coastal resilieNCe 2014

coastal resilieNCe the role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

astal amics Coastal Dynamics Design Lab

NC State University

College of Design

May 2014

About this report

Working as members of the Coastal Dynamics Design Lab (CDDL), landscape architecture and architecture students from the NC State University College of Design created this report in Spring 2014. The goal of this report is to document the history, policies, and design implications for North Carolina’s dynamic coastal region, creating a foundation for further design research.

Michael Goralnik (Author) is a dual masters candidate in the Department of Landscape Architecture at North Carolina State University and the Department of City and Regional Planning at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

William Sendor (Edit, Layout, Graphic Design) is a masters candidate in the Department of Architecture at North Carolina State University. He received his B. A. in Government from the College of William & Mary, and worked in urban planning before starting architecture school.

Melissa Todd (Edit, Graphic Design) is a masters candidate in the Department of Architecture at North Carolina State University.

Under the Direction of: David Hill, AIA (CDDL Co-Director) is an Associate Professor of Architecture at North Carolina State University. He is also the Director of Graduate Programs in Architecture at the College of Design.

Andy Fox, RLA, ASLA (CDDL Co-Director) is an Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture at North Carolina State University. He is also a University Faculty Scholar, Community Engaged Faculty Fellow, and a Research Associate for The Natural Learning Initiative.

This work was supported by funding made available through the 2014 North Carolina Sea Grant Policy Fellowship

This work was also supported by the NC State University College of Design, a collaboration between the School of Architecture and Department of Landscape Architecture

testing new radio-controlled surveilance copter at the Coastal Studies Institute

Coastal Studies Institute

Table of Contents

p7

Introduction

p13

Foundations

p23

Sitework

p31

Land Use + Environmental Planning

p41

Structural Integrity

p53

Social Dimensions

p61

Conclusion

Introductio “Your task is to answer this question: How can design help? What role can

the design process—thinking abstractly, iterating, testing, and modifying—play in realizing communities that are resilient to and can even alleviate the

effects of the next generation of coastal storms and flooding? Your response will be site-specific, tailored to the unique environmental and cultural context of coastal North Carolina.”

6 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

on

Coastal Resilience

Introduction How can the skills, perspectives, and values of design help make North Carolina’s coast safer and more resilient?

In its “Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation,” the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (part of the United Nations) does not equivocate in its prognosis for the future of natural disasters.

Echoing what anecdotal evidence from storms like Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, Typhoon Haiyan, and Tropical Storm Irene already suggests, this international collection of scientists, researchers, and policymakers phrased their view thusly:

“A changing climate leads to changes in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration, and timing of extreme weather and climate events, and can result in unprecedented extreme weather and climate events.“ These fundamental changes to the environments and ecosystems that we depend on necessitate equally radical and universal responses. In some way, climate change affects every corner of the human world, requiring action from all fields of human endeavor, everywhere. So far, the contributions and progress from fields like meteorology, energy production, and communications studies have been in the international spotlight, and with good reason: more accurately tracking extreme weather events, more efficiently manufacturing electricity, and more effectively articulating the implications of the changing world can all tangibly improve the welfare and sustainability of our communities.

“... fundamental changes to the environments and ecosystems that we depend on necessitate equally radical and universal responses.

In some way, climate change affects every corner of the human world, requiring action from all fields of human endeavor, everywhere.”

Kill Devil Hills, NC Coastal Resilience | 7

Hunting Island, SC

“With its legacy of outreach and engagement, its implicit mandate for invention and ingenuity, and its penchant for multi-disciplinary collaboration, design is poised to participate in the international discourse around climate change, natural disasters, and coastal life as we know it. You are to figure out how.”

But achieving truly sustainable communities—places that can both absorb the impacts of the extreme events of the future and ameliorate their root causes— cannot happen without the collective participation of thinkers and actors from throughout the human spectrum.

The task for architects, landscape architects, and engineers is to answer this question: how can design help? What role can the design process—thinking abstractly, iterating, testing, and modifying—play in realizing communities that are resilient to and can even alleviate the effects of the next generation of coastal storms and flooding?

8 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

The response from the design fields— specifically architects, landscape architects, and engineers—will be site-specific, tailored to the unique environmental and cultural context of coastal North Carolina. But both the issues and your work—the approach, the process, and the design itself—will speak to the global role that design can play in addressing one of the most pressing issues of our time. With its legacy of outreach and engagement, its implicit mandate for invention and ingenuity, and its penchant for multi-disciplinary collaboration, design is poised to participate in the international discourse around climate change, natural disasters, and coastal life as we know it. It is the role of each designer, on his or

her own, to determine the character of the field’s contributions.

This document grounds designers in the web of policies, concepts, and the existing framework of governance that determines the shape of design interventions that can prepare coastal North Carolina for the disaster events of the future. Central to the discussion will be the notion of resilience—“the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from, and more successfully adapt to adverse events.

Enhanced resilience allows better anticipation of disasters and better planning to reduce disaster losses—rather than waiting for an event to occur and paying for it afterward.”1 Familiarity with the topics covered here not only provides an awareness of the prevailing discourse involved in climate change, hazard resiliency, and coastal development in the US and North Carolina , but it also ensures pragmatic, operational, and legal design interventions.

Throughout, we will underscore the importance of the precautionary principle,— “a tool for policy- and decision-making designed to ensure that people or entities bear political responsibility for taking action to prevent damage to health and ecosystems in the face of uncertain scientific information”2 in resilient coastal design. Though the international community almost universally accepts the role of climatic factors significant to coastal design, including sea level rise, ocean acidification, and changes in the severity of natural hazards, there is a great deal of uncertainty and controversy surrounding those topics nationally and in North Carolina. This kind of uncertainty can paralyze critical proactivity on human and ecosystem threats, allowing societies to indefinite1 Committee, 1.

2 Martuzzi, 17.

ly and unrealistically delay action until policy-makers have in hand irrefutable, specific scientific proof.

The precautionary principle can empower designers to transcend this uncertainty and achieve a more resilient coast.

The legislation, policies, and recommendations covered in this document represent the minimum requirements for a variety of coastal design issues. Furthermore, as policy that has been hashed out in politicized agency headquarters and vetted by divided legislatures in Washington DC, Raleigh, and elsewhere, it is likely that these minimums are plagued by the paralysis and uncertainty that the precautionary principle defends against.

But while much of the policy surrounding resilient coastal design in North Carolina may be restricted by perceived uncertainties in fields like water quality, sea level rise, and climate science, design itself is unique because individual designers (and their clients) are free and, as we shall see later, often encouraged to transcend what is asked, recommended to, or required of them by governmental actors. By over-designing spaces, structures, and systems to exceed the regulatory minimums covered in this document, planners, engineers, landscape architects, and architects can ensure that North Carolina’s coast is ready for many different futures—a central aspect of resiliency.

Organization

Resilience: “...The ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from, and more successfully adapt to adverse events.”

“By over-designing spaces, structures, and systems to exceed the regulatory minimums covered in this document, planners, engineers, landscape architects, and architects can ensure that North Carolina’s coast is ready for many different futures —a central aspect of resiliency.”

This document is organized into four sections. The Foundations chapter presents information in which anyone involved in coastal issues, including designers, should be conversant. Generally, these broader policies have little noticeable impact at the site level, and do not necessarily (or directly) define the

Coastal ResilieNCE | 9

Organization: 1. Foundations 2. Sitework 3. Land Use and Environmental Planning

character of coastal design in North Carolina. Nonetheless, they provide a critical foundation for other policies, programs, and procedures that do have an immediate impact on the form, location, and performance of resilient design.

are allowed in vulnerable and potentially hazardous areas in coastal North Carolina. The structural features, building techniques, and resources in this section are particularly useful to architects and engineers.

These policies are covered in the following sections, beginning with the Sitework section. This chapter focuses on the ways in which designers are allowed and encouraged to improve upon and adapt for resilient project sites in coastal North Carolina.

Finally, the Social Dimensions of resilient coastal design, including environmental justice and community empowerment, are addressed in the last chapter. Additionally, a glossary of key terms and other resources are found in the appendices.

Next is the Land Use and Environmental Planning section, which explains the topics most pertinent to arranging spaces in vulnerable, potentially hazardous areas in coastal North Carolina: essentially, what can go where, and how it has to function. The topics discussed in this section are particularly useful to landscape architects and urban planners.

What is largely absent from this resource, however, is critical application of the topics covered in the four sections; this is where you come in. By first learning the boundaries, constraints, and also opportunities of the operable policies related to designing a resilient coastal North Carolina, you will be able to both think critically about the needs of future coastal communities, and pragmatically design solutions that address those needs.

4. Structural Integrity 5. Social Dimensions

Then, in the Structural Integrity section, we address topics that relate to the type and nature of structures that

CDDL collaborators at NC Coastal Studies Institute

10 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

This chapter outlines the federal, state, and ultimately local foundations of the policies that determine pro-resiliency coastal design interventions. These laws and policy instru-

ments serve as the framework from which more specific design moves are recommended, incentivized, and in come cases, regulated by government at various levels.

“...this is where you come in. By first learning the boundaries, constraints, and also opportunities of the operable policies related to designing a resilient coastal North Carolina, you will be able to both think critically about the needs of future coastal communities, and pragmatically design solutions that address those needs.�

NC Coastal Studies Institute

Coastal ResilieNCE | 11

Foundation “Americans viewed disasters like the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 ... as ‘acts

of God;’ unavoidable, inescapable, and useless to prepare against. This view barred disaster mitigation—the idea of pro-actively reducing a community’s vulnerability to a hazard—from entering into the public consciousness until much later.”

Galveston, TX, 1900

12 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

ns

Understanding Coastal Management

Foundations What drives coastal design policy at the federal, state, and local levels? What are the legal and regulatory foundations of disaster response?

Comprehensive in scale and often murky in meaning, designers may find the elements that comprise the policy foundation to be dry and daunting, but understanding where coastal design policies come from is crucial to knowing their limitations and opportunities.

Additionally, anyone involved in the study of natural disasters in the United States and North Carolina should be familiar with these foundational components of governance.

While local policy and regulations play enormous roles in governing pro-resiliency design interventions in coastal North Carolina (and elsewhere), actions at the local level are responses to programs, policies, and laws determined at the state and ultimately federal levels.

“... understanding where coastal design policies come from is crucial to knowing their limitations and opportunities.�

Accordingly, though this chapter touches on some local issues as they relate to state and federal action, it focuses on the foundational state and federal policy instruments. Policies at the municipal and county levels are discussed in subsequent chapters.

Federal foundations: a brief history

For much of the 20th century, the federal government and, in many cases, the state played a miniscule role in providing assistance to communities affected by

Coastal Resilience | 13

disasters.3 Typically, response was left up to community organizations like churches, charitable organizations, and neighbors who were relatively spared the destruction of the event, and “the main national organization involved in providing humanitarian assistance to disaster victims prior to 1950 was the Red Cross.”4 Furthermore, Americans viewed disasters like the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 and the San Francisco Earthquake and Fires of 1906 as “acts of God;” unavoidable, inescapable, and useless to prepare against. (See Figure 1 below for detailed timeline.) This view barred disaster mitigation—the idea of pro-actively reducing a community’s vulnerability to a hazard—from entering into the public consciousness until much later.

As the toll of natural disasters continued to mount, the federal government began taking on a more substantial role in providing relief to stricken communities. The Mississippi River Floods of 1927, called by some “the greatest natural disaster to befall (the US) in terms of total human misery and suffering,”5 overwhelmed local and state response capacity, precipitating President Hoover to coordinate the variety of public and private responders, and to mobilize federal resources to support them. The perceived success of the federal government in managing flood response smoothed the way for a series of federal flood control laws in 1928, 1936, 1938, and 1941. These laws, which enabled the federal government to construct flood control devices

3 This includes non-ecological disasters, such as the Great Influenza Pandemic of 1918-1919, which killed at least 500,000 Americans.

4 Rubin, 14.

5 Association of State Floodplain Managers, 5.

Fig. 1 Timeline of Watershed Events in National Disaster Policy Development

1900 1906 1927 1928 1950 Galveston, TX Hurricane 145 mph winds 6,000 – 12,000 deaths

San Francisco Earthquake and Fire 3,000 deaths 80 percent of the city destroyed

Mississippi River Floods

Flood Control Law

Federal Disaster Relief Act

700,000 homeless

Direct response to 1927 Flood, similar acts passed in 1936, 1938, and 1941 Authorizes flood control projects by Army Corps of Engineers on the Mississippi and Sacramento Rivers

Permanently codifies federal role in disaster relief Significant revisions in 1966, 1969, 1974, and 1977

President Herbert Hoover intervenes, marking first federal role in disaster relief 20,000 square miles flooded across 10 states

14 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

like levees, introduced the nation to federal hazard mitigation; by engineering protections against the impacts of natural forces, the federal government sought to reduce the effects of those forces on communities. However, as discussed, the decision to use hard structures to engineer resilience into vulnerable places can have unintended negative consequences.

At the dawning of the 1950’s, a Cold War-era interest in civil defense piggybacked on the public’s growing commitment to federal disaster relief. In response to this newfound interest, Congress passed the Federal Disaster Relief Act in 1950. This monumental statute permanently committed the federal government to providing assistance following a disaster. These powers steadily grew through revisions

in 1966 and 1969. After Hurricane Betsy inundated New Orleans in 1965, Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, authorizing the creation of the National Flood Insurance Program (covered in more detail in the Land Use and Environmental Planning and Structural Integrity chapters) to provide federally subsidized flood insurance for businesses and homeowners in flood-prone areas.

