Assessment for Flood
Probability Highly Likely Impact Critical Spatial Extent Moderate Warning Time 6 to 12 hours Duration More than one week
In order to assess flood risk, a GIS-based analysis was used to estimate exposure to flood events using new Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) data in combination with local tax assessor records (2006)9. The determination of assessed value at-risk (exposure) was calculated by summing the total assessed building values for those improved properties that were confirmed to be located within an identified Zone A/AE (1-percent-annual-chance floodplain), Zone VE (1-percent-annual- chance coastal flood zone with associated wave action), and 500-year floodplain (0.2-percent-annual- chance floodplain). Table 6.22 lists the number of properties determined to be located within each of the special flood hazard areas along with the improved values for structures located on those properties.
9 DFIRM data is current as of 2006.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:45
Table 6.22: Total Exposure of Improved Properties to Flood
Number of Value of Participating Area Buildings at Risk Buildings at Risk AT‐RISK (1.0‐PERCENT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD) Carolina Beach 1,544 $235,259,833 Kure Beach 232 $39,376,440 Wilmington 1,415 $398,497,464 Unincorporated County 2,452 $669,633,067 TOTAL 5,643 $1,342,796,804 AT‐RISK (COASTAL VE ZONE) Carolina Beach 796 $140,529,816 Kure Beach 114 $25,127,038 Wilmington 114 $44,305,387 Unincorporated County 732 $352,983,282 TOTAL 2,666 $562,945,523 AT‐RISK (0.2‐PERCENT‐ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD) Carolina Beach 107 $15,589,836 Kure Beach 28 $4,155,628 Wilmington 964 $338,593,018 Unincorporated County 1,416 $337,334,606 TOTAL 2,515 $695,673,088 NEW HANOVER COUNTY TOTAL 10,824 $8,601,415,415
Riverine Flooding Loss Estimates
HAZUS-MH was used to estimate potential losses in New Hanover County resulting from potential riverine flood events. A Digital Elevation Model (DEM) was obtained from the USGS for the study area coordinates for input and flood depth was estimated at the pixel level for affected areas, along with the proportion of the area affected within the census block. HAZUS-MH was utilized to estimate floodplain boundaries, potential exposure for each event frequency, and loss estimates based on probabilistic scenarios for 10-, 50-, 100-, 200- and 500-year flood events using a Level 1 analysis. Table 6.23 shows estimated potential losses for 10-, 50-, 100-, 200-, and 500-year flood event scenarios that resulted from this analysis.
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
6:46 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Table 6.23: Potential Losses to Improved Property from Flood, by Return Period
Return Period Estimated Potential Losses 10-year $12,220,000 50-year $17,432,000 100-year $21,668,000 200-year $24,492,000 500-year $32,609,000 Source: HAZUS-MH
Table 6.24 shows total dollar exposure and potential annualized property losses by general occupancy type resulting from the flood hazard analysis for New Hanover County.
Table 6.24: Total Exposure and Potential Annualized Losses from Flood
Total Dollar Exposure (Buildings) Annualized Expected Property Location by Occupancy Type* Losses Residential $13,736,073,000 $3,925,000 Commercial $5,126,797,000 $744,000 Industrial $1,077,534,000 $325,000 Religious $551,272,000 $80,000 Agricultural $97,012,000 $14,000 Government $165,896,000 $3,000 Education $327,420,000 $2,000 TOTAL $21,082,004,000.00 $5,093,000.00 *These are HAZUS estimates. Source: HAZUS-MH
Asset Vulnerability There are a total of 12 inventoried assets in New Hanover County determined to be vulnerable to the effects of flood. This includes five (5) highways, three (3) bridges, two (2) schools, and one (1) library. These assets are listed in Table 6.32 toward the end of this section. In addition, 50 lift stations and 6 well vulnerable to flood events. These are presented in Figure 6.24. It is possible that the flood hazard will inflict greater damage than what is presented in this plan as a result of extreme flood events.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:47
Figure 6.24: Total Exposure of Water-Related Critical Facilities
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
6:48 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Figure 6.22 A.H. Snipes Elementary School: 2150 Chestnut Street, Wilmington (Pictured in Relation to the 500-year Floodplain)
Elementary School
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:49
Storm Surge
PRI Value: 2.7
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the storm surge hazard scored a PRI value of 2.7 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 6.25 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.
Table 6.25: Qualitative Assessment for Storm Surge
Probability Likely Impact Critical Spatial Extent Moderate Warning Time More than 24 hours Duration Less than 24 hours
As discussed in the Hazard Identification and Hazard Analysis sections, storm surge is a flood hazard which is related to hurricanes and differs from coastal flood events. Only storm surge related to hurricanes is analyzed in this section. In order to assess storm surge risk, a GIS-based analysis to estimate exposure and potential losses for the participating areas in New Hanover County. Annualized losses have not been determined for this hazard because of the lack of available historical data for this hazard. HAZUS-MH MR4 can compute annualized losses for storm surge and the MAC is exploring the option of conducting an analysis using this model for future updates of this plan.
SLOSH (Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes) is storm surge data provided by NOAA and used for this analysis. SLOSH is a modeling tool used to estimate storm surge resulting from historical, hypothetical or predicted hurricanes. (SLOSH maps showing coastal flood inundation zones are presented in Section 5: Hazard Analysis.) In this analysis, storm surge inundation areas for various category storms were overlaid with tax value parcel data and building footprint data to determine the number and value of at-risk properties in New Hanover County. Further, slow moving and fast moving storms were analyzed. Table 6.26 lists the number of properties determined to be located within each of the defined storm surge inundation zones in New Hanover County along with the improved values for these structures.
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
6:50 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Table 6.26: Number and Value of Improved Property Potentially At-Risk to Storm Surge Number and Value of Potentially At-risk Residential Structures Jurisdiction Slow-moving Storm Fast-moving Storm Category 1/2 Category 3 Category 4/5 Category 1/2 Category 3 Category 4/5 1,693 984 644 2,162 709 551 Carolina Beach $290,184,585 $129,984,885 $79,193,787 $343,088,308 $86,956,213 $79,436,006 18 544 715 295 470 973 Kure Beach $5,832,213 $84,085,728 $142,437,150 $51,308,162 $79,077,286 $169,408,222 1,379 2,110 4,694 2,485 2,755 5903 Wilmington $475,678,788 $632,260,747 $1,120,706,489 $641,068,374 $734,969,622 $1,548,587,236 Unincorporated 2,542 2,644 5,073 3,422 3,835 6485 County $824,415,113 $737,497,627 $1,173,895,583 $1,150,056,963 $918,195,760 $1,303,861,106 5,632 6,282 11,126 8,364 7,769 13,912 TOTAL $1,515,110,699 1,583,828,987 $2,516,233,009 $1,545,094,875 $1,819,198,881 $3,101,292,570
Asset Vulnerability There are a total of 88 inventoried assets for New Hanover County determined to be vulnerable to the effects of storm surge as shown in Table 6.27. The majority of these assets are located in areas that would only be inundated in major hurricanes (category 3 and above). Specific facilities determined to be at risk to storm surge effects from slow moving storms are listed by name in Table 6.32 toward the end of this section.
Table 6.27: Number of Critical Facilities Potentially At-risk from Storm Surge Number of Potentially At-risk Critical Facilities Slow-moving Storm Fast-moving Storm Jurisdiction Category Category Category Category Category 3 Category 3 1/2 4/5 1/2 4/5 Carolina Beach 3 1 0 3 1 0 Kure Beach 0 0 0 0 0 4 Wilmington 4 6 12 3 7 17 Unincorporated 0 4 9 0 2 12 County TOTAL 7 11 21 6 10 33
In addition, there are 80 lift stations and 11 well sites vulnerable to the effects of storm surge as shown in Table 6.28. It is possible that the storm surge hazard will inflict greater damage than what is presented in this plan as a result of extreme flood events.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:51
Table 6.28: Number of Lift Stations and Well Sites Potentially At-risk to Storm Surge
Number of Potentially At-risk Lift Stations and Well Sites Jurisdiction Slow-moving Storm Fast-moving Storm Category 1/2 Category 3 Category 4/5 Category 1/2 Category 3 Category 4/5 Lift Stations: 0 Lift Stations: 2 Lift Stations: 5 Lift Stations: 5 Lift Stations: 2 Lift Stations: 0 Carolina Beach Well Sites: 0 Well Sites: 1 Well Sites: 0 Well Sites: 0 Well Sites: 0 Well Sites: 0 Lift Stations: 3 Lift Stations: 0 Lift Stations: 0 Lift Stations: 0 Lift Stations: 0 Lift Stations: 1 Kure Beach Well Sites: 0 Well Sites: 1 Well Sites: 0 Well Sites: 0 Well Sites: 1 Well Sites: 1 Lift Stations: 8 Lift Stations: 5 Lift Stations: 4 Lift Stations: 3 Lift Stations: 6 Lift Stations: 8 Wilmington Well Sites: 0 Well Sites: 0 Well Sites: 0 Well Sites: 0 Well Sites: 0 Well Sites: 0 Unincorporated Lift Stations: 6 Lift Stations: 4 Lift Stations: 3 Lift Stations: 4 Lift Stations: 4 Lift Stations: 7 County Well Sites: 4 Well Sites: 2 Well Sites: 0 Well Sites: 0 Well Sites: 0 Well Sites: 1 Lift Stations: 17 Lift Stations: 11 Lift Stations: 12 Lift Stations: 12 Lift Stations: 12 Lift Stations: 16 TOTAL Well Sites: 4 Well Sites: 4 Well Sites: 0 Well Sites: 0 Well Sites: 1 Well Sites: 2
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
6:52 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
OTHER HAZARDS
Wildfire PRI Value: 2.8 Annualized Loss Estimate: Negligible
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the wildfire hazard scored a PRI value of 2.8 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 6.29 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.
Table 6.29: Qualitative Assessment for Wildfire
Probability Highly Likely Impact Minor Spatial Extent Moderate Warning Time Less than 6 hours Duration Less than one week
The data used to determine the location and spatial extent of wildfire risk in New Hanover County is based on a GIS layer called the “Wild Fire Susceptibility Index” (WFSI). This data was derived from Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment (SWRA) and provided by the North Carolina Division of Forest Resources (NCDFR). It combines the probability of an acre igniting with the expected fire size, based on rate of spread in four weather percentile categories. The result is a single measure of wildfire risk corresponding to each gridcode on the map. This is presented on a scale of low, moderate, and high. Low risk areas have been assigned a gridcode value of 1 to 3, moderate risk areas have a gridcode value of 4 to 6, and high risk areas have a gridcode value of 7 to 10. Due to the assumptions made, it is not a true probability. However, it does provide a comparison of risk throughout the county. Figure 6.25 presents the results which indicate that portions of New Hanover County have substantial risk to wildfire hazard.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:53
Figure 6.25: Areas of Wildfire Risk
Source: Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment (SWRA)
To estimate exposure to wildfire, the value at-risk was calculated through GIS analysis by determining the number of building footprints at moderate or high risk to wildfire and summing the total assessed building values for properties. Table 6.30 shows total exposure to moderate and high risk fire areas in New Hanover County and the participating jurisdictions.
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
6:54 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Table 6.30: Total Exposure to Moderate and High Risk Wildfire Hazard
Moderate Risk High Risk Number of Number of Location Value of Parcels Value of Parcels Buildings Buildings Carolina Beach 104 $24,380,585 0 $0 Kure Beach 0 $0 0 $0 Wilmington 2091 $657,683,805 809 $189,908,590 Unincorporated County 8431 $1,501,321,277 4884 $844,833,085 Total 10,626 $2,183,385,667.00 5,693 $1,034,741,675.00
Given the lack of historical loss data on significant wildfire occurrences resulting in structural losses in New Hanover County, it is assumed that while one major event could result in significant losses, annualizing structural losses over a long period of time would most likely yield a negligible annualized loss estimate for New Hanover County.
Asset Vulnerability There are sixteen (16) inventoried assets for New Hanover County determined to be vulnerable to the effects of wildfire10. This includes five (5) schools (including one sheltering facility), and two (2) EMS stations among other assets. Specific assets determined to be at risk to wildfire are listed in Table 6.32 toward the end of this section. In addition, twenty (20) lift stations and eight (8) well sites are at risk as shown in Figure 6.26.
10 This includes assets in both moderate and high wildfire risk areas based on the WFSI analysis provided by the Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:55
Figure 6.26: Water-related Facilities Vulnerable to Wildfire
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
6:56 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT CONSLUSION ON HAZARD VULNERABILITY
The results of this vulnerability assessment are useful in at least three ways:
Improving our understanding of the risk associated with the natural hazards in New Hanover County through better understanding of the complexities and dynamics of risk, how levels of risk can be measured and compared, and the myriad of factors that influence risk. An understanding of these relationships is critical in making balanced and informed decisions on managing the risk.
Providing a baseline for policy development and comparison of mitigation alternatives. The data used for this analysis presents a current picture of risk in New Hanover County. Updating this risk “snapshot” with future data will enable comparison of the changes in risk with time. Baselines of this type can support the objective analysis of policy and program options for risk reduction in the region.
Comparing the risk among the natural hazards addressed. The ability to quantify the risk to all these hazards relative to one another helps in a balanced, multi-hazard approach to risk management at each level of governing authority. This ranking provides a systematic framework to compare and prioritize the very disparate natural hazards that are present in New Hanover County. This final step in the risk assessment provides the necessary information for local officials to craft a mitigation strategy to focus resources on only those hazards that pose the most threat to the county.
Exposure to hazards can be an indicator of vulnerability. Economic exposure can be identified through locally assessed values for improvements (buildings), and social exposure can be identified by estimating the population exposed to each hazard. This information is especially important for decision-makers to use in planning for evacuation or other public safety related needs. Table 6.31 provides a summary of the improved property values at-risk (exposed) to each hazard and the annualized expected property losses.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:57
Table 6.31: Summary of Potential Annualized Losses to Identified Hazards in New Hanover County
Annualized Expected Hazard Property Losses Atmospheric Drought and Extreme Heat Negligible Hail Negligible Hurricane and Tropical Storm $29,676,000 Lightning $10,316 Severe Thunderstorm $27,410 Tornado $50,984 Winter Storm and Freeze $13,447 Geologic Earthquake Negligible Landslide and Sinkhole Negligible Tsunami Negligible Hydrologic Erosion Negligible Flood $5,093,000 Other Wildfire Negligible *Pending results from HAZUS-MH MR4 analysis.
Table 6.32 provides a summary of results for the vulnerability assessment conducted for each of New Hanover County’s assets (from the inventory listed earlier in this section). The table lists those assets that are determined exposed to each of the identified hazards (marked with an “X”).
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
6:58 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Table 6.32: Summary of Indentified Assets At-Risk to Specific Hazards
ATMOSPHERIC GEOLOGIC HYDROLOGIC OTHER
FACILITY FACILITY NAME TYPE Hail Flood Flood (high) (high) (Cat 3) Erosion Tornado Tornado Tsunami Tsunami & Freeze Sinkhole Lightning Lightning Drought & (Cat 1 & 2) (Cat 4 & 5) (moderate) Earthquake Earthquake Hurricane & Landslide & Landslide Storm Surge Storm Surge Storm Surge Wildfire Risk Wildfire Risk Wildfire Winter Storm Storm Winter Extreme Heat Thunderstorm Thunderstorm Tropical Storm Storm Tropical
Emergency Facilities Carolina Beach Fire X X X X X X X X X Department Fire Station Wilmington Fire Department X X X X X X X X X – Headquarters Fire Station Wilmington Fire Department X X X X X X X X X ‐ #2 Fire Station Wilmington Fire Department X X X X X X X X X ‐ #3 Fire Station Wilmington Fire Department X X X X X X X X X X ‐ #4 Fire Station Wilmington Fire Department X X X X X X X X X ‐ #5 Fire Station Wilmington Fire Department X X X X X X X X X ‐ #6 Fire Station Wilmington Fire Department X X X X X X X X X ‐ #7 Fire Station Wilmington Fire Department X X X X X X X X X ‐ #8 Fire Station Wilmington Fire Department X X X X X X X X X X X ‐ #10 Fire Station County Fire Station #51 Fire Station X X X X X X X X X X Myrtle Grove Volunteer Fire X X X X X X X X X X Department Fire Station
ATMOSPHERIC GEOLOGIC HYDROLOGIC OTHER
FACILITY FACILITY NAME TYPE Hail Flood Flood (high) (high) (Cat 3) Erosion Tornado Tornado Tsunami Tsunami & Freeze Sinkhole Lightning Lightning Drought & (Cat 1 & 2) (Cat 4 & 5) (moderate) Earthquake Earthquake Hurricane & Landslide & Landslide Storm Surge Storm Surge Storm Surge Wildfire Risk Wildfire Risk Wildfire Winter Storm Storm Winter Extreme Heat Thunderstorm Thunderstorm Tropical Storm Storm Tropical Seagate Volunteer Fire X X X X X X X X X Department Fire Station Castle Hayne Volunteer Fire X X X X X X X X X Department Fire Station Ogden Volunteer Fire X X X X X X X X X Department Fire Station Ogden ‐ Substation Fire Station X X X X X X X X X Winter Park Volunteer Fire X X X X X X X X X Department Fire Station Wrightsboro Volunteer Fire X X X X X X X X X Department Fire Station Federal Point Volunteer Fire X X X X X X X X X Department Fire Station Fire Departments ‐ Kure X X X X X X X X X Beach Fire Station EMS Station #1 EMS X X X X X X X X X EMS Station #2 EMS X X X X X X X X X EMS Station #3 EMS X X X X X X X X X EMS Station #4 EMS X X X X X X X X X X EMS Station #5 EMS X X X X X X X X X EMS Station #6 EMS X X X X X X X X X X Ogden‐New Hanover Rescue EMS X X X X X X X X X Medical Transportation X X X X X X X X X Services EMS City of Wilmington EOC ‐ City X X X X X X X X X Hall EOC New Hanover County EOC ‐ X X X X X X X X X Sheriff EOC
6:2 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
NERABILITY ASSESSMENT NERABILITY L
VULNERABILITYASSESSME
ATMOSPHERIC GEOLOGIC HYDROLOGIC OTHER
FACILITY FACILITY NAME TYPE Hail Flood Flood (high) (high) (Cat 3) Erosion Tornado Tornado Tsunami Tsunami & Freeze Sinkhole Lightning Lightning Drought & (Cat 1 & 2) (Cat 4 & 5) (moderate) Earthquake Earthquake Hurricane & Landslide & Landslide Storm Surge Storm Surge Storm Surge Wildfire Risk Wildfire Risk Wildfire Winter Storm Storm Winter Extreme Heat Thunderstorm Thunderstorm Tropical Storm Storm Tropical Emergency NHCSO ‐ 911 Center Communications X X X X X X X X X Center Emergency Wilmington Police ‐ Dispatch Communications X X X X X X X X X Center Emergency Carolina Beach Police ‐ Communications X X X X X X X X X Dispatch Center Emergency Kure Beach Police ‐ Dispatch Communications X X X X X X X X X Center Emergency New Hanover County EOC Communications X X X X X X X X X Center Emergency City of Wilmington EOC ‐ City Communications X X X X X X X X X Center Emergency NHC Airport ‐ PSO Communications X X X X X X X X X Center USCG Marine Safety Office‐ Coast Guard X X X X X X X X X X Wilmington Station Coast Guard X X X X X X X X X NC State Ports ‐ Safety Office Station Cape Fear Hospital Hospital X X X X X X X X X New Hanover Regional X X X X X X X X X Medical Center Hospital NC National Guard – Infantry X X X X X X X X X X X Rd. National Guard NC National Guard – Carolina X X X X X X X X X beach Rd. National Guard
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:3
ATMOSPHERIC GEOLOGIC HYDROLOGIC OTHER
FACILITY FACILITY NAME TYPE Hail Flood Flood (high) (high) (Cat 3) Erosion Tornado Tornado Tsunami Tsunami & Freeze Sinkhole Lightning Lightning Drought & (Cat 1 & 2) (Cat 4 & 5) (moderate) Earthquake Earthquake Hurricane & Landslide & Landslide Storm Surge Storm Surge Storm Surge Wildfire Risk Wildfire Risk Wildfire Winter Storm Storm Winter Extreme Heat Thunderstorm Thunderstorm Tropical Storm Storm Tropical NC National Guard/Reserve X X X X X X X X X Center National Guard Carolina Beach Police X X X X X X X X X Department Police Station Police Stations ‐ Kure Beach Police Station X X X X X X X X X Wilmington Police X X X X X X X X X Department‐Mai Police Station Wilmington Police X X X X X X X X X Department – Red Cross St. Police Station Wilmington Police Department – Princess Place X X X X X X X X X Dr. Police Station Wilmington Police X X X X X X X X X X Department – Greenfield St. Police Station Wilmington Police X X X X X X X X X Department – Southern Blvd. Police Station New Hanover County X X X X X X X X X Sherriff’s Office Police Station State: Highway Patrol X X X X X X X X X X Stations Police Station Infrastructure Wilmington International X X X X X X X X X Airport Airport Pilot's Ridge Airport Airport X X X X X X X X X X New Hanover Regional X X X X X X X X X Medical Center Heliport Snow's Cut Bridge Bridge X X X X X X X X X X Isabell Holmes Bridge Bridge X X X X X X X X X X US 17 ‐ Castle Hayne Rd Bridge X X X X X X X X X
6:4 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
NERABILITY ASSESSMENT NERABILITY L
VULNERABILITYASSESSME
ATMOSPHERIC GEOLOGIC HYDROLOGIC OTHER
FACILITY FACILITY NAME TYPE Hail Flood Flood (high) (high) (Cat 3) Erosion Tornado Tornado Tsunami Tsunami & Freeze Sinkhole Lightning Lightning Drought & (Cat 1 & 2) (Cat 4 & 5) (moderate) Earthquake Earthquake Hurricane & Landslide & Landslide Storm Surge Storm Surge Storm Surge Wildfire Risk Wildfire Risk Wildfire Winter Storm Storm Winter Extreme Heat Thunderstorm Thunderstorm Tropical Storm Storm Tropical
SCX ‐ NE Cape Fear River Bridge X X X X X X X X X X Substation 410‐ Carolina Electric X X X X X X X X X Beach Substation US 17 Highway X X X X X X X X X X US 17 Business Highway X X X X X X X X X X I‐140 Highway X X X X X X X X X X I‐40 Highway X X X X X X X X X X US 421 Highway X X X X X X X X X X Electric X X X X X X X X X X Substation 420‐ Castle Hayne Substation Electric X X X X X X X X X Substation 430‐ Castle Street Substation Electric X X X X X X X X X Substation 440‐ Cedar Street Substation Substation 470‐ East Electric X X X X X X X X X Wilmington Substation Electric X X X X X X X X X Substation 520‐ Masonboro Substation Substation 530‐ 9th & Electric X X X X X X X X X Orange Substation Electric X X X X X X X X X Substation 570‐ Sunset Park Substation Electric X X X X X X X X X X Substation 580‐ Winter Park Substation Substation 590‐ Wrightsville Electric X X X X X X X X X Bea Substation Electric X X X X X X X X X X Progress Energy Sutton Plant Substation River Road Tower Emergency X X X X X X X X X
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:5
ATMOSPHERIC GEOLOGIC HYDROLOGIC OTHER
FACILITY FACILITY NAME TYPE Hail Flood Flood (high) (high) (Cat 3) Erosion Tornado Tornado Tsunami Tsunami & Freeze Sinkhole Lightning Lightning Drought & (Cat 1 & 2) (Cat 4 & 5) (moderate) Earthquake Earthquake Hurricane & Landslide & Landslide Storm Surge Storm Surge Storm Surge Wildfire Risk Wildfire Risk Wildfire Winter Storm Storm Winter Extreme Heat Thunderstorm Thunderstorm Tropical Storm Storm Tropical Communications Tower Emergency Communications X X X X X X X X X Flemington Tower Site Tower Wilmington Switching Telephone X X X X X X X X X Station Switching Station Winter Park Switching Telephone X X X X X X X X X Station Switching Station Telephone X X X X X X X X X Wrightsville Beach Switching Station Telephone X X X X X X X X X Castle Hayne Switching Station Telephone X X X X X X X X X Scotts Hill Switching Station Switching Station Carolina Beach Switching Telephone X X X X X X X X X X X Station Switching Station Waste Water Treatment WWTP X X X X X X X X X J.A. Loughlin WWTP WWTP X X X X X X X X X Maffit WWTP WWTP X X X X X X X X X Government Services Municipal X X X X X X X X X City Hall ‐ Wilmington Buildings Municipal X X X X X X X X X City Lot Complex Buildings Municipal X X X X X X X X X Coleman Complex Buildings Municipal X X X X X X X X X Thalian Hall Buildings Municipal X X X X X X X X X Elderhaus Building Buildings
6:6 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
NERABILITY ASSESSMENT NERABILITY L
VULNERABILITYASSESSME
ATMOSPHERIC GEOLOGIC HYDROLOGIC OTHER
FACILITY FACILITY NAME TYPE Hail Flood Flood (high) (high) (Cat 3) Erosion Tornado Tornado Tsunami Tsunami & Freeze Sinkhole Lightning Lightning Drought & (Cat 1 & 2) (Cat 4 & 5) (moderate) Earthquake Earthquake Hurricane & Landslide & Landslide Storm Surge Storm Surge Storm Surge Wildfire Risk Wildfire Risk Wildfire Winter Storm Storm Winter Extreme Heat Thunderstorm Thunderstorm Tropical Storm Storm Tropical Municipal X X X X X X X X X Wilmington Transit Authority Buildings City Parks & Rec Building Municipal X X X X X X X X X (Wilmington) Buildings Municipal X X X X X X X X X Aging Dept. Bldg. Buildings Municipal X X X X X X X X X Airport Bldg. Buildings Municipal X X X X X X X X X Administration Bldg. Buildings Municipal X X X X X X X X X Annex Bldg. Buildings Municipal X X X X X X X X X Animal Control Bldg. Buildings NC Cooperative Extension Municipal X X X X X X X X X X Service Buildings Emergency Medical Services Municipal X X X X X X X X X Bldg. Buildings Municipal X X X X X X X X X Health Department Building Buildings Environmental Management Municipal X X X X X X X X X Building Buildings Garage ‐ Vehicle Municipal X X X X X X X X X Management Buildings Municipal X X X X X X X X X Library Buildings Municipal X X X X X X X X X X Library ‐ Myrtle Grove Buildings Municipal X X X X X X X X X X X X Library ‐ Plaza East Branch Buildings Municipal X X X X X X X X X Museum Buildings
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:7
ATMOSPHERIC GEOLOGIC HYDROLOGIC OTHER
FACILITY FACILITY NAME TYPE Hail Flood Flood (high) (high) (Cat 3) Erosion Tornado Tornado Tsunami Tsunami & Freeze Sinkhole Lightning Lightning Drought & (Cat 1 & 2) (Cat 4 & 5) (moderate) Earthquake Earthquake Hurricane & Landslide & Landslide Storm Surge Storm Surge Storm Surge Wildfire Risk Wildfire Risk Wildfire Winter Storm Storm Winter Extreme Heat Thunderstorm Thunderstorm Tropical Storm Storm Tropical Park & Rec Maintenance Municipal X X X X X X X X X Shop Buildings Municipal X X X X X X X X X Judicial Building Buildings Municipal X X X X X X X X X Law Enforcement Center Buildings Municipal X X X X X X X X X Social Services Building Buildings Municipal X X X X X X X X X Vector Control Building Buildings Municipal X X X X X X X X X Waste‐To‐Energy Facility Buildings Municipal X X X X X X X X X Carolina Beach Town Hall Buildings Carolina Beach Public Works Municipal X X X X X X X X X Facility Buildings Municipal X X X X X X X X X X X Library ‐ Carolina Beach Buildings Municipal X X X X X X X X X Kure Government Buildings Buildings County Government Municipal X X X X X X X X X Buildings Buildings State: N.C. Department of DOT X X X X X X X X X X Transportation Supportive Facilities
UNC‐Wilmington College X X X X X X X X X Cape Fear Community College X X X X X X X X X College Miller Motte Business College X X X X X X X X X College Cape Fear Academy Private Schools X X X X X X X X X
6:8 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
NERABILITY ASSESSMENT NERABILITY L
VULNERABILITYASSESSME
ATMOSPHERIC GEOLOGIC HYDROLOGIC OTHER
FACILITY FACILITY NAME TYPE Hail Flood Flood (high) (high) (Cat 3) Erosion Tornado Tornado Tsunami Tsunami & Freeze Sinkhole Lightning Lightning Drought & (Cat 1 & 2) (Cat 4 & 5) (moderate) Earthquake Earthquake Hurricane & Landslide & Landslide Storm Surge Storm Surge Storm Surge Wildfire Risk Wildfire Risk Wildfire Winter Storm Storm Winter Extreme Heat Thunderstorm Thunderstorm Tropical Storm Storm Tropical
