Before the Storm in Beaufort County Avoiding Harm's Way-1984

DCM COPY
1 Please do not remove.
1
Division of Coastal Management Copy
Before the Storm in Beaufort County:
y
Avo id in Harms Way.
1
y vie
w A
4 ^rMs.�
I oil
f7.. _
✓yam— <'." _ .. �� �.,_•� _ _
�� v...Y- - eG11":.. ` .fit •i' � � u �`.�_ •, �` �y�`
`` _• `_ 10
1
1 PL.ANNING & DESIGNASSOCIATES. P.A.
3515 Glenwood Avenue Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Telepnone(919)781-X04
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Prepared with:
BF"ORT COUNTY BOARD OF COmasSIONERS
Ledrue Buck, Chairman
Frank Bonner
Marion Dilday,
Mrs. Arthur Lee Moore
William R. Roberson III
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
COUNTY MANAGER COORDINATOR COUNTY ENGINEER
Jay Hodges Daden Wolfe Earl Bonner
Prepared by:
Planning and Design Associates, P.A.
3515 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27612
Terry W. Alford, MRP, AIA
President
Rex H. Todd, AICP
Consultant and Author
Janet. Roberts, Debbi Wall, Carolyn Cobb
Word Processing
The preparation of this report was financed in part through a
grant provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program;
through funds provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,
as amended, which is administered by the Office of Coastal Zone
Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
June, 1984

BEFORE THE STORM IN BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Avoiding Harms Way
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Why do Hurricane Planning?
B. Contents of this Document
II. POLICY DEOELOPMENT
A. Storm Hazard Mitigation
'
1. The Planning Process
a. General
b. Specific to Beaufort County
2. Mapping in Hazard Areas
a. Supporting narrative
1
b. The Beaufort County Hazard Map: Composite of Risks
(1) AECs (non -mapped)
(2) Flood Hazard Areas
(3) Highly Erodible Areas
(a) Shoreline Inventory
(b) District ASCS
(c) ECU Study
'
(4) Wind Hazard Areas
3. Assessing the County's Vulnerability to Hurricane Damages
a. Severity of Risk
b. Magnitude of Risk
(1) Inventory of Land Uses
(2) Inventory of Structures
(3) Assessment of Evacuability
4. Identifying and Ranking I -litigation Problems
a. Rationale
b. Methodology
1
c. Findings
5. Reviewing Current Mitigation Measures
a. Inventory of Policies
b. Analysis of Policies
G. Reviewing Alternative 1•easures
a. Philosophy Behind Alternatives
b. Range of Policy Options
'
7. Implementing and Monitoring
a. Rationale
b. Selected Policies and Measures (Proposed)
c. Monitoring Consistency and Effectiveness Over Time

1
B. Post Disaster Reconstruction Plan
1. Introduction
2. Elements of Preparedness
a. Local Damage Classification Scheme and Damage
b. Permit Procedures
.c. Consideration of a "Recovery Task Force"
d. Guidelines for Post,Disaster Repair and Reconstruction-
(1) Timing and completion of damage assessments
(2) Temporary Moratoria
(3) Development Standards
e. Schedule for Staging and Permitting Repairs and
Reconstruction
f. Implementation of Recovery Task Force Policies
g. Policies for repair and/or replacement of public
utilities and facilities
C. Local Evacuation Plans
1. Introduction
a. CAMA regulations and requirements
b. Beaufort County's response
2. The natural and Plan -Made Impediments to Evacuation
a. Description and Reference to Other Plans
b. Analysis of Major Evacuation Routes (1 - 6 routes),
each analyzed in the following format:
(a) Areas below flood level
(b) Surge Inundation Points
(c) Extent of Impediment to Evacuation
(d) Reliance by Other Communities
(e) Estimated Evacuation Time (to be determined)
(f) Policy Choices
c. Impediments caused by Conflicting Information
d. Impediments caused by Conflicting Evacuation Plans
e. Impediments caused by Attitudes
D. Coordination with State and Federal Agencies
1. Process
2. Contact List

BEFORE THE STORI1 IN BEAUFORT COUNTY,.NORTH CAROLINA
Avoiding Harms Way
List of Exhibits
Exhibit
-A
A Process for Mitigating the Hurricane Hazard
Exhibit
B
Flood Hazard Boundary Map
Exhibit
C
National Flood Insurance Program
Exhibit
D
Photo reduced Flood Hazard Map
Exhibit
E
The Beaufort County Hurricane Hazard Alap_
Exhibit
F 1
Beaufort County Erosion Study Map
Exhibit
F 2
Data on Shoreline Erosion Study
Exhibit
G
Areas with particularly erodible soils and
water table between 18" and 24"
Exhibit
H
Low Bank
Exhibit
I
Marsh
Exhibit
J
High Bank
Exhibit
K
Annual Extreme Fastest Mind Speed in Miles per Hour
Exhibit
L
Severity of Risks in Hazard Areas
Exhibit
M
Beaufort County Land Classification Map
Exhibit
11
Inventory of Structures in the Hazard Area (unincorporated)
Exhibit
0
Inventory of Structures in the Hazard Area (incorporated)
Exhibit
P
Evacuation Zones
Exhibit
Q
Hurricane Evacuation Routes and Shelters
Exhibit
R
Utilization of Primary Roads, 1974 - 1980
Exhibit
S
Surge Inundation Points
Exhibit
T
Evacuation Time Methodology
Exhibit
U
Preliminary Estimates of Evacuation Time
Exhibit
V
Ranking of Risks
Exhibit
W
Priority Mitigation Areas
Exhibit
X
Checklist for Reviewing 2•litigation Measures
Exhibit
Y
Federal Flood Hazard Insurance Resolution

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Why do Hurricane Planning?
There are three major reasons to plan to reduce hurricane damage:
To save the lives of family, friends and neighbors.
To save investments in buildings and equipment.
To save irreplaceable natural resources.
Those of us in Beaufort County who remember the storm of yesteryear don't
require too much convincing that some forethought would be worth the trouble
such planning requires.
. The storm of 1913 flooded Washington to a height of 10 feet, hence
today's minimum height of the ground floor in the flood hazard areas
on Washington (Aurora has a minimum .of 9 feet and Belhaven of 7 feet.
All other areas of the county except Bath and Chocowinity are
assigned the 10 feet designation under the emergency phase of the
FEMA program.)
. Similar storms of 1933 and 1938 brought significant catastrophies.
(On September 15, and.16, 1933, stormwater reached 7.5 feet.)
In 1954, Hurricane Hazel brought Washington to a level of 7 feet.
. The County was hit three times in 1955 by Connie (6.4 feet), Diane
(7.7*feet), and Ione (7.8 feet).

E
1
1
1
1
. Donna struck in 1960 flooding to 6.5 feet.
. In 1972, Hurricane Ginger brought Washington's waters to a 6.2 feet
level.
Here it is 1984, nearly 30 years after the blasts of 1955, one generation
removed from the reality of having to suffer the costs of such losses and of
rebuilding at higher construction prices. One generation is long enough for
unwary developers and homeowners alike to invest $20,000 to $30,000 in a lot
which no responsible person would have even offered for sale, much less
bought, in 1957.
May we say at the outset that this plan does not intend to stop development
on such (usually waterfront) lots, but it does intend to lay out policies
which will:
1. Inform developers and homeowners alike of the risks (in dollar terms)
of placing investments in the hurricane hazard area.
2. Examine policies for directing development into areas of less risk
(as a first priority) and for requiring better construction quality
(stormworthiness) for construction in the risk area, before and after
the storm.
3. Provide additional information on the evacuability of the county's
major evacuation routes and updates for the DEM Hurricane Evacuation
Plan.
2

B. Contents of this Document
t
The preceding topical outline details the contents of this plan. In
overview, Part II presents the data base and findings upon which alternative
policies are suggested and then.presents policy choices of the commissioners.
Part A presents the Storm Hazard Mitigation planning process which is
directed at reducing risks of hurricane damage. It answers questions of
"Where is harm's way?" in the County, and "What is in harm's way?". "Are we
over —exposing ourselves and our citizens to risks of storm damage? "What are
ways in which we can reduce that exposure to safer levels?"
Part B presents the Post Disaster Reconstruction planning process which is
directed toward replacement of development in a manner which prevents the
mistakes of the past and can help protect investment for longer periods in
the future. It answers questions like, "Since we know where harm's way is,
what can safely be built there?". "How strongly should buildings there be
built?" "Does it make sense for risk areas to develop at high densities,
medium, or low densities?" "What level is best, where?" This section
answers these questions in terms of policy statements for implementation by
the commissioners.
Part C presents information collected in the update of the county's
evacuation plan. Some of this information is presented here, while much of
the update of the plan itself is found in Annex 0 of the County's Disaster
�, Relief Plan,'of the Office of the Coordinator of Emergency Management.

Part D documents effort of coordination made during the preparation of the
document. These contacts may be important in keeping the coordination tight
among agencies and in updating this plan over time, since this document is to
become part of the Beaufort County Land Use Plan (by reference).
4

II. POLICY DEVELOPEM
A. Storm Hazard Mitigation
I. The Planning Process
a. Generally
Planning to reduce the risk of hurricane damage before the storm is a logical
sequence of steps diagrammed in Exhibit A. This process, beginning with data
collection and mapping, and ending in implementation steps, ensures that
policy development is based upon thorough study.
b. Specifically in Beaufort County
Planning to reduce the risk of hurricane damage in Beaufort County follows
Exhibit A very closely. It is complimented by intense worksessions with
experienced veterans in the field of emergency management, and gutsy policy
discussions with the County Commissioners.
This process began with an 8 day field investigation of the location of
hurricane hazard areas.

2. Mapping Hazard Areas
a. Supporting narrative from Before the Storm
b. The Beaufort County Hazard Map: Composite of Risks
Hazard areas in Beaufort County include areas of environmental concern as
described in Subchapter 7H (estaurine waters, estaurine shorelines, public
trust waters, coastal wetlands, and small surface water supply watershed
AEC); the A, B, and C zones as designated by the Federal Insurance
Administration; areas of particularly high rates of erosion (when compared to
other coastal reaches surveyed (actual, documented erosion rate)) and areas
with soils which are particularly susceptible to erosion.
(1) AEC's (non -mapped)
In accordance with the principles outlined in Before the Storm and with the
direction of the Office of Coastal Management regarding location of AEC's,
the complete set of the Flood Hazard Boundary Maps from the National Flood
Insurance Program was compiled as the "Hazard Map", which ostensibly includes
all the areas enumerated above.
0

Figure 5.1: A Process for Mitigating the Hurricane Hazard
I A: MAPPING HAZARD AREASI
I B: VULNERABILITY I
ASSESSMENT
Identify Severity of
Risk in Each Hazard Area
Exhibit A
Eis.ntify Magnitude of
in Each Hazard Area
Inventory Land Uses
Inventory Structures
C: IDENTIFYING
MITIGATION NEEDS
D: REVIEWING
CURRENT MEASURES
Poor Coverage? Poor Enforcement?
E: REVIEWING
ALTERNATIVE MEASURES
F : IMPLE1.1ENTATION
AND MONITORING
7
Assess
Evacuability

(2) Flood Hazard Areas
As shown in Exhibit B (key to Flood maps), a set of 71 separate maps is
required to cover the unincorporated area of the County. As shown in Exhibit
C (map order) a set of 12 maps is required to cover the incorporated areas of
the County which are flood prone.
In order to relate to other mapped sources of data,
the
complete set of 83
maps was photographically reduced to the scale of the
North Carolina
Department of Transportation map of Beaufort County
(1"
= 2 miles). Thus,
maps were reduced from 11" x 17" sheets to retangles
4"
x 6" (see Exhibit D)
and mounted according to Exhibit B on a map sheet.
This
provided a base map
for conducting an overlay method of hazard cognition
and
prioritazation
described below. The resulting Hurricane Hazard Map
is
presented further
reduced as Exhibit E.
(3) Highly Erodible Areas
Identification of erosion areas was undertaken by collecting information from
publishing sources, with the following results:
a. Shoreline Erosion Inventory, North Carolina,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Raleigh, North
Carolina, October, 1975 (See Exhibit F1: Reach Map of Beaufort County and
Exhibit F2: Reach Data for Beaufort County). The information in Exhibit
F2 was ranked and compared to the average width lost to erosion.
8

