The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDocumentation_Special Meeting_Tab 01_01/26/2015 EMAIL CLERK Print Form VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE AGENDA ITEM ROUTING SHEET 3. Meeting Date: Meeting Type: Special Ordinance #: January 26, 2015 Consent Agenda: No Resolution #: 7_15 Originating Department: Building �� . • . • -. • -.. Resolution to formally adopt the (revised/updated) 2015 Palm Beach County Local Mitigation Strategy Plan as required by FEMA. . Account #: N/A Amount of this item: N/A Budgeted amount available: N/A Amount remaining after item: N/A Budget transfer required� N/A Appropriate Fund Balance: N/A • • - .. . .- . . • ..- ., Village of Tequesta Council previously adopted 2009 Palm Beach County Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) by Resolution 19-10. FEMA requires formal plan update every five years. Florida Department of Emergency Management (DEM) approved the County's proposed LMS update October 24, 2014; the County adopted their LMS update December 16, 2014; with an effective date of January 29, 2015. In order for jurisdictions to be eligible for FEMA funding programs should a disaster occur, they must have an executed resolution/inter-local agreement formally adopting the LMS on file. Major change from the 2009 document to the 2015 document is a reduction of 200+ pages removing all facilities lists ,as well as a reduction from 7 sections to 4. This change did not affect the core content of the document. • Department Head � � Legal (for legal sufficiency) Finance Director or Representative Reviewed for Financial Sufficiency � No Financial Impact � Village Manager: � _—___� t: __ `v Submit for Council Discussion: � Approve Item: 0 Deny Item: � • • - . . - .. - - . -. .- - . .- .- . .. - . . -. . . . . - . - - - . - N/A Form Amended: 10/30/14 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE VII.LAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE 2015 REVISED PALM BEACH COUNTY LOCAL NIITIGATION STRATEGY PLAN; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. WHEREAS, Palm Beach County is susceptible to a variety of natural, technological, and human-caused disasters, including but not limited to, severe weather, hazardous materials incidents, nuclear power plant emergencies, communicable diseases, and domestic security incidents as well as climate change impacts and sea level rise that causes increased inundation, shoreline erosion, flooding from severe weather events, accelerated saltwater conta.mination of ground water and surface water supplies, and expedited loss of critical habitats; and WI�REAS, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, was enacted to establish a national disaster hazard mitigation program to reduce the loss of life and property, human suffering, economic disruption, and disaster assistance costs resulting from disasters, and to assist state, local, and tribal governments in implementing effective hazard mitigation measures to ensure the continuation of critical services and facilities after a natural disaster; and WHEREAS, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, as a condition for qualifying for and receiving future Federal mitigation assistance funding as well as reimbursement for Presidentially Declared Disasters, requires such governments to have Federal Emergency Management Agency approved hazard mitigation plans in place that identify the hazards that could impact their jurisdictions, identify actions and activities to mitigate the effects of those hazards, and establish a coordinated process to implement plans; and WHEREAS, Palm Beach County's Local Mitigation Strategy, in coordination with governmental and non-governmental stakeholders having an interest in reducing the impact of disasters, and with input from the private sector and other members of the public, developed and revised the Palm Beach County Local Mitigation Strategy; and WHEREAS, the 2015 revised Local Mitigation Strategy has been approved by the Florida Division of Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management Agency subject to adoption by the County Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the LMS Steering Committee recommends the formal adoption of the 2015 Revised Local Mitigation Strategy, including planned future enhancements described therein, by the County and all 38 participating municipalities. 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VII..LAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, FLORIDA THAT: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are hereby ratified and confirmed as being true and correct and are hereby made a specific part of this Resolution upon adoption hereof. Section 2. The Village Council of the Village of Tequesta hereby approves and adopts the 2015 Revised Local Mitigation Strategy Plan (attached hereto as Exhibit A) in its entirety, as revised by the LMS Steering Committee and approved by the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners, the Florida Division of Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Section 3. The Village Council authorizes the Village Manager or designee to pursue available funding opportunities for implementation of proposed mitigation initiatives described in the Local Mitigation Strategy, and upon receipt of such funding or other necessary resources, seek to implement the actions in accordance with the mitigation strategies set out by the Local Mitigation Strategy. Section 4. The Village will continue to support and participate in the Local Mitigation Strategy planning and implementation process as required by Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Florida Division of Emergency Management, and the Palm Beach County Local Mitigation Strategy Steering Committee. Section 5. The Village will consider incorpora.ting climate change concerns, sea level rise and natural hazards into the local comprehensive plan and into future reviews of flood prevention regulations and zoning codes. Section 6. The Village Council directs the Village Clerk to transmit an original of the executed Resolution to the Palm Beach County Division of Emergency Management, attention Local Mitigation Strategy Coordinator (712-6481), for filing in the Office of the Clerk & Comptroller. Section 7. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED THE day of , 2015. VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA 2 �. ,,«�� ". : .;' • ntro � uct on • This is a snapshot of Palm Beach County's 2009 Unified Local F � ' � Mitigation Strategy (LMS) ss , r � v s ep .>.4 • Meant to be the "Cliffs Note" pers ective to the 500+ a e � P Pg ` document �� , • Reading the LMS itself is still h��hlY recommended to all stakeholders • Major Change from 2009 Document to the 2015 Document is a reduction of 200 pages removing all facilities list from the documents as well as reducing from 7 sections to 4. These �� Changes did no affect the core content of the Document :�%� ; �w.., � ;�� . , � , �,. .� _�,� � - ogerne, °�"� mergencies a :. �«..,,�, _ ' re �,�, uria�ed � � � �;.: �, �' \ � y � � `EM i , n .� ., :..,. r � � �3� !t! � ,, . . s* , � �, '` � ��yn • ��. � Overv�ew of the Palm Beach ��, . . . �-, Count Local M�t� at�on Strate y � �v December 5, 2014 .r -... . 4 �.� .��C!w� �.S �� a � � � 1 � - o,� edter rnergencies re « na� eil � i�` ' *�-. -- _ _ � `EM i � .�.. ,:� � � re uen s e ues �ons w �:�,� �- �� I s i t re u� re d? �� , ,� . , a � . *��a — �es. i � order �:o receive disaster assistance �r��:� ; . :� , ui�der Sect�c�n �� of the Stafford Act, L�cal � �� Mitigatian Strate�i�s arP r�quired. ';'�� _ i � • ilVhy is �� mportant? —��c�r�� t��s are eligible for grant funding �� that could total millions of dollars for pre- ; , 4. � �� m� identified projects. These projects not only �� rotect the lives and ro erties of those in ��. P P p '��= �� the community, but also reduce the impact a � �� '� �� of future events as well as su ort the local p p ,-,;,.., economy ,,,�,�:,:�.,es .wr • ;,,,,,� .,; � {�:. 7 �� k .� - ,� EM �.�.��'� R . �.. r,1 �� K -J . �' �_ � �� c ue � � � ue n �►s e � ��;��t is the LMS? �= - �t is a unified strategy for reducing the ' ` ; f��° �ommunity's vulnerab�l�ty to ident�f�ed �.� � natural, technological, and societal hazards �� ,,ry � �, ---�� Prov�des a comprehens�ve hazard �dentif�cation and vulnerability an�lysis �rovides a rational basis f or prioritizing � •�� azard-sp�c�f�� !�itigation options `��+� � .�' �rovides the basis for justifying solicitin� � _ -w-�.� �; �- � ��o��, s��t�, federal and other m�n�e� '� µ� � -� �a��ate com��r�ity recovery when disasters � `'''� " � occur ; � �.,;,;,. ., <<. , �^"*,-�r w,,. �� , �"� � . 7�; � ' �/f�f F � ' r . . `�� ,.��I � rr. . ��s- � . """'.�--,�_-�`- �,.�. »-=:� .�� r4 • • re uent s e ue � n �, st o s �. - s• H ow of te n m u st i t be revi sed? �� 4° — Florida Administrative Code 9G-22.004 �. S � re uires an annual review and u date of a p �-�� lan i nformation and membershi . P p FEMA requi res a formal plan update every 5 years. Palm Beach County LMS 5 �� year update was approved October 24, T��-.��" 2014 and oes i nto affect on Jan 29 g � j�..�� 2015is due late January 2015 r nterher - mergencies • re ana,Qrd � "'�. - � � �+.. � \ ,,,�„ ...... . `EM. s , �� . t �'„��, � tructu re . � y � • Th ree leve ls : � � � � f� �� Wo rki n G ro u '� � p Gp - 9 � • . S� i -� ��-�� — Steering Committee ,.,, �N ' • Standing Committees — Evaluation Panel � ��: �. ��, � �, i k � � ,� •�� 7t - ngether ` i me�;gc�tcies re �` anuged � �=` �7if" ' * r � � � " + �_, _ _�•. ^�...�""""...,�.�M. �'� � �� ; �.� � or �n rou w • Com rised of re resentatives from �� P p �. - � - � Wm� — Public sector ,. „ra y p .�' ..,� ��:. .� Gt � � � � 1 — Private sector organizations �� . . � �, — I nd�v�duals • U m brella organization for coordi nati ng all mitigation programs and activities • Primary mechanism and forum for __ -��' exchangi ng i nformation and mobi lizi ng ,, - ..-�-;, .-a +��.�� ex ertise and resources of the ,.�.-� r � - CO Cl'1 t�'1 U 111 t ��. � � mergencies �e anuged � � � � *� 1 _ ��_ �. `EM :� , • � : �y teer� n omm�tte e • Comprised of �' � `'� — Seven municipal representatives ,. � �_ ;� �4 — Two count / local overnment re resentatives � y g p t . . ' � ' � ` — One state/federal overnment re resentative �� . , g P ,..; � -, — One un�vers�ty/college representative — One healthcare industry representative — One non-profit representative — Two representatives f rom the private sector • Serves as the Local Mitigation Strategy --��.� program Board of Directors Fiy � �,� :-,�, _; �� • Pr�mary decision and policy body for LMS T sponsored mitigation activities nkc=tker t, merge�tcies �� i�e 4,. ,� y } : __, anuged %w �':. -- � �EM ..� � _ _��:�� a ,r .� � y � �►� i ° ° �W� �y _ * �an N � � .� � � � +, o •�- � � � � o � N O c�n '> O Q� � V Q� N � a � V � O � -� � O �� V � � � � � � . . .,_ Q� � � � � � � � � .� ,� � � � � �,�, � a� °�a� � � o � � � � � -i--� cn J � � N � cn � L p p � ,o � � V � � � � � � O cn �- � � V . ^ .. .� Q� � .t�n 4� c� � 4� � 4� � � � .O ',"' � � � � . ^ a..� � � '� •? ''--' � .� � � > • r " cn -�-' '''' '� � � O c�i� .� � ,� V 4� � o � v � � . � c� � � � � cr� � � � � N � > � o � 4� �, v w � U U � � � N � � � I I I � � � w � J — O c� t� . . . r••;,:�•- � — -.� r° � � �:...a C' i , � < . . �. r c., � � ��-�, '� '��. d ,� , . . �'�� M� - �i � µ �e� �F �� i �t. �, �' � i � � �� r � �� : • �„ ' � - ; ° : , i . *' .,�q '� � ,.r/�1 5 r * _ �' �J._.� LCt. �l��f . �. .. � � � ; �., ..� • _ � va uat�on an e `�� • Responsible for reviewing and scoring proposed . ,, °A pro�ects submitted to the LMS as a bas�s for �, .p s� �}� - = prioritization �i ��► • This is done by applying established local, state and ��, �, federal prior�t�zat�on processes and criter�a • A minimum of 5 people serve on the Panel at any given time • The LMS Coordinator vets and disseminates the projects to the evaluation panel for review ,��,.� • The evaluation panel will score projects on a bi-annual � �-�� bas�s as well as meet b�-annually e�ther by �"�� teleconference or in erson to review the scorin : :� - p g � '�` �� process and makes any necessary changes to ugc tr,� r �� `°.�; proeedures rnergencies �^� �y'�S�'*s.� _ . • re �� , ana,�ed � � �-� �E/VI 0 . . �. �......��_,. :.� v . �� E y i � * �€ �O G y : �W� �� * � � .O � � � � . � � 4� • � Q .� � 4� cn > c� � � ?' _ •� � � cn � � � '� � � � � s' � ' � a--� Q -+-' � � Q 4� �� O� 4� �, V � ,� >, o = � � N � � � � � � N N � •� L .� � � � �� 4� � J � +:� � � � � � � � � � �� V � � � W '� � '� 4� � � � 4� � � � � c� � � � � � o � � o � t� �� V ,��, V � N � � V � p I— cn � c� � = V . . � . ♦ v - \? 4 �� • - I_ _•r_... _ ._ ��pU �,. � �'. `� r ` � i ` c . . --��:� �� e ,� +` � � ;�. �e � e ,'� ��' � .� : ; � �,;, � � � U , � �� ' � �� } k� �v k . t* �� *= �� :'{ � R R .,� SL � }.' � i rq f .a_" _ . . . _ � . . �Iy� . . _ %..'`s�` p '.` Y .., �.• � � � � � art�c> > n at o e u�rements • County and all municipal jurisdictions are r�� expected to conform to the following standards: ,. �� `� — Partici ation of the re resentative or officiall °' P p y s� �'��°' -""� desi�nated alternate(s) in 3 out of 4 Steerin � g �- �� Committee meetings where plan revisions w�ll be �� e � � addressed � — General membership participation requirements dictates that all jur�sd�ctional representatives attend ._ both Working Group meetings. _. — Consecutive absences wi ll be cause for disqualification for the LMS Working Group, subje�t to � x�� appeal and review by the LMS Chair . �.. : ��`� .. � . _ Have a duly executed resolution adopting the revised �"� LMS plan on file with the County and the LMS , . °, �, �, _ ngeriter mergenc�es I,?x .s • re �'�� annged �' � *� � - ` `EM �_ _ �� , • - �� 7 eet�n re u n �, ec �� a: �• Worki ng G rou p wi ll now meet 4 ti mes a year, once a � .s 2 �.. �� :4� quarter. The Evaluation Panel will meet at least bi- �{� �� ' annually to update Project Prioritization List (PPL) and ` 1 ; rank new projects. �� k � �, • 2015 Meeting Schedule • Steering Committee - March 11 - June 11 - September 10 - December 7 • Working Group - March 11 - June 11 - September 10 December 7 �� aw:..� • Evaluation Panel -(If needed) May 14 - November 12 ��'� R �' • Note that the LMS Steerin Committee meetin s will �� g g � :, �_:� � start after the worki ng group meeti ng �,�er�� = merge�u•ies re � .. , �. annged � �r` �. *� \ :� �-=- `EM � : �. � • o t�on o t e _�. t • In order for a jurisdiction to be eligible � : . �� . . . �-�� mp for Hazard M�t�gat�on Grant Program , � �S �,: = HM P F �� ` G lood Mi ti ati o n Assi sta n ce ., � � ) � � � �► . . . . ��. (FMA) and Pre-D�saster M�t�gat�on (PDM) r f u ndi ng programs • Must have an executed resolution/interlocal agreement formally � �"��*:+ 'w ��-�� P��' ado ti n the LMS on fi le with the LMS and ��:. p � �� • ,�� have artici ated i n the revisi n r p p o p ocess - - ngether � � � merge�tcies re tutaged F" ,�' ' • *. �' 1 - .;�; `E/V1 _ �-; � �` . r , � • • • • • - 1 ro ect r� o r� t� zat� o n � st � � Prioritized list of mitigation projects for the µ f� community ,. yy r, '�-�� `° • Com rehensive ran e of ro'ects bein - p g P J g � Y.� �` considered to reduce the effects of hazards �� . . . . . . � x ��, w�th emphas�s on new and ex�st�ng bu�ld�ngs and i nf rastructu re • The process used to develop PPL emphasis maximizing benefits to the community with the costs associated of the project � �� *,; e��' P � �►R� � .,� �� A o,qelher ° - rnergencies �e unaged � �,: �"�': *� 1 � -- `EM � : Hazard Mi i i t at on G rant Pro ram 7 � g �� HMGP Funds � �,:�� • The HMGP provides funds to states, municipalities and �°� certain private non-profit organizations for ,. . � ' 4Y f � a' -''; implementing long-term hazard mitigation measures ",�`� following a major disaster declaration. The purpose of ��., the HMGP �s to reduce the loss of l�fe and property due ,^,,, • ^ ��, to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a d�saster. Federal funds provide 75% of the cost of elevation projects, land acquisition, relocation of structures, or retrofitting of facilities. The HMGP is ��.» �� authorized under Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford '� � Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and is � ��T�� , TM:t �� . administered through the state Division of Emergency 'j' i ti �� Management. �,,�e,i��,� _ _ -s � mergeneies i'e �;.".. rutaged /�" �* �, y r�' \ - - �_ __ ,�` `EM _� i� -r,.�; -- . . . . . o �t� a � n � n o t o ss sta ce �� The FMA pro�ram was created as part of the National Flood Insurance , � ; f Reform Act (NFIRA) of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 4101) with the �oal of reducing .��' or eliminatin� claims under the National Flood Insurance Pro�ram � so (NFIP). �� -� �• FEMA provides FMA funds to assist States and communities implement � ` measures that reduce or eliminate the lon�-term risk of flood damage to buildin�s, manufactured homes, and other structures insured under h� �"-� the National Flood Insurance Pro�ram. Three types of FMA grants are available to States and communities: — Plannin� Grants to prepare Flood Miti�ation Plans. Only NFIP-participating communities with approved Flood Miti�ation Plans can apply for FMA Project �rants — Project Grants to implement measures to reduce flood losses, such as elevation, acquisition, or relocation of NFIP-insured structures. States are encouraged to prioritize FMA funds for applications that include repetitive ':< ��„ loss properties; these include structures with 2 or more losses each with a - ° claim of at least $1,000 within any ten-year period since 1978. — Mana�ement Cost Grants for the State to help administer the FMA pro ram ' �;, -� r and activities. Up to ten percent (10%) of Project �rants may be awar�ed to ,� �� States for Mana�ement Cost Grants. � �,, - mergerlcies re «nuged � �i@ �• * �' \ _ � `EM �` � �.. � � j . �'� . • • • �� Pre D�saster M�t� at�on PDM Fund � • The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program a,.:�� provides funds to states, territories, Indian :4 _�� °� tribal governments, communities, and .. 4Q �, �t �'� �-` � univers�t�es for hazard m�t�gat�on planning and ., �°� the implementation of mitigation projects prior �"� � ^� to a disaster event. • Funding these plans and projects reduce overall risks to the population and structures, while also reducing reliance on funding from actual disaster declarations. PDM grants are to be ��µ� awarded on a competitive basis and without �� :� �}� .�:� reference to state allocations, quotas, or other �-t�• �� formula-based allocation of funds. - ogc,her � merge��cies t _ re - ar�uged � �' �►- * � 1 �� EM .�, ,a�;, �v�. 6,' :�� . =:,�: . . . � Re et�t�ve Flood Cla�ms Pro ram �, p � • The Repetitive Flood Clai ms ( RFC ) grant AA�� y�� ro ram was authorized b the Bunnin - .7 ;, P g Y � ��r 4� +- .:�� Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance � '�� Reform Act of 2004 (P. L. 108-264), which � �� amended the National Flood I nsurance Act (NFIA) of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001, et al). • Up to $10 million is available annually for FEMA to provide RFC funds to assist States .:.,�� and communities reduce flood damages to .�: . . +�, insured properties that have had one or a 'j' d more clai ms to the National Flood I nsuranc ,� a�e deer P ro g ra m( N F I P) irtergencies re " ' '��y _ ana,�erl � � I �:_ � \ � -�.� -.�.__- - _ - „ , � � -� �.. � t � � -� �-�� . . =�� Residential Miti ation Retrofit � 1 P ro ra m R M P � C • The RCMP program promotes wind mitigation and provides ,�� . hazard mit�gation upgrades to residents and non-profit , ,* ,, � facilities. Funded activities include retrofits, inspections, . �� w°4 and construction or modification of building components �'' �` designed to increase a structure's ability to withstand , � °��'�� hurr�cane- force win ds. In a d di tion, t he RCM P has a public �,.; � ou treac h componen t t ha t encompasses projects t hat wi l l �� promote publ�c education and public information about wind mitigation and wind mitigation related areas. This includes: — Maintenance and enhancement of wind mitigation on-line information and pro�ram visibility — Educating persons concerning the Florida Buildin� Code cooperat�ve programs with local governments and the Federal � Government .,:...�; �. _,��:�;;;; - �i �_;� — Training in re�ard to wind miti�ation techniques, products and �=�--. �- procedures, codes and standards, and related areas ,�. � �,��the. n�ergencies �� . �. ,� uriuged � P�'. � * �IL \ - ------t `EM , �.. —..:�..�.�"�� { � i;. �� q � � �� I an ou. Kelvi n Bledsoe � n � j*�� Special Project Coordinator .. �. Y�; Division of Emer enc Mana ement � g y g �- ��` Emer enc 0 erations Center �� g y p �� -- �� Palm Beach County 561-712-6481 kbledsoeC�pbc_ ov. or� 1 �.�i a � � � � t � o,�ed�er - - mergencies re �uu��ecf �- ,.� ! „�'*�i * � \ r ��. �: �M. �, -.�� No Text � OQ[ L�1Cl' �,tiA�N e L � C a� nier,�e��cie� � � • re �' � Mitigation Strategy �1��°ge� a ►C . • 2015 E� �LORIp � 1 � ' Y - � `r � Z ' � . -� �P I � Y ,-,.�,�" ,� � '� ' � f '� _ IIt �� i t� ; , _ - r � � , .'- , � ... � � �r . - r�� R � � s � ) �� - , ;�;.. �. _ �n - � � � .�� / i , � � + .......,�� % � , � . � � ' �' ��- � �: • - . ..� � . _� � , �; � � I� '� _ •� � � �.�� . , ' � ,';i � ..__ . -. i.�.,"' :�� _ .�• � � � �. e ,� .. .. _. . �3'� . s J . � . cr '` � � ? _'+. � I.� : _ , , � * � . _..- . ty ��=> y - .-_��° �_�' —c _ _^+ Palm Beach County Public Safety Department Division of Emergency Management 20 South Military Trail West Palm Beach, FL 33415 561-712-6400 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • This page intentionally left blank � 2 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Table of Contents Tableof Contents ............................................................................................................................ 3 SECTION 1: PLANNING PROCESS ........................................................................................... 7 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 7 1.3 Program Organization ...................................................................................................... 7 1.3.1 LMS Structure ........................................................................................................... 7 1.3.2 Standing Committees ................................................................................................ 9 1.3.3 Community Rating System (CRS) Cooperating Committees ............................. 10 1.4 Participation Requirements ............................................................................................ 10 1.5 Jurisdictional Adoption .................................................................................................. 11 1.6 New Jurisdictions/Entities .............................................................................................. 11 1.8 Guiding Principles .......................................................... ................................................ 12 1.9 Process ............................................................................................................................12 1.10 Strategy .......................................................................................................................13 1.11 Benefits .......................................................................................................................13 • SECTION 2: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND ViJLNERABILITY ANALYSIS ............... 17 2.1 Hazard Identification ...................................................................................................... 17 2.1.1 Natura.l Hazards ...................................................................................................... 20 2.1.1.1 Flooding ...........................................................................................................20 2.1.1.2 Hurricane/Tropical Storm ................................................................................ 34 2.1.1.3 Tornado ............................................................................................................44 2.1.1.4 Severe Thunderstorm/Lighfiing ...................................................................... 48 2.1.1.5 Drought ............................................................................................................49 2.1.1.6 Extreme Temperatures ..................................................................................... 52 2.1.1.7 Agricultural Pest and Disease .......................................................................... 55 2.1.1.8 Wildfire/Urban Interface Zone ........................................................................ 57 2.1.1.9 Muck Fire ........................................................................................................ 58 2.1.1.10 SoiUBeach Erosion .......................................................................................... 59 2.1.1.11 Sea Level Rise ................................................................................................. 62 2.1.1.12 Seismic Hazards .............................................................................................. 63 2.1.1.13 Geologic Hazards .............................................................................................. 64 2.1.1.14 Pandemic ......................................................................................................... 66 • 3 L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 2.1.2 Technological Hazards ............................................................................................ 70 • 2.1.2.1 Dike Failure .................................................................................................... 70 2.1.2.2 Hazardous Materials Accident ......................................................................... 71 2.1.2.3 Radiological Accidents (Nuclear Power Plant Accident) ................................ 72 2.1.2.4 Communications Failure .................................................................................. 73 2.1.2.5 Hazardous Materials Release ........................................................................... 73 2.1.2.6 Transportation System Accidents .................................................................... 73 2.1.2.7 Coastal Oil Spill ............................................................................................... 74 2.1.2.8 Wellfield Contamination ................................................................................. 75 2.1.2.9 Power Failure (Outa.ges) .................................................................................. 76 2.1.3 Human-Caused Haza.rds .......................................................................................... 77 2.1.3.1 Civil Disturbance ............................................................................................. 77 2.1.3.2 Tenorism and Sabota.ge ................................................................................... 77 2.1.3.3 Mass Migration Crisis ..................................................................................... 79 2.2 Vulnera.bility Assessment ............................................................................................... 79 2.2.1 Natural Hazards ...................................................................................................... 81 2.2.1.1 Hurricanes and Tropical Storms ...................................................................... 81 • 2.2.1.2 Flooding ...........................................................................................................83 2.2.1.3 Severe Thunderstorm/Lightning ...................................................................... 84 2.2.1.4 Wildfire/Urban Interface Zone ........................................................................ 84 2.2.1.5 Muck Fire ........................................................................................................ 85 2.2.1.6 Tornado ............................................................................................................85 2.2.1.7 Extreme Temperatures ..................................................................................... 85 2.2.1.8 Coasta.l & Beach Erosion / Sea Level Rise ..................................................... 86 2.2.1.9 Agricultural Pest and Disease .......................................................................... 88 2.2.1.10 Drought ............................................................................................................88 2.2.1.11 Pandemic ......................................................................................................... 88 2.2.1.12 Seismic Hazards .............................................................................................. 88 2.2.2 Technological Hazards ............................................................................................ 89 2.2.2.1 Hazardous Materials Accident ......................................................................... 89 2.2.2.2 Radiological Accidents (Nucleaz Power Plant Accidents) .............................. 90 2.2.2.3 Communications System Failure ..................................................................... 92 2.2.2.4 Transportation System Accidents .................................................................... 92 4 � L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 � 2.2.2.5 Wellfield Contamination ................................................................................. 92 2.2.2.6 Power Failure ................................................................................................... 93 2.2.3 Human Caused Hazards .......................................................................................... 93 2.2.3.1 Civil Disturbance ............................................................................................. 93 2.2.3.2 Terrorism and Sabotage ................................................................................... 93 2.2.3.2 Mass Migration Crisis ..................................................................................... 93 2.2.4 Vulnerability of Critical Facilities .......................................................................... 95 2.3 Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................. 95 SECTION 2A: VULIVERABII.,IT'Y OF CRITICAL FACII.,ITIES .............................................. 98 SECTION 2B: VULNERABILITY OF RESIDENTIAL�& CONIlV�RCIAL PROPERTIES.. 100 SECTION 3: MITIGATION STRAT'EGY ................................................................................. 104 3.1 Governmental ...............................................................................................................104 3.1.1 Federal ...................................................................................................................104 3.1.2 State .......................................................................................................................105 3.1.3 Regional ................................................................................................................106 3.1.31 Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) .................................. 106 • 3.1.3.2 South Florida Water Management District .................................................... 107 3.1.4 Loca1 .....................................................................................................................108 3.1.4.1 Palm Beach County ....................................................................................... 108 3.1.4.2 Municipalities ................................................................................................ 129 3.1.5 Intergovernmental Coordination ........................................................................... 135 3.2 Private Sector ............................................................................................................... 137 3.2.1 Background ...........................................................................................................137 3.2.2 Accomplishments ..................................................................................................140 3.3 Strengthening the Role of Local Governments ............................................................ 143 SECTION4: PROCEDURES ................................................................................................... 146 4.1 Project Prioritization Methodology .............................................................................. 146 4.1.1 Development and Rationale .................................................................................. 146 4.1.2 Community Benefit ............................................................................................... 148 4.1.3 Community Exposure ........................................................................................... 149 4.1.4 Cost EfFectiveness ................................................................................................. 150 4.1.5 Area Benefit .......................................................................................................... 152 4.1.6 Project Implementation ......................................................................................... 152 • 5 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 4.1.7 Community Commitment ..................................................................................... 153 � 4.2 Tie-Break Procedure ................................................................................................... 155 4.3 LMS Evaluation Panel ................................................................................................ 155 4.3.1 Eligibility for Federal Funding .............................................................................155 4.4 Project Prioritization Updating Process ....................................................................... 156 4.5 Conflict Resolution Procedures .................................................................................... 157 4.5.1 Background ...........................................................................................................158 4.5.2 Procedure ..............................................................................................................158 Appendix A: Risk & VulnerabilityAnalyses Data ................................................................... 162 Appendix B: Countywide Mitigation Initiatives .................................................................... 194 Appendix C: Hazard & Risk Assessment Maps ..................................................................... 200 Appendix D: Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms ................................................ 204 Appendix E: Prioritized Project Lists ..................................................................................... 206 Appendix F: Funding and Data. Sources ................................................................................. 214 Appendix G: Local Mitigation Strategy Coordination ........................................................... 216 Appendix H: Repetitive Loss Properties ................................................................................. 290 Appendix I: Project Scoring Examples ................................................................................. 292 • Appendix J: NFIP and CRS Staxus and Activities ................................................................. 300 Appendix K: Mitigation Assessment Teams (MATs) ............................................................ 304 Appendix List of Acronyms ............................................................................................... 308 Appendix Maps .................................................................................................................. 310 6 • L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 � SECTION 1: PLANNING PROCESS 1.0 Introduction The Palm Beach County Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) was formally adopted by the County, municipalities, and the LMS Steering Committee in 1999. Initial development of the LMS was funded, in part, by the Florida. Department of Community Affairs/Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDCA/FDEM) with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds earmarked for the development of comprehensive hazard mitigation planning. The LMS was established and continues to operate in accordance with prevailing federal, state and local guidelines and requirements. In 2004 the plan and program were substantially modified to enhance operational effectiveness and to comply with new federal guidelines established in response to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. 1.2 Purpose The purpose of the LMS is to develop and execute an ongoing strategy for reducing the community's vulnerability to identified natural, technological and human caused hazards. The strategy provides a rational, managed basis for considering and prioritizing hazard-specific mitigation options and for developing and executing sound, cost-effective mitigation projects. The LMS also provides a basis for justifying the solicitation and use of local, state, federal, and • other funding to support hazard mitigation projects and initiatives. 1.3 Program Organization 1.3.1 LMS Structure The current structure meets federal guidelines and criteria established in response to the Disa.ster Mitigation Act of 2000 and Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (See figure 1). Local Mitigation Strategy Coordinator The LMS Coordinator is a staff member within the County's Division of Emergency Management and serves as the coordinator for all mitigation projects, committees, and mitigation funding designated for the County. The LMS Coordinator facilita.tes committee and sub- committee meetings and represents the County on these committees. Specifically, the LMS Coordinator supervises revision and updates to the Local Mitigation Strategy a minimum of every five (5) years. The Coordinator monitors changes in federal, sta.te, and local laws in the area of mitigation that may affect the County. The LMS Coordinator readies the LMS for approval to the Florida Division of Emergency Management, the LMS Steering Committee, the Board of County Commissioners, and local municipalities. The LMS Coordinator is responsible for the continued maintenance of the LMS as well as the storing and filling of all documents pertaining to mitigation issues. In addition, the LMS Coordinator is responsible for the coordination of the Project Prioritiza.tion List that scores and ranks projects in the County that are • � Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 eligible for Federal monies. This process is conducted through the Evaluation Panel. Panelists � are solicited by the LMS Coordinator on behalf of the Steering Committee based on LMS member recommendations and are subject to approval by the Steering Committee. The LMS Coordinator interfaces with appropriate governmenta.l and non- governmental agencies and offices to ensure LMS goals, objectives, and priorities are consistent with and cross-referenced with those articulated in other existing plans, namely the County's CEMP. In addition the LMS Coordinator seeks opportunities at the regional, county and municipal levels to: • Update plans, policies, regulations and other directives to include hazard mitigation priorities • Encourage the adoption of mitigation priorities within capital and operational budgets and grant applications • Share information on grant funding opportunities • Offer guidance for carrying out mitigation actions • Explore opportunities for collaborative mitigation projects and initiatives • facilitate and coordinate the application process and serve as a primary communication link with funding agencies LMS Working Group The LMS Working Group represents a broad cross-section of public sector and private sector organizations and individuals, including the general public, regional universities, neighboring emergency management departments, and state coordinators. The Working Group serves as an umbrella organization for coordinating all mitigation programs and activities, supplies the • staffing for all committees of the LMS, and is the primary mechanism and forum for exchanging information and mobilizing the vast expertise and resources of the community. LMS Steering Committee 'The LMS Steering Committee consists of 15 members composed of seven municipal representa.tives, two county/local government representatives, one sta.te/federal government representative, one university/college representative, one healthcare industry representaxive, one non-profit representative, and two representatives from the private sector. The Steering Committee serves as the LMS program boa.rd of directors. As such, it is the primary decision a.nd policy body for LMS sponsored mitigation activity. Members of the committee are replaced as needed with coordination of the committee and the committee chairperson. Each January an updated list is sent to FDEM. The LMS Steering Committee provides the needed attention to ensure mitigation projects are more cost-effective and focused on threat-specific mitigation priorities and strategies. 8 � Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • . . Evaluatlan Fan�a Revislor�s SuF]-Ca71rS1�Lee ��+f'i � Sul�-COtnrni!lee r �- ... _ �, � � .�. ,. .� ,� � i / � I�. -. �, .., y � _. . L ___ 5��_ • � � 1 � � � 00�5 Mrngah�I� f1t�aH Mlri�tk+r I i Teehrn�l �dv►5ory ,��►�[nlU�e � ! anfrt►p11Rdf83 � � 1 ..� !�.�u_C`74 • — ... •�G�`2�i,ur±�rnittees : - 1.3.2 Standing Committees • Evaluation Panel - Designated to review, evaluate, score and rank mitigation projects applying established local, state and federal prioritization processes and criteria. • Revisions Sub-Committee - Designated to review, update, and verify that subsequent LMS plans meet all federal guidelines and criteria. In addition, the revisions committee meets as needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the plan as well as to monitor and update the plan during the five (5) year cycle. The revisions committee has a standing meeting once a quarter. If no issues or concerns with the plan are proposed or presented, the committee does not meet. Eighteen months before the plan is up for revisions, the standing meeting is held regardless of whether changes need to be made. Monthly meetings of the committee are held 12 months before the plan expires to ensure all address with the revision are being met. • Hazard and Vulnerabilitv Analysis Sub-Committee - Provides a detail assessment of hazards that may affect Palm Beach County (PBC) and provides mitigation recommendations. . 9 Local Mitigation Strategy � 2015 1.3.3 Community Rating System (CRS) Cooperating Committees • • Flood Miti�ation Technical Advisory Committee - Comprised of flood mitigation engineers and experts from public and private sector organizations, is charged with assessing County-wide flood risks and vulnerabilities without regard to jurisdictional boundaries and recommending flood mitigation priorities, strategies, plans and projects for LMS consideration and action that optimally benefit to the greater community. • Flood Miti�ation Committee - Comprised of representatives from the county's active CRS communities, who collaborate on a full range of Outreach Projects Strategy (OPS) initiatives and promote CRS participation. (This committee is being transitioned to the Program for Public Information (PPI)). While there is no regulation that requires the CRS committee to meet or coordinate, Palm Beach County has a very involved CRS user group that passes information and best practices and meets on a scheduled basis. Out of the 38 municipalities in Palm Beach County, 28 are in the CRS user group. A chart in appendix J shows that list as well the number of insured homes each have in that municipality as well as their CRS rating. 1.4 Participation Requirements Since the LMS is written directly from input from all stakeholders, it is important to make sure that the entire PBC community is represented. Each group has different participation • requirements; however, all groups are strongly encouraged to participate in the process. Jurisdictions Municipal and County participation is critica) to the success of the LMS. In order to retain LMS voting rights, qualify for federal mitigation assistance consideration, and otherwise remain a member in good standing, the County and all municipal jurisdictions are expected to conform to the following standards: • Participation of the representative or alternate in the four (4) annual Working Group meetings; or � Participation of the representative or officially designated alternate(s) in a majority of the Steering Committee meetings, and • Participation in a majority of subcommittee meetings; or • Participation in special conference call meetings of the Steering Committee or subcommittees; and • Have an officially executed resolution adopting the revised LMS plan on file with the County. In order for a jurisdiction to be eligible for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 10 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • (�IMGP), Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMAP) and Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PD1V� funding programs, they must have an officially adopted resolution and a fully executed interlocal agreement. More than two (2) absences of the Working Group meeting will be cause for disqualification from the LMS, subject to appeal and review by the LMS Cha.ir. A�1 rights and privileges will be terminated during a period of disqualification and formal reapplication. All jurisdictions will be notified of ineetings via email one week in advance, and will be upda.ted with meeting summaries thereafter. Non-Governmenta.l Organizations (NGO) and other Governmental Entities In order to qualify for LMS grant sponsorship, NGOs and other govemmental entities must: • Have a duly executed letter of commitment to the LMS on file with the County; and • In the judgment of the LMS Steering Committee, actively participate in, and otherwise support LMS activities. The Public and Private Sector The LMS membership believes broad community support, including ongoing public and private • sector involvement, is very important to the success of the program. While participation by private organizations and the general public is strictly voluntary, their attendance, comments, contributions, and support are actively invited, sought, monitored and fully documented. In order to promote the opportunity for broad participation, at a minimum, notices and agendas for all general meetings of the LMS are posted through some combination of newspaper ads or public service announcements; social media, postings on county and municipal websites, announcements in the county and municipal newsletters and calendars, and blast fa�ces and e- mailings to all previous participants. 1.5 Jurisdictional AdopNon All jurisdictions wishing to participate in and share in the benefits deriving from the LMS program must complete and file a fully executed resolution which conforms to the adoption standards jointly esta.blished and amended by the PBC Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and the LMS Steering Committee. 1.6 New Jurisdictions/Entities In the event municipal jurisdictions are added, deleted, or merged within the County, the LMS will appropriately adjust its membership rolls as necessary and require any newly defined jurisdictions to provide documentation necessary for participation in the program. • 11 Local Mirigation Strategy I 2015 1.7 Jurisdictional Participation • Palm Beach County has 38 municipalities. In addition to jurisdictions being encouraged to participate, each member is provided minutes from the previous working group or steering committee meeting within once week following the meeting. Participation is also monitored with sign-in sheets. This information along with a roster of the primary LMS representa.tive from each municipality can be found in appendix G. You will also find summaries of both working group and steering committee meetings. 1.8 Guiding Principles The LMS guiding principles are an expression of the community's vision of hazard mitigation and the mechanisms through which it is striving to achieve that vision. The principles address concerns of the community relative to natural, technological, and human caused hazards. 1.9 Process As part of the process, a survey was distributed to each jurisdiction to understand their local issues. The LMS Steering Committee, along with the LMS Working Group, assessed existing plans, studies, and stra.tegies. Using state and federal guidance on how an LMS update should be constructed, the LMS Steering Committee and LMS Working group developed a comprehensive list of hazards of concern. From these defined hazards, the Working Group identified areas of concern from existing plans and future considerations. • These areas of concern include: • Loss of life • Loss of property • Community sustainability • Health/medical needs • Sheltering • Adverse impacts to natural resources (e.g., beaches, water quality) • Damage to public infrastructure (e.g., roads, water systems, sewer systems, stormwater systems) • Economic disruption • Fiscal impact • Recurring damage • Redevelopmendreconstruction • Development practices/land use • Intergovernmental coordination • Public participation • Repetitive flood loss properties • Historical structures 12 � L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • 1.10 Strategy The stra.tegy used for the development and revision process of the LMS, consisted of the following tasks: 1) Public involvement to ensure a representative plan 2) Coordination with other agencies or organizations 3) Haza.rd azea inventory 4) Risk and Vulnerability Assessment 5) Incorporating existing plans, reports, best practices, and technical information into the LMS 6) Review and analysis of possible mitigation activities 7) Local adoption following a public hearing 8) Periodic review and update • 1.11 Benefits Adoption of this strategy will provide the following benefits to both County and municipal governmental entities: • Compliance with Administrative Rules 9G-6 and 9G-7, Florida Administrative Code (FAC), requirements for local Comprehensive Emergency Management Plans to identify problem areas and planning deficiencies relative to severe and repetitive weather phenomenon, and to identify pre and post-disaster strategies for rectifying identified programs • Universal points from the National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIl') CRS Program for developing a Floodplain Management Program, which may help further reduce flood insurance premium ra.tes for property owners • Access to FEMA's Federal gra,nt programs • Compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 • Set forth the guiding principles with which both the County and municipal governmental entities of PBC will address the issue of all hazard mitigation • 13 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Identify the known hazazds to which the County is exposed, discuss their range of • impacts, and delineate the individual vulnerabilities of the various jurisdictions and population centers within the County (Section 2, Hazard Identification and Vulnerabilitv Analvsis) • Develop a deta.iled method by which PBC (municipaliries and County government) can evaluate and prioritize proposed mitigation projects along with new federal requirements • Develop the process and schedule by which this entire LMS will be reviewed and updated to include public participation 1.12 Criteria and Procedures for Revision This document will be upda.ted a minimum of every five (5) years by the LMS Coordinator with the assistance of the Revision Subcommittee and approval by the Steering Committee with input from the LMS Working Group. The public is given an opportunity to review this document and provide comments through the County website, as well as committee meetings. Revisions may also be made based upon experience from any significant events such as a hurricane, tornado, sea level rise, hazardous materials spill or any other occurrence where mitigation could benefit the community. Changes in federal, sta.te, and local laws will also be reflected in the updated version of this document. The revisions will then be distributed to all affected parties by the LMS Coordinator. • • The evaluation criteria which are used include: o New mandates from federal, state or local agencies that require changes to the Local Mitigation Strategy New or changing laws, policies or regulations. o Societal developments or significant changes in the community that must be added to the cunent LMS. o Changes in the Comprehensive Plan or any other form of standard operating procedure. o The mitigation opportunities implemented. The priorities for implementa.tion the same. o Recommendations or lessons learned from any major incidents that have occuned since last adoption. During the revision process, each criterion is addressed to determine if they are still valid and adjustments are made as necessary. All existing mitigation opportunities that are determined to still be viable projects will be left standing. All those that are determined to be no longer worka.ble will be set aside for further review and revision or, dropped as no longer feasible. 14 • L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Once revisions are approved by the Steering Committee, the LMS Coordinator provides the copy to all members, on the website, and to the State for approval. Once approved by the State, the LMS Coordinator distributes to members for final adoption by governing body. 1.13 Goals • Reduce the loss of life, property, and repetitive damage from the effects of natural, societal and technological hazards from all sources but especially hurricanes, tornadoes, major rainfall and other severe weather events • Achieve safe and fiscally sound, sustainable communities through thoughtful long-range planning of the natural and man-made environment • Take preventative actions to reduce the number of repetitive loss properties published annually by FEMA on the list of "Repetitive Loss Properties" • Qualify the county and jurisdictions for incremental improvements on the Community Rating System classification in relation to flood insurance under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and to reduce flood hazards • Optimize the effective use of all available resources by establishing public/private partnerships, and encouraging intergovernmental coordination and cooperarion • Promote awareness and preparedness through the distribution of information on hazards and measures to mitigate them • Increase the level of coordination of mitigation management concerns, plans and • activities at the municipal, county, state and federal levels of government in relation to all hazards • Establish a program that facilitates orderly recovery and redevelopment, and minimizes economic disruption following a disaster • Ensure an enforceable commitment for the implementa.tion of the local hazard mitigarion strategy 1.14 Obj�tives The ultimate objectives of the LMS are to: • Improve the community's resistance to damage from known natural, man-ma.de, and environmental hazards • Place Palm Beach County in a position to compete effectively and productively for pre and post-disaster mitigation funding assistance The ultimate objectives of the LMS are to: • Improve the community's resistance to damage from known natural, man-made, and environmental hazards • Place Palm Beach County in a position to compete effectively and productively for pre • and post-disaster mitigation funding assistance 15 L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Encourage strong jurisdictional, nongovernmental and public participation and support of • LMS activities • Reduce the cost of disasters at all levels • Facilitate community recovery when disasters occur • Minimize recunence of damage by incorporating mitigation into post disaster rebuilding • Promote intelligent development • Encourage strong jurisdictional, nongovernmental and public participation and support of LMS activities • Reduce the cost of disasters at all levels • Facilita.te community recovery when disasters occur • Minimize recurrence of damage by incorporating mitigation into post disaster rebuilding • Promote intelligent development • 16 • L Mitigation Stra.tegy I 2015 • SECTION 2: Ha�aRn IDENTIFICATION AND VIJLNERABILITY ANALYSIS This section represents an update of the 2004 and 2009 hazard and vulnerability analysis. It addresses, in part, the following FEMA requirements: Requirement: §201.6(c)(2): The plan shall include a risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazazds. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): The risk assessment shall include a description of the type of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): The risk assessment shall include a description of the location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occunences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): The risk assessment must also address National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) insured structures that have been repetitively damaged floods. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): The risk assessment shall include a description of the e jurisdiction's vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. 2.1 Hazard IdenHfication Section 2.1 and Table 2.1 list the general hazards to which PBC is vulnera.ble and indicates their projected impact potential across the entire spectrum of community exposure and services. Section 2.1, Hazard Identification, describes these hazards in detail and discusses County-wide exposures; Section 2.2, Vulnerabilitv Assessment, discusses specific vulnerabilities faced by the individual governmental entities, County and municipal, forming the PBC community. Vulnera.bility, probability, and risk assessments for the County and municipal jurisdictions, and a County-wide impact analysis are contained in Annendiz A. Section 2.3, Risk Assessment, describes the elements considered in the risk assessment process. Hazard & Risk Assessment Maps and potential loss values for PBC and each jurisdiction are located in Annendix C. Most hazards in Palm Beach County affect the entire county equally. However, there are a view that maybe more concentrated in one area of the county. For exa.mple, a Herbert Hoover Dike Breach would cause more severe damage to the westem communities. For the purpose of this document, The County has been devidided down into four geographical areas: Northern Palm Beach, Southern Palm Beach, Western Palm Beach, and Coastal Palm Beach County. ln each of the hazards identified and defined, the latest occunence of that event hazard is listed. For example the last major hurricane to hit Palm beach County was 2007. Therefore, there would be no examples beyond that point. • 17 L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 � In addition, the charts with show probabiliry of occurance and impact. These will be rated as low = under 5% chance of occurring, medium, 5% - 15% chances of occurring, or High, greater than 15%. These rating responds with the information of the charts presented. Each disaster affects Palm Beach County differently based the severity and scope of the disaster and where it occurred in the County. While impacts to structures, infrastructure, people, and the environment will be addressed in each individual hazazd, in most cases unless the disaster is significant, (major or catastrophic), in duration and destruction, impact will be minimum and can be handled with resources within the county. If not specifically discussed in the hazard, it is assumed that there would be none or minimum impact to the to the County. The presented charts will provide additional information on impacts. Disasters are classified by the magnitude of their effect. The recognized classification system is as follows: • Minor Disaster - Any disaster that is likely to be within the response capabilities of local government and results in only minimal need for state or federal assistance. The damage level to life and property is minimal and can be controlled and contained with resources within the municipality, or county in which they occurred. • Major Disaster - As defined under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency • Assistance Act (42 U.S.0 5122) a major disaster is any natural catastrophe (earthqualces, explosion, fire, flood, high water. Hostile actions, hurricanes, landslide, mudslide, storms, tidal wave, tornado, wind-driven water, snowstorms, or drought), or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United States, which in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant disaster assistance under this Act to supplement the effort and available resources of Staxes, tribes, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby. • Catastrophic Disaster — A disaster event that results in large numbers of deaths and injuries; causes extreme damage or destruction of facilities that provide and sustain human needs; produces an overwhelming demand on the state and local response resources and mechanisms: causes a severe long-term effect on general economic activity; and severely affects state; local, and private sector capabilities to begin and sustain response activities. The hazards identified in Table 2.1 and discussed in Section 2.1 are organized based on their maximum projected impact potential. This means that hazards capable of producing the maximum community-wide impact, such as hurricanes and floods, are discussed first. This does not mean other identified hazards are less important or less worthy of mitigation, it simply means that their potential to affect the total community is lower. 18 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Table 2.1 [dentification and projected impact potential for hazards Projected Impact Potential Hazard Category �� Fiood � J �1 J J J ,� J J J J J J ,� J J J Hurricane/Tropical J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J �1 J storm Tomado � J J J J J J Severe � J J J J J J J �/ J �1 thunderstorm D�ought � � � � Temperature � � � � � J extremes Agricultural pest/disease � `� � '� � Wildfire J J J J J J J J �l J � • Muck Fire � J J � � � J Soil/beach erosion � � � � � Seismic hazazds � � Sea Level Rise � � �1 J J � J � J � � • 19 � Loca) Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Hazard Category Projected Impact Potential • < Herbert Hoover Dike v � � � e � v � � � Breach Hazardous material J J J � J J accident Radiological accidents J J J J J J J J J (nuclear power plant) Communications � � � failure Hazardous material J � J J � � � release Transportation J � � � J � accident Wellfield � J � �l �l �l contamination Power Failure J J v J J J � J J (outage) • �T�z V4�i� .[. .��'=�? Civil disturbance �1 J �1 � � �1 Terrorism a�d V' �1 � � � �; ::�1 � J �1 J sabotage Mass migration crisis � v �l � 2.11 Natural Hazards 2.1.1.1 Flooding Frequencies from flooding associated with rain events other than tropical storms and hurricanes are more difficult to estimate. Eastern Florida shows an annual dry cycle stretching from early November through mid-May. During this part of the year, monthly rainfall rarely exceeds 2.5 to 4.0 inches per month. The wet season, beginning in mid-May and running through late October, shows monthly rainfall levels in the area to be 6.0 to 8.5 inches. Heaviest rainfall usually occurs in June and September. In PBC, the eastern or coastal section of the County receives more rain than the western section. This rainfall pattern coupled with the hurricane season (June through November) makes PBC particularly vulnerable to flooding associated with late season tropical storms and hurricanes because they typically occur when the water table is high and the ground 20 • Loc Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • is saturated. More information is available through the PBC Flood Awareness website accessible at:http://pbc�ov.com/dem/floodawareness/. Historical Flooding Events Flood of fall 1947. This flood is generally considered to be the most severe flood recorded in southern Florida. Heavy rainfall, including the rains from two hurricanes, occurred over a period of five months. Many parts of PBC were flooded for months and there was extensive damage to dairy pastures and agriculture in general. Such a flooding event would be much more significant today because of the increase in land development. Flood of October 1952. As occurred in 1947, this flood was preceded by five months of heavier than normal ra.infall which included a tropical storm in October. June through October rainfall was approximately 48 inches. Damage was heaviest in the beef cattle industry, with extensive losses of improved pasture land which required supplementa.l feeding of cattle. Vegetable growers and dairy farmers also suffered significant losses as a result of this flood. Rains of January 1957. On 21 Janua.ry 1957, PBC received 9 to 21 inches of rainfall within a 24-hour period. T'here was severe flooding in the vegetable garden areas of the County and much crop damage. Some fields had to be pumped out. Local crop damage was estimated at $1,000,000. Flood of June 1959. Heavy rains fell across most of central Florida from 17 to 21 June. These • rains were associated with and followed a tropical depression, and caused extensive flooding in poorly dra.ined, low-lying agricultural areas and some residential sections. Considerable pasture la.nd and some citrus land in PBC were inundated. Some highways also sustained damage from these flood waters. Rains of October 1966. On 22 October 1966, heavy ra.ins ranging from eight to ten inches over a 24-hour period destroyed approximately 4,200 acres of vegetable crops. Rains of March 1982. On 28 and 29 March 1982, PBC was subjected to a severe coastal storm with heavy rains and high winds. La.ntana measured 16 inches of rain over a 24-hour period. High seas sunk a Haitian freighter and a total of 11 people were drowned. The Great Thanksgiving Holiday East Coast Sto�n of 1984. A strong low pressure system developed east of Florida and coupled with a high pressure system to produce an extremely strong pressure gradient leading to gale force winds and high seas along the entire Florida east coast. Heavy rains fell over most of central Florida, and this surface runoff, coupled with the wind packing of seawater along the coast resulted in e�ensive coastal erosion and flooding. Many coastal structures were damaged or destroyed, including several in PBC. Flood of January 1989. On 21 and 22 January 1989, PBC experienced a gale with subtropical storm characteristics that caused extensive beach erosion a.nd dropped four to six inches of rain across the County. This caused ponding of water in low-lying areas. Several homes and a motel were damaged. Road flooding caused several accidents. • 21 Local Mirigation Strategy I 2015 The Unnamed Sto�n of October 1995. Almost exactly one year after the Hurricane Gordon • flooding incident in 1994, a stalled frontal system dropped over 15 inches of rain on PBC over a period of 29 hours. In the intervening year between these two events, some communities in PBC had conducted a number of mitigation projects and initiatives designed to improve drainage and prevent flooding in known flood prone areas. These mitigation projects and initiatives undoubtedly reduced the extent of flooding and flood related damages during the 1995 flooding event, nevertheless, the County did experience significant flooding again in 1995. Unnafned Stof-fn of January 1999. On Saturday 2 January of 1999, a cold front stalled over the northern part of PBC. Wasm, moist air from the Bahamas became entrained in this frontal system and produced a fairly localized, intense ra.in event in northern PBC. Initial reports indicated 21 inches of rain in a 12-hour period. T'his later turned out to be an enoneous reading from the recording instrument involved; however, it is generally recognized that between 18 and 22 inches of rain fell in the northern third of the County over a 12 to 18 hour period. Flooding was even more extensive than in the 1995 event, but it is interesting to note that many areas where flooding mitigation projects had been implemented remained dry, or showed a minimum of damage compared to areas where planned mitigation had not yet been implemented. Hardest hit were the Riviera Beach and Lake Park jurisdictions with a total of over $6,000,000 damage between them. Flooding was extensive along Northlake Boulevard. Erosion caused the collapse of a portion of I-95 that was under construction. Table 2.2 shows the final damage assessment in PBC from this storm. RecoYd Rainfall June - July 2002. On July 14, 2002 a record 27 consecutive da.ys of rain came to • a conclusion. The combined June - July rainfall total was sia� inches below the all time record. June rainfall was 20.16" (12.5% above normal). The County experienced five days of one inch or more rain. The water level in Lake Okeechobee rose to 12.57 feet. Because this ra.iny period was preceded by an extended dry period and rains were spread over several days, flooding was limited to street flooding. Hz�ricane Frances Septenzber 4, 2004. A maximum storm-total rainfall amount of 12.56 inches was measured at West Palm Beach International Airport with 10.26 inches occurring in a 24- hour period. Unofficial storm-total ra.infalls included 9.56 inches at Boynton Beach, 8 inches at Deerfield Beach and 7.18 inches at the Hillsboro Canal. Widespread storm-total amounts of three to five inches occuned in southeast and interior south Florida with southwest Florida averaging one to three inches. Rainfall flooding was mostly minor except for a few locations in PBC, which had up to three feet of standing water. A section of I-95 in PBC was closed due to a large sinkhole. Within the confines of the Herbert Hoover Dike, water levels on Lake Okeechobee fluctuated up to five feet above and below normal. Hu�icane Jeanne September 2S, 2004. A South Florida Water Management District (SFWNID) gauge measured a m�imum storm-tota.l ra.infall amount of 10.22 inches over the eastern portion of Lake Okeechobee. A SFWMD gauge about four miles west of West Palm Beach International Airport measured 9.10 inches with 8.79 inches of that occurring in a 24-hour period. At Moore Haven, 5.99 inches of rain was measured. Widespread storm-total amounts of one to four inches occurred in most of southeast and interior south Florida. with Miami-Dade County and Collier 22 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • County averaging one half to one inch. Mostly minor rainfall flooding was observed except locally in Palm Beach Gardens, Jupiter and in the farmlands of western PBC where it was more severe. Within the confines of the Herbert Hoover Dike, water levels on Lake Okeechobee fluctuated up to seven feet above and below normal causing severe flooding of some marinas. Flood of June S, 2005. Eight inches of rain in three hours caused flooding in streets and businesses in Boca Raton and in Highland Beach. Cars were stalled and Federal Highway was closed for a nine-block section from NE 20 to NE 29 Street. Hurs-icane Wilma October 24, 2005. Rainfall amounts across South Florida generally ranged from two to four inches across southern sections of the peninsula to four to six inches across western Collier County and around Lake Okeechobee, with a maa�imum amount of 7.21 inches in Clewiston. There was scattered street flooding. Flood of December 14, 2006. A slow-moving low pressure trough caused very heavy rains and significant flooding over parts of PBC. West Palm Beach International Airport received a total of 8.21 inches of rain ending at 7 PM on the 15th. Other locations in Centra.l and Southern PBC received between six and eight inches of rain. Northern Broward County received lesser amounts in the two to three inch range. Several streets and roads were closed in the ciry of West Palm Beach, with water reaching up to three feet deep in some areas. Hardest hit was the neighborhood of Pineapple Park. Many vehicles were stranded in the deep water, with local police receiving about 120 calls for assistance. No significant damage was reported to property • despite water entering homes and businesses. Florida Power a.nd Light reported 20,000 customers without power during the afternoon and early evening hours. Shelters were opened for people left homeless by the floods, but only five people arrived as of 8:20 PM. Flood of Januca�y 22, 2008. Intense rains affected Boynton Beach and the northwest section of Delray Beach during the late afternoon and evening hours of 22 January. Maximum observed rainfall amounts were between four and six inches in Boynton Beach, although Doppler radar estimated as much as ten inches of rain fell in just over three hours. Numerous reports of flooding were reported. A trained spotter reported water getting into houses in the corridor west of Federal Highway and east of Congress Avenue between Boynton Beach Boulevard and Woolbright Road. Water rose to as high as two feet along sections of Congress Avenue. Significant flooding was reported at the parking lot of Boynton Beach mall. The I-95 on-ramp at Gateway Boulevard was closed due to the water depth, as were sections of Boynton Beach Boulevard. Dozens of vehicles stalled and 40 traffic accidents were reported due to the rain and standing water. The combination of a mid and upper level trough moving east across South Florida and a developing wann frontal bounda.ry provided the necessary atmospheric conditions for intense rains and flooding in the Boynton Beach area on 22 January. March 22, 2008. Heavy rain across the Wellington area produced multiple reports of knee deep water in yards and across roadways. Heavy rain across central portions of PBC including the Wellington area produced flooded roads and water approaching a structure. � 23 L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 May 24, 2008. Flooding reported at the intersection of Linton Boulevard and Congress Avenue • making the intersection impassable. Flooding also reported along Nassau Street with water intruding into some homes. Flood waters were near two feet deep at some locations. A shorlwave moved across South Florida during the afternoon hours allowing multiple severe thunderstorms to develop across southeast Florida. A total of 8,200 customers lost power due to the severe thunderstorms in the three-county area of Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties. March 21, 2009. A warm front lifted north through South Florida during the day of March 21. Unstable air south of the front combined with warm temperatures to produce strong and severe thunderstorms over PBC. A total of about 5,000 customers lost power. Significant flooding was reported in the Palm Beach Gardens and North Palm Beach areas. Flooding was most severe in the area of Pearl Street and Riverside Drive, and along US 1 near PGA Boulevard. Water reached the windows of cars in some cases. The flooding along US 1 was exacerbated by construction on the highway. August 14, 2010. Strong and slow-moving thunderstorms produced flooding in the Jupiter area due to light atmospheric flow and copious moisture. A spotter reported severe street flooding in Jupiter and the closing of Central Boulevard and Indian Creek Parkway. Ra.infall of 2.75 inches reported within 45 minutes. October 28, 2011. A weak frontal boundary across South Florida, in combination with a flow of deep tropical moisture from the western Caribbean Sea associated with the remnant of Hurricane • Rina, led to periods of very heavy rain and significant flooding lasting the better part of 4 days. An estimated 2,000 customers lost power across South Florida due to the rain. Ra.infall amounts of 6 to 9 inches fell over southeastern PBC in less than 6 hours, leading to numerous reports of flooded streets and some road closures. No reports were received of water entering structures. August 26, 2012. Tropical Storm Isaac moved west-northwest across the Florida Straits south of the Florida Keys on 26 August. The northern edge of the wind and rain area associated with Isaac affected the South Florida peninsula throughout the day on the 26th. Isaac continued on a west-northwest track into the Gulf of Mexico on the 27th with winds, rain and flooding continuing over parts of South Florida.. Moderate to severe flooding affected a large portion of metro PBC west of the Florida Turnpike. Hardest hit communities include The Acreage, Royal Palm Beach, Loxahatchee and Wellington. Canals were overtopped and communities were stranded by high water for several days after the ra.ins stopped. Few homes suffered water damage, but major damage was sustained to infrastructure, including roads and water management structures. Rainfall amounts as high as 16 inches were measured in Royal Palm Beach and Loxahatchee, with estimates in excess of 18 inches in a two-day period. August 27, 2012. Flooding persisted over the western communities of PBC through the end of August as a result of torrential rains from Tropical Storm Isaac which fell on 26 and 27 August. It is important to note that many of the areas that experienced heavy flooding in both the 1994, 1995, and 2012 rainfall events were not in designated flood zones. For those areas where the 24 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) did indicate a flooding hazard, these two events both exceeded the 100-year storm levels and occurred back-to-back. The 1999 event was extremely localized, but rainfall exceeded all previous records in specific areas, and was beyond the design capacity of virtually all drainage systems in the County. Often when these types of intense rainfall events occur, streams and drainage ditches tend to reach peak flood flow concurrently with tidal water conditions associated with coastal storm surge. This greatly increases the probability of flooding in the low-lying areas of the coastal zone. Areas along the Intracoastal Waterway are particularly susceptible to flooding under these conditions. The most flood prone areas in the eastern portion of PBC poorly drained soils, a high water table, and relatively flat terrain; all of which contribute to their flooding problems. Flat terrain and heavily wooded areas aggravate flood problems by preventing rapid drainage in some areas. January 9, 201�1. During the night of Thursday, January 9, 2014, several mesoscale meteorological factors combined to produce torrential rainfall across portions of coastal PBC over a rather short period of time. From roughly 8pm until midnight, several locations received over 12 inches of rain in just those few hours, with one mesonet site just west-southwest of Hypoluxo receiving an astonishing 22.21 inches during the same time frame according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Tn addition, heavy rains continue for 12 hours causing major flooding in the Kings Point area, at • Atlantic Avenue and Jog Road in suburban Delray Beach. Estimated rainfall totals in that area were almost 12 inches, according to the South Florida Water Management District. A number of home say minor damage and a presidential declaration were sought but not granted due to the damage not meeting federal threshold guidelines. Flood Water Sources and Frequency of Occurrence Sources of flood waters in PBC include: • The Atlantic Ocean • The Intracoastal Waterway • Lake Okeechobee • The West Palm Beach Canal • The Hillsboro Canal • The North New River Canal • The Miami Canal Major water retention areas include: • Corbett Wildlife Management Area • Loxahatchee Wildlife Refuge and WCA No. 2 • The Rotenberger/Holey Land Area • 25 Local Mitigation Strategy � 2015 Floodplains designated on the FIRM are based on the 1% annual flood chance or the 100-year • flood event. The 500-year flood event with a 02 % annual chance of occurrence is used to designate other areas of the community, which may have some vulnerability to flooding. Additional flood information is addressed in Section 2.21.2 The PBC Flood Insurance Rate Maps are currently being updated but were not available for this update. Table 2.2 Final damage assessment from the January 1999 storm.* Jurisdiction or Number of Residential and Public Total Geographic Area Structures Business Loss Infrastructure Jurisdiction Loss Dama ed Loss � Unincorporated i Palm Beach 94 $884,000 $119,655 $1,002,655 County Lake Park 2 $2,008,200 $67,000 $2,075, 200 Riviera Beach 201 $2,927,075 $28,000 $2,965,075 Palm Beach 126 $675,400 $12,000 $688,400 Gardens North Palm 25 $40,000 B $40,000 Beach North Jupiter 1 B B -- � Northern Palm � � Beach B B $51,000 $51,000 • Improvement District Total County 460 $7,524,675 $288,655 $7,822,220 � Losses � * Data from PBCDEM. 26 • L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • As a relatively flat, low lying, heavily developed coastal county that experiences frequent intense rain events and periodic tropical storms, Palm Beach County is especially susceptible to flooding. Palm Beach County flooding has historically taken one of the following forms: 1. Flash flooding resulting in the rapid buildup of flood waters from intense localized precipita.tion that exceeds drainage capacities 2. General flooding resulting from a buildup of water levels over time 3. Water body overflows resulting from excessive rainfall or water management actions 4. Coastal surge flooding driven by storm-force winds 5. Dike breaches or overtopping related to major rain and tropical storm events Causes of Local Floodins Significant factors contributing to inland flooding include rainfall intensity, rainfall frequency, rainfall duration, surface conditions, topogra.phy, and inadequate natural drainage. Palm Beach County's torrential rains, low and flat terrain, and large number of inland water bodies, conspire to create a significant probability for inland flooding. An additional, increasingly significant, contributing factor is rapid water runoff associated with the vast areas of impervious surfaces created by new development, creating flood • prone a.reas where they did not previously exist. ln urban areas, grates and drains can become overtaxed or blocked with debris, leaving no space for excess water to enter drainage and sewer systems. According to the South Florida Water Management District, "Many new residents to Palm Beach County are alarmed when they see standing water in streets or driveway swales. In other places, that could be a cause for concern, but in our region, it's something you can expect to see after a soaking summer shower." Palm Beach County averages over 60 inches of rain a year and more than 130 rain days, with most of it coming between the months of June and November. Most developed areas are clustered along the coasts or near large waterways. Virtually flat, with most areas at or only slightly above sea level, even moderate rains can accumulate quickly. The Water Management Challenge Rainfall has been critical to South Florida's history, feeding its natural wetlands and refreshing surface-water and groundwater reservoirs. Its water management issues differ from those of most other areas in the country. Where most areas are concerned with protecting "scarce" water resources, South Florida's challenge is managing an overabunda.nce of surface water. In order to drain and manage the excess water, hundreds of miles of canals, dikes, and levees have been built. Water management policies have created agricultura.l, tourism, and real esta.te industries whose success has • 27 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 fueled the state's population growth and taxed the seemingly abundant water supply. � Now choices must be made between further population growth, environmental protection, and an adequate, safe water supply. The area's high hydrologic variation, low physical relief, and limited storage and conveyance capacities, make water management challenging. A delicate balance must be struck, dealing with extremes: flooding versus drought and open land versus crowded urban areas. Actions range from enforcing water restrictions during dry periods to precautionary or emergency flood management during wet periods and storm events. With annual rainfall averaging over 60 inches (but varying widely), and more than 50 percent occurring in 4 months (June to September)... with the ra.iny season necessitating the movement of water away from populated areas for flood control and the storage of excess water necessary to meet population needs and demands during dry periods... water management is a complex challenge. County Elevations Terrain throughout the Palm Beach County is relatively level. The mean elevation is 15 feet above sea level. Ocean coastal beachfront gradually slopes up to a dune line with top elevations of 12 to 23 feet. From the dune line there is a gra.dual downward slope to lake and inland waterway frontage with a width of from a few hundred feet to a half mile. From there, land slopes upward to a coastal ridge then downward to elevations of • 5 to 12 feet in a drainage valley. Further inland, elevations remain relatively stable. Primarv Surface Water Areas Lake Okeechobee, the largest fresh water lake after the great lakes, is South Florida's primary �vater reservoir. Approximately 250 square miles of the lake are within the geographical boundaries of Palm Beach County. Other sizeable bodies of water include Lake Mangonia (540 acres) and Clear Lake (401 acres) in West Palm Beach and Lake Osborne (356 acres) in southern Lake Worth and northern Lantana. T'he West Palm Beach Canal connects Lake Okeechobee and Lake Worth. A vast network of canals is interconnected with the West Palm Beach Canal. A system of lakes runs north and south within 8 miles of the east coast. The Loxahatchee River system is located in the northern section of the county and is interconnected with the Loxahatchee Slough. T'he map below shows the relative distribution of primary surface water areas within Palm Beach County 28 � Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Palm Beach County _. prlmary Wa[cr fcatures _ _ ._ ....�...�..� � . y �►..�.. �� ar�. � - __— ,'� .'