Saint Mary's Catholic Church Private Schools X X X X X X X X X Wilmington Christian X X X X X X X X X X Academy Private Schools Child Development Center Private Schools X X X X X X X X X Exceptional Children’s Office Private Schools X X X X X X X X X United Cerebral Palsy Private Schools X X X X X X X X X X Ogden Elementary Public Schools X X X X X X X X X D.B. Johnson Elementary Public Schools X X X X X X X X X M.W. Howe Elementary Public Schools X X X X X X X X X Gregory Elementary Public Schools X X X X X X X X X Forest Hills Elementary Public Schools X X X X X X X X X College Park Elementary Public Schools X X X X X X X X X Bradley Creek Elementary Public Schools X X X X X X X X X X E.A. Alderman Elementary Public Schools X X X X X X X X X H.C. Bellamy Elementary Public Schools X X X X X X X X X J.J. Blair Elementary Public Schools X X X X X X X X X W.H. Blount Elementary Public Schools X X X X X X X X X Pine Valley Elementary Public Schools X X X X X X X X X J.C. Roe Elementary Public Schools X X X X X X X X X A.H. Snipes Elementary Public Schools X X X X X X X X X X X X X Sunset Park Elementary Public Schools X X X X X X X X X M.C. Williams Elementary Public Schools X X X X X X X X X X
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:9
ATMOSPHERIC GEOLOGIC HYDROLOGIC OTHER
FACILITY FACILITY NAME TYPE Hail Flood Flood (high) (high) (Cat 3) Erosion Tornado Tornado Tsunami Tsunami & Freeze Sinkhole Lightning Lightning Drought & (Cat 1 & 2) (Cat 4 & 5) (moderate) Earthquake Earthquake Hurricane & Landslide & Landslide Storm Surge Storm Surge Storm Surge Wildfire Risk Wildfire Risk Wildfire Winter Storm Storm Winter Extreme Heat Thunderstorm Thunderstorm Tropical Storm Storm Tropical
Winter Park Elementary Public Schools X X X X X X X X X Wrightsboro Elementary Public Schools X X X X X X X X X Myrtle Grove Middle School Public Schools X X X X X X X X X M.C.S. Noble Middle School Public Schools X X X X X X X X X Roland‐Grise Middle School Public Schools X X X X X X X X X Emma B. Trask Middle X X X X X X X X X School Public Schools D.C. Virgo Middle School Public Schools X X X X X X X X X Williston Middle Schools Public Schools X X X X X X X X X J.T. Hoggard High School Public Schools X X X X X X X X X E.A. Laney High School Public Schools X X X X X X X X X New Hanover High School Public Schools X X X X X X X X X Lakeside High School Public Schools X X X X X X X X X Codington Elementary X X X X X X X X X School Public Schools Eaton Elementary School Public Schools X X X X X X X X X X Carolina Beach Elementary Public Schools X X X X X X X X X X X Holly Tree Elementary Public Schools X X X X X X X X X Murray Middle School Public Schools X X X X X X X X X X X Ashley High School Public Schools X X X X X X X X X X X H.C. Bellamy Elementary Shelter X X X X X X X X X Emma B. Trask Middle X X X X X X X X X School Shelter
6:10 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
NERABILITY ASSESSMENT NERABILITY L
VULNERABILITYASSESSME
ATMOSPHERIC GEOLOGIC HYDROLOGIC OTHER
FACILITY FACILITY NAME TYPE Hail Flood Flood (high) (high) (Cat 3) Erosion Tornado Tornado Tsunami Tsunami & Freeze Sinkhole Lightning Lightning Drought & (Cat 1 & 2) (Cat 4 & 5) (moderate) Earthquake Earthquake Hurricane & Landslide & Landslide Storm Surge Storm Surge Storm Surge Wildfire Risk Wildfire Risk Wildfire Winter Storm Storm Winter Extreme Heat Thunderstorm Thunderstorm Tropical Storm Storm Tropical
D.B. Johnson Elementary Shelter X X X X X X X X X E.A. Laney High School Shelter X X X X X X X X X Myrtle Grove Middle School Shelter X X X X X X X X X M.C.S. Noble Middle School Shelter X X X X X X X X X Codington Elementary X X X X X X X X X School Shelter Eaton Elementary School Shelter X X X X X X X X X X Other Critical Facilities
New Hanover County Jail Jail X X X X X X X X X X New Hanover County Jail X X X X X X X X X X Annex Jail NC State Prison Facility 025 Jail X X X X X X X X X X X X NC Juvenile Center Jail X X X X X X X X X X Britthaven Of Wrightsville Nursing Home X X X X X X X X X Britthaven Of Wilmington Nursing Home X X X X X X X X X Cornelia Nixon Davis Health X X X X X X X X X X Care Nursing Home Hillhaven Rehabilitation Nursing Home X X X X X X X X X Pinnacle Care Center Nursing Home X X X X X X X X X Hermitage House Nursing Home X X X X X X X X X Neilson's Rest Home Nursing Home X X X X X X X X X X Fannie Norwood Memorial X X X X X X X X X Home Nursing Home Port South Village Nursing Home X X X X X X X X X
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:11
ATMOSPHERIC GEOLOGIC HYDROLOGIC OTHER
FACILITY FACILITY NAME TYPE Hail Flood Flood (high) (high) (Cat 3) Erosion Tornado Tornado Tsunami Tsunami & Freeze Sinkhole Lightning Lightning Drought & (Cat 1 & 2) (Cat 4 & 5) (moderate) Earthquake Earthquake Hurricane & Landslide & Landslide Storm Surge Storm Surge Storm Surge Wildfire Risk Wildfire Risk Wildfire Winter Storm Storm Winter Extreme Heat Thunderstorm Thunderstorm Tropical Storm Storm Tropical
Sherwood Manor Rest Home Nursing Home X X X X X X X X X Liberty Commons Nursing Home X X X X X X X X X Cedar Cove Retirement & X X X X X X X X X X Rest Home Nursing Home Brightmore of Wilmington Nursing Home X X X X X X X X X Britthaven of North Chase Nursing Home X X X X X X X X X X Catherine Kennedy Home Nursing Home X X X X X X X X X Cypress Pointe Rehab & X X X X X X X X X Health Ct Nursing Home Greenbriar at Wilmington Nursing Home X X X X X X X X X Lakeshore Commons Nursing Home X X X X X X X X X X X X Manorhouse at Wilmington Nursing Home X X X X X X X X X Spring Arbor of Wilmington Nursing Home X X X X X X X X X Radio Station X X X X X X X X X WWQQ Tower Radio Station X X X X X X X X X WBMS/WMFD/WUOY Tower Radio Station X X X X X X X X X WAAV Tower Radio Station X X X X X X X X X X WHQR Tower Radio Station X X X X X X X X X WGNI/WMNX (EAS) Tower Radio Station X X X X X X X X X WKOO Tower Radio Station X X X X X X X X X X X X WSFM/WKXB Tower
6:12 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
NERABILITY ASSESSMENT NERABILITY L
VULNERABILITYASSESSME
ATMOSPHERIC GEOLOGIC HYDROLOGIC OTHER
FACILITY FACILITY NAME TYPE Hail Flood Flood (high) (high) (Cat 3) Erosion Tornado Tornado Tsunami Tsunami & Freeze Sinkhole Lightning Lightning Drought & (Cat 1 & 2) (Cat 4 & 5) (moderate) Earthquake Earthquake Hurricane & Landslide & Landslide Storm Surge Storm Surge Storm Surge Wildfire Risk Wildfire Risk Wildfire Winter Storm Storm Winter Extreme Heat Thunderstorm Thunderstorm Tropical Storm Storm Tropical Television Station X X X X X X X X X WECT TV 6 (NBC) Tower Television Station X X X X X X X X X X X WWAY TV 3 (ABC) Tower Television Station X X X X X X X X X WJKA TV 26 (CBS) Tower
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:13
VULNERABILITYASSESSME
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 6:39
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
6:40 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
SECTION 7 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
This section of the Plan discusses the capability of New Hanover County and the participating municipal jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities. The information contained in this section has been updated for the 2010 Plan. It consists of the following six subsections:
• What is a Capability Assessment? • Conducting the Capability Assessment • Capability Assessment Findings • Previously Implemented Mitigation Measures • Conclusions on Local Capability • Linking the Capability Assessment with the Risk Assessment and the Mitigation Strategy
What is a Capability Assessment? The purpose of conducting a capability assessment is to determine the ability of a local jurisdiction to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy, and to identify potential opportunities for establishing or enhancing specific mitigation policies, programs or projects.1 As in any planning process, it is important to try to establish which goals, objectives and/or 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. Careful examination of local capabilities will detect any existing gaps, shortfalls or weaknesses with ongoing government activities that could hinder proposed mitigation activities and possibly exacerbate community 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 completed for New Hanover County and its participating municipalities serves as a critical planning step and an integral part of the foundation for designing an effective multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation strategy. Coupled with the Risk Assessment, the Capability Assessment helps identify and target meaningful mitigation actions for incorporation in the Mitigation Strategy portion of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. It not only helps establish the goals for New Hanover County to pursue under this Plan, but also ensures that those goals are realistically achievable under given local conditions.
1 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)). Further, the State of North Carolina Division of Emergency Management does require a local capability assessment to be completed for local hazard mitigation plans.
Conducting the Capability Assessment In order to facilitate the inventory and analysis of local government capabilities throughout New Hanover County, a detailed Capability Assessment Survey2 was distributed to New Hanover County’s departments and local municipal jurisdictions. The survey questionnaire, which was completed by appropriate local government officials, requested information on a variety of “capability indicators” such as existing local plans, policies, programs or ordinances that contribute to and/or hinder the community’s ability to implement hazard mitigation actions. Other indicators included information related to each jurisdiction’s fiscal, administrative and technical capabilities such as access to local budgetary and personnel resources for mitigation purposes. 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. In completing the survey, local officials were also required to conduct a self-assessment of their jurisdiction’s specific capabilities. The survey instrument thereby not only helps 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 for specific actions to be proposed as part of the community’s mitigation strategy.
The information provided by participating jurisdictions in response to the survey questionnaire was incorporated into a database for further analysis. A general scoring methodology3 was then applied to quantify and rank each jurisdiction’s overall capability relative to one another. According to the scoring system, each capability 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 total score and 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 nothing more than a general assessment of each individual jurisdiction’s local capability relative to one another using a consistent methodology. 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. In order to provide an update to the information provided from the 2004 survey, representatives from the local jurisdictions were assembled to review the information and revise it as needed.
Capability Assessment Findings CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CAPABILITY The findings of the capability assessment are summarized in this Plan to provide insight into relevant capacity of New Hanover County’s jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities. All information is based upon the responses provided by local government officials to the Capability Assessment Survey and
2 The Capability Assessment Survey instrument used to assess county and municipal capabilities is available through New Hanover County upon request. 3 The scoring methodology used to quantify and rank each jurisdiction’s capability is fully described in this section of the Plan along with conclusions on local capability. Hard copies of the completed surveys along with the raw data results from survey analysis can be obtained through New Hanover County upon request.
7:2 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT during meetings of the Mitigation Advisory Committee. All completed survey questionnaires are available through New Hanover County upon request.
Planning and Regulatory Capability Planning and regulatory capability is based on the implementation of plans, ordinances and programs that demonstrate a local jurisdiction’s commitment to guiding and managing growth, development and redevelopment in a responsible manner while maintaining the general welfare of the community. It includes emergency response and mitigation planning, comprehensive land use planning and transportation planning in addition to the enforcement zoning or subdivision ordinances and building codes that regulate how land is developed and structures are built, as well as protecting environmental, historic and cultural resources in the community. Although some conflicts can arise, these planning initiatives generally present significant opportunities to integrate hazard mitigation principles and practices into the local decision making process.
This assessment is designed to provide a general overview of the key planning and regulatory tools or programs in place or under development for jurisdictions in New Hanover County, along with their potential effect on 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 7.1 provides a summary of the relevant local plans, ordinances and programs already in place or under development for New Hanover County’s participating local governments. A checkmark ( ) indicates that the given item is currently in place and being implemented by the local jurisdiction (or in some cases by the County on behalf of that jurisdiction), or that it is currently being developed for future implementation. Table 7.1 Relevant Plans, Ordinances and Programs
Jurisdiction Fire Code Code Fire Building Code Code Building Evacuation Plan Plan Evacuation Zoning Ordinance SARA Title III Plan Plan III SARA Title Subdivision Ordinance Ordinance Subdivision Disaster Recovery Plan Plan Recovery Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan Plan Mitigation Hazard Historic Preservation Plan Plan Preservation Historic Capital ImprovementsPlan Emergency Operations Plan Plan Operations Emergency Economic Development Plan Plan Development Economic Continuity of Operations Plan Plan Operations of Continuity Radiological Emergency Plan Plan Emergency Radiological Floodplain Management Plan Plan Management Floodplain Stormwater Management Plan Plan Management Stormwater Comprehensive Land Use Plan Use Plan Land Comprehensive Open Space Management Plan Plan Management Space Open Coastal Zone Management Plan Management Zone Coastal Unified Development Ordinance NFIP Community Rating System National Flood Insurance Program Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Post-disaster Redevelopment/Recovery Ordinance Ordinance Redevelopment/Recovery Post-disaster New Hanover County City of Wilmington Town of Kure Beach Town of Carolina Beach
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 7:3
A more detailed discussion on each jurisdiction’s planning and regulatory capability follows, along with the incorporation of additional information based on the narrative comments provided by local officials in response to the survey questionnaire. Hard copies of the completed surveys provide more detailed information on local capability can be obtained through New Hanover County.
Emergency Management Hazard mitigation is widely recognized as one of the four primary phases of emergency management. The three other phases include preparedness, response and recovery. In reality, each phase is interconnected with hazard mitigation as Figure 7.1 suggests. Opportunities to reduce potential losses through mitigation practices are most often implemented before disaster strikes, such as elevation of flood prone structures or through the continuous enforcement of regulatory policies that prevent hazardous construction. However, mitigation opportunities will also be presented during immediate preparedness or response activities (such as installing storm shutters in advance of a hurricane), and certainly during the long-term recovery and redevelopment process following a hazard event.
Figure 7.1 The Four Phases of Emergency Management
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 the 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
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CAPABILITY elements of a hazard mitigation plan include a risk assessment, capability assessment and mitigation strategy.
• New Hanover County prepared a Hazard Mitigation Plan that was adopted in March2002, but it was not specifically designed to meet the requirements per the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The new Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan expands upon this previous planning effort in order to prepare a plan that includes the City of Wilmington and the Town of Kure Beach and complies with all current state and federal requirements. • In 2004, New Hanover County prepared a Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan that was adopted in September, 2004. The Plan meets the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of
7:4 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT 2000 and all state requirements. The Plan includes the City of Wilmington and Town of Kure Beach. • The Town of Carolina Beach had a Hazard Mitigation Plan that was adopted in 2003. In 2009, the Town requested that they be included in the New Hanover County Multi-Jurisdictional Plan.
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.
• There is no stand-alone disaster recovery plan for New Hanover County, the City of Wilmington Town of Kure Beach, or Town of Carolina Beach. However, disaster recovery policies have been considered and continue to be updated through the development of local land use plans for each of these jurisdictions.
• New Hanover County’s Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Land Use Plan has a disaster recovery section which includes a number of recovery policies that are consistent with the goals of this Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. This plan is further discussed in this section under Coastal Zone Management Plan.
Emergency Operations Plan: An emergency operations plan outlines responsibilities and the means by which resources are deployed during and following an emergency or disaster.
• New Hanover County Emergency Services maintains a countywide emergency operations plan and manages the County Emergency Operations Center (EOC). The EOP addresses emergency operations on behalf of all municipalities in New Hanover County, and meets the requirements of FEMA planning guidance CPG 1-8 and CPG 1-8A, and the legal responsibilities identified in North Carolina General Statues Chapter 166-A. It provides all the necessary elements to ensure that local government can fulfill its legal responsibilities for emergency preparedness.
• All municipal jurisdictions in New Hanover County are covered under the County’s EOP and cooperate accordingly, although some have also prepared their own local emergency operations plans, including the City of Wilmington and the Town of Kure Beach. Each of these plans are focused on immediate preparedness and response activities, but can help facilitate loss reduction efforts by promoting the fact that sustained mitigation efforts will reduce the community’s need to prepare and respond to disaster events through hazard avoidance.
• The Town of Carolina Beach maintains an Emergency Response and Re-entry Plan. The Plan sets guidelines for the dissemination of information and resources.
Continuity of Operation Plan: A continuity of operations plan establishes a chain of command, line of succession and plans for backup or alternate emergency facilities in case of an extreme emergency or disaster event.
• New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington have prepared a continuity of operations plan.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 7:5
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.
• New Hanover County maintains a radiological emergency plan on behalf of all jurisdictions in New Hanover County. The plan prescribes those actions to be taken by New Hanover County and threatened municipalities to protect the health and safety of the general public who may be affected by radiation exposure and environmental contamination resulting from an accident at Progress Energy’s Brunswick Nuclear Plant, located two miles north of Southport in neighboring Brunswick County. A portion of New Hanover County lies within the plume exposure pathway or emergency planning zone (10-mile radius of the site) and the ingestion exposure pathway (50-mile radius of the site).
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), also known as the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).
• The New Hanover County Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) has recently updated an Emergency Response Plan for chemical emergencies throughout the county in coordination with the North Carolina State Emergency Response Commission (SERC). A variety of local government officials, chemical industry representatives and media outlets participate in the LEPC planning process per EPCRA requirements.
General Planning The implementation of hazard mitigation activities often involves agencies and individuals beyond the emergency management profession. Other stakeholders may include local planners, public works officials, economic development specialists and others. In many instances, concurrent local planning efforts will help to achieve or 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 to what degree hazard mitigation is integrated into other on-going 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, transportation elements and 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 enhance the likelihood of achieving risk reduction goals, objectives and actions.
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CAPABILITY o The City of Wilmington developed a Future Land Use Plan intended to guide development and redevelopment in Wilmington through 2025. The Plan builds on the existing CAMA Land Use Plan and provides more detailed guidance for land use. It is intended that the Plan will guide the physical development of the City over the next twenty years and will be used to make future rezoning, capital improvement project and development regulation decisions.
7:6 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT Coastal Zone Management Plan: The North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) requires each of the 20 coastal counties to have a local land use plan in accordance with guidelines established by the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC). Each CAMA land use plan includes local policies that address growth issues such as the protection of productive resources (i.e., farmland, forest resources, fisheries, etc.), desired types of economic development, natural resource protection and the reduction of storm hazards. At the local level, CAMA land use plans provide guidance for both individual projects and a broad range of policy issues, such as the development of regulatory ordinances and public investment programs.
• Each of New Hanover County’s participating jurisdictions has prepared a CAMA land use plan. Each jurisdiction is currently in the process of updating their plans in coordination with the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM), and each has committed to integrating their ongoing planning efforts with the development of this Mitigation Plan. To further this commitment, a representative from NCDCM was invited to the mitigation planning process along with local officials involved in both the concurrent planning efforts.
Capital Improvements Plan: A capital improvement 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 spending in hazardous areas is one of the most effective long-term mitigation actions available to local governments.
• New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington maintain capital improvements plans, both of which have been determined by local officials to facilitate and support loss reduction efforts. Opportunities to enhance these plans as mechanisms for furthering hazard mitigation have been considered in the development proposed mitigation actions included in this Plan.
• The Towns of Kure Beach and Carolina Beach do not currently maintain a capital improvements plan.
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. 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.
• Although historic preservation is addressed through some comprehensive land use plans, designated historic districts and local civic associations, only the City of Wilmington has a dedicated historic preservation plan in place for their jurisdiction. While it doesn’t directly support loss reduction efforts it has been determined to help facilitate similar goals for the community.
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 jurisdiction that maintains zoning authority. 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.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 7:7
• All participating jurisdictions in New Hanover County have adopted and enforce a zoning ordinance. All jurisdictions indicated that their zoning ordinance either strongly supports or helps facilitate hazard loss reduction, with some planning to strengthen their ordinance through proposed mitigation actions as part of this Plan.
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.
• All participating jurisdictions in New Hanover County have adopted and enforce a subdivision ordinance. All jurisdictions indicated that their ordinance either strongly supports or helps facilitate hazard loss reduction, with some planning to strengthen their ordinance through proposed mitigation actions as part of this Plan.
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.
• Per the General Assembly, communities in North Carolina are required to follow a statewide mandatory building code. The 2009 North Carolina Building Code is based on the 2006 International Building Code (IBC), with heavy modifications being made by the North Carolina Building Code Council (although few related to life and safety issues). Local governments may also amend the code pursuant to state approval.
• New Hanover County performs building code inspections for the City of Wilmington, while the Towns of Kure Beach and Carolina Beach maintain their own building code department.
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).4 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. The concept is that communities with well-enforced, up-to-date codes should demonstrate better loss experience, and insurance rates can reflect that. CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CAPABILITY
In conducting the assessment, ISO collects information related to personnel qualification and continuing education as well as 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 exemplary commitment to building code enforcement, and a grade of 10 indicates less than minimum recognized protection.
4 Participation in BCEGS is voluntary and may be declined by local governments if they do not wish to have their local building codes evaluated.
7:8 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
• New Hanover County enforces the building code on behalf of the City of Wilmington, and received a BCEGS Grade of “5” by ISO for personal and commercial lines. According to ISO, the Towns of Kure Beach and Carolina Beach received a BCEGS Grade of “5” for personal and commercial lines.
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 for local governments, but the program is promoted by FEMA as a first basic step for implementing and sustaining an effective hazard mitigation program. It is therefore used as a key indicator for measuring local capability as part of this assessment.
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 aggregate 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 7.2 summarizes NFIP participation within New Hanover County.5
Table 7.2 NFIP Participation in New Hanover County
NFIP Current Effective Amount of Jurisdiction Number of Policies Entry Date Map Coverage New Hanover County 07/17/1978 02/16/2007 5,675 $1,592,944,800 City of Wilmington 04/17/1978 12/16/07 986 $226,813,500 Town of Kure Beach 01/06/1982 12/16/07 937 $241,170,900 Carolina Beach 05/02/1975 12/16/07 3,824 $639,783,700 Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency/North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
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
5 General NFIP policy data provided by the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management on February 26, 2010.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 7:9
mitigation activities are assigned a range of point values. As points are accumulated and reach identified thresholds, communities can apply for an improved CRS class. Class ratings, which run from 10 to 1, are tied to flood insurance premium reductions as shown in Table 7.3. As class ratings improve (decrease), the percent reduction in flood insurance premiums for NFIP policy holders in that community increases.
Table 7.3 CRS Premium Discounts, By Class
Premium CRS Class Reduction 10 0 9 5% 8 10% 7 15% 6 20% 5 25% 4 30% 3 35% 2 40% 1 45% 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 based on community comments to make the CRS more user friendly as possible, and extensive technical assistance is also available for communities who request it.
