The Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Plan Is The Physical

The Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Plan is the physical result of a comprehensive planning process undertaken by
the jurisdictions of Isle of Wight County, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Smithfield, Suffolk, Virginia Beach and Windsor. Local officials,
citizens and other key stakeholders from across the region all contributed to the planning process that is designed to help
communities identify ways to better protect people and property from the effects of natural hazards. By taking action today, we
can reduce the likelihood of injuries, loss of life and damage to our communities. That is the primary definition of hazard mitigation
- taking action before a hazard event occurs to reduce the impact of the hazard.
A core assumption of hazard mitigation is that pre-disaster investments will significantly reduce the demand for post-disaster
assistance by lessening the need for emergency response, repair, recovery and reconstruction. Furthermore, mitigation practices
will enable local residents, businesses and industries to re-establish themselves in the wake of a disaster, getting the community
economy back on track sooner and with less interruption.
When hazard mitigation planning is conducted based on a solid understanding of our vulnerabilities, reduction of the impacts of
hazards occurs. In addition to developing a framework for action, the Plan enables participating jurisdictions to apply for pre and
post-disaster mitigation funding that would not otherwise be available. This funding can help local jurisdictions implement actions
that will help them realize the desired goals outlined in the plan.
Participants in the Southside Hampton Roads regional planning process formulated the following goals, which categorize the
types of mitigation actions ultimately adopted at the local level.
Goal #1 Develop plans and studies that will support the implementation of techniques that will aid in the
mitigation of natural hazards in the region.
Goal #2 Conduct public education, outreach and awareness programs to help local citizens better understand
hazard mitigation and ways to protect lives and property from the impact of natural hazards.
Goal #3 Undertake cost beneficial structural projects across the region that will be beneficial to reducing the
impact of natural hazards when they occur.
Goal #4 Implement sound hazard mitigation policies into the framework of local government operations across
the region.
From these regional goals, each participating jurisdiction established specific mitigation actions, written in the form of policies and
projects. Each mitigation action includes assigned responsibilities, potential funding sources and a timeline for implementation.
Action plans link the broad ideas established in the Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Plan with strategic, action-oriented
tasks.
This Plan provides a blueprint for helping communities reduce damages and save lives in the event of a natural disaster in the
region. This Plan is meant to be a living document that is updated and changed on a continual basis.
This section provides a general introduction to the Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Plan and consists of the following
four subsections:
BACKGROUND
PURPOSE
SCOPE
AUTHORITY
BACKGROUND
Natural hazards, such as floods, tornadoes and severe winter storms are a part of the world around us. Their occurrence is
natural and inevitable, and there is little we can do to control their force and intensity.
Jurisdictions participating in this planning process are vulnerable to a wide range of natural
hazards that threaten the safety of residents, and have the potential to damage or destroy
both public and private property and disrupt the local economy and overall quality of life.
While the threat from hazards may never be fully eliminated, there is much we can do to
lessen their potential impact. The concept and practice of reducing risks associated with
known hazards is referred to as hazard mitigation.
FEMA Definition of
Hazard mitigation techniques include both structural measures, such Hazard Mitigation as strengthening or
protecting buildings and infrastructure from the destructive forces of potential hazards,
“Any sustained action taken to
and non-structural measures, such as the adoption of sound land use reduce or eliminate the long-
or floodplain
management policies and the creation of public awareness programs. term risk to human life and Effective mitigation
measures are often implemented at the county or municipal level, property from [natural] where decisions on
the regulation and control of development are made. A hazards.” comprehensive
mitigation approach addresses hazard vulnerabilities that exist today and in the
foreseeable future. Therefore it is essential that projected patterns of future development
are evaluated and considered in terms of how that growth will increase or decrease a community’s hazard vulnerability over time.
Land use is a particularly important theme in the Southside Hampton Roads Plan, where many communities are facing increasing
growth rates. Now is the time to effectively guide development away from identified hazard areas and environmentally sensitive
locations, before unsound development patterns emerge and people and property are placed in harm’s way.
As a community formulates a comprehensive approach to reduce the impacts of hazards, a key means to accomplish this task is
through the development, adoption, and regular update of a local hazard mitigation plan. A hazard mitigation plan establishes the
community vision, guiding principles and the specific actions designed to reduce current and future hazard vulnerabilities.
The Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Plan (hereinafter referred to as “Hazard Mitigation Plan” or “Plan”) is a logical
first step toward incorporating hazard mitigation principles and practices into the day-to-day activities of county and municipal
governments. The Plan recommends specific actions designed to protect residents as well as the built environment from those
hazards that pose the greatest risk. Identified mitigation actions go beyond recommending structural solutions to reduce existing
vulnerability, such as elevation, retrofitting and acquisition projects. Local policies on community growth and development,
incentives tied to natural resource protection, and public awareness and outreach activities are examples of other actions intended
to reduce participating jurisdiction’s future vulnerability to identified hazards.
DISASTER MITIGATION ACT OF 2000

In an effort to reduce the Nation's mounting natural disaster losses, the U.S. Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
(DMA 2000). Section 322 of DMA 2000 requires that state and local governments develop a hazard mitigation plan in order to
remain eligible for pre- and post-disaster mitigation funding. These funds include the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program, both of which are administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). Communities with an adopted and federally approved hazard mitigation plan thereby become pre-positioned and more
apt to receive available mitigation funds before and after the next disaster strikes.
This Plan was prepared in coordination with FEMA and the Virginia Division of Emergency Management in order to ensure that it
meets all applicable state and federal mitigation planning requirements. A Local Mitigation Plan Crosswalk, found in Appendix C,
provides a summary of FEMA’s current minimum standards of acceptability and notes the location within the Plan where each
planning requirement is met.
PURPOSE
The general purposes of this Hazard Mitigation Plan are to:
protect life and property by reducing the potential for future damages and economic losses that result from natural
hazards;
qualify for additional grant funding, in both the pre-disaster and post-disaster environment;
speed recovery and redevelopment following future disasters;
integrate existing flood mitigation documents;
demonstrate a firm local commitment to hazard mitigation principles; and
comply with state and federal legislative requirements tied to local hazard mitigation planning.
SCOPE
This Hazard Mitigation Plan will be updated and maintained to continually address those natural hazards determined to be of high
and moderate risk as defined by the results of the risk assessment (see “Conclusions on Hazard Risk” in Section 6: Vulnerability
Assessment). Other natural hazards that pose a low or negligible risk will continue to be evaluated during future updates to the
Plan in order to determine if they warrant additional attention, including the development of specific mitigation measures intended
to reduce their impact.
The planning area1 includes unincorporated areas of Isle of Wight County, the cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk, and
Virginia Beach and the towns of Smithfield and Windsor (both located in Isle of Wight County).
AUTHORITY
This Hazard Mitigation Plan has been adopted by the jurisdictions noted above in accordance with the authority and police powers
granted to counties as defined by the State of Virginia. Copies of all resolutions to adopt the Plan are included in Appendix D.
This Plan was developed in accordance with current state and federal rules and regulations governing local hazard mitigation
plans. The Plan shall be monitored and updated on a routine basis to maintain compliance with the following legislation:
Section 322, Mitigation Planning, of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as enacted by
Section 104 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-390) and by FEMA’s Interim Final Rule published in the
Federal Register on February 26, 2002, at 44 CFR Part 201.
This section describes the mitigation planning process undertaken by jurisdictions participating in the development of the
Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Plan. This section consists of the following seven subsections:
OVERVIEW OF HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING

PREPARING THE PLAN
THE PLANNING TEAM
COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS
INVOLVING THE PUBLIC
INVOLVING STAKEHOLDERS
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PARTICIPATION
OVERVIEW OF HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING
Local hazard mitigation planning involves the process of organizing community resources, identifying and assessing hazard risks,
and determining how to minimize or manage those risks. This process results in a hazard mitigation plan that identifies specific
1
Refer to Section 3: Community Profile for maps and other specific geographic details of the planning area.
actions that are designed to meet the goals established by those that participate in the planning process. To ensure the
functionality of each mitigation action, responsibility is assigned to a specific individual, department or agency along with a
schedule for its implementation. Plan maintenance procedures are established to help ensure that the plan is implemented, as
well as evaluated and enhanced as necessary. Developing clear plan maintenance procedures ensures that the Hazard
Mitigation Plan remains a current, dynamic and effective planning document over time.
Participating in a hazard mitigation planning process can help local officials, and to some extent, citizens achieve the following
results:
save lives and property;

save money;
speed recovery following disasters;
reduce future vulnerability through wise development and post-disaster recovery and reconstruction;
enhance coordination within and across participating jurisdictions;
expedite the receipt of pre-disaster and post-disaster grant funding; and
demonstrate a firm commitment to improving community health and safety.
Mitigation planning represents an important tool to produce long-term recurring benefits by breaking the repetitive cycle of disaster
loss. A core assumption of hazard mitigation is that pre-disaster investments will significantly reduce the demand for post-disaster
assistance by lessening the need for emergency response, repair, recovery and reconstruction. Furthermore, mitigation practices
will enable local residents, businesses and industries to re-establish themselves in the wake of a disaster, getting the community
economy back on track sooner and with less interruption.
The benefits of mitigation planning go beyond reducing hazard vulnerability. Measures such as the acquisition or regulation of
land in known hazard areas can help achieve multiple community goals, such as preserving open space, improving water quality,
maintaining environmental health and enhancing recreational opportunities. It is the intent of this document to help identify
overlapping community objectives and facilitate the sharing of resources to achieve multiple aims.
PREPARING THE PLAN
The multi-jurisdictional planning process recommended by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA Publication
Series 386) to develop this Plan. A Local Mitigation Plan Crosswalk, found in Appendix B, provides a detailed summary of
FEMA’s current minimum standards of acceptability for compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and notes the location
of where each requirement is met within the Plan. These standards are based upon FEMA’s Interim Final Rule as published in
the Federal Register on February 26, 2002, in Part 201 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
The planning process included twelve (12) major steps that were completed over the course of approximately ten months. These
steps are illustrated in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Planning Process
Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee, PBS&J

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

The participants listed in Table 2.1 represent the members of the Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Committee who
were responsible for participating in the development of the Plan. Committee members are listed in alphabetical order by
jurisdiction.
TABLE 2.1: HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
NAME JURISDICTION / TITLE
Tammy Karlgaard Hampton Roads Regional Planning Commission; Regional Emergency Management Planner
Hampton Roads Regional Planning Commission; Assistant Regional Emergency
Robert Lawrence
Management Planner
Richard Childress Isle of Wight County; Director, Emergency Management
Mark Harrup Isle of Wight County; Long Range Planner
Ron Keys City of Norfolk, Director, Emergency Preparedness and Response
Jeff Raliski City of Norfolk; Transportation Planning Manager
James Talbott City of Norfolk; Assistant Director, Emergency Management
June Brooks City of Portsmouth; Division Manager, Planning
Troy Tilley City of Portsmouth; Deputy Emergency Management Coordinator, Deputy Fire Chief
Jeff Terwilliger City of Portsmouth; Deputy Emergency Management Coordinator
Bill Hopkins Town of Smithfield; Director, Planning, Engineering and Public Works
Jim Judkins City of Suffolk; Emergency Management Coordinator
Mark Marchbank City of Virginia Beach; Deputy Emergency Management Coordinator
Jules Robichaud City of Virginia Beach; GIS Analyst
Clay Bernick City of Virginia Beach; Environmental Planner
COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS
The preparation of the Plan required a series of meetings and

workshops intended to facilitate discussion and initiate data collection efforts
with local community officials. More importantly, the meetings and
workshops prompted continuous input and feedback from local officials
throughout the drafting of the Plan.
Below is a summary of the key meetings and workshops conducted by the

Hazard Mitigation Committee.2 Individual meetings were also held by
each participating jurisdiction and their designated staff in order to complete
various planning tasks throughout the planning process including completing
the Local Capability Assessment Survey and identification of
mitigation actions beyond those created during the second mitigation
planning committee meeting.
Members of the Hazard Mitigation Committee
gathered to discuss necessary tasks and
FIRST HAZARD MITIGATION COMMITTEE individual roles and responsibilities for
MEETING
The first meeting of the Hazard Mitigation Committee preparing the multi-jurisdictional plan. (PBS&J
meeting was held at
the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission on Project Photo) July 25th, 2005. Mark
Marchbank, Deputy Emergency Management Coordinator for the
City of Virginia Beach opened this project “kick-off” meeting by discussing the importance of the Plan and its role in reducing the
potential impacts of future hazard events in the planning area.
Hibak Hersi, Mitigation Planning Coordinator for the Virginia Department of Emergency Management attended the meeting and
provided guidance on the role of the state in the overall planning process as well as the importance of developing a mitigation
strategy that includes both mitigation projects and policies intended to reduce the impacts of identified hazards.
Following an introduction of Hazard Mitigation Committee members, Dr. Gavin Smith of project consultants PBS&J presented a
review of the Disaster Mitigation Act and state guidelines, the proposed planning approach, the timeline for project completion, the
roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in the overall effort and next steps in the process. The roles of the participants in
the planning process are as follows:
Participating Jurisdictions:
• Active participation in the planning process

o Data collection
Risk and capability assessments
o Hazard Mitigation Committee meetings
o Mitigation strategy development
o Plan review and feedback
• Plan adoption
• Project management
o Central point of contact
o Communication and coordination across participating jurisdictions
o Hosting meetings and workshops
o Data collection and exchange
PBS&J:
• Technical assistance
o Planning guidance
o State and federal compliance
• Data collection and analysis
o Risk assessment
o Capability assessment
o Report findings
• Facilitate Hazard Mitigation Committee meetings, workshops and public meetings
• Plan preparation
2
Copies of the agendas, sign-in sheets and handout materials for all meetings and workshops are available upon request.
During the meeting, several handouts were provided to committee members and discussed, including a proposed plan outline, the
capability assessment survey and a data collection checklist. The proposed plan outline was approved by the committee with no
revisions. Dr. Smith then walked committee members through the capability assessment survey, the primary instrument used to
collect information from participants about their ability to undertake various mitigation actions. It was agreed that the survey would
be completed no later than August 9, 2005. A two-page summary of the planning process, titled “Southside Hampton Roads
Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan,” was provided to committee members to be used as an informational tool should elected officials
or members of their jurisdiction’s local mitigation committee have questions regarding the nature of the planning process. The
document was also intended to be posted on jurisdictional websites if desired.
During this meeting it was noted that a GIS Users Group currently exists and will be used to collect relevant GIS data layers that
will be used in various sections of this Plan. Jules Robichaud, Systems Analyst for the City of Virginia Beach leads the user group
and agreed to coordinate the collection of data.
Following all discussions, the next steps in the process were reviewed, and assigned. The steps included:
Finalization of Hazard Mitigation Committee membership (Hazard Mitigation Committee members)

Collection of local data (Hazard Mitigation Committee members)
Collection of data from national datasets (PBS&J)
Completion of Capability Assessment Survey’s (Hazard Mitigation Committee members)
Development of risk and capability assessments (PBS&J)
Preliminary identification of potential mitigation actions (Hazard Mitigation Committee members and PBS&J)
SECOND HAZARD MITIGATION COMMITTEE MEETING: “MITIGATION STRATEGY WORKSHOP”

The second meeting of the Hazard Mitigation Committee was held on October 18, 2005 in the form of a four-hour “Mitigation
Strategy Workshop.” The workshop began with a detailed presentation by PBS&J on the findings of the risk assessment and
capability assessment. This overview provided county and municipal officials with a more thorough understanding of the hazard
risks in their communities, along with the varied levels of local capabilities available to address them.
During the presentation of the risk assessment and capability assessment findings, workshops participants were asked to provide
feedback and comments on the findings to address questions and discuss potential concerns. The feedback received from the
workshop participants was important in the development of an accurate and well-researched risk assessment.
CARDSTORMING EXERCISE
Upon completing the presentation and discussions on the findings of the risk
and capability assessments, PBS&J facilitated a “cardstorming”
exercise—an interactive brainstorming session for workshop attendees to begin
building general countywide consensus on the mitigation goals for the Hazard
Mitigation Plan. Participants were asked to identify specific mitigation actions that
their community could undertake to become less vulnerable to the hazards identified
through the risk assessment. Each participant was encouraged to keep
their own jurisdiction’s existing capabilities in mind, to not only ensure that the
mitigation actions they recommend are achievable but to also capitalize on existing
gaps, weaknesses or opportunities for program enhancement.
As part of the exercise, workshop participants were asked to discuss potential

mitigation policies or projects with official representatives from their community and
instructed to record their proposed mitigation actions on cards that would then be
posted along the wall of the meeting room. This exercise resulted in a variety of
potential mitigation strategies, goals or actions being submitted and posted
on the wall for further review, discussion and consideration by the committee.
Community officials used this time to elaborate upon each of their proposed
mitigation action items, and to share concerns and thoughts related to each one
as a group. The Hazard Mitigation Advisory
Committee proposed a variety of
possible mitigation actions to consider
The cardstorming technique required input from every during the cardstorming exercise. workshop participant
and resulted in both broad and very specific types of proposed (PBS&J Project Photo) mitigation actions for
inclusion in the Mitigation Strategy. Following the open discussion, the
exercise continued with the categorization of each mitigation action according to the general consensus of the group. Using the
cards placed along the wall, workshop participants began to arrange the mitigation actions into agreed upon columns that
represented separate mitigation categories. The intended purpose of this categorization was the identification of common themes
that could then translate into goal statements for the Plan.
Upon completion of the exercise, four categories were identified and labeled with separate column headings generated by
consensus of the group. Workshop participants were informed that these categories would later serve as the basis for goal
statements for the Plan. Categories consist of the following:
Plans and Studies

Structural Projects
Policies
Public Education and Awareness
Another outcome of the cardstorming exercise was the preliminary identification of potential mitigation actions for participating
jurisdictions to consider for incorporation into their own individual Mitigation Action Plans. These actions are summarized in Table
2.2. Note that not all of these potential mitigation actions made it into the Mitigation Action Plans for the various jurisdictions.
Table 2.2: Potential Mitigation Actions for the Southside Hampton Roads region
PROPOSED ACTION JURISDICTION HAZARD CATEGORY
Plans and
Develop dam failure mitigation plan Suffolk Studies Dam failure
Conduct study to support underground utilities Plans and
expansion Virginia Beach Studies Multiple
Plans and
Pre-identification of special needs populations Portsmouth Studies Multiple
Plans and
Mitigation of urban flooding Suffolk Studies Flood
Plans and
Complete Virginia Hurricane and Evacuation Study Virginia Beach Studies Hurricanes
Plans and
Establish realistic base flood elevations Suffolk Studies Flood
Plans and
Host sheltering plan Virginia Beach Studies Multiple
Modernization and remapping of flood insurance rate Plans and
maps Virginia Beach Studies Flood
Study and implement stormwater drainage in DSD's Isle of Plans and
to manage water runoff and flooding Wight/Smithfield Studies Flood
Structural
Interoperability for communications Virginia Beach Projects Multiple
Structural
Roads (vulnerability and structural improvements) Virginia Beach Projects Multiple
Critical infrastructure storm protection and backup
power facilitation. Protect windows and provide
generator hook-ups/generators for water/sewer, Isle of Structural
governments buildings, schools, etc. Wight/Smithfield Projects Multiple
Structural Hurricanes/Coastal
Extend seawall including stormwater pumps Portsmouth Projects Erosion
Permanent generators for primary shelters and other Structural
critical city facilities Portsmouth Projects Multiple
Structural
Quick connect capability for infrastructure Virginia Beach Projects Multiple
Buyout of riverine and coastal flood prone properties Isle of Structural
(A, AE, VE) Wight/Smithfield Projects Flood
Underground utilities Portsmouth Policies Multiple
Establish natural vegetation mitigation program Suffolk Policies Multiple

Voluntary compliance program increasing structural
standard: Norfolk Storm Guard Home Norfolk Policies Multiple
Public
Education and
Public awareness Norfolk Awareness Multiple
Public
Increased presentations and public awareness Education and
program Portsmouth Awareness Multiple
Public
Education and
Public education (need materials) Red Cross Awareness Multiple
Public
Flood insurance awareness and education (renter, Education and
owner and commercial) Virginia Beach Awareness Flood
Encourage community involvement with jurisdictions Public
for planning (needs to be included in planning Education and
process) Red Cross Awareness Multiple
Before the meeting concluded, PBS&J distributed and explained several handouts for workshop participants to use in identifying
specific mitigation actions for incorporation into their own respective Mitigation Action Plans. This included Mitigation Action
Worksheets (forms for proposing individual mitigation actions), along with a variety of planning tools and reference guides for
considering and evaluating possible mitigation action alternatives.3 Workshop participants were instructed to take these materials
back to their individual jurisdictions to identify and prioritize additional mitigation actions as appropriate.4
THIRD MITIGATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

The third meeting of the Hazard Mitigation Committee meeting was held on January 20, 2006 during which the draft Risk
Assessment section of the Hazard Mitigation Plan were reviewed, discussed and prepared for final submission to VDEM. At this
meeting, emphasis was also placed on addressing any missing information needed from each jurisdiction. The meeting also
provided an opportunity for the committee members to add new mitigation actions.
This was the final meeting of the Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee. A draft of the entire Plan was
presented to committee members on February 20, 2006. All review comments received from the participating jurisdictions are
incorporated into the Plan. A final draft of the Plan was delivered to committee members on (tbd). At that time, each jurisdiction
began the process of conducting a final public meeting and adoption of the Plan.
INVOLVING THE PUBLIC
An 44 CFR Requirement important

Part 201.6(b)(1): The planning process shall include an opportunity for the public to comment on
the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval.
component of Southside Hampton Road’s community-based mitigation planning process involves public participation. Individual
citizen involvement provides the Hazard Mitigation Committee with a greater understanding of local concerns and ensures a
higher degree of mitigation success by developing community “buy-in” from those directly affected by public policy and planning
decisions. As citizens become more involved in decisions that affect their life and safety, they are more likely to gain a greater
appreciation of the natural hazards present in their community and take personal steps to reduce their potential impact. Public
awareness is a key component of an overall mitigation strategy aimed at making a home, neighborhood, school, business or city
safer from the effects of natural hazards.
Public input was sought using three methods: (1) open public meetings; (2) the creation of a public participation survey instrument;
and (3) the posting of the draft Hazard Mitigation Plan on Internet Web sites and at government offices. Public meetings were
held at two stages of the planning process; following the Mitigation Strategy workshop and prior to adoption by each participating
jurisdiction.
Two public meetings were held on the evening of October 18, 2005 at Kempsville Middle School in Virginia Beach and at the
Suffolk Fire Department #3 in Suffolk. The meetings were advertised through the posting of a public meeting notice at county and
municipal offices, along with a newspaper advertisement (Figure 2.2). Civic leagues were also specifically notified by email of
the public meetings. The intent of the meetings was to inform citizens about the importance of hazard mitigation, describe the
mitigation planning process and discuss the findings of the risk assessment. Any general issues or concerns that attending
members of the public expressed were documented.
A Public Participation Survey was created in order to collect additional information from citizens about local hazard concerns. The
survey was available at each public meeting and was also made available on the internet. Email notifications were sent to civic
leagues in the region to make them aware of the survey’s availability. Hard copies of the survey were distributed at municipal and
county offices. A total of 329 surveys were completed and returned. A copy of the survey that was distributed and a summary of
results gathered from the survey can be found in Appendix E.
3
Copies of all planning tools and reference guides distributed at the meeting are available upon request.
4
It was agreed by the Hazard Mitigation Committee that prioritizing mitigation actions was to be based on the following five (5) factors: (1) effect
on overall risk to life and property; (2); ease of implementation; (3) political and community support; (4) a general economic cost/benefit review;
and (5) funding availability.
Figure 2.2: Public Meeting Notice
Upon completion of the final draft Plan, the Plan was made available for review at county and municipal offices across the region.
Each participating jurisdiction held public meetings before the Plan was officially adopted by their respective governing bodies.
The meetings provided citizens with a final opportunity to review the content of each of the Plan’s sections, to ask questions and
suggest possible revisions.
INVOLVING STAKEHOLDERS
44 CFR Requirement A range of

stakeholders,
Part 201.6(b)(2): The planning process shall include an opportunity for neighboring communities,
local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have including neighboring
authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non- communities,
profit interests to be involved in the planning process. agencies,
businesses,
academia, nonprofits, and other interested parties were invited and encouraged to participate in the development of the Hazard
Mitigation Plan. Stakeholder involvement was encouraged through notifications and invitations to agencies or individuals to
participate in Hazard Mitigation Committee meetings and the Mitigation Strategy Workshop. The invitation and attendance of
these stakeholders at the Mitigation Strategy Workshop are documented in Table 2.4.
In addition to the Mitigation Committee meetings, the Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee encouraged more
open and widespread participation in the mitigation planning process through the design and publication of newspaper
advertisements that promoted the open public meetings. These media advertisements and survey instruments provided local
officials, residents and businesses with an opportunity to be involved and offer input throughout the local mitigation planning
process.
TABLE 2.4: STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN THE PLANNING PROCESS5

INVITED TO ATTENDED
STAKEHOLDER GROUP MITIGATION STRATEGY MITIGATION STRATEGY
WORKSHOP WORKSHOP
American Red Cross Yes Yes
Peninsula Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Yes
National Weather Service Yes Yes
Virginia Department of Emergency Management Yes Yes
Navy Mid Atlantic Command Yes
USACE Norfolk Office Yes
NOTIFICATION OF NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS
In order to meet the FEMA requirement that neighboring jurisdictions be allowed to participate in the hazard mitigation planning
process, members of the Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee kept in close contact with the
members of the Peninsula Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee6 during the development of this Plan.
5
These individuals were contacted by written letter followed up with e-mail and telephone calls.
6
The Peninsula Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee is comprised of representatives from the neighboring jurisdictions of Hampton, Newport
News, Williamsburg, James City County and York County.
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PARTICIPATION
The 44 CFR Requirement

Part 201.6(a)(3): Multi-jurisdictional plans may be accepted as long as each jurisdiction has
participated in the planning process.
Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Plan is multi-jurisdictional and includes the participation of the following jurisdictions:
Isle of Wight County

City of Norfolk
City of Portsmouth
Town of Smithfield
City of Suffolk
City of Virginia Beach
Town of Windsor
To satisfy multi-jurisdictional participation requirements, each of the local jurisdictions was required to perform the following tasks:
1. Designate appropriate officials to serve on the Mitigation Planning Committee;

2. Participate in all mitigation planning meetings and workshops;
3. Provide best available data as required for the risk assessment portion of the Plan;
4. Complete the local Capability Assessment Survey and provide copies of any mitigation or hazard-related documents for
review and incorporation into the Plan;
5. Support the development of a regional Mitigation Strategy, including the design and adoption of general goal statements
for all jurisdictions to pursue;
6. Develop a local Mitigation Action Plan with specific mitigation actions for their jurisdiction;
7. Review and provide timely comments on all draft components of the Plan;
8. Adopt the Hazard Mitigation Plan, including the local Mitigation Action Plan specific to their jurisdiction.
Through the completion of these tasks each jurisdiction fully participated in the development of this Plan. Further, through the
preparation of their own local Mitigation Action Plans, each jurisdiction was responsible for addressing their most significant
hazard concerns. This separate component of the document (Appendix A) provides the opportunity for jurisdictions to monitor and
update their own specific Plan implementation responsibilities without necessarily having to meet with the Hazard Mitigation
Committee. It also enables each of the jurisdictions to be solely responsible and accountable for those actions that apply to their
jurisdiction. All jurisdictions participated in all mitigation planning meetings and workshops, as well as reviewed and provided
timely comments on all draft components of the Plan.
This section of the Plan provides a general overview of the Southside of Hampton Roads region, including Isle of Wight County, the
cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk and Virginia Beach and the towns of Smithfield and Windsor. This section consists of the
following five subsections:
GEOGRAPHY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS
HOUSING, INFRASTRUCTURE AND LAND USE
EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRY
DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
GEOGRAPHY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

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

Isle of Wight County was established as Worrosquoyacke County in 1634, one of eight counties divided from the Virginia colony.
The original boundaries of the county included Lawne’s Creek to the north, the James River to the east, the head of Colonel Pitt's
Creek to the south and undeveloped wooded area to the west. In 1656, Ragged Island and Nansemond County were
incorporated into Isle of Wight County. A long dispute between the counties of Isle of Wight and Nansemond continued until 1674,
when the General Assembly established the boundaries that exist today.
TABLE 3.1: SUMMARY OF POPULATION, HOUSING, LAND AREA AND DENSITY

DENSITY PER SQUARE
AREA IN SQUARE MILES
HOUSING MILE OF LAND AREA
JURISDICTION POPULATION
UNITS TOTAL WATER LAND HOUSING
POPULATION
AREA AREA AREA UNITS
Isle of Wight
29,728 12,066 363 47 316 94 38
County
Norfolk 234,403 94,416 96 43 54 4,363 1,757
Portsmouth 100,565 41,605 47 13 33 3,033 1,255
Smithfield 6,324 2,552 10 1 10 664 268
Suffolk 63,677 24,704 429 29 400 159 62
Virginia Beach 425,257 162,277 497 249 248 1,713 654
Windsor 916 422 1 0 1 1,077 496

REGION
860,870 338,042 1,443 382 1,061 811 318
TOTAL
VIRGINIA 7,078,515 2,904,192 42774 3180 39594 179 73
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000
Isle of Wight County is thirty-seven miles in length and maintains an average breadth of eleven miles. The county is comprised of
approximately 363 square miles, of which 80 percent is land area. The area contains relatively flat, but rolling terrain with average
elevation of approximately 80 feet above sea level. The land generally dips to the northeast from a plateau west of Bethel Church,
and from that same plateau, the land dips to the northwest and west. Several swamps, ravines and creeks drain to the James
River, the Blackwater River and the Nansemond River.
Today, Isle of Wight's residents enjoy the rural nature of the County coupled with the quaint atmosphere of the two incorporated
Towns, Smithfield and Windsor. While the local economy remains largely agriculturally-based, the area’s scenic beauty, historic
nature and proximity to other attractions in the Hampton Roads area greatly contribute to the tourist draw. In addition, the County
is close enough to the transportation hubs and employments of the Norfolk-Virginia Beach area to attract year round residents and
businesses alike.
City of Norfolk
The City of Norfolk, located on the Elizabeth River, was founded in 1682 but wasn’t incorporated as a city until 1845. Initially
comprised of only 50 acres, the city has grown to a total of 96 square miles today.
Norfolk is comprised of seven miles of Chesapeake Bay waterfront and a total of 144 miles of shoreline, including lakefront, rivers
and the Bay. Naval Station Norfolk, which was established on the old Jamestown Exposition grounds in 1917, is the world’s
largest naval base. The city is also home to the North American Headquarters for the North American Treaty Organization
(NATO). Norfolk is the most densely developed jurisdiction in the Southside Hampton Roads region at 4,363 people per square
mile.
Today, Norfolk is a city of more than 100 diverse neighborhoods. It is recognized as the cultural, educational, business and
medical center of the Southside Hampton Roads region, and is currently undergoing a successful urban renewal, including new
office, retail, entertainment and hotel construction downtown, new residential development along the rivers and bay front, and
revitalization projects in many of its neighborhoods.
City of Portsmouth
The City of Portsmouth was founded as a town in 1752 on the shores of the Elizabeth River by Colonel William Crawford. In
1858, the town was separated from the county government and given status as an independent city.
Portsmouth’s location as an East Coast deepwater port and available business sites in proximity to the nation’s largest shipyard
has provided a significant impetus for economic growth in the area. Today Portsmouth is in the middle of the dynamic Norfolk-
Virginia Beach metropolitan area and home to more than 100,000 people. In addition to the many medical, cultural and
recreational facilities within the immediate community, Portsmouth’s newly revitalized downtown is bustling with retail, restaurant
and service-related businesses. The historic waterfront neighborhood of Olde Towne lines the Elizabeth River and is easily
traversed by the famous downtown seawall, and the City of Norfolk is easily accessible by a quick 5-minute ferry ride across the
river.
Town of Smithfield
The Town of Smithfield was incorporated in 1752 by Arthur Smith IV who parceled out his family farm into 72 lots and 4 streets in
order to house British merchants and ship captains. The town is located on the banks of the Pagan River, which flows into the
James River. Smithfield was a river town from its very beginning, and the livelihood of its residents and continued growth over the
years has been influenced by the river. The town is comprised of approximately ten square miles.
Nurtured by trade and commerce, Smithfield soon became a town of industry with four plants devoted to the art of curing the world
famous "Smithfield Ham.” Once a commercial center for shipping, Smithfield has evolved to host one of the area's largest meat-
processing industries as well as the home to one of Hampton Roads' largest employers - Smithfield Foods, Inc.
Smithfield has many of the charms associated with Hampton Roads communities, including many historic homes representing
18th & 19th Century architecture, a revitalized historic downtown, and all the character of a former colonial seaport. To preserve
the historical charm, the Town of Smithfield and individual property owners took the steps to protect the integrity and history of
their ancestors by enacting a Historic Preservation District Ordinance in 1979. Smithfield offers residents a small-town
atmosphere, a good school system, affordable housing, a historic downtown, and a new state-of-the-art community/conference
center.
City of Virginia Beach

The first settlement inside the city limits of Virginia Beach was made on Lynnhaven Bay in 1621, and the area first became
incorporated as a town in 1908. In 1963, the Town of Virginia Beach merged with Princess Anne County to form the independent
City of Virginia Beach. Today, Virginia Beach is the largest and fastest growing city in the state.
The city consists of 249 square miles of inland water and 248 square miles of land. The topography is relatively flat with an
average elevation of twelve feet above sea level. The area contains extensive brackish tidal areas, such as the Lynnhaven and
Elizabeth River systems, and expansive freshwater tidal areas, such as the North Landing River and Back Bay systems.
Due to a combination of the city’s geographic position on the mid-Atlantic coastline and the straddling two of ecologically
significant estuaries, Chesapeake Bay and Pamlico Sound, the area serves as the southern limit of many northern plant and
animal species. The Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, established in 1938 and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
is an 8,000 acre fresh water refuge that borders the Atlantic Ocean on the east and Back Bay on the west. The barrier islands
feature large sand dunes, maritime forests, fresh water marshes, ponds, ocean beach, and large impoundments for wintering
wildfowl.
Virginia Beach is best known as a major resort destination, with miles of beaches and dozens of hotels, motels, and restaurants.
It is also home to several state parks, several long protected beach areas, four military bases, a number of large corporations, and
two universities. Much of the land remained undeveloped until World War II when the Navy built Oceana Naval Air Station,
followed by three more military bases, including Little Creek, Fort Story, and Dam Neck. Since the end of the war, Virginia Beach
has experienced continued rapid growth and is the region’s most populous jurisdiction at more than 425,000 people.
Town of Windsor
The Town of Windsor is located in the heart of Isle of Wight County. The town’s original name was Corrowaugh and was
established as a post office in 1852. Five years later, the Norfolk & Petersburg Railroad company obtained the post office and
built a depot called Windsor Station. In 1902, a town charter was granted by the General Assembly and it became the Town of
Windsor, Virginia.
In 1950 the Windsor Ruritan Club and the Town of Windsor built a "Community House" which has been a valuable asset to the
community over the years. In the next three decades the town services improved and expanded. The streets were upgraded and
paved, sidewalks extended, additional streetlights installed, drainage improved, and ditches piped and filled in. The privately
owned water systems in the town limits were purchased by the town, upgraded, extended and an above ground water storage
tower was erected. In 1971 the Windsor Volunteer Rescue Squad was founded and continues to provide service to the town and
surrounding community.
In July 2001, the Town of Windsor annexed 2.82 square miles of Isle of Wight County. As a result, the total area increased from
one square mile to 3.82 square miles and in population increased from approximately 900 to 2,347. Also in 2001, Isle of Wight
County helped install a central sewer system in the town which opened up many areas for new homes and businesses. The Town
of Windsor remains a small rural town amidst the region’s larger, more populated cities which are easily accessible through two
main roads bisecting the town, Route 460 and Route 258.
City of Suffolk
In 1742, the Town of Suffolk, which was originally part of the County of Nansemond, was established. The town was burned by
the British in 1779 and damaged by other fires throughout the next century, but survived to eventually become incorporated as a
city in 1910. In 1974, the City of Suffolk consolidated with the towns of Holland and Whaleyville, and the County of Nansemond.
At that point it became the largest city (geographically) in Virginia and the 11th largest in the country, encompassing a total of
nearly 430 square miles. This large area is made up of rich land with woods, lakes, rivers, and rolling terrain.
The City of Suffolk is located along the Nansemond River, and is still largely recognized as the “Peanut Capital” of the world and
as the home of “Mr. Peanut.” In 1912, an Italian immigrant named Amedeo Obici moved from Pennsylvania to Suffolk and opened
Planters Nut and Chocolate Company. Today, Suffolk remains a major peanut processing center and transportation hub.
POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS
According to 2000 census records, the Southside Hampton Roads region has a population of 860,870 people. Table 3.2 shows
total population, percent of children under the age of 18, percent of elderly population (age 65 and over), percent of white
population and disability status for participating jurisdictions as compared with the state totals for Virginia. Among the seven
jurisdictions in the planning area, the City of Virginia Beach has the highest population, followed by the cities of Norfolk,
Portsmouth and Suffolk. The percent of children under the age of eighteen and over the age of 65 in the seven jurisdictions is
comparable to statewide averages. The City of Virginia Beach has the largest elderly population, even though the proportion of
elderly is lower than other communities. More than 50 percent of the total population in the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth is
non-white, and the percentage of disabled persons is higher in all seven jurisdictions than the statewide average of 17.5 percent.
TABLE 3.2: POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
UNDER 18 65 YEARS WHITE