As the federal government’s role in disaster management grew, so too did calls for a stronger, more centralized federal entity to coordinate and oversee it. In 1977, President Carter organized a study of federal disaster response and preparedness, the recommendations of which “focused on the need for a new federal entity to administer many

1965 1968 1977 1988 2000 2012 Hurricane Betsy $1 billion in damage Massive flooding throughout the Gulf region, especially New Orleans

National Flood Insurance Act Direct response to Hurricane Betsy Leads to establishment of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Implemented by Executive Order under President Jimmy Carter Combines several federal agencies tasked with emergency preparedness and civil defense

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act Establishes FEMA as chief coordinator of federal disaster response Defines process by which federal aid is transmitted to communities after a disaster

Disaster Mitigation Act Establishes mitigation planning standards required of communities that want to be eligible for federal mitigation funding

Biggert– Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act Requires NFIP to raise rates to reflect true flood risk, meaning an increase in premium rate for many subsidized flood insurance policy holders

COASTAL RESILIENCE | 15

of the federal emergency management authorities.”6 This prompted the establishment of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which remains the primary coordinator of federal disaster response to this day.

“The Stafford Act is keenly relevant for designers ... it empowers the federal government to create a host of assistance programs that funnel federal dollars into communities after disaster events.”

In 1988, the Federal Disaster Relief Act was amended as the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Public Law 93-288), today the ultimate federal statute for nearly all federal disaster response activities, entailing both physical and financial assistance. While the term disaster response frequently applies to short-term actions taken in the immediate wake of a disaster event, the Stafford Act also applies to actions that are designed to mitigate the long-term consequesnces of future disaster events. For example, repairing a damaged public utility so that it can function in the days following a storm would typically be considered a response activity; elevating that utility so that it won’t be damaged by future storms would be a mitigation activity.

2. Governor makes formal request to President (through regional FEMA office) to declare a federal disaster or emergency support

The Stafford Act is keenly relevant for designers for two reasons. First, by authorizing the President and FEMA to provide physical and financial assistance to the states (and their localities) affected by natural hazards, it empowers the federal government to create a whole host of assistance programs that funnel federal dollars into communities after disaster events. Not only are these programs, which are discussed in greater detail in subsequent chapters, generally essential to speedy, effective rebuilding following a disaster, but the funding they provide nearly always comes with provisions.

Usually, communities need to engage in federally specified activities in order to initially qualify for the federal funding au-

6 Rubin, 106-107.

1. State and federal officials conduct preliminary damage assessment immediately after disaster event

The Stafford Act empowers FEMA as the chief coordinator of government-wide relief and recovery activities in the event of a Presidentially declared disaster. It also outlines the process by which such a declaration is made (Figure. 2), and expressly outlines the roles of the president, the director of FEMA, and the governors of states stricken by a declared disaster.

3. Governor takes action under state law and direct execution of state’s emergency plan

4.

Based on Governor’s request, President may declare major disaster or emergency, activating appropriate federal emergency management programs

Fig. 2 Federal Disaster declaration process Stafford Act disaster declaration information can be found on the FEMA website: http://www.fema.gov/declaration-process

16 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

thorized by the Stafford Act. Additionally, communities that receive federal money are restricted in the types of response activities they can spend it on, which can have a substantial impact on design and development in that community.

One of the activities that the Stafford Act requires for communities to be eligible for federal funding, and the law’s second item of primary relevance for designers, is a mandate that communities have approved mitigation plans as a condition of receiving grants from two of the most substantial “pots” of disaster-related federal money7. While the original Disaster Relief Act encouraged “preparedness,” the Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) (Public Law 106-390) both requires that local communities and states seeking certain federal funding (which is covered later) prepare and obtain FEMA approval of hazard mitigation plans, and further incentivizes increased coordination and integration of local mitigation planning.

In order to obtain federal approval, the DMA requires that hazard mitigation plans achieve several goals. Plans must first thoroughly identify the types of hazards the community is vulnerable to. This typically includes a history of recent disaster events, a chronicle of those events’ destruction, a demographic breakdown of the community with attention paid to those most vulnerable to different types of hazards, and an assessment of the community’s overall capability to respond to future disasters.

Next, a community must describe specific actions that it intends to take to mitigate the risks of these self-identified hazards and establish a strategy to implement these actions. Also, the 7 Additionally, NC State Bill 300 requires that local governments have mitigation plans in order to qualify for funding available through the state.

DMA sets fairly rigorous standards for the extent to which a community must document the planning process it employed to prepare its plan. As a result, DMA-mandated hazard mitigation plans can get unwieldy. For a coastal community that is acutely vulnerable to a variety of natural hazards, mitigation plans can be nearly 500 pages long. Given the scope of the DMA’s requirements for local mitigation planning, many communities lack the technical and financial capacity to produce satisfactory mitigation plans. Accordingly, many smaller rural communities, including virtually all of those in coastal North Carolina, prepare multi-jurisdictional or countywide hazard mitigation plans.

“... a community must describe specific actions that it intends to take to mitigate the risks off ... self-identified hazards and establish a strategy to implement these actions.”

Though certainly a community wide effort, local mitigation planning, in particular the risk, capability, and demographic assessments that comprise a sound factual basis from which to plan, is typically the responsibility of the emergency manager and/or city planner—not the designer. What is important for designers, however, is that the specific mitigation actions covered in the plan can control land use, building code, and other features that have a tremendous impact on the quality and character of the built environment in coastal communities.

While significantly incentivizing coastal North Carolina to develop mitigation plans might seem like a bold, effective step towards resilience, it should be acknowledged that the DMA has been criticized for emphasizing the process of mitigation planning, rather than the actual substance of the plans. While the public involvement and hazard/vulnerability identification components can be demanding for communities, the DMA requires very little by way of tangible mitigation activity, like our earlier example of elevating utility structures. Fur-

“What is important for designers, however, is that the specific mitigation actions covered in the plan can control land use, building code, and other features that have tremendous impact on the quality and character of the built environment in coastal communitites.”

Coastal ResilieNCE | 17

thermore, when communities do plan specific mitigation activities, there is no requirement that they actually achieve those activities.

State of the state: North Carolina Foundations “... when communities do plan specific mitigation activities, there is no requirement that they actually achieve those activities.”

“The heart of the plan is the Mitigation Strategy section. Prepared by the North Carolina Division of Emergency Managment, this section outlines how the state will help communities advance their mitigation agendas as expressed by their local hazard mitigation plans.”

Just as the DMA requires local governments to prepare satisfactory hazard mitigation plans in order to qualify for substantial pots of federal money, the same legislation requires that state’s also submit and obtain approval for a statewide mitigation plan. North Carolina’s State Hazard Mitigation Plan, which is renewed every three years, serves as the backbone for the state’s approach to mitigating the range of disasters across the state, including on the coast.

The heart of the plan is in the Mitigation Strategy section. Prepared by the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management, this section outlines how the state will help communities advance their mitigation agendas as expressed by their local hazard mitigation plans. Interestingly, the bulk of the state’s mitigation actions are geared towards building local capacity to achieve their own mitigation goals—not the state’s.

The same requirements for local plans apply to statewide plans, and a look at the Planning Process chapter of the State Hazard Mitigation Plan makes clear why many communities struggle to independently assemble local mitigation plans. Mitigation plans must rigorously identify, describe, and chronicle the hazards that threaten a community, and thoroughly assess the risk that these hazards pose to the community. Maps from the Dare County Mitigation Plan

how localities can prepare.

While this process may seem straightforward and not particularly relevant to designers, it has been fraught with ideology and politics that complicate the identification of hazards that design needs to address. For example, in June of 2012 the state legislature passed House Bill 819, which mandated that the state’s Coastal Resources Commission devise official forecasts for sea level rise that must (A) be based on historical precedent and (B) be linear, rather than exponential, as shown in Figure 4.

In other words, though state scientists found that the rate of sea level rise was increasing in coastal North Carolina, that politically unpalatable natural hazard prediction was effectively deemed illegal, and thus inadmissible into the State Hazard Mitigation Plan. HB 819 was ultimately revised to place a moratorium on the planning and design communities’ official response to coastal sea level rise vulnerability, but the episode nonetheless shines light on the potentially precarious task of implementing resilient design in the North Carolina coast, the susceptibility of the sanctioned interventions to politics and compromise, and the importance of design solutions that exceed official requirements.

Additionally, research indicates that though state mitigation planning has improved in the new millennium, the nationwide trend is for inadequate, ineffectual hazard mitigation planning at the state level.

One study8 analyzed the mitigation plans of 30 coastal states, coding their content to achieve composite scores for six principles of plan quality: fact base,

are shown in Figure 3 as an example of 8 Berke, 2012.

18 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

Fig. 3 Local Mitigation Planning + a Sound Fact Base This data, from the Dare County Hazard Mitigation Plan, is indicative of the kind of demographic, historic, and meteorological/ geospatial information that the Disaster Mitigation Act requires in certified local mitigation plans. Though accumulating and analyzing this data often requires significant local resources, the accumulated findings are critical to the fact base that informs mitigation planning decisions.

Fig. 4 Linear vs.

40

Exponential Sea Level Rise

LE VE LR ISE

30

Sea Level Rise (Inches)

Not only did the Coastal Resources Advisory Council find that sea levels in North Carolina are rising, but the rate at which they are rising is increasing.

House Bill 819, however, would have made it illegal for coastal planners to consider this type of exponential increase, and would have required that any official forecasts for sea level rise in North Carolina be linear.

20

EA LS IA T N NE PO EX

10

SE A LEVEL RI LINEAR SE

0 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Years Ahead of Present

Coastal ResilieNCE | 19

mitigation policies, implementation and monitoring, inter-organizational coordination, and participation. While the conclusions—that state plans are generally weak in all six principles—are alarming, it does point to a potentially powerful contribution that design can offer. While the first five principles of plan quality may primarily be the realm of planners and public officials, the participation principle, which “involve(s) recognition of formal and informal actors engaged in preparing the plan, including other governmental bodies, private-sector institutions, nonprofits, and individual citizens,” offers a node for designers to establish creative, meaningful ways of advancing the planning process. This could mean improving the effectiveness of public meetings or using graphics to creatively and legibly convey information to stakeholders involved in and affected by the

planning process. An example of these engagement practices is illustrated in Figure 5 with the Detroit Collaborative Design Center’s (DCDC) communicative “How-to” guides.

The final component of the framework supporting pro-resilience design in coastal North Carolina is the North Carolina Emergency Management Act (NCEMA) (G.S. 166A), the state-level analogue for the federal-level Stafford Act. Essentially coordinative, it lays out the responsibilities of a variety of actors—including the Governor, Secretary of Public Safety, and Department of Emergency Management—in the event of a declared disaster.

Additionally, and critical for designers, it authorizes the use of state funds earmarked for acquisition and relocation of

Fig. 5 DCDC Outreach Materials The Detroit Collaborative Design Center’s (DCDC) “How-to” guides help communicate civic processes to the average citizen with easy-to-follow graphics. Topics range from “Organize a Neighborhood Clean Up Day” to “Prepare a Grant Proposal.”

Designers that are fluent in graphic communication can be instrumental in clearly, engagingly communicating to an often skeptical public the dangers of and precautions for natural disasters. These “How-To” Guides, which are geared towards aspiring local entrepreneurs and civic leaders, are excellent examples of well-designed, coherent public engagement tools.

20 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

damaged property, as well as state grants for supplemental repair and replacement of housing damaged during storms. As was true at the federal level, this state funding carries a host of criteria for applicant eligibility and qualifying projects. Additionally, NCEMA makes clear that the amount and disbursement of this funding depends on the scale of the declared disaster, measured by a three-tiered system. Only damage caused by Type II and Type III disasters qualify for funding authorized by the NCEMA, as seen in Figure 6.

Since they do not immediately deal with land use, material,

or form, it might be easy for designers to dismiss these foundational elements of governance. However, not only do the policies and laws discussed in this chapter provide the basis for emergency management and disaster response—in North Carolina and elsewhere—but they also support the thinking and programs that have a direct impact on the quality and character of design interventions along the state’s coast. The next chapter will take a more granular look at the policies involved in the site issues involved in designing a more resilient coastal North Carolina.

Fig. 6 Disaster Type Comparison Federally declared disasters are distinguished by scale. While communities can rely solely on local and state resources to recover from Type I disasters, Types II and III disasters, by definition, require federal assistance.

TYPE I disaster affects small region, one or two counties no federal assistance, physical or financial state and local grants used for financial assistance type I disaster declaration expires 60 days after it is issued

TYPE II disaster affects larger region than type I, usually involving several counties federal assistance is required to recover from the disaster states must request financial assistance from FEMA and submit damage assessments that meet the financial threshold

r it

type II disaster declaration expires 12 months after it is issued

TYPE III disaster devastates a widespread area and causes catastrophic damage federal assistance is required to recover from the disaster states must request financial assistance from FEMA and submit damage assessments that meet the financial threshold type II disaster declaration expires 24 months after it is issued

COASTAL RESILIENCE | 21

Sitewor Hunting Island, SC

“The tendency of North Carolina’s barrier islands to move, coupled with both the legislative hurdles and environmental concerns of securing a terminal groin mean that new oceanfront construction and adaptive reuse of existing vulnerable structures and infrastructure will almost definitely have to reckon with the likelihood that those investments will erode into the ocean.

For designers pursuing coastal resiliency, all this underscores the value of interventions that minimize coastal erosion, maximize the utility of softer erosion control devices, or, most likely, both.”

22 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

rk

From the Ground Up

Sitework How can designers shape spaces in ways that harmonize coastal human populations with their dynamic and complex surroundings?

The previous section covered the statutory and programmatic topics that root, but may not directly determine, the design of buildings, spaces, and infrastructure of a more resilient coastal North Carolina.

Starting quite literally from the ground up, this section begins the discussion of issues directly impacting the nature of coastal design by addressing site issues: how earth and sand can be moved, replaced, and stabilized. But whereas the broad, foundational topics covered in the previous section fall primarily in the realm of emergency managers and planners, the site issues addressed in this section relate more to environmental policy than to political science.