• New Hanover County currently participates in the CRS as a Class 8 community, which results in a 10% NFIP premium reduction for NFIP policy holders in unincorporated areas of the county. The Town of Carolina Beach also participates in CRS as a Class 8 community, allowing for a 10% NFIP premium reduction for policy holders in the Town of Carolina Beach jurisdiction.
Floodplain Management Plan: A floodplain management plan (or a flood mitigation plan) provides a framework for action regarding the corrective and preventative measures in place to reduce flood-related impacts.
• New Hanover County and the Town of Carolina Beach maintain a floodplain management plan, as required through the CRS program.
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CAPABILITY Open Space Management Plan: An open space management plan is designed to preserve, protect and restore largely undeveloped lands in their natural state, and to expand or connect areas in the public domain such as 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 in perpetuity.
7:10 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT • New Hanover County, the City of Wilmington, and the Town of Carolina Beachall have an open space management plan that helps facilitate its loss reduction efforts. The Town of Kure Beach currently does not have an open space management plan.
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 participating jurisdictions have a stormwater management plan (the County’s exists in the form of an ordinance).
• The City of Wilmington is one of the few local jurisdictions in North Carolina to have a stormwater utility in place, which generates significant funding to carry out stormwater management activities such as maintaining the storm drainage system and implementing drainage improvement projects throughout the city.
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 can be evaluated by determining how mitigation-related activities are assigned to local departments and how adequate the personnel resources are for carrying the activities out. The degree of intergovernmental coordination among departments will also affect administrative capability for the implementation and success of proposed mitigation activities. Technical capability can generally be 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 7.4 provides a summary of the results for each jurisdiction in New Hanover County. A checkmark ( ) indicates that the given local staff member(s) is maintained through each particular jurisdiction’s local government resources. Additional information on administrative and technical capability for New Hanover County’s jurisdictions is provided in the hard copies completed surveys which can be obtained through New Hanover County.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 7:11
Table 7.4 Relevant Staff / Personnel Resources
Jurisdiction or grant writers writers or grant Land surveyors and/or HAZUS HAZUS and/or Floodplain manager manager Floodplain Emergency manager manager Emergency development and land land and development management practices practices management vulnerabilityhazards to human-caused hazards Scientist familiar with the the familiar with Scientist hazardsof the community information systems (GIS) (GIS) systems information to assess to the community’s Resource development staff Planners or engineers with an an with engineers or Planners buildings and/or infrastructure infrastructure and/or buildings Personnel skilled in geographic in geographic skilled Personnel Staff with education or expertise expertise or education Staff with understanding of natural and/or and/or of natural understanding Planners with knowledge of land of land knowledge with Planners Engineers or professionals trained trained professionals or Engineers in construction practices related to practices in construction
New Hanover County City of Wilmington Town of Kure Beach Town of Carolina Beach
Fiscal Capability The ability of a local government to take action is often closely associated with the amount of money available to implement policies and projects.6 This may take the form of outside grant funding awards or locally-based revenue and financing. The costs associated with mitigation policy and project implementation vary widely. In some cases, policies are tied primarily 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 7.5 provides a summary of the results for each jurisdiction in New Hanover County. A checkmark ( ) indicates that the given fiscal resource is locally available for hazard mitigation purposes (including as match funds for state and federal mitigation grant funds). Additional information on fiscal capability for New Hanover County’s jurisdictions is provided in the hard copies completed surveys, which can be obtained through New Hanover County.
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CAPABILITY
6 Gaining access to federal, state or other sources of funding is often an overriding factor driving the development 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. This should be coupled with an attempt to identify mitigation measures that cost little or no money, yet may compliment the larger array of actions identified in the Plan.
7:12 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT Table 7.5 Relevant Fiscal Resources
s Jurisdiction Fees Fees Bonds Bonds Grant Utility Fees Fees Utility Community Community Gas / Electric Programming Programming Revenue Bonds Bonds Revenue Special Tax Bonds Tax Bonds Special General Obligation Water / Sewer FeesWater / Sewer Development Block Block Development Development Impact Capital Improvement Improvement Capital Special Purpose Taxes Taxes Purpose Special Stormwater Utility Fees Fees Utility Stormwater New Hanover County City of Wilmington Town of Kure Beach Town of Carolina Beach
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. Hazard mitigation may not be a local priority, may conflict or could mistakenly be seen as an impediment to other goals of the community, such as growth and economic development. Therefore the local political climate must be considered in designing mitigation strategies, as it could be the most difficult hurdle to overcome in accomplishing their adoption or implementation.
The Capability Assessment Survey was used to capture information on each jurisdiction’s political capability. Survey respondents were asked to identify some general examples of political capability for their jurisdiction, 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 (e.g. building codes, floodplain management, etc.). Table 7.6 provides a summary of the individual responses for each jurisdiction in New Hanover County.
Table 7.6 Political Capability
Jurisdiction Comments
Leadership is willing to enact policies that are shown to reduce hazard vulnerability. Examples of policies include the floodplain management ordinance, stormwater engineering for the 50-year storm, beach renourishment, the Masonboro Inlet project, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program proceeds, mapping for New Hanover County floodplain and flood hazard area delineation, the Land Classification Map Resource protection area which mirrors the 100-year floodplain, the Exceptional Design Zoning District standards, and the conservation overlay district. Wilmington's Council usually listens to all sides of the issue and makes decisions based on the facts presented and citizens' input. There have been cases where the Council has adopted ordinances or policies when there was substantial opposition, but the importance to the community was great. Examples include the adoption of the City's stormwater management ordinance and a few years later, the City of Wilmington creation of the Stormwater Utility. The Council has also adopted floodplain ordinances that are more stringent than required by the state. Like most elected boards, the Council is reluctant to enact regulations where there is strong public opposition. However, the Council has shown that when they determine the regulations are in the best interest of the public, they will adopt the regulations.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 7:13
Jurisdiction Comments
Town of Kure Beach No comments provided. Carolina Beach is responsive to the needs of its residents and through memorandums of understanding or memorandums of agreement provides services to its municipalities. The Carolina Beach governing board is well educated on the hazards that threaten the Community and have advisory boards that specialize in specific areas of hazard reduction. The residents of Carolina Beach actively participate in public hearings, Town of Carolina board meetings, and workshops relevant to the continuous growth and development of the Community. Beach In addition, there are boards, committees, and commissions that are established with the specific purpose of receiving and evaluating citizen comments and advising the governing board on said comments and information. The Community (it’s governing board, staff, and citizenry) appear highly capable and willing to promote the economic efficiency and social utility of the mitigation measures contained in this plan.
County and Municipal Self Assessment 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 aforementioned capabilities as either “limited,” “moderate” or “high.”
Table 7.7 summarizes the results of the self-assessment process for each jurisdiction in New Hanover County. An “L” indicates limited capability; an “M” indicated moderate capability; and an “H” indicates high capability.
Table 7.7 Self-Assessment of Local Capability
Jurisdiction Planning and Planning and Fiscal Capability Capability Fiscal Overall Capability Capability Overall Political Capability Administrative and and Administrative Technical Capability Capability Technical Regulatory Capability Capability Regulatory New Hanover County M M L M M City of Wilmington M M M M M Town of Kure Beach L L L L L Town of Carolina Beach M M M M M CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CAPABILITY Previously Implemented Mitigation Measures Among many of the mitigation-related endeavors New Hanover County has engaged in over the past several years, the following are worth noting to demonstrate the community’s firm commitment to local mitigation principles and practices.
• New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington participated jointly as a pilot community in FEMA’s Project Impact: Building Disaster Resistant Communities program beginning in 1997. This
7:14 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT resulted in significant accomplishments in local mitigation, from significantly increasing public awareness to completing a number of mitigation projects, including:
o The development of a Community Vulnerability Assessment Tool (CVAT) for all of New Hanover County in partnership with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Coastal Services Center in 1999. The tool was used in assisting with the preparation of the risk assessment included within this Plan.
o Five New Hanover County schools were structurally retrofitted to be used as shelters, with a total project cost of $442,000.
o Sewer Manhole Inflow Guards were installed across the county to prevent stormwater runoff at a cost of $215,000. o Electrical pump equipment at Hinton, Eastwood and Runnymeade stations (which had been affected by floodwaters) were elevated at a cost of $42,000.
o Existing sanitary sewer pumps were hard-wired to more readily accept generators by installing manual electrical transfer switches at a cost of $55,080.
o Manual electrical transfer switches were installed at six New Hanover County school properties and the Cape Fear Museum.
Conclusions on Local Capability In order to form meaningful conclusions on the assessment of local capability, a quantitative scoring methodology was designed and applied to results of the Capability Assessment Survey. This methodology, further described below, attempts to assess the level of capability for each jurisdiction in New Hanover County by determining a general capability rating for each.
Points System for Capability Ranking Scoring: 0-24 points = Limited overall capability 25-49 points = Moderate overall capability 50-82 points = High overall capability
I. Planning and Regulatory Capability (Up to 46 points)
Yes=3 points Under Development or Under County Jurisdiction=1 No=0 points • Hazard Mitigation Plan • Comprehensive Land Use Plan • Floodplain Management Plan • Participate in CRS Program • BCEGS Grade of 1 to 5
Yes=2 points Under Development or County Jurisdiction=1 No=0 points • Open Space Management / Parks & Rec. Plan
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 7:15
• Coastal Zone Management Plan • Stormwater Management Plan • Emergency Operations Plan • SARA Title III • Radiological Emergency Plan • Continuity of Operations Plan • Evacuation Plan • Disaster Recovery Plan • Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance • BCEGS Grade of 6 to 9
Yes=1 point No=0 points • Capital Improvements Plan • Economic Development Plan • Historic Preservation Plan • Zoning Ordinance • Subdivision Ordinance • Unified Development Ordinance • Building Code • Fire Code • Participate in NFIP Program
II. Administrative and Technical Capability (Up to 15 points)
Yes=2 points No=0 points • Planners with knowledge of land development and land management practices • Engineers or professionals trained in construction practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure • Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural and/or human-caused hazards • Emergency manager • Floodplain manager
Yes=1 point No=0 points • Land surveyors • Scientist familiar with the hazards of the community • Staff with education or expertise to assess the community’s vulnerability to hazards CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CAPABILITY • Personnel skilled in geographic information systems (GIS) and/or HAZUS • Resource development staff or grant writers
III. Fiscal Capability (Up to 11 points)
Yes=1 point No=0 points • Capital Improvement Programming • Community Development Block Grants
7:16 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT • Special Purpose Taxes • Gas / Electric Utility Fees • Water / Sewer Fees • Stormwater Utility Fees • Development Impact Fees • General Obligation Bonds • Revenue Bonds • Special Tax Bonds • Other
IV. Self-Assessment of Overall Capability (Up to 10 points)
High=2 points Moderate=1 points Low=0 points (Self-ranked by jurisdiction) • Technical Capability • Fiscal Capability • Administrative Capability • Political Capability • Overall Capability
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 7.7 shows the results of the capability assessment using the designed scoring methodology. According to the assessment, the average local capability score for all local governments in New Hanover County is 53.67.
Table 7.7 Capability Assessment Results
Jurisdiction Capability Score Capability Rating
New Hanover County 67 HIGH City of Wilmington 60 HIGH Town of Kure Beach 39 MODERATE Town of Carolina Beach 60 HIGH
As previously discussed, one of the reasons for conducting a Capability Assessment is to examine local capabilities to detect any existing gaps or weaknesses within ongoing government activities that could hinder proposed mitigation activities and possibly exacerbate community hazard vulnerability. These gaps or weaknesses have been identified, for each jurisdiction, in the tables found throughout this section. New Hanover County and the participating jurisdictions used the Capability Assessment as part of the basis for the Mitigation Actions that are identified in Section 9; therefore, each jurisdiction addresses their ability to expand on and improve their existing capabilities through the identification of their Mitigation Actions.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 7:17
The capability of the participating local governments in New Hanover County to implement mitigation actions is determined to be moderate to high, with the County, City of Wilmington and Town of Carolina Beach scoring enough points in the assessment to be deemed as having high overall capability. This is not surprising considering the size of each local government and the demand for public services placed upon each by their respective large populations. It is likewise not surprising to see the Town of Kure Beach classified as having moderate overall capability based upon its relatively small local government size and condensed provision of public services. It is worth noting that the scoring methodology used to conduct this capability assessment is only meant to provide a general understanding of local capability for each jurisdiction relative to one another. The results are based solely 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.
Perhaps one of the most significant findings of the assessment is the widespread existence of several planning initiatives, programs and tools already in place across New Hanover County. As a result, jurisdictions know the importance of intergovernmental coordination and how it applies to multi-jurisdictional planning. An important consideration for New Hanover County’s local governments should be to work with each other to apply this coordination to hazard mitigation. This Hazard Mitigation Plan provides a vehicle to begin this process. However, in order to succeed, it will require clearly articulating the benefits of participating in and sustaining the countywide 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 county, 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 7.2 shows a Risk Versus Capability Matrix that is used to illustrate each jurisdiction’s overall hazard risk7 in comparison to their overall capability. This matrix has been completed (marked with a “ ”) for each of New Hanover County’s participating jurisdictions and is included in each jurisdiction’s separate and distinct Mitigation Action Plan.
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CAPABILITY
7 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 through New Hanover County upon request.
7:18 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT Figure 7.2 Risk Versus Capability Matrix
HAZARD RISK
Limited Moderate High High
Moderate
OVERALL Limited CAPABILITY
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.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 7:19
SECTION 8
This section of the Plan provides the blueprint for New Hanover County and its municipal jurisdictions to follow in becoming less vulnerable to natural hazards. It is based on general consensus of the Mitigation Advisory Committee along with the findings and conclusions of the Capability Assessment and Risk Assessment. MITIGATION STRATEGY Few changes have been made to this section since the Mitigation Advisory Committee reviewed and confirmed the existing goals for the plan update. The Mitigation Strategy consists of the following four subsections:
• Introduction • Mitigation Goals • Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Techniques • Selection of Mitigation Techniques for New Hanover County
Introduction The intent of the Mitigation Strategy is to provide New Hanover County and its municipal jurisdictions with the goals that will serve as the guiding principles for future mitigation policy and project administration, along with a listing 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.
In being comprehensive, the development of the strategy included a thorough review of all natural hazards and identifies far-reaching policies and projects intended to not only reduce the future impacts of hazards, but also to assist the county and municipalities achieve compatible economic, environmental and social goals. In being strategic, the development of the strategy ensures that all policies and projects are linked to established priorities and assigned to specific departments or individuals responsible for their implementation with target completion deadlines. When necessary, funding sources are identified that can be used to assist in project implementation.
The first step in designing the Mitigation Strategy includes the identification of countywide Mitigation Goals. Mitigation Goals represent broad statements that are achieved through the implementation of more specific, action-oriented objectives 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 through a local ordinance), and hazard mitigation projects that seek to address specifically targeted hazard risks (such as the acquisition and relocation of a repetitive loss structure).
The second step involves the identification, consideration and analysis of available mitigation measures to help achieve the identified mitigation goals. This is a long-term, continuous process sustained through the development and maintenance of this Plan, beginning with the cardstorming exercise for Mitigation Advisory Committee members during the first Mitigation Strategy Workshop. Alternative mitigation measures will continue to be considered as future mitigation opportunities become identified, as data and technology improve, as mitigation funding becomes available, and as this Plan is maintained over time.
The third and last step in designing the Mitigation Strategy is the creation of the local Mitigation Action Plans
(MAPs), which are provided separately in Section 9: Mitigation Actions Plans. The MAPs represent unambiguous plans for action, and are considered to be the most essential outcome of the mitigation
planning process. They include a prioritized listing of proposed hazard mitigation actions (policies and projects) for each of New Hanover County’s local jurisdictions along with 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 cohesive collection of actions listed in each jurisdiction’s MAP also can serve as an easily understood menu of mitigation policies and projects for those local decision makers who want to quickly review their jurisdiction’s respective element of the countywide Plan.
In preparing their own individual Mitigation Actions Plans, each jurisdiction considered their overall hazard risk and capability to mitigate natural hazards as recorded through the risk and capability assessment process, in addition to meeting the adopted countywide mitigation goals and the unique needs of their community. Prioritizing mitigation actions for each jurisdiction was 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 review1; and (5) funding availability.
Mitigation Goals The goals of the New Hanover County Multi-jurisdictional Hazard 44 CFR Requirement Mitigation Plan were crafted early in the planning process through a 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(3)(i): facilitated discussion and brainstorming session with the Mitigation The mitigation strategy shall Advisory Committee (for more details, please see the summary of the include a description of second Mitigation Advisory Committee meeting in Section 3: Planning mitigation goals to reduce or Process). Each of the following goal statements represent a broad target avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. for New Hanover County and its jurisdictions to achieve through the implementation of their own specific Mitigation Actions Plans. These goals were reviewed at the Mitigation Strategy Meeting (November 2009) and confirmed to still be valid for the 2010 New Hanover County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Goal #1 Work to improve existing local government policies and codes to reduce the impacts of natural hazards.
Goal #2 Design and implement specific mitigation measures to protect vulnerable public and private properties.
Goal #3 Increase the protection of critical facilities and infrastructure from hazard threats through retrofit projects for existing facilities and innovative design standards for new facilities.
Goal #4 Enhance public education programs to promote community awareness of natural hazards and the hazard mitigation techniques available to reduce their impact.
MITIGATION STRATEGY
1 Only a general economic cost/benefit review was considered through the process 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 applied to particular projects prior to the application for or obligation of funding, as appropriate.
8:2 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
MITIGATION STRATEGY
Goal #5 Improve stormwater management through enhanced local government programs, policies and practices.
Goal #6 Enhance the county’s storm evacuation procedures through increased intergovernmental coordination between New Hanover County, its municipalities and the State of North Carolina.
Goal #7 Increase the County’s emergency management capabilities through sustained system and technology improvements.
Goal #8 Promote volunteer involvement in emergency preparedness and response through increased citizen awareness and training activities.
Note: 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 by the New Hanover County Mitigation Advisory Committee that the above goal statements are consistent with the State of North Carolina’s current mitigation planning goals as identified in the State Enhanced Mitigation Plan promulgated by the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management.
Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Techniques In formulating New Hanover County’s Mitigation Strategy, a wide range 44 CFR Requirement of activities were considered in order to help achieve the general 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(3)(ii): countywide goals in addition to the specific hazard concerns of each The mitigation strategy shall participating jurisdiction (again, for more details on the specific include a section that identifies activities discussed and considered by the Mitigation Advisory and analyzes a comprehensive Committee, please see the summary of the second Mitigation Advisory range of specific mitigation actions and projects being Committee meeting in Section 3: Planning Process). In general, all considered to reduce the effect activities considered by the committee can be classified under one of of each hazard, with particular the following six (6) broad categories of mitigation techniques, which emphasis on new and existing were thoroughly explained and discussed at the Mitigation Strategy buildings and infrastructure. Workshop:
1. Prevention Preventative activities are intended to keep hazard problems from getting worse, and are typically administered through government programs or regulatory actions that influence the way land is developed and buildings are built. 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
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 8:3
• Capital improvements programming • Shoreline/riverine/fault zone setbacks
2. Property Protection Property protection measures involve the modification of existing buildings and structures to help them better withstand the forces of a hazard, or 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
3. Natural Resource Protection Natural resource protection activities reduce the impact of natural hazards by preserving or restoring natural areas and their protective functions. Such areas include floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes and sand dunes. Parks, recreation or conservation agencies and organizations often implement these protective measures. Examples include: • 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
4. Structural Projects Structural mitigation projects are intended to lessen the impact of a hazard by modifying the environmental natural progression of the hazard event through construction. 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 MITIGATION STRATEGY • Storm sewers
8:4 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
MITIGATION STRATEGY
5. Emergency Services Although not typically considered a “mitigation” technique, emergency service measures do minimize the impact of a hazard event on people and property. These commonly are actions taken immediately prior to, during, or in response to a hazard event. Examples include: • Warning systems • Evacuation planning and management • Emergency response training and exercises • Sandbagging for flood protection • Installing temporary shutters for wind protection
6. Public Education and Awareness Public education and awareness activities are used to advise residents, elected officials, business owners, potential property buyers, and visitors about hazards, hazardous areas, and mitigation techniques they can use to protect themselves and their property. Examples of measures to educate and inform the public include: • Outreach projects • Speaker series/demonstration events • Hazard map information • Real estate disclosure • Library materials • School children educational programs • Hazard expositions
Selection of Mitigation Techniques for New Hanover County In order to determine the most appropriate mitigation techniques for New Hanover County and its municipal jurisdictions, local government officials reviewed and considered the findings of the Capability Assessment and Risk Assessment. Other considerations included each individual mitigation action’s effect on overall risk to life and property, its ease of implementation, its degree of political and community support, its general cost-effectiveness, and funding availability (if necessary).
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, the New Hanover County Mitigation Advisory Committee completed a Mitigation Technique Matrix (Figure 8.1) to make certain they addressed, at a minimum, those hazards posing the greatest threat.
The matrix provides the committee with the opportunity to cross-reference each of the priority hazards (as determined by through the Risk Assessment) with the aforementioned comprehensive range available mitigation techniques, including prevention; property protection; natural resource protection; structural projects; emergency services; and public education and awareness. However, it is important to note that New Hanover County’s individual Mitigation Action Plans include an array of actions targeting multiple hazards, not just those classified as either high or moderate risk.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 8:5
Figure 8.1 Mitigation Technique Matrix
HIGH RISK HAZARDS MODERATE RISK HAZARDS MITIGATION TECHNIQUE Hurricanes and Severe Flood Tornadoes Tropical Storms Thunderstorms
Prevention 9 9 9 9
Property Protection 9 9 9 9
Natural Resource
Protection 9 9
Structural Projects 9 9
Emergency Services 9 9 9 9
Public Education and Awareness 9 9 9 9
MITIGATION STRATEGY
8:6 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
SECTION 9
MITIGATION ACTION PLAN Mitigation Action Plans The mitigation actions proposed by each of New Hanover County’s local governing bodies participating under this Plan are 44 CFR Requirement listed in four individual Mitigation Action Plans (MAPs) on the 201.6(c)(3)(iii): The mitigation pages that follow. This includes a MAP for New Hanover strategy shall include an action County, City of the Wilmington, Town of Carolina Beach, and plan describing how the actions identified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) Town of Kure Beach. Each MAP has been designed to address of this section will be prioritized, the multi-jurisdictional goals of this Hazard Mitigation Plan, in implemented, and administered addition to the particular goals and objectives of each individual by the local jurisdiction. jurisdiction. Further, each MAP follows the same format which lists the action, whether it is new or existing, an implementation status, lead agency, estimated cost, and other items to demonstrate that each action has been thoroughly assessed for feasibility. 44 CFR Requirement The Town of Carolina Beach is a new participating jurisdiction in 201.6(c)(3)(iv): For multi- jurisdictional plans, there must this Plan. Therefore, mitigation actions from the Town’s previous be identifiable action items plan have been incorporated into this Plan, using the same format specific to the jurisdiction used by the other jurisdictions. requesting FEMA approval or credit for the plan. Some jurisdictions included actions that pertain to man-made hazards not specifically addressed in this plan such as hazardous materials incidents and bioterrorism. The decision to exclude such hazards from the Risk Assessment portion of the plan was made primarily because man-made hazards are required to be addressed by the Disaster Mitigation Act. However, the jurisdictions chose to include actions on man-made hazards in order to potentially obtain funding and show the community its intent to complete such actions.
Mitigation Actions will be maintained on a regular basis according to the plan maintenance procedures established for the New Hanover County Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (See Section 10: Plan Maintenance Procedures). The text below describes the page number of each jurisdiction’s MAP, number of Mitigation Actions, and the key elements included in each action.
Jurisdiction Page New Hanover County ...... 9.4 City of Wilmington ...... 9.27 Town of Carolina Beach ...... 9.41 Town of Kure Beach ...... 9.67
Number of Number of New Jurisdiction Mitigation Actions Mitigation Actions New Hanover County 32 12 City of Wilmington 32 12 Town of Carolina Beach 43 0 Town of Kure Beach 7 0
9:2 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Key Elements of the Mitigation Action Plan
Jurisdiction and Action Number Title of Action (Description of action to be undertaken.)
New or Existing Action Indication of whether the action is new to the plan or is an existing action.
Describes any issues or concerns with the action. The goal(s) that the action Discussion: is linked to may also be indicated here.
Category of Mitigation Technique that is met: Prevention, Property Category: Protection, Natural Resource Protection, Structural Projects, Emergency Services, Public Education and Awareness
Hazard(s) Addressed: Hazard which the action addresses.
Department responsible for undertaking the action. Common Acronyms: CRS – Community Rating System EMS – New Hanover County Emergency Management Services Lead Agency/Department FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency Responsible: GIS – New Hanover County Geographic Information Services NCDENR – North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources NCDOT – North Carolina Department of Transportation NCEM – North Carolina Department of Emergency Management NRCS – Natural Resource Conservation Services USACE – US Army Corp of Engineers
Estimated Cost: Anticipated cost of the action.
Potential Funding Sources: State and Federal sources of funds are noted, where applicable.
Date by which the action the action should be completed. More information Implementation Schedule: is provided when possible.
In preparing their own individual Mitigation Actions Place, each jurisdiction considered their overall hazard risk and capability to mitigate natural hazards as recorded through the risk and capability assessment process, in addition to meeting the adopted countywide mitigation goals and the unique needs of Priority the unique needs of their community. Prioritizing mitigation actions for each (High, Moderate, Low): jurisdiction was 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. This process is also described on page 8:2, Section 8: Mitigation Strategy.