TOTAL DISABILITY
JURISDICTION YEARS OLD AND OVER POPULATION
POPULATION STATUS (%)
(%) (%) (%)
Isle of Wight County 29,728 25 12.2 71.1 20.1
Norfolk 234,403 24 10.9 48.4 23.5
Portsmouth 100,565 26 13.8 45.8 24.7
Smithfield 6,324 27 13.6 67.2 22.1
Suffolk 63,677 28 11.4 53.8 24.4
Virginia Beach 425,257 27 8.4 71.4 15.3
Windsor 916 24 12.4 89.7 19.9
REGION TOTAL 860,870 25.85 11.81 63.91 21.43
VIRGINIA 7,078,515 25 11.2 72.3 17.5

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

JURISDICTION 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Isle of Wight County 18,285 21,603 25,053 29,728 33,798 37,500 41,500
Norfolk 307,951 266,979 261,250 234,403 228,300 228,297 228,300
Portsmouth 110,963 104,577 103,910 100,565 97,398 95,900 94,400
Suffolk 45,024 47,621 52,143 63,677 77,801 87,801 97,799
Virginia Beach 172,106 262,199 393,089 425,257 444,802 460,900 477,000
REGION TOTAL 656,299 704,959 837,435 855,630 884,109 912,418 941,029

FIGURE 3.3: POPULATION CHANGES AND PROJECTED CHANGES, 1970-2030
500,000
400,000
Population
300,000 Norfolk
Portsmouth
200,000 Suffolk
Virginia Beach
100,000
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Year
HOUSING, INFRASTRUCTURE AND LAND USE
According to the 2000 Census, there are a total of approximately 338,013 housing units in the Southside Hampton Roads region
with more than 90 percent of the units classified as occupied. Approximately 48 percent of housing units in the region are located
in the City of Virginia Beach. All of the houses in the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth are within designated urban areas, while all
of the houses in the Town of Windsor are located non-urban areas. The average age of housing units in the cities of Norfolk and
Portsmouth is notably older than houses in other areas (the median year of construction is 1959 and 1961, respectively), and the
two cities also have the highest percentage of structures built before 1970. Table 3.4 summarizes data on housing characteristics
for each jurisdiction within the Southside Hampton Roads region, and more specific information is provided in Section 5:
Vulnerability Assessment.
TABLE 3.4: HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS

STRUCTURES MEDIAN
TOTAL AVERAGE URBAN
OCCUPIED BUILT YEAR
JURISDICTION HOUSING HOUSEHOLD AREA
UNITS (%) BEFORE 1970 STRUCTURE
UNITS SIZE (%)
(%) BUILT
Isle of Wight County 12,066 2.61 33.77 93.81 32.41 1980
Norfolk 94,416 2.45 100.00 91.31 68.24 1959
Portsmouth 41,605 2.51 100.00 91.74 65.83 1961
Smithfield 2,521 2.55 99.01 96.71 33.68 1978
Suffolk 24,704 2.69 70.98 94.25 40.44 1975
Virginia Beach 162,277 2.7 98.47 95.18 25.31 1980
Windsor 424 2.35 0.00 91.75 47.17 1971
REGION TOTAL 338,013 2.55 71.75 93.54 44.73 1972

The Southside Hampton Roads region provides an integrated network of transportation facilities and infrastructure that includes
many interstates (I-64, I-264, I-464, I-564, I-664) and highways (U.S. 13, 17, 58, 60, 258, 460 and State Route 164), along with
hundreds of secondary roadways and bridges throughout the area. The Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel, which opened in 1964,
connects Virginia's Eastern Shore with the Virginia mainland at Virginia Beach and remains one of the world’s modern engineering
wonders. Freight rail service is provided through CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Corporation, while the nearest
passenger rail is available through Amtrak at the Newport News station. Convenient commercial air service is available through
Norfolk International Airport which offers over 260 flights per day, including direct non-stops to 25 airports of which 17 are major
hubs. The area also serves as one of the nation’s most critical and fastest growing ports. Over 95 percent of the world's shipping
lines call on the Port of Norfolk and Portsmouth linking Virginia and the U.S. to more than 250 ports in over 100 countries around
the world. With its four marine terminals, the Port of Hampton Roads is the second largest volume port on the East Coast in terms
of general cargo (break-bulk and containerized cargo), and the leading U.S. port in total tonnage.
In addition to transportation facilities, the Southside Hampton Roads region provides a significant amount of critical facilities and
infrastructure that include hospitals, schools, police stations, fire stations, energy facilities, water and wastewater facilities and
hazardous material facilities (further discussed in Section 5: Vulnerability Assessment and Appendix F). The large scale military
presence provides its own significant facilities and infrastructure base, though these are located on federal land and outside the
planning area. Electric service is supplied throughout the region by Dominion Virginia Power, and natural gas is provided by
Colombia Gas and Virginia Natural Gas. Superior Telecom provides 11 completely independent networks supported by over
650,000 miles of fiber optics.
Land use varies significantly throughout the Southside Hampton Roads region, with residential development clustered in higher
densities near city centers and along the beach areas of the City of Virginia Beach. While the cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth and
Virginia Beach are rather heavily developed, the majority of Suffolk and Isle of Wight County is considered rural and agricultural
lands. Table 3.5 provides best available information on existing land classifications for each jurisdiction according to the National
Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey7. This data was acquired through the Geospatial and
Statistical Data Center at the University of Virginia Library, and is based on 1992 Landsat thematic mapper imagery and
supplemental data. Figure 3.4 illustrates this data in a series of images for each jurisdiction.
The cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth and Virginia Beach are the most developed jurisdictions in terms of land use and land cover.
According to the NLCD data, more than 70 percent of existing land in Norfolk is classified as residential, commercial or industrial,
followed by Portsmouth (60 percent) and Virginia Beach (24 percent). Nearly 35 percent of land cover in Virginia Beach is
classified as open water or wetlands, which accounts for the relatively low percentage of developed land. Conversely, the existing
land cover for Isle of Wight County and the City of Suffolk are dominated by mostly agricultural lands (row crops), wetlands and
forests. Developed areas in these two jurisdictions are concentrated in the incorporated towns of Smithfield and Windsor in Isle of
Wight County, and near the north and central portions of Suffolk.
TABLE 3.5: LAND COVER / LAND USE
ISLE OF
VIRGINIA
LAND COVER WIGHT NORFOLK PORTSMOUTH SUFFOLK
BEACH
TYPE COUNTY (%) (%) (%)
(%)
(%)
Pasture/Hay 12.1 1.3 9.4 3.9
Row Crops 25.3 3 22.9 17.1
Woody Wetlands 13 1.2 27.5 14.6
Open Water 1.8 11.6 10.5 3 11.4

Emerg/Herbaceous
2.3 2.1 5.4 3 8.8
Wetlands
Urban Recreational
8.2 2.8 4.1
Grasses
Low Intensity
1.6 37.1 21.2 2.5 12.9
Residential
High Intensity
4.2 18.5 0.5 6
Residential
Commercial/Indust
0.9 29.9 20.2 1.9 5.4
rial/Transportation
Quarries, Strip
4.9
Mines, Gravel Pits
Bare Rock, Sand,
1.4
Clay
Transitional 0.7 1.6 1.8 1.6
Deciduous Forest 15.5 1.8 2.7 11.4 7.7
Evergreen Forest 8.5 3.4 5.9 8.4 4.9
Mixed Forest 18 0.7 0.8 7.4

Source: U.S. Geological Survey
7
Data not available for the towns of Smithfield and Windsor.
FIGURE 3.4: LAND COVER / LAND USE
Norfolk
Isle of
Wight County
Portsmouth
Virginia Beach
Suffolk
Low Intensity Residential Deciduous Forest

High Intensity Residential Evergreen Forest
Commercial/Industrial/Transportation Mixed Forest
Quarries, Strip Mines, Gravel Pits Urban Recreational Grasses
Bare Rock, Sand, Clay Woody Wetlands
Transitional Open Water
Pasture/Hay Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
Row Crops
Source: U.S. Geological Survey
EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRY
Nearly two million people live in or within an hour's drive of the Southside Hampton Roads region, and because of the presence of
several naval bases, a large proportion of the total population are employed in military and service related industries. The military
bases not only contribute billions of dollars annually to the regional economy but also supply a skilled labor force. Over 15,000
trained and disciplined personnel leave the military installations each year, and many of these persons decide to stay in the area
and look for local private sector employment. In addition, there are approximately 40,000 military spouses available to work. The
region's tourism industry creates over 10,000 seasonal jobs during summer months. This group provides an additional source of
workers to companies with personnel needs that peak at other times of the year. Lastly, over 86,000 students attend eight
universities and four community colleges in the area. Most of these students are permanent residents available for part-time or
full-time employment while in school and upon graduation.
Table 3.6 shows labor force data, unemployment rates and income and poverty information for each jurisdiction according to the
2000 Census (with the exception of unemployment rates which are shown for the year 2003). Isle of Wight County and the City of
Virginia Beach had the lowest unemployment rate in the region (and less than the statewide average), while the City of Norfolk
had the highest unemployment rate. The City of Virginia Beach had the highest median household income, approximately $2,000
more than the state average. Also, the poverty level for the city is lower than the state average. The City of Norfolk has the
highest poverty level, in which almost one out of five people fall below poverty level.
TABLE 3.6: EMPLOYMENT, INCOME AND POVERTY

FAMILIES
INDIVIDUALS
UNEMPLOYMENT MEDIAN PER BELOW
LABOR BELOW
JURISDICTION RATE (%) HOUSEHOLD CAPITA POVERTY
FORCE POVERTY
(2003) INCOME INCOME LEVEL
LEVEL (%)
(%)
Isle of Wight 14,851 3.4 $45,387 $20,235 6.6 8.3

Norfolk 123,360 6.5 $31,815 $17,372 15.5 19.4
Portsmouth 48,163 6.1 $33,742 $16,507 13.3 16.2
Smithfield 3,028 N/A $43,224 $19,301 11.8 12.0
Suffolk 30,345 4.5 $41,115 $18,836 10.8 13.2
Virginia Beach 220,878 3.7 $48,705 $22,365 5.1 6.5
Windsor 496 N/A $36,528 $20,999 5.9 8.8
VIRGINIA 3,694,663 4.0 $46,677 $23,975 7.0 9.6
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Virginia Economic Development Partnership
The City of Virginia Beach is the most populous city in the state and the fastest growing city in the planning area. The city added
an average of 100 new businesses per month in recent years and this phenomenal growth can be attributed to the city’s inter-
modal location between Washington, D.C. and the Atlantic Ocean. In comparison to other cities, Virginia Beach has a higher
employment rate in trade and service industries as shown in Figure 3.5.
The City of Norfolk is home to the world’s largest naval base and the North American Headquarters for NATO. The city is located
within the region of one of the nation’s fastest growing ports. The service industry is the largest employer in the city (38.8
percent), while 23 percent of the city’s labor force works in government and nearly 15 percent is in the armed forces. Norfolk is
home of a booming cruise port industry and by 2010 the Norfolk International Terminal will complete a 300-acre expansion,
making it the largest inter-model center in the U.S.
Source: Virginia Economic
FIGURE 3.4: EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION IN PERCENT BY SECTOR, 2003 Development Partnership,
2005
Government
100.0
Services
and its communities,
80.0 Financial including the towns of
Smithfield and
Information Windsor, are located
60.0 near major industries
Manufacturing
such as those that
Transportation / Utilities produce agricultural,
40.0 paper and lumber
Trade products and building
materials, meat
20.0 Construction processing plants, as
Natural Resources and well as information
Mining systems and
0.0
manufacturing and
Isle of Wight
Norfolk
Portsmouth
Suffolk
Virginia
Beach equipment assembly
plants. Isle of Wight
County is home to
Smithfield Foods, Inc.,
a Fortune 500
Company and the
largest hog producer and pork processor in the world. Subsidiaries include Smithfield Packing Company and Gwaltney of
Smithfield. The Smithfield Foods and its subsidiaries employ approximately 4,500 people. As shown in Figure 3.5, more than 47
percent of the Isle of Wight County population is employed in manufacturing industries.
The City of Suffolk has experienced rapid population growth since 1970. The city is becoming a center of industrial and advanced
technology. The Virginia Modeling, Analysis and Simulation Center and the U.S. Joint Forces Command are part of northern
Suffolk’s high-tech corridor. Over $132 million in new capital investments were made in Suffolk in 2001, including major office and
industrial projects such as the Ferguson and Target distribution centers. Suffolk maintains the highest percent employment in
transportation and utility industries in the region.
The majority of the City of Portsmouth population works in the service industry, the federal government, ship repair, marine
engineering and health care due to its location adjacent to the shipyard. Thirty-six percent of the total labor force is employed by
city, state and federal government.
DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
As discussed earlier in this section, the Southside Hampton Roads region is expected to continue growing steadily with a
projected population of nearly 1 million people in the planning area by the year 2030. Most of this residential growth is expected
to take place in the large, more spread out cities of Virginia Beach and Suffolk. The more densely concentrated and developed
cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth are expected to continue seeing declines in population during this period, thereby suggesting that
development trends across the region will differ greatly from one jurisdiction to the next.
Details on zoning and comprehensive plans (including future land use plans) can be obtained by contact each jurisdiction directly.
DATA SOURCES
The following primary data sources were among those used to collect the information presented in this section.
• City of Virginia Beach

(http://www.vbgov.com/default/)
• City of Portsmouth
(http://www.portsmouthva.gov/)
• City of Suffolk
(http://www.suffolk.va.us/citygovt/index.html)
• City of Norfolk
(http://www.norfolk.gov)
• Town of Smithfield
(http://www.co.smithfield.va.us/history.html)
• Town of Windsor
(http://www.windsor-va.gov/history.html)
• A Brief History of Isle of Wight County, Virginia. 1608 – 1907, by Col. E. M. Morrison (http://www.iwchs.com/IWCHistory.html)
• Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
(www.hrpdc.org/)
• Hampton Roads Economic Development Alliance
(http://www.hreda.com/index.asp)
• Virginia State/Local Cooperative Population Estimates
(http://www3.ccps.virginia.edu/demographics/slcpe/default.shtml)
• Virginia Economic Development Partnership
(http://virginiascan.yesvirginia.org/Data_Center/Community_Profiles/Default.aspx)
• Virginia Employment Commission
(http://www.vec.virginia.gov/vecportal/)
• Geospatial and Statistical Data Center, University of Virginia Library
(http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/index.html)
• Federal Emergency Management Agency
(www.fema.gov)
• U.S. Census Bureau
(http://www.census.gov/)
• U.S. Geological Survey
(http://www.usgs.gov/)
• eGo.com Travel information-Virginia Beach History
(http://www.ego.net/us/va/vb/history/index.htm)
INTRODUCTION
This section of the Plan describes the natural hazards that can occur in the Southside Hampton Roads region and provides
information such as general background information, local data (such as the location and spatial extent) and historical
occurences8 for each hazard. This section also presents best available data regarding notable historical damages9 within the
region. The hazards discussed in this section are as follows:
FLOOD
HURRICANES AND TROPICAL STORMS
8
Significant historical events are based on information made available through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
unless otherwise cited. In most cases, NOAA information is obtained directly from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), the world’s
largest archive of weather data.
9
Historical damage information is based on best available data and should only be considered approximate figures for general analysis and
planning purposes. More information on the calculation of estimated property damages is provided in Section 6: Vulnerability Assessment.
SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS
LIGHTNING
TORNADOES
WINTER STORMS AND NOR’EASTERS
EROSION (COASTAL AND RIVERINE)
EARTHQUAKES
LANDSLIDES
SINKHOLES
DROUGHT
WILDFIRE
DAM/LEVEE FAILURE
TSUNAMIS
EXTREME TEMPERATURES
Some of these
44 CFR REQUIREMENT hazards are
Part 201.6(c)(2)(i): The risk assessment shall include a description of the type, location and
interrelated (for
extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on
previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events
example, hurricane
events can cause
flooding and tornado activity and nor-easters can cause flooding, coastal erosion and winter storm conditions), and thus
discussion of these hazards may overlap where necessary throughout the risk assessment.
To a large extent, historical records are used to identify the level of risk within the planning area—with the methodological
assumption that the data sources cited are reliable and accurate. This section also provides a series of maps that illustrate the
location and spatial extent for those hazards within the region that have a recognizable geographic boundary (i.e., hazards that
are known to occur in particular areas of the region such as the 100-year floodplain). For those hazards with potential risk not
confined to a particular geographic area (such as winter storms, thunderstorms and tornadoes), historical event locations and/or
general information on the applicable intensity of these events across the entire planning area is provided.
It is important to note that for most hazards analyzed in this section, some level of property damage was possible during any or all
of the hazard events cataloged. However, for events that occurred deeper in the region’s past, historical records in some
instances may show no report of property damage. Therefore, totals of past property damages derived from historical records are
considered to be estimates and should not be used as a stand-alone indicator of hazard risk.
The next section included in this Plan, the Vulnerability Assessment, further expands upon the foundation established in this
section and provides information on the vulnerability of the jurisdiction in the region to the hazards presented here.
SUMMARY OF PRESIDENTIAL DISASTER DECLARATIONS
A presidential disaster declaration is issued when a disaster event has been determined to be beyond the capabilities of state and
local governments to respond. Since 1953— the first year presidential disaster declarations were issued in the United States—the
region has been named in seven such declarations (Table 4.1). Under a presidential disaster declaration, the state and affected
local governments are eligible to apply for federal funding to pay 75 percent of the approved costs for debris removal, emergency
services related to the storm, and the repair or replacement of damaged public facilities. The types of natural hazards that led to
these disaster declarations in the Southside Hampton Roads region are ice storms, winter storms and hurricanes.
The most recent disaster to impact the region was Hurricane Isabel which made landfall on September 18, 2003. Hurricane Isabel
set records for number of disaster victims, breadth of power outages, dollars spent for citizen and local government response and
recovery, and the largest grant for mitigation projects for the State. Altogether 100 Commonwealth jurisdictions were declared
disaster areas; 93,139 individuals in the declared jurisdictions applied for federal and state assistance; more than $257 million in
state and federal assistance has been provided to individuals and business owners for recovering from the storm; $105 million
was distributed to local governments for debris removal, emergency protective services and permanent work; and $25,937,544
was provided to support emergency needs such as water, ice, and generators at critical public facilities.
The second most recent disaster to impact the region occurred during the night of the 24th and lasted through the 25th of January
2000, when a winter storm produced record breaking snowfall in many areas of the state. A freezing rain storm on Super Bowl
Sunday swept through Virginia and coated much of the State in heavy ice. As a result, power lines were down and 285,000
Dominion Virginia Power customers in central Virginia lost power for over three days. The President declared 103 Virginia
jurisdictions eligible for federal disaster assistance on February 28th.
TABLE 4.1: PRESIDENTIAL DISASTER DECLARATIONS ISSUED FOR THE SOUTHSIDE

HAMPTON ROADS REGION
DISASTER
YEAR DATE DISASTER TYPE CITY/COUNTY
NUMBER
Isle of Wight County, Norfolk, Portsmouth,
1972 September 8 339 Tropical Storm Agnes
Suffolk, and Virginia Beach
1996 February 16 1086 Blizzard of 1996
Suffolk and Virginia Beach
1996 October 23 1135 Hurricane Fran Isle of Wight County and Suffolk
Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk and Virginia

1998 October 9 1242 Hurricane Bonnie
Beach
1999 September 24 1293 Hurricane Floyd
Suffolk, and Virginia Beach
2000 February 28 1318 Severe Winter Storm Isle of Wight County and Suffolk

2003 September 18 1491 Hurricane Isabel
Suffolk and Virginia Beach
Source: FEMA
NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER STORM EVENT DATABASE
Much of the data on the remaining tables in this section was taken from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
(NOAA), National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) database. NCDC receives storm data from the National Weather Service who, in
turn, receives their information from a variety of sources, including, but not limited to: county, state and federal emergency
management officials, local law enforcement officials, skywarn spotters, National Weather Service damage surveys, newspaper
clipping services, the insurance industry and the general public. Information on hazard events not recorded in this database is
discussed in narrative format in each of the following hazard subsections. Because NCDC data is most accurate beginning from
the early to mid 1990’s it is only marginally useful. In most cases, local or anecdotal data was used to help supplement the NCDC
data to provide a more accurate depiction of previous hazard occurrences in the region.
FLOOD
BACKGROUND
Flooding is the most frequent and costly of all natural hazards in the United
States, and has caused more than 10,000 deaths since 1900.
Approximately 90 percent of presidentially declared disasters result from
flood-related natural hazard events. Taken as a whole, more frequent,
localized flooding problems that do not meet federal disaster declaration
thresholds ultimately cause the majority of damages across the United
States.
Floods are generally the result of excessive precipitation, and can

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

DAMAGE PER
FISCAL IMPLICIT PRICE DAMAGE IN U.S. POPULATION
DAMAGE CAPITA
YEAR DEFLATOR 1995 DOLLARS (MILLIONS)
(1995 DOLLARS)
1960 $111,168,000 0.22620 $491,000,000 180.671 2.72
1961 $147,680,000 0.22875 $646,000,000 183.691 3.51
1962 $86,574,000 0.23180 $373,000,000 186.538 2.00
1963 $179,496,000 0.23445 $766,000,000 189.242 4.05
1964 $194,512,000 0.23792 $818,000,000 191.889 4.26
1965 $1,221,903,000 0.24241 $5,041,000,000 194.303 25.94
1966 $116,645,000 0.24934 $468,000,000 196.560 2.38
1967 $291,823,000 0.25698 $1,136,000,000 198.712 5.71
1968 $443,251,000 0.26809 $1,653,000,000 200.706 8.24
1969 $889,135,000 0.28124 $3,161,000,000 202.677 15.60
1970 $173,803,000 0.29623 $587,000,000 205.052 2.86
1971 $323,427,000 0.31111 $1,040,000,000 207.661 5.01
1972 $4,442,992,000 0.32436 $13,698,000,000 209.896 65.26
1973 $1,805,284,000 0.34251 $5,271,000,000 211.909 24.87
1974 $692,832,000 0.37329 $1,856,000,000 213.854 8.68
1975 $1,348,834,000 0.40805 $3,306,000,000 215.973 15.31
1976 $1,054,790,000 0.43119 $2,446,000,000 218.035 11.22
1977 $988,350,000 0.45892 $2,154,000,000 220.239 9.78
1978 $1,028,970,000 0.49164 $2,093,000,000 222.585 9.40
1979 $3,626,030,000 0.53262 $6,808,000,000 225.055 30.25
1980 No data 0.58145 No data 227.225 0.00
1981 No data 0.63578 No data 229.466 0.00
1982 No data 0.67533 No data 231.664 0.00
1983 $3,693,572,000 0.70214 $5,260,000,000 233.792 22.50
1984 $3,540,770,000 0.72824 $4,862,000,000 235.825 20.62
1985 $379,303,000 0.75117 $505,000,000 237.924 2.12
1986 $5,939,994,000 0.76769 $7,737,000,000 240.133 32.22
1987 $1,442,349,000 0.79083 $1,824,000,000 242.289 7.53
1988 $214,297,000 0.81764 $262,000,000 244.499 1.07
1989 $1,080,814,000 0.84883 $1,273,000,000 246.819 5.16
1990 $1,636,366,000 0.88186 $1,856,000,000 249.464 7.44
1991 $1,698,765,000 0.91397 $1,859,000,000 252.153 7.37
1992 $672,635,000 0.93619 $718,000,000 255.030 2.82
1993 $16,364,710,000 0.95872 $17,069,000,000 257.783 66.22
1994 $1,120,149,000 0.97870 $1,145,000,000 260.327 4.40
1995 $5,110,714,000 1.00000 $5,111,000,000 262.803 19.45
1996 $6,121,753,000 1.01937 $6,005,000,000 265.229 22.64
1997 $8,934,923,000 1.03925 $8,597,000,000 267.784 32.11
1998 $2,465,048,000 1.05199 $2,343,000,000 270.248 8.67
1999 $5,450,375,000 1.06718 $5107,000,000 272.691 18.73
2000 $1,336,744,000 1.08960 $1227,000,000 282.125 4.35
2001 $7,158,700,000 1.11539 $6418,000,000 284.797 22.54
Source: National Weather Service
LOCATION AND SPATIAL EXTENT
Hydrological features are plentiful in the Southside Hampton Roads region. From the Chesapeake Bay, to the Elizabeth River and
branches, the Blackwater River in Isle of Wight County and the Atlantic Ocean along the shores of Virginia Beach, water is a
major part of the way of life in the region. When heavy or prolonged rainfall events and/or hurricanes, tropical storms and other
coastal storms (including nor’easters) occur, these rivers, streams and bodies of water are susceptible to some degree of riverine
and coastal flooding. There have been a number of past riverine and coastal flooding events, ranging widely in terms of location,
magnitude and impact. Other flood events that occur in the region are localized in nature, resulting from heavy rains occurring in
a short period of time over urbanized areas that are not able to adequately handle stormwater runoff. These events typically do
not threaten lives or property and do not result in emergency or disaster declarations.10
The coastal flooding hazards associated with hurricanes and tropical storms are included separately under the “flood” hazard. In
so doing, the storm surge hazard has been identified as a unique flood and will be addressed separately from the “100-year”
coastal and riverine flood hazard in the Hazard Identification and Analysis and Vulnerability Assessment sections.
Figures 4.1 through 4.7 show the existing potential flood hazard areas throughout the region based on the best available GIS
data for FEMA’s identified 100-year floodplains (areas inundated by a flood with a recurrence interval of once every hundred
years, also referred to as the flood with an annual chance of one percent). The official flood maps for each jurisdiction in the
region vary in age. Where available, more detailed flood hazard data for each participating jurisdiction within the region is
provided in Section 5: Vulnerability Assessment.
Figures 4.8 through 4.12 show the storm surge hazard areas that can be expected as the result of Category 2, 3 and 4
hurricanes, based on the Sea, Lake and Overland Surge from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model. SLOSH is a computerized model run
by the National Weather Service to estimate storm surge heights resulting from hypothetical hurricanes by taking into account the
maximum of maximums of various category hurricanes as it relates to pressure, size, forward speed and sustained winds. The
regional analysis represents the composite maximum water inundation levels for a series of parallel tracks making landfall at
various points along the coast. The SLOSH model, therefore, is best used for defining the “worst case scenario” of potential
maximum surge for particular locations as opposed to the regional impact of one singular storm surge event.
10
The vast majority of flood events in the United States do not meet the per capita damage thresholds required to trigger a presidential disaster
declaration and the release of large sums of federal aid. This fact demonstrates the need for local governments to establish a comprehensive
mitigation strategy that includes achievable actions that do not rely entirely on assistance from the state and federal government.
SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL EVENTS11
Many of the historical flood events that have occurred in the region
have been the result of coastal storms, tropical storms or hurricanes.
Other localized flooding occurs when heavy rains fall during high tide
causing waters that would normally drain quickly to back up because of
the tides. Based on historical and anecdotal evidence, it is clear
that there is a relatively high frequency of flooding in the region. Some of
the notable flood events to impact the region are discussed below.
The Storm of 1749 is one of the most notable storms to occur in this
region. It was responsible for the formation of Willoughby Spit, a
formation of land approximately two miles long and a quarter mile wide.
This storm created a fifteen (15) foot storm surge that flooded much of
the region.
An unnamed hurricane struck the region on August 23, 1933 and created
a high tide in Norfolk of 9.69 feet above Mean Lower Photo credit: City of Portsmouth. Low Water (MLLW), a
record for the area. Eighteen people were killed by this storm that also
flooded downtown Norfolk and destroyed homes at Ocean View. Winds
were recorded at 70 mph in Norfolk, 82 mph at Cape Henry, and 88 mph at the Naval Air Station in Norfolk.
The Ash Wednesday storm of 1962 produced very high flooding throughout the Southside Hampton Roads region partly
because it occurred during "Spring Tide" (sun and moon phase to produce a higher than normal tide). The storm moved north off
the coast past Virginia Beach and then reversed its course moving again to the south and bringing with it higher tides and higher
waves which battered the coast for several days. The storm's center was 500 miles off the Virginia Capes when water reached 9
feet at Norfolk and 7 feet on the coast. Huge waves toppled houses into the ocean and broke through Virginia Beach's concrete
boardwalk and sea wall. Houses on the bay side also saw extensive tidal flooding and wave damage. The beaches and shorefront
had severe erosion. Locals indicated that the damage from this storm was worse in Virginia Beach than that caused by the 1933
Hurricane. The islands of Chincoteague and Assateague were completely submerged. Receding water exposed hundreds of
thousands of dead chickens drowned by the flooding. The Virginia Department of Health indicated that it was an extreme health
hazard and asked all women, children and elderly to evacuate. A million dollars in damage was done to NASA's Wallops Island
launch facility and an estimated $4 million in wind and flood damages occurred to the City of Hampton. Winds were recorded at
speeds up to 70 mph causing 40-foot waves at sea. This storm also produced Virginia's greatest 24-hour snowfall with 33 inches
and the greatest single storm snowfall with 42 inches (these were recorded to the West in the Shenandoah Mountains).
11
Many of the flood events that have occurred in the Southside Hampton Roads Region have been caused by hurricanes, tropical storms or
nor’easters that have impacted the region. Therefore, there will be some duplication of discussions about the significant historical events across
the different hazards.
In September of 1999, Hurricane Floyd was responsible for
wind and flood damage in the Southside Hampton Roads region.
Several trees were uprooted as wind speeds were recorded between
50 and 80 mph across the region. Flood waters washed out parts
of Route 10 between Isle of Wight County and Suffolk. Highway 32, a
major evacuation route, was flooded in Suffolk. Suffolk reported 78
homes and 25 businesses damaged by floodwaters and many other
homes and businesses were flooded across the region.
In September of 2003, Hurricane Isabel caused flooding in the

region that in some areas was as bad as the flooding caused by the
1933 hurricane and the Ash Wednesday Storm of 1962.
Table 4.3 provides information on 21 significant flood events that are

known to have occurred between 1994 and 2004 in the Southside
Hampton Roads region. The flood events documented by the National
Climatic Data Center resulted in a total within the region Rainfall totals from Hurricane Floyd. of no known
deaths or injuries, and only approximately $670,000 in Source: NOAA Climate Prediction Center total reported
property damages.12
Table 4.3: Significant Flood Events (1993-2004)
DATE OF TYPE OF DEATHS/ PROPERTY

LOCATION DETAILS
OCCURRENCE EVENT INJURIES DAMAGE
Norfolk, 11/17/1994 Coastal 0/ 0 $605,000 Strong easterly flow between Hurricane
Virginia Flooding Gordon, a category 1 storm meandering
Beach, 150 miles south of Cape Hatteras, and a
Hampton strong anticyclone over New England,
Roads, and caused significant coastal flooding and
Isle of damage in the Sandbridge section of
Wight Virginia Beach, beginning around noon on
County November 17th. The worst flooding
occurred on the 18th when tides were
running up to 4 feet above normal. The
heaviest damage occurred along 14th
street, where 100 feet of the fishing pier
washed away. Several homes suffered
minor damage, with two requiring extra
work to remain in place. A 1000-foot
stretch of road and several protective steel
bulkheads were damaged. The above-
normal tides caused other minor flooding
in Tidewater. The Nansemond River
overflowed its banks in Suffolk and caused
minor flooding. High tides on the James
and Pagan Rivers caused several roads to
be under water in eastern Isle of Wight
County.
Norfolk, 12/23/1994 Coastal 0/ 0 $65,000 A double-structured storm system
Virginia Flooding produced minor coastal flooding in the
Beach, Tidewater region. The effects were much
Suffolk, and less than expected as the main storm
Isle of moved well east of the mid-Atlantic before
Wight curling northwest into Long Island. In the
County Sandbridge section of Virginia Beach, a
beachfront home collapsed into the sea.
The combination of pounding surf and
wind from Hurricane Gordon in late
November and this event finished off the
home. In addition, a few more bulkheads
were flattened. Several roads in the
Tidewater area suffered minor flooding,
including Rescue Road in the Town of
Smithfield.
12
Obviously, there has been more monetary flood damage in the region other than that recorded by the National Climatic Data Center.

LOCATION DETAILS
Norfolk 7/18/1996 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 One to two inches of rain within six hours
produced flooding along the 300-400 block
of East Little Creek Road. Also, people
were trapped in cars with water waist high
along Campostella Road.
Virginia 7/18/1996 Flash Flood 0/ 0 0 Two to four inches of rain within six hours
Beach produced flooding in the Kempsville area
along Indian River Road and Princess
Anne Road. Also, high water was reported
in the Oceanfront area along Atlantic
Avenue.
Portsmouth 7/24/1999 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Parts of Interstate 264 were covered with
more than 3 feet of water. Some other
roads were impassable. Spotter reported
just over 7 inches of rain in 4 hours.
Suffolk 7/24/1999 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Many roads were flooded and impassable.
Norfolk 7/24/1999 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Many roads including Hampton Boulevard
were flooded and impassable.
Virginia 7/24/1999 Flash Flood 0/ 0 0 Many roads were flooded and impassable.
Beach
Portsmouth 8/14/1999 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Numerous underpasses flooded.
Norfolk 8/14/1999 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Numerous primary roads flooded. Many
underpasses flooded.
Virginia 8/14/1999 Flash Flood 0/ 0 0 Numerous primary roads and underpasses
Beach flooded.
Portsmouth 9/7/1999 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 No details available
Suffolk 9/7/1999 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 1500 block of Camp Pond Road flooded
out.
Norfolk 9/7/1999 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 No details available
Virginia 9/7/1999 Flash Flood 0/ 0 0 A slow-moving line of thunderstorms with
Beach very heavy rains caused numerous
flooded roads throughout the area, with
some secondary roads impassable.
Virginia 9/15/1999 Flood 0/ 0 $0 Very heavy rain from Hurricane Floyd
Beach, produced widespread flooding and flash
Hampton flooding across much of central and
Roads, eastern Virginia, and northeast North
Portsmouth Carolina. Rainfall amounts generally
and Isle of ranged from 12 to 18 inches in much of
Wight the region. Numerous roads were washed
County out due to flooding. Many areas normally
prone only to flooding of poor drainage
and low lying areas experienced
significant flash flooding. Also, there were
enormous agricultural/crop losses due to
the flooding.
Suffolk 9/15/1999 Flood 0/ 0 $0 Very heavy rain from Hurricane Floyd
produced widespread flooding and flash
flooding across much of central and
eastern Virginia, and northeast North
Carolina. Rainfall amounts generally
ranged from 12 to 18 inches in much of
the Virginia Tidewater. Numerous roads
were washed out due to flooding. Many
areas normally prone only to flooding of
poor drainage and low lying areas
experienced significant flash flooding.
River flooding was extensive and
prolonged in the Chowan River Basin. The
Blackwater, Meherrin and Nottoway Rivers
exceeded flood stage. Also, there were
enormous agricultural/crop losses due to
the flooding.