With human settlement already having indelibly affected Eastern North Carolina’s unique dynamics of marshlands, tidelands, and constantly shifting barrier islands, the policies in this section are geared towards preserving the state’s coastal ecosystems. Accordingly, the two main topics covered here fall under the purview of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the agency tasked with protecting the state’s public health and natural resources.

“With human settlement already having indelibly affected Eastern North Carolina’s unique dynamics of marshlands, tidelands, and constantly shifting barrier islands, the policies in this section are geared towards preserving the state’s fragile coastal ecosystems.”

The comparatively focused policies in this section have more general, wider reaching analogues at both the state and federal levels that are not covered here.

Though legislation like the Clean Water Act and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are critical components of the state and national environmental management regimes, we’ve chosen to focus on the environmental and site issues that designers are most

Coastal Resilience | 23

“One of the coastal features that distinguishes North Carolina and other parts of the Atlantic coast from many coastal communities across the U.S. are its densely settled barrier islands— shifting drifts of sand off the shore that move and settle in patterns determined by the wind.”

likely to encounter while pursuing a more resilient North Carolina coast. Accordingly, though federal policy is briefly considered here, this section concentrates on two major pieces of state environmental policy: the Terminal Groin Authorization (Session Law 2011-387) and the Dredge and Fill Law (§ 113-219).

ular to the coastline), are designed to control down-drift erosion by catching sand along the shoreline, as seen in Figure 7. Overall, terminal groins in North Carolina—in Fort Macon at the Beaufort Inlet and in the Pea Island Wildlife Refuge at the Oregon Inlet (Figure 8)—have achieved this task.

One of the coastal features that distinguishes North Carolina and other parts of the Atlantic coast from many coastal communities across the United States are its densely settled barrier islands—shifting drifts of sand off the shore that move and settle in patterns determined by the wind. Composed of windborne sand, these islands’ tendency is to move, making the substrate for places like Rodanthe, Hatteras, and Nags Head highly erodible.

Terminal groins, hardened structures that jut into the ocean at the end of eroding coastal land masses (usually perpendic-

However, many scientists argue that there is no scenario in which a groin will not have a negative impact down-drift of the structure. While some scientists point to cases in which groins have not significantly disrupted the natural flow of sand further down the coast, most tend to agree that temporary solutions like groins unduly affect natural oceanic processes. As 43 coastal scientists from around the country wrote in an open letter of protest against a proposed terminal groin at Figure Eight Island:

Fig. 7 Groin Functionality Groins are hardened structures built perpendicular to coastlines. By trapping windborne sand as it blows downshore, groins combat beach erosion, but they also interfere with beaches’ natural tendency to drift, significantly altering coastal ecosystems.

N

ng

Lo

Updrift side of groin

sh

ore

d rif t di

ti rec

Old shoreline

Downdrift side of groin

on Settlement buildup (accretion / deposition)

Terminal beach groin

made of large rock blocks or rip-rap, acts as barrier to longshore drift

24 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

Erosion

Fig. 8 Terminal Groins in North Carolina – Beaufort and Oregon Inlets The maps below depict two terminal groins located near major inlets along North Carolina’s Outer Banks barrier islands, the Beaufort Inlet near Fort Macon and the Oregon Inlet near the Pea Island Wildlife Refuge. Terminal groins and other manmade shoreline control methods can disrupt the natural flow of sand further down the coast (called down-drift).

Beaufort Inlet

Oregon Inlet

Orgeon Inlet

Beaufort Inlet

Coastal ResilieNCE | 25

“There is no debate: a structure placed at the terminus of a barrier island, near an inlet, will interrupt the natural sand bypass system, deprive the ebb and flood tide deltas of sand, and cause negative impacts to adjacent islands.”

–Excerpt from editorial by 43 coastal scientists regarding the possibility of a terminal groin on Figure Eight Island, NC at Rich Inlet, pictured here

Rich Inlet Figure Eight Island

Wrightsville Beach

26 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

“There is no debate: a structure placed at the terminus of a barrier island, near an inlet, will interrupt the natural sand bypass system, deprive the ebb and flood tide deltas of sand, and cause negative impacts to adjacent islands.” 9 North Carolina’s Terminal Groin Authorization (TGA) (Session Law 2011387) caps the number of terminal groins statewide to four, confines them to inlets, and requires that the Coastal Resources Commission, in conjunction with the Army Corps of Engineers, approve any proposed terminal groins in the state, Prior to this law, North Carolina was one of two states10 with a statewide ban on terminal groins, and though obtaining a terminal groin permit is easier now than prior to the TGA, it remains a difficult task.

The law sets high burdens of proof on terminal groin applicants, including a construction and maintenance plan, proof of financial assurance, a list of property owners and local governments that may be affected by the groin, and a lengthy environmental impact statement that can take several years to complete.

In general, applicants must be able to indicate that erosion is an imminent threat to the structure or infrastructure in question, and that less obtrusive, non-structural controls are inadequate to curb the erosion. Additionally, the application process involves substantial public input, no small hurdle for a topic as controversial as terminal groins.

The tendency of North Carolina’s barrier islands to move, coupled with both the legislative hurdles and environmental concerns of securing a terminal groin 9 Editorial, 2008.

10 Oregon has maintained their statewide ban on terminal groins.

mean that new oceanfront construction and adaptive reuse of existing vulnerable structures and infrastructure will almost definitely have to reckon with the likelihood that those investments will erode into the ocean. For designers pursuing coastal resiliency, all this underscores the value of interventions that minimize coastal erosion, maximize the utility of softer erosion control devices, or, most likely, both.

North Carolina’s second state-level, site-related policy with critical design implications is, in fact, based on federal policy. The Dredge and Fill Law (§ 113-219), which establishes a permitting process for any projects that propose to excavate or fill in any estuarine waters, tidelands, marshlands, or state-owned lakes, conforms to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (which is national in scope). Under Section 404, projects that excavate material (dredge) from U.S. waters, replace aquatic areas with dry land (fill), or discharge dredge/fill material into U.S. waters need to obtain a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE). This is required to adequately address a project’s effects on environmental factors such as wildlife and water quality. Additionally, the EPA is allowed to comment on and, in necessary, veto applications that the ACE proposes to issue.

In North Carolina, dredge and fill projects must obtain both a Section 404 permit from the ACE, and a similar permit from DENR’s Division of Coastal Management. The state-specific portions of the statute require that clean, beach-quality material dredged from navigable channels within an active near-shore, beach, or inlet shoal system not be permanently removed, and that excavated material must be encased as to minimize its moving back into water (Figure 9).

“The tendency of North Carolina’s barrier islands to move, coupled with both the legislative hurdles and environmental concerns of securing a terminal groin mean that both new oceanfront construction and especially adaptive reuse of existing vulnerable structures and infrastructure will almost definitely have to reckon with the likelihood that those investments will erode into the ocean.”

“The law sets high burdens of proof on terminal groin applicants, including a construction and maintenance plan, proof of financial assurance, an inlet and estuarine/ocean shoreline management plan, a list of property owners and local governments that may be affected by the groin, and a lengthy environmental impact statement...”

Coastal ResilieNCE | 27

Its important to note that, though cases like designated maritime forest permit issuance can be exceedingly difficult,11 there are a number of exceptions and expeditions to the dredge and fill permitting process. For example, ongoing agricultural activities such as ranching and irrigation projects, as well as maintenance of currently serviceable structures like dams and bridge abutments, do not need Section 404 permits. Additionally, there are two types of permits—general and individual, one significantly easier to obtain than the other. While individual permits are issued on a lengthy case-by-case basis, general permits can be issued for activities that meet certain criteria for minimal adverse impacts. If a project meets the general permit conditions, it is automatically approved. Historically, both the ACE and the Division of Coastal Management have issued general permits for projects that: maintain repair, construct, and install hard structures (excluding terminal groins) needed to address eroding non-oceanic shorelines dredge, fill, and construct infrastructure for navigation located on high ground authorize emergency construction of primary dunes and placement of sandbags along the oceanfront12

Because it complicates and, in some cases, prevents construction in certain places, the Dredge and Fill Law has enormous implications for designers working in coastal North Carolina. Leaving out the exceptional cases noted above, essentially any project that seeks to construct any structure in water, any artificial islands, any property protection or reclamation devices, and any proposed artificial reefs require both federal and state permitting, as do land clearing activities and wetland drainage projects that dispose of soil in wetlands.

Site work is an essential component of realizing functionally designed spaces, but in an environment as dynamic and communities as vulnerable as those in coastal North Carolina, even the most delicate site development can have hugely deleterious effects on both ecological and human populations. Regulations like the Terminal Groin Authorization and Dredge and Fill Law provide both disincentives to reckless, unsustainable site work and also opportunities to work with the land in ways that may prevent future degradation and repair the vulnerabilities of today. The next chapter discusses the policies, regulations, and opportunities in the development of and use of the land along North Carolina’s coast.

11 N orth Carolina’s maritime forests are Kitty Hawk Woods, Nags Head Woods, Buxton Woods, Roosevelt Natural Area, Emerald Isle Woods, and the Bald Head/Smith Island complex.

12 North Carolina Coastal Federation, 2014.

Terminal Groin at Ft. Macon, next to Beaufort Inlet

28 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

Fig. 9 Beneficial Uses of Encased Sands The Dredge and Fill Law mandates that sand dredged out of navigable North Carolina channels be encased so that it doesn’t blow away from the site. Designers can help meet this requirement in creative ways that add value to pro-resilient interventions. The Environmental Protection Agency recommends the following methods: brownfield site grading, salt marsh creation, wildlife habitat creation, beach nourishment, cap creation (placing good dredged material over contaminated material), land creation, shore protection, fish and wildlife habitats (nesting islands for birds), construction materials (aggregate for concrete), decorative landscaping products, and containment areas for aquaculture. Several of these methods are represented below.

Reuse of dredge material treated for brownfield site grading

Dredge material used to create new salt marsh

Wildlife habitats, such as the Crab Bank Seabird Sanctuary, in Charleston, SC harbor, created from encased sand when shipping channels on the Cooper River were dredged

Ecosystem restoration with offshore rock breakwater at La

Beach nourishment at Nags Head using dredged sand

Quinta Channel in Corpus Chrisi, TX

COASTAL RESILIENCE | 29

Plannin “... a critical aspect of land use and environmental planning in the coastal

context is avoidance—in some cases, it is best to simply avoid development entirely. For example, it is not unreasonable to anticipate situations in which it is both unsafe and totally legal to develop on certain coastal sites. When in

doubt, designers and especially planners should cursorily research the site in question and apply the precautionary principle.”

Kill Devil Hills, NC

30 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

ng

Smart Growth, Smart Places

Land Use + Environmental Planning Where can—and should—different human activities be located in coastal North Carolina?

The previous chapter addressed the regulations that govern how designers can shape coastal landforms and waterways prior to developing on them. However, neither the Terminal Groin Authorization, the Dredge and Fill Law, nor the federal governance from which they emanate say anything about what can happen on the site after it has been altered.

Land use planning ensures that different kinds of human activity are appropriately located. Just as the way that sites are developed can have enormous implications on both the short- and long-term environmental health of coastal areas, so too can the types of ongoing uses that follow site development. This might mean that the ecologically hazardous functions of society—such as intensive agriculture, junkyards, and heavy manufacturing—are located in places where both human settlement and the natural world are reasonably safe from their byproducts and externalities.

In addition to the direct and indirect13 ecological benefits of prudent land use planning, land use controls can also be a huge financial boon, particularly for communities vulnerable to natural hazards. For example,

“Land use planning ensures that different kinds of human activity are appropriately located. Just as the way that sites are developed can have enormous implications on both the shortand long-term environmental health of sensitive coastal areas, so too can the types of ongoing uses that follow that kind of site development.”

13 L and use controls that, for example, encourage a denser built environment can discourage automobile use and greenhouse gas emissions.

Coastal Resilience | 31

“In many ways, land use planning is a keenly local issue: most authority for land use control emanates from the local government.”

a 2005 study by the Multihazard Mitigation Council found that every $1 spent on mitigation activities, especially locating human settlement and infrastructure away from hazardous areas, saves society an average of $4 in the event of a disaster (Figure 10). And of course, locating human settlement in the safer areas of the coast not only saves society the financial costs of insuring, rebuilding, or cleaning up that settlement after disaster strikes; it also saves the lives of those located in harms way.

unsafe and totally legal to develop on certain coastal sites. When in doubt, designers and especially planners should cursorily research the site in question and apply the precautionary principle—”while the minimum requirements may permit design and development on this site, should they?”—when deciding if it can even accommodate responsible, sustainable development at all. This decision process can be seen in Figure 11.

This section covers regulations and incentives at the local, state, and federal levels that help control land use in coastal North Carolina. Some of these items, especially the voluntary incentive-based ones, also pertain to the building-specific topics that are covered in the next chapter.

In many ways, land use planning is a keenly local issue: most authority for land use control emanates from the local government. There are many significant caveats to this maxim, especially in North Carolina, where the legal relationship between the state and local government is increasingly murky,14 but this maxim should suffice for designers.

Essentially, local land use is a product of the local zoning ordinance, which partitions a jurisdiction into areas where certain types of development and usage

Additionally, though not regulatory or incentive-driven, it bears mentioning that a critical aspect of land use and environmental planning in the coastal context is avoidance—in some cases, it is best to simply avoid development entirely.

For example, it is not unreasonable to anticipate situations in which it is both

Local Roots, State Oversight:

14 Bluestein, 2012.

Fig. 10 Mitigation Savings: Pay Now, or (really) Pay Later Though many communities may be wary of costly mitigation projects, in particular if a great deal of time has elapsed since that community’s most recent disaster, research indicates that mitigation actually saves money. One study found that, by limiting a disaster’s damage, $1 spent on a mitigation project is worth $4 in the recovery phase.

$

vs. $ $ $ $

Mitigation spending

32 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

Recovery Spending

Fig. 11 Coastal Property Evaluation Flow Chart In many cases, the most resilient design intervention in coastal North Carolina is to avoid development altogether. FEMA recommends that developers, planners, and designers follow this roadmap when determining a site’s development viability.

