FLOOD05331

• County: Statewide
• Basin: Statewide
• Title: Hazard Mitigation in North Carolina
• Date: 1/1/1995
• Prepared For: State of North Carolina
• Prepared By: North Carolina Emergency Mmanagement Division
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Flood Mitigation/Flood Warning/Watershed Restoration

Pa)'ments from the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

One indicator of reduced vulnerability of bousing from the effects of flooding is the number and
amount of pa}ments under the NFIP follo\\ing major flood events, The Town of Belhaven, a rural
community of 2,000 in Beaufort County, has a chronic flooding problem, In three hurricanes - Bertha
and Fran (1996) and Bonnie (1998) - the total number of claims was 355, equaling $4,892,919, for
an average claim of $13,782,' A total of 62 properties received pa}ments from all three hurricanes.
Following Hurricane Fran, a strategy to elevate-in place was launched, \\ith a total target of 379 homes.
Prior to Floyd, 32 homes had been elevated, all of which were repetitive loss properties, The total
number of repetitive loss properties in Belhaven was reduced by 50 percent as a rl'Sult of the elevation-
in-place strategy.

-

Stmtegies to Promote Sustainable Housing

In North Carolina, at least four strategies have been used to promote safe and sustainable housing:'

1) to incorporate housing needs into comprebensive mitigation planning, the ongoing
process of identif}ing hazards and ,ulnerabilities, and the development of plans and
strategies to reduce the impacts of those hazards

2) to avoid bazardous areas by directing new housing development and relocating existing
vulnerable housing to safer locations

3) to protect and strengtben bui/dings through disaster.resistant design and construction,
adoption and enforcement of huilding codes, and in-place elevation of flood-prone
structures

4) to disseminate information to homeowners on natural hazards, the risk they pose, and
steps that can be taken to reduce the risk

Measuring Mitigation Success

One of the challenges of implementing the HMPI and other community. based miligation progrmns is to
articulate, in l)uantilative terms, the added value of implementing mitigatiun measures - expressed in losses
avoided In short, it is important to be able to demonstr.lte - quantitatively - the sa,ings that accrue to
businesses, homeowners, and communities that invest in pre.disasler loss
reduction mea,ures.

ONE OF THE CHALLENGES OF
IMPLEMENTING THE HMPt AND

In the follm'ing chapter, Measuring Success examines the losses avoided as a
result of the implementation of two v.idely used mitigation tools in :\'orth
Carolina: acquisition/relocalion, and in-place elevation of flood-prone houses,
The ability to quantify the short.term and 10ng.teOll sa,ings lO businesses,
homeowners, and local government from the adoption of mitigation programs
is clearly important. This infoOllation can be used at least three ways:

OTHER COMMUNITY-BASED

MITIGATION PROGRAMS IS TO

ARTICULATE. IN QUANTITATIVE

TERMS. THE ADDED VALUE OF
1M PLEM ENTI NG MITIGATION

. To establish performance goals and objl'Ctives for a local hazard
mitigation plan that is carefully integrated with the community's
comprehensive plan. For example, one goal might be to reduce
the number of houses that are located in hazard-prone areas by
five percent per year.

MEASURES - EXPRESSED IN

LOSSES A VOIDED.

12