LOCATION DETAILS
Norfolk 9/15/1999 Flood 0/ 0 $0 Very heavy rain from Hurricane Floyd
produced widespread flooding and flash
flooding across much of central and
eastern Virginia, and northeast North
Carolina. Rainfall amounts generally
ranged from near 7 inches from eastern
Caroline County to Richmond City to
Brunswick, Lunenburg and Mecklenburg
counties, to 12 to 18 inches in much of the
region. Numerous roads were washed out
due to flooding. Many areas normally
prone only to flooding of poor drainage
and low lying areas experienced
significant flash flooding. Primary routes
out of service included US 460 near
Wakefield, US 58 near Emporia and
Franklin, and Interstate 95 south of
Petersburg to Emporia. River flooding was
extensive and prolonged in the Chowan
River Basin. The Blackwater, Meherrin
and Nottoway Rivers exceeded flood
stage. Water levels in the city of Franklin
were estimated to be several feet above
the flood of record which occurred in
August 1940. The flooding was considered
to be a 500 year flood of record. Also,
there were enormous agricultural/crop
losses due to the flooding.
Isle of 10/17/1999 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Very heavy rainfall, locally up to 5 to 9
Wight inches, associated with Hurricane Irene,
Countywide resulted in numerous flooded roads and
roads closed due to high water.
Portsmouth 10/17/1999 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Very heavy rainfall, locally up to 7 to 12
inches, associated with Hurricane Irene,
resulted in numerous flooded roads and
Suffolk 10/17/1999 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Very heavy rainfall, locally up to 5 to 9
inches, associated with Hurricane Irene
Norfolk 10/17/1999 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Very heavy rainfall, locally up to 7 to 12
inches, associated with Hurricane Irene,
Virginia 10/17/1999 Flash Flood 0/ 0 0 Very heavy rainfall, locally up to 7 to 12
Beach inches, associated with Hurricane Irene,
Norfolk 7/26/2000 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Heavy rain flooded roadways and caused
closure of underpasses on Tidewater
Drive in downtown Norfolk. Flooding also
occurred at Chesapeake Boulevard and
Chesapeake Street in the East Ocean
View section of Norfolk.
Suffolk 7/30/2000 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Heavy rain caused flooding of Kings Fork
Road in the western part of the city.
Portsmouth 8/11/2000 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Very heavy rain caused flooding and the
closure of Interstate 264 at Frederick
Boulevard.

LOCATION DETAILS
Norfolk 8/11/2000 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Extremely heavy rain caused widespread
flooding of roads in downtown Norfolk. The
intersections of Granby Street and
Brambleton Avenue, Princess Anne Road
and Monticello Avenue, and City Hall
Avenue and Granby Street were all closed
due to high standing water. Also,
underpasses on Campostella Avenue,
Tidewater Drive and Colley Avenue in
Norfolk were closed due to accumulated
water. In Portsmouth, Interstate 264 at
Frederick Boulevard was closed due to
standing water.
Virginia 8/14/2000 Flash Flood 0/ 0 0 Very heavy rain caused widespread
Beach flooding and closure of roads in the vicinity
of Princess Anne Plaza. Also, sections of
Rosemont Road were closed due to
flooding.
Norfolk 9/5/2000 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Heavy rain from slow-moving
thunderstorms caused the side of an
underpass wall to slide into the road at
Granby Street and Interstate 64 resulting
in road closure.
Windsor 6/16/2001 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Knoxville Road, Rose Drive, and
numerous other secondary roads
impassable around Windsor.
Suffolk 6/16/2001 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Flooding reported near Whaleyville. One
street closed.
Norfolk 7/23/2001 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Car submerged at the underpass on
Colley Avenue and 21st Street. Also,
numerous roads covered by 1 to 2 feet of
water.
Norfolk 8/28/2002 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Rainfall amounts of 2 to 3 inches within 2
hours caused roads to be closed or
blocked due to high water. Union Street
and areas near City Hall and Granby were
flooded. Cars were reported stalled out in
deep water, also.
Virginia 8/28/2002 Flash Flood 0/ 0 0 Rainfall amounts of 2 to 3 inches within 2
Beach hours caused some roads to be closed or
blocked due to high water. Rosemont at
the Virginia Beach Boulevard and around
the Kings Grant area were closed or
blocked. Cars were reported stalled out in
deep water, also.
Norfolk 10/11/2002 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Rainfall amounts between 3 and 3.5
inches caused flooding of some streets
and low lying intersections, including the
intersection of Tidewater Drive and
Virginia Beach Boulevard.
Virginia 10/11/2002 Flash Flood 0/ 0 0 Rainfall amounts between 3 and 3.5
Beach inches caused flooding and closure of
Atlantic Avenue between 42nd and 65th
streets.
Portsmouth 9/3/2003 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Waist high water reported on some roads.
Suffolk 9/3/2003 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Flooding of streets in northern Suffolk.
Airport Water as high as mailboxes in a cul-de-
sac.
Norfolk 9/3/2003 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Many roads closed due to high water,
including 8000 block of Hampton
Boulevard.
Portsmouth 6/10/2004 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Six inches of water across road at Airline
Boulevard and I264. One foot of water
across road at intersection of Oregon and
Dakota Roads.

LOCATION DETAILS
Isle of 7/25/2004 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Lawnes Creek Bridge on Route 10 near
Wight Rushmere reported closed due to flooding.
Also, several other roads were closed due
to flooding in the northern part of the
county.
Norfolk 7/25/2004 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Many streets flooded in downtown Norfolk
including Waterside Drive.
Portsmouth 8/2/2004 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Duke and Randolph Streets reported
closed due to high water. Flooding on I-
264 and Portsmouth Boulevard.
Norfolk 8/2/2004 Flash Flood 0/ 0 $0 Flooding reported at the intersection of
Park Avenue and Virginia Beach
Boulevard, and at the intersection of
Robinhood Road and I-64 underpass.
TOTAL 0/0 $670,000
Source: National Climatic Data Center (1993 to 2004 data)
PROBABILITY OF FUTURE OCCURRENCES

Flooding remains a highly likely occurrence throughout the identified flood hazard areas of the region. Smaller floods caused by
heavy rains and inadequate drainage capacity will be more frequent, but not as costly as the large-scale floods which may occur
at less frequent intervals, including extended torrential rainfall and storm surge events associated with hurricanes, tropical storms
and nor’easters. While the potential for flood is always present, many of the jurisdictions within the region do have policies in
place that should help lessen potential property damage due to future floods.13
13
The Capability Assessment section of this Plan provides an overview of the programs and policies that each jurisdiction has in place that are
designed to reduce the impacts of the flood hazard.
BACKGROUND
Hurricanes and tropical storms, along with nor’easters and typhoons, are
classified as cyclones and are any closed circulation developing around a
low-pressure center in which the winds rotate counter- clockwise in the
Northern Hemisphere (or clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere) and
whose diameter averages 10 to 30 miles across. A tropical cyclone refers to any
such circulation that develops over tropical waters. Tropical cyclones act as a
“safety-valve,” limiting the continued build-up of heat and energy in tropical
regions by maintaining the atmospheric heat and moisture balance between the
tropics and the pole-ward latitudes. The primary damaging forces associated with
these storms are high-level sustained winds, heavy precipitation, and
tornadoes. Coastal areas are particularly vulnerable to storm surge, wind-
driven waves, and tidal flooding which can prove more destructive than
cyclone wind14.
The key energy source for a tropical cyclone is the release of latent heat from the
condensation of warm water. Their formation requires a low- pressure disturbance,
warm sea surface temperature, rotational force from the spinning of the earth,
and the absence of wind shear in the lowest 50,000 feet of the atmosphere. The
majority of hurricanes and tropical storms form in the Atlantic Hurricane Isabel approaches North Ocean, Caribbean
Sea, and Gulf of Mexico during the official Atlantic hurricane Carolina and Virginia in September of season, which
encompasses the months of June through November. The 2003. (Photo courtesy of NASA) peak of the Atlantic
hurricane season is in early to mid-September. Based on a long-term average,
approximately six storms reach hurricane intensity per year.
Figure 4.13 shows, for any particular location, the chance of a hurricane or tropical storm affecting the area sometime during the
Atlantic hurricane season. The figure was created by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Hurricane
Research Division, using data from 1944 to 1999. The figure shows the number of times a storm or hurricane was located within
approximately 100 miles (165 kilometers) of a given spot in the Atlantic basin.
14
For purposes of this risk assessment, coastal flood hazards associated with hurricanes and tropical storm events are included separately
under the “flood” hazard.
Figure 4.13: Empirical Probability of a Named Hurricane or Tropical Storm
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Hurricane Research Division
As an incipient hurricane develops, barometric pressure (measured in millibars or inches) at its center falls and winds increase. If
the atmospheric and oceanic conditions are favorable, it can intensify into a tropical depression. When maximum sustained winds
reach or exceed 39 miles per hour, the system is designated a tropical storm, given a name, and is monitored by the National
Hurricane Center in Miami, Florida. When sustained winds reach or exceed 74 miles per hour the storm is deemed a hurricane.
Hurricane intensity is further classified by the Saffir-Simpson Scale which rates hurricane intensity on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5
being the most intense. The Saffir-Simpson Scale is shown in Table 4.4.
TABLE 4.4: SAFFIR-SIMPSON SCALE
MINIMUM SURFACE STORM SURGE

CATEGORY MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WIND SPEED (MPH)
PRESSURE (MILLIBARS) (FEET)
1 74–95 Greater than 980 3–5
2 96–110 979–965 6–8
3 111–130 964–945 9–12
4 131–155 944–920 13–18
5 155 + Less than 920 19+
Source: Federal National Hurricane Center
The Saffir-Simpson Scale categorizes hurricane intensity linearly based upon maximum sustained winds, barometric pressure,
and storm surge potential, which are combined to estimate potential damage. Categories 3, 4, and 5 are classified as “major”
hurricanes, and while hurricanes within this range comprise only 20 percent of total tropical cyclones making landfall, they account
for over 70 percent of the damage in the United States. Table 4.5 describes the damage that could be expected for each
hurricane category.
TABLE 4.5: HURRICANE DAMAGE CLASSIFICATIONS

STORM
DAMAGE LEVEL DESCRIPTION OF DAMAGES PHOTO EXAMPLE
CATEGORY
No real damage to building structures. Damage primarily

1 MINIMAL to unanchored mobile homes, shrubbery, and trees. Also,
some coastal flooding and minor pier damage.
Some roofing material, door, and window damage.

Considerable damage to vegetation, mobile homes, etc.
2 MODERATE
Flooding damages piers and small craft in unprotected
moorings may break their moorings.
Some structural damage to small residences and utility

buildings, with a minor amount of curtainwall failures.
3 EXTENSIVE Mobile homes are destroyed. Flooding near the coast
destroys smaller structures, with larger structures damaged
by floating debris. Terrain may be flooded well inland.
More extensive curtainwall failures with some complete

4 EXTREME roof structure failure on small residences. Major erosion of
beach areas. Terrain may be flooded well inland.
Complete roof failure on many residences and industrial

buildings. Some complete building failures with small utility
5 CATASTROPHIC buildings blown over or away. Flooding causes major
damage to lower floors of all structures near the shoreline.
Massive evacuation of residential areas may be required.
Sources: National Hurricane Center and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
A storm surge is a large dome of water often 50 to 100 miles wide and rising anywhere from four to five feet in a Category 1
hurricane up to 20 feet in a Category 5 storm. The storm surge arrives ahead of the storm’s actual landfall and the more intense
the hurricane is, the sooner the surge arrives. Water rise can be very rapid, posing a serious threat to those who have not yet
evacuated flood-prone areas. A storm surge is a wave that has outrun its generating source and become a long period swell.
The surge is always highest in the right-front quadrant of the direction in which the hurricane is moving. As the storm approaches
shore, the greatest storm surge will be to the north of the hurricane eye. Such a surge of high water topped by waves driven by
hurricane force winds can be devastating to coastal regions, causing severe beach erosion and property damage along the
immediate coast.
Storm surge heights and associated waves are dependent upon the shape of the continental shelf (narrow or wide) and the depth
of the ocean bottom (bathymetry). A narrow shelf, or one that drops steeply from the shoreline and subsequently produces deep
water close to the shoreline, tends to produce a lower surge but higher and more powerful storm waves.
Damage during hurricanes may also result from spawned tornadoes and inland flooding associated with heavy rainfall that usually
accompanies these storms. Hurricane Floyd, for example, was at one time a Category 4 hurricane racing towards the North
Carolina coast. As far inland as Raleigh, the state capital located more than 100 miles from the coast, communities were
preparing for winds exceeding 100 miles per hour. While Floyd made landfall as a Category 2 hurricane it caused the worst inland
flooding disaster in North Carolina’s history. Rainfall amounts exceeded 20 inches in certain locales and 67 counties sustained
damages.
Similar to hurricanes, nor’easters are ocean storms capable of causing substantial damage to coastal areas in the Eastern United
States due to their strong winds and heavy surf. Nor'easters are named for the winds that blow in from the northeast and drive the
storm up the East Coast along the Gulf Stream, a band of warm water that lies off the Atlantic coast. They are caused by the
interaction of the jet stream with horizontal temperature gradients and generally occur during the fall and winter months when
moisture and cold air are plentiful.
Nor’easters are known for dumping heavy amounts of rain and snow, producing hurricane-force winds, and creating high surf that
causes severe beach erosion and coastal flooding. There are two main components to a nor'easter: (1) a Gulf Stream low-
pressure system (counter-clockwise winds) generated off the southeastern U.S. coast, gathering warm air and moisture from the
Atlantic, and pulled up the East Coast by strong northeasterly winds at the leading edge of the storm; and (2) an Arctic high-
pressure system (clockwise winds) which meets the low-pressure system with cold, arctic air blowing down from Canada. When
the two systems collide, the moisture and cold air produce a mix of precipitation and have the potential for creating dangerously
high winds and heavy seas. As the low-pressure system deepens, the intensity of the winds and waves increase and can cause
serious damage to coastal areas as the storm moves northeast. 15
15
Depending on the location of jurisdictions participating in the Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Plan, nor’easters are viewed as
winter storm or coastal events, as the coastal storm characteristics and coastal impacts of nor’easters are limited to coastal communities. The
Dolan-Davis Nor’easter Intensity Scale, which shows levels of coastal degradation based on beach and dune erosion, overwash and coastal
property damage is particularly relevant to jurisdictions such as Virginia Beach, and to a lesser extent Norfolk, Portsmouth and parts of Isle of
Wight County.
Since the mid-1800s, numerous tropical cyclones have affected Virginia
on a statewide basis, causing the deaths of an estimated 228 people
and costing the Commonwealth more than a billion dollars in damages.
The eyes of over 70 storms have tracked directly across Virginia with
11 having made landfall on or within 60 miles of the Virginia Coast. The
region is geographically located in an area that can expect to experience
hurricane damage in any given year.
In fact, 106 such storms have passed within 75 miles of the Southside
Hampton Roads region since 1851 (Figure 4.14), 29 of which crossed
directly through the region. 2 Category 3 hurricanes passed within 75
miles of the region (both unnamed storms in 1879 and 1899), 14 were
Category 2 hurricanes, 31 were Category 1 hurricanes and 117
were tropical storms. Of the storms that passed through the region,
Hurricane Ivan was the most recent in 2004.
Remains of a restaurant in Isle of Wight County

after Hurricane Isabel. Photo credit: Isle of
Wight County
SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL EVENTS16
The National Weather Service began keeping weather records on January 1, 1871. Prior to that, information on past hurricanes
and tropical storms to impact the Southside Hampton Roads region were taken from ships logs, accounts from local citizens,
newspapers and other source. There are several historical references to major storms that affected coastal Virginia in the 1600's
and 1700's17. Some of these storms were strong enough to alter land masses, including the widening of the Lynnhaven River
(September 6, 1667) and formation of Willoughby Spit (October 19, 1749). These reports also indicate severe flooding caused by
these storms (12-15 feet of flooding in some cases).
Better records have been kept since 1871. One for the first of the storms to be well documented was a hurricane that occurred in
October 1878 that resulted in Cobb and Smith Islands on the Eastern Shore being completely submerged.
One of the worst storms to impact the region occurred in August 1933 when a hurricane known as the Chesapeake-Potomac
Hurricane of 1933 passed just west of the Hampton Roads area. The storm made landfall in northeastern North Carolina and
moved northwest. This hurricane produced the record high tide for the area which exists today, at a level of 9.69 feet above Mean
Lower Low Water. The highest sustained wind was clocked was 88 mph at the Naval Air Station (NAS). Less than a month later,
another hurricane struck the area with winds again clocked at 88 mph at NAS, but tides only rose to 8.3 feet above Mean Lower
Low Water.
Another unnamed storm occurred in September of 1944 creating the fastest 1 minute wind speed to ever be recorded in the area
(134 mph at Cape Henry). Gusts were estimated to 150 mph. The local National Weather Service office recorded 72 mph winds
with gusts to 90 mph.
Although the center of circulation for Hurricane Hazel did not pass within 75 miles of the region, wind speeds of 78 mph were
recorded at Norfolk Airport with gusts up to 100 mph and an unofficial reading of 130 mph was also reported in Hampton.
In 1960 Hurricane Donna passed through the region with a fastest 1 minute wind speed of 73 mph at Norfolk Airport, 80 mph at
CapeHenry and estimated 138 mph at Chesapeake Light Ship. Lowest pressure of 28.65 inches holds the area record for a
tropical storm. 3 deaths were documented in association with this hurricane.
On August 27, 1998, Hurricane Bonnie tracked over the region after passing over the northern Outer Banks. Winds speeds were
sustained at 46 mph with gust to 64 mph at Norfolk Airport. Four to seven inches of rain combined with near hurricane force
winds knocked out power to 320,000 customers across Virginia. Highest tide was recorded at 6.0 feet above Mean Lower Low
Water. This was the most significant storm to impact the region since 1960 (Hurricane Donna)
On September 6, 1999, Hurricane Floyd passed directly over Virginia Beach on a track similar to Hurricane Donna in 1960.
Wind speeds were recorded at 31 mph with gust to 46 mph. Rainfall amounts of 12-18" were recorded in portions of eastern
Virginia causing extensive flooding in portions of the Southside Hampton Roads region.
Just as the rest of the country has experienced, Southeastern Virginia has felt the impacts of very active hurricane seasons for the
past ten years. In 1996, Hurricanes Bertha and Fran impacted the region, followed by Hurricane Danny in 1997, Hurricane Bonnie
in 1998, and Hurricanes Dennis, Floyd, and Irene in 1999. Although each of these storms were downgraded by the time they
reached the Southside Hampton Roads region, they each created problems for the region when they passed through, two of
which resulted in Federal Disaster declarations (Bonnie and Floyd) for the region. Tropical storms Helene in 2000 and Kyle
occurred in 2002, and most recently, Hurricane Isabel caused major damage in the region in 2003 (winds speeds of 54 mph with
gusts to 75 mph in Norfolk and significant beach erosion was reported).
Table 4.5 shows the historical storm tracks within 75 miles of Southside Hampton Roads region since 1851 that are the basis for
Figure 4.14.
Table 4.5: Historical Storm Tracks Within 75 Miles of the Region (Since 1851)
WIND SPEED
DATE OF OCCURRENCE STORM NAME STORM CATEGORY
(MPH)
8/25/1851 UNNAMED 45 TROPICAL STORM
16
As previously mentioned, many of the significant hurricane, coastal storm and tropical storm events were also significant flooding events. As
such, many of the significant historical events for hurricanes may also be discussed in the description of the flood hazard.
17
The first historical reference to a major hurricane that could have affected the Virginia coast was in August 24, 1635.
Table 4.5: Historical Storm Tracks Within 75 Miles of the Region (Since 1851)
WIND SPEED
DATE OF OCCURRENCE STORM NAME STORM CATEGORY
(MPH)
11/2/1861 UNNAMED 80 CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE
8/14/1953 BARBARA 105 CATEGORY 2 HURRICANE
8/31/1954 CAROL 100 CATEGORY 2 HURRICANE
8/12/1955 CONNIE 80 CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE
9/20/1955 IONE 70 TROPICAL STORM
7/10/1959 CINDY 40 TROPICAL STORM
7/30/1960 BRENDA 50 TROPICAL STORM
9/12/1960 DONNA 105 CATEGORY 2 HURRICANE
9/1/1964 CLEO 45 TROPICAL STORM
9/17/1967 DORIA 40 TROPICAL STORM
8/28/1971 DORIA 65 TROPICAL STORM
6/22/1972 AGNES 50 TROPICAL STORM
7/1/1981 BRET 60 TROPICAL STORM
9/30/1983 DEAN 65 TROPICAL STORM
9/14/1984 DIANA 60 TROPICAL STORM
9/27/1985 GLORIA 105 CATEGORY 2 HURRICANE
8/18/1986 CHARLEY 80 CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE
9/25/1992 DANIELLE 65 TROPICAL STORM
7/13/1996 BERTHA 75 CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE
7/24/1997 DANNY 45 TROPICAL STORM
8/28/1998 BONNIE 85 CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE
9/16/1999 FLOYD 80 CATEGORY 1 HURRICANE
9/24/2000 HELENE 45 TROPICAL STORM
10/12/2002 KYLE 45 TROPICAL STORM
9/18/2003 ISABEL 100 CATEGORY 2 HURRICANE
8/14/2004 CHARLEY 40 TROPICAL STORM
Source: National Hurricane Center
It is likely that the region will be impacted by hurricanes and tropical storms in the future. The region is less likely to experience
the effects of a major (Category 3 or stronger) hurricane, however it remains a possibility. The effects of smaller hurricanes
(Categories 1 and 2 with wind speeds from 74-110 miles per hour) and tropical storms (sustained wind speeds of at least 39 miles
per hour and torrential rains) will be more frequent, as storms making landfall along the North Carolina and Virginia coastlines
could impact the region in any given year.
BACKGROUND
According to the National Weather Service, more than 100,000 thunderstorms occur each year, though only about 10 percent of
these storms are classified as “severe.” Although thunderstorms generally affect a small area when they occur, they are very
dangerous because of their ability to generate tornadoes, hailstorms, strong winds, flash flooding, and damaging lightning. While
thunderstorms can occur in all regions of the United States, they are most common in the central and southern states because
atmospheric conditions in those regions are most ideal for generating these powerful storms.
Thunderstorms are caused when air masses of varying temperatures meet. Rapidly rising warm moist air serves as the “engine”
for thunderstorms. These storms can occur singularly, in lines, or in clusters. They can move through an area very quickly or
linger for several hours.
The National Weather Service collected data for thunder days, number and duration of thunder events, and lightening strike
density for the 30-year period from 1948 to 1977. A series of maps was generated showing the annual average thunder event
duration, the annual average number of thunder events, and the mean annual density of lightning strikes.
Figure 4.15 illustrates thunderstorm hazard severity based on the annual average number of thunder events from 1948 to 1977.
Figure 4.15: Annual Average Number of Thunder Events
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Straight-line winds, which in extreme cases have the potential to cause wind gusts that exceed 100 miles per hour, are
responsible for most thunderstorm wind damage. One type of straight-line wind, the downburst, can cause damage equivalent to
a strong tornado and can be extremely dangerous to aviation. Figure 4.16 shows how the frequency and strength of extreme
windstorms vary across the United States. The map was produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and
is based on 40 years of tornado history and over 100 years of hurricane history. Zone IV, the darkest area on the map, has
experienced both the greatest number of tornadoes and the strongest tornadoes. As shown by the map key, wind speeds in Zone
IV can be as high as 250 MPH.
FIGURE 4.16: WIND ZONES IN THE UNITED STATES

Hailstorms are another potential damaging outgrowth of severe
thunderstorms. Early in the developmental stages of a hailstorm, ice crystals
form within a low-pressure front due to the rapid rising of warm air into the
upper atmosphere and the subsequent cooling of the air mass. Frozen
droplets gradually accumulate on the ice crystals until, having developed
sufficient weight, they fall as precipitation—as balls or irregularly shaped
masses of ice greater than 0.75 in. (1.91 cm) in diameter. The size of
hailstones is a direct function of the size and severity of the storm. High
velocity updraft winds are required to keep hail in suspension in
thunderclouds. The strength of the updraft is a function of the intensity of
heating at the Earth’s surface. Higher temperature gradients relative to
elevation above the surface result in increased suspension time and
hailstone size. Figure 4.17 shows the annual frequency of hailstorms in the
Large hail collects on streets and grass during a
United States. severe thunderstorm. Larger stones appear
to be nearly two to three inches in diameter.
(NOAA Photo Library, NOAA Central
Library; OAR/ERL/National Severe Storms
Laboratory)
FIGURE 4.17: ANNUAL FREQUENCY OF HAILSTORMS IN THE UNITED STATES

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

Table 4.6 provides details of historical severe thunderstorm activity in the region as recorded by the National Climatic Data
Center.18
Table 4.6: Significant Severe Thunderstorm Events (1950-2004)
DATE OF MAGNITUDE DEATHS/ PROPERTY

LOCATION DETAILS
OCCURRENCE (KNOTS) INJURIES DAMAGE
Virginia No description available
7/9/1956 62 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
8/10/1956 0 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
4/8/1957 55 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
3/13/1958 0 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
Norfolk 2/18/1960 N/A 0/0 $0 No description available
Suffolk 5/21/1962 N/A 0/0 $0 No description available
2/13/1966 55 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
1/27/1967 0 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
4/30/1968 60 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
7/17/1968 0 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
7/1/1969 0 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
7/10/1973 56 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
8/12/1973 0 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
4/5/1974 0 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
Norfolk 6/20/1974 60 knots 0/0 $0 No description available
Isle of No description available
6/23/1974 N/A 0/0 $0
Wight
6/23/1974 N/A 0/0 $0
Wight
8/29/1974 N/A 0/0 $0
Wight
3/19/1975 0 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
18
While the Severe Thunderstorm hazard is understood to include lightning and hail as hazardous elements, tables are provided with lightning
and hail activity presented separately with the understanding that some duplication of deaths, injuries and property damage may occur when
comparing all three tables. The Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee determined that the lightning hazard should be
discussed and analyzed as a separate hazard, independent from the thunderstorm discussion and analysis.

LOCATION DETAILS
3/19/1975 0 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
4/25/1975 N/A 0/0 $0
Wight
4/25/1975 65 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
10/9/1976 0 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
10/9/1976 0 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
Portsmouth 6/6/1977 N/A 0/0 $0 No description available
6/6/1977 0 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
6/6/1977 53 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
7/1/1977 0 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
6/3/1978 0 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
2/23/1980 52 knots 0/0 $0
Wight
4/4/1980 85 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
5/8/1984 N/A 0/0 $0
Wight
5/8/1984 53 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
6/5/1985 60 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
6/5/1985 52 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
10/15/1985 N/A 0/0 $0
Wight
7/9/1986 69 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
7/9/1986 69 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
7/9/1986 55 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
7/31/1987 0 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
6/26/1988 50 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
3/15/1989 60 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
3/15/1989 50 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach

LOCATION DETAILS
3/31/1989 52 knots 0/0 $0
Wight
3/31/1989 65 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
3/31/1989 54 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
5/6/1989 0 knots. 0/1 $0
Beach
5/6/1989 0 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
6/2/1989 70 knots. 0/6 $0
Beach
6/15/1989 70 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
9/23/1989 52 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
5/10/1990 0 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
5/10/1990 0 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
6/8/1990 0 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
6/8/1990 0 knots. 0/5 $0
Beach
6/22/1990 60 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
6/22/1990 0 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
7/1/1990 N/A 0/0 $0
Wight
7/1/1990 55 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
7/1/1990 60 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
7/11/1990 N/A 0/0 $0
Wight
7/12/1990 N/A 0/0 $0
Wight
7/12/1990 55 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
7/12/1990 0 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
9/7/1990 N/A 0/0 $0
Wight
9/7/1990 0 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
10/18/1990 60 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
3/29/1991 52 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
3/29/1991 0 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
5/1/1991 N/A 0/0 $0
Wight
5/1/1991 0 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
8/19/1991 60 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach

LOCATION DETAILS
8/19/1991 52 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
9/19/1991 0 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
7/18/1992 N/A 0/0 $0
Wight
7/18/1992 0 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
7/18/1992 50 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
7/27/1992 55 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach
7/31/1992 N/A 0/0 $0
Wight
Portsmouth 8/28/1992 52 knots 0/0 $0 No description available
9/4/1993 N/A 0/0 $1,000
Wight
9/22/1994 N/A 0/0 $50,000
Wight
9/22/1994 N/A 0/0 $5,000
Wight
Isle of One tree and several large branches were
5/19/1995 N/A 0/0 $0
Wight down near Walters on Route 258.
Numerous trees and power lines down
throughout the county. Several barns are
Isle of
11/11/1995 N/A 0/0 $75,000 damaged, and small grain silo and tractor-
Wight
semi trailer overturned in the Orbit/Lake
Butler area.
Isle Of Trees down on power lines on Rte. 10 and
1/19/1996 N/A 0/0 $0
Wight 258.
Portsmouth 1/19/1996 56 knots 0/0 $0 No description available
Norfolk No description available
1/19/1996 54 knots 0/0 $0
Airport
Isle of Numerous large trees were downed.
3/15/1996 N/A 0/0 $0
Wight
Three to six inch diameter tree limbs were
blown off of 12 trees along Route 58
Suffolk 3/15/1996 N/A 0/0 $0
between South Hampton County line and
Suffolk.
Numerous trees and power lines downed
Isle of throughout the county. The worst damage
5/11/1996 N/A 0/0 $5,000
Wight was occurred near Rushmore and
Windsor.
Several trees uprooted onto wires near the
Windsor 6/12/1996 N/A 0/0 $2,000
Blackwater River.
Smithfield 6/15/1996 N/A 0/0 $3,000 Numerous trees downed.
Two telephone poles downed on Route
Smithfield 6/15/1996 N/A 0/0 $3,000
258.
Several trees and storage shed blown
Smithfield 6/24/1996 N/A 0/0 $7,000
down near Route 13 and Route 616.
Roof partially blown off a house on
Norfolk 6/24/1996 N/A 0/0 $10,000
Minnesota Avenue.
Several trees blown down along Route 10
Smithfield 7/18/1996 N/A 0/0 $5,000 in Smithfield. Tree was blown down onto a
car at Benns Church Golf Course.
Numerous trees and power lines blown
Suffolk 7/18/1996 N/A 0/0 $3,000
down.

LOCATION DETAILS
Virginia Several trees blown down on Atlantic
7/18/1996 0 knots. 0/0 $2,000
Beach Avenue.
Several trees and power lines blown
Portsmouth 7/31/1996 N/A 0/0 $3,000
down.
Several trees and power lines blown
Suffolk 7/31/1996 N/A 0/0 $4,000 down. Also, sheet metal torn off storage
building.
Virginia Large tree blown down on Back Cove
7/31/1996 0 knots. 0/0 $2,000
Beach Road.
Isle of A tree fell down on house.
5/1/1997 N/A 0/0 $5,000
Wight
Several trees blown onto power lines.
Whaleyville
7/6/1997 N/A 0/0 $10,000 Also, an old two story farm building was
, Suffolk
collapsed.
Holland, Several trees fell down.
7/16/1997 N/A 0/0 $2,000
Suffolk
Norfolk 7/16/1997 N/A 0/0 $5,000 Numerous trees blown down.
Metal furniture blown off porch into river
Suffolk 7/19/1997 N/A 0/0 $5,000
and shingles blown off of houses.
Portsmouth 4/9/1998 N/A 0/0 $2,000 Trees down on power lines.
Damage occurred to three tied down
airplanes. One of the planes was lifted up
Suffolk
4/9/1998 N/A 0/0 $100,000 and crashed into the other two. Also, a
Airport
panel was blown off a hangar and
temporary tents were destroyed.
Suffolk 4/9/1998 N/A 0/0 $2,000 Several trees fell down.
Sixty MPH straight-line wind caused
damages to the part of a metal roof of a
Virginia
4/9/1998 52 knots. 0/0 $10,000 fire station and a storage building.
Beach
Concrete wall of the storage building was
caved in when supports gave away.
Virginia
5/21/1998 82 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach No description available
Several trees were down and a few trees
Suffolk 6/3/1998 N/A 0/0 $3,000 limbs fell down on houses. A car was
blown a couple hundred feet.
Several trees twisted down causing power
Windsor 6/16/1998 N/A 0/0 $3,000
outages.
Isle of Several trees were down.
6/16/1998 N/A 0/0 $2,000
Wight
Numerous tree limbs and debris blown
Portsmouth 6/16/1998 N/A 0/0 $2,000
onto Route 164 in Twin Pines area.
Dugout roof at baseball field blown off at
Portsmouth 6/16/1998 N/A 0/0 $2,000
Churchland high school.
Four pine trees blown down at Churchland
Portsmouth 6/16/1998 N/A 0/0 $2,000
high school.
Suffolk 6/16/1998 N/A 0/0 $3,000 Numerous trees were down.
Several trees down and damaged a few
Norfolk 6/16/1998 N/A 0/0 $5,000
homes.
Wind gust of 58 knots (67 mph) was
Norfolk 6/16/1998 58 knots 0/0 $0
recorded at Norfolk International Airport.
Virginia
6/16/1998 0 knots. 0/0 $2,000
Beach A few trees were down.
Trees and wires were down on two
Portsmouth 2/28/1999 N/A 0/0 $5,000
houses.
Suffolk 2/28/1999 N/A 0/0 $1,000 Large tree down blocking Route 460.
Wind gust of 81 mph reported by Norfolk
Norfolk 2/28/1999 70 knots 0/0 $0
International Airport Tower.
Wind gust to 61 mph reported at WAVY
Portsmouth 3/3/1999 53 knots 0/0 $0
TV 10.
Virginia Cape Henry Tower reported wind gust of
4/23/1999 76 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach 76 knots (87 mph).
Virginia A motel on Shore Drive suffered window
4/23/1999 0 knots. 0/0 $5,000
Beach damages.

LOCATION DETAILS
Suffolk Several trees were down near Suffolk
5/24/1999 N/A 0/0 $2,000
Airport Airport.
Norfolk 5/24/1999 N/A 0/0 $2,000 Trees were down
Virginia
5/24/1999 0 knots. 0/0 $1,000
Beach Large tree limbs down near Salem Woods.
Suffolk 7/7/1999 N/A 0/0 $1,000 Large trees were down.
Isle of A few trees were down.
7/24/1999 N/A 0/0 $2,000
Wight
A large tree fell down and many tree limbs
Portsmouth 7/24/1999 N/A 0/0 $1,000
were down.
Windsor 7/28/1999 N/A 0/0 $1,000 A large tree fell on power lines.
A large tree blocked road and fell on
Norfolk 7/28/1999 N/A 0/0 $1,000
power lines.
Virginia Large tree was down off Kings Road near
7/28/1999 0 knots. 0/0 $1,000
Beach London Bridge area.
Two large tree limbs were down on Route
Windsor 8/11/1999 N/A 0/0 $1,000
460.
Suffolk 8/14/1999 N/A 0/0 $2,000 A few trees were down.
Roofs were blown off of a motel and an
apartment building in the East Ocean View
section of the city. Also, some structural
Norfolk 8/20/1999 N/A 0/0 $15,000
damage occurred to the apartment
building. Another hotel in East Ocean View
suffered minor roof damage.
Numerous power lines were down by large
Suffolk 8/26/1999 N/A 0/0 $1,000
tree branches.
Wind blew house off jacks and power lines
Norfolk 8/26/1999 N/A 0/0 $2,000
were down in Ocean View.
A powerful storm system off the North
Carolina and Virginia coast produced high
winds and waves over the James River.
One man was killed and three others were
Isle of
5/29/2000 40 knots 1/ 3 $0 treated for hypothermia from the still-cold
Wight
water when their 16 foot fishing boat
capsized in the James River. Effects from
the high winds did not extend very far
inland.
Portsmouth 6/18/2000 50 knots 0/0 $2,000 Trees blown down on Linear Crescent.
A severe thunderstorm hit downtown
Norfolk and Portsmouth as the OpSail
2000 Festival was ending, sending
vendors scurrying to fold tents and
spectators running for cover. Several tall
ships broke free of their moorings and
several sailors were knocked into the
Norfolk 6/18/2000 67 knots 0/0 $100,000
Elizabeth River. Part of a brick wall was
knocked down at Bute and Botetourt
Streets, and another wall partially
collapsed at a building on Front Street in
Norfolk. A large tree fell into the Painted
Lady Restaurant at 17th and Monticello
Avenue in Norfolk.
Portsmouth 6/19/2000 50 knots 0/0 $2,000 High winds blew down several trees.
Virginia High winds blew down several trees onto
6/19/2000 50 knots. 0/0 $4,000
Beach power lines at Colony Trailer Park.
Trees were blown down on power lines
Norfolk 7/19/2000 50 knots 0/0 $2,000 and caused power outages in the Colonial
Place section of the city.
High winds blew down trees on North
Lloyd Street near downtown Suffolk. Also,
Suffolk 8/16/2000 N/A 0/0 $2,000 dime-sized hail fell in the Route 460/Route
13-32/North Main Street corridor near
downtown Suffolk.