Compile Lot / Parcel Information and Data - Location and Dimensions

- Existing building or structure

- Zoning and land use requirements (including setbacks)

- Utilities and Infrastructure - Soils and vegetation - Prior erosion control efforts

- Topography and drainage - Prior damage to site/building - Cost of hazard insurance - Legal and regulatory contraints

- Flood, erosion, landslide, wind, seismic, and other hazards - Property access (e.g. vulnerability of roads to storm damage, alternative access routes)

Conduct Hazard / Vulnerability Analyses Over Life of Structure / Development - Flood

- Landslide

- Wind

- Long-term erosion

- Storm-induced erosion

- Subsidence

- Earthquake

- Other

To what extent can the predicted hazard effects be reduced through siting, design, or construction?

AND

NO

Are the residual risks to the site and building/development acceptable to the owner?

Find and evaluate other properties

YES

Proceed

Coastal ResilieNCE | 33

“Significantly, zoning ordinances are subject to public comment and scrutiny, meaning that (at least theoretically) they represent the collective vision of the community that they govern.”

“... this does not mean that these [fragile] areas are off limits to human settlement. Rather, CAMA provides that development in a coastal area of environmental concern must go through a rigorous, potentialy onerous permitting process, or obtain an exemption.”

are allowed and others are prohibited.15 Significantly, zoning ordinances are subject to public comment and scrutiny, meaning that (at least theoretically) they represent the collective vision of the community that they govern. Accordingly, zoning ordinances tend to fluctuate in the amount of regulatory control depending on the popular ideology of the community to which they apply.

However, because of the Coastal Area Management Act (§ 113A), better known as CAMA, local land use planning in the coastal parts of North Carolina16 is subject to the approval of officials at the state level. Passed in 1974, CAMA threads the politically tricky needle of both acknowledging the authority of coastal localities to prepare their own land use plans, while also asserting the role of the state government and the Department of the Environment and Natural Resources to set standards with regard to local land use planning. The law creates the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC), a 13-member body of citizens with expertise in coastal issues, and the Coastal Resources Advisory Council, about 20 state experts in coastal environmental policy who support the CRC. Together, these two bodies establish and publicize the guidelines that, in two

15 M any jurisdictions are transitioning from a use-based code to a form-based code. Rather than prescribe what kinds of uses are allowed in certain areas, form-based codes define the physical character of development, regulating building features like setbacks, height, and transparency. However, because no communities in coastal North Carolina have form-based codes, this handbook does not discuss that type of zoning at length.

16 C AMA defines this as all of the counties in the state that are in contact with the Atlantic Ocean: Beaufort, Bertie, Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chowan, Craven, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Hertford, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington.

34 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

major ways, govern local17 land use planning in coastal North Carolina.

First, CAMA requires that local land use plans be consistent with the guidelines established by the CRC. This is significant because the CAMA mandates that the guidelines “give particular attention to the nature of development which shall be appropriate within [coastal North Carolina’s] various types of areas of environmental concern.” The CRC both identifies these particularly critical areas— generally parsed out into the Estuarine and Ocean System, the Ocean Hazard System, Public Water Supplies, and Natural and Cultural Resource Areas18—and is legally responsible for establishing guidelines that ensure their health. Effectively, then, assuming that the CRC adopts robust guidelines, local ordinances and regulations must protect these areas of North Carolina’s coast.

However, this does not mean that these areas are off limits to human settlement.

Rather, CAMA provides that development in a coastal area of environmental concern must go through a rigorous, potentially onerous permitting process, or obtain an exemption. This constitutes the second way that CAMA effects land use planning in coastal North Carolina.

The permitting process requires the definition of several key phrases. First, “development” is broadly defined— something as seemingly minimally inva-

17 I n coastal North Carolina, local land use planning takes place at the county level—not the municipal level.

18 T ypical examples of areas of environmental concern include coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, renewable resource areas like prime forestry land, and natural hazard areas such as sand dunes.

sive as a sandbag structure (in an area of environmental concern) would likely require a permit. However, “exemption,” the second important CAMA definition, also has broad interpretations. Many infrastructural activities, including road maintenance in a public right-of-way and construction of energy facilities are exempted from CAMA’s permit requirements. Additionally, certain types of agricultural and silvicultural activities are exempted from CAMA’s permit requirements, potentially incentivizing this kind of development and design as a relatively speedy project option in coastal North Carolina.

Federal Incentives Initiative:

for

Local

As was briefly discussed in the Foundations chapter, the federal government doesn’t require that localities (or counties) use land use planning to mitigate the impacts of natural hazards. Rather, the federal government offers some extremely lucrative incentives to help communities fund large-scale mitigation-related projects that, in many cases, could not occur without federal subsidy.

and relocation component of the federal government’s mitigation assistance program is widely considered to be its most effective—in 2013 alone, FEMA offered nearly $400 million in acquisition funding to local and state governments across the country.

Following a disaster event, state, local, or tribal governments and private non-profit organizations can apply for funding from one of these programs to receive federal money19 with one purpose: to offer aid to owners of severely damaged properties located in the floodplain (homes and businesses) so that those property owners can relocate to safer areas. Participation in the buyout program is completely optional—property owners are under no obligation whatsoever to accept the federal money offered to them by the local, state, or tribal government. However, in many cases, property owners greet their buyout offer with incredible relish; the terms of the grant dictate that property owners must be offered “fair compensation” for their property, generally interpreted as its fair market value prior to the disaster event.

Three different but very similar funding programs—the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program, and Flood Mitigation Assistance Program—offer federal support for certain types of mitigation activities.

While some of the eligible activities relate to structural projects (which are covered in the next chapter), the bulk of the funding from these programs involves code enforcement, mitigation planning, or extensive, costly land use projects.

By enabling local and state government to purchase these properties from willing sellers, FEMA achieves several goals. In addition to helping ensure that stricken property owners receive some financial compensation for their property, it also removes these vulnerable properties from the development stream. A major condition of acquisition funding from the mitigation assistance programs is that the acquired property

Of these, the most extensive and expensive activity is FEMA’s acquisition and relocation work. Often referred to as the “buyout program,” the acquisition

19 C ommunities receiving federal assistance funding for property acquisition do not receive a blank check; FEMA commits to 75% of the total cost of the buyout, requiring the local and state governments to assemble the remaining 25%.

“... the federal government offers some extremely lucrative incentives to help communities fund large-scale mitigation-related projects that, in many cases, could not occur without federal subsidy.”

Coastal ResilieNCE | 35

must be converted to and maintained as open space in perpetuity, permanently ensuring that residential or commercial development cannot occur in areas that have been and likely will be devastated by natural disasters. Figure 12 shows the example of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, where planning, design, and economic revitalization were integrated into a flood management plan. Designing, programming, and master planning this kind of open space acquired through FEMA’s buyout program can be an enormous contribution for designers seeking to achieve a resilient coast in North Carolina.

North Carolina offers one of the most gripping case studies of both the utility of and challenges associated with FEMA’s acquisition program, the city of Kinston (Figure 13, pgs. 3435) Situated along the Neuse River approximately 30 miles west of New Bern, Kinston suffered extensive flooding following Hurricanes Fran and Floyd in 1996 and 1999.20 They elected to participate in the FEMA buyout program, receiving Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds to purchase more than 400 residential structures, three mobile

20 F or further reading on Kinston, see McCann (2006) and the Louisiana Resiliency Assistance Program’s profile at http://resiliency.lsu.edu/ planning/kinston-north-carolina-property-acquisition-success-story/.

Sasaki Associates, Inc.

Fig. 12 Cedar Rapids Riverfront Following a 2008 flood that devastated the city, Cedar Rapids collaborated with landscape architecture and urban design firm Sasaki Associates, Inc. to prepare a master plan for the city that focuses on recovery through riverfront redevelopment and revitalization. The master plan included connections to urban infrastructure as well as a new greenway plan integrated into riverfront mitigation projects. From Sasaki’s website: “The goals of the plan included attracting and retaining residents

36 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

home parks, and 68 vacant lots, at the cost of approximately $31 million. Today, the Kinston community needs the help of designers who can fulfill FEMA’s mandate and turn this vulnerable swath of land into an amenity for the community that can withstand the impact of future floods.

A major takeaway from the Kinston case is the high participation rate—97% of those offered a buyout accepted, resulting in a massive reduction in properties vulnerable to future flooding. Kinston’s experience with the FEMA buyout program also illustrates the significance of environmental justice in the resiliency discussion. That the bulk of those stricken by the hurricanes in Kinston and subsequently bought out by

FEMA were African American is perhaps not surprising— in many communities, the poorest, most disempowered segments of society are often forced to live in marginal areas like floodplains. While it was a critical and farsighted mitigation tactic, Kinston’s buyouts moved hundreds of its least mobile citizens away from their roots. It is important to note that the design process can be instrumental in grappling with justice concerns like those in Kinston. The policies related to the social dimensions of hazard resiliency will are covered in more detail in the Social Dimensions chapter, and the next chapter focuses on the policies, programs, and guidance involved in designing and retrofitting the structures of a dynamic coastal North Carolina.

Sasaki Associates, Inc.

in Cedar Rapids, attracting residents and visitors to the riverfront, addressing flood damage to riverfront parks and trails, enhancing connectivity to the river from the trail system, and meeting community priorities for the riverfront as a piece of the greater Parks and Recreation System while addressing operational funding constraints.”

COASTAL RESILIENCE | 37

Fig. 13 After the Flood, After the Buy-Out: Kinston, NC Flooding from two successive hurricanes decimated Lincoln City, the primarily African-American community located near the Neuse River in Kinston, North Carolina. 800 Homes were lost in the flood, which reached 27 feet high in some places.

FEMA’s buyout program provided the funding needed to acquire the impacted properties, compensating their owners and ensuring that these vulnerable properties will remain undeveloped, but it also saddled the city with the task of re-imagining the huge buyout zone. Above are pages from the FEMA Mitigation plan for Kinston, which utilized GIS analysis to orchestrate the acquisition plan and also prepare for future disasters. Above right is a photograph of Kinston shortly after the flooding of Hurricane Floyd. Below right is a recent photo from the Lincoln City area, where today, the FEMA buyout zone is an overgrown and marginalized testament to the potential pitfalls of acquisition without pro-active planning and design for adaptive reuse.

38 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

Tabernacle Free Will Baptist Church after Hurricane Floyd in 1999

An overgrown Lincoln City community 15 years after the flooding

COASTAL RESILIENCE | 39

Structura “… it is always possible that design loads and conditions can

be exceeded. Designers can anticipate this and modify their initial design to better accommodate higher forces and more extreme

conditions. The benefits of doing so often exceed the costs of building higher and stronger.”

40 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

al

Building to Last

Structural Integrity How can coastal buildings withstand the impact of the elements? What are the architectural implications for future coastal design?

Some of the most lasting and iconic images of natural disaster impact are of the toll natural forces levy on buildings (Figure 14). Solemn and stark, these images communicate the threat that poor construction can have to human health, safety, and general welfare of communities affected by a disaster. Not only does debris from a disintegrated building become potentially dangerous objects when, for example, stirred by winds that exceed 100 miles per hour, but they also become a massive financial burden to the taxpayers who pay to either rebuild or clean up the destruction.

Nags Head, NC

While it is likely not financially viable or even mechanically possible to require that every at-risk coastal structure in North Carolina be designed and built to withstand the immense force of a major hurricane or flood, there are both mandated standards and recommended best practices to minimize the public health and economic threats of buildings affected by natural disasters. This section discusses the regulations that govern the construction of buildings in coastal North Carolina, as well as the federal government’s recommendations for how those regulations can be augmented by designers seeking a more resilient coast.

“... there are both mandated standards and recommended best practices to minimize the public health and economic threats of buildings affected by natural disasters.�

Coastal Resilience | 41

State Regulations: The North Carolina State Building Code has hundreds of pages of prescriptions that designers must follow in order for North Carolina’s buildings to be certified as habitable and functional.

Structures or, significantly, “portions of structures” are classified by the kinds of uses they are intended to accommodate, and each use has specific provisions for structural issues such as allowable building materials, degree of fireproofing, and modes of ingress/egress.

“Of these [sections of the State Building Code], some are more applicable to designers than others. ... While specifications for load tolerances, material usage, and other components of waterway structure design are no doubt fundamental parts of a resilient coast, these concerns may be better addressed by coastal, transportation, and construction engineers than by designers.”

Enormous in scope, the code is parsed into eight sections—the general building code, residential code, administrative code, mechanical code, fuel gas code, plumbing code, energy code, and fire code. While in aggregate, the state building code is a critical regulatory instrument to ensure structural safety and integrity of buildings, only a small fraction of the code explicitly applies to coastal construction.

Of these codes, some are more applicable to designers than others. For example, Chapter 36 of the general code governs the construction of piers, bulkheads, and waterway structures. While specifications for load tolerances, material usage, and other components of waterway structure design are no doubt fundamental parts of a resilient coast, these concerns may be better addressed by coastal, transportation, and construction engineers than by designers.

Perhaps more relevant for the fields of architecture and landscape architecture is Appendix G of the general building code, which pertains to flood resistant construction. Any type of construction in

42 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

an area that the state has mapped as a “flood hazard area,” which at minimum includes the special flood hazard areas as identified by FEMA’s flood insurance rate maps, is governed by this section of the code. As an appendix, this part of the state building code is less detailed than full chapters like the one discussed below. Nonetheless, it empowers the building inspector to issue or deny construction and occupancy permits on a variety of grounds. She or he must certify that all development activities—including site work and construction—will not increase the degree of flooding that the site would experience during a 100-year flood event (known as the base flood).

Interestingly, the appendix grants a variance to historic structures21 in need of repair or rehabilitation. Also of note are the specific provisions for subdivisions, manufactured homes, and recreational vehicles.