. _ P ;, Natural & Beneficial Flood Water Storage Areas The following areas, designated as "Environmentally Sensitive lands" are undisturbed natural areas of Palm Beach County that act as natural storage areas for flood waters, reduce the possibility of flooding nearby residences, and help to recharge the • groundwater aquifer. • Bee Line Corridor (1399 acres) • Delray Oaks (25 acres) • Frenchman's Forest (150 acres) • High Ridge Scrub (40 acres) • Juno Hills (560 acres) • Jupiter Ridge (269 acres) • Loxahatchee River (368 acres) • Loxahatchee Slew (10389 acres) • Fox Property (1538 acres) • Pal-Mar (6944 acres) • Rosemary Scrub (14 acres) • Royal Palm Beach Pines (748 acres) • Sea crest Scrub (54 acres) • Yamato Scrub (217 acres) • Leon M. Weekes Area (12 acres) The map below shows these natural and beneficial flood water storage areas: • 29 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Natural and Benefici�l Flood WaLer Storagr Areas � � .,5,.�.. ,o.a�..,:,.�. . . i . �, Tiai�Yu _ _. _.. ._._ �vaw .. '�. � � + ��ri��uow `,� � , � I xn�u� . "'i.s...w.c .� � � IF. , ;�waauw� :a�w� rsv:� °i°'�'" .ne�c..x� � �` .. �'�,� avwn� uane+ ��. �. -r• , •��q 'f I, , �� '___ ' '� �4 � I: . _'_'.._'_ _ 4 � - '�es�i F . �'�. . �.s++ - �E r�it. -! � . . uYr�wrrt - •� ' � ♦ �1 .__-' �Rw�a fOY _ . . �rr�.s ..�.�. , • . _. . _. ._. . . ._ a. .. � T s — �-- , . __ ' + ,',5, L t�» _ — � �_ � ."� .: � _ .. � � --� -- - �i i ' 4 ..__. . _. � , .,�{.., 7 0 �u:r m ( _- ..._....�:s"`} R'�.a I i� ., �+ . ��, �p. �_ . �.wt.�e•i � - ac.a. i „_ e � ��w� - - � � i, , . '__ _ _ xu�.u: ; I r.w...,..,.�� _.:.,�y..�� ... .�- `�rr �...�e.. � .. . . . .. . .. .. . .c.��, .� • r ...w « n. ��.�..� �.....� � 1 +_ �* , Flood Prone Areas Flood prone areas are widely scattered throughout the county. Areas close to inland bodies of water and lower elevation areas in the northern and southern sections of the county are particularly susceptible to inland flooding. The map below depicts Special Flood Hazard Areas areas within the county designated by FEMA as having a one percent chance of inundation in any given year. While some areas of the county might believe they are immune from flooding based on recent history, published elevations, and/or designations on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS), virtually the whole county has proven to be susceptible to short term localized flooding when extraordinary rain events have exceeded the capacity of natural runoff and absorption. A review of recent flood events suggests that Palm Beach County significantly surpasses the national average of 25% of flooding occurring outside of Special Flood Hazard Areas. Even a significant number of county properties designated as "repetitive flood loss list" by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) lie outside Special 30 • Local Mitigation Strategy � 2015 • Flood Hazard Areas. Palm Beach County ------ -- ________ _�D_��1_Fi_2ost_Hazard.A.r_�a�.____ --_.__,._ _--__ -� � ,' � �� ` '� , � j I , � "�' . � �_ �� t .d..� ,I � �� ,.� . i � ;�' _ _ . ... � � _ ,.. , • ' _ _ _ ` . � Historically, the Palm Beach County rainfall area has the highest annual rainfall in South Florida, followed by Broward County and Miami-Dade rainfall areas. The county's east coast communities receive higher rainfall levels than the inland and western areas. Even during drought years, there have been instances where the coastal rainfall in eastern areas of the county were close to the average. Because there are no large impoundments in the eastern coastal rainfall areas, runoff has to be discharged into the Atlantic Ocean. Flood Control Flood control in Palm Beach County is dependent on a complex, integrated system of canals, waterways and flood control devices operated by the South Florida Water Management District, 20 drainage districts, and thousands of privately owned canals, retention/detention lakes and ponds. The county's drainage system is designed to handle excess surface water in three stages. The "neighborhood or tertiary drainage systems" (made up of community lakes, ponds, street and yard drainage grates or culverts, ditches and canals) flow into the "local or secondary drainage system"(made up canals, structures, pumping stations and storage • 31 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 areas) and then into the "primary flood control system" (consisting of South Florida • Water Management District canals and natural waterways and rivers), ultimately reaching the Atlantic Ocean. The Water Control Districts serving Palm Beach County include the following: South Florida Water Management District Acme Improvement District Pahokee Drainage District East Beach Water Control District Pelican Lake WCD East Shore Water Control District Pine Tree WCD Gladeview Drainage District Ritta WCD Highland Glades Drainage District Seminole WCD Indian Trail Improvement District Shawano Drainage District Lake Worth Drainage District South Florida Conservancy District Loxahatchee Groves WCD South Indian River WCD North Palm Beach Heights WCD South Shore Drainage District Northern PBC Improvement District WPB Water Catchment Area Drainage Svstem Maintenance . Palm Beach County's drainage systems consist of a combination of natural drainageways and channels, engineered channels, storm sewers and ditches, and detention/retention basins contiguous to drainage systems. These systems can easily lose their carrying capacity with debris accumulation, sedimentation buildup and/or vegetation growth, becoming ineffective for flood prevention. Extensive maintenance is necessary to ensure flood preparedness. Responsibility for inspection and maintenance of drainage systems falls to a variety of organizations depending on the type of system involved: • South Florida Management District and the various water control districts provide oversight for the routine inspection of the drainage systems under their purview and for debris clearance and other maintenance activities. • Storm drain maintenance falls within the purview of the County's Road & Bridge Division, municipal public works departments, and the State Department of Transportation. • [nspection, clearance, and maintenance of privately owned systems are the responsibilities of property owners and associations. In rare instances, environmental regulations may prohibit removing natural debris and new growth from some drainageways. 32 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Maintenance activities, most commonly, include ongoing monitoring, debris and sediment removal, and the correction of problem sites and damaged systems by field crews. Quite often, maintenance actions are prompted by citizen complaints and reports. Given the shear size of the County, the vigilance of citizens is a critical element in identifying potential drainage problems. The County has ongoing programs for structural and permanent changes to channels or basins (e.g. enlargement of openings, installation of grates to catch debris, insta.11ation of hard bank protection, construction of new retention basins, etc.) to reduce flooding and maintenance problems. Coastal communities commonly underta.ke a variety of maintenance measures including dune and mangrove preservation, bluff stabilization, and beach nourishment to protect coastal buildings, property, and coastal water bodies from flooding and erosion. The county and municipalities work continuously to improve and maintain their stormwater management systems. Some of these projects a.re self funded and others depend on grant support. Drainage improvement projects are among the most prevalent flood mitigation strategies reflected on the County's Local Mitigation Strategy prioritized project list. Vulnerabilitv While damages caused by storm surge and dike failure can be extensive and costly, historically physical damages from inland structural flooding have been relatively minor • and isolated. As a predominantly localized event, inland flooding does not pose a significant threat to the ability of the county, municipalities and businesses to carry on normal operations. People, structures, and infrastructure located within floodplains and areas with poor drainage aze most susceptible to inland flooding, particularly to flash flooding. However, flash flooding can and does affect all areas of the county. Continued development will certainly contribute to an increased frequency of runoff flooding. For the most part, flooding depths are not sufficient to inundate large residential and commercial areas. Developed parcels tend to be elevated to a level that limits significant water intrusion from water build-up. Where water does intrude structures, damage can be costly for individual property owners. Beyond physical water damage, perhaps the greater issue is the potential for mold infestation, which can create health problems for occupants and lead to costly cleanup and repairs. Flooding can cause damage to cars and outdoor equipment, contaminate water systems, and interrupt water treatment. Sewage overflow raises health concerns. Significant expanses of street flooding are common, can be costly in terms of loss of function for extended periods of time, and can create dangerous, even potentially deadly, driving conditions. • 33 L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Post storm accidents, especially electrocutions, are not uncommon, when people wander • into flood waters where live wires or generators are present. 2.1.1.2 Hurricane/Tropical Storm For many years, the risk of significant loss of life and property due to hurricanes seemed small. Many, if not the majority, of existing homes and businesses along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts were constructed during the 1970s and 1980s, a period of relatively inactive hurricane formation. Most of the people currently living and working in coastal areas have never experienced the impact of a major hurricane. Hurricanes that impacted Florida during the 1970s and 80s were infrequent and of relatively low intensity. Homeowners, business interests, and government ofFicials grew to regard hurricane risk as manageable by private insurance supplemented occasionally by federal disaster funding and subsidized flood insurance. The hurricane risk did not seem sufficient to warrant increased investment in mitigation. Two major hurricanes, Hugo in 1989 and Andrew in 1992, forced a reevaluarion of this risk assessment. While experts somerimes disagree on the annual cost of hurricane damage, all sources agree that hurricane Andrew was one of the most costly hurricane event ever to affect the U.S. Insured losses from humcane Andrew topped $17 billion and most sources agree that the total cost of hurricane Andrew exceeded $25 billion. Florida is the most vulnerable state in the nation to the impacts of hurricanes and tropical storms. • South central Florida is particularly exposed to the dangers presented by humcanes, due to its topography. The region is la.rgely a flat, low lying plain. The potential for property damage and human casualties in PBC has been increased by the ra.pid growth over the last few decades, particularly along the coastline. Population risk has also been exacerbated by some complacency due to the recent period of reduced hurricane frequency. Hurricanes are tropical cyclones with winds that exceed 74 mph and blow counter-clockwise around their centers in the Northern Hemisphere. They are essentially heat pumping mechanisms that transfer the sun's heat energy from the tropical to the temperate and polar regions. Hurricanes are formed from thunderstorms that form over tropical oceans with surface tempera.tures warmer than 81° Fahrenheit (26.5° Celsius). The ambient heat in the sea's surface and moisture in the rising air column set up a low pressure center and convective conditions that allow formation of self-sustaining circular wind patterns. Under the right conditions these winds may continue to intensify until they reach humcane strength. This heat and moisture from the warm ocean water is the energy source of a hurricane. Hurricanes weaken rapidly when deprived of their energy source by traveling over land or entering cooler waters. Since 1886, 55 storms of hurricane intensity have passed within 125 miles of PBC. This represents an average of one hurricane every two years. The number of direct hits on the southeastern Florida coastline between 1899 and 2013 has been as follows: 34 • L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • • Category 1 Storms: (winds 74 to 95 mph) = 9 storms • Category 2 Storms: (winds 96 to 110 mph) = 3 storms • Category 3 Storms: (winds 111 to 120 mph) = 17 storms • Category 4 Storms: (winds 121 to 155 mph) = 16 storms • Category 5 Storms: (> 155 mph) = 9 storms A storm surge is a large dome of water often 50 to 100 miles wide and rising anywhere from four to five feet in a Category 1 hurricane up to 20 feet in a Category 5 storm. The storm surge arrives ahead of the storm's actual landfall and the more intense the hurricane is, the sooner the surge arrives. Water rise can be very rapid, posing a serious threat to those who have waited to evacua.te flood prone areas. A storm surge is a wave that has outrun its generating source and become a long period swell. The surge is always highest in the right-front qua.drant of the direction the hurricane is moving in. As the storm approaches shore, the greatest storm surge will be to the north of the hurricane eye. Such a surge of high water topped by waves driven by hurricane force winds can be devastating to coastal regions. The stronger the hurricane and the shallower the offshore water, the higher the surge will be. In addition, if the storm surge arrives at the same time as the high tide, the water height will be even greater. The storm tide is the combination of the storm surge and the normal astronomical tide. • Damage during hurricanes may also result from tornadoes and inland flooding and heavy rainfall that usually accompany these storms. Hurricane Andrew, a relatively "dry" hurricane, dumped ten inches of rain on south Florida and left many buildings extensively water damaged. Rain water may seep into gaps in roof sheathing and saturate insulation and ceiling drywall, in some cases causing ceilings to collapse. Aside from direct property damage, the potential for crop damage and economic disruption from hurricanes and tropical storms is significant. Tropical Storm Mitch dropped as much as 10 inches of rain in some south Florida areas, which resulted in approximately $20 million in direct crop damage in PBC. The largest moneta.ry loss, however, was sustained by the sugar cane mills in the western part of the County, where contracted part-time help and union workers must be paid whether or not the mills run. The six mills in PBC and the one in Hendry combined lost about $500,000 a day in wages. The mills remained down until the fields dried out. Palm Beach County has 671 listed farm proprietors with approximately 8,000 employees and a tota.l annual payroll of $12,894,000. PBC has approximately 627,924 acres of farmland currently valued at $2,417,525. Historical Hurricane/Tropical Storm Events Hurricane of September 1902. This hurricane made landfall near West Palm Beach on 11 September 1902 and exited the state near Tampa Bay on the 12�. Maximum-recorded winds • 35 L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 were only 78 mph, however 14 deaths were attributed to this storm and one ship was wrecked • near Jupiter. Damages specific to PBC are not recorded. Hu�icane of July 1926. A Category 1 hurricane with winds of 90 mph made landfall near Jupiter on the moming of 27 July 1926. This hurricane circled inland along Florida.'s east coast and exited the state at the Florida/Georgia border on 28 July. By that time, it had been downgraded to a tropical storm. Palm Beach County experienced high winds and flooding. Hurf-icane of Septerraber 1928. This hurricane made Florida landfall near the Town of Palm Beach as a strong Category 4 hurricane with one of the lowest barometric pressures ever recorded in this area (928.9 millibars/27.42 in). This was the Sth most intense hurricane ever to make landfall in U.S. territory. It reached Lake Okeechobee with very little diminished intensity and moved across the northern shoreline. This sent a massive storm surge southward flooding lower areas on the southern and western edge of the lake. In excess of, 2,500 people were killed during this storm's passage. Nearly all the loss of life was in the Okeechobee area and was caused by overflowing of the lake along its southwestern shore. While all of centra.l Florida was afFected by this killer storm, PBC mainly experienced wind damage and flooding from the associated rains. Hu�icane of SeptembeY 1922. This major, Category 2 hurricane passed over Jupiter Island with a barometric pressure of 947.5 millibars (27.98 in). Maximum winds recorded were 127 mph. There was considerable property damage all along the Florida east coast, mostly in the area between Jupiter and Fort Pierce. Severe waterfront damage was reported in Stuart. Minimal damage was reported from PBC, although there was some flooding in the lower areas of the • County. Huf-f-icane of Augzcst 1929. A weak hurricane made landfall near Fort Pierce on the morning of 11 August and crossed the state in a northwesterly direction exiting to the Gulf of Mexico near Crystal River on the 12�`. Minimal damage and flooding was experienced in PBC. Hurricane of June 1945. This hurricane entered Florida. from the Gulf of Mexico making landfall near Ceda.r Key and moving east-northeast to exit the sta.te near St. Augustine. Palm Beach County received heavy rains and high winds from this storm. Hu�-icane of August 1949. This Category 2/Category 4 hurricane made landfall in Florida between Delray Beach and Palm Beach with winds of 120 mph and a barometxic pressure of 954.0 millibars (28.17 in). As it moved inland, its center passed over the northern part of Lake Okeechobee, but the levees in that area held and no major flooding occuned. Damages were estimated at $45 million. Tides of 11.2 ft. at Fort Pierce, 8.5 ft. at Stuart, and 6.9 ft. at Lake Worth were reported. Stuart sustained severe damages from this storm. Statewide, over 500 people lost their homes as a result of this storm. Hu�icane Donna of SeptenabeY 1960. Hurricane Donna was the 6th most intense U.S. Hurricane at landfall. This storm crossed the Florida Keys into the Gulf of Mexico then turned back toward the northeast and struck the Florida mainland just south of Naples. It then turned north moved across Ft. Myers, where it turned again to the northeast, moved across the staxe, and exited Florida at just north of Daytona Beach. Rainfall ranged from five to ten inches in an 80 to 100- 36 • Local Mitigation Stra.tegy I 2015 • mile wide belt following this storm's track. Lakes and streams overflowed their banks and forced the evacuation of many homes throughout central Florida.. The high water closed many roads and inundated considerable agricultural land. At least 12 people were killed statewide and more than 1,794 were injured. Hur�icane Cleo of August 1964. This small but destructive storm moved northwa.rd into Biscayne Bay on 27 August 1964. Palm Beach County received three to five inches of rain associated with this storm, mostly in the eastern portion of the County. Most sustained da.mage was associated with wind rather than flooding. Hurricane Agnes of June 1972. Humcane Agnes moved through the Gulf of Mexico off Florida's west coast. While it never struck central Florida mainland, it spawned the worst severe weather outbreak in Florida history. The outer rain bands covered virtually the entire peninsula and spawned numerous tornadoes. There were six people killed and 40 injured in Okeechobee, one killed and seven injured in La Belle, 40 injured at Big Coppit Key, two injured at Bassinger, three injured in Haines City, four at Crystal Springs, 11 in Malabar, and 12 in Cape Canaveral. Most of those injured lived in manufactured housing. Damage estimates totaled $5 million to public property and $26 million to private property. Hurricane David of September 1979. Hurricane David moved over the Dominican Republic with winds of 165 mph, but weakened drastically before reaching Florida's east coast. David raked the eastern coastline of Florida from PBC northwazd. Officially classed as a minimal • hurricane, its strongest winds were offshore when it officially made landfall approximately 20 miles south of Melbourne. Tides were three to five feet above normal along the eye tra.ck and one to two feet above normal elsewhere along the Florida's east coast. Light to moderate erosion was reported along the PBC coastline. Storm rainfall was quite variable from location to location. Totals generally ranged from six to nine inches, but some stations reported as much as 11 inches during the storm's passage. Tropical Storna Isidore of September 1984. Tropical Storm Isidore made landfall near West Palm Beach on 27 September 1984 and moved inland toward Orlando. Highest winds were 72 mph and rainfall was reported to be five to seven inches over a 24-hour period. There was some flooding, but this occuned mostly in northern Florida. Tropical Storm Bob of June 1985. On 22 June 1985, Tropical Storm Bob moved across south Florida in a northeasterly direction from Fort Myers to just north of Palm Beach. Ra.infall from this event did minor damage, mostly along Florida's west coast. Palm Beach County suffered moderate agricultural losses. Tropical Storrrc Gordon of October 1994. Following a similar track to hurricane Donna of 1960, tropical storm Gordon crossed the Florida Keys into the Gulf of Mexico then turned back to the northeast and struck the mainland Florida Peninsula near Fort Myers on 12 October. It moved across the sta.te and exited Florida into the Atlantic just north of Vero Beach on 16 October. Although the maximum sustained winds reported from Gordon were only 52 mph, the storm caused eight deaths and 42 injuries. • 37 L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Palm Beach County had experienced a period of extensive growth during the 1970s and 1980s. Most of this growth took place in the form of residential and commercial land development in the eastern portion PBC close to the Intracoasta.l Waterway and the beaches. The rain event associated with Tropical Storm Gordon in October of 1994 was the most significant rain event to occur after this period of development. Essentially, the County received 17+ inches of rain over a 2-day period. Rainfall was not evenly disbursed over the whole County. Statewide damages associated with Gordon totaled over $400 million. Agricultural interests sustained $275 million in damages primarily from the widespread flooding. Vegetable and citrus crops were hit particularly hard. Exacerbating the flooding associated with Tropical Storm Gordon was the fact that prior to October 1994 had been a very wet year for PBC. Rainfall recorded through September of that year had reached 74 inches before the Gordon event occurred. Altogether PBC received approximately 100 inches of rain in 1994, making that year the wettest year since 1912. Hurricane Erin of August 1995. Hurricane Erin made landfall near Sebastian Inlet on 2 August 1995. Brevard County bore the brunt of this storm with sustained winds of approximately 100 mph. While PBC was spared most of the damages associated with Erin's wind field, heavy rains of up to 8 inches in 2 hours were associated with the backside of this storm and flooding occuned in low-lying areas along the PBC's northern edge. Tropical Sto�nc Mitch of October 1998. Hurricane Mitch was one of the deadliest storms in Atlantic history. By the time, it reached Florida on 4 and 5 November 1998, it had been • downgraded to a tropical storm. Palm Beach County received minimal rains from this storm, which passed to the north of the County. Extensive agricultural damage was reported throughout South Florida. Hu�icane Irene of October 1999. Hurricane Irene weakened to Tropical Storm force winds by the time it tracked north through the Everglades, but it menaced South Florida and PBC with incessa.nt rains and its sluggish pace. In the end, it dropped 10-20 inches of rain throughout the County, causing extensive flooding in some areas. By Frida.y evening (October 15) 125,000 homes in PBC were without power. Hu�icane Frances of Septefnber 4, 2004. Hurricane Frances formed from a tropical depression in the deep tropical Atlantic on 25 August about 1400 miles east of the Lesser Antilles and reached hurricane strength on 26 August. Frances became a Category 4 Hurricane on 28 August while about 700 miles east of the Lesser Antilles. Frances then moved generally west-northwest and weakened to a Category 2 hurricane while crossing the northwest Bahamas. After stalling for about 12 hours on 4 September in the Florida Straits between Grand Bahama Island and the southeast Florida. coast, the center of the nearly 70-mile diameter eye crossed the Florida coast near Sewalls Point, at 1 A.M. EDT, 5 September with the southern eyewall affecting the extreme northeast portion of PBC. Frances moved farther inland just north of Lake Okeechobee and weakened to a tropical storm before crossing the entire Florida Peninsula and exiting into the Gulf of Mexico just north of Tampa. It made a second landfall as a tropical storm in the eastern Florida Panhandle. 38 • L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Sustained tropical storm-force winds likely occuned in all six south Florida counties. Although no sustained hurricane-force winds were officially observed in any of the six south Florida. counties, a National Weather Service (NWS) instrument on the eastern shore of Lake Okeechobee at Port Mayaca, just across the PBC border, measured a sustained wind of 85 mph. At West Palm Beach International Airport, the highest sustained wind was 64 mph with a peak gust of 82 mph and the lowest observed barometric pressure was 972 millibars. A SFWMD instrument measured a peak wind gust of 92 mph over the eastern portion of Lake Okeechobee. The estimated peak wind gust in the Palm Beach metro area was 91 mph at Jupiter Inlet with a peak wind gust of 87 mph measured by a Coastal-Marine Automated Network (C-MAl� station at Lake Worth Pier. In Glades County near the western shore of Lake Okeechobee, the highest measured sustained wind was 60 mph with a peak gust of 90 mph. In Clewiston, a sustained wind of 60 mph with a gust of 80 mph was estimated. A maximum storm-total rainfall amount of 12.56 inches was measured at Palm Beach International Airport with 10.26 inches of that occurring in a 24-hour period. Unofficial storm- tota.l ra.infalls included 9.56 inches at Boynton Beach, eight inches at Deerfield Beach and 7.18 inches at Hillsboro Canal. Widespread storm-total amounts of three to five inches occuned in southeast and interior south Florida with southwest Florida avera.ging one to three inches. Rainfall flooding was mostly minor except for a few locations in PBC, which had up to three feet of standing water. A section of I-95 in PBC was closed due to a large sinkhole. The maximum storm surge was estimated to have ranged from two to four feet along the northeast Palm Beach • Coast to one to two feet along the northeast Broward Coast. Within the confines of the Herbert Hoover Dike, water levels on Lake Okeechobee fluctuated up to five feet above and below normal. Coastal beach erosion was moderate in Palm Beach and portions of Broward counties. There were no confirmed tornadoes. There were no known direct deaths, but at least nine people died in the aftermatl�. Su� of these deaths occuned in PBC, mainly as the result of vehicle- related accidents or from drowning. An unknown number of injuries occuned. Property damage at the coast occurred mainly to marinas, piers, seawalls, bridges and docks, as well as to boats. Inland structure damage included 15,000 houses and 2,400 businesses in PBC. Wind damage to house roofs, mobile homes, trees, power lines, signs, screened enclosures and outbuildings occuned over much of southeast Florida including areas near Lake Okeechobee, but was greatest in PBC. A preliminary damage estimate for Frances in south Florida. was $620 million, including $500 million in Palm Beach, $80 million in Broward, and $24 million in Miami-Dade. Crop damage in PBC was estimated at an additional $70 million to sugar cane and vegetables and additional heavy losses occuned to nurseries. Florida Power and Light reported power outages for 659,000 customers in Palm Beach, 590,000 in Broward, 422,000 in Miami-Dade, 29,200 in Collier, 2,500 in Hendry and 1,700 in Collier. An estimated 17,000 persons sought refuge in public shelters in PBC and nearly 7,000 in Broward County. Hurricane Jeanne of September 25, 2004. Just three weeks after Hurricane Frances, Hurricane Jeanne struck the same area of southeast Florida.. Hurricane Jeanne formed from a tropical • 39 L Mirigation Strategy I 2015 depression just east of the Leeward Islands on 12 September. She moved across Puerto Rico and � Hispaniola then turned north into the Atlantic and became a hurricane on 20 September. Jeanne made a clockwise loop for three days in the Atlantic north of Hispaniola before moving west- northwest. It strengthened to a Category 2 Hurricane while over the northwest Bahamas and then made landfall around 11 P.M., 25 September near the south end of Hutchinson Island, nearly coincident with the landfall point of Hurricane Frances just three weeks before. The 40- mile diameter eye was not quite as large as Frances, but the southern eyewall again affected northeast PBC. After landfall, Jeanne initially moved along a track similar to Frances, just north of La.ke Okeechobee as it weakened to a tropical storm then turned to the northwest and moved over the northwest Florida Peninsula. Although slightly smaller and stronger then Hurricane Frances, winds and pressures over southeast Florida were remarkably similar to Frances. Unfortunately, the Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) at Palm Beach International Airport stopped sending daxa during the height of the hurricane. Sustained tropical storm-force winds likely occurred over most of Palm Beach and northeast Glades counties and portions of Browa.rd, Hendry, and Collier counties. Although no sustained hurricane-force winds were officially observed in any of the sia� south Florida counties, portions of northern PBC mostly likely experienced them. A SFWNID instrument in the Martin County portion of Lake Okeechobee measured a 15-minute sustained wind of 79 mph with a peak gust of 105 mph. In metropolitan Palm Beach, the highest official sustained wind speed was 60 mph with a peak gust of 94 mph from the C-MAN station at Lake Worth Pier. An unofficial peak wind gust of 125 mph was measured in West Palm Beach at the Solid Waste Treatment Plant. Near Clewiston, the highest measured sustained wind was 21 mph • with a peak wind gust of 72 mph from a SFWNID instrument. The lowest barometric pressure of 960.4 millibars was measured at a SFWMD site in the Martin County portion of I,ake Okeechobee. A SFWMD gauge measured a maaLimum storm-total rainfall amount of 10.22 inches over the eastern portion of Lake Okeechobee. A SFWMD gauge about four miles west of West Palm Beach International Airport measured 9.10 inches with 8.79 inches of that occumng in a 24-hour period. At Moore Haven, 5.99 inches of rain was measured. Mostly minor rainfall flooding was observed except in Palm Beach Gardens, Jupiter and in the farmlands of western PBC where it was more severe. The estimated maximum storm surge ranged from two to four feet along the northeast Palm Beach Coast to one to two feet along the northeast Broward Coast. Within the confines of the Herbert Hoover Dike, water levels on Lake Okeechobee fluctuated up to seven feet above and below normal causing severe flooding of some marinas. Beach erosion was moderate in Palm Beach. There were no confirmed tornadoes. There were no known direct deaths but four persons died in the aftermath. An unknown number of injuries occurred. Storm surge and winds at the coast caused damage to condos, marinas, piers, seawalls, bridges and docks, as well as to boats and a few coastal roadways. Inland wind damage to building roofs, mobile homes, trees, power lines, signs, and outbuildings occurred mainly over PBC and portions of eastern Glades and Hendry 40 • L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • counties. Preliminary damage estimates for Jeanne in southeast Florida were $220 million, including $260 million in PBC, $50 million in Broward and $10 million in Miami-Dade. Agricultural Damage in PBC was estimated at $20 million. Florida Power and Light reported outages occurred to 591,200 customers in PBC, 165,900 in Broward, 25,100 in Miami-Dade, 5,200 in Collier, 2,000 in Hendry and 1,500 in Glades. An estimated 12,524 persons sought refuge in public shelters in PBC. Hu�-icane Wilma October 24, 2005. Wilma was a classic October hurricane, which struck South Florida as a Category 2 hurricane on October 24th, 2005. Wilma developed from a tropical depression near Ja.maica, a typical source region for October tropical cyclones, on the afternoon of 15 October. It became the 21 st named storm of the season during the morning hours of 17 October which tied the record for the most named storms in one season originally set back in 1922. Wilma underwent a rapid intensification cycle, which began on 18 October and ended in the early morning hours of 19 October, with a central pressure decrease of 88 millibars in only 12 hours. The central pressure reached 882 millibars, making Wilma the most intense hurricane ever in the Atlantic Basin, lower than Hurricane Gilbert in September 1988. Wilma went on to make landfall on Cozumel Island just off the Yucata.n Peninsula as a strong category 4 hurricane on 21 October, then drifted enatically over the Yucatan Peninsula through the evening 22 October. Wilma began to move oi� the northeast coast of the Yucatan Peninsula on the night of the 22nd, then gradually accelerated northeast over the southern Gulf of Mexico toward South Florida as a strong mid and upper-level trough over the central United Sta.tes moved south and forced a southwesterly steering flow. • The hurricane made landfall as a Category 2 storm shortly before 7 AM Monday October 24�' on the southwest Florida coast between Everglades City and Cape Romano with maximum sustained winds of 125 mph and an estimated minimum central pressure of 950 millibars. Wilma exhibited a very large 55 to 65 mile-wide eye while crossing the sta.te, and the eye covered large portions of South Florida, including the eastern two-thirds of Collier County, extreme northwestern Miami-Dade County, the southern and eastern third of Hendry County, most of Broward County, and all of PBC. The eye also clipped the southeastern shore of Lake Okeechobee. The eye wall affected virtually all of South Florida. Around 10:20 AM, a SFWMD meteorological station located at the south end of Lake Okeechobee reported susta.ined winds of 102 mph. The highest recorded gusts were in the 100-120 mph range. T`he winds on the back (south/west) side of the eye wall were as strong, if not stronger, than those on the front (north/east) side. This goes against the common, but sometimes erroneous, belief that the strongest winds in a hurricane are always in the right-front quadrant of the storm. This occurred over much of South Florida, except for central and southern Miami-Dade County, which barely missed the southwestern portion of the eye wall and likely contributed to the heavier damage across Broward and Palm Beach counties compared to slightly lesser damage across much of Miami-Dade and Collier counties. Wilma moved rapidly northeast across the staxe, with an average forward speed of 25 mph. Wilma exited the east coast over northeastern PBC near Palm Beach Gardens around 11 AM Monda.y October 24�' as a Category 2 hurricane with maximum sustained winds of around 105 mph. It traversed the southern peninsula in about four hours. Rainfall amounts across South • 41 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Florida generally ranged from two to four inches across southern sections of the peninsula to � four to six inches across western Collier County and around Lake Okeechobee, with a m�imum amount of 7.21 inches in Clewiston, Downtown Miami and Northeast Miami. In Collier, Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, the winds killed a tota.l of five people. Total damage estimates from all the effects ranged from $9 to $12 billion. Extensive damage to crops was reported, with an estimated $222 million in crop damage for Miami-Dade County alone. Damage was widespread, with large trees and power lines down virtualiy everywhere, causing over 2 million customers to lose power. Structural damage was heaviest in Broward and Palm Beach counties where roof damage and downed or split power poles were noted in some areas. High-rise buildings suffered considerable damage, mainly in the form of broken windows. This was observed mainly along the southeast metro areas. An F 1 tornado caused snapped power poles, uprooted large trees, and significant damage to mobile homes. Small swaths of greater damage elsewhere in South Florida have not been ariributed to tornadoes, but were instead likely caused by "mini-swirls", sma11 vortices within the eye wall. Tropical Storm Noel of October 20-21, 2007. Tropical Storm Noel moved north from eastern Cuba across the western Bahamas Islands from 20 to 21 October. The interaction of Noel with a strong high-pressure area located over the Mid-Atlantic Sta.tes produced strong winds over southeast Florida and the adjacent waters well before Noel made its closest passage to the area early on 1 November. Damage was minor and mainly confined to a few downed power lines. Around 5,000 customers lost power in the three-county area of Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade. Rainfall amounts were light, ranging from a half-inch (0.5) to nearly two inches. • A strong pressure gradient between high pressure over the Mid-Atlantic States and Tropical Storm Noel over Hispaniola and eastern Cuba caused a prolonged period of strong east winds over Southeast Florida and the adjacent waters. As Noel moved north across the western Bahamas, the strong winds continued across southeast Florida. The event caused severe beach erosion, coastal flooding, and minor wind damage. The event lasted into the first few days of November. Tropical Storna Fay of August 15-22, 2008. The center of Tropical Storm Fay moved across Key West early in the evening of August 18�' and into the mainland of South Florida at Cape Romano shortly before 5 AM on the 19th. Minimum central pressure was 989 millibars at landfall, but continued to decrease after landfall to 986 millibars at Moore Haven on the southwest shore of Lake Okeechobee. Maximum sustained winds were estimated to be around 60 mph at landfall, however as the storm tracked across the western Everglades and Southwest Florida the radar presentation continued to organize and winds increased to around 65 mph around Moore Haven. A maximum wind gust of 79 mph was recorded on a South Florida Water Management gauge on Lake Okeechobee as the storm passed. Wind gusts of tropical storm force were felt area-wide, with sustained tropical storm force winds experienced over portions of mainland Monroe, Collier, Hendry and Glades counties as well as the immediate coastal sections of Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. Wind damage was most significant in the areas affected by tropical storm force 42 • L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • sustained winds, primarily around Lake Okeechobee and interior sections of southwest Florida, with only minor wind damage elsewhere. The storm caused over $10 million in beach erosion along PBC's coastline. A m�imum rainfall total of 16.17 inches was reported with this event at Moore Ha.ven in Glades County. Flooding from these rains produced total damage estimates of $280,000, primarily in Glades and Hendry counties. Rainfall elsewhere ranged from three to six inches in southeast Florida, and six to eight inches in southwest Florida, with isolated amounts up to ten inches in coasta.l PBC. All the associated effects of Tropical Storm Fay in South Florida resulted in one fatality, four injured, and $2.949 million in property damage. Two tornadoes produced $1.25 million in damage, but caused no injuries or fata.lities. The one fata.lity and three of the injuries were indirectly caused by Fay with a traffic accident in PBC. The direct injury occurred when a kite surfer on Fort Lauderdale Beach lost control during a squall and was slammed into a building along AIA. Fay caused tropical storm force winds, significant rainfall flooding in some areas and two confirmed tornadoes. Hu�s-icane Irene of August 25-26, 2011. Hurricane Irene passed over the western Bahamas about 170 miles east of the Florida coast. The western fringes of Irene impacted southeast Florida with high surf a.nd winds bordering on tropical storm force. Winds to marginal tropical storm force and high surf impacted the PBC coast as the outer fringes of Hurricane Irene passed over the area. Sustained winds to 26 knots with gusts to 46 knots were measured near the coast from Jupiter through Boynton Beach associated with intermittent squalls. Wind damage was • limited to a few uprooted trees and knocked down tree branches, causing minor power outages. High surf pounded the coast during the day, causing damage to Lake Worth Pier tota.ling $2,000 and injuring 8 people at Boynton Inlet when a large wave crashed onto the jetty while onlookers were present. Maximum storm surge at Lake Worth Pier was 1.28 feet with a maximum tide of 1.55 feet. Tropical Storr� Debby of June 22-27, 2012. The outer bands from Tropical Storm Debby located in the Northeast Gulf of Mexico continued to move over South Florida. Severe thunderstorms developed during the late morning into the afternoon with severe wind gusts and eight tornadoes occurring over a span of four hours in Lake Worth, Okeechobee Boulevard and east of I-95, a warehouse district just south of Okeechobee Boulevard, Tamarind Avenue, and Banyan Boulevard. Additional detail related to the tornadoes is discussed below. Huf-f-icane Isaac of August 26, 2012. The center of Tropical Storm Isaac moved over the Florida Straits south of the Florida. Keys on Sunday, August 26�`, passing just south of Key West. Rain bands and winds on the north side of the circulation of Isaac affected Southeast Florida throughout the day of the 26th and part of the 27th. Highest winds over land were recorded along and near the southeast Florida coast where the highest sustained winds ranged from 40-45 mph, with 25-30 mph sustained winds over most inland areas as well as over southwest Florida. Highest wind gusts ranged from 50-60 mph over most land areas to as high as 65 mph along the Atlantic coast and just offshore. Three-day rainfall totals ending at 8 AM August 28th ranged from 5-7 inches across southeast Florida to 2-5 inches over interior and southwest Florida. The primary exception was over northern metro Broward County and much of PBC where 8 to 12 • 43 L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 inches fell, with maximum amounts up to 15-18 inches from west of Boynton Beach to � Wellington, The Acreage, Royal Palm Beach, and Loxahatchee. These areas of highest rainfall amounts experienced severe flooding with communities cut off for severa.l days after the storm. Maximum storm tide values were observed at 4.9 feet at Naples, with estimates of 5 to 7 feet along the southern Collier County coast from Goodland to Everglades City. Highest estimated inundation values of up to 2 feet above ground level were noted in Goodland and Everglades City. Major beach erosion was also observed along the Collier County beaches, with moderate beach erosion along the Atlantic beaches. All of the associated effects of Isaac in south Florida resulted in about $17.2 million in property damage. Specifically, Isaa.c's inland floodwaters resulted in about $10 million in damages, mostly in Palm Beach and Broward counties. Flooding caused by storm tides along the coast in Collier County resulted in about $400 thousand in damage. Damage from beach erosion in Collier and Broward counties was estimated at $6 million. Wind damage was estimated at $750,000. Approximately 112,000 customers lost power during the storm in South Florida. Hu�icane San�y of October 25-26 2012. Hurricane Sandy began to affect the PBC coast and its adjacent Atlantic waters with tropical storm force winds during the evening of 25 October as it moved slowly north across the northwest Bahamas. Tropical storm force wind gusts were first observed along the coasta.l PBC region by early in the evening of 25 October. Several Weather Flow sensors along and near the PBC coast recorded Tropical Storm Force wind gusts during the evening of October 25�' with a peak wind gust of 67 mph observed at Jupiter. However, as Hurricane Sandy continued to move slowly north a.nd then northeast over the Atlantic waters north of the Bahamas through the 28th the main impact along the PBC coast were large northeast • swells generated by the storm, which pummeled the Southeast Florida coast with significant beach erosion and coastal flooding. Large breaking waves of possibly over 20 feet were estimated along the coast. As a result, major coastal flooding occurred with the most significant impacts experienced from central Palm Beach north, including the Manalapan area where beachfront structures were threatened by water intrusion. In all, there was an estimated $14 million in damage susta.ined in PBC. A total of 44,270 customers lost power. A maximum storm tide of 5.2 feet above mean lower low water (NII,LW) was observed at Lake Worth Pier on October 28th at 7:12 AM along with a maximum storm surge of 2.28 feet on 28 October at 2:26 AM. Similar tide and surge levels were measured at the highest daily high tide during this period, generally between 7:00 and 9:00 AM. 2.1.1.3 Tornado Florida. ranks third in the United States in the number of tornado strikes, and the first in the number of tornadoes per square mile. The odds of a tornado striking any specific point in southeastern Florida are 0.004, or once per 250 years. Tornadoes are classified using the Enhanced Fujita (EF) Sca1e as follows: 44 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • wnJ speed Retative Scale PoteMial damat�e rnph km�h froquency Mir�or damege. �-�- v,� .._.- _�._._-,.� Peels surtace off ;ome roofs; some demage to +iu!t%r : o� sidmg; branches brMen oit trees, � fPo 65--35 t0�137 53S% shallo�i-rooted trees pushed over Contumed tornadoes wdh rro reported tlamageli.e , those thal remam in open �ieldsl are always �.,�,: ��.�.. �� ,�. _ rated EFO. �::: ° --=� - ' - - MaJer�le tlamage. EF1 �3E—� 10 I 3=C0 ;t h`� F.o�is severely stripped, moBde nome; overturnetl or batliy tlam?jacif, ros<_ [a e�lena tloors, �� rnndo�•v� and other glasu Uroh�en � G7n5iderek�IC tlefnaqe . P,wts tom olf welf-cunstructcd houses, �o�ntlation, o� fraene home> shlrted; mobile humes � � EP2 I 71-1 ;5 17�_ I 8 I i i?�!; completelY destroyed, largetrees snapped or uproMed; light•oblect missdes genzrated; csrs hfled oltground �� ' ;� �` .-a� - ----.. Se�ere daroage .. . �,... ...: . EMNe stw�es ot welbcunstruded houses tlestroved, s?vzre dsmage tu large ixaidmqs sucn as + EF7 1?rr165 :13-:5E >�`b �hoppuig maNs; irams uverturnzd�, trees debarked, heavy cars hrizd off the around and thrown, ��,_� ;trudures vvilh weak foundalions bbwn a�vsy some dihance "� Extreme damage to near-tcAal Ueo'trud�on EP� i 5E—'OC� 267�?2 O7X INell-construded house. and ��hc�le freme hou::es; compl_Metv Ieveled, car; thrm��n and ,mell ��,� '�— mi:sdes genereted :y �,_. �st _ � yi�?! M�sroe Gamage • Ef3 =_'00 �:f2'1 <OJ % Sirong trame houses teveled otf 1�wnJCM�ons and srvept ar�aY, steel•reNbxczd r_oncrHe slructw _:- _ .,-. =.. � � � . ,. _ crAicaNy damaged; high-nse bwldir�gs have >evere �tructural deformatiun increUible phFnomena r �'�� ,�. � �-�- �� ocr.ur _ � � �-u .� . � �� ti��. '. . A tornado is a violent windstorm characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud. [t is generated by a thunderstorm (or sometimes as a result of a hurricane) and produced when cool air overrides a layer of warm air, forcing the warm air to rise rapidly. The damage from a tornado is a result of the high wind velocity and wind-blown debris. The most common type of tornado, the relatively weak and short-lived type, occurs in the warm season with June being the peak month. The strongest, most deadly tornadoes occur in the cool season, from December through April. Occasional wind-storms accompanied by tornadoes such as the winter storm of 1992 are also widespread and destructive. Of the 124 tornadoes seen in PBC between 1950 and 2002, 87 were classified as FO tornadoes (59%), 28 (21 %) were classified F 1, eight (9%) were classified as F2, and one (1 %) was classified as an F2 tornado. Between 1950 and 2008 there have been 277 reported tornadoes, 102 people injured and one death in PBC as a result of a tornado. The damage is estimated at over $150 million dollars since 1950. Since 2008 there have been six (6) reported tornadoes. When a tornado threatens, only a short amount of time is available for life-or-death decisions. The N W S issues two types of alerts: • A Tornado Watch means that conditions are favorable for tornadoes to develop • A Tornado Warning means that a tornado has actually been sighted • 45 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 August 7, 2002. On August 7, 2002, there was a Tornado Watch issued by the NWS. Two • tornadoes touched down later that evening in the northern part of PBC. Jupiter suffered damage to a shopping plaza. No injuries were reported. A second tornado touched down in unincorporated PBC in a mobile home park causing major damage in some areas. The tornado moved in the direction of east southeast toward Interstate 95. The tornado caused considerable damage to an industrial park located in unincorporated PBC/Riviera Beach. The tornado continued in the same direction damaging several neighborhoods in Riviera Beach. It continued through additional neighborhoods in Riviera Beach just north of Blue Heron Boulevard. The damage path was narrower until it lifted or dissipated near the intersection of Blue Heron Boulevard and Old Dixie Highway. From all of the evidence considered, including some damage that was very close to F2 damage, National Weather Service Forecast Office (WFO) Miami classified the unincorporated PBC- Riviera Beach tornado as F1 on the Fujita scale, meaning that winds were approximately 72 to 1 12 mph. The worst damage was apparently caused by winds near the upper end of that range. Miami (WFO) meteorologists determined that the main path of the tornado was approximately 1/6 mile (200 yards) wide at its widest point and about four miles long. There were no deaths, but 28 individuals suffered minor injuries. There were 22 dwellings destroyed and a total of 226 suffered damage. The damage has been estimated to be $70 to $80 million dollars. June 12, 2008. A small waterspout briefly moved onshore at Delray Beach just north of Atlantic Avenue. The waterspout stirred up some beach umbrellas and blankets, and dissipated shortly after touching land. � August 19, 2008 Wellington Tornado. At about 1:20 AM on August 19, 2008 a tornado associated with a spiral band of strong thunderstorms rotating around the circulation of Tropical Storm Fay moved through the Village of Wellington. The tornado began near Polo Mark Middle School near the intersection of Lake Worth Road and Isles View Drive and ended just southwest of Wellington High School. The tornado had an approximate damage path of 2.75 miles from the southeast to the northwest and was around 100 yards wide at its widest point, but averaged 70 to 80 yards in width. The tornado moved through a number of equine farms and polo grounds as well as two subdivisions in Wellington. The most significant damage was to Palm Beach Equine Clinic, where stables were de-roofed, power poles snapped, and many trees fell in crisscrossing patterns. The Equine Veterinary lost more than 95 percent of its roof tiles; a heavy trailer was tossed about 40 yards from its previous location northwest of the International Polo Club; and an apartment home near Folkstone Circle lost about 70 percent of its roof tiles. There were no deaths or injuries to people or animals. March 21, 2009 Palm Beach Gardens Tornado. A warm front lifted north through South Florida during the day of March 21. Unstable air south of the front combined with war►n temperatures produced strong and severe thunderstorms over PBC. A total of about 5,000 customers lost power. A tornado touched down in Palm Beach Gardens in the Ballenisles Golf Country Club near Holly and Seagrape Drives. The tornado moved southeast, across Military Trail and Lilac 46 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Street, and lifted near Palm Beach Gardens High School. Minor roof damage was noted to a few residential buildings, as well as, uprooted trees and a damaged fence near Palm Beach Gardens High School. Final tornado rating was EFO based on an Emergency Management survey and analysis of damage photos. Maf-ch 21, 2009 Glen Ridge Tornado. A second tornado touchdown occuned in West Palm Beach near Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard and Australian Avenue. T'his is the same storm that produced the tornado in Palm Beach Gardens, but eyewitness reports and photographs indicate a likely second tornado touchdown in the West Palm Beach area. Damage was minor (EFO) consisting of downed traffic signals, broken tree branches, and a flipped bus bench. April 12, 2010. A brief tornado occurred 2 miles northeast of Belle Glade. The PBC Sherrif�s office reported a tornado 2 miles northeast of the PBC Shemffs office substation along state road 80; however, no damages or injuries occurred. August 7, 2010. A small and short-lived tornado moved through the West Boca a.rea, with numerous reports received of trees down, overturned patio furniture, street lights knocked down, some roofing shingles blown ofF houses, and downed power lines from around the intersection of Powerline Road and SW 18th Street to the Boca Point Golf Course. No major structural damage was reported. No damage assessment was performed by PBC officials due to the minor nature of the damage. • January 25, 2011. A small and brief tornado touched down in the Cameo Woods development of Boca Raton near the intersection of Camino Real and Military Trail. Damage was exclusively to vegeta.tion, including an uprooted large avocado tree and several large branches snapped off or broken. About 20 trees in tota.l were damaged by the tornado. Estimated wind speeds were in the 70-75 mph range, indicative of an EFO tornado. June 24, 2012. The outer bands from Tropical Storm Debby located in the Northeast Gulf of Mexico continued to move over South Florida. Severe thunderstorms developed during the late morning into the afternoon with severe wind gusts and eight tornadoes occurring over a span of four hours. This event spawned tl�e most number of tornadoes in one day over the southern Florida peninsula since October 14, 1964 when Hurricane Isbell also spawned eight tornadoes. All of the tornadoes were of EFO intensity. A brief tornado in Lake Worth touchdown occurred and damage was confined to a few homes on North A Street and 15th Avenue, between US 1 and I-95. Damage was minor and consisted primarily of vegeta.tion and debris from a nearby park. First report of damage was to a carport south of Okeechobee Boulevard and east of I-95. The tornado traveled through a warehouse district just south of Okeechobee Boulevard and east of Australian Avenue, damaging roofs and doors to a warehouse building. The tomado then crossed Okeechobee Boulevazd and traveled between Australian and Tamarind Avenues, damaging trees and knocking down a large metal gate at the West Palm Beach train station. A railroad-crossing arm was broken at Tamarind Avenue and Ba,nyan Boulevard; Discontinuous • 47 L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 path of 1.2 miles and tornado width of probably no more than 20 yards. Maximum winds were • likely in the upper end of EFO scale (75-85 mph), with most azeas along the path probably experiencing low end EFO winds (65-75 mph). 2.1.1.4 Severe Thunderstorm/Lighfiing A severe thunderstorm is defined as a thunderstorm conta.ining one or more of the following phenomena: hai12/4" or greater, winds gusting in excess of 57.5 mph, and/or a tornado. Severe weather can include lightning, tornadoes, damaging straight-line winds, and large hail. Most individua.l thunderstorms only last several minutes, however some can last several hours. Long-lived thunderstorms are called supercell thunderstorms. A supercell is a thunderstorm that has a persistent rotating updraft. This rota.tion maintains the energy release of the thunderstorm over a much longer time than typical, pulse-type thunderstorms, which occur in the summer months. Supercell thunderstorms are responsible for producing the majority of severe weather, such as large hail and tornadoes (NOAA). Downbursts are also occasionally associated with severe thunderstorms. A downburst is a strong downdraft resulting in an outward burst of damaging winds on or near the ground. Downburst winds can produce damage similar to a strong tornado. Although usually associated with thunderstorms, downbursts can even occur with showers too weak to produce thunder (NOAA). Strong squall lines can also produce widespread severe weather, primarily very strong winds and/or microbursts. When a severe thunderstorm approaches, the NWS will issue alerts. Two possible alerts.are: • • Severe Thunderstorm Watch - Conditions are favora.ble for the development of severe thunderstorms • Severe Thunderstorm Warning - Severe weather is imminent or occurring in the area T'hunderstorms are common in PBC, and area residents are quite familiar with them and the severe weather they can bring. In 1997, thunderstorms produced 102 tornadoes and other damaging winds and hail. These winds injured 121 people and caused over $28 million in damage throughout the state. Perhaps the most dangerous and costly effect of thunderstorms is lightning. As a thunderstorm grows, electrical charges build up within the cloud. Oppositely charged particles gather at the ground below. The attraction between positive and negative charges quickly grows strong enough to overcome the air's resistance to electrical flow. Ra.cing toward each other, they connect and complete the electrical circuit. Charges from the ground then surge upward at nearly one-third the speed of light and produce a bright flash of lightning (Cappella, 1997). On avera.ge, more people are killed by lightning than any other weather event. Florida leads in the nation in lightning related deaths and injuries (National Lightning Safety Institute). Florida also has the most strikes, about 12 strikes per square kilometer per year in some places (National Lightning Safety Institute). Nationwide, lightning related economic losses to over $5 billion dollars per year, and the airline industry alone loses approximately $2 billion a year in operating 48 � Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • costs and passenger delays from lightning. From July of 1959 to August of 2002 there have been 25 deaths and 92 injuries as a result from lighfiing strikes. The peak months for lightning strikes are June, July, a.nd August, but no month is safe from lightning danger. In Palm Beach County, from January 2004 — July 2014, experienced 90 thunderstorm events with winds gust over 50 miles per hours between January 2004 and July 2014 with the highest wind gust occurring in the city of Riviera Beach with wind gust reaching 80 miles per hour on August 2, 2004. This event caused $5000 in damage when wind gust blew shingles off a duplex home and blew down power lines. There was only one recorded injury that occurred on Februa.ry 26, 2008 when thunderstorm winds produced damage at the Moroso Motor Sports Park on BeeLine Highway in North Central Palm Beach County. An awning was blown off a trailer, and a man was injured when a 400-500 pound water barrel struck him. Damage was also done to a truck on site. The total amount of damage for that event was also $5000. Tota1 property damage for all combined 90 events was estimated at $106,000. There was no recorded crop damage or no other recorded injuries. 2.1.1.5 Drought Drought is a normal, recunent feature of climate, although many perceive it as a rare and random event. In fact, each year some part of the U.S. has severe or extreme drought. Although it has • many defmitions, drought originates from a deficiency of precipitation over an extended period of time, usually a season or more (National Drought Mitigation Center, 1998) or a lack of water levels on the ground. It produces a complex web of impacts that spans many sectors of the economy and reaches well beyond the area producing physical drought. This complexity exists because water is essential to our ability to produce goods and provide services (National Drought Mitigation Center, 1998). A few examples of direct impacts of drought are: reduced crop, rangeland, and forest productivity; increased fire hazard; reduced water levels; increased livestock and wildlife morta.lity rates; and damage to wildlife and fish habitats. Social impacts include public safety; health issues; conflicts between water users; reduced quality of life; and inequities in the distribution of impacts and disaster relief. Income loss is another indicator used in assessing the impacts of drought; reduced income for farmers has a ripple effect throughout the region's economy (National Drought Mitigation Center, 1998). The impact is so diffuse that it is difficult to come up with financial estimates of damages. However, FEMA estimates $6-8 billion in losses as the annual average. The worst drought in recent history occuned in 1987-1989, and the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reports the estimated cost as $40 billion (National Drought Mitigation Center, 1998). In PBC, the primary sources of water are Lake Okeechobee, watershed areas, and the County's wellfields. Normally, excess water from an interconnected series of lakes, rivers, canals, and marshes flows into Lake Okeechobee via the Kissimmee River. When this cycle is disrupted by • 49 L Mirigation Strategy I 2015 periods of drought, one of the potentially most damaging effects is substa.ntial crop loss in the • western agriculture areas of the County. In addition to obvious losses in yields in both crop and livestock production, drought in PBC is associated with increases in insect infestations, plant disease, and wind erosion. The incidence of wild fires increases substantially during extended droughts, which in turn places both human and wildlife populations at higher levels of risk. The South Florida Water Management District and County staff manage the County's water resources. A countywide, uniform, forceful, contingency plan is in place to effectively restrict the use of water that complements the District's water management efforts during periods of critical water shortage. The driest year on record for Florida was 2000. The worst drought on record for PBC was from 2000 to 2001. From November 2000 until February 2001, PBC recorded its four driest months on record. An illustration of this dry period occurred after Irene in 1999, when Lake Okeechobee was recorded to be at 18 feet. By May of 2001, it had dropped to nine feet. Lake Okeechobee's average is about 12 feet. Palm Beach County averages between 50-60 inches of rain a year. In the year 2000, there was less than 40 inches of rain. However, records illustrate rainfall often varies 20 inches above or below the annual average. This leads to the potenrial drought conditions. Significant droughts since 1970 to impact PBC include: 1970 - 1971 Drought. Lake Okeechobee reached a minimum stage of 10.29 feet National • Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) on June 7, 1971. A rainfall deficit of 42 percent was reported as average for Lake Okeechobee and the Northern, Central, and Southern Everglades for the eight-month period from October 1970 to May 1971. 1972 —1974 Drought. The 1972-1974 Drought was compara.ble to the 1971-1972 drought. The rainfall deficit during this period was 47 percent. The minimum lake stage of 10.98 feet NGVD was reached on May 21, 1974. 1980 — 1982 DYOUght. The 1980-1982 Drought was one of the most severe droughts ever in South Florida.. A more than 20-inch rainfall deficit over two years resulted in the decline of the Lake Okeechobee stage from 17.46 feet NGVD on January 1, 1980 to 9.79 feet NGVD on July 21, 1981. The 7.7-foot drop in water level was ariributed to a decrease in rainfall and increases in evaporation and water use. The drought for the Lower East Coast and Water Conservation Areas was relieved in 1981 by Tropical Storm Dennis. 1985 Drought. The 1984 wet season and the 1984-1985 dry season had rainfall deficiencies that resulted in the 1985 drought. The upper Kissimmee, lower Kissimmee, and Lake Okeechobee rain areas had an average deficit of 14 inches. The Lake Okeechobee water level declined from 15.14 feet NGVD to 11.82 feet NGVD between January 1, 1985 and June 12, 1985. The South Florida Water Management District had to initiate back pumping to increase water supply. A water shortage plan was also implemented. 50 e Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • 1988 — 1989 Drought. South Florida experienced a severe drought from September 1988 to August 1989, during which there was a 21-inch ra.infall deficit in the Everglades Agricultural Area and the Lower Ea.st Coast. The Lake Okeechobee water level declined from 15.95 feet NGVD on September 1, 1988 to 11.06 feet NGVD on August 8, 1989. During the same period, record storage depletion was reported for Lake Okeechobee and the Water Conservation Area. 1990 Drought. The 1990 drought was a continua.tion of the 1988-1989 drought. From June 1989 through May 1990, a nine inch rainfall deficit occuned District-wide and was most severe in Everglades National Park. Lake Okeechobee supply-side management and water restrictions were implemented to conserve lake water. The Lake Okeechobee water level declined from 12.25 feet NGVD on January 1, 1990 to 10.47 feet NGVD on June 21, 1990. 2000 - 2001 Drought. A new low water level record of 8.97 feet NGVD was set for Lake Okeechobee on May 24, 2001 during the 2000-2001 drought in South Florida. 2007 Drought. A severe drought affected the region from late 2006 through 2007. This drought followed back-to-back years of unprecedented hurricane activity and higher-than-normal rainfall. On July 2, 2007, water levels in Lake Okeechobee reached an all-time record low of 8.82 feet, eclipsing the mark of 8.97 feet set during the 2001 drough� Rainfall directly over the lake was low enough to qualify the 2007 drought as a 1-in-100-year event. Just north of the lake, along the tributary Kissimmee River and Upper Chain of Lakes, low rainfall produced a 1-in-50-year • drought. Only 40 inches of rain fell on the region in an 18 month period, about one-half the average. More than 200 da.ys passed without water flowing from the Kissimmee River into Lake Okeechobee. A combination of voluntary and manda.tory water use restrictions were enacted by the SFWMD in early 2007. Drought conditions diminished somewhat on the coasts during the wet season, however, water supplies in the center of the region (Kissimmee Valley and Lake Okeechobee) continued to decline. Widespread drought conditions continued into late 2007, particularly in the Lake Okeechobee watershed, evidenced by record-low water levels and dry water control structures in the vicinity of the lake. A wetter than normal February, March, early April and, summer 2008 finally interrupted the extended drought. Punctua.ting this increased rainfall was the passage of Tropical Storm Fay on August 18 and 19. Fay was a very wet tropical storm, which brought a general average of 7 to 10 inches of rain into southern PBC, including Lake Okeechobee and sunounding areas. Isolated amounts near the southwest shore of Lake Okeechobee were in the 12 to 15 inch range, with Moore Haven recording a two-day total of 16.17 inches. Despite this relief, water use restrictions continued into 2009 and beyond in order to balance longer-term regional water availability and supply needs. The 2007 Drought was abnormal. Typically, when one part of the regional system is experiencing drought conditions, backup water supplies are ava.ilable through operation of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project. Previous to the 2007 drought, the SFWMD • 51 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 had never experienced a situation where all three major water storage areas of the system — the • Upper Kissimmee Chain of Lakes, Lake Okeechobee, and the Water Conservation Areas — simulta.neously had substantially below normal water levels approaching record lows. Lakes in the Upper Kissimmee area were below their regulation schedule and not available as a source of water to Lake Okeechobee. Lake Okeechobee was anticipated to reach a new record and not be available to send backup water supplies to the Lower East Coast. At the same time, the Water Conservation Areas were nearing their minimum regulation schedule, below which no water could be withdrawn. Without a schedule deviation authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the District is not able to withdra.w water from these . areas to recharge the coastal canals. The period from November 2005 to March 2007 ranked as the third driest period in recorded history. The Governing Board of the District imposed mandatory water shortage restrictions in areas around Lake Okeechobee in November 2006 and in Southeast Florida. in March 2007. Nevertheless, drought conditions intensified substantially. Compounding the lack of rainfall there were consistently windy conditions, low humidity, and lack of cloud cover contributing to above average evapotranspiration ra.tes. August 2011 DYOUght. Rainfall amounts in August ranged from 4 to 6 inches over parts of interior southwest Florida to over 10 inches over parts of southeast Florida. Overall, rainfall averaged near to above average over most areas, leading to gradually improving drought conditions. Lake Okeechobee remained over 2 feet below the normal level for this time of year. Underground water levels remained below normal over much of south Florida, especially over • the metro east coast sections. There has been no significant effect to the County as a result of past droughts. 2.1.1.6 Eztreme Temperatures Fr�zing Temperatur� According to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, a moderate freeze may be expected every one to two years. Severe freezes may be expected on an average of once every 15 to 20 years. Freezes pose a major hazard to the agriculture industry in PBC on a recurring basis, and are a significant threat to the economic vita.lity of the Florida's vital agriculture industry. Palm Beach County has experienced seven significant freezes between 1970 and the present. Florida has experienced a number of severe or disastrous freezes, when the majority of the winter crops are lost. The lowest temperature ever recorded in the sta.te is 12°F (NCDC). Since December 1889, there have been at least 22 recorded severe freezes; the most recent being in 1996, when a Presidential Disaster Declaration was issued for crop losses exceeding $90 billion. During this event, there was an extensive loss of citrus trees and the majority was not replanted. 52 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • On rare occasions, the winter of 2000-2001 for example, there were over 20 nights between November and March where temperatures or wind chill readings fell below 40°F. Freezing conditions primarily affect agriculture and homeless indigents in PBC. While PBC enjoys warm weather through-out the years, freezing does occur, primarily in the months late December and January. During the night temperatures can dip to as low as 35 degrees but normally is not sustained for more than three hours before the temperatures rises above 40 degrees. Palm Beach County's Cold weather shelter plan calls for shelters to be open if there is a sustained temperature of 40 degrees or below or wind-chill factor of 35 degrees or below for four consecutive hours. [n the past 5 years the shelters have only been activated three times for one day each. When conditions are predicted to fall below thrushlods, the shelter plan manager and the County Warning point is alerted. During 2013, the shelters were opened once and closed the next morning with less than 10 people in the entire Palm Beach County using the shelter. Recent significant freezes include: The 1977 Freeze. Climaxing one of the coldest winters ever recorded in the eastern United States, a severe cold outbreak of arctic air swept into Florida January 18 through 21, 1977. Snow was reported as far south as Homestead and a severe freeze affected all of the State's citrus and vegetable crops. In South Florida agricultural areas, the freeze was one of the most severe of this century. Temperatures were below freezing for l0 to 14 hours, and 28°F or colder for four to eight hours. � An unusually heavy frost accompanied these freezing temperatures and extended to the coast. West Palm Beach recorded an all-time low of 27°F. Some farmers in the area reported temperatures near 20°F. A U. S. Department of Agriculture report indicated the following crop loss statewide: Citrus 25%, vegetables 95-100%, commercial flowers 50-75%, permanent pastureland 50%, sugar cane 40%. It is estimated the 1977 freeze cost the Florida economy $2 billion (1977 dollars). The 2009 Freeze. Agricultural damages from a January 2009 freeze were assessed. Seventy million citrus trees and tens of thousands of acres of fresh fruits and vegetables were in regions where temperatures remained below 20°F for several hours for two consecutive days. In the Glades area, freezing temperatures lasted as long as 12 hours. Early estimates indicated that the bean crop was destroyed and as much as 85°/o of the corn crop was lost. Sugar cane also took a hit, but damage was not known until harvest time. This event was the most destructive since the 1989 freeze. Tens of millions of dollars, if not hundreds of millions of dollars, in losses are possible. A second freeze occurred two weeks later causing some additional crop damage, but was not as severe. Extreme Heat Temperatures that remain 10°F or more above the average high temperature for a region and last for several weeks are defined as extreme heat (FEMA, 1996). Humid conditions, which add to the discomfort of high temperatures, occur when an area of high atmospheric pressure traps hazy, • 53 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 damp air near the ground. The highest temperature ever recorded in PBC was on July 21, 1942 • at 101 °F at Palm Beach International Airport. In a normal year, approximately 175 Americans die from extreme heat. However, in 1995 the national death toll was 1,021 (NWS, 1997). Human bodies dissipate heat in one of three ways: by varying the rate and depth of blood circulation; by losing water through the skin and sweat glands; and by panting. As the blood is heated to above 98.6°F, the heart begins to pump more blood, blood vessels dilate to accommodate the increased flow, and the bundles of tiny capillaries penetrating through the upper layers of skin are put into operation. The body's blood is circulated closer to the surface, and excess heat is released into the cooler atmosphere. Water diffuses through the skin as perspiration. The skin handles about 90% of the body's heat dissipating function. Heat disorders generally have to do with a reduction or collapse of the body's ability to cool itself by circulatory changes and sweating, or a chemical (salt) imbalance caused by too much sweating. When the body cannot cool itself, or when it cannot compensate for fluids and salt lost through perspiration, the temperature of the body's inner core begins to rise and heat-related illness may develop. Studies indicate that, other factors being equal, the severity of heat disorders tend to increase with age. Heat cramps in a 17-year-old may be heat exhaustion in someone 40 and heat stroke in a person over 60. When the temperature gets extremely high, the NWS has increased its efforts to alert the general public as well as the appropriate authorities by issuing Special Weather Statements. Residents should heed these warnings to prevent heat related medical complications. As a result of the • latest research findings, the NWS has devised the "Heat Index" (HI). The H[, given in degrees Fahrenheit, is an accurate measure of how hot it feels when relative humidity is added to the actual air temperature. The NWS will initiate alert procedures when the HI is expected to exceed 105°F for at least two consecutive days. Possible heat disorders related to the corresponding HI are listed below. [n most cases, extreme heat affects those who do not have the ability to stay inside during extreme heat. Palm Beach County does not have a significant population of people that experience heat related injuries. Although the County does have a sheltering program, shelters have never activated shelters due to heat. � � �� 80°F -90°F Fatigue possible with prolonged exposure and physical activity 90°F -105°F Sunstroke, heat cramps with prolonged exposure 105°F -120°F Sunstroke, heat cramps, and heat exhaustion likely and heatstroke possible with prolonged physical activity 120°F or Higher Heatstroke/Sunstroke; exposure for people in higher risk oups 54 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • This chart represents the averages and potential extreme temperatures of south Florida. South FL Monthly Averages (Degrees Fahrenheit) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Avg 66° 68° 71° 74° 79° 82° 82° 82° 82° 79° 74° 69° Temp Record 88° 94° 92° 99° 98° 98° 99° 98° 98° 98° 91° 89° High '79 '64 '77 '71 '02 '09 '82 '64 '77 '00 '02 '09 Record 28° 22° 20° 40° 51° 60° 64° 66° 61° 47° 25° 20° Low '77 '89 '80 'S0 '92 '66 '75 '81 '65 '76 'S0 '89 Avg Rain 2.6" 2.2" 2.5" 2.5" 6.2" 9.8" 7.4" 8.0" 9.4" 6.4" 2.9" 2.2" 2.1.1.7 Agricultural Pest and Disease Florida is among the top three agriculture-producing states in the nation. Agriculture generates farm cash receipts of nearly $6 billion annually, of which citrus and vegetable crops contribute more than 40 percent. The industry is susceptible to many hazards including freezes, droughts, • and exotic pests or diseases. Agricultural crops are grown throughout the state and every region is vulnerable to the effects of an exotic pest or disease infestation. As a result, Florida uses the second highest volume of pesticides in the nation. Agriculture and citrus production play a key role in the PBC economy; 54% of the County is farmland. The main threats to the PBC agriculture industry are Citrus Canker, Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus (TYLCV), and the Mediterranean Fruit Fly (Medtly), and sugarcane pests. However, as it relates to PBC, we have not experienced or had any issues as it relates to Agricultural Pest and Disease over the past 10 years. Citrus Canker Citrus Canker was found in PBC in numerous locations in 2002. The Florida Department of Agriculture (FDACS) reported cases of orange and grapefruit trees infected in the southern and northern parts of the County. Citrus Canker is a bacterial disease that causes premature leaf and fruit drop. It affects all types of citrus, including oranges, sour oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, lemons, and limes. Symptoms found on leaves and fruit are brown, raised lesions surrounded by an oily, water-soaked area and a yellow ring or halo. There is no known chemical compound that will destroy the Citrus Canker bacteria. In order to eradicate the disease, infected trees must be cut down and disposed of properly. In 2002, legal cases over the cutting down of infected and exposed trees began when citrus canker was � 55 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 discovered in PBC. The FDACS wanted to search a 70-square-mile area of PBC for diseased • trees. It is a highly contagious disease that can be spread rapidly by windborne rain, lawnmowers and other landscaping equipment, animals and birds, people carrying the infection on their hands or clothing, and moving infected or exposed plants or plant parts. There is great potential to impact Florida's $9.1 billion citrus industry. Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus (TYLCV) This virus is believed to have entered the state in Dade County sometime in early 1997. Symptoms vary among tomato types, but in general, leaves produced shortly after infection are reduced in size, distorted, cupped inward or downward, and have a yellow mottle. Less than one in ten flowers will produce fruit after TYLCV infection, severely reducing yields. The virus is transmitted by adult silverleaf whiteflies. Although frequent applications of pesticides help to decrease whitefly populations and suppress the spread of TYLCV, virus management through whitefly control is not possible in years where whitefly populations are high. Fortunately, the virus is not transmitted through seed or casual contact with infected plants (Polston & Brown, 1997). Mediterranean Fruit Fly (Medfly) Another threat to PBC's agriculture industry is the Medfly. It is one of the world's most destructive pests and infests more than 250 different plants that are important for U.S. food • producers, homeowners, and wildlife. It is considered the greatest pest threat to Florida's $1.5 billion citrus crop, as well as endangering many other economically significant crops. For example, a Medfly outbreak in 1997 cost an estimated $26 million to eradicate. [f a long-term or widespread Medfly infestation were to occur, Florida growers would not be permitted to ship numerous fruit and vegetable crops to many foreign and domestic markets. The movement of fruits and vegetables, even within the state, would be disrupted, which could lead to higher prices in the supermarket. If the Medfly is not eradicated in Florida, on-going pesticide treatments by homeowners and commercial growers will be necessary. Costly post-harvest treatment of fruits and vegetables to meet quarantine restrictions of domestic and foreign markets would also be required. Adult Medflies are up to 1/4 inch long, black with yellow abdomens, and have yellow marks on their thoraxes. Their wings are banded with yellow. The female Medfly damages produce by laying eggs in the host fruit or vegetable. The resulting larvae feed on the pulp, rendering the produce unfit for human consumption. In addition to citrus, Medflies will feed on hundreds of other commercial, backyard fruit, and vegetable crops. Because Medflies are not strong fliers, the pest is spread by the transport of larval-infested fruit. The major threats come from travelers, the U.S. mail, and commercial fruit smugglers. Several steps have been taken to prevent new infestations. State and federal officials are working with postal authorities to develop ways to inspect packages suspected of carrying infested fruit. In 56 • Local Mitigation Straxegy I 2015 • addition, public education efforts carrying the message, "Don't Spread Med" are being expanded. Sugarcane P�ts Changes in sugarcane agriculture, including new disease and insect pests have seriously impacted the quality of cane and juice delivered to the mill for processing. These changing developments affect the level of sucrose, purity, fiber, and color of cane resulting in a loss of sugar and decrease in the quantity and quality of sugar produced (United States Depa.rtment of Agriculture, 1998). 2.1.1.8 Wildfire/Urban Interface Zone The recent wildfires that burned throughout Florida, specifically central Florida, are examples of the increasing wildfire threat, which results from the Wildland/LJrban Interface. The Wildland/LTrban Interface is defined as the area where structures and other human development meet with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels (FEMA, 1996). As residential areas expand into relarively untouched wildlands, people living in these communities are increasingly threatened by wild fires. There are three different classes of wildland fires. A surface fire is the most common type and burns along the floor of a forest, moving slowly and killing or damaging trees. A ground fire is • usually started by lightning and burns on or below the forest floor. Crown fires spread ra.pidly by wind and move quickly by jumping along the tops of trees. Wildland fires are usua.11y identified by dense smoke that fills the area for miles around. Rural and large tracts of unimproved lands are susceptible to brush and forest fires capable of threatening life, safety, and property loss in adjacent developed areas if not effectively controlled. Wildfires are caused by numerous sources including arson, carelessness by smokers, individuals burning debris, operating eyuipment that throws sparks, and children playing with matches. However, the largest number of fires is caused by lightning strikes, which coincides with the height of the thunderstorm season. A major wildland fire can leave a large amount of scorched and barren land, and these areas may not return to pre-fire conditions for decades. If the wildland fire destroys the ground cover, other potential hazards, such as erosion, may develop (FEMA, 1998). Structures in the wildlandlurban interface zone are vulnerable to ignition in three different ways: radiation, convection, and firebrands (National Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Protection Program). Radiating heat from a wildfire can cause ignition by exposure to the structure. The chances of ignition increase as the size of the flames increases, surface area exposed to flames increases, length of exposure time increases, and distance between the structure and the flames decreases. Another source of ignition by wildfire is convection. Ignition of a structure by convection requires the flame to come in conta.ct with the structure. Contact with the convection column is generally not hot enough to ignite a structure. Clearing to prevent flame contact with the structure must include any materials capable of producing even small flames. Wind and • 57 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 steep slopes will tilt the flame and the convection column uphill increasing the chance of igniting • a structure. Structures extending out over a slope have the greatest likelihood of ignition from convection. Firebrands also pose a threat to structures in the wildlandlurban interface. A firebrand is a piece of burning material that detaches from a fire due to strong convection drafts in the burning zone. They can be carried a long distance (approximately 1 mile) by fire drafts and winds. The chance of these firebrands igniting a structure depends on the size of the firebrand, how long it burr3s after conta.ct, and the materials, design, and construction of the structure. On April 15, 1999, just north of PBC in Port St. Lucie, a wildfire consumed 42 homes in 24 hours. Every fire unit in St. Lucie County and assista.nce from Indian River, Martin, Palm Beach, Broward, and Okeechobee Counties and units from two Division of Forestry Districts, two helicopters, and a Type 1 Air Tanker contained the fire after 26 hours. Due to the near perfect wildfire conditions, the fire suppression units were unable to keep up with these rapidly moving fires. The estimated damage was $4.2 million. Over 5,000 people were evacuated, most self-evacuated from the area. On Thursday, April 10, 2002, a brush fire occurred in a heavily wooded area just east of the Acreage on the north side of Northlake Boulevard. Fueled by high winds, and low humidity, the fire eventually burned approximately 450 acres, destroyed a number of vehicles and trailers stored on the property, and required several days to fully extinguish. A helicopter was called in to aid in extinguishing the wildfire. The helicopter made a total of 58 water drops. A loss of $250,000 of timber was lost in relation to the wildfire. • Palm Beach County has over 587,649 acres of vegetation and trees that could be potentially destroyed or damaged in an uncontrolled muck or wildfire. The majority of these areas are in the western and south western part portion of county. These acres axe under contract with the Florida Departmet of agriculture to be protected in case of fire with coordination with Palm Beach Country Fire Rescue. 