LOCATION DETAILS
High winds blew down trees at the 300
Suffolk 8/16/2000 50 knots. 0/0 $2,000
block of Drum Hill Road.
High winds with the passage of a cold
Isle of front turned camper upside down and
12/24/2001 N/A 0/0 $15,000
Wight ripped siding off of house in the Smithfield
area.
Virginia Roof and siding peeled off of a building at
4/19/2002 61 knots. 0/0 $5,000
Beach Back Bay Wildlife Refuge.
Suffolk 5/2/2002 N/A 0/0 $2,000 One foot diameter trees were down.
Isle of Trees were down.
5/13/2002 N/A 0/0 $2,000
Wight
Portsmouth 5/13/2002 N/A 0/0 $2,000 Trees were down.
Suffolk 5/13/2002 N/A 0/0 $2,000 Trees were down.
Norfolk 5/13/2002 N/A 0/0 $2,000 Trees and power lines down.
Virginia Trees were down.
5/13/2002 0 knots. 0/0 $2,000
Beach
Numerous tree limbs were down in
Virginia
5/18/2002 0 knots. 0/0 $1,000 Thoroughgood area. Spotter estimated a
Beach
wind gust of 55 mph.
Portsmouth 2/22/2003 50 knots 0/0 $2,000 Trees were down.
Numerous trees and power lines were
Norfolk 2/22/2003 50 knots 0/0 $5,000 down. Also, some minor damage occurred
to houses.
Virginia
2/22/2003 50 knots. 0/0 $2,000
Beach Trees and power lines down.
Virginia
2/22/2003 50 knots. 0/0 $2,000
Beach Trees and power lines down.
Virginia
5/8/2003 62 knots. 0/0 $0
Beach No description available
Suffolk 6/7/2003 50 knots. 0/0 $5,000 Parts of a building blown into the road.
One tree down on a house in Holland
Suffolk 6/13/2003 50 knots. 0/0 $2,000
section of Suffolk.
Virginia Trees fell on power lines on Northampton
7/9/2003 50 knots. 0/0 $2,000
Beach Boulevard.
Isle of Several trees were down on road.
8/17/2003 50 knots 0/0 $2,000
Wight
Trees down on Everets Road. Trees down
Suffolk 8/17/2003 50 knots. 0/0 $2,000
on Edwards Road.
Suffolk 8/17/2003 50 knots. 0/0 $5,000 A tree fell down on a house.
Trees were down on Mill Swamp Road
Windsor 3/7/2004 50 knots 0/0 $2,000
causing power outages.
Trees were down at 2700 Block of Arches
Suffolk 3/7/2004 50 knots. 0/0 $4,000 Mill Road and along the Kings Highway
Bridge Road.
Numerous trees were down throughout
Suffolk 5/23/2004 50 knots. 0/0 $2,000
city.
Holland 5/26/2004 50 knots. 0/0 $2,000 Trees and power lines were down.
Three trees were down along Smithfield
Smithfield 6/10/2004 50 knots 0/0 $2,000
Boulevard near Hunter Way.
Two trees were down in the vicinity of
Suffolk 6/10/2004 50 knots. 0/0 $2,000
Trumpet Drive and Okelly Drive.
Virginia
6/25/2004 50 knots. 0/0 $2,000
Beach Trees and power lines were down.
Suffolk 6/30/2004 50 knots. 0/0 $2,000 Trees down on Kings Highway.
Suffolk 7/7/2004 50 knots. 0/0 $2,000 Trees down.
Virginia
7/7/2004 50 knots. 0/0 $2,000
Beach Numerous trees down west of oceanfront.
Virginia Trees down along 3600 block of Virginia
7/7/2004 50 knots. 0/0 $2,000
Beach Beach Boulevard.
Trees down on Route 10 and Burrells Bay
Smithfield 7/14/2004 50 knots 0/0 $2,000
Road.
Virginia Trees down at North Landing and Princess
7/14/2004 50 knots. 0/0 $2,000
Beach Anne Road.

LOCATION DETAILS
Windsor 3/8/2005 50 knots 0/0 $2,000 Trees down along Central Hill Road.
TOTAL 1/15 $595,000
Source: National Climatic Data Center
Table 4.7 shows a summary of reported hail events for the Southside Hampton Roads region between 1950 and 2004. A total of
48 hail events are known to have impacted the region since 1957, resulting in a total of approximately $15,040,000 in property
damage. The size of the recorded hailstones ranged from 0.5 inches to 2.5 inches.
Table 4.7: Regional Hail Activity (1950-2004)
DATE OF
LOCATION MAGNITUDE PROPERTY DAMAGE DETAILS
OCCURRENCE
Virginia Beach 1/10/1957 0.67 in. $0 No details available.
Isle of Wight 6/23/1974 1.75 in. $0 No details available.
Norfolk 6/6/1977 1.75 in. $0 No details available.
Suffolk 8/5/1983 1.00 in. $0 No details available.
Isle of Wight 9/4/1993 1.75 in. $1,000 No details available.
Portsmouth 3/15/1996 0.50 in. $0 Marble size hail
reported in
Churchland section
of Portsmouth.
Portsmouth 6/24/1996 1.75 in. $0 No details available.
6/24/1996 0.75 in. $0 Dime size hail
occurred at Bayside
Virginia Beach Hospital.
Portsmouth 5/1/1997 1.75 in. $25,000 Many homes were
damaged by hail.
DATE OF
OCCURRENCE
5/1/1997 1.75 in. $10,000,000 Hail caused
widespread damage
to homes,
businesses and
Norfolk vehicles.
5/1/1997 1.75 in. $5,000,000 Hail caused
widespread damage
to homes,
businesses, and
Virginia Beach vehicles.
Smithfield 4/17/2000 0.75 in. $0 0.75 inch diameter
hail reported by a
spotter on Carver
Road in Smithfield.
4/17/2000 0.75 in. $0 0.75 inch diameter
hail reported just
west of Holland in
Suffolk southwestern Suffolk.
4/21/2000 0.88 in. $0 0.88 inch diameter
hail reported in
Kempsville section of
Virginia Beach Virginia Beach.
5/10/2000 1.75 in. $10,000 Hail up to 1.75
inches reported from
Ocean Lakes
towards the
Virginia Beach oceanfront.
Suffolk 5/27/2000 1.75 in. $2,000 No details available.
6/22/2000 0.75 in. $0 Dime sized hail fell
Suffolk along Sweatt Road.
Windsor 8/16/2000 0.75 in. $0 No details available.
8/16/2000 0 kts. $2,000 Dime-sized hail fell in
the Route 460/Route
13-32/North Main
Street corridor near
Suffolk downtown Suffolk.
6/1/2002 1.75 in. $0 Dime to golf ball size
hail between Little
Creek and
Thoroughgood
sections, and west
end of Virginia Beach
Virginia Beach oceanfront.
DATE OF
OCCURRENCE
TOTAL 78 Events $15,040,000


Severe thunderstorms will remain a highly likely occurrence for region. Hail will also be experienced in the region in the future due
to such storms.
LIGHTNING
BACKGROUND
Lightning is a discharge of electrical energy resulting from the buildup of
positive and negative charges within a thunderstorm, creating a “bolt”
when the buildup of charges becomes strong enough. This flash of light
usually occurs within the clouds or between the clouds and the ground.
A bolt of lightning can reach temperatures approaching 50,000 degrees
Fahrenheit. Lightning rapidly heats the sky as it flashes but the
surrounding air cools following the bolt. This rapid heating and
cooling of the surrounding air causes thunder. On average, 89
people are killed each year by lightning strikes in the United States.
LOCATION AND SPATIAL EXTENT Multiple cloud-to-ground and cloud-to-cloud

lightning strokes observed during a nighttime
According to the National Lightning Safety Institute, thunderstorm. (Photo courtesy of NOAA Photo Virginia had
nineteen (19) lightning-related deaths from 1990 to 2003 Library, NOAA Central Library; OAR/ERL/ National ranking the state
fourteenth (14th) in the United States in such deaths. Severe Storms Laboratory) This breaks
down to be 0.19 deaths per million people ranking Virginia as the
twenty-seventh (27th) most at risk state in regards to lightning-caused
death per population density.
According to the Virginia Department of Emergency Management, lightning has killed 62 people in Virginia and injured at least
252 people between 1959 and 2003. It is believed that many additional injuries go unreported. Nationally, from 1959 through
1994, lightning injured 13,057 people and killed 3,239, mostly men between the ages of 20 and 40. Nationally, most strikes
occurred between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. during weekends. The National Lightning Detection System identified an average of seven
million cloud-to-ground lightning strikes per year, resulting in one lightning casualty once every 86,000 strikes.
Figure 4.18 shows average lightning flash density per square mile, per year as reported by Global Atmospherics, Inc. This
graphic shows that the Virginia Beach area is a relative ‘hot spot” for lightning strike activity.
Figure 4.18: AVERAGE LIGHTNING FLASH DENSITY – 1990-1996
Source: Virginia Power, displayed on the NOAA website
According to the National Lightning Safety Institute, damage estimates reported by government agencies (such as NCDC) do not
accurately represent actual losses due to underestimation or underreporting of actual damages. Nationwide, realistic lightning
costs and losses may reach $4 to $5 billion per year including losses associated with forest fires, insurance claims and damages
to warehouses, aircraft, electrical infrastructure and nuclear power plants.

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

The Southside Hampton Roads region will continue to be at risk to the lighting hazard.
Table 4.8: Lightning Activity in the Southside Hampton Roads Region (1950-2004)
DATE OF DEATHS/ PROPERTY

LOCATION DETAILS
OCCURRENCE INJURIES DAMAGE
Lightning strike caused power outages to 5,600
Smithfield 6/20/1996 0/0 $0
customers in the Smithfield area.
Lightning strike caused power surge that created
Portsmouth 5/6/1996 0/0 $5,000 problems with city's central computer system. Also
it damaged city's radio system.
Lightning strike caused damage to a one-story
house. Several rooms had plaster blown off the
Suffolk 4/1/1998 0/0 $4,000
walls due to the strike's force. The roof and boxing
were also damaged.
Several homes at Blue Teal Court were struck by
Suffolk 8/1/1999 0/2 $10,000
lightning and several people were hospitalized.
A bolt of lightning struck and critically injured a 50-
year-old woman and a 38-year-old man playing in
Norfolk 6/14/1994 0/2 $0
a golf tournament at Greenbrier Country Club. Both
suffered severe burns.
Lightning strike knocked down a large oak tree that
Norfolk 6/16/1996 0/0 $2,000
fell onto a road.
Lightning strike seriously injured two boys who
Norfolk 8/26/1996 0/2 $0 were sitting on the bench of a picnic table beneath
a tree.
Lightning struck six homes in the Ghent and Ocean
View sections of Norfolk. One bolt hit a tree on Old
Norfolk 7/30/2000 0/0 $45,000 Ocean View Road and started a fire. The burning
tree then fell into a nearby home. Occupants of the
house escaped without injury.
Norfolk 8/11/2001 1/0 $0 A woman struck by lightning while on boat.
$0 Lightning started a small fire near Kempsville Road
Virginia Beach 3/15/1996 0/0 and Centerville Turnpike. About 2000-2500
Virginia Power customers lost power.
Lightning strike caused fires that damaged the
Virginia Beach 5/6/1996 0/0 $40,000
roofs of two houses.
$0 Lightning struck and killed a man doing yard work
Virginia Beach 7/30/2000 1/1 near a tree in the Great Neck Point section of
Virginia Beach.
$0 A roofer, working at Providence Road Elementary
Virginia Beach 7/1/2004 1/0
School, was struck by lightning and later died.
TOTAL 3/7 $106,000
TORNADOES
BACKGROUND
A tornado is a violent windstorm characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud extending to the ground. Tornadoes are most
often generated by thunderstorm activity (but sometimes result from hurricanes and tropical storms) when cool, dry air intersects
and overrides a layer of warm, moist air forcing the warm air to rise rapidly. The damage caused by a tornado is a result of the
high wind velocity and wind-blown debris, also accompanied by lightning or large hail. According to the National Weather Service,
tornado wind speeds normally range from 40 to more than 300 miles per hour. The most violent tornadoes have rotating winds of
250 miles per hour or more and are capable of causing extreme destruction and turning normally harmless objects into deadly
missiles.
Each year, an average of over 800 tornadoes is reported nationwide,

resulting in an average of 80 deaths and 1,500 injuries (NOAA,
2002). They are more likely to occur during the spring and early
summer months of March through June and can occur at any time of
day, but are likely to form in the late afternoon and early evening. Most
tornadoes are a few dozen yards wide and touch down briefly, but even
small short-lived tornadoes can inflict tremendous damage. Highly
destructive tornadoes may carve out a path over a mile wide and several
miles long.
Waterspouts are weak tornadoes that form over warm water and are
most common along the Gulf Coast and southeastern states.
Waterspouts occasionally move inland, becoming The most comprehensively observed tornado in tornadoes that cause
damage and injury. However, most waterspouts history, this tornado south of Dimmitt, Texas dissipate over the
open water causing threats only to marine and developed June 2, 1995 curving northward across boating interests.
Typically a waterspout is weak and short-lived, and Texas Highway 86 where it entirely removed 300 because they are so
common, most go unreported unless they cause feet of asphalt from the road tossing it more than damage.
600 feet into an adjacent field. It also caused F4
The destruction caused by tornadoes ranges from damage at an isolated rural residence just north of light to inconceivable
depending on the intensity, size, and duration of the the road. (NOAA Photo Library, NOAA Central storm. Typically,
Library; OAR/ERL/National Severe Storms
tornadoes cause the greatest damages to structures of light construction
Laboratory)
such as residential homes (particularly mobile homes), and tend to
remain localized in impact. The Fujita-Pearson Scale for Tornadoes
was developed to measure tornado strength and associated damages,
and is shown in Table 4.9.
TABLE 4.9: FUJITA-PEARSON SCALE FOR TORNADOES
F-SCALE INTENSITY WIND

TYPE OF DAMAGE POSSIBLE
NUMBER PHRASE SPEED
Gale 40-72 Some damage to chimneys; breaks branches off trees; pushes
F0
tornado MPH over shallow-rooted trees; damages to sign boards.
The lower limit is the beginning of hurricane wind speed; peels
Moderate 73-112 surface off roofs; mobile homes pushed off foundations or
F1
tornado MPH overturned; moving autos pushed off the roads; attached garages
may be destroyed.
Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile
Significant 113-157
F2 homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or
tornado MPH
uprooted; light object missiles generated.
Severe 158-206 Roof and some walls torn off well-constructed houses; trains
F3
tornado MPH overturned; most trees in forest uprooted.
Well-constructed houses leveled; structures with weak
Devastating 207-260
F4 foundations blown off some distance; cars thrown and large
tornado MPH
missiles generated.
Strong frame houses lifted off foundations and carried
Incredible 261-318 considerable distances to disintegrate; automobile sized missiles
F5
tornado MPH fly through the air in excess of 100 meters; trees debarked; steel
re-enforced concrete structures badly damaged.
Inconceivable 319-379 These winds are very unlikely. The small area of damage they
F6
tornado MPH might produce would probably not be recognizable along with the
mess produced by F4 and F5 wind that would surround the F6
winds. Missiles, such as cars and refrigerators would do serious
secondary damage that could not be directly identified as F6
damage. If this level is ever achieved, evidence for it might only
be found in some manner of ground swirl pattern, for it may never
be identifiable through engineering studies.
Source: The Tornado Project, 2002
According to the NOAA Storm Prediction Center (SPC), the highest concentration of tornadoes in the United States has been in
Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas and Florida respectively. Although the Great Plains region of the Central United States does favor the
development of the largest and most dangerous tornadoes (earning the designation of “tornado alley”), Florida experiences the
greatest number of tornadoes per square mile of all U.S. states (SPC, 2002). Figure 4.19 shows tornado activity in the United
States based on the number of recorded tornadoes per 1,000 square miles.
FIGURE 4.19: TORNADO ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES
Source: American Society of Civil Engineers
The tornadoes associated with tropical cyclones are most frequent in September and October when the incidence of tropical storm
systems is greatest. This type of tornado usually occurs around the perimeter of the storm, and most often to the right and ahead
of the storm path or the storm center as it comes ashore. These tornadoes commonly occur as part of large outbreaks and
generally move in an easterly direction.
When compared with other states, Virginia ranks 29th in number of tornado events, 25th in tornado deaths, 26th in tornado
injuries and 28th in damages. These rankings are based upon data collected for all states and territories for tornado events
between 1950 and 2003 (Storm Prediction Center, 2003).
Figure 4.20 illustrates the approximate location where confirmed tornadoes have touched down in the region. The Fujita Scale
classification of each tornado is indicated next to each occurrence.
According to National Climatic Data Center records, the region has experienced 50 tornado events from 1950 through December
of 2004, causing 1 death, 10 injuries and approximately $5,126,000 million in property damage (Table 4.10). Details for each
event, where available, have also been recorded in this table.
Table 4.10: Tornado Events in Southside Hampton Roads Region (1950-2004)

LOCATION MAGNITUDE DETAILS
Norfolk 4/8/1957 F1 0/2 $250,000 No description available
Norfolk 5/27/1957 F 0/0 $3,000 No description available
Portsmouth 7/10/1959 F1 0/0 $3,000 No description available
Suffolk 10/9/1959 F2 0/0 $25,000 No description available
2/18/1960 F1 0/0 $25,000
Wight
10/25/1967 F1 0/0 $25,000
Beach
Norfolk 8/10/1968 F1 0/0 $0 No description available
Portsmouth 11/3/1971 F1 0/4 $2,500,000 No description available
7/27/1972 F1 0/2 $25,000
Beach
Suffolk 5/20/1973 F0 0/0 $0 No description available
Norfolk 6/6/1977 F 0/0 $25,000 No description available
10/2/1977 F 0/0 $25,000
Beach
7/4/1981 F1 0/0 $25,000
Beach
8/3/1988 F2 0/0 $250,000
Beach
11/28/1988 F2 0/0 $250,000
Wight
8/15/1992 F0 0/0 $0
Beach
A tornado was sighted at the Franklin
Isle of
8/6/1993 F0 0/0 $0 Airport. This is open area and no damage
Wight
was noted.
Brief tornado touched down uprooted a
Isle of
10/5/1995 F0 0/0 $10,000 large oak tree and several cedar/pine
Wight
trees. It tore roof off of garage.
Tornado touched down briefly in a wooded
Isle of farm area. Outbuildings were damaged;
10/5/1995 F0 0/0 $10,000
Wight tree tops blown out; and several trees
down just north of Burnt Mills Lake.
Small tornado damaged 10-15 homes and
Smithfield 7/12/1996 F1 0/0 $25,000 several trees in the Moorfield subdivision
of Smithfield.
Tornado path started just south of
Poindexter Street on Guerriere Street in
Norfolk. The tornado then continued
north-northeast into the Berkley Avenue
Industrial Park before crossing into the
Norfolk 7/24/1997 F1 0/0 $400,000 southern portion of Norfolk and lifting after
causing damage on Roseclair and Joyce
Streets. One business, a car wash was
destroyed, and six buildings sustained
major roof damages in the Roseclair and
Joyce Street areas of Norfolk.

Tornado first touched down west of Route
460 between Liberty Street and Indian
River Road. The tornado tracked north-
northeast across Indian River Road and
Norfolk 7/24/1997 F0 0/0 $100,000
across the eastern branch of the Elizabeth
River before lifting east of Harbor Park and
south of I-264. It caused minor damages
to several residential structures.
Several waterspouts were reported over
Smithfield 7/30/1997 N/A 0/0 $0
the James River.
Several waterspouts were reported just
north of Portsmouth at the intersection of
Portsmouth 7/30/1997 N/A 0/0 $0
the southern Chesapeake Bay and the
James River.
Several waterspouts were reported over
Suffolk 7/30/1997 N/A 0/0 $0
the James River.
Norfolk 7/30/1997 N/A 0/0 $0 north of Norfolk over the southern
Chesapeake Bay.
Virginia
7/30/1997 N/A 0/0 $0 north of Virginia Beach over the southern
Beach
Chesapeake Bay
A fairly long tracking tornado touched
down in portions of Chesapeake and
Virginia Beach. The tornado was first
detected in the Riverwalk section of the
city of Chesapeake around 4:30 PM. The
tornado tracked east-northeastward
Virginia
4/9/1998 F0 0/0 $0 through the Greenbrier section of
Beach
Chesapeake and moved through the city
of Virginia Beach along a Kempsville-
Rosemont-Lynnhaven axis. The tornado
damage was generally of F0 intensity
(weak) along the entire track in both
Chesapeake and Virginia Beach.
Norfolk emergency manager reported a
Norfolk 4/8/2000 N/A 0/0 $0
waterspout north of Ocean View.
A waterspout that formed over Back Bay
came ashore at Campbell Landing Road
and destroyed a 20 by 30 foot outbuilding
Virginia
7/24/2000 F0 0/0 $20,000 before dissipating. Many trees were blown
Beach
down and camper shells and lawn
furniture were tossed across the
neighborhood.
A waterspout formed in Hampton Roads
Norfolk 8/20/2000 N/A 0/0 $0 harbor between Norfolk and Newport
News.
A waterspout formed off Ocean View
Norfolk 10/9/2000 N/A 0/0 $0
Beach, and then quickly dissipated.
Virginia A waterspout was observed by the Coast
10/9/2000 N/A 0/0 $0
Beach Guard near Lynnhaven Inlet.
Tornado (F0) occurred in the 5000 block of
Suffolk 5/21/2001 F0 0/0 $25,000 Manning Road. Several small outbuildings
were destroyed.

A tornado touched down near Jackson
Road about 8:10 PM. The damage path
for this tornado was approximately 100
feet wide. The tornado skipped up and
down for about a mile along a path to the
northeast of Turlington Road. It uprooted
a number of trees and took shingles off
roofs. The tornado became a funnel cloud
which touched down again around 8:15
Suffolk 6/1/2001 F1 0/0 $15,000 PM just south of Sleepy Hole Road and
passed through a part of Sleepy Hole Golf
Club. The tornado continued north
northeast through Chatham Woods after
causing extensive damage along Burning
Tree Lane. The total path length in the
northern part of the county was about 1
mile long and 100 yards wide. Numerous
trees were down and a number of houses
lost siding and some roofing material.
Several 50-60 foot trees pushed over into
Suffolk 2/22/2003 F0 0/0 $25,000
houses.
Tornado (F0) briefly touched down with
minor damage reported at Salem Crossing
Shopping Center. It caused minor
Virginia damage to a movie theater and adjacent
8/8/2003 F0 0/0 $5,000
Beach post office knocking down antennae and
some mailboxes. Fire department
observed narrow funnel and swirling
debris at the surface.
Brief F0 tornado occurred in association
Norfolk 9/18/2003 F0 0/0 $0 with Hurricane Isabel. No damage was
reported.
F1 tornado downed numerous trees near
Suffolk 6/25/2004 F1 0/0 $2,000
intersection of Route 660 and Route 668.
F0 tornado downed several trees on
Suffolk 6/25/2004 F0 0/0 $2,000
Cypress Chapel Road in Whaleyville.
Funnel cloud reported between
Virginia
7/12/2004 N/A 0/0 $0 Sandbridge Beach and Back Bay. No
Beach
damage reported.
Virginia Originally reported as a tornado, but never
8/14/2004 N/A 0/0 $0
Beach touched down.
TOTAL 50 Events 1/10 $5,126,000

It is likely that the region will continue to experience weak to moderately intense tornadoes. It is unlikely that very strong
tornadoes (F3, F4 or F5) will strike the area, though it does remain possible.
BACKGROUND
A winter storm can range from a moderate snow over a period of a few hours to blizzard conditions with blinding wind-driven snow
that lasts for several days. Some winter storms may be large enough to affect several states, while others may affect only a single
community. Many winter storms are accompanied by low temperatures and heavy and/or blowing snow, which can severely
impair visibility.
Winter storms may include snow, sleet, freezing rain, or a mix of these wintry
forms of precipitation. Sleet—raindrops that freeze into ice pellets before
reaching the ground—usually bounce when hitting a surface and do not stick
to objects; however, sleet can accumulate like snow and cause a hazard to
motorists. Freezing rain is rain that falls onto a surface with a temperature
below freezing, forming a glaze of ice. Even small accumulations of ice can
cause a significant hazard, especially on power lines and trees. An ice storm
occurs when freezing rain falls and freezes immediately upon impact.
Communications and power can be disrupted for days, and even small
accumulations of ice may cause extreme hazards to motorists and
pedestrians.
A freeze is weather marked by low temperatures, especially when below the

freezing point (zero degrees Celsius or thirty-two degrees Fahrenheit).
Agricultural production is seriously affected when temperatures remain below A heavy layer of ice was more weight than
the freezing point. this tree in Kansas City, Missouri could
withstand during a January 2002 ice storm
Nor’easters are extra-tropical events that produce strong winds and that swept through the region bringing
down trees, power lines and telephone
precipitation in the form of heavy rain, ice or snow. They can cause
lines. (Photo by Heather Oliver/FEMA
increases in tidal elevations (storm surge), wind speed, and erosion. These News Photo)
cyclonic storms, called nor’easters because of the direction of the storm
winds, can last for several days and can impact very large areas.
The presence of the Gulf Stream off the eastern seaboard in the winter season acts to dramatically enhance the surface horizontal
temperature gradients within the coastal zone. This is particularly true off the Virginia coastline where, on average, the Gulf
Stream is closest to land north of 32 degrees latitude. During winter offshore cold periods, these horizontal temperature gradients
can result in rapid and intense destabilization of the atmosphere directly above and shoreward of the Gulf Stream. This air mass
modification or conditioning period often precedes wintertime coastal extra-tropical cyclone development.
It is the temperature structure of the continental air mass and the position of the temperature gradient along the Gulf Stream that
drives this cyclone development. As a low pressure deepens, winds and waves can uninhibitedly increase and cause serious
damage to coastal areas as the storm generally moves to the northeast.
The coastal counties of Virginia are most vulnerable to the impacts of nor’easters. Since the storms often occur at night, and
typically make landfall with less warning than hurricanes (due to their rapid formation along the coast), residents may be caught at
home unprepared. On the other hand, nor’easters typically occur during the tourist off-season when fewer non-residents are
visiting the coast. As with hurricanes, structural vulnerability to nor’easters is proportional to the strength of the structure, with
mobile homes being particularly vulnerable.
TABLE 4.11: DOLAN-DAVIS NOR’EASTER INTENSITY SCALE

PROPERTY
STORM CLASS BEACH EROSION DUNE EROSION OVERWASH
DAMAGE
1 Minor changes None No No
(Weak)
2 Modest; mostly to Minor No Modest

(Moderate) lower beach
3 Erosion extends Can be significant No Loss of many

(Significant) across beach structures at local
level
4 Severe beach Severe dune On low beaches Loss of structures at

(Severe) erosion and erosion or community- scale
recession destruction
5 Extreme beach Dunes destroyed Massive in sheets Extensive at
(Extreme) erosion over extensive and channels regional-scale;
areas millions of dollars
Historical evidence indicates that the Southside Hampton Roads region has been impacted by varying degrees of snow storms
and ice storms over the last century. In terms of receiving measurable snowfall, the National Climatic Data Center estimates that
there is statistically an 85.8 percent probability that the region will receive measurable snowfall in any given year; a 78.9 percent
probability in winter; and a 24.4 percent probability in spring (Table 4.12).
Figure 4.X shows the number of days (annually) with snowfall greater than one inch. Figure 4.X shows region’s winter storm
hazard risk as determined in the Virginia State Hazard Mitigation Plan.
TABLE 4.12: PROBABILITY OF RECEIVING A MEASURABLE SNOWFALL
ANNUAL WINTER SPRING FALL

JURISDICTION
PROBABILITY PROBABILITY PROBABILITY PROBABILITY
Isle of Wight No data No data No data No data
Norfolk 89.8% 88.7% 35.8% 5.6%
Portsmouth No data No data No data No data
Suffolk 92.5% 87.2% 26.9% 6.9%
Virginia Beach 75% 60.7% 10.5% 2.1%
TOTALS: 85.8% 78.9% 24.4% 4.9%
Source: NOAA, National Climatic Data Center, Snow Climatology Page

According to the National Climatic Data Center, the Southside Hampton Roads region has experienced 24 significant winter storm
events including snow and ice storms, extreme cold, and freezing rain since 1993 (Table 4.13). These events account for
$20,120,000 in property damages for the affected areas, which includes multiple counties. The region received presidential
disaster declarations from major winter storms in 1996 (the Blizzard of ’96) and 2000. Some of the more significant winter storms
to impact the region in the twentieth century are discussed below.
On March 1-3, 1927 a nor'easter hit the region with high winds gusting to 62 mph at Cape Henry and 52 mph at Norfolk. Heavy
snow fell across North Carolina into Virginia and travel was delayed for two to three days. In Virginia Beach, high tide and heavy
surf on March 2 inflicted considerable damage. The beaches in some places were washed back 50 feet and denuded of the
overlying sand, exposing the clay beneath.
On April 11, 1956, a severe Nor'easter gave gale winds (greater than 40 mph) and unusually high tides to the Tidewater
Virginia area. At Norfolk, the strongest gust was 70 mph. The strong northeast winds blew for almost 30 hours and pushed up the
tide, which reached 4.6 feet above normal in Hampton Roads. Thousands of homes were flooded by the wind-driven high water
and damages were large. Two ships were driven aground. Waterfront fires were fanned by the high winds. The flooded streets
made access to firefighters very difficult, which added to the losses.
On January 30-31, 1966, a blizzard struck Virginia and the Northeast U.S. It was the second snowstorm to hit Virginia in a
week. The first storm dumped 9 inches in Norfolk. With fresh snow on the ground, arctic air settled in and temperatures dropped
into the teens. The second storm dumped one to two feet of snow over a large part of the state. Intense winds and drifting snow
continued and kept roads closed for several days after the storm. Temperatures dropped into the single digits with some falling
below zero. Wind chill temperatures were dangerously low.
The winter of 1976-1977 was the coldest winter on the East Coast of the past century. Storms across the state dropped a few
more inches every few days to keep a fresh coating on the streets that were just clearing from the previous storms. The average
temperature for the month of January in Norfolk was 29.2°F which was 12° below normal. The prolonged cold wave caused oil
and natural gas shortages and President Carter asked people to turn thermostats down to conserve energy. The major elements
of this winter were the cold temperatures. There was little snowfall associated with this winter in the Southside Hampton Roads
region.
The “Presidents Day Storm” of February 1979 dropped 7 inches on snow on Norfolk on February 18-19 and 13 inches of snow
were recorded for the entire month. The following winter, 20 inches fell in Virginia Beach and a foot of snow fell in Norfolk in a
storm that hit the region in February. On March 1, another foot of snow fell in Norfolk and the total snowfall amount of 41.9 inches
for Norfolk was the snowiest winter ever recorded in eastern Virginia.
The “Superstorm of March ’93,” was also known as “The Storm of the Century” for the eastern United States, due to its large
area of impact, all the way from Florida and Alabama through New England. Impacts in the Southside Hampton Roads region
were not as severe, but this storm still caused major disruption across a large portion of the country.
The “1996 Blizzard” from January 6 to January 13, 1996 affected much of the eastern seaboard. In Virginia, the winter storm left
up to 36 inches of snow in portions of the state. In the Southside Hampton Roads region, most of the communities saw at least a
foot of snow between January 6 and January 12.
Many other descriptions of historical occurrences of winter storms and nor’easters can be found online at
http://www.vaemergency.com/newsroom/history/winter.cfm
Table 4.13: Winter Storm Activity in the Southside Hampton Roads Region (1998-2004)
DATE OF TYPE OF PROPERTY

LOCATION DETAILS
OCCURRENCE EVENT DAMAGE
Isle of Wight 12/28/1993 Winter $0 No description available.
County Weather
9 1/6/1996 Winter $50,000 No description available.
jurisdictions, Storm
including Isle
of Wight
17 2/2/1996 Winter $0 A winterstorm tracked northeast from the gulf coast
jurisdictions, Storm states to off the Virginia coast. It spread a mixture of
including Isle snow, sleet and some freezing rain from the lower
of Wight Chesapeake Bay southwest into south central Virginia.
20 2/16/1996 Winter $0 A storm tracked northeast from western South Carolina
jurisdictions, Storm Thursday night to off the North Carolina coast Friday
including Isle morning. Then it moved off north and spread heavy
of Wight snow across Virginia.
33 3/7/1996 Winter $0 A low pressure area developed over the Carolinas and
jurisdictions, Storm then tracked off Virginia coast. It spread light snow
including Isle across central and eastern Virginia.
of Wight
40 12/23/1998 Ice Storm $20,000,000 A major ice storm affected central and eastern Virginia
jurisdictions, from Wednesday into Friday. A prolonged period of
including Isle freezing rain and some sleet resulted in ice
of Wight accumulations of one half inch to one inch in many
locations. The heavy ice accumulations on trees and
power lines caused widespread power outages across
the region. Approximately 400,000 customers were
without power during the maximum outage period.
Some customers were without power for about ten
days. Many accidents occurred due to slippery road
conditions, especially bridges and overpasses. Many
secondary roads were impassable due to fallen tree
limbs or whole trees.
25 1/19/2000 Winter $0 Two to three inches of snow fell overnight as an area of
jurisdictions, Storm low pressure passed south of the region. The highest
including Isle amounts were measured along a line from Caroline
of Wight county in the north, through the city of Richmond, then
along the southern shore of the James River.
7 1/25/2000 Winter $20,000 A significant winter storm dropped 8 to 12 inches of
jurisdictions, Storm snow across portions of eastern Virginia. There was
including Isle blowing and drifting of snow from winds which gusted
of Wight over 40 mph at times. The snow mixed with sleet and
freezing rain occasionally during the late morning
hours. In Isle of Wight County, strong winds pushed the
Pagan River onto South Church Street. Isle of Wight
County snowfall totaled 7 to 8 inches.
4 12/3/2000 Winter $50,000 A winter storm struck parts of extreme southern and
jurisdictions, Storm southeastern Virginia. The storm affected a relatively
including Isle small area, but the areas that had snow received some
of Wight hefty totals. Windsor reported 4 inches of snowfall.
Local law enforcement agencies reported scores of
accidents, several of which involved injuries. Schools
were closed the following day.
A winter storm produced 1 to 4 inches of snow across
south central and eastern Virginia. Local law
27 enforcement agencies reported numerous accidents,
jurisdictions, Winter some of which involved injuries. Many schools were
2/22/2001 $0
including Isle Storm dismissed early on the day of the storm, and several
of Wight schools in the area were either closed or had a delayed
opening the following day due to slippery road
conditions.