Action Implementation An indication of completion, progress, or no change since the previous plan. Status (2010):
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:3 New Hanover County
HAZARD RISK
Low Moderate High High 9
Moderate
OVERALL Limited CAPABILITY
New Hanover County Maintain the County's Continuity of Government Plan Mitigation Action 1 (COOP) by ensuring that updates are completed by all county departments at least twice a year.* New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: In FY 2004, the County received grant funding to develop a COOP for the 8 departments most critical to hazard response in the County government. In order for the County to be completely prepared, all departments must be included in the COOP, which also needs to be exercised. Category: Prevention / Property Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management, in coordination with New Hanover County departments. Estimated Cost: Local staff time; consultant services. Potential Funding Sources: Grant funding, most specifically, local Emergency Operations Planning Grants. Implementation Schedule: Bi-annual updates should be made on WEPPS by all departments. (Note: this Implementation Schedule was updated for the 2010 plan.) Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing: The COOP was revised and updated to include all County departments in January 2005; the COOP was exercised in August 2005. A web- based system that allows county departments to update their checklists on the web was developed in 2008. *This action has been revised for the 2010 plan.
9:4 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
New Hanover County Enhance the survivability of critical IT services by installing Mitigation Action 2 redundant capability (“hot site”) at our remote operating site. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Discussion: Conduct a risk analysis of IT systems to include Business Continuity Planning, Facilities Management, Security and other Emergency Management issues. Category: Prevention/Property Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Information Technology Estimated Cost: $300,000 for IT infrastructure necessary to provide an alternative operating site (“hot site”). Includes redundant internet connection, servers, applications, and data storage. Potential Funding Sources: Grant funding Implementation Schedule: Dependent upon funding Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:5 Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing: At the NHC Government Center, we now have a data center that has fully redundant power including a backup generator with a 72 hour tank. This will allow us to operate the computer room during emergency events.
We also completed a project to create redundant paths for our fiber optic network which connects the main county facilities (Judicial Building, DSS, Health, and Government Center). This gives us fail over in case of a fiber break along one of the paths.
In fiscal year 2007/2008 IT conducted meetings with County Departments to assess the criticality of applications and services hosted by the IT department. We identified the most critical IT services as those necessary to support the emergency response efforts. These services include telecommunications, email communications, internet access, and access to critical data files, applications, and web sites.
In the event that the IT facilities at the Government Center are damaged or destroyed, we need to be able to rapidly start up critical IT services from our alternate operating site (“hot site”) at the Judicial Building. See “Estimated Cost”.
Completion of the plans will be contingent on budgetary or grant funding.
9:6 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
New Hanover County Install permanent generators at all five emergency shelters. Mitigation Action 3 Pursue funding for a permanent generator at the New Hanover County Senior Center.* New or Existing Action: EXISTING Discussion: Currently, the 5 County school shelters have transfer switches, as does the Senior Center. However, the County has no facility with a permanently installed generator that can be activated as a shelter on short notice. The County's priority is to have permanently installed generators at 1 school shelter, the senior center and the animal shelter. Category: Emergency Services Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management with assistance from the Public Schools, Health Department & Dept. of Aging. Estimated Cost: School & Sr. Center have transfer switches installed. The cost of wiring and 300 kw generators at each location is @ $44,000. The County has a generator it can install at the Animal shelter. The cost of a transfer switch is $15,000. Total cost for this project: $103,000. Potential Funding Sources: Annual County Budget Request Implementation Schedule: - Plans are in place to install a generator at Trask Middle School by July 2010. A generator will be installed at Codington Elementary School in 2011, completing the plan to install permanent generators at all five of NHC’s emergency shelters. (Note: The Implementation Schedule has been updated for the 2010 plan.) Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing: Permanent generators have been installed at Dorothy B. Johnson Elementary, Noble Middle, and Eaton Elementary Schools. A permanent generator has been installed at the New Hanover County Animal Control facility and at Cape Fear Museum. *This action has been revised for the 2010 plan.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:7 New Hanover County Install microwave links between the County radio system Mitigation Action 4 and the 911 system. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Discussion: The County has no communications redundancy. This project would install microwave links between the 911 center and the 2 communications towers that provide countywide coverage, and between the 2 communications towers. Category: Emergency Services Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management Estimated Cost: $60-90,000 for each link. Total cost: $180,000- $270,000. Potential Funding Sources: Grant funding Implementation Schedule: Annual County Budget Request Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): This action was COMPLETED prior to November 1, 2006.
New Hanover County Continue to promote rip current awareness within the county Mitigation Action 5 by partnering with various beach services and the National Weather Service. Emphasis should be placed on education children, the local public and tourists.* New or Existing Action: EXISTING Discussion: The County has 3 Atlantic beaches which frequently experience RIP currents. Public notification of rip current location in real time in the form of Public Service Announcements and signage beach access points would increase awareness of the hazard. Category: Public Awareness Hazard(s) Addressed: RIP currents Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management in conjunction with the local office of the National Weather Service, Lifeguards Estimated Cost: $2-5,000 for signs Potential Funding Sources: Grant or operating funds Implementation Schedule: Continuous Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing: New Hanover County was the test site for the east coast of the U.S. RIP Current Advisory Strategies Team developed the initiatives, such as posters in all classrooms in the County, and signage at all 3 beaches. All initiatives completed prior to summer 2006. *This action was revised for the 2010 plan.
9:8 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
New Hanover County Drainage project at Crosswinds Subdivision Mitigation Action 6 New or Existing Action: EXISTING Discussion: Houses are being flooded & damaged from flood waters during rain storms much smaller than major events. Streets are flooded preventing access by emergency and other vehicles. This project would enlarge & install pipe in the drainage outfall to allow larger storms to drain. Category: Structural Projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Engineering Department Estimated Cost: $750,000 Potential Funding Sources: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Implementation Schedule: Drainage improvements to Mohican Trail scheduled for 2010. Internal stormwater improvements within Crosswinds ongoing. Large scale flooding improvement projects subject to acquiring additional funding. Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing: The drainage issues within the Crosswinds subdivision have been addressed to the best extent possible. NCDOT is still working on improving drainage along College Road in this area. New Hanover County and Crosswinds HOA met with NCDOT, and NCDOT Hydraulics Unit ordered a new study of the culvert under Mohican Trail. Maintenance of drainage on private properties along Mohican Trail has been ongoing to improve drainage towards Whiskey Creek.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:9 New Hanover County Buyout of house located in Crosswinds subdivision adjacent Mitigation Action 7 to drainage ponds. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Discussion: This house is not in a 100 year floodplain, and yet it has sustained repetitive losses from periodic flooding. Since it is not eligible for buyout under FEMA regulations, we would like to use other funds to acquire this property. Category: Property Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Engineering Department Estimated Cost: $170,000 Potential Funding Sources: Multiple sources of funding will be sought. Implementation Schedule: Funding dependent Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): This has not been done. No funds have been identified.
New Hanover County Retrofit/Elevation Projects for 5 Wastewater pumping Mitigation Action 8 stations (80, 81, 48, 92 & 35).* New or Existing Action: EXISTING Discussion: All 5 of these pumping stations (#80, 81, 48, 92, and 35) are located in the 100 year flood plain and routinely flood during hurricane hazards such as flooding and storm surge. For each pump station, the top of the pump station wetwell, the valve box & the control panel slab will be raised above elevation of 12.5 msl. Category: Property Protection-Critical Facilities Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding, storm surge Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Engineering Department Estimated Cost: $50,000 each. Total cost: $250,000 Potential Funding Sources: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Implementation Schedule: Dependent on funding availability Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing: 35 ongoing work scheduled for near future for NEI upgrades by Cape Fear Public Utility Authority. 80, 81, 48 and 92 were identified on the New Hanover County Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) list that has since transferred to the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority. These projects have been put on hold due to budget constraints. *This action has been revised for the 2010 plan to indicate specific pumping stations.
9:10 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
New Hanover County Beaver Management Program Mitigation Action 9 New or Existing Action: EXISTING Discussion: The Beaver population of New Hanover County has been rapidly increasing. Detrimental impacts include damage to roads, drainage systems, landscape plantings & other property. Category: Natural resource protection-watershed management Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: County Cooperative Extension Estimated Cost: Up to $60,000 annually Potential Funding Sources: Dept. of Transportation, Soil & Water Conservation, other sources Implementation Schedule: The contract is current. Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing: NHC has current contract with U.S. Department of Agriculture for beaver and beaver dam removal in New Hanover County drainage ways.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:11 New Hanover County Update flood maps to accurately reflect changes in elevation Mitigation Action 10 and flood patterns due to natural or man-made forces. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Discussion: New Hanover County has experienced rapid development over the past 10 years, resulting in changes in the course of streams and coastal waters, altering the shape of the floodplain. Remapping and correcting flood maps on a regular basis will allow County officials to plan appropriate land uses for flood prone areas. Category: Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Department of Planning Estimated Cost: TBD Potential Funding Sources: North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program; Cooperating Technical Partner (CTP) Program (FEMA). Implementation Schedule: Ongoing Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing: The State of North Carolina Flood Mapping Program completed remapping of New Hanover County’s flood maps in order to accurately reflect changes in elevation and flood patterns. The new maps were adopted in coordination with the New Hanover County Flood Damage and Prevention Ordinance and became effective on April 3, 2006.
9:12 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
New Hanover County Revise Stormwater Management Ordinance* Mitigation Action 11 New or Existing Action: EXISTING Discussion: The County passed a storm water management ordinance on September 30, 2000 in order to regulate storm water runoff. However, development prior to 9/30/2000 was not required to manage storm water. Additionally, no systematic method for storm water management exists. And, there is no mechanism for ensuring that storm water construction projects to mitigate the effects of storm water runoff are funded. A utility would provide county wide storm water management including retrofitting areas without any storm water collection system. Category: Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: TBD Estimated Cost: Dependent on funding source. Potential Funding Sources: N/A Implementation Schedule: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing: New Hanover County continues to work toward creating a County Storm Water Utility. A Water-Sewer Authority has been created within the County, and a Storm Water Utility could be created on the heels of the Authority. *This action has been revised for the 2010 plan.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:13 New Hanover County Hire a consultant to identify critical facility structures for Mitigation Action 12 susceptibility to hazard damage & set a priority schedule for retrofitting. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Discussion: New Hanover County has completed a critical facilities inventory. However, we need to have current information relative to each facility's vulnerability and an estimated cost for retrofitting each one. Category: Property Protection-Critical Facilities Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management, in coordination with other departments or private corporate interests. Estimated Cost: $25,000 for the study; retrofit costs TBD. Potential Funding Sources: Retrofit projects may be funded through FEMA's Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program or through FEMA's Public Assistance Program after a disaster. Implementation Schedule: Dependent on funding. Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Action Implementation Status (2010): This project has not yet been budgeted. No grant funds have become available for which this project would be eligible. Priority should be changed to Low at this point.
New Hanover County Retrofit the Government Center to wind and seismic Mitigation Action 13 standards.* New or Existing Action: EXISTING Discussion: The County Administrative Annex has been moved to a new building at 230 Government Center Drive. The building used to house a retail store and was converted to office space. However, the building does not meet current standards for wind and seismic hazards. Category: Property Protection - Critical Facilities Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Wind and Earthquake Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Engineering Department Estimated Cost: TBD Potential Funding Sources: TBD Implementation Schedule: - Dependent on Funding Priority (High, Moderate, Low): - Low Action Implementation Status (2010): This project has not yet been budgeted. No funds have become available for which this project would be eligible. Priority should be changed to Low at this point. *This action has been revised for the 2010 plan.
9:14 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
New Hanover County Complete open space plan that gives major consideration to Mitigation Action 14 hazard vulnerability for conservation and acquisition. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Discussion: New Hanover County's coastal waters & floodplains are some of the most sought after lands for development. These same lands provide valuable buffers between the water and residential development. Preserving these lands as open space would eliminate future development and potential catastrophic losses of private property. Category: Prevention - Natural Resource Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Hurricane hazards, coastal erosion & flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Department of Planning Estimated Cost: TBD Potential Funding Sources: Local staff time, Clean Water Management Trust Fund, CAMA, Other grant sources, Implementation Schedule: TBD Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): The County is in the process of creating an open space plan which will give major consideration to hazard vulnerability for conservation and acquisition. The County is also working toward buying highly vulnerable properties and using those properties for open space. The County purchased two riparian properties that equal 45 total acres that will be put into conservation easement and used for open space and recreation. Within the last year, the County also received a contiguous 14-acre donation property that will be put into conservation easement and preserved for open space and recreation.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:15 New Hanover County Continue acquisition, elevation &/or retrofitting of hazard Mitigation Action 15 prone properties. Notify repetitive loss property owners to see if they are interested in participating in future programs. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Discussion: New Hanover County has 402 repetitive loss properties. The number of insured losses to date for these properties is 1,299. Category: Property Protections Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Department of Planning Estimated Cost: TBD Potential Funding Sources: FEMA's Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, or Flood Mitigation Assistance Program. Implementation Schedule: Continuous Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): The County has sent notices to repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss property owners to educate them of the options available to them. Additional properties have not been acquired, elevated or retrofitted since adoption of the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
New Hanover County Develop & conduct a public awareness campaign Mitigation Action 16 emphasizing the economic benefits of participation in the CRS program. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Discussion: Not sure enough is known by residents as to how their insurance rates can be lowered by taking mitigation actions against flood damage. Category: Public Awareness and Education Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management, Planning Department and County Public Information Officer (PIO) Estimated Cost: TBD Potential Funding Sources: Local staff time; use of NFIP & CRS publications. Implementation Schedule: Continuous Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing: Public information concerning the economic benefits of participation in the CRS has been created and is available on the County’s website. This information is also included on a mailing sent to all people who own property in the floodplain in New Hanover County.
9:16 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
New Hanover County Develop & conduct a public awareness campaign regarding Mitigation Action 17 potential hazards of urban/wildfire interface. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Discussion: County Fire Administration is strongly in favor of this action. Category: Public Awareness and Education Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire and urban fires. Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Fire Administration & County PIO Estimated Cost: TBD Potential Funding Sources: Local staff time Implementation Schedule: Continuous Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing: New Hanover County Fire Services’ public awareness campaign is ongoing. A video was developed and is shown on the County's cable TV station. New educational materials are continually being generated.
New Hanover County Ensure that standards for Firewise Communities/USA are Mitigation Action 18 routinely included in subdivision review process, i.e., addressed in local subdivision ordinance. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Discussion: County Fire Administration is strongly in favor of this action. Category: Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire and urban fires Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Fire Administration, Inspections Department & County Attorney Estimated Cost: TBD Potential Funding Sources: Local staff time Implementation Schedule: Continuous Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing: This is an ongoing process that is an important part of the Subdivision Review Process.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:17 New Hanover County Revision of Stormwater Management Ordinance in 2010* Mitigation Action 19 New or Existing Action: EXISTING Discussion: Most problems have been exacerbated by hurricanes. Flooding has led to septic failures in many areas. Specific areas where study is most necessary: Monteray Heights, Middle Sound, Murrayville Road (new school site), Castle Hayne, Masonboro Sound, and Hwy. 421 south of Echo Farms subdivision. Category: Property Protection & Structural Projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Department of Engineering Estimated Cost: TBD Potential Funding Sources: TBD Implementation Schedule: Revisions being made to ordinance only, a funded stormwater program is not feasible at this time. Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing: A funding source for a comprehensive, County-wide drainage study has not been secured at this point. A review is being conducted of the current storm water ordinance and possible funded storm water program. This is only in the planning stage; feasibility and a timetable have not been established. *This action was revised for the 2010 plan.
New Hanover County Utilize NHC TV in 2010 for public service announcements* Mitigation Action 20 New or Existing Action: EXISTING Discussion: Education program would advise residents of actions they can take to help prevent flooding in their neighborhoods or on their property. Showing a video on County Cable Channel would be a good mechanism for getting the word out. Category: Public Awareness & Education Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Department of Engineering & County PIO Estimated Cost: TBD Potential Funding Sources: Local staff time Implementation Schedule: TBD Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High *This action was revised for the 2010 plan.
9:18 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Action Implementation Status (2010): COMPLETED: NCDENR made the determination that an NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Phase II Permit would not be required for New Hanover County, but educational opportunities have been provided by other means. County Engineering Staff worked with County Planning Staff to develop recommendations with regard to drainage and stormwater for the Castle Hayne area to incorporate in a long-range plan for that community. The recommendations were formulated by staff but brought forward by a subcommittee made up of concerned residents from the Castle Hayne community.
In addition, approximately 120 neighborhood meetings and over 400 individual meetings were conducted by NHC Engineering staff in 2008. Meetings were held in the communities affected by drainage issues. Information on resources available was provided along with possible solutions to address their drainage concerns. A diagram of the recommended ditch cross section and maintenance requirements is included with all correspondence sent to property owners.
NHC Engineering staff works closely with NCDOT personnel to address drainage issues that include drainage that is the responsibility of NCDOT.
In 2008, NHC Engineering staff also started working with the N.C. Cooperative Extension to create an educational pamphlet that can be distributed to individuals and neighborhood associations regarding drainage and stormwater. Engineering staff is also working with Cooperative Extension staff to develop a television commercial for NHC Public Access TV with information about who to call with drainage or stormwater concerns and things that can be done to prevent issues from occurring.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:19 New Hanover County Discourage high intensity uses and large structures from Mitigation Action 21 being constructed within the 100 year floodplain (1% annual chance floodplain), erosion prone areas, and other locations susceptible to hurricane and flooding hazards. New or Existing Action: NEW Discussion: Category: Property Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Planning and Zoning Estimated Cost: TBD Potential Funding Sources: NC CWMTF, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, other grant sources Implementation Schedule: TBD Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): new
New Hanover County Following a storm event, take advantage of opportunities to Mitigation Action 22 acquire or purchase land located in storm hazard areas which are rendered unbuildable or have sustained substantial damage. The property should satisfy objectives including, but not limited to the conservation of open space and scenic areas and the provision of public water access. New or Existing Action: NEW Discussion: The property should satisfy objectives including, but not limited to the conservation of open space and scenic areas and the provision of public water access. Category: Property Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Planning and Zoning Estimated Cost: TBD Potential Funding Sources: NC CWMTF, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, other grant sources Implementation Schedule: TBD Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): new
9:20 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
New Hanover County Declare a moratorium on the acceptance of any request for Mitigation Action 23 rezoning in flood prone areas other than for rezoning to a less intense use. New or Existing Action: NEW Discussion: Category: Property Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Planning and Zoning Estimated Cost: TBD Potential Funding Sources: NC CWMTF, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, other grant sources Implementation Schedule: TBD Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): new
New Hanover County Declare a moratorium on the permitting of any new Mitigation Action 24 construction, new utility hook-ups, or redevelopment construction that would increase the intensity of the land use existing in disaster prone areas. New or Existing Action: NEW Discussion: Category: Property Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Planning and Zoning Estimated Cost: TBD Potential Funding Sources: NC CWMTF, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, other grant sources Implementation Schedule: TBD Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): new
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:21
New Hanover County Request that new assessments of hazard areas be performed Mitigation Action 25 periodically due to the changes to the floodplain, shoreline and inlets caused by natural and man-made forces. New or Existing Action: NEW Discussion: Category: Property Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Planning and Zoning Estimated Cost: TBD Potential Funding Sources: TBD Implementation Schedule: TBD Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): new
New Hanover County Limit density to 2.5 units/acre or less in areas classified as Mitigation Action 26 conservation on the CAMA land use map (including areas in the 100 year, or 1% annual chance floodplain). Develop a program for density tradeoffs to encourage development outside the floodplain. New or Existing Action: NEW Discussion: Category: Property Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Planning and Zoning Estimated Cost: TBD Potential Funding Sources: TBD Implementation Schedule: TBD Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): new
9:22 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
New Hanover County Maintain annual review process for New Hanover County Mitigation Action 27 Health Department’s (NHCHD) Preparedness Plans to include the NHCHD Emergency Response, Community Containment, Mass Prophylaxis, Pandemic Influenza, Strategic National Stockpile and Local Receiving Site plans, the Response Plans Development Review policy and the Epidemiology (EPI) Team Policy. New or Existing Action: NEW Discussion: NHCHD maintains current preparedness plans to ensure readiness to respond to public health emergencies, including containment of disease and response to bioterrorism events. Category: Prevention and Emergency Services Hazard(s) Addressed: Public Health emergencies including containment of disease and response to bioterrorism events Lead Agency/Department Responsible: New Hanover County Health Department Estimated Cost: Annual review of plans has minimal cost Potential Funding Sources: Local Bioterrorism funding from state Implementation Schedule: Annual review Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): new
New Hanover County Install upgraded generator in Health Department located at Mitigation Action 28 2029 S. 17th St. Wilmington, NC 28401. New or Existing Action: NEW Discussion: Two options are possible: 1) upgrade existing generator to provide backup power to pharmacy for protection of drugs and vaccines requiring refrigeration or 2) upgrade existing generator to provide backup power to entire facility, which is a designated backup EOC for the County. Category: Prevention and Emergency Services Hazard(s) Addressed: Loss of vaccine and drugs; ability to operate Health Department for emergency services during disasters; ability to operate backup County EOC during disasters Lead Agency/Department Responsible: New Hanover County Health Department Estimated Cost: Option 1: $55,000 (2009 quote) Option 2: $200,000 (2009 estimate) Potential Funding Sources: Local Bioterrorism funding from state Implementation Schedule: Dependent upon funding availability Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): new
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:23
New Hanover County National Incident Management System (NIMS) training for Mitigation Action 29 County personnel which includes ICS 100, ICS 200, ICS 300, ICS 400, IS 700, and IS 800. New or Existing Action: NEW Discussion: Property Protection Category: Multiple Hazard(s) Addressed: Planning & Zoning Lead Agency/Department Responsible: TBD Estimated Cost: NC CWMTF, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, other grant sources Potential Funding Sources: TBD Implementation Schedule: High Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Property Protection Action Implementation Status (2010): new
New Hanover County Sustain radio communications system through maintenance Mitigation Action 30 contracts and system upkeep. Enhance capabilities by upgrading current software to latest version and addition of integrated voice and data (IV&D) features. New or Existing Action: NEW Discussion: Category: Emergency Services Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management Estimated Cost: $959,282 for upgrade $300,000 for IV&D Total Cost $1,259,282 Potential Funding Sources: Grant funding Implementation Schedule: Dependent on funding. Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): new
9:24 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
New Hanover County Potential consideration to relocate Wrightsville Beach Mitigation Action 31 Elementary School from the barrier island where it is currently located to the mainland. New or Existing Action: NEW Discussion: Wrightsville Beach Elementary School is located on a barrier island off of the coast of New Hanover County, NC. The relocation of the school to the mainland would mitigate potential structural damage and may prevent (mitigate) loss of service resulting from hurricanes, flooding, tsunamis, and nor’easters. School was closed for 6 months following Hurricane Fran in 1996.
220 Coral Drive Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480 A barrier island off the coast of New Hanover County, NC. Located in Wrightsville Beach, NC (relocate). Category: Prevention; structural projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Hurricane, flooding, tsunami, nor’easter Lead Agency/Department Responsible: New Hanover County Schools Estimated Cost: $16 million Potential Funding Sources: State and Local sources Implementation Schedule: TBD Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Action Implementation Status (2010): new
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:25 New Hanover County Potential consideration to relocate Carolina Beach Elementary School Mitigation Action 32 from the barrier island where it is currently located to the mainland. New or Existing Action: NEW Discussion: Carolina Beach Elementary School is located on a barrier island off of the coast of New Hanover County, NC. The relocation of the school to the mainland would mitigate potential structural damage and may prevent (mitigate) loss of service resulting from hurricanes, flooding, tsunamis, and nor’easters.
400 South 4th Street Carolina Beach, NC 28428 A barrier island off the coast of New Hanover County, NC. Located in Carolina Beach, NC (relocate). Category: Prevention; structural projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Hurricane, flooding, tsunami, nor’easter Lead Agency/Department Responsible: New Hanover County Schools Estimated Cost: $16 million Potential Funding Sources: State and Local bond referendum Implementation Schedule: TBD Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Action Implementation Status (2010): new
9:26 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
City of Wilmington
HAZARD RISK
Low Moderate High High 9
Moderate
OVERALL Limited CAPABILITY
City of Wilmington IT Disaster Recovery / Business Continuity Planning Mitigation Action 1 Critically review the City’s IT Systems, Infrastructure and Policies and develop a DR/BC Plan. Funds for this have been included in our requested budget and we have made some initial contacts to be included in a pilot program provided by the Institute of Governments Center For Public Technology. New or Existing or Action: EXISTING Discussion: This project is affordable, will create a much needed plan, can lead to implementation of improvements to keeping the organization operable under extreme conditions and quickly after natural disasters. Category: Property Protection / Emergency Services Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Information Technology Estimated Cost: $10,000 for the Planning $50,000 estimated for Implementation (Implementation phase costs will vary depending on the recommendations of the study and plan results). Potential Funding Sources: Currently budgeted in IT’s FY 04-05 Operational Budget. Implementation Schedule: Development of the DR/ BC Plan will begin in early FY 04-05 if approved in the budget process. Implementation will be phased by priority over the next few Fiscal Years. Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): COMPLETED in May 2004, but ongoing with new components in Winter 2010 – Summer 2011.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:27
City of Wilmington Pursue overall upgrade to IT system redundancy Mitigation Action 2 improvements to the network infrastructure, including: (1) improved switching equipment and related components; (2) a strategically expanded network to provide multiple routing alternatives through looping and expanding our fiber optics system; and (3) the implementation of a dedicated generator back-up. New or Existing Action” EXISTING Category: Property Protection / Emergency Services Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Information Technology Estimated Cost: $100,000+ Potential Funding Sources: Multiple sources of funding will be sought for the long-term expansion and development of the City’s Network with a focus on cooperative projects that piggyback on other utility projects with a focus on key areas where facilities are not networked. The City currently has a Voice Over IP Project being bid out that will very likely include some major components of these initiatives including the generator power, upgrades to switching components and possible expansion of our network funded through that project. The City will also pursue grants and inclusion in the City’s Capital Projects Process. Implementation Schedule: If approved and accepted, a significant amount of work could be accomplished as a side benefit of the Voice over IP Project within the next 12 months. The other improvements will come incrementally over the next 5 years as opportunities arise to expand and/or loop the City’s network to create alternate network paths and redundancies. Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): COMPLETED in May 2004. Ongoing with new components added 2008 and 2009, continued evaluated and changes.