Appendix G applies to all development activities in vulnerable coastal and riverine areas, but requires little in the way of specific structural regulations. The opposite is true of Chapter 46 of the Residential Code, which pertains to coastal and floodplain construction standards.

While it provides a baseline for virtually every aspect of residential construction in specific areas of the state, it only applies to one- and two- family dwellings.

But while only a narrow band of construction is required to meet the standards of this section of the code, pro-resiliency designers of any type of project 21 T o qualify for the variance, the structure needs to be listed or preliminarily determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, determined by the Secretary of the US Department of Interior as contributing to the historical significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined to qualify as an historic district, or designated as historic under an approved state of local preservation program.

Fig. 14 Structural Integrity TESTED: Damage in RODANTHE, NC

Coastal ResilieNCE | 43

in coastal North Carolina should consider applying (and augmenting) the highly detailed provisions therein.

For example, this chapter provides specific prescriptions for the depth, size, spacing, and bracing methods required for building piles Figure 15. It defines the ways that rafters and trusses need to be anchored to their bearing and how roofs need to be anchored, including the type of mortar used to affix it to the wall. While this type of architectural minutiae may seem dry and excessively granular, it is essential to note the demonstrated value of attention to details like these in the event of a natural disaster.

For example, after Hurricane Andrew decimated south Florida in 1992, the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety conducted studies to determine the degree to which the damage was due to storm intensity or to development quality. The study ultimately concluded that “‘conservative estimates from claim studies reveal that approximately 25% of Andrew-caused insurance losses (about $4 billion) were attributable to construction that failed to meet the code due to poor enforcement, as well as shoddy workmanship.”

And to further underscore the value of adequate, well-en-

forced building standards for vulnerable structures, the same study evaluated building performance after south Florida localities adopted (and enforced) more stringent building codes. Again, their conclusions point to a significantly more resilient built environment. Not only were homes built to the post-Andrew standards less frequently and severely damaged than those that observed the weaker code, but “based on the analysis of additional living expense records, it [was] concluded that the new building code requirements allowed homeowners to return to their homes more quickly, and likely reduced the disruption of their day to day lives (emphasis added).” This last phrase is the definition of resiliency, and helps highlight the unique and critical role that design plays in making life on the coast less unstable, more sustainable, and ultimately more fulfilling for its inhabitants.

Federal Incentives for Local Initiative: The previous chapter discussed the land use components of voluntary federal incentive programs for mitigation projects. Those programs also fund projects that are related to structural issues. For example, all three of the mitigation funding programs support structural activities such

Fig. 15 Pile Functionality Piles, large poles driven deep into the ground, provide a stable foundation for structures built on otherwise unstable surfaces like sand along the Outer Banks of North Carolina. For more information on Pile design, visit this FEMA document: http:// www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1538-20490-9880/fema499_3_2.pdf

44 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

as elevation and dry floodproofing of historic residential structures. However, virtually all of the federal government’s largest voluntary hazard-related incentive program is intended to promote resiliency through superior construction. Since standard homeowners insurance policies do not cover flooding, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) enables renters and property owners (including business owners) to protect themselves against the financial losses that accompany hazards like hurricanes, storm surge, and heavy rains. Again, the NFIP is generally not a regulatory program22, but an incentive program: communities (not individual residents and business owners) elect to join the program. In exchange for passing and enforcing an approved floodplain management ordinance, participating communities are eligible for flood insurance at set, negotiated rates from private insurance companies across the country.

In many ways, though, observing the NFIP’s design guide-

22 T here are certain situations in which flood insurance is federally required. For example, homes in Special Flood Hazard Areas or high-risk areas that have federally backed mortgages must have flood insurance. Additionally, lenders are permitted to require flood insurance in moderate-to-low risk areas, even though the federal government does not.

lines is effectively a requirement. Given the potentially enormous expense of recovering from and, to a lesser extent, mitigating the effects of natural disasters, virtually every community relies on some form of federal disaster management support, which means that adherence to the federal eligibility requirements, though not legally mandated, is all but mandatory.

The NFIP is gigantic—between 1978 and 2013, the program paid more than $48.1 billion in flood insurance claims and related costs—and FEMA’s Flood Insurance Manual is well over 600 pages. In addition to providing financial windfall for communities stricken by disaster, many of the components of the floodplain management ordinance are very much the realm of the designer, and while this document does not delve all the way into the fine detail of the program, it is imperative that land use and design in NFIP-communities at the very least conform to the program’s requirements.

The foundations of these requirements are flood insurance rate maps (FIRMs), as seen in Figure 16. Using a variety of both contemporary and controversially antiquated methodologies, FEMA periodically publishes and updates maps of the different levels of flood risk in a community.

Fig. 16 Digital Flood Insurance Rate MapS (DFIRM): Dare County, NC FEMA flood insurance rate maps, like the examples above from Dare County, provide the basis for the National Flood Insurance Program. Insurance rates for properties located in the Special Flood Hazard Area vary depending on their vulnerability to floods, indicated in official maps like this one. DFIRMS can be accessed using street address here: https://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/FemaWelcomeView?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1

COASTAL RESILIENCE | 45

More detailed than a typical floodplain map, which might simply show a community’s 100- and 500-year floodplain, FIRMs parse communities out into a variety of zones based on more granular designations of flood likelihood and severity.

“... FIRMs can be highly controversial.

In many cases, these maps—which can have enormous financial implications for policy holders—were made decades ago, with relatively inaccurate cartographic devices and techniques.”

ing on where a building falls in a community’s FIRM, this calculation, as well as the other structural provisions of the NFIP, can get extremely complicated, so rather than detail all of the intricacies of the program’s requirements, you should consult the FEMA guidance for further details.25

For example, the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) is the land area on a FIRM that would be covered by the base flood (see Figure 17, opposite page, for a transect graphic of this) but within that area alone, there are 16 different zone designations,23 each with certain regulatory design and land use provisions.

Typically, these fall into broader categories of flood insurance zones. Zone A or Zone AE are those areas in the SFHA at the least amount of risk from waves.

Zone V, however pertains to the coastal high hazard area—the portion of the SFHA that extends from offshore to the inland limit of a primary frontal dune. In the event of a catastrophic storm, buildings in Zone V could be damaged by the force created by storm waves.

An additional basic provision of the NFIP is that local floodplain management ordinances require all development within the Special Floodplain Hazard Area be subject to a permitting system. Importantly, since the express intent of this provision is to prevent new obstruction to flood flows, FEMA interprets “development” broadly; rather than simply applying to new construction, the statute describes development as “man-made changes to improved or unimproved real estate.” Communities participating in the NFIP do have some discretion to grant exemptions, but overall, the permitting component of the floodplain management ordinance is considered robust.

The structural provisions of the NFIP account for the differences in risk between the zones. In other words, the regulations for structures in Zone V are more stringent than they are for structures in Zone A or AE. These provisions govern a variety of building characteristics, including floodproofing standards, crawlspace construction, and anchoring techniques.

However, likely the most important requirement pertains to building elevation. According to the NFIP, the lowest floor (including basements) of buildings in the SFHA must be elevated to one foot above24 the height that they would be flooded by the base flood. Depend-

For a variety of reasons, FIRMs can be highly controversial. In many cases, these maps—which can have enormous financial implications for policy holders—were made decades ago, with relatively inaccurate cartographic devices and techniques. In North Carolina, for example, a commitment to using high-definition remote sensing technology, called LIDAR (light detection and ranging), has produced more accurate floodplain maps that, if approved, would substantially shrink the regulatory floodplain in the Outer Banks. See Figure 18, opposite page, for an example of a DFIRM.

23 T hey are Zones A, AO, AH, A1-30, AE, A99, AR, AR/A1-30, AE, A99, AR, AR/A1-30, AR/AE, AR/ A0, AR/AH, AR/A, VO, V1-30, VE, and V. 24 The additional foot is called “freeboard”

25 T he FEMA Coastal Construction Manual, discussed in the next section, as well as FEMA’s Flood Insurance Manual provide useful information on the NFIP’s design requirements.

46 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

Fig. 17 Transect: FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area The Special Flood Hazard Area, often referred to as the 100-year floodplain, is subdivided into zones that are at varying degrees of risk to impacts from severe flooding, as shown in the FEMA transect graphic, above.

Fig. 18 Floodplain Mapping: Controversy and Precaution In 2014, the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping program released new maps of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) that substantially reduced the number of properties vulnerable to the 100-year flood. Above is the SFHA map for Myrtle Grove Sound / Carolina Beach area. To some, this indicates the futility of federal flood insurance mapping, while to others it indicates the importance of exceeding federally mandated standards.

Coastal ResilieNCE | 47

Table 5-2. Summary of NFIP Regulatory Requirements and Recommendations for Exceeding the Requirements C OA S TA L C O N S T RU C T I O N M A N UA L

Zone V Recommendations and Requirements (a)

Coastal A Zone Cross Reference (b)

Recommendations and Requirements

Zone A Cross Reference

Recommendations and Requirements

Cross Reference

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Siting

NFIP: 60.3(e)(3), 60.3(e)(7)

Requirement: New construction is landward of the reach of mean high tide. Manmade alterations of sand dunes and mangrove stands that increase potential flood damage are prohibited.

FEMA P-55: 2.3.2, Ch. 4, 7.5.1

Recommendation: Redundant and continuous load paths should be employed to transfer all loads to the ground.

Designs should explicitly account for all design loads and conditions.

NFIP: 60.3(a)(3) (i), 60.3(e)(4)

IRC: R322.3.1 IBC: App. G401.2, App. G103.7 ASCE 24: 4.3

FEMA P-499: 2.1, 2.2

IRC: R301.1, R301.2.4, R322.1, R322.3.3

Recommendation: Follow Zone V recommendations and requirements.

Requirement: Buildings governed

by IRC – meet Zone A requirements (unless authority having jurisdiction has adopted ASCE 24 for buildings governed by IRC).

Buildings governed by IBC – follow Zone V requirements.

Recommendation: Follow Zone V recommendations and requirements.

IBC: 1804.4 ASCE 24: 4.3 FEMA P-55: 2.3.2, Ch. 4 FEMA P-499: 2.1, 2.2

NFIP: 60.3(a)(3)(i) IRC: R301.1, R301.2.4, R322.1.2, R322.2

5-26 5-21

Requirement: Building IBC: 1603.1.7, and foundation IBC: 1603.1.7, 1604, 1605.2.2, must be designed, 1604, 1605.2.2, 1605.3.1.2, 1612 constructed, and 1605.3.1.2, 1612 ASCE 7: Ch. 5 Requirement: Building adequately anchored ASCE 7: Ch. 5 and foundation must be to prevent flotation, ASCE 24: 1.5, ASCE 24: 1.5, designed, constructed, collapse, and lateral Ch. 4 Ch. 4 and adequately anchored movement resulting FEMA P-55: to prevent flotation, from hydrodynamic FEMA P-55: 2.3.4, 5.4.2, Table 5-2. Summary of NFIPand Regulatory and 5.4.2, Recommendations for Exceeding the Requirements collapse, lateral Requirements and hydrostatic loads, 2.3.3, 2.3.3, 2.3.4, movement due to including the effects of Ch. 8, 9.1, 9.2 Ch. 8, 9.1, 9.2 simultaneous wind and buoyancy.

FEMA P-499: 3.1, FEMA P-499: 3.1, flood loads, including the 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, effects of buoyancy.

Zone V Coastal A Zone 4.2, 4.2, 4.3 4.3 Other: FEMA Other: FEMA Recommendations and Recommendations P-550 P-550 Requirements (a) and Requirements Cross Reference Cross Reference (b)

Walls of Enclosures (g) (continued)

Requirement: Walls must FEMA P-499: 8.1 be designed to collapse Other: FEMA (break away) under TB-9 flood loads to allow free passage of floodwaters without damaging the structure or supporting foundation system. Utilities and equipment must not be mounted on or pass through breakaway walls.

Recommendation: Site building outside of SFHA or on highest and most stable part of lot.

Requirement: For floodways, fill is permitted only if it has been demonstrated that the fill will not result in any increase in flood levels during the base flood.

Recommendation: Follow ASCE 24 requirements.

Requirement: Building and foundation must be designed, constructed, and adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, and lateral movement resulting from hydrodynamic (continued) and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy.

NFIP: 60.3(d)(3) IRC: R301.2.4, R322.1, R322.1.4.2 IBC: 1612.3.4, 1804.4, App. G 103.5,App. G 401.1 ASCE 24: 2.2 FEMA P-55: 2.3.2, Ch. 4

NFIP: 60.3(a)(3)(i) IRC: R301.1, R301.2.4, R322.1.2, R322.2 IBC: 1603.1.7, 1604, 1605.2.2, 1605.3.1.2, 1612 ASCE 7: Ch. 5 ASCE 24: 1.5, 2.2 FEMA P-55: 2.3.3, 2.3.4, 5.4.1, Ch. 8, 9.1, 9.2 Other: FEMA P-550

Zone A Recommendations and Requirements

Cross Reference

FEMA P-499: 3.1, 3.5, 8.1

FEMA P-499: 3.1, 3.5

Other: FEMA TB-1 and TB-9

Other: FEMA TB-1

UTILITIES Electrical, Heating, Ventilation, Plumbing and Air Conditioning The Equipment

Recommendation: Locate equipment on the landward side of building, and/or behind structural element.

NFIP: 60.3(a)(3) (iv)

Recommendation: Follow the Zone V recommendation and requirements.

NFIP: 60.3(a)(3) (iv)

NFIP: 60.3(a)(3) Recommendation: (iv) Locate equipment on the landward or IRC: R322.1.6, IRC: R322.1.6, IRC: R322.1.6, downstream side RM1301.1.1, RM1301.1.1, RM1301.1.1, of building, and/ Requirement: Utilities RM1401.5, RM1401.5, RM1401.5, or behind structural NFIP mandates criteria for structural design, FEMAmust recommends that, whenever possible, pro-resilience designers RM1601.4.9, and but equipment RM1601.4.9, Requirement: Utilities RM1601.4.9, element.