LOCATION DETAILS
A winter storm produced 8 to as much as 12 inches of
18 snow across south central and southeast Virginia.
jurisdictions, Winter Local law enforcement agencies reported numerous
1/2/2002 $0
including Isle Storm accidents. Most schools in the area were closed
of Wight Thursday and Friday due to very slippery road
conditions.
A winter storm produced 1 to 4 inches of snow along
with 1/4 to 1/2 inch of ice from south central Virginia
northeast through the middle peninsula and Virginia
19 northern neck. Numerous trees and power lines were
jurisdictions, Winter reported down due to ice accumulations, resulting in
12/4/2002 $0
including Isle Storm scattered power outages. Local law enforcement
of Wight agencies also reported numerous accidents. Most
schools in the area were closed Thursday and Friday
due to power outages and very slippery road
conditions.
A weak winter storm produced only a dusting to 1 inch
43
Winter of snow across portions of central and eastern Virginia.
jurisdictions,
1/6/2003 Weather/ $0 Accumulations from this storm were mostly on cars and
including Isle
mix grassy areas, with roadways remaining generally wet
of Wight
although some slush was reported.
A winter storm produced 4 to 8 inches of snow across
27
portions of central and eastern Virginia. Local law
jurisdictions, Winter
1/16/2003 0 enforcement agencies reported numerous accidents.
including Isle Storm
Most schools in the area were closed Friday due to
of Wight
very slippery road conditions.
12 A winter storm produced around one inch of snow
Winter
jurisdictions, across portions of south central and southeast Virginia.
1/23/2003 Weather/ $0
including Isle Local law enforcement agencies reported several
mix
of Wight accidents.
A winter storm produced 1 to 3 inches of snow, along
17 with sleet and 1/4 to 1/2 inch of ice accumulation,
jurisdictions, Winter across central and eastern Virginia. Local law
2/15/2003 $0
including Isle Storm enforcement agencies reported numerous accidents.
of Wight Most schools in the area were closed Monday due to
very slippery road conditions.
24 Two to as much as five inches of snow fell across
jurisdictions, Winter portions of central, south central, and southeast
1/9/2004 $0
including Isle Storm Virginia. The snow produced very slippery roadways,
of Wight which resulted in several accidents.
Two to as much as four inches of snow and sleet fell
14
across portions of eastern and southeast Virginia. The
1/25/2004 $0 snow and sleet produced very slippery roadways,
which resulted in numerous accidents and school
of Wight
closings for a few days.
22 One to three inches of snow fell across portions of
jurisdictions, Winter south central and southeast Virginia. The snow
2/15/2004 $0
including Isle Storm produced very slippery roadways, which resulted in
of Wight several accidents and school closings for a few days.
43 One half inch to as much as three inches of snow fell
Winter
jurisdictions, across central and eastern Virginia. The snow
12/19/2004 Weather/ $0
including Isle produced slippery roadways, which resulted in several
mix
of Wight accidents.
A winter storm produced a narrow band of six to as
much as fourteen inches of snow across the Virginia
10
Eastern Shore, Hampton Roads, and interior southeast
12/26/2004 $0 Virginia. The snow caused very hazardous driving
conditions, which resulted in numerous accidents.
of Wight
Smithfield in Isle of Wight county reported 12 inches
and Isle of Wight reported 11 inches.
43 One half inch to as much as two inches of snow fell
Winter
jurisdictions, across central and eastern Virginia. The snow
1/19/2005 Weather/ $0
mix
of Wight accidents.

LOCATION DETAILS
41 One half inch to as much as three inches of snow fell
Winter
jurisdictions, across much of central and eastern Virginia. The snow
1/20/2005 Weather/ $0
mix
of Wight accidents. .
One half inch to two inches of snow fell across much of
36 central and eastern Virginia. A few isolated areas
Winter
jurisdictions, reported close to four inches. The snow produced
2/3/2005 Weather/ $0
including Isle slippery roadways, which resulted in several accidents.
mix
of Wight Smithfield in Isle of Wight county reported 2.3 inches of
snow.
$20,120,000
TOTAL 24 Events 19

Winter storms will remain a likely occurrence for the region. While storms will be more likely to produce small amounts of snow,
sleet or freezing rain, larger storms, though less frequent in occurrence, could also impact the region.
19
Damages are based on the methodological assumption that damages were equally distributed among impacted counties. While this may not
produce an exact estimate of property damage within the region, it is deemed sufficient for planning purposes within this context.
BACKGROUND
Erosion is the gradual breakdown and movement of land due to both physical and chemical processes of water, wind, and general
meteorological conditions. Natural, or geologic, erosion has occurred since the Earth’s formation and continues at a very slow
and uniform rate each year. Major storms such as hurricanes and tropical storms may cause more sudden, rapid erosion by
combining heavy rainfall, high winds, heavy surf and storm surge to significantly impact river banks and the shoreline.
As it relates to natural hazards that threaten property damage, there are two types of
erosion to be concerned: riverine erosion and coastal erosion. The primary concern of
both riverine and coastal erosion is the gradual removal of rock, vegetation and other
sediment materials from river banks, stream beds and shorelines that result in soil
instability and possible damages to property and infrastructure.
Riverine erosion is a long term geologic process that reshapes river beds and
stream banks as sediment is excavated and transported downstream.
Typically, it occurs faster during periods of high velocity flows brought on by heavy
rainfall, stormwater runoff and/or dam releases. Riverine erosion is most often
mitigated through local sediment and erosion control projects, such as the construction of
armored revetments and bulkheads or the replacement of vegetation that
serves to stabilize eroding soils. The riverine erosion hazard is also greatly
minimized through the designation of riparian buffers and the enforcement of
regulatory setbacks from eroding river banks.
Coastal erosion is a significant, long term hazard that threatens to undermine waterfront
homes, businesses, and public facilities along our all of our Erosion threatens to damage a nation’s shorelines,
eventually rendering them uninhabitable or unusable. Coastal waterfront home. (Photo erosion is driven by
number of natural influences such as rising sea level, large storms courtesy of FEMA) such as tropical
storms, nor’easters and hurricanes, storm surge, flooding and powerful ocean
waves. Manmade influences such as coastal development, offshore dredging or shoreline stabilization projects can also
exacerbate coastal erosion, even when initially intended to minimize immediate or erosion effects. According to FEMA, coastal
erosion has been a factor in more than 25 federal disaster designations during the past twenty years.
The average annual erosion rate on the Atlantic coast is roughly 2 to 3 feet per year. States bordering the Gulf of Mexico have the
nation’s highest average annual erosion rates (6 feet per year). That being said, erosion rates vary greatly from location to
location and year to year. Both the Atlantic and Gulf coasts are bordered by a chain of roughly 300 barrier islands, which are
composed primarily of loose sand and are the most dynamic land masses along the open-ocean coast. Barrier island coastlines
have been retreating landward for thousands of years in response to slowly rising sea levels.
A recent study by The Heinz Center (2000), Evaluation of Erosion Hazards, states that over the next 60 years, erosion may claim
one out of four houses within 500 feet of the U.S. shoreline. It also states that nationwide, erosion may be responsible for
approximately $500 million in property loss to coastal property owners per year, including both damage to structures and loss of
land. To the homeowners living within areas subject to coastal erosion, the risk posed by erosion is comparable to the risk from
flooding and other natural hazard events. While not as sudden, coastal erosion clearly influences the stability and condition of
coastal property and beaches when such other events occur.
Although some riverine erosion occurs in various locations along the rivers that flow through the Southside Hampton Roads region,
there are no riverine erosion hazard data or maps available at this time to conduct a region-wide analysis. Riverine erosion
concerns are localized in nature and are best suited for site-specific analyses.
Coastal erosion is a significant concern in the Southside Hampton Roads region. According to the Virginia Institute of Marine
Sciences (VIMS), the Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay coasts surrounding the area are very dynamic in terms of shoreline change
and sediment transport processes. VIMS and other agencies occasionally perform studies to determine long term shoreline
change patterns for various locations across the region. However, these studies are largely intended to track shoreline and dune
evolution through natural and manmade alterations, and not designed to determine erosion rates or areas of coastal erosion.
While the Federal Emergency Management Agency does not map erosion hazard areas, it does map the highest risk areas for
coastal flooding with wave action (“V zones”)20. For purposes of this analysis it can generally be assumed that areas identified as
coastal high hazard zones are also at risk to the effects of coastal erosion. While coastal flooding is typically a short term event,
coastal erosion may best be described as a relatively slow natural process occurring over the long term, with occasional major
impacts wrought by coastal storm and flooding hazards.
Another complicating factor in accurately determining specific

coastal erosion hazard areas is the continuous implementation of
shoreline reinforcement or nourishment projects completed by federal,
state and local government agencies. Typically, areas of high concern
with regard to long term erosion are addressed through shoreline
hardening or stabilization projects, such as seawalls, breakwaters and beach
sand replenishment. For example, in 2002, the Virginia Beach Erosion
Control and Hurricane Protection Project was completed, protecting
more than six miles from the imminent hazards of coastal erosion through
sand renourishment. Many other projects have been completed in the region
and still others are pending approval and/or funding21. The ability
to continue successfully mitigating the effects of coastal erosion
hazards throughout the region will depend on regular This photo, taken while the Virginia Beach shoreline monitoring
Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection
and the design and implementation of site-specific solutions, as has been
Project was underway, shows the significant
done in the past. difference between the unimproved area and
the area of the widened beach berm already
HISTORICAL OCCURENCES completed (Source: City of Virginia Beach)
No significant riverine erosion events have been recorded in the region. Coastal erosion events often occur in conjunction with
hurricanes, tropical storms and nor’easters.
PROBABILITY OF FUTURE OCCURENCES

Over time, riverine and coastal erosion will continue to occur in the Southside Hampton Roads region. Coastal erosion will be more
immediate and severe during hurricanes, tropical storms and nor’easters.
20
For more information on FEMA V-zones, refer to the Flood hazard.
21
In countering the effects of coastal erosion, Virginia Beach’s shoreline has been renourished annually since 1951.
EARTHQUAKES
BACKGROUND
An earthquake is the motion or trembling of the ground produced by sudden displacement of rock in the Earth's crust.
Earthquakes result from crustal strain, volcanism, landslides or the collapse of caverns. Earthquakes can affect hundreds of
thousands of square miles; cause damage to property measured in the tens of billions of dollars; result in loss of life and injury to
hundreds of thousands of persons; and disrupt the social and economic functioning of the affected area.
Most property damage and earthquake-related deaths are caused by

the failure and collapse of structures due to ground shaking. The level of
damage depends upon the amplitude and duration of the shaking, which
are directly related to the earthquake size, distance from the fault, site and
regional geology. Other damaging earthquake effects include
landslides, the down-slope movement of soil and rock (mountain
regions and along hillsides), and liquefaction, in which ground soil
loses the ability to resist shear and flows much like quick sand. In the
case of liquefaction, anything relying on the substrata for support
can shift, tilt, rupture or collapse.
Most earthquakes are caused by the release of stresses accumulated

as a result of the rupture of rocks along opposing fault planes in the
Earth’s outer crust. These fault planes are typically
Many roads, including bridges and elevated found along borders
of the Earth's 10 tectonic plates. These plate highways, were damaged by the 6.7 borders generally
follow the outlines of the continents, with the North magnitude earthquake that impacted the American plate
following the continental border with the Pacific Northridge, California area January 17, 1994. Ocean in the west,
but following the mid-Atlantic trench in the east. As Approximately 114,000 structures were earthquakes occurring
in the mid-Atlantic trench usually pose little danger to damaged and 72 deaths were attributed to the humans, the greatest
earthquake threat in North America is along the t D t ti t d t $25 Pacific Coast.
The areas of greatest tectonic instability occur at the perimeters of the slowly moving plates, as these locations are subjected to
the greatest strains from plates traveling in opposite directions and at different speeds. Deformation along plate boundaries
causes strain in the rock and the consequent buildup of stored energy. When the built-up stress exceeds the rocks' strength, a
rupture occurs. The rock on both sides of the fracture is snapped, releasing the stored energy and producing seismic waves,
generating an earthquake.
Earthquakes are measured in terms of their magnitude and intensity. Magnitude is measured using the Richter Scale, an open-
ended logarithmic scale that describes the energy release of an earthquake through a measure of shock wave amplitude (see
Table 4.14). Each unit increase in magnitude on the Richter Scale corresponds to a 10-fold increase in wave amplitude, or a 32-
fold increase in energy. Intensity is most commonly measured using the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale based on direct
and indirect measurements of seismic effects. The scale levels are typically described using roman numerals, with a I
corresponding to imperceptible (instrumental) events, IV corresponding to moderate (felt by people awake), to XII for catastrophic
(total destruction). A detailed description of the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of earthquake intensity and its correspondence to
the Richter Scale is given in Table 4.15.
TABLE 4.14: RICHTER SCALE
RICHTER MAGNITUDES EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS

Less than 3.5 Generally not felt, but recorded.
3.5-5.4 Often felt, but rarely causes damage.
At most slight damage to well-designed buildings. Can cause major damage to

Under 6.0
poorly constructed buildings over small regions.
6.1-6.9 Can be destructive in areas up to about 100 kilometers across where people live.
7.0-7.9 Major earthquake. Can cause serious damage over larger areas.
Great earthquake. Can cause serious damage in areas several hundred

8 or greater
kilometers across.
Source: United States Geological Survey
TABLE 4.15: MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE FOR EARTHQUAKES

CORRESPONDING
SCALE INTENSITY DESCRIPTION OF EFFECTS RICHTER SCALE
MAGNITUDE
I Instrumental Detected only on seismographs
II Feeble Some people feel it <4.2
III Slight Felt by people resting; like a truck rumbling by
IV Moderate Felt by people walking
V Slightly Strong Sleepers awake; church bells ring <4.8

Trees sway; suspended objects swing, objects fall off
VI Strong <5.4
shelves
VII Very Strong Mild Alarm; walls crack; plaster falls <6.1
Moving cars uncontrollable; masonry fractures, poorly
VIII Destructive
constructed buildings damaged
IX Ruinous Some houses collapse; ground cracks; pipes break open <6.9
Ground cracks profusely; many buildings destroyed;
X Disastrous <7.3
liquefaction and landslides widespread
Most buildings and bridges collapse; roads, railways,
XI Very Disastrous pipes and cables destroyed; general triggering of other <8.1
hazards
XII Catastrophic Total destruction; trees fall; ground rises and falls in waves >8.1
Figure 4.21 shows the probability that ground motion will reach a certain level during an earthquake. The data show peak
horizontal ground acceleration (the fastest measured change in speed, for a particle at ground level that is moving horizontally due
to an earthquake) with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. The map was compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) Geologic Hazards Team, which conducts global investigations of earthquake, geomagnetic, and landslide hazards.
FIGURE 4.21: PEAK ACCELERATION WITH 10 PERCENT PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE IN
50 YEARS

Virginia is affected by both the New Madrid Fault in Missouri and the Charleston Fault in South Carolina. During the last 200
years, both of these faults have generated earthquakes measuring greater than 8 on the Richter Scale. There is also an area of
frequent, yet very weak, earthquake activity located to the southwest of Charlottesville, Virginia.
Figure 4.22 shows the earthquake intensity level associated with the Southside Hampton Roads region, based on the national
U.S. Geological Survey map of peak acceleration with 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. According to this data,
the entire region can be considered to be in a low earthquake risk zone, with a peak ground acceleration value (%g) of 1 and 2.
Table 4.16 lists the 7 significant earthquake events that have impacted the Southside Hampton Roads region as compiled from
National Geophysical Data Center records for the period 1638 to 1985.
Table 4.16: Significant Seismic Events in the Southside Hampton Roads Region
DISTANCE FROM
LOCATION DATE OF OCCURRENCE MMI22
EPICENTER (MILES)
Norfolk 12/16/1811 5 1188
Norfolk 8/28/1833 3 N/A
Norfolk 9/1/1886 5 560
Norfolk 2/21/1916 3 581
Norfolk 4/21/1918 2 N/A
Norfolk 3/1/1925 2 1339
Norfolk 9/5/1944 3 881
Suffolk 9/1/1886 5 527
Suffolk 4/21/1918 2 N/A
Source: National Geophysical Data Center

Earthquakes of significant magnitude are unlikely occurrences for the Southside Hampton Roads region, though the proximity of
the region to the Charleston Fault could increase the possibility of feeling some impact of a large earthquake if it were to occur
along that fault line.
22
Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale for earthquakes.
LANDSLIDES
BACKGROUND
A landslide is the downward and outward movement of slope-forming soil, rock, and vegetation, which is driven by gravity.
Landslides may be triggered by both natural and human-caused changes in the environment, including heavy rain, rapid snow
melt, steepening of slopes due to construction or erosion, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and changes in groundwater levels.
There are several types of landslides: rock falls, rock topple, slides, and
flows. Rock falls are rapid movements of bedrock, which result in
bouncing or rolling. A topple is a section or block of rock that rotates or
tilts before falling to the slope below. Slides are movements of soil
or rock along a distinct surface of rupture, which separates the slide
material from the more stable underlying material. Mudflows,
sometimes referred to as mudslides, mudflows, lahars or debris
avalanches, are fast-moving rivers of rock, earth, and other debris
saturated with water. They develop when water rapidly accumulates in the
ground, such as heavy rainfall or rapid snowmelt, changing the soil
into a flowing river of mud or "slurry." Slurry can flow rapidly down slopes
or through channels, and can strike with little or no warning at
avalanche speeds. Slurry can travel several miles from its source,
growing in size as it picks up trees, cars, and other Landslides can damage or destroy roads, materials along the
way. As the flows reach flatter ground, the mudflow railroads, pipelines, electrical and telephone spreads over a
broad area where it can accumulate in thick deposits. lines, mines, oil wells, buildings, canals,
sewers, bridges, dams, seaports, airports,
Landslides are typically associated with periods of forests parks and farms (Photo by Lynn heavy rainfall or
rapid snow melt and tend to worsen the effects of flooding that often
accompanies these events. In areas burned by forest and brush fires, a lower threshold of precipitation may initiate landslides.
Some landslides move slowly and cause damage gradually, whereas others move so rapidly that they can destroy property and
take lives suddenly and unexpectedly. Among the most destructive types of debris flows are those that accompany volcanic
eruptions. A spectacular example in the United States was a massive debris flow resulting from the 1980 eruptions of Mount St.
Helens, Washington. Areas near the bases of many volcanoes in the Cascade Mountain Range of California, Oregon and
Washington are at risk from the same types of flows during future volcanic eruptions.
Areas that are generally prone to landslide hazards include previous landslide areas; the bases of steep slopes; the bases of
drainage channels; and developed hillsides where leach-field septic systems are used. Areas that are typically considered safe
from landslides include areas that have not moved in the past; relatively flat-lying areas away from sudden changes in slope; and
areas at the top or along ridges, set back from the tops of slopes.
In the United States, it is estimated that landslides cause up to $2 billion in damages and from 25 to 50 deaths annually. Globally,
landslides cause billions of dollars in damage and thousands of deaths and injuries each year. Figure 4.23 delineates areas
where large numbers of landslides have occurred and areas which are susceptible to landsliding in the conterminous United
States. This map layer is provided in the U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1183, Landslide Overview Map of the
Conterminous United States, available online at:
http://landslides.usgs.gov/html_files/landslides/nationalmap/national.html.
FIGURE 4.23: LANDSLIDE OVERVIEW MAP OF THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES

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

There is no history of significant landslide events in the region.
Landslides remain a possible occurrence in localized areas of the Southside Hampton Roads region, but impacts from such
events would likely cause minimal localized damage.
SINKHOLES
BACKGROUND
Sinkholes are a natural and common geologic feature in areas with underlying limestone and other rock types that are soluble in
natural water. Most limestone is porous, allowing the acidic water of rain to percolate through their strata, dissolving some
limestone and carrying it away in solution. Over time, this persistent erosive process can create extensive underground voids and
drainage systems in much of the carbonate rocks. Collapse of overlying sediments into the underground cavities produces
sinkholes.
The three general types of sinkholes are: subsidence, solution,

and collapse. Collapse sinkholes are most common in areas where the
overburden (the sediments and water contained in the unsaturated zone,
surficial aquifer system, and the confining layer above an aquifer) is
thick, but the confining layer is breached or absent. Collapse sinkholes
can form with little warning and leave behind a deep, steep sided hole.
Subsidence sinkholes form gradually where the overburden is thin and
only a veneer of sediments is overlying the limestone. Solution
sinkholes form where no overburden is present and the limestone is
exposed at land surface.
Sinkholes occur in many shapes, from steep-walled holes to bowl or cone

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

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

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

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

Sinkholes remain a possible occurrence in localized areas of the region, but impacts from such events would likely cause minimal
localized damage.
DROUGHT
BACKGROUND
Drought is a natural climatic condition caused by an extended period of
limited rainfall beyond that which occurs naturally in a broad geographic
area. High temperatures, high winds and low humidity can worsen
drought conditions, and can make areas more susceptible to wildfire.
Human demands and actions can also hasten drought-related
impacts.
Droughts are frequently classified as one of four types: meteorological,

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

SEVERE AND EXTREME DROUGHT
Source: National Drought Mitigation Center

Drought typically impacts a large area that cannot be confined to geographic boundaries; however, some regions of the United
States are more susceptible to drought conditions than others. According to the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) Summary
Map for the United States, the Commonwealth of Virginia as a whole is in a zone of 5 percent to 9.99 percent PDSI less than or
equal to -3 (-3 indicating severe drought conditions) meaning that drought conditions are a relatively low to moderate risk for the
Southside Hampton Roads region. Furthermore, it is assumed that the region would be uniformly exposed to this hazard and that
the spatial extent of that impact would potentially be large. It is important to note however, that drought conditions typically do not
cause significant damage to the built environment.
The drought of record for Virginia occurred in 1931 when the statewide average rainfall amount was 7.64 inches compared to an
average mean rainfall amount of 17.89. This was during this period that also saw the Great Dust Bowl that helped lead to the
Great Depression.
Since 1993, the National Climatic Data Center has recorded only 2 instances of drought to impact the Southside Hampton Roads
region (Table 4.17).23 Though instances are recorded on a monthly basis by the National Climatic Data Center, events are
usually part of ongoing drought conditions that last several months or years.
In addition to this official drought record, periods of drought-like conditions are also known to have impacted the region in 200,
2002, 2003 and 2005. Water restrictions have been put into place as far back as three years and shallow wells are known to have
lost water in and around the region.
According to State of Virginia records, a declaration of a State of Emergency Due to Extreme Drought Conditions was executed by
the Governor of Virginia on August 30, 2005. The Executive Order was to be effective from August 30, 2002 through June 30,
2003. Isle of Wight County is currently (2005) seeking federal disaster drought aid because of drought conditions effecting crop
production.
Table 4.17: Occurrences of Drought in the southside hampton roads region (1993-2004)
DATE OF
LOCATION DETAILS
OCCURRENCE
17 10/31/1993 Unusually dry weather during the summer and early fall led to many communities
jurisdictions, in southeastern Virginia to place water conservation measures into effect in
including October 1993.
Isle of Wight
20 9/1/1997 A very dry period from May through September resulted in drought-like conditions
jurisdictions, across much of central and eastern Virginia. Monthly rainfall departures from
including normal for Norfolk included: -2.21 inches in May, -2.73 inches in June, -3.05 inches
Isle of Wight in August, and -1.93 inches in September. This caused significant crop damage
throughout much of the area which was estimated to be around $63.8 million.

Based on current and seasonal outlook drought maps available through the National Weather Service’s Climate Prediction Center
and the National Drought Mitigation Center24, there is no concern for imminent or forecasted drought occurrences. However,
based on past events, it certainly remains possible over the long-term that the Southside Hampton Roads region will experience
recurring drought conditions when precipitation falls below normal for extended periods of time. Based on climate data, the region
will likely continue to experience occasional periods of extreme heat, but not nearly as severe as other regions of the country.
23
Drought occurrences recorded by the National Climatic Data Center are not necessarily unique events, as many instances of drought persist
through multiple reporting periods. This is reflected in the details provided for some long-enduring occurrences in Table 4.17.
24
Current and seasonal drought outlook maps are made available by the National Drought Mitigation Center at
www.drought.unl.edu/dm/index.html.
WILDFIRE
BACKGROUND
A wildfire is any fire occurring in a wildland area (i.e., grassland, forest, brush land) except for fire under prescription.25 Wildfires
are part of the natural management of the Earth’s ecosystems, but may also be caused by natural or human factors. Over 80
percent of forest fires are started by negligent human behavior such as smoking in wooded areas or improperly extinguishing
campfires. The second most common cause for wildfire is lightning.
There are three classes of wildland fires: surface fire, ground fire, and
crown fire. A surface fire is the most common of these three classes
and burns along the floor of a forest, moving slowly and killing or
damaging trees. A ground fire (muck fire) is usually started by lightning or
human carelessness and burns on or below the forest floor. Crown
fires spread rapidly by wind and move quickly by jumping along the
tops of trees. Wildland fires are usually signaled by dense smoke that fills
the area for miles around.
State and local governments can impose fire safety regulations on home
sites and developments to help curb wildfire. Land treatment measures
such as fire access roads, water storage, helipads, safety zones, buffers,
firebreaks, fuel breaks, and fuel management can be On Sunday, August 6, 2000, several forest fires designed as part of an
overall fire defense system to aid in fire control. Fuel converged near Sula, Montana, forming a firestorm management,
that overran 100,000 acres and destroyed 10
prescribed burning, and cooperative land management planning
homes. Temperatures in the flame front were
can also be encouraged to reduce fire hazards. estimated at more than 800 degrees. (Photo by
John McColgan/U.S. Forest Service Firefighter)
Fire probability depends on local weather conditions, outdoor activities such
as camping, debris burning, and construction, and the degree of public
cooperation with fire prevention measures. Drought conditions and other natural disasters (hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.) increase
the probability of wildfires by producing fuel in both urban and rural settings. Forest damage from hurricanes and tornadoes may
block interior access roads and fire breaks, pull down overhead power lines, or damage pavement and underground utilities.
Many individual homes and cabins, subdivisions, resorts, recreational areas, organizational camps, businesses, and industries are
located within high fire hazard areas. The increasing demand for outdoor recreation places more people in wildlands during
holidays, weekends, and vacation periods. Unfortunately, wildland residents and visitors are rarely educated or prepared for the
inferno that can sweep through the brush and timber and destroy property in minutes.

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

According to Virginia Department of Forestry records, the region experiences an average of 12 wildfire events per year, the
majority of which are caused by open burning, arson and smokers. The majority of recorded events have taken place in Isle of
Wight County and no events have been recorded in Portsmouth and Norfolk. Only minor property damages—generally amounting
25
Prescription burning, or “controlled burn,” undertaken by land management agencies is the process of igniting fires under selected conditions,
in accordance with strict parameters.)
to less than $15,000 per year—have been recorded as resulting from wildfire events. Table 4.18 shows the damages of wildfire
events in the region between 1995 and 2002.
Table 4.18: Occurrences of Wildfire in the Southside Hampton Roads Region
JURISDICTION YEAR FREQUENCY BURNED ACRES DAMAGE
1995 1 10 $0
1996 1 0.5 $0
Virginia Beach
1997 2 28 $0
2001 4 225 $0
Virginia Beach Total 8 263.5 $0
1995 10 17.5 $0
1996 3 1.25 $0
1997 8 8.5 $500
Isle of Wight County 1998 4 9 $600
1999 3 1.5 $0
2000 5 6.5 $3,000
2001 17 61.65 $0
Isle of Wight County Total 50 105.9 $4,100
1995 14 154.7 $33,750
1996 2 121 $8,000
1997 5 132 $20,960
Suffolk
1999 3 10.5 $5,400
2000 2 30 $0
2001 1 38 $3,000
Suffolk Total 27 486.2 $71,110
TOTAL 85 855.6 $75,210
Source: Virginia Department of Forestry

Wildfires remain a highly likely occurrence for the region, though most will likely continue to occur in less urban areas and be small
in size before being contained and suppressed.
DAM / LEVEE FAILURE
BACKGROUND
Worldwide interest in dam and levee safety has risen significantly in recent years. Aging infrastructure, new hydrologic
information, and population growth in floodplain areas downstream from dams and near levees have resulted in an increased
emphasis on safety, operation and maintenance.
There are approximately 80,000 dams in the United States today, the
majority of which are privately owned. Other owners include state and local
authorities, public utilities and federal agencies. The benefits of dams are
numerous: they provide water for drinking, navigation and agricultural
irrigation. Dams also provide hydroelectric power, create lakes for fishing
and recreation, and save lives by preventing or reducing floods.
Though dams have many benefits, they also can pose a risk to communities
if not designed, operated and maintained properly. In the event of a dam
failure, the energy of the water stored behind even a small dam is capable of
causing loss of life and great property damage if development exists
downstream of the dam. If a levee breaks, scores of properties are quickly
submerged in floodwaters and residents may become trapped by this rapidly
rising water. The failure of dams and levees has the potential to place large
numbers of people and great amounts of property in harm’s way. Lake Burnt Mills in Suffolk. (Photo courtesy of
City of Suffolk)
According to the National Inventory of Dams maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers26, there are 37 major dams located
in the Southside Hampton Roads region (Table 4.19). Major dams are defined as dams being 50 feet or more in height, or with a
normal storage capacity of 5,000 acre-feet or more, or with a maximum storage capacity of 25,000 acre-feet or more. Of the
major dams located in the region, three are classified as “high” hazards where failure or mis-operation of the dam could cause
loss of human life. It is important to note that these hazard classifications are not related to the physical condition or structural
integrity of the dam (nor the probability of its failure) but strictly to the potential for adverse downstream effects if the dam were to
fail.
The state regulatory agency for dams is the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation through the Dam Safety and
Floodplain Management Program.
Table 4.19: Major Dams in the Southside Hampton Roads Region
NORMAL
NAME OF DAM HAZARD CLASSIFICATION YEAR BUILT STORAGE
(ACRE FEET)
Lake Burnt Mills Dam High 1942 7,449
Western Branch Dam High 1963 14,620
Lake Mead Dam High 1959 6,372
C-Pond Dam Significant 1962 1,000
Lake Prince Dam Low 1921 10,600
Lake Cohoon Dam Significant 1912 6,025
Source: National Inventory of Dams
Figure 4.27 shows the location of all major and state-regulated dams in the region, and notes which of those are classified as
high, intermediate and low hazard.

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

Dam failure remains an unlikely occurrence for all major and non-regulated dams in the Southside Hampton Roads region. The
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation is tasked with monitoring the routine inspection and maintenance of those
dams that present the greatest risk or are in need of structural repair.
26
The National Inventory of Dams was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in cooperation with FEMA's National Dam Safety
Program. The full inventory contains over 75,000 dams, of which 7,700 are classified as major, and is used to track information on the country's
water control infrastructure.
TSUNAMI
BACKGROUND
The word tsunami is Japanese and means “harbor wave.” A tsunami is one or a series of great waves that are created by an
earthquake, landslide, volcanic eruption, submarine earthquake or other undersea disturbances. From the area of disturbance,
tsunami waves will travel outward in all directions. Tsunamis can originate hundreds or even thousands of miles away from
coastal areas. A tsunami is not the same as a tidal wave.
The time between wave crests may be five to 90 minutes and the open
ocean wave speed may average 450 miles per hour. As tsunami waves
approach shallow coastal waters, they appear to be of normal size.
Although the waves slow down as they reach shallow water, the
energy remains constant. When tsunami waves crash into the shoreline,
they may be as high as 100 feet. Areas at greatest risk are less
than 50 feet above sea level and within one mile of the shoreline. Rapid
changes in the ocean water level may indicate that a tsunami is
approaching. Most deaths during a tsunami are the result of drowning.
Associated risks include flooding, polluted water Tsunami Hazard Zone signs are posted at coastal supplies, and damaged
gas lines. access points or other low-lying areas that would
clearly be vulnerable to a large, locally generated
tsunami. Signs are placed at locations agreed upon
In the United States, tsunamis have historically by local and state governmental authorities. affected the West Coast
(Figure 4.28), but the threat of tsunami inundation Tsunami Evacuation Route markers are used to is also possible on the
Atlantic Coast. Pacific Ocean tsunamis are designate the evacuation routes established by classified as local,
regional, or Pacific-wide. Regional tsunamis are local jurisdictions in cooperation with emergency most common. Pacific-
wide tsunamis are much less common, with the management officials. (Photos courtesy of last one being recorded
in 1964, but are larger waves that have high Washington State Department of Transportation) potential to cause
destruction.
The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center was established in 1949 at Ewa Beach, Hawaii to monitor conditions in the Pacific Ocean
and to provide warnings in case of tsunamis. According to the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center Laboratory in Novosiirsk, 796
tsunamis were observed or recorded in the Pacific Ocean between 1900 and 2001. Approximately 117 caused casualties and
damage and at least nine caused widespread destruction throughout the Pacific. The greatest number of tsunamis during any
one-year was 19 in 1938, but all were minor and caused no damage. There was no single year of the period that was free of
tsunamis.
FIGURE 4.28: PRIMARY TSUNAMI HAZARD AREAS

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

To cite one commonly referenced example in terms of Atlantic tsunamis, a severe earthquake registering 7.2 on the Richter Scale
on November 18, 1929 in the Grand Banks of Newfoundland generated a tsunami that caused considerable damage and loss of
life at Placentia Bay, Newfoundland and is also known to have impacted upon the New England shoreline and was recorded as far
south as Charleston, South Carolina. Tsunamis were also generated by the Charleston Earthquake of 1886 and the New Madrid
earthquakes of 1811 and 1812. Additionally, a magnitude 8 earthquake in November 1755 may have caused 10-foot waves along
the East Coast.
Two off-shore areas are currently under investigation according to a 2002 National Geophysical Data Center report. One area of
interest consists of large cracks northeast of Cape Hatteras that could foretell of the early stages of an underwater landslide that
27
This was documented in an article written by representatives from the National Geophysical Data Center in Volume 20, Number 3 of The
International Journal of The Tsunami Society.
could result in a tsunami. The other area of interest consists of submarine canyons approximately 150 kilometers from Atlantic
City, New Jersey. Significant factors for consideration with regard to these areas are recent discoveries along the East Coast that
demonstrate the existence of pressurized hydrates and pressurized water layers in the continental shelf. This has produced
speculation among the scientific community on possible triggers that could cause sudden and perhaps violent releases of
compressed material that could factor into landslide events and the resulting tsunami waves.
There is still much uncertainty as to the severity of the tsunami threat to the East Coast. With only 40 events recorded since 1600,
the probability of future occurrences, while possible, is unlikely. However, this does not mean that jurisdictions in the region should
not plan for a tsunami occurrence.
BACKGROUND
Extreme heat is defined as temperatures that hover ten degrees or more above the average high temperature for the region and
last for several weeks. Humid conditions may also add to the discomfort of high temperatures. Health risks from extreme heat
include heat cramps, heat fainting, heat exhaustion and heat stroke. According to the National Weather Service, heat is the
leading weather-related killer in the United States and has killed more people than lightning,
tornadoes, floods and hurricanes combined in the last 10 years. However, most deaths
are attributed to prolonged heat waves in large cities that rarely experience hot
weather. The elderly and the ill are most at-risk, along with those who exercise outdoors in
hot, humid weather.
Extreme cold is generally associated with extreme winter storms. Extreme cold is a
deceptive killer as it indirectly causes injury and death resulting from exhaustion and
overexertion, hypothermia and frostbite from wind chill and asphyxiation.
LOCATION AND SPATIAL EXTENT Photo courtesy of Environmental

Protection Agency
According to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for the Commonwealth of
Virginia, there were 30 deaths recorded in Virginia that were the result of extreme heat or cold. Summertime temperatures in the
Southside Hampton Roads region can easily climb into the high 90 to low 100 degree range with high humidity rates. The region
is also vulnerable to extreme winter weather occurrences that can bring extreme cold temperatures and wind-chill.
While temperature extremes occur fairly frequently in the region, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) has only recorded two
extreme temperature events recorded that have impacted the region. The first was in August of 1995 and the second was in May of
1996. There are no reported instances of extreme cold weather recorded by NCDC.
PROBABILITY OF FUTURE EVENTS
It is possible that the Southside Hampton Roads region will experience periods of extreme temperatures in the future.
DATA SOURCES
The following primary data sources were among those used to collect the information presented in this section.
• American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), “Facts About Windstorms”

