NCEM/ECU HURRICANE WORKSHOP, May 28, 2014Anuradha MUKHERJI, PhD.Assistant Professor of Urban and Regional PlanningDepartment of Geography, Planning, and EnvironmentEast Carolina University

BUILDING LOCAL RESILIENCEHazard Mitigation Plan Implementation in Coastal North Carolina

Corolla, Currituck County, 2012 (Source: Image by author)

• The Research• Research Background• Research Methods• Research Findings• Initial Recommendations

PRESENTATION OUTLINE Swan Quarter, Hyde County, 2012 (Source: Image by author)

THE RESEARCH

Research Focus: The 20 North Carolina CAMA (under Coastal Area Management Act) counties with a certified multi-jurisdictional county level hazard mitigation plan.(Source: Base maps from the United States Census Bureau (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/north_carolina_map.html) and from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/cm/103).

RESEARCH BACKGROUND

• Hazard mitigation plan implementation challenges in coastal North Carolina

• Looks at the 20 coastal counties under CAMA• All 20 CAMA counties have certified hazard

mitigation plans but implementation of policy recommendations or action remains uneven s

• Hazard mitigation broadly grouped into: Structural Mitigation & Non-Structural Mitigation

• Limited understanding of local hazard mitigation plan implementation

• Increasing responsibility on local governments but uncertainty about local commitment & capacity

• Implementation following policy adoption • Place-based studies

RESEARCH METHOD

Emergency Managemen

t

Planning Other (e.g., County Manager,

Zoning)

TOTAL

MALE 5 4 2 11FEMAL

E1 6 1 8

TOTAL 6 10 3

• Place-based qualitative research • Content analysis of hazard mitigation plans• In-depth semi-structured interviews• First (i.e. descriptive) & second (i.e., pattern) cycle

coding

RESEARCH FINDINGS

THE WHAT, HOW, AND WHY OF HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

WHAT: Hazard mitigation measures pursued and associated challenges

WHY: Issues impacting decision to pursue hazard mitigation measures

HOW: Resource challenges for implementing hazard mitigation measures

WHAT: Hazard mitigation measures pursued & challenges

ELEV

ATIN

G HO

MES • Elevating homes

• FEMA freeboard standards

• Convincing community

• Price tag, expensive

• Existing housing stock cannot afford to elevate

• House structurally not sound for elevation

• Properties difficult to qualify for grant

BUYO

UT • Buyout and create open spaces

• Cost high along coast

• Tough to meet cost-benefit of buyout

DEVE

LOPM

ENT

STAN

DARD

S • Push back from citizen and developers when enforcing development standards in flood zone

• Difficult to convince public on zoning

• Lack of staff & time to plan, develop & enforce ordinance

• Politically difficult to change ordinance effecting land use

OTHE

R • Explain & convince people to carry flood insurance

• Public education to explain regulations

• Storm water management

• Shifting critical infrastructure out of the floodplain

• Funding shortage for capital investment

RESEARCH FINDINGS: WHAT

RESEARCH FINDINGS: WHYPO

PULA

TION

& G

EOGR

APHY

• County, city located in the floodplain

• Importance of estuary and waterway to livelihood - tourism and fishing

• Flooding in low lying areas

• Large population on a barrier island

• Large areas with limited population

• Distribution of population: Isolated communities and long distances

• Swamp lands and wetlands – effect on septic systems

VULN

ERAB

ILIT

Y • Vulnerable to hurricanes, flash floods, storm surge

• Housing vulnerability - Older homes, not to standard, not maintained

• Housing stock built in the floodway

• Mobile home parks in floodplain

• Demographic vulnerability – retiree communities

• Lack of infrastructure and business

• Low-income minority population

• Lack of insurance

PUBL

IC S

UPPO

RT

• No support for hazard mitigation in rural areas

• Educating community

• Help people understand hazard in community

• Lack of political will• Issues of property

rights very strong• Not a priority

unless hazard event occurs

• Difficulty educating public

• Most people reactive, keying in to immediate needs only

• Some attention because of an older population

• Resistance to change

• Tied to economy

PLAN

ISSU

ES

• Un-useable plans• Contractor driven

cookie cutter plans• Plan not for

average person, only those who understand terminology

• Acronyms make plan hard to follow

• Lack of familiarity with plan causes lack of implementation

WHY: Issues impacting decision to pursue hazard mitigation

RESEARCH FINDINGS: HOWFU

NDIN

G • Limited monies• Lack of funding• Financial constraint• Fiscal challenge• Tight budget• Need external

funds• Pursuing HMGP

grants• Acquiring funding –

tedious and complex

• Administration of funding is complex

• Who pays - Funding improvements of existing developments

STAF

F • Wearing multiple hats

• Stretched thin• Limited staff• Competing

priorities• Staff constraints &

capacities• Staff turnover• Lack of technical

expertise

OTHE

R • Fragmented implementation by multiple departments

• Limited people to help move projects forward

• Challenge coordinating among jurisdictions

COPI

NG S

TRAT

EGIE

S /

ADAP

TAIO

N• Staff Constraints: Implementation and compliance through consultant

• Funding Limits: Rely on state and federal governments for grants

• Public Support: Pro-active public education by going to churches

• Timing hazard mitigation initiatives

• Competition for funds and price tag for projects very high

• Cannot put up a cash match, small rural community with small tax base

• Cannot be competitive with municipalities with established tax base

HOW: Resources for implementing hazard mitigation

INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Cannot assume implementation just because there is a hazard mitigation plan in place

2. Building Resilience: Help counties balance conflict between safety and expense

3. Address the fragmented nature of mitigation implementation (i.e., everyone has a piece – planning, building inspections, public works, utilities) – who is the lead

4. Targeted assistance for technical expertise and grant applications – particularly in rural counties with limited staff – creating a tiered system of grants based on population, a pool of funds to assist with match money