9:28 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
City of Wilmington Implement program and system to transfer financial systems Mitigation Action 3 data to a hosted disaster recovery service. New or Existing Action: NEW Category: Property Protection/Emergency Services Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Information Technology Estimated Cost: Current Budget Potential Funding Sources: N/A Implementation Schedule: 2007 and continuing Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): New
City of Wilmington Replacement of all major City radios to the upgraded Mitigation Action 4 Motorola digital radio network. New or Existing Action: NEW Category: Property Protection/Emergency Services Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Information Technology Estimated Cost: Current Budget Potential Funding Sources: N/A Implementation Schedule: FY 2009 - 2010 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): New
City of Wilmington Prepare and maintain a current list of all City employees by Mitigation Action 5 job classification with contact information to facilitate calling in resources for emergency response. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Category: Emergency Services Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Human Resources Estimated Cost: Minimal – Use of existing resources Potential Funding Sources: N/A Implementation Schedule: May 26, 2004 and continuing Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:29 City of Wilmington Provide special vehicle placards for City employees Mitigation Action 6 designated to respond in emergency situations to restricted areas or during periods of curfews. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Category: Emergency Services Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Human Resources Estimated Cost: Minimal – Existing budgeted staff and materials Potential Funding Sources: N/A Implementation Schedule: May 26, 2004 and continuing Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
City of Wilmington Post information on the City’s web page and Intranet to Mitigation Action 7 assist citizens in preparing for emergency situations. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Category: Emergency Services Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Human Resources Estimated Cost: Minimal – Use of existing budgeted staff and materials Potential Funding Sources: N/A Implementation Schedule: May 26, 2004 and continuing Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
City of Wilmington Develop and maintain internal policies and procedures to Mitigation Action 8 support City employees in responding to emergency situations. Policies and procedures will include, but will not be limited to an Inclement Weather Policy. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Category: Emergency Services Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Human Resources Estimated Cost: Minimal – Use of existing budgeted staff and materials Potential Funding Sources: N/A Implementation Schedule: May 26, 2004 and continuing Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
9:30 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
City of Wilmington Training for City personnel through FEMA’s Emergency Mitigation Action 9 Management Institute (EMI) including ICS 100, ICS 200, ICS 300, ICS 400, ICS 400, IS 700, and IS 800 New or Existing Action: NEW Category: Emergency Services Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Human Resources Estimated Cost: Minimal – Use of existing budgeted staff and materials Potential Funding Sources: N/A Implementation Schedule: Spring 2006 and continuing Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): New
City of Wilmington As part of the City of Wilmington Operation Center Project, Mitigation Action 10 the City of Wilmington is constructing all buildings with backup generators. Two of the buildings will be constructed to earthquake standards to protect the City of Wilmington’s Traffic Control Center and the Operations Emergency Operations Center (EOC) for the field operation groups. This purchase of the property was chosen with connection to major thoroughfares so response vehicles could deploy easier during an emergency event. Presently responding divisions are in residential areas with numerous trees. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Category: Property Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: City of Wilmington/ Public Services Department Estimated Cost: $19,000,000 Potential Funding Sources: Bond Implementation Schedule: Phase I Completed Phase II Under construction with 20% completed to date Phase III under design Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): COMPLETED
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:31
City of Wilmington Complete Walnut Street Wastewater Pump Station Mitigation Action 11 Improvements Project, which includes the addition of a fourth pump and a new in-stream waste grinder. Flood- proofing and structural upgrades to the existing superstructure, replacement of the existing motor control center, HVAC upgrades, and replacement of pump isolation valves will also be included. New or Existing Hazard: EXISTING Category: Property Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Utilities Department Estimated Cost: $400,000 Potential Funding Sources: Capital Improvement Program (User Fees) Implementation Schedule: Design is underway; Construction scheduled to be complete Fall 2005. Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): COMPLTED
City of Wilmington Partner with the County to develop public information Mitigation Action 12 campaign utilizing external communications vehicles such as GTV-8 and NHCTV, city and county web sites and TV/Radio public service announcements. Campaign would address ongoing mitigation efforts, as well as ways to prepare for hurricane season. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Category: Public Education and Awareness Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Partnership between City and County Estimated Cost: N/A (local staff time) Potential Funding Sources: N/A Implementation Schedule: June 2004 and continuing Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
9:32 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
City of Wilmington Partner with the County to incorporate hazard mitigation Mitigation Action 13 educational materials in existing communication vehicles such as city newsletter, city/county water bills, city/county Web sites, bills and speaking engagements. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Category: Public Education and Awareness Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Partnership between City and County Estimated Cost: Depends on printing/mailing, but should be able to get body of documents prepared and printed for less than $10,000 (does not include any direct mail costs) Potential Funding Sources: City and County general funds, with perhaps some grant funds. Many publications available at no cost through FEMA and NCEM. Implementation Schedule: June 2004 and continuing Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
City of Wilmington Seagate Drainage Project - flooding mitigation of major Mitigation Action 14 NCDOT thoroughfare and volunteer fire station. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Category: Structural Projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Services / Storm Water Services Estimated Cost: $378,000 Potential Funding Sources: City Storm Water Fund Implementation Schedule: Complete design in Fall 2004; Construction in Winter 2005 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): COMPLETED
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:33 City of Wilmington Engineering Feasibility Study for New Center Drive - Mitigation Action 15 flooding mitigation of major NCDOT thoroughfare and City pump station. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Category: Structural Projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Services / Storm Water Services Estimated Cost: $100,000 Potential Funding Sources: City Storm Water Fund Implementation Schedule: To be determined, not yet funded Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
City of Wilmington Market Northwoods Drainage Project - flooding mitigation Mitigation Action 16 of properties along major NCDOT thoroughfare. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Category: Structural Projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Services / Storm Water Services Estimated Cost: $525,000 Potential Funding Sources: City Storm Water Fund Implementation Schedule: Complete design in Fall 2004; Construction in Winter 2005 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): COMPLETED
City of Wilmington Hinton Ave/Michelle Dr Drainage Project - flooding Mitigation Action 17 mitigation in residential area. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Category: Structural Projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Services / Storm Water Services Estimated Cost: $1,800,000 Potential Funding Sources: City Storm Water Fund Implementation Schedule: Begin in FY07/08 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Under Design
9:34 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
City of Wilmington Cedar Ave & Sweetwater Outfall Drainage Project - flooding Mitigation Action 18 mitigation of NCDOT major thoroughfare through commercial area. New or Existing Action: Existing Category: Structural Projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Services / Storm Water Services Estimated Cost: $510,000 Potential Funding Sources: City Storm Water Fund Implementation Schedule: Begin in FY06/07 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Under Design
City of Wilmington Heidi Drive Drainage Project – flooding mitigation in single Mitigation Action 19 family neighborhood. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Category: Structural Projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Services / Storm Water Services Estimated Cost: $269,000 Potential Funding Sources: City Storm Water Fund Implementation Schedule: Complete design in Spring 2005; Construct in Fall 2006 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): COMPLETE
City of Wilmington Market Street/Inland Greens Drainage Project - First phase Mitigation Action 20 of project to mitigate flooding mitigation in single family neighborhood and along Cardinal Drive. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Category: Structural Projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Services / Storm Water Services Estimated Cost: $850,000 Potential Funding Sources: City Storm Water Fund Implementation Schedule: Complete design in Summer 2004; Construct in Winter 2005 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): COMPLETED
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:35 City of Wilmington Plaza East Drainage Project - flooding mitigation of major Mitigation Action 21 drainage outfall through commercial area. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Category: Structural Projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Services / Storm Water Services Estimated Cost: $825,000 Potential Funding Sources: City Storm Water Fund Implementation Schedule: Complete design in Summer 2004; Construct in Winter 2005 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): COMPLETED
City of Wilmington Lincoln Outfall Project – Stream bank stabilization project in Mitigation Action 22 single-family neighborhood. New or Existing Action: NEW Category: Structural Projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding/Stream Bank Stabilization Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Services / Storm Water Services Estimated Cost: $390,000 Potential Funding Sources: City Storm Water Fund Implementation Schedule: Design began in 2009; anticipate construction to begin in December 2010 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): New
City of Wilmington Doctors Branch bank Stabilization Project. – Stream Mitigation Action 23 restoration and bank stabilization project in single-family and multi-family neighborhood. New or Existing Action: NEW Category: Structural Projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding/Stream Bank Stabilization Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Services / Storm Water Services Estimated Cost: $800,000 Potential Funding Sources: City Storm Water Fund Implementation Schedule: Construction began in Dec 2009 and will be complete by July 2010. Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): New
9:36 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
City of Wilmington Longstreet Canal Drainage Project - Flooding mitigation Mitigation Action 24 and erosion stabilization of major drainage outfall through residential area. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Category: Structural Projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Services / Storm Water Services Estimated Cost: $2,000,000 Potential Funding Sources: City Storm Water Fund Implementation Schedule: Complete design in Summer 2004; Construct in Winter 2005 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): COMPLETED
City of Wilmington Dupree Dr Drainage Project - flooding mitigation through Mitigation Action 25 residential area because of lack of drainage system. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Category: Structural Projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Services / Storm Water Services Estimated Cost: $454,000 Potential Funding Sources: City Storm Water Fund Implementation Schedule: Begin in FY05/06 Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): COMPLETED
City of Wilmington Cavalier Drive Drainage Project – flooding mitigation in Mitigation Action 26 single-family neighborhood. New or Existing Action: NEW Category: Structural Projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Services / Storm Water Services Estimated Cost: $1,082,000 Potential Funding Sources: City Storm Water Fund Implementation Schedule: Currently under design, anticipate construction to begin in late summer or fall 2010. Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): New
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:37
City of Wilmington Wisteria/Clearbrook Drainage Project – flooding mitigation Mitigation Action 27 in single-family neighborhood. New or Existing Action: NEW Category: Structural Projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Services / Storm Water Services Estimated Cost: $5,500,000 Potential Funding Sources: City Storm Water Fund Implementation Schedule: Currently under design, anticipate construction of Phase I to begin in late winter of 2010. Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): New
City of Wilmington Burnt Mill Tidegate Project – Restoration and rehabilitation Mitigation Action 28 of tidegate structure and repair of breached area around tidegate that reduces flooding in Burnt Mill Creek area. New or Existing Action: NEW Category: Structural Projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Services / Storm Water Services Estimated Cost: $500,000 Potential Funding Sources: City Storm Water Fund Implementation Schedule: Currently under design and permit review; anticipate construction in spring of 2010. Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): New
9:38 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
City of Wilmington Mineral Springs 02-03 Project – flooding mitigation in Mitigation Action 29 commercial area. New or Existing Action: NEW Category: Structural Projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Services / Storm Water Services Estimated Cost: $365,000 Potential Funding Sources: City Storm Water Fund Implementation Schedule: Currently under design; anticipate construction in late summer of 2010. Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): New
City of Wilmington Benda Drive Drainage Project – flooding mitigation in Mitigation Action 30 single-family neighborhood. New or Existing Action: NEW Category: Structural Projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Services / Storm Water Services Estimated Cost: $400,000 Potential Funding Sources: City Storm Water Fund Implementation Schedule: Currently under design; anticipate construction in late winter of 2010. Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): New
City of Wilmington Cardinal/George Trask Project – flooding mitigation in Mitigation Action 31 single-family neighborhood. New or Existing Action: NEW Category: Structural Projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Services / Storm Water Services Estimated Cost: $585,000 Potential Funding Sources: City Storm Water Fund Implementation Schedule: Design beginning in 2009; anticipate construction in early 2011. Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): New
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:39 City of Wilmington Hunters Trail Culvert Replacement Project – flooding Mitigation Action 32 mitigation in single-family and multi-family neighborhood. New or Existing Action: NEW Category: Structural Projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Services / Storm Water Services Estimated Cost: $315,000 Potential Funding Sources: City Storm Water Fund Implementation Schedule: Anticipate design beginning in spring 2010; construction anticipated in late 2010. Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): New
9:40 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Town of Carolina Beach
HAZARD RISK
Low Moderate High High 9
Moderate
OVERALL Limited CAPABILITY
Note: The Town of Carolina Beach is still working to provide information for all actions. All information will be completed before the plan is officially adopted.
Town of Carolina Beach Educate contractors about principles for quality Mitigation Action 1 redevelopment and safe housing development through written materials or a Town-sponsored workshop. (1.1.1) New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: This action supports Goal #4 and serves to educate the public about hazards prevalent in their area. Category: Public Education and Awareness Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Planning & Development Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Publications available at no cost through FEMA and NCEM Implementation Schedule: Continuous due to new residents and visitors Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:41 Town of Carolina Beach Hold a Town-sponsored hazard mitigation seminar for Mitigation Action 2 the community residents, including information on preparedness for all hazards significant to Carolina Beach (1.1.2).
New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: This action supports Goal #4 and serves to educate the public about hazards prevalent in their area. Category: Public Education and Awareness Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Planning & Development Estimated Cost: Staff time Potential Funding Sources: Publications available at no cost through FEMA and NCEM Implementation Schedule: Continuous due to new residents and visitors Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
Town of Carolina Beach Provide new home and property buyers with information Mitigation Action 3 on quality redevelopment and safe housing development. The information is probably most efficiently dispersed at the Town hall and other community owned, public facilities in Town. (1.1.3)
New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: This action supports Goal #4 and serves to educate the public about hazards prevalent in their area. Category: Public Education and Awareness Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Planning & Development Estimated Cost: Staff time Potential Funding Sources: Publications available at no cost through FEMA and NCEM Implementation Schedule: Continuous due to new residents and visitors Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
9:42 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Town of Carolina Beach Manually disperse and have a website posting which Mitigation Action 4 provides information about the Town’s Emergency Response and Re-Entry Plan and relevant emergency response actions the public can take. Also, ensure each Town department possesses a clear list of department responsibilities as outlined in the plan. Update department contacts as they change. (1.2.1)
New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: This action supports Goal #4 and serves to Publicize the documents associated with emergency response and mitigation. Category: Public Education and Awareness Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Fire Department Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: N/A Implementation Schedule: Continuous due to new residents and visitors Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
Town of Carolina Beach Manually disperse and have a website posting which Mitigation Action 5 provides information about the Town’s Community- Based Hazard Mitigation Plan and relevant mitigation measures the public can take. In addition, provide a response/reply section where residents can comment on the effectiveness of the current plan and where they can make suggestions for future revisions on the plan. (1.2.2)
New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: This action supports Goal #4 and serves to Publicize the documents associated with emergency response and mitigation. Category: Public Education and Awareness Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Planning & Development Department Estimated Cost: Staff time Potential Funding Sources: N/A Implementation Schedule: Continuous due to new residents and visitors Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:43 Town of Carolina Beach Update the Town of Carolina Beach Emergency Mitigation Action 6 Response & Re-Entry Plan on an annual basis. The Emergency Response & Re-Entry Plan should contain detailed information on responsible parties and contact information; this information should be updated as positions and contact information changes. (1.3.1)
New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: This action supports Goal #4 and serves to maintain and publicize a current action plan for emergency response. Category: Public Education and Awareness Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Fire Department Estimated Cost: Staff time Potential Funding Sources: NCEM Implementation Schedule: Continuous due to new residents and visitors Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
Town of Carolina Beach Maintain evacuation routes in the event of a hazardous Mitigation Action 7 event. (1.4.1) New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: This action supports Goal #4 and serves to maintain and publicize a current evacuation routes. Category: Public Education and Awareness Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Operations Department Estimated Cost: N/A Potential Funding Sources: Powell Bill, Department of Transportation Implementation Schedule: Continuous due to new residents and visitors Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
9:44 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Town of Carolina Beach The Town should publicize, on the Towns website, maps Mitigation Action 8 of evacuation routes which will facilitate the evacuation of Carolina Beach in case of a hazardous event. (1.4.2) New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: This action supports Goal #4 and serves to maintain and publicize a current evacuation routes. Category: Public Education and Awareness Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Administration Estimated Cost: N/A Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Continuous due to new residents and visitors Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
Town of Carolina Beach The Town should distribute via water bills and Town Mitigation Action 9 newsletters, maps of evacuation routes which will facilitate the evacuation of Carolina Beach in case of a hazardous event. (1.4.3)
New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: This action supports Goal #4 and serves to maintain and publicize a current evacuation routes. Category: Public Education and Awareness Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Operations Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Continuous due to new residents and visitors Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing *Note the wording in this action was changed to “water bills and Town newsletters” from “gas/electric bills.”
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:45 Town of Carolina Beach Monitor the status of backup generators, Mitigation Action 10 communications, and vehicles for all critical public facilities. Test generators, communications equipment, and vehicles on a regular basis, not only for maintenance, but to confirm that the equipment continues to match the needs of critical facility expansion or updated operations. (2.1.1)
New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: This action supports Goal #7 and serves to maintain community infrastructure. Category: Emergency Services Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Operations Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Continuous Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
Town of Carolina Beach Purchase, as necessary, backup generators as determined Mitigation Action 11 by the results of Action 10 (2.1.2)
New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: This action supports Goal #7 and serves to maintain community infrastructure. Category: Emergency Services Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Operations Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Continuous Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
9:46 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Town of Carolina Beach Install, as necessary, generator quick connects, as Mitigation Action 12 determined by the results of Action 10. (2.1.3) New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: This action supports Goal #7 and serves to maintain community infrastructure. Category: Emergency Services Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Operations Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Continuous Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
Town of Carolina Beach Revise the CAMA Land Use Plan (1997, 8-35) strategy to Mitigation Action 13 consider a policy to prohibit redevelopment in high hazard areas. (2.2.1) New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: This action supports Goal #1 and serves to reduce the impact of hazards on life and property. Category: Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Planning & Development Estimated Cost: N/A Potential Funding Sources: CAMA Implementation Schedule: Continuous/As Needed Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): The Town of Carolina Beach encourages safe development that meets all Federal and State regulations. The Carolina Beach Land Use Plan was updated and approved by the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission on November, 30 2007. In this revision, the revised Carolina Beach Land Use Plan has a number of policies that bolster the Town’s commitment to Hazard Mitigation Planning.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:47 Town of Carolina Beach Revise the CAMA Land Use Plan (1997, 8-36) to include Mitigation Action 14 training for those persons in charge of the “building permit triage” to prevent the issuance of permits in areas where permits should not be issued. (2.3.1)
New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: This action supports Goal #1 and serves to educate those persons involved in building permit issuance in an effort to minimize improper development following a disaster Category: Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Planning & Development Estimated Cost: N/A Potential Funding Sources: CAMA Implementation Schedule: Continuous/As Needed Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): The Town of Carolina Beach continues to support and implement this action. Any building permits that will be issued under a disaster shall meet all Local, State and Federal regulations. Current staff is extremely experienced with emergency and disaster situations and understand the importance of expediting permitting and making sure that all Local, State, and Federal Laws are followed.
9:48 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Town of Carolina Beach Continue to enforce the North Carolina State Building Mitigation Action 15 Code. Require that new structures or structures undergoing significant renovation meet code requirements for coastal areas in accordance with the North Carolina State Building Codes. (3.1.1)
New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: This action supports Goal #1 and serves to improve the resistance of structures in the community against natural hazards. Category: Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Planning & Development Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: N/A Implementation Schedule: Continuous/As Needed Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
Town of Carolina Beach Monitor trees and branches in public areas at risk of Mitigation Action 16 breaking or falling in wind, ice, and snow storms. Prune or thin trees or branches when they would pose an immediate threat to property, utility lines or other significant structures or critical facilities in the Town. (3.2.1)
New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: This action supports Goal #3 and serves to reduce the impact of Natural Hazard Events on trees near built structures. Category: Natural Resource Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Operations Department Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Continuous/As Needed Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:49 Town of Carolina Beach The Town will take a proactive approach in investigating Mitigation Action 17 dangerous damaged structures and should take prompt action in condemning damaged structures that have been abandoned. (3.2.1.)
New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: This action supports Goal #1 and serves to Decrease the potential for structural damage from wind event debris. Category: Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Planning & Development Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: N/A Implementation Schedule: Continuous/As Needed Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
Town of Carolina Beach Purchase a complete GIS/GPS setup and provide training Mitigation Action 18 on said setup to all pertinent town personnel. (4.1.1)
New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: This action supports Goal #1. Category: Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Planning & Development Estimated Cost: $21,000 (This includes the purchase of equipment, setup of equipment, and training for all pertinent personnel on equipment.) Potential Funding Sources: Town Budget Implementation Schedule: Continuous/As Needed Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
9:50 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Town of Carolina Beach Record and maintain all tax parcel information and Mitigation Action 19 floodplain locations in a GIS system in order to build the Towns capability to generate maps when needed. (4.1.2) New or Existing Action NEW Discussion: This action supports Goal #1. Category: Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Planning & Development Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: NC Floodplain Mapping Program Implementation Schedule: Continuous/As Needed Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): New
Town of Carolina Beach Develop a database that identifies each property that has Mitigation Action 20 received damage due to hazards identified within this mitigation plan. The database should also include a tax identification number of the property, a description of the property damage, the value of the damage, and links to photographs of the damage. (4.3.1)
New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: Developing this database will allow the Town to easily identify properties at high risk of damage from certain hazards and well as properties which receive repetitive damage from multiple Hazards. In an effort to gain historical information the Town should send a survey to all residents requesting information that should be included in the database. The action supports Goal #1. Category: Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Planning & Development Estimated Cost: N/A Potential Funding Sources: Flood Mitigation Assistance Program Implementation Schedule: Continuous/As Needed Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:51 Town of Carolina Beach Revise the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to require Mitigation Action 21 the utilization of various pervious surfaces within the floodplain in order to reduce stormwater runoff. This should include utilizing the use of various pervious surfaces in parking lots in recreational areas near the floodplain. (5.1.1)
New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: The action supports Goal #3, Goal #5 and serves to limit flooding in developed areas. Category: Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Planning & Development Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: N/A Implementation Schedule: TBD Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): The Town’s current Stormwater Management Ordinance far exceeds the requirements imposed by the State’s requirements of a Phase II community.
9:52 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Town of Carolina Beach The Town should support the policy identified in the Mitigation Action 22 CAMA Land Use Plan (1997, 8-3), “Development will be “discouraged” in locations where stormwater runoff related flooding exists, unless appropriate corrective improvements are to be completed as part of the project.” (5.2.1)
New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: The action supports Goal #3, Goal #5 and serves to guide development away from flood-prone areas. Category: Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Operations Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Action Implementation Status (2010): The Town recently revised the 1997 CAMA Land Use Plan and strictly enforces all regulations of Federal and State Programs.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:53 Town of Carolina Beach Protect/Enhance Shoreline Vegetation (Already required Mitigation Action 23 by CAMA in the estuarine area). The Town should revise its zoning and subdivision ordinance to incorporate shoreline vegetation protection buffers along the AEC’s and Canals in order to protect the character and to help mitigate flooding. (5.3.1)
New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: The action supports Goal #1, Goal #5 and serves to protect rivers, creeks, and surrounding eco- systems. Category: Prevention, Natural Resource Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Planning and Development Estimated Cost: N/A Potential Funding Sources: CAMA, FEMA Implementation Schedule: TBD Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): The Town is obligated to enforce setback regulations as directed by Federal and State Requirements.
9:54 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Town of Carolina Beach The Town will seek to elevate flood-prone structures. Mitigation Action 24 Specifically structures that are identified as repetitive losses in the area. It is understood that funding through FEMA under the HMGP and FMA programs are voluntary, as a result all elevations will be based on funding availability, political will, and private property initiative. (5.4.1)
New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: The action supports Goal #2, Goal #3 and serves to elevate flood-prone structures. Category: Property Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Flooding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Planning & Development Estimated Cost: TBD Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, FEMA Implementation Schedule: Availability of State and Federal Funds Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): The Town continues to work with flood prone and repetitive loss properties to ensure that they are informed of Federal Programs and that those properties that require elevation following significant damage are required to do so.
Town of Carolina Beach Continue to prioritize beach nourishment as a means of Mitigation Action 25 mitigating coastal beach erosion. (6.1.1) New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: The action supports Goal #1. Category: Prevention, Natural Resource Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Erosion Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Town Manager Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Every 4 years Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): The Town of Carolina Beach is currently working with the County, State, and Federal Government to make sure that Federal funding is reauthorized following the last beach re-nourishment that is slated for 2014.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:55 Town of Carolina Beach Develop a Beach Management Plan which will include Mitigation Action 26 annual monitoring of literal drift erosion, to address the long-term issue of beach erosion. (6.1.2) New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: The action supports Goal #1. Category: Prevention, Natural Resource Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Erosion Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Administration Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Action Implementation Status (2010): The Town surveys the beach a minimum of once per year to monitor the effects of erosion on the beach.
Town of Carolina Beach Establish a Shoreline Protection Committee that will work Mitigation Action 27 closely with the Town Council to solicit funds for beach preservation projects, educate the public on beach preservation matters, oversee re-nourishment project development, monitor shoreline change and report any major issues to the Town Council. (6.2.1) New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: The action supports Goal #1 and Goal #4 and serves to reduce the effects of erosion by improving institutional capabilities. Category: Prevention, Natural Resource Protection, Public Education and Awareness Hazard(s) Addressed: Erosion Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Administration Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Action Implementation Status (2010): The monitoring of beach preservation efforts are currently the responsibility of Town Staff and Elected Officials. The Town will reconsider establishing a Shoreline Protection Committee in order to seek input from a variety of public interests.