(www.windhazards.org/facts.cfm)
• Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior
(www.usbr.gov/)
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
(www.fema.gov)
• Lin Cao, Wei-Ning Xiang, and Joseph C. Wilson, Department of Geography and Earth Sciences University of North Carolina at Charlotte
(www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/GIS_study.html)
• National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html)
• National Drought Mitigation Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
(www.drought.unl.edu/index.htm)
• National Geophysical Data Center
(www.ngdc.noaa.gov)
• National Hurricane Center, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
(www.nhc.noaa.gov)
• National Lightning Safety Institute
(www.lightningsafety.com)
• National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(www.nssl.noaa.gov)
• National Weather Service (NWS), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(www.nws.noaa.gov)
• North Carolina Geological Survey
(www.geology.enr.state.nc.us)
• Storm Prediction Center (SPC), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service
(www.spc.noaa.gov)
• The Tornado Project, St. Johnsbury, Vermont
(www.tornadoproject.com)
• United States Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Department of the Interior
(www.usgs.gov)
INTRODUCTION
The Vulnerability Assessment section builds upon the information provided in the Hazard Identification and Analysis by identifying
community assets and development trends in the region, then assessing the potential impact and amount of damage (loss of life
and/or property) that could be caused by each hazard event addressed in this risk assessment. The primary objective of this level
of vulnerability assessment is to prioritize hazards of concern to the region adding to the foundation for mitigation strategy and
policy development. Consistent with the preceding sections, the following hazards are addressed in this assessment:
FLOOD
LIGHTNING
TORNADOES
EARTHQUAKES
LANDSLIDES
SINKHOLES
DROUGHT
WILDFIRE
DAM/LEVEE FAILURE
TSUNAMIS
To complete the vulnerability assessment, best available data was collected from a variety of sources, including local, state and
federal agencies, and multiple analyses were applied through qualitative and quantitative means (further described below).
Additional work will be done on an ongoing basis to enhance, expand and further improve the accuracy of the baseline results,
and it is expected that this vulnerability assessment will continue to be refined through future plan updates as new data and loss
estimation methods become available.
The findings presented in this section with regard to vulnerability were developed using best available data, and the methods
applied have resulted in an approximation of risk. These estimates should be used to understand relative hazard risk and the
potential losses that may be incurred; however, uncertainties are inherent in any loss estimation methodology, arising in part from
incomplete scientific knowledge concerning specific hazards and their effects on the built environment, as well as incomplete data
sets and from approximations and simplifications that are necessary in order to provide a meaningful analysis. Further, most data
sets used in this assessment contain relatively short periods of records which increases the uncertainty of any statistically-based
analysis.
METHODOLOGIES USED
Two distinct risk assessment methodologies were used in the formation of this vulnerability assessment. The first consists of a
quantitative analysis that relies upon best available data and technology, while the second approach consists of a qualitative
analysis that relies more on local knowledge and rational decision making. Upon completion, the methods are combined to create
a “hybrid” approach for assessing hazard vulnerability for the region that allows for some degree of quality control and assurance.
The methodologies are briefly described and introduced here and are further illustrated throughout this section. For each hazard
addressed in this section, vulnerability is summarized in part by an annualized loss estimate specific to that hazard, along with a
“PRI” value (described in detail below).
QUANTITATIVE METHODOLOGY
The quantitative assessment consists of utilizing Hazards U.S. Multi-Hazard (HAZUS-MH) software, a geographic information
system (GIS)-based loss estimation tool available from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), along with a
statistical risk assessment methodology for hazards outside the scope of HAZUS-MH. For the flood hazard, the quantitative
assessment incorporates a detailed GIS-based approach using best available local data from the jurisdictions in the region. When
combined, the results of these vulnerability studies are used to form an assessment of potential hazard losses (in dollars) along
with the identification of specific community assets that are deemed potentially at-risk.
Explanation of HAZUS-MH and Statistical Risk Assessment Methodology
HAZUS-MH is FEMA’s nationwide standardized loss estimation software package, built on an integrated GIS platform with a
national inventory of baseline geographic data (including information on the region’s general building stock and dollar exposure).
Originally designed for the analysis of earthquake risks, FEMA has expanded the program to allow for the analysis of multiple
hazards: namely the flood and wind (hurricane wind) hazards. By providing estimates on potential losses, HAZUS-MH facilitates
quantitative comparisons between hazards and may assist in the prioritization of hazard mitigation activities.
HAZUS-MH uses a statistical approach and mathematical modeling of risk to predict a hazard’s frequency of occurrence and
estimated impacts based on recorded or historic damage information. The HAZUS-MH risk assessment methodology is
parametric, in that distinct hazard and inventory parameters—such as wind speed and building type, for example—were modeled
using the HAZUS-MH software to determine the impact (damages and losses) on the built environment. Figure 5.1 shows a
conceptual model of HAZUS-MH methodology. More information on HAZUS-MH loss estimation methodology is available through
FEMA at www.fema.gov/hazus.
Figure 5.1: Conceptual Model of HAZUSMH Methodology
Sources: Federal Emergency Management Agency; PBS&J
This risk assessment utilized HAZUS-MH to produce regional profiles and estimated losses for two of the hazards addressed in
this section: hurricane winds and earthquakes. For each of these hazards, HAZUS-MH was used to generate probabilistic “worst
case scenario” events to show the maximum potential extent of damages. It is understood that those events which could occur of
less severe magnitude would likely result in fewer losses than those calculated here.
Explanation of GIS-based (Non-HAZUSMH) Risk Assessment Methodology
For hazards outside the scope of HAZUS-MH, a specific statistical risk assessment methodology was designed and applied to
generate potential loss estimates. The approach is based on the same principals as HAZUS-MH, but does not rely on readily
available automated software. First, historical data is compiled for each hazard to relate occurrence patterns (frequency, intensity,
damage, etc.) with existing hazard models. Statistical evaluations are then applied in combination with engineering modeling to
develop damage functions that can generate annualized losses.
The use of the statistical risk assessment methodology provides a determination of estimated annualized loss28 for the following
hazards:
Severe Thunderstorms
Lightning
Tornadoes
Winter Storms and Nor’easters
Erosion
Landslides
Sinkholes
Drought
Wildfire
Dam/Levee Failure
Tsunamis
Extreme Temperatures
When possible, quantitative hazard loss estimates are compared with historical damage data as recorded through the National
Weather Service/National Climatic Data Center and other reliable data sources.
To determine annualized losses for the flood hazard (both riverine and surge), a detailed GIS analysis was conducted using local
tax parcel data and maps of flood hazard areas to determine at-risk properties. This analysis was conducted independent of the
HAZUS-MH program.
The first step in conducting this analysis included the collection of relevant GIS data from local, state and national/federal sources.
These sources include the various Town, City and County GIS Departments, federal agencies such as FEMA, the United States
Geological Survey (USGS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Once all data was acquired,
ESRI® ArcGIS™ 9 was used to assess specific risks to people, public buildings and infrastructure utilizing digital hazard data in
combination with the locally-available GIS data layers. Primary data layers include Census 2000 data, along with geo-referenced
point locations for public buildings, critical facilities, hazardous materials sites and infrastructure elements. Using these data
layers, risk was assessed and described by determining the parcels and/or point locations that intersected with the delineated
flood hazard areas.
28
By annualizing estimated losses, the historic patterns of frequent smaller events are coupled with infrequent but larger events to provide a
balanced presentation of the overall, long-term risk.
QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGY
The qualitative assessment relies less on technology, but more on historical and anecdotal data, community input and
professional judgment regarding expected hazard impacts. The qualitative assessment completed for the Southside Hampton
Roads region is based on the Priority Risk Index (PRI), a tool used by PBS&J to measure the degree of risk for identified hazards
in a particular planning area. The PRI is also used to assist community officials in ranking and prioritizing those hazards that pose
the most significant threat to their area based on a variety of factors deemed important by the Mitigation Planning Committee and
other stakeholders in the hazard mitigation planning process.
While the quantitative assessment focuses on using best available data, computer models and GIS technology, the PRI system
relies more on historical data, local knowledge and the general consensus of the Mitigation Planning Committee. The PRI is used
for hazards with no available GIS data or relevant information to perform quantitative analyses, and also provides an important
opportunity to compare, crosscheck or validate the results of those that do have available data.
The PRI results in numerical values that allow identified hazards to be ranked against one another (the higher the PRI value, the
greater the hazard risk). PRI values are obtained by assigning varying degrees of risk to five categories for each hazard
(probability, impact, spatial extent, warning time and duration). Each degree of risk has been assigned a value (1 to 4) and an
agreed upon weighting factor29, as summarized in Table 5.1.
To calculate the PRI value for a given hazard, the assigned risk value for each category is multiplied by the weighting factor. The
sum of all five categories equals the final PRI value, as demonstrated in the example equation below:
PRI VALUE = [(PROBABILITY x .30) + (IMPACT x .30) + (SPATIAL EXTENT x .20)

+ (WARNING TIME x .10) + (DURATION x .10)]
According to the weighting scheme applied for the Southside Hampton Roads region, the highest possible PRI value is 4.0. Prior
to being finalized, PRI values for each hazard were reviewed and accepted by the Mitigation Planning Committee.
SUMMARY
Using both the qualitative and quantitative analyses to evaluate the hazards that impact the region provides members of the
Mitigation Planning Committee with a dual-faceted review of the hazards. This allows officials to not only recognize those hazards
that may potentially be the most costly, but also to plan and prepare for those hazards that, although may not cause much
monetary damage, could put a strain on the local resources needed to recover after their impact on the county.
All conclusions of the vulnerability assessment completed for the region and participating jurisdictions are presented in
“Conclusions on Hazard Risk” at the end of this section. Findings for each hazard are detailed in the hazard-by-hazard
vulnerability assessment that follows, beginning with an overview of general asset inventory and exposure data for the Southside
Hampton Roads region.
29
The Mitigation Planning Committee based upon any unique concerns for the planning area may also adjust the PRI weighting scheme.
Table 5.1: Summary of Priority Risk Index (PRI)
DEGREE OF RISK ASSIGNED
PRI
INDEX WEIGHTING
CATEGORY LEVEL CRITERIA
VALUE FACTOR
Unlikely Less than 1% annual probability 1

Possible Between 1 and 10% annual probability 2
Probability 30%
Likely Between 10 and 100% annual probability 3
Highly Likely 100% annual probability 4
Very few injuries, if any. Only minor property
Minor damage and minimal disruption on quality of life. 1
Temporary shutdown of critical facilities.
Minor injuries only. More than 10% of property in
Limited affected area damaged or destroyed. Complete 2
shutdown of critical facilities for more than one day.
Impact Multiple deaths/injuries possible. More than 25% 30%
of property in affected area damaged or destroyed.
Critical 3
Complete shutdown of critical facilities for more
than one week.
High number of deaths/injuries possible. More
than 50% of property in affected area damaged or
Catastrophic 4
destroyed. Complete shutdown of critical facilities
for 30 days or more.
Negligible Less than 1% of area affected 1
Small Between 1 and 10% of area affected 2
Spatial Extent 20%
Moderate Between 10 and 50% of area affected 3
Large Between 50 and 100% of area affected 4
More than 24 hours Self explanatory 1
12 to 24 hours Self explanatory 2
Warning Time 10%
6 to 12 hours Self explanatory 3
Less than 6 hours Self explanatory 4
Duration 10%
Less than one week Self explanatory 3
More than one week Self explanatory 4
Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee; PBS&J
OVERVIEW OF SOUTHSIDE HAMPTON ROADS VULNERABILITY
DEMOGRAPHICS
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the total population of Southside Hampton Roads region in 2000 was 860,870. (For
comparison, the total population in 2000 for the state of Virginia as a whole was 7,078,515) The average number of persons and
housing units per square mile, according to the 2000 census, is 811 and 318 respectively. These numbers are significantly higher
than the state average. The City of Virginia Beach contains the greatest population and housing units among cities and towns in
the planning area. Table 5.2 provides a summary of population and demographic characteristics for the region.
TABLE 5.2: POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
UNDER 18 65 YEARS WHITE

TOTAL DISABILITY
JURISDICTION YEARS OLD AND OVER POPULATION
POPULATION STATUS (%)
(%) (%) (%)
Isle of Wight County 29,728 25 12.2 71.1 20.1

Norfolk 234,403 24 10.9 48.4 23.5
Portsmouth 100,565 26 13.8 45.8 24.7
Smithfield 6,324 27 13.6 67.2 22.1
Suffolk 63,677 28 11.4 53.8 24.4
Virginia Beach 425,257 27 8.4 71.4 15.3
Windsor 916 24 12.4 89.7 19.9
VIRGINIA 7,078,515 25 11.2 72.3 17.5
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000)
Figure 5.2 shows the distribution of this population across the planning area based on the number of persons per census block.30
30
It is important to note that with this type of GIS-based map the graduated coloring method used to show the number of persons living within
each census block can in some instances be visually misleading at first glance, as highly populated areas may appear to be scarcely populated
due to the fact that the population is divided into many small census blocks. The same can be true for large census blocks that show large
numbers of persons but that cover more land area than the smaller census blocks.
GENERAL ASSET INVENTORY
The total dollar exposure of buildings within the Southside Hampton Roads region is estimated to be approximately
$66,439,169,000. This figure is based on an estimated 261,035 residential, commercial, industrial and other buildings located
throughout the region, derived from HAZUS-MH data31 (Table 5.3). The total dollar exposure accounts for both building value
($42,014,402,000) and contents value ($24,424,767,000). Taken together, the building and contents values provide an estimate
of the aggregated total replacement value for the region’s assets. Figures 5.3 through 5.5 illustrate geographically the
concentration of commercial, industrial, and residential dollar exposure in the Southside Hampton Roads region based on
HAZUS-MH data.
Table 5.3: Building Inventory in Southside Hampton Roads
NUMBER OF BUILDINGS
JURISDICTION
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL OTHER TOTAL
Isle of Wight County 11,707 73 3 10 11,793
Norfolk 57,859 920 117 250 59,146
Portsmouth 30,500 214 18 79 30,811
Suffolk 21,568 122 15 40 21,745
Virginia Beach 135,766 1,393 115 266 137,540
TOTAL 257,400 2,722 268 645 261,035
BUILDING AND CONTENTS VALUES
JURISDICTION
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL OTHER TOTAL
Isle of Wight County $1,206,987,000 $102,689,000 $17,911,000 $23,701,000 $1,351,288,000
Norfolk $9,998,217,000 $1,663,410,000 $237,610,000 $226,515,000 $12,125,752,000
Portsmouth $4,211,183,000 $314,477,000 $49,765,000 $88,866,000 $4,664,291,000
Suffolk $2,480,542,000 $230,951,000 $39,958,000 $52,654,000 $2,804,105,000
Virginia Beach $18,256,280,000 $2,170,665,000 $271,859,000 $370,162,000 $21,068,966,000
Total Building Value $36,153,209,000 $4,482,192,000 $617,103,000 $761,898,000 $42,014,402,000
Total Content Value $18,087,270,000 $4,734,868,000 $794,635,000 $807,994,000 $24,424,767,000
GRAND TOTAL $54,240,479,000 $9,217,060,000 $1,411,738,000 $1,569,892,000 $66,439,169,000
Source: HAZUS-MH
CRITICAL FACILITIES
There is no comprehensive database of critical facilities and infrastructure for the Southside Hampton Roads region. Moreover,
there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes critical facilities and infrastructure nor is one associated with FEMA
and DMA 2000 planning requirements. However, for purposes of this Plan, critical facilities and infrastructure are identified as
“those facilities or systems whose incapacity or destruction would present an immediate threat to life, public health, and safety or
have a debilitating effect on the economic security of the region.”32 This includes the following facilities and systems based on
their high relative importance for the delivery of vital services, the protection of special populations, and other important functions
in the Southside Hampton Roads region:
Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs)

Hospitals and medical care facilities
Police stations
Fire stations
Schools (particularly those designated as shelters)
Hazardous materials facilities
Potable water facilities
31
HAZUS-MH uses Census 2000 and Dunn and Bradstreet (2002) data for its default inventories. Any values unavailable in the current version
of the HAZUS-MH software are not reflected.
32
It should be noted that Dominion Power (the region’s electric power provides) maintains a listing of critical facilities for the participating
jurisdictions in the Southside Hampton Roads region. This listing is separate from the one included in this Plan.
Wastewater facilities
Energy facilities (electric, oil and natural gas)
Communication facilities
In preparing the inventory of critical facilities for the Southside Hampton Roads region, each participating jurisdiction was asked to
submit best available GIS data layers for their primary critical facilities to be used in combination with HAZUS-MH inventory data33.
This resulted in the identification of hundreds of critical facilities for the region. It is understood that this listing is incomplete due to
data limitations associated with both the local GIS and HAZUS-MH inventories, but that further enhancements to the data will be
made over time and incorporated during future plan updates. Because of the sensitive nature of critical facility information, this
listing has been made an appendix of this plan (Appendix B). The data was acquired from the HAZUS-MH database of critical
facilities for each jurisdiction and verified by local jurisdiction officials for accuracy. Figures AB1 through AB-5 (located in
Appendix B) show the general location of critical facilities in each jurisdiction.
Table 5.4 shows the results of a general analysis of the critical facilities that are located in the high wildfire risk area, 100-year
floodplain, Flood Zone VE and the Storm Surge Zone for a Category 3 hurricane. The critical facility data-points from the HAZUS-
MH software were used for this analysis except where better local GIS data was available. In those cases, the GIS data points
from the local GIS departments were used instead of the HAZUS-MH data.
TABLE 5.4: CRITICAL FACILITIES LOCATED IN HAZARD AREAS

100-year Flood Zone Storm Surge
Jurisdiction Facility Type High Wildfire Risk
Floodplain VE Category 3
Isle of Wight
County Fire/Rescue Station 1 1 0 1
Police Facility 0 0 0 0
Water Plants 0 2 0 2
Norfolk Fire/Rescue Station 0 2 0 13
School 0 2 0 88
Wastewater Facilities 0 0 0 3
Medical Facilities 0 0 0 7
Portsmouth Wastewater Facilities 0 1 0 1
Schools 0 4 0 13
Fire/Rescue Station 0 1 0 3
Suffolk Water Plants 0 0 0 1
Schools 0 1 0 0
Smithfield None 0 0 0 0
Windsor None 0 0 0 0
Virginia Beach Fire/Rescue Station 0 3 0 4
Wastewater Facilities 0 0 1 2
Schools 0 8 0 64
Medical Facilities 0 0 0 1
ZONING AND LAND USE

In order to regulate current and future land use and guide overall development patterns, all of the jurisdictions in the Southside
Hampton Roads region have adopted a zoning ordinance that enforces standards for designated zoning districts. Zoning maps
are useful planning tools, demonstrating the type and location of projected community development.
Because of the number of jurisdictions participating in this Plan, and the many differences in zoning designations across the
region, it is not feasible to show a regional map of the various zoning districts across the region. However, each jurisdiction
should compare their zoning, land use maps and future land use maps with the known hazard area maps to determine if future
development is being encouraged in these hazardous zones.
33
For purposes of this assessment, local GIS data submitted by participating jurisdictions was considered best available data (over HAZUS-MH
inventory data). If no local GIS data was submitted, then HAZUS-MH inventory data was considered best available data.
MANUFACTURED HOUSING AND THE AGE OF BUILDINGS
The vulnerability of manufactured homes versus those built on-site can vary due to several factors. These include the age of
construction, the materials and construction techniques used, the adherence to past and current building codes, and the method
of installation. In the case of manufactured housing, their proper installation can significantly affect vulnerability. For instance,
with regard to wind-related hazards such as tropical cyclones, severe thunderstorms and tornadoes, estimates based on regional
trends show that 50 percent of manufactured homes built prior to 1976 (pre-HUD structures) are not secured with tie downs. Of
the manufactured homes built between 1976 and 1993, 25 percent have no tie downs. Of those built from 1994 to 2004, 1
percent have no tie downs. These statistics demonstrate that older manufactured homes—specifically those with no tie downs—
are at greater risk from high wind hazards (Blue Sky Foundation of North Carolina).
A similar logic applies to the age of buildings and flood hazard vulnerability. As shown in Table 5.5, the communities in the
Southside Hampton Roads region joined the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) either in the early 1970’s or early 1990’s.
In order to join the NFIP, each participating jurisdiction is required to adopt and enforce its own floodplain management ordinance.
As a result, structures built after joining the NFIP are assumed to be less vulnerable to future flood hazards than pre-FIRM
construction, assuming other environmental conditions remain constant. It is important to note, however, that continued
development, for example, can cause a significant rise in flood elevations.
TABLE 5.5: NFIP ENTRY DATE AND CURRENT EFFECTIVE FIRM
JURISDICTION NFIP ENTRY DATE CURRENT EFFECTIVE FIRM

Isle of Wight County 8/19/1991 9/4/2002
Norfolk 8/1/1979 7/16/1996
Portsmouth 7/2/1971 11/2/1983
Smithfield 12/5/1990 9/4/2002
Suffolk 11/16/1990 9/4/2002
Virginia Beach 4/23/1971 12/5/1996
Windsor 8/1/1990 9/4/2002
DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
Two factors that contribute to an overall understanding of development trends are population change and economic growth.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the average rate of population growth in the Southside Hampton Roads region 1990 and
2000 was 7.1 percent. This rate is slower than the state average of 14.4 percent. Suffolk experienced the greatest population
growth rate with a 22.1 percent increase followed by Isle of Wight County with 18.7 and Virginia Beach with an 8.2 percent
increase. Norfolk experienced a loss in population with a -10.3 percent growth rate from 1990 to 2000, as did Portsmouth with a
-3.2 percent growth rate. There is an interesting dynamic taking place in the region as populations increase for some of the
jurisdictions and decrease for others. As discussed in Section 3, these trends are expected to continue.
In the areas of population increase, new housing construction will also increase which creates jobs and increases the inflow of
dollars to the local economy. Local employment and retail sales for these communities continue to look positive for the immediate
future. However, in the areas of population decline, unemployment and loss of businesses could continue to negatively impact the
area in terms of economic growth.
AGRICULTURAL VULNERABILITY
While most of the Southside Hampton Roads region is urbanized or developed, much of Isle of Wight County, Suffolk and portions
of Virginia Beach remain undeveloped and used for agricultural purposes. As discussed in the Community Profile section of this
Plan, row crops constitute 13.7% of the total land use in the Southside Hampton Roads region (Isle of Wight County 25.3%,
Suffolk, 22.9% and Virginia Beach 17.1%). The following crops are grown in Isle of Wight County, Suffolk and Virginia Beach:
Corn
Cotton
Peanuts
Soybeans
Tall Fescue
Wheat
Areas where agriculture is the primary land use are typically more vulnerable to the drought hazard because of the dependency of
agriculture on water. These areas can also experience losses that are difficult to capture for other hazards such as flooding and
hurricanes.
FLOOD
FLOOD (100-YEAR)
PRI Value: 3.5
Annualized Loss Estimate: $48,172,702
FLOOD (STORM SURGE)

PRI Value: 2.7
The vulnerability assessment for the flood hazard includes the findings of the qualitative assessment conducted, an overview of
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) statistics, repetitive loss properties (as defined and identified by the NFIP), estimates of
potential losses, and future vulnerability and land use.
As described in detail in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section, the National Climatic Data Center only has records for 21
significant flood events in just the past 10 years for the Southside Hampton Roads region, amounting to approximately $670,000
in reported property damage. Also discussed in the Hazard Identification and Analysis are historic storms such as Hurricanes
Isabel, Floyd and the 1933 hurricane that each caused flooding in the region. Historically, the region is vulnerable to the flood
hazard and floods events occur on a fairly frequent basis.
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the flood hazard scored a PRI value of 3.5 (from a scale of
0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.6 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.
Table 5.6: Qualitative Assessment for Flood (100-year)
PROBABILITY IMPACT SPATIAL EXTENT WARNING TIME DURATION
Highly Likely Catastrophic Moderate More Than 24 Hours More Than 1 Week
Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee
The storm surge hazard was analyzed separately from the 100-year riverine / coastal flood hazard, and scored a PRI value of 2.7
(from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.7 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.
Table 5.7: Qualitative Assessment for flood (STORM SURGE)
Possible Catastrophic Moderate More than 24 Hours Less than 24 Hours

NFIP STATISTICS AND REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES

Regionwide there are currently 32,766 flood insurance policies in place, providing a total amount of $5,793,863,900 in coverage.
Table 5.8 provides details for each jurisdiction with regard to the community’s date of entry into the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP), date of the community’s current effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), average number of losses, number
of repetitive loss properties, total losses, total dollar amount of payments and average payment per loss.
Reducing the number of repetitive loss properties insured by the NFIP is a nationwide emphasis of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. A total of 502 repetitive loss properties as defined by the NFIP34 are known to exist within the Southside
Hampton Roads region. These 502 properties have experienced a total of 1,240 individual insured losses.
34
Under the NFIP, FEMA defines a repetitive loss property as “any NFIP-insured property that, since 1978 and regardless of any change(s) of
ownership during that period, has experienced: a) four or more paid flood losses; or b) two paid flood losses within a 10-year period that equal or
exceed the current value of the insured property; or c) three or more paid losses that equal or exceed the current value of the insured property.“
Table 5.8: NFIP Statistics and Repetitive Loss Properties
AVERAGE NUMBER OF
NFIP CURRENT AVERAGE
NUMBER REPETITIVE TOTAL TOTAL
JURISDICTION ENTRY EFFECTIVE PAYMENT
OF LOSS LOSSES PAYMENTS
DATE FIRM PER LOSS
LOSSES PROPERTIES
Isle of Wight County 8/19/1991 9/4/2002 2.0 6 12 $476,483 $238,241
Norfolk 8/1/1979 7/16/1996 2.3 180 420 $5,056,529 $2,137,576
Portsmouth 7/2/1971 11/2/1983 2.3 43 101 $1,001,498 $438,799
Smithfield 12/5/1990 9/4/2002 2.8 4 11 $291,108 $121,063
Virginia Beach 4/23/1971 12/5/1996 2.6 260 676 $8,051,288 $2,929,339
Windsor 8/1/1990 9/4/2002 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
TOTAL 2.0 493 1220 $14,876,906 $977,503
Sources: National Flood Insurance Program (as of 12/31/2003)
ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSSES
Following a detailed analysis of the study area using best available GIS data including the existing 100-year floodplain, 35,482
properties were determined to be flood-prone amounting to a total net present worth of approximately $11,032,679,686 billion in
exposure. Table 5.9 provides a detailed listing of the number of structures, number of structures determined to be pre-FIRM35
based on year built, and the assessed value of structures within the existing 100-year floodplain. An annualized loss estimate of
$48,172,702 was determined using best available local property tax data, and assuming the 100-year flood event occurs once
every 100 years.
TABLE 5.9: OVERVIEW OF POTENTIALLY AT-RISK PROPERTIES FOR FLOOD (100-YEAR)

EXISTING 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
JURISDICTION NUMBER OF NUMBER OF PRE- VALUE OF PRE-FIRM
ASSESSED VALUE
STRUCTURES FIRM STRUCTURES STRUCTURES
36
Isle of Wight County 374 $124,445,000 Unknown Unknown
Norfolk 14,037 $3,014,779,700 11,207 $2,791,581,500
Portsmouth 8,292 $4,541,637,210 Unknown Unknown
Smithfield 51 $16,258,300 Unknown Unknown
Suffolk 1,612 $206,889,500 595 $70,567,300
Virginia Beach 11,114 $3,128,490,076 4,182 $1,152,243,064
Windsor 2 $179,900 Unknown Unknown
TOTAL 35,482 $11,032,679,686 15,984 $4,014,391,864
Sources: Federal Emergency Management Agency (Q3 flood data); Local GIS data
35
“Pre-FIRM” indicates that the structure was built prior to the local enforcement of NFIP standards and is therefore considered to be at
potentially greater risk from the flood hazard.
36
In jurisdictions where the year-built date of structures was not provided, Number and Value of Pre-FIRM Structures has been marked as
“Unknown.”
Following a detailed analysis of the study area using best available GIS data including SLOSH model data37, 156,042 properties
were determined to be at risk to storm surge from a Category 3 hurricane amounting to a total net present worth of approximately
$25,828,086,183 billion in exposure. Table 5.10 provides a detailed listing of the estimated number of parcels, number of
developed parcels, number of structures and assessed values of structures at risk to surge from a Category 3 event. An
annualized loss estimate of $206,624,689 was determined using best available local property tax data, and assuming that the
worst case scenario storm surge event for a Category 3 hurricane occurs once every 150 years.
TABLE 5.10: OVERVIEW OF POTENTIALLY AT-RISK PROPERTIES FLOOD (STORM SURGE)

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

For both the riverine and storm surge flooding hazards, future vulnerability will be determined, in part, by local officials. Flood
hazard and SLOSH maps have been developed to indicate what areas of the jurisdictions are most vulnerable to these hazards.
While these maps are often outdated, efforts are being made across the region to improve or update many of these maps. It is
the responsibility of the local officials to enforce local floodplain regulations, flood damage prevention ordinances or other forms of
development policies that either limit or restrict development to varying degrees in these hazard areas.
37
The SLOSH model is described in Section 4: Hazard Identification and Analysis.
PRI Value: 3.2

Historical evidence shows that the Southside Hampton Roads region is vulnerable to damaging hurricane and tropical storm-force
winds.38 As discussed in detail in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section, 106 hurricanes and tropical storms have passed
within 75 miles of the region since 1851, 29 of which crossed directly through the region. This translates into an estimate of a
68% chance that a storm may potentially impact the region on an annual basis.
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the hurricane and tropical storm hazard scored a PRI value
of 3.20 (from a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.11 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI
category.
Table 5.11: Qualitative Assessment for Hurricanes and Tropical Storms
Likely Catastrophic Large More than 24 Hours Less than 24 Hours

Detailed loss estimates for the hurricane and tropical storm hazard (as these hazards relate to wind) were developed based on
probabilistic scenarios using HAZUS-MH (Level 1 analysis).39 Table 5.12 shows estimates of potential building damage for the 100-
and 500-year return periods, as well as annualized losses, by building occupancy type. In summary, Southside Hampton Roads
region may be susceptible to an estimated total of approximately $664 million in building damages from a 100-year wind event,
increasing to up to $3.6 billion for a 500-year event. Annualized losses are estimated to be approximately $33 million. These
figures are based on “worst-case” scenarios.
Table 5.12: Estimates of Potential Building Damage
BUILDING OCCUPANCY
100-YEAR EVENT 500-YEAR EVENT ANNUALIZED
TYPE
Isle of Wight County $2,668,000 $104,213,000 $1,258,000
Norfolk $454,774,000 $2,532,914,000 $21,510,000
Portsmouth $174,718,000 $732,457,000 $7,736,000
Suffolk $32,010,000 $210,317,000 $3,042,000
Virginia Beach $881,106,000 $5,667,053,000 $46,592,000
TOTAL $664,170,000 $3,579,901,000 $33,546,000
Source: HAZUS-MH
HAZUS-MH was also used to produce building damage estimates based on percentage of damage (by damage state) for the 100-
and 500-year return periods (Table 5.13). In summary, for the 100-year event 11.4 percent of the total building area might
potentially suffer minor damage with 0.3 percent buildings being completely destroyed. For the 500-year event, 15.2 percent of
the total building area might potentially suffer minor damage with 3.3 percent being completely destroyed.
Table 5.13: Estimates of Potential Building Damage by Damage State40

BUILDING TOTAL SQUARE
MINOR (%) MODERATE (%) SEVERE (%) DESTRUCTION (%)
OCCUPANCY TYPE FEET
38
Refer to the Hazard Identification and Analysis section of this risk assessment for detailed historical information.
39
According to FEMA’s HAZUS Web site, “a Level 1 analysis yields a rough estimate based on the nationwide database and is a great way to
begin the risk assessment process and prioritize high-risk communities.”
40
For detailed definitions of the four damage states, please refer to the HAZUS-MH User Manual for the Hurricane Model.
Table 5.13: Estimates of Potential Building Damage by Damage State40
MINOR (%) MODERATE (%) SEVERE (%) DESTRUCTION (%)
100-YR 500-YR 100-YR 500-YR 100-YR 500-YR 100-YR 500-YR

Isle of Wight County 11,793 1.0 29.8 0.0 12.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 2.5
Norfolk 59,146 30.2 30.9 10.8 31.0 1.1 13.0 0.8 9.9
Portsmouth 30,811 29.3 35.8 9.3 24.5 1.0 8.2 0.7 6.2
Suffolk 21,745 12.5 31.3 1.8 12.6 0.1 3.1 0.1 2.8
Virginia Beach 137,540 30.3 30.0 9.4 27.9 1.2 14.5 1.0 13.5
TOTAL 261,035 11.4 15.2 3.7 11.5 0.4 4.3 0.3 3.3
Source: HAZUS-MH

All future structures built in the Southside Hampton Roads region will likely be exposed to hurricane and tropical storm-force winds
and may also experience damage not accounted for in the loss estimates presented in this section. However, continued
enforcement of building codes, flood damage prevention ordinances and other local regulatory tools and policies is expected to
minimize future losses as construction and planning continue to seek higher standards.
PRI Value: 2.8

Annualized Loss Estimate: $387,961
Historical evidence shows that Southside Hampton Roads region is vulnerable to severe thunderstorm activity, including related
hazardous elements such as lightning and hail that often accompany these severe weather events.
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the severe thunderstorm hazard scored a PRI value of 2.8
Table 5.14: Qualitative Assessment for Severe Thunderstorms
Highly Likely Minor Large Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours

Because it cannot be predicted where severe thunderstorms may occur, it is not possible to map geographic boundaries for this
hazard or produce detailed loss estimates. Therefore, the total dollar exposure figure of $66,439,169,000 for all buildings and
contents within the planning area is considered to be exposed and could potentially be impacted on some level by this hazard.
Based on historic property damages for the past 55 years (1950 to 2004), an annualized loss estimate of $387,961 was generated
for severe thunderstorm damages combined with an annual probability of 563.6 percent in the planning area. These annualized
loss and probability are presented in Table 5.15 by jurisdiction.
Table 5.15: Estimated Annualized Losses
JURISDICTION ANNUALIZED LOSSES ANNUAL PROBABILITY
Isle of Wight County $2,295 63.6%

Norfolk $251,306 100.0%
Portsmouth $1,318 56.4%
Smithfield $2,357 14.5%
Suffolk $4,626 109.1%
Virginia Beach $125,817 207.3%
Windsor $242 12.7%
TOTAL $387,961 563.6%
Source: Statistical Risk Assessment Methodology

All future structures built in the Southside Hampton Roads region will likely be exposed to severe thunderstorms and may
experience damage not accounted for in the estimated losses presented in this section. Based on projections of population
growth in the Southside Hampton Roads region, the planning area may experience an estimated $426,757 in annualized losses
by 2030.
LIGHTNING
PRI Value: 2.7

Annualized Loss Estimate: Negligible
Historical evidence shows that the Southside Hampton Roads region is vulnerable to lightning activity, which is often associated with
severe thunderstorms that impact the region.
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the lightning hazard scored a PRI value of 2.7 (from a scale
of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.16 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.
Table 5.16: Qualitative Assessment for LIGHTNING
Highly Likely Limited Small Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours
Source: Southside Hampton Roads region Planning Committee

Because it cannot be predicted where lightning may strike, it is not possible to map geographic boundaries for this hazard or
produce detailed loss estimates. Therefore, the total dollar exposure figure of $66,439,169,000 for all buildings and contents
within Southside Hampton Roads region is considered to be exposed and could potentially be impacted on some level by the
lightning hazard.
Because of the random nature of occurrence of the lightning hazard, it is difficult to assess future vulnerability and land use with
regard to this particular hazard. In general, all buildings built in the future in this region and all future populations will be exposed
and therefore at risk to the lightning hazard.
TORNADOES
PRI Value: 3.0