CITY Of WASHINGTON
UREA NOT INCLUDEDI
1
I
•
�
II
/
• I
�1
I
TOWN OF CHOCOWINITY J
(AREA NOT INCLUDED)
*NOT PRINTED
TOWN OF WAS HINGT ON )ARK
LEGEND
(AREA NOT INCLUDED)
SPECIAL FL000
03* 04* 05* 06 HAZARD AREA
AtNINGTO_N CO.
r- TOWN OF fANTEGO
.:::::
.;..:::.::..............::..:..::.:...:..::.:::....:..:....
CD' t
BEAUFORT CO.
(AREA NOT INCLUDED)
......... .....................
........... ........... .......................
PTIOPT
AUT
_
TOWN OF BELHAVEN
10*
11*
121E
13
(AREA NOT INCLUDED)
?
is
No.e: These mall. may MI 1-NWde Oil fpat Nl iNed N..a-d
I
i
A- . In IM tsni—WIy. ANa. a --a d.1.1-ed —dY, I.a
ipswl Flood Ha.ofd A-aea shown on chase maps may be
modlbed, and em« aaea added.
I=.
rr
Oin
I8 *
19
)
17
6<''`
20'
21
CON LT Nnw SERVICING coaVANr oR loin INSURANCE
AGENT OR BROKER TO DETERMINE If PROPERTIES IN THIS
COMMUNITY ARE ELIGIBLE FOR FLOOD INSURANCE.
01-
P
*
IO
U.S.NWr•2a{
INITIAL IDENTIFICATION DATE:
25
26
28
29
JULY u. 1977
ff-2-7
,
/
JI
�B{
33
3;
35
36
37
i
O TOWN OF BATH
41 42 43 44 (AREA NOT INCLUDED)
A 9
L
�E�CO 9
1
47
o
w
48
49
50
q-YE
q
51
YL.eSA
p
YI NII.Y.
(-
54 SOUr
�' 55
56
57
5�
59
I.C.
tiEgN
IS r
Op C4
q.q,
q
IV
60
61462
E 63 64
S+�
77
65*
♦�66
67
68 69
o.
OF.!.FORT CO.
►AMLICO
\
70
71
TOWN OF AURORA
(AREA NOT INCLUDEDI
DEPARTMENT OF NOUSINC ANO URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Federal Ilseyaece A/Krpi/tratie■
FLOOD HAZARD BOUNDARY MAP H - 01 71
MAP INDEX
BEAUFORT CO., NC
IUNINC. AREAS)
COMMUNITY NO. 370013A
77
K
rt

x4
N
•
OCY
10
v° +
t
w
i
National
PAGE NO. 01
Flood
12/23/83
o
gyp,+• • y�r�
Insurance
Program
ORDER NO.
83356007
SEQUENCE NO.
00011
n000~01$r WO.OiCENHA
MLiY1011E.YMrlAlO llIIr
I
REX TODD
PLANNING AND
ALES IGN ASSOC
3715 GLENWCCO AVE
RALEIGH
NC 27612
COMMUNITY
PRIMARY QTY
OTY
NOTES
CODE
NAME OF COMMUNITY
BIN ORDERED
SHIPPED
01
370014 A
AURORA$ CITY OF
36LO707
1
1
02
370OL49999 1
AURORA$ CITY OF
1
0
01
37001S A
BELHAVEN• TOWN OF
3610708
1
1
02
3700159999 2
BELHAVEN$ TOWN OF
1
0
O1
370016 A
PANTEGO$ TOWN OF
3610801
1
1
02
370017 A
wASHINGTON$ CITY OF
1
0
Ol
370017001A B
WASHINGTON$ CITY OF
3610802
1
1
Ol
370017003A B
WASHINGTON$ CITY OF
36LO803
1
1
O1
370017004A 8
WASHINGTON$ CITY OF
3610804
1
1
02
3700179999 1
WASHINGTONr CITY OF
1
0
01
370268 A
WASHINGTON PARK$ TOWN OF
3800707
1
1
02
3702669999 2
WASHINGTON PARK, TOWN OF
1
0
•
TOTAL:
12
7
EXPLANATION
OF NOTES
01 - THE
REQUESTED MAP
IS ENCLOSED. PLEASE NOTE
ITS EFFECTIVE
DATE.
02 : WE
ARE SORRY WE CAN NOT FILL YOUR ORDER AT
THIS TIME. THE
MAP REQUESTED
IS
NOW IN
THE
REPRINT PROCESS.
AS SOON AS COPIES OF THE MAP BECOME
AVAILABLE THEY
WILL BE SENT
TO
YOU.
c.& w...d w ..w ."— r.w w.r d 0..4w-w wrw. Th. - , - f r..n.. 1.wwwr....1 w11 4 c..w N --i.$ "-i— w.r b*— Th. ...+.$ ..w....wnw
w.rw w .wr.iwr l.....rw.n ./ +.......M Y .w 6.N4 fw w Mw w 4.w... bw.M b, wp w.r •w.+w —d bpw.r :rw�r : .d ww.- A. I..w "- d -h.wdwtl ww. M Mww..� rWw./ 4.9i— ..6 M ... Mims ow A rw.ww.

iI
Q :.?gigxq

I[]
U1
All of this erosion is occuring within the storm hazard area referenced in
Exhibit E. Of the 19 reaches studies, the worst erosion occurs on the east
side of the ferry (south bank) where the width of the eroded bank is 305 feet
(vs. the average of 53.8 for the county) and height of the bank is 4.0 feet
(vs. the average of 3.4 feet for the county). Soils there are
Coxville-Rains-Othello; they support concentrated development, thereby there
should be high concern for damage due to erosion.
According to these data, Beaufort County has lost 968.1 acres to erosion over
a 32 year period, with an average width of eroded area (from shoreline to
shoreline) of 53.8 feet. Had these shoreline acres developed residentially
since 1951 at an average of 2 units per acre, by 1972, 1936 dwelling units
would have been lost, at an estimated value of $30,000 (assumed),
approximately $60 million worth of property would have been lost.
Comparison in this manner indicates that reaches 2, 4, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
and 19 are priority areas within the 19 mapped in the hazard area (See
Exhibit F1).
b. District ASCS Office.
Mr. Ed Karnowski, plotted the highly erodible soils of the County and the
soils where the water table is between 18 to 24". These areas, outlined on
Exhibit G, helped target hazard areas.
13

m rr r rr r rr rI rr rw r rr I� r s Ir r r men
LEGEND
-•- Q REACH BEAUFORT COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA

Exhibit F 2
REACH NO 1
REACH NO. 11
Av. width ost to erosion
46.7 feet
Av. wi t ost to erosion
.55.1 feet
Av. height of bank
2.4 feet
Av. height of bank
4.7 feet
Length of shoreline eroding
29.4 miles
Length of shoreline eroding
4.1 miles
Length of shoreline accreting
O miles
Length of shoreline accreting
0 miles
Total length of shoreline
39.0 miles
Total length of shoreline
4.4 miles
REACEI :JO. 2 .
REACH NO. 12
Av. width to erosion
77.6 feet
Av. widffMost to erosion
31.9 feet
Av. height of bank
4.6 feet
Av. height of bank
5.6 feet
Length of shoreline eroding
4.9 miles
Length of shoreline eroding
5.1 miles
Length of shoreline accreting
0 miles
Length of shoreline accreting 0 miles
Total length of shoreline
5.5 miles
Total length of shoreline
S.8 miles
REACH W. 3
Av. width 1 t to erosion
42.6 feet
REACH NO. 13
Av. width ost to erosion
SS.S feet
Av. height of bank
3.6 feet
Av. height of bank
3.7 feet
Length of shoreline eroding
1.9 miles
Length of shoreline eroding
4.8 miles
Length of shoreline accreting
0 miles
Length of shoreline accreting 0 miles
Total length of shoreline
2.3 miles
Total length of shoreline
8.0 miles
REACH NO. 4
REACH NO. 14
'
Av. widtFYost to erosion
Av. height of bank
59.7 feet
3.1 feet
Av. width ost to erosion
Av. height of bank
69.6 feet
3.3 feet
Length of shoreline eroding
6.2 miles
Length of shoreline eroding
16.1 miles
Length of shoreline accreting
0 miles
Length of shoreline accreting 0 miles
Total length of shoreline
REACH NO. 5
7.0 miles
Total length of shoreline
18.7 miles
REACH NO. 15
Av. width lost to erosion
25.2 feet
Av. wi t ost to erosion
76.6 feet
Av. height of bank
3.7 feet
Av. height of bank
2.9 feet
Length of shoreline eroding
10.1 miles
Length of shoreline eroding
2.2 miles
Length of shoreline accreting
0 miles
Length of shoreline accreting O miles
Total length of shoreline
12.2 miles
Total length of shoreline
2.3 miles
REACH NO. 6
REACH NO. 16
Av. width lost to erosion
59.8 feet
Av. width ost to erosion 116.5 feet
Av. height of bank
7.6 feet
Av. height of bank
2.4 feet
Length of shoreline eroding
2.1 miles
Length of shoreline eroding
1.7 miles'
Length of shoreline accreting
0 miles
Length of shoreline accreting 0 miles
Total length of shoreline
2.2 miles
Total length of shoreline
1.8 miles
REACH NO. 7
REACH NO. 17
Av. wi t ost to erosion
23.5 feet
Av. wi t ost to erosion
58.3 feet
Av. height of bank
2.8 feet
Av. height of bank
1.5 feet
Length of shoreline eroding
10.7 miles
Length of shoreline eroding
10.8 miles
Length of shoreline accreting
0 miles
Length of shoreline accreting
O'miles
Total length of shoreline
11.9 miles
Total length of shoreline
17.1 miles
REACH NO. 8
REACH NO. 18
Av. width lost to erosion
53.8 feet
Av. wi t ost to erosion
82.5 feet
Av. height of bank
2.0 feet
Av. height of bank
1.5 feet
Length of shoreline eroding
1.0 miles
Length of shoreline eroding
1.0 miles
Length of shoreline accreting
0 miles
Length of shoreline accreting
0 miles
Total length of shoreline
1.0 miles
Total length of shoreline
1.0 miles
REACH NO. 9
REACH NO. 19
Av. width ost to erosion
57.8 feet
Av. wi t ost to erosion 102.1
feet
Av. height of bank
1.6 feet
Av. height of bank
3.5 feet
Length of shoreline eroding
6.3 miles
Length of shoreline eroding
2.1 miles
Length of'shoreline accreting
0 miles
Length of shoreline accreting
0 miles
Total length of shoreline
8.2 miles
Total length of shoreline
2.1 miles
REACH NO. 10
'
Av. width ost to erosion
52.5 feet
Av. height of bank
13.9 feet
Length of shoreline eroding
6.0 miles
Length of shoreline accreting
0 miles
Total length of shoreline
6.0 miles
15

Exhibit G.
1
1
1
1
1 �
1 �
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 �
1
1
1
1
16

c. Estaurine Shoreline Types and Erosion
'
.Major erodible land forms
along the Pamlico River System are shown on a chart
'
produced by Dr. Stanley R. Riggs and Dr. Michael P. O'Connor of the
Department of Geologyand Dr. Vincent J. Bel lis of the Department of Biology,
East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina (1978). This chart.,
while expressly generalized for public information and education rather than
definitive
planning, provided an indication of where in Beaufort County the
land forms (Swamp Forest, that is Cypress -Gum Swamp Forest, Cypress Fringe),
Low Banks, Marshes High Banks and Bluffs f $ , o particular erosion significance
are located. Of these types, the Low Bank, Marsh, and High Bank forms are
most succeptible to erosion. Pictures of these three forms, and the
narrative from that
chart are presented in Exhibits 1I, I, and J.
r
17

Exhibit If
Low bank shorelines are sediment banks
connpo5e1 of sand ahd clay which have a relief
Of one fo f►ve Meet above -}he normal water
level. They are by far The most abundant of +he
sadi►meAt bank shorelines in -}ke Pantli co River
s stewt, as well as The most ra idl ernd►n
Mse shorelines generally emsist of a Savid or
clayey saMd sediment on -top of a clay bed which
occurs of or sligh-Hg below -l-te water level.7his clay
bed txstka.11y occurs just below ike -fWivt -5t dace sands i►ti
-Fke offshore area and controls qj^e boffom slope avid water ciep�S . Low bank
are vulnerable -b direct wave attack dixe -b +he general absevice o f a rxajor saved
bead% and 4he lack of beack or bank ve etation.. ConsequLertfly, f+ does not -fake
a very l t<3 , wind tide or strong storm r` ke waves -6 break di-rectiy on -E�ie
bank. Eroded bank io ve9eta--iovt and frets -f alrin9 into �c water -form nalu a.l
groins, ar,d energy bales which traae mivior arv* ou h s of Sediment. a rt d
ocr-as►onally form a nuelet.L.s where damps of rnarsk grass can grow. %F 4he
sca4keved marsk grasses can become established and t-F-l-hewave energy m
not too severe +V%e grasses may eApand -lo produce a fringing onarsh .
�1-he5e marsh grasses absorb rYtu.c o-F +ke wave enerc)y , ciecreasing
' -the rate of shoreline recession.
1
18

u
1
I
1
Marsh con-5UiLdes 4ke most ex&-:S-je
Type of shorehk, in -Eke Parulico River
sgsfim and in all oikee Nor L Carolina.
e'S�uartes . It is rwost prevalevtt ovn Iow-
lying lav\d areas wi`4t-, m6dera'tely .Sa l fy%e
watExs k 4ke eas-bem half of 4ke Pavxlico ROO—C
sgs-Epm, avtid is parfiuda+rly prominev<t ivt- Hyde. a %d
Pamlico Counties. Ahuv%dant grow4LS of marsh.
f
1
t
ve9etati0vt produce a soft- black orclani c, peat substrate.
-the laved ward astent of inese marshes is limited by -eke
height of -flooding. caused by regular astronomical and jor
Irregular wind tides. The marsh is dominated bg several
tyypes of cordgrass ($� ) avid black needlerush
(JueKcu_s). Marsk shorelines are generallycharacterized.
b4 vertical Scarps wk, dA drop abruptly Wo one. +0
eight fee of water. These peat scarps arm the Nast
f-alDidlq erod'in Shorelines in the NariVx Carolina eSIU26 s.
T keg are acts\,ely undercut by waves during periodsaf
low water wkevA waves break, on 4-ke soft peat below
-Ike mass,\je. tavigle of livinq grass roots. -Me uv%derciAt
pest blocks 44n s formed LAinnately break off and
sink%l-he bolVom. There+key are slowly broken up,
5tupplyih9 an ivnporta.nt sowr-ce o-f organic detritus 16
the e5'tua.rivne food &a►x.
Exhibit I
19