9:56 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Town of Carolina Beach Work with New Hanover County officials and Mitigation Action 28 surrounding communities to distribute materials about the County Water Shortage Response Plan. (7.1.1) New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: The action supports Goal #4 and serves to reduce the effects of drought through policy. Category: Prevention, Natural Resource Protection, Public Education and Awareness Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Water & Sewer Administration Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Annual Budget Implementation Schedule: Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
Town of Carolina Beach Develop local Water Shortage Response Guidelines (in Mitigation Action 29 different phases) as a part of the Carolina Beach Emergency Response Plan as it relates to the expectations of the Town’s water supplier. (7.1.2)
New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: The action supports Goal #4 and Goal #1, and serves to reduce the effects of drought through policy. Category: Prevention, Natural Resource Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Water & Sewer Administration Estimated Cost: Staff time Potential Funding Sources: Annual Budget Implementation Schedule: Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): The Town has adopted a Water Shortage/Drought Ordinance that regulates the response to drought situations. In addition, the Town is nearing the completion of a long term water supply study. This study has resulted in a variety of measures that have either been implemented or are in a process of being implemented.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:57 Town of Carolina Beach The Town should continue their proactive approach to Mitigation Action 30 mitigation by connecting Rainwater Retention Drums to the down spouts of each gutter system on every municipal building within Carolina Beach. (7.2.1) New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: The collected water should be used to irrigate all municipal gardens, parks, lawns, and the like. The action supports Goal #4 and serves to reduce the level of potable water depletion. Category: Prevention, Natural Resource Protection, Structural Projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Operations Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Action Implementation Status (2010): The Town currently requires that all private wells be reported to the Town. The Town has taken steps to improve upon the quality and capacity of its water supply system. The Town will take steps to implement measures that will insure the capability to supply customers of the Town to a build out capacity as identified in its long term water study. Other innovative strategies, such as water re-use and rain collection, will be implemented.
9:58 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Town of Carolina Beach Develop a tornado and waterspout warning system. (8.2.1) Mitigation Action 31 New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: The action supports Goal #7 and serves to maximize citizen preparedness for tornadoes and waterspouts. Category: Emergency Services Hazard(s) Addressed: Tornadoes Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Administration Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Action Implementation Status (2010): The Town has not implemented this system to date. Improvements in technology and forecasting have assisted in this matter. The Town has some capabilities and will explore the further implementation of a reverse 911 system to warn citizens of tornadoes and other pending hazards.
Town of Carolina Beach To improve road visibility, encourage the Department of Mitigation Action 32 Transportation to place new reflector tape or paint along road edges and in the dividing line. This should be done on all major roads through Town. (9.1.1) New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: The action supports Goal #7 and serves to increase driving safety during thunderstorms. Category: Emergency Services, Structural Projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorms, Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Operations Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Action Implementation Status (2010): The Town has sought continual upgrades to NCDOT roadways with some initiatives being implemented.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:59 Town of Carolina Beach In order to minimize injury from lightning strikes, shelters Mitigation Action 33 should be placed every five acres in all public open space areas. This recommendation should be incorporated into the zoning and subdivision ordinances. (9.2.1) New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: The action supports Goal #1. Currently, the Town had very few large parcels in which the subdivision or zoning ordinance could be effective. Category: Prevention, Structural Projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Lightning, Thunderstorms Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Planning & Development Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Action Implementation Status (2010):
Town of Carolina Beach The Zoning Ordinance should require that lightning Mitigation Action 34 detection devices be installed in public outdoor gathering areas such as school stadiums. (9.2.2) New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: The action supports Goal #1. Category: Prevention, Structural Projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Lightning, Thunderstorms Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Planning & Development Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Action Implementation Status (2010): During Summer months, lifeguard and police officers monitor weather occurrences and warn beachgoers of possible threats.
9:60 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Town of Carolina Beach Develop a policy to require proper waste disposal and Mitigation Action 35 recycling. (10.1.1) New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: The action supports Goal #1 & Goal #4, and serves to protect natural resources from contamination. In order to protect the vulnerable aquifer from contamination, the Town should do all it can to prevent seepage of wastes and toxic elements into the ground. Proper disposal of waste and recycling when possible will aid in this effort. This measure may be implemented through a Town policy or through public education measures. Category: Prevention, Public Education and Awareness, Natural Resource Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: HAZMAT, multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Operations Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Action Implementation Status (2010): The Town currently contracts with Waste Industries for the disposal of all waste. Recycling containers are provided for all properties that receive trash collection.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:61 Town of Carolina Beach The Town shall work with other appropriate Mitigation Action 36 governmental bodies, namely New Hanover County and surrounding communities to provide for a continued pure supply of potable water. (10.1.2) New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: The action supports Goal #1 and serves to protect natural resources from contamination. Category: Prevention, Natural Resource Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: HAZMAT, multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Water & Sewer Administration Estimated Cost: Staff Time & Water Department Operating Budget Potential Funding Sources: Annual Budget Implementation Schedule: Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): A one hundred foot radius of no new development is required surrounding each well to help prevent water contamination. The Town continues to pursue long-term measures that will provide customers with quality water.
Town of Carolina Beach The fire department has the responsibility to assure the Mitigation Action 37 Town’s protection during fire events. Part of this responsibility is dependent upon the department’s ability to maintain the materials and a knowledge base for addressing such an event. This responsibility must be supported by provision of adequate funding for the continuing education and materials necessary to maintain this preparedness. (11.1.1) New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: The action supports Goal #1 and Goal #7 and serves to maintain fire event preparedness. Category: Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Fire Department Estimated Cost: Staff time Potential Funding Sources: Towns General Fund Implementation Schedule: Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
9:62 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Town of Carolina Beach Explore and seek access to all potential sources of Mitigation Action 38 information and communication regarding early fire detection (11.1.1) New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: The action supports Goal #1 and Goal #7 and serves to maintain fire event preparedness. Category: Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Fire Department Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
Town of Carolina Beach Evaluate and improve fire sighting procedures. Mitigation Action 39 (11.2.1) New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: The action supports Goal #1 and Goal #7 and serves to maintain fire event preparedness. Category: Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Fire Department Estimated Cost: N/A Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
Town of Carolina Beach Ensure the fire hydrants are working properly. Mitigation Action 40 (11.3.1) New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: The action supports Goal #1 and Goal #7 and serves to maintain fire event preparedness. Category: Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Fire Department Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:63
Town of Carolina Beach The Town should develop a plan of action to maintain the Mitigation Action 41 materials and knowledge base for addressing such a spill, or develop preliminary measures to assist the county until the representatives arrive. (12.1.1) New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: The action supports Goal #1 and Goal #7 and serves to maintain hazardous materials event preparedness. This responsibility must be supported by provision of adequate funding for materials and trainings necessary to maintain this preparedness. Category: Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Hazardous Materials Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Fire Department Estimated Cost: Staff-time Potential Funding Sources: NC State Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing – the state funds a Hazardous Materials Regional Response Team out of Wilmington, NC. The team is staffed and trained to respond to mitigate haz-mat incidents. All members of the Carolina Beach Fire Department are trained at the operations level.
9:64 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Town of Carolina Beach The Town may consider supporting offshore drilling for Mitigation Action 42 gas and oil based on justifiable need and economic conditions. Other policies promoting renewable energy would be preferred. The Town does not support or permit oil refineries, storage facilities, or staging areas in the town.* (12.2.1) New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: The action supports Goal #1 and serves to minimize the risk of hazardous materials events. This responsibility must be supported by provision of adequate funding for materials and trainings necessary to maintain this preparedness. Category: Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Hazardous Materials Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Administration Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Action Implementation Status (2010): This policy has been changing due to recent gas costs and can be touchy. It needs to be highlighted so that all are aware of the decision. I believe that I can be written in a way that it can go either way. *The wording of the action was changed for the 2010 plan.
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:65 Town of Carolina Beach The Town should develop a plan of action to maintain the Mitigation Action 43 materials and knowledge base for addressing a nuclear event, or develop preliminary measures to assist the county until the representatives arrive to maintain nuclear event preparedness. (13.1.1) New or Existing Action EXISTING Discussion: The action supports Goal #1 and Goal #7 and serves to maintain nuclear event preparedness. This responsibility must be supported by provision of adequate funding for materials and trainings necessary to maintain this preparedness. This may be made part of the Towns Emergency Response Plan. Category: Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Nuclear Event Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Administration Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Implementation Schedule: Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
9:66 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Town of Kure Beach
HAZARD RISK
Low Moderate High High
Moderate 9
OVERALL Limited CAPABILITY
Town of Kure Beach Relocate the Riggins condominium complex, consisting of Mitigation Action 1 four residential properties, away from identified flood hazard area. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Category: Property Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood, Hurricanes and Tropical Storms Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Town Council Estimated Cost: $3,617,624 Potential Funding Sources: Application Pending 75% - Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (FEMA) 25% - Town of Kure Beach Implementation Schedule: One year from grant award Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Action Implementation Status (2010): This action has been put on hold until the town is legally able to intervene and assist.
Town of Kure Beach Enhance public education and awareness strategies for Mitigation Action 2 disaster preparedness and prevention through hosting public meetings/workshops with guest speakers, in addition to providing additional literature on natural hazards and mitigation techniques. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Category: Public Education and Awareness Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Town Council Estimated Cost: N/A Potential Funding Sources: N/A Implementation Schedule: June 2004 and continuing Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:67
Town of Kure Beach Enhance GIS capabilities for the Kure Beach Public Works Mitigation Action 3 Department through the addition of hazards specific spatial data to existing databases. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Category: Prevention Hazard(s) Addressed: Multiple Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works Department Estimated Cost: N/A – coordinate with New Hanover County, North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, PNPs, etc. Potential Funding Sources: If eligible, possibly make GIS enhancements using grant funds from FEMA/NCEM following future disaster declarations Implementation Schedule: As needed and ongoing Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
Town of Kure Beach Increase wildfire risk awareness and seek recognition Mitigation Action 4 through “Firewise Communities USA,” in addition to developing strategies to buffer structures located on the urban wildland interface by cooperation with New Hanover County and the federal government. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Category: Public Education and Awareness; Prevention; Property Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Town Council Estimated Cost: To be determined Potential Funding Sources: North Carolina Division of Forest Resources Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Program; FEMA’s Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program; State Fire Assistance Hazard Mitigation Program (National Fire Plan). Implementation Schedule: As soon as possible Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing interaction between Town, County, NC Dept. of Forestry and the Dept. of the Army
9:68 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Town of Kure Beach Design, build and maintain a managed stormwater system Mitigation Action 5 that is compliant with EPA’s Stormwater Phase II requirements to minimize increased stormwater flooding due to increased construction. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Category: Structural Projects Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works Department Estimated Cost: To be determined Potential Funding Sources: FEMA’s Emergency Management Performance Grants, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre- disaster Mitigation Program, Flood Mitigation Assistance (Project); EPA’s Nonpoint Source Grant Program Implementation Schedule: Ongoing Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
Town of Kure Beach Continue to upgrade building codes and safety standards in Mitigation Action 6 cooperation with New Hanover County. Continue to upgrade and modify the Kure Beach building code to enhance the ability of structures to withstand storms. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Category: Prevention / Property Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Hurricanes and Tropical Storms, Severe Thunderstorms and Tornadoes Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Town Council and Building Inspections Estimated Cost: N/A Potential Funding Sources: Town Budget Implementation Schedule: As soon as possible Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9:69 Town of Kure Beach Pursue elevation projects for any identified repetitive loss Mitigation Action 7 properties where the homeowner has expressed interest in such a project. New or Existing Action: EXISTING Category: Prevention / Property Protection Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood, Hurricanes and Tropical Storms Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Town Council / Commissioner Estimated Cost: To be determined Potential Funding Sources: FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) or Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program. Implementation Schedule: Pending grant funding Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Action Implementation Status (2010): Ongoing
9:70 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
SECTION 10
PLAN MAINTENANCE
This section discusses how the Mitigation Strategy will be implemented by 44 CFR Requirement participating jurisdictions and how the overall Hazard Mitigation Plan 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(4)(i): will be evaluated and enhanced over time. This section also discusses The plan shall include a plan how the public will continue to be involved in the hazard mitigation maintenance process that planning process. This process was effective in maintaining the previous includes a section describing plan, so no changes have been made. This section consists of the the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating and following four subsections: updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle. • Implementation • Monitoring, Evaluation and Enhancement • Continued Public Involvement 44 CFR Requirement • Plan Update Requirement 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(4)(ii): The plan maintenance process shall include a process by which local governments Implementation incorporate the requirements of Each jurisdiction participating in this Plan is responsible for the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as implementing specific mitigation actions as prescribed in their locally comprehensive or capital adopted Mitigation Action Plan. In each Mitigation Action Plan, every improvement plans, when proposed action is assigned to a specific local department or agency in appropriate. order to assign responsibility and accountability and increase the likelihood of subsequent implementation. This approach enables individual jurisdictions to update their unique mitigation strategy as needed without altering the broader focus of the countywide Plan. The separate adoption of locally-specific actions also ensures that each jurisdiction is not held responsible for the monitoring and implementing the actions of other jurisdictions involved in the planning process.
In addition to the assignment of a local lead department or agency, an implementation time period or a specific implementation date has been assigned in order to assess whether actions are being implemented in a timely fashion. New Hanover County and its participating jurisdictions will seek outside funding sources to implement mitigation projects in both the predisaster and post-disaster environments1. When applicable, potential funding sources have been identified for proposed actions listed in the Mitigation Action Plans.
It will be the responsibility of each participating jurisdiction to determine additional implementation procedures beyond those listed within their Mitigation Action Plan. This includes integrating the requirements of the Hazard Mitigation Plan into other local planning
documents, processes or mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. The members of the Mitigation Advisory Committee will remain charged with ensuring that the goals and strategies of new and updated local planning documents for their jurisdictions or agencies are consistent with the goals and actions of the Hazard Mitigation Plan, and will not contribute to increased hazard vulnerability in New Hanover County.
1 A listing of key federal hazard mitigation funding sources is provided in Appendix C.
Opportunities to integrate the requirements of this Plan into other local planning mechanisms shall continue to be identified through future meetings of the Mitigation Advisory Committee and through the five-year review process described herein. Although it is recognized that there are many possible benefits to integrating components of this Plan into other local planning mechanisms, the development and maintenance of this stand-alone Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan is deemed by the New Hanover County Mitigation Advisory Committee to be the most effective and appropriate method to implement local hazard mitigation actions at this time. As such, the primary means for integrating mitigation strategies into other local planning mechanisms will be through the revision, update and implementation of each jurisdictions individual Mitigation Action Plan that require specific planning and administrative tasks (e.g. plan amendments, ordinance revisions, capital improvement projects, etc.).
New Hanover County intends to create a process by which the requirements of this hazard mitigation plan will be incorporated into other local plans. During the planning process for new and updated local planning documents, such as a comprehensive plan, CAMA land-use plan, capital improvements plan, or emergency management plan, New Hanover County will provide a copy of the hazard mitigation plan to the appropriate and responsible parties. New Hanover County will continue to recommend that all goals and strategies of new and updated local planning documents are consistent with the hazard mitigation plan and will not contribute to increased hazards in the affected jurisdiction(s).
The County actively integrates potions of this mitigation plan into the daily operations of conducting County business. This is currently accomplished through the following methods:
• The County reviews all of the Mitigation Actions found in this plan as part of the annual reporting requirements of the CRS. • The County incorporated the goals and strategies of the Hazard Mitigation Plan into the New Hanover County-City of Wilmington CAMA Land Use Plan.
Opportunities to integrate the requirements of this Plan into other local planning mechanisms shall continue to be identified through future meetings of the New Hanover County Mitigation Advisory Committee and through the annual review process described herein. The development and maintenance of this stand-alone Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan is deemed by the New Hanover County Mitigation Advisory Committee to be the most effective and appropriate method to implement local hazard mitigation actions.
PLAN MAINTENANCE Monitoring, Evaluation and Enhancement Periodic revisions and updates of the Hazard Mitigation 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 and state 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 status on the 2005 plan actions can be found in the Mitigation Action Plan, under “2010 Implementation Status.”
The New Hanover County Mitigation Advisory Committee will continue to meet biannually and following any disaster events warranting a reexamination of the mitigation actions being implemented or proposed by
10:2 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
PLAN MAINTENANCE
the participating jurisdictions. This will ensure that the Plan is continuously updated to reflect changing conditions and needs within New Hanover County. If determined appropriate or as requested, an annual report on the Plan will be developed and presented to 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 and/or changes to those requirements.
Five (5) Year Plan Review The Plan will continue to be reviewed by the Mitigation Advisory Committee every five years to determine whether there have been any significant changes in New Hanover County that may, in turn, necessitate changes in the types of mitigation actions proposed. New development in identified hazard areas, an increased exposure to hazards, the increase or decrease in capability to address hazards, and changes to federal or state legislation are examples of factors that may affect the necessary content of the Plan.
The plan review provides community officials with an opportunity to evaluate those actions that have been successful and to explore the possibility of documenting potential losses avoided due to the implementation of specific mitigation measures. The plan review also provides the opportunity to address mitigation actions that may not have been successfully implemented as assigned. The New Hanover County Department of Emergency Management will be responsible for reconvening the Mitigation Advisory Committee 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:
• Do the goals address current and expected conditions? • Has the nature or magnitude of risks changed? • Are the current resources appropriate for implementing the Plan? • Are there implementation problems, such as technical, political, legal or coordination issues with other agencies? • Have the outcomes occurred as expected? • Did the jurisdictions, agencies and other partners participate in the plan implementation process as proposed?
Following the five-year review, any revisions deemed necessary will be summarized and implemented according to the reporting procedures and plan amendment process outlined herein. Upon completion of the review and update/amendment process, the New Hanover County Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan will be submitted to the State Hazard Mitigation Officer for final review and approval in coordination with the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Disaster Declaration Following a disaster declaration, the Mitigation Advisory Committee will reconvene and the Plan will be revised as necessary to reflect lessons learned, or to address specific circumstances arising from the event. It will be the responsibility of the New Hanover County Department of Emergency Management to
NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 10:3
reconvene the Mitigation Advisory Committee and ensure the appropriate stakeholders are invited to participate in the plan revision and update process following declared disaster events.
Monitoring and Reporting Procedures The results of the five-year review will be summarized by the Mitigation Advisory 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 an evaluation of implementation progress for each of the proposed mitigation actions, identifying reasons for delays or obstacles to their completion along with recommended strategies to overcome them.
Any necessary revisions of changes to the countywide Plan elements 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 the task.2 Plan Amendment Process Upon the initiation of the amendment process, New Hanover County and its participating municipalities will forward information on the proposed change(s) to all interested parties including, but not limited to, all affected county and municipal departments, residents and businesses. Information will also be forwarded to the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management. This information will be disseminated in order to seek input on the proposed amendment(s) for not less than a 45-day review and comment period.
At the end of the 45-day review and comment period, the proposed amendment(s) and all comments will be forwarded to the Mitigation Advisory 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 Advisory Committee:
• There are errors, inaccuracies or omissions made in the identification of issues or needs in the Plan; • New issues or needs have been identified which are not adequately addressed in the Plan; • There has been a change in information, data, or assumptions from those on which the Plan is based.
Upon receiving the recommendation from the Mitigation Advisory Committee and prior to adoption of the PLAN MAINTENANCE Plan, each local governing body will hold a public hearing. The governing body will review the recommendation from the Mitigation Advisory 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:
2 Local jurisdictions do have the authority to approve/adopt changes to their own Mitigation Action Plans without approval from the County; however, the County should be advised of all changes as a courtesy and for consideration for changes or modifications to the countywide Plan. Changes to either the multi-jurisdictional plan or local Mitigation Action Plans will necessitate the adoption of these changes by the appropriate governing body. Ultimately, the updated Plan or plan component(s) will be submitted to the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management.
10:4 NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
PLAN MAINTENANCE
• Adopt the proposed amendments as presented; • Adopt the proposed amendments with modifications; • Refer the amendments request back to the Mitigation Advisory Committee for further revision; or • Defer the amendment request back to the Mitigation Advisory Committee for further consideration and/or additional hearings.
Continued Public Involvement 44 CFR Requirement 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(4)(iii): Public participation is an integral component to the mitigation The plan maintenance process planning process and will continue to be essential as this Plan evolves shall include a discussion on over time. As described above, significant changes or amendments to how the community will continue public participation in the Plan shall require a public hearing prior to any adoption the plan maintenance process. procedures. 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 Advisory Committee in the local newspaper, public bulletin boards and/or City and County office buildings; • Designating willing and voluntary citizens and private sector representatives as official members of the Mitigation Advisory 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 • Keeping copies of the Plan in public libraries.
Plan Update Requirement As part of the 2010 plan update, the Mitigation Advisory Committee reviewed the plan maintenance procedures found in this section and determined that they would continue to be the procedures used to implement and maintain the plan in the future.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 10:5 APPENDIX A: PLAN ADOPTION
44 CFR Requirement 44 CFR Part 201.6(c)(5): The plan shall include documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the local governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan.
This section of the Plan includes a copy of the local adoption resolution passed by New Hanover County, the City of Wilmington, the Town of Carolina Beach and the Town of Kure Beach.
APPENDIX B: PLANNING TOOLS
This section of the Plan includes (2) Items:
1. A Blank Public Participation Survey
2. A Blank Mitigation Action Worksheet
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SURVEY FOR HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING
We need your help!
Our community is currently engaged in a planning process to become less vulnerable to disasters caused by natural hazards, and your participation is important to us!
New Hanover County, the Town of Carolina Beach, the City of Wilmington, and the Town of Kure Beach are working together to prepare a Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. The purpose of the Multi-jurisdictional Plan is to identify and assess our community’s natural hazard risks (such as hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, winter storms, drought and wildfires) and determine how to best minimize or manage those risks. Upon completion, the Plan will be presented to each local governing body for adoption and submitted to the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management and Federal Emergency Management Agency for review and approval.
This survey questionnaire provides an opportunity for you to share your opinions and participate in the mitigation planning process. The information you provide will help us better understand your hazard concerns and can lead to mitigation activities that should help lessen the impact of future hazard events.
Please help us by completing this survey and returning it to: Kristen Wingenroth New Hanover County Department of Emergency Management 230 Government Center Drive, Ste. 115 Wilmington, NC 28403 Surveys can also be faxed to: (910) 798-6904
If you have any questions regarding this survey, or would like to learn about more ways you can participate in the development of our Hazard Mitigation Plan, please contact Kristen Wingenroth with New Hanover County Emergency Management at (910) 798-6905 or by e-mail at [email protected].
1. What city/town do you live in? ______
2. Have you ever experienced or been impacted by a disaster? Yes (please explain): ______ No
3. How concerned are you about the possibility of our community being impacted by a disaster? Extremely concerned Somewhat concerned Not concerned 4. Please select the one hazard you think is the highest threat to your neighborhood:
Page 1 of 5 Drought Earthquake Erosion Extreme Heat Flood Hail Hurricane and Tropical Storm Land Subsidence Landslide Lightning Severe Thunderstorm Tornado Winter Storm Wildfire Other (please explain): ______
5. Please select the one hazard you think is the second highest threat to your neighborhood: Drought Earthquake Erosion Extreme Heat Flood Hail Hurricane and Tropical Storm Land Subsidence Landslide Lightning Severe Thunderstorm Tornado Winter Storm Wildfire Other (please explain): ______
6. Is there another natural hazard not listed above that you think is a wide-scale threat to your neighborhood? Yes (please explain): ______ No
7. Is your home located in a floodplain? Yes No I don’t know
Page 2 of 5 8. Do you have flood insurance? Yes No I don’t know a. If “No”, why not? Not located in floodplain Too expensive Not necessary because it never floods Not necessary because I’m elevated or otherwise protected Never really considered it Other (please explain): ______
9. Have you taken any actions to make your home or neighborhood more resistant to natural hazards? Yes No a. If “Yes,”, please explain:
10. Are you interested in making your home or neighborhood more resistant to natural hazards? Yes No
11. What is the most effective way for you to receive information about how to make your home and neighborhood more resistant to natural hazards? Newspaper Television Radio Internet Mail Public workshops/meetings Other (please explain): ______
Page 3 of 5 12. In your opinion, what are some steps your local government could take to reduce or eliminate the risk of future natural hazard damages in your neighborhood?
13. Are there any other issues regarding the reduction of risk and loss associated with natural hazards or disasters in the community that you think are important?
Page 4 of 5 14. A number of community-wide activities can reduce our risk from natural hazards. In general, these activities fall into one of the following six broad categories. Please tell us how important you think each one is for your community to consider pursuing.
Very Somewhat Not Category Important Important Important 1. Prevention Administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land is developed and buildings are built. Examples include planning and zoning, building codes, open space preservation, and floodplain regulations.
2. Property Protection Actions that involve the modification of existing buildings to protect them from a hazard or removal from the hazard area. Examples include acquisition, relocation, elevation, structural retrofits, and storm shutters.
3. Natural Resource Protection Actions that, in addition to minimizing hazard losses, also preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. Examples include: floodplain protection, habitat preservation, slope stabilization, riparian buffers, and forest management.
4. Structural Projects Actions intended to lessen the impact of a hazard by modifying the natural progression of the hazard. Examples include dams, levees, seawalls, detention/retention basins, channel modification, retaining walls and storm sewers.
5. Emergency Services Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Examples include warning systems, evacuation planning, emergency response training, and protection of critical emergency facilities or systems.
6. Public Education and Awareness Actions to inform citizens about hazards and the techniques they can use to protect themselves and their property. Examples include outreach projects, school education programs, library materials and demonstration events.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!
Page 5 of 5
MITIGATION ACTION WORKSHEETS
Mitigation Action Worksheets are used to identify potential hazard mitigation actions that New Hanover County and the participating jurisdictions will consider in reducing the negative effects of identified hazards. The worksheets provide a simple yet effective method of organizing potential actions in a user- friendly manner that can easily be incorporated into the County’s updated Hazard Mitigation Plan.
The worksheets are to be used as part of a strategic planning process and are designed to be:
a.) completed electronically (worksheets and instructions will be e-mailed to members of the Mitigation Advisory Committee following the Mitigation Strategy Workshop); b.) reviewed with your department/organization for further consideration; and c.) returned according to the contact information provided below.