Historical evidence shows that the Southside Hampton Roads region is vulnerable to tornado activity, which often is associated
with other severe weather events such as thunderstorm or tropical cyclone activity.
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the tornado hazard scored a PRI value of 3.0 (from a scale
Table 5.17: Qualitative Assessment for Tornadoes
Highly Likely Critical Small Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours
Source: Southside Hampton Roads region Planning Committee

Because it cannot be predicted where a tornado may strike, it is not possible to map geographic boundaries for this hazard or
produce detailed loss estimates. Therefore, the total dollar exposure figure of $66,439,169,000 for all buildings and contents
within Southside Hampton Roads region is considered to be exposed and could potentially be impacted on some level by the
tornado hazard.
Based on historic property damages for the past 55 years (1950 to 2004), an annualized loss estimate of $309,725 and annual
probability of 89.1 percent were generated for the tornado hazard. These annualized loss and probability are presented in Table
5.18 by jurisdiction.
MAGNITUDE OF EVENT ANNUALIZED LOSSES ANNUAL PROBABILITY
Isle of Wight County $11,786 9.1%

Norfolk $96,921 29.1%
Portsmouth $167,236 3.6%
Smithfield $641 3.6%
Suffolk $17,875 21.8%
Virginia Beach $15,266 21.8%
Windsor N/A N/A
TOTAL $309,725 89.1%

All future structures built in Southside Hampton Roads region are likely to be exposed to the tornado hazard and may experience
damage not accounted for in the estimated losses presented in this section. Based on projections of population growth in the
Southside Hampton Roads region, the planning area may experience an estimated $340,698 in annualized losses by 2030.
WINTER STORMS
PRI Value: 3.0

Historical evidence shows that Southside Hampton Roads region is vulnerable to winter storm activity, including heavy snow, ice,
extreme cold, freezing rain, and sleet.
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the winter storm hazard scored a PRI value of 3.0 (from a
scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the highest risk level). Table 5.19 summarizes the risk levels assigned to each PRI category.
Table 5.19: Qualitative Assessment for Winter Storms
Likely Critical Large More than 24 Hours Less than 1 Week


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

ANNUAL PROBABILITY ANNUALIZED LOSSES
2.0 $1,416,633

All future structures built in Southside Hampton Roads region are likely to be exposed to the winter storm hazard and may
experience damage not accounted for in the estimated losses presented in this section. Based on projections of population
growth in the Southside Hampton Roads region, the jurisdictions may experience an estimated $1,558,296 in annualized losses
by 2030.
PRI Value: 2.1

Annualized Loss Estimate: Undetermined
As documented in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section, the Southside Hampton Roads region is vulnerable to the long
term effects of both riverine and coastal erosion. While riverine erosion presents a limited to moderate risk to property, coastal
erosion remains a significant hazard of concern that must continue to be addressed through sustained shoreline management
practices. To date, existing strategies for shoreline hardening and the implementation of numerous renourishment projects have
been successful in eliminating major coastal erosion losses41.
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the erosion hazard scored a PRI value of 2.1 (from a scale
Table 5.21: Qualitative Assessment for EROSION
Likely Minor Small More than 24 Hours More than 1 Week

ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL LOSS

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

It is difficult to assess future vulnerability and land use in regard to this hazard. Generally speaking, future vulnerability is going to
depend greatly on appropriate local site planning and permitting where applicable. The jurisdictions in the region and the associated
federal assistance will also need to continue to support the beach renourishment practices in order to avoid coastal erosion losses in
the future.
41
The Norfolk District of the Army Corps of Engineers estimates that $82 million in damages were prevented during Hurricane Isabel in 2003
through the Virginia Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project. This includes $52 million in damages to residential property, $15
million to commercial interests and $15 million to infrastructure.
EARTHQUAKES
PRI Value: 1.9

The annual probability of an earthquake event impacting the study area is estimated at 5 percent based on historical data. While
the probability of an earthquake occurrence is relatively low, moderate losses should a significant earthquake event occur are
possible.
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the earthquake hazard scored a PRI value of 1.9 (from a
Table 5.22: Qualitative Assessment for Earthquakes
Unlikely Minor Large Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours


Table 5.23 provides generalized building damage estimates by jurisdiction for the 100-, 500- and 1,000-year return periods as well
as annualized losses based on probabilistic scenarios using HAZUS-MH. The annualized building damage estimate for the
earthquake hazard is $93,000, and in that estimate residential properties suffer more than 98 percent of the total damage.
Table 5.23: Estimates of Potential Building Damage
BUILDING
100-YEAR EVENT 500-YEAR EVENT 1,000-YEAR EVENT ANNUALIZED
OCCUPANCY TYPE
Isle of Wight County Negligible42 $408,000 $1,092,000 $5,000
Norfolk Negligible $2,785,000 $7,422,000 $28,000
Portsmouth Negligible $1,358,000 $2,851,000 $11,000
Suffolk Negligible $833,000 $2,104,000 $8,000
Virginia Beach Negligible $4,468,000 $11,911,000 $41,000
TOTAL Negligible $9,852,000 $25,380,000 $93,000
Source: HAZUS-MH
HAZUS-MH was also used to produce building damage estimates based on percentage of damage (by damage state) for the 500-
, and 1,000-year return periods (Table 5.24). According to the HAZUS-MH model assumptions, there should be no building
damage from 100-year earthquake event.
42
Damage less than $1,000
TABLE 5.24: ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL BUILDING DAMAGE BY DAMAGE STATE43
SLIGHT (%) MODERATE (%) EXTENSIVE (%) COMPLETE (%)
JURISDICTION
500-YRr 1,000-YR 500-YR 1,000-YR 500-YR 1,000-YR 500-YR 1,000-YR
Isle of Wight County 2.3 5.1 0.7 1.8 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0
Norfolk 1.5 3.5 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Portsmouth 1.7 3.5 0.5 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0
Suffolk 1.9 4.2 0.5 1.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0
Virginia Beach 1.4 3.3 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
TOTAL 1.5 3.5 0.4 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
Source: HAZUS-MH

All future structures built in the Southside Hampton Roads region will be exposed to and on some level vulnerable to seismic
events and may also experience damage not accounted for in the estimated losses presented in this section.
43
For more detailed description of the four damage states, please refer to the HAZUS-MH User Manual for the Earthquake Model.
LANDSLIDES
PRI Value: 1.5

Annualized Loss Estimate: Negligible (less than $5,000)
As documented in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section, historical evidence shows no significant landslide events in
Southside Hampton Roads region. The United States Geological Survey classified most of the planning area as a low incidence
zone. The northeastern portion of Isle of Wight County and the Town of Smithfield are recognized as moderate incidence zones.
In these areas, minor landslide events are considered possible in localized, steep-sloped areas during extremely wet conditions.
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the landslide hazard scored a PRI value of 1.5 (from a
Table 5.25: Qualitative Assessment for Landslides
Unlikely Minor Small Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours


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

Given that there is no historical evidence of landslide activity resulting in measurable damages, and that potential loss estimates
for this hazard are considered to be negligible, it is difficult to assess what future vulnerabilities may exist or how land use may
factor into this.
SINKHOLES
PRI Value: 1.8

As documented in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section, existing soil types in Southside Hampton Roads region are not
conducive to the formation of natural sinkholes. There is a higher potential for soil piping and/or erosion caused by leakage from
drainage pipes, culverts, etc.
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the sinkhole hazard scored a PRI value of 1.8 (from a scale
Table 5.26: Qualitative Assessment for Sinkholes
Possible Minor Negligible Less than 6 Hours Less than 1 Week


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

Given that there is little historical evidence of common sinkhole activity resulting in measurable damages, and that potential loss
estimates for this hazard are considered to be negligible, it is not possible to assess what future vulnerabilities may exist or how
land use may factor into discussion of this hazard.
DROUGHT
PRI Value: 2.2

Drought can impact natural systems as well as the ability of cities, towns and neighborhoods to function effectively. Specific
effects may include a reduction in the production of food grains and other crops, the size and quality of livestock and fish,
available forage for livestock and wildlife, and the availability of water supplies needed by communities and industry. As
evidenced by previous occurrences, the Southside Hampton Roads region is vulnerable to the drought hazard.
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the drought hazard scored a PRI value of 2.2 (from a scale
Table 5.27: Qualitative Assessment for Drought
Possible Minor Large More than 24 Hours More than 1 Week


While drought greatly impacts agricultural, recreational, and manufacturing industries, estimating losses to the built environment
due to drought is difficult because drought causes little physical damage to buildings. It is assumed that all buildings and facilities
are exposed to drought but would experience negligible damage. This study focuses on agricultural loss estimation, since the
agricultural sector is often the most directly affected and data is readily available.
Total annualized losses due to drought in the City of Virginia Beach, Isle of Wight County and City of Suffolk are estimated at
$2,215,839. This is based on information on previous occurrences as recorded by the National Climatic Data Center. Table 5.28
shows the total harvested crop land, irrigated land, market value of crops, percent of non-irrigated land and total annualized loss.
Due to a lack of agricultural information for other jurisdictions, drought vulnerability analyses for the towns of Smithfield and
Windsor and cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth were not conducted.
Table 5.28: Estimated Annualized Losses for drought
TOTAL MARKET
PERCENT NON-
HARVESTED IRRIGATED VALUE OF TOTAL
JURISDICTION IRRIGATED
CROPLAND LAND (acres) CROPS ANNUALIZED LOSS
LAND
(acres) ($1,000)
Isle of Wight County 49,373 790 $13,458 98.4% $526,095
Suffolk 53,954 1,167 $35,745 97.8% $1,389,336
Virginia Beach 21,609 432 $7,716 98.0% $300,407

TOTAL 124,936 2,389 $56,919 98.1% $2,215,839
Source: The 2002 U.S. Census of Agriculture and Statistical Risk Assessment Methodology

According the U.S. Census of Agriculture, the total harvested croplands in the City of Virginia Beach, Isle of Wight County and City
of Suffolk have decreased 38, 7.2 and 7.9 percent respectively between 1992 and 2002. It is estimated that annualized losses will
decrease by 14.8 percent by 2012 based on the previous trend of -14.8 percent change from 1992 to 2002.
WILDFIRE
PRI Value: 2.5

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

REGION
Jurisdiction High Risk Communities Moderate Risk Communities
Isle of Wight County 6 12

Suffolk 3 17
Virginia Beach 0 1
Total 9 30
Source: VDOF
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the wildfire hazard scored a PRI value of 2.5 (from a scale
Table 5.30: Qualitative Assessment for Wildfire
Highly Likely Minor Small Less than 6 Hours Less than 24 Hours

Table 5.31 shows wildfire events from 1995 to 2002 in Southside Hampton Roads region (according to the Virginia Department of
Forestry) that contribute to an annualized loss estimate of $10,744 for the wildfire hazard. During the period, no wildfire events
were reported in the towns of Smithfield and Windsor and city of Norfolk.
Table 5.31: Estimated Annualized Losses for wildfire
JURISDICTION FREQUENCY Property Damage Annual Probability Annualized Loss
Isle of Wight County 50 $4,100 7.14 $586
Portsmouth 1 $0 0.14 $0
Suffolk 27 $71,110 3.9 $10,159
Virginia Beach 8 $0 1.14 $0
TOTAL 86 $75,210 12.3 $10,744
44
A current listing of Virginia’s woodland home communities can be made available by VDOF upon request.
Sources: Virginia Department of Forestry; Statistical Risk Assessment Methodology

Given that the potential loss estimates for this hazard are generally fairly low, it is difficult to assess what significant future
vulnerabilities may exist or how land use may factor into discussion of this hazard.
DAM/LEVEE FAILURE
PRI Value: 2.2

As documented in the Hazard Identification Analysis section, there are 37 major dams in the Southside Hampton Roads region,
defined as being 50 feet or more in height, or with a normal storage capacity of 5,000 acre-feet or more, or with a maximum
storage capacity of 25,000 acre-feet or more. There is no record of any damages, deaths or injuries associated with dam failure in
the region.
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the dam/levee failure hazard scored a PRI value of 2.2
Table 5.32: Qualitative Assessment for Dam/Levee Failure
Unlikely Critical Small Less than 6 Hours Less than 24 Hours


Generally speaking, failure or mis-operation of a dam classified as “high” hazard would result in the probability of at least one
death and more than $200,000 in economic damages. As documented in detail in the Hazard Identification and Analysis section,
there are three major dams in the Southside Hampton Roads region classified as high hazard. Table 5.33 shows the surface
area, primary purpose and owner of the three major high hazard dams in the county. Annualized loss estimates for this hazard
are considered to be negligible (less than $5,000).
Officials from the City of Suffolk have recognized that development downstream of many of their dams (namely Western Branch,
Burnt Mills, Lake Prince, Lake Cahoon, Lake Meade, Lake Kilby, Speight’s Run and Camp Pond) has increased in recent years.
As a result, they have listed as one of their mitigation actions that a study be conducted to better determine the amount of
vulnerability in this hazard area. If such a study is conducted, future updates of this plan will provide information on the findings.
Table 5.33: Inventory and Details of Major High Hazard Dams in the Region
SURFACE AREA
DAM NAME PRIMARY PURPOSE OWNER
(ACRES)
Lake Burnt Mills Dam 596 Water Supply City of Norfolk
Western Branch Dam 1,282 Water Supply City of Norfolk
Lake Mead Dam 590 Water Supply City of Portsmouth
Source: National Inventory of Dams

Future updates to this Plan will attempt to address dam failure vulnerability in greater detail, if warranted. This may include a
detailed analysis of properties directly downstream of high hazard dams in order to better determine the number of people and
value of properties located in potential inundation zones and thereby vulnerable to dam failure. Once a baseline of this detail is
established, it should become easier to then assess future vulnerability and land use.
TSUNAMI
PRI Value: 2.6

Annualized Loss Estimate: Undetermined
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the tsunami hazard scored a PRI value of 2.6 (from a scale
Table 5.34: Qualitative Assessment for TSUNAMI
Unlikely Catastrophic Moderate Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours

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

All future development in the Southside Hampton Roads region that is located close to the coast or tidal rivers could be exposed
to the tsunami hazard at some point in the future.
PRI Value: 2.1

Annualized Loss Estimate: Negligible
According to the qualitative assessment performed using the PRI tool, the extreme temperature hazard scored a PRI value of 2.1
Table 5.35: Qualitative Assessment for EXTREME TEMPERATURES
Possible Minor Large More than 24 Hours Less than 1 Week

ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL LOSSES
Based on the previous historical occurrences, annualized losses to the built environment for this hazard are considered to be
negligible (less than $1,000). Similar to the lightning hazard, loss to human life is a greater concern with extreme temperatures than
is property damage.
All future structures built in the Southside Hampton Roads region will be exposed to extreme temperatures on a comparable level to
existing structures; however, this hazard typically has little to no physical impact on the built environment in terms of substantial
damage to structures, essential facilities or infrastructure elements. Given the lesser nature of this hazard within the planning area,
it is not expected that significant changes will be seen in the planning or construction of future building stock in response to this
hazard.
CONCLUSIONS ON HAZARD RISK
The vulnerability assessment performed for the Southside Hampton Roads region provides significant findings that allow the
Mitigation Planning Committee to prioritize hazard risks and proposed hazard mitigation strategies and actions. Prior to assigning
conclusive risk levels for each hazard, the Mitigation Planning Committee reviewed the results of quantitative and qualitative
assessments shown in the following tables.
Table 5.36 summarizes the degree of risk assigned to each category for all identified hazards in the region based on the
application of the Priority Risk Index (PRI) tool fully introduced in “Methodologies Used.” Assigned risk levels were based on
historical and anecdotal data, as well as input from the Mitigation Planning Committee. The results were then used in calculating
PRI values and making conclusions for the qualitative assessment.
Table 5.36: Summary of Qualitative Assessment
CATEGORY/DEGREE OF RISK
HAZARD
SPATIAL
PROBABILITY IMPACT WARNING TIME DURATION
EXTENT
Flood (100-Year) Highly Likely Catastrophic Moderate More than 24 Hours More than 1 Week
Flood (Storm Surge) Possible Catastrophic Moderate More than 24 Hours Less than 24 Hours
Hurricanes and
Tropical Storms Likely Catastrophic Large More than 24 Hours Less than 24 Hours
Severe Thunderstorms Highly Likely Minor Large Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours
Lightning Highly Likely Limited Small Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 hours
Tornadoes Highly Likely Critical Small Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours
Winter Storms Likely Critical Large More than 24 Hours Less than 1 Week
Erosion Likely Minor Small More than 24 Hours More than 1 Week
Earthquakes Unlikely Minor Large Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours
Landslides Unlikely Minor Small Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours
Sinkholes Possible Minor Negligible Less than 6 Hours Less than 1 Week
Drought Possible Minor Large More than 24 Hours More than 1 Week
Wildfire Highly Likely Minor Small Less than 6 Hours Less than 24 Hours
Dam/Levee Failure Unlikely Critical Small Less than 6 hours Less than 24 Hours
Tsunami Unlikely Catastrophic Moderate Less than 6 Hours Less than 6 Hours
Extreme Temperatures Possible Minor Large More than 24 Hours Less than 1 Week
Table 5.37 summarizes the annualized loss estimates that were generated for the applicable hazards based on the quantitative
assessment and compares them with the PRI values determined for each hazard based on the qualitative assessment. The
results and comparisons of both assessments aided the Mitigation Planning Committee in determining the final conclusions on
overall hazard risk for the Southside Hampton Roads region.
Table 5.37: Comparison of Annualized Loss Estimates and Priority Risk Index (PRI)
Values
QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT FINDINGS QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
ANNUALIZED LOSS
HAZARD HAZARD PRI VALUE
ESTIMATES
Flood (Storm Surge) $206,624,689 Flood (100-Year) 3.5
Hurricanes and Tropical
Flood (100-year) $48,172,02
Storms 3.2
Hurricanes and Tropical
$33,546,000
Storms Winter Storms 3.0
Drought $2,215,839 Tornadoes 3.0
Winter Storms $1,416,633 Severe Thunderstorms 2.8
Severe Thunderstorms $387,961 Lightning 2.7
Tornadoes $309,725 Flood (Storm Surge) 2.7
Earthquakes $93,000 Tsunami 2.6
Wildfire $10,744 Wildfire 2.5
Erosion Undetermined Drought 2.2
Tsunami Undetermined Dam/Levee Failure 2.2
Lightning Negligible Erosion 2.1
Extreme Temperatures Negligible Extreme Temperature 2.1
Dam/Levee Failure Negligible Earthquakes 1.9
Sinkholes Negligible Sinkholes 1.8
Landslides Negligible Landslides 1.5
The conclusions drawn from the qualitative and quantitative assessments, combined with final determinations from the Mitigation
Planning Committee, were fitted into three categories for a final summary of hazard risk for the region based on High, Moderate or
Low designations (Table 5.38). It should be noted that although some hazards are classified as posing Low risk, their occurrence
of varying or unprecedented magnitudes is still possible and will continue to be reevaluated during future updates of this Plan.
Table 5.38: Conclusions on Hazard Risk for the Southside Hampton Roads Region
Flood (100-Year)
Hurricanes and Tropical Storms
HIGH RISK Winter Storms
Tornadoes
Severe Thunderstorms
MODERATE RISK Lightning
Flood (Storm Surge)
Tsunami
Wildfire
Drought
Dam/Levee Failure
Erosion
LOW RISK Earthquakes
Extreme Temperatures
Sinkholes
Landslides
Source: Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Planning Committee, PBS&J
This section of the Plan discusses the capability of participating jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation activities. The
Capability Assessment section consists of the following six subsections:
WHAT IS A CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT

CONDUCTING THE CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
PREVIOUSLY IMPLEMENTED MITIGATION MEASURES
CONCLUSIONS ON LOCAL CAPABILTIY
LINKING THE CAPABILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENTS TO THE MITIGATION STRATEGY
WHAT IS A CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
The purpose of conducting a capability assessment is to determine the ability of a local jurisdiction to implement a comprehensive
mitigation strategy, and to identify potential opportunities for establishing or enhancing specific mitigation policies, programs or
projects.45 As in any planning process, it is important to try to establish which goals and actions are feasible, based on an
understanding of the organizational capacity of those agencies or departments tasked with their implementation. A capability
assessment helps to determine which mitigation actions are practical and likely to be implemented over time given a local
government’s planning and regulatory framework, level of administrative and technical support, amount of fiscal resources, and
current political climate.
A capability assessment has two primary components: an inventory of a local jurisdiction’s relevant plans, ordinances or programs
already in place and an analysis of its capacity to carry them out. A careful examination of local capabilities will detect any
existing gaps, shortfalls or weaknesses associated with ongoing government activities that could hinder proposed mitigation
activities and possibly exacerbate hazard vulnerability. A capability assessment also highlights the positive mitigation measures
already in place or being implemented at the local government level, which should continue to be supported and enhanced if
possible through future mitigation efforts.
The capability assessment serves as a critical part of the planning process, including the development of an effective multi-
jurisdictional hazard mitigation strategy. Coupled with the Risk Assessment, the Capability Assessment section helps identify and
target meaningful mitigation actions for incorporation into the Mitigation Strategy. It not only helps establish the goals for those
participating in the Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Plan to pursue, but also ensures that those goals and the mitigation
actions that follow are realistically achievable given local conditions.
45
While the Interim Final Rule for implementing the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 does not require a local capability assessment to be
completed for local hazard mitigation plans, it is a critical step to develop a mitigation strategy that meets the needs of each jurisdiction while
taking into account their own unique abilities. The Rule does state that a community’s mitigation strategy should be “based on existing
authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools” (44 CFR, Part 201.6(c)(3)).
CONDUCTING THE CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
In order to facilitate the inventory and analysis of local government capabilities throughout the Southside Hampton Roads region,
a detailed Capability Assessment Survey46 was distributed to departments across participating jurisdictions. The survey
questionnaire, which was completed by local government officials, requested information on a variety of “capability indicators”
such as existing local plans, policies, programs or ordinances that may reduce, or in some circumstances, increase the
community’s hazard vulnerability. Other indicators included information related to each jurisdiction’s fiscal, administrative and
technical capabilities such as access to local budgetary and personnel resources necessary to implement mitigation measures.
Survey respondents were also asked to comment on the current political climate in their jurisdiction to implement mitigation
actions, an important consideration for any local planning or decision making process.
At a minimum, survey results provide an extensive inventory of existing local plans, ordinances, programs and resources in place
or under development in addition to their overall effect on hazard loss reduction. Local officials were also required to conduct a
self-assessment of their jurisdiction’s specific capabilities. The survey instrument thereby not only helps to accurately assess
each jurisdiction’s degree of local capability, but also serves as a good source of introspection for those jurisdictions wishing to
improve their capability as identified gaps, weaknesses or conflicts can be recast as opportunities to implement specific mitigation
actions.
The information provided by participating jurisdictions was incorporated into a database for further analysis. A general scoring
methodology47 was then applied to quantify and rank each jurisdiction’s overall capability relative to one another. According to the
scoring system, each indicator was assigned a point value based on its relevance to hazard mitigation. Additional points were
added based on each jurisdiction’s self-assessment of their own planning and regulatory capability, administrative and technical
capability, fiscal capability and political capability.
A general capability rating of “High,” “Moderate” or “Limited” was then determined for each jurisdiction according to the total
number of points received. These classifications are designed to provide a general assessment of each individual jurisdiction’s
local capability relative to one another. In combination with the narrative responses provided by local officials, the results of this
multi-jurisdictional capability assessment lend critical information for developing an effective and meaningful mitigation strategy.
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
The findings of the capability assessment are summarized in this Plan in order to provide insight into the abilities of participating
jurisdictions to implement a feasible hazard mitigation strategy. All information is based upon the input provided by local
government officials through the Capability Assessment Survey and during meetings of the Hazard Mitigation Committee.
PLANNING AND REGULATORY CAPABILITY

Planning and regulatory capability is based on the implementation of plans, ordinances and programs that demonstrate a local
jurisdiction’s commitment to guiding and managing growth, including reconstruction following a disaster. Examples include
emergency response, mitigation and recovery planning, comprehensive land use planning, transportation planning and capital
improvements planning. Additional examples include the enforcement of zoning or subdivision ordinances and building codes that
regulate how land is developed and structures are built. These planning initiatives present significant opportunities to integrate
hazard mitigation principles and practices into the local decision making process.
This assessment is designed to provide a general overview of the key planning and regulatory tools in place or under
development for jurisdictions in the planning area, along with their potential effect on hazard loss reduction. This information will
help identify opportunities to address existing gaps, weaknesses or conflicts with other initiatives in addition to integrating the
implementation of this Plan with existing planning mechanisms, where appropriate.
Table 6.1 provides a summary of the relevant local plans, ordinances and programs already in place or under development
among participating local governments. A checkmark indicates ( ) that the item is currently in place and being implemented and
integrated by the local jurisdiction (or in some cases by the County on behalf of that jurisdiction), or that is currently under
development.
46
The Capability Assessment Survey instrument used to assess county and municipal capabilities, as well as individual surveys completed by
participating jurisdictions are available upon request.
47
The scoring methodology used to quantify and rank each jurisdiction’s capability is fully described in this section of the Plan.
Suffolk
Norfolk
County
Windsor
Smithfield
Portsmouth
Isle of Wight
Virginia Beach
JURISDICTION
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Comprehensive Land Use Plan
Floodplain Management Plan
Open Space Management Plan
Stormwater Management Plan
Emergency Operations Plan
SARA Title III Plan
Radiological Emergency Plan
Continuity of Operations Plan
Evacuation Plan
Disaster Recovery Plan
Capital Improvements Plan
Economic Development Plan
Historic Preservation Plan

TABLE 6.1: RELEVANT PLANS, ORDINANCES AND PROGRAMS
Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance
Zoning Ordinance
Subdivision Ordinance
Unified Development Ordinance

Post-disaster Redevelopment /
Recovery Ordinance
Building Code
Fire Code
NFIP
NFIP Community Rating System

additional information based on the narrative comments provided by local officials in response to the survey questionnaire.
A more detailed discussion of each jurisdiction’s planning and regulatory capability follows, along with the incorporation of
Emergency Management
Hazard mitigation is widely recognized as one of the four primary phases of emergency management. The three other phases
include preparedness, response and recovery. In reality, each phase is interconnected with hazard mitigation as Figure 6.1
suggests. Opportunities to reduce potential losses through mitigation practices are ideally implemented before a disaster strikes.
Examples include the acquisition or elevation of flood-prone structures or the enforcement of regulatory policies that limit or
prevent construction in known hazard areas. In reality, the post-disaster environment provides an important “window of
opportunity” to implement hazard mitigation projects and policies. During this time period, federal disaster assistance, including
the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), may be available. In addition, elected officials and disaster victims may be more
willing to implement mitigation measures in order to avoid similar events in the future.
Figure 6.1: Four Phases of Emergency Management
Sources: Federal Emergency Management Agency; PBS&J
Planning for each phase is a critical part of a comprehensive emergency management program and a key to the successful
implementation of hazard mitigation actions. As a result, the Capability Assessment Survey asked several questions across a
range of emergency management plans in order to assess each jurisdiction’s willingness to plan and their level of technical
planning proficiency.
Hazard Mitigation Plan: A hazard mitigation plan represents a community’s blueprint for how it intends to reduce the impact of
natural and human-caused hazards on people and the built environment. The essential elements of a hazard mitigation plan
include a risk assessment, capability assessment and mitigation strategy.
• Prior to the development of this Plan, none of the participating jurisdictions had developed a hazard mitigation plan. Once
this project is complete, all of the communities participating in the development of this Plan will have a hazard mitigation
plan in place. This Plan should be updated regularly to reflect changing conditions in the area and to capture new ideas
for mitigation projects as they are identified by local officials.
Disaster Recovery Plan: A disaster recovery plan serves to guide the physical, social, environmental and economic recovery and
reconstruction process following a disaster. In many instances, hazard mitigation principles and practices are incorporated into
local disaster recovery plans with the intent of capitalizing on opportunities to break the cycle of repetitive disaster losses.
Disaster recovery plans can also lead to the preparation of disaster redevelopment policies and ordinances to be enacted
following a hazard event.
• Isle of Wight County (also covers Smithfield and Windsor), Portsmouth, Suffolk and Virginia Beach have Disaster
Recovery Plans in place.
Emergency Operations Plan: An emergency operations plan outlines responsibilities and the means by which resources are
deployed during and following an emergency or disaster.
• All of the jurisdictions in the Southside Hampton Roads region are covered by some sort of Emergency Operations Plan.
Continuity of Operation Plan: A continuity of operations plan establishes a clear chain of command, line of succession and plans
for backup or alternate emergency facilities in case of an extreme emergency or disaster.
• None of the jurisdictions in the region have a Continuity of Operations Plan.
Radiological Emergency Plan: A radiological emergency plan delineates roles and responsibilities for assigned personnel and the
means to deploy resources in the event of a radiological accident.
• All of the jurisdictions in the Southside Hampton Roads region are covered by a Radiological Emergency Plan. Many
times this is found as an element of the Emergency Operations Plan.
SARA Title III Emergency Response Plan: A SARA Title III Emergency Response Plan outlines the procedures to be followed in
the event of a chemical emergency such as the accidental release of toxic substances. These plans are required by federal law
under Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Re-authorization Act (SARA), and the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).
• All of the jurisdictions in the Southside Hampton Roads region are covered by a SARA Title III Emergency Response
Plan. Many times this is found as an element of the Emergency Operations Plan.
General Planning
The implementation of hazard mitigation activities involves departments and individuals beyond the emergency management
profession. Stakeholders may include local planners, public works officials, economic development specialists and others. In
many instances, concurrent local planning efforts may complement hazard mitigation goals even though they are not designed as
such. Therefore, the Capability Assessment Survey also asked questions regarding each jurisdiction’s general planning
capabilities and the degree to which hazard mitigation is integrated into other planning efforts.
Comprehensive Land Use Plan: A comprehensive land use plan establishes the overall vision for what a community wants to be
and a guide to future governmental decision making. Typically a comprehensive plan is comprised of demographic conditions,
land use patterns, transportation elements and proposed community facilities. Given the broad nature of the plan and its
regulatory standing in many communities, the integration of hazard mitigation measures into the comprehensive plan can serve as
a far reaching, long-term risk reduction tool.
• Commonwealth of Virginia law requires that all communities have a comprehensive land use plan.
Capital Improvements Plan: A capital improvements plan guides the scheduling of spending on public improvements. A capital
improvements plan can serve as an important mechanism to guide future development away from identified hazard areas.
Limiting public investment in hazardous areas is one of the most effective long-term mitigation actions available to local
governments.
• All of the jurisdictions in the Southside Hampton Roads region have a Capital Improvements Plan in place.
Historic Preservation Plan: A historic preservation plan is intended to preserve historic structures or districts within a community.
An often overlooked aspect of the historic preservation plan is the assessment of buildings and sites located in areas subject to
natural hazards to include the identification of the most effective way to reduce future damages.48 This may involve retrofitting or
relocation techniques that account for the need to protect buildings that do not meet current building standards, or are within a
historic district that cannot easily be relocated out of harms way.
• Isle of Wight County, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Smithfield and Suffolk have either a Historic Preservation Plan in place or have
a Historic District where development regulations are in place to protect historic properties.
Zoning Ordinances: Zoning represents the primary means by which land use is controlled by local governments. As part of a
community’s police power, zoning is used to protect the public health, safety and welfare of those in a given area. A zoning
ordinance is the mechanism through which zoning is typically implemented. Since zoning regulations enable municipal
governments to limit the type and density of development, it can serve as a powerful tool when applied in identified hazard areas.
48
See Protecting the Past from Natural Disasters. 1989. Nelson, Carl. National Trust for Historic Preservation: Washington, D.C.
• All of the jurisdictions participating in the development of this Plan have adopted Zoning Ordinances.
Subdivision Ordinances: A subdivision ordinance is intended to regulate the development of housing, commercial, industrial or
other uses, including associated public infrastructure, as land is subdivided into buildable lots for sale or future development.
Subdivision design that accounts for natural hazards can dramatically reduce the exposure of future development.49
• All of the jurisdictions participating in the development of this Plan have Subdivision Ordinances.
Building Codes, Permitting and Inspections: Building Codes regulate construction standards. In many communities, permits are
issued for, and inspections of work take place on, new construction. Decisions regarding the adoption of building codes (that
account for hazard risk), the type of permitting process required both before and after a disaster, and the enforcement of
inspection protocols all affect the level of hazard risk faced by a community.
• The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC) is a state regulation promulgated by the Virginia Board of Housing
and Community Development for the purpose of establishing minimum regulations to govern the construction and
maintenance of buildings and structures. As of October 1, 2003, the 2000 version of the International Building Code and
International Fire Code were adopted by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
• As provided in the Uniform Statewide Building Code Law, the USBC supersedes the building codes and regulations of the
counties, municipalities and other political subdivisions and state agencies.
The adoption and enforcement of building codes by local jurisdictions is routinely assessed through the Building Code
Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS) program developed by the Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO).50 Under the BCEGS
program, ISO assesses the building codes in effect in a particular community and how the community enforces its building codes,
with special emphasis on mitigation of losses from natural hazards. The results of BCEGS assessments are routinely provided to
ISO’s member private insurance companies, which in turn may offer ratings credits for new buildings constructed in communities
with strong BCEGS classifications.
In conducting the assessment, ISO collects information related to personnel qualifications and continuing education as well as the
number of inspections performed per day. This type of information, combined with local building codes, is used to determine a
grade for that jurisdiction. The grades range from 1 to 10, with the lower grade being more ideal. A BCEGS grade of 1 represents
an exemplary commitment to building code enforcement, and a grade of 10 indicates less than a minimum level of recognized
protection. Table 6.2 provides the BCEGS ratings for the jurisdictions participating in the development of this Plan.
TABLE 6.2: BCEGS RATINGS BY JURISDICTION

BCEGS
BCEGS
JURISDICTION PERSONAL YEAR
COMMERCIAL
(RESIDENTIAL)
Isle of Wight County 3 3 2000
Norfolk 4 4 1997
Portsmouth 5 5 1997
Suffolk 4 4 2004
Virginia Beach 3 3 2000
Regional Planning: Because this region is such a highly developed and populated region with several independent jurisdictions in
close proximity to one another, it is important that regional planning take place. In many cases, jurisdictional boundaries abut an
adjacent jurisdiction and it is difficult to tell where one city begins and another ends.
There are several regional planning efforts in place across the Southside Hampton Roads region. Many of these efforts are
coordinated through the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission. The Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
facilitates the Regional Emergency Management Technical Advisory Committee (REMTAC) which is comprised of emergency
management officials from all member jurisdictions.
Another regional emergency management partnership is the Hampton Roads Emergency Management Committee. This
committee was established to increase emergency awareness and preparedness across the Southside Hampton Roads region. It
is comprised of a variety of regional partners including, city and county officials, American Red Cross, and federal, state and
military organizations51.
49
For additional information regarding the use of subdivision regulations in reducing flood hazard risk, see Subdivision Design in Flood Hazard
Areas. 1997. Planning Advisory Service Report Number 473. American Planning Association: Washington, D.C.
50
Participation in BCEGS is voluntary and may be declined by local governments if they do not wish to have their local building codes evaluated.
51
More information on the Hampton Roads Emergency Management Committee can be found at: http://www.hremc.org/.
The development of this Plan is the result of a regional collaboration and demonstrates the ability of the participating jurisdictions
to work in partnership.
Floodplain Management
Flooding represents the greatest natural hazard facing the nation. At the same time, the tools available to reduce the impacts
associated with flooding are among the most developed when compared to other hazard-specific mitigation techniques. In
addition to approaches that cut across hazards, such as education, outreach, and the training of local officials, the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) contains specific regulatory measures that enable government officials to determine where and how
growth occurs relative to flood hazards. Participation in the NFIP is voluntary, but is promoted by FEMA as a crucial means to
implement and sustain an effective hazard mitigation program.
In order for a county or municipality to join the NFIP, they must adopt a local flood damage prevention ordinance that requires
jurisdictions to follow established minimum building standards in the floodplain. These standards require that all new buildings
and substantial improvements to existing buildings will be protected from damage by the 100-year flood, and that new floodplain
development will not aggravate existing flood problems or increase damage to other properties.
Another key service provided by the NFIP is the mapping of identified flood hazard areas. Once prepared, the Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (FIRMs) are used to assess flood hazard risk, regulate construction practices and set flood insurance rates. FIRMs
are an important source of information to educate residents, government officials and the private sector about the likelihood of
flooding in their community.
Table 6.3 summarizes NFIP participation of participating jurisdictions along with general NFIP policy data.52
TABLE 6.3: NFIP PARTICIPATION AMONG JURISDICTIONS IN THE SOUTHSIDE HAMPTON