2.1.1.9 Muck Fire A muck fire is a fire that consumes all the organic material of the forest floor and also burns into the underlying soil. It differs from a surface fire by being invulnerable to wind. If the fire gets deep into the ground, it could smolder for several years. In a surface fire, the flames are visible and burning is accelerated by wind, whereas in a muck fire, wind is not generally a serious factor (Canadian Soil Information System, 1996). Another extraordinary fact about muck fires has to do with their release of carbon dioxide. A peat bog that is on fire can release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than all the power sta.tions and car engines emit in Western Europe in one year (New Scientist, 1997). T'his type of fire could have a significant impact on global warming. Muck fires are not a frequent threat to Florida. However, during a drought in the 1980s, fires in the Everglades consumed the rich, dried out muck that had once been the bottom of the swamp. 58 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • These fires burned deep into the ground and required specialized, non-traditional firefighting techniques. ' A muck fire occurred in June of 1999. _ There were about 20,000 acres of muck, brush, and sawgrass on fire in the Rotenberger Wildlife Management Area located in Southwestern PBC. In May 2008, a muck fire, spawned by an extended drought, scorched the dried up edges of I.ake Okeechobee between Moore Haven and Clewiston covering an area of over 5,800 acres. In Palm Beach County, most of the muck area is owned by the sugar cane industry and not owned by the county. The corporation conducts controlled burns each year to over 300,000 acres of muck area to prepare the land for seasonal growth. These areas are monitored very closely. If a muck fired occurred, that required Country resources, they would be provided with coordination. 2.1.1.10 SoiVBeach Erosion Soil Erosion Soil erosion is the deterioration of soil by the physical movement of soil particles from a given site. Wind, water, animals, and the use of tools by humans may all be reasons for erosion. The two most powerful erosion agents aze wind and water; but in most cases these are damaging only • after humans, animals, insects, diseases, or fire have removed or depleted natural vegetaxion. Accelerated erosion caused by human activity is the most serious form of soil erosion because the rate is so rapid that surface soil may sometimes be blown or washed away right down to the bedrock. Undisturbed by humans, soil is usually covered by shrubs and trees, by dead and decaying leaves or by a thick mat of grass. Whatever the vegetation, it protects the soil when the rain falls or the wind blows. Root systems of plants hold the soil together. Even in drought, the roots of native grasses, which extend several feet into the ground, help tie down the soil and keep it from blowing away. With its covering of vegetation stripped away, soil is vulnerable to damage. Whether the plant cover is disturbed by cultivation, grazing, deforestation, burning, or bulldozing, once the soil is bare to the erosive action of wind and water, the slow rate of natural erosion is greatly increased. Losses of soil take place much faster than new soil can be created, and a kind of deficit spending of topsoil begins. With the destruction of soil structure, eroded land is even rtore susceptible to erosion. The occurrence of erosion has greatly increased, usually at a rate at which soils cannot be sustained by natural soil regeneration. This is because of the activities of modern development and population growth, particularly agricultural intensification. It is also in the field of agriculture that most efforts have been made to conserve soils, with mixed success (Union of International Associations). • 59 L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Beach Erosion • Wind, waves, and longshore currents are the driving forces behind coastal erosion. This removal and deposition of sand permanently changes beach shape and structure. Most beaches, if left alone to natural processes, experience natural shoreline retreat. As houses, highways, seawalls, and other structures are constructed upon or close to the beach, the natural shoreline retreat processes are interrupted. The beach jams up against these man-made obstacles and narrows considerably as the built-up structures prevent the beach from moving naturally inland. When buildings are constructed close to the shoreline, coasta.l property soon becomes threatened by erosion. The need for shore protection often results in "hardening" the coast with a structure such as a seawall or revetment. A seawall is a large, concrete wall designed to protect buildings or other man-made structures from beach erosion. A revetment is a cheaper option constructed with "rip ra.p" such as large boulders, concrete rubble, or even old tires. Although these structures may serve to protect beachfront property for a while, the resulting disruption of the natura.l coastal processes has consequences for all beaches in the area. Seawalls inhibit the natural ability of the beach to adjust its slope to the ever changing ocean wave conditions. Large waves wash up against the seawall and rebound back out to sea carrying large quantities of beach sand with them. With each storm the beach narrows, sand is lost to deeper water, and the longshore current scours the base of the wall. Eventually large waves impact the seawall with such force that a bigger structure becomes necessary to continue to resist the forces of the ocean (Pilkey and Dixon, 1996). • Palm Beach County under the department of environmental resources has a shoreline enhancement and restorarion program that anticipates erosion of beach and shoreline areas and takes pro-active measures to protect the costal areas. The plan is also adapta.ble to respond to disasters that may cause an effect to the shoreline. Palm Beach County's foriy-six (46) miles of ocean shoreline has been subjected to coasta.l erosion for many years due to the stabilization of inlets, residential and commercial development, and natural forces. The coastal strand ecosystem is one of the most threatened natural systems in Florida due to over-development. Presently, thirty one (31) of the County's 46 miles are listed as critically eroded by Florida.'s Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). While there is no one solution to beach erosion, several methods are utilized by Palm Beach County - each with its own merits and drawbacks. The first approach is to facilitate sand transfer at the inlets in order to restore the natural flow of sand. The second approach includes protecting the existing dunes and beaches and restoring the portions of shoreline that are already degraded. The last approach includes evaluating erosion control structures for use along beaches that may not qua.lify for a traditional beach fill project or may experience an erosional hot spot. All approaches include environmental monitoring of the resources to ensure that our effort to restore sand is accomplished in a manner that protects the natural environment to the greatest 60 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • extent possible. Through the Shoreline Enhancement & Restoration Program, the County is able to provide publicly accessible beaches, support the tourist-based economy, restore beach habitat and protect upland property. Funding for this capital improvement program is derived from a portion of "bed tax" fees administered through the Tourist Development Council, as well as funds from the state, the federal government and municipal partners Modifications to natural tidal inlets and the creation and stabilization of artificial inlets affect the natural littoral transport of sediments. Therefore, efforts to maintain the natural sediment movement in and around all four inlets in Palm Beach County are encouraged. Transfer of material from the north side of an inlet to the south prevents beach quality sand from being lost to the interior of an inlet or from becoming impounded within near shore shoals. Since the dissolution of the South Lake Worth [nlet District in 1996, the County has been responsible for the management of the South Lake Worth [nlet (Boynton Inlet) and the development of the [nlet's Management Plan. In 201 l, the County constructed a new sand transfer plant (STP) and rehabilitated the north and south jetties. The STP is operated by the County and transfers approximately 70,000 cubic yards of material per year to the beaches south of the Inlet. The County also dredges the [nlet"s interior sand trap approximately every six years. Sand from the trap is pumped into the nearshore along the beach south of the [nlet. Since the dissolution of the South Lake Worth Inlet District in 1996, the County has been responsible for the management of the South Lake Worth Inlet (Boynton Inlet) and the development of the Inlet's Management Plan. • In 201 1, the County constructed a new sand transfer plant (STP) and rehabilitated the north and south jetties. The STP is operated by the County and transfers approximately 70,000 cubic yards of material per year to the beaches south of the Inlet. The County also dredges the Inlet's interior sand trap approximately every six years. Sand from the trap is pumped into the near shore along the beach south of the Inlet. Since the dissolution of the South Lake Worth [nlet District in 1996, the County has been responsible for the management of the South Lake Worth Inlet (Boynton Inlet) and the development of the Inlet's Management Plan. In 2011, the County constructed a new sand transfer plant (STP) and rehabilitated the north and south jetties. The STP is operated by the County and transfers approximately 70,000 cubic yards of material per year to the beaches south of the Inlet. The County also dredges the Inlet's interior sand trap approximately every six years. Sand from the trap is pumped into the near shore along the beach south of the Inlet. Recent erosion events include: Hurricanes Frances & Jeanne (September 200�). Both Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne in 2004 equaled or exceeded the 100 year return period for storm surge in St Lucie, Indian River and southern Brevard Counties when they made landfall on the Martin County shoreline. The highest measured surge level for Category 2 Hurricane Frances was 11.8' (NGVD). The highest i6� Loca) Mitigation Strategy � 2015 surge level for Category 2 Hurricane Jeanne was 10.8' (NGVD). Surge levels in PBC were • significantly lower. Both storms caused significant beach erosion along the coastline of PBC. Tropical Storm Noe[ November 2007. Between November 1 and November 4, 2007, high surf associated with Tropical Storm Noel battered the PBC coast. Hardest hit spots were beaches in Jupiter, Singer [sland, and South Palm Beach/Lantana, where severe to locally extreme beach erosion occurred. A steel sea wall protecting the Condado condominium complex in Singer [sland collapsed, causing cracks to form in the outer walls of the building. In some areas, the dune line was completely eroded, leaving oceanfront buildings sitting precariously on top of 15- foot cliffs looking straight down to the water. A sea wall at the Imperial House condominiums in South Palm Beach collapsed from the pounding surf, and the east portion of the building was evacuated. South of Lantana to Boca Raton, erosion was reported as moderate to severe. Total damage for the County (minus beach restoration costs) was estimated at $4 million. No tide measurements were available from PBC, but storm tide was estimated to have been as high as two to three feet over northern PBC. A strong pressure gradient between high pressure over the Mid-Atlantic States and Tropical Storm Noel over Hispaniola and eastern Cuba caused a prolonged period of strong easterly winds over Southeast Florida and the adjacent waters. As Noel moved north across the western Bahamas, the strong winds continued across southeast Florida. The event caused severe beach erosion, coastal flooding, and minor wind damage. The event began in the last week of October. Hurricane Sandy of October 25, 2012. The main impact of Hurricane Sandy to the Palm Beach coast was large northeast swells generated by the storm, which pummeled the Southeast Florida • coast with significant beach erosion and coastal flooding. Large breaking waves of possibly over 20 feet were estimated along the coast. As a result, major coastal flooding occurred with the most significant impacts experienced from central Palm Beach north, including the Manalapan area where beachfront structures were threatened by water intrusion. In all, there was an estimated $14 million in damage sustained in PBC. A maximum storm tide of 5.2 feet above mean lower low water (MLLW) was observed at Lake Worth Pier on October 28th 80 ' ` �2 at 712 AM EDT along with a maximum 64 _ storm surge of 2.28 feet on October 28th at � 5s � 226 AM EDT. Similar tide and surge levels =�e were measured at the highest daily high tide � 32 - during this period, generally between 7 and 9 J 24 _ ti AM. s ,6 ( AR� 8. 2.1.1.11 Sea Level Rise ° " -e ,�so z000 zoso 2,00 Sea level rise is defined as a mean rise in sea Yea level. Since 1870 global sea level has risen Projection of sea level rise from 1990 to 2010, based by about 8 inches. Due to numerous factors on three different emissions scenarios. Also shown: such as greenhouse gas warming, estimates of observations of annual global sea level rise over the future sea level rise vary for different regions, past half century (red line), relative to 1990. but global sea level for the next century is Source: 62 • L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • expected to rise at a greater rate than during the past 50 years. Sea level rise predictions are complex and are based on mulriple scenarios of global temperature change and greenhouse gas emission. As coastal populations increase, wlnerability of those populations to sea level rise increases as well. Sea Level Rise is a new hazard for the County. Palm Beach County did not monitor or record any incidents of Sea level Rise before 2013. All future occurrences will be tracked and recorded and included in cunent and future updates." 2.1.1.12 Seismic Hazards Tsunamis Recent, widely published, research by British and American scientists warned of potential cata.strophic destruction of coastal areas of the Atlantic, including the Florida east coast, by mega tsunami waves generated by a future volcanic collapse in the Canary Islands. The research predicted a gigantic wave would traverse the Atlantic at jet aircraft speeds and devastate the Florida coast as far as ten miles inland. Such an event would present a tremendous warning challenge and a virtually impossible evacuation response. Subsequent research by the Tsunami Society, a body of scientists solely dedicated to the study of tsunamis, has concluded the threat has been grossly overstated. The society challenged many of the assumptions made relative to the probabiliry and magnitude of a collapse on La Palma and the characteristics of waves should • such a collapse occur. The Society notes that there have been no such mega-tsunami events in the Atlantic or Pacific oceans in recorded history. However, the deadly Asian tsunami in December of 2004 has rekindled interest in revisiting the resea.rch. The threat of a tsunamis impacting PBC is considered to be extremely low (approximately 5% or less per century). Tsunamis are most often generated by earthquake-induced movement of the ocean floor. Landslides, volcanic eruptions, and even meteorites can also generate a tsunami. They are often incorrectly refened to as tidal waves, but a tsunami is actually a series of waves that can travel at speeds averaging 450 (and up to 600) miles per hour in the open ocean. [n the open ocean, tsunamis are not felt by ships because the wavelength is hundreds of miles long, while the amplitude is only a few feet. This would also make them unnoticeable from the air. As tsunami waves approach a coast, their speed decreases, and their amplitude increases. Unusual wave heights have been known to be over 100 feet high. However, waves that are 10 to 20 feet high can be very destructive and cause many deaths or injuries. There has been no reported or recorded Tsunamis in Palm Beach County History. Earthquakes Although Florida is not usua.11y considered to be a state subject to earthquakes, several minor shocks have occurred over time, but only one caused any damage (Zirbes, 1971). Earthquakes will not be discussed further in this plan as they pose no risk to the county. • 63 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • In January 1879, a shock occurred near St. Augustine that is reported to have knocked • plaster from walls and articles from shelves. Similar effects were reported in Daytona Beach. The shock was felt in Tampa, throughout central Florida, and in Savannah, Georgia as well (Zirbes, 1971). • In January 1880 another earthquake occuned, this time with Cuba as the focal point. Shock waves were sent as far north as the town of Key West (Zirbes, 1971). • In August 1886, Charleston, South Carolina was the center of a shock that was felt throughout northern Florida. It rang church bells in St. Augustine and severely jolted other towns along sections of Florida's east coast. Jacksonville residents felt many of the strong aftershocks that occuned in September, October, and November, 1886 (Zirbes, 1971). • In June 1892, Jacksonville experier�ced a minor shock that lasted about 10 seconds. Another earthquake occuned in October 1892, and did not cause any damage either (Zirbes, 1971). • In November 1948, doors and windows rattled in Captiva Island, west of Ft. Myers. It was reportedly accompanied by sounds like distant heavy explosions (Zirbes, 1971). • In November 1952, a slight tremor was felt in Quincy, a town located 20 miles Northwest of Tallahassee. Windows and doors rattled, but no damage was reported (Zirbes, 1971). • There have been no recorded earthquakes in Palm Beach County. • 2.1.1.13 Geologic Hazards Sinkhol� and Subsidence Sinkholes are a common feature of Florida's landscape. They are only one of many kinds of karst land forms, which include caves, disappearing streams, springs, and underground drainage systems, all of which occur in Florida.. Karst is a generic term, which refers to the characteristic terrain produced by erosion processes associated with the chemical weathering and dissolution of limestone or dolomite, tl�e two most common carbonate rocks in Florida. Dissolution of carbonate rocks begins when they are exposed to acidic water. Most rainwater is slightly acidic and usually becomes more acidic as it moves through decaying plant debris. Limestone in Florida is porous, allowing the acidic water to percolate through it, dissolving some and carrying it away in solution. Over time, this persistent erosion process has created extensive underground voids and drainage systems in much of the carbonate rocks throughout the state. Collapse of overlying sediments into the underground cavities produces sinkholes (Florida Geological Survey, 1998). However, PBC have not had any reported sinkholes as they aze defined in this paragraph in the past 20 years. This is due to our location and the lack of limestone deposits in the County which does not provide an opportunity for acidic decay to occur. 64 � Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • At this time, Palm Beach County has not experienced any Sinkholes or Subsidence. They are not common to the PBC area. But due to the frequency of this hazard in other locations throughout the Staxe, these hazards are included in the LMS. • • 65 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 2.1.1.14 Pandemic • Infectious diseases emerging throughout history have included some of the most feared plagues of the past. New infections continue to emerge today, while many of the old plagues a.re still with us. As demonstrated by influenza pandemics, under suitable circumstances, a new infection first appearing anywhere in the world could travel across entire continents within days or weeks (Morse, 1996). Due to the potential of complex health and medical conditions that can threaten the general population, Florida's wlnerability to a pandemic is continually monitored. With millions of tourists arriving and departing the state annually, disease and exposure (airborne, vector, and ingestion) are constantly evaluated and analyzed. Primarily as a result of the entrance of undocumented aliens into south Florida, and the large number of small wildlife, previously controlled or eradicated diseases have surfaced. Health officials closely monitor this potential threat to the public health. The emphasis upon preventive medical measures such as school inoculation, pet licensing, rodendinsect eradication, water purification, sanitary waste disposal, health inspections, and public health education mitigate this potential disaster. Another potential threat to south Florida's population is food contamination. Frequent news stories document that E.coli and botulism breakouts throughout the country are not that uncommon. Most recently, millions of pounds of possibly contaminated beef from the Hudson packing plant were seized by the Department of Agriculture and destroyed. While this plan addresses all potential pandemic diseases, those that have actually affected PBC • will be addressed in that disease discussion. Avian (Bird Flu) H5N1 Although there are many forms of bird flu, the form that has most recently concerned health officials is the HSN1 flu virus carried by wild birds (many migratory). While wild birds seldom get sick from the virus, they can easily pass the virus to farm birds such as chickens, ducks, and turkeys being raised for food. These farm birds get sick, which poses a serious health risk. It is thought that both the 1957 Asian Flu and the 1968 Hong Kong Flu pandemics had avian origins. Quarantine and depopulation (culling) and surveillance of affected flocks have helped contain outbreaks. The current bird flu virus originated in Hong Kong in 1997 and disappeared after that. It reemerged in 2002 and has since caused havoc worldwide. Historically, bird flu viruses had not been passed from birds to humans. However, that changed in 1997, when people became infected by a serious, deadly form of bird flu. Most of these infections occurred in Asian countries among people who had had close contact with farm-raised birds. Sick birds had to be killed in great numbers in hopes of stopping the spread of the virus. It was suspected that the bird flu virus was passed to humans through bird droppings, saliva or contaminated surfaces on cages, tractors, and other farm equipment. 66 • L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Because viruses can change (mutate) quickly, experts worry that bird flu will one day be passed easily from person to person. The HSN1 bird flu virus has proven to be extremely lethal. Even though only a few hundred people thus far have been stricken by the HSN1 virus, more than half of those have died. The first case of HSN1 was traced to a farmed goose in China in 1996. Human infections were first reported in Hong Kong in 1997 (18 cases, 6 fatal). According to the World Health Organization, who monitors global disease outbreaks, as of April 2009, there have been approximately 417 human cases and 257 deaths in 15 countries from HSN1 influenza, none in the United States. The highest number of cases and deaths occurred in Indonesia (141 cases, 115 deaths) and in Vietnam (110 cases, 55 deaths). Other countries with cases and deaths have included Egypt, China, and Thailand. In June 2006, the World Health Organization confirmed a human-to-human transmission of the bird flu in Indonesia. Although the HSNI virus had mutated, the mutation apparently was not severe enough to trigger an avian influenza pandemic. Experts believe, however, that the virus may eventually spread to all parts of the world. Swine Flu A (H1N1) One way an antigenic shift can occur is through pigs. Pigs can be infected with both avian and human influenza viruses. If pigs become infected with viruses from different species at the same • time, it is possible for genes of the viruses to mix and create a new virus for which huma.ns have no natural immunity. According to the CDC, estimating the number of individual flu cases in the United States is very challenging because many people with flu don't seek medical care and only a small number of those that do seek care are tested. More people who are hospitalized or die of flu-related causes are tested and reported, but under-reporting of hospitalizations and deaths occurs as well. For this reason CDC monitors influenza activity levels and trends and virus characteristics through a nationwide surveillance system and uses statistical modeling to estimate the burden of flu illness (including hospita.lizations and deaths) in the United When the 2009 H1N1 flu outbreak began in April 2009, CDC began reporting the number of laboratory-confirmed cases, hospitalizations and deaths associated with 2009 H1N1 flu in the United States that were reported by states to CDC. These initial case counts, and subsequent ongoing laboratory-confirmed reports of hospitalizations and deaths, are thought to represent a significant undercount of the actual number of 2009 H1N1 flu cases in the United States A�aner in Emer�in�nfectious Diseases authored bv CDC staff entitled "Estimates of the Prevalence of Pandemic fH1N11 2009, United States. April—July 2009" reported on a study to estimate the prevalence of 2009 H1N1 based on the number of laboratory-confirmed cases reported to CDC. Correcting for under-ascertainment, the study found that every case of 2009 H1N1 reported from April — July represented an estimated 79 total cases, and every hospita.lized case reported may have represented an average of 2.7 tota.l hospitalized people. Since that time, • 67 L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 CDC has been working to develop a way to estimate, in an ongoing way, the impact of the 2009 � H1N1 pandemic on the U.S. in terms of 2009 H1N1 cases, hospitalizations and deaths. T'he CDC reports that in 2013 the H1N1 virus, although not elimated, had been contained and a vaccine is now available that was not available during the height of the 2009 outbreak. Although deaths are still being reported in the United States, they are becoming more rare. The origins of the new virus are not known. One theory is that Asian and European strains traveled to Mexico via migratory birds or human travelers, then combined with North American strains in Mexican pig factory farms before jumping over to farm workers. The Mexican health agency believes the original disease vector may have been flies multiplying in manure lagoons of pig farms. The American cases were found to be made up of genetic elements from four different flu viruses, the North American swine influenza, the North American avian influenza, human influenza, and swine influenza typically found in Asia and Europe. Within one month of detection, officials in the United States had confirmed that seven people in California, two students from a high school in Texas, and a married couple in Kansas were infected with A/09(H1N1) swine flu; all recovered. New York State had confirmed cases as well. The cases in Kansas and New York were linked to tra.vel to Mexico; most of the cases in California and Texas were not linked to travel, suggesting localized outbreaks of the virus. At this writing, isolated cases of suspected swine flu were surfacing across the U.S. and abroad � daily. Deaths will certainly result. Government health agencies continue to closely monitor developments. W�t Nile Virus The PBC Health Department reported cases of the West Nile Virus in 2002, 2002, 2010, and 2011. This disease is transmitted by mosquitoes. Health notifications were given throughout the County both years to alert and caution the public. Individuals were advised to take precautions when outdoors and to try to avoid being outside after dusk. Mosquitoes become infected when they feed on infected birds, which may circulate the virus in their blood for a few days. Infected mosquitoes can then transmit West Nile virus to humans and animals while biting. The virus is located in the mosquito's salivary glands. During feeding, the virus may be injected into the animal or human, where it may multiply, possibly causing illness. The more DEET a repellent contains the longer time it can protect you from mosquito bites. Most people who are infected with the West Nile virus will not have any type of illness. It is estimated that 20% of the people who become infected will develop West Nile fever: mild symptoms, including fever, headache, and body aches, occasionally with a skin rash on the trunk of the body and swollen lymph glands. 68 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • The symptoms of severe infection (West Nile encephalitis or meningitis) include headache, high fever, neck stiffness, stupor, disorientation, coma, tremors, convulsions, muscle weakness, and paralysis. It is estimated that 1 in 150 persons infected with the West Nile virus will develop a more severe form of disease. SARS . Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) is a viral respiratory illness caused by a corona virus, called SARS-associated corona virus (SARS-Co�. SARS was first reported in Asia in February 2002. Over the next few months, the illness spread to more than two dozen countries in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia. According to the WHO, during the SARS . outbreak of Februa.ry — July 2002, a total of 8,427 people worldwide became sick with SARS; of these, 812 died. In the United States, there were 192 cases of SARS among people, all of whom got better. There were eight cases reported in Florida. However, PBC had no reported cases of SARS. The main way that SARS seems to spread is by close person-to-person contact. The virus that causes SARS is thought to be transmitted most readily by respiratory droplets (droplet spread) produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes. Droplet spread can happen when droplets from the cough or sneeze of an infected person are propelled a short distance (generally up to 2 feet) through the air and deposited on the mucous membranes of the mouth, nose, or eyes of persons who are nearby. The virus also can spread when a person touches a surface or object e contaminated with infectious droplets and then touches his or her mouth, nose, or eye(s). In addition, it is possible that the SARS virus might spread more broadly through the air (airborne spread) or by other ways that are not now known. Malaria About 1,200 cases of malaria are diagnosed in the United Sta.tes each year. Most cases in the United States are in immigrants and travelers returning from malaria-risk areas, mostly from sub- Saharan Africa and the Indian subcontinent. Each year in the United States a few cases of malaria result from blood transfusions, passing from mother to fetus during pregnancy, or transmission by locally infected mosquitoes. For the year 2002, as of September 14, eight cases of malaria were reported in PBC. In 2008, there were four reported cases, eleven in 2011, sixteen in 2010, and seven in 2011. Humans get malaria from the bite of a malaria-infected mosquito. When a mosquito bites an infected person, it ingests microscopic malaria parasites found in the person's blood. The malaria parasite must grow in the mosquito for a week or more before infection can be passed to another person. If, after a week, the mosquito then bites another person, the parasites go from the mosquito's mouth into the person's blood. The parasites then travel to the person's liver, enter the liver's cells, grow, and multiply. During this time when the parasites are in the liver, the person has not yet felt sick. The parasites leave the liver and enter red blood cells; this may take as little as 8 days or as many as several months. Once inside the red blood cells, the parasites grow and multiply. The red blood cells burst, freeing the parasites to attack other red � 69 L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 blood cells. Toxins from the parasite are also released into the blo�d, making the person feel � sick. Symptoms of malaria include fever and flu-like illness, including chills, headache, muscle aches, and tiredness. Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may also occur. For most people, symptoms begin ten days to four weeks after infection, although a person may feel ill as early as 8 days or as late as one year later. Any traveler who becomes ill with a fever or flu-like illness while traveling to Malaria risk areas and up to one year after returning home should immediately seek professional medical care. A person should tell his/her health care provider that they have been traveling in a malaria-risk area. Persons living in and travelers to, any area of the world where malaria is transmitted may become infected. Malaria can be cured with prescription drugs. 2.1.2 Technological Hazards 2.1.2.1 Dike Failure Dam/levee failure poses a threat to population and property in several areas of PBC. All are earthen structures and aze sta.te, regionally, locally, or privately controlled. The most significant risk related to dam/levee failure is flooding due to substantial rainfall and its eastward migration e to final discharge in the Indian River Lagoon. Structural and non-structural techniyues to slow and contain this runoff incorporate several drainage systems, some dating back to 1919. Ra,infall in excess of designed capacities could cause erosion of constructed drainage facilities and flooding of many areas including primary roadway evacuation routes (PBC CEMP, 2011). The Herbert Hoover Dike (H�ID) was completed in 1927 to protect PBC citizens from experiencing a.nother flooding event similar to the occurrence in 1928. The flooding derived from the 1928 hurricane, which resulted in over 2,500 deaths and thousands more injured in the western portion of PBC. The dike protects from major flooding events occurring in Belle Glade, Pahokee, and South Bay municipalities. Also, there is a potential for flooding in The Village of Wellington, Royal Palm Beach, West Palm Beach, Palm Beach Gardens, and unincorporated PBC. The Herbert Hoover Dike is continuously monitored by the Army Corp of Engineers in partnership with the SFWMD. The Corps is cunently implementing a dam safety process to lower the risk across the entire HI�D system. The Corps is constructing enhanced cutoff walls along the most wlnerable areas. Construction of the cutoff wall helps reduce the risk by eliminating existing piping and preventing additional internal erosion through the dike and foundation. Construction between Port Mayaca and Belle Glade was completed in 2012. The Corps will also replace or remove 22 culverts within the H�ID system. Replacement work began in 2012 to Culverts 2 and 4A near South Bay among others. The Corps anticipates removing or replacing all the culverts with construction continuing through 2018. Until work to stabilize the dike is completed by the Army 70 � L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Corp of Engineers, there is the potential for stability problems and/or seepage to occur from heavy rainfall raising the level of the lake above 18 feet. Policy changes within the SFWNID maintain the water levels of Lake Okeechobee at low levels, thereby, reducing potential risk. A catastrophic failure of the Herbert Hoover Dike could pose a significant danger to the residents, local economies, and environment of PBC and South Florida. This threat is greater and has a more severe impact in the three western PBC Cities of South Bay, Belle Glade, and Pahokee. 2.1.2.2 Hazardous Materials Accident Hazardous materials accidents can occur anywhere there is a road, rail line, pipeline, or f�ed facility storing hazardous materials. Virtually the entire state is at risk to an unpredictable accident of some type. Most accidents are small spills and leaks, but some result in injuries, property damage, environmental contamination, and other consequences. These materials can be poisonous, corrosive, flammable, ra.dioactive, or pose other hazards a.nd are regulated by the Department of Transportation. Out of approximately 1,662 hazardous materials incidents reported sta.tewide in 1997, no known fatalities were reported, less than four percent resulted in injuries, and less than six percent resulted in evacuation. Emergencies involving hazardous materials can be expected to range from a minor accident with no off-site effects to a major accident that may result in an off-site release of hazardous or toxic materials. The overall objective of chemical emergency response planning and preparedness is to minimize exposure for a wide range of accidents that could produce off-site levels of contamination in excess of Levels of Concern (LOC) established by the U.S. Environmental • Protection Agency. Minimizing this exposure will reduce the consequences of an emergency to people in the azea near to facilities, which manufacture, store, or process hazardous materials (TCRPC). Laxge volumes of hazardous materials are transported to and through the county by railroad, highway, air, water, and pipeline daily. Within PBC, there are a number of both public and private fixed facilities, which produce or use hazardous materials. Coordinating procedures for hazardous material response are found within the County's Hazarrdous Materials Hazard Spec�c Plan. In addition to the County's HazaYdous Materials Hazaf-d Spec�c Plan, as well as other hazardous materials plans, Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) officials have prepared a plan for use in responding to and recovering from a release of hazardous or toxic materials. This plan addresses the range of potential emergency situations and the appropriate measures to be implemented to minimize exposure through inhalation, ingestion, or direct exposure. Mishandling and improper disposal or storage of inedical wastes and low-level radioactive products from medical use are also a hazard to PBC. For example, a few years ago an incident occurred in New Jersey when improper disposal of inedical wastes resulted in some of the used products ending up on Atlantic Ocean beaches. • 71 L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Palm Beach County has not experienced any significant hazardous material accidents in the past • ten (10) years. 2.1.2.3 Radiological Accidents (Nuclear Power Plant Accident) While an actual relea.se of radioactive material is extremely unlikely and the immediate threat to life extremely low, wlnerability to a nuclear plant disaster could consist of long-range health effects with temporary and permanent displacement of populations from affected areas. The potential danger from an accident at a nuclear power plant is exposure to radiation. This exposure could come from the release of radioactive material from the plant into the environment, usually characterized by a plume (cloud-like) formation. The area the radioactive release might affect is determined by the amount released from the plant, wind direction, and speed and weather conditions (e.g., rain, snow, etc.) which would quickly drive the radioactive material into the ground, causing increased deposition of radio nuclides. The levels of response to the release of radioactive materials are as follows: � Notification of Unusual Event - The event poses no threat to plant employees, but emergency officials are notified. No action by the public is necessary. • Alert - An event has occuned that could reduce the plant's level of sa.fety, but back- up systems still work. Emergency agencies are notified and kept informed, but no action by the public is necessary. • Site Area Emergency - The event involves major problems with the plant's safety and has progressed to the point that a release of some radioactivity into the air or water is � possible, but is not expected to exceed Environmental Protection Agency Protective -Action Guidelines (PAGs). Thus, no action by the public is necessary. • General Emergency - The event has caused a loss of safety systems. If such an event occurs, radiation could be released that would penetrate the site boundary. Staxe and local authorities will take action to protect the residents living near the plant. The alert and notification system will be sounded. People in the affected areas could be advised to evacuate, or in some situations, to shelter in place. When the sirens are sounded, radio and television alert will have site-specific information and instructions. Thirty of the 67 counties in the Staxe of Florida are involved in preparedness planning for a commercial nuclear power plant emergency. The St. Lucie nuclear power plant is located on Hutchinson Island approximately four miles east- northeast of the City of Port St. Lucie, approximately 5.5 miles north of Ma.rtin County/St. Lucie County boundary line. This facility is owned and opera.ted by the Florida Power & Light Company. Palm Beach County is located more than 20 miles from the plant and is well outside the 10 mile Emergency Planning Zone/potential plume area, so there is not a risk to direct radiation exposure. Therefore, PBC would provide assistance to St. Lucie and Martin Counties in the unlikely chance of an accident at the plant. Palm Beach County municipalities located in part or whole within 50 miles of the power plant (Tequesta, Jupiter Inlet Colony, Jupiter, Juno Beach, Palm Beach Gardens, North Palm Beach, Lake Park, Riviera Beach, Mangonia Park, West Palm Beach, Palm Beach, Pa.hokee, Royal Palm Beach, Haverhill, Glen Ridge, Wellington, 72 • L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Palm Springs, Greenacres and Lake Clarke Shores) fall within the `Ingestion Pathway Zone' meaning if there is a major release at the power plant, radioactive contamination could be deposited as far as 50 miles affecting food and water supplies. The purpose of the County radiological preparedness program is to prepare to receive, shelter and decontaminate (if necessary) potentially contaminated evacuees from an accident at the St. Lucie nuclear power plant. A radiological emergency response plan is developed and exercised in order to have reasonable assurance that adeyuate protective measures can be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. 2.1.2.4 Communications Failure As society emerges from industrial production into the age of information, we are seeing new kinds of technological accidents/disasters. Recently, a communications failure occurred that was the worst in 27 years of satellite service. Some major problems with the telecommunications satellite Galaxy N drastically affected 120 companies in the paging industry (Rubin, 1998). Radio and other forms of news broadcasts were also affected. The pager failure not only affected personal and business communications, but emergency managers and medical personnel as well. More commonly, communication failures occur due to power outa.ges. 2.1.2.5 Hazardous Materials Relea.se • A large volume of hazardous materials are transported to and through the County by railroad, highway, air, water, and pipeline daily, on a routine basis. Within PBC, there are a number of both public and private fixed facilities, which produce or use hazazdous materials. Coordinating procedures for hazardous material response are found within the County's HazaYdous Materials Haza�-d Spec�c Plan. Mishandling and improper disposal or storage of inedical wastes and low-level radioactive products from medical use are also a hazard to PBC. In 1988, an incident occurred in New Jersey when improper disposal of inedical wastes resulted in used products ending up on Atlantic Ocean beaches. Palm Beach County has not experienced any significant hazardous material releases in the past ten (10) years. 2.1.2.6 Transportation System Accidents Florida has a large tra.nsportation network consisting of major highways, airports, marine ports, and passenger railroads. The heavily populated areas of PBC are particularly vulnerable to serious accidents, which are capable of producing mass casualties. With the linear configuration of severa.l major highways in PBC, such as Interstate highways and the Florida. Turnpike, major transportation accidents could occur in a relatively rural area, severely stressing the capabilities of local resources to respond effectively. A recent notorious example is the crash in the • 73 L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Everglades of the Value Jet Flight 592 on May 11, 1996, which resulted in 110 fatalities and cost � millions of dollars to respond, severely taxing the financial and public safety resources of Dade County. Similarly, a major transportation accident could involve a large number of tourists and visitors from other countries, given Florida's popularity as a vacation destination, further complicating the emergency response to such an event. Palm Beach County has not experience any significant Transportation System Accidents in the past ten (10) years. 2.1.2.7 Coastal Oil Spill As a major industrial nation, the United States produces, distributes, and consumes large quantities of oil. Petroleum-based oil is used as a major power source to fuel factories and various modes of transportation, and in many everyday products, such as plastics, nylon, paints, tires, cosmetics, and detergents. At every point in the production, distribution, and consumption process, oil is invariably stored in tanks. With billions of gallons of oil being stored throughout the country, the potential for an oil spill is significant, and the effects of spilled oil can pose serious threats to the environment. In addition to petroleum-based oil, the U.S. consumes millions of gallons of non-petroleum oils, such as silicone and mineral-based oils, and animal and vegetable oils. Like petroleum products, these non-petroleum oils are often stored in tanks that have the potential to spill, causing environmental damages that are just as serious as those caused by petroleum-based oils. To � address the potential environmental threat posed by petroleum and non-petroleum oils, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has established a program designed to prevent oil spills. The program has reduced the number of spills to less than 1 percent of the total volume handled each year (Environmental Protection Agency, 1998). Spilled oil poses serious threats to fresh water and marine environments, affecting surface resources and a wide range of subsurface organisms. Most oils tend to spread horizonta.11y into a smooth and slippery surface, called a slick, on top of the water. However, once the oil reaches the shoreline it can escape downward into sand, making it difficult to clean up and reducing its ability to degrade. Spilled oil can harm the environment in several ways, including the physical damages that directly impact wildlife and their habitats (such as coating birds or mammals with a layer of oil), and the toxicity of the oil itself, which can poison exposed organisms. Not only would an oil spill adversely affect the environment, but also the economy would suffer due to a decrease in tourism. Depending on the severity of the spill, the economy could suffer mild, short-term effects to devasta.ting, long-term effects. Many advanced response mechanisms are available for controlling oil spills and minimizing their impacts on human health and the environment. Mechanical containment or recovery is the primary line of defense against oil spills. This type of equipment includes a variety of booms, barriers, and skimmers. Natura.l and synthetic sorbent materiats are used as well to capture and store the spilled oil until it can be disposed of properly. Chemical and biological methods can be combined with mechanical means for containing and cleaning up oil spills. Dispersants and 74 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 � gelling agents are most useful in helping to keep oil from reaching shorelines and other sensitive habitats. Physical methods are used to clean up shorelines as well. Wiping with sorbent materials, pressure washing, ra.king, and bulldozing can be used to assist natural environmenta.l recovery processes. Scare tactics are used to protect birds and animals by keeping them away from oil spill areas. Palm Beach County has 45 miles of Atlantic Ocean coastline that is subject to conta.mination caused by an oil spill. By Executive Order, the responsibility for preparing response plans for coastal oil spills is designated to the Departrnent of Environmental Protection, Division of Florida Marine Patrol. There are two active oil field regions in Florida: in Escambia and Santa Rosa counties in the Panhandle, and Collier, Hendry, and Lee counties in southwest Florida. On April 20, 2010, an explosion on the Deepwater HorizonBP MC252 drilling platForm in the Gulf of Mexico killed 11 workers and caused the rig to sink. As a result, oil began leaking into the Gulf creating one of the largest spills in American histo . During the next 87 days an estimated 4.9 million barrels (210 million gallons) of oil were released. In 2010. While the spill did not affect the water ways or coastal communities of Palm Beach County, it did put PBCDEM and other supporting agencies throughout the County on alert. Extensive plans were coordinated to prepare for a potential containment and oil clean up response. 2.1.2.8 Wellfield Contamination • As communities become more aware of both the potential health risks and the economic effects of ground water contamination, they are beginning to look increasingly toward preventative efforts. Even when no immediate hazard appears to exist, a community should be concerned about protecting its drinking water supply for three reasons: to reduce potential risks to the health of the community; to avoid the costs of cleaning up contamination and providing alternative water supplies; and to prevent the negative economic impacts on community development that ground water contamination can cause. The development of wellfield protection programs is a major preventative approach for the protection of community drinking water supplies. Wellfield protection is a means of safeguarding public water supply wells by preventing contaminants from entering the area that contributes water to the well or wellfield over a period of time. Management plans are developed for the wellfield protection area that include inventorying potenrial sources of groundwater contamination, monitoring for the presence of specific contaminants, and managing existing and proposed land and water uses that pose a threat to groundwater quality. Ground water is a vita.11y importa.nt natural resource. It is a source of drinking water for more than half of the U.S. population and more than 95 percent of the rura.l population. In addition, ground water is a support system for sensitive ecosystems, such as wetlands or wildlife habitats. Between 1971 and 1985, there were 245 ground water related outbreaks of disease nationwide, resulting in more than 52,000 individuals being affected by associated illnesses (Browning). • � 75 L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 While most of these diseases were short-term digestive disorders caused by bacteria and viruses, • hazardous chemicals found in wells nationwide also pose risks to public health. The 1986 Amendments to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act require states to implement wellfield protection programs for public water wells. Prevention strategies include mainta.ining the isolation distances from potential contamination sources, regorting to the state violations of the isolation distance to the sta.te, and asking a local governmental unit to regulate these sources. Cleaning up contaminated ground water can be technically difficult, extremely expensive, and sometimes cannot be done. Contaminated ground water also affects the community by discouraging new businesses or residents from locating in that community. 2.1.2.9 Power Failure (Outag�) In the U.S., from July 2 to August 10, 1996, the Western States Utility Power Grid reported widespread power outages that affected millions of customers in several western states and adjacent areas of Canada. and Mexico. These problems resulted from a variety of related causes, including sagging lines due to hot weather, flashovers from transmission lines to nearby trees, and incorrect relay settings. According to the electric utility industry's trade association, the potential for such disturbances is expected to increase with the profound changes now sweeping the electric utility industry. On August 14, 2002, the largest power outage occurred in the northeast and Midwest states. The � power outage started around 2 o'clock in the afternoon and was out in some places until Monday the 18�'. There were major cities without power for an extended period of time. Some of the cities included: New York, Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, and Toronto. The power outage affected millions of people across states and Canada. The source of the outage is unclear at this time. The entire northeast power grid was affected. In PBC, the major causes of a power failure are lightning and trees. Lightning strikes and trees falling onto power lines can shut down power for hundreds of people. Other factors that can cause a power failure are: • Age of facility (transmission and distribution); • Community growth; and • High winds. The location of power lines underground or above ground also has significance. Lines underground have the advantage of being less vulnerable to tree foliage; however, they are still at risk from other underground hazazds such as tree roots. To address times when generating capacity is tight, or falls below consumer demand due to sta.te or local emergencies, the Florida Electrical Emergency Contingency Plan was developed. Alerts have been created to give early warning of potential electricity shortfalls and bring utilities, emergency management officials, and the general public to a sta.te of preparedness. The Contingency Plan has four stages (Florida Reliability Coordinating Council): 76 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • • Generating Capacity Advisory - A Generating Capacity Advisory is primarily for information purposes. It starts utility tracking activities, and it initiates inter-utility and inter-agency communication. No action by the public is required. General informarion may be distributed to consumers to forewarn them of conditions if necessary. • Generating Capacity Alert - A Genera.ting Capacity Alert starts actions to increase reserves. Available emergency supply options will be explored. When reserves fall below the size of the largest generating unit in the state, loss of that size unit to an unexpected mechanical failure could lead to blackouts somewhere since insufficient backup is available. • Generating Capacity Emergency - A Generating Capacity Emergency occurs when blackouts are inevitable somewhere in Florida. Every available means of balancing supply and demand will be exhausted. Rolling blackouts, manually activated by utilities are a last resort to avoid system overload and possible equipment damage. Frequent sta.tus reports a.re provided to agencies and flie media. The Division of Emergency Management will consider using the Emergency Broadcast System to inform citizens of events and to direct them to available shelters if conditions warranted. Recognizing the consequences of a loss of electricity, individual utility emergency plans include provisions for special facilities critical to the safety and welfare of citizens. • System Load Restoration - System Load Restoration is instituted when rolling blackouts • have been terminated and power supply is adequate. It is the recovery stage, and efforts are made to provide frequent system sta.tus reports. 2.1.3 Human-Caused Hazards 2.1.3.1 Civil Disturbance As in any other area, PBC is subject to civil disturbances in the form of riots, mob violence, and a breakdown of law and order in a localized area. Although they can occur at any time, civil disturbances are often preceded by periods of increased tension caused by questionable social and/or political events such as controversial jury trials or law enforcement actions. Police services are responsible for the restoration of law and order in any specific area of the County. 2.1.3.2 Terrorism and Sabotage Terrorism The FBI defines terrorism as, "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or societal objectives." A tenorist incident could involve the use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WNID) that would threaten lives, property and environmental resources by using explosives or incendiary devices and/or by contamination with chemical, biological, and/or radiological materials. • 77 L Mitigation Strategy � 2015 • It is recognized that the state has many critical and high-profile facilities, high concentrations of population and other potentially ariractive venues for terrorist activity that are inherently vulnerable to a variety of terrorist methods. GovernmentaUpolitical, transportation, commercial, infrastructure, cultural, academic, research, milita.ry, athletic, and other activities and facilities constitute ideal targets for terrorist attacks, which may cause catastrophic levels of property and environmenta.l damage, injury and loss of life. Furthermore, some extremist groups are known to be present within Florida. Terrorist attacks may take the form of the hazards described in this section when incidents of these types are executed for criminal purposes, such as induced dam or levee failures, the use of hazardous materials to injure or kill, or the use of biological weapons to create a pandemic. Tenorists have the potential to create disasters, which threaten the safety of a large number of citizens. In the recent years, tenorist acts have become a reality for the nation. Palm Beach County is not immune from acts of terrorism. The 2001 World Trade Center bombing was the largest terrorist attack the United States has ever experienced. After the World Trade Center attack, it was learned that many of the perpetrators resided in and the (tenorists) pilots took flight lessons in PBC. In addition, Anthrax, which was dispersed via the postal system in late 2001, claimed the lives of five US citizens including one person from PBC. It was determined that he became infected with the disease at American Media lncorporated (AMn, in Boca Ra.ton, his place of employment. A second employee became infected and survived. The federal government has recognized that the United States has entered the post-Cold War era. • As a result, federal planning guidelines regarding military threats are in transition. However, nuclear weapons continue to be a serious planning concern especially in areas sunounding military installations. The influx of undocumented aliens into South Florida from azeas unfriendly to the interest of the United States is monitored by those involved with the emergency management of government. Computer Accidents and Sabotage The President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection (PCCIl') recently reported that there is an increasing threat that the U.S. could suffer something similar to an "Electronic Pearl Harbor". Networked information systems present new security challenges in addition to the benefits they offer. Long-term power outa.ges could cause massive computer outages, with severe economic impacts such as loss of sales, credit checking, banking transactions, and the ability to communicate and exchange information and da.ta. Today, the right command sent over a network to a power generating station's control computer could be just as effective as a backpack full of explosives, and the perpetrator would be harder to identify and apprehend (Rubin, 1998). With the growth of a computer-literaxe population, increasing numbers of people possess the skills necessary to attempt such an attack. The resources to conduct a cyber attack are now easily accessible everywhere. A personal computer and an internet service provider anywhere in the world are enough to cause a great deal of harm. 78 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Threats include: • Human error � Insider use of authorized access for unauthorized disruptive purposes • Recreational hackers — with or without hostile intent • Criminal activity — for financial gain, to steal information or services, organized crime • Industrial espionage • Terrorism — including various disruptive operations • National Intelligence — information wa.rfare, intended disruption of military operations As the internet becomes more and more importarit, the loss of its services, whether by accident or intent, becomes a greater hardship for those relying on this form of communication. The outcomes of such activities may take the form of disruption of air traffic controls, train switches, banking transfers, police investigations, commercial transactions, defense plans, power line controls, and other essential functions. Computer failures could affect emergency communications as well as routing civilian applications, such as telephone service, brokerage transactions, credit ca.rd payments, Social Security payments, pharmacy transactions, airline schedules, etc. 2.1.3.3 Mass Migration Crisis Florida.'s location as the nearest United States land mass bordering the Caribbean basin makes it a chosen point of entry for many migrants attempting to enter the country illegally. A major • consequence of a mass arrival of illegal aliens could be disruptive to the routine functioning of the impacted community, resulting in significant expenditures that are related to the situation. An example of this threat occuned in 1994, when the state responded to two mass migration incidents. In May 1994, there was an unexpected migration of approximately 100 Haitian refugees; in August 1994, there was an influx of 700 Cuba.ns. These events are typically preceded by periods of increasing tension abroad, which can be detected and monitored. Enforcement of immigration laws is a federal responsibility. However, it is anticipated that joint jurisdictional support of any operation will be required from the sta.te and local governments. The Atlantic shore of PBC is the frequent scene of arrival of undocumented aliens, usually Haitian or Cuban. The County has both the history and potential for the unannounced arrival of a large number of aliens. Until relieved of the responsibility by the state and federal governments, PBC must be capable of providing mass refugee care to include shelter, food, water, transportation, medical, police protection, and other social services. 2.2 Vulnerability Assessment Palm Beach County is a diversified county. While all PBC residents are exposed to the hazards identified in Table 2.1 to some degree, geographic location and other factors greatly affect individual vulnerabilities and probabilities relating to specific hazards illustrated in Anpendiz A for the County and each jurisdiction. Factors influencing vulnera.bility include community location, type of construction, demographics, and cultural characteristics. Table A-1 summarizes individua.l community vulnerability within PBC. Table A-2 relates the probability of future • 79 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 hazard events for each identified hazard within PBC. Appendix B includes mitigation initiatives • to reduce the impacts of each jurisdiction risks for PBC in reference to the individual hazards identified in Section 2.1 Additional maps will be located in Anuendiz C. These maps will be illustrated by hazard addressing critical facilities having the potential to be effected by hazard. The critical facilities will have a potential dollar loss figure tied to it. With the assistance of the DEM, the LMS conducted impact analyses to assess the potential for detrimental impacts from all identified natural, technological, and human caused hazards. Results of these analyses are summarized below. Impacts were categorized into the following groupings: health and safety of the resident population in the affected area; health and safety of incident responders; impacts on the continuity of government and non-government operations; impacts to property, facilities and infrastructure; impacts to the crirical community services; impacts to the environment; economic and financial impacts; impacts on regulatory and contractual obligations; and impacts negatively affecting the PBC's reputation, image, and/or ability to attract public and commercial interests. Most hazards in Palm Beach County affect the entire county equally. However, there are some that may be more likely in one area of the County. For example, a Herbert Hoover Dike breach would cause more damage to the western communities. For the purpose of this document, the County has been divided into four geographical areas: Northern Palm Beach County, Southern Palm Beach County, Western Palm Beach County, and Coastal Palm Beach County. In each of the hazards identified and defined, the latest occurrence of that event hazard is listed. • For example the last major hurricane to hit Palm beach County was 2007. Therefore, there would be no examples beyond that point. In addition, the charts show probability of occurrence and impact. T'hese will be rated as low = under 5% chance of occurring, medium, 5% - 15% chances of occurring, or High, greater than 15%. T'hese rating responds with the information of the charts presented. • An impact rating of "Low" for any hazard type means the hazard is not likely to have any measurable or lasting detrimental impact of a particular type and consequences will likely be rectified promptly with locally available resources. The chances here are less than 5%. • An impact rating of "Medium" means there will likely be a measura.ble detrimental impact which may require some time to rectify and may require outside resources and/or assistance. The chances here are between 5% - 15%. • An impact rating of "High" means the impact will likely be severe and of longer duration, and require substantial time, resources, and/or outside assista.nce to recrify. The chances are greater than 15%. • Multiple ratings indicate detrimenta.l impacts might easily vary within the range indicated. 80 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • 2.2.1 Natural Hazards 2.2.1.1 Hurricanes and Tropical Storms From 1920 through 1959, a tota.l of 58 hurricanes struck the U.S. mainland, 25 of which were category 2 or higher (major storms). Between 1960 and 1989, 42 hurricanes struck the U.S. of which only 16 were Category 2 or stronger. Most hurricane experts feel we are entering a period of increased hurricane formation similar to the levels seen in the 1920s and 1940s. Current hurricane risk calculations are complicated by climatic factors suggesting the potential for even greater hurricane frequency and severiry in the world's entire hurricane spawning grounds. Since 1995, there have been 62 Atlantic hurricanes, 12 of which occurred in 2010 alone. Global warming may cause changes in storm frequency and the precipitation rates associated with storms. A modest 0.9 degree Fahrenheit (0.5 degree centigrade) increase in the mean global temperature will add 20 days to the annual hurricane season, and increase the chances of a storm- making landfall on the U.S. mainland by 22%. The warmer ocean surface will also allow storms to increase in intensity, survive in higher latitudes, and develop storm tracts that could shift farther north, producing more U.S. landfalls. Currently an average of 1.6 hurricanes strikes the U.S. every year. Severe (Category 4 or 5 on the Saffir-Simpson scale) hurricanes strike the U.S. on the average of one every 5.75 years. Annually, hurricanes are estimated to cause approximately $1.2 billion in damages. The proximity of dense population to the Atlantic Ocean, as well as the generally low coastal • elevations, significantly increases the County's vulnerability. The potential for property damage and human casualties in PBC has increased over the last several decades primarily because of the rapid growth this county has experienced since 1970, particularly along the vulnerable coastline areas. Hurricane damage is caused by two factors: • High winds • Storm surge (discussed under "Flooding") Generally, it is the wind that produces most of the property damage associated with hurricanes, while the greatest threat to life is from flooding and storm surge. Although hurricane winds can exert tremendous pressure against a structure, a large percenta.ge of hurricane damage is caused not by wind, but from flying debris. Tree limbs, signs and sign posts, roof tiles, metal siding, and other lose objects can become airborne missiles that penetrate the outer shells of buildings, destroying their structural integrity and allowing the hurricane winds to act against interior walls not designed to withstand such forces. Once a structure's integrity is breached, the driving rains associated with hurricanes can enter the structure and completely destroy its contents. Hurricane winds are unique in several ways: • They are more turbulent than winds in most other type storms • They are sustained for a longer period of time (several hours) than any other type of atrnospheric disturbance � 81 L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • • They change slowly in direction, thus they are able to seek out the most critical angle of attack on a given structure. •'They generate large quantities of flying debris as the built environment is progressively damaged, thus amplifying their destructive power In hurricanes, gusts of wind can be expected to exceed the susta.ined wind velocity by 25 to 50 percent. This means a hurricane with sustained winds of 150 mph will have wind gusts exceeding 200 mph. The wind's pressure against a fixed structure increases with the square of the velocity. For example, a 100 mph wind will exert a pressure of approximately 40 Ibs per square foot on a flat surface, while a 190 mph wind will exert a force of 122 lbs per squaxe foot on that same structure. In terms of a four by eight foot sheet of plywood nailed over a window, there would be 1,280 lbs of pressure against this sheet in a 100 mph wind, and 2,9041bs or 1.95 tons of pressure against this sheet in a 190 mph wind. The external and internal pressures generated against a structure vary greatly with increases in elevation, shapes of buildings, openings in the structures, and the surrounding buildings and terrain. Buildings at ground level experience some reductions in wind forces simply because of the drag exerted by the ground against the lowest levels of the air column. High-rise buildings, particularly those located along the beachfront, will receive the full strength of a hurricane's wind on their upper stories. Recent studies estimate that wind speed increases by approximately 27 percent just 15 feet above ground level. � The wind stream generates uplift as it divides and flows around a structure. The stream following the longest path around a building, genera.11y the path over the roof, speeds up to rejoin the wind streams following shorter paths, generally around the walls. This is the same phenomena that generate uplift on an aircraft's wing. The roof, in effect, becomes an airfoil that is attempting to take off from the rest of the building. Roof vortexes generally concentrate the wind's uplift force at the corners of a roof. These key points can experience uplift forces two to five times greater than those exerted on other parts of the roof. Once the envelope of the building has been breached through the loss of a window, door, or roof damage, wind pressure on internal surfaces becomes a critical factor. Openings may cause pressurizing or depressurizing of a building. Pressurizing pushes the walls out, while depressurizing will pull the walls in. Internal pressure coupled with external suction adds to the withdrawal force on sheathing fasteners. Damages from internal pressure fluctuations may range from blowouts of windows and doors to tota.l building collapse due to structural failure. During Andrew, catastrophic failure of one and two-story wood-frame buildings in residential areas was observed more than cata:strophic failures in any other type of building. Single-family residential construction is particulazly wlnerable because less engineering oversight is applied to its design and construction. As opposed to hospitals and public buildings which are considered fully engineered, and office and industrial buildings which are considered "marginally engineered," residential construcrion is considered "non-engineered." Historically, the bulk of wind damage experienced nationwide has occurred to residential construction. Fully engineered 82 � L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • construction usually performs well in high winds due to the attention given to connections and load paths. Hurricane winds generate massive quantities of debris, which can easily exceed a community's entire solid waste capacity by three times or more. Debris removal is an integral first step toward recovery, and as such must be a critical concern of all those tasked with emergency management and the restoration of community services. The Arbiter of Storms (TAOS) model predicts the following quantities of debris for PBC given the following hurricane strengths: Tro ical Storm 156,142 cubic yards/acre I Hnrric�ae 1,049,571 rub�e acre Cate o 2 Hurricane 2,182,522 cubic ards/acre 3 Hurric,�ne 7,421,401 cu�ic acre Cate ory 4 Hurricane 16,289,149 cubic ards/acre 5 Hurric�aE 44,874,� �c acre Both the Town of Palm Beach and City of West Palm Beach are old, historical communities on PBC's east coast. Their age alone makes them particularly vulnerable to hurricane damage. Both cities have old, historically significant structures whose loss would represent the loss of irreplaceable cultural resources. The age and construction type of much of the housing in West • Palm Beach and to a lesser extent in many of the other coastal communities, suggests these communities would be hit very hard by a major storm. 2.2.1.2 Flooding Flooding in PBC results from one or a combination of both of the following meteorological events: • Tida1 surge associated with northeasters, hurricanes, and tropical storms • Overflow from streams and swamps associated with rain runoff Major rainfall events occur in association with hurricanes, tropical storms, and thunderstorms associated with frontal systems. When these types of intense rainfall events occur, streams and drainage ditches tend to reach peak flood flow concurrently with tidal water conditions associated with coastal storm surge. This greatly increases the probability of flooding in the low-lying areas of the coastal zone. Areas along the PBC coast are particularly susceptible to flooding under these conditions. The most flood prone areas in the eastem portion of the County feature poorly drained soils, a high water table, and relatively flat tema.in, all of which contribute to their flooding problems. Flat, swampy terrain and heavily wooded areas in the western part of PBC aggravate flood problems by preventing rapid drainage in some areas. • 83 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 In response to mounting losses from flooding nationwide, the United States Congress initiated • the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in 1968. The program is administered through FEMA. Under this program, FEMA produces Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) which show areas subject to various levels of flooding under different conditions. This flood risk information is based on historic, meteorological, hydrologic, and hydraulic data, as well as open-space conditions, flood control works, and development. Annendiz C, Flood Section, presents a generalized picture of the flood prone areas in PBC based on the 1992 version of the FIRM maps. Note that NFIl' flood zones B and C do not appear in the legend, as they are not on the PBC FIRM map. In addition to the FIRM maps there are two numerical models, which predict the effects of storm surge in PBC. The older model, developed by the National Oceanic and Atrnospheric Administration, is called the Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSI-� model. Appendiz C , Flood Section illustrates the areas of PBC vulnerable to this type of flooding. The State of Florida acquired another model for predicting hurricane storm surge as well as wind and property damage. This model, known as The Arbiter of Storms (TAOS) model, predicts storm surge height and wind field intensity for Category 1 through Category 5 hurricanes. Annendix C, Flood Section illustrates the areas of PBC subject to flooding during a Category 5 Hurricane. It is important to remember that the TAOS model projections are based on a Maximum of Maximums (MOIV� or absolute worst-case scenario. For this analysis, we have considered the TAOS model projections as reflecting total, worst-case exposure for PBC. • 2.2.13 Severe Thunderstorm/Lightning Risk of severe thunderstorms and lightning is high (Appendiz A Table A-3) in PBC, but many of the jurisdictions shown in Appendiz A Table A-1 have only moderate vulnerabilities relative to these hazards. This variation in relative levels of vulnerability is again due primarily to construction practices and community characteristics. Working communities have a higher vulnera.bility to economic impacts from lightning than residential or retirement communities. All other factors being equal, residential and retirement communities have a historically higher vulnerability in terms of lightning fatalities. 2.2.1.4 Wildfire/Urban Interface Zone Less urbanized communities and areas within the County are more wlnerable to wildfires than the more developed communities. Large areas in the western part PBC and many isolated unincorporated pockets of residential development are quite vulnerable to wildfire. The southem and western portion of the Village of Wellington, the unincorpora.ted areas west of Boca Raton, South Bay, Pahokee, and Belle Glade, and virtually all of PBC's unincorporated areas have a high vulnerability to wildfire during the dry season each year. The problems in the Village of Wellington, west Boca Raton area, and in the various unincorporated pockets of development such as Jupiter Farms, Loxahatchee, and the Lion Country Safari area arise from the fact that 84 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • these areas have an extensive canopy of slash pine (Pinus elliotii) and sand pines (Pinus clausa), and numerous undeveloped lots interspersed with residences. Upland pine communities in South Florida are adapted for periodic episodes of fire, and they burn very easily. They also generate large quantities of flammable leaf litter and other combustible by-products, which catch fire easily and genera.te a very hot, if short-lived fire. Clearing of vacant lots, periodic removal of accumulated leaf litter, maintained firebreaks, and controlled burns in the undeveloped or rangeland areas of PBC, are the best mitigation measures that can be applied for this hazard. 2.2.1.5 Muck Fire Muck fires have never occurred in PBC. The only areas where this hazard might produce impacts are the western portions of the County. At the present time, muck fires are not considered a significant hazard anywhere other than the Pahokee, Belle Glade, and South Bay areas in the western County. 2.2.1.6 Tornado Historical data indicates the frequency of tornadoes in PBC is relatively low. However, the vulnerability does exist as proven in June of 2012 when PBC was affected by a tornado. Some individual communities have a higher wlnerability to this hazard due to the type of construction • or numbers of mobile homes (manufactured housing units) within their bounda,ries. 2.2.1.7 Eztreme Temperatures Temperature extremes, both freezes and periods of excessive heat, impact communities with a larger senior population to a greater extent than those with younger populations. Inland communities away from the moderating influence of the ocean or the estuary are more vulnera.ble to tempera.ture extremes, as are areas with significant agricultura.l assets. The increase in temperature across the U.S. in this century is slightly smaller, but of comparable magnitude to the increase of temperature that has characterized the world as a whole. The increase in minimum temperature and the related increase in area affected by much above normal minimum temperatures are also found in many other countries of the northern hemisphere. Worldwide precipitation over land has changed little through the twentieth century; increases noted in high latitudes have been balanced by low-latitude decreases. By comparison, the . change in precipitation in the U.S. is still relatively moderate compared to some of the increases and decreases at other latitudes. Decreases in the day-to-day differences of temperature observed in the U.S. are also apparent in China and Russia, the only other large countries analyzed as of this date. The persistent increase in the proportion of precipitation derived from extremely heavy precipitation has not been detected in these other countries. A Climate Extremes Index (CEn, defined by an aggregate set of conventional climate e�remes indicators, supports the notion that the climate of the U.S. has become more extreme in recent • 85 L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 decades, yet the magnitude and persistence of the changes are not now large enough to conclude • that the climate ha.s systematically changed to a more extreme state. Similarly, a U.S. Greenhouse Climate Response Index (GCRI), composed of indicators that measure the changes that are expected to follow increased emissions of greenhouse gases, reflects in recent years the very changes that are predicted. Still, the rate of change of the GCRI, as with the CEI, is not large enough to unequivocally reject the possibility that the increase in the GCRI may have resulted from other factors, including natura.l climate variability, although statistically this is but a 5 to 10% chance. Both indices increased rather abruptly during the 1970s, at a time of major circulation changes over the Pacific Ocean and North America. T'here is little doubt that the increase in the indices is at least partially related to these circulation variations, although the role of increased anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations in such circulation variations is poorly known. Since the indices are influenced by natural changes and variations that can either add to or subtract from any underlying long-term anthropogenic-induced change it will be important to carefully follow their behavior over the next decade to see if they sustain their incipient trends or return to previous levels. Such an effort is critical for a better understanding of climate itself, how it changes, and how these changes can affect our own lives and well-being. 