RM1701.2, be located (elevated) RM1701.2, and equipment must be exceed those standards. In fact, they offer guidance on specific ways that communities can “over-design” RM1701.2, in the floodplain, RM2001.4, and designed to RM2001.4, located (elevated) and Requirement: Utilities RM2001.4, RM2201.6, waters RM2201.6, designed to preventshown flood above RM2201.6, Heating, and criteria equipment mustas Electrical, including the criteria as well as prevent severalflood other important building design such RG2404.7, from entering and RG2404.7, waters from entering RG2404.7, be located (elevated) Ventilation, Plumbing and Air Conditioning Equipment, Flood Damage-Resistant Materials, Obstructions, Floor Elevations RP2601.3, accumulating in RP2601.3, and accumulating in RP2601.3, and designed to RP2602.2, components during RP2602.2, components during RP2602.2, prevent flood waters (basedflooding. on storm surge and RP2705.1, flooding predictions), Foundation Construction, Structural Fill, Enclosed Area, Sustainable RP2705.1, flooding.

RP2705.1, from entering and RP2101.5and Sewerage RP2101.5 accumulating in Design, Decks and Swimming RP2101.5 Pools, Non-Structural Fill, and Water Supply Systems. components during IBC: 1403.5, IBC: 1403.5, IBC: 1403.5, flooding.

1612.4 1403.6, 1612.4 1612.4

Fig. 19 Above and Beyond: Exceeding the National Flood Insurance Program C OA S TA L C O N S T RU C T I O N M A N UA L

ASCE 24: Ch. 7

ASCE 24: Ch. 7

ASCE 24: Ch. 7

FEMA P-55: Ch. 12

FEMA P-55: Ch. 12

FEMA P-55: Ch. 12

FEMA P-499: 8.3

FEMA P-499: 8.3

FEMA P-499: 8.3

Other: FEMA P-348, FEMA TB-5

Other: FEMA P-348, FEMA TB-5

Other: FEMA P-348

48 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

5 INVESTIGATING INVESTIGATING REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 5 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

Design and Construction

Recommendation: Define and evaluate vulnerability to all coastal hazards, including short- and longterm erosion, and site building as far landward as possible.

A 2013 revision of the Dare County FIRMs produced a significant net decrease in the amount of structures located in the SFHA—approximately 18,400 properties would come out of the 100-year floodplain. “Two-thirds of our structures are being removed from the 100 year flood plain,” said Willo Kelly, the Government Affairs Director for the Outer Banks Association of Realtors.“ Conversely, others are critical of the NFIP’s mapping methodology because they view it as not conservative enough.

FEMA acknowledges that the flood insurance rate maps do not acknowledge radical shifts in environmental conditions associated with climate change, and many researchers and planners express concern that this limitation will provide coastal developers and citizens with a false sense of security over longer time horizons. While improvements in topographic surveying technology may result in a clearer, narrower understanding of the current floodplain, the uncertainty surrounding coastal dynamics like sea level rise and more severe coastal storm events in the future are interpreted by many as reasons for more conservative, precautionary federal incentive programs. See Figure 19, opposite page, for more information about the NIFP.

Federal Recommendations As the earlier Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety’s study shows, evaluating structural performance before and after disaster events and their interventions can identify vulnerabilities and opportunities in resilient design. But while that study focused on building performance in one area of the country, FEMA has conducted similar studies and recorded similar observations before and after disasters from across the country. The breadth and

scope of FEMA’s documentation increases the sheer sample size of building evaluation data, and also helps account for nationwide variation in factors such storm type, intensity, and local legal context within affected communities. The guidance that stem from this aggregated research, though entirely non-regulatory, are perhaps the most thorough and useful recommendations for designing resilient buildings in the US. These recommendations are summarized in FEMA’s two-volume Coastal Construction Manual, a 650-page tome of design solutions ranging from the general to the incredibly detailed.

Like the Residential Building Code discussed above, the manual focuses on new residential construction, but again, the recommendations contained therein can be instructive to pro-resiliency design of all types. Of the two volumes, Volume II is the more detailed, providing a host of specific calculations for design considerations like still water flood depth, breaking wave load, and buoyant hydrostatic force. While far too detailed to capture here, this well-annotated, relatively approachable document is an outstanding resource for coastal designers and builders.

Conversely, the more general Volume I provides a masterful overview of the building and design practices that have worked and failed in natural disasters across the country. Many of the recommendations in Volume I pertain to siting issues that were already addressed in the Sitework chapter, but others pertain to specific building design practices.

These include: FEMA’s study of breakaway walls, which collapse under flood loads and leave a building’s foundation intact, found that taller breakaway walls produce larger, more hazardous pieces of debris than

“... FEMA has conducted similar studies and recorded similar observations before and after disasters from across the country. The breadth and scope of FEMA’s documentation increases the sheer sample size of building evaluation data, and also helps account for nationwide variation in factors such as storm type, intensity, and local legal context within affected communities.”

Coastal ResilieNCE | 49

do shorter ones. Furthermore, breakaways made of louvered panels or open lattices were found to perform better than those comprised of solid panels, both remaining intact longer and lowering flood insurance premiums.

Low-slope roofs often experience higher wind loads than do other types of roof design. As well, many low-slope roofs do not properly drain the heavy rainfall that often accompanies coastal storms.

Nail guns are often to blame for the insufficient structural connections that make buildings less able to withstand high winds. Though quick, these common construction implements can overdrive nails, drive them in at angles, or miss the intended wood member entirely. These construction issues are addressed in Figure 20, opposite page.

“FEMA, like this handbook, openly embraces both the notion of over-design and the unique role of the designer in manifesting it.”

Additionally, Volume I provides a thorough, generally readable table summarizing the requirements contained within the National Flood Insurance Program and recommending ways that designers and planners can exceed those requirements. Structural recommendations include redundant and continuous load paths, using open foundations rather than solid foundation walls with flood openings, and following the requirements of a more stringent flood zone (e.g, structures in the Coastal A Zone should follow the V Zone requirements governing enclosed areas below the elevated lowest floor). While too numerous to outline here, the table and recommendations are both valuable in the design and construction phase of vulnerable coastal structures, and revelatory of the importance that the federal govern-

50 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

ment places on resilient design.

This kind of guidance might seem like a logical, even incremental step by a federal agency, but it can also be seen as a bold, aggressive move. Imagine the general outcry that might follow, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency suggesting to coal companies how to improve their air pollution performance beyond the regulatory minimum. How popular do you think Security and Exchange Commission guidance on exceeding minimum reporting standards would be on Wall Street?

While it is unlikely to imagine these scenarios unfolding in our often intractably partisan sphere, the realm of designing for natural disasters is different. As Volume I states, “…design loads and conditions are based on some probability of exceedance [sic], and it is always possible that design loads and conditions can be exceeded. Designers can anticipate this and modify their initial design to better accommodate higher forces and more extreme conditions. The benefits of doing so often exceed the costs of building higher and stronger.”

FEMA, like this handbook, openly embraces both the notion of over-design and the unique role of the designer in manifesting it. The previous three chapters focused on design’s role in meeting and exceeding the regulations and recommendations involved in the physical form of natural hazard resiliency. The final chapter will deal with the social dimensions of designing for a more resilient coastal North Carolina.

Fig. 20 Structural Solutions Below are images of structural problems that buildings in coastal areas face and proposed ways to address them in construction.

Top: Breakaway walls are designed to purposefully collapse under flood loads and leave the building’s foundation intact.

Middle: Low-slope roofs are subject to extreme wind loads and uplift, especially along the coast.

Bottom: Improper nailing technique, specifically from nail guns, can compromise structural integrity.

flood loads compromise foundation

low-slope / flat (major uplift)

steeper slope (balanced pressure)

low-slope roof subject to uplift damage

improper nailing (often due to nail gun usage)

Hand-nailed

Nail Gun

Coastal ResilieNCE | 51

Social “… Design can make powerful and unique contributions to coastal resiliency

by anticipating how human users will react to the warnings and aftermath of

a major disaster and providing what is needed for human communities to build back better than they were before the storm.”

House in Nags Head, NC

52 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

l

The Human Element

Social Dimensions What about people? How can designers simultaneously achieve resilience and equity?

Thus far, this document has dealt with the physical aspects of coastal design: shaping sites, developing them for certain types of uses, and creating buildings that can facilitate those uses. But while all of these design issues implicitly address the needs of the human populations along the state’s coast, it is critical to explicitly consider the ways that hazard events impact the way people live their lives in coastal North Carolina, both before and after disasters. While the perspectives and substantive contributions of fields such as climate science and coastal engineering are fundamental to achieving resilient coastlines around the world, design is unique because of its eminent focus on the human scale—those elements of a site, space, or building that speak to or serve some basic human or community need, rather than a larger ecological process or engineered system. Design can make powerful and unique contributions to coastal resiliency by anticipating how human users will react to the warnings and aftermath of a major disaster, and providing what is needed for human communities to build back better than they were before the storm.

“... design is unique because of its eminent focus on the human scale— those elements of a site, space, or building that speak to or serve some basic human or community need, rather than a larger ecological process or engineered system.”

This chapter both describes some of the cultural dynamics at play in North Carolina’s coastal communities, and addresses some of the policies and programs in place that deal with the myriad social dimensions of natural disasters. While previous chapters dealt primarily with design interventions and responsibilities to mitigate the impacts of hazards before an event,

Coastal Resilience | 53

social dimensions.26 Nonetheless, there are some critical topics whose relevant policies and considerations will be introduced here.

the issues covered in this chapter occur later in the disaster timeline: during the response and recovery phases. In addition to considering some critical infrastructural issues that pertain to the social dimensions of coastal hazards, this chapter will introduce some key and emerging topics in disaster and resilience psychology. While this field is not a focus of this document, additional resources on these issues can be found in Appendix B.

Coastal Demographics + perspectives Just as the particular blend of time and ecological process has shaped a striking geography wholly unique to the area, so too have the dynamics of the state’s coast helped create a distinctive human culture throughout Eastern North Carolina. While this space is insufficient to provide an ethnog-

In addition to its dexterity at the human scale, design also contributes a universal celebration of creativity, ingenuity, and fluid thinking that can at times be as unique and individual as the designer behind it. While this is no doubt a tremendous asset to discussions of coastal resilience, it also makes it effectively impossible to provide the policy guidelines relevant to every aspect of coastal resilience’s

26 Entries to recent design competitions that focus on coastal resilience point to the rapidly evolving vision that designers are carving out. The winning entry for Operation Resilient Long Island’s 3C: Comprehensive Coastal Communities ideas completion in 2013, for example, featured innovative adaptations and reinterpretations of existing zoning ordinances related to commercial and residential construction.

US 58

y1

Hw

MANTEO

n gto shin idge a W r mB Bau

4

wy 6

US H

Virginia Dare Memorial Bridge

BODIE ISLAND

Bo

nn reg er Br id on Inl ge et)

(O

PEA ISLAND

Fig. 21 OBX: Isolation and Vulnerability US-64 and US-158 provide the only automobile access to North Carolina’s Outer Banks. Should a disaster jeopardize either or both of these bridges, the human communities in this part of the coast would be effectively stranded.

54 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

raphy of even one coastal community, several elements of coastal life and culture stand out as being particularly relevant to pro-resilient designers.

One of these is the massive seasonal flucutations in coastal population. Though North Carolina’s coastal communities generally feature small year-round populations, their numbers can swell during the tourist months and explode during weekends like Memorial Day and Fourth of July. For example, in 2010, Hatteras Island boasted a year-round population of 4,322--in peak tourism season, it can have up to 50,000 daily visitors, many of them choosing to lodge on the island.

Population fluctuation of this scale requires the planning and design of adaptable infrastructure that is appropriate for both low- and high-season, a difficult task complicated by coastal residents’ self-proclaimed reluctance to evacuate their homes during storms. In addition to the powerful connection to heritage, geography, and place shared

by coastal residents all over the world, many of those who live in the most vulnerable places in North Carolina voice a frustration with and even wariness of disaster response protocol.

For example, despite fearing of the impact of coastal storms like Hurricane Sandy, which bore down on her Kitty Hawk home in 2012, Lizzie Konstanzer doesn’t intend to leave when the next storm comes. “To evacuate, you get stuck in traffic. (You’re) not able to get back on the island, and you wonder what’s happened to all your things.

I’d rather just be here and ride it out.” Should pro-resilient designers seek to change this kind of behavior, or should they acknowledge it, focusing on design solutions that meet the unique cultural conditions that define life in coastal North Carolina?

Fig. 22 Coastal Hurricane Evacuation Routes: DARE COUNTY CLEARANCE TIMES The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has specific standards for the design of designated hurricane evacuation roads. Depicted here, from the North Carolina Coastal Region Evacuation and Sheltering Field Operating Guide (CRES-FOG), are the evacuation time estimates for various emergency and response scenarios. This particular chart is for Dare and Currituck Counties. State emergency management officials use this guide in the event of a natural disaster to assess how long, in a worst-case scenario, an evacuation will take. Designers can use information like these evacuation plans to better address coastal emergency management.

COASTAL RESILIENCE | 55

Transportation Response Capacity In 2005, 2.5 million Hurricane Rita evacuees took to Texas’ Gulf-area highways to flee that storm’s impending devastation. In the process, motorists created several 100-mile long traffic jams, stranding people on the side of the road as the storm began to make landfall. In the words of Houston Mayor Bill White, “Being on the highway [was] a deathtrap.”27 While it may seem difficult to imagine a similar scenario playing out in eastern North Carolina, where population densities are (at least currently) well below those in the path of Hurricane Rita, consider that US-64 (near Nag’s Head) and US-158 (near Kitty hawk) are the only roads from the Outer Banks to mainland North Carolina, as seen in Figure 21. Bonner Bridge is the only vehicle connection to Hatteras Island.