! !
N
O
High bank -shorelines are composed of sand and clay
Sediments and have a relief of 5 to 20 feet above normal
water lwei. Ni9k banks cah occur av%y where uMkiµ. 44te
Pamlico Ri�ersystem'; however,,t�ey
are most commonly Assodated uujj4j
the ion west of -ire Sm�MkScarp.
'Theseanks, which are composed
of uncemer�ted sands, arei a most
susceptibl a -lo erosion . 13 anks C—Gm
posed o-f +(qK clags aml iron ceman
ted sands are more resisfav►t . H l qk
taahks are generally eroded dur�ivIq
severe stomas whew onshore wades
overstep The saved beach and break
:directly ►e base a f 4ke bank.
The uvtderwt bank +Ken overk".5
-the beack where i+ everthally col-
lapses. These -Resk sedimekts
are reworked bg 4-he wages avid
temporsidq broadev► eke. bean,.
Fallen trees a v►d brusk adt as
natural groins. aKd help -lo
siabi I tie 4ke beach. I-F vege-
tation o-F a Ky -f rn% cart become
establiskea et%er on 4-ke- bead,
or an ike bank, i+ will a6sor6
wtu.ck of -lute wave ener99 and
decrease +ke rate a vwd "-fent
of skore(irte recession.
.ff

(4) Wind Hazard Areas:
11hile the hazard from flood and erosion is readily mappable, the entire
county is equally vulnerable to the same wind velocity, because of a
hurricane's size and power.
As shown in Exhibit K, Beaufort County is susceptible to annual extreme
fastest mean recurrence interval of between 120 and 130 miles per hour. (The
annual extreme designation means that there is a one percent chance of being
equalled in any one year.)
In response to this situation, policies usually envoke the state building
code, and county's supplement it ,with construction standards adapted to
mitigate hurricane damages.
21

Figure 5.2: Annual Extreme Fastest Wind Speed in Riles Per Hour Exhibit K
(39 Feet Above Ground, 100-Year :dean Recurrence Interval)
1
3
elt;
.. ..1 110
a 120
130
` 130
120 }
i1Le
r 1�0
Q I 0
I ` .
t � c 0 120
i 30
Source: Dames and Moore, 1981, p. 42.
I
I
I_
1
I
,I
22

1
' 3. Assessing the County's Vulnerability to Hurricane Damages
Once a
community like Beaufort County has identified those areas which are
'
most subject to hurricane forces, it can begin evaluating the level of hazard
present throughout the community. Such an assessment of the community's
vulnerability to hurricane damages is necessary for identifying the most
important hurricane —related problems in the community and in targeting the
'
community's hazard mitigation efforts to its most vulnerable areas.
A comprehensive assessment of the community's vulnerability to hurricane
damages must include an identification of both the severity and magnitude
'
of risk that exist in each hazard area. The severity of risk is basically
a function of the number of physical forces (storm surge, wave action, etc.)
that a hurricane is likely to impose on a particular hazard area. The
magnitude of risk is basically a function of the size of the population and
'
the number and value of developed properties exposed to hurricane forces
thazardous
within a hazard area. Put another way, if no development existed in
areas, little would be at risk -- either public investments such as
'
water systems, and sewer systems, or private investments such as names and
businesses.
a. Severity of Risk
Exhibit L ranks the severity of risk in each of Beaufort County's hazard
areas according to the damaging forces which are likely to occur there. This
' breakdown is part of the basis for the ranking of the different hazard areas
which appear in Exhibit E.
23

1
1
Exhibit L: Severity of Risk in Hazard Areas
Hazard Area
Exposure to Damaging Forces
Severity
Rank
Erosion/
Scour
Wave Action/
Battering
Flooding
High
Wind
Estuarine Shoreline-AEC1
"Weak•spots"
Wetland AEC
2
0
A -zone
3
Rest of Community
4
Exposure Level: High (e), Moderate (o), Low ( )
Beaufort County's estaurine shoreline AECs will bear the full force of a
hurricane since they lie directly on the land -water interface and are among
the most dynamic features of the coastal landscape. Shoreline erosion poses
day-to-day hazards for coastal development; hurricanes and other major storms
accelerate these processes so that drastic changes in the local landscape can
occur in a few hours. During a hurricane, estaurine shoreline areas will be
subject to severe erosion and scour, direct wave action, battering by debris,
inundation by the storm surge and high winds. The coastal wetlands of
Beaufort County will be subject to wave action, flooding, and high winds, but
are less susceptible to erosion.
I
*Weak spots are areas outside the mapped areas which have particular
characteristics of vulnerability to hurricane damage. They include overwash
areas or drainage channels which are repeatedly innundated during major
storms.
1
24

I
U
' The A -zones are those parts of the county which have a one percent. chance of
being flooded in any given year. During severe storms, some undermining of
' structures has been known to occur as flood waters rise and recede.(Note:
These A -zones comprise the Hurricane Hazard Area, Exhibit E.)
I
All other sections of the County will be subject to high winds but should
remain relatively safe from the damaging water forces of a hurricane. Of
course, a catastrophic hurricane in the form of a Beaufort County landfall
can unleash the full complement of damaging forces beyond the boundaries of
any hazard area.
b. Magnitude of Risk
Identifying the magnitude of risk in Beaufort County required identifying the
characteristics of development with each hazard area by performing a basic
inventory of land uses and structures, and required assessment evacuability.
(1) Inventory of Land Uses
This inventory, which involved 64 man-hours of effort to complete, took place
on every major road within the shaded area of Exhibit E, the Hurricane Hazard
Area Map. This inventory will give local residents and administrators a clear
picture of the types and levels of development exposed to different levels of
hazard, thus pointing out particular areas or issues of concern.
The first level of analysis is an inventory of land use within the hazard
area. Because of the scale of mapping and the monumental task of

' inventorying at the County level, types of land use, trends, and patterns
were obtained from existing information, primarily the Beaufort County Land
' Use Plan, Land Use Map (1976) and the Land Classification Map from the 1982
LUP.
The 1976 Land Use Map was used to obtain a historical perspective of uses,
intensities, and patterns of development. Comparison with the 1982 Land
Classification Map (See Exhibit M) revealed shifts in concentration and
moreover, plans for future shifts. This comparison showed that most of the
County's urban or "developed" area is within the area of most risk (the
' hazard area), and the majority of the future plans for intense development is
planned'to take place in the mapped hazard areas. These shifts identify that
' the counties' shorelines are being developed even in the face of inherent
' "risks" due to natural forces; wind, wave action, etc.
Beaufort County is like every other coastal area in its pressures for
' waterfront development. As.can be seen from the hazard map, nearly every
waterfront lot in the County is within the hazard area. An undeveloped
' hazard area poses no risk to development, but once the area develops, the
risk increases and will call for some means of hazard mitigiation.
(2) Inventory of Structures
1 The second level of analysis for identifying the magnitude of risk is an
inventory of structures in each hazard area. The structural inventory for
' Beaufort County was divided into a residential inventory, a commercial
' inventory, and a public facilities inventory.
26

I T`r•\ — �� _ 11. / / 'ram � a � -i +��._ _ - I
1 i' r tll li y• i a \.. ,•r- .yi.,.y �, `i �. • � I•
[V - �`' `; . j. ).` :>."y N hl i' ; - _ � .i t ..4Y - �... � � . ,. �•I F.' 1''� . i, a w� � ...
i : `7.! t N • / tl N
I. ` 4
LAND CLASSIFICATION I �� l c ,' a ti > Ni
O_DEVELO/ED ^ 1 /'^- • E ,."` J �. R _ N \ �1
T_iRANA1710M .I, f+. ` .... a 1 .+1f ' � • .-... i .—\:L._._.^ • 1 �i
1_OECONOARr TRANSITION•\ `4 • •\ -- \I \. t J- % '� • .�
N...CONSERVATION .s.r.• a>•>.n-.N.r».>..>.ns. .. - _ _ ..1+ -.•)• �'. .. t. ,. �e S. ..�.. t 1.1--•:
I ; •," MVNICPAt PLANNING AREA! a -.;� r1L;1 BEAUFORT COUNTY i
NORTH CAROIINA
j I�I _ 1 . -(� . I . ° t \ `.. - . -r �`� Wp>Ir'� t pOtp/Miw.•w'�'1 railer �snNl�in.,
I

The inventory of residential structures concerned itself with number of
Ldwelling units, whether they were built above the flood level (first floor
elevation of more than 10 feet above PISQ , whether they were mobile homes or
not, and a windshield estimate of market value. Information regarding
density was obtained from the aforementioned land use map and land
classification map, making assumptions about the intended densities within
designated land classes. All other things being equal, a more densely
developed hazard area resents a greater risk of damages than a less densely
P P g g Y
developed hazard area.
The inventory of commercial structures was similarly concerned with count,
and square feet of facility (relative size), and an estimate of the
' replacement value of the structure. Beaufort County has a stake in
ensuring the safety of commercial establishments from hurricane damages; the
more damage that is sustained by the business sector, the greater will be the
' economic disruption caused by a hurricane and the longer it will take the
County to recover.
' The inventory of public and private facilities, utilities, and private
institutions serves two purposes: (1) it provides a basis for assessing the
ability of essential community services to function during and after a
hurricane disaster, and (2) it helps guide the County Commissioners in the
' siting and design of public buildings and utilities. Facilities located in a
particular hazard area should be designed to withstand the damage forces
expected in that area. This is especially true for facilities which play a
key role in disaster response operations and are essential to quick community
recovery, such as primary roads, water, sewer, electrical, and telephone
28

facilities, police stations, fire stations,.town halls, the court house and
schools. The facilities inventory in Beaufort County helped identify the
location of each facility relative to the different hazard areas, the
facility's ability to withstand the damage forces expected in its hazard
area, and the facility's replacement value. There is an absence of "public
' facilities" (water, sewer) in most of the unincorporated areas of Beaufort
County. Private "group facilities" include the water system in Bayview and
proposed package treatment facility in "Pamlico Plantation".
Exhibit N presents in summary form the results of these inventories in the
unincorporated areas of Beaufort County.
29

EXHIBIT N
INVENTORY OF STRUCTURES IN THE HAZARD AREA
UNINCORPORATED AREAS (buildings
only - no
land values)
sub -area
Conventional Obl-ride Sng-wide
Institution Commerc.
Ind.
Util.
Northern Shore
homes: Mobile home Mobile homes
of river
1642 33 494
2S
44
2
2•
Southern Shore
of river
669 24S 373
4
49
1
D
TOTAL
2311 278 867
4S
164
3
.2
Median Value
Total Value
$42,000 $20,000 $8,500
$4S,000
$209000
$40K
$40K
in millions
$97.062M $S.S6M j7.369SM
$2.02SM
$3.28M
$.12
$.20
Grand Total Value:
Grand Total Value:
$IIS,616,S00 (not counting cities),
1982
adjusted for 1983 to $127,178,1SO.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
These utilities include the "group facilities" in the county, such as the
private water system in Bayview and would include the proposed package
treatment facility at Pamlico Plantation.
Note: Detailed data for Exhibit i•; was collected by state road numbers and by
map hays (See Exhibit B), since the planning unit had become the individual
flood hazard boundary map (or cell in Exhibit B). This detailed data is
available in the County Emergency Management Office.
Similar to the inventory for the unincorporated area, an inventory of the
portion of the municipalities was undertaken. Exhibit 0 presents sur..mary
findings:
30

EXHIBIT 0
INVENTORY OF STRUCTURES IN THE HAZARD AREA
INCORPORATED AREAS (buildings only, no land values)
sub -area Conventional Obl-wide Sng-wide Institution Commerc. Ind. util.
homes Mobile homes Mobile homes
Northern Shore
Washington (3395)
1135
137
Washington Park (2M
142
Pantego (82)
22
3
Belhaven .(961)
643
77
Bath
24
0
Subtotal:
1966.
234
Southern Shore
Chocowinity (277)
0
0
Aurora (302)
101
12
Subtotal:
101
TOTAL:
2067
246
Median Value
$42K
$20K
Total Value
in Millions
$86.81
$24.62
426
1
0
8
S
11
0 1
241
16
71
0 2
0
1
6
0 1
729
0 0 0 0 1
38 1
38 2
767
S8.SK $4SK $20K j40K $40K
$6.S2
Note: Detailed data
were collected for commercial
structures and public
facilities. Housing
counts (eXcept Bath) are estimated based upon percentage
of city's municipal
limits is within the hazard area
times the 1980 census
housing unit count.
Estimates of mobile home count
(both double and single
wide) was obtained by
applying the percentages for
same derived from Exhibit
IT and applied to the
municipal count. (Cony. homes
= .6687; Double -wide =
.0804; single-wides
= .2509)
31

In summary, then, by adding the grand totals for the value of property in the
hazard area (unincorporated, Exhibit N) and the value of same in the hazard
area (incorporated, Exhibit 0), it is estimated that $227,941,500 worth of
residential structures alone is at considerable risk from hurricane hazard.
32

3 Assessment of Evacuabilit
( ) Y
Analysis of evacuability in Beaufort County involved setting up four
analytical constructs: the identification of major evacuation routes, the
establishment of evacuation zones, the identification of storm surge
inundation points (that is, areas on the roadway that become flooded first in
the early periods of a storm) along the major routes, and the calculation of
preliminary evacuation times.
(a) Evacuation Zones. -- Demand for
Evacuation Capacity
As defined in Stonel, evacuation zones are "delineations of the vulnerable
areas with common hazard vulnerability and common evacuation routes" (p.6).
Based upon the assessment of magnitude and severity of risk of hurricane
damage, the location of major evacuation routes, the update of the County's
Evacuation Shelter Plan, and the years of experience of the Emergency
Management Coordinator (Mr. Daden Wolfe) and that of the recently retired
Coordinator for the Area A of the Division of Emergency Management, Col.
David W. Spivy, eight evacuation zones were established (see Exhibit P).
1
l
John R. Stone, Hurricane Emergency Planning: Estimating Evacuation Times
for Non -Metropolitan Coastal Communities, UNC Sea Grant College Program
Working Paper 83-2, NCSU, Raleigh, NC 27650.
33