2.2.1.8 Coastal & Beach Erosion / Sea Level Rise Palm Beach County's vulnerability to coastal and beach erosion is moderate along its entire coastline. The most significant areas of beach erosion are the areas south of the stabilized inlets • where the natural flow of laterally transported sand has been artificially interrupted. Many areas in PBC have been the subject of major beach re-nourishment projects sponsored jointly by the County and Army Corps of Engineers. Inland communities report some erosion problems along major canals and around water control structures. The 2014 upda.te of the Vulnera.bility Assessment Section of the LMS integrates sea level rise as a potential hazard. The Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact estimates that a 2- foot sea level rise is the most probable planning scenario for the immediate future. PBC completed an assessment of vulnerability due to sea level rise in a report entitled "Overview Analysis of the Vulnerability of Southeast Florida. to Sea Level Rise, South Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Inundation, Mapping and Vulnerabiliry Assessment Work Group, April 2011:' In this report, the County conducted an inundation analysis, identifying land at elevations below sea level, highlight areas located near PBC's coastline and tidal waterways. The report concluded that limited physical infrastructure in PBC is at risk at the one, two and three foot sea level rise scenario. Initially low volume roads and parking areas may be impacted at one foot and increase to up to forty-one (41) miles of roadways as the sea level continues to rise to three feet. Property with a current taxable value of $296-557 Million may become vulnerable as sea level rises. Facilities such as wastewater treatment, emergency evacuation shelters, landfills, airports, ports, and power plants will likely not be affected by sea level rise. An initiative conducted by Florida Department of Economic Opportunity in 2011 to analyze sea level rise integration utilized PBC as a pilot study (Statewide Post-Disaster Redevelopment 86 • Local Mirigation Stra.tegy I 2015 • Planning Initiative: Phase �. It concluded that while sea level rise was not addressed as an independent haza.rd category, other identified hazards may anricipate heightened impacts as the condition of sea level rise impacts over. Floods (Section 2.1.1.1), hurricanes (Section 2.1.1.2), and soil and beach erosion (Section 2.1.1.10) may be intensified due to the condition of sea level rise altering the traditional elements of the natural and man building environment. Section 2.1.1.1 details the conditions under which flooding occurs within the County and provides an overview of historical flooding events sea level rise will likely exacerbate flooding in flood prone areas, because flow rates in low lying areas may be further inhibited. The traditional fload conditions due to severe rain events will be impacted by sea level rise. Section 2.1.1.2 addresses these vulnerabilities associated with hurricanes. It details the overall vulnerability of the sta.te and region due to its topography. Due to dense population along the coast, the potential for property damage and human casualties continues to increase. Florida not only has the most people at risk from hurricanes, but it also has the most coastal property exposed to these storms. While there continues to be debate among the experts, global climate change is likely to impact the development, intensity, and frequency of hurricanes in the world. Similarly, the condition of a higher sea level will increase the total inundation resulting from the storm surge. Section 2.1.1.10 address the vulnerability a,ssociated with beach and soil erosion stating that the natural forces of wind, waves, and long shore currents move the naturai sand placement and change the beach shape and structure. However, this retreat is altered by man-made structures, and creates a perceived need to protect the existing shoreline conditions. This condition will be vastly augmented by the increase of the sea level. Existing homes, businesses, roads, bridges, and other man-made structures will suffer more rapid beach erosion and eventual water intrusion. • Access to and from the barrier islands could be wlnerable due to bridges being inaccessible from local roadway inundation, and coastal marinas could experience impacts. Natura.l habitats may also become increasingly vulnerable as water salinity levels and a.reas of inundation alter. Palm Beach County Assessment prioritizes salt water ponds, salt water marshes, and mangrove swamp as potential sensitive impacted habitats. In Appendix C, the sea level rise map illustrates PBC's vulnera.bility to 2 feet sea level rise. Generally, the areas in the northern parts of the jurisdiction do not appear they will sufFer as much inunda.tion in comparison with the southern parts of the County, particularly along the Intracoastal Waterway. Most of the areas in PBC that are impacted by sea level rise are already fully developed or consist of natural lands. The rise in sea level will result in losses of land and structures, impact on utilities and infrastructure, and cause a reduction in value of real estate. The map illustrates isolated area below sea level and areas inundated with 2 feet sea level rise. Areas within PBC that may be most problematic consist of those already below sea level. Cities in the northern portions of the County that are most inundated include Juno Beach, and the coastal areas of North Palm Beach and Palm Beach. The areas most inundated in Juno Beach and North. Palm Beach includes the designated natural areas. The land uses most impacted are the residential, commercial, and recreation designations. Further analysis of this area may be necessary to determine if future land uses may be changed over time in order to decrease vulnerability to hurricane storm surge augmented by sea level rise. Land uses in the southern portions of the County include residential and commercial designations. � 87 L Mitigation Stra.tegy I 2015 2.2.1.9 Agricultural Pest and Disease • Agricultural pests and disease are a more significant hazard in those areas of PBC where agriculture is a more significant element in the economic base. The western portion of PBC is a major ranching and farming area and there are numerous nurseries and smaller agriculture related businesses located throughout the County. 2.2.1.10 Drought Palm Beach County overall has a moderate vulnerability to the impacts from drought due to the County's large agricultural land use in the west and extensive urbanization in the east. Overall, PBC has a narrow reserve of potable water and this could become a significant problem during a long-term drought. The western area of the County is most vulnerable to the impacts of drought because this area is extensively involved in farming and ranching. The urbanized communities along PBC's coast are less wlnerable economically due to their location and non-agricultural economic base. Potential impacts to PBC's potable water supply by saltwater intrusion during drought conditions are generally low, with the exception of the City of West Palm Beach, which draws its water from surface supplies. 2.2.1.11 Pandemic Florida is more vulnerable than many other states to possible outbreaks of infectious diseases due to the large number of international and U.S. tourists it attracts. In addition, vulnerability to • disease hazards has increased by the number of illegal immigrants reaching U.S. shores. Palm Beach County's vulnerability to pandemic outbreaks, while higher than some other Florida counties due to its large immigrant population is still considered only moderate. Medical facilities are adequate for cunent needs, but would be stressed if forced to deal with a major disease outbreak. 2.2.1.12 Seismic Hazards Sink Holes and Dam/Levee Failures There are areas in PBC where canal bank failures could cause or exacerbate flooding during heavy rain events or storms. This problem is, however, more related to soil erosion than to actual levee failure. There has never been any seismic activity, soil failures, or sinkhole activity in PBC. While these hazards may exist, County vulnerability to them at this time must be considered very low as referenced in an earlier section. As such, PBC does not have a Hazard Specific Plan to address sinkholes. Palm Beach County does have a major vulnerability to levee failure around the eastern l�oundary of Lake Okeechobee. Extensive dyking of Lake Okeechobee has taken place since the hurricane of 1928 when about 2,500 people were killed from surge in western PBC. Palm Beach County has the dubious distinction of having had the second highest number of fatalities (following Galveston, Texas) of any county in the United Sta.tes. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 88 • L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 � mainta.ins the levees around Lake Okeechobee and they are considered to be sound. A levee failure with today's population would be a catastrophic disaster for PBC. Tsunamis There have been no recorded tsunamis to have ever affected PBC. However, scientists have been studying La Palma Island in the Canaries as a possible site where a tsunami could originate if a massive landslide were to occur. Research published in 2001 by two prominent geologists (Ward & Day) created a major debate and concern over whether a predicted volcanic collapse in the Canary Islands could generate a mega tsunami, which could traverse the Atlantic Ocean at jet aircraft speeds (8 to 9 hours) and devastate the eastern coast of the U.S., including Florida. It was postulated that the wave, at impact on the Florida coast, could be approximately 50 meters high and cause damage inland as far as 20 km. This mega tsunami would cause unprecedented destruction and loss of life. Subsequently, more comprehensive and rigorous research published by severa.l scientists of the Tsunami Society has taken exception with the original research. The original research, they argue, was based on several erroneous assumptions regarding a structural weakness observed in the western flank of the Cumbre Vieja volcano on island of La Palma in the Canary Islands, the probability of a gravitation collapse of a massive land mass of the ocean bottom, and the magnitude and traveling distance of a wave (s) that might be genera.ted should such a collapse occur. � The mega tsunami was postulated to occur sometime in the next 1500 years. The weight of scientific evidence suggests there is no discernible tsunami threat to the coast of Florida as a result of geological activity in the Canary Islands. The probability of a tsunami is low. 2.2.2 Technological Hazards 2.2.2.1 Hazardous Materials Accident A community's vulnerability to hazardous materials accidents depends on three factors. These are: • The major transportation routes that pass through the community; • The hazardous material generators located in or near the community; and • The resources in terms of people and property that are in an area of possible impact from a hazardous materials release. Overall, unincorporated PBC has a low wlnerability to impacts from hazardous materials releases. There are relatively few major generators within the County and those that do exist are generally away from major population centers. • 89 L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Specific areas with higher wlnerability for hazardous materials accidents are along the • transportation network (both highway and rail) that pass through the County. All the jurisdictions along the eastern sand ridge (Boca Raton, Delray Beach, Boynton Beach, Hypoluxo, Lantana, Lake Worth, West Palm Beach, Riviera Beach, Lake Park, Palm Beach Gardens, Jupiter, and Tequesta) are extremely wlnerable to toxic material spills and releases from transportation system accidents, primarily rail accidents. The Florida Ea.st Coast Railroad runs through all these areas and toxic material spills have occurred along the rail line. Given the right set of circumstances, such releases could produce significant detrimental effects on life and property in these communities. 2.2.2.2 Radiological Accidents (Nuclear Power Plant Accidents) The Florida Power and Light St. Lucie 1 Nuclear Power plant is located on south ; ' �� -- Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County. ---� _ `" � �""' � In the US, federal regulations define �' �`� ��-- �� <�„� `� . 5.. � fol two distinct planning zones with regard �� "^` ; � ` � � _ - , ``, _ to commercial nuclear power plant i� '� - � emergency planning. The Plume - � �� - � `` � '''1 ' - � � ' Exposure Pathway Emergency �� , __ � _.:- � a ,_\.�,= __. _____ ,- �, ---,�: _� _ � Planning Zone, commonly known as ----- �=�-� - �;: "' � � _ _ - _- - --- u d ..�. v �i o.. E.� the EPZ has a ra.dius of 10 miles ° °°p . �;`: - � ��5 ` � -- � • M Y �` � , — �=��; � -%\� - � (16 km). The focus of the EPZ defines �� ^ , Y m� , f'� �� _ . , the geographic area for the a T��` _�-; �-; ~ � t �=°' = "�� p� � _ management of protective actions ` �� -`- � `� J� � ` . �� ,\ �,� ` ` related to the direct exposure to, and --- -: : ..-- � - '' �'� -�'_ ' _-_=;�_ � �_ inhalation of, airborne radioactive ---- ';�� ,� conta.mination in citizens. The - --� -� "� �� ' °• Ingestion Planning Zone, commonly � �- - , _ � � known as the IPZ, has a ra.dius of about �.�. � 50 miles (80 km) The focus of the IPZ Figure 2.2: St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant 10 Mile EPZ is to define the geographic area for the management of protective actions related to the ingestion of food and liquid contaminated by radioactivity that may reach the food supply. Approximately 45% of PBC falls within the 50-mile radius Ingestion Pathway Zone (Il'Z) for the St. Lucie Nuclear Power plant. This means that a significant portion of PBC is vulnerable to a nuclear power plant accident. Fortunately, the frequency with which nuclear power plant accidents occur is very low, and the overall risk to the citizens of PBC is therefore considered low. 90 • Local Mitigation Strategy � 2015 • Nuclear emergency is perhaps the single hazard facing PBC, which has received '`:�' ��» ��"m�� uM ""� massive emergency management attention at —�,.�.� ��- ° � - ,_..,. all levels of government. Emergency �,� � , . ....t =�- , ...�, management planning and regulation � .� '`� �� m. �`"" F _. , . ,� : ,.;�„ relative to nuclear power plant accidents - �°-'�� exists at the federal, state, local, and � ��a ��" moi:.e� an= .. . � corporate levels. Drills are held routinely '� ' a" =° � _. .�� a.... and extensive documentation is requ�red by ��i- �;;� ,:� :� c ��oaEt the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well �, � i °' ; � m s�,��;,: � as several other federal agencies. �� ,. , - s �`�'� ��•-•� � . � �, �� Contingency planning for nuclear accidents `,' .. � •'S-� E-� ,_�,�� at the plant itself appears to be well in hand. '�,' .y` "��-� ,.o.• .=•. Of greater risk to the citizens of PBC is the �-`"�°� ,� �`�'\��* - transport of fissionable material to and from ,'�,��,;; �'--� � r� �' " the plant. Such materials transfers are �`` �,, �...`� ��, _ ' ��,'- �� handled with a great deal of care and there �• '" '°--:, RQ�;S �;� .'�"- �„ `r�it .r� e�cn has never been a significant accident during �::� � P�� ,�i any such transfer. Again, while PBC's � T�n �°� �.A�� `"�"`" . '- *b • „ S , ; .... � * E �,... - ■ �,,,__ - t - F� Fi ��ST PA EACH vulnerability to such accidents is high, the �}. ��:�-"� ,�� a�� -��' risk that this hazard will produce an impact Figure 2.3 50 Mile Ingestion Pathway Map for st. wtthin the Community appears to be low. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant (Copyright � 2010 GIS � Some rlsks t0 PBC inClude: Dolph Map LLC — Used with permission) • Loss of life or potential physical injury (including long-term effects such as cancer) • Loss of property (displacement from homes) • Palm Beach County is within the 50 mile IPZ making contamination of food supplies and drinking water a possibility • Exaggerated media reporting could lead to heightened public alarm. [mpacts to tourism industry are possible In the event of an accidental release of radioactive materials from the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, evacuation areas would depend on several metrological factors such as wind direction and wind speed. According to the 2010 Census data, there are approximately 268,000 people living within ten miles of the power plant [f an accident at the plant took place during tourist season, PBC could expect half this population to evacuate into PBC (approximately 1 10,000 evacuees). Palm Beach County must be prepared to shelter 10 percent (11,000 people) of the evacuating population. All evacuees will be sheltered in Palm Beach, Indian River, and/or Brevard Counties. Currently, there are 19 shelters of which 18 are schools. There are several safety design measures at the plant and stringent federal safety standards govern plant operations (e.g. plants have protective barriers and are designed to withstand • 91 Local Mitigation Strategy � 2015 aircraft attack, tornados, severe accidents and earthquakes). It is most likely that an accident • would slowly progress from one stage of emergency classification to the next. A"fast breaker'' accident is very unlikely, but the plant can shut down operations within 2 seconds if needed. Most likely, an accident would slowly progress providing time to warn the public and implement protective measures. In the case of a radioactive release, Florida Power and Light and the American Nuclear Insurers organization would reimburse evacuees for damage or re-location 2.2.2.3 Communications System Failure Communication failures have a greater potential to produce adverse economic impacts in business-based rather than retirement or residential communities. On the other hand, communication system failures in residential and retirement communities may put more human lives at risk. Palm Beach County's vulnerability to communication system failures is generally considered moderate. Basically, PBC's vulnerability to this hazard is no greater or less than most other Florida coastal counties. 2.2.2.4 Transportation System Accidents Palm Beach International Airport is a major commercial air transportation hub, with extensive commercial passenger and freight business as well as a significant amount of private or general aviation activity as well. The airport is located directly to the south and west of the City of West Palm Beach and the runway approaches pass directly over both the Town of Palm Beach and the City of West Palm Beach. Aviation is an important element of the economy in PBC, and this . activity raises the County's vulnerability to aviation associated accidents. Vulnerability to transportation system accidents is also associated with the highway and rail systems that run through PBC. Individual community and population center vulnerabilities to this hazard are entirely dependent upon location. Again, the communities built on the eastern sand ridge of the County are most vulnerable. Major transportation hubs, rail yards, trucking centers, and the Port of Palm Beach all raise these communities' vulnerabilities to transportation system accidents and breakdowns. Transportation accidents have occasioned blockages on the major highways throughout PBG Due to their locations along the rail line, the eastern cities have higher vulnerabilities to rail system accidents. The Town of Palm Beach and the City of West Palm Beach are also more vulnerable to plane crashes due to their location relative to the Palm Beach [nternational Airport. The central, unincorporated portion of the County has a higher vulnerability to major highway accidents due to the presence of Interstate 95 and the Florida Turnpike. 2.2.2.5 Wellfield Contamination Wellfield contamination has not been a major problem for most of PBC. There is some potential exposure to this hazard in the eastern portion of the County, but overall the vulnerability to this hazard is considered low at this time. 92 • L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 � 2.2.2.6 Power Failure Power failures have the same potential impacts in all PBC communities. The wlnerabilities of all communities to power failures are considered moderate. The power grid throughout PBC is diversified and there is no single choke point or distribution node whose failure would disrupt power distribution to the entire community. 2.2.3 Human Caused Hazards 2.2.3.1 Civil Disturbance The overall potential for civil disturbance in PBC is considered moderate. The Cities of West Palm Beach, Delray Beach, Boynton Beach, and Rivera Beach are considered to have relatively high wlnerability to this hazaxd. There has been significant civil unrest in certain areas of these cities in the past and a significant potential for such unrest remains. Recently (within the last 2 years), the potential for civil disturbance appears to have been reduced as a result of community based police activities and the generally overa.11 strong national economy. 2.2.3.2 Terrorism and Sabotage The possibility for tenorism and sabotage in PBC does exist, but the County's vulnerability to this hazard is low. The City of West Palm Beach has a slightly higher vulnerability to terrorism • since it is the center of govemment and also by the role played by aviation in the local economy, but this vulnerability is still considered only modera.te. The Town of Palm Beach, as well as many other wealthy enclaves within PBC has a slightly higher vulnerability to celebrity terrorism since so many well-known and wealthy personalities make their residence there. While this wlnerability exists, it is considered to be no greater than that faced by many other communities around the country where the rich and famous live. The warm temperatures, onshore winds, high rate of sunshine (UV exposure), and rainfall in PBC make this area a less favorable target for biological or chemical terrorism than many other areas of the United Staxes. The population here is dispersed when compared to major cities in the northeastern U.S., and the transportation system infrastructure is highly dependent upon individual vehicles. Both of these features make PBC a less desirable target for transportation system or conventional type (bomb related) terrorist acts. 2.2.3.2 Mass Migration Crisis Reviewing the data. on past illegal immigration and mass population movements, such as the Haitian influx and Cuban raft incidents of the 1980s, indicates that illegal immigration has never reached a crisis staxe for the local authorities in PBC. Palm Beach County's wlnerability to this hazard is moderate, however, due to demographic features. The cities of West Palm Beach, Delray Beach, Boynton Beach, Rivera Beach, South Bay, Pahokee, and Belle Glade all have a slightly higher vulnerability to illegal immigration impa.cts due their larger populations of Latin American and Caribbean immigrants. • 93 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • • 94 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • 2.2.4 Vulnerability of Critical Facilitie� In Appendiz C, maps demonstrate the vulnerability of each hazard in relarion to the County and each jurisdiction's location and critical facilities and/or infrastructure. Structures have been identified for each hazard with jurisdictional boundaries. An estimated dollar figure in relation to potential dollar losses has been identified and summarized in a nanative for each identified hazazd by jurisdiction. Palm Beach County determined a criticality based on the relative importance of its va.rious assets for the delivery of vital services, the protection of special populations, and other important functions. The types of critical facilities and infrastructure identified within these risk � assessment maps are: schools, police stations, fire stations, specific government buildings, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, hospitals, shelters, Herbert Hoover Dike, Turnpike, I-95, water treatment facilities, utility stations, draw bridges, seaports, and airports. These facilities can be located on the risk assessment maps and a potential dollar loss will be correlated in the charts broken down by municipality and unincorpora.ted PBC. The estimated costs are based upon information from the County Auditor's Office. The dollar figures specific to each hazard by municipality or unincorporated area express the potential human and economic impacts within PBC. 2.3 Risk Assessment • In order to effectively plan hazard mitigation projects and allocate scarce financial resources, a community's vulnerability to a specific hazard must be coupled with other critical factors to perform a risk assessment. Risk, or the probability of loss, depends on three elements: • Frequency — How frequently does a known hazard produce an impact within the community? • Vulnerability — How vulnerable is a community to the impacts produced by a known hazard? • Exposure — What is the community's exposure in terms of life and property to the impacts produced by a specific hazard? Once these three factors are established, the risk level faced by a community with regard to any specific hazard can be calculated using the Risk Triangle approach (Crichton, 1999). In this approach, these three factors become the sides of a triangle, and the risk or probability of loss is represented by the triangle's area (Fi�ure 2.3a). The larger the triangle's area, the higher the community's risk with respect to a given hazard. If a community wishes to reduce its potential for loss or risk of impacts from any given hazard, it can attack the problem by reducing • 95 L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 any one of the three elements forming the sides of this triangle; the frequency of a hazard's • occurrence, the wlnerability of the community, or the exposure of the community. For example, if a community wishes to reduce its exposure to hurricanes, it could move off of the ba.rrier islands. This actually happened in the 1870s when an entire community on the North Carolina barrier islands moved to the mainland after suffering two devastating hurricanes in three years. By moving out of harm's way, a community drastically reduces its exposure and therefore its potential for loss from a given natural hazard (Fi�ure 2.3b). In today's world, the potential to relocate an entire community off the barrier islands is, to say the least, remote. A community may, however, reduce its vulnerability to hurricanes by strengthening its buildings. If buildings are hardened, vulnerability is reduced and there is a conesponding reduction in a community's probability of loss (Fi�ure 2.3c). In terms of natural hazards, there is very little, if anything that can be done to change the frequency with which they produce impacts in a community. Mitigation planning relative to those hazards must therefore focus on reducing the community's wlnera.bility or exposure. In terms of technological and human caused hazards, the most cost-effective type of mitigation is to limit or reduce the frequency with which such hazards actually occur. Table A-4 summarizes Palm Beach County's potential for loss relative to each of the hazards identified. In addition, Annendiz A will include a risk assessment by jurisdiction. The risk assessments will be illustrated by means of maps located in Aaaendiz C by hazard. This is to give a clear image of potential risk throughout PBC hazard specific with potential dollar losses estimated tied to • assessed property values. This assessment will be linked to Apuendix B and Appendix D illustrating mitigation actions being addressed in the PBC comprehensive plans. The overall strategy is to mitigate to reduce da.mage of a potential hazard. o' 'i -.r�, �� : bRba�+sicrw �'c� � � �'F,p,� �� w ��' 7� OF-. 2 O .,�,� , LO�S � � �- FREQUENCY FREQUENCY FREQUENCY (a) (b) (c) Figure 2.3 a, b, c Risk Triangle 96 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • • This page intentionally left blank • 97 L Mirigation Strategy I 2015 SECTION 2A: ViJLNERABILITY OF CRITICAL FACILITIES • This subsection assesses the wlnera.bility of critical facilities by jurisdiction in terms of the dollar values of property at risk from key hazards. It addresses, in part, the following FEMA requirement: Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard area. Numbers and types of existing residential, commercial and critical service facilities and infrastructure are referenced in Anaendiz C: With regard to future facilities, the following should be considered: • Developable coastal areas of the County in are substantially built out. Future development is likely to be replacement and upgrading of existing facilities. • Development in the Coastal High Area is strictly limited and managed by local ordinances and codes which tend to meet or exceed those recommended of the State. • Future growth throughout the County is guided by the managed growth tiers which consider hazard vulnerability. • • Virtually the whole County is potentially vulnerable to isolated flooding during excessive rain events, even areas lying outside Special Flood Hazard Areas. Repetitive flood loss properties are widely scattered - not clustered - because PBC has no riverines or significant elevation variations to speak of. • All new residential, commercial and critical service facilities will be built to meet or exceed South Florida Building hurricane standards. Severa.l local developers are now building Category 5 type structures. • Wildfire mitigation practices are being promoted for development in the wildland-urban interface areas. Quantitative and evaluative analyses of the vulnerability of future residential, commercial and critical services structures remains highly uncertain in today's economically unstable climate. As the State of Florida and the US as a whole show signs of gradual economic recovery, it may be premature to predict long-term trends. Economic and scientific sources to illustrate definitive trends for analysis are not currently available. The PBC Property Appraiser's 2012 Annual Report, continued to indicate a decline. Palm Beach County property values decreased 1.6% in 2011 over 2010. However, the Property Appraiser has provided preliminary reports that this past year may be the first indication of property value stabilization and perhaps recovery. There was a.2% increase from 2011 to 2012 (Palm Beach Post). This one year trend may be indicative of 98 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • longer term stabilization and possible economic recovery throughout the Florida real estate markets. The Table below details the 2011— 2012 property value trends by city. Palm Beach Cou�rty pro�rty values, 2012 The tax base for Palm Beach CouMy and 15 of Its 38 clties increased in 2012 over 2011, according to property values released Thursday by Palm Beach Co�mty Praperty Appraiser Gary Nlkolits. Ta7drlgauthorfty ZOtltaxeblevalue 2012taxa6levalue� Ghange Juplter Inlet Colony $219,T13,894 SZ�5,671,708 2.7�0 Palm Beach 511,6Z3,306,786 $11,886,934,990 2.3% Ocean Ridge $679,�7,225 $691,696,740 1.8% Hlghland Beach $1,732,047,474 $1,757,376,550 1.5Q/o Atlar�tls $388,429,635 $393,534,454 1.3�/a Boca Raton $16,363,274,000 $16,560,029,766 1.z% Tequesta $765,017,585 $T/4,190,994 1.2°/a Palm Beach Gardens $7,764,780,280 $1,857,161,573 1.2% GulfStredm $655,987,005 $663,376,897 1.1% Manalapan $827,434,621 5835.128,355 0.9°Yo Wellington $5,321,076,907 55,363,252;199 0.8°k Juno BedCh S9?3,299,324 $930,175,700 0.7% Haverhill 561,889,841 $62,152,684 U.4°/a Delray Beach $6,149,055,201 $6,165,908,059 0.3°/a Jup(ter $7,135,152,279 $l,14L702,641' D.1% North Palm Beach 51,488,13%908 $1,482,462,167 -0.4% Vlllage of Golf $119,930,349 $119,387,Tk3 -0:5�70 Lake Clark Shores $183,471,629 $182,061,305 -0.8°/a Rivlera Beach $3,015,088,751 $2,984,416,026 7.O�Yo • South Bay $47,767,240 547,143,078 -1.3�Jo LoXahatchee Grove.5 $182,211,218 $179,669,330 1.4°�a South Palm Beach $262,590,986 $258,096,679 -1.7% Boynton Beach $3,752,27Z,309 $3,679,832,193 -1.9% Larrtana $693,539,420 $679,420,341 -ZO% Roydl Pdlm BedCh $1,839,840,870 $1,796,690,341 -23% HypoluXO $Z52,780,829 $246,632,783 -2.4�10 West Palm Bedch $8,373,665,157 58,107,372,057 -3.2% Man�onia Park $i34,517,226 5129,982,169 -3.4% Lake Park $446,581,002 $431,077,363 -3S°7o Palm Beach Shores $507,453,154 $489,799,594 -3S�lo BrtnyBreezes $37,552,579 $36,ODb,571 -4.1�0 Greenacr�s $1,192,441,995 $1,135,OT1,141 -4.8°/a Lake Worth $1,106,Z55,651 $1,044,793,780 -5:6% Palm Springs $592,925,084 5550,032,594 -7.2�/0 BelleGlade $279,225,673 �255,49U,876 -SS% Cloud Ldke $4,596,019 $4,198,557 -8.6% Glsn Ridge $14,944,150 $13,Z31,343 11S% Pahokee $78,899,300 $67,128,976 -14.9% Uninoarporated $39.052,983.536 539�363�723.T.34 0.89/0 A� Cftles $85,216,710,498 585,228,440�747 OA9�o Palm Beach County $124,269,894,034 $124.59Z�163,981 039/0 Schoal Board Si32.048.705,669 5132,205,503.1i4 0.19bo "Without newconstructton Source: Proparty Appralser's Offlce CHRISTOPHER SMfTH / The Patm Beach Post • 99 L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 SECTION 2B: ViJLNERABILITY OF RESIDENTIAL & CONIlVIERCIAL PROPERTIES • This subsection assesses the structura.l vulnerability of residential and commercial properties by jurisdiction in terms of the dollar values of property at risk from key hazards, in partial fulfillment of the following FEMA requirement: Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe wlnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard area. Numbers, types and characteristics of existing residential, commercial and critical service facilities and infrastructure are referenced in Apnenda� C. Since the last update of the LMS in 2009, there has been moderate growth in residential and commercial properties throughout the State of Florida (Bergstrom Center for Real Estate Studies, 2012). However, there is still a cloud of uncertainty in the market place. Higher demand for housing, more occupancy in apartments and retail are providing lifts to the industry. According to the Property Appraiser's 2012 Annual Report, PBC property values have decreased 1.6% in 2011 over 2010. However, there was a.3% increase in 2012. Assuming we can get past the uncertainty of the current environment and avoid another recession, it is expected that the Florida real esta.te markets will continue to improve at a slow but positive pace over the next year. The following observations are offered with regard to future facilities: • • Developable coasta.l azeas of the County are substantially built out. Future development in these areas will likely be replacement and upgrading of existing facilities. • Development in the Coastal High Area is strictly limited by local ordinances and codes which tend to meet or exceed those recommended by the State of Florida. • Future growth throughout the County is guided by the managed growth tiers which consider hazard vulnerability. • Virtually the whole County is potentially vulnerable to isolated flooding during excessive rain events, even areas lying outside Special Flood Hazard Areas. Repetitive flood loss properties are widely scattered - not clustered - as the Counry has only one river and no significant elevation variations to speak of. • All new residential, commercial and critical service facilities will be built to meet or exceed South Florida Building hurricane standards. Several local developers are now building Category 5 type structures. • Wildfire mitigation practices are being promoted for development in the wildland-urban interface areas. 100 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • The following pages provide assessments of the dollar values of existing properties at risk at this writing, by hazard, by jurisdiction. Methodology for Assessing Vulnerability of Ezisting Structures After considering the advantages and limitations of the Hazards U.S. Multi-Haza.rd (HAZUS- � modeling software, it was decided instead to use local property appraisal da.ta.bases, Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping capabilities and hazard environment profiles as the basis for identifying and quantifying property and dollars at risk from key hazards. Analyses of the types and numbers of existing buildings in PBC are complicated by the County's size and diversity, and by highly variable and incompatible databases and record keeping practices. The primary data source is the Property Appraiser Database (PAPA). The PAPA database is not.well suited for purposes of wlnerability assessments but it is the best data. available. A comprehensive profile of PBC's built environment is contained in the Special Appendix. It describes the residential, commercial, industrial, government, education, healthcare, religious, and other building stocks. The paragraphs below provide a brief summary of existing residential and commercial properties. � Residential Units According to Property Appraiser daxa, there are an estimated 373,495residential structures in PBC. Nearly 53 percent of the County's single family residential units are single story structures, 45 percent are multi-story, and 1.2 percent are manufactured homes. The residential housing stock is well distributed throughout the eastern portion of the County. Forty three (43) percent of residential units reside in the unincorporated areas of the county. The seven municipalities of West Palm Beach, Boca Raton, Boynton Beach, Palm Beach Gardens, Jupiter, Wellington and Delray Beach collectively have about 37% of PBC's residential units. The southern municipalities of Boca Raton, Delray Beach and Boynton Beach collectively have an estimated 56,979 residential units; the northern municipalities of Palm Beach Gardens and Jupiter have 37,791units; West Palm Beach has 25,130 units; and the communities of Wellington and Royal Palm Beach have 48,477 units. The western communities of Belle Glade, Pahokee and South Bay have approximately 4,920 total residential units. The overwhelming majority of residential structures (81%) are of CB Stucco construction. Thirteen and a half percent have exterior wall of wood in the form of wood siding, wood frame stucco or board batten. T'he balance is constructed of a variety of other materials. T'he County's database consists of approximately 25 categories, many of which have a multiplicity of variations. • 101 L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Commercial Properties • Commercial properties were even more challenging to estimate. Property Appraiser da.ta indicates that there are approximately 11,277 commercial and 7,401 industrial structures countywide. In addition other non-residential structures include 1,600 government structures, 750 healthcare facilities, and another 7,778 registered facilities of other types. Number & Assessed Values of Residential & Commercial Property at Risk Deriving an accurate estimate of residential property values at risk from hazazds is complicated by a number of factors. Property Appraiser da.ta is maintained on a parcel by parcel basis, not by structures. Certain gaps in values occur because of the diversity of properry types. Land values had to be backed out of assessed property values. Assessments represent market values, not replacement costs. Homestead exemptions were also backed out of analyses. Multi-family residential structures (like high rise condominiums, co-ops, townhouses, zero lot line units) are considered to be understated in the results. The methodology used to estimate the value of residential property at risk involved a number of compromises using best available data. Parcel data was extracted from the Property Appraiser database. [t was sorted by jurisdiction and hazard boundaries. A derived factor for land values was backed out of loss estimates to concentrate only on improved parcels. Estimatin� the Value of Propert_y Contents • Based on analyses of property records, values for residential contents at risk are assumed to be approximately 80% of the appraised value of the structure. Values for commercial contents and inventory at risk are assumed to be 175% of the appraised value of the structure. A countywide summary of property values at risk, including contents, is presented at the end of this Section. Critical Facilities For the purpose of the LMS, Critical facilities are defined as any facility that would have a major negative effect on a large percentage of the population of a community. Based on the nature of the service (s) it provides to the community or the negative impact that would occur to that same community if the facility became damaged, destroyed or non functional. These facilities include but are not limited to law enforcement and fire rescue facilities, schools, government facilities, utility facilities, sea ports and airports, hospita.ls and other critical medical facilities, shelters, adult living facilities, etc. For security reasons and their sensitive nature, critical facilitv listings are excluded from publiclv distributed copies of the LMS plan. A list is maintained by DEM and made available to authorized personnel. 102 • L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • This page intentionally left blank • • 103 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 SECTION 3: MITIGATION STRATEGY • 3.1 Governmental 3.1.1 Federal The National Mitigation Strategy has been developed to provide a framework for reducing the exposure of all Americans to the catastrophic losses caused by natural disasters. Federal mitigation action planning is directed toward protecting U.S. citizens by: • Utilizing the scientific and technical knowledge resulting from the research efforts of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (I�TIST), and integrating it into local fire and building codes in order to reduce major urban fires and building failures; • Establishing under the NFIP a national program for floodplain management with strong mitigation provisions to significantly reduce flood losses; • Developing a national system of emergency management with a coordinated Federal Response Plan to replace the piecemeal approach to recovery only after disaster strikes; • Esta.blishing a National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program to increase the availability of applied seismic research, develop sta.te seismic hazard reduction programs, and improve training and education on methods to the risk of loss of life and property to • earthquakes; • Establishing a National Hurricane Program to minimize loss of life and property from hurricanes through better property protection, warning and evacuation procedures, and training and education; � Developing a National Inventory of Dams identifying high-hazard dams and encouraging the development of warning systems and emergency plans for many of these facilities; • Establishing an effective program of assistance to state and local governments for post- disaster mitigation actions through the Stafford Act's Section 404, HMGP, and under Section 406 in terms of the mitigation of damage to public facilities; and • Establishing a nationwide program of federal, state, and local preparedness consisting of trained personnel, facilities, equipment, training, and exercises to save lives and protect property through warning, evacuation, shelter, and other post-disaster actions. In 1986, the United States Congress enacted the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to- Know Act. It imposed upon state and local governments planning and preparedness requirements for emergencies involving the release of hazardous materials. The role of the federal government in response to an emergency involving the release of hazardous materials is to support local and state emergency operations. Activation of the Federal Regional Response 104 • L Mirigation Strategy I 2015 • Team provides access to federal resources not available at the state and local levels. An on- scene coordinator is designated to manage federal resources and support. • The national warning and communications center for emergencies involving the release of hazardous materials. It is manned 24 hours a da.y, and is located at the U.S. Coast Guard headquarters in Washington, D.C. 3.1.2 State The Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDE1Vn, under the Executive Office of the Governor, has primary responsibility in disaster response and mitigation. The FDEM developed the Florida Hazard Mitigation Strategy (FHMS) to establish a comprehensive program to effectively and efficiently mobilize and coordinate the state's services and resources to make Florida's communities more resistant to the human and economic impacts of disasters. The Strategy achieves this purpose by the following actions: • Improving the understanding and awareness of the natural, technological, and human caused hazards faced by the people, property, businesses, and institutions within the State of Florida.; • Defining the goals, objectives and priorities of the FDEM for hazard mitigation and post- disaster redevelopment in Florida.; • • Developing and implementing programs to promote hazard mitigation throughout the sta.te; • Enhancing programs among sta.te agencies and local governments to more effectively guide post-disaster redevelopment to minimize community vulnerability to future disasters; • Increasing the identification of mitigation opportunities and maximizing the utilization of available funding; • Improving coordination of programs within the FDEM related to hazard mitigation and post-disaster redevelopment; � Facilitating coordinaxion between the FDEM and other federal, sta.te, regional, local and private sector programs related to hazard mitigation and post-disaster redevelopment; • Describing clearly the Sta.te of Florida's hazards mitigation program-implementation ta.sks and establishing schedules for their completion; • Designating who is responsible for the development and implementation of hazard mitigation and post-disaster redevelopment programs; • 105 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Encouraging public participation and involvement in the development and � implementation of the strategy; and • Identifying and prioritizing hazard mirigation and redevelopment initiatives, programs, and projects prior to a disaster. The FHMS provides the FDEM with operational and programmatic guidance to promote the goals and objectives of the nationally based National Mitigation Strategy as coordinated by FEMA. The FDEM has the lead role in coordinating state resources to support local government unless the scope of the emergency warrants a higher degree of state involvement. This may occur when emergencies involve multi jurisdictional hazards, when local governments believe the emergency is beyond the capabilities of local resources, or when the Governor determines there is an overriding concern for the safety of the public. For these situations, the Governor can designate the primary responsibility for emergency response to the state by issuing an Executive Order under the provisions of Section 252.36, Florida Statutes (F.S.). The FDEM is the designated State Watch Office (SWO) as the notification point in the event of a hazardous materials incident. As such, the FDEM is responsible for receiving notification of a.n emergency from the County Communications Coordinator (i.e., County Warning Point), and coordinating the request(s) for County support, if requested. The DEM is responsible for assisting Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC)'s in providing warnings and • instructions to the genera.l public. The Florida Division of Forestry (DOF) has major responsibility for protecting forest lands and the public from the effects of wildfire. Local fire-rescue departrnents have primary responsibility for structural fires. They also are the first responders to all fires. If the local fire-rescue department has determined that the wildfire event is beyond its capacity to fight, the local fire- rescue department can request assistance from the DOF. When that occurs, an incident command control is established with state and local fire-rescue departrnents working together to extinguish the wildfire. 3.1.3 Regional � 3.1.3.1 Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) The TCRPC was created under Section 186.501, F.S. T'he TCRPC is multi-county entity encompassing Indian River, Martin, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie counties. It has responsibility for addressing growth management issues that are multi jurisdictional in scope. This includes working in cooperation with federal and state agencies planning for emergency management issues as described in Section 252.34(4) F.S. The TCRPC provides full-time stafFing for the District X LEPC. The LEPC is charged with administering regional compliance with hazardous materials reporting and training laws. Its many initiatives include the State Hazardous Materials Training Task Force; District X Hazardous Materials Emergency Plan; training for emergency 106 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • first response personnel; hospital and hazardous materials response team needs; public hazardous chemical awareness and reporting seminars; public and private sector hazardous materials emergency exercises; and assisting public and private facilities with chemical emergency preparedness planning. Section 186.507, F.S. directs regional planning councils to prepare strategic regional policy plans. One of the elements that the plan must address is emergency preparedness. The TCRPC promotes mitigation initiatives within Section 5.0, Emergency Preparedness, of its "Strategic Regional Policy Plan". (AnAendiz B). • Strategy 5.1.1 Direct development away from area.s most vulnerable to the effects of natural and man-made disasters. • Strategy 5.2.1 Utilize land use, transportation, and community planning processes to address vulnerability issues. • Strategy 5.3.1 Provide shelter space for residents of areas susceptible to flooding from the effects of hurricanes and other storms. • Strategy 5.4.1 Develop the mechanisms necessary to ensure that emergency planning agencies have in-put into the local government decision-making process. • • Strategy 5.5.1 Initiate disaster preparedness activities which will protect lives and property and reduce evacuation times. • Strateg,y 5.5.2 Establish mechanisms and regulations necessary for post-disaster reconstruction to occur in a consistent manor making future disasters less destructive to life and property. 3.1.3.2 South Florida Water Management District The creation of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) along with the four other water management districts were enabled under Section 373.069, F.S. As required under Section 373.036(2), F.S., each district has prepared a district water management plan. The plan provides the overarching vision for the districts. The key elements of the plans are: • Environmental protection and enhancement • Water supply • Flood protection • Water quality protection One of the purposes of the plan is to provide a framework to address issues of water • conservation, extreme drought and flooding. The SFWNID administers several programs that 107 Local Mitigation Stra.tegy I 2015 achieve hazard mitigation relative to flooding, hurricanes, and drought. The SFWNID operates • and mainta.ins the regional drainage system throughout its jurisdictional area. Local drainage systems are operated by a variety of special districts, private properiy owners, and local governments. The local systems typically convey water from individua.l projects to the regional system. The SFWMD's responsibilities for flood protection relate primarily to serving as the regional water conveyance and storage entity. To meet this responsibility the SFWNID mainta.ins an ongoing "Canal Conveyance Capacity" evaluation program. The objectives of the program are: • To implement a systematic approach to the inspection of all SFWNID canals to determine the need for periodic dredging • To inspect all canals over a five year period • To establish standard canal survey criteria • To develop construction plans and specifications to implement restoration of conveyance to the canals In addition to private applicants, local units of government involved in building new stormwater systems or retrofitting older ones are required to petition the SFWMD for a surface water management permit approval. Besides flood control, the SFWMD is responsible for protecting existing water resources from • excessive drawdown during periods of drought, and protecting wellfields from contamination. Also, the District administers the "Save Our Rivers" program for the purpose of protecting environmentally sensitive lands. Some of the lands purchased under the program have been situated in the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA); thus, in addition to achieving the program's primary goal - the protection of environmentally sensitive resources - the intensity and density of development in CHHAs is reduced. 3.1.4 Local 3.1.4.1 Palm Beach County Palm Beach County occupies approximately 1,993 square miles on Florida's southeastern Atlantic coast. It is the second largest county in the state in terms of land area. It has approximately 44 miles of coasta.l shoreline that fronts the Atlantic Ocean. Palm Beach County is the third most populated county in the state. In 2010 the countywide population was listed as 1,320,134 (LJS Census). That is an increase of nearly 200,000 people from the 2000 census. It is projected that by the year 2020, the population will increase by over another 200,000 to about to 1,597,535. The majority of the growth is expected between the coastal ridge and Water Conservation Areas. 108 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Thirty-eight (38) municipalities exist in the County. In terms of population, they vary significantly. T'he City of West Palm Beach is the largest (99,919) while the Town of Cloud Lake (133) is the smallest (see Table 3.1 . There are three urban centers of population along the coast: in south PBC, the Boca Raton/Delray BeachBoynton Beach area (combined population — 213,131); the West Palm Beach/Lake Worth/Riviera Beach area (combined population — 167,317) in central PBC; and in north PBC, the Palm Beach Gardens/Jupiter area (combined population — 103,608). Two other centers of population exist in the County. One is the Glades agricultural communities of Belle Glade, Pahokee, and South Bay that border on Lake Okeechobee, (combined population — 27,992). This area has unique needs because of its relative physical isolation from the highly urban area along the Atlantic coast. The other area, rapidly urbanizing, is the Royal Palm Beach/Wellington/Greenacres (combined population — 128,221) area. Based on projected population, the City of Palm Beach Gardens is expected to experience the largest population increase among the municipalities in PBC by the year 2020. As growth has occurred, and PBC has become more and more urbanized, large portions of the County have experienced shifting land use patterns, moving from rural, agricultural areas to emerging residential communities, industrial and business employment centers. Land in PBC is used for three major purposes: urban uses, agriculture, and protecting environmentally sensitive resource areas (e.g., water conservation areas, Corbett Wildlife Refuge, beach areas). Table 3.2 provides a synopsis of each municipality. From a hazards perspective, transportation is an important component shaping the overall • development pattern. Being a major urban county, the residents and businesses are serviced by many suppliers that depend upon the air, rail, and trucking industries that distribute goods throughout the region. Key major modes of transportation traverse throughout PBC. The area is served by major transportation corridors (e.g., Interstate 95, Florida Turnpike), three rail lines (Florida East Coast Railroad, CSX Railroad and Tri-Rail), the Port of Palm Beach, and Palm Beach International Airport. As the area becomes more urban and more congested, the potential for transportation accidents will increase. Within PBC, the SFWIVID operates six major drainage canals: C-18, C-17 (Earman River), C-51 (West Palm Beach Canal), C-16 (Boynton Canal), C-15 (drains 75 square miles in southeastern PBC), and the Hillsboro Canal. Secondary stormwater drainage canals drain into these regional conveyance system drains. Prior to the construction of the extensive SFWMD canal system, flooding was a common occunence, and served as a limiting factor to growth. In addition to providing drainage relief, the regional drainage facilities also benefit the area's water resources. Eastern PBC generally relies upon local rainfall and water stored in the Water Conservation Areas for its water. The regional SFWMD system can move water from Lake Okeechobee, through the Water Conservation Areas, and then to eastern PBC where the water helps supplement local recharge of urban wellfields. Palm Beach County's connection to the SFWIVID regional system makes it less vulnerable to drought conditions than if it depended solely on local supplies. The south County wellfields would be seriously impacted by the loss of recharge from surface water systems. � 109 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 It is the goal of PBC to protect human life and property by limiting public expenditures in areas • subject to destruction by natural disasters (especially within the coastal high hazard azea), maintaining and implementing an effective emergency management program, a.nd providing for orderly recovery and redevelopment in a post-disaster period. Toward this end, PBC and its 38 municipalities maintain a series of coordinated, interlinked preparedness and recovery plans including, but not limited to: Comnrehensive Plans at County and municipal levels which focus on environmental resources management, managed avoidance of development in high hazard areas, and responsible post disaster redevelopment; Comnrehensive Emer�ency Mana�ement Plan and Local Emergenc Pv lans, which establishes the framework to ensure that PBC and the municipalities will be adequa.tely prepared to deal with the hazards threatening the lives and property of citizens and details pre and post-disaster hazard mitigation strategies, policies and activities; Local Mitigation Strategy, which describes county-wide strategies and projects for mitigating the effects of identified vulnerabilities to natural, technological and human caused hazards; Continuit�nerations Plan, which ensures the continuance of essential governmental functions during any emergency or situation that, might otherwise disrupt normal opera.tions. Through subcommittees of the Local Mitigation Strategy, these and other plans relevant to the • protection of life and property are closely monitored in an effort to ensure their language, policies, procedures and practices are compatible, consistent, coordinated, and mutually beneficial. Palm Beach County and its 38 municipalities participate in a full complement of federal, state, and local mitigation programs and initiatives. Representative of these programs and initiatives are the LMS, CRS, NFIP, FMAP, Citizens Emergency Response Team (CERT�, Continuity of Operations, counter-terrorism, radiological emergency preparedness initiatives, and hazardous materials. T'he collective purpose of these activities is the elimination or mitigation of hazards presenting significant risk to PBC and its residents. 110 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Palm Beach County's population by city Eleven of Palm Beach County's 38 cities saw population declines from 2000 to 2010, with the town of Palm Beach seeing the largest actual number drop: 2,120 people or 20.3 percent of its 2000 population. 2000 2010 2000-2010 PercenUge oi 2010 populatlon �Y/GoNm populatlon populatlon Increase . _;� �c-!° -, Atlantls 2,005 2,005 0.096 88.3� 1.296 7.496 Belle Glade 14,906 17,467 17.2% 8.8% 55.6% 34.296 Boca Raton 74,764 84,392 12.9% 79.196 5.0% 11.996 Boynton Beach 60.389 68.217 13.096 53.696 29.696 12.896 Briny Breezes 411 601 46.296 98.8% 0.3% 0.896 Cloud Lake 167 135 -19.296 71.1% 5.996 23.096 Delray Beach 60,020 60.522 0.896 59_2�6 27.7� 9.596 Glen Rldge 276 219 -20.7% 69.496 1.4% 28.396 Golf 230 252 9.6% 98.896 0.49b 0.8% Greenacres 27,569 37,573 36.3% 40.8% 16.096 38.3% Gulf Stream 716 786 9.8% 94.196 0.3% 4.3% Haverhlll 1,454 1,873 28.896 45.4% 22.196 29.29G Hlghland Beach 3.775 3,539 -6.3% 94.6% 0.396 3.696 Hypoluxo 2,015 2,588 28.496 83.1% 6.796 6.8% Juno Beach 3,262 3,176 -2.6% 93.1% 0.7% 3.896 Jupiter 39,328 55,156 40.296 82.6% 1.4% 12.796 luplter Inlet Calony 368 400 8.796 94.596 0.�% 1.396 Lake Clarke Shores 3.451 3,376 -2.296 70.8% 2.1% 24.7% • Lake Park 8,721 8,155 -6.5% 33.2% 53.796 8.0% Lake Worth 35.133 34,910 -0.6% 38.1% 18.9% 39.6% Lantana 9.437 10.423 10.4% 56.3% 21.4% 18.696 Loxahatchee Groves' - 3.180 - 74.2% 3.196 18J96 Ma�alapan 321 406 26.5% 89.9� 3.9% 4.7% Mangonla Park 1,283 1,888 47.296 6.7% 81.3% 9.296 North Palm Beach 12.064 12.015 -0.496 87.8% 2.596 6.996 Ocean Rldge 1,636 1.786 9.296 93.6% 0.2% 4.396 Pahokee 5,985 5.649 -5.696 9.796 55.495 33.8% Palm Beach 10,468 8,348 -20.3% 94.1% 0.596 3.996 Palm Beach Gardens 35,058 48,452 38.296 82.39� 4.2% 8.996 Palm Beach Shores 1.269 1.142 -10.096 95.9% 1.196 2.4% Palm Springs 11,699 18,928 61.8% 35.4% 30.596 50.6% Rtvlera Beach 29.884 32.488 8.7% 22.9% 65.0% 7.496 Royal Palm Beach 21.523 34,140 58.6% 51.1% 21.896 20.496 South Bay 3.859 4,876 26.496 11.4% 64.096 23.296 South Palm Beach 699 1.171 67.596 93.996 0.4% 4.696 Tequesta 5,273 5,629 6.896 91.196 0.5% 6.196 Wellfngton 38,216 56.508 47.9% 64.8% 10.096 19.496 West Palm Beach 82,103 99,919 21.796 41.6% 31.596 22.696 Unlncorporated 521.447 587.844 12.7% 63.5% 12.296 20.1% County total 1.131.184 1.320.134 16.7°�e 60.L°a 16.8'�e 19.07. •Incwpo�ated �n 2006 Source U 5 Census Bure�u CHRISTOPHER SMfTF{1StaM Artst _ _. _._...--____ _ --_- ___. . _ _ Table 3.1: Total Population- 1.3million • 111 � •. � � � /I�Itrnicipu/it►' Lurutiun L/rhun/Ru��ul Cu��tittuniJ�� C/�u��ucter Pe��cei�l SOIU Ecoitumir Bu.sc� (Residentia!/Woi•k- Buih Yeur (Agriculturul/Bu.��iirc�ss//►�rh�sh•iul/ in�j/Reliremeiit) Out Resideittiul/Rc�tiremertt) Bo�a Raton Co�stai Urban Working 97 2414 Business/Residential Boynton Coastal Urban Residential NI Business/Residential Beach Briny Caastal Urban Retirement 100 89 Retirement Breezes Cloud Lake Inla�tid Urban Residential 94 89 RetirementlResidential Delray Beach Coastal Urban Residential/Working 98.9 08 Busincss Glen Ridge Inland Urban Residential 86.3 89 Ftesidential/Commercial Golf Inlantt Urban Residential NI Residentiat Greenacres Inland Urban Residential 97 06 Residential/Commercial Gulfstream Coast�) Urban Residential NI Residential �-iaverhill lnland Rural/Urba� ResidenCial 96 $9 Residential/Commercial Highland Coastal Urban Residentiat/ R8 OS Residential/Retirement B��h Retir�ment Hypoluxo Coa�tal Urb�n R�id�ntial NI �t�tirement Juno Beach Coastal Urb�n Residential 90 2014 Resid�ntial/Commercial Jupiter Coastal Urban Residential/Working 90 2014 Business/Residential Jupiter tnlet Coastal Urban Residentia) 99 08 Residential/Retirement Colony Lake Clark Inland Urban Residential 96 2014 Residential/Commercial Shores Lake Park Coastal Urban Working 95 08 Business Lake Worth Coastal Urban Residential Nf Commercial i � � � � � � � i � � ! � i ► � � � � , � � i I I �� I � , � -v — — �c � �s .... ca .., ca ' � ,,,,� .r � a��i � v � � a�'i � � � � �u � � '� � � E ._ � � �+ � � � � y ".� � o 'g o �i o m '� o � a'i �� U �� U �: U_ a: C�.) - � cG r�! at a3 e� C� at Rt s.�., R3 i c�t eSt � �� e� c� '�+ 'a:+ '.F:� �pp +:+ 'r.�+ � '++ ,� 'o:+ 'a�.+ � q � �r:+ '.�:+ 'r.:. v1 � C C� C 1'"r C �'i C• UJ .f. Li C y v a� a� a� a� � a� � a� a�r � � "t�3 ;C 'v �1 "� "C7 c� .'C c� � � cn � v "G� '� � _ ,� � .� O .� .� .� � . � � � . . .� .� N .� N tU y N N � bD 4? 6? � � C! � N � oG oG oG 3 c� cG d oG Q aC � 5 m Q a � oG m � � � � a� o � o 0 o a� a� o� O N 00 N N N �� I I I i � p p I z� z a'�o � z Z� c� z a� a o� ° � Z Z .� ' � c � � :x 0 0 ' 3 � �� a � � � � a� �e � � � � � 'a+ :i:+ ' pp '�+ i:+ 'i+ a+ 'i+ 3r pq '.w 'i+ '+:+ '.a+ '�:+ a+ � � C � � � � C C � � ��" ��y � � N � � , 'G� 'C "U .SE " 3 �'C `�L T3 " 7 � � .�G .'Q 'C� 'g 'G 'd "O • rn 'v� � p 'rn m p va �n v� ' uf p vi `w in � in ' m �n . ��c� �3 � c�3c�� 3 c� �� r�c� r� , , �, �, , , � � �, �� ; ' ; ', i i l � � � i i i � I i � i � i i �� c I � � � � �� c c c c c � c = cd e� c� ai «s c� ia � c�s e� c� e� esi � � .c � � .fl � � .D � a- Sa .� .fl � � � �� c. s. s. s. s. sr � s. s.. �. s. � I CG ;� ,� I = I CC I � � � _ _ � 0.� _ � � � : ! ; � � , i � ... i Q ! � ��., 'Lf � :� ' 'O i ' :� "� � "CJ r.� .� "C7 T! .�' � "C r.�. � � a � � � � � j � ', c�G' � � R! � Rt � � !"'�' C �n m � m O ' O �—� O O� O� O l^� � O O^� O � i� � U�� = �� U j V �� ..�+ V �� .�� r� V U� U i � ,� � I � ^Cj U U U = � � � � cC � i � t� cC Rt ' i � � � 0 � `� �s v, at �= I a. c� � a� a� v, a� � a. C� e. �� a � ' -� � �t o .s s a ..se C� G'a � CCt � v� � s � .� ,_ .� a� . � � s � k o � �-y � � �s � �b � o E•� � �`� � � `� � � c � .� �°C7 ��a.zmOaao.`�C�ar'�isaoGm�oOv 3m Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 County Agencies with Key Roles in Mitigation • Within the existing county organizational structure, there are a number of departments that play key roles in hazard mitigation. They are as follows: Public Safery Department (PSD). The PSD is composed of five divisions: Division of Emergency Management (DEM), Animal Care & Control Division, Consumer Affairs Division, Medical Examiner's Office, and Victim & Justice Services Division. During emergency events (e.g., hurricanes), the DEM has the lead role in coordinating the resources and key agencies, non- profits, and private sector entities involved in the emergency situation. Department of Planning, Zoning & Building (PZ&B). The PZ&B is comprised of three divisions: Planning, Zoning and Building. The PZ&B has primary responsibility for administering the PBC Comprehensive Plan, and appraising and updating it from time to time. In addition to its long-range planning role, PZc�B is responsible for processing development petitions (i.e., rezoning petitions, site plans). The Building Division issues and oversees compliance with all building permits. The Zoning Division administers the Zoning Ordinance and Lot Clearing Ordinance. The County also issues building permits for one municipality Gulf Stream. Department of Environmental Resource Management (ERM). The ERM is involved in the evaluation and assessment of environmental projects (e.g., shoreline stabilization projects, beach erosion initiatives), and administering various environmental ordinances (i.e., Irrigation & Water Conservation, Sea Turtle Protection/Sand Preservation Ordinance, Stormwater Pollution • Prevention, Vegetation Protection and Preservation, Turnpike Wellfield Protection). To mitigate erosion and enhance and restore the beaches and dunes along its coastal shorelines, the County has developed a Shoreline Protection Plan. The County avoids the use of shoreline armoring (except as a measure of last resort). Preferred alternatives include beach nourishment, dune restoration, and inlet sand transfer. Facilities Development and Operation (FDcP�O). This department is responsible for the development of County buildings including sitting, real estate, design and construction, and operations of the facilities. The department is responsible for overseeing the construction of capital projects as well as the long-term maintenance of County facilities (e.g., emergency management operations center). Engineering and Public Works Department (EPWD). The EPWD is responsible for project design and construction of roads and bridges and street improvements (includes stormwater drainage facilities), and vehicular and pedestrian traffic control, as well as the maintenance of the facilities. PBC Fire Rescue (PBCFR). Palm Beach County Fire Rescue provides fire suppression, emergency medical services, fire prevention and community education programs throughout PBC. The department not only serves the unincorporated County, but many municipalities. They include: Belle Glade, Canal Point, Cloud Lake, Glen Ridge, Haverhill, Juno Beach, Jupiter, Lake Clarke Shores, Lake Park, Lake Worth, Lantana, Manalapan, Pahokee, Royal Palm Beach, 114 • Loc Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • South Bay, South Palm Beach and Wellington. T'he County also provides fire-rescue dispatch service to other municipalities. Besides emergency services, the Department provides other types of services. The Bureau of Safety Services is responsible for ensuring that buildings comply with appropriate fire codes. The department also offers public education programs which focus on fire safety guidelines for schools, community groups, and individuals. In addition, the department has responsibility for coordination of fire protection, hazardous materials mitigation, and advance life support services. Palm Beach County Shep�s Office (PBSO). Besides their responsibilities for crowd and traffic control during emergency events such as hazardous waste truck spills, the Sheriffls Depa.rtment is responsible for enforcing PBC's dumping ordinance. Mitigation Policies and Ordinances Policy Plans. The two key policy plans that address issues related to natural and technological hazards include: the County Comprehensive Plan and the County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. They are described, briefly below. • County Comprehensive Plan Palm Beach County's Comprehensive Plan provides the framework for future development within the unincorporated area, and provides mechanisms and standards through which changes could occur. The directives include implementing County- • wide growth management strategies while providing the opportunities for flexibility that recognize and maintain the diversity of lifestyles. The Comprehensive Plan contains the nine required plan elements, as set out in Section 163.3177, F.S. They include: Conservation, Coastal Management, Utilities (i.e., potable water, sanita.ry sewer, stormwater management, solid waste, and natural aquifer recharge), Future Land Use, Housing, Recreation and Open Space, Transportation, Intergovernmental Coordination, and Capital Improvement. In addition, the County has added several optional elements to the Comprehensive Plan. This plan addresses: Library Services, Public School Facilities, Historic Preservation, Fire-Rescue Services, Health and Human Services. Hazard Mitigation is addressed in the Conservation and Coastal Management Elements. A listing of relevant hazard mitigation objectives and policies for PBC is located in Appendix B. Mitigation of natural hazards such as flooding, hurricanes, drought, and beach erosion is a focus of the Coastal Management Element in the Comprehensive Plan. Technological and societal hazards are also addressed in the plan Coastal Management Element. Effective October 25, 2002 by Ordinance 2002-51, PBC's Comprehensive Plan contains specific langua.ge which recognizes, concurs with, and links the County's LMS objectives, processes and project prioritization criteria with capital improvement and coastal management policies and priorities. Key references can be found in Policy 1.4 of the Capital Improvement Element; and Section 2, Objective 2.4 and • 115 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Policies 2.4-e and 3.1-c of the Coastal Management Element. By virtue of their • intended purpose to mitigate public hazazds, projects carried on the LMS Prioritized Project List are considered to meet the County's standa.rds for categorization as "Essential." The Comprehensive Plan also recognizes that the governing body of the LMS program shall comprise representatives assigned by each of the 38 municipalities and PBC and be governed by appropriate policies, procedures and/or either interlocal agreements or resolutions. Appendiz B Conservation Element: Policy 1.3-e: The County shall purs�e opportunities, such as State Hazard Mitigation Grant Funding, to preserve lands for natural resources (i.e. beaches and dunes, native vegetation, wetlands and barrier islands). A benefit of preserving lands for natural resources is hazard mitigation aimed at protecting development from natural disasters. Coastal Management Element: Policy 2.5-d: The County sha11 continue to enforce regulations and codes, which provide for hazard mitigation. These include land use, building construction, flood elevation, septic and sanitary sewer, coastal construction setback, and stormwater facility regulations. These regulations shall also be applied to eliminate unsafe conditions and inappropriate uses. Coastal Management Element: Policy 2.5-e: The County shall, pursuant to the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, continue recommended hazard • mitigation activities, including land development regulations and construction law administration. Post-disaster recommendations contained in Hazard Mitigation Plans shall be incorpora.ted to avoid future destruction and loss of life. • Palm Beach County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) 'The BCC has adopted the CEMP. It is an operations-oriented document that esta.blishes the framework for effective management of emergencies and disasters for PBC. The CEMP addresses a broad range of hazards. They include: - Severe Weather - Flooding - Fire - Agricultural Pests and Diseases - Hazardous Materials - Nuclear Power Plant - Dike Failure - Domestic Security - Mass Migration - Communicable Diseases - Transportation - Workplace/School Violence 116 • Lo Mirigation Strategy I 2015 • The CEMP addresses evacuation in terms of local and regional evacuation, public shelter, disaster response and recovery, rapid deployment of resources, communications and warning systems, training exercises, and agency responsibilities. These responsibilities constitute Emergency Support Functions (ESF). Each ESF is headed by a lead agency which has been selected based on its authorities, resources, and capabilities in the functional area. The ESFs serves as the primary mechanism through which outside assistance to PBC is coordinated. In the Mitigation section of the CENIl', there is e�rtensive language stating the objectives and deta.ils of the Local Mitigation Strategy. The mitigation techniques within the two plans include projects, policies, or programs which will reduce, eliminate, or alleviate damage caused by disasters. Moreover, the CEMP and the LMS work collectively to improve the community's resistance to damage from known natural, technological, and human caused hazards. Ordinances. Hazard-related ordinances are administered primarily by the PZ&B, ERM or Fire- Rescue departments. The list of relevant ordinances includes: - Irrigation & Water Conservation - Sea Turtle Protection/Sand Preservation - Stormwater Pollution Prevention - Countywide Wellfield Protection • - Turnpike Wellfield Protection - Lot Clearing - Zoning - Building Code - Fire Prevention Code - Vegetation Protection and Preservation County Mitigation Plans, Programs Projects/Initiatives There are a number of projects and initiatives PBC has implemented to mitigate potential damage resulting from various hazards. Palm Beach County has also made a statement of the importance of hazard mitigation, by incorporating within its Comprehensive Growth Management Plan policy sta.tements regarding the development of a county-wide Local Mitigation Straxegy. In addition to its CEMP, there are special hazard plans that apply to unique situations. They address hazards such as coasta.l oil spills, hazardous materials, and airport safety. In addition, in a county that experiences substantial development each year, Fire-Rescue actively participates on the County development review committee. The Fire-Rescue stafF reviews and comments on whether there is adequate access to buildings by both personnel and appazatus, and whether there is adequa.te vehicle ingress and egress. • 117 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 T'he Fire-Rescue Department has a significant role relative to hazardous materials. Fire-Rescue � staff pre-identifies hazardous chemical waste facilities and pre-plans emergency response. In addition, staff works with the facility managers by assisting in writing their emergency operations/evacua.tion plans. Also, as many other counties have done since Hurricane Andrew, PBC has upgraded its building code. It requires that all structures be able to withstand 110 mph wind load. T`he code now requires a finished floor elevation at 6 inches above minimum 100-year flood level. The County's building code also requires conosion resistant hurrica.ne clips, water resista.nt adhesives for shingles, and trusses manufactured in accordance with local wind models. Unlike many counties in Florida, PBC also requires shutters for all new single family homes, and glazing of exterior windows to achieve impact resistance from windborne debris. Another mitigation activity of Fire-Rescue involves pre-planning for hurricanes. This involves identifying "target hazards." T'hese are buildings/developments that are highly vulnera.ble to damage during a hurricane. In pre-storm stage, Fire-Rescue personnel idenrify residents that did NOT evacuate, and where they live in the event Fire-Rescue staff has to search for individuals following the storm event. All fire stations have been fitted with shutters and have emergency generator and LP gas power sources. Also, all new facilities are being built to updated standards and have fire sprinkler/alanns. National F7ood Insurance Programs (NFIP) • The function of NFIl' is to provide flood insurance to homes and businesses located in floodplains at a reasonable cost, and to encourage the location of new development away from the floodplain. The program is based upon mapping areas of flood risk, and requiring local implementation to reduce that risk, primarily through guidance of new development in floodplains. Congress created the NFIP in 1968 to minimize response and recovery costs and to reduce the loss of life and damage to property caused by flooding. FEMA administers the NFIl'. T'he two fundamental objectives of NFIP are to: 1. Ensure that new buildings will be free from flood damage; and 2. Prevent new developments from increasing flood damage to existing properties. The primary benefits of the NFIl' are to: 1. Provide flood insurance coverage not generally available in the private market; 2. Stimulate local floodplain management to guide future development; 3. Emphasize less costly nonstructural flood control regulatory measures over structural measures; 118 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • 4. Reduce costs to the federal and state governments by shifting the burden from the general taxpayer to floodplain occupants. Palm Beach County and its 38 municipalities pa.rticipate in the NFIl' (Appendiz .n. In return for NFIP making flood insurance available to property owners, the County and municipalities are required to adopt ordinances to manage development within 100-year floodplains to prevent increased flooding and minimize future flood damage. Palm Beach County Flood Insurance Rate Maps published by the FEMA date as far back as 1978 are used as the basis for delineating the 100-year floodplain and identifying regulated land. Flood Damage PrevenNon Ordinances Palm Beach County's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, covering the unincorporaxed areas of the County, can be accessed through the PBC Planning, Zoning and Building Division's website. Municipal residents should contact their respective building department officials to determine what requirements are in efFect for their jurisdictions. Floodplain Permitting The NFIl' requires participating counties and municipalities to issue permits for all development in the �100-year floodplain. Development is broadly defined by NFIP to include any man-made change to land, including grading, filling, dredging, extraction, storage, subdivision of land, as • well as the construction or improvement of structures. Proposed development must not increase flooding or create a dangerous situation during flooding, especially on neighboring properties. If a structure is involved, it must be constructed to minimize damage during flooding. Permitting officials work with applicants to discourage development in the floodplain wherever possible, but when unavoida.ble, the effects of development must be minimized. The permitting review process is a requirement for continued community participation in the NFIP. Violations can not only jeopardize a community's standing in the NFIP; moreover, they can impact the ability of residents to obtain flood insurance. Residents witnessing development occurring without permits are asked to protect their rights by reporting violators to the local permit office. Map Modernization Program Palm Beach County is an active participant in the Map Modernization Program. Since September 2000, PBC and its 38 municipalities have been working with FEMA, their contract consultants, local engineering agencies, the SFWMD and the County's contract consultant in the development of a complete new set of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). The data being provided to FEMA's contractor includes new accuraxe Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) developed elevation data. obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and from a PBC contract with Florida International University. We anticipate the availability of a complete set of new FIRMs for all of PBC prior to December 2014. In addition, the coordinarion process established between all of the agencies listed above • 119 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 will provide for faster coordination of future changes with FEMA, to ensure continued • improvement in the currency and accuracy of the FIRMs. Community Rating System (CRS) In 1991, the NFIP implemented the Community Rating System (CRS) for encoura.ging and recognizing community flood plain management activities that "exceed" these minimum NFIl' standards. Today more than 900 communities across the nation participate in CRS, including Palm Beach County and most of its municipalities. Palm Beach County joined the CRS program in October of 1991. As an incentive and reward for participation, the flood insurance rates of residents in CRS communities may be reduced by up to 45% to reflect the reduced flood risk resulting from activities that meet CRS's three goals: reducing flood losses, facilitating accurate insurance ratings, and promoting the awareness of flood insurance. Communities can earn points in creditable activity areas grouped into four areas of emphasis: promoting public awareness, reduction of flood damage, improved mapping and regulations; and enhanced flood preparedness. Based on the number of points earned, each CRS community is ranked in one of ten classes (with Class 1 requiring the most points). In turn, a community's class rating determines the amount of flood premium reduction its residents are eligible to receive. Communities are encouraged to improve their class ratings. Property owners residing within a Special Flood Hazard Area, an area subject to the one percent chance a year, may • qualify for anywhere between 5% and 45% discount. Property owners outside the Special Flood Hazard Area qua.lify for a standard discount of 5%. The County strongly encourages all of its communities to take part in the CRS program. The County and its CRS participating municipalities track repetitive loss properties county-wide on an ongoing basis using information gathered annua.11y from FEMA and staxe Focus reports. For analysis, LMS GIS maps and databases are updated using these inputs to reflect repetitive loss property locations relative to historical flood areas and designated Special Flood Hazard Areas. In accordance with CRS guidelines, letters are mailed annua.11y to repetitive loss property owners by the County and municipalities explaining NFIP program benefits, the availability of mitigation assistance funding through the FMAP and other mitigation assistance programs. Repetitive loss properties are an ongoing discussion and planning priority for the LMS. These Committees, comprised of public and private sector representatives, are encoura.ged to develop and promote mitigation project ideas and strategies. Table 3.4 outlines the communities involved in the CRS program. All the communities involved in the CRS program have program activities that follow the same strategies. Palm Beach County's CRS program activities overlap and are inextricably interlinked with the activities of the LMS program. While the objectives of the CRS program are many, its key strategic objectives include: 120 � Lo Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • 1. Heightening public awareness of flood threats in PBC 2. Discouraging/managing development in flood plains 3. Minimizing flood losses in the community 4. Mitigating to eliminate repetitive loss properties 5. Ensuring residents have access to the most cost afforda.ble flood insurance possible Some of these goals were met through the Education and Outreach Subcommittee formed during the development of the PBC Local Mitigation Strategy. Toda.y, a countywide CRS committee's purpose is to provide information to the community and involve the community in mitigation efforts. One major effort of this committee has been to encoura.ge countywide participation in the CRS program by providing technical assistance to communities wishing to enter the CRS program, and assisting those communities akeady participating in the CRS program to improve their CRS ratings. Most communities in PBC are already participants in the program. These objectives are met by encompassing County and municipal plans and programs including FMA, CRS, CEMP, Comprehensive Plan, Capital Improvement Plan and the LMS. All have the objective to ensure the successful mitigation activities to reduce repetitive loss properties throughout the County and its municipalities. Outreach & Education The LMS administers and otherwise supports a range of community Outreach and Education • initiatives. Detailed descriptions of these activities and initiatives are contained in the County's Multi Year Community Outreach Plan, Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, the Five Year Strategic Plan, documentation associated with Community Rating System recertification, DEM website, etc. Outreach activities take many forms, including (but not limited to): presentations, workshops, courses, multilingual brochures, flyers, websites, media releases, plans, telephone directory postings, mailings and inserts, expos, on-site briefings, special websites and website postings, and library holdings. Many of these activities are done in cooperation with private-public partners and sponsors. Another significant part of mitigation outreach education are the community outreach presentations that are conducted throughout the Palm Beach Community. T'hese presentations provide municipalities, schools, neighborhood associations, non for profit organizations, and residents, information on mitigation, mitigation projects, disaster preparedness, and hazards that may affect the County. More than 100 presenta.tions are conducted each year. As part of its participation in the Community Rating System program, the County maintains a collaborative Outreach Project Strategy Program under a PPI, which encompasses a number of major outreach activities which are updated and reported to the Insurance Services Office as part of the annual recertification process. A representative listing of some of the more significant outreach and education activities includes: • Annual publication of a Hurricane & Flood Survival Guide (3 languages) � 121 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Annual Hurricane & Flood Awareness Expo(s) e • AT&T Directory Emergency Information Pages (4 Directories) • Preparation/distribution of hazard and audience-specific brochures • Business preparedness and post-disaster needs posting websites • Business disaster planning guide - CD • Flood Information website • Emergency Information website • Social Media (Twitter/FaceBook) • LMS meetings open to the public • Library holdings through the County Library System • Special programs for association represented communities • On-site presentations, structural evaluations, and planning assistance for special-interest groups such as home owner associations, property management firms, businesses, churches & synagogues, public gathering facilities, etc. • Speakers bureau of County (paid and volunteer staf�, municipal, not-for-profit, and private business volunteers • Participation in numerous fairs and expos hosted by public and private sector groups • Annual hurricane call-in event sponsored by a local TV affiliate • CouTSe offerings (certified and not) on safety and preparedness topics • Participation as presenters/instructors at the National and Governor's hurricane conferences • Published articles, papers • Most of the activities above are provided on an ongoing or seasonal basis. Details of most activities are documented in one or more of the following forms: in program specific reports, recertification packages, post-activity reports, monthly status reports, and in plan updates. The Counry and municipal jurisdictions maintain and distribute government and not-for-profit publications as appropriate. Lists of most distributed and held government and not-for-profit publications are contained in PBC's Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and relevant Community Rating System documenta.tion. Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMAP) The Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMAP) is a NFIP initiative administered by the FDEM to help communities identify and implement measures to reduce or eliminate the long- term risk of flood damage to homes and other structures insurable under the NFIP. Presently PBC offers the program on a limited basis to owners of "repetitive flood loss" properties based on the availability of federal a.nd state funds and the availability of local resources to administer the program. The program provides homeowners with reasonable, cost- effective hazard mitigation options and potential public and private financing alternatives. 122 • Lo Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • The FEMA contributes 75% of eligible mitigation costs. The remaining 25% must come from non-federal sources. The homeowner must contribute at least 12.5%. However at the present time, PBC requires the homeowner to contribute the full non-federal share. Examples of flood mitigation projects that might qualify for FMA funding assistance include: • Elevation of flood prone structures • Relocation of flood prone structures • Demolition (with or without rebuilding at higher elevation) • Acquisition � Various flood proofing measures. Information and support is provided in a variety of forms to potential FMA applicants to assist them in developing projects and preparing application packages. Through the County's LMS committee structure, the Hazaxd Vulnerability Analysis Subcommittee, as well as FDEM, is available to offer technical and administrative guidance and assista.nce to applicants, including assistance with benefit-cost computations. • • 123 � � . � ' � � . � — � � ' �' • � � �" � • � � � � � • � ��OCl"lllll]Illl)� � ��OCl"llllLllllC)� �AIl1C � �11111")�i:f 0�� Nlllll�Cl' O� C�1ZS �clffl"1<?� % ��cC)LICfl011 IIl Nt-�m6er Repe(-itiv� Loss C`Iaimed N1=�11' R�_�tes Pi IZe��etit�ive L,osses �� I u�' Il��i ° I iu�. . i�Rhl' � � I I I I II ai� iIM l � N iIV �' i �d� i0 e� Ni i� � „ e, i r N / unninilinunnu�ll�nuu� nii��nnnaimnillllN�xnntlm�ninninnn�uiipmtlu4��oi�mmoi�liliiuioimiiumii . Illlldlnn intl�mx . �� II�� i� N V N N ��I � ' N� I "� .I � � .. , � . . ... . . , . .. ,,..... . . . �. , , .,,.. � �� . � �� , �� .�� . �� , . . � r•d.�� ill i��u��uill�,�,d��!I....,�� II .�. ��II� � �„� �� I h.: .,, � II li�etl'i�� dmllll i�i ��Il��i��n ��„�'if�� i�. ,�,�. �� i�,•_� , � � �.��,� �� b,�n �� ,� �. �� -.�, .. . � � ., � � ;, . � �� e�i ��,�,� „i.u. . i ��°m..�,��.1....� ��,�„ � ...,..i,.,.,:��.u.ui��i��,�dnm��l ,.,...I�� , ��IdG� �; � � �, � Qe s�� ` 1' � ' „ I �!h � ( i� u l ��ry'I' u im I!: II ,�. . . , . .. . ,. : . .. . , .. , , , I „ � �� N��N�� ,�� N��N�� h� �� I��N��NN��N�� N ��N��n� ��,�� ., { qIV, ,p,��o,,d ,�u,uq�� I'u �IRio' �'Iio�IlW �i� � �I. . �� i�,�„� „., �� il��il� �.. I� � ' 'u ,� � .� ' �"'� � .�V�qi � u� � !'W r.� � a� ip � 4 1 ' ,� . �i � �� - nr a mu �i uuei mmuu iw ' ' �� , �,. ,� .. . � ...,.._,.� ... .� �... ...,., � .. „�.. � .�.. , ,.,_ �,...,, ...,. . , � . .., . .. ., �� ,� �411nllli� ;�''I 9i ' 17 � _ " ,�... -.:.:.�.� � 1 . �� ,��.,, �, ip" m�,,,T,;..a �n, ��q �°"� �,,,„� �;„ � � �� .. „ �!�, „i � ,,. � ,. . , ,,,.: , �� ,�. ,, ,. ,� i �:: , , . �� li II lih ., I�I I� !II II ill I tll ��I I Itl� �ill � 7� �� I " I �" f o m111111 I IIIIIIuI ul u111WIIhIN�7 IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Illlllnullll'llllll I Ii� x n u� �u p�� u u � �N� �p �N �� ' , �.��, � , � �,� �@ �� iq� �� i�� -. � , a .: � � , � . ,. .. �� „ � � , �. , � � � � �, � � � �. � � ,, � � � � � i l �, �„ � � � � n,,� �� . � � � �, � � ,� , , . � . �, ... , ��NRI ....., .,, .., , ��. ,.. ,� , , , , , � „ .�_ I IR Wluu XN IW ' '�1M�' NA�14 NI�AI N NXIXIXI X�I I�� YY4NM �II .w�;�IAN Iry� � ! " I � , _� .� N p II N i ri ,� i..i N I II II N N N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I N IIII N 'II I I '� � , ,...... . �..i�.. . . i . N li I I p .. , .i �..., ..,....i .,.�. N .i-,.i �.,..., .i .� � I N H N N II II N �I 1� I� I � N II II N N N �� I� '� I " I1 N 'I � � . . ��.,. � , .i� , i .� � . ... � � � I � � ," ,u . ii, IA . N I � � � � � � I I I I I I � ��„ m„ I I i i �� I I I I I I� i i � � �, I i i VII u ii I I I I li li I I G � � � � i�� ,��i��n��n��lln��n�� II II � � II� �� II ��,��k�� ul ��I��II� ��II��,�I��„��, � �II �� , 16 � � �� , �I �� i � � � � i � ,� �� ,�� II�� II�� o��ll�� .IIIIII �� IIIIIII��.{,��d�ll ,. �� , � ,, �� i�" �.,, � � ♦ 1 • ��M N �IA �� IdII Y� ve1' ��II � I� Yu � itl NYAT111Y � Y 11 � I � IuIINI .� .,�� , �..i � ., � .�. i . ,. . i , , ,..�.��. �., ._... �i :'� � i i ,� �... I ,, ; .� I \ I ' IIIIII!I I�.. I --�. : i.i ii h n II I -�,ii i� 6ui �il . I"�Ill��i..i@I�.� .i ��i�i II ql � a � � �� N . , �� .. ��, . � �� I I�!!� iu"N II I� ��'��%U'm ' �i�i a��u� Ili�il�� ,!!,�� ;Il�i�i� �I'ui"�'�''�m�� '' nni midunX� um ie iu ii iiml�Illul�Ll�wo Iwnloio mu nww,��,�� ii u iNnnil .mnnu hoi m:uni o m lun� Ni v� - _ - - - - - _ � � � ;J N - � - _ - __- - � ;., _ _ _ _ _- ' - ' __ � - - _ - _- _ .�j � _ _ - _ __ _ -' -- ' _ N � O - �f) - - (�/ _ - - _ - - _-- _ - f N � �- - _ - _ � �� :/7 �� n - � - _ _ - - - � _ _ � —, �-'� - _ - _ - = � - -_ :J �) _ ` _ = -= � > _ - �_ _ _ � __ ° J � — � � ,Z � U = n � N � N � - - � _ -_ -� � s � C � .� O , j _ - ;, � ..J _ — _ - _ - � � - - - - �_ .= � n n = _ - � • ,) - � N � � .� — � � • � ,� � s- - ' = , _ — .� �_ J �' �, � _ - _ _ � es =— --� -- �`_ � _ - __ - � � ` - __ E -=� _ _ . __ _� � a�z -_ .B _ _ _ _° _ _ s_� � �_ - _ '__ _ _ - __ __ s __ �� - _ -_ :` __� � �_ _ - _ __ � � - � - � E - � - �� :^ � _ _ � _ � _ � � ° � ��_ � � _- .. C 3_ � � � -_ _- � -_ �_ �� k =� U = - _ � -� -e � � � a �- _ —_ _ � -- _ � ° � --�� _ � c� - °� _ _ - ' =� - e ._ _ , _ - _ - - ��_ �- - ° -- _ - �` � _ - � E � '- ^ _ - - = � �� = -� C.� z ' � - a = � � - � • � . � 1 . - � � Corru»�ini(�y Cornrn�.u�ity Nan�e N�.imber o�P N�imber o�f CIZS [�a(in<� % R�duc(ion in Nun��b�r [�c��fiCiv� Loss Clai��ecl � NI��'lP 1��es Propert�ies [Zep�t�it-ive 1_osses u� I I I I N I il I� � II��I liil�l I� I n nnnll I I, II u •. �Itll�l�u mu u I IIY'lull � I'llllll I IVyIIPoII IN U II IN I�i' IIIiII M I „� N �I ��ill �� '�� C��, �� N� �h�� u� ��n��l �N��,��NUI�I�NIIII�IN� ��NII��INNII�bNI��IU��INIIINIaN��NI��NN�N�N ti�"" ni ��N �� o�� i �� dk al � � .��u'�� I , �III� INIIIIII�� NN �� ,� �� ,, � :. . �. , ,. �N�� i"�� N��N�NNIIN. �II�'°��i�� ' m� �, ��,,,;,�� m� �I�N�NN�I � II N��NI�� , fl, �, �� n,�� , � .{ ��.�. :., ,� � � �r ��:� m�r �ry • m� X N M WNA NII � Y � IIIIIIII � II � i ttr � 4H �M Ng� � b I iih w" p i h i i i^ �.. ... IIIIIIIIIII!�I!IIIIIII ,.. I�� .. �, ., :..., ,� �,�.� , ,..... . �., ,... � � �� ^ �� I I I�p^ rt� I, � � V .. � . ��,,, �li. I I ,.,� i�r,,. ,..��.��. � � �i,�:,,�„ „�:�..�. ��. ,. ��i�.� �� 4 � � ...� � ��.�,.,�. rRl., ��, i i.li�il �� h "I.. i�� ili iiiii I I � I�d l} I I �� ry l l�'�,� tlyNll �i II I � IpI ii�'Mipf ,ui ql I I i II''�' � I d i iii�wilmui�w ill ��Illlni�wir'�h�l nii��iH��"� u I I I I.n II II I II I II I� I I I I I IIII I I I IIIIIIIII II II inl�lllll l llllllll' �uil uu �i P� �� . , � . � � ° � � Oy i' , J � x , NU. I I J � � „ . � � µ ,�� . . ��. ,,. � �, � � �, � . �. , / p �u�u" � , . . II ,,.,. � . �� „ �„� .. �i i .�� :..,,�,,,, , ' � ... ri�Rh� , . . „ , � � 1�I Yu . . i � � � � � �nl � ��1� lU �� , �� u��u��guU ��u�u �� „� � ��N��u � ��N�� ,,. � i �i ��1r�� 1�9�� a!- � R' W ��: 1 n4; � � 6 �� i � A. 4� '. �ii , . I 1 I ' � i .� i .� .�,. , rti �.,.. � .:. �.�� ., �� .�., . . .� ,,.:��.�.. � p � n,q J W i @ 9f N ` 1 P IY tl�i II�I i�tl � . . , , ._ .., � . , h. !I. �� oJ II' �I �p:i I�I I � � � �I I .u•i �'.I , , . , � ., Intl � . �. �,. � �, _ ,. � �� A � ,. ., �, .,: �.. .... ��: �,��.i,.i ..�, �,,, „ .,.�� „ ° .:� ., .,.�, i,. :��, ,.i�.�, I I ��i� � �� ' �� II��JI��I Ni�llll !�n� I� i II � pR ��" �HI ��iii�'I'ab��' tli� ill w � i�i B I �i ,.y I � � ,� � � � � ��r nuiu�ulNwl�wnouwnu IYUnilmiv,� Immooiuudlumiuomnnoinnnmiinionuunniiiunlinoilmnmioi i iiw,i omh � IIW � NY ' � i i . . . . � i � �i � � , . , . � . � �. . ii . . , ,.. . � i , , i ... � i i � �, I I I u � �� , � u � N � u u u uuuu � �,�� u � � i I I u u .. � �I I� ml� , � „ �, ,� � .� �� i � �� I..., � � I�� u �u, � I � I � �u , i I , i I �� , , , � ,„. I � � � � �,��,��,��If,�� N� II �Ih�ill�l� �� N �., �� 7��n,��d��ll�� II I� �� II � N ��N �N�� u�NN.U�N�� BN � a� � NNUH�� n �� ., � �� _ . . � � � � , , . � �- � a 1 A . +� �l e u � 91 q :. Mu � w� i � I ' ."�" w' i114 � �N.i �� Mul ulu � .. . , � � i i � ii � , , 1 . , y :�.i.� i. ��i . � .. ,. . �. , i . i ...,., ; ,. I N M '�� :� � X� �p 'n A� i m � N � 1 i . ' � � � 1 . � ' �' � � • � 1 � � � � � :J . � Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Elevation of New and Substantially Improved Structures Damage to "new" and "substantially improved" floodplain structures is minimized by elevating the lowest floor of occupied areas a specified amount above the 100-year flood elevation. Substantially improved structures are those where the cost of reconstruction, rehabilitation, additions or other improvements equals or exceeds 50% of the building's market value. Substa.ntially improved structures are subject to the same elevation standards as new structures. Check with your local permit office for specific requirements in your jurisdiction. Elevation Certificates To verify that a building has been properly elevated, building officials require the completion of an Elevation Certificate by a professional engineer or surveyor. After the lowest floor is in place, its elevation above sea level is determined by a survey. The Elevation Certificate is part of the permit record and must be submitted before the building may be occupied. Further information on the requirements for floodplain development, the permitting process and Elevation Certificates can be obta.ined from your local permit office. Documented Repetitive Losses Palm Beach County adheres to FEMA's definition of repetitive loss properties, that is, properties • whose owners have received payment for more than one claim within a 10-year period of their flood insurance policies as recorded by the NFIP. Table 3.4 summarizes the repetitive losses from PBC and the incorporated areas. Also, present data on each community's CRS score indicates the percent reduction in National Flood Insurance rates each community's residents receive if they participate actively in the CRS program. Annendiz H identifies and locates each repetitive loss property and evaluates its continued vulnerability to flooding damage. At this writing, FEMA records accounted for 183 registered repetitive loss properties within PBC unincorporated and its jurisdictions. The number has grown steadily with the increased tropical activity and extraordinary rain events the County has experienced. A significant percentage of these repetitive loss properties lie outside PBC's recognized special flood hazard areas. The PBC LMS's goal is to reduce the number of repetitive loss properties throughout the County and prevent new properties from being added to the list. The County takes great strides in trying to reduce and prevent repetitive loss properties. Palm Beach County takes part in various progra.ms to reduce and prevent repetitive losses such as FMA and CRS as demonstrated above. The LMS also has various plans incorpora.ted into it to ensure it conelates with the other objectives throughout the County and its jurisdictions. The LMS is referenced throughout the Mitigation section of the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan as the guiding source for mitigation activities pre and post disasters. Also, the Capital Improvement Plans reflect mitigation objectives to prevent repetitive loss properties. • 127 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Since its inception, PBC's LMS has placed a major emphasis on drainage improvement projects • as a major flood mitigation strategy. Indeed, drainage improvement projects have had a predominant representa.tion on the LMS prioritized project list. Some large-scale dra.inage improvement projects, perceived to be beyond the threshold for funding assistance applications, have historically been handled locally by Capital Improvement Plans rather than through the LMS. The LMS drainage projects are often coordinated with larger self-funded community dra.inage improvement projects. Drainage improvement projects; however, are often not the answer for isolated repetitive flood loss properties. Increasingly, the LMS has been moving toward a more comprehensive program of mitigation directed at repetitive loss problems. The County's network of CRS communities provides an excellent mechanism for identifying repetitive flood loss properties and coordinating comprehensive activities to launch mitigation initiatives. The LMS program not only provides the strategic guidance necessary to coordinating flood mitigation initiatives, it also helps in translating those strategies into viable flood mitigation projects. The final component in PBC's multi-program strategy is participation in the FMAP. Mitigation Projects to Repetitive Loss Properti� Palm Beach County first submitted project applications for FMAP assistance in 1999. It was not until 2002 that the initial two projects were approved for FMAP funding. The projects were • completed in 2003. These projects provided all jurisdictions an opportunity to learn about the program and information that would be useful in planning their own programs. These two completed projects have been successful since two properties have been ta.ken ofF the repetitive loss properties list. Project #1 - Elevation PYOject The first project involved a home in the unincorporated area of PBC referred to as "The Acreage." The property has amassed four insurance losses since 1988 despite, the fact that the property does not reside in Special Flood Hazard Area. T'he elevation involved raising a slab on grade structure with the slab intact and placing it on extended foundation walls. A series of coordinated hydraulic jacks were used to achieve the target elevation above the base flood elevation. Openings for equalization of flood forces were included per FEMA specifications. Project #2 — Flood Wall PYOject The second FMAP project involved a multiple flood loss property locaxed in a residential community in the Lake Park area. The property did not suffer from flood water build up. Instead, flood water runoff from neighboring properties tended to enter the slab at grade level structure, flowing through the house before exiting to lower elevations on the opposite side of the home. The project involved a combination of mitigation measures, including construction of a 128 • L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • deflection wall, creation of swales, and the insta.11ation of improved drainage systems. These measures permit flood water runoffto be redirected around the structure rather than through it. These projects served two importa.nt purposes. They gave the county's CRS participating communities opportunity to observe and learn about the requirements and procedures of the FMAP and what will be required to orga.nize and manage their local initiatives. They also provided lessons learned that will be valua.ble in developing a model for County jurisdictions and residents seeking FMA assistance. 3.1.4.2 Municipalities Within PBC, there are 38 municipalities (see Table 3.1 . There is wide variation among the jurisdictions in terms of community character. Community character is shaped by factors such as land use muc, density, size of population, and location (e.g., on the Atlantic Ocean, adjacent to Lake Okeechobee, inland). Due to the differences, it is not unusual for local governments to have different perspectives relative to the significance various hazards have on their community. Certainly there are hazards that all jurisdictions, regardless of the community character, have concern over such as flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes. In agricultural communities like Pahokee, South Bay and/or Belle Glade, agricultura.l pests, freezes, and drought are more likely to be of greater concern, while in communities bordering the Atlantic Ocean (e.g., Ocea.n Ridge, Palm Beach, and Jupiter), hazards such as beach erosion and shoreline stabilization generate considerable concern among the residents. • Table 3.2 delineates the location, type, community character, economic base, and degree to which each of the participating municipalities within PBC is "built-out" at the present time. T'he following defines the headings displayed in the table: • Location Coastal - Municipality borders on the Atlantic Ocean lnland - Municipality does not border on the Atlantic Ocean or Lake Okeechobee Lakefront - Municipaliry borders on Lake Okeechobee • Urban/Rural Urban - Area characterized by activities predominantly based on the manufacture, production, distribution, or pravision of goods and services in a setting which typically includes residential and nonresidential development uses other than those which are characteristic of rural areas Rural - Areas characterized by activities which are largely based on agricultural uses or the extraction of natural resources, or areas containing large proportions of undeveloped, unimproved, or low density properry • Community Character Residential - Land use is primarily for housing Retirement - Land use is primarily for adult housing communities Working - Land use is primarily connected with the sale, renta.l, and distribution of products or performance of services • 129 L Mirigation Strategy I 2015 • Percent Built Out � • Economic Base Asricultural - Main source of income is activities within land areas which are predominantly used for the cultivation of crops and livestock Business - Main source of income is primarily connected with the sale, renta.l, and distribution of products or performance of services Industrial - Main source of income is activities predominantly connected with manufacturing, assembly, processing, or storage of products ResidentiaURetirement - Main source of income is primarily connected with real estate. Listing of Municipal Agencies The organizational structure of each municipality in the County differs in terms of organizational complexity and functior�al responsibility. A city like West Palm Beach (population — 99,919) has an organizational structure that is considerably more complex than some of the smaller communities like Atlantis, Cloud Lake or Jupiter Inlet Colony. The following is a brief discussion of typical agencies within the municipal organizational structure having hazard mitigation functional responsibilities. Enaergency Management. Emergency management responsibilities genera.11y fall within the purview of public safety, fire, and/or police departments. West Palm Beach is one of the few • municipalities that have a staffperson whose sole responsibility is emergency management. It is not unusual in � many cities that emergency management is an individual's secondary responsibility. During emergency events, such as hurricanes, each local government has an "executive group" (e.g., Mayor, city manager, police chief, fire chie� which coordinates the city's efforts with the County Division of Emergency Management. Planning. The larger jurisdictions such as West Palm Beach, Boca Raton, Jupiter, Boynton Beach, Delray Beach and Palm Beach Gardens operate planning departments with professional staffs. Some of the smaller jurisdictions have single-person sta.ffs, while the smallest assign those duties to a lay planning and zoning board and provide staff support by a building official or comparable staff person. The community development deparirnents review zoning petitions, site plans, and other development orders (e.g., variances and special exceptions), as well as administer their local comprehensive plan. Building. Most municipalities issue their own building permits. However, for one municipal government, the County Building Division reviews and issues their permits. The�ommunity is the Town of Loxahatchee Groves. All communities in the state operate under the Florida Building Code. Modifications can be made to the administrative / enforcement provisions (e.g., what requires a permit, what inspections are required, etc...) of the Code, as long as the administrative provisions are equa.l or more stringent than the "base" version of the Code; however, municipalities may not amend their local building code to be less stringent, or make changes to the technical provisions of the Florida Building Code without going through a formal 130 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • technical amendment process which requires demonstration of unique local geographical need for the amendment and an analysis of the cost impact of the proposed technical amendment. If local technical amendments are enacted and adopted by a community, then the amendments automatically sunset during the next statewide code adoption (unless the local technical amendment is adopted statewide by the Florida Building Commission). Public Works and Engineering. While not all municipalities have a public works and engineering department, all generally perform this function in some manner. If it is under a contractual arrangement, there is someone in the jurisdiction responsible for overseeing the consultant. The group having responsibility for public works and engineering has the responsibility for implementing structural improvements (e.g., stormwater facility retrofit, shuttering buildings, constructing new EOCs). Fire Departt�nnents. While many cities contract with the PBC Fire Rescue Department, there are others that operate their own fire-rescue departments. In some insta.nces, smaller jurisdictions contract with a larger municipal neighbor Municipal Mitigation Policies, Ordinances, and Plans Policy Plans. • Municipal Comprehensive Plans • Like the County, each city has an adopted Comprehensive Plan. It serves as a policy instrument for each city and defines that particular city's development and redevelopment policies. All comprehensive plans are required by Section 163.3161, F.S. to contain 8 plan elements: Conservation, Infrastructure (i.e., pota.ble water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, solid waste, and natural aquifer recharge), Future Land Use, Housing, Recreation and Open Space, Transportation, Intergovernmental Coordination, and Capital Improvement. For units of local government abutting the Atlantic Ocean, they must also prepare a Coastal Management Element. In PBC, 19 municipalities border the Atlantic Ocean coastline. There is considerable variation among local governments in the depth to which hazards are addressed in their comprehensive plans. Certainly the population size, geographic spatial limits, diversity in mix of land uses, and depth of understanding of hazard mitigation affects the level of detail local governments apply to the issue of hazards. Any extended discussion of hazards occurs, for the most part, in the Conservation, Coastal Management, and Infrastructure elements (ApAendix D). • Local Emergency Management Plans A number of municipalities have adopted emergency management plans. Most follow the content of the PBC CEMP. Their focus is on emergency response versus long-term haza.rd mitigation. • 131 Local Mitigation Strategy 2015 • Ordinances and Other Plans. Other types of ordinances and plans municipalities that have adopted that are relevant to hazard mitigation include: • Incorporating the 2010 edition of Florida Building Code complete with Appendices A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J and K • Adding window glazing and/or shuttering requirements to their building codes • Becoming affiliated with the Community Ra.ting System (CRS) program (cu�ently 29 out of 38 local governments are CRS qualified) • Emergency Water Restriction ordinances • Stormwater Master Plan • Flood Damage Prevention and Protection Ordinance Mitigation Projects/Initiatives/Outreach A LMS Survey was prepared and distributed to all participating local governments as a means to inventory and assemble data. on mitigation projects and initiatives each governmental entity had • or was implementing. Projects are defined as capital facilities. Initiatives can be anything from purchase of property and relocation of homes or businesses, to upgraded building codes, to incentives, to public information campaigns, to preparedness training and drills, to professional development seminars. Thirty-six municipalities responded. There is wide variation; while a number of municipalities have not undertaken any mitigation projects, others have been highly proactive, completing multiple projects/initiatives. The following provides a general discussion of wha.t is being accomplished by municipal governments in PBC. Also, there are a few communities that already have well-developed hazard mitigation programs in place. A brief discussion of each is included. Projects. Shuttering public facilities and upgrading or correcting drainage facility deficiencies are the two most common types of hazard mitigation projects undertaken by PBC municipalities. Other types of projects reported in the local government LMS Survey are: • Glazing exterior windows on public facilities to achieve impact resistance from windborne debris • Replacing and/or upgrading drainage pumps • Installing emergency power generators 132 • Local Mitigation Stra.tegy I 2015 • • Installing a radio telemetry monitoring system for public utilities � Sirens/loudspeaker warning system used for severe storms/lightning Codes/Ordinance Amendments. Manv municipalities incomorated the Florida, Buildin� 2010 Edition. Some of the more important features include: • Modifying building codes to require floor slab or wood joists be above the 100-year floodplain and a minimum of 18 inches above the crown of the road • Requiring the elevation of structures • Trusses manufactured in accordance with local wind models Other actions municipalities have taken include: • Modifying existing Local Development Regulation (LDR) to incorporate windborne debris impact standards • Amending LDR to include section titled, "Building and Property Maintenance: Hurricane Precautions • • Professional Development Tra.ining. Twenty-three municipalities reported that their staff received professional development training over the course of a year. The amount of training staffs received differed by jurisdiction. • Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations (CAMEO) is a system of software applications used to plan for and respond to chemical emergencies. Developed by EPA a.nd the National Oceanic and Atrnospheric Administration to assist front-line chemical emergency planners and responders, CAMEO can access, store, and evaluate information critical for developing emergency plans. • Amending LDR to include section titled, "Building and Property Maintenance: Hurricane Precautions" • Orientation to disaster assistance programs • Radiological emergency management • Annua.l sta.te hurricane conference training sessions • Natural hazards mitigation and recovery • Yearly conference of National Fire Protection Association • 133 Local Mitigation Stra.tegy I 2015 • Yearly conference of Building Officials Association of Florida • • Training sessions with Federa.l Emergency Management Agency • Building Inspector courses on topics like hurricane resistant structural design, roofing updates, wood construction, and fire resistance and egress Prepaf-edness Training. Fourteen (14) local governments reported that they conduct preparedness training and drills for emergency situations. They carry out hurricane exercises and other types of preparedness training based on their Municipal CEMP or EAP as reported to the LMS Coordinator: • Structural fire drills • Tornado drill • Chemical spills • Terrorist response • Chlorine leak drills • Communication tests • • Generator tests Education/Public Awareness. It is common practice among local governments to distribute informational materials to its citizens, especially as it relates to hurricanes. Among the 18 local governments reporting, the scope of their programs varied. The following are methods municipalities in PBC use to disseminate information about hazards or an impending emergency event: • Annual correspondence mailed to the residents reminding them of the need to be prepared for a hurricane • Hurricane Survival Guide • A Homeowner's Guide to Hurricane Retrofit • Classes on Emergency Response Training • Discussions with residents about hurricane preparedness • Hurricane preparation video shown on city cable station 134 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • • Brochures on variety of disaster/emergency topics, including insurance, pet care, business interests, children and disasters, lightning and tornado safety • FAX-back system with a menu of public safety information • Emails to residents • Communicator NXT or a similar system which automatically dials and plays recorded information regarding imminent emergencies • City newsletter 3.1.5 Intergovernmental Coordination An essential element of the hazard mitigation process is intergovernmental coordination. Disasters know no boundaries; governments and service providers increasingly must work together to strengthen communities against the loss of life and property. Coordination is important not only horizontally at the local level between county, municipalities, non-profit orga.nizations, and the private sector, but also vertically with key state and federal agencies. Besides the potential of the LMS initiative, there are severa.l other coordination mechanisms that already exist. They are described briefly below. • Metropolitan Planning Organization The Metropolitan Planning Organization of PBC, commonly known as the MPO, coordinates local, state, and federal funding for thoroughfare improvements. The policy board is comprised of 18 voting members (i.e., 5 representatives of the BCC, 13 representatives from the municipalities), and one non-voting member (i.e., Secretary of the Florida. Department of Transportation, District IV). Two key policy documents of the MPO aze the long-range transportation plan, and the five-year transportation improvement plan (TIl'). The TIP identifies and schedules all future roadway improvements in the near-term. Local Government Comprehensive Plans One mechanism to achieve intergovernmental coordination is the local comprehensive plan. Each comprehensive plan contains an intergovernmental coordination plan element. Palm Beach County Comprehensive Emergency Plan Palm Beach County's CEMP as described in the section titled, Miti�ation Policies and Ordinances, is very important in terms of coordination. It identifies coordination of the responsibilities and functions of agencies and organizations during disaster situations. District X Local Emergency Planning Committee • 135 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 T'he LEPC is an important vehicle to coordinate administering regional compliance with • hazazdous materials reporting and training laws. The TCRPC provides full-time staff to administer the activities of the Committee. State Emergency Management Plan The State of Florida CEMP establishes the framework of a coordination system to ensure that the State of Florida is prepared to respond to the occurrence of emergencies and disasters. The plan describes roles and responsibilities of state agencies, special districts, local governments, and voluntary organizations, unites the efForts of these groups for a comprehensive approach. The plan is divided into three sections. The Basic Plan: Outlines how the state will assist counties in response, recovery, and mitigation of disasters; details responsibility at various levels of government; describes method of operations and financial management policies; ensures continuity of government; and addresses recovery issues. Specific Response/Recovery Actions: Actions that are unique to a specific hazard, and are described in the Basic Plan and Response Functions sections. Response Functional Annexes: Present the Sta.te's strategies for disaster response • by outlining Emergency Support Functions (ESF). ESF's are structured from the Federa.l Response Plan. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Coordinated Review Committee The Comprehensive Plan Amendment Coordinated Review Interlocal Agreement establishes a countywide Comprehensive Plan Coordinated Review Process. It is designed to provide coordination of proposed plan amendments, cooperation between affected local governments and service providers, and opportunities to resolve conflicts only within the Plan Amendment Process. This process includes the following actions: • Proposed plan amendments must have sufFicient distribution and dissemination to insure that initial transmittal and final approval do not occur without adequaxe notice to local governments and service providers who may be adversely affected by the action. • An avenue for discussion and evaluation of the proposed plan amendments is created so that the governing body is aware of objections, the basis for them, and the reasonableness of the objection. • An opportunity is created for conflict resolution of an item which, if approved, may result in a potential problem for another local government or service provider. 136 • Lo Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • • The Comprehensive Plan Amendment Coordinated Review Process does not diminish or transfer existing authority with respect to planning and implementation decision of the participants. The Multi-Jurisdictional Issues Coordination Forum T'he forum has been established through a resolution/interlocal agreement. The primary goal of this enrity is to establish a mechanism that will provide a mea.ns of communication and education between the various local governments and service providers. This is accomplished through the receipt and review of reports; through presentations of items of multi jurisdictional impact; and through the review of actions ta.ken by the Executive Committee. All members of this forum must be participants in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Coordinated Review Interlocal Agreement. EM Team Emergency Management Team is an organization of professionals from agencies and municipalities throughout PBC who share a mutual interest in emergency management issues. The EM Team meets once a month. Meeting notices of related interest and other information are distributed in advance of the scheduled meeting date. Members of EM Team benefit by: • • Receiving the latest information from federal, state and local levels of government concerning all issues relating to comprehensive emergency management; • Strengthening ties and sl�aring information with the County, neighboring municipalities and other agencies in the area; • Exchanging ideas and receiving information regarding training opportunities in emergency management (many of which are free or involve minimal costs); • Meeting the managers and officials they may need to call on in times of emergency or disaster. 3.2 Private Sector 3.2.1 Background Major disasters have repeatedly demonstrated that all components of the community can be significantly impacted, either directly or indirectly by the event. It is therefore important that mitigation and redevelopment planning efforts also involve the entire community. Involvement of the private sector in the LMS process was given high priority from the outset of the program by the DEM. Besides receiving funding from the FDEM to prepare the LMS, FDEM also awarded PBC a grant pursuant to Chapter 9G-19, Florida Administrative Code, to develop a • 137 L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Business Community Recovery and Redevelopment Strategy program. Since private sector • involvement was important in both efforts, the DEM a committee for education and outreach was created. In addition, staff from the DEM and the PBC Office of Economic Development coordinated with each other on all relevant issues of mutual interest to both programs. The following groups have participated actively in the program: � Business Alliance • Delray Beach Community • Business Loan Funds of the Palm Development Agency Beaches • WPBF Channel 25 • Florida Light & Power Company • PBC Information System Services � Palm Beach State College Department • Florida Insurance Council • The Boynton Beach Mall • Black Business Investment, Inc. • Palm Beach County Economic • Brown Distributing Office • Home Depot • Fidelity Federal of the Palm Beaches • Tourist Development Board • Poe & Brown, Inc • Motorola • The Northern Palm Beach Chamber • Farm Bureau West of Commerce • Port of Palm Beach • Small Business Bank • Palm Beach County Purchasing • Suntrust Bank Department • Marine Industries Association of • Delray Beach Chamber of Palm Beach County, Inc Commerce • Pratt & Whitney • • Bank Atlantic Perhaps the greatest accomplishment, beyond the specific accomplishments outlined in this section, has been special collaborative relationships now established between the private sector and public sector entities. Cornerstone partnerships in this endeavor now exist between the DEM and Economic Development Divisions, and participating municipalities on the public side and a network of participating Chambers of Commerce. The initiatives outlined in this section are an integral part of the ongoing local disaster mitigation strategy. In the private sector, efforts are directed at minimizing private sector losses, improving business survival rates, protecting and preserving the economic base provided by businesses, and speeding the overall community recovery process. Four key objectives were addressed: Obiective 1 Establish improve intergovepnmental and private sector coordination. Obiective 2 Refine the hazard and vulnerability analysis for the economic sector. Objective 3 Evalucate local available resources, identify gaps, and develop appropYiate funding mechanisms and strategies to fill afay gaps. 138 • 6£I • • •�f��nb �raao�a.� o� apqn pun s.ta�snszp .�o,�' paavda.rd aq o; r[pzuntutuo� ssauzsnq a�� Suz�v�npa uo �ugsn�o�' usn.r.Sodd uor�n�npa �tpqnd n a�na.r� �, aat��a, qp • S i OZ �Sa��s uo►��i�iy�i i eoo-� Local Mirigation Strategy I 2015 3.2.2 Accomplishments • The following summarizes the improved accomplishments of the private sector work effort of the Outreach and Education Committee by objective: 3.2.2.1 Objective 1: Establish improved intergovernrnental and private sector coordination. T'hree tasks related to this objective represent the beginning points for an ongoing, long-range program to improve intergovernmenta.l and private sector collaboration, coordination and relations. Task 1 P�epaf-e a cofnprehensive vendor list and i�rventories of equipment and supplies. The primary thrust of this task was to create a system whereby businesses victimized by disasters could access vendors a.nd suppliers to procure goods and services necessary to rebuild and resume normal business operations. Eaxly in the project, the Economic Development Specialist met with the purchasing sta.ff of several County and municipal agencies relative to the characteristics of their databases and their potential suitability for business disaster applications. With the assista.nce of representatives from the PBC Information Systems Services Department (ISS), the idea was conceived of • housing the vendor database in the business section of the PBC Emergency Management web site. Upon further discussion, the idea eventually evolved to the creation of a reverse vendor da.ta.base, an emergency need posting system for disaster-impacted businesses. This approach avoids most of the maintenance costs and burdens that are associated with traditional vendor data.bases. ISS was subsequently commissioned to develop this system, eventually dubbed the "Emergency Business Buyers' Database." Development and testing were successfully accomplished in early July; the system awaits activation if and when a local disaster occurs. Task 2 Develop a compYehensive list of needs for emergency contracts and agreenaents, and secure sources for items needed by the response comnaunity which are usually not needed in day to day operations. Research determined that the PBC Purchasing Department has in place item lists, source lists, and systems and procedures necessary for fully meeting the needs of the County's response community and to satisfy the assistance requirements spelled out by the mutual aid agreement with Orange County. Efforts to publicize the existence of this list to the local community are being made through the Chambers of Commerce to facilitate local involvement, when possible. 140 • L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 � Task 3 Establish Business Hotlines, Business Aid and Redevelopment Assistance Centers. An important element in the support of private sector preparedness and timely recovery is the ability of businesses to stay abreast of critical information. An objective in this project was to provide the business community with a single-point contact for accessing important business-related information to assist pre-disaster preparations and post-disaster recovery activities. As part of its partnership agreements with various Chambers of Commerce throughout the County, PBC Emergency Management is encouraging cha.mbers to dedicate one or more telephone lines to serve as an emergency "hot line" service for community businesses. 3.2.2.2 Objective 2: Refine hazard and vulnerability analysis for the economic sedor The LMS definition (as described earlier) of critical facilities includes severa,l economic sector facilities, notably nursing and convalescent centers, and public communication facilities in what are designated as primary critical facilities, and fmancial institutions, phannacies, reconstruction material suppliers, medical clinics, and food distribution centers in what are designated as secondary critical facilities. Private sector primary critical facilities are included in the ArcView database, and, when the Property Appra.iser's office completes the automated inventory conversion of commercial and industrial properties into an ArcView database, secondary critical facility information will be merged with the database file. • The wlnerability of the business community to potential disasters was analyzed. Mapping and tabular products were developed that may be used by commerciaVindustrial property owners for performing self-analysis of hazard vulnerabilities. These products also provide a better understanding of the various hazards that could potentially impact segments of business community. �An Economic Disaster Management Information System (EDMIS) was developed and designed. Unfortunately, this product cannot be used until data.base conversion is completed by the Property Appraiser's Office. Once on-line, however, EDMIS will be used to more fully explore mitigation opportunities in the private sector. 3.2.2.3 Objective 3: Evaluate local available resources, identify gaps, and develop appropriate funding mecha�isnis and strategies to fill the gaps Exploratory initiatives were explored relating to ensuring post-disaster cash flow, creating emergency loan programs and community credit programs, expediting the processing of post- disaster loans, and establishing a"bridge loan" capability. The policies and programs of area banks were reviewed, various loan funds examined, and state and federal agency programs, including "Operation Open for Business," were reviewed. Among the most glaring "gaps" uncovered that could impact PBC businesses were the following: • Meeting the managers and officials they may need to call on in times of emergency or disaster. � 141 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Insurance typically does not cover all business losses. • • Banks will not necessarily loan money to victimized businesses and may not relax their requirements for financial documentation and credit status in emergency periods. • Business interruption insurance is seldom purcha.sed by businesses because it is so costly. • Low interest loans for mitigation projects are not yet available in PBC. The challenge of dealing with these issues, however, is indeed complex. The decision authority for creating policies and programs dealing with these issues invariably resides at levels outside PBC. Creation of emergency business assistance programs will likely require legislative initiatives and corporaxe lobbying beyond the influence of even regional interests. Even so, the need for creative funding mechanisms and strategies was a consistent theme throughout the project and was a common speaking point at private sector and public sector forums. The project team of a year 1999-2000 grant funded to PBC, entitled Businesses Addressing Readiness & Recovery (BARR), will continue efforts to mobilize sufficient support to positively influence private sector and public sector decision makers to institute meaningful emergency assistance programs for businesses. It will support other related initiatives underway at the state level. The BARR program will also pattern many of programs and initiatives after those of Project Irnpact and the City of Deerfield Beach's Operation Open foY Business. 3.2.2.4 Objedive 4: Create Q public education program focusing on educating the • business community to be prep¢red for a disaster and able to recover quickly. Two tasks of this objective address a program to enable the business community to educate and prepare itself, reaching the greatest number of businesses in the shortest time possible. Task 1 Train Chamber of Commerce staff and the business cofnmunity. During the course of the project, staff inembers attended, participated in, and led a variety of business-related forums on disaster issues, including disaster conferences, workshops, professional association meetings, expos and trade shows, and community planning sessions. They also worked closely with private and public sector experts on a number of significant community initiatives and reviewed extensive literature from FEMA, state, federal and non-government organization sources. Among the many methods employed to reach and educate the business community throughout PBC were: • Insurance typically does not cover all business losses • Distribution of specially designed BARR pamphlets and business cards •"Business" location on the County's Emergency Management web site 142 � L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • • Booths in expos, fairs, trade shows • Presentations to business, professional and public sector groups � Media interviews and articles • Presentations at the National and Florida Governor's Hurricane Conference • Participation in other initiatives - One-on-one contingency planning assistance for larger businesses. In this task, members of several Chambers of Commerce and mentors from large and medium-sized businesses have been trained to train others and make presentaxions raising the business community's awareness of preparedness issues and options. These efforts will continue. Task 2 Develop a written business contingency planning guide. It was reasoned that preparation and distribution of a business contingency planning workbook and a business contingency plan template would be pra.ctical and productive contributions to building a more disaster resistant business community. The workbook that has been developed serves as the primary text for • Emergency Management's ongoing series of contingency planning workshops. Following the template, small- to middle-sized businesses are able to easily prepare contingency plans ta.ilored to their specific needs. A copy is available on the South Florida, Disaster Resiliency Coalition website. Conducting workshops will continue to be a priority, as will be the training of indusiry trainers and the development of inentors to continue planning initiatives after the grant period concludes. 3.3 Strengthening the Role of Local Governments As has been described earlier in this document, local governments in PBC have taken steps to strengthen themselves both in terms of capital facility improvements and ordinances, regulations, and programs. Becoming more disaster-resista.nt is not limited to just hardening of structures. There are a number of activities that the County and municipalities can undertake to strengthen the role of local governments to lessen the impacts resulting from emergency events which do not require expending money on capital projects. Plans can be modified, laws and regulations can be amended, informational materials published and distributed, and professional tra.ining augmented. Ideas were genera.ted from a variety of sources: interviews with local jurisdictions, and information generated from LMS Survey forms, the LMS Steering Committee and subcommittees, and discussions with local governments. The suggestions for countywide projects resulting from the various discussions with local government include: • 143 L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 1. Projects on the LMS PPL should be incorporated in local government comprehensive • plans, capita.l improvement elements (CIE), at the time the CIE's are on an annual basis in accordance with Section 163.3177 (3) (a), Florida Statutes (F.S.). 2. As permitted under Section 163.3177 (7) (h) &(1), F.S., local governments could incorpora.te optional comprehensive plan element for public safety, or a hazard mitigation/post-disaster redevelopment plan; 3. Integrate the LMS into the PBC CEMP as appropriate and within the sta.te specified guidelines. 4. Assess existing CRS programs to determine ways to strengthen and improve the local jurisdiction's CRS rating and support non-CRS communities to join the program. 5. Recommend that public building construction, whether it be new construction or renovation of older public structures, incorporate hazard mitigation building practices, whenever financially feasible; 6. Recommend to the appropriate authorities, the incorporation of safe room requirements in the local building code. 7. Update existing PBC post-disaster redevelopment plans, and prepare a model plan as a guide for local jurisdictions. • 8. Support BARR in the continuing effort of coordinarion and mutual support between the PBC, local, and business community, before, during and after a disaster event. 9. The LMS Steering Committee should work with the partner communities and the County to conrinue ongoing funding and staffing for the continuation of LMS. 10. Recommend emergency building permit procedures to local authorities and jurisdictions. 11. Seek avenues to provide technical assistance in grant writing and engineering for local jurisdictions in the support of LMS projects. 12. Develop a model CEMP mitigation element as a guide for local jurisdictions in mitigation plan development. 13. Seek opportunities and potential funding sources to bury electrical wires, especially in multi jurisdictional projects. 14. In order to increase shelter capacity countywide, support the retrofitting of all appropriate structures suitable for use as shelters. 144 • L Mirigation Strategy I 2015 • Develop and disseminate multi-media outreach program countywide which will support the goals of LMS. • • 145 Lo Mitigation Strategy I 2015 SECTION 4: PROCEDURES • 4.1 Project Prioritizallon Methodology This section sa.tisfies, in part, the following FEMA requirements: R�uirement: §201.6(c)(3)(iii): [T`he mitigarion strategy section shall include] an a.ction plan describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are m�imized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs. R�uirement §201.6(c)(3)(iv): For multi jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or credit of the plan. Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. Requirement: §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [T'he mitigation strategy] must also address the jurisdiction's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and continued compliance with NFIl' requirements, as appropriate. 4.1.1 Development and Rationale • The project prioritization methodology is the means by which the LMS Steering Committee or some designated subset of that Committee will develop the single prioritized list of mitigation projects, which is one of the ultimate goals of the LMS effort. The only projects eligible for FEMA approval have to be submitted by a local government who participated in the planning process. These local governments must follow and continue to follow PBC's Local Mitigation Strategy's participation rules in Section 1. Palm Beach County esta,blished a scoring procedure when the plan was first written in 1999. The scoring procedure is deta.iled below along with examples in Aupendiz I. This procedure remains in place thus the County has a structured scoring process for projects seeking alternative funding sources other than federal programs. However, there may be changes made due to new Federal regulations. The LMS has been proactive in providing its participants with the information necessary to perform a Benefit Cost Analysis that will keep PBC eligible to compete for federal monies nationwide. Projects being submitted for federal funding require a Benefit Cost Analysis to be completed along with an application for submission. The objective is to create an adequate strategy for PBC to prioritize projects for possible funding sources other than federal funds, which would be prioritized based strictly on Benefit Cost Analysis and the criteria that are environmentally sound and technically feasible. The PPL can be referenced in A�Aendix E. In addition, A�pendix F is a list of potential funding sources for mitigation projects. 146 � Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 � . To be effective and gain the support of all the communities involved, the criteria used to rank and prioritize proposed mitigation projects must accomplish the following objectives: 1. They must be fair and objective. Mitigation projects proposed by small communities must have equal opportunity to achieve as high a higher priority than mitigation projects proposed by larger communities or the County. Likewise, mitigation projects proposed by economically disadvantaged communities must have the opportunity to achieve as high a priority than those projects proposed by more affluent communities. 2. Thev must be flexible enough to effectively rank projects mitigating for a variety of hazards. The LMS is an "all hazards" program. The criteria used to rank potential mitigation projects must be capable of ranking individua.l mitigation projects with diverse goals such as, but not limited to flood mitigation, sea level rise, impacts from climate change, wildfire protection, or hazardous waste spill prevention. 3. They must be functional and tied to real-world considerations such as com etin tive �,rant funding reyuirements. Palm Beach County will be developing a list of prioritized mitigation projects that will have to compete with a prioritized list of similar type projects from other counties in the state. 4. Thev must be simnle, easily understood, and relativelv easv to appl� Many potential mitigation projects will have to be prioritized by the Steering Committee or some subset thereof. This means that individual committee members will be scoring many projects. These individua.ls must be able to work through the project scoring process relatively rapidly for each project they evalua.te. • 5. Thev must be individua.11y well defined and specific. Each individual scoring criteria category must be well defined with the possible points to be awarded broken down in as much deta.il as possible to eliminate arbitrary variation in how various individuals might score the same category. 6. The prioritization �rocess will be an ongoin�process as the LMS is continually refined and updated. The criteria must be such that it can be applied in a consistent manner with a minimal learning curve. These overarching requirements are as follows: 1. Community Benefit The single most important consideration for any mitigation project is "What benefit does the community derive from this effort?" How, and to what extent does this mitigation project benefit the citizens of a community? 2. Community Commitrnent. What is the community's level of commitment that is proposing this mitigation project? All mitigation projects have to compete for funding. If the community or governmental entity proposing a given project is not willing to commit substantial time, efFort, and funding, the project has less chance of ever being accomplished even if it is a worthy project. There is no point in ranking a project highly that may never be accomplished even if funds are made available. 3. Project Im�lementation. Is this project technically, financially, and legally feasible? Basically this overarching requirement addresses the ease with which a project can be implemented. How easily can • 147 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 required permits be obtained? What is the time frame for accomplishing this project's goals? Are ther� any technical problems that must be overcome to implement this project? 4. The rationale for each scoring criterion on the Project/Initiative Evaluation Score 5heet, its connections to known funding sources, and directions on specific numbers of points to award are discussed below. 4.1.2 Community Benefit 4.1.2.1 Flood Mitigation and/or Sea Level Rise — Does the proposed project or ihitiative rnitigate against flooding and/or sea level rise? F1ood Mitigation Points Awazded (maximum of 5 Flood and/or Sea Level Rise 5 Dama e Reduction in and Re to 4 Flood Pre aredness 3 Publie Information 2 Other 1 4.1.2.2 Project Benefit - Does the project address critical eleme�ts of the community irafrastructure? The critical question addressed here is, "does this proposed project help protect the community by hardening some critical element in the community's infrastructure that will reduce the potential loss of life or property damage if a disaster strikes"? Specific programs offering state and federal grant money are available for mitigation projects to make community infrastructure or property critical to public safety more disaster resistant. Points under this criterion are awarded based on the nature of the facility or infrastructure element being hardened or protected. If the proposed projects mitigate a problem in a primary critical facility such as a hospital, EOC, or emergency shelter it would receive 10 points under this criterion. Primary critical facilities are defined as "Facilities critical to the immediate support of life and public safety." These are the facilities the community cannot afford to have any loss of function, even for a short period of time. Flooding produces a widespread direct and indirect danger to large segments of the community, while at the same time damaging or potentially damaging such critical infrastructure elements as roads and stormwater drainage systems. Therefore, a project reducing or preventing stormwater accumulation and flooding during storm events would receive 8 points under this criterion. Seconda.ry critical facilities are defined as, "Facilities that will be critical for community recovery and restoration of services." Projects that help protect these types of facilities will be awarded 6 points. 148 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Public convenience facilities are quality of life facilities such as parks, recreation areas, and non- essential public buildings. Projects protecting these types of public property will be awarded 4 points under this criterion. Residential structures are defined as private homes. Projects protecting these types of property will be awarded 2 points under this criterion. Project Benefnt Points Awarded ma�im� of 10) Prim Critical Facilities 10 St�rmwa�terfflaodia 8 Secon critical facilities 6 Public Convenience facilities 4 Residential Structures 2 4.1.3 Community Ezposure 4.1.3.1 Does the project nzitigate a frequently occurring problem or a problem to which a community is particularly vulnerable? . This criterion attempts to balance the actual risk of a specific disaster occurring versus the community's • exposure in terms of life and property damage if the disaster does occur. For example, a nuclear power plant meltdown would be cata.strophic if it occurred, but the frequencies with which meltdowns occur is unknown in the U.S. and optimistically extremely low. Therefore, a project proposing to mitigate for possible nuclear power plant meltdown by providing lead lined emergency shelters would score lower than a project which mitigates for a more frequent, but less catastrophic type of disaster, such as the flooding of a library. Data. for this evaluation will come from the Hazard Vulnerability Analysis (HVA) portion of the LMS project, and will be community specific. For example, communities on the coastline experience thunderstorms, lightning, and frequent localized short term flooding, but in most, the exposure in terms of life and property damage is relatively low. Some specific communities, however, such as mobile home parks, or areas with known drainage problems, have much higher exposures to ill efFects from thunderstorm hazards. The entire coastline has a high exposure to damage from tropical storms and hurrica.nes. Category 1 and 2 hurricanes occur with a relatively high frequency, while category 3, 4, and 5 hurricanes are less frequent. All of these factors must be evalua.ted in weighing the merits of one mitigation project against another. • 149 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Specific guidelines for assigning points under this evaluaxion criterion are as follows: • Community Ezpos�e Frequency ar Risk PoiaLt Awarded # of Peogle or of Occurr�nce (mffximum of 1 Q) $ Value of Pro Hi Hi 10 Points Moderaze High 8 Poiats Low Hi 6 Points Hi Mad�rate 9 Points Moderate Modera.te 7 Points Low Moderate 4 Points Hi Low 5 Points Moderate Low 2 PoiIIts Low Low 1 Points 4.1.4 Cost Effectiveness 4.1.4.1 _ The benefit/cost ratio of the project is calculated by applying the following Benefit/Cost ratio for�nula: (Loss Exposure ($) Before Project - Loss Exposure ($) After Project) = Cost of the Project "A key criterion for mitigation projects to be eligible for funding is that they be cost effective:' This is a• direct quote from the FEMA 1996 guidelines for determining the cost-effectiveness of mitigation projects. "Mitigation efforts can be justified only to the extent to which the averted losses in terms of life and property exceeds the cost of a given mitigation project or effort." In other words, if a mitigation project costs more than what it is designed to protect, why do it? While a positive BenefidCost Raxio is an absolute requirement for FEMA funding, it should be a primary consideraxion in evaluating any mitigation idea. For this reason, it is the single most highly valued component of the project prioritization criteria. For any mitigation project to receive FEMA money, the mitigation project application will have to include a detailed Benefit/Cost analysis. Depending on the complexity of the proposed project and the amount of funding required, this Benefit/Cost analysis may require engineering drawings and/or evaluaxion of alternatives. Such a detailed analysis is beyond the scope of the LMS and in most cases beyond FEMA requirements. In 1996, FEMA published a new guideline for mitigation project evaluation titled "How to Determine Cost-Effectiveness of Hazard Mitigation Projects - A New Process for Expediting Application Reviews". The above formula is derived from that publication. It was developed to allow administrators to rapidly screen potential mitigation projects in a three step process: 1. Screen the project by reviewing the application data; 2. Conduct a quick BenefidCost analysis; and 150 • Loc Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • a. If the quick analysis yields a BenefidCost Raxio greater than one, continue processing the application; or b. If the BenefidCost analysis is less than one, request additional information from the proposer An example application of the Benefit/Cost formula is as follows: A community library has an estimated $90,000 worth of books that may be lost due to storm surge. To shutter the library will cost $20,000 and will prevent loss from surges associated with category 1 to 3 hurricanes. Category 1 to 3 storms represent 70% of the hurricanes likely to strike this community so the risk of loss is assumed to be reduced by 70%, leaving a remaining exposure of 30% or $27,000. Applying the formula: ($ 90,000 - $ 27,000) = $ 20,000 = 3.15 This project has a BenefitlCost ratio of 3.15. The community is also considering raising the floor of this library building by 2 ft at a cost of $75,000. Such a project would protect the books from storm surge under all but category 5 hurricane conditions, or approximately 85 % of the time. The residual exposure associated with this plan would be 15 % or $ 13,500. • Applying the formula: ($ 90,000 - $ 13,500) = $ 75,000 = 1.02 The benefiticost ratio on this plan is only 1.02. While this is still a positive ratio, the better return on dollars invested is achieved under the first alternative, shuttering the Library. The higher the BenefitlCost ratio, the better return per dollar invested is achieved. Under the first example the community is receiving $3.15 return in terms of lost prevention for every dollar invested. Under the second example the community is receiving only $ 1.02 return in terms of loss reduction for every dollar invested. Points under this criterion will be awarded as follows: B�nefitlCost Ratio Points maximum of 20 4.0 or eater 20 Points 3.Q to 3.9 16 Points 2.0 to 2.9 12 Points 1.0 to 1.9 8 Points <1.0 0 Points • 151 L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 4.1.5 Area Benetit • 4.1.5.1 Sow �nany people stand to benefit from the project irr�plementation? Area Benefit Points maximum of 5 Multi le Jurisdictions 5 oints Comm ' 3 Poin�s Neighborhood 1 Point 4.1.6 Project Implementation 4.1.6.1 Contained �thin the Existing Co�nprehensive Growth Management Plan (CGMP)— Is the project or initiative consistent with or i�corporated in the existing Comprehensive Growth Management Plan Is the project or initiative consistent with or incorporated within the existing Comprehensive Growth Plan or equivalent document? Coa�.ined Within the F�isting PoiIIts Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (maximum of 10) (CGMP) � Contained within a s ecific Polic /Plan 10 oints Contained in "Goal" with proposed Policy/ 8 Points �endmeIIt Contained within a broad "Goal 5 Point Conta.ined in a osed a.mendme�t 3 oiIIts Not in conflict with the CGMP 1 oint 4.1.6. 2 Contained �thin a� Existing Emergency Management Plan or Other Functional Plah Developed by an Ojficial Local Governmental Entity Has this project or initiative already been proposed as a management initiative or structural improvement in any emergency or growth management plan proposed or adopted by County or local jurisdictions or entity? This applies to both officially adopted plans and to those plans or amendments to plans which have been proposed but not yet officially adopted. One of the objectives of the LMS is to encourage local governments to officially adopt mitigation measures into their Comprehensive and Emergency Management Plans. If a community wants to improved the score of a proposed mitigation project or initiative it can propose an amendment to its CGMP or CEMP containing the measure. 152 • Lo Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Co�ed within an �is�ing Points EmePgency Ma�agem�nt Plaa (or (ma-xim_um of 20} other fimctio�al Ian) Officially ado ted 10 Points Pro ot officiall ado 6 Points Not in conflict with an lan 2 Points 4.1.6.3 Consistency with F�.�,zsting Regulatory Framework - Is the project consistent with existing legal and regulatory and environmenta!/cultural framework? Does the proposed project require any changes or waivers in existing building, zoning, or environmental statutes or ordinances? If changes or waivers aze required, there will be an extra step in implementing such a project and the timeline to accomplish the project must be extended accordingly. Projects which are consistent with the existing legal and regulatory framework will receive 5 points. Projects which are in conflict with some aspect of the existing regulatory framework will receive lower point scores depending upon the seriousness and numbers of regulatory barriers to be overcome in implementing the proposed project. Consistency with Points Re la.tory Framework (maximum of 5) No re lato issues 5 Points • Loca1 issues 4 Points Re 'onal issues 3 Points State issues 2 Points Federal issues 1 Point 4.1.7 Community Commitment 4.1. 7.1 Public Support - Is there demonstrated public support for this project or recognition of this problern? The question of how "public support" should be demonstrated has caused much discussion. It has been decided that points under this criterion should be awarded as follows: Has this project or problem been the subject of: a) An Advertised Public Meeting = 3; and b) Written evidence of public support = 2. Has the project or problem been the subject of both: a) An advertised public meeting, and b) Written evidence of public concern or support. If so, award 5 points. • 153 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 4.1. 7.2 Funding Availability - Is there a funding source currently available for this particula� project? Ten points will be awarded to any project for which funding is currently available. If funding is anticipated but currently not available, points will be awarded as follows: Fund'mg Av�a.ilab�ity Poiats (maximum of 10 Funds available now 10 Points Available in 1 ear 8 Points Available in 2 years 6 Points Available in 3 ears 4 Points � Available in 4 years 2 Points Available in 5 years+ 1 Poi� 4.1. 7.3 Matching Funds - Are matching funds or in-kind services available for this project? This criterion has been added because many, if not most, funding sources require local sponsors to put up some form of match either in terms of funds or services. Points will be awarded under this criterion as follows: Matchin Funds Points • g (maximum of 5) Match of 50% or more 5 Points 40 to 49% 4 Points 30 to 39 % 3 Points 20 to 29 % 2 Poi�ts 1 to 20 % 1 Point 4.1. 7.4 Timeframe for Accomplishing Objectives - How long will it take for the proposed mitigation project to accomplish its stated goals? Projects which can be accomplished quickly have an inherent advantage over long-term projects, although long-term projects may ultimately be more beneficial to the community. The following weighted scale assigns points to proposed projects based on the length of time that will be required before a community begins to receive benefits from the project. T'Imeframe for Points Accam lishir� Ob'ectives maximum of 5 1 Year 5 Points 2 Years 4 Points 154 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • 3 Years 3 Points 4 Y� 2 Poi� 5 Years + 1 Point In order for the individuals scoring mitigation projects to perform their jobs adequately and in a meaningful time frame, it is critical that those proposing a mitigation project or projects provide as much of the critical informarion required for scoring as possible when they submit their projects. To help with this the atta.ched MiHgation Project Proposal Form has been developed. Apuendix I contains four examples showing how this scoring process is applied in ranking proposed mitigation projects. 4.2 Tie-Break Procedure In the case of tie scores, three questions may be applied. • Ties decided by #1 will be so ranked: remaining ties not broken with question #1 will have question #2 applied. • Ties decided by question #2 will be so ranked; remaining ties not broken will have question #3 applied. • Ties decided by question #3 will be so ranked; remaining ties not broken with question #3 will be ranked in the order of the magnitude of effect on the community - these projects will be ranked in • accordance with the number of people that will be helped by the project, largest first. Question #1: Which project has the highest Community Benefit score? Question #2: Which project has the highest Community Commitment score? Question #3: Which project mitigates for the most freyuently occurring haza.rd? 4.3 LMS Evaluation Panel The Evaluation Panel is responsible for reviewing and scoring proposed projects submitted to the LMS as a basis for prioritization. Panelists a.re solicited by the LMS Coordinator on behalf of the Steering Committee based on LMS member recommendations and are subject to approval by the Steering Committee. Volunteers are also eligible for consideration. Candidates should possess a technical and administrative understanding of the LMS program and its goals and objectives. In addition, candidates axe expected to exercise objectivity and independent judgment in their evaluations and scoring. 4.3.1 Eligibility for Federal Funding In order to be deemed eligible for federal monies projects must: • 155 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Produce a Benefit Cost Analysis ratio greater than 1, and • • Meet additional program requirements, including being judged to be "environmentally sound" and "technically f.easible." Federa.l funding may require additional applications or supporting documents which will be requested based upon each individual federal program. The LMS Coordinator from the County's Division of Emergency Management staff serves on the Evalua.tion Panel. 4.4 Project Prioritization Updating Process STEP 1 Each year in January and July, the existing countywide PPL will be upda.ted. The approved PPL will be in effect until a new PPL has been adopted by the PBC LMS Steering Committee. Palm Beach County DEM stafF will activate the updaxe process by distributing "Project or Initiative" Proposal Forms to local governments, as well as to non-profits and other entities seeking funding for hazard mitigation-type projects, and by notifying all Evaluation Panel members that the PPL ranking process is being initiated. All applicants will have to submit their proposed projects/initiatives by the submission date in order to have their proposed projects considered for inclusion in the updated PPL. In addition, at the time an applicant submits their proposed projects; they must also identify which of their projects that are already on the existing, adopted PPL have been completed or for which funding is• in process. All proposals will be submitted to the DEM office, on the "Project or Initiative" Proposal Form by the submission date identified in the letter of solicita.tion. For a projecdinitiative to be considered, Proposal Forms must be filled out completely. The contact person and fax number listed on the Proposal Form will serve as the official point-of-contact for the applicant. Once a year in the month of April, the evaluation panel will meet to purge the PPL to ensure outdated projects or those projects funded by local municipalities are removed from the list. The new list will be revised each July. ST`EP 2 Once the proposals have been received, DEM sta.ff will review each proposal for completeness. DEM staff will notify, in writing, via email or fax, those applicants who's Proposal Form(s) have not been completed fully. The applicant will be notified that they have one week from the date of receipt of the notification to submit additional information. If supplementa.l information is inadequaxe or no new information is submitted, the proposer will be notified that their project will not be eligible for inclusion on the PPL this cycle. STEP 3 DEM staff will compile copies of the proposals (includes supporting materials), and transmit copies to the Evaluation Panel members no later than four weeks prior to the scheduled Evaluation Panel meeting. 156 • L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • STEP 4 Each Evaluation Panel member will score all proposal forms. Each member will transmit copies of their scored "Project or Initiative" Proposals Forms to DEM staff, no more than 14 days after they received the forms. STEP 5 DEM staff will average the attribute scores for each project received from each Evaluation Panel member. DEM staff will create a summary sheet that documents the results of the scoring. A"new" I1Yaft PPL will be generated based on the scores received from the Evaluation Panel. STEP 6 DEM staff will provide each applicant the "new" Draft PPL prior to the LMS Evaluation Panel meeting, and invite applicants to attend and provide comment. ST'EP 7 The Evaluation Panel will hold a meeting to review the scoring and finalize the Dra.ft PPL. A quorum of the Evaluation Panel must be present during the meeting, Panel members will discuss possible inaccuracies and/or reliability of information used by proposers, such as obsolete cost da.ta, questions regarding project feasibility, and project tie-breakers (see Project Tie-Break Procedure). Before the meeting concludes, a vote will be conducted to approve the "new" Draft PPL a.s submitted by the Evaluation Panel or as modified. DEM staff will transmit a copy of the approved "new" Draft PPL to the Steering Committee for approval. • STEP 8 DEM staff will schedule a meeting of the Steering Committee. One week in advance of the scheduled meeting, the "new" Draft PPL will be distributed to the Steering Committee membership. ST'EP 9 At the scheduled Steering Committee meeting, the Draft PPL will be presented. Project applications received after the submission deadline, but before the next project prioritization updating process, may be accepted by the Steering Committee as UNRANKED projects. Prior to the PPL adoption vote, such projects will be presented for considera.tion. The Steering Committee may vote to include any or all of these projects on the draft PPL as "unranked." Unranked projects will be listed on the PPL under the sub-heading of Unranked Projects which will appear immediately following the list of ranked projects. Unranked projects will automatically be ranked in the next ranking cycle. Following discussion of the Draft PPL, the Steering Committee will adopt it as submitted or with modifications. Specific justification is required for any modification to the ranking of the projects as submitted by the Evalua.tion Panel, excepting inclusion of unranked projects. STEP 10 DEM staff will distribute copies of the new revised PPL to all appropriate entities. 4.5 Conflict Re�olution Proc�ure�s • 157 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • 4.5.1 Background With multiple local governments involved in the development of the PBC LMS, differences of opinions may arise over the course of the program with regard to goals, objectives, policies and projects. In cases where an impasse occurs, a procedure is needed that can be activated to resolve such conflicts. This section describes the procedure that will be used to resolve conflicts arising among the participating governmental entities in the development and implementation of the PBC LMS. The two types of conflicts that may arise are issues and disputes. Issues are technical problems that are susceptible to informal resolution by DEM staff. Disputes are problems that require formal resolution by neutral third parties. In either case, resolution and settlement are best settled through mutually agreed-upon understanding between the disputing parties. When that is not possible, some form of binding resolution is needed. The Subcommittee will be comprised of three people: one member of the Subcommittee will be appointed by the Steering Committee Chair, a second person will come from the intergovernmental issues forum and appointed by their chair, and a third member will be someone drawn from the Steering Committee who has been selected by mutual agreement of the Steering Committee chair and the intergovernmental issues forum chair (This individual or their municipality cannot be involved personally in the conflict). Once the Subcommittee has been selected, DEM, as lead agency will prepare a memorandum delineating the dispute, include supporting documentation when available, and schedule the• Subcommittee meeting. If no resolution could be reached, the issue would then be heard by the entire Steering Committee. The vote of the Steering Committee would be binding. DEM stafF shall provide support. 4.5.2 Procedure The following provides a deta.iled, step-by-step procedure that would be followed should a dispute arise under the LMS. Objective: To institute a fair, effective, and efficient process to resolve conflicts among local governments during the development and implementation of the LMS. During the development or implementation of the LMS, a local government(s) may reach an impasse on a particular issue or position. T'he local government has an opportunity to exercise the following LMS Conflict Resolution Procedure. STEP 1 The local government submits a letter of dispute (LOD) to the DEM Director explaining in as much detail as possible, describing their concern and position along with documentation to support their position. Also, they should outline potential alternative solutions. 158 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • ST'EP 2 DEM Director reviews the LOD making sure that it clearly outlines the position of the local government(s) and provides sufficient information supporting their position so the dispute in question can be readily understood by the members of the Conflict Resolution Subcommittee. If DEM sta.ff determines that additional facts are needed to describe the dispute outlined in the LOD, DEM staff will provide, in writing, a letter identifying the information that will clarify the position of the disputing P�'• STEP 3 Once the LOD is determined to be complete, DEM staff will notify and arrange a telephone conference call or a meeting of the Steering Committee Chair and IGIF representative to select individuals to serve on the Conflict Resolution Subcommittee (an ad hoc committee) within seven (7) calendar days. Before the selection process is completed, a verification of a willingness to serve will have been completed. Only voting members or alternates of the Steering Committee are eligible to serve on the Subcommittee. STEP 4 W ithin a day of the Subcommittee selection, (see STEP 3), DEM staff will send a follow-up letter and/or email to each Subcommittee member confirming their appointment. STEP 5 Included with the follow-up letter will be the LOD and any supportive materials provided by the disputing party. • ST'EP 6 In an effort to expedite the process, DEM staff will make every attempt to schedule the meeting within two (2) calenda.r weeks from the da.te the LOD was determined complete. STEP 7 The conflict resolution meeting is held. DEM will provide staff to document the proceedings of the meeting. Every effort on the part of the two parties will attempt to resolve the impasse at the meeting. ST'EP 8 If resolution is achieved, DEM sta.ff will prepare a memorandum documenring the issue and the mutually agreed upon resolution. The memorandum will contain three signature blocks, one for the Chair of the Subcommittee and two for the representatives of the disputing parties. By their signature, all parties will formally agree to the mediated result. A copy will be provided to each party a.nd another copy filed at the DEM. If resolution is still not achieved, the process will move to STEP 9. STEP 9 If no resolution is achieved at the meeting, the Subcommittee will develop an alternative proposal which will be proffered to the disputing party within seven (7) days following the conclusion of the conflict resolution meeting. STEP 10 • 159 L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 If the impasse is not resolved at the Subcommittee level, DEM will schedule a meeting of the full LM� Steering Committee. In an effort to continue to try to resolve the impasse expeditiously, DEM staff will make every attempt to schedule the meeting within two (2) calendar weeks from the date that a solution cannot be achieved at the Subcommittee level. Each member will be sent a copy of the LOD and any supportive materials provided by the disputing party. The disputing party will be notified of the meeting da.te and time. STEP 11 A meeting of the Steering Committee is held. The representative of each disputing party will present their positions and the Chair of the Subcommittee will present the views of Conflict Resolution Subcommittee. At the end of the meeting, if no mutually accepta.ble compromise is achieved, the Steering Committee will vote to accept one solution from among the offered solutions or those that may develop at this special Steering Committee meeting. This resolution vote of the Steering Committee will be final. The outcome of the meeting will be detailed in a memorandum of understanding that will be prepared by DEM. This memorandum will be signed by the Steering Committee Chair. Thereafter, a disputing party can exercise the legal remedy of going to court. • 160 • L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • This page intentionally left blank • • 161 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Appendiz A: Risk & Vulnerability Analyses Data • The risk and wlnerability data presented in this Appendix are submitted in pa.rtial fulfillment of the following FEMA requirements: RISK ASSESSMENT: §201.6(c)(2): The plan shall include a risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ui): For multi jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment must assess each jurisdiction's risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning axea. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): The risk assessment shall include a] description of the ... location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include inform�tion on previous occunences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(u): The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction's wlnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c}(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. Additional information relating to these requirements is contained in Section 3, in the Palm Beach County Hazard Environment, in Appendix C, and in the new hazard write-up sections of the Plan. • This Appendix presents the results of updated risk, wlnerability and impact analyses for the original hazards identified in the 2004 Plan. The summary tables for these analyses are indicated below: Table A-1: Relative Vulnerability to Hazards, b l��overnment Table A-2: Relative Probabilitv of Hazards, b_ local government Table A-3: Risk Assessment by Hazard by Jurisdiction Table A-4: PBC Im�act Analysis Table A-5: Data sources used for the Palm Beach Countv Hazard Vulnerabilitv and Risk Assessment 162 � Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • This page irrtentionallv left blank � • 163 Local Mitigation Strategy � 2015 Table A-1: Relative Vulnerability to Hazards, by Local Government �, MUNIC1PALl"I'IES �. Hazard Category � �'nmmi�itY Vul0�ra6ilitv J o ` o � � ` U � H: High � � �, � o . � Y � '� , � � � C7 v; � .t oa M: Medium � b c� � °' a a a"i c�d � � °—' �� C � a ' E b c�i c�i c�i � a � � c c =° � c � '� m . � a� = -v ° ca c � o � � `-° � c� c� � ' � c0 ro � c'�y ro � LI Low �� W --� � � v c� ca p'c � v a� a� a� p o• C �� b >� G v, �� cq � y U a 3 r� �� o°- Y m m m�n a a w a. �� V: Very LOw . c � a, c c '� � v v o °_' � �'a b � ° c a o � '� � � o � � o � ° E E 8 � '� > > 5 a �, �¢ m m m m U C� �7 C7 c7 c7 � S 2��-', �.� a�� z O a i o�.. a a iY cC rn rn F�'- 3 �� Flood H M H H H M M H M M M M M M L M H M M H H H H L M H L M H H M M H L M H M H H Hurricane/tropical storm H M H H H H M H M M M H M H M H H H M H H H H M M H H H H M H M H M H H M M H Tornado L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L Severe thunderstorm and H M M M M H M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M H M M M M H M M M M M H M M M M H lightning Drought H L H M M L L M H H L M L H L M M M L L L L H L L M L H M M L M L L H L L H M Temperature extremes M L L L M L L L L L L L L L L L M L L L L L M L L H L L L M L L L L L H L M M Agricultural pests and H V H L L L V L V V L L V V V L M V V V V V M V V L V H L M V V V V H L V M L disease W ildfire/urban interface H L H M L V L L M M L L L V V L M V V V L L M V V L V H V M V V L M H V V M M zone Muckfire H V H V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V L V V V V H V V V V V L H V V L L Soil/beach erosion M L M M M M V M H H V M V H V H H V L V M M L V M M H V H M M L H V V H M V V Seismic hazards (sinkholes/soil failure) L V V V M V V V M M V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V Tsunamis L M V H H H M H M M L M L H H H H H H H H H V H L H H V H M H L L V V H V V L Hazardous materials M L M M M V L H H H M V M V H L H V M M M M M H M M V L V M V M H L M L V M H accident 164 � • • � � ... _ _ � I � � uolaug�aM � > > �' � � � .r > > > � e�sanoa� � > � � � �' � � a > y�ea8 wled 41nos > � � � > S > > .a ne8 ylnos > � � X > � S > > � y�22a 117�E�f �EAO� J J � .� �7 � � � 7 � l{'J62g ElatAf� � � � Y � � � � � � anuuu' w�ed � .� � � � � � � ..a � S210L(S l.[�Eag UI[Ed � J > > > � > > � suapie�J y�eag w�Ed > � � > � � � � > > y�Eag uqed > > > > > > � > � > �� > a � � > � — > > � aap�� ueaop > > > > > > � > > � y�ea� w�ed yuu� > > � � �' � � � > > �led e�uo�uey� > .� ..� � � > .� .� .� > � UEQE�EUE[^j > > � _1 > > � � 7 � � sanarJ aay�leyexo� N > � � � � � .a .a � ...� eueaae� > � � � � > a ..� ..a � � a �� > � � � > � � a ..� x � d a > � � � .� > � .� � salo4S a�I�IJ a�'7 > ..a � � � > � > > > nuo�o� ia�u� �axian� � > � > > > � > > > �a1�an� • � � � z � � � � a ..� y�ea� uun�� _1 ` � J � � � O�i7�OQnH � � 7 � � > > � > > 7 � y�ea8 P�I4alH ^. > > > > > > ...> > > > I[�y�anB}{ T > > .� � > > ..a > > > �p [uea11S �ln�) � > > > > > > � > > > � sa��euaalrJ > > � > > > � > � > c� ��u!� � > ..� .� � S �' � J > > .O aapi� ua�r� > � � � S � > > > � y�eag nel�a4 � . •� > � z s � � � � � � � � a� I Pn�l� > > � � � > � > > > � ;� sazaalg nuug V � > > � � 7 > > > > , o � y�eag uoiunog > � � _ � � � � � � y uo�Ba e�o8 — > � � � � � a � ..� .a � z �PEID alla8 > � � S > � S �> � z s ��«� > > .� .� � > .> > > > f�uno;) Pale�odaoauiu,� .� � � S � � � � � � � � � � o �, � a� � a � -� � c �a � � ti � v c a�i � � ° � `�' � • C �' � U �n O c0 � C N j � -� U • �0 '� C � U � � � � A � O ; � yo'? '❑ 3 C . •� S � Cj � , j -� �o c�c 'O � � = .�. C = o • C o� 8 °� � ,� '� = �eo �$ 3 �' � � � o � °' � �� r y p � ' � E o w c _. � Z� a> z:� a U s � r- � 3 a. z v F- .. x x � a > -� � � <r�w x � � X � _. � o � o� °" a m d oo' c�'o o � =� m o,� � N D � � � S �, � x. � � � ?. ,o � � � � � a � � 8. � c�. •n' • � o o :.h „ m c co • co a, i�' C" e . n � _ �' � �- �, � c � c .��-. �' d�o �,. ° F��' � 3 � r � _ -� c � � � `-; c � o � 4 p � m o p� �o � ,�° � ,� �. �D v�i � � � `' � X � � � � � �. �. �. � � � � � � . ,� � - �i � p„ N •~- Q v � ti � y 'S � � � � � < < � x x x � x x ,� _ ° ! nincorporated Couoty � C < < < < C r r ',Z r ,�' � � _ '' ltlantis �, �' C- C < t~ x x x ,� x x r' p' � � 13elle Glade � p, 3 < < ,� < r r r r x r x T n�' f�oca Raton �o � � < < � r � � r � x r x z �;�>vnton Beach � p < < < � < < < < r x r"' x � I;rinv Breezes � � � < < < < < C < r r � r � � �' � � � loud Lake n r < < � r r � r ,� � r x = ()tlrav Beach � �� t < < < < < < t" C� ,z [-' 3 Z � r* t � len Ridee � p' < < C < < < < r r� I� r � � � t �olf � � < < < < < r r r r x � 3 � � ^ Greenacres a� < < < ,� < < < < � x r z s � Gulf Stream � < C C < C r r r r" x �" � � Haverhill < < < � < < < < r T r 2, T, Hiahland Beach • � < < C 3 < < < < r x r x � = I� nolu�co � < < < S < < < < c^ SI r x iuno Beach . < C �T < � � � � � � � — I uoiter < < < x < < < < r' x r' � - I uniter Inlet Colom < C < < C c' r r' r' � r" � � � al:e Clarke Shores r' < C < < < < < �-' x r' � -�- Lal:e Park � < < � < r < < r x' � x x �,� Worth < < < < < r' �"' r" �'" x r" � � Lantana � << < r x � �� x r x� Loxahatchee Groves N < < C 2 < C < < t-' x,' r x x � Manalanan v, r- C C < C r r r r x �" � � Maneonia Park � C < ,� C �- C r' r x � x x North Palm Beach < < < I� C < C < c" x r x x ()�ean Ridee ,� < C r C x x � x x � � � Pahokee < < c x x c r r� x � x x Nalm Beach � C C C C r r r � x ,� � x Palm Beach Gardens C C < x < < < < C x C" x x Palm Beach Shores r < < C C C r r r I'� r ,� ,� Palm Snrines � r < 'x r r r r r x r x x Riviera Beach r < C < r � < � � � � � c^ Roval Palm Beach � < < �' x x x � x x � � � South Bav • � << x< < r r r x � x x South Palm Beach < < < � < < < C" r"' � r" � � I eauesta � < < < e" ,3 3 � � x � � � w'ellineton = r < r r- � r �� x x x .�. y�8ag uqEd isaM > � = Z '" � � � � � uo3�ui��aM � � � � � > � > > > • e�sanba� > > � � � � � > > > y�ea8 uiled 41nos > � � _ > T � > > � ne8 ylnos > � � � � � z � � � y�ea8 uiled fano� > � ... � � � � > > > yJL'28 E12In[� � ..� ._7 � � � .� 1 ..� � s�uiidS wled > � > > > � � > > > salo4S 4�afl �lEd > .� > > > � .� > > ,� suaplerJ yoeag ui�Ed > � � � � � � .a > > y�eag w�Bd � 7 7 7 � � J .� �1 � aaxo4ed > .� � � � � x � � > a�p�� uEa�p > � > > > � � > > .a y�ea8 w��d y�o� > � � � � � � .a > ..a �.ied eiuo�uey� > ..� � � � �' � .> > > � uede �ue o � W > .� > > > � � > J J N sanar� aay�leysxo� > � � � � � � > > .a euelue� > � > .� > � � > > > q�°M a'�e� > � � _ .� � � ..a a .a ��d a�'l > � a � � � � � > > salo4S a�I�IJ a�"1 > � > > > �' ,..� > > > nuo�o� �a�ui �a�idn� > � , > > � � > > � �al�dn� > � � ..� � � � .a � `. � y�eag oun� > .� � > > � � > > ... � o�rn�od,C�{ > � > > > g � > > .� �p q�ea8 P�l4�EH > � > > > � � > > .� ~ Iliy�aneH > .r > _ > � � > > > � � wea > .� > > > � � > > � � � sa��euaa�!� > ..� ,� � > � � a > > � _{l�� > ._. > > > � � > > > c � a�pi� aa�rJ > � � � .a � � > > > .� c� � y�eae nel�aa � � x z �� .� � a��T P��I� > � ._. � > � � > > > � � '� sazaalB.CuuB > � > > > � � > > � U F- � � y�eag uolu.io8 > a � � � � � ..� � ..� a uo1e� e�og � > a � � � � � .a .a a Z aPEIJ alla8 > .� ,� � > > � a > .� � � s ��it'' > > � � � � � > > > ��uno:) Pa�eaodao�mu > � � _ � � � � � � � � °`' ;� ` ❑ � � � 5 � � N o� a� y ^� a. 'ca � N C � Y o N � � �� C C'�J � � O U ' C � � J� � �C C C N j � 'C U � O � _ � � � � O � O � � C •�,. I� �L �'�j G' � � 'L7 ,� « � � +�- y �j � � , ° b b = � � � � � � � `n '0 5b � Oe � � � '� c� � O cC � ` � 'y p L •> 7�j � N � � ,� > � �� c :� � °' �-- � 3 0. ,T U E-- � = x�.3> q�2ag uTTed �-sa;�1 uo�uii�a,� elsanba L S 2' � Z S 2 � � � � S y�$a8 �d u1noS 2 S S S z � S � .� � .� S • neg y�noS � � � � � � � � � � � S q�Eafl mlEd Ieno� z S 2 S S � .� � � z q�Eag elain�� T S S = S � S � .� ,� S �auuu5 w�ed S T S T S � '" � � J � T � saioqs y�Eag wied T S S S S S S � � J � Z o suap.cerJ qo�ag m�� z S S 2 z S S .a � � � 2' N q�Eag w�r i T S� S x S x 'z � .� � � x aaxoqi;,; I �2 x z' x �x t� x � .� .� a z a�p� ueao� � x z x x x '" 21 �' J �.1 � S qo�aH �d �I��"� � 2 x x x� � z �' � � � x �.t�d ��uo�ur,�� x x 'x � .a � .� S� u�dsleur.�� S x S x T � x � .a � ..� x, sanoi� aaqoiei{eto� � Z � � � s `^ � � .� .� .� � EUEjUY," j S Z � � S S SI � .� J J S �� a � T ' � S S 2 2 S T S � .� .� � �2 x�d a �� ' S 2 S s Z S S � J � � 2 saao4S a�l�l� a`IF i � S S S S S � ,� S Auojo�;alui ►azian� y T 2 — S — 'T' � � � _ �alian; ,- -+- C 1 1 Z G ,J = q�Eag oun S z `" _ � _ � � � � � � � � oxn�oa.�� ; z = x T S S � � � � � _ y�BaB P�I4�EH = z z = z s = � .� � � 2 � �jtylaneH 2 S S � z z S � � � J S � S31 � � uzeau n� � z 2 � S Z T � .� .� � � � � sa.[�EUaaar� S 2 S S S 2 � � .� .� .a Z � 3 � ° � S z x x:z x x �.a .a .� _ .� � a�p�g ua�r� z x � z s � z � a � � S '� � � � q�aag Ae.[�aU S � x S S x x � a .� � x U as ^� a�"f pnol� �' Z � z ' � x x � � .a .� x U cn � i-. � S2Z221g �CUi.ia � '� � �S 2 x 'x x Z x � 1 � J � .� � I��E2g UO�UAOg _ '^ S Z x S 2 2 � .: � .� Z � � uo�e� e�og - a — z x z z x z x � �.� .� x � z aPE[J atla8 x x �2 � x S � a a � � _ � s'zu��zb' x s z = z z — � � � � _ � nauno� pa�eaod�o�u�u � � = z = _ _ � � � � _ y s = .� X — � � � � � _ � Z = — E � � � � _ an y `o � � � C � � L V L OL � o � � y � • d� v 0 •- • � £, O C � yy 3" >. � T � � >. � ° o a �o � � 3 � c � � � � � g c M '� � � o � Gi, ° L' � � v' c�°. a�i � 0 . N 'n y � °- � � y Q N ��.a > i.� > ::.� cC 'C w` > r� cG � r�. > w �z 3 ri � ".te' �Z' � � � ' ° o s � `.� �' E- F c�1 F^ q�ea8 �IEd 1saM x � � uo�uil Ia:M x x � B�sanba_I 2 � � S � � � � � � Z S .� � • qoeag w�Ed ytno� x � �' z � � � � � � = � .� � � neg y1noS x x � � � � � .� � a .a � �' � � qo�a8 uilEd �eno21 x x �' z � � � � � � .� z ;2 .� � y�Bag eiaini� S S T .� S x x � .� .� � � x �' � �auiau� w�e�� x � � S x 2 � � � � .a .� � .� � � salo4S �{oea8 uTlr,d x � � � � � � � � � � � .� .a � � suap.�erJ yoEag wis�� 'x � � � � � � � � � � a .� � .a qoEag ui�e�� x � � x � � .� �' � � .a Z x � � aa�oy�� x x �' S � � .� � � � .a � � � � a�p�� uea��> '�' � � S � � � � � � S � � � q�sag uilsd ql�°r1 'x �� z S z � T S, S .� � a � � x.�d etuo�u�►n� � � � s � � a � � � ^.a z z � � UL'CIE�EUE� x .� � _ � � � � � � � S '2� � � sanol� aay�leyexo � x � � z � � � � � � � � � � � euel�m'1 � � � 2 � � � � � � a s S � � �� a � � x � � S � � � � � � � � � � � x � d a � ' � x � � _ � � � � � �' � � � � � sa�o�IS a�l�[J a�'1 z � � _ � � � � � � a = s � � nuo�o� �a�ui la��an� � �, � x � � � � � � S = � � • la��dn� x � � 2' � � � � � � � � � � y�eag oan� x � � x � � � � � � s = � � � oxn�od �I 1 '� � � � � � � � � S S � " yaEaB P�14�!H x � � s � � � � � = s � � � ��qlaneFi x � � S � � � � � .� � � � � � u1ea11S31�`) x � � S � � ,� � � � � S 2� � � sai�euaal�� ' � � � � � � � � � � � or S � � .� � � � � �2 � J � •� 3� .� x � � � a�pi� ua�� z � �' s � � � � � � � .� .� � � ._ � 4�Bag .1E��a4 x � �' S � � � � � � J J .� � � `� a�'1 Pn�IJ x � � z � � � � � � � �' � � � U � w sazaal8 �u��fl x � � z � � � � � � � z' � .� � j yoeag uotuno� 'x � � � � � .� � �' � a �' � .� � a uo;�� eooa 'x � � z � � .� � � � ..� � x .� � z aPe[J all�fl x x � z � � .a � � � a '� � .� � � s[t��1V x � � x � � .a � � � .� x x .� � yuno:) Paleaodao�mu l S�� z Z x ..� x x � a a � � � � � � � � � � a � � � � 2 � � a � � � .� � �' � � � � � � E ' �• � � � � � � N n � w � ~ 4 ai Q � n. N t C � � L U L � V L^ � ; J �V � � X v � 7 � � i � = R � L � L i y � y � � � � N � y 00 � a > ri] cG i a� c � .�e i o- � ° � a- � ° �e � as �" ° A L — x °' �, y ` � °' �, � L � ° �, � i N � r7 s. > u: �1 c ' [,. > u c� c:c. > il cC .� ts, � m x�:a ` F F � q�ea8 �d �a:M � � .� ,.a .� .a � .� � � a .a ..� ., ..a a uol�ug�aM � a � � � .a � � a � � _.a � � .� � e�sanba j � .a .a .a a ..� � .� .� ,� ..� � x z � ..� • q�ea8 wlEd 41noS x ..a .a .a .a .� ..a J .a .a .a .a ..a ..,7 .a .a Ae8 y�noS � � x � � .a �a .� � .a � � .a .a .� .a yoea9 �f�d [e�co�{ � a..a ��' a�..� a� a a a a a yo�a� Elaini?I �' ..a a .a a .a ..� ..a .a a ..a �' x x � ..� ��euilu5 w�ed � .� .� .� .� .a .a �..1 .a �. a .a .a � � ..a .a .a o salo4S 4�eag iu�e�{ �.� a � ...7 .a � a � a .a � x x � ..a suap.ter� y�eag w�e� � .� � � � .a � a .� � a .� .� a a .a y�sag wfed � .� � a � ..� � � .a ..� «..� � z z � ..7 ��`� � x x .� .a .a .a � � a � � � � .� � a�pi� uEa�U � � � .� .� � ..� � � ..a � � x x � .� y��a8 wied 9u��.1 � .a .a .a .a .� � .a � a � � � � � .� �.ied e�uo�uEW �' ..a ..� .� .a .a ..� � � a ,..a ..� ..a a � a uedE�eu� W � a a .a � a ..� .a .a .a .a � z' 'x �' .a sanolrJ aayol2qexo I � � � � � a � .� .� .� a .� � .� a � eue�ur� I �' a .a � .a .a .a ,� � .a � � ..a � .a .a yu a � � �' .a .� .� .a .� .� � � .a .� �' x' x �' � �� a � .� � � � .a .a .a � � � � x 'x � .a saaouS a�l�l� a�R'"I � �a � � � ..� .� .a .a � a � � � .� .� tiao�o� �a�a� �al[dn� � � ..a � .� � .� �] J .� � .a �.7 � �.1 � 12�1dn � • � ., ..] � � � � .� � .a � � � x � 1 y�eag oun �� ..� a .a .� � .a � � x � .� -- oxn�oci,�► I � .� � .� a � � � ..a .a ..a .� .� .� .� .a � yor,a£� P�lu�!H � ..� � a .a .� .� � .a .a � x �' �' .� y ��iyiane� � � � a .a .a ..a .a .a .a ..� ..a � a � .a .a ...� � �auS.�ln`> � � .� � � .a a .� .a � .� .a .a � .a .a � sal��uaalr� o �' .a a a .a a .� .a .� � .a � .a .a .a a s 31 an � ..� � � .� � ..� � � .a � .a a .a .� a '_ a�pi� ua�� .� .a � .a � �] .� J � x � � ..a I�JE28 AE.I�a(] •.' � � � �.7 .� .a .� .a � .� 1 J � .� .a �7 .� .� `� a�'l PnolJ � � � a a � a .� � � ..� � .� � .� ..a a � � sazaalg �Cuu�� `� � � � � � .a .a J � ..� ., ..� � .a _ y�Eag uo�uno� � .� � .� .� � .a .a .a � � z � � � a aole� E�o� ,� v � � � .� .a .a .� .� � .a a � x �' �' .a z aPEI�J allafl x' x x .a ..� a a ..� � a .a .a .� .a .a � � s i��d �' .a � .a .� .� a a .a '..� ,..a ..� ..a .a .a �aunoJ Pa;Baodao�u�uil x x � a� � � .a � a �..a .a .a .� ..� � � .a w L � C C p i, " C " }" , O 1+' 'C L c�V °�-` � C c�d � C c�d � � V Q � � V 0 � � � � a r� � N � L � c � . '� � y • � � 7 N L � N CJ V1 5 a x i a' = c, x c� G ° z,, ,� � � � 0 5 � � �. � X v1 L L � X rn (7. V 7 X v� � � G, y G� � U a ° > w�,w' w > w � � w > w i� °� c�. > rit cL � r: � eo � a ' _ - = N x � a 3 � � � x ��:� • • • Local M�tigation Strategy 2015 ,, MUMCIPALI'flk!:S c Hazard Cstegoty o' � �, � � � Vulnernhilitv RatinQ `� o � � � .n � � .� s y � � i Y cd � O R1 �c'� � H: High � � v � � c� � � � m c� v �� m m °' M: Medium a, � o m � .� ° °c � � — � ° � c x X � L � � � �° � �.�o � '� y E ' � o E � �, ro c , m "° � �. -o � � .� o � a � m c� ro ro a j.2 L.ON' � a� ca c � �D � � c.. y c.�.� ai s � � � � v a� a� .�d � �a o�c t � � m � C� v� � � � L a G a •� � — a - . p � � > G � �¢ �a Y ^ � � C a� � � � � � • > � � a! O C a) y O � 7 cC � �� ;y � C c) > � � G! N � ¢ m cC m m C� L� C7 :7 C: :: � S 2 � ' � � � � _ � � � Z O o`�.. a`�, i a a 1 cC v v I a 3 3 VulnerabiliTy L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L Exposure L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L Risk L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L I: I. Ilazardous Materials Accident Frequency M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Vulnerability M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Exposure L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L Risk M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Radiological Accidents Frequency L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L Vulnerability L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L Gxposure M L L L L L L L L L L L M L L M M M M L M L L L L M L L M M M L M L L L L L M Risk L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L Communications Failure Frequency L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L Vulnerability M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M L M M M M M M M Exposure M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M L M M M M M M M Risk M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M L M M M M M M M 171 Local Mitigation Strategy � 2015 �, MUNICIPALITIES . H�zard Category � V�(y ina � o 0 o c' 'd � u u .L H:I{�gh i � a�i t m C� � C� x a`�i `� . a` � � c�'d W V � v-� W �7 M: Medfum � b o � a °' � � � � � ..c � ,x .� a 0. a s ..c � � c"a m � � °_' '� °' .b °' � _, . ° ro ,� � '�e o � � ro � :b � c�a � 'C c0 � ro � o .� L: Low c � � c .-� � � b � � �o ¢'❑ cG a� a� � a� G � � �- C7 cC o � .� � cG � rn � � � °] Y � U o. 3 � � o °- � m m co v � a m a. � � 0 . ° � a� o o '� ° � °��' o °_' � �'a °L >° c a a '� '� '� � o � � o � � .� � � � �> o 0 o a�i a� v —¢ w r�7 m m U � C7 C7 c7 C7 Z � S � ti �..] .� .� ,� ,� � � z O a a a a a cG x cn cn �-- 3 3 Hazardous Material Release Frequency L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L Vulnerability M M M M M L M M M M M L M L M L M M M M M M L L M M L M L M M M M M M L L M M Exposure M M M M M L M M M M M L M L M L M M M M M M L L M M L M L M M M M M M L L M M Risk M M M M M L M M M M M L M L M L M M M M M M L L M M L M L M M M M M M L L M M Transportation Accident Frequency L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L M L L L L L L L L L L L L L L Vulnerability M L M M M L L M M L L L M L M L M L L M M M M L M L L M L M L L M L M L M L M Exposure M L M M M L L M M L L L M L M L M L L M M M L L M L L M L M L L M L M L M L M Risk M L M M M L L M M L L L M L M L M L L M M M M L M L L M L M L L M L M L M L M Welifield Contamination Frequency L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L M L L L L L L L L L L L L L L Vulnerability M L L M M L L M L L L M L L L L M L L M L L M L M L L L L M L L L L L L L M M Exposure M L L M M L L M L L L M L L L L M L L M L L M L M L L L L M L L L L L L L M M Risk M L L M M L L M L L L M L L L L M L L M L L M L M L L L L M L L L L L L L M M Power Failure (Outages) Frequency L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L M L L L L L L M L L L L L L L Vulnerability M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Exposure M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Risk M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M ��2 • • • y�Eag u�sd ysaM � � .a _ ,...� ..a .a ...a � � � � � � � ..� uo�ui��aM � � � � ..a .a .� .� � .� � � � .a .a a • elsanba� J _ i _7 � ..� � ..� .� J � ...� ..� � J �7 ..a C��E2g U1�Ed [�;ilOs � J ...a r . ..] .� ..a .� ..� � .� n-a .� J .� nE8 9�noS � S x s .� a .a .a .a � � � .a � � ..a 4 � �� a � �' � .a .a � .-� a a .� � .� � � .a q�Eag elainr� .� � .� .� ...� a a ..a .� �' �' � ..� � � .� � �nuuu5 w�ed J � ..a ..] .a .a ..l 1 .a .a .� .a .a .� ..] � N S2101{S f��E2g CU�Ed 1 .� 1 �-1 � 1 � � 1 .a ..� 1 .a � � �� suap.rerJ y�Eag wled � .� ..� � a .a a .a � � � � .� �a � � yosag uijEd a a .a ... .a .� ..a .a .� � � �' .a a � ,..� aaxoqed .a x x = .a � .a .a a � � � ..a � � .a a�p� ueaop .� .a .� ..a .a a � .a � .� i � � ..� .� a qozag wlEd 9��f�i a � a .� � .a .a .a � .� .� � � .� .a a �led e�uo�ueW � � .� .� .a � .� � .a .� ..� � .� a .� .a u�aE�BUe W .� � .a .� ,� �7 �7 .a .� .a � n.] � .a �] .a sanoarJ aaq�zaqexo� .� .� a .� � � .� � .a � .� .� .� J J ev�lue'► � � .� �. .� .� .a .a � � ..a .� .� .� ..� .a uu�M a�"1 � � ..� � a � ..� .� � � ..� .� a � � .a �� a a � � _ a � .a a � ..� .a � � ..� ,� ,� sa.couS a�I�IJ a�'I � � .� .� � a .a � � � a � � a .� ,..� n�o�o� la�ui lal�an� � � � � .a ..� .a ,� �..7 J .� J .� � � � • .taltQn f � � 1 `. 1 .� .a � ._7 .� � .� � _7 .� (-• � y�ea8 oun� � � .� �. � .� � � .� � .� � � .a J oxnlar^H � � a a � � � � � a � � � y�eag P�19�!H � � � ..] .� � r] ..1 .� ..a � .a � ..� .� � .� � ��I1�12AE�-( Rj � a ... � � ..a .� .a � ..a .a J �7 �l � � wea.qS 3l�`J (/� .� J � ._7 .a ._7 ..� ..a 1 _7 ..r � .� .� ..� = S21�E[1221� 0 J .� � .� .� .� � ..a � ...7 J .� .� .� ..� O � 3l J � � � � � .a � .a .a .a � � .� ..� .a .� '� a�prg ual� .a a a � .a .a .a .a � .� � .� � .� ..� � � y�sag ne1�aQ � .� .a a .� a .a .� .a � .� .� .� � � � a � a�'1 P�ol� � a a .� a ..a a ..� a .a .a .� � � � a .� � � W sazaalg tiui.�g � .� J _1 �.7 ...7 1 � .a �l ..7 1 � �l �l ..i� � [��E2g UOlUAOg .a .� .� .� � .� .a � .a .a .a .� .� a � � .� 0., uol�� eoog J a a a � .a a � .a .a � � � � a `.a .� z aPEI�J a[la8 .a �x' x �' .a .� � .� .-7 � � � � � � .a � s[l��;d � s .a a a � ;z .a .a .a � � .� � ..a � .� ..a � �uno� pazEaodlo�m�n �`o L ..7 � � �. .� � .a .a � .a � .a � � � J � �. .� ''� p� � L � .. � '� �' - u �' v� .�"'_' •L �' �, > � � a� 'd c�'i � a� 'fl o � a� V o � a� o ° o y `� � � v `�° � � a�i `�° � ° � ° � • � y � v � a� �, o v �, � � � y � j 7 4 � � v� � � f1 y �y � � Cy y , L � � a, y 7� �c. 7 Li] C� 0 Ls. � W � •� fi � Li.7 CL b0 LL. 7 i.i] Cl, � L �� '� � �c 3 � U E � � � �� 5 � �� Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Table A-4: Impact Analysis • An impact analyses was conducted to assess the potential for detrimental impacts from all identified natural, technological and human caused hazards. Results of these analyses are summarized below. Impacts were categorized into the following groupings: health and safety of the resident population in the affected area; health and safety of incident responders; impacts on the continuity of government and non-government operations; impacts to property, facilities and infrastructure; impacts to the critical community services; impacts to the environment; economic and financial impacts; impacts on regulatory and contractual obligations; and impacts negatively affecting the County's reputation, image, and/or ability to attract public and commercial interests. An impact rating of "Low" for any hazard type means the hazard is not likely to have any measurable or lasting detrimental impact of a particular type and consequences will likely be rectified promptly with locally available resources. An impact rating of "Medium" means there will likely be a measurable detrimental impact which may require some time to rectify and may require outside resources and/or assistance. An impact rating of "High" means the impact will likely be severe and of longer duration and require substantial time, resources, and/or outside assistance to rectify. Multiple ratings indicate detrimental impacts might easily vary within the range indicated. • 174 • � 7 7 L 7 L 7 7 O O O O O� �_ � 2 O O O O O� O O O� O J J J J J� �� J J J J J� J J J� J 7 �• O O O O � � � O O O O O O O O O J J J J � = 2 J J J J J J J J J � � � � � � � � � � � 7 7 7 7 7 � 7 7 7 7 � ` �i 8i �i a�i a� rn o� rn � 3 � a, � �i rn a�i m 3 a�i rn 3 Q � � � � � 2 2 = � J � 2 � � S � 2 J � S J N � > > j � � � > > > � °� � °� °� °1 °� o � o o � o °� o � o � o � •- 0 � � 2 � _ = 2 J� J J� J� J� J�2 J � 2 J � � � � � 7 7 7 7 7 � y y y� v, o, rn 3 3 3 3 �3 3 3 3 3 � � � � � �_ _ = J J J J J J J J J L L T .�7 7 7 7 3 = � _ � = p � L L L �� 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 `� � °� °� •°-' °' °' o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l� � � � � � � 2 2 = J J� _l J J J J J J ,�. L a.+ � � � .� � 7 7 7 � � � 7 L � � � y�� o, o, m�� 3 3 3 3 �•°-' 3 3� 3 � � � � � S S 2 J� J J J J � J J� J � U � � � 7 7 • O O O � �� O O O O O O O O O I J J J � � 2 2 2 J J J J J J J J J 7 7 7 7 3 7 3 a�i a�i a�i a�i a�i o, o, v, � 3 3 3 3 � o, 3 3 3 �2 � ^ 2 � � 2 2 2 � J J J J � 2 J J J 1 7 7 7 7 7 � 7 7 � y� y�o, rn o, 3� 3 3 3� 3 3� 3 3 3 � � � � � S S = J� J J J� J J� J J J N M V � N pI N � o U U U U U �� d y n o N • � a� a� a� a� a� o F rn � �� j N � � 2 �� t �O a� u. a� o � L. 7 O �. � � � � � C � t 7 � V y �� V m�Vl y Cw 10 � i` ___ _ _ � inin o � Qa 3 �� c rn� ° z Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Hazardous Medi�un/ Medium/ I.uwi Luw Low Luw Medium/ Low/ Luw Low Materials Accident High High Medium High Medium Radiological Low/ Low/ Low/ Low/ Low/ Low Low Low I.ow Low Accidents Mediwn Medium Medium Financial Medium Communication Medium Medium Medium/ Low Low Me �� Low M �� Low Low Failure High High High Hazardous Medium/ Mediwn/ Low/ Medium/ Low/ Low Low Low Low/High Medium Material Release High High Mediwn }{igh Medium Transportation Low/ Low/ Low/High l.ow/High Low/High Low/High Low Low Low/High Low Accfdents Medium Medium Wellfield Low/ Low/ Low/ Medium/ Low/ Low Low Low Low Low Contamination Medium Medium Medium High Medium Power Failure Medium/ Medium/ Medium/ Low/ 1 � Medium/ LoN Medium/ �� Low/ (Outage) High High High Medium High High Medium Civil Disturbance Low/High Low/High L,ow/High Low/High Low Low/High Low Low/High Low Low/High Terrorisn & Medium/ H �� Medium/ I,pw/High Low Medium/ Low/High Low/High �w/ Medium/ Sabotage High High High Medium High Immigration Crisis �' I ' OW � Low Low Low Low Low LOW Low LON '� Mediwn Medium Medium Medium 176 • • • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • This page intentionally left blank • • 177 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Table A-5: Data sources used for the Palm Beach County Hazard Vulnerability and Risk • Assessment � 1 i . 5 . � :,� ;,. . _ o Historical and current data on all types of Natural Hazards Research Center natural hazards Atlantic Hurricane Tracking Database Historical data on hurricane tracks and intensities NOAA Tropical Cyclone Database Historical hurricane data Colorado State University (Dr. Gray online site) Hurricane probability NASA Natural Disaster Reference Database Historical data on all types of natural hazards National Weather Service Weather statistics National Climate Data Center - On-Line Data Weather statistics Base Atlantic Ocean and Meteorological Laboratory, Hurricane forecast models Hurricane Research Division Federal Emergency Management Agency Emergency management procedures Tropical Storm Watch Database Tropical storm data worldwide • Flood [nsurance Rate Maps and Community Status Book Areas vulnerable to potential rising water Storm Surge Atlas for Palm Beach County Areas vulnerable to storm surge flooding based (SLOSH model) on the SLOSH model U. S. Geological Survey Base maps and historical flood plane and elevation data Florida State University (Meteorology Data and expertise concerning all Florida Department) natural hazards Florida Atlantic University Data and expertise concerning all Florida natural hazards National Severe Storms Laboratory Storm effects data [ndependent Insurance Agents of America Probability data and estimated exposure (Natural Disaster Risk Database) Building code recommendations to reduce exposure The Arbiter of Storms (TAOS) @ maps and Florida Division of Emergency Management computer model projections as well as technical support and data 178 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Environmental risk, exposure to hurricanes, Florida Department of Environmental Protection environmental effects and hazards Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Hurricane effects of fish and wildlife Florida Department of Corrections Prison statistics and emergency management plans Florida Department of Education School and Board of Education emergency guidelines Climatic and weather data, hydrologic data, South Florida Water Management District water release schedules, and emergency management plans Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Building codes and impacts of proposed statewide unified building code Palm Beach County Airports Department Weather data and hurricane protection procedures Palm Beach County Comprehensive Growth Land management, zoning, and hurricane Management Plan mitigation related ordinances Palm Beach County Planning, Zoning, and Building Department Building codes and zoning ordinances • Palm Beach County Property Appraiser Tax assessor records for use in determining dollar value of exposed property Palm Beach County Automated Inf'ormation Map products and GIS data Management Palm Beach County Engineering and Public Engineering, drainage, road elevations, and Works Department storm water data Palm Beach County Environmental Resources Environmental and beach erosion data Management Department Palm Beach County Fire and Rescue Critical facilities locations and emergency management plans Palm Beach County Health Department Critical facilities and health risk data Palm Beach County School Board Schools, shelter, and critical facilities data and emergency management plans Palm Beach County Law Library Building codes and ordinances Palm Beach County Parks & Recreation Environmental and recreational data and Department potential impacts data Palm Beach County Public Safety Department Emergency management plans, historical data, Division of Emergency Management critical facilities, special needs, and general guidance Palm Beach County Division of Criminal Justice County prison population and emergency • 179 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • management plans Division of Animal Regulation Animal protection, regulation, and control plans following natural disasters (hurricanes) Palm Beach County Sheriff Department Emergency management plans and law enforce- ment procedures following a natural disaster Palm Beach County Tourist Development Potential economic loss and specific areas of Council economic vulnerability Palm Beach County Water Utilities Critical facilities locations and emergency management procedures Palm Beach County Red Cross Historical data, shelter data, and emergency management plans Florida Power and Light and Other power grid vulnerabilities, structure, and Municipal/Private Power Companies (Lake emergency management plans Worth Utilities, etc.) Home Depot/Lowes Emergency management supply plans for preparation and recovery Publix/Winn Dixie Emergency food supply plans Southern Bell Emergency communication maintenance plans AT&T Wireless Services Emergency communication maintenance plans • U. S. Cellular Wireless Communications Emergency communication maintenance plans The Palm Beach Post Historical hurricane data Critical facilities location and emergency Local Radio and Television Stations management plans (operating plans) during natural disaster � .�� • � Natural Hazards Research Center Historical and current data on all types of natural hazard The Tornado Project On-Line Historical data Optical Transient Detector Data Base Lightning associated with thunder storms (lightning statistics) NASA Natural Disaster Reference Database Historical data all types of natural hazards National Weather Service Weather statistics National Climate Data Center - On-Line Data Weather statistics Base NOAA Wind Related Fatalities Data Base Wind related fatalities 180 , Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • NOAA Tropical Prediction Center Storm predictions Florida State University Data and expertise concerning all Florida natural hazards Florida Atlantic University Data and expertise concerning all Florida natural hazards National Severe Storms Laboratory Storm and tornado statistics and storm effects Independent Insurance Agents of America Financial data concerning losses resulting from (Natural Disaster Risk Database) thunder storms and tornadoes Florida Division of Emergency Management Incident reports and historical data South Florida Water Management District Climatic data Palm Beach County Airports Department Weather data and protection plans and procedures during thunderstorms and tornadoes Palm Beach County Fire and Rescue Thunderstorm and tornado fire and fatality data Palm Beach County Public Safety Department Thunderstorm and tornado historical data Division of Emergency Management Palm Beach County Division of Emergency Historical data on thunderstorm and tornado Management related medical emergencies Palm Beach County Red Cross Historical data on impacts • Florida Power and Light and Other Municipal/Private Power Companies (Lake Historical data on impacts to the power grid Worth Utilities, etc.) Southern Bell Historical data on communication impacts AT&T Wireless Services Historical data on communications disruptions U. S. Cellular Wireless Communications Historical data on communications disruptions The Palm Beach Post Historical data general Local Radio and Television Stations Historical data on losses and possible future losses NASA Natural Disaster Reference Database Lightning statistics National Weather Service Lighming strike data National Climate Data Center - On-Line Data Base Lightning strike data NOAA Lightning Related Fatalities Data Base Lightning fatalities National Lightning Safety Institute (NLSI) Lightning research and protection measures Data and expertise concerning all natural Florida State University hazards Florida Atlantic University Data and expertise concerning all natural • hazards 181 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 University of Florida Lightning Research Laboratory Current research on lightning causes and effects National Severe Storms Laboratory Lightning statistics Independent Insurance Agents of America Financial losses attributable to lightning and (Natural Disaster Risk Database) related electromagnetic discharges Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency Management Data on major fires caused by lighming Florida Fire Chie�s Association Data on fires caused by lighming South Florida Water Management District Data on lightning related losses Palm Beach County Airports Department Lightning data and protective measures Palm Beach County Fire and Rescue Lightning related fires and injuries Palm Beach County Parks & Recreation Data on lightning related losses Department Palm Beach County Public Safety Department Lightning protection procedures Division of Emergency Management Palm Beach County Sheriff Department Data on communication disruption Florida Power and Light Financial losses and power grid disruptions due to lightning Southern Bell Financial losses and communications • disruptions due to lightning AT&T Wireless Services Financial losses and communications disruptions due to lightning U. S. Cellular Wireless Communications Financial losses and communications disruptions due to lightning The Palm Beach Post Historical data on significant lightning related �ws:� ��:.. Y ��>u�l��iai�i �a�a, �i�o�iir�� iaiisti��. an�l Association of State Floodplain Managers mitigation approaches Natural Hazards Research Center Technical data on all natural hazards NOAA Flood Related Fatalities Data Base Flood related fatalities NOAA Hydrologic Information Center Hydrologic data NOAA Tropical Cyclone Database Rainfall associated with storm type events NASA Natural Disaster Reference Database Specific flooding and mitigation data nationwide NASA Flood Hazard Research Center Flood research and mitigation approaches National Weather Service Climatic data 182 • Local Mitigation Strategy � 2015 • 1. National Climate Data Center - On-Line Data Weather/rain fall historical data Base National Flood Proofing Committee Data Base Mitigation procedures National Association of Flood and Storm Water Storm water management data and procedures Management Agencies Atlantic Ocean and Meteorological Laboratory, Hurricane Research Division Historical meteorological data Federal Emergency Management Authority Historical flooding data Tropical Storm Watch Database Rainfall events and flooding data Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Community Identification of properties within the flood Status Book plane U. S. Geological Survey Topographic maps U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Historical flooding data and flood prevention projects Dartmouth Flood Observatory Flooding research Earth Satellite Corporation (EarthSat) Floodwatch Data Base Historical flooding data Florida State University Data and expertise concerning all Florida • natural hazards Florida Atlantic University Data and expertise concerning all Florida natural hazards National Severe Storms Laboratory Rainfall data and related flooding events [ndependent Insurance Agents of America Property and financial losses as a result of (Natural Disaster Risk Database) flooding Florida Department of Community Affairs, Historical data on flooding events in Palm Division of Emergency Management Beach County Florida Association of Floodplain Managers Flooding data specific to Florida Environmental parameters and risk associated Florida Department of Environmental Protection � flooding Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Wildlife resources impacted by flooding South Florida Water Management District Water management, hydrology, and flood prevention procedures Palm Beach County Planning, Zoning, and Zoning ordinances and building codes that Building Department affect flood protection Palm Beach County Property Appraiser Property value within flood zones Palm Beach County Automated [nformation Historical flooding and critical facilities in � Management flood zones 183 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Palm Beach County Engineering and Public Highway and storm water management Works Department procedures Palm Beach County Environmental Resources Water resources and flooding data Management Department Palm Beach County Fire and Rescue Flooding associated fires and injuries Palm Beach County Health Department Disease risk and contamination potential associated with flooding Palm Beach County Parks & Recreation Recreational resources at risk due to flooding Department Palm Beach County Public Safety Department Historical flooding data and emergency Division of Emergency Management management procedures Division of Animal Regulation Animal control problems associated with flooding Palm Beach County Sheriff Department Emergency management procedures associated with flooding Palm Beach County Water Utilities Critical facilities at risk due to flooding and potential impacts All independent drainage districts will be Independent Drainage Districts contacted for historical data and identified areas • at risk Palm Beach County Red Cross Historical flooding data and repetitively damaged structures data Florida Power and Light Flooding emergency plans and critical facilities at risk The Palm Beach Post Historical data on flooding incidents � National Climate Data Center - On-Line Data Historical records on freezing temperatures Base National Weather Service Historical records on freezing temperatures U. S. Department of Agriculture - County Local agricultural data on frequency, impacts, and financial losses due to freezing Extension Agents temperatures Frequency and amount of financial losses to Florida Citrus Commission citrus crops due to freezing temperatures and long term industry impacts Frequency and amount of financial losses to Florida Department of Citrus citrus crops due to freezing temperatures and current mitigation strategies Florida De artment of A riculture & Consumer Fre uency and amount of financial losses to all 184 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Services agricultural business as a result of freezing temperatures Frequency and amount of financial losses to all Florida Farm Bureau agricultural business as a result of freezing temperatures and current mitigation and risk reduction strategies Agricultural research and new mitigative Florida State University strategies to reduce freeze impacts Florida Atlantic University Freeze impacts to aquaculture industry University of Florida Agricultural research and new mitigative strategies to reduce freeze impacts University of Miami Agricultural research and new mitigative strategies to reduce freeze impacts Environments at risk from freezing and Florida Department of Environmental Protection environmental consequences of current agricultural mitigation strategies • South Florida Water Management District Climate records and water demands associated with freeze mitigation Historical impact and financial losses resulting Palm Beach County Department of Agriculture from freezing temperatures in Palm Beach County Palm Beach County Citrus and Farming Interest Historical freeze losses and current mitigation strategies Palm Beach County Red Cross Impacts to poor and homeless due to freezing temperatures � � � � National Weather Service Climate dataJdrought predictions National [nteragency Coordination Center Reports Wildfire repots National Climate Data Center - On-Line Data Base Climate data U. S. Forest Service Wildfire reports and preventative measures U. S. Department of Agriculture - County Controlled burning/muck deposits Extension Agents U. S. Geological Survey Soil types/muck deposits Florida Geological Society Soil types/muck deposits • 185 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • The Wildfire Assessment System Wildfire statistics and containment procedures Florida Forest Protection Bureau Florida specific wildfire statistics and current preventative practices Florida Department of Environmental Protection Natural resources at risk and protective measures Florida specific wildfire statistics, fire fighting Florida Fire Chief's Association technology, and potential mitigative measures for Florida communities South Florida Water Management District Water resources and right of way management practices Palm Beach County Department of Agriculture Land use patterns in Palm Beach County to establish areas at risk Palm Beach County Planning Zoning & Building Land use patterns in Palm Beach County to Department establish areas at risk Palm Beach County Parks & Recreation Land use patterns in Palm Beach County to Department establish areas at risk Palm Beach County Fire Rescue - Fire Land use patterns in Palm Beach County to Prevention Bureau establish areas at risk and current or in-place protective measures Wildfire Magazine Data Base Wildfire statistics • Historical data on Palm Beach County Palm Beach Post wildfires/muck fires I � � � � � • National Weather Service Climate data and drought predictions National Climate Data Center - On-Line Data Base Climate data U.S.G.S. Historical and Real Time Data on Water resources Water Resources of South Florida U. S. Department of Agriculture - County Historical data on droughts and the economic Extension Agents impacts to local agriculture Florida Citrus Commission Economic losses to the citrus industry from droughts Florida Department of Citrus Economic losses to the citrus industry from droughts and current irrigation technology Florida Forest Protection Bureau Drought statistics Florida Department of Environmental Protection Environmental impacts of droughts to natural ecosystems Florida De artment of A riculture & Consumer A ricultural losses due to drou hts and current 186 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Services irrigation technology South Florida Water Management District Water allocations during drought conditions Palm Beach County Department of Agriculture County specific economic losses from drought and current economic vulnerability Palm Beach County Parks & Recreation Department Recreational resources impacted by droughts Impacts from droughts of the potable water Palm Beach County Water Utilities supplies and impacts in urban areas Water rationing plans Impacts of and water allotment plans during Municipal water utilities times of droughts in cities Water rationing plans �. : :• � � Maintenance records for the Intracoastal Florida Inland Navigational District Waterway and other Palm Beach County navigable waters South Florida Water Management District Canal maintenance and erosion Palm Beach County Environmental Resources Environmental problems associated with • Department erosion control and natural resources threatened by erosion Palm Beach County Engineering and Public Works Department Current erosion prevention measures Palm Beach County Parks & Recreation Department Current erosion prevention measures Palm Beach County Coastal Municipalities Current erosion prevention measures Jupiter Inlet District Information on beach erosion in and around Jupiter Inlet Port of Palm Beach Information on beach erosion in and around channel and inlet � ' � 1 U. S. Forest Service Forest diseases and current problem/preventative measures U. S. Dept. of Agriculture - County Extension Local agricultural pest and potential exotic Agents treats U. S. Customs Current programs to prevent introduction of agricultural pest and diseases Florida Farm Bureau Economic losses due to agricultural pest and � diseases 187 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Florida Citrus Commission Citrus losses due to agricultural pest and diseases Florida Forest Protection Bureau Forest diseases and current problem/preventative measures Florida State University Agricultural research and pest control Florida Atlantic University Agricultural research and pest control University of Florida Agricultural research and pest control University of Miami Agricultural research and pest control Environmental resources at risk and Florida Department of Environmental Protection environmental consequences of current or proposed control measures Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Economic losses from agricultural pest and Services diseases and current control technology Palm Beach County Department of Agriculture Economic losses and current control programs Palm Beach County Parks & Recreation pest control programs on public lands Department • ..� U. S. Geological Survey Geologic structure and seismic risk Florida Geological Society Geologic structure and soil characteristics � � �� ' . � � � � U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear power plant regulation, accident statistics, and emergency procedures Federal Emergency Management Agency Nuclear power plant accident statistics, and emergency procedures National Emergency Management Agency Nuclear power plant and radiological emergency management procedures Florida Division of Emergency Management Nuclear power plant and radiological emergency management procedures Florida Emergency Preparedness Association Radiological emergency management procedures State & Local Emergency Data Users Group Data Base Radiological accident management database Florida Power and Light Emergency Plan Industry emergency management plans Palm Beach County Division of Emergency Management Comprehensive Emergency Local radiological emergency management plan Management Plan (CEMP) Hos ital Plans - Both Radiolo ical Materials Local radiolo ical emer ency lans and 188 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Disposal (Hazardous Waste) and Mass Radiation safeguards Casualties or Nuclear Accident Plans �� Federal Emergency Management Agency Hazardous material emergency management guideline National Transportation Safety Board Hazardous material transport regulation, spill cleanup procedures, and spill statistics Occupational Safety and Health Agency Hazardous material handling requirements U. S. Environmental Protection Agency List of hazardous materials Hazardous Chemicals Database (On-line) Hazardous materials data Material Safety Data Sheets (On-line) Specific chemical facts State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) Emergency Plan for Hazardous Materials Spill response procedures Florida District and Local Emergency Planning Local sources and emergency management Committee (LEPC) Emergency Plan for plans (vulnerabilities) Hazardous Materials Facilities Database for Users of Extremely • Hazardous Substances (EHS) and Hazardous Geo-referenced local database of users Materials Florida Division of Emergency Management Methodology for handling hazardous material releases Florida Emergency Preparedness Association Methodology for handling hazardous material releases Highway spill data for hazardous material spill Florida Department of Transportation data Methodology for handling hazardous material releases State & Local Emergency Data Users Group Spill and release of hazardous materials Database statistics Hazardous material emergency plans and Florida Fire Chiefs Association containment procedures Spill/release statistics Palm Beach County Division of Emergency Methodology for handling hazardous material Management releases Palm Beach County Fire Rescue Methodology for handling hazardous material releases Municipal Fire and Police Departments Methodology for handling hazardous material releases • 189 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 � 1 • Palm Beach County Health Department Methodology for handling hazardous material releases and emergency treatment procedures Identified Users of EHS Emergency Plans Industry control and emergency management plans for hazardous material Loca( Gasoline and Natural Gas Companies Location of critical facilities/infrastructure elements Federal Aeronautical Administration Aircraft accident statistics and airport safety procedures National Transportation Safety Board Aircraft accident statistics Boating/shipping accidents (including oil and U. S. Coast Guard hazardous materials releases) and spill containment procedures Florida Department of Transportation - Motor Truck accidents (inciuding oil and hazardous Carrier Compliance Division materials releases) Florida Highway Patrol Truck accidents (including oil and hazardous materials releases) Boating/shipping accidents (including oil and Florida Marine Patrol hazardous materials releases) and spill • containment procedures Palm Beach County Airports Department Aircraft accident statistics and airport safety procedures Palm Beach lnternational Airport Aircraft accident statistics and airport safety procedures Port of Palm Beach Port Authority Port management, accident statistics, and emergency management procedures Palm Beach County Sheriff s Department - BOating/shipping accidents (including oil and Marine Unit and Environmental Crimes Unit hazardous materials releases), spill containment procedures, and environmental crimes statistics Railway accident statistics (including oil and Florida East Coast Railway hazardous materials releases), and safety procedures Railway accident statistics (including oil and CSX Rail hazardous materials releases), and safety procedures Palm Beach County Fire Rescue Accident statistics involving injuries in Palm Beach County Municipal police and fire departments Accident statistics involving injuries in the cities 190 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • 1 '� � ' Florida Pow�er and Light Emergency Historical data and emer��en�� mana��ement Management Plans and Historical Database plans Bell South Emergency Management Plan and Historical data and emergency management Historical Database plans Cellular and Satellite Communication Historical data and emergency management Companies plans The Banking Industry (Large Area Network - LANs Protection and Emergency Restoration Historical data and emergency management Plans, as well as historical data on system plans failures) 1 Federal Bureau of Investigation Database Historical data National Security Council Database Historical data and risk analysis Drug Enforcement Agency Database Historical data Immigration and Naturalization Service Historical data Database • U. S. Customs Service Historical data U. S. Census Database Population demographics Florida Department of Law Enforcement Historical data and situation plans Florida Department of Health Education and Welfare Historical data Palm Beach County Sheriff s Department Historical data and situation plans Municipal Police Departments Historical data and situation plans Palm Beach County Fire Rescue Historical data and situation plans Palm Beach County Division of Emergency Management Historical data and situation plans Federal Bureau of Investigation Database Historical data, situation plans, and risk analysis National Security Council Database Historical data, situation plans, and risk analysis Drug Enforcement Agency Database Historical data Immigration and Naturalization Service Historical data and preventative measures Database U. S. Census Database Population demogaphics • 191 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 1 • Florida Department of Law Enforcement Historical data, situation plans, and risk analysis Florida Department of Health Education and Population demographics Welfare Palm Beach County Sheriff Department Historical data, situation plans, and risk analysis Municipal Police Departments Historical data, situation plans, and risk analysis Palm Beach County Fire Rescue Historical data, situation plans, and risk analysis Palm Beach County Division of Emergency Historical data on injuries Management American Society for Industrial Security Risk analysis techniques and database U. S. Coast Guard Historical data and situation plans [mmigration and Naturalization Service Historical data, situation plans, and risk analysis Florida Marine Patrol Situation plans and interagency coordination Florida Department of Law Enforcement Historical data, situation plans, risk analysis, • and interagency coordination Florida Department of Health, Education and population demographics Welfare Palm Beach County Sheriff Department Historical data, situation plans, risk analysis, and interagency coordination Municipal Police Departments Historical data, situation plans, risk analysis, and interagency coordination Palm Beach County Fire Rescue Situation plans and interagency coordination Palm Beach County Division of Emergency Historical data and medical risk analysis Management Miscellaneous Data Sources Federal Bureau of Investigation Database Historical data National Security Council Database Historical data Drug Enforcement Agency Database Historical data [mmigration and Naturalization Service Historical data Database U. S. Census Database Population demographics U. S. Public Health Service Disease risk 192 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Florida Depa.rtment of Law Enforcement Historical data Florida Department of Health Education and Historical data Welfare Florida Department of Labor Historical data Palm Beach County Sheriff Department Historical data. Municipal Police Departments Historical data Palm Beach County Fire Rescue Historical data Palm Beach County Health Department Historical data • • 193 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Appendig B: Countywide MitigaHon Initiatives � Appendix B provides a description of representative mitigation programs and initiatives undertaken by PBC and its jurisdictions and the principles guiding intergovernmental coordination. T'hese programs and initiatives served as the basis for the mitigation projects outlined in Appendix E. This appendix includes: Section B-1 Mitigation Initiatives of PBC This section addresses the following FEMA requirements: Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i): The hazard mitigation straxegy shall include a description of mirigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(u): The mitigation strategy shall include a section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. The mitigation strategy must also address the jurisdiction's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate. Requirement: §201.6(c)(3)(ui): The mitigation strategy section shall include an � action plan describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs. 194 � L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • This page intentionally left blank • • 195 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Appendiz B-1: PBC Initiatives • Palm Beach County and its 38 municipalities participate in a full range of federa.l, state and local mirigation programs and initiatives. Representative of these programs and initiatives are the LMS, Community Rating System (CRS), National Flood Insurance Progra,m (NFIP), Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMAP), Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PD1V�, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (�IMGP), Emergency Management Preparedness & Assista.nce Program (EMPA), CERT, Continuity of Operations, Post Disaster Redevelopment Planning (PDRP), ESF18, Private-Public Partnership, counter-terrorism, radiological emergency preparedness initiatives, hazardous materials, etc. The overarching purpose of these activities is the elimination or mitigation of hazards presenting significant risk to PBC and its residents. At this writing, PBC is involved in a detailed self-assessment and upgra,de (as necessary), of its mitigation programs and activities in the context of the jurisdiction's overall Emergency Management program as part of its efforts to meet or exceed the national standards reyuired to become accredited under the Emergency Management Accredita.tion Program (EMAP). The County hopes to be among the first Florida communities fully accredited under EMAP. The LMS program and its companion mitigation programs are described in greater deta.il in Section 4.1.4 A major mitigation priority of the LMS is the reduction of repetitive flood losses to properties. The County and its CRS participating municipalities track repetitive loss properties countywide on an ongoing basis using data gathered annually from FEMA and the State's Focus reports. For mitigation planning and strategy development purposes, LMS mainta.ins � updated GIS maps and informational data.bases of repetitive loss property locations relative to historical flood areas and designated Special Flood Hazard Areas. Repetitive loss properties are an ongoing discussion and planning priority for the LMS, CRS, and Flood Mitigation Technical Advisory committees. T'hese committees, comprised of public and private sector representatives, are encouraged to develop and promote mitigation project ideas and strategies. At this writing, approximately 40 flood mitigation projects were in various stages of execution or on the drawing board of the Technical Advisory Committee. In accordance with CRS guidelines, letters are mailed annually to repetitive loss property owners by PBC and municipalities explaining NFIl' program benefits, the availability of mitigation assista.nce funding through the FMAP and other mitigation assistance programs. Non CRS members of the LMS are encouraged to stay in compliance with NFIl' standards. Information and support is provided in a variety of forms to potential FMA applicants to assist them in developing projects and preparing application packages. Through PBC's new LMS committee structure, the Technical Advisory Committee is available to offer technical guidance and assistance to applicants, including assista.nce in preparing benefit-cost analyses. Mitigation projects are prioritized and implemented according to their direct potential for loss reduction or for their potential in contributing to longer-term, comprehensive plans and strategies for loss reduction. Once projects are underway, it is the responsibility of each 196 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • jurisdiction to support and monitor performance in accordance with FEMA, state and local guidelines and codes and to oversee and coordinate documentation and funding processes. In addition to support of projects, mitigation is encouraged and promoted through a variety of community awareness and education activities including presentations, workshops, expos, panel discussions, plan reviews, publications, websites, etc. prepared and presented utilizing networks of public-private sector partners. As opportunities present themselves, lending institutions and insurers are urged to provide financial incentives for mitigation. Jurisdictions are urged to accelerate permitting and inspections and, if allowable, to waive or reduce fees for mitigation projects. In addition to mitigation incentives, millions of dollars of annual insurance premium savings are realized by a significant segment of PBC residents residing within the County's CRS participating jurisdictions. Involvement of Planning, Zoning, and Building, Fire-Rescue and other departments in LMS activities, including committee participation, bolsters communication among key agencies and the LMS and ensures that mitigation interests are appropriately represented in local building codes, fire codes, land-use ordinances, flood loss prevention ordinances, and other governing documentation. The PBC LMS plan articulates the goals and objectives of the County and its municipalities to avoid and/or reduce long - term vulnerability to hazards identified by the hazard identification and risk assessment processes. More detailed descriptions of the strategies, • programs and actions are contained in the body of the plan and reflected in the list of prioritized projects in Section 5 and Appendix E. Under the revised committee structure of the LMS program, increased attention is given to expanding and refming hazard- specific mitigation strategies exclusive of jurisdictional boundaries, capabilities and interests and to giving appropriate attention to mitigation in planning future land uses (see Appendix D). T'he process and criteria employed for ranking mitigation projects and initiatives are described in detail in Section 4.0 of the LMS plan. In response to new federal guidelines applying to grant awards through the Pre Disaster Mitigation, Flood Mitigation Assistance and HMGPs, particular emphasis is given to technically feasible and environmentally responsible projects ha.ving ariractive ratios of loss reduction benefits to cos� Projects involving worthy benefits that are difficult to quantify, are still given serious consideration in light of different sets of criteria and are referred to appropriate alternative funding sources not requiring stringent benefrt-cost justifications. Short-term and long-term recovery strategies are addressed by the County and municipal Continuity of Operations Plans, the Comprehensive Emergency Ma.nagement Plan, the Post-Disaster Redevelopment Plan, and specialized plans and procedures covering key recovery issues such as debris removal, public services resumption, temporary housing, unmet needs, etc. These plans, procedures and projects address and provide guidance on priorities, processes, schedules, resource requirements, restoration and redevelopment of critical faciliries, infra.structure, services, and economic redevelopment. • 197 L Mitigation Strategy I 2015 The PBC Comprehensive Plan includes the following elements: Land Use, Transportation, • Housing, Utility, Recreation and Open Space, Conservation, Coastal Management, Intergovernmental Coordination, Capital Improvement, Economic, Fire-Rescue, Public School Facilities, Health and Human Services, Library Services and Historic Preservation. These elements define the components of the community and the interrelationship among them, integrating the complex relationships of ea.ch of these elements in reference to the people who live, work and visit PBC. Linkages of the COMP plan and LMS have been incorporated into the COMP plan. Post-disaster mitigation initiatives are developed in response to needs and opportunities identified through collective federal, state and local inputs following the guidance offered by the Post Disaster Redevelopment Plan. The County and LMS members are also available to work state and federal Mitigation Assessments Teams. It is PBC's goal following disasters to rebuild to a higher standard (meeting or exceeding codes) and, whenever pra.cticable, to apply sound mitigation practices to reduce future risk. • 198 • 66I • • xuvpq �'a1 �11�uoi�ua�uz a�nd szy,l • SiOZ �a��s uoi�E�i�iy�i l�oo� Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Appendix C: Hazard & Risk Ass�sment Maps • Appendix C contains hazard boundary and risk assessment maps. Using County and municipal GIS capabilities, facility inventory lists and property appraiser databases, and other local, regional, state and national agency databases, the LMS is able to map any location- specific hazard risk or event and estimate associated physical and financial losses, on demand. A representative sample of hazard maps available for risk assessment, strategy development, and other mitigation planning activities are presented in the following sections of this appendix. The maps and da.ta in this appendix are presented in partial fulfillment of the following FEMA requirements: Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): The risk assessment shall include a description of the type of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): The risk assessment shall include a description of the ... location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occunences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): The risk assessment shall include a description of the jurisdiction's vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. e This description shalt include an overall summary of ea.ch hazard and its impact on the community. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): T'he risk assessment must also address National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) insured structures that have been repetitively damaged floods. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of e�sting and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard area. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(iii): For multi jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment must assess each jurisdiction's risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning area. � 200 Loc Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Further risk assessment deta.il pertinent to these FEMA requirements are contained in Appendix A, in the PBC Hazard Environment section, and in the newly formatted, completed or nearly completed hazard write-ups. The maps listed in this appendix are cited below. There are three sets of maps included in this appendix. Map Sonrce Date FIRM �A" Zones FEMA Jun. 2014 Historicai Flood Prone Areas SFWIVID Jun. 2014 Storm Surge Areas USACE Jun. 2014 Evacnatian Zon� DEM/USACE Jun. 2014 Coastal Erosion Boundary PBC ERM Jun. 2014 • Hebert Hoo�er D�e Breach Reach SFWMD Jun. 2014 Welltield Protection Zones PBC ERM Jun. 2014 Wildland Fire Areas Division of Forestry/PBCFR Jun. 20I4 Radiological Ingestion Pathway Zone FP&L Jun. 2014 Mnck F'ae Areas PBC ERM Jun. 2014 Transportatioa Areas PBC GIS Jun. 2014 Harrica.ne Peak Wina Potentials NWS/NHC Ju.n. 2014 Other Countywide Hazard Threats un. (Tornado, Eztreme Temps, etc.) Agricnitaral Pests PBC ERM Jun. 2014 Tsunami Buffer Tsunami Sociery Jun. 2014 • 201 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 PALM BEACH COUNTY IiAZARD • MAPS WITH NRISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES Part 4: Hazard Maps Page Pase (Behind Appendices) Agricultural Area 236 Coasta,l Beach Erosion Areas 237 County Municipalities 238 Evacua,tion Zones 239 Flood Hazards —Historical Flood Areas 240 Herbert Hoover Dike Breach 241 Muck Soil Area (Fire) 242 Ra,diological Hazard 243 Storm Sur�e Areas 244 Transnortation System Hazard Area 245 Tsunami Threat 246 Wellfield Hazards 247 Wildland Fires 248 Wind Speed Potentials- Hurricane 249 • Zo2 s Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • This page intentionally left blank • • 203 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Appendix D: Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms • This appendix addresses the following FEMA requirement: Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(n): The plan sha.11 include a process by which loca.l governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, where appropriate. Under the direction of the LMS Steering Committee and the LMS Coordinator, the ad hoc Plan Integration Committee interfaces with appropriate governmental and non- governmental agencies and offices to ensure LMS goals, objectives, and priorities are consistent with and cross-referenced with those articulated in other existing plans. In addition the LMS will seek opportunities at the regional, county and municipal levels to: • Update plans, policies, regulations and other directives to include hazard mitigarion priorities • Encourage the adoption of mitigation priorities within capital and operational budgets and grant applications • Share information on grant funding opportunities • Offer guidance for carrying out mitigation actions • Explore opportunities for collaborative mitigation projects and initiatives • 204 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • This page intentionally left blank • • 205 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Appendiz E: Prioritized Project Lists • Appendix E contains the latest update of PBC's LMS Prioritized Project List (PPL). The list of projects is ever changing as projects completed through self- funding or with gra.nt assistance are dropped and new proposed and planned projects are added. Jurisdicrions and other potential project sponsors, particularly those not having projects on the current list, are encouraged to submit projects. The expectation is that all potential applicants be represented on the PPL with projects that address identified local hazards, vulnera.bilities, and mitigation strategies. As municipalities complete projects they will be encoura.ged to submit new ones. At any given time a few communities will not have listed projects. The cunent project list contains 71 mitigation projects. However, not every municipality has a"brick and mortar" mitigation project. All municipalities provide outreach to their citizens. In addition, the County also provides outreach to all citizens throughout the County and within the municipalities. This outreach includes information on all hazards that aze common to Palm Beach County, not just hurricanes, as well as additional information on how residents and communities can mitigate against these hazards. Twice a year, in May and November, new projects for the PPL are evaluated and scored . to be added to the PPL. Additionally, once a year in November, projects that have been on the list over four (4) years will be evalua.ted for potential removal from the PPL. These projects can be resubmitted with current information and will be re-scored during the next evaluation period. � Each year the evaluation committee meets m November to review the pro�ect evaluation process. This ensures that the process is cunent and adaptable to meet the needs of the community. All projects on the list are maintained and monitored by the County LMS Coordinator. Once a project is funded, the project is removed from the pending list and placed on a list of active projects. Then once the project is completed, the projects will be placed on a completed list. Potential Projects funding sources include but are not limited: 406 �IlVIP: Hazard Mitigation Program (FEMA), 404 HMGP: Hazard Mitigation Grant Progra.m (FEMA), 426 PAAP: Public Assistance Alternative Procedures (FEMA), CDBG-DR (HUD), PDM: Pre-Disaster Mitigation (FEMA), and FMA: Flood Mitigation Assistance (FEMA). The PPL shows the ranking of the project with the lower the number,(the higher priority), the type of project, the municipality that submitted the project, the department in the municipality that will head the project, the primary funding source sought (while there may be a number of funding sources available, for the purpose of those projects, they are seeking HMGP dollars, but maintain the flexibility to us other funding as it is announced and becomes available), status of project, hazard that project will mitigate against, and duration until the project is completed once funded and started. The appendix satisfies, in part, the following FEMA requirements: 206 � Local Mitigation Strategy � 2015 • Requirement: §201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs. Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iv): For multi jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or credit of the plan. Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. Requiremeot: §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy] must also address the jurisdiction's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate. Other sections and appendices addressing these requirements include appendices F, G, and J and Section 3 and Section 5. • About the Prioritized Project List Normally the PPL is updated twice a year... in the spring and in the fall. Projects are added, deleted, modified, scored, and ranked in accordance with the procedures described in Section 4. The process and criteria used to rank projects are described in detail in Section 4. The current criteria emphasize: "community benefit' (Does the project promise tangible benefits to the community?); ``project benefif' (Does the project address critical elements of the community infrastructure?); '`community exposure" (Does the project mitigate an identi�ed hazard to which the community is particularly vulnerable?); "cost effectiveness" (Does the project meet or exceed the thresholds of benefit to cost ratios using accepted methodologies?); "community commitment" (Is the project consistent with or incorporated in other plans, including COMP plans, CEMPs?); "public support" (Is there demonstrated public support for the project?); and ``project implementation considerations" (What further is required to accomplish implementation? The feasibility and benefits of ranking "like" projects rather than forcing a single list of highly dissimilar projects has been discussed by the LMS Evaluation Panel and will continue to be explored. The current procedure for prioritizing projects will be retained until any enhancements are fully developed, deemed acceptable under the rules of LMS by FEMA and the FDEM, and adopted by the LMS Steering Committee. • 207 Local Mitigation Strategy � 2015 PALM BEACH COUNTY LMS PRIORITIZED PROJECT LIST (June 2014) Potential New, Responsible Deferred, Hazard Being Timeframe for Rank Project Description Jurisdiction Funding Agency Completed or Mitigated Completion Source(s) Deleted 1 Greenbriar Blvd Localized Wellington Public Works HMGP New Flooding Two Years Flood Reduction Project 2 Forest Hill Blvd Localized Wellington Public Works HMGP New Flooding Two Years Flood Reduction Project 3 ITID MO Canal Indian Trail Public Works HMGP New Flooding Two Years Reinforcement and Improvement Revetment Repair District 4 North and South Rd Boynton Beach Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year Stormwater Improvement S South Shore Blvd Wellington Public Works HMGP New Flooding Two Years Flood Reduction Project 6 Lake Shore Lake Park Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year Drainage Improvements 7 Pump Station Hardening Indian Trail Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year Improvement District 8 New City Services Lake Worth Public Works HMGP New Severe Weather One Year Complex/EOC 9 Emergency Equipment Pahokee Public Works HMGP New Severe Weather One Year 10 EOC Retrofit Lantana Public Works HMGP New Severe Weather One Year 11 North Flagler Improvements West Palm Beach Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year 208 • • • • • • Local Mit� ation Stra� 2015 � �Y Potential New, Responsible Deferred, Hazard Being Timeframe for Rank Project Description Jurisdiction Funding Agency Completed or Mitigated Completion Source(s) Deleted 12 Washington Rd West Palm Beach Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year Improvements 13 North F St between 3` Ave Lake Worth Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year and 6` Ave North Drainage 14 2� Ave North to 1 So, F St to Lake Worth Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year Dixie Drainage 15 Public Works Retrofit Wellington Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year 16 NorthLakeside/Duke/Notre Lake Worth Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year Dame/Wellesley Dr Drainage 17 Community Center Wind Wellington Public Works HMGP New Severe Weather One Year Retrofit 18 Property Acquisition Mangonia Park Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year 19 10` Ave N to 13` Ave N, E Lake Worth Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year and F Streets Drainage 20 EOC Construction/Retrofit Lantana Public Works HMGP New Severe Weather One Year 21 22" Ave N and Park Street Lake Worth Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year Drainage 22 Gregory Rd Improvements West Palm Beach Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year 23 South Flagler Improvements West Palm Beach Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year 24 3� Ave S to 5` Ave S Drainage Lake Worth Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year 25 Lake Ave to 1 Ave South Lake Worth Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year Drainage 209 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Potentia) New, Responsible Deferred, Hazard Being Timeframe for Rank Project Description Jurisdiction Agency Funding Completed or Mitigated Completion Source(s) Deleted 26 15` Ave North and Dixie Lake Worth Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year Drainage 27 EOC/Hurricane Community South Bay Public Works HMGP New Severe Weather One Year Center 28 Repair of City's Stormwater South Bay Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year System 29 Caroline Ave Improvements West Palm Beach Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year 30 (Tie) Town Hall Retrofit lupiter Public Works HMGP New Severe Weather One Year 30 (Tie) Saratoga Drainage Royal Palm Beach Public Works HMGP Added Flooding One Year Improvement 32 Heart of Boynton Stormwater Boynton Beach Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year Study & Improvement 33 lO Ave 5 and South N Street Lake Worth Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year Drainage 34 10` Ave S and G Street Lake Worth Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year Drainage 35 Primary East-West Indian Trail Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year Conveyance Improvements Improvement District 36 Retrofit City Hall South Bay Public Works HMGP New Severe Weather One Year 37 6` Ave South and F Street Lake Worth Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year Drainage 38 Palmetto Ave and South Pine Lake Worth Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year Street 39 Elevate Lift Stations Mangonia Park Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year 210 • • • � , • • Local M�tigation Stratcgy 2015 New, Potential Responsible Deferred, Hazard Being Timeframe for Rank Project Description Jurisdiction qgency Funding Completed or Mitigated Completion Source(s) Deleted 40 10` Ave North Drainage Greenacres Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year Improvements 41 Caroline Area Improvements West Palm Beach Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year 42 Town Hall Impact Retrofit lupiter Public Works HMGP New Severe Weather One Year 43 18` Ave S and South and Lake Worth Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year Palmway Drainage 44 Pineapple Park West Palm Beach Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year Improvements 45 Lift Stations Mangonia Park Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year 46 City Hall Retrofit Lake Worth Public Works HMGP New Severe Weather One Year 47 Public Works Hardening Belle Glade Public Works HMGP New Severe Weather One Year 48 City Hall Retrofit Hardening Belle Glade Public Works HMGP New Severe Weather One Year 49 Individual Mitigation Mangonia Park Public Works HMGP New flooding One Year Measures SO Lake Shore Civic Center Belle Glade Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year Retrofit 51 West Ave A Drainage Belle Glade Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year 52 Northeast Ave H Drainage Belle Glade Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year 53 City Hall, Police, Fire Station Palm Beach Public Works HM6P New Severe Weather One Year Wind Retrofit Gardens 211 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Potential New, Responsible Deferred, Hazard Being Timeframe for Rank Project Description Jurisdiction Funding Agency Completed or Mitigated Completion Source(s) Deleted 54 PO4 Chemical Building Mangonia Park Public Works HMGP New Severe Weather One Year Hardening 55 Southeast Ave K Drainage Belle Glade Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year 56 Sheriff's Office Wind Retrofit Lake Park Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year 57 Drainage Improvements at Belle Glade Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year City Hall 58 Reed Road & Miller Way Lake Park Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year Stormwater Drains 59 lO Street Stormwater Lake Park Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year Improvement 60 Radio Communications Tower Palm Beach Public Works HMGP New Severe Weather One Year Gardens 61 Town Hall Emergency Glen Ridge Public Works HMGP New Severe Weather One Year Generator 62 Community/Emergency Lake Park Public Works HMGP New Severe Weather One Year Shelter 63 Stormline Camera Lake Park Public Works HMGP New Severe Weather One Year 64 EOC Construction Belle Glade Public Works HMGP New Severe Weather One Year 65 EOC Radiological Mitigation Palm Beach County Public Works HMGP New Radiological One Year Study 66 Update Master Drainage Plan Lake Park Public Works HMGP New Flooding One Year 67 Landscape Hardscape Lake Worth Public Works HMGP New Severe Weather One Year 212 • • • • • • Local Mitigation Stratcgy 2015 Potential New, Responsible Deferred, Hazard Being Timeframe for Rank Project Description Jurisdiction Funding Agency Completed or Mitigated Completion Source(s) Deleted 68 Demo of Vacant Properties Lake Worth Public Works HMGP New Severe Weather One Year Projects deleted, deferred, or completed from Jan 2012 — Sept 2014 N/A RamblewoodCir/Harwich Ct. City of Greenacres Public Works City funded the deleted Flooding One Year Storm Sweer Enhancement project N/A Community Hall Retrofit City of Greenacres Public Works City funded the deleted Severe Weather One Year project N/A Hills Drainage Mangonia Park Public Works City funded the deleted Flooding One Year project N/A 53' St Drainage — Hill East Mangonia Park Public Works City funded the deleted Flooding One Year project N/A 53` St Drainage — Hill West Mangonia Park Public Works City funded the deleted Flooding One Year project N/A RamblewoodCir/Harwich Ct. City of Greenacres Public Works City funded the deleted Flooding One Year Storm Sweer Enhancement project N/A Community Hall Retrofit City of Greenacres Public Works City funded the deleted Severe Weather One Year project N/A Hills Drainage Mangonia Park Public Works City funded the deleted Flooding One Year project N/A 53rd St Drainage — Hill East Mangonia Park Public Works City funded the deleted Flooding One Year project N/A 53rd St Drainage — Hill West Mangonia Park Public Works City funded the deleted Flooding One Year project 213 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Appendix F: Funding and Data Sources • This appendix partially fulfills the following FEMA requirement: Requirement §201.6(c)(3): The plan shall include a mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction's blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools. Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): The mitigation strategy shall include a section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i): The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. Palm Beach County seeks to utilize every available funding source to provide comprehensive mitigation funding to mitigation projects. We do this by utilizing resources at the local, state, and federal levels and by being in continued contact with funding agencies and partners throughout the region. Key information concerning mitigation dollars is referenced below: Principal federal and state assistance programs used for mitigation activities include • the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (H MGP), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), and EMPA. Public Assistance projects, although they may have a mitigation component, are primarily managed outside the LMS process by the Public Assistance Unit of the Operations Section. The LMS monitors and assists PA projects as appropriate. Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grants are pursued pre-event. Small Business Administrative loans are coordinated through the Division of Emergency Management, but typically do not involve the LMS. Given the level of activity generated by Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne in 2004, Hurricane Wilma in 2005, and Tropical Storm Fay in 2008 HMGP handled most of the need for near-term mitigation funds. Other funding sources beyond the above (e.g. Community Development Block Grants) have not as yet been fully utilized for structural mitigation, although Economic Development Administration and Public Entity Risk Institute grant funds and private sector donations were used for the establishment of a state-of-the-art community wide Post Disaster Redevelopment Plan and business preparedness initiatives designed to build a more disaster resilient community and economy.. HMGP, FMA, EMPA, and PDM projects are subject to the standard LMS submission and prioritization process. However, hazard specific HMGP projects, submitted specifically in response to county allocations, are, at the discretion of the LMS Steering Committee and Evaluation Panel may be prioritized using other 214 • Local M itigation Strategy I 2015 • criteria relevant to flood mitigation and wind retrofit project s. ln response to Hurricanes Frances & Jeanne, the LMS's Flood Mitigation Technical Advisory Committee played an important role in prioritizing HMGP flood mitigation projects. Once projects are submitted to DEM Management and FEMA those funding agencies work directly with applicant jurisdictions and organizations. The LMS monitors project status and assists and works with applicants and funding agencies to resolve issues and problems that may arise. A list of all potential mitigation funding sources is maintained by DEM and updated regularly on SharePoint. • • 215 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Appendix G: Local Mitigation Strategy Coordination • Appendix G provides information on the LMS process works and is coordinated. Included is a roster of individuals that represent each municipality in Palm Beach County to the LMS Working Group. Larger municipalities may have more than one representative. In that case, the primary will be identified. In addition, this appendix will also have copies of press releases to the public informing them of when and where working groups will be held, meeting minutes and agendas are included to show the level of participation and coordination that the county enjoys. • 216 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 � ��ow ` PALM SEACH COUNTY ��^`� i�' ��'� LMS REPiiES�ENTATIVES ��• UR��[etl Septcrntr 18 :D?4 �,., \ p • r . '-• <Ont9t'� � rL�.I cir�c�i Ktsrrorama�,l�rr t�FM1f,'- IIILE FRIIds.HY SEC:1?JL•AHY ACCRI35 F CMAIId�L'L�3t55 � iUU t !'a��nlaa bca:h Lc�eurs, Ctrrise A5ii5r,d�ry CI4 k+a.nagp� k 31.d Anynlon 6oa:h ��_ �5671 �CI-�Es:tt2 A>Imn�a�?phMl.nr. J �JI'lIL'JI� '1tJL 1 . ... . 6 ii loqncon Planr.ar .K 5kd IY�vnlor beach f L ��1;� 702-G� i.2 �chnsoney��l'I,u. -.. . itl:l F A�yn(nn flP�rn �cbhic MtaNrf u�an!,14v.0in;l�r Y. Plv;l F:�YnIC�� ?e��r �� fl �5nt �; nYnMr�,rleah t� i.uc TOWN Of Bii1NY 9RECLES •'10.�AE +r4F. PRI+fAk�Y 5Ff!�IiR4?V ;,f7ON=5ti "rHr��E� !.MAi! �DOF=45 JHL�: /l [XCan 31a1, I b61j S63 11cUS, C`+n SAr�ndrl I ae�i .ttiorr.r� z ��kt�!tlsr &fr • 9rpp7c., FI 99335 i:5671 �9i Z?6i r.oll Jru1 �1- orr.� ela . �Sfi! 1?°_�i-322g. Nro:►uri Ni�l Ma��G� X Br,nY B�ccres. H 33=35 +nh�J i;.7ih�romr.cl n�; 'S�sll 7s?-�57 call .t:n7 n �a«wn t�•�n SJfnr:7bd�e' 4nnn:ll Pr�sidr.n[ x 3�:.�y P,eerES, Fl 33A35 ''u lp? bJB odnpL•rx:es.ihaler��•atno_cum. 4,4]: N.!ICCOn lShd. .. Aarhar:lAr�;��a .tawnl.MrYProT�rn b. - �il'0'silk5 tu Briny &^cv1n:, FL 33qiS � .igy1 N, Ccemn 61�d. i.irol Lanq �rPU'.Y TCwi� C-�r. 1i �5%,1 i i.,.-54!%'� t�nrn*a.v�rJrrk�YYahnO nin�, Brim Isrr_zcs F� 33a3�� TC;aL'N OF CLO°�D LAKE • u�LNt T'TLC FP�V.Af:Y SEO�NR0.RY F•COREj; GH^h=a EMAII.AQOP:SS I�A Lm .,r.�.v.�n,corolhp IonnClerk a Ge�rnBei;h.�'�33•LJ6- {SEiI?.MO-.3L5 �qwnp�Ua��i.�?.e57rnsn,curn 3:i2 1iYJ L�g Rwd. �ves: pvrnn Eri:._�r �daya T: v:lm aear�, FL:i:.L'�e ;5ei; 58h-:tltc: tr.wnokloi.dlakrF�msn.:r.<r 3727 lOC lang Poad, YJG1 1.lurick�Cn,aip,�rR�g 'alc:• Ma}v� a: Yahn Hcach, FL3sAC� I°+Gll GBC-?dls tonmfdwdlake�msn.caaa 3t1: ICO ieng fv�aJ, Yi eft Slaierv. Fa'nrr. ;.r�nc YcrnL•c• x Falm Bca=h �'- 33dUti liE i I r�^-?: v�+m�h vur, a��msn.00m 32:t ��------- : i'Y DF DfLP.AY 3EACH !�Aldk T:'lE GkIidAFIY S��Gf1Cw\f.Y AUPRE`.5 'HQNFR =AIF!:-AOpP�55 ienv iiCN��•'. 1-1' MBf�,i r Ir'rr�r� .. lly' NpJ Firit Avrniin, -� � g � CF�hs Beeth. fL 7a.4A-0 I-.:b1 GA!-;DiU :te�har.�?�myJdratwm � F<�; ;i.nr P.vRel 1:;U "1Vi F�r:t �l,r�uc, . . 1.1arAfdcpaotmll r, 1�61i?d3-7Ck3 �'Ci�4.Y�!'9i�e�up:cm �-.9recWr �nlray Naach, Fl 3i+aA � 1CU N'1: :ir:7 �5w_�nU�. Scu[tYap- _c�nor6�an.�e� % � i;5F.[Il�R�7i71 pif:c?�?m�dr.tr:::hpam<nrn L'elra (ra1� �l i34J� T()LVN G^F GLEN RIDG'= !�aMt ��r_[ PkIMUlRY SEiGN0.5Rr' 0.C�D�E55 �H��NEx ��M.4!.a[�ppE55 I.lichellr Suirei ... TCr�*� fAana pr :i li:�? Glrn =.9d0, 'N�il ISSli 6Yl�tlNSti e Palm Dea�h, Fl 334Cd � qrnrdqetownaiE�nvll:aush.rc^ • 2�7 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • ��o�""' �-- PALM BEACH COUNTY •' ��'a i �. . , �� Ltv15 REi�RESEN?A71VES �• • unraiaA pobren�nFr I R. inl n " , �' -�! Un S ot'-.: ` ,''.dI C I•r ii� GR�FN f.C�ES NC�tdE .. . . IITIF I"�IldAP'! SFmMC�a�� .40DHE55 F'! CbLAIL�CDHE:iS 'arWs �eder=� kLhlic �Verks D�wcro• ; �dria�put.? lare� .. �vr��nd[��eSFI?3,i73 1ti671F.d7��]?.a .rprtc��nF4'�:i.arnandr,rr,ll.�ii, __ VII t zG[ �F GdLF tl«h1t 111LL �RIh1AN'd SFLUN6hRY AODPESS �HGUF� FR1AlI.Ff.#lPE�S Ia�,�Hann�h 'ddla eM1fana r . :1CouniryP�aJ,'.�illaGe ;5n1 5 5� ..I';7�,1236 Iharmal•.k�v��.-L�uIROIForg ofti>aIF,FL3L'!G ' j4�YM Cf GtDLF STREAM NAM= TITIE CAi\i.tikY SEiONCulHY .�i'��=��.CSS PH[iNfb �_YA�.�aUUfieS:: �billiaixi thrachr� .=��wc 4L� r X ! Cv Se:. f1aJ. G��I( 4- �' li6li 27[ 5iib Gttifpel•;�+�wy,ul+r:t�carn_cr• Str.�z��, ��..;la5.� � � �' k'.caccca Tcw Tawn Acmntant x °��" P:�?d. G�.dl � Stiern, P�331B3 G6b1IJh5i1B rtcu�_ q�dRcsn+amrnu F IWlME !4�C VPJId4µY �ECUNLlSNI' AUURESS �F!::NFp F1d.11l AOf:kE55 SSAS Cnartacc Sc, Janitr8!rier L;wr�Ax1mnusLatC' :i (SOlIt39�03�� li_uWn�lawnolbavcrl�dl�fl.�a.� FW'.xrhill, Fl 3:d.i 7 - ��5@5 Cha^�at!e St. • IcHRanaWt i��nEngmcer :r. (SFt��tB�O reua:d�4953��llnel Ha.�rhill. G1334ii u�ePN Rare�e P�� olic Sa�ePr Obeaoi . 4S&: Char �nu 5�, ;SoP, 569-03'0 H�vr•hdl, FI ±�tt t IICCFC �'�+'17W00II'dVL'fi'!II II.pCO' TOVdN OF HIGHLAND BE,tCH kNld! 11T1C �f11Nf.i?1' Sl�U4U.�18Y A,:}_:iESS YHUIt_Y EV411A6:�flF55 3G7= `r�ut'� Uccan 8hd, Bathic�^�'h'c�scr 'awn idar. Rcr x Highland 9r.a[n. FL ISf::I l le A[3,� kwa�:.+rqUr vlR�laniY'440i1!.'�U> ±+tR7 ?514 Sc».rth Gticean 91vd, 6e�Wr�� yrown ' Clcrk. e. �•.�ptanu 0cach, �L iSi �N.rown��a.hi�h.anat?:-�h.11.��a 3308! . . . . 3614 SuaU� CKe.�n Blvd .4::iscant t¢ I oHn 2E�8uvti�e� _ ItiqnundQ�ech, �� ;5511-?9-dia@ zL+urgese,�c,ht^,�arcl�onac�.fi.nc Idanagar a�a�� TO�NN Of H'ir�1LLIXCI t1�t.1E -� �E �'RIIA1hfiv SECONCo10Y A�.,CtstES; PFIU�1e4 ENA��A;L+�ks> ... 7_ivJ'sa�ih frJeral �C_•��x-e s=arls Tvwn Ce•k x Nighya•i� !�>P�luxe, Fl IS[_j 50i-C'_=3 bsre*I:��IiV�o:uRe.ori. ,i.,sG: - . . . . .. ?;&il ��ilA Fe6:c+! iyn Sd q�-�.,�� h ,�-,�.•.,�, II»ul�:.�s. '- (Sr.lI5fi2�p1 �5 +n.'ao��'hYFold+,n9s 'ssu�1 2�g � Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • �aw"�"c'� PALM BEACH COUNTY �n� � � � � � l(vA5 R�RRESENTATIVES , p -' � �-✓ilAtf:tl.SePternb-r 13. N114 '��_: '�-.CC�w�Ur�' .'�/ I TpW'tJ C1F J�UNCIBEACh� NFfdE TRI.=: F`RR.b\PY "=ONU��.PY AL'UN.:"si �H�:VEq Fb1AILADOHE;S 3�10 �c•an Ur. !uro Annroa Dchhlr, Prolrrl Caaru n„t�• ti S�,il; i:p.5�0ijf_� qQpy�jp��py��tl[fi.N.us � 6_ucti. (! l3.Uly � 9AO Grnan Gr. nn+p To��' Vlviapv FVL•lic �Yt�ke ,r. � ,',53i �b a�r. ns Re3[n, FL 33•1i�8 roYrr� oF �u��TEa h.4MC TITLC �NIfdAHI' SC:L�NL�SR'+ .4;.CftESti PHOIIEp FfdFILAppF.cjS l l. Millt�r. I nn. �AEer H? a�,ilr.:og Oppt I7Ir:Ktpr '{ 1�61j?4i-2EG'3 roger�"ujupMr._fl.us lupltcr, jL i3dSN '� T L nc� � lam E*�n �cr x 215 Alilitar. T.ail, . ti 1��iter.��:33458 ISF.Fi?47�7-0t+A ;iird�ibild?rll.�n i.lA Ali itan• ir,i�. Ur.ia Notri IJtiI.�IE.'v%fvft:� A� k Iv�ite�. � � 33�1�8 1�61} i,tl ?7Q5 t dardr�lupitcr.11.us jUDITER INLET C�tOM1aY 1 c�lury w� � , lu;�n�: , bnn vruitt LI•,�� i�bl; Y46-3?N7 fL ]i�G4 ruitt - u ��[ennletrol n �.nr� Uale 0.11en Gficer g l c^lar� 2aad. 4.pn.�• �1� 1<Gi;B�; allena�lunifc��ti kc�t��iv u1y FI. 3id59 ' TC)lNN (7F IAKE CLaRKF SHt)RES • tiAh1E 'Gl'c P61td4NY� <.ECGdCAP': AC{7P:FiS PHOtJFa FMAII.A�J7RC55 .?!Il Fi�rqa��r. Po:i, �ircftYesSrnilh �hiefoF�'ol.:e �akc;:larke=Fares.1_ �Stil)yISA1St� wsrnitn��«ittlane��r, f i41:ti liL�i Bm6adlo Rond. 'arnm;��<uusc Gl�ul�•tileik l, takeLlarkeSheres.t� ISbij9il-iSiS !hous�£�lakcdarkc.nrp �zau� 1�p1 ByrWdi�s Roda. Dnn perk �own �danaq�!�tlmin k �ake Oeike Sh� c�. fl f.SE•? 1965-'_`.15 ddark�la_Weclnr«�.or- 's3�U]6 1'n7 pirL�lrtos P.r.ar. /.1nr. ��nAprn'�.n Tawn CMrS R lakr, Ca�kP $�rn�s, FI f5R71!•?^��,?15 n�y.ik«�4nuti��tk�larkc.ar�c 31.t t6 - TOW3V OF LAKt PAPK NAtnE Tm.E FRIM4nV 5°�_.•NDAnv ACOP:>S cHnNEn EbU�ILFLUxtsS _�; rark n•.en ue. � ;:? C�IeSugcrnan lo5rn Va�ah r :( ;`,r " i31C3 1�51;,8N3 i3f.0 n��zrmaneVlaknoa�l}15ti114lN"� SiS Fark Avrrue, taAc Rr:hsd Pittmen F+c.�t Id'nnader .. I�G11 381-33dv rpctm�n@akeparkfluMa..Aav ?+fA, =l i;4f.i! - Ci�ettor ��1 N,iL'lic �35 Fsk 0.�.rnur, �ake ;xx•.iF.�:w•t �' ISE�iRA�-ii.t� Lgy��l��y�l}ponda.CCro - 'Narr� Varl.;�_sda6! � � TY OF LAKE WOHTH ��J0.VE TRl'. 'P�.MfiRY SECv��JCtnAY .tDUilESS '7NCVFU _LL1��,tUU�ESs ' A�oi19 D� H�.7'wi?�. .4:�nir Rramn aut�ic �^r.ic,^ 17ucrcr.r x ;5i,7� 536� 1;7D �hrr�wr�}plakpw�r�hvir L]<e'l: iL ?�a[t� • 219 Local Mitigation Strategy � 2015 • �. PALM BEACH [OUNTY r �'�' LMS RiPR€SENTAIIVES �� °' - ' �„r�: Upiarrr. tinGt.rnh:�r 7.� 7P14 �' �arth Uipe HaYr.W�p I � • I:traync lttrllc His+. Mo��Gs Y IL�ke Vrprth, Fll34H7 tSGlj ��3�?3A: d`stcllcplakrwCrth Vrg Pet�llr timlcat � '7 ��rth Uir,e Ni�+ � . Narla V�h�tr �`_�G15 59L d 7 �U /.l�nagE+ i. Y L�ke'h'orth.FL?301:-IJ . ':kwhitC��'btCNarth..orn TD1'.'�1 OF LANTANA NANE T�T�.L' VpI�fA:iY SLU::NLl4NY FCCRFSS 'FiuNEe cM,n�.t0.UI7RF5ti Pnpnh NdEvrt� ; nrnaianCa� g SCV G�cyncds []ruo. ;��lj S�L'-SCiU rh:iF�nv�'� a��ana.prh Laotana, FI i44f,7 St�J Grevne�is G-dc, ;S61j SaC-50.0 dmaruol�lanwrta.or4 L�etb�c Man:o I own NanaSrr '� i�ntana, FL :l462 I TOb�il�t Of L�XAHATCHEE 5R0+1E] MAMz TI1L: i'klfdARY SCCJ'YU0.RY AL'CRE55 ?Hl�Nfa :UtAi�AGC�RESti 1S"s75 Sou[hcrn alvd, mKC:ncY�laxaha[ rhg�cve�ll.� �duikKutne�� ;;wnN-yne�r x ;�'ci �5.�t� : roo, a, Fl 3 i4; D � 7=S 79 Southn�n � v9 'reIK.NJh`p41e Tc�nn�:IEik 5uac:.ln.ahatr�ek �Sfi4179?-741R �nfi�pF`e�lc%ah�[ifipeRravadl.k Y. �Sr�vP9. FL ?3A7f1 cy T04VN OF M.AN.ALAPAN NAMC �''�C NRIIdAHY S!CUN!MRY AUORE5�5 PHONEq EMAllA6i�Rt5S fi:7U `.•�uM U:can L��da 5[urn�f Tana IAanager i( eaulnvarA, Mara��pae, i.5blj ?R3-'e54Q islwmpf�•mar�.+l.ro.�n.era • tl!3AL1 '� 6Lq iaurU �_lcee�i � Lsalhi^.¢rier Iia�nClerk % lL�ulr+ard,M��alapan, ;551}i83�2y4] ��rtarcrne[�m:naunan.a� F� liabl TOY�'+J OF PAANGONIA PARK .>h\ME TITL£ vqlldPR�' S![�VU4Nr pLpRE55 P��•;ln=n EIAAIIFPURfSS : JiS ! tRf.=�q L1�•.q "herr�ldbury Torrn Uerk 1t Y,angnria Par1 Ft 15i118Ac.:2i5 salhun'£'tawna(ma c 3i4O? crn 1?55 : 'ifanY Urr.r,- LxrleKr�well raN�r .teuaqer x 1�^�nµ�r.��rk,F°. I�E11T43�1;;F, IleMrz+rJ1$Dtownnf+nanru��i�7uar �ia��= k.mm 1'S5 E T��I!eny Uriw_�. cl�i m mvns�l�wnafrnanq �nlanar CI�.{il..'y�rn•uo�e :�puSV Tuwi� Lleil. .. f.UnFcni� Park. FL iS�ll r.=3 1:3': �3Jil.� k.can 17`_�� C TiHarr� Crivc, Y.:iUivahieit-•� ir_p�avTewr�_lerk tt 1.lanvn�aFark,Fl �463}Y�Y1735. �ma•'ir�towroimar�m�..7p��AS ila� l a�r '�:1LLr'.GE O� NOR�H P.ALM BEACM N0.fAE 7ir�_E c�4U.1AF.Y SC�OVGANV. �1_�UMES� h�µ�n=n r�r.�au. �ppRC55 imKelly �lr��peMane,�r x �87>�nih�iaDir.e.:'elm ��F.:IY.4;�i3Ei iAellv[av�l�_�r.-rar�� 8e�di i,a� d=n:33a?u � .b�rb lP�H .+SOaiant FmPrgnna� �887 : �iGnia D�i�.r. Oal�-, A7a�t:�t" �� OrecbG.erJen>'s341�] �S61�i-Ro6�� cM.frWvill:: nn'�o� 22� • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • sa.t "�`r ��;, PALM BEACH C�UN7Y �° r � / `� ` �� _ �'�� LMS REPRfSENTATt�+ES • � UPQe'r�i:_rn��R'��rr lR. hIIA � ., A. f �' '/� x { _ QNI� . (:IIYC7F AIIANI�ti '�� NdMf SI'�_E PF+IA��V ;F<:nrir.�FV aGpn;55 Fp�J�9i.V :?f,h�l�IUUHES� ; E,fi (ira,ve tree r, ivc• Mo Tho��itC�� Ci�V b '� ;Sbll �� 1J�;0 mtha�ntnm±�alanTi5111:9•. .411ir.;iS %!_. i3462 2G0 Or: nGC �rcc Crlvr K+lywn I',�Yalaio�•r� Lt;yticrl: r, y5b11 S�SS•1764 tpuh�lairt-nLp:laMisr Gc•, A:Ian;1: bl, 33SF7 �� 'e6C� Oi--nge Trer Cki�r Stcec I.tazuk Ucilit�e� a ;�67� �i,5a?aa ;nah�k�atlan�isn,K�v AUernin ��_. 33s6. :iul'�� At*?rma��. SupPCt Ser.�ce y :F.� qrange �� <• :� � Man 11anp; F�„ 93462 i=•wl; 3G5-1Ja4 raLvrtaam_ Ccllsa��Runi :EL�U�anse Inr a�vc : hlpt Ro�crt ASangclC Poll:c Chie� X �5�+1; ?6°,-1'C9 tmarypolJLaller.ti:A.v� Atillt'. Fl.:i.'.-0F.: � O-Y OF BEE.LE GLAUE 40.41P isTlE FiIIAAR'+ SPfOhMFY AOpRE55 �I10M67 EP.IFIL M1i7DNE55 1.�J D� W-artw� luther L�':ndxHdrrN�e GPrfdd��agH N Itinplr0�.n14,8r_Ilc ULi19�l�_till IF.IRCIIb?�hcIICR�SAP-HfA�*1 t,:adc, Vl iiL3D . . l.ssistant to thr City :70 D� Mart+� LvU�ei B�ve�1Y5[oU N K-��;: 6:,dW.isellc ISG?19?2-l�tt .hsr.ol: Wn�rer ' G �dc, F L 3.3AlU i 18 Or IAdrtin l��dU�B! Marr,x 1.1om,ccdv [ka PuG c �VOns R (��ng :� il�d W, Belle �5611592-�i16 ntr,nnte��lx±(eK1aCc fucrn Gleie, FL 33J39 i i n r.r. raan�n i.u�ne+ � �rtG�a R 8u'f C.IryClcrk x Kin� Ir PIKI Vl. Bell� ;5611l72-16C9 JL't�lfOtr��ri-�d=-R.00m GIa�E fl jiqy;l C1TY UF $OCA R�1Tt}N N.4�u;E �i��_! pHilJl4pY SfCUh!�F�iY AOOHF55 !�Hf:NF� F.A9Al1.ApOP.El� C�!y Ilall 2C�? i4. teslie `+.�mvu G-rnp>!Wmiu�il°arc� � Ps�rnetn� Yark Nd.. Hcc� I��?i 3�d-%8:s! Iharrncnf�nn��ncv�c NWton, FL iSqil ., enRress. vc. w[r I.L:P�t��la5a�l: pc>r,l.:nt�rpfn{el 't 1U7.WiraNataqFL i5Gt19R:��?=� rnlasallc�c��yExa.us +dCN! CITY OF �N[S7 PAL•'ol BEACN NAAIE TITIe PRIMARY ��Cf��CAf;+' �+,�7RE55 F�rIJNCA El�4\ILADUNE55 . � . -r•ne!i.k�eel, Fa�-�� 'N?II y.oip� SVSlem9 Ar�:qSt ti We�! Pa�rn [Y_�a:h F_ �SGl; �J5-fi6U] rw=.� �'wp6.or.g 93�4:11 5tnrm'n'amc 4�i �-iem.�is5veer. 'racM�Varr. Frr�i.�nng�r!t�pn % yJ.>,�'a�.n6eaGi.f: 1=.itj:➢d-:!10 twe!dF_s•Cp4s�.K G�Uidir�:tix ]3�'-dl anl : lemnt-: 51rEi1. G -�:� *to C�pliercr Str�en-!v'fmann x �l:e>tPal�ndeaCh.FL �:.5[�B}i-;?�ti �un4�In�di�rve�wuL•crg UFf¢rr — 3?4� �Il;n Grirne��. �me� ;e��:v'Lia.�y �r� 7[1:14 R�rt>'an 61.r1. 1�: p�t � . . .. .. . � ti � . '�In� kea'h. fl 33-4J1 .�1182i�[Z26 a�rtrnan'�wphcrq • Z2� Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • f�v��Nr�. PALM SEACH COUNTY •*^"-' �� F`� �.� 0 . , �� LMS R€P�iES�ENTAfIVES � , �,.� ,• 4 .�°� '� UQJatcd Scptc-ntr :Y. 2�.1 r --. i._-�n �t�^.: �� . . � i r�: � � Kt��r•ro�Oro eEn[rt Il:.f.7= . .. tIfLE FF.iM4RY SCCC`�L'ANY f.lil;!2L�4 Fxi�hEY CMRILAGL�ESS ;OU F FSSY�� FsraCh Lcrure d5;i=.racl�:ryA+a}ay.:� Y 31,dFkr;itanfira:h.�_ i`61�14i.�er:1t2 :^ICUn,+r?4kWl.u. � 3 �vnl�n ea� - �� Eii[ lonn.on vlanr��r .K 51wi B��vntar 6eacFi K �5�1;, ±a?-E,:z: �chnsane��b!I,us .. ..... iCKI F R�yntOr, flraC� Gcbhic Ma��r. G�en!: Cci Gi��51��r R Plv�l ftsvn[or: 3eacn FL linl,� 7•1=-67�1 n't iUrsri�bpfl.uc TG'JJ�I OF ORt�Y BRELtfS niP.ME f.�iE PRI\fARI' SFCCIM;fAd?Y :,1]DH=.�ti "rHi.7NF� _.4'All0.DOF=;S .. .. 4ND: N. lyc.lr� 314i� I S6t;� yL-j 11:iJ'�. . ... pr�n SAr:�ndrtl Io�n�Rt7orr.c� z j,15[�a�f7lyr•..�GL+} &irr: 3rpo7� :, f1 9�i435 i5671 - �9i �9E3 cr11 � 48Ut 11 oman elvd. 156:1 ?`-•- M,_hx� Hill nteycr x er,,• amrr.,s, Fi �<scas r5o11 �9?-G?57 crll mh��:z7;�ucomcact�nt; 4=tr1 K pcean A7•,n � S�fan Tl�dle^ i c��%t;ll Wqsldent k " - ; l5� 21i2 7'S08'J 6rinyLYneacs.thsler��•atan_wm 3rniy Prtttes. FL 3?435 . . YtiJ; M1. ��[can Bhd. t�rharal.lr.�,na FQ,..�nClcra.Pro'�-c :! - itil'0?Sllo min�'�JrrN�.:_�,din.pvel�u;�;iYn 3riny &�r.^ms, FL ii9i5 l.irai Lin. ;kGa'Y tCwP t� �r. A =332 �4. Cceurt Bhd. � Nrin• 6r��ec: =LS3J]5 I`'07;�:.;7�5A!%: tu;;;.*,a.�nr�crk��vah:�o,o;n•� TQaVtu �JF CLO;:D LA�CE M114Vt r'��C PR!Y�?Y SEC_�NCIA,RY f�CC1kE�� GM�JA:a fMAl1.ADUlU15 ,[O lrr�?oa0. tveet . ... 3rx.a�m. Lbrothy Ivn� Clerk a Ge��rn Brj;F, :�. 33&76- (SEi I^�5-2315 rt�iwgqict��u'.t?aeSsrn�nrurn • 3222 1lY! Laig kwd. W es: Dvnnn Erieri �day��„ b: ?alm 9elch. Fl :{:+,:.:IE ;561; 7N6�2815 tawnoklw_d�akc��m;n.:r.r�r 3727 1�7C Lang Pnad, Wnt 1.7n�i� i Chnle;��-R�. Llta Mapar Y. Palm B�ach, FL 33JL'G I�Ll} GflC-2815 taamfJwJlake�¢an.�om 31. —. _.. _ .. ILO �en,;R�aJ.S�e�� Slatery. pacnrh :c�nc� NYntc x 6ulm Be .:f•. _��_ "s3�tUf� iiE! i r5o'a1S to.+r9t;•!!.�!4r �+gn,[�r�sn.wm 32Ie � . �._. G i Y f�F Gf LRAY 3EA�H `Ad1dL T PRIMA�IV S��_GII('.+Sfi�+' ADC�RES`. 'HQNFe =�1F!•. App17�55 Te� iv 51�+�..- .� r� A,far; rr IncMrti .. 1T' f.!q FirSr 4.c��e. .. ... .. :� . p n.,: Beaiq. FL 3?Ad4 f-=�3' ?A� ;DlU sienarc��'tmV�elr�:.[an-. �. FYiii.ant Pi48 1:10'!Vi Flrst .lacnuc, 1.1�rk M11r.Q�r��rll N 1561) 2A3-7Ck3 �... V+_;;,C✓�r� �,�lf a'7rv i•;�E!ayzcrn � :�re�lc�r Dalray Nnach, Fl 3i+i4 - Scu[t Ya 1C0 N':: �Irst �RM_nUe {:e ]r°iisrGtac.�e� x [;�Ira Bea :ls3a�Lt lSF.[IJ•i}73i7 nafr�n�detra�.hnath.u7rn Tc�titi�ri CsF GLEN R10�=_ 4AMk ��7.E P:tl►.tARY SE{GNGfk�' .�DD�ESS cHppEx '21!A1.40DflE5S lse± ��en ?<,ad. v.�e;� G1lchelle Suitei TCx^i blanaap� Y I�lY 691 HLit'.5 6IC11[�QCIOWIIOI�ARII Pulm Deach, FL 134Ct+ 222 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • j ��kc�� PALMI BEACH COUNTY ' I�' �� LD�15 f{EPRESENTATIVES ,,, •� Up�at�j Septcrnhe� Id 2:,_14 � � • � - " - F�OatC�`� } �� `t7f � TOWN OF OCEAW ftIUGE N�h1E 11TLL �kl>AARY SEGCYCIAP'/ l�CCF:ES�s nH�hEtl FIAAl1:.npaES°_ :.7m�f{o�h;<e�n .. . Y.rnSChcnck ��awnhlan:y;,er M 3u��e.arJ.Oc?..nf��i.,_. �561}T�2-i63`, @in�iC :� s34]i - 545fi h�nrt� [krar Y.arenHar<s::: -ov�nCle�k :� flc.��vr.a.d,.^.rpc,n��i;r�,�. �:;Fij;;:'.76";; khan:s.a� ar.ranrai �Ilnoda:roe Ft 33�� 35 C+?Y Of PAHOKEE naME Ti'.E rncntaav 5ED7Ni7ARY AOCFE_S 'HJA�d CM41L��U�RESti pifprtOr nf 1'�hllr 1U! Begmla brr.r vin lohnu�n �li[nk5 x �`itiknr.FL ldA;e {�51152�S.i382 �icl Cirectoi af �:oi<m�uNly 707 R�ynnla [lrl» , E�iaY+r;hiqgtir :a Sb1ig2��557�=27 er��Lw1@i1l�YTJ4nc�kec.ccrn CCYCIpDITV_,^Il ��1VkPe, 4 1. �j'��5 EL•onv0��.nun CMrE6lor(:�finanrr �: . e5vma.,nve� . ..}5F.[;�91a-554d ... Yahocec, F: 3343h .2.ilA cafutc!t@G�7YS��+Ihokce.cam TO'v�iN 4f PA�h1 BEACI•. NAI'.1L TRLf ?P,p,10.pY `E�6pCFRY AppPF55 F4i)NEY 6ASA7lAUDflFjS lyy8cqn�eciwar �°��PeC�Spni x 3EDSauthCUUrAyHoad, ,��11833-SA85 ��O°dhcshwar2lot��c�alnhnac Fi �'sU �� rn Fy xh. =� 33as:� h.cnrn • f mrr�.^nc� . 3!v7 SouaF Cr,�.nt�� Rr.aA. M:.cGaiv�n b1ar.�.�cmer•r x �Snl� 9J3-1157y ri�n��a�..i'7i::,:�.d.:�..�� P.�m 6rtach, FI d3d4C Cnorc�natur C[7Y0� PR�fyi 13{AC:Ii:�AS;pFNS NhtdF TITIF PRIIdAN'd StLUN^uS?'f AL1UN2:SS_- F?'OtiEU ElA0.1LAG��RCS= ._ ._.__.._. 1L'S�)I'. North wldAart An�;ele tlirm Ogc f.linagcr o: Ireil, Paln Bmch 54. RD+t-701fl aL•rqnn�pu�f ��m Ciirtlrns, FL +i4iU :05�Ghortli 1.lilil_+�y i�dQ i'lgl� ? {q� Enp�ccrr % 'rail. ��'.e'.rn 6e.+:h• �5Y-8ft3-7(il? ;81!pZrl�olis+.lLOSn� �_zrdec.. �: 3331•� f01VN UF �ALti1 B'EACh SHORfS 7a7 v:tv,ar�:l� � wnv. aaarn Evy�ure R�owiria, Tryan �.rr. ., ;5611 8A•t-?G57 EI,Y.tt!tni�lL'Lpbi4uwnhafl.oa E�e:P�51*7res, R. ;3dpt ��w i•d:-�1.1'��i 2•t3 EO�N.lfnc lana, Palm �i1:•purylr.�.vnclrrk x 1=�6112�4-3d5? Sf�d�1A�^�I�kk$Uw�holl"crp 3en�'�'.:nc+e5. � L 33�41d �, .. eE7 F�tr�.q•,iS Ldna, f-.11r7 Werd�' .raGtrer P.:uldirgfk�� :� peecl� Slro�c,. �L 3?�7C•1 �'L!'' �a4-?S:? n+craL•beer3�y�s'uwnhall•c-F 2Ji Cdwarde lane. -'rrn (1�r,thu UnAskwG T�r��n Idaneger ; y,�.,.r: shores, F� i30U= '`�'� I H '�' -'AS t Lhrdskeo�.g�C�ti:r.wnh;;, Lg • 223 Local Mitigation Strategy � 2015 • � PALM BEACH COUNTY � �� LM5 REPRESENTATIVCS 1• `� UFdat�d_SeFtcrntcr La.:[It+ � �_ / �� ='�2t�at0�/ .'R�/ VILLr,I�E OF PA1h4 SP#?fNv'S NA!!E TI�I.E PPt�inR+ SCCOt{LWiY ADDRFS'. PH�;YEU EId�tILACT�N�S.�' ;+•rtt0., Larrd 12G�=p�ress :ar,:, Palm Rlnl Glazs� [�.tm >: ;6671 ��S�1U1:5 A;qa3 GiiF�t�9P:fl O}g P�.eb nrent SP�in s.>LdiSii ?2n��vuree� :arv�. Dalm wch hca� Villa�c Man�gcr x � ;5011 `�� n�iJe�eQs�� ar}; Sprin �s, �L �34li1 I�hnqu��se �i:tan!WblcSenice % :ln�'yprrc5!ar�.�'�Im ��hl� 4 iS.Yl)[� Ifbis:Pl�'�CJf�I O(K '_t-n S .�fn �.. :�_ 39d61 i0is�drti �nii�� 22L _Ypress Wnc. M�Im . . 'NLllam Sols�n % 'S611 "`�� h san - v s'6cr prr:tcr S ne-•. �t 334hi ' VIL�GE f�F �CIYAL PALht gEACH U.:>.cta e+��lir :Cr39G Occ•xhatcc 91vd, - Fnu� �1'ebs[e� % hnyal Y�Im dcazh, FI. I'�El;� ?9f* ;17 i Ln : iVr.�lee i±�li 4L15Q Ro�'�I :+�Im tica�h � � lnn�lophr. �l�e,�eli Y�Ilage En};'�_er % 6Md.. Ha�al P:IR e�icq, IiFlj ?7C�5167 - i'- Ixer3� Fl 334t7 Cls'+'r3F FtIVI�RF.8E4CH N4WE T'�_f FRIMqRy SECONUdA'� �?G��ikSS F'+�JN°Y EIdAII.FRGRE55 �crrrnr 5a r� Gh• Lngmcz�- % 2i4? harn�n'!', Hrac i569i BA`_�3d?2 !6mk�r�rivKranrh,:r.m Bca[h.FlliA(}: ' er rn Ir,hr�cnn Un-ne� of *'�hlic 235] Aonnu: '�.'. 4�r�r: , � Wor�:. � Hraih, FI i34fu i5L11 EaS�iOSt n u`�nsonrmrdr:ah:I! C�i1Y UF StUU �14 OAY � ��E �RLE 'RIfdAF.`� SCCOHLN$Y :.UUN.lSS PHDHEq EMAIi 4D�E55 !d-arKc�r Frtihc'h'r.rk:Cimrc. �: 335�N'?ndA�.�-nue. � - � ;`_•61; idl-E57� kerrc v��*tMavnly.c.^.�ei Scuth kay. FL d3ivi — � -- TGVJN Of "s�UT�t �AL141 B�.ACk N.51.1C i11L: �NIM&R5 SkC::��lU0.NY �5.Cf1RF55 PHQFi�,V E14AILAG6kk53 33t t Scurt� i;caan 21ed, .. . . Ilxx laylar (cr,nrn Mar.a�er % Sn,�t4 Fa1r�� Paach i: �56e1 52�3-8:Lx3 �;�ylo�_�e��IhY�im�:xh crr 33aan 3577 Souti Ccra� Blo¢. l}+rF �xl Wr�h �=hiei u1 �cli�e x _outh Fa!rn grar.n. Fl r5571 KSa�'7 ]7 .: i��wfw✓nats�,�-•��lnylmc+;�cY.com �tasa W�LIAGE OF TEQUE�TA WAMi T�T�_C F"iI1dAHY �El(JN�QiY ADDRESS PHOpEa FMFI: Ai.fipEjS lan'�; Via=vard Frp; hicf � .lJS � eq�os:� Ur. . � Ic ucsra, H ii.k�9 l�Gly i68-0a5u 4 lweinand �!leq��='.aarR �Irar,n�nl 31iTeq�.r_•��lnGr. .. ..-.: .. -. . pusatncnnas � Y. 1i611 n¢as�ariaa��teK��stu_,rne �[nm:nur��caGm�� T ur�ia,fli3�fd " � VILL4GL Uf 'J�CLUhG"Ur� 4AMF iITIE ... F'P-�J+�.RY $F_LGNC:.tP.'%� q4?RC=S PNI:1Ep EhU;ILFGf?(S5 224 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • '�pt��+r',. PALM BEAtH COUNTY T°^ ,. � �'i lMS REPRESENThTIVES • � � :.(�lk�?!18.�9Lti .,Rr., �� i ut.,�� `-�. R T�.-' ' • -y "' 12iL'O °orzsl Htll3lvd.. qi[UI� E��anCrli.b !m^_�Tcnn�Al�na�t� . � I_61} 791-L �q..nv2 �r Wnll�n nn, i. 534i5 1.3C0 ��reel Ilill BIvV . .rrn L�tmc: ��4'��'r v�"��=e.'e' % W��Ilitt m. F! 3;q10 ISfii1 ?5i 75oC ; 7arnes�wcllmictan?I.qv. . ...- I: i0] F+�re�[ HIII Hlva. CauI5�v1;eIJ 'l:lag:• H1ana�r x WHlin�tai, Fl. 33474 ��6217g+_-aC36 �aui��welinKtvr�l tanya f}.uctN GU % 127(Y� F�res7 hlill L�!vd.. 15n71 797-A i 7 i Iqnicl.� ti�w: umqfnn•I.er.v th'Cl�r-ion, FL !lS11 Cf f Y UF WEST DALNI BEACH NAfi�F TITIF PF:IRIC�NY jECQNC.3P+' A.47r.E55 �HrNEq Ftd.tll A,lSr.f.55 :hrrctcr ei Cn�inecxiryf 4l1 O�ndli: SL'�1'es; . lon_ih_nyram!ey y�..y�ce: z � Dnlmdeac>i,(l3)•i^. Ibtil}32:-i2'_2 IbrsmlevCtiwon.�rg . .. AR [�cma.:is St. �Vest �alph'A'all icnlnr5pstem_.An�t.s; K pa1rt��3narn,Fli316i i561jBC5-6E�o1 �yr�ll�3xvp,�y 4t)'_ CI.^, rr alis S[� W cst SYr�r.rv �o-'fmann v'rnn•. C��nV1�3rtiY k Pdlm Braih. FI. ?.i4D1 I�bll K�: �}'�.� shoffmann@�w9�.nrp Storm LVa[r. d0] Clernal.s ilrppt. ,411✓r� Rnn?�Jt Ida�aEcrjSc��r :� w.�,i o,im aeac�. n Irl� S9q-11;i Iraoau�.1!�whC.or:. PTnr: necr ??=��1 �701 flrmah:SL°rr;. I1lilltipv e�y n¢rnng I.tanucliGoc�zalc: . 'A'±;1Pai,°�dcarn,Fl i5F1?444�iLlYS mqarsa�@�wpaar; WO1CC7 lCr.rd�nn�Or � +.aC: � Northem Pa�m Beach Coua �mP�overnent Disiriri V.lf/I! nTLE ?��+��kti' SEflM11MiY �OOfli55 F�:1M?tl EMAILAD'JRFSti 3cn ��ii: rr Fdbn 6cq:h Nen KuunotFee.. LNS C+inir D"�[U�� id 6oPra�.�nc R ;;�il bi'-�;8lC' Icnr_�ptcid.or Ger�_.�� L 33at8 -- - � In�l�dn Frlal Improvemen: District AAME TIT4 PRIh1,hpY yKOf{C�S�Y Af/0RF55 PH�7�1E� =MA!t 4CCF.5�i=. Ilm$natiRan FG�nim�slct!ic� N 13d7o51<iSTNpnh � ...,challri.n"�Ii�ilanlrafl.�•�n Palm E�e��clt C.��unty� �ivision o` Emer;ency A^an��ement MAIdE ";f��_6 YH�AUt4Y _�ECC�JD�IR�� A��_•;6_ '116NEn FL1Al1 ApGRE55 Spec4:'�.. Yro�CCts i0 ��utL V KW+in Blatlscc - LtAS ; o7rdlnalor;Lhe'. b. 1Vr.t Palr-� �e,��h GL `_nl-"rl.��^38S KU�k�1k2C�4S :>_+,�r$ CqOrmqat�r . ;,>or�lfnainr >saiS �rpas�ere Coast Regiona� P;annir,g �� ?J0.Mk TITIE �P�N�aqY SEC�.':+�D0.PY ACGRF�; ?HU4k0 kll.dllAL'�,RF55 CmcsKentV Vri�;'ann J71 .1V Ca-rntl.`i.4�.r _ 1�::'e 6�er vror�inato� i!uait fl 3�99.1 I'+2; 33d-15n+ kL•_o��Sn6t,f�J( • 225 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • f '�''`�Hr`- PALM BEACH COUNTY •«w� 7 � �� LM5 REPRESENTATIVES � �� J UpGSfed Sc�crnhcr lY., :014 �� _'_ I "�i Sout.h Flnrida 'JJater Management l��striit NAM= TITLC Yi11.tAF:i SFLONLl4PY 4p�iBF55 ^H�t1Ed Cl+1dILfiLJR?5S A.�i�lant to �nior eare'at��m Grnerger:y:.nd r561i Ee2-2215 jFrium�,�sArnd_� Secunty I.tana •mco: BetLMcEi�a• E.u: eua�i�; � � Lynn Ua+ivr�r,il�� NAAIE TI?LE vRIM1�I;1' SCIONAqN.'r AL•t7NSS PHpN.PY FfdAI_ d;DGk2�5 €fiC�ge,hV .... . . . CU ��ier•. C.•sev �� MdnBRemeut Piuiec: �5r,,1�?37.77!�!t kS:^.isY�'IYtu! eeJ� �. ilrl�'lLv � lor�d� Atlantic U+�Iver5lTy AAViF T1Tlf Pp'��fa,R'f ScC6�.'L1Af:Y A._��iC55 PHONEq F410.11 «OOkES� Cr.A! *�r�rrnnnR PrnrPSCnr:nAbyqr,v 134?1?�.y-0>;a afan:riaU'au.c�:�.i Ur. f.lartten M1ieha�_s Prore:�r and Ec:ee rncha�+s � fau.ee» Palm Pe�ci7 St�te Col':egc � NAME -!E PkIf.1.tP'r ±CCOIJLA9Y AUUHES� _, FG10.11_hCC�?CS� lulm�i.�iulYi Dir�i��rr rSnllNi,N-;9if.� , �.Nin��;�m1�- , hstaSe.a'Ju -^ t.�skov an t.tara'a-� tiat,�r ,��c1 �;i.l� N��E-aJ15. leskr.�� I'�nalm5en'hs�e� x,1 F'alm Beach Cour�ty Disaster ke��vert CU«�fition �IA61k ?11LE P�IMAF:Y yFC!]�17APY ACpkE55 PH6N'_ EMA'._AL}:?3F55 mn�fr. �c:.knon L'Ireaar ;551; 3'S-EeSi 6c;krr.�' "�hedre.r.� Arnericar� Re0 Crc�ss �ireater Falm Beach Chapter NAAfi TITIt Pp�. 5`_lC1G,\F:Y AD�iE35 PHi7NEp flAall ADp0.E55 hlark' •,� �rr<ICr. Ema �;��r,y � a ��Y.± $t . y .. w I?h�t155Q-'_1J.. avY,Knrc�reecnss phc.^.rp PalmBeach Counr; I�brary� tiystern `IAMf Lt!! F�IId0.H't SfR"11JCWNY AppF£:.j 'HONf+Y E�VdLAU0HEi5 ��ron F+JI 4:srtant C�retlar ;5511 ?33"25 Dir��,in JI ffud�� e & Y.onnr �amFvr:��! ;5-511 �3?-17U3 krartvcrs� atcyo�..r.L Faciiciee- 226 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • �v eia"='+c�� PALM BEACH COUNTY °° :� :,,.,., I � �1 LMS REPRESENTATIVES 1� •� �.odatcd ScFSCTts r]'3. D:7IA dv �� l., p '�- _CG A. iCS f � ."CJ�,� PaIn7 i;rai.h Counry ,hprl�'� l'',ffir,� r�.nnie in�t Fe:�r.�a.e�r _ee;:nuaev AL'CF.e55 P�:I�i'Y �,aan a.nnn tnavlORen•pe.�;k� ucuenant (5el��:iE!ia rrvanar��q:7 asr,.ni.r PalfTl Bl'�Ch CDUflIy FtfE�RC5L4rC NA�E T;PF PRIMAH}' Sf�,'bq[?�:R�' 4��iF.F.55 PHC�NEp ER 9e'.IL'nGL1RF73 Ni �-� ]uker flir��l^n t: Me� .L"J5 N'ar Noad. x_ . IiFI}nl6-?�;Cn r�nakarfu�c4:krv.r,rk.; '.1'c�: -'alrn �c�ch, !.i9:i Palm Beach County x lanning, Zoni.�g and 9uilding !1.:1A6 TITIt VNI:V�.kY `•€CC>JG4k1' ,•iL'UP�35 FNL'hCd Eld�tIL3UL�iE5S Dn� 4V�sc 6uildirz;UK�ai Y '_•;1123?�Sl'�: dwisoh� t�v.nr Plchard balhri�,h: 161d� Uire� i � � - =r,1-233�5145 S.i.�1hr,;��plxxuv:prg �IoridaDrvisiono.` Emergenry fvlanagement rurd TITL_ GRIh1A4Y' �E.i�pGXfC+ A"vDr'.E�. PHCdJEn EMAILA�Rl55 tdil:c Hnstc .4rea 7 C�� ii:nelai 1350'� ill}1A69 �� iAe i�Sl � +i .in �Ilwrda.rom CadWin, Giordano & rS;s4ciates • MAiE i�T! C 1RIIdAkY SCCJkC�n.'tY �GGPESS P�+:lt:dY EMAiI 1[1DA�s-� .. h ctr.orFrwry:-ny hweN inutr r �fo�r ��a�ne 14n1Artnnglon X ;S!„i� a1L: F�11 Idyne er�enC m h��l.-' �1p�C�1(1�'y5 IJ0.R1F iliL FNRdARY SECQpG;;F:+ 4DbRk5S pHOflE� �Mk°.J�Cf.?�ES� Kd[hiE �<oarnr F.::A Mana rr ISI;l'i 69i�1t91 ka[h�c Kcarnc � n.. � Jrt�an Lea�ut cf Palm Beach County NAA1E ittlf apllllpR�Y SFC�O�Vp4RY ACt]F.>+5 PHpNiq f1AAILADpilE55 l7U:f d. A�:Irallar A�.r .. ;561� 833-is61 .ennn4•A.nJErS:�„ bite Pteod:.•nf X �liast Palrr� flna[�. FI x3C01 iandnccnrtfvu�pn't��g 33A(; Trc,picai Shipping `Lt1AE '..-lE FF?D114RY' SECI'lN?AH;i 0.i�6RE5$ PFiU�IEN �=?kfi+: M1CtiNkf�S- Hlck tdurrell Lre,der!1�=hain-.�n 156' 1 B8'_'3�J.r9 •rnwrell 3{ro Ital.�m - Prt�U�rtv [3arn�gf Con;ultanis RbME ilflF PRIN.44V SECONOAPY p�k7gES5 PH[7qEF Fh1A1LAG[1�E5� Ri«. R.� �r�..-r I inl'� �s�: 3i49 .. . • �� Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • �,�o�""' ' � PALM BEACH COU(�ITY �� +�� ' 1 h4.5 RE�RESENTATIVES r � �� ' �. � '�� G!ua�sea wucrmee. ia, euia ",,•' \`� t k � -. Ualente Ad�: i�!rs y��aE nTi€ Nx.u.�:.x•r stC[1pCAtrv aDPi�E55 VNi1M1Ctl Ev_aiir,r.ones: Atickic�.alente Ftr.ident i��;�172�-J2,7 3usin�ss !)?velopntent Budrd , '14ME 1171E PfiIMRIIY 6E:p1{C.VfiY AUUNl55 R�-1;:hfd E�dA�IA�DR�S_s �4 rr � srnlll; ld.ro Prc-;�.innt i yE:l N35 11G6 Palm Beach County tr,unorrrt OHic� ^L\b1E iITIE PHIfdAH.'! SkCbN[a4ftY :.00PPi�i F'Hp`lEh Efda1L4UUPPjS 5hr��y t�o��.e�d Cirectoi 'S511 i O�fice of Src�all Eiusiness Assistan� e Yab7e linE F?IN�AR'r SECOM1CNNY AliL'RL�n +H[ipE� .=MA+1 Ap6Pt1 Ha7nl [)Krntlinu f.itrrt�r �5�7,� :.lt F.83�1 tiank At�antw Coa�(inKCncy P.�annin$ • NxRtE TITL_ �:pi+/!A�v 5[C4VUaRY aa-�3[ss PH4lN��tl C>A0.ILFUUN.t'�s ��s+de•n �r PN7e:. d ftiP�p A<�ucaGvn u� ' C�ntir.�nc F1r.nner. PalinBeachtaunty Administrati�n- 1Nater kpu,i�rces n.cn�e rn t rrtn.�xev :e�or�r�cv ,. UURJS F'HU4ka Eld»I_ 4CfIfiE�_: Kcn i�du N7[i Pncourrr tA r l: �� . c p.,. � Palm Beach County Nealth Depa� +lAME - li![ F`RIMAP:i SF.LOh_��A.H'! ArCt?F�:S PHi7NFtl fVAVLf�C�XiE.j; M1: Ura,�o EM F°�p CmrJ. % 2DJ:Irroat�s Shc...�t °e.;l�e?I--0w;b edrec -a;y�iu•donscaro Il.us If15UR.315CP S@f'lli,P.S 47�fICC' �-f1C �+��.�F rtil= a��MARY SF�=f�flp�fiY , 4UDRESi F'HC�VCp k1A0.1L�OflflESi. Htillde:; I$C1;Cfl55.ar:;�..i 22� • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • s�^'�c`ti PALM BEACH COUNTY .°"..'. i � � LMS REPRESEIVTATIVES ' • t • � UpdY.co �r�lcmber 1B, 201 '\ � * �pL6RlOt:. . L1�I t:�estgate!'BeGvcdcre C:RA N.A1/iE 7�itF PpIh1ANY tikLUdCvwhY AUUiL55 PNQNCR EM:.IIFC'1RC55 Ehmr ldi�hel Fxxut��.r :%rnnar Y, arnictr_�I u� � or � �nspector General �1.:61C TITL: GRIM4RY icC'%.YpAN4" ACCF.eFS PH:]Nk.d CIi��,IL�{UCRk�S Idadrnr, Hcredo mh_r_�dia.a te v o:r Nank Hardel hl...- i"�i , . • • 229 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • '�.� �� a � . . . A� News Release luAlk Athln Dep�rtmert For release: 5/29/14 P.O. Dox 1989 Contact: Rob Shelt, 5b 1-? 12-6317 Nhst Palm Bcach. Fl. 130U2- � 9tl9 (561)355-2754 FAX:(561)35S3N19 �o��.��m Palm Beach County Local Mitigation Strategy General � Meeting P�im Re�d� Co�sty s° " n°eeC '""�' On June 11, 2014 at 10,00 a.m., the Palm Beach County comml.done.. Local Mitigation Stratcgy (LMS) Working Group will hold a Priecilla A. Taylot Mayor gencral meeting of its public and private-sector membership. Paulchc Burdict� Vxe Mayor This meeting is open to the public. The meeting will be held Hal R Valec�e at the following location: snen�y v�a • Steven L AbrdmS City of South Bay 335 SW 2 Avc � � g �� South Bay, FL 33493 Jw ft. Sanlsmarla The LMS Working Group is coordinated by the Palm Beach County Department of Public Safety's Division of Emergency cou �,,�,,,,,,,��,�� Management. The LMS Working Group is comprised of county, munieipal, and community partners, that prepares and RUt/Cf1 �YGISl11df1 promotes local strategies and projects to reduce long-term risks to life and property from natural, technological, and human-caused disasters. The resulting pre and post disaster mitigation strategies and projects are supported by a variety of statc and federal programs and funding sources, in aecordance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Topics will include updates on the LMS program, mitigation funding streams, and the Project Priority List (PPL). Public �ncqua�tq�ur�fry altendance and comments are welcome and encouraged. �rniariveACfion .Nnpfoyrr• PJe�tronf[ Press Release ### 230 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • � ��`�� News Release �. � . . For immediate release: December 2, 20] 3 F�OR19� Contact: Kelvin Bledsoe Special Projects ('.00rdinator rubuc nttdre neyarcmont (561) 712-G481 PA.Bux 198V ' ��rrsc r alm Beach. PL'i'Sa02-In69 i Kbledsoe@pbcgov.org 1 SG I 1 3 i5-27;r1 rnx t��,i; s,y.sni�� i Palm Beach County Local `.,Y�.�b`�v`°'° ' Mitigation Strategy General • Meeting Palm Beach County ; The Working Group of the Palm Beach County Loca[ Boa�a afcau��y ' Mitigation Strategy (LMS) will hold a general Commissioeen - a,,�„�� '. meeting of its public and private-sector membership s,�,��„ �,,��a,r,s. �,« <�ld,�,�,a�, at 10:00 a.m. on December 4, 2013, In the Village of h,,;�� ,�,1«z�� , Royal Palm Beach, 1050 B(Farber training Facillty) Royal Palm Beach Blvd, Royal Palm Beach. • Pauleuc Nurdieh �. �,,,,,,�,�„5�,� The LMS, comprised of County, municipal and �PU,�.s;��„�,,,, community partners, prepares and promotes locai , strategies and projects to reduce long-term risks to , �`� 4 `� , �� ., �"' , Iife and property from natural and man-made �, disasters. Resulting pre and post disaster mitlgation strategies and projects are supported by �o��ty �wm��t��o� a variety of State and Federal programs and funding ko��,,,., sources, in accordance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Topics at the December 4th meeting will include updates on the LMS program, mitigatfon funding streams, and the Project P�iority List. I Public attendance and comments are welcome. � ### a � .1/l�nmr�ii t•.L finn C �i�Mn�» ' fleccrnnic [•rrss iteleue • 231 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • ��A�N�� News Release a � . . For immediate release: August b, 2013 �<OR1aP Contact: Kelvin Bledsoe Special Projects Coorclinator Public Aftaits Uepar[ment (561) 712-6481 PA.Hox 19AG KbledsoeQpbcgov.org ++rs� raan �euci,. rt szaoz i �a9 i�,uSS.;�z�5-� Er1X�I5G1)75i381'1 Palm Beach County Local "�`� Mitigation Strategy General . Meeting ��m ��, �u�, The Working Group of the Palm Beach County aoa�of�ount � Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) will hold a `°"'"'' general meeting of its public and private-sector s',�'�r ��,a;� membership at 10:00 a.m. on August 7, 2013, s«��-��n«� at Flagler Galiery, 401 Clematis Ave, West Palm �.�.��,, �,,«<,� ' Beach. Pauluuc BurcGCk � • ,5,,,, �;,,��n The LMS, comprised of County, municipal and � �� ,,,n � ;, community partners, prepares and promotes ��,5�,��a.� �;�Y�,�� ; local strategies and projects to reduce long-term � risks to life and property from natural and man- made disasters. Resulting pre and post disaster ' mitigation strategies and projects are supported �o�,t by a variety of State and Federal programs and ��b�r�ti�e�5�»a„ funding sources, in accordance with the Disaster ' Mitigation Act of 2000. Topics at the Aug 31 meeting will include updates on the LMS program, mitigation , initiatives, and expected mitigation gras�ts. Public attendance and comments are welcome. ### irn F./urt! o�)µir/M/iip .Ifhr�A:�nr��.�l:%ni�� ! )fNnl . ['ICCtfn^,�C PfC55 RcICaSC 232 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • ��,ACN News Release a .'�e . . Por immediate release: December 8, 2012 A Contact: Jesse Spearo A�ORT� Special Projects Coordinator (561) 712-6481 Yu61ic Af(aln Departrwent jgp�o�a,pbCgov.org I'O. HUx 1989 Rcsi itiiin Beach. tl. i340? �Qq� ��>>,�=�� Palm Beach County Local Mitigation Y,�X �°�pl� 35i-3tl19 W�,.��.,��b��«��, Strategy Generaf Meeting � The Steering Committee of the Palm Beach County Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS} will hold a general meeting of its public and private-sector membership PalmBeachCounty � 10 :p0 AM to Noon on December 5 2012 at the Cit �a.d oF ��,.�� , y Coenmissianers of Lantana. Hlirt �l,lfnn5�n, Chalr ,t,,�.,,, „�,�,,,,,�,�.�.�,,,,, The LMS, comprised of County, municipal and s ,,,,,, : ��,,, community partners, prepares and promotes lacal � strateg'res and projects to reduce long-term risks to . y ��" ��' life and property from natural and man-made ,° 4i° , disasters. Resulting pre and past disaster mitigation ''"""'�," ",''°� strategies and projects are supported by a variety of � State and Federal programs and funding sources, in ; accordance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 200Q. Covnty qdminirtrator ,��,b�„�t Topics at the December 5 meeting will include an update on the project prioritization list, status of municipal adoption of the LMS Plan. Additional topics will be upcoming training for members and partners. The featured speaker will be Pam Mac'kie, from the South Flarida Water Management District. Public attendance and camments are welcome. ### : In t�7urd Uj�wH iu,ur i� : t//rrmearr.-6»on 1lu:/K��tv� Llectrnnic Ress Kcicasc . 233 Local Mitigation Strategy � 2015 � „��:�:,, : ,,��,;� �, � �� Palrn lieach County Public Safet,y� Dep�rtment Division �f Emer�ency Vl�n��ement Local I��litigakic�n Strategti� {Litir1S) - ti'�'�,r•�ia�� (�rr�n�� ?1�e�.�tiat� , • ' t;-� �_��:i._, :1�-;:� ��. .:�:i�;._�;,,; : ' I � K�r. Rr.�un�tree LM5 Chair r �' { 1 Northern Palrt; Iiec7C� County lrraprovemen[ ��'"� R , 1 U.strict �{��k°:i �� . 1'lelco�ne � ��. i � , l � �' • Lzondroe Camel, City hl�nage=- `'�, � ' i�� r Ci[y oi Svuth 8�y � �� ` �, � . Flood hiiYigation Proiects �� • Westga[e CRA Pr�sent2kior5 • � Elizee Michel, Executive Difec[ar, Urestgaae CRA • Governor's NurriC�jr�E Ct�nfereree • Grant Funding �Dport�nities • ResEdential Gons;rucK�ara hlitigaE�or: Program . Proj�ct Prior+tiza�+c�n Li$� UpdaE� . Pro�ec� 5ubmissions Timet�ble • Li�1S Plan UQ�iate ' • Evaiwation CpmmiCtee Revisions ' ;��+�'�'� p . LMS Times � ��T+ �� . Resolutlon ftevision G � • . � M1te�ct Meeting 5 r fi�OR['n�` • December 10, 2014 Loeation TBD • UpCOminq i rapniny • Surve+� . QuestionslCamments . A�jaurn 234 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • ,.,�,.,,. �.,•, ,,, �� {n'J�;f �I a P , � �� Palm Seach Countv Divisic�n of En�cr�ency l��'lan�gcmentl�'ublic S�f'et;�� Department Lacal ��'Iitigation Strate�y (LN1S) .. '��'i�r�lci��7 ��r��u�? ��lc°eti�i�s � . Call to Ordcr ai��l I��iroducu4m -�hair . LYcl�ornr-_- Village u� Royal Palm Baach ' = � = ' � . Grant funding opportunity (ReSidential ConskrtiCFfor� , , , . . +-� �fitigation Crant Proyram (RCMP)} s'�� ,. - ' . - - ��,; � Project Prforitftation List (PPL) Upda[e ��,., : — + n . • , _ � • Project submissions time [d�le FOr hlay 201�1 ` ' • l,htS Plan update • Steenng Comrnittee revfsfons � Evaluation Committee revisions • Futurc Mee�ing Date • Comrnittee alternates • 5�ecial Recognition � U�coming Train+ng I � QU£StiOr1S/C4fRf11�nts ! � � Adjnurnment R��'� �'Q � � � a �e ; ��'LpxiO • ! - . 235 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • ,t. .� Pal m Beach Cou nty Local Mitigation Strategy �LMS� Workin� Group Meeting , .. � . Call to UrJer and ln�roducr,ium: - C:Ii��r . tiV�lcome- City of U�est Paim Beach - Ralph b'1a�1 � + • Granf Mnney �lvailable for LM5 � i � • .)iuie 2013 Projeck Prioritizar,;on Ust {PPL) UpdatF . , • Update: Phase tI for projecfs on PF�L .. - . LhfS Quick ReferenCe RefresherWhy is the 1t45 • � Irnportant . � . Lt•15 Plan u�-clate 2U1� . ProjeCE Subrnissions time table � Ste�r=ng and Evalr�ation corTimitte�e Transition + Pa� ti�+pation R�q�iirements • Futurr Meeting Date • Upcprr�;ng Trainin4 • Senf 9i90 Mass Fafalitras iner'denl Raspunse; • SE�;f 9Ii0 fCS400/G40o Adv�nced JrtCrdenf C� .mment! System Comrnar'�U 8 GeRer�f Staf.f -- • Sepf � t!13 fCS304/G30�� lntanx�va'ia�e lncident � C�n�rna�icJ Systr�rn ;or Expandir,� 1nC!�ierts 4 � �,�� e 0� • QvestionsjCommer,4s � { • Ad�ournment . . � � �: r, ! i �. ! �"'�` -, 236 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Z �` Palm Beach County Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) Workinc� Group Meeting , • �all to Order ana In��fld�.�r.'inn5 • Wr.icome�TOVm o` La�kana tfanage� DebbiF P�taanzo �- - .• � • Grant Mor�ey Availatrle f4r LMS Updale - , I • LM5 iimes IVewsdetter F<�II issue � � � � . HazarcJs • Year in Revlew � . r. - . � Updake nf Ortgoing Projects • . Cvrrent �nd �xp2cted Funding Sources . 2UI2 f�roject Fr,oritization List {PPL) Upd2te � Upcominq Training � G39,i Pfitigat+on far Emergency !ydnayers Decertjher 10 - 11 and January 30 •31 • G-278 Benefit-Cost Anafysis; Enrry tevel Trair�,ix1 �tarch 6 I • BRO-pAI Nurricane Resltrent Comrnunity Planning an�' Deslgn, March L9 - March 20 s featureu Speaker - Pam Miac'Kie, 5oukh Floricla . b:'a[er Management Distrac[ $p • M�llgntlor� Success Stories � O . Participatior� �teq�irements a � • Future Mecting pates & 1.dlh LMS Plc�n L�pdate � ' ' � c�uestiUnSJComments �'LoRtD�'�� • Adj�urnmenf _� • 237 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 � - �..,,., �."`"i=�, ..,� . �� '�� :..e.; i �`�O�ta*/ �� .51�+11-1/1 S�lNNf �MS Workin� GrOUp Jiine 11, 21}1�4 335 51�V 2"'� r1vC f'ity oP South liay. F133439 _ _ _ -- — -- _ — Nam� ....................... Phnnc Num E�nuil City or � ......... Adilress ................ urganixation............ -- — ---_--- ----- _ �/� s^k�.,o%� s-�/ � F5 P.a � �w �� ,y sN.�°o,�y ,��;, ,�,�Y,��. �� s �' �' r��l - � Cj Q L� r i 0. rl tGL� 1��.� Y1 �'. ,��t► r �i a rl c�.f �'s 5 ��{'z��n�c� . c� o v `='�F- � �!� l l� ' ! _-- _- - -- --- -- --- -- f - - !, �� - ib�a- 1� y�.,��_ ��t-lA oF 1 ',.7�1 � �,(}l�iJ..� .J ,��`r.or �8�(, ��+� � ��w1 y�12yv4S • -- — __ � . _ --- - � R �-. ! �:� P/� �� I � �% �� ! f. � ...�. 7 �i �y, ��i�!' �F-�r ��i� r • / � "d�� . � '] (�1�� r 1 ��. - � j�lr��'_�•��. — - — � - -- r��` �f'f� _ I ��i�Z�� IVi�L�I� �� (��+u �.i.��i��I�J��,u�„u ��ifc��,�.(��?� �� :�.Y - -- _____ __ ---- __ _ _ — � , � , ' `-J�� oc� � �A#�' � �.i�,;T�' C;L ��iicl�t'� .Sdtl �t S � c'r�.I�f�C i A� �'ti' j 6 j�� vv, orq �� 13 C�i I c` �'(:S�C u a � � I � ;�,t. itZ.I � l 4 ('� �iy �1�1 `,�,ll��., ( f aLl t) r1pt��i,,�M'' lu � I ____l 1 ) c'; � ? LIY� i�, � Ix��.t�r� �:tn. I _�;�t��._��' . --� — — 238 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • „v, ,•�� ,� ,� �,, � � � ' �, �,. r ' � i gnLr?� -' Lr Si��»-ia .S/�r�c�7 L�VIS` Workin� Gpoup June 1 !, 2(114 335 S1�' 2 :1�'C C:it,y c�f 5oirth 13.�y, FI 33ai9 -- __ _ — M1�mc ...................... Phonc Num F,muil City or ' ......,.. �l�l�t'C53�......�......�. II�N1117.Rh011 . �oie S�a! 7�°t'r�� ci.�n� ►�-►�vr.l._ �,� Ftlqn d (��.tr�es� � yS�c� �� .�-i� ��-, / — ---- — _ � I(�//_ i �e++ �Gi". r/�fi (R-�_ � Jl �c_;JCC' [—• . � _� � - �4�r-Jl-��,-, -r1yo�'�'� ��!`� d.�: . G t�,., .._ .._ _ _ .. . . .F . ... . .... ...... ... _ _ � �C,l �f `'s �'_. � ��7c� ( � �1 � � � � �� l �'� `Z_ht'C.l11['C E-� • �.f' �'�u j-u_ C� yD1 1�,,G,(I Lr5 '� ��_ --- - --- __ � _ _ _ ___ - -- -�----- - �� 1- ?�Y- T't[_4P�.� �t.s+t� �f31 t r� L.�a.i��G.s�af�.. --- - --- — — ; ', � � c�1 � �� - ��12. � C ��c� � `� ; �-� t��C� ��7'jl £�irc��Cl��e. � i � �`G � < <�� Qk � 1�,�� _ � � , � !t '�,1� J"� V4 � J'V ��C1vJ1y�- (��JY�� .�U�1-. �'��ff� 4 + i �'-"' � �f�� f Sb-f!��rl��.lrl� �•e.Jn �� j • SHK � �L��Y1C-Sl{�..lAc�/l'- �aaao��'al....l��.c�.;.�., (?L,...��^t{t • 239 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • .n�.nc�, � .,:,. , �b ry'., � W r.•, I : � .�. + µ. \ � � - S�l fyJi-l/f S�lCC1 L�YfS W'orkin� Grt�uy I)cccmi�cr 4, 2011 I�arber trAining f.�cility Vill:�gc of 12oyul I'�In� Rcucl�, I� I 33411 __ -- - — -- - h'nnoi ..................... Phui�c lim��il Cily ur Nc�i• . hum..... Ad<irCc�............ org�niznlion ... ... nt�mhCl' .._._. —_ .. _ . '7 .. . .. ... _. .. _—� • _ I Ill a'- 4��` n'''1 �j��i� 6'�'��{"�` Ct�i'Ov_�f`='', ��cQII"+ tixr.{�. i � f _ � , / � } ' f /• l ��°7 - _ �!i r �re t,3 � T ZA_ -- -- ; ��>i�:- �u�� S� i � {�" _��Ic1r�� ' x.�� \ �. — � , � , �yi7�o.� :.J � � J '� r � /�l�� !�l il/•..L)'�'.5 .�( �)�� ald:C�(� �^��(.�- ; ` F --- � __ v -- I ��1�� y� � �� . �:� i t �.� �:� �:��.._ �� ` i I c _�� et� � - -- I r} r • �-`�� ,�i ��flfl�iL�.> j1'fi-iX�U10 � � �--� . _.__—_ _ - . .. . ._...._.__ _. .. '. ----- tr. r �� 1 lt�'M1►AU �' 1��i14'�t !.f �}tll ut �V y�l i�� . �i'�"3 1 `� l,1 l , � , ; _. 1 S ' 1�'x��Y�at) ?u��\ ��1` �ri t�1�,1 �� - 1�_ . , _ - --a � � ii+l 1 }) ii ` - ' L�l i�{r�rjltj ��YS ��-1_)i1_Y�i�:v4�F_�J�71.. r ��fa� .��C�" � 2 �:ti�4r.l. �� r - _ � ` `t� �r : `,tr I �°r, I � _ f t'c� W''LSI'l�n.�,� `71�� '.r,y �''''i�,`� 3 `�i.�,�..� � ', � '' 4 : � y�`,�-_ -- i , � ' �v�_��/6,u'�,� ��W-t�rc - �,,�� L;r�Z;�j' ,� - -- �.,,�� , ; �''�."c��, �1�� 1r�_ ],'�„ti� ;�I�J ��rl� (,�,�{�.�,�, �N�?,Y�1�( .U�:_ , ,� �� 'j _, + . � �ti �. !r ,; ,. �.�4.:�a4� �_t-. �t-�.�,� ---- _�?��_,, j ,.'�,1�� . 240 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • yn .. , '��4:11.:1 ('.�. ... :y .,'1,%j,' � Ir r }+I ��N I : _ � , I y � � L� - - .Sl,(�Jt-!Id .S/!E't'J L.rYI,S' YYorkin� Groril� I)eccmher �, �Q13 I�s�rt�er Irainin� facilitr� Villagc nf Ro}'al Palm I3eacl�, �'I 3341 I - — — �l,mic..,,. ....... Pli,�nc I'j7tail ( il}'i�r _ Ncw ... Num..... .. Acldr�ss ...... _. ui�aiti�at�on......... m�cnth�r ., - _ -- -. � � �>(',.,I. �t. L�. ] - I ____ _ .. f q I I �' I }__i_�� ✓1� `�F�� 1C7V} 7[r. `.'� �flr.lf�v�eut(lt,i�t .J+�lr\.:.+(,��,{ � r - --- -- -- + _ - -_ _ _ _ , `��- /��r .1'n,tilc��u��;� � (,�'�<+''1S�"'� i ` r -, �� - �IC} � ri � Y' �� y -� '-j' __ � `�1n 1 _ _ _—__. . . _ l X'_��t`�, 1 Y��.tl } ti �y_. � ��24'(� r )T-VL't�`t �) ----� )��t / -- — (ci�- o 1� . Yf+•� l�a�>f1C ilwAft ��,s� .��1t� I - J • . _. ... I ��rl-.., bE !ti t 1� � h� txrlll� ' �d)n��ocl I ZV} C- loyii `i,`lalnntn�,r.�..,� j C151' c-�- - , �� ; ,ati�.,�� ,� ►� � ---- - `� �. .. _ � r R1r�l ��M►��p t a7wl�� o'o�,� W�G ��rt �iSti►3 _ � � i � � � � --- — / — [ �.:'JiJ/ !%t/`r.'s� �;7/ �.e,ir,N'Sn'.:fr/ri�i� _�� fl ;.iJ �—_ ;—_ _ _ • ['d G._ _ _ L__>C-�F-, �.}7! � l' j, r��AF � r/ F ,� f� � f � .(/ � J )t� - . , � J ,.� , - ��/� 1'-' /l�'l i� $�C_/_ �.�: ��f �"' I1�'-f� r'� � If �� f �.�frr ' �'�� n rrn�r.r� �' - l��C1 ��1�''14} tfU1 �'rtd�l-��,r��, t � � ki'k='-.t �� ..aKe ( J SF�� r -- . r` , S f-� ) _ _ �' �., 1 �l.x - l ( ! � j f � k , .� !'t � = � I �� •1 1�'�-'�'``��1`l: [.,�.�!- ]�l i t,� , �� c�� i i ��_ _ _ ; s ,i 5�i ,��,.�<< ,�; ,� i r i / ! i ,, ,,r� �'' ' � �%�g:��t; ', `r � � , ) -- � [ : ; I � . t' 1- �' } (' � /�' rrz .,.��. 7 `f � ' � r� r e t..-, , .. �'^ � � I {r � - --�� `- '--=_ -- • 241 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • ;,Q4A'Y�-.._.. o.� ��i ��`. ' �1� � � _.v� � � �.� .: ` n1L�".-' � Vf.�[r. Sllfll-fl1 S�tCtl L1V1"S �Yvrkin,� G��up �i�e«��t��• a, zo�:� Farbcr iruiuing fucilitY Y�illaKe c�f Rayal f'alm 13eo�cl3, I�I 33�11 — --- -- _ N:u��e .......... ......... „ 1'?ttu7e 1'mail Citya�T � Ne+�• ViEm..... .. AJ�irc�s.._......... org;ntiz:llion......... � mcnther " � I - — - _ - --- - . �/�/�'� � 4f S G/ itt.sdw h"� �_ �• �- �� r ec�`�. lc�e -Fl r .ri /�0-� ,� YY� ~rKYp � � �al�/ G(,[ot t2_. OC.� i . - -- i/`li9 /P J� fC I r'!�✓i'�1.�" �° � � tck�.i�11t'�fr?+ , 1ti..u1 c�N-� IV � �<�1'�!r`'J' ; 7� d�Y/ct� tsr4+A►!�L• G`Lc1 L-°1t U^ilurrf/' � �; i ° .r,:;' - 71) , i `� � �) _ ' — ' I � Cv.,J �r�� I{'�I.1. u<;��. , �.0 } �.J�� 1..�2�1 4J r , `' �/�+ ltol/•ct.,F„ - -- _ { _ • i — ____ _— _ — i , --- , _ _ _ _ .__ _- --- � _ _ � i - - 1 242 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • ,;;�,,«, _ ... �. ,� �', � : y �� ., ``"��,�'''` [.fA�tS Warl:in�; C:rou�a �--'� Sf$11-11! �{1L'Nd :�IU�;,LL\t 7, ZII I i rlu�icr Gallcry Citr ltall ��est Pulm Bc�ch, 1�1 334Q1 � \l;smc. _ . _ _ _ I'tanne F:nti �il C'it v <ir Lh�1C � ........ Nu�n....,, �1Jilr�ys .. ... ur4�sn:iatwn...... Gmup : ..... _. . .. ' ,'�[rmk> I I �r: �r.ti I , iir n:� ---- ---__ _ — --... .. ---- --- ---- �Wi �1. � a sk ,� 13 �abF��sN�a-v� � ��'-5" ? � .,.�.t �C..�ti �'AL,ti._TSE►'s�� - � {---� -- . �' ; 1'�(�n. �t.'i�h�.. r �1'� -r a. £ i3'� tt[�t'a� ' �Yat �'�L.ke.�.;�c�•y,-,�'�',�" .{-{r,�,k "[CJ`� , 0 � __ _ . . t.J � '� ti' i 'S�}i j �t.l � `l � Y�13yiS�j't_,� �l 'Ja ' . ��'.l�'t _ L -- 11 1+ I . � , _ V l��— ---- -`��'�"t�"��✓t• �'�4g1J rr�� c�,��'r l/(E`S i �; k[ � � �� G� y_ 1 s� _ L�'tS�,� r�a� ilf?��L•� ��.ti, ` � -. i j , C. �,��- a�� _; IY� y�+� ;�.��,, (c�.v�, fil vf, _�� l, �, �:.y J- . _ _ _�— �P� � v✓'� /r � ��,�� 1l� �►� . �� ✓�,�Pl��:�� y� --- -- - � , •�.T..� \""'+_ _ ��ol }��CT1� �caJ�[1�.��'. 4 .�7.._�Y+ai.}l..l kau. •� c� ��{c( _�JZ.S. � � ._ . . _ _ . - �172. _ t '*'-,�-� �-INni.1 i? bf '']2f - :! �i5 t nng+Y� Q.� �'�i i ~ ` c� q � � �—E�„s—. _ _ . �,� ,�t-,.. " ��4_ �3� 1 � 1Qtr��. ' - � � � ,l! ic��r' 2Q�.�' _ �it.nt�k1 �i�:i1C\ iuTn T�+ �s�s� ''� - =ss�� __,_- —. � / - � � [plY� �'a4f�� ' tI�CW�Q[1 �iCl-f �r� h1 1 ' �� , CILr? , aiY� ` -- _� - � ,� , �t� f a� L�� a+ -- i{�UL �oRe��JG '��-7o�J� ��L '.� i�� '�- � � �� . , � �lC-[L� ��_-�;?C"�Q �aF�1n��t�Jl��+-u 5 '�t, h v1�0'v� ' E'S _ �6 ► ,�}�U` S v �.��.� ' � r,�--� � � Z��" �r'Y�Yr,t1 �T,11r��'[�i''G w�jlt�Cp ��''� ��_ r� f �2 � � c- ��c�, <<.,�_ C vf:�r1�'� �/ ��' 1C'J��.r/� /� ��I - ��I.I� St I i ��7. tKN [:-''AN ! G�;C F'rHz. /�tJ1t-�t' f � �------- i. _ ---- _ . � p �� -X�3 -. �'�� nA �'��sN. c.�nq I � ��,�i �.�(3,rrNy t � ��a1Y.x� �'��J•+�l I � �� .�,'"� I ,l 1 . C3 ei�� — ��'�--- x� � � ,��/�� Ci � ; rPr'�'�(t7J_�i'r,�f��.4yi./P!:x. , . �>G•'srF , �!'iR&' �'!° sr' � r � , `'� �,,'7� / ga�E l of 2 ! • 243 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • , ��; u-ti-,. �- t�..,. i� ��' ,. y ,�I I� �� ..I�OYl1Y�;r�' l.�`'1�.1 ��' �l�'Q�� `'-'�7 S�kn-in .5'Itert :\u�u�t 7. Zfl�3 Fln�lcr G�Iler�� ('iiv I�lull �i`est Pulm Rcach, Fl :�34111 --- — -- - - - — - - h.tmc_ ..... ......... P;sr:co� P.ir,ail __ - c'iiY' o� Lh9ti ' --........ Num...... A (ItIfCSS ...... ........... OI'k,::l?3L3S10J1...... GfuU�) ' i ..... , .... h�tcts7U � ...f. = - -� - I , ( / � i J i (J � l + Yf� c � �r< u: > e "L_``�+_ } � � �: �.�� E=LI! /� ( J .`• N'J l`��2.']•1 �� il �j �.� .c�� r)� l.lr CHf L—. __ ...._Y�.—'¢_ . �..._ . I '_ _. r . __ —_.. � A . � , ��-�[:_��4'r �c�lr��C��t rj�fk��?tt ,�.��...�� K;�--�� f�.S� __ - ^ - - Sti�� '' � ti �t- �� c�r��.� ? 1 � �tc' l C�- �� l��r- I < ,_ . �.� �'�� t'� c�.�._o_�_ � ; � Y � �� -- -- ��,�,ec.c.� C�`,� � � �- � - °` „ �-1 \ --- �-� �l ��- ail�lnti� . _ Set f1�1r1��r�, C �j� rv1 � � f u, 4'� � uc� �-•� z ~i! L _6 3?. h�a� �t�— _�?3 �.. t� �� / tiGI � , ��:,��t,Y ��JC..� ,.� G!�•.�2f �.,�, c f •��i� r�4t I� �+ G„r�►�l� , y�I�/1 t !� 1 .• �.... • t ro._.,. y� 4�' .. .. .. � : �-�r��. �Lrnru�rS �� 1�3� C;�'>,w�v.e,n�r.�a ��, �L Mr�.r�rnu� ��.� , r�L��` �;� (��,G�_a�c, i�'c��.�•,��;la� ��o�'<k�... �_�' ��4�_ �}� ` I� 1I�S � ��1 1� �-�- � ' eS` �.bUt ( �� v 1 ynC { + �.l I ()r�� . � � �_�� _ . J � � �t,�, e! ��.._�.� wte��l�ed.., b� �� 4*��N��.o rur'�e�,( . ��` � ___ — -- -,-------� � �1 � i n / I ,r : �— f 1 �r., f `f L,�.�-�1';{'r�, � Vc•� „ J�4��6'.;'}�.r�' ��f�'rr;�� r . ;; . ; . -, r � � : �Y.'F'r/�" ��'G�_ '_ ;y " � Y� L ` - + ---- ' � � ;.x.+u " }i t . I �i,i �'t{-r�[x'� t I� _Fii?I W h�SO�IC�'� �1,� UY� 1 1,� __ �� _ ,> � `YL�t� l �rii , l� �', f. t; : �. - ; _ �J ,_ �a t _ � v � y - �,. ,c, .� � r � �c, ,.. c=-r�a�ilukr c ,r vcc ��n ,. : (� �, — .__—. ` _ _�� _ ��i _ ' r.i �✓, cu�L � _ ��_ � �-, , - _ . � y-_ � _ - ��v�l� `�#_ � ��.�_4�f��i �_�.�� . �:� ��,+,� ��. Y �, �'� �� I _�,;, - � � �>«� ; r ` r �5 � r� �'�Vlf� �U.� �+ . c�,�a.,v+- ��` .�rGzrnc.a�a,.� t'_� _ p — - -- _ __..—.— _ _ ..A� �.,N l� r��°1-'Z._. -- F'a5+� J i�f 2 244 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • '� � c �. . � •p n �� A � ` !:oK L�lti 1�Vurkin� Group L-- Sig�t-i� .Slrcet LMS �'teeri�� Comfni�tec� .au�u�� , z��i � F'IAglcr Cullcn� Citv� Nxll �S'est Palm BeACh, F'133401 l�a�n� ............. ........ ' Phoi�c E.mail City or � LMS --.--.---. f�un�..... :�ddress .................. organizaiian,. . ; C;roup ..... ... ' ........ A9cmtb er. r'es or ��o �,,� �lf� �1� �� A+l1LtUNi�'�5� �i��G - � _.. �e oCc�. -- c��u8 , .� f(� �ai_��lt C'�aae __ �s � J �' , . �`i ' e�1�+rs 1:�o+M1''�-C. SG i �,4.:,�,+,e.. y'v i�,•:rl,.*�t (,{ i ra.� ._ i_.�r rr ��V T�� f(. .: i: �l � ,w.l ( r �-1�.� y� �� - -- ' _ <// / i.,� � KY- /� UJb lJtl ��'tc � � - �" � S I �} Z- �eCe ��, u� G i-l��- . ��' ; , � ' r,bti - �fsZ - Gcrr..elr c — � � ---- — -- , �,� _C�` �'l.�c � •S� w'm d • O�t�J S� � ;'�p � � ''� ; — i i I '� ____ ____ � -- � : _ -- __ _ I I � , � � � I , , --- --+— - _ --- _!___ _ I Page i of 2 • 245 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 m • R - _ , _. � N N N �1 N N N N N �.a F+ 1 � �.� .. _ �+ .. . ._ —'— 00 V CI U1 A W N 1-+ K! 1fl �'JG V d'� V� J+ W N I-+ 4 1D GO V Qt U1 _A ... l.V nl �--� � r � _ ` , y * � ' L =' . _ �� ` � � i � ��;~ � l .. �. , ' � � �' � -I- J r � , �� C r � ' , � F ` � � 4 r -� .. � �s i � ' ' � - �? � f , �� ` `t� 4 . ,,� y� , � � 7 'r1 �-- �; .� r'' � �. � . „ 1 v I `� .� S , ;,� � .� ' }�, � - a �> � ji a `` � + _ ' t, ` '� ;�_ � " � r ° l � ,.�, +' �" -,, t � �' (t h k ' ', � f v +`' � a '+^ /4, � � 1� � � ` J 3 r ' � ' � - �, 1 � } � J Y � � '� w � ti � � � � � � �` � �� t � •� � ,� '� I `i ?�, +�:' . �-- (-' �s �� ti'' � '` , � w � r. , , . -`� C � � �r �,. f ., � � � . �; �5� � 1 " . t � : �, � �.,. � �,,, , � �, = r ,j� ._ - � ��:. : �- �_ '� ;L� t` ,� � , i . -� rA . � e ' • r � ��.��. ' � '-� `� ,� � � f I � � jy � f `� � �� i ' � �� i `,s :i, � c . n � � . 4 _ � � w !', .-1� , s s:' _ � �- C�) � � � f' � � m � � w h ' 0 . �, u � - ��. � � 7� ` � _� �1.- - `i —� � � � � • �' �] l. - C . _ fi p � � __ a _ .i ,� � � 3 � � .. r + �' 1 � � 1� � n 1 � �' � U I T_� • ,� ss � . C � � S ` p � 1 �� „ i-. - al � ,� � h �-J �' ^ t,�,r �' 3 � � � t � � 7 ,ri r-• `1 1- �.. . �' �' �' � '� f � , i� �' f '' {` � _ » c _ �� • �� , f� •� - � � � ` � � t� ' G S � ^ � t . ,r ' 'p J a - ` +� '� � '• � '''c' ^- 1, ^+ � r � \ � � � -�, n _ � � �} � t, 1�' � �'" �? Y 4 F` � ° 3 � :1� �` � . .t � �� ± �' � �• � �; , � � i � N � b � �- `� J L7 h� = L " . °° _,. I � � � J •h � � � � �. ' � L � „' 'R" �� V � �s � ,'\ � �'i, , v � J� - V` �� . v �� 1 i� 13 �� L � i 'i�+ N 1N t.w� •�, � .� ppp q�� t\,. � , I � 9f �,�� 4 j ` , � � � r � 1r ' � 1 � r , ' � ( / ~ f � �� = Q 4 � i• � �� W � �, �; J Q Cl ( ti , " f �" 1�"� {^� y !1� t�. h • � I�� .r� � u,� � �_ v � {,{ '� ?.' V� I _t r_ �� r- ►V' - h �f n t• } C. P _ � r - n S� � ' � , � G, � r � � - � c '� � � � r'. � ` .� { ,^. 1i I'� � - � � � � �; � � , �� , � �' ) � J ;Y � � � � -r ' ,�, 1 I�5 '*' h . �;�.., � _J � � 4' � � � ��_ ' � � � f� f � '-) ,' S�. 4� � -� � 1 � s n = � '� � ?L �,> � O �� '; �h�. . Yv' ' ,� r ,. .N� - �1 � �,. • � � � f , p �.: 'i t' � �- � {. : � • .. 'F, �� 'i � 5 � � � I 1 � 1 (+; L � 1�� ' �:t, � � p �. � :', _ �, � A �' w r. � `. � � : ��iy� ;, � ' ' ;� � , .: ; � `-, o. �t' �s � `� L l.; � �4 i' •� VI � � � C. 1 ' �� . P� � �.. "a f " �IA �4 '} j m ._. � { ��I. � . 1 s � y •��.' � •} '{ •. ��`Gi �:. , V ' � � +_ � � �-' � �S� i .. � 246 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • �„ 0 n — - .. _ — - '�^. 4� b� IJ� tn V� I,/ v� tI� �j! A b�' A p A A A ja W w W� w W w W w U+ w Iv N 00 VI [71 N� } 1/i N M O 10 IJO V Q� til A W N F• CS 5C W V OY VI 41 N F+ O l0 �� 3 - � .> 1 j 1 N T .. �7 , t �, �-] �'� � l ; � 1� 0. �' `' �. �; � �` ° � ` , , � ,, , � A _ � �;` � � :,' �, .� � : ;,l � ,�� J �r � G .� • ; �, .' � ,J�t � - . - � �1 '�� ,— 1 ' t� ,�� fr`. �� f - �„4 - � S A ' �'� � � ' � ) � �` �� ' � ` _ f • ) � �: � � � , . y .�, � � � n � � � • �� ` ti � �,� � .� �. �.. � •.� i � � � ` ,! � -�. :._. •� � L' "' - A -� (•� ' a ti � '� �' J G1 _ � 6 , � f' � � � � � � � � r � � o�� h' � . z' -- i�� 3 .,� �, � j� ' s � , t^� - + ' � � c� � N ` . , ��t w�- a�„ � „ ° ',� _' � . ` � � � � �' • �� 3� o , , a� - lf � � �, ` �'' o � � , �'� � N � . � [7 '• "� • ' � � 4 � � +� *T � \ r � � �, J�\ � L -.} ti.. .�j � � � n1 , ,. � , � t ' . �� ;� 3 �} 5 ` `: N � , t1-c � i , „_ v. �;, � � . �� 1 ,� `�� v J. ' I k ti j� F' . � { a� � t.. � � � o �-� - �, VJ � C t^, p!�L ,` 1r' �a °� � , � �' 1 T .y .A RS ? 7 � �.� � \, � v ; � � 'J l n � n ' � +� '1 � � �pj ;y � �:l a , ;�. � •� � l , N v ;� � ,I �� 7 �� P �,, � � 3 � v y �- �� k1 � '\ � 4 O w � \ y � � � � �, � `V � f�j � � fi � r, ? +� ,.. � �- � I� �� - ', Y (\ � � . $ y.�� 1t1 S1 ' 1} � ' -M_ v+ y T� � h_ �� 1' � C• � '�` � � � , �l� 4 �� tA _ Q �.._ �� : 1 _ `� t , .. h s � � ij �;,� �, �� , � i2, ' I � ,� `� r � �" p • cr .t � " j i�(\'`.,��i 1,�`^ �.�i'{J� �ti� •��. , - �{! .. • 247 Local Mitigation Strategy � 2015 • ,..�t nCf7 �:�, , , .b �. . �� + • l •' • RlU!it''r. �, L: �1r'��f ,� /3I'I{tll�„ CII`pU� �'� ��lcctin� 5►�mmary Junc I I, ?{t14 South B�v :lttendecs: • I`Jn. li�.r:h i rnanl•� • fnuy� :}( L�ike Clari¢ • 'h'c'�i�le t_ K.1 DEl�9 tiEunc. . Cilv�#'LakclVnrin • 1 u+4n nl Eirimc 13r.err-: • ("ity i>F Ik�}nl:a: 1.9rae'ei r Cily,�� kiv«-a diracl� • 1 o'�vn nf"Cicr�d I.;�ke • �I�usv15 ;il Y9�ni Fle:�rl; . lu+vn n}'1_uxnha�thr.,: • Tmon aTCelcit I{itSJ:c • ti'ill:ir;e nf 1'nlm Qrovex • I �nvn uf 1 Spruig: . tllti'. 1'14'c�t Pa'ri� F':ark . l ily :,I �; 11ay i�c:icl: • . I':�4ic L3cz,;h Cuui�t} * foti�; uf!u �etr, . �. C'tl�r ; vr.cna.ti e. I'I.ytinrng, L.�niz�g. srvd . Nrn tl�icm I';ilm Rlc<iclti . Ct>�4n nf lun�� 14e�c'li E3uil.liriu, Ci�ui�lY h:r.�+ii,��n�^r�i • Pn[ny 13ra;:h Cauuty L7;�;inct f irc �Z<�scuc � lndi:eu f ni I • lAi�t:tule f=��i ]tnpr.�vancut f�i�ri�i tiu��arna�-i: . 4;piny�c �� Rnyal 1'�In� C�.�nittiwi icics � 1e�icl. . CIl4=��1'ah:iki';; • S<�13� f•Iurr.L� 'S4'a.lcr • fo+ti�i of Brin f tircc�:�, h1nn:�er�nr.Y fli,i.ic: A I15CIlt: � • i'It�i o1;111zmU- a 7"mc;i o� P�ilw licach • ;�oty;� ol lupitcr Irtci • li��v4iifCiulE�irrq7n tilwfc< S'ntqisv � I�iwn nf�[akc Pari: • Tauu uf P9an�kqr,m � l c�un c;f l��tyio • �nwnrd�Suutl�l';Ilrr, . li«an .,1 ['alm [3C,r:h . C_iwulRcllc[i:u�.= 13c�c1� �I��nc, . t i!y ni Lkt�ay b�:�cl, • Paluz I3c��h SI,�Till�� . I vna t!na•,�.:rsrtY • j:�Wy� of I lii!Linn$ i.ltlicr . llc�r� ,1al;u�i,r [irach - • Aiu��ric�rn Itcd t'rr,�� Un�vc*sil•,' . l n+ntiti s>f H��}alnxn • I'alrn IS:ach t'uuuty � 1°hlrn Ik:,ich �r.,�:t•: . t.;let�m�or� 14',�icr I{t�c,uncs i.: ollc�: . < . L'i.y c+l B��a W�lan • Pa[in Bca; L' C`awrt}� • I:Fi:+;ssic� I{rrc�•.:,r; . i_ itti 4:t P¢Irti E�cach I)c�rrtlu�i oi }3c�rh C'n�Jiri<•�� ii;r, deri. • ��iUagco(lez�u4�a • t.,, • ViII�g�.ofGi�l' • !..,�+�i nfi)�,.: I(vdtc Bacic�ro w nd : ilic L,�4S 1V`o;kiaig C;r�,u� i�: ci,m�>ns�d �,f thc. tiill bc�i�y c�l !hr 1.�'IS, rcprccentuig �i l3rc��x] cnic� sc4lin�i u( l�ublsc s�ctor .md privalc: K:ctor c?r�an�zatrnaix :inc1 �nc9i+�nlu;:ils, is�c[�:din� [hc �;en�r�l �iuhlic ['hc l��orkin�; G�niP scr+cs ;is an u�nlarclla urgannation i'or coorJinatuig a13 azii�igation pme.rams sn�l acii�;ti�4, �a,�,�lics the stafein�; a�a�l c�p�rti,c lor tF,c stan.iin� a�id ad h�nc con�mitte��, i�i� Ih� ! tiiS, ;�ixl i, tbu� pri�7iary iiic�liani.n� :in.l f�n�m ior c.KCita��+jy�; i>>fcrnnatkrn ;u�d it?��i�ili�,u�� the +�,�ti1 cxpcet�+c and re�cturcr.4 nl ihc- �i,mn�unrty Page 1 ot 2 248 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Ili�;hli�;hrs: � K�ei R��u�Jlmc. T1tic 1 M� �t�tiv�ny; (:rri,�ini�ire i'hair. c�pen�:�l ihv is�i�ain_L' �villi n grcclirtiy� ,ur41 p�� tn tikc('it :�1'�:,uih L�,j r„r hi�c[i�i� "lic. mcY:tiAiH�. Ir 7da9ili�.ni, fiz I�ail cvcry�?n[� in tlee �cu+n[ ir.lr;nluce c hcnt:sel vc:s and slatc ! I��r. : ir'�:,r� i ia l ia ��a Ihey : r.�iec;canl. • �b1r. Knwti�i9rec. tEt:m EnLruducei! I.cx,nJ-e.c Camcl. thc l'i1}� macW�e,, i*E �c�u�h Ii;ir �.;�Iin prn++idrd us Frcc�sn�� ii'o�vi thc t'ety. � }:clein (ilc�iyoc, [.'�15 ('�x,rdenat� fur P:�Im R�;��.tt C'nur,ty �PE3i°i, s��Urwluecil C.Irtcv \li�licl, Ilie Exei�;uivi� f.?itectcx nllhc �4'a>vig.�t� C'lt!\ u�hn �sicn�idc: ihr group �.wth � ��r�si:nr,�ii� un Riili�;suon ��re,jixh Il�e 14'esigule ('Jd,t 1r,tti�C e ."[['DlT CCi11l�TICII'i r�r :nc a4irreul4y ur�law:iy. �nuch c�f it IieixilC f'unJcit la�� 1l;ei.ird M1iti�uiti,n tirant I'iirgrani ?'un.�in4. • h9r. GleiLar.e y;n�c ;c l.rcial �escr��5lins t�l' tiw�ri�il he pr�ecntcil :;r {ur Gi,vern�rr":t llur�ic��nu cu.�ftxrnce. . lnfiirnu�iic,n ;,n ilsc Ficsictrnti;�l t'u3�sin.i.li.�e� iir;inr �ti ti.�as dis��ssc�i. l:w RFf' Irsd hccr•, rclr,'ase�cl ,�¢iil �lr [il.�cisoe slate� rEia� l:i w�+ulci ccnif rt tn�t �c� all t+�ori:ing i�rrwin m�'ioibers II�e 4'c,l9otiviny_ �fay. • Thc 1'F'L lisl has h4eu yip-J<�lt5d anc� avlll be Stnl tu 67�e sLilc hv lurti: 14. ?�14 :\ arm�?]ctc lisi i�I' lhr nc�v P1'I. tuill hc xti�l ;�ul t.� aU tvn:kiio�, �ivu;� ntem6rrs cm Fric1�� .li�rir I 3, ?CiJ-i. • T�Uc prnject suhmi.xiou �i�nr.line H�as disi:ussrcf Tl�o nexl windaitia ;o :ul7;Eii1 p;ujecis t�•ill �±i� Gc1olx; 7, ?itla throu�� Ni'r�eiuL�.r C,. 2C?1�1. i'Ficrc �rc prrsc�i�l} '� l Pr��lc:ts �a� Ihc f P1. �,v�o1k Ihc. a:J�ilii�:k 17!'ll�r {+m@�1 :iiRtit[q(7eu hy !hc t� ill;i�;�: r�l' 6Z�»�,il f �IIII: Ql".d�I1 44'I11CC4 f:ri4lll'fI �C U�aI t+P 7 i • 17x; �I109 ] hA5 Falai� t5l�9ff:�llY hCll��! ri�v i��l and i: iluc lo Ih� $�;�1�� by fi,�l}' Sl.h, �{lla in �h� form. • 1'7�c. LIt9� i>+,al�e:ei�mM comna;ttee madc ceirne cLtingr.s !u Ihe ,;:aring prsiCCdue�: lur prn��-1.ti rn *c11a1 61�c �rowin�! 4oriCUtis t�l Sca I.ChCI RFSI:� C:iClSSC. Lt1I�ltF[C. A sstat,a�il C�ily \9;tnagr.r, • lic,y�Rc I3rach. bricicxl t6e c}�eugis in !hc seoruig sysic:n� as wel! as eEtc �rorrncd re:..oJu!irri� t��i a��>ur�s� rn�c�: ihe LhtS Ug�de�te E�c; IlCi:ll fl:� ;CIYCLI I?� IItC SIl![t'. • Tlu; surrEmcr ad�tihr�n c.f Q�u LtvtS times tir'��I Irc psil�lishc� �an luh� I. 'U'�l. �4cni`.�i�s arr. Hskiv.l h� en�vitle arli:.lrti. In a lhe �!rc�up �t�as InlrwmC�i [ital �Err. APril cssuc nf Ih�: I.h1S I�r.ncs wcn! �aEF sc� Fi?ht�1 and e4�citi��d .r g„uc� rrs�catsc . Vcxi nacetiii4 c9at� l: lhc 1.M15 S§'orkinK srcn_ip +.s s;:licdi3kd ri,r I7cx=enib�� I p. 'lU 14.'Phc li�catiuti *+'ill cAlhcr hC Ihe Cit;�� nl 13at•crl7all r�r tb qc uf P�ilm lSc:fch. . 14'I7�Ic rn� traiiiint c.�F�p��rtunici�s ��crc pr�.�.cntc'cI �il Ili� in�rl�:t�. membp s in.17��sieil in lr.ku�ii7� slxtutdgnto:l�ttp:� fi�r{lisastc: ir;�ining f:lti)f�t�st uin.. * )tfl Cioldt>crg, 1)1(h9 Pl:in[iiu� �1nn:�e,cr, sd+ shc �4'crrl:in�; {i� tluil i� surve.y �.vill h�r tI151f4I7JlULI witliin lu�i: u�i:ck� tc� ;i�.:rrl�iin •.vh:,! ry�it- <<t in(� ��r u•�tmi�ags shat tkley i+�„ul:l [ikr tn rc�:civc nt tiuMU•e m«lu!�;s. Submute� U�� Kelv€ri [31crt�tic. Lfti15 C'oi�rt�i�tia1or �1��w>r•c�cl hy Kc� knundlrc:c. Lt+�tS 5t�tih�in� C'ommi�tcc i'ha�r �age 2 ot 2 . 249 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • ,g �.,�N�:, r� �', ��, �,� ,� . �`.'K � l.�9S 1'4�'orkinh Grou�� -� :�7eetin� Sum�nary Au�ust 7, Zu13 �1'est P�im Rc�tch - ('ity Hall (F�lagler [,allcry) A ttenclees: � Pahn liracl� �nmury � Ir.�ti nl ; riSr. C'lnrkc . Norihom Pulns Ci��acb Oi=AI SliorcY t-ouniy h��pravei��riu • ?'��v of Dc1'rc GLulr . C�i}� „1 14� L3cuah Disiri.� • - imr�: ol Ilnny Itretz� • i�oi�n of[.antaut� . lndrir� Irall • i<,um ;}I t'Ic,iJ l.�iir . E2��tisi idAl.mfy:�oa ln�pnwcne�tiil ITisln�t • C:�ty cf fhlray 13iaeh P�tk . Vill;:ge ;>t Jtoyal Palie� � T)i4y�lcr Iir�o.�rsy . "F'f7 ft,mr Bcacdi + 1� btid�;e • I'�ilm �prwrs • ?I a a r:in� �il (irecnaccc. • I�,uei ��!f{)cr:i=i Ki.;�r • Toa��u ul .lua>ii��r Init�l • (cnrn �al 13avcit�iul . I.;:.uxi uJ I'aln� Hcu�h �'c+lunv • T�;wnoillcE:hGm�i . �'illogcufS`�Im • tiue�d� �+��rnl:a �,1'atcr �a:U ��nngs A7<mo�ciiicnt C)islv�ct • �'intia� ol ll�inl�ux. • Cit} ��i'S��urh liay. • CrtYol'Palsukcc . �'ill��ca1�Vr'cllio�lict • !urn� B.acL • C':tti' of'l4'�;t Pal�n • 14�w-r cl' Urnp I3rce: eK [ktach • i i:�qxt iFflwu, Rcaclt • I'c�uu i�.` lupiici �f1Sl'ilt: • • ('l14"nl Adauli• + 1',iln� Ilea.h C�:�.miY . ViII:�Ce r�fCi,Jf + : ily : lioca Ratc;n Fi�c • T:?�,vrz ol �'alm IS�ails � In•,vn oi'Gulixir�ain . J';ilm L3each �henfl's Shttes • Tc��ouuftakci'ark [}Itiee r Tnw��;�IMlxiaalnpau . i iiyc�� lakClti'�ar�li � :lmcncan R�ti1 Crc�ss . I��svi� ol' 1'alin R�ncl; • CitV��i'Palan I3rach • I B��iCil l�ruqly SFts:JCs l��irdcns Ib;�r�* Nrsourccs . t��yn Univcnily • City 4�. Rssien [3cach • 1'nln� Hr.�cl� {;nm�y + FBorida •�ilaunc • 1 uwn nf L;�rcahatcher 1°Iinni��g. 7aneu�, ;�,iJ l!mrarsi!v Ciro4�rc Itnlldine • P�cni Ruirh Staic • I nu�� o� �outle P�iln: • !'�Itn lic:etli l:,in1Y _'oll��a I Sc:idE I_kpnrtuicis� � � f t le;_I i l; . 1' i I lagc o I I�tijuesla Rack�rowid: Thi LN75 Wcirking C��c>it�? ls tutnPn�c�<! c�t IhC tu11 buc]} uf tlit I iLyS, t'CF.i';:sellllnt a k�cutid CE uctscrn of piihhc sL-ctor arul ryr+�aic sc•ct�n r>rgaaiii:itic�n� arni n�dividu�ls, ir�cl�den� ihc genrrui public.. 1�hc 14'inkm� C;ri�up scrve: as an uiTdire+in orgynizNt��?+.t Ii,T c{x�rdin�ilinit dill miti�;�dinn ��rnil�m�ts and acti+•Elie>., supph�s th� tit�[ling �rtt1 ca�crtisz li�r !{tr 4l�nuiini: and ;:d hi+c r�gc 1 oi 3 25� • Local Mitigation Strategy � 2015 • conunittees of the LMS, and is the primary mechanism arxl forum for eacchanging information and mobilizing the vast expeRise and resources of the community. Highlights: • Kelvin Blcdsoe, LMS Coordinator for Palm Brach County (PBC), facilitated the Grsl of two Working Group meetings fix 2013. • Kcn Roundtrx, LI�fS Chav + Direc;tor of (�era!ions for Northern Palm Beacl� County Improveinent Bistrict, wctcomed thc Working Group and thanked our host Kaloh Wall, City of Wcst Palrn Beach. • Ralpii Wall, Wcst Pahn Beach City provided corrunents on be}k�lf of the City and welcomed us Io his facility • Kclvin Hledsoe discussed the Flood Mitigntion Assistance Program grant • 71ie PPL list Was mentioned and explained by Kelvin }iledsoe • The project submission date window was listed. "i�he window will be open for new projects from October 7, 2013 and ctoses Nov 6, 201? • Kelvin Blcdsoc, The Local Mitigalion Slrategy Coordinator providcd a slide show on 1he LMS project and history aud stressed thc fact that for a City to be eligible to ;eceive funds from FEMA through the LMS process that they ��eeded to be active members ofthc LMS. Active membership was defines: . 1} Participatiott of the represenlative or officially designaled alternate(s) in three (3) oul of fo�r (4) Steering Committee meetings where plan revisiotts wi11 be addressed; 2) For the General Membership the participation requirements dictates that all juri�dicteonal representatives attend both Working Group Meetings. 3) Consecutive absenees will be cause for disqualificntion for the LMS, subjeet to appeal and review by the [.M3 Chair. 4) All rights and privileges will be tenninatcd during a period of disqualificatioii anct formal reapplication; 5) P�r[icipation in subcommittee meetings may he substituted for Steering Committee attendance in meeting the 3 out of 4 rule pending approval by thc Chair; 6) While suspended, member cannoi submit projccts for review. • A committee was es:ablished ro wrile and update thc LMS plan fo: 2015. • Lists wcre put out for individuals who wanteci to serve on the LMS Steering Commiuee, the Gvaluation Committee, or Worlung Group. Page 2 of 3 • 2$� Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • • I1:: u��l s;��.riii,� c. .m,mir;cc aicc:u:�� Gti:��li•mhcr !�. ?�Ji � �n i�;er�cy P1�in�i:..ns�iir 63��il�.lsnel :intl I?eal��ialion to�:irr:o-llc:c (Nov ��n�l�cr .�. =11I - lirncrgcnc}• h.9ana�,e�w�ani b�,�il:l�ng} �I;�ces iti�rar dtl?I70111LCGY�. • !�lli�lllilp�� t11CCh1V�. i: nr,u�.incemenls EI1(:�4lf�tlj l�ll' �iYlCti �?� r�tC �)t'C4'ff1:1g� ti(Ci71?k� CiAk11Ty1lfNU � Ucccmncr I i. Zill3'I, and Ucccmhcr f\�1S 1b'a,rkinp. {i=oup A4ak'i�3� ([)ecema?cr d. 2fil l I{15U 13 Ittry;d YaL C3eau5i �itxct, ltny;�l Palir� [lcach I Il:(yl am,i • 7 he chair cxFtl,yi�eecl lhai c�th m�irRliia n�uJeJ li ha�e.qa :�lir:rria�e as�icncx� • C)�� e.xl i.41S [imur h44i:�w�� , vili huvc r. �a��:l tiFw:,'�;<� � TR,►IN1N(:1t1�:titlMt)I�.R tiiKn�ep nt: http:��frac.IluritlaJisastc� "Crl vuu�� mifi[rstipuo��." �torkslrot�. Novcmber l�#, _'Q)1_i �J:UI:I a.ri7 a:di�i p.��_ :y1:ir4n s'�s I'uhli� 5a�tc�v Comn(�.�, Stu,art, I�l Submill[x� �y K�Ivit� Blcclv�c LA'�S C�t1tIf1I6117�CD1" r��nrnvc�i b) K�r7 RoGmdtrcc.. L1,9S �tecri��, C'c�nutaEttec t'h�ear • F'age 3 of 3 252 • Local M itigation Strategy I 2015 • ; �q,ACff r ... iAf T.' �,. � �.'� � K I , `�`tryK��'" Lil•l5 41'urkin�; Croup �EM 11�icetin� Sommar�� December J, 21113 kc�F•�I PNIm �cach Atte�dces: � Yal:n t3webi C'nuuty . I c��vn nl'! ant;�rn . I.I�ban Lcat�.�c �. 1•:�hn '�1Zh1 . f, ofPslin licach lirs::h f•;hnUy + Citp ol liclle i�lndc • 'dilu��c ul f'zim • [�Icrntc��rc . I'nw�t r�l lanny Hrttr� tiptu�gw • 1Vc�l)ruac C'Yt:\ • 1 i�tun ol Clct�d T_akc • Cil} o( Suudc H:�� . l i�ti• nl li�x:;i 1�<ir,4v;t � Cit}• ofDcir.�y li�:��.h . 1'illa��. csfl4'cll:ng;i;n . f::t'� of 3 7kC \Vnrllr . I�no;� pl (�I:tl Ridgc • fown ��f !u�>itcr . 'l',[)' nfFaln� li�epilt • Clty' nfCir�tin�cres • �1�rzlh�rn I'�Ini EI��I: lidfdCnv � I inari ��f 1hCh;t�nd Cowil}' hnrn. . C,iv nf Rw��+ra llcach Fi�iclr ,)isu�c! . l�. afl.utal�;u;:hr.: • li�wn ofl!}'pcdu��.> • lor.fi:�n lr�nl iir�!•:es • Ciay nf F';�6akcr Lnprt>acrncni f li.1n•:a • I uwn of' ERrutg i3rcc.•c. + 1h �ti�;i. �*�' K i�41I P;llni • TuwnuflakeClnrkc fi�•arh ik�nTe� • c;+�ih II;�,•��n i3';,ti:i • L tEti :�fBttynUm 13pach hlan�h��nc�H Mlttil;�ci • ,1,hs��t: r . • ('ny oi AiL•n�ha . �'a7m Resch C c�.i[ity C ol�l�a�: cdull • ::xs�i o1 Ci�11[steraro �1�7ui��rut vf (1:�t61i� • C.�S�xi �.al lunu HeicJ: • ; �3�•i� of l�ekc Pirk • l'i1l��c ��1 fcyut�sl.i • i;r.y71 i±YM4@4ialoul . 3':rt��n i�p�SOUIh Po117� • V77kagr ul Siol I Paik RrarL . I<nvn n1 Palm Cie•r.l� • i u�n�i , >(()ccau Itidgc: . 1':dm rk;�..l+ i:aun�J Sl��r�� • t'icv nf lY�s� I':iini l�ire . li,,v� ofA4ivalc�pan lseach • f'aha� ikactc Sb�:iR • fc�wn ;�f P�In: IS�,�ch . 1'urac ��f lupi�er Ei�3�: Otliee `Inorrs i_ �'�IOI3 Y • qni:rico� E(cdCr:.s • I.atu� Uutoc�.�i�• . + Pal�� ficadc Cuunlf . 1•Lr�.�i :1^,I:u�ue ��l11Ct RcKNIiCCK tlnl��erX�N� • P:ilrtt 1�'JC.Ii l_�OU[il}' • I'�I�r f�ce•_6 Sinar Plmrniny„ hvnn�.. an:i i'ollc�;r llutldtng • C1�iaacr ft�x�n�c,v Bacl<�round: I'�3� LA�t� W�,rking G :�ilp is �r3iiopri�t.vl ot' Ihc tull bi,cly uf tfi� i.41S, rcprc;citting a bit�:id crc�s�c ,ntu�n c�f puhlic sectar �urit �,r:vatc s�ct�r orgaaiiiati{�n� and srcti�: id�sals, �nclu�l�r�g ih� g,;neraG ruhli4. I hc �Yi�rki c�� scn�cs ac aii wiihrellu �>rganrzaUon sor coi»dinatint all miti�;attar�s rm�ams an� atuvdie�, �uppliec the ti1�lIT1'li; ;anil cx��c�r[isc i[�r lh� .rl:uiiling ;esx9 ad ho:� �ap,� 1 uf 3 • 253 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • ctirnr!ti�l^es u[ llie L1195, ,aial i� thz 1?�iinary iticch.mi,nt ,mi'. f�±r�.un ti�r �.xch�ni?ini� inti��'nritir�u ,mii ir,ahilizing thr v.e,t cxperri,c an{I rek�ur�c; ��I tlir cr�mm;�ni!ti�. Ill�l�lightx: • 1Cclvin Ulc�iss�c, 3 �4S t'oir;iliu,rt�.>r ti?r E'n(m 13c.icH Count� i laeilflatcd ;h4 I)cctittobcr •a, 2{? 13 W;irkiri� i;r �uG> inu�DinE.. � }:cn ILn;ipcllri�, I.?�IS ('La�r '- Ilir�rkx ul 1=Fptrali�v�s {i�r Nnrthcras P�iltli Re.�cn {'t�uni�• lmprovc�.t.nt Uistrict, rvcli:uitiivd tli� 1l�orkin}� {;roi,p :n�ai �I�aiikud u�cr h<�st C'hns marsh �ind Ihc 4'i'slu�;c°c�i'k�iwil i';'vrti 13cach • C3vis h4at�h. 1!1'J��4 uf Ri�}�:�9 f'u[m i3c�acl� - ��rnviylcJ cuui�tr.ulr cm bchatf cii' �I�c C';��• .�ud wcl�a,anari i.i� i,� lii� Fac.iliiy� . acfd'tdold��cr�:, I'le�r,.niq�� hiaraiEc:� i�,r il;c f)iv�siuri ut f.?mcrecncy 1�3i�a�,ciru:nt wa� i:Nr:�J{�ced • �clt�iii Rln'ds��c. <7iscusscil iund�rig IYL��t�CI1171.1CC5 wi11y the kcsici�rdial ('uar.tit�uction Mtitik;i�iwi Gr.int P�u�rana. ■ I I'i'L list e�as rct��c•�vr;9 iiienliunud an�l exrla�nec! hy K41v�Ei R1cJsur. The i�.s; u��;l hc:.i:rubhc� lai r�mc}ve pn�;�Yts Ih,ae ;yri gitEitr �rin� lund��i hy t�,y:�� ihes ur �re nu I.��er ti;�t�d, t'onrdjnalin}, will hc Riac3c �aitfi i�slics tiia� lwuc F�mR�t: ��n ilic� lasl. 'The list w�SI hc rcti•i,t�z h� .tan�};er}' :�I. ?[51 <1 ;intl �r.nr. R� Plc�rid.a Uivision of' I;rttc'rgc�i�:y \9anagrr.:cnl. • �Ite Nra�ec! �uhin�ssi�7� eLit�: wii'�ilot+� �aerc list�il anci diY;uc.eJ It w�i� uelt��rmincxi t3��1 �'1�.R4 wnuld �?rc,vidc ,ill c�ici,. �.viil, �Iir evnluanrm u�r.i k.l�«; I:� n.tii.i ilicEn subruuing ;trna�gcr pro;ccts • prc!piEktls. • l�uturr n;aei:ay! rlari:s ul lkic Jlrcrtn}; i' au�s �.�c 5rou� ntcctu ti,r �;114 t��crc d�,�.iss�ti anc# I ic1cJ. • LMS upii.iic was tiiscussed with Isme I:n��< lisle� un tehen R.�ruons nf Ilric p:,+.,, , .�u�al:i bc r¢t�isrcl or u�,-cixlcii. • IS WIIi C'lI5CU54a:CI II1.1E r6t• tiau:k�ng 4rciup mccla�{•s ��4eTC m�kr�cttuc.�ry un:1 Ei�W �i�rne�itir_, r.l�it hzvc mdr:s�-�l tu��3 iu u rotiv wnuld I�e �w:�lua9i•� ain�l pu�silic lanur ;�iiy �trnit�.ts �h�Y It�evr. tl5r. 1']'1 lt�� I CaGIi�D"C.�. • ll�c L!4iS reaisiost; cnrumtree was anenL�oned �ay nam�:. • Juhn Einrn I`rom Ihe. \'illa�c c,f tl�cllinp,lnn was pretie.�l�xl a 35�J Hor.ic llc�iit }t�H ccrtir�alc t��r lias ��C;�rc uf ser+•icu to Ihc LA7S cn�otiniit�t�e. tl��il liu scn�cd ou ln mcfudi� ,r.rt� tis stie chair c�1 tlie I,htS sN�du�linn comrnitt�.�:. .InFiu �vil1 lx .curing, tlus n:pnth IIc will l�r missrd. � 71;e ci�ir cxplai�3cd �leal t��ch mr.:n6��r ncedcd In har•c :n� aUtr�iatu a..signcd • 7'rainin� opporti�nitiea werc prcsrntcd to thc �ro�q�. '1'Liost� iotenslcc� in disastcr tra'tu�o� zlwul<I go to : hltu:� Pa�r� 3 e( 3 254 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Submitted by Kclvin Bledsoe, LMS Coordinator Approved by Ken Roundtree, LMS Steering Committee Chair • Page3of3 • 255 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • $t.nt�, �. ��`'; �I� �.�,' r �"<�a�R`'' Lh�iti �i'nrkin� Group `-'� 141eeting SummNry Uecember *, �Q12 'I'srw� ��f l.�atunA - Tnwn Hall Att�ndces: • Pala�i f3cecn �,zwi;y � Tuwn ot LanW�a . f�;.hn I3eniN i.".uEn�dy� L71iM � Tc�wnat Mar�p,uiaia fire Rcs�u: • Csly a( ht'se�ui. Pur'h • F'�hn Lie�u:lv tihi�ril:'s . t:aly' ul llrlfr Glad� • Bencl} C'�[y of �'thukre t7s'licc + i'aty aF Bcrea Rr[un • I�Ut4T7 Of OCCtI[I RI��C • Art!rncan fted Cross • i'+!wn �>I Nrinp 6mrz;� • Tm�,n or P �LMfI H2iK�F1 � Norhim Palm 1i��cl€ + Tt}u�n �zf C lo�a I_ake • City :s� Pal, Bcuah l+sunt} Imprnvcnicrd • t';I� uf Ikhar larad [u+nle,is I)^:s�ru + TowuoFGlcnRidgc • ��i{IagcofPaFnt • Indi�n'I'rail • i',iy �rf t�reen<rurs 5�rnngs Improvcm.nt disttict + Town c�i Gulfsman� • City Ui Rivieaa Na•x�h • 1'alrn �Sc�ckt ( ounty • T�itvt� a( I laverhi6� • i ity od 5otnh Ba} '�`atc> R�s�iwce: • T+,+wo af Highlend • Ta��n of'.'xwtN Pa�ro • Pal�n Iie.��h (-oupty� fie;i4h D:acti Planning.7ungn� and * Tnwn of Hy�r�lu:u � 4'ilEa:;a u( N'elCin�um Busiding • TnK�� <.�I Jimu Bcach • C'iri oi'R'cst PnJm • P;dm ESenci� C',»�ty . 7uwn aE l�ake C lark� I�rach �lcpamaier t�.if � laal6n Shores • Coum uf Loxafeuechcc • VIII;R�r uf � ry��esr� . Tn�,an at 1�kr �'atiti ticu,��s • b`iUa`c ut Rayal Y�Im • to«r ot lu f5r;id.l� � C;itt «t I �kc 1Nnrin • pi�:: • Cit;� oFBomton bcacli At�scni: • Ii��vn :�( !up�ir.r I�irt . Towu�:fPalrr,Eiearh • �'�q<�ge !d' Nortl� PaFe�s Cnlany tihi�'rs �aalr • 1�iUaerufGu±1 B�ck�rnund: ] hc �Mt� W'orkine Grou;� �s ca�nprisr{! ul' Ihc luJl L�cscly ��[' thc Lhi�. re-pr�:ses�iin� � bei±aGi ::ross seciiu� ut p�,E�lic .;e�ti>r an�t �rivalr �t=cl��r organizyt�ons stt+i individu.ats, i�it9udiu� ihc grneral �uh]i�:_ 71ie �4'{rrkin�, t�r�riep �rt�� as .an umbrclla or�:atti2.alinn 1nr c,�ar�lin,�t�n�, �ill mifigatiijn Pn,��,ns �snd �istiviticr, si�pplics th� siailing €u�d exFmrte,� li�r thr :stt��ing anc3 s�! lauc ca}mnitE��c4 c�l thc LA�iS, an� is the primarrv n�eclr,uiisrr� 1�id li5ru�n �i�r r�cham�:ing infor�natio� �n�i mubili the +�asi exF�;rti�c; m�� re,c�urce, �>f shr �� ?2gp 1 p# � 256 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Hi�hli�htr; + .�c>a� 5F!�aru, I_!�15 C'uon�istau�s t'r,r I'alm f�ct�ch l'i>uuh II'E�C6, f�cilita7ec's Il�c se;:i�nd nr'rst�n N'crr�:sn� <,rnur m�rt�n,us fnr 2i11' . Uchhic 14anzn, f'.�tivn A��,qriaeer. �vi.tcunEeJ thr 14'orkinc (irnup ::n.� IaivL'IigMtKd +tean+� �rrtU :��peCIS ��f lli, t�.��i • In�i7rn�,aliu�� ass pnttiicEc� wi cur�-ent H11(;I' tuntl�nu Frn�,� 'iS CI�;bE�ie. r111 mpp�icunts wHh y�r�jecl� listctt �,n ihe must curren7 Yri�j�ot i'riuritir.ulion List CPP1.1 are �hl: u� �p�rly ihroueh N�,cr�e+rtc ti,r ! fh9GP Ti�r I11 fund.. Submi�sion dc:ultms is Fchni�ry I�. �(11 ;. • 1hC �ipd»SCd f'rn�eCt Prioritb�ticm l.ist (Y I�I.j N'II) lt fC{CRSC�� I1L 13�.�ml.kt <0" ��tl C.ut bc lourd in tlEr L�1S Cumrr. • 7lterc urc currrnily 1] macikst�cn p++��e�:t� on�ciine ii+ Pilllll F3C�iCfI r_UUItLV !7Y?fll Ffcl7SCC5..I�i11171C. `ti'i�lCtfl� :1111'� �'i1}�, • ti+:t�Cra) jurisdictii?±es i�tclu�ten� int+n ��I lsmc, R.ach, i'otr o' Fi,� Beacl�. �`vi'9a�c i�d' �l'elliet�,ic?n, at�d i'ity c?!' (ircrnaere: hried'ed tl�. Vv'ur6ing Gn�up ��u 99sc slalu, r.l thcir mitig,�iicm rr,ijc::t�. • F'Ri' 1)�vi:in,s nl [.naerg��Ee.r ht��EUgem:nt hus fvnd; a�ailahlc fi�m the 5t;�4c Nim��e� SCCLICF[y 4_�ru,l PruR�ram (SE�S[iY tor a partial rlan u�dflf¢ II ti��35 icf¢iiilPi2ti lhat SEt� bnsl cuc tur Lhc iUr�d mati� he firr a,ri�ili�}n c�s tf� LM19S Plan Se.tiun IIl !larard and Vutnershilit}� .Analysi:, f`rt�jetl �tiY�rl� ��ill tf� cuif�pl�trt3 hy lhe end ni h9amh 211I.i. • • Fealurrc: 5prakc;. Pam �4uc'Kie — Sr�tiqh FMt+ds W':�cer \1an.�eemc�at �istrirt, �ixusscc! nc� .Oti�pleti 3�lllier i� (llood ��e�ts and thc �nm•cmc�t nl� �aetcr ihruuglu+ut d�u :ecion. M11s. A9nc'Kic �s availahlc In spcxk Io ci�mmr�nih ue�a�u[ulSun�, munic��.+ul officials. a3 �cctl a� c:c^.tcd ot i1t5 SISI'.iV' 4L1117�.IIr."f lU} FIC:LR' iilRl8�1 Ms. hlac'Kie ar the fi'ilkx+��n� ;u stt7adule: a ineetrn�,: 1'um Mac'F:ic f?fi: i f�1i2-�fi�� ;r �,msci:ic_a�stl+•nul,go� • I'KAIN1�{; tiF:Y�IIYpER — .S'lg�sup ni: hi1n::IMac.11oririaJicestcr.or�;tracAoginfna�m.nytyx � G-393 Mftfgation for Emergency Managers, 7anuary 30 -31- Browerd Cou�ty EOC G-278 Benefit-�'ost Analysis: Entry Leve/ Training, March 6- 7- Palm Beach County EOC BRO-dD1 Hurricane Resifien[ Community Planning artd DesJgn, March 14 - March 20 - B�oward County EOC ti�.ebmittcJ br .lesk; �pearo, 1.h15 t'pcx�iirw4<ir PARe 2 el 2 • 25� Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 _, �;:. . • �/4rr:.rJ'� J�' i:llti t'+'+I k �� Palm Beach Countr Public Safety Department L)ivision uf �;mer�;ency NYana�ement Locaf Nlitigation Straxegy (LIV�1S) 4teerin� ("o��r�rtiittec� 11�1��t�tir�� . ,. . :.ai �a C�aer: LVelcaiti�zjlntrc�iluc:�ar7; - C7�i; � � � Last Meeting Surnr�ary ' .f� - � `- � � ��'ua> . LM5 Program uprJatt - leff Caldberg , , , ,; Y �,�� 4. • Meetirig �requently charoges i � y,�;,,, • Roberts Rutes of Qrcler , �Y . � �- �"� � ��'�'� • Resolution . t+' a��„�T • �" I y � . Grant funding apportunitics + Project Prioritizat�on I,ist (PPL) U�date • LMS Tirnes • UptUrr�+ng Training • Quest�onsjCon�mcnts • Next meeting date • Adjournment i �:�y�,�II �, � U � ; �, ��'' f � i �� _._�-_� � . . : ��RiV ; 25g • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 . .�`" � I - ,� , ., �,.!'100.19P:• , I � : __ . �_ i':tlnl Bc�ch Counl�� uivision of Gin�r�cncy hlanngemeni LNIS Stccrin�; Cummiucc hlecling Minute� 1L'ednrstlu�', Seplemhcr lU, 2014 11:011 a.m. DI?hl Coi�fcrencc Room Z Attendccs: _ _. _ �._ _ -- -___ _ __ Andriti J�nncl - D��1 Drsastcr C'onsttl[an iCe€vi�f [ilcYluic- i' (iC�l[�:1�1 , _..._ _----- - __._ _.. _ kcnccc:+ C"reigl�t��n lleh•av 1�9edieal Cenlcr � it�il ( , �liihcrg PHC'L?�1,9 -- . Carins Ce�l�n�, - Crcr nacres K�rl� ��'hilc - C'ilv c�f I-akc 1Yorth - ___ -- ' ----__ ._ Llau•id it,tar lupiic�_ Ihzug 11�isw - PBCPL��.B _ _ - - -- - �cbh \,iatv -(.�mlt�na Ed Kcrr - 5 nvllt R�i� --- — _ _ _ -- --'- - i�e�� Rc,undtree Nurtltv�Yr P(3C lmp. f)ist .I��h�t J;tittcs 1'E3C' NicdECa7 �czcicty :llvin 7olimon - P;�hirit lcainyiE'ei E3e�k�t - nRC' _ Uyesi Ll: 1i.�ya1 Pahr� []e:��tE — — ----- ----- I) (.'�II to <.lyder: �1'cicomi+hilru�iuetions - Kco Rnundirec L1�'�S CifMirnr.�� i�cn k�ciundtrcc c:a7leci merting l�� t�rdr� • IntmductN�rs of all atteexEer, • 2) L�sthti�tin�Svmm�rp + A re�:utv oftlic t ti9S Stccrin� C'nmEr�ittec minuta, II'Ulil JlYE]C �i �[t]4 w��s �r•FnduCF�;�3 I{IC �CCl1CdCL- , Tu•u a,rrrcUoa7s rr<�cl��- titillC4 h. seuund s�niea�e, c:i5a�ic�;e sctx�i,l I+e sc+s�r:; �3uIIt:E ?. �Itird se�El��,ice, �tcK��i� su:s�?�i�si: lo resp�i�:;e. + 5��e.4Nuclinrrrrll ,tifeeti+��; .Sf�r�fmn�� (:'nrre�cicd C'npy • A91 ��1h��* Itc»t�. upp�avcxl Iraarn rL,: last tiict'ling hcld t�n Jwtc 4, 3f)i �l. 3) 1.1415 P�•o�;� U�dnfe Jet�' (;oldUerK � ATeetiu�, Rrcyucntl� Chrnges - �vill mcct .�uanet•[y s,�d kc�p ii�t,� �,f' I I:u�i ;�.rn - t2:3fi p.�,,. • Robc��. Rules of Ordcr ��tEl fi li�w ��iiideiines �nd iulc� (i�T lair and c�ttl�rop meriiri�s. • Resoluliun -,ICtT spr5�;e «•�Ch y'ancact ;a[ the alalc: an� r�:Fx�rtw tFtnl tn��cli lacadior,c ar� minur. l hc cvalu;��ini: tv�ll Itc� c+indutilc'cl li?da±� ur I��rsximaw; and tlie 5t:itc wiN ,��i<<i�� u•hen Pt�sset3. ;4':: n��tia �ta•: �±8 ��t�niC�,?ati[ies. Scti .�tirrclni�enr 2 Rr..•r,lurin�e tl�•aj) I�ir 4hangc� in ra�i. 'I'ltis tir il3 �i, l�cti�r� tl?a: Liia�n3 hy 174c:cmhcr 1��'�'. Sotnc of tlte cnang4s inr.lud� using the �vording lracaa nlitiZ;atinn v,. uniiiis9 xntl s}�c9ling �r�l th� tirord FE�4?�. �V`k�e» the Statc notities !ei'f:, f;tppror•yl hc �vll sc�ul to c�i1 nten�bco+. � h:: rtu�;ution will cl�e�= be sent tu tttic Sl:dc ;md FE��1?. will gei=.rtatc a,etter. A1 Uiul Pa�r I ti I ;3 • 259 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • r` " ' I ,. : , _ . 1: � . „ �� . <�:,;�- �-- � pi•�in�, t� 't' 45 Z�I Ilil1'l' � �n :i��in�vc� LM1�IS tivltich gu<;s Ito 117r Ro,ant. E:xrculc+l r4�n9t�iiun, ;irr n�+��tc��l hv inid-N��r•c:ntb�€- c. ylnrion 4o awcc�r c.han�!c� and aililiii� aie�rndm4�t - all in timr•nr motic�n ��usscd. 1 h4 qtECSti�n c4•as tatce�l: 44'l�at is riy�uirtYl ci l�4i± 17istricts ana.i I•�c��s� tl4 ti�, c: incarioratc thcit� ic�lu LR•15'? I�l'171FaCTti n,I�if:C COIflISl111tC �7TC 3[�V156(d 6F �.aExlatcs, kkci: ['0��1� ity5�;9it l7c nitilo lu reaclt nut In thc �liciricls siticc liL. �c x��rking a•i�l� �c�a>>}rliig. 1.17' will cihtain cl��rific;��int�s frc��t� Ihc 51�to. �t) C:rai�t D�uudin� {]N�anuniii�s - Kch�in Nled�c • li4:lv 9J1(yKC l4"IIIi LI1l' �le�ll' i7I�F)uCl�� anil if3cir mili�t�6in6� P�,p� IS a(1�'i3111g [iU`1l ms�nir.s ar� avai+ablc. Uiscu�s��n ti�r,n� tl,c g�ou�� •��, �hni it's tlif�iculs tc� ��ht:Rin nmdir�g a13cr a��plyui�. It', 3ws ,�urtf; ihc h:i.r•�lr - i� tr�kc�s mcmths �Int�'CVCI'. the pr«cc� has hccn stroantluud. The �tate is i, oper� tn ;�ssisl - Icl TCt�UC3t U1Ct` 3tSei�� f,��r L3cccmlaer I+J"' I�V ork�c�g Circ�up iu .liticu.,ti n�tv �mr.ccturY::+ and givc infonreati„r� ,�n grants, icnnifcr BecRman �7�,te, Ca,enmunilv Rl�,ck f�rsmts arc at�ar[abl�:. kel� ic� �.�•ill dc;�elop qucstiosis t:�r thc: Studr ��i�,r t�s ihcir arriva� ani� .vilF ohtuin ,ldd[lin�tJl iiiti:rmation nn fiiirilei�g. a) Project Prioritiantion List (TPI:) llpdalc • t hc Ev:nluataon Ct+nutZiitei itscl aucl ee�alunrc�t 1`�llHgc of koyal I'nlrt, L�cach ? I �rojccts. • • Ci[y u+'G�'e�macres rcrrxi��Yl �x�me Pmji.ets Rotj� at ? I.'i hey have wrtil Uciui,rr �,'' Sn 3ukNnit - nn nn�n ta'indotil' pl i(1 tl;tvs. '17 :s chalred by C3tlui Ccxlr�iu ui� fir�enucre�. hl [�u�rteriti• L�]ti �i'iu�es - Kch�in Qlcdsur • T'I�c L.h15 i irr,cs is an i�}��,rrtunity ti�r a�uniup�lite� tr, �'11�I1IL�.;III 1I1817 dC�11C4'C7Ti('RtS. Kela�i�i encuur��t:d rncmbcrs to suhmit anicles. ■ 5idanot�r: f C:arc lc�d�e�tn� :zps arr �3cedul - Jctt�rr.acfaw ,�ut I�� Rclxcct5 fmm C�clrik and .I,,hn laiz�es from t'Lit' �9e�iical 5c,cirty w;�s �n auctiu��nce llc inin�ciucca �ll 131eE� F • Ic.nnifcr 13cc9�mun trum DRC ad+isc�l sl�c cmi vulymil sr9 arl�cle, as wull ��c Oinig Ib't�c frcini t'1.4L�. N[c4tcres arc; t��ei�nnte to iric3u�[e sn lh I M1�IS Tisnrs. Tli4 ncxl E�ublscaticiir i; �i�cii�b�r I'' <uxl vubn�is+��rtis arc ncalavl hv 1=1ct�h�r ({7 • lt �v�c aske�l sf t.h�: L1r15 ;:aei �� >1�i:eJ un thc ��ch�ile. �('u�retttiv, Ihc rlcimin f�in�n�eir_ 4ccct�it ha�:sJEcs tt iC \VlL)SIIC. I3(114' IIIC PIlSf1i1111L; SCCUCIp 54'III \pp� I1{ in �hgr�,: ��f� updatiie�; tiie wehsit�, ?) t!pcominK l ra�inin� - Kclr•in Bledsoc • 7licmc iti Hn c�tic.cllc�t licrsctits�('ost ?\ral;:sis �sassc�ilzrei! by tt� Si ��IC- IC��E K! 11 �,�;_i murc inli�rms�Ei�a:� fnr 1hc group. • SI�'.4'A�9U ftostin� C'FM (C'est:tie�l F'lutiil Pl��i ►vta��u�rrl .�a�n ��3 huur) ;el �fistri�; ��f�i.cs. tl hc.y will send Kelvm thr estiia�l tr, �listrili�ie. Page 2 t� I � 260 . Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • i r.. ... �� , , •'�'' '�` y.�r- � �E�M Kl (2ucstinns�t:onunents • F'louil zc:me yac�ti�in.; eame up ur.yl thry :.an he addr�s�rd t�� 9lr�u� 'I'lx:re is conh�siun wrtli the ] p(? yet�r tic��.d �aEsits, a� t��e41 �s thc low-ri�k .nx's l,i�h-risk. 17�1,7 cari f�nvard calLti t�� Ih4 Flrnd iut:�mt:itiun 1�otliltc-. 1t`c cai� incar�x�rtac llle hullisic rua.nbc.; int�� tfec UE:�9 �i�r3,vilc "193kc a i'��n" in I�,rrt�aixan. Se<er�t� 4rkini. fcatar��, iyuuld hc hcl��#'ul lu 6uo'c nn tltc I]Lh9 tivelt�itc ;�� a�ell. • 1_!pciatcs by Duub inctudr. tluc�d in�ir.; �hal .irc chan4irEg lix Ralm Bc�:ieh Ci,wdy. I lu: ra�a�s are oiiliire. Pl�:�sc lo��k ai �+ru�+�ni�:� and direct aaiy ��ucslic�ns ;�s th�. tluc,d pJln Itotliue. Kesy�in �+��ll i3i�tribut� thc tu�tline iaumber as i�y��ir�c� arisr.. I hn �treriing, ar� tonight �n [le[]e Gl.xlc •s�i�kt re�i�[e�i9s. •!' I3C� I�DI CYIF4Il'klt '�+•iFh thc fliieid m��Ps. Sh14'MD did ncr� mod�I (�51 flood s�u��s. l�hcre is an ;y,��alK �,racess ur �)ii cl:tys :md I�E;A•1:1 u��ll :xlaln�s 4.acl} apEa�aL 'Ttscc�i. is ;� fa [�anth waii;laF�+� ;;nzj tlit.n i�iap; �ve�l h�� Iir.aE. C�S,()L1C1 ar� hving in - residestts �t•ill neucl to ��i�uir� ilnoti uuuiait��. 35,1if.�0 do not €au.li 1]r,�>d pl tki7lg. St?41�1 CuW7(4 8fC85 ti�tl'111 Sil FtL• lI7C:. W'1'f11li;Pti - CeTf".l'[i�ll:�C.S, ��a1��11 `r)I'lJl�.l', anc9 the Acreagc ai] In<,k �,00d_ E l�>snc� huilt i3tter I `}80 sluiuld bc Clcvai�d arid uk��v. ltiCri 7 c� can br. tix�tt[�t��toxi fi>r t1::5i�t:3t*,CC. - • Aqu�e'�Vt�r'kin� flCOii�y mcrtin�ti ar� dc Vl�r wilR �onduct �a alterlhtLS p�r vc;U • 44'e +,•iSl keep thi: Ste�rint; Cumn�ittcc mectin�: uiTie oi" I I:i7i) ;� m;ince i� r�rav c<mtLU a �ith DE.h7 teail� n�c�rtings cm oc.cas�o�i_ . • (h!C L�•IS tttcctiR4;S :tfC Gf hlgll culfhc� and �ae thank all uf ihc mcmhc�r. •�'Ri qucsiic�Fn su;:ts a� rc-ccrtifi;;atiin�, iloo�l ��;ur.ul�; sr�stem;, alens, ;�nd c+u,r+iin.3ting of �ctivilic� �ri n.�w handied by Brias Hanlcv. DE��t. •.Annuaf confacnre. �e�er.ting is sct tbr Pebru�n ?015 iiti Orkandu. ]f tlie gmup wa,:i {„ ,�sLarrl a hesi �rai:Ciee p:u�z1, plc;�sG ;�d�`tse Jeti. yl Nexl i�[cet3n� I)ate: Dic�,nh�r i, �1i;4. :�djf,urumrnt. 12:1 l �r i71. N;s�;i 3 t � ( � • 261 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • ---: �- . � �� f ( � ��'�'�., ; ,�� Pai m Beach Cou nty Local Mitigation Strategy �LMS} Steerin� �Qmmittee IV�eeting . - . �:.all �.�� t�rcJer ;ind lrocr��lu�i�ons • Prior St?�rer�y CUmmi�#ee meetong np[es F "'' Gc��re�rx�r's Hurricane ConfCrenCe presentati4n �i • '�'"�' • LMS Evaluation Cnrnm�ilee - Updated PPI. � � k' 2;r �'�: , �i ` � Funding SaurC2s � 8,1+;� � - �� • FuEUre Corr�mittee hleeting Dates • . LMS Ptan Update - SChzaule . l,�iS T�imes + ye�l �MS Review Te,r�� + Quest�ons/Cprr�rnenks . A<Ijourr�rnent � Upcomir.g Traii7ur�g �� v�,` ' ��ACN h �,� �o . �,� _. f ��xC)R14 262 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • ,��"`•"� 1:,�95 Slcerin� C'ol�lmilte� ' , y \��, ,. �.� �lectin� Sun�msu•y �`'� °!�""-`�- ' J u ne �l, 20 ! �i � �� A tte n dces: � _ _ —_ ---- 1 1n�lr4,t Jait7cl L�5�1 I)u<ul��r [ o»sult.anti K�I+an filcxlsoi: I'L1C DE`_h•9 _ --- — V1akc; Ete.tc, - FnF �d F _... - i _____ ,icf, C� uldl�r;��; Pf3Ci�t:�4 � C'nrtas C'ecEeno Grren.� �i�:ei Raker I'13C'f-1Z - --. _ --- -- _ _. � A�vic3 R�il;tr . 3 u�itcr ----- — Di,u�; ll`iyc: PFi('F F3�ScL [)cbhic �7 anzo -Laru ��ea f.il Kt�I7 - :�iltlh 13 av — __ _ — =------- �Kcr, R�xmc�trc�: - N.�rt�he�sy P13C.' I�. pist ,�llco� O - 1Yc ct P,IIm liC�ch _ ,�h�in Juhns Pahc,kec Ral h �4'ail - 14`cst Pa6ni Ci�ch - -- --- — — - - — — — , l.,�rrv f.c sl�o�ar� 1'alit; tiiacli 5 u�tr C'�> 114�� t3s►ckgrnund: The I.Ad1 Ste��rinr C'ornmittee serves u, thc+ I�,cz�l 1,litig,ttK�n 5u�otc�;y f1.M4S} ��iYi�T;jni Eioard u[ D;rect�,ri; therc:lort:, is 4he ��r��nary dcoisi.in aticl �sui�ey l>[��fy ti�r LA�1S ,pnstcorcd n:itie;��tio�� t�ctivi9y. fhis ci7imnit[�e n:ee�e a:i yu�incrl�� basis for Uie purpcuc. ul rericw•ing thc pia�� aa��l idcnliEyin�; upd;,tc rcqufrentrnts. Fli�hli�hts: • Kcn Ruucidtree weknmi�i tttc �roup iuid tit�u�kec9 rv�ryunr tnf irittliltg. • A rGr•icw of the LAdS Staring C'ontmittcc utiinWs (R+m tF�c hlarch 5. it1(+� ��;�ti cxmcli�ctal far acwra�y. On� corn�:ti.�r tn hr i�ladr. retarding :�tl�miii:i:ti. • • liclvm l;lal;uc ��+�c ufl u�•erairw kns PtCSClttatlod� at lllc (;t»�rrnar'�; Hurric�u� Ccuil�rcn�c in C)rlanda. 