In 2005, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) conducted a hurricane evacuation study to determine which major highways in eastern North Carolina may warrant improvements due to their inability to adequately serve traffic during an evacuation.28 That study resulted in legislation that prescribed clearance times—the total amount of time required to move all evacuees through the road network—for certain storm intensities and during different times of year for each coastal county. While it is not necessarily important for designers to know how these clearance times are calculated, it is important to know that any roadway modifications must not interfere with and should assist in meeting these target times. An example of these clearance times is shown for Dare County in Figure 22, opposite.

One such roadway modification project, and a keenly instructive case study both for the transportation issues involved in coastal North Carolina and the complexity of the social dimensions of coastal resilience, involves the Bonner Bridge, a 2.7-mile long bridge spanning the Oregon Inlet on the Outer Banks (pictured at Right and on cover). Originally built in 1963, the bridge was an enormous improvement over the slow, cumbersome ferry system that had, aside from plane, hitherto been the only way to and from Hatteras Island. But while many celebrated the Bonner Bridge as a problem-solver, it also created a number of issues for the region and state. Broadly, by making Hatteras Island considerably more accessible, the bridge facilitated 27 Blumenthal, 2005.

28 NC DOT, 2005.

extensive development on this environmentally sensitive, vulnerable part of the coast. More specifically, the constant erosion of the surrounding beach, that caused both its heavy traffic and the natural tendencies of the Outer Banks to migrate, have left Bonner Bridge, which today handles nearly 2 million cars per year, incredibly unstable. NCDOT ranks all state bridges on a scale of 1-100, 100 being the most structurally sound: the Bonner Bridge scores a 4.

Though it is still considered safe for travel, this is exclusively due to the constant and extremely costly maintenance that it receives.29 A variety of options exist to address this issue, from replacing the bridge with a different version to introducing high-speed, shallow-draft ferries that could conceivably reduce coastal residents’ dependence on bridges like the Bonner Bridge.30 Keep in mind that this design problem is simply one issue (evacuation capability) related to one aspect (transportation) of the social dimensions of a resilient coastal North Carolina. The Bonner Bridge alone is an arena for other transportation-related issues, such as the capacity of coastal infrastructure to accommodate large relief items like modular emergency housing, and there are innumerable other critical questions, both related to and separate from transportation, for designers to consider and anticipate. Examples might include anticipating shortages in freshwater and food, threats to public health posed by standing polluted floodwaters, and the challenges of communicating across even short distances in a poststorm environment.

Federal Support for State and Local Recovery In 2009, then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told the Wall Street Journal, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.31” Though he was referring to the financial crisis gripping the nation at the beginning of President Obama’s first term in office, it could just as well have been in reference to the opportunities that face disaster-stricken communities after the clouds lift. Though perhaps grisly and macabre, one way to view post-disaster landscapes is

29 James, 2011.

30 NC DOT has done extensive research and engagement related to the Bonner Bridge. See the lawsuit brought by Defenders of Wildlife and the National Wild Refuge Association, the Ferry Alternative Analysis (2013), and the Environmental Assessment for Pea Island Long-Term Improvements for more information.

31 Seib, 2008.

56 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

“The Bonner Bridge alone is an arena for other transportation-related issues, such as the capacity of coastal infrastructure to accommodate large relief items like modular emergency housing, and there are innumerable other critical questions, both related to and separate from transportation, for designers to consider and anticipate.�

COASTAL RESILIENCE | 57

as a rare opportunity to remake communities as better functioning, more equitable places—to “build back better.32 Free from the investments and physical limitations of the pre-existing built environment—elements such as unsuitable housing stock, antiquated infrastructure, and sprawling development patterns—many communities have also benefitted from a post-disaster sense of solidarity and shared purpose.33 Though often fleeting, the transcendent social cohesion that often follows disasters can be a powerful force for good in communities rife with disparity, in particular when it is paired with the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars of federal and state support that is available to communities following Presiden-

32 Fann, 2013.

33 Solnit (2010) is a powerful study of the ways that human communities in different eras from around the world have responded to devastating disasters.

tially declared disaster events (see the Land Use and Environmental Planning and Structural Integrity chapters).

Additionally, as was also mentioned in that chapter, natural hazard resiliency offers an arena in which to talk about environmental justice, “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.34” Environmental justice has historically been applied to issues of environmental health, a topic that communities in eastern North Carolina are likely familiar with. The first landmark environmental justice case

34 Environmental Protection Agency, 2014.

North Carolina

Fig. 23 Counties eligible for National Disaster Recovery Framework (NRDF) This map, from the US Department of Commerce, highlights the counties across the US, including many from the eastern/ coastal region of NC, that were eligible for federal NRDF support in the fiscal year of 2011.

58 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

in the US, which involved the siting of a highly toxic landfill for PCB waste in a predominantly African American community, took place in Afton, NC, a small community in Warren County about 100 miles west of Edenton. However, though Hurricane Katrina made extremely public the environmental injustices associated with natural hazards,35 the social dimensions of natural disasters are likely as old as disasters themselves. Kinston’s aforementioned experience with Hurricanes Fran and Floyd point to two major environmental injustices that frequently appear in disaster scenarios nationwide: disparities in land use patterns that disproportionately expose poor, often nonwhite members of a community to the impacts of disaster events, and disparities in access to the resources necessary to recover from those impacts.

The National Disaster Recovery Framework (NRDF), the federal government’s strategy for coordinating interagency efforts to support local and state recovery from catastrophic disasters, implicitly embraces both the potential for opportunity after the storm, and the environmental justice aspects of disaster recovery. By defining the parameters of what constitutes successful recovery, clarifying the federal government’s role in supporting recovery, and specifying the roles of leaders at the federal, state, and local levels, the Framework essentially functions as federal guidance on disaster recovery. To be clear, the NRDF is enitrely non-regulatory—the federal government cannot mandate that communities recover from disaster in specific ways.36 Indeed, the Framework acknowledges that in some communities, “recovery” may simply mean a return to the pre-disaster status quo.37 However, to the extent that it can while still respecting state and local juris-

35 For more on Hurricane Katrina and environmental justice, see Bullard (2009), Lee (2006), and Eggers (2010).

36 As we have seen, however, it can incentivize recovery activities that also mitigate future disasters through its many funding programs.

37 National Disaster Recovery Framework, 13.

diction, the NRDF seeks to ensure that pre-disaster social inequalities do not spill out into post-disaster recovery activities.

For example, the Framework establishes nine core principles that guide recovery, two of which explicitly deal with social equity. The first principle, Individual and Family Empowerment, immediately proclaims that, “All community members must have equal opportunity to participate in community recovery efforts in a meaningful way … [and that] care must be given to eradicate social and institutional barriers that hinder or preclude individuals with disabilities and others in the community historically subjected to unequal treatment…”38 Similarly, the Partnerships and Inclusiveness principle recognizes that outreach “is especially critical at the community level, where nongovernmental partners in the private and nonprofit sectors play a critical role in meeting local needs.” These two principles identify race, color, national origin (including limited English proficiency), religion, sex, disability, and age potentially isolating social makers that communities must transcend in the recovery process.

Not only can designers help communities literally “build it back better” through contributions to the physical aspects of the built environment, but the diverse practice of engagement-based design39 can be a powerful tool to facilitate the actual process of recovery. Not only can designers help a community—a whole community—express their goals and aspirations for their next chapter, but in so doing, they can also help a marginalized groups communicate what they didn’t like about their community before the disaster event.

This kind of inclusive, equitable process can potentially be extremely cathartic, laying the foundations for both a more physically and socially resilient post-disaster community.

38 Ibid, 9.

39 See Hester (1990) and Sanoff (1990) for more reading on participatory community design.

“All community members must have equal opportunity to participate in community recovery efforts in a meaningful way...[and that] care must be given to eradicate social and institutional barriers that hinder or preclude individuals with disabilities and others in the community historically subjected to unequal treatment.”

-Individual and Family Empowerment Principle, National Disaster Recovery Framework Coastal ResilieNCE | 59

Conclusio “Once equipped with a sound understanding of the federal, state, and local policies regarding coastal design, engineers, architects, and landscape architects can shape coastal sites, develop them for specific land uses, and create buildings that facilitate those uses in ways that better harmonize the relationship between the human communities and environmental conditions along the coast. �

Coastal Studies Institute

60 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

on

Coastal Resilience

Conclusion How can the skills, perspectives, and values of design help make North Carolina’s coast safer?

As coastal North Carolina progresses deeper into an uncertain, unstable climatic future, the relationship between its human communities and its ecology will become increasingly complicated. Reconciling these two forces is both extremely difficult and critical to coastal life as we know it, and requires the integrated work of thinkers from many disciplines. While the roles and contributions of many of those disciplines are clear, the capabilities of and opportunities for design to participate with planning, engineering, and other sciences have received comparatively little attention.

We believe that the designer’s skillset—inventive and expressive, collaborative and coordinative—can help coastal North Carolina achieve resilience in profound ways.

“Reconciling these two forces [human communities and ecology] is both extremely difficult and critical to coastal life as we know it, and requires the integrated work of thinkers from many disciplines.”

This document both identifies some of the opportunities for the design disciplines to apply their unique processes and perspectives to coastal hazard resilience, and establishes the parameters—both regulatory and recommended—that guide design’s role in intervening throughout North Carolina’s coast. Once equipped with a sound understanding of the federal, state, and local policies regarding coastal design, engineers, architects, and landscape architects can shape coastal sites, develop them for specific land uses, and create buildings that facilitate those uses in ways that better harmonize the relationship between the human communities and environmental conditions along the coast. While additional, more granular work on design policy at the site scale must accompany specific coastal projects, this introduction for designers provides the foundations for that more targeted effort, and exposes some of the unique and significant ways that design can participate in shaping the future of coastal North Carolina.

Coastal Resilience | 61

Glossary Adaptation: adjustment or preparation of natural or human systems to a new or changing environment which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities.

Base flood elevation: the peak water elevation expected to be reached during a flood that has a 1% chance of occurring any given year.

Bulkhead: a vertical wall structure designed to retain shoreline material and prevent erosion due to wave activlty.

Climate: typically understood as the “average weather,” in terms of the mean and variability over a period of time. Elements of climate often include temperature, precipitation, and wind.

Disaster: an occurrence of a natural catastrophe, technological accident, or human-caused event that has resulted in severe property damage, deaths, and/or multiple injuries.

Ecosystem: a stable collection of living and non-living components that cyclically exchange materials.

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): do not account for sea level rise due to global climate change.

Floodplain: land below base flood elevation.

Groin: shore protection structure built (usually perpendicular to the shoreline) to trap retard erosion of the shore.

Hazard: something that is potentially dangerous or harmful, often the root cause of an unwanted outcome. Natural hazards are those that are related to weather patterns and/or physical characteristics of an area, and thus often repeatedly occur in the same places.

Hydrodynamic forces: pressure placed when coastal floodwaters move at high velocities against structures.

Hydrostatic forces: pressure placed when standing or slowly moving water interacts with structures, especially when floodwater levels on different sides of a structure are not equal.

Jetty: a structure designed to protect and/or stabilize a navigation entrance.

Mitigation (climate change): human activity intended to reduce the impact of climate change/sea level rise; examples include reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Mitigation (hazard): human activity intended to reduce or ultimately eliminate the long-term risks posed by hazards. Stricter definitions include provisions that the activity is cost-effective and adds value to the public. Examples include utility elevation, structural retrofitting.

Natural disaster: Presidential declaration: under the Stafford Act, after a governor requests federal support, the President can declare a federal disaster, which deploys FEMA to provide emergency support to the state Recovery: all efforts geared towards rebuilding and revitalizing communities affected by disasters. Short-term examples include crisis counseling and restoration of critical facilities; long-term examples include more permanent, resilient rebuilding.

Resilience: the degree to which a community and its components can anticipate, prepare for, respond to, and especially recover from shock with minimum damage to its economy, environment, and general well-being.

Response: activities that address the direct, immediate effects of a disaster.

Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA): land area covered by the floodwaters of the base flood in NFIP maps. SFHA is broken down into four major zones: Zone V: portion of SFHA that extends from offshore to the inland limit of a primary frontal dune along an open coast, and any other area subject to high-velocity wave action from storms.

Zone A: portion of SFHA in which the principal source of flooding is runoff from rainfall, snowmelt, or coastal storms where the potential base flood wave height is between 0-3 feet.

Coastal A Zone: subset of Zone A, in which the potential base flood wave height is between 1.5-3 feet.

Zone X (shaded and unshaded): the flood hazard is less severe here than in the SFHA. Storm surge: extreme rise in sea level that accompanies powerful coastal storms such as hurricanes.

Special needs population: segments of a community whose members have additional needs before, after, and during a disaster incident.

Individuals with special needs include those with limited/no English proficiency, those without sufficient transportation, and the disabled.

Subsidence: the downward settling of the Earth’s crust relative to its surroundings.

Weather: atmospheric condition at any given time of place. Elements of climate often include temperature, precipitation, and wind.

62 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

Bibliography + Recommended Resources Association of State Floodplain Managers. The Nation’s Responses to Flood Disasters: a Historical Account. Madison: ASFPM. 2000.

Berke, P. G. Smith, and W. Lyles. “Planning for Resiliency: an Evaluation of State Hazard Mitigation Plans under the Disaster Mitigation Act.” Natural Hazards Review 13: 139-150. 2012.

Bluestein, Frayda. “Is North Carolina a Dillon’s Rule State?” Coates’ Canons: NC Local Government Law, 24 October 2012. http://canons.sog. unc.edu/?p=6894 Blumenthal, Ralph. “Miles of Traffic as Texans Heed Order to Leave.” New York Times (online): 23 September, 2005. http://www.nytimes. com/2005/09/23/national/nationalspecial/23storm.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Bullard, Robert D. and Beverly Wright eds. Race, Place, and Environmental Justice After Hurricane Katrina: Struggles to Reclaim, Rebuild, and Revitalize new Orleans and the Gulf Coast. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2009.