(1) County -wide
The.first consideration is the po ulation in the entire hazard area Exhibit
P (
E) which will need to be evacuated. To arrive at a working figure in
Beaufort County, the number of -housing units (from Exhibit Pd plus Exhibit 0:
6,536) was multiplied by the County's 1980 census count for persons per
household (2.37), rendering an at -risk population of 15,490. Since the July,
1982 population for Beaufort County (41,836) is 3.67% larger than the 1980
census figure, we apply this increase to the at -risk population (15,490 x
1.0367) to estimate a 1983 population at -risk of 16,058. This amounts to
38.38% of the County's people residing in the hazard area. (This number, of
course, fluctuates at different times of day and at different times of year,
and with consideration of whether population is counted in commercial
establishments (the workforce) or residences, as calculated here). If a
hurricane struck at night, as in the recent tornado disasters, more people
would be at risk, whereas if it struck at day, possibly fewer would be at
risk. At any rate, there is considerable potential for loss of life from.
storm hazard in Beaufort County.
The county should also keep in mind that it may also be the recipient of
out -of -county evacuees from Hyde, Pamlico, etc. and these "swells" may
further affect the actual times needed to evacuate the population.
(2) Within each evacuation zone.
Exhibit P presents a map of the eight evacuation zones, overlaid with the
grid system from Exhibits B and E. This area coincides with the County's
Evacuation Routes and Shelter Plan (see Exhibit Q).
35

CN
.iro
SR'53 a
SR 1612
��
33
10 �� •.... ..
17 +� PgM .1colb
l yet .
HURRICANE EvActm-nori
ROUTES AND SHELTERS
BEAUFORT.
NORTH' •
NOM SEE SHELTER USTM
Gy
$�
op
m BEACH
F�•
ft
ri

Exhibit Q (con't.)
BEAUFORT COUNTY
HURRICANE EVACUATION ROUTES AND SHELTERS
AREA
ROUTES
SHELTER
1
West End of Washington take nearest route to
Eastern Elementary
15th Street, then East on 15th Street. East
School, 264 East
End of Washington take nearest route to Char—
and Hudnell Street
lotte Street, North on Charlotte to 264, East
on 264.
2
Washington Park and East of Washington Park
Beaufort County
to Broad Creek, take Brick Kiln Road to 264,
Technical School
West on 264.
Bunyan
3
Upper Goose Creek, Duck Creek, West Side of
Bath High School
Bath Creek take nearest route to 264 then
West on 264.
4
East Side Bath Creek, St. Clair Creek, North
Pantego High School
Creek, Pamlico Beach, Wright Creek, Jordan
Creek, take 92 to Bath.
5
Pungo Creek nearest route to 264, 264 East
Chocowinity High
to Pantego, Leechville, Belhaven take 264
School
West to Pantego.
6
Whichards Beach 1166 to U.S. 17, U.S. 17
Aurora High School
South to Chocowinity. Chocowinity Bay to
Blounts Creek Bay nearest route to 33, then
33 West to Chocowinity.
7
Hickory Point 1946 to 1942, 1942 to 1940,
John Cotten Tayloe
1940 to Aurora. South Creek, Spring Creek
School
1912 to Aurora, Campbell Creek West on 33.
8
Township 4 (Goose Creek Island) Pamlico County,
National Guard
Take State Road 33 to Aurora. If Aurora
shelter is filled then continue on 33 to
Armory
Chocowinity.
9
Take nearest route to Pinetown—Residents
Pinetown Elementary
in area.
School.
10
Residents from eastern area of county
Chocowinity Primary
(southside of river) take nearest route
School
to 33 then west to Chocowinity
11
Overflow Pantego/Belhaven area
Beaufort County
Elementary School
12
These shelters will not be utilized
Belhaven High and
in a hurricane t reat to Beaufort County
Elementary School
due to rising water. May be used as needed
for other disasters.
37

Exhibit Q (con't.)
BEAUFORT COUNTY
INSTRUCTIONS FOR EVACUEES
When your local government advises evacuation, keep calm, and follow these
procedures promptly: .
1. Shut off main gas valve and pull main power switch before leaving home.
t2. Head for the designated shelters or evacuation points indicated for your
area, as directed on your Evacuation Plan maps and by broadcasts during the
emergency. Follow routes indicated on maps. Drive up to shelter entrance,
unload, and park car as police instruct. If on foot, proceed to nearest
loading station and board busses. No fare will be charged.
3. Take only clothing, food, and special medicine that is necessary; do not
try to bring household equipment. Evacuated areas will be policed to
prevent looting.
4. Follow instructions of shelter personnel, and volunteers to help with any
tasks needed -for efficient shelter operation.
5. Remain at the shelter until informed that you may leave. People will not
be allowed back into evacuated areas until advised by official public
announcement.
Questions should be directed to the Beaufort County Emergency Management
Coordinator, P.O. Box 124, Washington, North Carolina 27889
(Phone: [phone]).
38

I
a
(b) Evacuation Routes - Supply of Evacuation Capacity
Ideally, these routes would be subject of a Road Network Capacity and Demand
Analysisl and each of the critical points would be the subject of an
Evacuation Analysis However, because of the limited scope of this stud
Y , P Y,
information will be provided which allows the Board of Commissioners to
direct energy toward the most severe capacity limitations first.
/l/ Roadway Capacity Information
Supplementing the information presented in the Beaufort County Land Use Plan,
the capacities of the primary roads are presented in Exhibit R. These
figures are based on a free -flow situation of typical traffics at 35, 45, and
55 mph.
Exhibit R
i
UTILIZATION OF PRIMARY ROADS
1974 - 1980
Pavement
Design
Capacity
24 hr. Average
1980
Percent
Road
Width
35 mph
45 mph 55 mph
1974
1980
Utilization
US
US
17
264
24 ft
24 ft
10,920
10,920
7,500 3,000
7,500 3,000
6,900
5,400
7,981
5,564
73%
51%
NC
32
24 ft
10,920
7,500 3,000
1,550
1,165
11%
NC
33
24 ft
10,920
7,500 3,000
2,450
2,455
23%
NC
99
16 ft
7,1SO
4,500 1,800
1,200
1,250
17%
NC
92
16 ft
7,150
4,500 1,800
1,425
1,337
18%
NC
306*
22 ft
9,060
6,200 2,400
900
1,398
15%
*
Ferry
can handle
a maximum of 380 automobiles
per
day.
SOURCE:
N.C. Department
of
Transportation, from the
Beaufort
County
CAMA Land
Use Plan,
1981; Dr. Marion
R. Poole,
1984.
1
Carrying Capacity Study,
Currituck County,
UNC-CH,
1983, P.
A.,30.
2
Ibid.,
P* A -75.
39

Worksessions with the Emergency Management Coordinator and the recently
retired Area A Coordinator indicate that these capacities are adequate for
evacuation purposes, unless the routes are inhibited at the critical "surge
inundation points". It is clear to both these persons that while elevation
is the fundamental factor in such surge points, adequate warning time.is the
primary factor in using the adequate roadway capacity illustrated above.
/2/ Surge Inundation Points
Exhibit S below presents the twelve most important blockage points along the
County's evacuation routes, by evacuation route and zone. Identified by the
Emergency Management Coordinator and the former Area A Coordinator, they
represent primary focal points in the County's evacuation implementation
strategy and policy development. (Points A - L refer to Exhibit P.)
EXHIBIT S
SURGE INMIDATION POI11TS
Evacuation Area Major Evacuation Routes Critical Area and Points
in this area
I Hwy. 264 By -Pass Stretch of 264 .25 miles on
r
Business 264
Hwy. 264 By -Pass
40
either side of lower Dowery Creek
culvert near intersection of SR
1709.
Portion 1 mile east of the inter-
section with Hwy. 92 in Belhaven,
to that intersection.
Portion inside Belhaven.
Portion 1.5 miles on either side
of Cuckolds Creek Bridge toward
Pantego (Point A).

1
1
1
1
Hwy. 92
From intersection with 264 in
Belhaven to Sidney Crossroads,
over the Pantego Creek Bridge,
(Point B), the Pungo Creek
Bridge, (Point Q .
II Hwy. 92
Portion from Pungo Creek Bridge
to Sidney Crossroads, over the
Jack Creek Bridge (Point D).
Portion from the St. Clair Creek
Bridge (Point E) to a point
approximately 1 mile east.of
SR 1734 (to Bayview).
The Back (Point F) and Bath Creek
Bridges (Point G) at Bath.
III Hwy. 92
none
Hwy. 264
none
IV SR 1300
Portion of State Road 1300 that
feeds 264, and all State Roads that
feed SR 1300, from Broad Creek
to Washington (through Washington
Park.) across Runyons Creek Bridge
on Park Drive in Washington (Point
H).
Hwy. 264
Portion .25 miles on either side
of Runyons Creek Bridge (Point
U.
V Hwy. 264
Area inside the flood hazard area
inside Washington (that is, the
area from an imaginary line
drawn from the intersection of
Oak Drive & Hillcrest Drive due
west to where it would intersect
Hwy. 17, south to and including
the Pamlico River Bridge.
(lower half of city)(Point J.)
VI Hwy. 33
From the Pamlico County line to
Campbell Crossroads,.including
crossing the Smith Creek Bridge
(Point K) and the Campbell Creek
Bridge (Point Q .
VII Hwy 33
none
41

VIII
Hwy. 33 From the Chocowinity City limits
to the Pamlico River Bridge.
SR 1166 Entire road from Oak Point to
Hwy. 17 intersection, and all
feeder roads.
42 - - -

/3/ Evacuation Time, methodology
Ideally, all of these critical points would be the subject of detailed "surge
roadway inundation analysis,"consisting of a time history study of the
expected time of inundation of each critical point on each evacuation route,
relative to hurricane landfall (Stone, page 6). However, since such detail
is well beyond the scope of this initial work, several priority surge
inundation points (A, B, E, F, G, K, and L) along three major evacuation
routes (NC 264, NC 92, and NC 33) have been selected for estimation of
"Preliminary Evacuation Time".
In order -to develop these preliminary estimates of the time required to
evacuate each of the Beaufort County Evacuation Zones, the methodology
developed in U14C Sea Grant College Publication UITC—SG-83-2 is applied
(Hurricane Emergency Planning: Estimating Evacuation Times for
Non —Metropolitan Coastal Communities, John R. Stone, PhD., NCSU, Raleigh,
N.C., April 1983). Tian of the assumptions used in that methodology were
Y gY
applied in Holden Beach. Stone's method is accepted for Beaufort County's
preliminary analysis, in instances where similarity of capacities and other
conditions were judged In
strong enough. other cases, such as road capacity
and traffic demand, data from Beaufort County is used.
Any use of this analysis for strategic planning of evacuation route
improvement must refine this application beyond this preliminary stage. G?e
use it here to (1) how method be (2) to determine
present such a can used,
preliminary "broad —brush" estimates of evacuation time, and (3) to illustrate
how bottlenecks constrain evacuation routes.
43

The methodology itself is outlined (stepwise) below.
Exhibit T
. Cut-off Time
A complete analysis for the surge and gale -force wind hazards time
components of evacuation time would require a computer simulation
of the storm. However, the Saffir/Simpson Scale description of a
Category 4 storm suggests that low-lying escape routes may be cut
by rising water as early as three to five hours before the
hurricane eye arrives.* This estimate for roadway inundation time
is consistent with a storm which moves at a typical 10 mph forward
speed and has a surge that extends about 30 miles out from the
hurricane eye. The estimate also seems reasonable as a "worst case
situation" for Beaufort County since the approaches to many of its
bridges are at low elevations.
Gale -force winds and blinding rain can also combine to make it
virtually impossible to drive a vehicle on an evacuation route.
Wind analysis for barrier islands and coastal areas in Florida
suggest that gale -force winds may precede landfall of the eye by
six hours.
Since Beaufort County is not a barrier island, we assume the lower
end of the range will be required for evacuation, that is, 3
hours.
Mobilization Time
The mobilization time for a community may vary somewhat. However,
actual data suggests that it may take over five hours for everyone
to begin the evacuation. A value of three to four hours would
find 80% to 90% of the evacuees on their way. We select the
midpoint of this range (3.5 hours) for this Study of Beaufort
County.
. Travel Time
Evacuation travel is based on the length of the evacuation route
and the assumed uninterrupted operating speed of the evacuation
vehicles. For each surge inundation point, we assume a starting
point at the eastern most end of a road upon which traffic is
likely to converge on the bridge in question. For instance, for
surge inundation Point A (Cuckolds Creek Bridge), we assume that
Leechville is the start point (19 miles away). We further assume
that traffic (i.e. all vehicles (unless otherwise stated) in the
area east of Point A) will converge on Point A. (This is unlikely,
but it provides a worst case for this study.)
* This factor could double for the eastern -most sections of the county,
thereby increasing estimates of total evacuation time shown on page 47.
44