ROADS HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
NFIP CURRENT NUMBER OF AMOUNT OF
JURISDICTION
ENTRY DATE EFFECTIVE MAP POLICIES COVERAGE
Isle of Wight County 08/19/91 09/04/02 201 $41,738,600

Norfolk 08/01/79 07/16/96 8,914 $1,531,270,100
Portsmouth 07/02/71 11/02/83 3,122 $458,221,500
Smithfield 12/05/90 09/04/02 32 $7,540,300
Suffolk 11/16/90 09/04/02 521 $113,325,500
Virginia Beach53 04/23/71 12/05/96 19,976 $3,641,767,900
Windsor 8/1/1979 7/16/1996 NP NP
Sources: Federal Emergency Management Agency (As of September 2004)
An additional indicator of floodplain management capability is the active participation of local jurisdictions in the Community Rating
System (CRS). The CRS is an incentive-based program that encourages counties and municipalities to undertake defined flood
mitigation activities that go beyond the minimum requirements of the NFIP, adding extra local measures to provide protection from
flooding. All of the 18 creditable CRS mitigation activities are assigned a range of point values. As points are accumulated and
identified thresholds are reached, communities can apply for an improved CRS class rating. Class ratings, which run from 10 to 1,
are tied to flood insurance premium reductions as shown in Table 6.4. As class ratings improve (decrease), the percent reduction
in flood insurance premiums for NFIP policy holders in that community increases.
52
General NFIP policy data (number and coverage) is current as of September 2004 and is provided by the Virginia Department of Emergency
Management.
53
The City of Virginia Beach has the most insurance policies in place in the Commonwealth of Virginia (19,976 of 83,134 total policies).
TABLE 6.4: CRS PREMIUM DISCOUNTS, BY CLASS
PREMIUM
CRS CLASS
REDUCTION
1 45%
2 40%
3 35%
4 30%
5 25%
6 20%
7 15%
8 10%
9 5%
10 0
Community participation in the CRS is voluntary. Any community that is in full compliance with the rules and regulations of the
NFIP may apply to FEMA for a CRS classification better than class 10. The CRS application process has been greatly simplified
over the past several years in order to make the program more user friendly, and extensive technical assistance is available for
communities who request it.
• The cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth participate in the CRS. Both have achieved Class 9 status.
Floodplain Management Plan: A floodplain management plan (or a flood mitigation plan) provides a framework for the
identification and implementation of corrective and preventative measures specifically designed to reduce flood-related impacts.
• The cities of Portsmouth, Suffolk and the Town of Windsor have floodplain management plans in place. All of the
participating jurisdictions have some sort of flood damage prevention ordinances, policies and/or codes that are in place
or under development as part of other community planning and regulatory programs.
Open Space Management Plan: An open space management plan is designed to preserve, protect and restore largely
undeveloped lands, and to expand or connect areas in the public domain, including parks, greenways and other outdoor
recreation areas. In many instances open space management practices are consistent with the goals of reducing hazard losses,
such as the preservation of wetlands or other flood-prone areas in their natural state.
• Isle of Wight County, Suffolk and Virginia Beach have Open Space Management Plans in place.
Stormwater Management Plan: A stormwater management plan is designed to address flooding associated with stormwater
runoff. The stormwater management plan is typically focused on design and construction measures that are intended to reduce
the impact of more frequently occurring minor urban flooding.
• All of the jurisdictions participating in the development of this Plan have a Stormwater Management Plan in place.
Administrative and Technical Capability
The ability of a local government to develop and implement mitigation projects, policies and programs is directly tied to its ability to
direct staff time and resources for that purpose. Administrative capability is evaluated by determining how mitigation-related
activities are assigned to local departments and if there are adequate personnel resources to complete these activities. The
degree of intergovernmental coordination among departments will also affect administrative capability associated with the
implementation and success of proposed mitigation activities. Technical capability is evaluated by assessing the level of
knowledge and technical expertise of local government employees, such as personnel skilled in using geographic information
systems (GIS) to analyze and assess community hazard vulnerability.
The Capability Assessment Survey was used to capture information on administrative and technical capability through the
identification of available staff and personnel resources. Table 6.5 provides a summary of the results for each jurisdiction. A
checkmark ( ) indicates that local staff members are tasked with the services listed. Additional information on administrative and
technical capability is provided in the completed surveys.
TABLE 6.5: RELEVANT STAFF / PERSONNEL RESOURCES construction practices related to buildings
to assess the community’s vulnerability

understanding of natural and/or human-
Engineers or professionals trained in
development and land management
Planners with knowledge of land
Staff with education or expertise
Personnel skilled in Geographic

Planners or engineers with an
Resource development staff

Information Systems (GIS)
hazards of the community
Scientist familiar with the
Emergency manager
and/or infrastructure
Floodplain manager
caused hazards
Land surveyors
or grant writers
and/or HAZUS
to hazards
practices
JURISDICTION

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

Gas / Electric Utility Fees
Stormwater Utility Fees

Special Purpose Taxes
Capital Improvement
Water / Sewer Fees

Programming
Grants
JURISDICTION

Norfolk
Portsmouth
Smithfield
Suffolk
Virginia Beach
Windsor
54
Gaining access to federal, state or other sources of funding is often an overriding factor driving the development and implementation of hazard
mitigation plans. However, an important objective of local governments seeking a more sustainable future is the concept of self-reliance. Over
time, local jurisdictions should seek the means to become less dependent on federal assistance, developing a more diversified approach that
assesses the availability of federal, state and locally generated funding to implement mitigation actions. Additional assistance may be available
from the business and corporate sector as well as certain non-profit organizations. A broad-based mitigation strategy should also include an
attempt to identify mitigation measures that cost little or no money, yet may compliment the larger array of actions identified in the Plan.
POLITICAL CAPABILITY
One of the most difficult capabilities to evaluate involves the political will of a jurisdiction to enact meaningful policies
and projects designed to reduce the impact of future hazard events. The adoption of hazard mitigation measures may
be seen as an impediment to growth and economic development. Or mitigation in general may not generate the same
level of interest among local officials when compared with competing priorities. For example, the adoption of a
countywide stormwater utility fee represents a policy measure that requires a significant level of commitment from
elected officials and public support of hazard mitigation principles.
The Capability Assessment Survey was used to capture information on each jurisdiction’s political capability. Survey respondents
were asked to identify examples of political capability, such as guiding development away from identified hazard areas, restricting
public investments or capital improvements within hazard areas, or enforcing local development standards that go beyond
minimum state or federal requirements (i.e., building codes, floodplain management, etc.). Table 6.7 provides a summary of the
individual responses for each jurisdiction.
TABLE 6.7: POLITICAL CAPABILITY
JURISDICTION COMMENTS
Isle of Wight County HMGP projects (buyouts, elevations) post Floyd (1999) and Isabel (2003)
Norfolk
Portsmouth
Smithfield
Suffolk No history in this area.
Virginia Beach
Windsor No comments.
Jurisdictional Self Assessments of Capabilities
In addition to the inventory and analysis of specific local capabilities, the Capability Assessment Survey required each local
jurisdiction to conduct its own self assessment of its capability to implement hazard mitigation activities. As part of this process,
county and municipal officials were encouraged to consider the barriers to implementing proposed mitigation strategies in addition
to the mechanisms that could enhance or further such strategies. In response to the survey questionnaire, local officials classified
each of the capabilities as either “limited,” “moderate” or “high.”
TABLE 6.8 SUMMARIZES THE RESULTS OF THE SELF ASSESSMENT PROCESS FOR EACH JURISDICTION IN
SOUTHSIDE HAMPTON ROADS REGION. AN “L” INDICATES LIMITED CAPABILITY; AN “M” INDICATES MODERATE
CAPABILITY; AND AN “H” INDICATES HIGH CAPABILITY.
TABLE 6.8: SELF ASSESSMENT OF LOCAL CAPABILITY
Planning and Regulatory
Technical Capability
Administrative and
Political Capability
Overall Capability
Fiscal Capability
Capability
JURISDICTION
Isle of Wight County H M M M M

Norfolk M H M H M
Portsmouth M M L M M
Smithfield L L L M L
Suffolk M H M L M
Virginia Beach M H M L M
Windsor L L L L L
PREVIOUSLY IMPLEMENTED MITIGATION MEASURES
The success of future mitigation efforts in a community can be gauged to some extent by its past efforts. Previously implemented
mitigation measures indicate that there is, or has been, a desire to reduce the effects of natural hazards, and the success of these
projects can be influential in building local government support for new mitigation efforts. Table 6.9 lists some of the recent
mitigation measures undertaken by participating jurisdictions.
TABLE 6.9: MITIGATION MEASURES IN PLACE
JURISDICTION MITIGATION ACTIVITIES COMPLETED
Isle of Wight County Numerous HMGP projects (buyouts and elevations) post Floyd (1999) and Isabel (2003)
Wind retrofit the Fleet Maintenance Facility and the Solid Waste Facility, numerous HMGP
Norfolk projects (buyouts and elevations) post Floyd (1999) and Isabel (2003), automated flood data
collection system
Participated in the Project Impact program, wind retrofit a fire station and four schools, Hurricane
Virginia Beach
Protection Project , generator quick-connect capabilities for critical sewer pump stations
CONCLUSIONS ON LOCAL CAPABILITY
In order to form meaningful conclusions on the assessment of local capability, a scoring system was designed and applied to the results of the
Capability Assessment Survey. This approach, further described below, assesses the level of capability for each jurisdiction. It is important to note
that the score received by each participating jurisdiction is not intended to compare one to the other. Rather, the scoring system is intended to
assist each jurisdiction develop mitigation actions that reflect their abilities and help to identify areas that can be improved through the adoption of
specific mitigation actions addressing these weaknesses.
Points System for Capability Ranking

Scoring:
0-24 points = Limited overall capability
25-49 points = Moderate overall capability
50-82 points = High overall capability
I. Planning and Regulatory Capability (Up to 46 points)
Yes=3 points Under Development or Under County Jurisdiction=1 No=0 points

• Hazard Mitigation Plan
• Comprehensive Land Use Plan
• Floodplain Management Plan
• Participate in CRS Program
• BCEGS Grade of 1 to 5
Yes=2 points Under Development or County Jurisdiction=1 No=0 points

• Open Space Management / Parks & Rec. Plan
• Stormwater Management Plan
• Emergency Operations Plan
• SARA Title III
• Radiological Emergency Plan
• Continuity of Operations Plan
• Evacuation Plan
• Disaster Recovery Plan
• Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance
• BCEGS Grade of 6 to 9
Yes=1 point No=0 points

• Capital Improvements Plan
• Economic Development Plan
• Historic Preservation Plan
• Zoning Ordinance
• Subdivision Ordinance
• Unified Development Ordinance
• Building Code
• Fire Code
• Participate in NFIP Program
II. Administrative and Technical Capability (Up to 15 points)
Yes=2 points No=0 points

• Planners with knowledge of land development and land management practices
• Engineers or professionals trained in construction practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure
• Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural and/or human-caused hazards
• Emergency manager
• Floodplain manager

• Land surveyors
• Scientist familiar with the hazards of the community
• Staff with education or expertise to assess the community’s vulnerability to hazards
• Personnel skilled in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and/or HAZUS
• Resource development staff or grant writers
III. Fiscal Capability (Up to 11 points)

• Capital Improvement Programming
• Community Development Block Grants
• Special Purpose Taxes
• Gas / Electric Utility Fees
• Water / Sewer Fees
• Stormwater Utility Fees
• Development Impact Fees
• General Obligation Bonds
• Revenue Bonds
• Special Tax Bonds
• Other
IV. Self-Assessment of Overall Capability (Up to 10 points)
High=2 points Moderate=1 points Low=0 points (Self-ranked by jurisdiction)

• Technical Capability
• Fiscal Capability
• Administrative Capability
• Political Capability
• Overall Capability
Note: This methodology is based on best available information. If a jurisdiction does not provide information on any of the above
items, a point value of zero (0) will be assigned for that item.
Table 6.10 shows the results of the capability assessment using the designed scoring system.
TABLE 6.10: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT RESULTS
JURISDICTION CAPABILITY RATING

CAPABILITY SCORE
Isle of Wight County 55 High
City of Norfolk
City of Portsmouth 61 High
Town of Smithfield 37 Moderate
City of Suffolk 61 High
City of Virginia Beach 61 High
Town of Windsor 12 Limited
The scoring methodology used to conduct this assessment is meant to provide a general understanding of local capability for each jurisdiction.
The results are based on the information provided by local officials in response to the Capability Assessment Survey, an instrument designed to
measure local capability based on those indicators determined to be most relevant for mitigation purposes and referenced in FEMA planning
guidance.
According to the results of this assessment, overall capability within the region is high. As can be expected, there are some differences in the
capabilities between various jurisdictions. While some municipalities have significant “in-house” staff resources, others depend on outside sources,
such as the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission or private contractors to perform certain local functions or services. Smaller local
governments typically combine multiple job responsibilities, such as a planning director serving as the floodplain manager, or the town manager
serving as the local emergency manager.
This Hazard Mitigation Plan provides a vehicle to begin and institutionalize hazard mitigation. However, in order to succeed, it will
require clearly articulating the benefits of participating in and sustaining the mitigation planning process. One of the best ways to
obtain local buy-in and long-term success is to identify and implement achievable mitigation actions (as listed in each jurisdictions’
individual Mitigation Action Plans) that will facilitate continued intergovernmental coordination not only across the region, but with
state and federal agencies as well.
LINKING THE CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT WITH THE RISK ASSESSMENT
AND THE MITIGATION STRATEGY
The conclusions of the risk assessment and capability assessment serve as the foundation for a meaningful hazard mitigation
strategy. During the process of identifying specific mitigation actions to pursue, each jurisdiction must consider not only their level
of hazard risk but also their existing capability to minimize or eliminate that risk. Figure 6.2 shows a Risk vs. Capability Matrix that
is used to illustrate each jurisdiction’s overall hazard risk55 in comparison to their overall capability.
Figure 6.2: Risk Vs. Capability Matrix
HAZARD RISK
Limited Moderate High

CAPABILITY
High
OVERALL
Moderate
Limited
In jurisdictions where the overall hazard risk is considered to be HIGH, and local capability is considered LIMITED, then specific
mitigation actions that account for these conditions should be considered. This may include less costly actions such as minor
ordinance revisions or public awareness activities. Further, if necessary, specific capabilities may need to be improved in order to
better address recurring threats. Similarly, in cases where the hazard vulnerability is LIMITED and overall capability is HIGH,
more emphasis can be placed on actions that may impact future vulnerability such as guiding development away from known
hazard areas.
This section of the Plan provides the “blueprint” for participating jurisdictions to become less vulnerable to natural hazards. It is
based on the general consensus of the Hazard Mitigation Committee along with the findings and conclusions of the Capability
Assessment and Risk Assessment. The Mitigation Strategy section consists of the following four subsections:
INTRODUCTION
MITIGATION GOALS
IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION TECHNIQUES
SELECTION OF MITIGATION TECHNIQUES
INTRODUCTION
The intent of the Mitigation Strategy is to provide participants with the goals that will serve as the guiding principles for future
mitigation policy and project administration, along with a list of proposed actions deemed necessary to meet those goals and
reduce the impact of natural hazards. It is designed to be comprehensive and strategic in nature.
The development of the strategy included a thorough review of all natural hazards and identified policies and projects intended to
not only reduce the future impacts of hazards, but also to assist the county and participating municipalities achieve compatible
economic, environmental and social goals. The development of this section is also intended to be strategic, in that all policies and
projects are linked to established priorities assigned to specific departments or individuals responsible for their implementation
and assigned target completion deadlines. Funding sources are identified that can be used to assist in project implementation.
55
Overall hazard risk was determined for each jurisdiction using the results of the risk assessment (estimated losses for all natural hazards)
combined with specific information on the following factors: total population, population growth rate, land area, historical disaster declarations,
unique hazard risks, NFIP participation and the value of existing pre-FIRM structures. More information on the methodology used to determine
overall hazard risk is available upon request.
The first step in designing the Mitigation Strategy includes the identification of regional mitigation goals. Mitigation goals represent
broad statements that are achieved through the implementation of more specific, action-oriented tasks listed in each jurisdiction’s
Mitigation Action Plan. These actions include both hazard mitigation policies (such as the regulation of land in known hazard
areas), and hazard mitigation projects that seek to address specifically targeted at-risk properties (such as the acquisition and
relocation of flood-prone structures). The identification of mitigation actions is an ongoing process begun during the cardstorming
exercise conducted at the Mitigation Strategy Workshop.56 Additional mitigation measures will be considered over time as future
risk reduction opportunities are identified, new data becomes available, technology improves and mitigation funding becomes
available.
The last step in designing the Mitigation Strategy is the creation of jurisdictionally specific Mitigation Action Plans (MAPs).57 The
MAPs represent the key outcome of the mitigation planning process. MAPs include a prioritized list of proposed hazard mitigation
actions (policies and projects) for each participating jurisdiction, including accompanying information such as those agencies or
individuals assigned responsibility for their implementation, potential funding sources and an estimated target date for completion.
The MAPs provide those individuals or agencies responsible for implementing mitigation actions with a clear roadmap that also
serves as an important tool for monitoring progress over time. The collection of actions listed in each jurisdiction’s MAP also
serves as an easily understood synopsis of activities for local decision makers.
In preparing their own Mitigation Action Plans, each jurisdiction considered their overall hazard risk and capability to mitigate
natural hazards, in addition to meeting the adopted regional mitigation goals. Prioritizing mitigation actions for each jurisdiction
was based on the following five factors: (1) effect on overall risk to life and property; (2) ease of implementation; (3) political and
community support; (4) a general economic cost/benefit review;58 and (5) funding availability.
MITIGATION GOALS
The goals of the Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Plan were crafted as part of a facilitated discussion and
brainstorming session with the Mitigation Committee (for more details, please see the summary of the second committee meeting
in Section 2: Planning Process). Each of the following goal statements represent a broad target for members of the Southside
Hampton Roads planning area to achieve through the implementation of their specific Mitigation Action Plans.
Goal #1 Develop plans and studies that will support the implementation of techniques that will aid in the
mitigation of natural hazards in the region.
Goal #2 Conduct public education, outreach and awareness programs to help local citizens better understand
hazard mitigation and ways to protect lives and property from the impact of natural hazards.
Goal #3 Undertake cost beneficial structural projects across the region that will be beneficial to reducing the
impact of natural hazards when they occur.
Goal #4 Implement sound hazard mitigation policies into the framework of local government operations across
the region.
A stated objective of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 is to improve the coordination of risk reduction measures between state
and local government authorities. Linking local and state mitigation planning goals is an important first step. It has been
determined that the goal statements for the Southside Hampton Roads Mitigation Plan are consistent with the State of Virginia’s
current mitigation planning goals as identified in the State Mitigation Plan.
56
Additional information on the Mitigation Strategy Workshop is available in Section 2: Planning Process.
57
Mitigation Action Plans are found in Appendix A.
58
A general economic cost/benefit review was conducted as part of selecting and prioritizing mitigation actions for each jurisdiction. Mitigation
actions with “high” priority were determined to be the most cost effective and most compatible with each jurisdiction’s unique needs. A more
detailed cost/benefit analysis will be conducted as part of an application for funding, as appropriate.
IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION TECHNIQUES
44 CFR REQUIREMENT In formulating

Southside Hampton
Part 201.6(c)(3)(ii): The mitigation strategy shall include a section that identifies and analyzes a
Road’s Mitigation
comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the
effect of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. Strategy, a wide
range of activities
were considered in order to help achieve the regional goals and the specific hazard concerns of each participating jurisdiction.59
All activities considered by the committee can be classified under one of the following six broad categories of mitigation
techniques:
1. Prevention
Preventative activities are intended to reduce the impact of future hazard events, and are typically administered through
government programs or regulatory actions that influence the way land is developed and buildings are constructed. They are
particularly effective in reducing a community’s future vulnerability, especially in areas where development has not occurred or
capital improvements have not been substantial. Examples of preventative activities include:
• Planning and zoning
• Building codes
• Open space preservation
• Floodplain regulations
• Stormwater management regulations
• Drainage system maintenance
• Capital improvements programming
• Shoreline/riverine/fault zone setbacks
2. Property Protection
Property protection measures involve the modification of existing buildings and structures or the removal of the structures
from hazardous locations. Examples include:
• Acquisition
• Relocation
• Building elevation
• Critical facilities protection
• Retrofitting (i.e., windproofing, floodproofing, seismic design techniques, etc.)
• Safe rooms, shutters, shatter-resistant glass
• Insurance
59
For more details on the specific activities discussed and considered by the Hazard Mitigation Committee, please see the summary of the
second committee meeting in Section 2: Planning Process.
3. Natural Resource Protection
Natural resource protection activities reduce the impact of natural hazards by preserving or restoring natural areas and their
protective functions. Generally speaking, natural areas may include floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes, barrier islands and
sand dunes. Parks, recreation or conservation agencies and organizations often implement these measures. Examples
include:
• Land acquisition
• Floodplain protection
• Watershed management
• Beach and dune preservation
• Riparian buffers
• Forest and vegetation management (i.e., fire resistant landscaping, fuel breaks, etc.)
• Erosion and sediment control
• Wetland preservation and restoration
• Habitat preservation
• Slope stabilization
• Historic properties and archaeological site preservation
4. Structural Projects
Structural mitigation projects are intended to lessen the impact of a hazard by modifying the environment using a number of
construction techniques. They are usually designed by engineers and managed or maintained by public works staff.
Examples include:
• Reservoirs
• Dams/levees/dikes/floodwalls/seawalls
• Diversions/detention/retention
• Channel modification
• Beach nourishment
• Storm sewers
5. Emergency Services
Although not typically considered a “mitigation” technique, emergency services reduce the impacts of a hazard event on
people and property. These actions are often taken prior to, during, or in response to an emergency or disaster. Examples
include:
• Warning systems
• Evacuation planning and management
• Emergency response training and exercises
• Sandbagging for flood protection
• Installing temporary shutters for wind protection
6. Public Education and Awareness

Public education and awareness activities are used to advise residents, elected officials, business owners, potential property
buyers, and visitors about hazards, hazardous areas, and mitigation techniques they can use to protect themselves and their
property. Examples of measures used to educate and inform the public include:
• Outreach projects
• Speaker series/demonstration events
• Hazard mapping
• Real estate disclosure
• Library materials
• School children educational programs
• Hazard expositions
• Inter-governmental coordination
SELECTION OF MITIGATION TECHNIQUES
In order to determine the most appropriate mitigation techniques for participating jurisdictions, local government officials reviewed
and considered the findings of the Capability Assessment and Risk Assessment. Other considerations included each mitigation
action’s effect on overall risk reduction, its ease of implementation, its degree of political and community support, its general cost-
effectiveness and funding availability.60
FEMA guidance for meeting the planning requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 also specifies that local governments
should prioritize their mitigation actions based on the level of risk a hazard poses to the lives and property of a given jurisdiction.
In response to this requirement, a Mitigation Technique Matrix (Figure 7.1) was completed to make certain that those hazards
posing the greatest threat are addressed.
The matrix provides the committee with the opportunity to cross-reference each of the priority hazards (as determined through the
Risk Assessment) with the comprehensive range of available mitigation techniques, including prevention, property protection,
natural resource protection, structural projects, emergency services, and public education and awareness. It is important to note
that individual Mitigation Action Plans include an array of actions targeting multiple hazards, not just those classified as either high
or moderate risk.
FIGURE 8.1: MITIGATION TECHNIQUE MATRIX
HIGH RISK HAZARDS MODERATE RISK HAZARDS

MITIGATION
Hurricanes
TECHNIQUE Flood (100 and Severe Flood (Storm
Winter Storms Tornadoes Lightning Tsunami
Year) Tropical Thunderstorms Surge)
Storms
PREVENTION
PROPERTY
PROTECTION
NATURAL
RESOURCE
PROTECTION
STRUCTURAL
PROJECTS
EMERGENCY
SERVICES
PUBLIC
EDUCATION
AND
AWARENESS
This section discusses how the Mitigation Strategy will be implemented by participating jurisdictions and how the overall Hazard
Mitigation Plan will be evaluated and enhanced over time. This section also discusses how the public and participating
stakeholders will continue to be involved in the hazard mitigation planning process in the future. This section consists of the
following three subsections:
IMPLEMENTATION
MONITORING, EVALUATION AND ENHANCEMENT
CONTINUED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION
44 CFR REQUIREMENT In addition to the

Part 201.6(c)(4)(i): The plan shall include a plan maintenance process that includes a section assignment of a lead
describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating and updating the mitigation plan department or
within a five-year cycle. agency, an
60
Mitigation actions may or may not require external funding to accomplish. For example, the modification of a given policy to better address
identified hazard concerns may require staff time and internal resources, whereas the large-scale acquisition of flood-prone properties may
necessitate seeking state or federal funding assistance.
implementation time period or a specific implementation date has been established in order to assess whether actions are being
implemented in a timely fashion. The jurisdictions that participated in the development of this Plan will seek outside funding
sources to implement mitigation projects in both the pre-disaster and post-disaster environments. When applicable, potential
funding sources have been identified for proposed actions listed in each Mitigation Action Plan. It is important to note that while
the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) are important sources of
assistance and a community’s ability to apply for such funding is directly linked to the development of a hazard mitigation plan,
other federal funding sources are identified as appropriate.
44 CFR REQUIREMENT It is the responsibility
of each participating
Part 201.6(c)(4)(ii): The plan maintenance process shall include a process by which local
governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms
jurisdiction to
such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. determine additional
implementation
procedures beyond
those listed within their Mitigation Action Plan. This includes integrating the Hazard Mitigation Plan into other local planning
documents such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. The members of the Mitigation Planning
Committee will remain charged with ensuring that the goals and strategies of new and updated local planning documents (such as
Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Ordinances) are consistent with the goals and actions of the Hazard Mitigation Plan, and will
not contribute to an increased level of hazard vulnerability in the region.
Opportunities to integrate the requirements of this Plan into other local planning mechanisms shall continue to be identified
through future meetings of the Mitigation Planning Committee and through the five-year review process described in this section.
Although it is recognized that there are many possible benefits to integrating components of this Plan into other local plans, the
development and maintenance of this stand-alone Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan is deemed by the Mitigation Planning
Committee to be the most effective and appropriate method to implement local hazard mitigation actions. The primary means for
integrating mitigation strategies into other local planning documents will be accomplished through the revision, update and
implementation of each jurisdiction’s Mitigation Action Plan that require specific planning and administrative tasks (i.e, plan
amendments, ordinance revisions, capital improvement projects, etc.). In addition, the participating jurisdictions will incorporate
existing planning processes and programs addressing flood hazard mitigation into this document by reference.
MONITORING, EVALUATION AND ENHANCEMENT
Periodic revisions and updates of the Plan are required to ensure that the goals of the Plan are kept current, taking into account
potential changes in hazard vulnerability and mitigation priorities. In addition, revisions may be necessary to ensure that the Plan
is in full compliance with applicable federal, state and local regulations. Periodic evaluation of the Plan will also ensure that
specific mitigation actions are being reviewed and carried out according to each jurisdiction’s individual Mitigation Action Plan.
The Mitigation Planning Committee will meet biannually and following any disaster events warranting a re-examination of the
mitigation actions being implemented or proposed by the participating jurisdictions.61 This will ensure that the Plan is continuously
updated to reflect changing conditions and needs within the region. If determined to be appropriate or as requested, an annual
report on the Plan will be developed and presented to the local governing bodies of participating jurisdictions in order to report
progress on the actions identified in the Plan and to provide information on the latest legislative requirements. The report may
also highlight proposed additions or improvements to the Plan.
ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORTS

The Mitigation Planning Committee will be responsible for producing an annual progress report to evaluate the Plan’s overall
effectiveness.
FIVE-YEAR PLAN REVIEW

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

61
The Mitigation Planning Committee will determine on a case-by-case basis which events necessitate convening a meeting to consider
modifying existing Mitigation Action Plans. It is understood that the committee will meet following all state and federally declared disasters
which impact the area.
• Has the nature or magnitude of hazard risk changed?
• Are current resources adequate to implement the Plan?
• Should additional local resources be committed to address identified hazard threats?
• Are there any issues that have limited the current implementation schedule?
• Have the implementation of identified mitigation actions resulted in expected outcomes?
• Has the Mitigation Planning Committee measured the effectiveness of completed hazard mitigation projects in terms of
specific dollar losses avoided?
• Did the jurisdictions, agencies and other partners participate in the plan implementation process as proposed?
Following the five-year review, any revisions deemed necessary will be summarized and implemented according to the reporting
procedures and plan amendment process outlined in this section. Upon completion of the review and update/amendment
process, the Southside Hampton Roads Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan will be submitted to the Virginia Department of
Emergency Management State Hazard Mitigation Officer for review and approval. The State Hazard Mitigation Officer will submit
the Plan amendments to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for final review as required by the Disaster Mitigation Act of
2000.
DISASTER DECLARATION
Following a state or federal disaster declaration, the Mitigation Planning Committee will reconvene and the Plan will be revised as
necessary to reflect lessons learned or to address specific circumstances arising from the event. In some circumstances it may
also be necessary for the committee to convene following localized emergencies and disasters in order to determine if changes in
the Plan are warranted.
REPORTING PROCEDURES
The results of the five-year review will be summarized by the Mitigation Planning Committee in a report that will include an
evaluation of the effectiveness of the Plan and any required or recommended changes or amendments. The report will also
include a brief progress report for each mitigation action, including the identification of delays or obstacles to their completion
along with recommended strategies to overcome them. Any necessary revisions to the regional Plan must follow the plan
amendment process outlined herein. For changes and updates to the individual Mitigation Action Plans, appropriate local
designees will assign responsibility for the completion of each task.
PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS

Upon the initiation of the amendment process, the participating jurisdictions will forward information on the proposed change(s) to
all interested parties including, but not limited to, all affected county and municipal departments, residents and businesses.
Information will also be forwarded to the Virginia Department of Emergency Management. This information will be disseminated in
order to seek input on the proposed amendment(s) for not less than a 45-day review and comment period.
At the end of the 45-day review and comment period, the proposed amendment(s) and all comments will be forwarded to the
Mitigation Planning Committee for final consideration. The committee will review the proposed amendment along with the
comments received from other parties, and if acceptable, the committee will submit a recommendation for the approval and
adoption of changes to the Plan to each appropriate governing body within 60 days. In determining whether to recommend
approval or denial of a Plan amendment request, the following factors will be considered by the Mitigation Planning Committee:
• There are errors, inaccuracies or omissions made in the identification of issues/needs in the Plan;
• New issues/needs have been identified which are not adequately addressed in the Plan;
• There has been a change in data or assumptions from those upon which the Plan is based.
Upon receiving the recommendation from the Mitigation Planning Committee and prior to adoption of the Plan, each local
governing body will hold a public hearing. The governing body will review the recommendation from the committee (including the
factors listed above) and any oral or written comments received at the public hearing. Following that review, the governing body
will take one of the following actions:
• Adopt the proposed amendments as presented;

• Adopt the proposed amendments with modifications;
• Refer the amendments request back to the Mitigation Planning Committee for further revision; or
• Defer the amendment request back to the Mitigation Planning Committee for further consideration and/or additional
hearings.
CONTINUED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
44 CFR REQUIREMENT Public participation is

Part 201.6(c)(4)(iii): The plan maintenance process shall include a discussion on how the an integral
community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process. component of the
mitigation planning
process. As
described above, significant changes or amendments to the Plan shall require a public hearing prior to any adoption procedures.
Other efforts to involve the public in the maintenance, evaluation and revision process will be made as necessary. These efforts
may include:
• Advertising meetings of the Mitigation Planning Committee in the local newspaper, public bulletin boards and/or City and
County office buildings;
• Designating willing citizens and private sector representatives as official members of the Mitigation Planning Committee;
• Utilizing local media to update the public of any maintenance and/or periodic review activities taking place;
• Utilizing City and County Web sites to advertise any maintenance and/or periodic review activities taking place; and
• Maintaining copies of the Plan in public libraries or other appropriate venues.

The Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Plan Is The Physical

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Plan Is The Physical

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Southside Hampton Roads Hazard Mitigation Plan is the physical result of a comprehensive planning process undertaken by

DISASTER MITIGATION ACT OF 2000

The general purposes of this Hazard Mitigation Plan are to:

 OVERVIEW OF HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING

OVERVIEW OF HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING

 save lives and property;

PREPARING THE PLAN

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

THE PLANNING TEAM

SOUTHSIDE HAMPTON ROADS MITIGATION COMMITTEE

TABLE 2.1: HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS

NAME JURISDICTION / TITLE

The preparation of the Plan required a series of meetings and

Below is a summary of the key meetings and workshops conducted by the

• Active participation in the planning process

 Finalization of Hazard Mitigation Committee membership (Hazard Mitigation Committee members)

SECOND HAZARD MITIGATION COMMITTEE MEETING: “MITIGATION STRATEGY WORKSHOP”

As part of the exercise, workshop participants were asked to discuss potential

 Plans and Studies

PROPOSED ACTION JURISDICTION HAZARD CATEGORY

Underground utilities Portsmouth Policies Multiple

Establish natural vegetation mitigation program Suffolk Policies Multiple

THIRD MITIGATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

INVOLVING THE PUBLIC

An 44 CFR Requirement important

44 CFR Requirement A range of

TABLE 2.4: STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN THE PLANNING PROCESS5

NOTIFICATION OF NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS

The 44 CFR Requirement

 Isle of Wight County

1. Designate appropriate officials to serve on the Mitigation Planning Committee;

 GEOGRAPHY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

GEOGRAPHY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Isle of Wight County

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

Portsmouth 100,565 41,605 47 13 33 3,033 1,255

Smithfield 6,324 2,552 10 1 10 664 268

Suffolk 63,677 24,704 429 29 400 159 62

Virginia Beach 425,257 162,277 497 249 248 1,713 654

Windsor 916 422 1 0 1 1,077 496

City of Virginia Beach

POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS

UNDER 18 65 YEARS WHITE

Isle of Wight County 29,728 25 12.2 71.1 20.1

Norfolk 234,403 24 10.9 48.4 23.5

Portsmouth 100,565 26 13.8 45.8 24.7

Smithfield 6,324 27 13.6 67.2 22.1

Suffolk 63,677 28 11.4 53.8 24.4

Virginia Beach 425,257 27 8.4 71.4 15.3

Windsor 916 24 12.4 89.7 19.9

REGION TOTAL 860,870 25.85 11.81 63.91 21.43

VIRGINIA 7,078,515 25 11.2 72.3 17.5

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

Norfolk 307,951 266,979 261,250 234,403 228,300 228,297 228,300

Portsmouth 110,963 104,577 103,910 100,565 97,398 95,900 94,400

Suffolk 45,024 47,621 52,143 63,677 77,801 87,801 97,799

Virginia Beach 172,106 262,199 393,089 425,257 444,802 460,900 477,000

REGION TOTAL 656,299 704,959 837,435 855,630 884,109 912,418 941,029

HOUSING, INFRASTRUCTURE AND LAND USE

TABLE 3.4: HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS

Isle of Wight County 12,066 2.61 33.77 93.81 32.41 1980

Norfolk 94,416 2.45 100.00 91.31 68.24 1959

OVERVIEW OF HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING

save lives and property;

Finalization of Hazard Mitigation Committee membership (Hazard Mitigation Committee members)

Plans and Studies

Isle of Wight County

GEOGRAPHY AND THE ENVIRONMENT