Coastal Sustainability Studio at Louisiana State University. “Kinston, NC—Property Acquisition Success Story.” Louisiana Resiliency Assistance Program, http://resiliency.lsu.edu/planning/kinston-north-carolina-property-acquisition-success-story/.

Committee on Increasing National Resilience to Hazards and Disasters; Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy; Policy and Global Affairs; the National Academies. “Disaster Resilience: a National Imperative.” Washington DC; National Academies Press. 2012.

Dare County Hazard Mitigation Plan. 21 June, 2010. http://www.darenc.com/emgymgmt/docs/HMGP.pdf Editorial Board, Asheville Citizen-Times. “Sound coastal management is based on science, not politics.” 27 February, 2008. http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20080228/OPINION01/80227083/Sound-coastal-management-based-science-not-politics Eggers, Dave. Zeitoun. New York; Vintage. 2010.

Environmental Protection Agency. “Environmental Justice.” http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/. 2014.

Fann, Lilianne. “Disaster as opportunity? Building back better in Aceh, Myanmar, and Haiti.” London; Overseas Development Institute. 2013.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. “Flood Insurance Manual.” http://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance-manual Federal Emergency Management Agency. “National Disaster Recovery Framework: Strengthening Disaster Recovery for the Nation.” September 2011.

Hester, Randolph. Community Design Primer. Mendocino, Calidornia; Ridge Times Press, 1990.

IPCC, 2012: Summary for Policymakers. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1-19.

James, Erin. “NCDOT: Suit won’t delay Bonner Bridge replacement.” The Virginian-Pilot (online): 7 July, 2011. http://hamptonroads.com/2011/07/ ncdot-suit-wont-delay-bonner-bridge-replacement.

Lee, Spike. When the Levees Broke. 40 Acres and A Mule Productions. 2006.

Martuzzi, Marco and Joel A. Tickner, eds. The precautionary principle: protecting public health, the environment, and the future of our children. World Health Organization, 2004.

McCann, Monica. “Case Study of Floodplain Acquisition/Relocation Project in Kinston, NC After Hurricane Fran (1996) and Hurricane Floyd (1999).” Unpublished Masters project, UNC-Chapel Hill.

Mennel, Eric. “Have We Been Overestimating Flood Risk on the Outer Banks?” WUNC, 11 April, 2014.

North Carolina Coastal Federation. Dredge-and-Fill Permits under Section 404. Online. http://www.nccoast.org/content.aspx?key=b9896eab-f90a-4318-ab2a-a14751ac4109 North Carolina Department of Transportation. “Ferry Alternative Assessment.” January 2013.

North Carolina Department of Transportation. “State Hurricane Evacuation Study.” September 2005.

Olshansky, Robert and Laurie Johnson. Clear as Mud: Planning for the Rebuilding of New Orleans. Washington, DC; APA Press. 2010.

Prince George’s County, City of Laurel (MD) Hazard Mitigation Plan. 2005. http://www.cityoflaurel.org/sites/default/files/u24/PrinceGeorgesHazMatPlan3-21.pdf.

Rubin, Claire B., ed. Emergency Management: the American Experience 1900-2010. 2nd Edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2000.

Sanoff, Henry. Participatory Design: Theory and Techniques. Raleigh, NC; NCSU Press, 1990.

Solnit, Rebecca. A Paradise Built in Hell: the Extraordinary Communities that Arise in Disaster. New York; Penguin Books. 2010.

Seib, Walter. “In Crisis, Opportunity for Obama.” Wall Street Journal (online): 21 November, 2008. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/ SB122721278056345271?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB122721278056345271.html

Coastal ResilieNCE | 63

Photograph / Image Credits cover

“Bonner Bridge, Oregon Inlet, between Bodie and Pea Islands, NC.” Photo by David A. Harvey / National Geographic 2007

p3

“Testing the UAV at the Coastal Studies Institute.” Photo by Andy Fox.

p4

“Walkway at the Coastal Studies Institute.” Photo by Andy Fox.

p6

“House at Kill Devil Hills.” Photo by Andy Fox

p8

“House at Hunting Island.” Photo by William Sendor

p10

“Students at the Coastal Studies Institute.” Photo by Andy Fox

p11

“View from the Coastal Studies Institute.” Photo by Andy Fox

p12

“Seeking valuables in the wreckage.” Photo by Keystone View company, 1900. Accessed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seeking_valuables_in_the_wreckage,_Galveston,_Texas. jpg

p14

(L-R) “Galveston Disaster, Texas: a slightly twisted house” by Griffith & Griffith. Oct 15,1900. Accessed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Twisted_house,_Galveston_hurricane,_1900.jpg

“Carrying out bodies just removed from the wreckage, Galveston” by C. L. Wasson. Accessed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carrying_bodies,_Galveston_hurricane,_1900.jpg

“The burning of San Francisco, April 18, [19]06, view from St. Francis Hotel” by Pillsbury Picture Co. Accessed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:San_francisco_fire_1906.jpg

“Earthquake shacks, 1906, San Francisco” by unknown photographer. Accessed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Row_of_shacks.jpg

“San Francisco Fire Sacramento Street 1906-04-18” by Arnold Genthe. Accessed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:San_Francisco_Fire_Sacramento_Street_1906-04-18.jpg

p15

(L-R) “Flooding in the Lower 9th Ward of New Orleans after Hurricane Betsy. A U.S. Naval Air Reserve Sikorsky SH-34 Seabat helicopter from Naval Air Station New Orleans is visible above.” Accessed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NOLA9thFloodedBetsy.jpg

“Former President Jimmy Carter in Oval Office” by AP/White House. Accessed: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/open-government/report/2011/06/09/9732/executive-reorganization/.

“Floodplain Management” by NFIP. Accessed: floodhelp.uno.edu.

p20

“How-to Guides” from the Detroit Collaborative Design Center’s website: http://www.dcdc-udm.org/community/impact/howto/

p22

“Cabin Road erosion on Hunting Island, SC” by William Sendor

p26

“Rich Inlet, Figure Eight Island, NC” complied from Google Earth satellite images

p28

“Terminal Groin at Ft. Macon, next to Beaufort Inlet” by Carolina Coast Online. Accessed: http://www.carolinacoastonline.com/news_times/news/article_8d57340c-ce9c-5787810a-4f3479379390.html?mode=image&photo=0

p29

(L-R, T-B) “Brownfield site grading.” Photo by Central Dredging Assoc. Accessed: http://www.dredging.org/documents/ceda/downloads/publications-2010-6-ceda_information-paper-dredgedmaterialasaresource.pdf

“Dredge material for salt marsh.” Photo by Central Dredging Assoc. Accessed: http://www.dredging.org/documents/ceda/downloads/publications-2010-6-ceda_information-paper-dredgedmaterialasaresource.pdf

“Crab Bank Seabird Sanctuary.” Photo by South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. Accessed: https://www.dnr.sc.gov/mlands/managedland?p_id=215

“Beach nourishment Nags Head.” Photo by Joe Lamb, Jr. Accessed: http://www.joelambjr.com/nags-head-beach-nourishment.htm

“Ecosystem restoration La Quinta Channel.” Photo by Dredging Today. Accessed: http://www.dredgingtoday.com/2012/01/25/usa-la-quinta-channel-dredging-underway/

p30

“Houses on Kill Devil Hills, NC.” Photo by Andy Fox.

p36-37

“Cedar Rapids Riverfront” renderings/plan by Sasaki Associates, Inc. Accessed: http://www.sasaki.com/project/133/cedar-rapids-riverfront/

p39

(T-B) “North Carolina Hurricane Floyd & Irene (DR-1292)” by FEMA/Dave Gatley. 28 Sep 1999. Accessed: http://www.city-data.com/disaster-photos/115.html

“Lincoln City, Kinston 15 years later.” Photo by Michael Goralnik.

p40

“Condemned house on Nags Head.” Photo by Andy Fox.

p43

(L-R, T-B) “House falls into the ocean in Rodanthe, Hatteras Island, 2008.” Photo by Steve Earley, The Virginian-Pilot. Accessed: http://hamptonroads.com/2008/10/washedawayhome-shows-danger-living-edge-obx

“Houses cling to coast along NC Hwy 12, Rodanthe, Hurricane Irene, August 2011.” Photo by Chris Seward, News & Observer. Accessed: http://www.newsobserver. com/2014/01/24/3561231/officials-from-nc-coastal-counties.html

“Serendipity, Rodanthe, Hatteras Island.” Photo by Steve Earley, The Virginian-Pilot. Accessed: http://hamptonroads.com/2009/12/nights-rodanthe-house-sold-bail-bondsman

“House collapse Rodanthe, October 2008.” Photo by Michael Halminski. Accessed: http://photoblog.michaelhalminski.com/?m=200810

p51

(L-R, T-B) “Sally Brotton of Kitty Hawk and Branford, Conn. walks past her destroyed beach cottage in Kitty Hawk after Hurricane Isabel hit Outer Banks in 2003.” Photo by Drew Wilson of the Virginian-Pilot. Accessed: http://hamptonroads.com/2008/12/insurance-rates-nc-coast-jump-if-plan-approved

“Breakaway walls.” From Flood Mitigation Program document by South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. Accessed: http://www.dnr.sc.gov/flood/quickguide.html.

“Low-slope roof uplift.” By National Geographic. Accessed: http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/397/cache/hurricane-irene-saturday-damaged-house_39704_600x450.jpg?01AD=3RavvCvPWAnzBVeAF7SiCgIsCaRx5uhYBfDlJIZsrXkhej8RnBgnoXA&01RI=50D54287B6684BE&01NA=

“Low slope roof diagram.” By Building Science Corporation. Accessed: http://www.buildingscience.com/documents/digests/bsd-014-air-flow-control-in-buildings

“Hurricane roof tips.” (Improper nailing photo.) Photo by Spann Roofing. & Sheet Metal, Inc. Accessed: http://www.spannroofing.com/myrtle-beach-hurricane-tips.html

“Proper nailing shingles” from interNACHI. Accessed: http://www.nachi.org/images10/Proper-nailing-shingles.jpg

p52

“Crab Pots.” Photo by Andy Fox.

p57

“Bonner Bridge with bicycle.” Photo by BuckyAndHisBike. Accessed: http://www.buckyandhisbike.net/norfolkhatteras/index.html.

p60

“Coastal Studies Institute waterway.” Photo by Andy Fox.

64 | The role of design in the future of North Carolina’s coast

Figures 1.

Timeline of Federal Disaster Management by William Sendor

2.

Federal Disaster Declaration Process by William Sendor

3.

“Local Mitigation Planning + a Sound Fact Base” Dare County Hazard Mitigation Plan GIS maps created by the US Army Corps of Engineers

4.

Linear vs. Exponential Sea Level Rise graph by Melissa Todd

5.

“DCDC Outreach Materials” by the Detroit Collaborative Design Center. Accessed: http://www.dcdc-udm.org/community/impact/howto/

6.

“Disaster Types” by Melissa Todd

7.

“Terminal Groin Functionality” by William Sendor

8.

“Terminal Groins in North Carolina – Beaufort and Oregon Inlets” graphics compiled by William Sendor using Google Earth and MapStack underlay maps.

9.

“Beneficial Uses of Encased Sands” various photos (see photo credits for p29)

10.

“Mitigation Savings: Pay Now, or Pay Later” by William Sendor

11.

“Coastal Property Evaluation Flow Chart” by Melissa Todd

12.

“Cedar Rapids Riverfront” images by Sasaki Associates, Inc. for the City of Cedar Rapids, IA

13.

“After the Flood, After the Buy-Out: Kinston, NC.” p38: example pages from FEMA Mitigation Case Study for Kinston, NC. Accessed: http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/ documents/3807. p39: two photos, Kinston after flood and 15 years later (see photo credits for p39)

14.

“(Lack of) Structural Integrity: Damage in NC” various photos (see photo credits).

15.

“Pile Functionality” by FEMA. Accessed: http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1538-20490-9880/fema499_3_2.pdf

16.

“Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM): Dare County, NC” by FEMA Map Service Center. Accessed: https://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/FemaWelcomeView?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1

17.

“Transect: FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area” by FEMA. Accessed: http://www.r3coastal.com/home/coastal-hazard-analysis-mapping/coastal-flood-hazard-mapping

18.

“Floodplain Mapping: Controversy and Precaution” map by Cape Fear Council of Governments. Accessed: http://www.focussenc.org/resources/maps/

19.

“Above and Beyond: Exceeding the National Flood Insurance Program” (examples) by FEMA. From Coastal Construction Manual: Principles and Practices of Planning, Siting, Designing, Constructing, and Maintaining Residential Buildings in Coastal Areas (Fourth Edition). Vol. I, Aug. 2011.

20.

“Structural Solutions” various photos and images (see photo/image credits)

21.

“OBX: Isolation and Vulnerability” by William Sendor. Satellite Image underlay from Google Earth.

22.

“Coastal Hurricane Evacuation Routes” from the North Carolina Coastal Region Evacuation and Sheltering Field Operating Guide for Dare County (and Currituck County), NC. Jan. 2011 Edition.

23.

“Counties eligible for National Disaster Recovery Framework (NRDF)” by the US Department of Commerce. Accessed: http://www.commerce.gov/blog/category/1630Parciuscid ent. Udi dolore et faceper estiore iusdae. Onserum aliatqu oditat acculpa rcitem ant et pa cone doluptatendi que maionseque labo. Uga. Aque volupta quibustiate repedipsum, susciamus dolecae eatur si rem digentinus antis nobit intor autem ex eum quidentia aligendus, culpa sinciam eossed quis veliquiati qui tem que parum excea ni samusdae consent.

Coastal ResilieNCE | 65

Coa Dyna Bonner Bridge

Oregon Inlet, between Bodie and Pea Islands, NC Photo by David A. Harvey / National Geographic 2007