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Exhibit T continued
Assuming storm conditions .and evacuation traffic, yet uninterrupted
travel, an average operating speed of 35 mph could be maintained on
the two-way, two -land rural roads of the evacuation area. The
"free -flow" travel time is, therefore:
Travel Time = Distance/Speed
(Example) = 19 riles/35 mph
= .54 hours
32 minutes
This estimate does not include queuing delay which is determined
below.
Queuing Delay Time
For this study, we assume that practically all of the evacuees on
the Northern Shore will originate in Beaufort County, with a few
from Hyde County. Evacuees on the Southern Shore are assumed to
begin in_Pamlico County. 1980 population data will be used to
estimate that demand.
In order to estimate the queuing delay time (that is, delay
experienced as cars wait in a line to pass a certain point one at a
time) during a particular time period of the evacuation, the
traffic demand and the bottleneck capacity must be known. For the
purposes of this analysis, the following will be assumed:
1. The number of persons evacuating is determined by allocating
housing count data from Exhibit P to each surge inundation
point along likely evacuation routes.
2. The average automobile occupancy is 2.5 persons per vehicle.
3. 20% of the evacuees leave before the order is given.
4. The remaining 80% of the evacuees leave over a 3.5 hour period.
5. Traffic control officers will be stationed at major
intersections thereby mitigating the usual intersection
capacity constraints.
6. Intersection turning traffic is negligible compared to the
evacuation traffic.
7. Traffic moves at a "level of service D to E."
The evacuation rate or traffic demand is thus,
Evacuation Traffic Demand = (No. of evacuees/Vehicle occupancy) x
(% remaining after order) x (I/Evacuation period).
45

1
Exhibit T continued
Example:
ETD = (10,000/2.5) (.80) (1/3.5)
= 900 vehicles/hour (3,200 vehicles in 3.5 hours)
These vehicles must be accommodated by each surge inundation point
which is determined by dividing the 24 hour capacity shown in
Exhibit R for NC 264 and NC 92 by 24, and applying the following
additional assumptions:
Ideal Capacity.NC 264 = 10,920 / 24 hours = 455 veh./hr.
NC. 92 = 73%150 / 24 hours = 298 veh./hr.
If it is assumed that storm conditions exist, the bridge capacity
will be reduced by fluctuations in traffic demand, wind—blown
debris and storm conditions (Appendix B of Sea Grant working paper
83-2). Thus, the capacity calculation for the bridge becomes:
Evacuation capacity = Ideal capacity x 0.50
Evacuation capacity = 455 veh./hr. (I;C 264) x .50 = 222
Evacuation capacity = 298
veh./hr. (NC 92) x .50 = 149
According to Chapter 8 in Reference 19 of Sea Grant working paper
83-2, the maximum amount of individual vehicular delay is given by
the following formula:
Queuing delay time = (Duration
of bottleneck) x (1 — Bottleneck
capacity/Average demand)
Hence, the following examples:
Queuing delay time:
Bridges on NC 264 = (3.5) (1 —
222/900) = 2.64 hours
Bridges on NC 92 = (3.5) (1 —
149/900) = 2.90 hours
. Total Evacuation Time
Thus, the total evacuation time
is the summation of the following.
'
components:
Cut—off time
3 hours (given)
Mobilization time
3.5 hours (given)
Travel time
0.5 hours (to be calculated)
Queuing delay time
2 (to be calculated)
Total (example)
9.0 hours
46

-45-
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
/4/ Evacuation Time, Preliminary Estimates
Exhibit U presents a summary of the application of the aforementioned
methodology as applied to the priority surge inundation points:
Exhibit U
Preliminary Evacuation Time to Selected
Surge Inundation Points
Point
Name
Cut-off
time.(hrs)
Mobilization
Time*
Travel
Time
Queuing
Delay Time
TOTAL
(C + M + T + Q)
A
Cuckolds Creek Bridge
3
3.5
.54
1.9
8.94 hrs.
B
Pantego Creek Bridge
3
3.5
.14
1.15
8.29
E
St. Clair Creek
3
3.5
.46
1.19
8.15
F.
Back Creek Bridge
3
3.5
.67
1.49
8.66
G.
Bath Creek Bridge
3
3.5
.75
1.55
8.80
K.
Campbell's Creek
3
3.5
.69
0
7.19
L.
Wildlife Management Area
3
3.5
.54
0
7.04
*See note on page 44 of this document.
47

Review of Exhibit U reveals that from 8 to 9 hours of evacuation time is
required to get to each surge inundation point on the northern shore while
just over 7 hours is required to get to the major points on the southern
shore. ADDITIONAL TIME IS REQUIRED TO GET FROM THESE ISOLATED POINTS FURTHER
Il+LAND. THESE ESTIMATES OF EVACUATION TIME ARE MEASURES OF ONLY THE TIMES
REQUIRED TO GET TO THESE POINTS, NOT THE TOTAL AMOUNT REQUIRED TO GET TO
SAFETY.
In Exhibit U, travel
time (T)
varies with distance from the surge inundation
'
and
delay time
(Q) varies with of the
points, queuing
population evacuation
zone and evacuation
capacity of
ITC 264 (222 vehicles per hour) vs. 14C 92 and
NC 33 (which are both
at 149 vehicles
per hour).
Sensitivity analysis
should be
done by changing the values placed on each
variable in Exhibit
T (such as
assuming that 4 or 5 hours cut-off time
instead of the 3 shown in Exhibit R). In this manner, assumptions which are
closer and closer to reality may be introduced in estimating evacuation time
for county residents.
iIn summary, this analysis shows that much evacuation in Beaufort County,
particularly that in the eastern areas of the County both North and South of
the River, is approaching the time the national Weather Service is capable of
predicting for effectively mobilizing an evacuation effort (12 hours).
Ul
48

This leaves the county with the opportunity to consider adopting policies
which would improve the capacity of evacuation routes, or limit the level of
development in areas to be evacuated, or otherwise to reduce the amount of
time needed to safely evacuate. It is recognized that many factors affecting
local evacuation are beyond the control of the local unit of government.
Nevertheless, it is vital that the local plan be cognizant of these factors .
and that regional efforts be initiated to mitigate them.
49

4. Identifying and Ranking Mitigation Problems.
a. Rationale
The levels of effort devoted to particular hazard mitigation problems should
be a function of both the severity of risk and the magnitude of risk present.
During the inventories described above, certain issues or problem areas began
to stand out from the rest by presenting a high severity of risk and/or a
high magnitude of risk. Balancing the severity of risk and magnitude of risk
in each hazard area will help the County rank its priorities for hazard
mitigation by enabling it to identify the more important problems,.address
them first, and thus use local resources more effectively and efficiently.
The County should direct a greater level of effort in planning for hazard
mitigation to an area with a high severity of risk and a high magnitude of
risk (such as a flood hazard area having a large number of structures not
designed to withstand hurricane forces such as the area from Washington to
Broad Creek). Less effort will be called for in an area exhibiting a lower
severity of risk and a lower magnitude of risk (such as part of an A -zone
where little development exist or is expected to occur like the area around
the mouth of the inter -coastal waterway on the Pungo River). Most of the
problem areas in the County will fall between these two extremes. Some areas
will have high severity and low magnitude of risk; some areas will have a
low severity and high magnitude of risk.
The assessments of risk severity and risk magnitude, and the balancing of the
two, culminated in a ranked list of hazard mitigation problem the community
50 -- - -

must address. This list of priorities will guide the County in its
evaluation of current hazard mitigation measures and its evaluation of other
mitigation options which could fulfill those needs not adequately addressed
by existing local policies.
b. Methodology
Exhibit V presents the methodology with which the data from the
aforementioned analyses were combined. Without providing the complete data
here, the following generic grid will illustrate how "planning units" (the
cells of Exhibit B) were prioritized to focus attention of the County
Commissioners on areas of greater mitigation problems.
51

C
Exhibit V
RANKING OF RISKS
---Magnitude of Risk---------------- ---Severity of Risk ----
:Inventory of Land Use :Inventory of Structures :Erosion ; 'Flood;
: :Real Estate : Trend : :# Comm.:# insts.: :Shoreline: :X in : :Priority:
: Map Cell : Value :(Land Class) :# Res:4 Ind. :b utils.:Evac.: Type :Wave:area :Wind:(yes/no):
: Number : A : B : C : D : E : F : G : H : I : J : K :
:North Shore:
' 22
' 23
' 31
: 32
41
,
: 34
: 49 : : : : : i : i i i 1 :
: 50
: 42
44
,
: 51
43
: 35
i 36
: 27
: 28
' 29
19
' 20
13
,South Shore,
,
: 31
: 40
' 41
48 :
: 56
: 62
67
i 57
63
58
64
1 52

Footnotes for Exhibit V.
Column A. Real Estate.Value comes from worksheets of detailed data that were
compiled for preparation of Exhibits N and 0.
Column B. Trend means the planned land classification for future development
presented in the Beaufort County Land Use Plan. A scoring system was devised
'
which assigned points to each land class. The percentage of each map cell in
a particular class was multiplied by the points on that class and summed to
get a cell score. For instance, the Developed Class was assigned 21 points;
'
Transition, 18; Secondary Transition, 15; Community, 12; Rural, 9; and
Conservation, 6. clap cell number 31 consists of 70% Developed, 10% Secondary
Transition, and 20% Conservation. Thus, to determine the trend score for
'
cell 31, multiply .70 x 21 points + .10 x 15 points + .20 x 6 points, for a
total of 17.4 points. This total is then compared with similar scores in all
other cells to determine the priority cells under the trend (or future growth
area) column.
'
Column C, D, E are the raw data from Exhibit N and 0, recombined into the
categories presented here.
'
Column F was not actually used, but could receive a scoring system to rank
cells by the number of miles of routes under the flood level, or some other
'
measure of constraint on evacuability (such as known bottlenecks, etc.)
Column G. This column received points in each cell if the cell contained one
'
of the highly erodible land forms presented in Exhibits H, I, or J. Simply,
3 points each were assigned to a cell if it had low banks, marsh, or High
Banks as presented in the East Carolina University Chart discussed above._
For example, cell 31 has all three forms, so it receives 9 points.
'
Column H (Wave Action) was assigned a nominal score of high, medium, or low
if the area was succeptible to wave action.
rColumn
I contains a percentage score indicating the amount of the cell in the
hazard area (the % of the cell covered by the A zone).
'
Column J was included to point out that every cell is equally susceptible to
high winds.
Column K was determined by "eyeballing" across each of the columns and making
a judgement about the relative position of cells. The top 9 most heavily
scored cells were selected for focus, 9 because of the limits of the budget
and requirements of attention to post disaster reconstruction and evacuation
'
planning pending.
53

c. Findings
' Exhibit W presents priority areas selected from Exhibit V. It is upon these
areas that the remainder of the mitigation analysis and planning will
concentrate (i.e., reviewing current mitigation measures, reviewing
' alternative measures, and selection of implementation and monitoring
measures).
t
54

Ln
VI
Priority Mitigation Areas (shaded cells)
CITY OF WASNINGTON
(AREA NOT INCLUDE OI TOWN Of WASHINGTON PARK
(AREA NOT INCLUOCLUOEOI
01 �
0 J
O
u
`
o'
;0 07
08
r "
;
yo
14
15
22
`ate
30
38
39
�0 a
r
45
46
52
53
E7
CR I
7L_
I
TOWN OF CHOCOW NITY J
(AREA NOT INCLUDED)
*NOT PRINTED
03*
04*
05*
1 06
WASHINGTON CO
%. TOWN OF PANTEGO
i
_
(AREA NOT INCLUOEDI
BEAUFORT CO.
PT
F'UF0
CO,
IN GO•- S
.1 ?
TOWN OF BELHAVEN
10z
11*
12*
13
(AREA NOT INCLUDED)
09'�t1E
w
Q
W
I
w
I
16*
17a(
18*
19 5A 20
21
Y.26A�'''�
24
25*
26
-.28
29�
33
140
47!1,a, 48
54 so`rti' 55
FOR
t
NCO C � RR
60 A 61
65* `.66
70
264
:34 35 S36 37
p• TOWN OF BATH
ww (AREA NOT INCLUDED)
49 R/-\- 5(y
�•
OR
O
56 � =57� �.i S8 59
�• ST1�6 3 ; 64
623
YY]
67 68 69
BED =pppt C
o•
PA`I IICO CO
71
TOWN OF AURORA
twREA NOT INCLUDED)
C

'
5. Reviewing Current Mitigation Measures
Having identified Beaufort County's major hurricane hazards of erosion, wave
action, flooding and wind damage, related these to the magnitude of risk on
'
the landscape and identified the nine (9) priority areas, and estimated
evacuation time, the planning effort turns toward reviewing current policies
and programs which purport to reduce the risk of future damages. This review
is intended to give the Commissioners a clearer understanding of any
conflicts in policy within the local government and between the local
'
government and state and federal agencies.
It is also intended to identify whether or not local government efforts at
managing the location and quality of development are adequately addressing
the specific mitigation needs list identified previously.
56

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
a. Inventory of Policies
The various local, state, and federal policies and programs related to
hurricane mitigation are identified.from the Beaufort County Land Use Plan
Update, CAMA, Revised September 16, 1981, pages I-20 thru I-28.
The Land Use Plan itself
Community Facilities Plan, 1979
Capital Improvements Program, 1979
Hurricane and Flood Evacuation, 1979
Water System Plan, 1977
Sanitary Sewer (201 Plan)
Building Code
Septic Tank Regulations
Flood Insurance
Mobile Home and Travel Trailer Ordinance
CAMA Implementation and Enforcement
Recreation Policy
Utility Extensions
Transportation Improvement Program, 1980-1986.
Also from the CAP -IA Land Use Plan is the following selection of State and
Federal regulations which are most closely related to storm mitigation in
Beaufort County (see Land Use Plan, pages I-29 thru I-32).
57