Please return all completed worksheets no later than December 18, 2009 to: Nathan Slaughter, Project Manager PBS&J Electronic copies may be e-mailed to: [email protected] Hard copies may be faxed to: 919-876-6848 (Attn: Nathan Slaughter)
INSTRUCTIONS Each mitigation action should be considered to be a separate local project, policy or program and each individual action should be entered into a separate worksheet. By identifying the implementation requirements for each action, the worksheets will help lay the framework for engaging in distinct actions that will help reduce the community’s overall vulnerability and risk. Detailed explanations on how to complete the worksheet are provided below.
Proposed Action: Identify a specific action that, if accomplished, will reduce vulnerability and risk in the impact area. Actions may be in the form of local policies (i.e., regulatory or incentive-based measures), programs or structural mitigation projects and should be consistent with any pre-identified mitigation goals and objectives.
Site and Location: Provide details with regard to the physical location or geographic extent of the proposed action, such as the location of a specific structure to be mitigated, whether a program will be citywide, countywide or regional, etc.
History of Damages: Provide a brief history of any known damages as it relates to the proposed action and the hazard(s) being addressed. For example, the proposed elevation of a repetitive loss property should include an overview of the number of times the structure has flooded, total dollar amount of damages if available, etc.
Hazard(s) Addressed: List the hazard(s) the proposed action is designed to mitigate against.
Category: Indicate the most appropriate category for the proposed action as discussed during the Mitigation Strategy Workshop (Prevention; Property Protection; Natural Resource Protection; Structural Projects; Emergency Services; Public Education and Awareness).
Priority: Indicate whether the action is a “high” priority, “moderate” priority or “low” priority based generally on the following criteria: 1. Effect on overall risk to life and property 2. Ease of implementation / technical feasibility 3. Project costs versus benefits 4. Political and community support 5. Funding availability
Estimated Cost: If applicable, indicate what the total cost will be to accomplish this action. This amount will be an estimate until actual final dollar amounts can be determined. Some actions (such as ordinance revisions) may only cost “local staff time” and should be noted so.
Potential Funding Sources: If applicable, indicate how the cost to complete the action will be funded. For example, funds may be provided from existing operating budgets or general funds, a previously established contingency fund, a cost-sharing federal or state grant program, etc.
Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Identify the local agency, department or organization that is best suited to implement the proposed action.
Implementation Schedule: Indicate when the action will begin and when the action is expected to be completed. Remember that some actions will require only a minimal amount of time, while others may require a long-term or continuous effort.
Comments: This space is provided for any additional information or details that may not be captured under the previous headings.
MITIGATION ACTION
Proposed Action:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site and Location:
History of Damages:
MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Category: Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Estimated Cost: Potential Funding Sources: Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Implementation Schedule:
COMMENTS
APPENDIX C: LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN CROSSWALK
This section of the Plan includes a completed Local Mitigation Plan Crosswalk.
LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING THE PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK FOR REVIEW OF LOCAL MITIGATION PLANS
Attached is a Plan Review Crosswalk based on the Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, published by FEMA in July, 2008. This Plan Review Crosswalk is consistent with the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), as amended by Section 322 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-390), the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended by the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-264) and 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 201 – Mitigation Planning, inclusive of all amendments through October 31, 2007.
SCORING SYSTEM N – Needs Improvement: The plan does not meet the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer’s comments must be provided. S – Satisfactory: The plan meets the minimum for the requirement. Reviewer’s comments are encouraged, but not required.
Each requirement includes separate elements. All elements of a requirement must be rated “Satisfactory” in order for the requirement to be fulfilled and receive a summary score of “Satisfactory.” A “Needs Improvement” score on elements shaded in gray (recommended but not required) will not preclude the plan from passing.
When reviewing single jurisdiction plans, reviewers may want to put an N/A in the boxes for multi-jurisdictional plan requirements. When reviewing multi- jurisdictional plans, however, all elements apply. States that have additional requirements can add them in the appropriate sections of the Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance or create a new section and modify this Plan Review Crosswalk to record the score for those requirements. Optional matrices for assisting in the review of sections on profiling hazards, assessing vulnerability, and identifying and analyzing mitigation actions are found at the end of the Plan Review Crosswalk.
The example below illustrates how to fill in the Plan Review Crosswalk.:
Assessing Vulnerability: Overview Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. Location in the Plan (section or SCORE Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan include an Section II, pp. 4-10 The plan describes the types of assets that are located within geographically defined overall summary description of the hazard areas as well as those that would be affected by winter storms. jurisdiction’s vulnerability to each hazard? B. Does the new or updated plan address Section II, pp. 10- The plan does not address the impact of two of the five hazards addressed in the plan. the impact of each hazard on the 20 Required Revisions: jurisdiction? • Include a description of the impact of floods and earthquakes on the assets. Recommended Revisions: This information can be presented in terms of dollar value or percentages of damage.
SUMMARY SCORE
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-1 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010
LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY SCORING SYSTEM The plan cannot be approved if the plan has not been formally adopted. Each requirement includes separate elements. All elements of the requirement must be Please check one of the following for each requirement. rated “Satisfactory” in order for the requirement to be fulfilled and receive a score of “Satisfactory.” Elements of each requirement are listed on the following pages of the N – Needs Improvement: The plan does not meet the minimum for the Plan Review Crosswalk. A “Needs Improvement” score on elements shaded in gray requirement. Reviewer’s comments must be provided. (recommended but not required) will not preclude the plan from passing. Reviewer’s comments must be provided for requirements receiving a “Needs Improvement” S – Satisfactory: The plan meets the minimum for the requirement. score. Reviewer’s comments are encouraged, but not required.
Prerequisite(s) (Check Applicable Box) NOT MET MET Mitigation Strategy N S 1. Adoption by the Local Governing Body: N/A N/A 13. Local Hazard Mitigation Goals: §201.6(c)(3)(i) X §201.6(c)(5) OR 14. Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions: X §201.6(c)(3)(ii) 2. Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption: §201.6(c)(5) 15. Identification and Analysis of Mitigation X X AND Actions: NFIP Compliance. §201.6(c)(3)(ii) 16. Implementation of Mitigation Actions: 3. Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Participation: §201.6(a)(3) X X §201.6(c)(3)(iii) 17. Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions: X Planning Process N S §201.6(c)(3)(iv) 4. Documentation of the Planning Process: §201.6(b) X and §201.6(c)(1) Plan Maintenance Process N S 18. Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan: X Risk Assessment N S §201.6(c)(4)(ii) 19. Incorporation into Existing Planning X 5. Identifying Hazards: §201.6(c)(2)(i) X Mechanisms: §201.6(c)(4)(ii) 6. Profiling Hazards: §201.6(c)(2)(i) X 20. Continued Public Involvement: §201.6(c)(4)(iii) X 7. Assessing Vulnerability: Overview: §201.6(c)(2)(ii) X 8. Assessing Vulnerability: Addressing Repetitive Additional State Requirements* N S X Loss Properties. §201.6(c)(2)(ii) Insert State Requirement 9. Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures, X Infrastructure, and Critical Facilities: §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B) Insert State Requirement 10. Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses: X Insert State Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B)
11. Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development X Trends: §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C) 12. Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment: §201.6(c)(2)(iii) X LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN APPROVAL STATUS PLAN NOT APPROVED X *States that have additional requirements can add them in the appropriate sections of the Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance or create a new section and See Reviewer’s Comments modify this Plan Review Crosswalk to record the score for those requirements. PLAN APPROVED
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-2 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 Local Mitigation Plan Review and Approval Status Jurisdiction: New Hanover County Title of Plan: Date of Plan: 2010 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard March 2010 Mitigation Plan Update Local Point of Contact: Address: Warren Lee 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 115 Title: Wilmington, NC 28403 Director of Emergency Management Agency: New Hanover County Phone Number: E-Mail: [email protected] 910-798-6900
State Reviewer: Title: Date: Meagan Honnold Hazard Mitigation Specialist 4/27/10
FEMA Reviewer: Caleb Hopkins (DRP) Title: Mitigation Specialist Date: 6/2/10
Brenda Stirrup (QC) Planning Specialist 7-2-10
Date Received in FEMA Region [Insert #]
Plan Not Approved
Plan Approved
Date Approved
DFIRM NFIP Status* Jurisdiction: In Plan NOT in Plan Y N N/A CRS Class
1. New Hanover County X X 8
2. Carolina Beach, Town of X X 7
3. Kure Beach, Town of X X
4. Wilmington, City of X X
5. [ATTACH PAGE(S) WITH ADDITIONAL JURISDICTIONS]
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-3 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 * Notes: Y = Participating N = Not Participating N/A = Not Mapped
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-4 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 PREREQUISITE(S)
A. Adoption by the Local Governing Body Requirement §201.6©(5): [The local hazard mitigation plan shall include] documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City Council, County Commissioner, Tribal Council). Location in the SCORE Plan (section or NOT Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments MET MET A. Has the local governing body adopted new or Appendix A State Comments: The plan will be adopted once it is approved updated plan? by FEMA and the signed adoption resolution will be located in Appendix A.
N/A This is an updated multi-jurisdictional plan. N/A N/A
B. Is supporting documentation, such as a resolution, Appendix A State Comments: Supporting documentation will be included included? (signed resolution), once plan is approved by FEMA
N/A This is an updated multi-jurisdictional plan. N/A N/A
SUMMARY SCORE N/A N/A 2. Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption Requirement §201.6(c)(5): For multi-jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan must document that it has been formally adopted. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or NOT Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments MET MET A. Does the new or updated plan indicate the Section 1, page State Comments: This section clearly lists the geographic scope of specific jurisdictions represented in the plan? 1:3 the plan and participating jurisdictions, including one new community that joined the plan and explains why certain jurisdictions in the county are not included in the plan. The following jurisdictions are in the plan: • New Hanover County • Carolina Beach, Town of • Kure Beach, Town of • Wilmington, City of Town of Wrightsville Beach is not in the plan because they are meeting hazard mitigation planning requirements independently.
Section 1 The updated plan clearly indicates the specific jurisdictions X Pg. 1:3 represented in the updated plan, as listed in the State Reviewer’s comments above.
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-5 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 B. For each jurisdiction, has the local governing Appendix A State Comments: The plan will be adopted once it is approved by body adopted the new or updated plan? FEMA and the signed adoption resolution will be located in Appendix A. Appendix A is designated to contain all resolutions of adoption once the Plan Update has been formally reviewed/approved by NCEM and FEMA. Participating jurisdictions will have one calendar year to formally approve the plan once “Approval Pending Adoption” status is granted by FEMA. (Reference: Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, Tab 6, p. 19-20).
Section 2 The updated plan has not yet been adopted by any of the X Pg. 2:2 participating jurisdictions. Upon the issuance of approval pending Appendix A adoption from FEMA, the plan will be adopted by all participating jurisdictions.
REQUIRED REVISION If plan is approved after FEMA review, adoption of the plan must take place within one calendar year of receiving FEMA’s Approval Pending Adoption. However, if the plan is not adopted within the allowed timeframe, the participating jurisdictions must update and resubmit the plan for FEMA approval.
For more information, please see “Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption” in the Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, Pages 19 – 20.
C. Is supporting documentation, such as a resolution, Appendix A State Comments: The plan will be adopted once it is approved by included for each participating jurisdiction? FEMA and the signed adoption resolution will be located in Appendix A. Appendix A is designated to contain all resolutions of adoption once the Plan Update has been formally reviewed/approved by NCEM and FEMA. Participating jurisdictions will have one calendar year to formally approve the plan once “Approval Pending Adoption” status is granted by FEMA. (Reference: Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, Tab 6, p. 19-20).
Appendix A REQUIRED REVISION X Appendix A provides a placeholder for the copies of adoption resolutions following approval pending adoption. Copies of fully- signed and executed resolutions or similar supporting documentation must be submitted to FEMA in order to receive final plan approval.
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-6 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 For more information, please see “Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption” in the Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, Pages 19 - 20.
SUMMARY SCORE X 3. Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Participation Requirement §201.6(a)(3): Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g., watershed plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process … Statewide plans will not be accepted as multi-jurisdictional plans. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or NOT Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments MET MET A. Does the new or updated plan describe how each Section 2, State Comments: This section does a good job of describing the jurisdiction participated in the plan’s development? throughout, participation of the different jurisdictions. It describes community specifically on meetings and workshops and has tables which list participants and page 2:18 their jurisdictions. It even goes into such detail that it describes an “Ice Breaker” exercise that took place at the First Mitigation Advisory Committee Meeting (see page 2:8). Page 2:20 outlines how each multi-jurisdictional participation requirement was met and includes a progress report which describes participation over the past 5 years.
Section 2 The updated plan states that every participating jurisdiction fully X Pg. 2:17 – 2:18 participated with the County in the development of the plan and describes 8 specific tasks in meeting participation requirements. Each participating jurisdiction was responsible for addressing their most significant hazard concerns through actions of their own choosing.
B. Does the updated plan identify all participating Section 1, page State Comments: This section clearly lists the geographic jurisdictions, including new, continuing, and the 1:3 Throughout scope of the plan and participating jurisdictions, including one jurisdictions that no longer participate in the plan? Section 2. new community that joined the plan and explains why certain jurisdictions in the county are not included in the plan. The following jurisdictions are in the plan: • New Hanover County
• Carolina Beach, Town of
• Kure Beach, Town of • Wilmington, City of Town of Wrightsville Beach is not in the plan because they are meeting hazard mitigation planning requirements independently.
Section 1 FEMA reviewer agrees with State Reviewer comments for this X
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-7 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 Pg. 1:3 element. The new community to join the plan under the 2009- 2010 update process is the Town of Carolina Beach.
SUMMARY SCORE X
PLANNING PROCESS: §201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan.
4. Documentation of the Planning Process Requirement §201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval; (2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and (3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. Requirement §201.6(c)(1): [The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the plan provide a narrative description of the Section 2, page State Comments: This section provides a description of the process followed to prepare the new or updated plan? 2:2-2:18 planning committee and advisory committee that they used to complete this update and the community meetings and workshops they held to work on the update. This section goes into detail about what was discussed at each meeting, including brainstorming exercises and who participated. Furthermore, there is a portion in this section on how they involved the public, a copy of the public notice and public participation website. This plan has provided a thorough explanation of the
process they followed and how they included all stakeholders in updating this plan.
Section 2 The updated plan discusses various planning meetings and X Pg. 2:1 -2:18 other types of plan coordination that occurred in order to develop the updated version of the mitigation plan. Figure 2.1 illustrates the New Hanover County Hazard Mitigation Process that was completed of the course of nearly six months.
B. Does the new or updated plan indicate who was Section 2, State Comments: There is a good description of the Planning involved in the current planning process? (For throughout, list of Team on 2:6 and a table listing who is on the advisory
example, who led the development at the staff level and participants is committee on 2:6-2:7. Also, a thorough list of stakeholders were there any external contributors such as provided on page involved is provided on pgs 2:18-2:19
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-8 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 4. Documentation of the Planning Process Requirement §201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval; (2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and (3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. Requirement §201.6(c)(1): [The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved. Location in the SCORE contractors? Who participated on the plan committee, 2:6-2:7, Appendix provided information, reviewed drafts, etc.?) D.
Section 2 The updated plan indicates that the New Hanover County X Pg. 2.2 Emergency Management Director led the 2009 plan update Pg. 2:6 – 2:7 process at the County level, but that the County also hired planning consultant PBS&J to provide external assistance. Table 2.1 lists the name and agency/jurisdiction of the Mitigation Advisory Committee (MAC) members. The Project Manager, via the project consultant, facilitated all of the MAC meetings in which plan update findings, revisions, updates and deliverables were reviewed and discussed.
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-9 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 4. Documentation of the Planning Process Requirement §201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval; (2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and (3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. Requirement §201.6(c)(1): [The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved. Location in the SCORE C. Does the new or updated plan indicate how the public Section 2, pg State Comments: The portion of this section about involving was involved? (Was the public provided an opportunity 2:11-2:13 the public clearly explains how three methods were used to to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and involve the public: open public meetings, survey instruments prior to the plan approval?) and posting a draft of the plan on a public website—each method was described in detail and includes how much public involvement actually took place.
Section 2 It appears the updated plan provided some opportunities for the X Pg. 2:11 – 2:14 public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage of the plan update, however it is not clear as currently documented on pages 2:11 – 2:14. Current narrative descriptions include text from the initial 2004 plan though there is a copy of an advertisement for a public meeting in February 2010. It is not clear when the Public Participation Survey was completed. There is no indication that an opportunity was provided to the public to comment on the final plan update prior to plan approval.
REQUIRED REVISION: The updated Plan must clearly indicate how the public was provided an opportunity to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to the plan approval.
For more information, please see “Documentation of the Planning Process” in the Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, Pages 26-27.
D. Does the new or updated plan discuss the Section 2, pg State Comments: These pages go over the use of a public opportunity for neighboring communities, agencies, 2:14-2:18 participation survey to solicit information and input on the plan businesses, academia, nonprofits, and other interested update from all stakeholders—local officials, residents,
parties to be involved in the planning process? businesses, academia and other private interests. Also a full list of the stakeholders and their associated organization are located on pgs 2:18-2:20.
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-10 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 4. Documentation of the Planning Process Requirement §201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval; (2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and (3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. Requirement §201.6(c)(1): [The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved. Location in the SCORE
Section 2 A wide range of stakeholders were invited and encouraged to X Pg. 2:15 – 2:17 participate in the development of the plan update. E-mail notifications and invitations were sent out to these stakeholders on two separate occasions.
E. Does the planning process describe the review and Section 6, State Comments: This section goes over the use of HAZUS- incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, throughout MH, Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment, Priority Risk Index in reports, and technical information? order to help with this update.
Section 2 The plan describes how all participants in the planning process X Pg. 2:17 – 2:18 assisted the plan update by obtaining local information and Section 7 best available data to support the plan update. The Capability
Pg. 7:1 – 7:19 Assessment describes how the planning committee conducted an inventory of existing local plans, programs and activities along with an examination of each jurisdiction’s capacity to implement mitigation strategies. Further, data sources for information incorporated into the plan are noted throughout the document where applicable.
F. Does the updated plan document how the planning Section 2, pg State Comments: In Section 2 under “Progress Report” team reviewed and analyzed each section of the 2:18 describes how the update was done and how each year as part plan and whether each section was revised as part of the CRS program, each jurisdiction submits annual reports of the update process? on the implementation of mitigation activities.
Section 1 The updated plan explains that after a review of FEMA’s X Pg. 1:3 requirements for local hazard mitigation plan updates, the MAC Section 4 reviewed and analyzed each section of the plan and Pg. 4:1 determined that each section needed to be updated to some Section 6 degree to meet the requirements. Changes made to each Pg. 6:1 section were clearly marked until such time that it was determined that all parties were in agreement on the changes. Section 4 added two new identified hazards to its assessment.
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-11 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 4. Documentation of the Planning Process Requirement §201.6(b): In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include: (1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval; (2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and (3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. Requirement §201.6(c)(1): [The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved. Location in the SCORE Also, the updated plan indicates that Section 6 was revised substantially from the previous plan in order to reflect new data and methodologies.
RECOMMENDED REVISION It is recommended that the updated plan be clearer on what was revised from the previous plan. If section 5 and 6 were the only sections that were substantially updated, additional documentation on why other sections didn’t warrant an update should be provided.
For more information, please see “Documentation of the Planning Process” in the Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, Page 27. SUMMARY SCORE X
RISK ASSESSMENT: §201.6(c)(2): The plan shall include a risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards.
5. Identifying Hazards Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type … of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. Location in the SCORE
Plan (section or N S Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments A. Does the new or updated plan include a description Section 4, Table State Comments: The descriptions were updated well to of the types of all natural hazards that affect the 4.1 (pg 4:2-4:5) include additional hazards. There is also a thorough
jurisdiction? description of each hazard under the hazard sub-heading. This section also does a good job of describing how two new
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-12 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 hazards were identified and included (sea-level rise and rip currents.)
Section 5 The planning committee identified the following sixteen X Pg. 5:1 – 5:78 hazards: • Drought and Extreme Heat • Hail • Hurricane and Tropical Storms • Lightning • Severe Thunderstorm • Tornado • Winter Storm and Freeze • Earthquake • Landslide and Sinkhole • Tsunami • Volcano • Dam and Levee Failure • Erosion • Flood • Rip Current • Storm Surge • Wildfire • Sea Level Rise Narrative descriptions of all identified hazards are included in the updated plan. SUMMARY SCORE X
6. Profiling Hazards Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the … location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the risk assessment identify the location (i.e., Throughout State Comments: Under subsections on each natural hazard geographic area affected) of each natural hazard Section 5 and there is another subsection on “Location and Spatial Extent” of addressed in the new or updated plan? specifically in the hazard which describes locations around the county where Figure 5.17 on different hazards have occurred or are likely to occur. The Map
page 5:58 figures throughout this section effectively illustrate historical occurrences of hazards and likely occurrences of future hazards.
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-13 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 Section 5 FEMA reviewer agrees with State Reviewer comments for this X Pg. 5:1 – 5:78 element. The plan does a nice job of addressing this element.
B. Does the risk assessment identify the extent (i.e., Throughout State Comments: Each subsection on the different hazards magnitude or severity) of each hazard addressed in the Section 5 and describes the extent of the hazards both in the past and future new or updated plan? specifically in likelihood which includes charts that document past Table 5.1 on pg occurrences. 5:4
Section 5 The updated plan includes Qualitative Assessment tables that X Pg. 5:77 identify the probability, spatial extent and estimated level of Section 6 impact for each hazard. However, the classification of extent Pg. 6:1 – 6:58 (magnitude or severity) of potential hazard events is not included. “Extent” addresses the question “How bad can it be?” This can be done through correlation with scientific scales as described in Section 4, such as the Saffir-Simpson Scale for hurricanes, Dolan-Davis Intensity Scale for Nor’easters, Palmer Drought Severity Index for droughts and Enhanced Fujita Scale for Tornadoes. While the updated plan describes some observed extents for historical hazard occurrences, they were not utilized to classify how severe each hazard could be expected to be in New Hanover County for risk assessment and mitigation planning purposes. “Extent” can be expressed through quantitative measurement, such as flood depth, wind speed and/or hail size for severe thunderstorms, or acres burned for wildfire. No clear information was provided as to extent – How bad can a natural hazard event be? – for the natural hazards addressed in the Plan.
REQUIRED REVISION: The Plan must indicate the range of magnitude or severity that is anticipated or could be experienced for each identified hazard. The Plan must identify the extent – How bad can it be? – for all natural hazards addressed in the Plan.
For more information, please see “Profiling Hazards” in the Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, Pages 32-35.
C. Does the plan provide information on previous Throughout State Comments: There is thorough information on historical occurrences of each hazard addressed in the new or Section 5 and occurrences of each hazard, including, in the cases of updated plan? specifically in frequently occurring hazards such as tornadoes and table 5.4 on pgs thunderstorms, detailed charts which document the dates and 5:9-5:11 the wind speeds.
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-14 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010
Section 5 The updated plan contains a historical narrative description X Pg. 5:1 – 5:78 along with maps and tables (listing dates and locations) of identified hazards that have previously occurred in the study area. D. Does the plan include the probability of future events Throughout State Comments: Each subsection on the different hazards (i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed in Section 5 and has a portion that addresses the “Probability of Future the new or updated plan? specifically in Occurrences” and table 5.26 goes over each hazard and the tables 5.26 and probability of it occurring in the county. 5.76 and 5.77
Section 5 FEMA reviewer agrees with State Reviewer comments for this X Pg. 5:1 – 5:78 element. The updated plan adequately addresses this element
SUMMARY SCORE X
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-15 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 7. Assessing Vulnerability: Overview Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan include an overall Throughout State Comments: Section 5 demonstrates the impact of each summary description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to Section 5 and hazard by reporting previous occurrences in table and map each hazard? Section 6 form. pgs 6:7-6:40 Section 6 reports annualized losses. Also, there is a narrative All GIS maps in on population and social vulnerability and development trends this Section 6, in general. The GIS maps, that include zoning overlays, help to Table 6.9 show the areas in the county with different levels of vulnerability to each hazard based on population. There are maps that focus on each jurisdiction in the plan and assesses their vulnerability. Also, each hazard has a section on asset vulnerability in the county overall, but the maps point out
specific vulnerability in each jurisdiction.
Section 5 The updated plan does a nice job of summarizing the study X Pg. 5:75 – 5.78 area’s current vulnerability to each hazard using the Priority Section 6 Risk Index (Table 5.27) and Conclusions on Hazard Risk Pg. 6:1 – 6:58 (Table 5.28). Each hazard that was carried over into the vulnerability assessment has its own qualitative assessment describing the probability of a future occurrence, the impact, spatial extent, warning time, and duration; and Table 6.31 provides a summary of potential annualized losses.
B. Does the new or updated plan address the impact of All GIS maps in The GIS maps, that include zoning overlays, help to show the each hazard on the jurisdiction? Section 6. areas in the county with different levels of vulnerability to each hazard based on population. There are maps that focus on each jurisdiction in the plan and assesses their vulnerability.
Section 5 The updated plan contains a qualitative assessment of each X Pg. 5.75 hazard in which it classifies the impact that each identified Section 6 hazard could have on the study area (minor, limited, critical or Pg. 6:1 – 6:58 catastrophic). Detailed maps of each jurisdiction have been added to spatially show where the potential impact areas would be caused by flood, storm surge, and wildfire; and potential dollar losses also describe economic impacts of each hazard.
SUMMARY SCORE X
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-16 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010
8. Assessing Vulnerability: Addressing Repetitive Loss Properties
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment] must also address National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) insured structures that have been repetitively damaged floods. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability Section 5, page State Comments: This section lists the numbers and types of in terms of the types and numbers of repetitive loss 5:63 repetitive loss structures in each jurisdiction. properties located in the identified hazard areas? Note: This requirement becomes effective for all local plans approved after October 1, 2008.
Section 5 The updated plan describes vulnerability in terms of the X Pg. 5:63 numbers of repetitive loss properties located in each participating jurisdiction. Nearly all building types are described as residential, with only a very small percentage being described as non-residential.