7 hc: prc;ertair,n u•as "Intcgratutg Clcmatr Cliungc Inta Youi f:mergent�y I'lans." htr. I3ltxls��e expL' 11i1C(I IIOW" tI1FS w��s R�ein�; t�ccnm��ishccj o�ti P��lir� fieach C'uun�y. B} inte�ratine 1l�c 4rrn� ".c;a Icvcl nse" inti� uur lucal ycisring r.ritc�� se� ;Is<at it rc:uls "}�lond�n� ae►ct'ur Scei I�tc:l Risc wc ensure thc sp'st�n� �as�t l;iir tcr �iiics tivll do not h,ive a sca IeveE rise �ssue. • n�r. �i�.��o� p��.��3�i�i �i�� t,��i n�oluUo3� 1i�r nduP�ing Ihe I.A4ti ti� ihc ixue�tsiiMlcc. 411cr �� grrlt discu,s�un i1 +vas dctcrn7incd tlktt :f�e terrn "sui I;:vcl r��c" evoUld l�e rt�mov�-�1 front }�ara�ia�rli 4 sincc il alrt:ad�� 1��c�rc�cl �n pura�;raph I. • Ciou di,cutision u��ti he-1d nn vhc hrst •�+'ay to stay �n�;:e�ed in tica 1�=v�1 rtse itY.e��lis:crn. + I Ite Pf'L lisl u�a�; bricii:il rcgru�diit�; tlx� uicliisiun uf�i prnji�ct sub�7t[ttcd b+� lJir. VAII,��,c� r}I Itoyal Pali�i Eiracli. T3i�� pm ranketl ?fj c>u1 uf� 71 sti•i�h a+i:hntil of fi5,?, • TI�� .ranl nP4�lti�niiles fbr ilir Pr�-f)i.::stcT �1atigstiuu atcxl lh� rlixi�t �iii3�,a[tnat :\�risl;i��cc �;ranl prograttii. i3olli :rrr {lur rm .lunc h, ?f!I �t_ bue iii (�IC 131J6L'�7 rrc�u=.rcrosnts and lhe Short suspc��s�� tinte. 3':sli�o (3r<�c�� ('i>unty ++�ill n��t be go��ag a��lez C�IIIC"I' 'l�I �F�(75C Zra�ls but x�ill b� prc�,:n�rsg ru�l ln a��lg nex� ti�ear. In u�lciiti�yn Ihc� Rcsidrntial Cnnstructinn (�rant Prcr�;attt �vay hric '�CY�, ( I117C �4:35 i1ItiO :1 4ID.l'l1ti:iR141 nn de��clopj:�� a mctho: 3I](I EIQVtiII'!IL' G�)Rlf['ilI14Y It!f �?011lk; atler mdi�;nlic�n lu��di�� ?�o�ttinitit.; ti�r liic ncxt }�1' cY'c]r. PagP 1 pf 2 • 263 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • • LMS Plan update was diyc;uxced wiih a review o f the tinte lines developed. • The Fbride Division of Emergency Managenient (FDEM) has introduced a crosswalk/evaluation tool to assist in updating LMS plans. That lool will be emailcd with the �neeting summary. • Thc Summer Edition of the LMS Times newslettcr will be published July l, 2U14. Committee members are encouraged lo submit photos and erticles on mitigation. • There wi1] be a State Hazard Mitigation Plan Advisoty Team webinar scheciuled for June 10, 2014 fro�n 1:00 AM — 4:00 PM, Webinar information will be emaileA. • Future committcc meeting dates are as follows: o Next LMS Working Croup Meeting: June I1, 2014. o Next Steering Committcc Mecting: September 10, 2014 • The mceting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m Surnmsry: Provided by Kelvin IIledsoe, LMS Coordinator Approv�d by, Ken Rowidtree, LMS Chainvan* • Page 2 of 2 264 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • �� . �, _ .. �#'.�, .� � �'�� Palm Beach County Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) .. Steeri ng �om m ittee Meeti ng + Call t�:� Or�el an.d intro�Jue:ti�ns ° � Prior Steeri�g com�nikt�e m�ee[ing notes ,. - �;_`�� Sea Level Rise - Carssse LeJeune ' � Fundiray Sources � _ ' 1 I � � o` • Y � �uture cammittee Meeting Dates ��I-"-. , �� _Irl��: � � • ' ;; � r�Pl List Scrub . LhSS Plan Update Sc�iedule . Ernergency Management P13ra5 . LMS Times Arlicle r2quesa �nd pub�+shing dat�s . �dew� htembers . Evaluation Camrr�itt�� {�C1CStI0nS/C01�1rT1�11t5 • Ad;oumment • Upcoming Traininc .. � -� I � � ' _ ��,ACf� �; �..; �,� O� I ;-'{`' a �.'� , � , r �� :, � ? � J •� _ ' `�ontv�' '' - 'I � • 265 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • ; � ,, r .. ��, iy i ,, .� ,� t �`'- ° 1^A��`?�� L'�1;� titee��n�; C'oni��ittee ; f EM '�9c.ctin�► Su�r�an:�r�� 1'lxrch 5, $O1�3 Atten[Ice�: M1larcc�c ��a�ifi�scaaila l3rlte Gl.�cl� R•t��y 13a�alla;f- l3e!!e t�IL�I� C'aPisse Lc�cune i3oyo�iain f3cat'li t'arEuti C'ctil��ru - liraciuECrrs f4ndrea I�t31e.1 ll51,9 Disusicr fimsulsa�:ts L)a�'Id Rutar !'upitec L�+va}�ne Sste[i� Lakt il�isrth Alvin ! lohi�,i�r� Peihr,k�c Kclv��a Bledsnc PBi'DPA�I 1ef'FGnldhei•g PD{��l:ti9 L:etn� lxskc��iaii- �'��liii B�;a�li �tatc{'c�llcgc Kut'i'i,dil - I'�C� lla�i Bea�ley PF3CPR p,�ug 14�,�e P�3[ PF3&7 *Kcn Re��cndtree -:Vunikrn !'RC' lntP. L7ist Ed Kcn ti��e,lh �i�iy Vickv Delhus�{uexvc - Sc,uth Fiay V }'t61 D�[3� Rny.il P;�hn licach Ralplt 1Va11 - 1��yt Pahn Ri:a�h Bac�grc7und: l he L�,15 Steerin�; Cnmmitic� crr��c�s as ihe l,ocal 1�7�ti�aliu�i St��ie�,y' ? I.4951 pn+gr:Em Bnnri� 01 [")ire�!{>rx: Ihcrcforc, scn�cs �.S itce pri3i�ry d�cPSi«n Em�[ � c�licy bnily �of LA4ti �po��suretl �tt4ttga3ioti ieetivily Thi4 r.ommittee. meetc nn yu��r7crly l?,rsis fi the pur�nsc of revi��v:t:b i.hr • pta�i aii�i �itentih�uig updale rr{�uirr.mirls, I li�;t;li�,hlr: • Kec3 Rr>u«dlrec wc[cumc�cl cvcrvc7nc to thc 6rs[ St��;rut� C'+nnntettc:c titc,�:liir� ol 1hr- ycar �u�d il�;,j�i;�Y3 evcry+�nc ior eoming_ He ha� everyuiie intr�xlu�c thrm�cives. + A fl'V'iv`t�� c�i'ttsr I�,t l.ti1S rrx:cting min�ctcs held Uerc.n�b�t I l ��U� � 14u�4 L'illillLll'. • t'au•�sse I.ejuune, Iht� �ssi.ss;mt t'ity �,9.utager for ch� C'ity ui't3tryntt�rt Rra�ii, rrtovitl��cl an �,u:4tanclinb p�centai�on on S�a Lc�� Rixe. Sltr �Ittailev3 Ihc: �x�l�nlitia afic.�ss ancl iiiir:�ct; on Pahn L�cach Col�aty. L1�e ai�� providrtl hunc!-vuls ti+•ith :�rlditsnn;�l infonnation. .,ti th4 iimc of the mceting there tivere nu f'uudiug oppe�rtuni�ic:� ar;:il.iblc�. Flox�evver. I rcceivcd u�3 email iioita 11u .iyt� witte n�,tc�iri�l funcling e��ortunitics tor r��,�sc��l e�tnmuitil i cs. { be4crtir � f�ear C.t��mun�ty +ieSf�ICntg N�!Lwr�rk, P�,� 1 �F 2 266 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 � i'd I:ke tr,� pass .aicng infprm,iti.�r. «��.arding �s �Ri S- �(l'r 6�7('i4f;lJ: i�'y �fiY LUEP.�kI� rE51IiE11C�/ �'NOf45 Fun�ed vid tJ0:1�1. This partir:�l�r n�sp�rtU��ih� IS Jv�ilaE�le tc, resilie�cy'a�ork heln� tf�ne �tlun� FIUY«ta's GUIt C�7d4�. YOIb f�T11 fCLhL'"N tIIL' S�.eci(ic Fequerement5 herN If yc��.e are mtcrested: Iittp:l/w�tiw.grants.fi�u1w�eb(�nt5lv�ew OpoorlunitV.htrnl7np�ilrl=�5�Qt3 Ap�lfCali�iis arc due t�y r�.p*il 1i, i014, an�i rhe �naM: dwa=[! +s $lOG,06D. Her� i� a short d�scrl�iU��n prov�ded 3t Ihe 36uvc lirik: �T�� p!i,'�:�i�<? o! iJ fiflGY:f1 i.� iU �niic,f �7rg„n' �i��5di5 (iaro ealy;A�(! rvg�inri:lbr:nv tn din�[I.TBnI dL�fJXIBJ' r178I Bfl1J:1i1f.Y' rasd�enon rt�coa.c'r�� rxvnn:v�r�d,��i fr� n��lartr� naz<n:; anci ;i�7iata r�tih:slh•au��h t>,i:�zi, iu�iava�. _r nalia�i na,wrvA. Ffi�:,,,nrs subrr,Nf�,l vi rr:,c,�y„�7.yo !o ,"his .annou�rt.��; �nf .w^:� �' prr,: a!� � C�ti �uhU: ovf�o�s itr cna�.:tai Ca?irnurnTK•s ��i�ifn��'!r; .:irl•ycy„'r,p �x�51,i�g an� futu�e r��,l.�� tti ;bt, rnfw.�� r.�n�•vuomr�r;. infrasirat.f!xa. �r•^.ai cr:nm,rnvrs, ar,r7v:r,hE�•aii�r wcw¢r.�atians. Prry:e�sa1, rru:`t:�t�rrr fuox cv�r�rn:e, cr crc�r;a s n�n�,:n u h:r.�;K;ir nt'�wYti'k i+� wfii Clt �PP C�.^IGra ��,35•.A1!;.42:lIlI'A;:�(ii`v L�In ly[�, �[�FSSLhi L4rcu�;h,uat�>rr�;u, to ��ih:�nr.P r�unnnunicad�bn, c:o: tv:� - 8l�On. C.=ra'r,�v:<'rJinn, �3nr1�%x ca7t4i.�s.ralicat • FUlure u?mmittCC Itt�e[i[Sg da1e� u��;re prc.�,cnicd: �_> l�ext 1.1�7ti ;�tecriny, Ccimntittci: tma:ting; Junc �i, :U14. a�ext 1.A,15 ��'r�rking C�ruu� t+4cctin�: .lu��c I�, 21114. • I_ 1�9S l�pdatc wss �iscus,ed wi!t� ii ervic+v c�r"thc timc luies de�•ehipc�E. • Chc• spnn� cciir�)» of tlie LhiS '1'imc�c nc,vstcttt:r ,vell be publis4�rd :1pri1 I, ?.tsa�a. �'ammittr.c m�.ntibeFS a�•c; e�zcourag��! t<, ,uhmit ph�tos and artia;lzs un nut:�:;[iun. . l� w;js ;�nnounc.c that our �te�v LMS Rv;ilu;itH3n suh-z.mm�tdcec i'hair. is Cark�s Culcni�'. Irr�ni tkec C'ity of C;rexnau�;.s. rl�tdi!w�i chair mcmbcr +��crc nan�cd as a�e71. � • .IcIT [;�klhcr� m�iiti��nc�ci h<��iung upPo�itinitirs lu thc gmup and highlighie�i <in up- cornirsg rniti��iiic}e� cf9ss -� G,it),i- Llitlg;ition for �fltergenc4' �9antig�e5 ;a� t?�c Eir�+v ECH:' oii hlarch ?i1 ��i ?l, 201�. F'I��sc sign up [hauu�h SfR�� TRAC' at h1tp:�'?'?rac�_flgrt�ad��a�i[�r.nn,. li }v}� lxn��4 irouhl� tegfcterii�t;, plea�e u>rdsct C�vctar�o Vilchcz, PHC'C1�R9'1'rainin�; f iinTCiln�itoP 1l Sb I � 12 i • Tl :c m�x�lin� �vas �ijjat�cncd at t"�.(ii p.u�. Summary: f'r+�v'tded by tLetv9rf [ilcilu�c, l.Iv1S c'onrdinator Aprr,>vc�c3 hti�, l�rn Rnimcltfix.. Lylti Cha�rnui:' PaSY 2 U� 2 • 267 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • - �,,:� �;i! i� � �� , � , ;., �:� `• .'�.. . �_ ,; Palm Beach County Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) Steerinc� Committee Meeting .. + Call t� C�rder act[7 Infrt�ductiors . Prior Strering Cortt�tltkee rrseeting �notes °6 �_;_- � _ „a";' ' �+ • Flazard Realic�nment Presenta#ion :��; � � � . Fundwng 5ousces } • Future comrr+sttee �ie€tinG �dtes �. ' � . L�tS P3an 11pdaEe � . L�15 Tir�es . htem#�er Transition . Questions,+Commer�ts � Adjouenrnent + UpCOminy I ra�rs?n� � ' ,� a �F.ACl� �, ` U ��t � V ' - . Y � �f .. • �� F ��f 1. . .... _ : 268 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • ,:�� f . ,,� � �?. I � U C � �� i �� 1' j : K .. �, - ,i ......`��?R19�'�� LNIS Sleering Comn�ittcc �� leeting Summary Uecember I I, 2{II:� Atten[iee�: L)avii! l�ot�r - J,�nitcr C7w,iyllc L�tCllc City C)#� Lu�e 1��?c[li Italph 11�a1i � Wc;�t PatrE� I�e-a�?; F3�ll Jolu�,sos� ['BC' DER7 Kcn ltoancltrcc • �ort�cra P�C' tmp. D�sl lcff'C1i�talhcr� f'B(_' DE��1 Lsrrv Lc�cko� Pa]:n IIau�l, Sta�c C'nll�gr. ltarla 1��his.c - C'ity t��Lake �V��ril� Kclvin SJc�,oc P[3f' T)Ftil L;:�ckg�•ouctif' Ihe Lw15 5teerin�; Ccni�cyiitiet: servcs :�s 19,r Loc.al A•litigat�on Strati�;} ILA•l5) �Sr�iL1':i[!1 Lk��rc1 i�+ iiire�tun: ther�f•>rn, +crv�-� :ii thc �nimaiy du:�siou and �?t�licy bc��fy ti,r Lh.4S ��r«saret9 miii[;atu�n acti+�ity. 'T'��o� ci,mmitt�c mcets on y.�arterly basi; tt�r the �+�rpuse nf reuic��ing ihc nlar cuid ielrnt�lvac►�, upelairra{uirr.encni�. • I I�;!hli�hts: • hcn Itotai:dtme t��elc,,�3�1 evary'on� �u �h� lr,yi Stic7ing C'ommits�c M1�lccting of thu ycur atsd IhankCil evri.Vc�ii� li>r ctin:in�r„ • ►�:vr.rvimc intrcidticc� themsclvcti. • 1 r4��i�wv ok tits iast L:��1�* ntectu:g fielil 3une t!1, �'.{11:i �ti�t�� Guau.�ud4d. • K�n dicGy�sst�d thc �:r�t�r tivork�n�; �;cuu�t ii�r.ling, hrfif Junc I�y. 'tll�, aut�l inii�nFm.l cr•crvx�n� ihat thcy hai� a sain�nar�� ai�,kil �,i�1t�c lr,s4 mcr.�iob anrj g7Vt; ca•cn�a[te Iici�r lu 3yk yutstri>c;s. • le;ffi Cic�::iUesr� P�3C �T:14i - �:mergt•rcy �+rrs��ram C'o�rrlinai�ya {1'lanning Scc.tion L hirl�� ,��oviil�al a braci' nn shc Ha�zard Itcsligi�mc.nt for Fl:v.uri S�e�sfi� Pla��s �uul lu,�i� thc7c wr�uld lx: nn rtTiY< <o Ihc L,h9S an�E county. lfc dtscu�si�cl lltat s�ur ;�le��lntenl is u5 lin�. i�r If�: +�aic unrl ir.ileral govcn�r��nt a�xl u�e.s C'ompraf�c�ysrvc I'lani�neg Ciuiclm��.e ltil (('I'[; I 01) �ncl CI'( �'�!i I�u our �uide�. Page 1 ul 2 • 269 Local Mitigation Strategy ( 2015 • • I'unding sources were discussed and it. Kelvin gave a presentation on potcntial new funding opportunily &om the stete's Residential Construction Mitigation Grant Program. • Future oommittce meeting dates were presented • I.MS Update was discussed with a review ofthe time lines developed. • The LMS Times newsletter is going to be restar[ed with a potential publishu�g date of late January 2014. There will be 4 annual issucs: Wintcr, spring, summer, and fall. Cities were asked to provxle any stories on mitigation success that should be included in the newsletter. • It was announce that our LMS Evaluatican sub-committee Chair, 7ohn Bonde was retiring at the end of December und that we would scicet a new chair for that posuion in the neaz future. • A slide on future mitigation and incident managematt trnining was presented. • LMS Stccring committee members were informed that the slide presentation abng with CPG 101, and CAG 241 would be sent out to them • The meeting was adjourned at 12;17 p..m. Summary: Provided by Kelvin Bledsoe, LM5 Coordinator Approved by, Ken Roundtree, LMS Chairman • Page 2 of 2 2�� • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • _�;;,�� ;ir`�tf ,,�!;� �11:'Y�� , _.� . � Palm Beach �ounty Local Mitigatior� Strategy �LMS} - Steering Committee Meeting . � C�II to Grdcr an� Introzlui:'�tin� • Priar'uVorkinr� C�:��3 Mleellrtg ��;:,�� , Curren[ anc) Fxp2ct�d F�untiing So�rces �, �,_ ` ; + � K: i � �� • Rero��rnendatiors from Eva[uation Par�et ' ` • 2013 Project Prio�itizatinn List {nPl.) Update : "� ,�+T� : � ' � • . Seatc Resp�+�se to L1•15 inquirie5 . Future Stcering ron�.nNtt�e Meeting Dates . Future LMS P{an Updates � I.MS Wt�rk Group M�eting tla2es • f�leefing �tost • Mernber Transition • New Comnaunaty,ILusmeas i�tembers • Comn�lttees needed • Questions/Comment5 . Adjournment . . Reminder af tJp�orrur�g Training � I � CERT i�airei�q JuEy and .kugust ,�g,AChf �, ; • G Interni�diati: Incicierat Cnmmand Systerrss and �^ �;��, �, Cuntr�l 4eq�: 12-t3 . a �' ! I • G-q�,� rldvanced lncider�l Cammand Systems and k `� � r C_ornmand £� G�neral Staff: Camplex lncidents � fi�oni9�' R i i�_ • 271 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • "'..nill r � ,.,. ; b : ,. ��1 �:1' � ��.ti� ��I.�I ��..�� '`<<�RS�"' LMti Steering Committer '� i�ieetin� S�nnmar}� ,lunc !y. 21113 :#ttendecs: ULbbEe Nianzi, i_a�iean� �avid Rc�N�r - .Iliptl��r Etalph 1!'all - 14'�.,t E'alir Hea�h f�i'il )�ihns.m -�'Es�. [7E�1+�i �a�isse La.ILw�e - Bu�nton Bea�l� I�.d �:err - 5„E�Nh F�nv K�tt 12�}undiree - Narrllt�re� I'liC' trn��. 1)isl. 3',:t:f F31t�:kru>n - P9�{ 3'rCC li�� 1;�me5 E�arretl I'13C� l.i}ir�rti 7c�nnifcr Ti�cknza�i - PBC' [11tC' Rieha�xj Ci;iihrti�h6 - PRC' T)ui(iiin��. F7ivi�inn li�hn L�otldr. - 1V¢llingl+in T�cvC�eti Senll - �3ellt (sli�d� L.ICCy LCSSC�ti'ja�'r P�9ht: IiC-aCh Jt1te C:t?ll:�e Pa;�l �c�ilin� - Tlel;�y fir;�r.h AV�•in Je�lutson C�ity oi I'ah+,h�e /t?i� i3iirge�s - 14is�Fl��nd E�cach t:'hris A�tais� V II3�Ls' Ot It6}'1I I��IIi I3Gill'C'a Hrth 19c.Elray-SI�V��,9�1 Kyla N'hi!e t'ct� ()I l.:s.;c v4i>r[S� [.]ebr.j f�.. I3utf - Cit+ 01 Nrllc iiladc Keltiin 131i�stit�e I'li�' 131:�+,1 IDacks�mun�: I�hc 1.A45 Steerin�, t'��m,n�ilee irr��r• as ihe Lcxal !�9itigation �trat.:gv �L..L1tij Frogr�i3i t+narcl ot direclun: th�rei��r�. ser,�� us tht� p�mary dc.cisi�n an.� polie�� boJy for Lh95 spon,��red • miligaliun uciivity_ This i;nnmit�rr mrc'Is un quHncrly hnsis for litc. pu�'pn:;c vt� t't��•icw�tni tl7e �E�m �n4 idtntilvirt� uhd:ur reyuirrmrniti. 11igt�iight�: • Krn ftountltrcc ti.cic.,mc:i c.�cry�ia� io �hc :'nd �u�u•ierly 5lcerucF i'omniiit�:e �;•tcetin� [�s ihc �csr ti�+.fl? .�ut�r. • Kcn introduccd tll�. ncti� LNt� c�wrdinator. Kel4i ESICCiS�1c;. 371� It7l' allc+��;�u avervtmt i�a lk;e ri�om ao ,s��m�iu�e thentxt� i��c3utli�ig the i'i1y [hry were lium. • t�ra d±se��ssc� the pri�7r µ��rkint grnup ��eeting �n�l mliinn�d a��rryuni; that thzy I��d ,r suuu3yary av„ilat+Jc uf ihe la�t mectin�, aii�l gar� ev�ryciit� timt t�± rr��ietir It4:, n�>Ics and asked ii'tl�e;e �tiere ai7±� yue:,tiorts. • l��utdia��, ;ource� tivere discustieil an� it tiv�i�; i€�lcmtin�d !ha1 ,tl lhc' sim: l�tcrr itre no c�e�� liuidlne sourees av�iluhie. 'apF ] Ui 3 2�2 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 � • John Bonde discussed the Evaluatioo Committee's lasl meeting and informed the LMS . committee thal the two projects evaluated had been integratcd into the PPL list that will bc scnt fotward if the LMS Steering Committee had no objections. Hearing none, the PPL list was approved and was forwarded to the State. • Kcn thcn discusscd the Statds response to questions the Evaluation Cornmittee had conccrning the current and future PPL list. The final result was that the county had the ability to submit the list in any form that they want the State to wnsider. The county sets the priorities. • 7'he next date for the Steerin� committee was decided to be September 18, 2013 at 11:00 a.m, at the EOC. • LMS updates will be worked through the steering committee. The Plan will be broken down and sent to members for input and commendations and then discussed at the quarterly steering committee meetings. The LMS coordinator will begin to send out portions needed to be reviewed immcdiatcly. • The LMS news letter will continue with support fro�n the steering committee. [t was determined that the Letter was a very useful tool for gctting thc work out on LMS issues. • Rafph Wall from the City of West Palm Aeach agreed to host ihe working group meeting. It was determined that the meeting would be either in July or August bascd on • dates available for the venuc. Ralph conhrmcd thc date fo: Wednesday Juiy 31, 2013 at 10:00 am. Parking wi11 be in the City Center Parking Garage adjacent to City Hall at the comer of Banyau Boulevard and Dixie Highway. Ralph is working on l�aving the parking validaled, The address for City Hnll is 401 Clematis SttEet, West Palm Beach, 33401. This meet is a mandatory meeting for all municipalities. • The LMS newsletter will continue to be published with the help and input &om lhe steering commitlee and lhe cummunity. • The Steering committee discusses group and committee transition. The Evalurition coauniltee Chair wiq be retiring in December. The LMS chair asked that the group considcr scrving on or having a member of their city serving on the committee, The Chair stated that he would be contacting members to assess their interest. • 1'he Committee dixussed adding members to the steering committee and at a minimum ensuring that based on the charcer that the required members are on the comrnittee. The list w•ill be reviewed to ensure we are meeting minimum requirements and also ensure that those on the commiltee are regular uttendees. Page 2 of 3 � 273 Local Mitigation Strategy � 2015 • • The T.MS Steeting committee Chair stated that committees would be formed as needcd to , accomplish the goals of lhe LMS. • After the meeting agenda was finished, there wa� helpful discussion by Carisse Lejeune (City of Aoynton Beach) and Ralph Wall (City uf West Palm Beach) conceming items critical to the mtmicipalitics in Yalm Beach County. Ralph provided some hand-outs to Uic group and Carissc rcferc�ced the BiggaR Waters ACT (Slides attached}. • The meeting was adjoumed at I 1:58 a.m. Summary: Provided by Kelvin Bledsoe, LMS Coordinator Approved by, Ken Rounduee, LMS Chainnan • Page 3 of 3 2�4 i Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • � � Paf m Beaeh Cou nty Loeal M itigation Strategy (LMS) Steering Committee Meeting . , • C�l I;u V�der an[7 4ntrod�ctio�s • f�Tior l�'orkir,g Group h4��ing � = = • - �„='�� . Current and Exp��t?cf Fundsng S�urces � � , ;� -;,:i , • Recommendations fram Elaluatian Panel � 1 • 1U12 Pro�ect Prior;tization Lis� {PPL� llc�date • • Fuk�re Meeting Dates Fi ?,Q14 Lh1S Plan Update • Questions?Comments • Adj�urnrncnt • Rer�inder pf Upci�ming Traarair�g • � hfitrgati�n frlr Ernprgen.ry 44,�nat�ers, L7eCeYP�ller l�a - i l a�d January 3t� -31 • G•278 �Eritflf•Cnst An�iysas: Entry levPl Tr31n1r7fJ Flarrh o - 7 • BRU•D�JI flurrlc�nc ResrJ�ent Curnn�unity PJanning anti aesrgrr� �larch 19 - htarch 20 , a+ ��,ACli C �° q �"�� ,R � a ��" ' N . .�`, � � a 1; �, � � A<URI�` -. r .� • 275 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • i � * Palm Beach County Lo��l M itigation Strategy �LI�S) Steer�ng Committee Meeting ., . ,� � �all to G: �er anc Introduc.�i,ons - - � P�ior Worscing Grotip Meeting ►°��',- • �';; `�'_ + � Current �nd Expectecl �unding Sources ,,�. � � , #;6 ,,., � • ReCOmmendatic�ns from Evaluataon Panei � . � � • Zd12 Proiect Prioritization List (PPL} Update • Future Meeting Dates f� 2014 1,^�1� Pl�n Update • • QuestionsJCornments . Adjournrnent a i�eminder of Upcoming 3raining • G 393 r�Pitryation for EmPrgenCy P�'anc�g�rs, DeCCmber 10 - 11 a�d lanuary 3U -31 • G•�l8 Berrefi!-Cost Analysis: Entryleve! 7'rdJnrtrq, htarch6 . Ls�Cr 001 1�urr�cane Resr/�ent Comrmrnity fil�nning �nd Design, March 19 - Mardt 20 'a } _ `��RC$ �; ri� a`. � o �aly ;' a� �� •.._.,:. s � • � •�� x4�1i1��'�, _;_ . _ - � 276 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • .v r� .,� tn � � �� _ r. �� ' � -,,, � �'� � �' �}�i? � V �� j .� .� � � '� "�.�� ' L� __ '~ � ,.�. V- ' � � � } ��v C -�_ � �'� � )i M z k `�� '�y �, I r� i � � �` � -. � A (� - L� w 1 '� �� .�`? � �' — u � � �� - i - ,\ - - �+ . �' n J � � � � ' o r. � , _ ',� - c d � �1 �� I � �� ` ,,' ,� � � Q :x � � „ � �� .� s � � � � ' l I � j � a y _ � W �'�� y-� '� I O _` y �; 4 c.=� ' — QI p�p . '�� ' � � i �� v t, � ' . �� R .� ' � -� -� '� Y ��j . .k �� `' , � `� \� V r`� � � ¢ R `+� '� � � �� ~ `1 C �— � - --t . - . u � , � -- —, - -- - — ~ _�� I 07 G�1 N O � � `•� � -+ � � �. � � ,°� � 1 ' ,� .�, i� � � — -; � i� � � �, � a � � � � - � �'' ,� ...'� �. � L � ;�,.� , ,�. � � a -� ;_ ,�. W y � v 0 £ � a�+ 0 �i �� L c `.V � --' 1 ,� f -� . O U G v�f � ff� �� ,- � �' �- � � � ^ '�n eo eo �. `� �- • � C � � � � _ Y � � _ J � i - � � � � i �� \ I � 1 � p �� ti q \ ` � _ \' t _ `'� \ � ti;� � -T �I r ° �,, a�i .,. `�..� � _ - � __' �, Q. y, . .. :� � �i+ Vf � > _ II . _ c v► � � II -- ,, —r-- , � I u � v I� F �i i �� I f0 ' "� .ti ' ; � . 0! ` � ' • . i m i Z f � � 1" I °-� � -_� ��-_ j9 � __� , 'C t -`�„ 1 x _ �� _� cL , V r �`` , '� � � -- , � '�'� v ' \� I � ` `_ I . � - �� ' �r . ..... f — ,y — 4 _ �, _+ '',. � � �; y -} `� - �l / 3 � � � � Y l ` �1 , ` 1 �' �` 1 � '-' � � � � �' Q f S � r � � W � - \ j'i C —} � v �" � `-� �, I Z i � ` � '' � � v� j 1 �" ..: v ��'. ' � " � �� l � - � �_,�-_ � � � � y -. v �_� � ' � � �'� '� . - J � � i • 277 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • l � C('3 ___, _ _— — _ , — l ,� , �� i � - W � _ � ~ = S� �, � : � ;� � �� M1 � 4�r � �� _ j -:� ' V J � [� � �� S.) - . d - � � � l ' � W � � � � � C �, � I � - � I � -- --- — : r V C r �� l � � � � �� C y N Z 4� mt ' O ; ' �„ � � � 1' _ i , y � � �+, y i Z i I .D O � t � � }".� H � � = a � i ,�� I C U ' � �j � � � � � � ry 'v� oc � "' � f � i I • O � N � C �� ' 'c' `�� ' , � � � �� ` � c � � , -_ ''�_--� II � � � I � J 1 I U i� v a�C j - � n, ��i '� � � O�i H i � � •; ��' �� , m � ,� � -� � �i � � � � i� � j yi � � ,� � ; ��'� ._ t'I 1 I fd =_ ti � a r = - � �a, `� ' i �' ,: �---- � _ I f �� w� �' Z I .. . ¢ W d ��. r - ' ' '� � � �i vj i � . u �..; c � ��, � � �.-�-, � ��31i J - I ' _ _ . , i , - a � .i � _.� I L .� — 2�g • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • H.�., �� r�y � .. . . � � g �.:.. ;'x _ ��, �� ,. - . � , '�'�K�9`"'� 1,A'!S 5tccrin� C'ummittcc L-� Si�n-in Slte� J L�S' St��rin� Gommittee .��,� a, 2aia G�ncrKency f19�nagement --- — _ _ .. — � I hon� Ii�nai+ �('i1p nr � Name......._ ................. � , , ....... Num...... Addrcss ................ .... I ur�anizniiou......, . i � __'__,_: .. . — �� -------- �'jJ° � -- ;N ''vrz++� M 1�'SL'►'1 1�'+�+'��!'�2 b�"7��+s . ��Ntl��l� ! `��1�.�`".t. �� ` / �e'�.4f �c `/. �+�!'� /-lv5`9 r�r�rtE�,��.��l.r+yC:'/ C�%�� >�L�u•/". `' � C'� {tit.'� f'�t ,. ',c� \ �T . [ -� _--._ r' � Cel �` / _ C_� ` _ � l - �. '� l_N�ij�[�'� � t - . . ,• K �.\ „� .. � ; `� J�;� ��t� �� h�, c c� X'_f� .ct- , (�.rY�tt;k`lc�� : '- 1 � __ • � S � , � � ; _'_ •��--.� � � _ l`�o j�c>S r ��S , }70S � � <�-� . c7 � �v t r,ci, �f� Y� � f vwn a � ,l �i� •.t/ -- —� . ---- ; 'I r r:, r • /- t -/� � -�t' �'� ' IL Z - �S ; 3 b H c. �� ; �'b� ti.1 F� t ---�6.c�r � ��1 1+1� �� _ ----- � � �_� c�� I�)� �.� � � - _ -- - - — -`�� , �� Y� r ` � L' — .. _.�.__._ y .. . ��(:3r �/�St�k-arf��'��t3�1ti C'v� �'+fl5r f� f (�" �, �f�xe G lS��'f I� �o8-y Mz ✓ , _—_. _._ __ T _ ' , ___. �`G � t W? /(C`' ctij0 �7 . [� 1 r ��. �r o � f � �� ' �/ C�S �� r �� u'�'.f r � �e�s ��ea `� __ --- --- � ! /� tit.�tl <}��' w L� l_G' ip�jiL - f , , �,� ' �; � �� 7 _ � � � �J _. `,�,.:r U �.• C.I ��sa :u.r-.��. � ��<_ -- _ u � , , I :� � ) -- � � �G r 2t ! �� t f ;,i,.,-5v.� ,%C� r ��F C' !y r.('- �'Y�1/,'I'l' ��CI�1Li�7o.J �G�l�j ��tlt.rzY� L- �,f'JF�frtFf -- -�-- — _ __ - --- — �.%� / ��, rr` S�r G �� I!�'GJ.✓,i r�,; �} f/r ! __, / _ J_ ��.' � / - �S � ��7P5JC,7 ��1\� �N� V Y� I° g�- 1�SK 0 ✓�'�,� P1�lM17t�G� f�C1�S C�ge 1 of 2 1 yolS' .Snqr�. �t��C ��i�`-�' � � f`nik r �^YS tv(��.t'ti. mY.l�-la�+,:k'� C.v�"' .�t� i�Zl.,,. .%il-�a•> • 279 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • ,� �FRCff.. aMtr: S 9' C�., ... .. 1� ., n I� f ��l aNN , Y • `'p`"_K��"' . 1.1415 Stecrin� C ammittCC L—� Sigrt-i�t Shc�c<1 I,1V1S' Steerin C o�itnittee n�tar�i, s, 2uia ��:n�cr�cocy Mlunugcrncnt —_ -- _. Naitie .. ..... .. .. ......... I'1�onc � !?mt�il ('ityr' I , -..... Nuntncr...... I A�l�ln:ss ..................... org.uuratian....,.. — - _ ___ _ ----.. (�,r� g S�G 5�a ► - 1��2w►'YC � a�3 � �� — iLeS�e.une, 7�a ba �2 �3Ft� , c� 5��(�C.� __ _ , _ --- — ��dv ��/ ,Qw�s�� /�1�� -- - 6�tli �� L.�s fi rr? ��c- �r.rr �U l�c ��.�. ---- -- --- /� vl_li.vv , �___ A l v, nl ��1 �_'z+,� }Af }rxt a=� __�I-YZb�cF3�l �✓ea�.�nl�f,rv.d=PfjUatr[' ., - -- —�--- �. �. � - �. � f v1 �C1��1� �� '�Cn ` L� n - �,� /�! , f e ��t�t`.� � �� ' �� N � I j 1- k i�. 07 -- � l,v�j� �sM � � • "7�'J v f ___ y �1 � _. ,, _ _ I `.� r'ij`� �� 1`�i��/ ��`�� ,— ... x�:�r� ��7c�::-� ��:,�-F��: v y�«�,�„ ��,��,�t��,_ ci�r�,�� Itt�r.l`.;,. _ _ __ -- _ _ --_ _ � ��F`G-ol'l��a5 �-.�r—, P� i� _� � �-- -- -- ^ --___... _ L,R �?.t�s4� 7�i.-�.55� „5�� . fSr.��od.c�t�� Y��cFr? t �✓'R4 , --- — — a � - -- — _ _ t y - Y01�P't,� ��I� � �l�a -+� R�� '�'�'� � f --- _ ----- -- __ �t� la s / � `' . L1'.2 � ,�Gc'd��,o� �� [. �La.ir7 �07�1 �,, yre.,n�ur�s•'�•`3 lr'�i'+ac�-s _ __ _ � Page 1 of 2 2g0 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • .�p,'� nCy r � . •rv V r � �� Ut � 1 � rt �`��tl�Rlt't'�'� � .�15 �titeet'in� C'ummittee �''� �li�ll-I►t S�lBC'l LM.SY S'teerin� Cn�n�nir�t�ee Nlurch �, 2Ul�i f:nirr�;cncy Munsn�c�nent NiitY3C..'-"" .................. � 1'hnnc ]?mw�1 Cily:+ .... ZVumncr...... Ad�lYCSv .................._.. or�,�mit.i�lStrll......... ..... _ — _ _ __._..._____— c // - / - __ _ _ ��R.LP� �RI MiYfNfCSC �rS��$ , �'J / , ilo/� f r t�,G� t �! {� 1-t/ �IY� � li ��T �rl�i+�" '(1,14�4. � ��t _____ _ ______ � C � ' _ l _ --� ��ab ►i��a_tl n�o a`�. � �qu3��`i , bell�o��: �� •� 4� �s � ' i _ _ � — -- �, �'�r ;� �r,� ; �, � _ _ -°;;,�: �7 N� � u��ic�� ,(" ; �u1 ,:��, . �',_/' , .. , _ ; � , ; ; , __ � _ _ — ----:1 __ • �.ci� �„� <,t�� f �,� (+� �� {, Ke _ t �'�� ,�U � � ca�a [ ` -- ��'�l� ...__?_3�'� IFhrr�.,� � �� — -- �— — - � �-� ��G � - �r✓f�E::Z��..�,� `�_ �Jl�! — ,"�� t '��'� �'u�-- ,t!``'f� G � :� L. , _�� r _ _-- i �/, C' !��/ �. �L � w �(�P � bU Y ut?'z.�/ � c_7C �� y, p�- Scwc��,'xcijc�'�Y_Cii,n ' _ '�.�� :�' i�54.y _!�� f �� E �� , — -- _ , , -- — __ – – _ 1 Page 1 nf 2 • 281 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • ,r,�tr� �tit,aCrj �_�- ��a: ��} � ` y �� . �'r.'�. I . � � w, �� I � ., : . ��,yt� _. . r �Fjr)FC� 4..'� - L�11�15 Sieerin� (:c�mm�ttec Si�n-in Sl1er.! LM�S Stee�in� Cosn�t�it�ee Decemk�er � 1, Z013 Emcrgcncy �1Anagemenl Nan�c.,... ,,.,. ,.. f'honc 1•:n�il iitv n,- � . hum...... A�1��ss ............... . _ .. .>rg.iRir�uu�, , ... ---- _ _ ...... — — S -, �L't �.��,. �r� u��i �1 w°� - � _.--�� i�l 1�r .` i ��. �.o��. S �yK ��1b�i � �: ��. y � r . __. , _� s b �- � �/' ��,, �; /J j Ji c 1:r�.c��tli- /�-+ �' G� c � - 1� l� ,��G� �'` _r.;,�.�� 1 i � `�4� y I �� r r ��. ; '�� L �„4�i �t' LJ ��kt k�,, � µ,. �� (! �� d1� �� I �� ' �' � �} � ��' �] � � � � C 1 �i � c• k trv' U �'�-�, � -- ---- I � aC — — -- � - _ _ � �=>�_ + f �:�,r�� J �, r�= , �j �.`:��:'f•�� `}'�'} ---p � �.-1�:. �..-k-r�_'�t,.G>ic , � 7_5'z'�'� S it�c;r'��`�� ' ,/ ± �Z 1 -�'LJ - L�.Jr'CO ✓� d-.�",� A� ��-r� �l��t� I L�� L-� -� �� p / 6 ��.�t-1t J� . F 1Ja{ �.��- �,G_1„�a[.'-x � � sc�r - � ,'��•✓� /fC�W�o�a, r.r-9 ��, �, �� ,� , � ��,L, v ✓// 6�E� f�' �� _ , _ - - __ _ �, , -- -- _ —_ __ _ _- 1 _---�- ; Pave 1 of Z 2g2 • Local Mitigation Strategy � 2015 • I � pF(4C'7��I r.`.. e .- �'��oRlo':•'� ],�gS STEEwN( t:c�n�9,wrrTFF �--�! PALVI BE:#CH Cn1JNTY [TNTFIE� LMS 1�tember sign-in sheet r�un� rv, :o�;� , � ,• Deb�iie Manzo - Laniana _--1 ±sL �L•.!"' %��-/ �' � --�� —� Scc,tt I'a�e - Elelray E3each � '� :��--.� Paul �)airlin� - f?elrat� fica�h �,G�-�`� G� '��i �- ; � r111an llrt�nan - Vd�st P:�kan 84n�h ^. � .. �f �°-. , -- _ -- --- L�avid Rotar - .lupiter i`��':�''�%t-� , _ __-- - — ° � - ___-- l:d Kerr - So�ch t3ar =1F • _—��, - —_ --- • luhn 13nnde - W'ellin�;tan �,�/ - T i C'aris,e LeJueiie - i3��vro[��rr He,ach �'- — . �, .�_, /� �. � �rver9y S�oll - Relle t:oladr � : � �_l.i!-r,3.: i�' ` 1 �'�' T �S-: ' _ _ -� T �� r R:if�,h V4'<eIl -'vti'c,c P�ilm I�rach ✓� ��=r` �- � �' r r�1IIi30Cl E�OV(� �'F[ank Eri�;san - C'S_� �,f J�_�� / I . i Link 14'aJthc€ - C'o�tinent�l 5lielf �'�,��9,n' . � Kat�ie K�:uney Ni'C'� I l�ldin� ��'�-F-'`-� -- Tam tierio - Veri2im V4'ir�lcss �'� � �� --_ � —__ �, / _ _ __-� [ „rrr [.r�+k��vjan- Palm l�rac� Stalc Collcg�_ ✓ (J( �¢ _:'��_ _ i ! .'l; � ;11 i;rasso - I'E�{' Ncahh Dcnarrmcnt �-v1.•� J'eter Mewman - PFiC' IEealtk3 J3ep€u2�tee�rF _- � ; �_ r � .ler�rsif�:r EDrekttian -- I)i.�sier Recuvery l'nalifi��t .1�� ' � _.._ �� ' -� 1'on�� l.ar�xr - r\re�i 7 Re�i«n;al Ccx,riiin;itor. �'"'uci.`r Ftoeidh DF.h9 • 283 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • ��'�' � ken 1'od� PaJm t3e�ch C�ui�tti� �'U�`v i�- _.__.... _ __... Paul Bii,�kstm Natrn k3eacl� L'ounty �,�,Y _ 1 "Keii itr�undvee - Northcrn Palm Bc�wh Cn�ant�� Itn�mveRtc�l nisteir:t �'-� `� � -- :?:� 7im �hulfm�n l�edian frail Irn��ro�•emcnt Clistrici �i,��--yf'N _ �`',/ � i �' i� �'�;t -�— �� Kcl�'in Slc�isc,e (nonc votingl i)T�9 - P�lrri 13ea�h l'c�uruy i., i,�_� ' l - �_--- ' - Chairpersnn `•- Vice•('h:�ii � -�� !�lu,'rJ �Tbk�1r�5��'� _ �-`9` r��' Pn�aor�r� .,�-�- r t ik,f�''/i,:( l�;t.'+SIr_!, �t I • f� r-r f I r.'� 5 � ��,,'L( �r f J /�- ��+_� __. �. �: �� t �,<_ �,,��,7� � �F-��-,� ; �- :�.�� : � �_ I_J � _. �_YI��S I�/1qr5� � ��l�z.c o� �e��11 � I�..��-�', � �� f--- __-��..� �1 � � t r� - s�--w M.T7 � �'�c Z� - . � (� • � < �-nr« � l t��_ ��r.�,� � �c�� _ �,.M�t � ( ' l,.t � � l �C � � � `' �:.-� l��, � t�,� � t �- �l � �� __ I �r3Ka � , � Li.[ I� ' �� .�.'� t� �.l�e ��r��c .� ��_-,�-��-�`=�� J ' � �'�,1�.��n n�.n'`�C�* `� - �t'�3C__ ��=�`l ; ,, , ,--� � � ; 284 � Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • , .P�.I.�N C �. .. f '+ 4 �`�'� d K I ,. `'`?n,u��r'� 1.C11ti N,valu�[iuti Puncl �6A4 �7eetin�; �u�amarv ylal' .2. 21)14 Karen'I'enune- Palm C3u�ch .le�ir�ilcrliccicman I'Q(' GRi GI Kcrr- Souih 8ay - Abse�it Kcn R�suncltrcc- NI'C'1L) ('ar¢�ie Lejeu��r - Du�;nlon Ri�ach Cara��s C'cc€cnn �,rees� !lcrec - C:hair Kch in tilaisoc L415 Cs�tanlin.it�rr Karla 1�1�hiee Lakc l��sctte �3�kkl'UR712(�: 11ic L�lti E.valuatiini I'�Ei�l i� �I�:sia*�1�tC ttii cValu�ti;. r�vietiv. �:��orc, ,t]ttd I':;Itk I�]ittj��t�v[� 3?r��jcClk ilirot 4'S�111I45I1t7CI K�l':l� ,1.d� �md ri�d�ial prioiui,±auoei �tin,ccssc:s:ii�{I critrri,o iliKhli;;l�ts: • The neu• I_h75 Ci�:�ir opciicd thu mcrtu��; ai�cl all�,wcvl cvcrya»c t.� int[o�irure ihemsclti•cs. Th�rc were tu�o r.cw mcitibes� tn tt3e �v�luatu,n a�mmittce: Karla �;�hite, ancl C';arissc • L,: Jclnte, • l lte Pan�el uis�u�sr�l thc nnc pmtcci tiw[ +vas .ukitttilircj liir rct�ic�� h ihe b �lAil};L' cil It�1��1 Nali,� B��ch_ 7"I�e Pn,jc4t wys scored �nnci �a�ric, in �H numhCr 31 oi 71. '1'hC C14y a f tirc�;n :lcres ,��,v�,l Iwo pr.��c�ts uff thr �ireviciu� i'PI . lis; Ic.3vis�g 7 f rcmnuii��4 • Stores were zfc:k.�Y� t"oz all iaycii3bers. ��r �e��r� denxmscr,�c�r4g �a clear p�rqitru t±cltiwcLn 'iC�'ICtVCCS �171I C�I�iT 5l'i�iL'S. ��il.� dc�itx�mi�ati:, ��18 f 4'il�WC[tCtii ��ilC1C�'S a�l�li}' �t1 til:c}fl: q�1U�t;CCti G)tltili!Cf11Iy n�'Cf El ��)ISllilU'IJllt r�lc' �;I'+>J� �a�;9x �7�C;#SC 1�].1€ II1Cy� 15'c'1'� tit.ltitilti�1C771 acn>,:!t�c h�s�:�c3. • I! ts.�, still agnrtxi that thc cu�tut�dt�c tvuuLl rnrct r,+vicc a l��. v, �s�re i�2 A�la}� �e�d oncC in V��remhcr tit�ith r.hr dat� �u l>e tiel :cs thi� mt^t'ting ��lrrii::�31ei� aitil u,uld kx: ugrrt'<l upofi. i'aqe 1 i,f ? • 2g5 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • • The next Evaluation wmmittee meeting is scheduled for Thursday, November 6, 2014 at 2:00 p.m, at the EOC. • All new projects be submittcd 30 days before the next evaluation pane! meeling, which would be Octobcr ?, 2014. This provides the panel to have suitable time to review new proposed projects. • The LMS Stccring Committee meeting is scheduled for June 4, 2014. Reoommendations will be made to Steering Committee for final PPL approval. Summary submitted by, Kelvin Blcdsoc, LMS Coordinator Palm Beach County Division of Emergency Management • Page2of2 286 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • , ��4.�Ul��-. �� " i ��1 ;I . p `-al�:+''' 1 L\1S 1?�•aluntiun Pancl �EM f11�Ylin� Surumu� �luv 3(1. 2U13 Kar�;�? FetS�cric- Pairi Rrach .fonnilc� lic�:krn;in - i'Ei{' L�IiC' �.ct licrr 5otiith E3a} Duhc� 13usti�l�- 1��ellinkic�n [icn Rt��cit�lli��- �IE'C'lI7 ,^1��x�nt - P�iul klc�cksi7n Pt3(' f�u�_ I��s��: lic�n CauCCY�'ii� E�4t l'rc��;r:�m C1+nn3in.�t�ryr h:�lv�it Ificxlsc�� - I:h 'Iti �'{I{7PiIlI'yi1ld�1� Abser7t Pat�J Lai�rliug. Delraiy Firi4lti Fiackgrc�und� I I�9C LA'SS F_��ilIU0t1DF7 F te�;�l iv cie�ifl�3tCd li'� �.valu�tle., i'eview. ticeire. anct rank mitii?;ttipn piu throu�h established Ic,+:al, ,i,�it ;3nd li:cicral �riorsiizataui� �arutie�.��; ancl �; i��riai. f li�;t►llahtx: • i'he itc'.+' Li41S cuunlinalnr;md Nc�v L•inoC��eiicp ��Et±�:t �uurclinalor wu� mtr, tu lhc pcu,el. . � ' d hc Pancl di,eus�eif tfir rt�:cnt rounsl,�l ��ro�c�.ts that wcrc un t�ir review �2i. T3yi:: nimibcr .v�:� �t great re3�e.f't'sr,�n �i�� lasl ruurxl ol �rojlui t�:94 utcludeil i? suUtnts,iar�h. ;F�. �t��r lis; was apE�r[�vc� tu I14`'?fl'tiL'[lIL'iI (�1 (I1C I n 45 stcering cununiuec �a�itiy �arriceicnLr•. •;•co1'es �r•wc; �nle�+c�3 latir all m4mix.r�, tntcc .i�aau �rux,�:suaic��; a cluer �+�11crn hctv��eett rc:i�icwc�s an� !lte;�r ,�nres. 1'hi� �:6cnx,nstrat�� rhe E��alua€xai; Pu:ul's abilil�r « scnrc �?ri�{eCt� cuE��itil�7rlfy arvi�r ;� ��nlianisant Che �rou�j w�vs ��leasc I?tat �hcy tucre cnr.5lsl�nt acruss lEa� buaircl. • TI:i' P�II�I LjI�Ct1�.454'IF �Si![1 :1 4'QI'V �iJIlQ <�[�till\SIUII ril S4'�l1C�l �`ll` tUfl[�S 54'CI'C 3Wk15�1'(�, li� ,�iir»iF Ilic�� t4�::rr- a»�.�rdcii li�, aixl i�h5t thc p7�,c�s:, ��,as ��p�:� Ih�' rc��mt��c�7cj;;UDn� Iclj �,ur commil;ce and �,�ere tnc�vuni�vl lu Ihe Shtfc�. l hc: ccii��mittcx •,v,jt�tcx) ti� luiuw tivai Page 1 0! 2 � 2g� Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • there a possibility of submitting lists by disaster event instead of simply adding to the list twice a year , lhereby having projects changing priorities without rea.sonable jus[ific;ation. • The LMS Coordinator stated that he would inquirc froro the state how this process is done to provide better guidance to thc county, especially the LMS Steering committee. • T'he corrununity alsc� discussed was there a possibility to have a procedure to protect smaller municipalities in tlie request for projccts. • The committee discussect member transition, the process of replacing members who maybe leaving tbe co�tunittee due to retiremcnt or other reasons. The chair recommended that it be a subjcct at the LMS steering committee meeting. • We will elect a new chair at tbe nest Sclieduled LMS Evaluation committee meeting. • lt was discussed and approved that the committee would meet twice a ycar, once in May and once in November with the date to be set a5 the mcetiog approached and could be agreed upon. • The next Lvaluation oommittee meeting is scheduled for "1'hursday, November 7, 2013 at 2:00 p.m, at the EOC. • • The committee recommended that all new projecls be submitteci 30 days bcfore the next evaluation panei meeting. That Jate is 7 Odobcr 2013. This provides the pane! to have suitable time to rcvicw new proposed pmjects. • The LMS Steering Committee mecting is scheduled for June 19, 2013. Recottunesidations will be madc to Steering Committee for final PPL appr�val. Sutnmary suhmitted by, Kelvin Bledsoe, LMS Cooi�dinator Palnt Beach County Division of Emergency Management Page 2 of 2 2gg � Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • This page intentionally left blank • � 289 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Appendix H: Repetitive Loss Properties • In accordance with the following FEMA requirement, the PBC LMS includes repetitive flood loss properties in its risk assessments: Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): The risk assessment must also address National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) insured structures that have been repetitively damaged floods. In addition, PBC's LMS and Community Rating System programs monitor the number and locations of flood prone properties countywide. At this writing, there were an estimated 285 FEMA-registered repetitive flood loss properties in the combined jurisdictions of incorporated and unincorporated PBC. Repetitive Loss Properties Repetitive loss properties are defined by the National Flood Insurance Program as: "properties with two or more NFIP claims of at least $1,000 in any rolling ten year period." Repetitive-loss properties constitute a significant drain on the resources of the NFIP, costing about 200,000,000 annually. Repetitive-loss properties comprise approximately 1 percent of currently insured properties but account for 25 to 30 percent of claims losses. They represent a key target of the NFIP for mitigation, including relocation, elevation and buyouts. As of June 2014 PBC has a total of 66 repetitive loss properties with a total estimated cost • of $1,861,366. A list of repetitive loss properties is available in this appendix 290 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Repetitive Loss Properties in Palm Beach County 40 0 �- i ; � 7 0 ' ' 4 0 . .- � = 4 0 , . � 3 0 . ' 3 0 � ° ' 1 0 . �� ' • 1 0 � - 1 0 :• • = 1 0 • 1 0 66 0 Appendix H i 29� Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Appendix I: Project Scoring Examples • Requirement: §201.6(c)(3)(iii): The mitigation strategy section shall include an action plan describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs. This appendix supports the above FEMA requirement by providing a few examples of PBC's current project scoring process using the criteria established at the program's inception. This process is used as the basis for ranking (prioritizing) proposed projects. [n order for a mitigation project to be eligible for federal monies there must be a Benefit Cost Analysis completed with results of a ratio greater than I. This appendix illustrates the current scoring process through four examples: • EXAMPLE 1: Community A- Library W ind Retrofit • EXAMPLE 2: Community B- RV Park Flooding Prevention � EXAMPLE 3: Community C- Hardening of an EOC; and • EXAMPLE 4: Community D-[nitiation of a Burn Program to Prevent Wildfire losses in the Urban [nterface EXAMPLE 1: COMMUNITY A- LIBRARY RETROFIT Community A is a well-to-do community centered along the beach and on the Intracoastal • Water. They have recently completed a large and very nice public library located on the Intracoastal Waterway. The library has many windows and a picturesque view of the waterway. The building itself is engineered to withstand category 5 hurricane force winds, but it is located in an area that can expect a 5 foot above mean high tide storm surge during storms rated at category 3 or higher. A storm surge of this magnitude will flood the bottom floor of this library to a depth of 2 feet. Equipment and books threatened by such an event are valued at an estimated $200,000. ft will cost approximately $60,000 to raise the books and equipment in this library 3 ft above their current level. This would eliminate the $60,000 of exposure in all but the most catastrophic hurricanes of category 5 strength, achieving and an estimated 80% reduction in potential losses. Applying the BenefidCost formula: ($200,000 -$40,000)) $ 60,000 = 2.67 Benefit/Cost Ratio therefore, this is a viable project. Applying the Scoring Criteria (See Attached Score Sheet) this project would be scored as follows: COMMUNITY BENEFIT This is a Flood Damage Reduction activity and is awarded 10 points here; 292 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 ! Libraries are considered secondary critical facilities and 6 points are awarded here; In terms of Community Exposure $200,000 is considered moderate and the frequency of the hazard this project mitigates for, Category 3 or higher storm surge, is low. Therefore Moderate (M) Exposure (E) + Low (L) Frequency (F) = 4 points under category; and Cost Effectiveness in terms of the Benefit/Cost Ration is 2.67; therefore 12 points are awarded here. This project's score under Community Benefit is 32. COMMUNITY COMMITMENT This project is not contained within a specific policy of Community A's Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, but this type of mitigation is addressed as a broad goal in the Coastal Management Element of that plan. Five points are awarded under this category; Although libraries are considered secondary critical facilities this project is not part of any emergency management plan. It is, however, part of the Library Department's long -term strategic plan, which has been officially adopted by the City Council. Ten points are awarded here; • While there is considerable public support for the library in general, and there is every reason to believe there would be widespread public support for this mitigation project if it was presented to the public, this has not yet been done. Most of the citizens of Community A are not aware of the potential problem this mitigation project addresses. No points can be awarded here at this time. (Community A could change this score by holding public workshops on the problem and soliciting voter response questionnaires or other methods.) This projects score under Community Commitment is 15 points. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION There are no regulatory problems with this project and 5 points are awarded here; Although the exposure is clearly visible, there has not been a severe hurricane since this library was constructed and therefore there is no history of loss or repetitive loss for this structure. Flood hazard mitigation money available now is directed toward structures suffering repetitive losses, and consequently no funds are immediately available. FEMA and other funding sources are being reviewed and it is believed that funds for this type of mitigation project will be available within the next 1 to 2 years. This project is awarded 6 points in this category; Community A is an affluent community and despite the fact that the public is currently unaware of this problem, the City Council feels confident enough of public support to commit a 50% match, or $30,000 toward this mitigation effort. The project is awarded 5 points here; and if funding was to become available, this project could accomplish its objective of raising library • 293 Local Mitigation Strategy � 2015 books and equipment above the category 3 storm surge level in less than one year. The project is • awarded 5 points here. This project's score under Project Implementation is 21 points. The Final Score for this proposed mitigation project is 68 points. EXAMPLE 2: COMMUNITY B- RV PARK FLOODING PREVENTION Community B has a large RV park with very poor drainage. Every time there is a minimal rain event this area floods, causing significant danger and health hazards to the residents in terms of flooded power outlets and sewage-contaminated standing water. These events also cause the town and county considerable expense and inconvenience such as traffic problems, emergency services disruption, and clean-up. This type of flooding happens approximately eight times per year with an estimated expense to the town and county of $3,000 per event. Correcting this problem will require a substantial reworking of the local drainage system. The estimated cost for this mitigation effort is $400,000. If the flooding this project is designed to correct occurs eight times a year at a cost of $3,000 per event to the town and county in terms of police, fire/rescue, and utility worker time involvement, then Community B has a documented exposure of $24,000 per year to this hazard. If we assume the life expectancy of a drainage project to be 30 years, the potential savings to the town and county could be as high as $720,000. A reduction in the frequency of these flooding events by 90% would make the Benefit/Cost ratio on this project: • ($720,000 -$72,000) $400,000 = 1.62 Benefit/Cost Ratio therefore, this is a viable project. Applying the Scoring Criteria (See Attached Score Sheet) this project would be scored as follows: COMMUNITY BENEFIT This project is a Flood Damage reduction project and is awarded 10 points under the CRS Gedit criterion. This project addresses a problem within an RV park where there are no pertnanent residents. It does not address critical elements of the community infrastructure and must be considered as addressing only public convenience considerations. Award 4 points here. Based on individual flooding events the community's exposure is low, but when considered over time this exposure becomes much higher. Points are awarded under this criterion based on a Medium Exposure and a High Frequency of occurrence. Nine points are awarded under this criterion. The cost effectiveness based on the Benefit/Cost ratio for this project is 1.62; therefore 8 points are awarded here. • 294 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Total project score under Community Benefit is 31 points. COMMUNITY COMMITMENT This proposed project is contained within a broad mitigation goal under the Coastal Element of Community B's CGMP, but Community B has developed a proposed specific Policy amendment directed toward this type of drainage system retrofit. The project is awarded 8 points here. This project is also contained within the Flood Plain Management Plan for Community B, which has been officially adopted. Award 10 points in this category. This problem has been the subject of numerous letters and editorials in the local paper. It has also been the subject of one advertised public meeting. Award 5 points here. Total project score under Community Commitment = 23 points PROJECT [MPLEMENTAT[ON This project requires a considerable amount of construction work. While it is consistent within the local regulatory frame work there are regional and possibly national issues that will have to be addressed. Since the project will be discharging stormwater runoff into some body of water . there will be water quality issues that must be dealt with. If Federal money is used, an NPDES review will be required. While all these issues can be addressed, they will delay implementation of the project and increase its cost. Award only 1 point under this criterion. At the moment there are no identified sources for funding for this project. Once the LMS is adopted it is believed the Federal Government will make available, through the State DEM some funds to implement priority mitigation projects. These funds may be available within 1 to 2 years. Award 6 points under this criterion. While Community B is relatively affluent they are not in a position to match more than 10% or $40,000 on a project of this magnitude. Award 1 point under this criterion. If funding were immediately available for this project it would take approximately three years before this project could be permitted, bid, constructed, and operational. Award 3 points under this criterion. Total project points under Project Implementation = 11 The Final Score for this proposed mitigation project is 65 points. EXAMPLE 3: COMMUN[TY C- DEVELOP A HARDENED EOC Community C has no hardened Emergency Operations Center. They presently base their • emergency management personnel in city office buildings that are highly vulnerable to both 295 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 flooding and wind damage. They have an estimated $300,000 worth of computer, • communications, and emergency response equipment housed within these vulnerable facilities. The county provides Community C with its Fire/Rescue services and is presently building a new, hardened fire station to serve this section of the county. County Fire/Rescue Services have offered to provide Community C space within their new building, but Community C will have to have this space fitted for Emergency Management Operations. Fitting this space and moving Community C's existing equipment into it will cost Community C an estimated $60,000. By undertaking this move Community C should reduce the exposure to its physical assets by 95% as well as position its Emergency Management Personnel in a much safer environment. Applying the Benefit/Cost formula shows: ($300,000 -$15,000) $ 60,000 = 4.75 Benefit/Cost Ratio therefore, this is a viable project. Applying the Scoring Criteria (See Attached Score Sheet) to this project would be scored as follows: COMMUN[TY BENEFIT Although not its specific aim, this project may be classified as a Flood Damage Reduction activity. Award 10 points under this criterion. This project addresses hardening of a Primary Critical Facility. Award 10 points here. • The currently utilized location of emergency management operations is highly vulnerable to sever tropical storms, hurricanes, or tornadoes and all these types of storms occur with medium frequency. Thus, we have a High Exposure = Medium Frequency = 8 points for this criterion. The cost effectiveness for this proposed project expressed as the Benefit/Cost Ration is 4.75, thus 20 points are awarded in this criterion. Total Community Benefit Points = 48 COMMUNITY COMMITMENT The concept of developing a hardened EOC for Community C is expressed in both a goal and a specific Policy of their CGMP. Award 10 points under this criterion. Development of a permanent, protected EOC is also contained with Community C's Emergency Management Plan. Award 10 points under this criterion. There is no real public support for, or opposition to, this project. Although it is believed the public would be highly supportive of this project if it were presented to them, they are at this time unaware of the problem. No points can be awarded in this criterion. Total Community Commitment points = 20 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION There are no regulatory problems with this proposed project. Award 5 points here. • 296 Local Mitigation Strategy � 2015 • There is an identified funding source through the State Department of Emergency Management for the project at this time. Award 10 points here. Community C will match with funds and in-kind services 20% of the cost of this project. Award 2 points for this criterion. This project can be accomplished as soon as the new fire station is ready for occupancy in approximately six months. Award 5 points here. Total Project Implementation Points = 22 points The Final Score for this proposed mitigation project is 90 points. EXAMPLE 4: COMMUNITY D- IN[TIATION OF A CONTROLLED BURNING PROGRAM TO PREVENT WILDFIRE LOSSES IN THE URBAN INTERFACE ZONE. Community D has a large agricultural, ranching, and undeveloped land component within its jurisdiction. The community wishes to undertake a controlled burning program along the urban interface zone, but to do this it will have to upgrade its fire control equipment, pass a new controlled burning ordinance, and get the required permission from the forestry and environmental services. The cost of initiating this new program is estimated to be $200,000 including the necessary upgrading of fire control equipment. Community C has an exposure, . based on tax role data, of $3 million within the area where wildfire is considered a threat. Controlled burning would reduce the potential risk of wildfire by 60%. Applying the Benefit/Cost formula shows: ($3,000,000 -$1,200,000) $200,000 = 9.0 Benefiit/Cost Ratio therefore, this is a viable project. Applying the Scoring Criteria (See Attached Score Sheet) to this project would be scored as follows: COMMUNITY BENEFIT This is not a flood-related project so no points are awarded here. There are primary critical facilities located in the area threatened by wildfire so this project does mitigate for threats to critical elements of the community's infrastructure. Award 10 points here. The community has a high exposure to wildtire ($3 million) and wildfires have occurred with moderate frequency recently in south Florida. Award eight points for this criterion. The project has a Benefit/Cost Ratio of 9.0. Award 20 points under this criterion. Total Community Benefit Points = 38 points • 297 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 COMMUNITY COMMITMENT • Controlled burning is currently expressed as a broad Goal under Community D's CGMP, but it is the subject of a specific Policy amendment which has been proposed. Award eight points here. Controlled burning is not addressed in any existing emergency management plans, but following last summer's wildfire outbreaks, controlled burning plans have been developed and proposed. Award 6 points under this criterion. The danger of wildfire and the desirability of a controlled burn program have been the subjects of two publicly advertised meetings and a considerable number of letters and written comments from the public at-large. Award 5 points for this criterion. Total Community Commitment points = 19 PROJECT [MPLEMENTATION The proposed controlled burn ordinance will have to be adopted by the City Council. Various permits will have to be obtained from the county and Division of Forestry when controlled burning is actually to take place, but these are not considered regulatory obstacles to the program itself. The only area of non-regulatory compliance is an issue in passing the ordinance creating the program itself. Award 4 points for this criterion. • The county and the City have agreed to put up the funding for this program so funds will be available as soon as the program has been legally adopted by Community D. Award 10 points here. Community D will match 50% of the funds required for this program. Award 5 points here. Once the program is in place it will begin to accomplish its stated goals immediately. Award 5 points here. Total Project Implementation Points = 24 points The Final Score for this proposed mitigation project is 81 points. 298 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • This page intentionally left blank � i 299 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Appendix J: NFIP and CRS Status and Activities • This appendix is intended to provide current data and information on NFIP and CRS status and activities countywide in fulfillment of the following FEMA requirement: Requirement: §201.6(c)(3)(ii): The mitigation strategy must also address the jurisdiction's participation in the National Flood [nsurance Program (NFIP), and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate. The tables on the following pages provide summaries of NFIP and CRS status and activities by jurisdiction. A variety of FEMA, [SO and local resources were used to prepare the summary tables. Detailed summaries of CRS activities, class ratings and insurance savings are included. The number and value of NFIP insurance policies in effect, claims activity, and savings realized from CRS participation are also included on a jurisdiction be jurisdiction basis. Currently the CRS program is generating close to $5 million in insurance premium savings countywide. At this writing, the County's CRS program has been evaluated June 2014. A final score is yet to be determined. This information is maintained at the EOC by the CRS Coordinator. • 300 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • CID Name PoGcies in Force Class Rating 120192 PALM BEACH COUNTY * 74,897 5 120193 ATLANTIS, CITY OF 439 7 120195 BOCA RATON, CITY OF 14,333 8 120196 BOYNTON BEACH, CITY OF 9,709 7 120198 CLOUD LAKE, TOWN OF 8 7 120207 HYPOLUXO, TOWN OF 1,163 8 120208 JUNO BEACH, TOWN OF 1,737 5 120211 LAKE CLARKE SHORES, TOWN OF 251 8 120212 LAKE PARK, TOWN OF 869 8 120213 LAKE WORTH, CITY OF 1,583 8 120214 LANTANA, TOWN OF 1,139 9 120215 MANALAPAN, TOWN OF 224 8 120216 MANGONIA PARK, TOWN OF 49 8 120217 NORTH PALM BEACH, VILLAGE OF 3,603 7 120220 PALM BEACH, TOWN OF 74,897 7 120221 PALM BEACH GARDENS, CITY OF 3,290 8 120223 PALM SPRINGS, VILLAGE OF 1,445 8 120227 SOUTH PALM BEACH, TOWN OF 1,601 8 120228 TEQUESTA, VILLAGE OF 1,362 8 � 120229 WEST PALM BEACH, CITY OF 6,823 6 125102 DELRAY BEACH, CITY OF 8,312 9 125109 GULF STREAM, TOWN OF 353 7 125111 HIGHLAND BEACH, TOWN OF 4,134 9 125119 JUPITER, TOWN OF 8,453 6 125134 OCEAN RIDGE, TOWN OF 1,316 7 125137 PALM BEACH SHORES, TOWN OF 989 8 125157 WELLINGTON, VILLAGE OF 676 7 CRS Chart - Appendix J • 301 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Palm Beach County and its municipalities will continue their commitment to NFIP by i continuing to: • Enforce the Floodplain Management Ordinance which regulates new development and substantial improvements in the special flood hazard areas. o Inform the community by news releases and open public meeting o Community Outreach o County Public TV • Maintain elevation certificates on file for all new construction in the SFHAS or for substantial improvements to properties in the sfha. o"Doing Business with the County" seminars geared toward construction industry and builders • Use best available (tlood map) data for issuing construction permits. o Public Education Seminars o Updated mapping provided to each municipality o Mapping placed in all county libraries • Maintain public records and make them available for review. o Community outreach o News releases and county public TV • Maintain records pertaining to LOMAS, and LOMRS, etc. � • Provide information related to flood hazards, flood maps, etc., to the public upon request. • Continue community outreach efforts for compliance with the community rating system program. o[ntegrate new NFIP information and mapping into already existing strong community presentations • Continue to promote flood insurance to property owners. o Increase and continue outreach presentations to community and home owners associations • Continue to update the public and enable their participation in the flood remapping project. o Community outreach o News releases and county public TV • Maintain flood hazard publications at the main branch of the library. 302 • Local Mitigation Strategy � 2015 • • Where feasible, continue to identify/acquire land in the SFHA open space/preservation. • Promote hazard flood mitigation to the public. o LMS posted on the County website o Grant information posted on County website o [ntegrate into outreach presentation • Continue drainage maintenance and drainage system improvement projects. o Encourage more drainage projects through-out the county in all LMS meetings • Continue floodplain management activities and target a Class 5 Rating. • Adopt and enforce the floodplain management plan o Schedule quarterly meetings with CRS User Group and invite all 38 municipalities o Provide continued education and best practices to all municipalities • Provide robust community assistance program o Community outreach presentations o Town hall meetings in different municipalities � o Press releases and TV programs o Telephone information Hotline Floodplain and Mapping questions o New map pick up information • Outreach to municipalities not participating in the CRS/NF[P o Provide continued outreach, best practices to municipalities that are not part of the CRSlNF[P o Document each municipality not a participant in the CRS/NFIP and continue providing them with best practices incentives to participate o Ensure that municipalities not participating in the CRS/NFIP are members of the LMS working group, allowing them still to receive mitigation information • 303 Local Mitigation Strategy � 2015 Appendix K: Mitigation Assessment Teams (MATs) • Should PBC be impacted by a natural disaster deemed by FEMA to be of national significance, teams of technical specialists, referred to as Mitigation Assessment Teams (MATs), might be mobilized by FEMA, in conjunction with State and local officials, to conduct on-site qualitative engineering analyses to assess damage to government offices, homes, hospitals, schools businesses, critical facilities and other structures and infrastructure. The purpose of the assessment would be to determine the causes of structural failures (or successes) and to evaluate the adequacy of local building codes, practices and construction materials for the purpose of improving future performance. They also might use the opportunity to review the effectiveness of previous mitigation projects. Most frequently MATs would be mobilized by FEMA's Directorate in response to joint federal, state and local requests for technical support. The technical make-up of MATs will depend largely on the nature and extent of damage incurred. Disciplines most commonly represented are likely to include: civil and coastal engineering, hydraulics, architecture, construction, and building code development and enforcement. If the damage is severe enough, representatives from FEMA Headquarters, Regional Office engineers, representatives from other Federal agencies and academia, and experts from the design and construction industry may also participate. State representatives would be dispatched by the Mitigation Bureau. The County would be • expected to provide local team members and support services as defined below. At the county level, during activations, the Operations Section Chief will be responsible for coordinating with the Logistics Section to arrange for local personnel, equipment, vehicles, data, and other resources necessary to support MAT assessments. Once staffed and equipped, MAT activities will be closely supported by the Damage Assessment and Impact Assessment Units of the Operations Section under the direction of the Operations Section Chief. Most likely FEMA and State representatives will bring personal resources such as laptop computers, cell phones, GPS, etc. with them in their Go Bags, however, backup inventories and sources for local resources will be maintained. According to NIMS/ICS task force guidelines, federal and state MATs may choose to coordinate their activities with local law enforcement homeland security units who commonly perform critical infrastructure and key resource (Cl/KR) field assessments within the County. This temporary disaster response task force may also include special operations personal from the fire service as necessary. Non-sensitive information from local law enforcement's established database will be shared to the fullest extent possible with the MATs. Any exchange of information associated with this initiative will ]imited so as not to compromise local law enforcement's tactical or strategic capabilities or the region's efforts in CUKR programs in support of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP). 304 • Local Mitigation Strategy � 2015 � Lists of needed resources will be prepared by the Operations Manager and given to the Logistics Manager who will be responsible for maintaining the inventories at the EOC or other PBC facilities and ensuring equipment is secured, available and ready for deployment. Access to special or emergency resources beyond the working inventory, may be available through the Purchasing Unit, through the ESF 18 (Business & Industry) functions at the regional and state levels, through WebEOC source lists or though private sector partners party to the I�3u,incs, Cuntinui�� Infurmati��n tiet��rl< (I3C;I1�'). The BCIN is a web-based service available to local businesses, county emergency management, and organizations that assist businesses to gather and share critical information that support continuity efforts before, during and after a disaster. Available year round as a public service, this trusted, business-to-business, community network provides participating companies a tool to track their key employees and supply chain status, and locate needed recovery goods and services. The County will provide appropriate public sector and private sector technical, operational, logistical, administrative, and planning expertise necessary to support the mitigation assessment mission. Lists of emergency contacts will be maintained by the Logistics Section. Depending on the geographic distribution and severity of damage throughout the PBC, the MAT might establish its base(s) of operation at the EOC or at sites near any or all of the six Emergency Operating Areas (EOAs). • The MATs may work in conjunction with Damage Assessment Teams or independently, based on need, time priorities and the availability of State and FEMA MAT personnel. The mission of the MATs is to learn exactly what happened and why, and how to reduce disaster damage in the future. Key questions include: How did buildings perform? Did winds exceed building codes? Did tlood damages go beyond special flood hazard areas? Were building codes followed and enforced? Were construction materials sufficient to withstand wind and water damages? Were protective measures such as shutters used? Were local, State and Federal building standards and ordinances sufficient? Palm Beach County is the largest county by area in the U.S. east of the Mississippi River. Most of its population and development are heavily concentrated in the eastern corridor within ] 0 miles of the coastline. The County's emergency management planning is based on the assumption that the County may not be serviced effectively by a single EOC location. Consequently, the County has been divided into six Emergency Operations Areas, each of which is equipped to function on its own before, during and after a disaster. Pre -equipped field response trailers are available for deployment year round. Where lead times are sufficient, resources will be pre-staged. Mitigation assessment resources may not be available for all EOAs concurrently, in which case the Operations Section Chief will work with the MAT to identify priorities and will request additional resources through Logistics. • 305 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 If available local personnel resources are insufficient, the County may be able to draw • mutual aid support from neighboring counties on an as needed basis. The Logistics and Operations Sections may also coordinate with FDEM, as necessary and appropriate, to arrange for field support from organizations such as the International Code Council. Based on a comprehensive analysis of assessment data compiled in the field, the teams will prepare recommendations regarding construction codes and standards, building design, and best practices that PBC, its municipalities and the construction industry can use to reduce future disaster damage. Throughout the process, the MAT will consult with partnering government agencies and supporting private sector organizations to ensure consensus on each phase of the investigation, including methodology, data collection, and analysis. This will help to ensure the MAT's final recommendations represent the most current and best available data and technical expertise. Once consensus is reached, FEMA will issue a series of "Recovery Advisories" that will provide initial guidance on building issues and best practices that can be used in the reconstruction process. FEMA will also publish a comprehensive report that provides local decision makers with information and detailed technical recommendations for improving building construction and design, building code policy and enforcement, and mitigation activities that can limit or eliminate damages in future disasters. MAT observations and recommendations submitted to the LMS will provide a basis for future mitigation strategies, initiatives and projects and the optimum uses of mitigation assistance funds. • The DEM recovery section will provide oversight. The recovery and post-disaster coordinator from the recovery section along with the LMS Coordinator will facilitate and coordinate the application process and serve as a primary communication link with funding agencies. Public information will be coordinated through the Joint Information Center (managed by ESF-14), based on cleared information provided by the MATs and Disaster Recovery Centers. Longer-term, information will be integrated into media releases, LMS and CRS outreach activities, public presentations, presentations at professional conferences, training curricula, etc. At this writing, Standard Operating Guidelines for mitigation assessment activities are in the early planning stage. DEM will coordinate with the Inspections Section of the County's Building Department to lay a foundation for development of Standard Operating Guides. Many of the 38 municipalities of the County have their own building departments, officials, and procedures and will be an integral part of the procedure development process. Several of these departments can draw from their damage assessment experiences following Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and to a lesser extent their experiences following Hurricane Frances, Jeanne and Wilma which impacted PBC. Organizations such as the PBC Builder's Association and the Building Code Advisory Board of PBC will also need to be consulted. 306 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • � This page intentionallv left blank • 307 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Appendix L: List of Acronyms • ALF Assisted Living Facility BCC Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners CDC Center for Disease Control CEI Climate Extremes Index CEMP Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan CERT Community Emergency Response Team GMAN Coastal-Marine Automated Network CRS Community Rating System DEM Palm Beach County Division of Emergency Management DOF Florida Division of Forestry EDMIS Economic Disaster Management Information Systems EM Emergency Management EMAP Emergency Management Accreditation Program EMPA Emergency Management Preparedness & Assistance EOA Emergency Operations Area EOC Palm Beach County Emergency Operations Center ERM Environmental Resource Management ESF Emergency Support Function FDACS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services FDEM Florida Division of Emergency Management FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHMS Florida Hazard Mitigation Strategy • F[RM Flood Insurance Rate Maps FMAP Flood Mitigation Assistance Program GCRI Greenhouse Climate Response [ndex GIS Geographic Information System HHD Herbert Hoover Dike HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grants Program ICS Incident Command System IPZ Ingestion Pathway Zone LMS Local Mitigation Strategy LDR Local Development Regulations LEPC Local Emergency Planning Committee LOD Letter of Dispute MAT Mitigation Assessment Team MLLW Mean Lower Low Water MOM Maximum of Maximums MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization NCDC National Climactic Data Center NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NGO Non-GovernmentalOrganization NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum NHC National Hurricane Center NIMS National Incident Management System 308 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • List of Acronyms Cont. NIPP National Infrastructure Protection Plan NOAA National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration NWS National Weather Service OPS Outreach Project Strategy PAPA Property Appraisers Database PDM Pre-Disaster Mitigation PDRP Post Disaster Redevelopment Plan PPL Project Prioritization List PZB Department of Planning, Zoning, & Building SARS Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome SFW MD South Florida Water Management District SLOSH Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes SWP State Waming Point TCRPC Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council TYLCV Tomato yellow Leaf Curl Virus WFO National Weather Service Forecast Offrce WHO World Health Organization • � 309 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Appendix M: Maps • � � LAKE OKEECHOBEE �a� 1 AHOK : �'o m �i� �^ s� A � N '✓ N eoker wy Sta[e Road 80 . �t- H �> E OUTH LLE N BAY �qpE p W LLINGTUN R Y C O U N . T Y �fP ��l � ,�t.nCH�:oG'. A IC�I`�■ � A��/M � e � I � � AgncultureArea � County Boundary � Railroad MuniapalArea o, z a � � .. ��fl RIOP M i ISS CIIS Services ��Pbcgov.orgtisslGIS1V�6rklbnatonlLMS Z01444gnculture Area.mxd June i zoi 310 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • PALM a �� TEQUESTA a Northern PBC GREENACRES W�R BEAC C W flty 1 ATLANTIS ' Jupiter to Lantana SOUT PALM J TER LanYena Rd 8 H ! A ✓ C 1 W IndleMown RdE dlant d ANTA I; �= MA PAN r � JUPlTER � g � Y; � � ¢ a� HYPO XO , � @ JU � OCF�! BEA Z Ri V� Y PALMB CH .- I� � GAROE S 3 Boynton Beach 81vd W 6oYnton Bea l� j ve A m � � T � = r� LL j °'o a m �. 4 � � Y PGABNtl a o � 8 S m n GOLF � N O NORTHPALM , B BEACH N � G r ffi BEACH / N lake BNtl r ST A,� � A � C �{ � �'� iue Heron vu `� T O Rf PALM ACH I G , SH S L y � A,re W qtlanFic P+�e m NIA A p0a� a � E PA � n�� .g T OELRAY � N BEACH � WEST I b. PALM W Rd �+ BEACH v y�,� Olteech &vd W � �?'� H�N � O � 2 LS C � % HAVERHlLL �°+ C g U �� e ✓ c WYamatoRd " Sarthem BIvC CLO � n � � '� � n = ✓ I � ( � � V LA E PA ,V � a ✓ BE H 80CA LL � Foresl Hfl 81vd CLAR RATON F SHORE W G jedes Z % Z PALM LA E� �' � � SPRfNGS T � , $oiYheRl PBC g i �n '� W Ynetlo park Rd L�lt�ld t0 laKe WoM Rd LL i 9 . . GREENACRES m 1 � Z m % Boca Raton a Q r I 5 . � y ` � � ATLANTIS� �=; • � � Lsntana Rd � o r PALM p, N W a B� N�� CN Broward County �atp�H�� Coastal Erosion Area � , � �• � Coastal Erosion Area —�- Railroad Municipal Area � County Boundary Nd To Scale \LGft1� TSS (3IS Services qpbcgov org�ssVGIS\NbrM.bnoRon�LMS 20�14�: ��astal Erosion Fuea mx�7 .]uile 18 201 � 311 Local Mitigation Strategy � 2015 Martin County �"reaues � _'—� .�_�_w ER InOienlown RG —_ NL OL Y IINTEF ,UN BEAC .. �. c A9LA18EACN ,_ . _ _. �. h �:�'i r _ (i1ft0ENS c� � � RTN R4 KEE �9 NoAhlekeBNd EACN a'S � F 1A H � g � wESr r R,vr R° N _y PACM E � I� 8E4CN �° k Q 2 �' L S[ate Roatl 80 � p ,� m � � N ROYAL Okeetho BIVd �1 LOXANATCNEE �� 'Y �E ORDVES �� HAVERHILL T Henc4y County �oF s«,m�� e�w aav F est FpR BIW �� E - N£LL/NOTUN �� - SPRIMOS OREENACRES E TN Lany a pd 'H �. ATLANTf� A A! � CF.' R� 4 Ghrd p L O 11 � l f' Y BOY� � FJ22Cn B�`/tl 80YN d' � � � Y � � � t301F E ES �`4}� � _ V F 1 5 AA1 � LL 2 Atle hcAve OE A' B H rd0 i! W Yemato Yamelo RC U1a7es Ra __ _ -- ` ``elnl P rk Rd 70N � :'�� C C ��'� � ( a °�{;� Palm Beach County N --� Railroad Q County Boundary Municipal Area n, zs �s s F`\ i � ISS GIS Services �4pbcgov.orglisslGlS\WorklbnortonlLMS 2014\County Map.mxd June i8 zo� 312 � • � Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • �____ vx,�r- County Northem PBC �� woR �� A7LNl715 ree�sr� Jupiter to Lantana so�K ac�r Lamane Rd 8ntane � a P� PJ erR cean vq CAN7 JnQiantow Y nrown Rd E�ntlfantrnvn d JUP(!ER F i �, ASAANOC MJ e �s � � g g , � • ; r�r tnro ,:� m ,� � .. . w ' � , ' .•. . •. . o U ! � ` z I ' ��` BoyntonBe9ch61vd t,Oceant�iv n � � OCE1uv T m ,.a,,.-,: ` � w� —° 3 i � i a sorNrar + �- PGA Blvd � � � � � � �2r m ae"a' `. a � Y A PqLMBEAt7i - � m BRF ES /�� 6ARDENS � �n � GOLF y ��. . � ! V � � � ! T �«� � � �� Northlake vtl `� � STftE� /� 2.+ V "' A . m � = m� ' W ue Neron BW E Hlue Neron �� T �4 ! - P ,��,�, L ��y O S �,�+ �,� � C P �p� Ave W Atlanitc Ave Q A �� E o,.A ,; N i A P • wFSrvn[� � , T l � j N ��, m � � f i �� g YlBIIgRtl /'� SEAI;N l lJ a I Z >� �a m` 1 �I P m :i OkeechobeeBlW F' ��yalpgryM ay O �� i � � 1 � � � V 0 ~_ �� a �' . �� ' E � W Vamata Rd �, ` � m � � r _ m q Po � p N � �, .� � � - eo� Z ! Forest Hill &vtl ° �q� - aA70N U CCNnCE .. �� PALAL �! SiKlHES — w G m srrarres m � ( �Ra E G des Rd LWCiIOH GN£ENACRfS g v ( . y � _ ) Southem PBC a Worlh Rd � LL NI P �etto Park Rd E,I�almelfa �I�'8r[ Rd Lantaria to z J Boca Raton � � � f� 1 o ata�rs sou 3 1 ,Y �n Lantana Rd ➢� a T �!� � �'V Cean �� Broward County }:,n � Qt��H_ Evacuat�on Zones � � :r� ��; � Category 1 and Higher Category 5 and Higher � Railroad ' Category 2 and Higher Cate o 4 and Hi her Muniapal Area �� ' �_ 9�Y 9 Not To Scale `vR'nP Category 3 and Higher � County Boundary ISS GIS Ser�lces �Wbcgov org�ss�Gis�work�norton�LMS zo �a�Evacuation zones.mxd June 18 201 • J�3 Local Mitigation Strategy � 2015 • MaRin County EQUESTA • rFR �,,,�,a,,,�„�,,, �a ��. rro �- r^• � OL NY '` - - - �"i � �; � �� , �fER _ . . _ � •es : JUNC� ;�P BEAC ;' N �S4LM BEACli ' � d � t'aARl7EN3 � - ?['zR6A+d: 9 I4 , � �� IN s � Blvd � _ _ Mg EACH � _ A PAR WEST RlVI M 8 CH PALM 8 'o BEACH � A�lN �� R 'Sf _ , -. . . _ "' ... . �. . va-. �' m Wel Rd A RGYRt a echobee Blvd � � T 12��G1tbiTCflFE PALM � � �e � ,n� � L Sta�e�aea�p _ ,[�DYES aFacN� . y HavE, �:y. '' - . . _. �_.�� Soi.U�,-n..t�1 r- - - AL A I EAC�F! � � ,�t�st Ifll Bf!r�! �1.ARYFE' -' � T GTON � . �. PAlII � SP171NGS - I ' �= :^1oRhKtd LAKE ;` � i. �ryqCRgg WOt''fH i- � Ci o � � 'I �' �."� � ��ny� , . -- �� SDi17H PALM � / � J r�CH � � ��AQ1�A"UAPAN � � .. I MYfYJL�.;�o � - B�YMTQN 4cE�tN E BEACN �tfD�E A Boynlal��='F F�vd'� >. _ _ � � � �__<__e�, r N GOLFm � � � = ES g u F LL °�� Av�W �a� � � M DELR BEAC m' • e • • � O � H AND Vamato Rd p E CH � v 8 A � TON � G �des R D m PaFnetto Parfc m b z 3 Broward County a —' ' et��o� Historical Flood Areas � Z Id �I ■ Historical Flood Area –�– Railroad Muniapal Area G County Boundary o � � < � ' �10 Mias ISS CIS Services ��PbcgovorglisslGlSlWorklbnorton\LMS 20141Historical Flood Areas.mxd June iS 2oi 314 . • 0 N � � C .. �- -� T ; _. _ _ _ .i -r . - � ti �� , ,.� �su� orw m � �' �'�--- a x < y r w o IY � � Q w w� a _ ' �` "�3i�_ �y ' U q 2 p ¢ � Q N 2 � _.� '�'� 3$rc a y �x�� ° �x Vl�� p�H W ��2 � /�� O � a1 o W N � � I+1R+ IIWN 2 w m ��f'u � � o 0 � s m t m � � � L = x �x ° oi g q � ��b°rsm a 3 � � Z` � W �� e� tl st !iW- N � ` ip � � p a� � ,� _� aTsepua m y � � o � c`f � � m a m � Q � � � 3= t veoa ea�s s � g a �� m a (� m z > c7 m T. $g� o � � c o � c 3 � �j y �¢� U cS � � a� � �rn+ � > va , cew'k� Q a rn '��d alouiwag k� �� i C � O A �� bp m � � +-� U ;� M � � �' . .... _. � �, � � � w' ui C � �� °� p � L� '�, � _�' m m . � � I �� a � C c d' � � x G � � �g r c � � Q � c U I L° I � C m � `� I Lwo c � 7 1 — � ��c o � "'t , c � a A'� � �_' � m = ` g S�� O J N � 7� I i O �p C C (•� O C O � � T N C N 4 � � � F O 0 � z L Nao� � N o _ 2 i � J � Gp � � � ' C .` i I � � u: i , I L � �L � $ �, 5 I ` �t� _� I = z i .� _�� — ' — � . . .�---- _ J NTY . � � ; �� p, �5 a r � � � d p V) u �� . k � 2 ��' � • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 Martin County �_��uESra (— ------ — — - �s' u,d�a„a� rm n oc v ' PI7EF fIN BE4C PALM BEqC11 � y �, F OARD£NS u I( E E i; n� B c c p �, . � UR7H Pa kEE NorthlakeBlVd � BEE H �� WFST R1Vl K � I BE N �. �m 9EACN = e N •`"�1 ES �L � ¢ a , State Roau 80 �� P M � N H � — r /+ � ROYAL��o6e0 tl q � � LOXANA7CNEE A7LM .'Y � � ��E '3ROVE5 �A�k NAVERHILL T Hendry Counry `f �oE souu,an, eivd ^ � Y F ad MH BIW u E nE r': 9/O V✓ELUNOTON �N'�R� PILLM �� SPRlNOS TN ' S TN ` Lanl a (a7 qr(qk7�.S � � E N N K A $ 4 MN N u� F 1 E BOYN m �y J� � m � Y ! g F� � GOLF E ES � 9 � �, � ° S F � N SR AN a� Atla �c Ava OE a B N Np Yamelo R y (ilatles Rtl �'_ �__— _— —____ __- � +�dlipgt(p Park tl A Branard Coun roN f � Muck Soil Area � ¢� coG2 � � � I Muck Soil � Railroad Municipal Area � County Boundary o n i F�� ISS GIS Services ti�Pbcgov.orglisslGlSlWorklbnorton\LMS 20141Muck Soils.mxd Sune i8 soi 316 • • • • 0 N � �+ � C . 7t,.�c�t,__�_ _ _ �. � z o `� � ��7 c x. x z w _ w o .'�� w� �' Q g "?w � zz 2„� U R0 Q � x " i y N 20 '� � z� � , m � � HI�' . y a - �' '�a¢ i � � - ao � � a x � � r i Y1/ueqllWN�w m z �c�i g m ° °� E � a � a - m a � � m Y � v z � $ � J �m� s= v�i ¢ °s � a 3 �x m � w �� +� m c� m e�ldl sePUO a S � � � o a m � LL� m � a�y sepuo� N m rc g c I � �� m ¢ � �$ 7 � a � � � Peo2f a3�5 5 E�$ � U m �fU 2 y 3 � � � � a o � � � • f� I°� � �" � � � �� Ci � Q � & aa �w�v� s a i� �' �la'd elouNueS � � � � Q l6 d � � �l � I � C E � •� � L � „ � t� 10 Q M � � m N � � � � � � � _ .� � i _ o � � o — m � � � � o ._ � � i V � � � p I � ry � • � � �p� � `v cC ± � � ° U m N O � O d � � � �� a o � � w � S J s JS �� 3 �.�`2 � e � o \��po'�iia a S u� e � � Q Q Q� I � � �LI SJ Z � W � � U I�ll xz j � � � ��w � �n � w rn � �,a� � 9- i �,� _ T J NYY . � � `O O '� `v U � v �� F C� c m ��Vd • �] S • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • Martin r— �£Q�s�a � upiter oPLantana �E��s Arcnurrs t � ''eea � Count i sour J P� ER � E! �" NV �ndian[own R� E ntli2 � p 1LWIfR — .. � AN ti — �� rnaa o s � ` I �urp 1� j eFACH `�•C, j ti � R } ' �, T y '�� S { r L P Bivd � -'�\ B Y A B f5 PALNB£AfH a GO1F � GARDENS � ^1°Fr eoruro T �� EACN BEACH � : rthla e vd �� 11KE C RK ". _ p /`5 ' W lue Heron BH � ue µero �`d T '� O P � OELRAY 5 / BEACH /�+ � L V p � E P � � (( A WESIPALM � � _ J N BEA(Yf � i = W Rd /� � • l� 8 H z I kaechabe Bivd � Ip�1 �a O _. � s C �� Q E em si�a ( A - � o N _ � p _ Forest HIII eli � q �, BE gpgp � RA�ON � P�M` SH�1E5 — SPRlNGS m '" . ��. � LNG�OM fENApt£S � � , Southem PBC a wann ad y ' � Lantana to I Boca Raton o /ITLpN! 5 H � Lan naR W ntene � 8 nva+ Broward County �f � at��H�o Storm Surge Area � G2: SLOSH Inundation -� Railroad Muniapal Area � County Boundary Not To Scale T � •.. F �f)R�O r � • ISS GIS Services �Wbcgov org4ssiGIS1'vWrMbnorton\L.MS 2914�Storm SurqeArea mxd June 18 zol 318 • • 0 � �� N LJyL � _ � � C . i-. U -. � - - _ _ _ _' r _ p .. . .� �• ` a o ' ` � gs ` �� '' �{ a�p �?a�¢,c�zw �w r � ¢� W� ¢ a LLg c x � Q � w � w ex � ��o �m ° �5�n �a � q �� ` y g �� J �' a x � � .. � g�'Sq � $ � om o Q o N � g _ ulti niwN � w: 2 � � � s m m� � a } � ��,�- �� ° m g � ¢�6pf Sm ¢' 3 rc � a W �� O c eNdl selyk'W� N�� o a� � c�I 1 sepuo� j m a I g c� � J m ° < �-° � m � �� m o� � x t PBOa a7e25 S �`m� � a N � �� o � ¢ o �� o Qm �� _ ��_�� Q°�� oa �a�u'w, a ° c � � U � '�+� alouiwag p� � -a� Ox � o�'n r � " � I a •L I � v M �Y � � � � _ � � _ � o � � o v m � T � � � • _ � ,,c� � o c C V e� � m � G f �°� � � o � � � v L c Ri � y i O � � � i � � I . � y� v� � ` w �`�� ' o �' W � � s S`r� � v� � � �is `� Q as r s « � 0�; Z � N N �' 2 ` p� f O -i LL > t� f O I � _ � ( g � �L ' a i . . � o . � . y U v 6 ' 4 �� v v �' � rn � d �l � _ � �, :� �� • Local Mitigation Strategy � 2015 • Martin i Pacnt COUflty TEpt�s �. ; Narthem PBC GREENACRES ATLAN7lS WOR Eq� Jupiter to Lantana OUT PALM -� ,rFn Lantsne Rd � H ,yP:, er A � �f / ntlle Rtl W IntlieMOwn Rtl nd�a �� d �TA � �� l%�, r= I� PAN � � / /. IW17ER � � ; �/, � � � Q � � m� H XO r ` / � ,� E Z R � �.�t Y ✓�;� ��a ' A Boyntnn Beach Blvd W 0q'nlon 0ea p' ve � ii� T lij� " y m ` •%j! L N PGABIni �!'�' � m � � PntMeEACx + • � GOLF � '� S ca�as �, � � j N � r�q �i 80YNTON � � f, �- v aE� BEACH v� � Northleka Blvd = ' 9�R1 � � m �/ A ; � �%' T � � W lue Hemn gh. Bee� tl 1 �'i O � P Af3f tl � � �� 5 n PtlaneC A`re W AtlarKic Pete �� `i aaa n `j E � j N �� A � / DELRAY B�f �� T BEACH ��i N I '.�, W Rd /+ 'D� • / li Oke obee&WZ' � � P� ,�, � �m 3 • ° y��'�ry // aY O � 4�/I�H '� � '� 9 � %� �� Z � � % C � � �' �� rra�ruftc % c !.�f � / C W Yamato Rd �,•� Southan Blvd : ' � a o , ,; A r`- � % ` `� N � : i� � � m �' � eoca ; f FeR6t HIII 8Np y ��, ; �T� � SPPRINGS SHOAE � � W r '�des �� /+ % cr�FN,u�s �� Swthem PBC w h,eao Paric Rd �,� Lantana to �aKe wortn Ra a /`! � Boca Raton _ m � m S� �i � g AICANffS 50 I H O /� d ' Lantana Rd �n W r e& a �f� //f Broward County = /, l� at4C o Tsunami Threat Area � �>i � `�.;, - �� Tsunami ThreatArea —�- Railroad Municipal Area � County Boundary Not To Scale �.. F�fJp�OT' ISS GIS Services N\V4�xk�bnodon�LMS ?014'SSUnami ThreatArea mxd JllIIC 1$ 201 320 • Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • MaRin County + EQUESTd � Indiantowr Rd lN�r. OLONY � <i � ND C PAL GAR �9� K � Northlake Blvd T qCH � � � WEST n�, p M 8 CH S BEACH O S c � E R ,P �"� � a-• m e � A � �`� T ROY�� Okeech g �'m r LOXAHATCHEE PAL a z L Siate Road 80 GROVES BEA m '� H!l � � so em aNd A Z � PAL � tA EA N � � BIv�AR � T WELLINGTO P OR _ SP � L � �Ke GREENAORES W C � Lantenfl Rd ATLANTIS T PALM m � E CH N � A PAN O • N U O C BOYNTON N � EACH � Boynton Be m A � Q z ' 1 y N ~ � CAL � ES � U F M Atlantic Ave W Atlan � DE e I o+ � AND Yamalo CH v 2 � G� 9bes Rd a m I Palmetto � � • �! � � z� Broward County � a atq�H �� Wellfield Protection Zone Areas � �� '•� . Weilfield Prdedion Zone �— Railroad Municipal Area � County Boundary � � � a � '..�Ort10 Mies iSS C:IS Ser�.ires 1�PbcgovorgtisslGlS\WorklbnatoMLMS 20145Wellfield ProtectionAreas.mxd June i8 zoi • 321 Local Mitigation Strategy I 2015 • �"�"j � STa Martin County J JU TER indian[owrrRd � � IN T � ��. . W Indianlavn Rd COL N / � � � �PK��, � / JUPlTER �� Farmsi "� � : �` i Palm Beach � ' , � Colaiky � � WlnQin, Estat�s : Cal�� Wfie's � m o, JUNO F ' BEAC . � PALM BEACH � � � � GARDENS Q LL � PGA BNd � t v Q' � x �' '�' m v' b = � NORT - � � � NoAhlakeBHd �� PALM . . m . . . .._ � 9:� EAC � �Z t � % ". . � � m � PA i. , i a �� ' Zt1�� . j'. � W Blue Heron Blv � � � �a�9e�� WEST PALM RN . . . !, %'-�; BEACH 8 ,, i � � / �;%� -,j /•� � . , /�.� PA N - %� / /�,,: /� ._ . White � : ��%//�, �. � . r'. / � � Fences R� /�%%. � . . � - ASCOt � /_ � ROYAL _ • Deec-Ruri Lfo�states�Loza�raccl�e; aa�M r= � c �� -ctiunry LOX�HEE BFACH n ThOUSafld ��dWbee 01vd� c s �y Fox GaovES $ Pines � .�. a z T1'ali. m � Stats Road gp . � � �-�- � HAVERHILL /�-� / i % r � / �.�i �•. ;- � Souihem BNd CLO D �� i / ; z t i' '/ � i� �/i / '' , ; � 4SL ��'�%�� /)RI II a✓. �� l� m � Rf E �� //��i� i � i. /� a � iA ! / . - � / i �' / �� ... Porest HIII 81vd N CLAR / � j � •' - � �� j � itl SHORE a / /�/ � / wFiurvcrtt, j � � �; � sPa�nres �; / �,� � �� Z GR£ENACRES LA WO � � Lake Worth Rd m /j /j/ � a i � % "%=�i�� a ATLANTIS� . - . . � � Lanfanfl Rd � U Homeland "' r� a�4a�aa ,a�-��H�o� Wildland Urban Interface Area � Z I'= e I � CountyBoundary � Raikoad %� RislcArea MuniapalArea o oe � 2 • �GfiN10 • . � �� ISS GIS Services �SPbcgov.orgYsslGISlWorkibnortonlLMS 20141Wildland Urban InterfaceArea.mxd Sune i8 zoi 322 • • • • Local Mitigation Strategy 2015 Martin County ___ _��_ _ _ �� UIJ�i�l.w..� ,�SL( _______ � N Ep L Y ''''�`� k ' j �rrrn � e� JGlN BEAC � L .0. !�. E '�, R9LM BFAO �'�. p K E F r,� N 0 B E E aaa�emsp •� � . A ORTH � �� Nnrlhl�. w Blni � . FACH � R4 �q� � S'y � Y✓E^7 r 'RfVI A� H � ., PALM ' ' B �. � BEACH � N AF ,� Spte Road BO �' 'i� _ P H � � 1� � ROYA` each y � HA7CHEE� � � IT Hendry County ,�-"� 1 �a oves ! , 160mp r� �, � � I� h 170mph ��GT�N .... J RJN E TH I � . La�13r13Nn _ �„a:rf'� M i 180mph � � " A CAN/Y O N 'l. l E �u bs,i�ii'a 5�:..en CM...�ec ✓,k w v ^�n - e F �c v J _r E ES ��b � � � I � S AAP t � u: Z AILI�L;. r3Ye � H I � I � MO H ' 4M'i arnalo � rm,�::w Fr,w� �. � (.aates rao . i �---- ----- ------ ----- ---- --�~ <<,��;�:��.,�•�«�,, �a ' _ _ --- -� BrowardCount�� ------------ ro,v; ;� ��" �°�� Wind Speeds - Risk Category III and IV Buildings � �a { --� Railroad Municipal Area [—� County Boundary o i� zs s F � ��_� � ISS GIS Services ��Pbcgov.orglisslGlSlWorklbnorton\LMS 20141Wind Risk.mxd June i8 2oi 323 • • •