State: .Permits for septic tanks with a capacity over 3000
gallons/day.
.Permits for construction of complexes, e.g.
parking lots, subdivisions, stadiums, etc.
.Permits to dredge and/or fill in estuarine
waters, tidelands, etc.
.Permits to undertake development in Areas of
Environmental Concern.
.Sedimentation erosion control plans for any land
disturbing activity of over one continguous acre.
.Easements to fill where lands are proposed to be
raised above the normal high water mark of
navigable waters by filling.
.Approval for construction of any public water
supply facility that furnishes water to ten or
more residences.
Federal: .Permits required under Sections 9 and 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899; permits to
construct in navigable waters.
.Permits required under Section 202 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act of 1972; permits to
undertake dredging and/or filling activites.
.Permits for bridges, causeways, pipelines over
navigable waters; required under the General
Bridge Act of 1946 and the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899.
58

(b) Analysis of Policies
Having identified pertinent policies, the next step is to analyze the extent
to which they are directed at 'reducing the risks of hurricane damage in
' Beaufort County.
Before the Storm recommends a framework for analyzing the potential
effectiveness of existing policies. It offers two criteria which we apply to
the overall list of Beaufort County policies mentioned above:
Criteria 1: Coverage: Problems in coverage arise when local policy
fails to account for a particular characteristic of.development, or a
' particular hurricane force (wind, waves, etc.), which increases development
' risk of future hurricane damages.
Criteria 2: Enforcement: Problems in enforcement arise when local
' policy adequately covers a particular characteristic of development but, for
some reason, is not carried out in the local government's day-to-day
decisions and operations.
From the foregoing analysis of magnitude and severity of risks for hurricane
damage, we examine the aforementioned policies to determine whether, in
general terms, there are coverage problems, and enforcement problems related
' to the following factors, (located primarily in cells 23,31, 32, 27, 28, 42,
43, 51, and 57 of Exhibit V).
u
' 59

Magnitude of risk in the Hurricane Hazard Area:
Real Estate Value (existing development)
Trends in Development (future real estate value)
Inventory of structures (count)
Evacuability
Severity of Risks in the Hurricane Hazard Area:
Erosion of Shoreline (by type of shoreline land form)
Susceptibility from wave action
Flood proneness
Wind susceptibility
To assist in grasping the idea of coverage and enforcement problems related
to these factors, Before the Storm presents Table 5.1 (herein referred to
as Exhibit X) for our reflection.
Exhibit X has been modified to become an answer sheet which helps us begin to
identify problems toward which to direct alternative policies and policy
selection.
60

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Exhibit k
Checklist for Reviewing Current Mitigation Pleasures Beaufort
Co. status
For development throughout the community:
Do existing policies and regulations recognize the existence
of di ferent hazard areas that are subject to different
forces?
Do they cover all types of structures (single-family, multi-
family, commercial, etc.)?
Do they cover public facilities as well as private?
Do they encourage -higher -density uses to locate outside of
the most hazardous areas?
Are non -conforming uses and structures to be brought into
conformity after they are damaged?
Do existing policies and regulations related the level of
development in the community to the capacity of
existing evacuation routes and the time it would
take to evacuate the community?
For areas subject to high winds (Area 4):
Do existing policies and regulations require structural
connections and bracing adequate to withstand hurricane -
force winds (or "annual extreme fastest wind speeds")?
Do they require mobile homes to be tied down?
For areas also subject to flooding (Area 1):
Do existing policies and regulations require buildings and
utilities to be elevated or floodproofed to or above
expected flood levels?
Do they require structural connections which withstand the
flotation and lateral movement of structures?
For areas also subject to wave action (Area 3):
Do existing policies and regulations require buildings to be
elevated to or above the expected wave height?
Do they require structural connections and bracing adequate
for the building to withstand battering by waves?
Do the regulations prohibit building on fill which could
easily be washed away?
For areas also subject to severe erosion (Area 2):
Do existing policies and regulations require an adequate
setback from the oceanfront or soundfront?
Do they require a safe depth for embedding pilings?
Do they prohibit the removal of sand dunes and other
natural barriers to erosion?
SOURCE: Before the Storm, Table 5-1, page 5.16
61
yes
yes
yes
no/yes
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes

a
t
L
6. Reviewing Alternative Pleasures
a. Philosophy Behind Alternatives
A coverage issue is found on page 2-4 of the Land Use Plan with regard to the
County's basic position on the issuance of permits for minor development
within the AECs.
By so choosing, it agreed that the uses permitted under state
administrative regulations were necessary and represented the best
available information. No information has since become available
to the county which would allow it to argue effectively for a less
restrictive set of uses. Prior has any information come to the
county which make apparent the need for a higher level of
protection than offered by existing regulations. Therefore, it is
the county's intent to continue to guide the development of.AECs in
accordance with existing regulations.
After discussing the underlined sentence above, and in light of the
information regarding the magnitude and severity of risk of hurricane damage
provided in Section II, Part 3, A2, A3 and A4 of this document, the County
considered the following set of policy choices from which to reconsider (1),
maintaining the existing philosophy outlined above, or (2) taking advantage
of the opportunities to protect its tax base and tax payers.
62

b. Range of Policy Options.
As recommended in Before the Storm, "to overcome the shortcomings in
coverage or enforcement of existing policies, a community should review other
techniques that could be used effectively and efficiently to reduce the risk
of future hurricane damages. Different techniques are suited to different
development and redevelopment problems; certain techniques will be more
P P P � q
practical and more effective than others in addressing the community's
particular hazard mitigation needs" (BTS, page 5.19).
Consistent with this analytical approach, the following list of choices among
policies and measures is presented. It is from this list and others
generated by consideration of it, that the selection of workable hazard
reduction measures is to be selected.
(1) Objective: To maintain or strengthen existing
policies known to decrease the risk of
hurricane damage.
' The Count now administers arts of the state building code with an
Y P
inspections program. This program has recently expanded attention into
construction standards for footings,'framing, plumbing (including well and
iseptic), and insulation, as well as electrical.
The commissioners could choose to adopt the complete state building code
1 and administer it county -wide, so as to upgrade the quality of construction
and the extent to which it is hurricane worthy.
63

The construction standards of the Federal Emergency Management Agency are
required for areas that are participating in the regular phase of the flood
insurance program. Only Washington, Washington Park, Belhaven and Aurora
are participating in the regular phase, with the remainder of the
unincorporated county, Pantego, Bath, and Chocowinity participating in the
emergency phase.
The option facing the commissioners is one of using the best available 100
year flood level from the emergency phase (10 ft.) and requiring the
elevation of the first floor of buildings in the hurricane hazard area
(Exhibit (D)) now, with refinement after the regular phase is official.
. The state's Sedimendation Control Act (15 NCAC 04A) requires an erosion
and sedimentation control plan to be prepared and filed with the
Environmental Management Commission or the County Commissioners prior to
the commencement of any land disturbing activity of more than one acre.
This policy allows two important types of development to go untended in the
flood hazard area, agriculture and small lot residential development.
The commissioners have the choice of (1) decreasing the land area to
one—half acre, thereby locally requiring residential development on
waterfront lots (of at least this size) to take adequate precautions
against erosion, and (2) including agriculture and forestry as land uses
that in fact cause "a change in the natural cover or topography that may
Icause or contribute to sedimentation".

. CA -IA includes a buffer of 75 feet in the Estaurine Shoreline AEC (15 ITCAC
7H, 0209 (b) and (d) in which developed is.monitored and regulated in terns
of siting. Some types of development may be prohibited depending on the
specific site carrying capabilities.
Since the tightening of these standards could be beyond the administrative
capacity of the county, the choice facing the commissioners is likely one
of changing the "buffer" provision to a "setback" provision, which would
require that uses which could otherwise be built more than 75 feet from the
shoreline must be; otherwise the regulations of CAMA would operate as now
written.

IJ
(2) Objective: To create policies which REDUCE risk.
. As indicated in the 1982 CAMA Land Use Plan, the commissioners have no
subdivision regulations which govern the design of developments or the
quality of construction of roads in subdivisions. Subdivision of land is
traditionally regulated because it transforms large acreages from a rural
character to a suburban/urban one.
The county commissioners have an option to adopt subdivision regulations
(without zoning). Into these, provisions of floodplain management,
adequate lot size, and drainage could be written. These regulations would
require plats which show the first floor elevated above the best
information available regarding the 100 year flood.
The County has a detailed soils analysis underway through the District SCS
(Mr. E. H. Karnowski's office). This information could be used to develop
soils overlay districts within which to set density standards based upon
soil characteristics and their carrying capacities in terms of abilities to
accept septic effluent, and load bearing capabilities to bear development
(see Exhibits G, H, I, and J).
. Since natural solutions are often the best, the commissioners could
consider establishing a vegetation or landscaping ordinance for
shorefront property that requires careful development, recognizing the
value of retaining vegetation, retaining trees as a buffer on the shoreline
between the wind and water of a storm and buildings. This would include
retaining the wind —clipped trees closest to the water, which protect the
rest of the shorefront lot (Caring for the Land, Environmental Principles for
66 -

Site Design and Review, by Bruce Hendler, ASPO, 1977,- #328, page 24.)
while still allowing undergrowth trimming as long as the major shorefront
stabilizing vegetables remained.
67

. Since much of the area within the hazard area (Exhibit E) is in,
agricultural use, the commissioners could establish an Exclusive Farm Use
Zone in a Development Options Ordinance. This approach was used as part
of the Land Resource Management Program, Oregon State University Extension
Service. It guarantees continued agricultural uses and also contains and
restricts urban uses in areas which are high in erosion and which have low
tolerance for high densities and impervious surfaces, and which otherwise
have sensitive environments.
. Since the taxation of land is a fundamental influence in development
patterns, the Commissioners could implement one of the 1982-83 objectives
of the North Carolina Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts
Land Use Planning Committee. The Association recommended that plans, such
as this Storm Mitigation Plan should make provisions for consideration of
equitable assessments of land use for agricultural, wildlife, recreational
aesthetic, or other uses which are significant
(hurricane
risk reducing)
interest and importance to the general public.
(Source:
NC Association,
Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Raleigh,
NC, June,
1982, page 7).
ITaxation could be strategically designed to guide development away from
hurricane risk areas (or perhaps,the"higher risk areas within the flood
„
zone), by placing a hazards premium on development placed in areas of
' excessive risk, or conversely, allowing a preferential assessment
("hazard -avoidance discount") on property back away from the shoreline or
iotherwise outside areas of extreme risk. This could minimize present and
future unnecessary public expenses to serve such areas (e.g. fire and
sheriff services) and also prevent unnecessary public expenses to "clean up
68

the mess" following a major storm. While not exactly transferable, the
recent March 1984 tornado disasters in neighboring counties emphasize the
public costs involved in clean up and reconstruction.
i
1
69

. The Commissioners could consider establishing an erosion and runoff
ordinance for onlythe most sensitive areas. This would
s h s old involve the
development of a drainage overlay district which would locate critical
drainage channels, particularly those which often become overwashed and
inundated during "weak
moderate storms. (Such areas are known as spots",
and are a type of hurricane risk hazard included in the county's hazard
area (Exhibit (D)).
This overlay district would assist in the preservation and protection of
'
by: of
the natural environment regulating the alteration land and
topography; regulating the removal of vegetation; specifying standards for
drainage system construction; requiring erosion and sedimentation control;
'
assuring the continued, efficient operation of the drainage system; (and)
protecting county streams and floodplains from substantial alteration of
'
functions.
their natural (Source: Thurow et al., p. 104.)
t
t
i
70

r
. Since the County has traditionally resisted county -wide land use zoning in
any form, the commissioners may consider: (1) developing a flood hazard
area ordinance which would incorporate many of the aforementioned
provisions that could otherwise be put into separate ordinances or (2)
zoning of the development is
a smaller portion county where intense but
subject to no guiding influence. This targeted approach directed at the
priority risk areas in the Count could become the foundation piece of a
P Y Y
thoughtful way of supportively directing development without stifling it.
In many cases, developers are more likely to bring their investments to a
rcounty
which
offers them proper protection through ordinances. A selective
zoning ordinance could indicate that the commissioners are working to
Protect whoever's investment goes into the hazard hurricane hazard area,
'
and is doing all it can to lessen the costs to developers, the federal
insurance agency, and most importantly, the tax payers for they foot the
bill "clean
to up the mess."
1
r
r
r
71

(3) Objective: To amend or avoid actions known to
increase risks.
Exhibit Y indicates that there is clear responsibility taken in 1972 by the
County Commissioners to "adopt and maintain in force for areas having special
flood hazards, adequate land use and control measures..." This storm
mitigation, Post Reconstruction and Evacuation Plan is an additional step in
that direction.
Avoiding actions known to increase risks is an objective the Commissioners
can address through education of the public about the risks of locating in
the hazard area. It is the intention of the Commissioners to provide that
information through this planning effort and its Office of Emergency
Management.
72

Exhibit Y
a MAYO II
is AT UV
t". N. C.
I NORTH CAROLINA — L-AUFORT COUNTY RECEIVED i 11 igg�. 5'
On motion by M. D. Whisnant, seconded by Calvin Pittma
the following resolution was unanimously adopted:
RESOLUTION
The County of Beaufort in applying for Federal Flood Insura
by Resolution dated November 1, 1971, does agree to adopt and maintain
in force for areas having special flood hazards, adequate land use and con-
trol measures with effective enforcement provisions consistent with the
criteria set forth in Part 1910 of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Federal Flood Insurance regulations.
That the County of Beaufort shall recognize and duly evaluate
flood hazards in all official actions relative to land use in the.areas having
special flood hazards and to take such other official action as may be reaso
ably necessary to carry out the objectives.of the program.
That the County of Beaufort shall assist the Administrator,
at his request, in delineating the limits of the areas having special flood
hazards on available local maps of sufficient scale to identify the location a
building sites.
That the Couaty of Beaufort'shall provide such, information} at
the Administrator may request concerning present usesand:occupancy of
the flood plain area.
That the County of Beaufort shall maintain for public inspecti
and furnish upon- request, with respect to each area having special flood
hazards, information on elevations in relation to mean sea level of the lowe
floors of all new or substantially improved structures and,'where there is a
basement, the distance between the first floor and the bottom of the lowest
opening where water flowing on the ground will enter.
That the foregoing Resolution is passed pursuant to request
from the Federal Insurance Administration of the Department of Housing
and Urban. Development for purposes of designating the County of Beaufort
as being eligible for Federal Flood Insurance.
This tho 4th day of January, 197.2..
73