SUMMARY SCORE X
9. Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard area … . Location in the SCORE Plan (section or Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in Section 6, Table State Comments: Table 6.32 lists every critical facility in each terms of the types and numbers of existing buildings, 6.32, pgs 6:1-6:13 jurisdiction and indicates whether it is vulnerable to each hazard infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the present in the county. identified hazard areas? Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will
not preclude the plan from passing.
Section 6 The updated plan does a nice job of describing vulnerability in Pg. 6:7 - 58 terms of numbers and types of existing buildings, infrastructure, X and critical facilities located in hazard areas throughout Section 6. This includes using data from the default building inventory provided within HAZUS-MH software.
B. Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in Section 6, pg State Comments: This section refers to current zoning and future
terms of the types and numbers of future buildings, 6:14, GIS Maps zoning both in the narrative and illustrated in GIS maps with zoning
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-17 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the throughout overlays. In the discussion of zoning types of districts are referred identified hazard areas? to such as Industrial or Business which indicates the types and numbers of buildings and how they will interface with different hazards and thus illustrates and concludes future vulnerability.
Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will not preclude the plan from passing.
Section 6 RECOMMENDED REVISION X Pg. 6:14 – 6:31 The updated plan includes maps and descriptive narratives assessing future land use and development. However, in order to fulfill the requirement the updated plan should include estimates of the numbers and types of future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities that are anticipated to be located in identified hazard areas based on projected community growth and anticipated development patterns.
For more information, please see “Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures” in the Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, Pages 42 - 44.
SUMMARY SCORE X
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-18 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 10. Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate … . Location in the SCORE Plan (section or Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan estimate potential Section 6, pgs State Comments: There is a table in each hazard subsection that dollar losses to vulnerable structures? 6:32-6:55, estimates dollar losses and a narrative section on Asset specifically tables Vulnerability, but more specifically related to structures, the tables 6.9, 6.15, 6.20, illustrate building type, number and dollar losses.
6.22, 6.24, 6.30 Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will not preclude the plan from passing.
Section 6 FEMA reviewer agrees with State Reviewer comments for this X Pg. 6:32 – 6:55 element. The plan does a nice job of addressing this element.
B. Does the new or updated plan describe the Section 6, pgs State Comments: These pages go over the two methodologies methodology used to prepare the estimate? 6:2-6:7 used: GIS-based data analysis and applying a statistical risk assessment. The GIS methodology was meant to determine the estimated vulnerability of people, buildings and critical facilities and the statistical risk approach was used to analyze hazards outside the GIS capability (see pg 6:4). Each of these methodologies is clearly explained in this section.
Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will not preclude the plan from passing.
The updated plan does a nice job of describing the X Section 6 methodologies used to prepare the estimate. A GIS based Pg. 6:2 – 6:7 analysis along with a statistical risk assessment when the identified hazard was outside of the scope of GIS based risk assessment was performed. Both methodologies were given a detailed summarization.
SUMMARY SCORE X
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-19 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 11. Assessing Vulnerability: Analyzing Development Trends Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions.
Location in the SCORE Plan (section or Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan describe land uses and Section 6, pg 6:14 State Comments: There is a narrative portion on development development trends? and GIS zoning trends which is further expanded upon and illustrated in GIS maps maps throughout throughout Section 6.
Note: A “Needs Improvement” score on this requirement will not preclude the plan from passing.
Section 3 The updated plan includes data and descriptive narratives X Pg. 3:3 – 3:4 discussing land use and development trends. A series of Section 6 zoning maps depicting development types overlaid with hazard Pg. 6:14 – 6:31 areas is included for each participating jurisdiction.
SUMMARY SCORE X
12. Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(iii): For multi-jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment must assess each jurisdiction’s risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning area. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan include a risk Section 5 and 6 State Comments: This is mostly discussed in Section 5 where assessment for each participating jurisdiction as throughout each jurisdiction is addressed under each hazard subsection needed to reflect unique or varied risks? and tables illustrate historical occurrences of the risk in each jurisdiction. In section 6, unique and varied risks are discussed based on different population densities and land use in each jurisdiction which is discussed in narrative portions and illustrated in maps throughout Section 6.
Section 5 The updated plan does a nice job of summarizing the X Pg. 5:1 – 5:78 jurisdiction’s vulnerability to each hazard. A unique risk Section 6 assessment is included for each participating jurisdiction as Pg. 6:1 – 6:58 needed. If the spatial extent of the hazard is able to be geographically defined, the risk assessment includes a detailed vulnerability assessment via HAZUS-MH and statistical
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-20 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 assessments. GIS-based overlay mapping and HAZUS analysis were also used in the vulnerability assessment to help illustrate each jurisdiction’s vulnerability to hazards.
SUMMARY SCORE X
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-21 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 MITIGATION STRATEGY: §201.6(c)(3): The plan shall include a mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction’s blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools.
13. Local Hazard Mitigation Goals Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i): [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments N S A Does the new or updated plan include a description Section 8, pg 8:2- State Comments: This page lists the broad goals for New of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term 8:3 Hanover County. There are 8 goals which are explored in vulnerabilities to the identified hazards? much more detail by jurisdiction in Section 9 in Mitigation Action Plans to achieve these goals.
Section 8 The updated plan has a list of eight far reaching and broad X Pg. 8:2 – 8:3 goals that provide the basis for the mitigation actions that each participating jurisdiction possess.
SUMMARY SCORE X
14. Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments N S A. Does the new or updated plan identify and analyze a Section 9- all State Comments: There are individual Mitigation Action comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions mitigation action Plans (MAPs) for each jurisdiction that address very and projects for each hazard? tables throughout specific hazards and propose actions and projects along with possible funding sources for each hazards. The tables are a good way to display this information clearly and effectively.
Section 8 Section 8 describes a wide range of activities designed to X Pg. 8:3 – 8.6 lessen the vulnerability of the town to the effects of natural Section 9 hazards according to six categories. Section 9 includes Pg. 9:2 – 9:70 more information on the specific mitigation actions and projects proposed for each participating jurisdiction.
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-22 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 B Do the identified actions and projects address Section 9- New State Comments: The specific Mitigation Action Plan reducing the effects of hazards on new buildings and Hanover County tables for each jurisdiction referenced to the left address infrastructure? Mitigation Actions the effects of hazards on new buildings. (MAs) #21, #22, #24, #26, City of Wilmington MAs #10, #11, Town of Carolina Beach MAs #13, #15, #22, #24, #33, Town of Kure Beach MAs #6,
Section 9 The plan update identifies mitigation goals and projects X Pg. 9:2 – 9:70 that mitigate hazard effects on new buildings. Examples of
these actions and projects include the following: • New Hanover County Mitigation Action 24 “Declare a moratorium on the permitting of any new construction, new utility hookups, or redevelopment construction that would increase the intensity of the land use in disaster prone areas.” • Town of Carolina Beach Mitigation Action 13: “Revise CAMA Land Use Plan strategy to consider a policy to prohibit redevelopment in high hazard areas.”
C. Do the identified actions and projects address Section 9- New State Comments: Many of the tables on Mitigation Actions reducing the effects of hazards on existing buildings Hanover County for each jurisdiction discuss retrofitting existing buildings to and infrastructure? Mitigation Actions protect against various hazards. (MAs) #21, #22, #24, #26, City of Wilmington MAs #10, #11, Town of Carolina Beach MAs #13, #15, #22, #24, #33, Town of Kure Beach MAs #6,
Section 9 The plan update identifies mitigation goals and projects X Pg. 9:2 – 9:70 that mitigate hazard effects on existing buildings. Examples of these actions and projects include the following: • New Hanover County Mitigation Action 15:
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-23 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 “Continue acquisition, elevation and/or retrofitting of hazard prone properties.” • Town of Kure Beach Mitigation Action 7: “Pursue elevation projects for any identified repetitive loss properties where the homeowner has expressed interest in such a project.”
SUMMARY SCORE X
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-24 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 15. Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions: National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance Requirement: §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy] must also address the jurisdiction’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate. Location in the SCORE
Plan (section or N S Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments A. Does the new or updated plan describe the Section 5, pg. 5:63 State Comments: Section 5 lists total payments from NFIP jurisdiction (s) participation in the NFIP? Section 7, pg. 7:9- to each community and section 7 describes the total number 7:10 of policies in each jurisdiction and the amount of coverage.
Note: This requirement becomes effective for all local mitigation plans approved after October 1, 2008.
Section 2 The updated plan describes which jurisdictions participate in X
Pg. 2:9 the NFIP. The plan indicates that New Hanover County and Section 7 the City of Wilmington, Town of Kure Beach, and Town of Pg. 7:9 -7:10 Carolina Beach all participate in the NFIP. The Capability Assessment discussion details the nature of each jurisdiction’s participation in the program. The updated plan also lists the amount of policies in place within each jurisdiction.
B. Does the mitigation strategy identify, analyze and Section 7, pgs 7:9- State Comments: This section describes actions that have prioritize actions related to continued compliance 7:10 to be taken in order for a municipality to join the NFIP and with the NFIP? how the CRS encourages communities to undertake flood mitigation that goes beyond the minimum NFIP requirements. This section goes over how each community that is participating in the CRS is rated. Clearly, if jurisdictions are undertaking CRS rating they are considering continued compliance with NFIP as part of their mitigation strategy.
Note: This requirement becomes effective for all local mitigation plans approved after October 1, 2008.
Section 7 The updated plan identifies mitigation goals and projects X Pg. 7:9 -7:10 related to compliance with the NFIP. An example of these actions and projects include the following item: • New Hanover County Mitigation Action 16: “Develop and conduct a public awareness campaign emphasizing the economic benefits of participation in the CRS program.”
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-25 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010
SUMMARY SCORE X
16. Implementation of Mitigation Actions Requirement: §201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs. Location in the SCORE
Plan (section or N S Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments A. Does the new or updated mitigation strategy include Section 8, pg 8:2 State Comments: Each Mitigation Action table in Section 9 how the actions are prioritized? (For example, is there describes how the has a level of priority associated with it- High, Moderate, a discussion of the process and criteria used?) actions were Low. Section 8 on page 8:2 explains how mitigation actions prioritized, each were prioritized based on 5 factors: 1. Effect on overall risk action in Section 9 to life and property; 2. Ease of implementation; 3. Political with the Mitigation and Community support; 4. A general economic cost/benefit Action Plans has a review and 5. Funding availability.
priority associated with it.
Section 8 FEMA reviewer agrees with State Reviewer comments for X Pg. 8:2 this element. The updated plan clearly addresses the required element.
B. Does the new or updated mitigation strategy address Section 9- All State Comments: Each Mitigation Action Plan table for each how the actions will be implemented and administered, Mitigation Action specific Mitigation Action has a section where there is a including the responsible department, existing and tables for each description of the Lead Agency/Department responsible, potential resources and the timeframe to complete jurisdiction address potential funding sources (potential resources) and each action? these items implementation schedule (timeframe).
Section 9 The updated plan contains mitigation action items that list X
Pg. 9:2 – 9:70 whether the item is a new or existing action, issues and concerns, mitigation technique category, hazard(s) addressed, lead agency/responsible department, estimated cost, possible funding sources, implementation schedule, priority, and implementation status. The plan does a nice job of showing the required elements for each action.
C. Does the new or updated prioritization process include Section 9- All State Comments: Each Mitigation Action Plan table for each an emphasis on the use of a cost-benefit review to Mitigation Action specific mitigation action has a section that indicates what maximize benefits? tables, but level of priority an action is—high, moderate, or low. The explanation table on pg 9:3—“Key Elements of the Mitigation Action specifically on pg Plan” explains how the jurisdictions determined the priority
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-26 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 9:3 level of each mitigation action on five factors, one of which is a cost/benefit review.
Section 8 The updated plan contained a prioritization analysis in X Pg. 8:2 regards to mitigation strategies. At the end of this analysis, Section 9 cost benefit was one of the main factors being emphasized Pg. 9:2 – 9:70 in prioritizing mitigation action items due to special emphasis put on cost effectiveness for federal hazard mitigation grant programs.
D. Does the updated plan identify the completed, deleted Section 9- All State Comments: Each Mitigation Action Plan table for each or deferred mitigation actions as a benchmark for Mitigation Action specific mitigation action has a section called “Action progress, and if activities are unchanged (i.e., tables Implementation Status (2010)” where the jurisdiction deferred), does the updated plan describe why no indicates the status of the action and specific details related changes occurred? to the action.
Section 9 FEMA reviewer agrees with State Reviewer comments for X Pg. 9:2 – 9:70 this element. The updated plan clearly addresses the required element.
SUMMARY SCORE X
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-27 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 17. Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iv): For multi-jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or credit of the plan.
Location in the SCORE Plan (section or Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments N S A Does the new or updated plan include identifiable action Section 9- All State Comments: Each Mitigation Action Plan table for items for each jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval of Mitigation Action each specific mitigation action has a section called the plan? tables “Action Implementation Status (2010)” in this section of the table further actions that need to take place to complete that action are addressed, however it would be an improvement if there was a separate section on the table that specifically addresses action items.
Section 9 FEMA reviewer agrees with State Reviewer comments X Pg. 9:2 – 9:70 for this element. The plan does a nice job of clearly stating several action items for each participating jurisdiction.
B. Does the updated plan identify the completed, deleted or Section 9- Mitigation State Comments: New Actions are noted in the tables deferred mitigation actions as a benchmark for progress, Action tables and existing actions note that in the table. Changes and if activities are unchanged (i.e., deferred), does the occurred in almost every action, therefore no updated plan describe why no changes occurred? explanation is necessary.
Section 9 Each action item contains an “Action Implementation X Pg. 9:2 – 9:70 Status (2010)” description that gives a detailed explanation on the status of the project.
SUMMARY SCORE X
PLAN MAINTENANCE PROCESS 18. Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(i): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle.
Location in the SCORE
Plan (section or N S Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments A. Does the new or updated plan describe the method and Section 10, pg 10:2 State Comments: This section discusses the plans for
schedule for monitoring the plan, including the responsible periodic revisions and updates to the plan which
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-28 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 department? includes schedules for advisory committee meetings which will ensure continual updating of the plan and they plan on published an annual report on the plan to be presented to local governing bodies. The Advisory Committee members will work together on these updates, but the New Hanover County Department of Emergency Management will be responsible for convening meetings.
Section 10 FEMA reviewer agrees with State Reviewer comments X Pg. 10:2 – 10:3 for this element. The updated plan clearly addresses the required element.
B. Does the new or updated plan describe the method and Section 10, pg 10:2 State Comments: This section discusses the plans for schedule for evaluating the plan, including how, when and by periodic revisions and updates to the plan which whom (i.e. the responsible department)? includes schedules for advisory committee meetings which will ensure continual updating of the plan and they plan on published an annual report on the plan to be presented to local governing bodies. The Advisory Committee members will work together on these updates, but the New Hanover County Department of Emergency Management will be responsible for convening meetings.
Section 10 The updated plan indicates that the Mitigation Advisory X Pg. 10:2 Committee will meet biannually to evaluate if specific mitigation actions are being reviewed and carried out according to each jurisdiction’s individual Mitigation Action Plan.
C. Does the new or updated plan describe the method and Section 10, pgs 10:2 State Comments: This part of section 10 does a good schedule for updating the plan within the five-year cycle? & 10:3 job of explaining the review and update process and how the Mitigation Advisory Committee goes through a list of questions that help then consider the effectiveness and appropriateness of the Plan and whether to update certain sections.
Section 10 The updated plan does a nice job of describing the X Pg. 10:2 – 10:3 methodology for updating the plan within the five-year maintenance cycle. The plan states that the plan will be reviewed and updated every five years or as needed to determine if there have been any significant changes in New Hanover County and participating jurisdictions that
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-29 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 would affect the Mitigation Plan. If a disaster is declared, the plan will need to be revised at this time in order to reflect on lessons learned or address specific circumstances arising out of the disaster.
SUMMARY SCORE X
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-30 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 19. Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(ii): [The plan shall include a] process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. Location in the SCORE
Plan (section or N S Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments A. Does the new or updated plan identify other local planning Section 10, pg 10:2 State Comments: This section discusses how this plan mechanisms available for incorporating the mitigation can be integrated into other planning mechanisms and requirements of the mitigation plan? how New Hanover County (NHC) intends to create a process by which the requirements of this plan will be integrated into other plans. During the planning process for new and updated planning documents, NHC will provide a copy of the Hazard Mitigation Plan to the appropriate and responsible parties and make sure that other plans are consistent with the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Section 7 The updated plan identifies other local planning X Pg. 7:4 – 7:19 mechanisms that are available for incorporating the
Section 10 mitigation requirements of the mitigation plan in the Pg. 10:1 -10:2 Capability Assessment. The assessment lists all other plans and ordinances currently in place within the participating jurisdictions. The plan indicates that it will be the responsibility of each participating jurisdiction to determine additional implementation procedures beyond those listed within their Mitigation Action Plan, and that opportunities to integrate the requirements of this Plan into other local planning mechanisms shall continue to be identified through future meetings of the Mitigation Advisory Committee and through the five- year review process described herein.
B. Does the new or updated plan include a process by which Section 10, pg 10:2 State Comments: This section discusses how this plan the local government will incorporate the mitigation strategy can be integrated into other planning mechanisms and and other information contained in the plan (e.g., risk how New Hanover County intends to create a process assessment) into other planning mechanisms, when by which the requirements of this plan will be integrated appropriate? into other plans. During the planning process for new
and updated planning documents, NHC will provide a copy of the Hazard Mitigation Plan to the appropriate and responsible parties and make sure that other plans are consistent with the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-31 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 Section 10 The updated plan states that the primary means for X Pg. 10:1 -10:2 integrating mitigation strategies into other local planning mechanisms will be through the revision, update and implementation of each jurisdictions individual Mitigation Action Plan that require specific planning and administrative tasks (e.g. plan amendments, ordinance revisions, capital improvement projects, etc.).
C. Does the updated plan explain how the local government Section 10, pg 10:2 State Comments: This section discusses how this plan incorporated the mitigation strategy and other information can be integrated into other planning mechanisms and contained in the plan (e.g., risk assessment) into other how New Hanover County intends to create a process planning mechanisms, when appropriate? by which the requirements of this plan will be integrated into other plans. During the planning process for new and updated planning documents, NHC will provide a copy of the Hazard Mitigation Plan to the appropriate and responsible parties and make sure that other plans are consistent with the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Section 7 REQUIRED REVISION X Pg. 7:4 – 7:19 While Section 7 includes information on those planning Section 10 mechanisms available for incorporating the mitigation Pg. 10:1 -10:2 requirements of the mitigation plan and Section 10 describes the process for doing so, there is no explanation on how participating jurisdictions have done this (or not done this) since the previously completed 2004 plan. Such as an explanation is required in order to fulfill this requirement and will help serve as an additional indicator of progress in local mitigation efforts.
For more information, please see “Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms” in the Local Multi- Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance, Page 72. SUMMARY SCORE X
Continued Public Involvement Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(iii): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process. Location in the SCORE Plan (section or Element annex and page #) Reviewer’s Comments N S
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-32 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 A. Does the new or updated plan explain how continued Section 10, pgs 10:4 State Comments: This section lists various actions public participation will be obtained? (For example, will & 10:5 the county will do in order to ensure public there be public notices, an on-going mitigation plan participation, ranging from public committee, or annual review meetings with stakeholders?) Section 10 The updated plan explains how continued public Pg. 10:4 – 10:5 participation will be obtained. Examples of these efforts include the following: • Advertising meetings of the Mitigation Advisory Committee in the local newspaper, public bulletin boards and/or City and County office buildings; • Designating willing and voluntary citizens and private sector representatives as official X members of the Mitigation Advisory 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 • Keeping copies of the Plan in public libraries.
SUMMARY SCORE X
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-33 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 MATRIX A: PROFILING HAZARDS
This matrix can assist FEMA and the State in scoring each hazard. Local jurisdictions may find the matrix useful to ensure that their plan addresses each natural hazard that can affect the jurisdiction. Completing the matrix is not required. Note: First, check which hazards are identified in requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i). Then, place a checkmark in either the N or S box for each applicable hazard. An “N” for any element of any identified hazard will result in a “Needs Improvement” score for this requirement. List the hazard and its related shortcoming in the comments section of the Plan Review Crosswalk.
Hazards Identified To C. Previous D. Probability of check Per Requirement A. Location B. Extent cl bo Hazard Type Occurrences Future Events ick o xes, §201.6(c)(2)(i) chan n th do ge e b uble Yes N S N S N S N S the ox a t def nd Avalanche o “ch ault ecke valu Coastal Erosion d.” e Coastal Storm Dam Failure Drought Earthquake Expansive Soils Levee Failure Flood Hailstorm Hurricane Land Subsidence Landslide Severe Winter Storm Tornado Tsunami Volcano Wildfire Windstorm Other Other Other Legend:
§201.6(c)(2)(i) Profiling Hazards A. Does the risk assessment identify the location (i.e., geographic area affected) of each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? B. Does the risk assessment identify the extent (i.e., magnitude or severity) of each hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? C. Does the plan provide information on previous occurrences of each natural hazard addressed in the new or updated plan? D. Does the plan include the probability of future events (i.e., chance of occurrence) for each hazard addressed in the plan?
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-34 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010
MATRIX B: ASSESSING VULNERABILITY This matrix can assist FEMA and the State in scoring each hazard. Local jurisdictions may find the matrix useful to ensure that the new or updated plan addresses each requirement. Completing the matrix is not required. Note: First, check which hazards are identified in requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i). Then, place a checkmark in either the N or S box for each applicable hazard. An “N” for any element of any identified hazard will result in a “Needs Improvement” score for this requirement. List the hazard and its related shortcoming in the comments section of the Plan Review Crosswalk. Note: Receiving an N in the shaded columns will not preclude the plan from passing. To che ck b click oxe Hazards A. Overall A. Types and Number B. Types and ch on s, d ang the oub e th box le Identified Per Summary B. Hazard of Existing Structures Number of Future e d and A. Loss Estimate B. Methodology to “c efau Hazard Type Requirement Description of Impact in Hazard Area Structures in Hazard he lt va cked lue §201.6(c)(2)(i) Vulnerability (Estimate) Area (Estimate) .” Yes N S N S N S N S N S N S Avalanche Coastal Erosion Coastal Storm Dam Failure Drought Earthquake Expansive Soils
Levee Failure Structures Identifying ility: Flood Hailstorm Hurricane Land Subsidence Landslide Severe Winter Storm Tornado Tsunami Volcano §201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Overview Overview Vulnerability: Assessing §201.6(c)(2)(ii) Wildfire Windstorm Other Vulnerab Assessing §201.6(c)(2)(ii) Other Losses Potential Estimating Vulnerability: Assessing §201.6(c)(2)(ii) Other
Legend: §201.6(c)(2)(ii) Assessing Vulnerability: Overview A. Does the new or updated plan include an overall summary description of the jurisdiction’s B. Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of vulnerability to each hazard? future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas? B. Does the new or updated plan address the impact of each hazard on the jurisdiction? §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B) Assessing Vulnerability: Estimating Potential Losses §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A) Assessing Vulnerability: Identifying Structures A. Does the new or updated plan estimate potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures? A. Does the new or updated plan describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of B. Does the new or updated plan describe the methodology used to prepare the estimate? existing buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas?
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-35 LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW CROSSWALK NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC INTERIM MARCH 2010 MATRIX C: IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION ACTIONS
This matrix can assist FEMA and the State in scoring each hazard. Local jurisdictions may find the matrix useful to ensure consideration of a range of actions for each hazard. Completing the matrix is not required.
Note: First, check which hazards are identified in requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i). Then, place a checkmark in either the N or S box for each applicable hazard. An “N” for any identified hazard will result in a “Needs Improvement” score for this requirement. List the hazard and its related shortcoming in the comments section of the Plan Review Crosswalk.
Hazards Identified A. Comprehensive T Per Requirement Range of Actions o ch Hazard Type eck §201.6(c)(2)(i) and Projects clic box c k on es, Yes N S han the dou ge t bo ble Avalanche he d x an to efau d Coastal Erosion “che lt v cke alue Coastal Storm d.” Dam Failure Drought Earthquake Expansive Soils Levee Failure Flood Hailstorm Hurricane Land Subsidence Landslide Severe Winter Storm Tornado Tsunami Volcano Wildfire Windstorm Other Other Other
Legend: §201.6(c)(3)(ii) Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions A. Does the new or updated plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects for each hazard?
JULY 1, 2008 (W/DFIRM) A-36 APPENDIX D: PLANNING PROCESS DOCUMENTATION
This section of the Plan includes three (3) items:
1. MAC Meeting Agendas
2. MAC Sign-in Sheets
3. Public Meeting Documentation
AGENDA New Hanover County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Mitigation Advisory Committee Meeting July 13, 2009 9:00 AM
1) Introductions
2) Icebreaker Exercise
3) Project Overview a) Key Objectives b) Project Tasks c) Project Schedule d) Project Staffing
4) Roles & Responsibilities a) PBS&J b) New Hanover County c) Participating Jurisdictions/Partners
5) Next Steps a) Initiate data collection efforts b) Conduct public outreach c) Identify additional stakeholders d) Schedule next MAC meeting
6) Questions, Issues or Concerns
AGENDA New Hanover County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Advisory Committee Meeting November 17, 2009 9:00 AM – Noon
1) Welcome and Introductions
2) Recap / Status Update
3) Risk Assessment Findings a) Hazard Identification & Analysis b) Vulnerability Assessment (ongoing)
4) Capability Assessment Discussion
5) Mitigation Strategy Development a) Review of Existing Plan Goals, Objectives and Actions b) Mitigation Action Worksheets (Existing Actions) c) Identification of New Actions
6) Public Involvement Activities a) Public Participation Survey Update
7) Discussion on Plan Maintenance / Implementation
8) Wrap-up and Next Steps