7. Implementation and Monitoring
a. Rationale
'
At this point in the hurricane planning process, Beaufort County has
several
products. First is a list of hurricane hazard mitigation needs or
development characteristics the community needs to control. Second
is a
compilation of measures which are currently in place to mitigate the
•
hurricane hazard. Third is a compilation of measures which the community
can
'
adopt to cover any needs that current measures fail to address. The
next
step in the process involves blending these into a coordinated local
program
'
for reducing the risk of hurricane damages.
' Implementation of local policies is the final step in formulating a hazard
' mitigation program, as it is with any good planning effort. But beyond that
work and after local policies are implemented and hazard reduction measures
are being carried out, the County will need to monitor development to ensure
that prescribed measures are being followed.
i
In this case, implementation involves adopting policies and ordinances
selected by The Board of County Commissioners as necessary to put hazard
mitigation measures into effect.
' Some of the policy choices would put hazard mitigation measures into
continuous operation as a means of managing development in the community,
' such as subdivision requirements or construction standards. Other policies
' would put hazard mitigation measures into effect only in response to
disaster, such as relocation programs and temporary moratoria on development
74

1
' and reconstruction. All policies which guide development and reconstruction
recognize the different levels of risk that exist in different parts of the
' county and in different types of structures.
' b. Selected Policies and Measures.
1. Continue to enforce the State building code.
2. Adopt the regular phase of the FEMA flood insurance program at the
' appropriate time (when the final mapping is completed).
'
3. Conduct a risk -avoidance education program through the Office of
P g
'
Emergency Management to advise current and prospective developers and
buyers of the hurricane risks in Beaufort County.
'
4. Establish a procedure in the Inspections Department of determining, at
the time that building permits are requested, whether the permit is for
'
construction within the Hurricane Hazard Area shown in Exhibit E. If so,
advise the applicant of the potential hurricane hazards, discuss
'
recommended techniques for that he
construction such areas, and suggest
'
contact the Federal Emergency Management Agency (through local financial
institutions providing construction loans for information on reduced
P g )
'
insurance premiums under the FEMA program for construction with the first
floor above the 100 year flood (10 feet).
5

Il
c. monitoring Consistency and Effectiveness Over Time
It is the intent of the County Commissioners that local hurricane hazard
mitigation be integrated with other local plans, policies, and programs which
cover other aspects of development in the county.
Through the Office of the Emergency Management Coordinator, the County will
continuously observe how development is proceeding in the community once
these hazard mitigation measures are adopted and implemented. Keeping track
of development will help the County see if hazard mitigation policies are
being followed and if hazard mitigation policies need to be modified in any
way to make them more workable and effective. Such monitoring can identify
further problems in coverage and enforcement that need to be resolved. Such
monitoring efforts may involve less formal, continuous observations or more
formal, periodic evaluations. In these forms, monitoring efforts will pay
attention to where development is locating (relative to different hazard
areas) and how development is being built (relative to the forces expected in
each hazard area).
With the recent March, 1984 tornado disasters in neighboring counties, the
county should be highly alerted as to possible and pending damage when a
hurricane strikes. An areawide assessment of the "institutional ability" of
local government to deal with these natural disasters might be made.
76

B. Post Disaster Reconstruction Plan
1. Introduction
' Before the Storm (Chapter 7) outlines the optimal process and elements of a
post disaster reconstruction plan as follows:
'
As an official statement of principles and policies for the community to
follow in rebuilding after a hurricane or similar disaster, a reconstruction
plan has four purposes:
1. to expedite community recovery by outlining procedures and
requirements for repairs and reconstruction before damages
occur;
2. to establish a procedural framework for putting hazard mitiga—
tion measures into effect after disaster strikes the community
and buildings and utilities are being repaired and rebuilt;
3. to gather and analyze information concerning the location and
'
nature of hurricane damages in the community; and
4. to assess the community's vulnerability.to hurricane damages and
guide reconstruction to minimize this vulnerability.
The plan should outline damage assessment and reconstruction permitting
procedures that the community will follow after a disaster occurs. It should
identify information that the local government will need to make sound permit
decisions regarding repairs and reconstruction and to get state and federal
disaster assistance. Some specific topics that the plan should address
include:
1. identifying cases where repairs and reconstruction will not be
permitted, or will be permitted only if they meet certain
conditions;
2. guidelines (drawn from the analysis of hazards and mitigation
measures) for the repair and rebuilding of damaged structures
and utilities; and.
3. plans for possible public acquisition of high hazard areas and
the relocation of highly vulnerable and damaged structures.
By identifying and clarifying all of these policies, procedures, and infor—
mation requirements, local officials will have a ready set of guidelines by
which they can make wise and expedient decisions regarding reconstruction.
The plan will help avoid delays as well as make the community safer from
damages in the long run.
11
77

Since the bulk of
the effort on this initial plan has been directed at Storm
Mitigation, the following
initial Post Reconstruction Plan relies heavily
upon the Beaufort
County Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan adopted in
September, 198�.
'
Sections of that
plan which pertain most to Post Disaster Reconstruction are
Annex F (Beaufort
County Damage Assessment Plan); Annex G (Disaster
Assistance Center
Plan); Annex H (Disaster Assistance Program Summary); and
Annex I (Beaufort
County Plan for Temporary Housing).
'
While attention is given to the optimal reconstruction planning guidance of
Before the Storm,
close attention is given to the CANA Regulations 15 iICAC
'
7B .0203 (a) (6)
(B) and is presented in the outline form of the latter.
78

' 2. Elements of Preparedness
a. Local Damage Classification Scheme and Damage Assessment
Teams.
The aforementioned regulations require (1) the establishment of a local
damage classification scheme which is consistent with those of state and
federal disaster assistance agencies. Before the Storm additionally
suggests that (2) these procedures should be designed to indicate, according
' to local hazard mitigation policies, which structures may be repaired or
rebuilt with no changes, may be repaired or rebuilt with structural changes,
' or may not be rebuilt at the same site.
From review of Annex F of the Beaufort County Disaster Relief and Assistance
'
Plan, and intense wort: sessions with the County's Emergency Management
Coordinator (Mr. Daden Wolfe) and the former DEN Area Director (Col. David W.
'
Spivy), it was determined that the county has adequate damage assessment
procedures regarding purpose, authority, organization, concept of operation,
articulation of responsibilities (including designation of Damage Assessment
'
Teams), and setting forth instructions for timely action and phased reporting
(that is, the detail of the reports increases with time after a disaster).
'
The document provides detailed appendices to Annex F regarding the
identification of team damage assessment worksheet; damage estimation guides
'
which records extent of habitability, based on percentage of damage; damage
'
assessment property values and estimate percentage of insurance coverage by
type of property and values (note: this form was used in the survey of
structures for the storm mitigation plan, first portion of this document);
and provides extensive damage assessment report forms.
'
79

' b. Permit Procedures
On this point, Before the Storm uses an approach typically found in zoning
ordinances for dealing with damaged structures or situations which do not
conform to the ordinance. If the Commissioners do adopt such regulatory
' ordinances, then the following suggested additional steps could be carried
out by the standing.damage assessment teams.
. identifythose structures that must be demolished or that require
q
a development permit before being repaired or rebuilt;
' identify, for each damaged structure, the cause of damages; and
. identify repairs needed for individual private and public
facilities.
"This information can be translated onto property tax maps to
'
readily identify those areas where repairs and reconstruction must
meet certain requirements. When the damage assessment is completed,
the damage assessment team could fill out a form identifying the
'
level of damages sustained, or damage classification, of each
property and any special requirements for repairs and
reconstruction; the form could then be mailed or otherwise delivered
to the property owner. The form could include any other information
the property owner should know regarding recovery procedures (such
as permit requirements, filing deadlines, and public meeting
dates)." (Before the Storm, p. 7.31, 7.32)
Building permits for whichever level of reconstruction would be let under the
'
County's normal permit issuing procedures. Efforts to streamline the
handling of large numbers of permits will be undertaken in accordance with
'
Before the Storm 7.32). Several
(page of the suggestions presented there
'
are incorporated in this initial plan as follows:
'
. repair and rebuild essential service facilities first (such as
electricity, water and sewer).
. repair other public facilities as necessary for shelter, etc.
'
80

use a triage (or worst damage last) approach to staging the
reconstruction effort. Those properties with little damage would be
permitted immediately, if they.complied with permit requirements
already. iiext, those with moderate damage, meeting permit
requirements. Followed by those with moderate damage, requiring permit
decisions. Those with extensive damage requiring permit decisions or
demolition decisions would receive treatment last, since their work
' would more likely interfere with the reconstruction of essential public
utilities and facilities.
' be prepared to adopt a temporary moratorium on all new development for
a specified period of time. This would allow the county to deal with
more pressing community recovery and reconstruction permitting problems
without devoting its resources to reviewing new development proposals.
These initial priorities are provided in this document to set forth a
' beginning point for reconstruction efforts. They will necessarily be refined
over time through the Office of Emergency Management.
' Future efforts should emphasize Emergency Management responsibilities for
immediate clean up and removal activities to minimize health and safety
hazards and the County should develop local policies which will direct
' reconstruction over a longer period of time.
11
C'
1
1
81 --

1
i'
c. Consideration of a "Recovery Task Force"
The County Commissioners considered appointing a "recovery task force" to
'
oversee the reconstruction process and work on any policy questions that
might arise. The recovery task force will work with state and federal
representatives on the Interagency Regional Hazard Mitigation Team and the
Section 406 Hazard Mitigation Survey and Planning Teams. Like these joint
federal/state/local.teams, the task force can review the nature of damages in
'
the community, identify and evaluate alternative approaches for repairs and
reconstruction, and formulate their own recommendations for handling
community recovery. The task force's efforts can lend valuable information
'
and guidance to state and federal efforts and ensure a strong local voice in
decisions regarding state and federal disaster assistance.
Formerly appointed in advance of a disaster (as of this writing), the initial
recovery task force will comprise the following individuals:
the Beaufort County Commissioners
the County Engineer and Building Inspectors
' the County Manager
' the City Managers and Engineers of each Municipality
the County Emergency Management Coordinator
' the County Health Department
'
The task force could be
given any number
of duties which are to be worked out
'
in the future. However,
the authority to
approve or deny permits for repairs
and reconstruction remains
with the group
that normally handles development
'
decisions (that is, the
local commission,
planning board, or board of
adjustments).
1
82

U
d. Guidelines for Post —Disaster Repair and Reconstruction.
(1) Timing and completion of damage assessments.
As indicated above, these will be conducted in accordance with Annex F of the
Disaster Relief and Assistance Program and will be completed in a phased
' manner (general reports first, detailed as time permits) as soon as safety
conditions permit. *Rapid and general reports are to be submitted by radio
' regarding immediate problems, within one hour after the assessment begins.
This provides a windshield survey.or snapshot of the extent of damage.
Within six hours more detailed reports, including priv
ate property summaries
' will be near completion (see Annex F).
1 (2) Temporary Moratoria.
As indicated above the Commissioners
ner are prepared to adopt a temporary
1 moritorium on new development if conditions warrant such, especially if it is
required to assure the reconstruction of essential public services. The
intent is any such moratorium is to stage reconstruction activities and to
' ensure that repairs and reconstruction will leave the community safer from
the next storm. The Commissioners may declare such a moritorium on any
development if the County gets a federal disaster declaration stipulating the
type and extent of reconstruction that the federal insurance agency will pay
for.
11
83

1
' (3). Development standards.
The development standards to which repairs and reconstruction shall conform
1 include those presented in the Policy Statements section of the Storm
Plitigation Plan section of this document. At present, these include the
major portions of the State Building code and any other policy provisions
adopted in the Storm Mitigation Plan.
e. Schedule for Staging and Permitting Repairs and
Reconstruction.
As indicated by the former DEM Area A Coordinator, reconstruction would be
undertaken for essential services first (that is, power, water, telephone,
street and bridges), then minor repairs, major repairs and last, new
development. (See part 2, this section). Emphasis then, is on following
schedules (policies) which require repair reconstruction of infrastructure
' for the long —run, rather than immediately going back into an area and
duplicating what was there before the storm.
Timing of actual event depends upon the extent of damage and the type of
' service requiring repair or rebuilding.
f. Implementation of Recovery Task Force Policies
The Beaufort County Commissioners are hereby designated as the local
' legislative body in charge of implementing the policies and procedures
' contained in this Post —Disaster Reconstruction Plan.
84

1
1
g. Policies for Repair and/or Replacement of
Public Utilities
and Facilities.
1
The policies
for replacement of these facilities, including
possible
relocation to
less hazardous areas, are outlined in the ordinances
or other
1
measures adopted
as part of the Storm I -litigation Plan (this
document).
1
Additionally,
such facilities are placed in priority within
this section,
depending on
their importance, type, and state of disrepair.
(See sections 2
1
and 5).
1
i
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
85

C. Local Evacuation Plan
1. Introduction
a. CAMA Regulations and Requirements
The CAMA regulations for Storm Hazard Mitigation, Post -Disaster Recovery and
Evacuation Plans (15 nCAC 7B .0203(a)(6)(C) set forth the following
requirements:
The local government shall, in cooperation with the
Division of Emergency Management, assure that the local
evacuation plan is adequate and based on a sound
analysis of existing situations. In particular, the
local government should consider all natural and
man-made impediments to evacuation such as roadways
below expected flood level, development which exceeds
road capacity and reliance of other communities on the
same evacuation route. If the local government
determines that the required evacuation time exceeds the
standard warning time as provided by the national
1
Weather Service, it should consider adopting policies
which would improve the capacity of evacuation routes,
or limit the level of development in areas to be
evacuated, or otherwise reduce the amount of time needed
to safely evacuate.
It is recognized that many factors affecting local
evacuation are beyond the control of the local unit of
government. nevertheless it is vital that the local
plan be cognizant of these factors and that regional
efforts be initiated to mitigate them.
Appropriately, in Part (D),
these regulations require
the presentation of the
Storm Mitigation Plan before
the presentation of the
Post Disaster
Reconstruction Plan, before
the Hurricane Evacuation
Section. This, plus
other explicit guidance and
logic of the planning process
equipped the
Beaufort County Commissioners to meet the analytical
requirement for
' consideration of the natural and man-made impediments to evacuate enumerated
above.
86 __ _

Thus, in this section, the County has chosen to meet the aforementioned
regulations and their purpose of adequate evacuation through referencing the
Storm tiitigation Plan and the Post Disaster Reconstruction Plan for
foundation analytical and policy work, and to provide update to the County's
1982 Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan (particularly Annex 0) as needed.
b. Beaufort County's Response
For meeting this section of the CAMA regulations and satisfying their intent
of adequate evacuation preparedness, the "local evacuation plan" shall mean
the portions of the Beaufort County Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan
(September, 1982) which pertain most closely to the task at hand. These
but
include, are'not limited to:
Annex A Emergency Powers Ordinance
Annex B Organization Chart
Annex C Communications
Annex D Warning and Alerting
Annex E Beaufort County Emergency Shelter Plan
Annex 0 The Hurricane Plan
Annex U Emergency Broadcast System Plan
Each of these Annexes was examined for completeness, relationship with the
CAMA regulations, and consistency with the guidelines for the "Carolina
County Emergency i:anagement
Hurricane Response Plan Prototype" and the
guidelines for the "Carolina County Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan,.
Annex 0 - hurricane Response Plan" (provided by the State Civil Defense
Office). Worksessions with the County Emergency Management Coordinator
87

(Daden Wolfe), the former Area A Coordinator (Col. David 11. Spivy) and the
planning chief for the State Civil Defense Office (Bob Buchanan), can -assure
the citizens of Beaufort County that the aforementioned Annexes are adequate
and based upon sound analysis of existing situations.
The remainder of this section presents work done to supplement Annex 0 as
evidence of this assertion of adequacy.
88

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
2. The natural and Man -Made Impediments to Evacuation
a. Description and Reference to Other Plans.
In this section, several natural and man-made impediments to evacuation which
have already been analyzed in the Storm Mitigation Plan and the Disaster
Relief and Assistance Plan are discussed. The reader is referred
particularly to sections A2 and A3 of the Storm Mitigation Plan (this
document) and to Annex 0 of the Disaster Relief and Assistance Plan for
analyses and findings from those perspectives.
b. Analysis of Major Evacuation Routes
The following section considers the major routes in the following format:
• Areas below flood level.
. Surge Inundation Points.
. Extent of Impediment to Evacuation
• Reliance by Other Communities
. Estimated Evacuation Time (see Storm Piitigation Plan, part II, 3,
6, 3 /4/)
. Policy Choices
89

(1). Highway 264 from Iiyde County Line to Washington
(a)
Areas below flood level: See Exhibit E
'
(b)
Surge Inundation Points: See Exhibit
S
I(c)
Extent of Impediment to Evacuation:
NC 264 floods in the entire Belhaven Area, and
between Belhaven and Pantego, even from the rains -
of a moderate storm. IJater rises above the
approaches to the Cuckolds Creek Bridge A
(point
on Exhibits P and S) preventing the use of the
bridge. According to local DEM Officials, the
bridge itself is of adequate height. The water
source is from the Pungo River and Pamlico Sound
waters backing up because of storm winds.
People from Manteo will use NC 4• however, p 6 , ho a er,
evacuees from Stumpy Point and south will use NC
264 through Hyde County into Beaufort at
rLeechville.
If Belhaven is flooded,
people in
Belhaven or from Leechville can take SR 1709 and
turn north to SR 1700 and go west to Pantego,
though 1709 is unpaved (and should be improved as
an evacuation route). Or they may choose to go
north on Highway 45 to a 5
point miles south of
Plymouth, and there may choose to go into
Plymouth and turn south 31 miles to Washington,
depending on storm conditions.
1 90

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Another critical surge inundation point (point I
on Exhibits P and S) is at the Runyan Creek
Bridge. Although Runyan Creek is only about 12
feet wide, the bridge is in a bottom area which
floods easily. In the event of such flooding,
evacuation would have to be accomodated by
turning at Sherwood Forest community onto the old
Bath Highway (1501), traveling to 1507, and
turning north onto 1516 to Cherry Road, and then
to Washington, bypassing the bridge.
(d) Reliance by Other Communities: High Reliance,
see (3) above.
(e) Estimated Evacuation Time. (See Storm Mitiga-)
tion Plan, Part II, 3, 6, 3 /4/.)
(f) Policy Choices:
. Regarding NC 264, choices include elevating the
bridges, earlier warnings, better cooperation
with the officials in Belhaven regarding the
reality of their floodproneness.
Capacity of route 264 is adequate except at
"pre -landfall time" when surge inundation
points A and I are flooded.
. SR 1709 should be improved, if not paved, in
order to provide an evacuation route from 264
to SR 1700, so that flooded Belhaven can be
avoided or evacuated.
91 _

Other solution rests in early warning and
cooperative evacuation.
(2) Highway 92 from Belhaven to Bath
(a) Areas below flood level: See Exhibit E
(b) Surge Inundation Points: See Exhibit S
(c) Extent of Impediment to Evacuation:
• In Belhaven, when the water crests the railroad
tracks, highway 92 is impassible for evacuation
of the toxin.
• This means that the Pantego Creek bridge (or
approach to it is flooded, as is the Pungo
Creek Bridge access, and an area approximately
3 miles on either side of where the road to the
Ferry is (SR 176).
• There is concern at Back Creek and Bath Creek
bridges, even though Bath itself is largely
above the flood elevation. In the event that
Back Creek floods, evacuation is possible on
1743 (Possom Hill Road), which can bring
traffic into the Bath high School Shelter.
This northerly approach provides access without
the use of either bridge.
92

. If the storm is severe enough to warrant
by-passing the Bath High School shelter,
traffic can take SR 1741 to NC 264 and turn
left into Washington.
(d) Reliance by Other Communities:
None. Residents of Hyde County would use NC 264,
not Highway 92.
(e) Estimates Evacuation Time. (See Storm Mitiga-
tion Plan, Part II, 3, 6, 3 /4/.)
93

(f) Policy Choices:
According to the road capacity analysis in the
Storm Mitigation Plan, the capacity of Highway 92
is adequate, limited only by the surge inundation
points.
The level of development on Highway 92 is not an
impediment, except in the towns.
Strategy for reducing evacuation time is to (1)
alert people as soon as possible; (2) educate
them to the need to believe the announcement and
promptly begin evacuation.
94

(3) SR 1300 from Washington Yacht and Country Club
to the Runyans Creek Bridge.
(a) Area below flood level: See Exhibit E.
(b) Surge Inundation Points: See Exhibits P and S
(c) Extent of Impediment on Evacuation:
Major area of concern is from Washington Yacht
and Country Club to the Runyans Creek Bridge at
the Washington City limit (point F on Exhibits P
and S).
If this is flooded, all the area riverside of SR
1300 will have no way to evacuate.
(d) Reliance by Other Communities:
None, though this is itself a heavily populated
area.
(e) Estimated Evacuation Time. (See Storm
Mitigation Plan (Part II, 3, b, 3 /4/.)
(f) Policy Choices:
. improve capacity of route: not realistic
95

1
1
1
1
• limit development: up to the Town of
Washington Park and County. This is already an
issue requiring attention.
. increase evacuation notice time: a must.
(4) NC 17 and NC 33 in and through Washington; North
Shore of Pamlico River.
(a) Area below flood level: See Exhibit E.
(b) Surge Inundation Points: Primarily thePamlico
River Bridge (see Exhibits P & S).
(c) Extent of Impediment to Evacuation:
This area is heavily populated and there is much
business development. If flooded, evacuees would
have to take 15th Street to NC 17 and turn north.
(d) Reliance by Other Communities:
Very heavy, since Highway 92 and 264 dump into
Washington.
Routes around the city should be taken to avoid
overloading what will already be a severe
evacuation problem in many sections of the flood
area (lower half of the city).
(e) Estimated Evacuation Time: (See Storm
Mitigation Plan, (Part II, 3, b, /4/)

(f) Policy Choices:
Since routes have adequate capacity, and level of
development is prescribed by the City of
Washington, reliance upon early warning and early
mobilization -of rescue and evacuation efforts is
required.
(5) Hwy. 17 South from Washington to Chocowinity
(a) Area below flood level: See Exhibit E.
(b) Surge Inundation Points: See Exhibits P and S.
(c) Extent of Impediment to Evacuation:
Nearly the entire area from the Pamlico River
Bridge to the town limits of Chocowinity is
threatened by surge inundation. Many businesses
are located there.
(d) Reliance by Other Communities:
Heavy, since all of the development on SR 1166
from Hwy. 17 to Oak Point has no other evacuation
route.
(e) Estimated Evacuation Tine: (See Storm Mitiga—
tion Plan, Part II, 3, b, 3 /4/.)
97

(f) Policy choices:
Efforts could be made, through policies developed
in the Storm Mitigation Plan to limit or better
allocate development on SR 1166. The remainder
of the solution rests with early warning and
willing evacuation.
(6) Hwy. 33 South from the Pamlico County Line to Hwy. 17
(a) Area below flood level: See Exhibit E.
(b) Surge•Inundation Points: See Exhibits P and S.
(c) Extent of Impediment to Evacuation:
If evacuation starts early enough, there is no
problem. The route has adequate capacity.
However, if critical points L and K are flooded,
there is no way out.
(d) Reliance by Other Communities:
Very heavy. The Lowlands and Hoboken communities
of Pamlico County must evacuate along this route.
This route serves one of the most erodible areas
and most industrial areas in the County.
W:3

(e) Estimated Evacuation Time. (See Storm Mitiga—
tion Plan, Part II, 3, b, 3 /4/.)
(f) Policy Choices:
Since routes have adequate capacity, evacuation
depends on warning time and willing evacuation.

c. Impediments
P
Caused b Conflicting Information.
Y g
Beyond the
physical terrain and
facilities (routes), an impediment will
'
always exist because people will
choose who they want to listen to in the
event of a
storm. There is no
way to ensure that the information is
accurate.
Emphasis should be
placed on recognition of official vs.
unofficial
sources and actions
taken to get the correct word into informal
communication networks at the
neighborhood level.
d. Impediments caused by Conflicting. Evacuation Plans.
' Currently, there exists a situation in Beaufort County of conflicting plans.
Ideally, each town should have both a control group of elected officials and
a support group comprising chiefs of services. Each town should appoint a
liason officer who would go to the County's Emergency Operation Center when
the EOC is activated to any degree. This liason should be a member of the
' town council and a respected community leader. He/she is the key link
between the overall operation of the EOC (County Headquarters) and the smooth
evacuation of the townspeople. Through this liason, the town can be kept
informed with the latest information and the EOC can have an advocate from
the Town on hand.

e. Impediments Caused by Attitudes.
There is a strong resistance among us to leave our valued property even in
the threat of diaster. The example is given of a boat owner who threatens
his life in an oncoming storm to guard his boat. While this phenomonen is
almost impossible to rectify, an appeal•to the higher values of life and
adequate evacuation should be instilled through early education, as well as
ways to secure property (or evacuate it) through ready and prompt response to
early hurricane warning. Cooperation and thoughtful, timely action is the
key.
101

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
D. Coordination with State and Federal Agencies.
1. Process
Throughout the preparation of this storm hazard mitigation, post disaster
reconstruction and evacuation plan, the Office of Coastal Management, the
Consultant (Planning and Design Associates, P.A.), and the County (Office of
the Emergency Management Coordinator) have been contacting state and federal
agencies for data, opinions on adequacy of local provisions, direction in
policy development, regulations, and suggested points to be covered. Efforts
to coordinate plans with practical were undertaken.
As mentioned at several points in this document, one of the keys to this
coordination process came when Daden Wolfe brought Col. David Gd. Spivy to the
project. Colonel Spivey's 22 years of experience as Area A Coordinator for
the Division of Emergency Management have proven invaluable in terms of
content and coordination.
102

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2. Contact List.
The following contacts were made during the preparation of this document.
Office of Coastal Management John Crew
Grants Manager
NC Division of Emergency Management Bob Buchanan
Natural Disaster Planner
Department of Transportation Dr. Marion R. Poole, Thorough-
fare Planning Engineer
(733-4705)
Dr. Larry Goode, Project
Engineer (733-4705)
Ed Shular, Traffic Surveys
Engineer (733-4131)
Gerald Fleming, DEM Liaison,
Traffic Engineer (733-7512)
103