Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Res 2019-132 Adopting Revised 2020 PBC Local Mitigation Strategy Plan
RESOLUTION 2019-132 A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF NORTH PALM BEACH, FLORIDA APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE 2020 REVISED PALM BEACH COUNTY LOCAL MITIGATION STRATEGY PLAN; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 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 cause increased inundation, shoreline erosion, flooding from severe weather events, accelerated saltwater contamination of ground water and surface water supplies, and expedited loss of critical habitats, and WHEREAS, 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 ("FEMA") 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 such plans; and WHEREAS, Palm Beach County's Local Mitigation Strategy ("LMS"), 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 2020 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 2020 Revised Local Mitigation Strategy, including planned future enhancements described therein, by the County and all 38 participating municipalities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF NORTH PALM BEACH, FLORIDA as follows: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are ratified and confirmed as being true and correct and are hereby made a specific part of this Resolution upon adoption thereof. Page 1 of 2 Section 2. The Village Council of the Village of North Palm Beach hereby approves and adopts the 2020 Revised Local Mitigation Strategy Plan (attached hereto as Exhibit A) in its entirety, as revised by the LMS Steering Committee as submitted to the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners, the Florida Division of Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Section 3. The Village of North Palm Beach authorizes the appropriate Village officials 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 of North Palm Beach 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 of North Palm Beach will consider incorporating 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 of North Palm Beach 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 and Comptroller. Section 7. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 (Village Seal) ATTEST: VILLAGE. CLERK Page 2 of 2 M OR Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 Palm Beach County Public Safety Department Division of Emergency Management 20 South Military Trail West Palm Beach, FL 33415 561-712-6404 agrrhrr riirrpwrlr�s 1e rr� � Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 This page intentionally left blank Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 RECORD OF CHANGES This Record of Changes is used to record all published changes. All major changes will be routed to plan holders within 90 days of the promulgation of the change. In addition, SOG PL - 002 — Revietiv and Maintenance of DEM Plans, establishes a policy and procedures for the review and maintenance of all Division of Emergency Management Plans. 3 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 This page intentionally left blank Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 PROMULGATION STATEMENT With this notice, we are pleased to promulgate the 2020 Palm Beach County (PBC} Unified Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS). This is one of the many documents published by PBC Public Safety Department's Division of Emergency Management tDENI). The LNIS is the basis For countywide hazards, vulnerabilities, and mitigation strategy activities. It is the intent of the LMS to provide a structure for identifying hazards and vulnerabilities, assist municipalities and the County in planning for those Hazards and vulnerabilities, and mitigating those hazards through the use of local, state, and federal funding sources, making our county more resilient. Palm Beach County DEM shall be responsible for coordinating the preparation and updating of the LMS througlti the work of the LNIS Working Group, Steering Committee, and other subcommittees, and will ensure that this dacument is consistent with similar federal, state, and municipal plans. The LMS 2020 will become effective upon official adoption by the PBC Board of Coatnty Commissioners (BCC) and effective for municipalities upon their individual adoption. r Ralph Wall. Chairperson PBC LMS Bill J nson, N Director Division of Emergency Management Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 This page intentionally left blank Local Miti�tation Strategy 1 2020 Table of Contents RECORD OF CHANGES.. ......................... -- ... ........................... I ............................................... 3 PROMULGATION STATEMENT................................................................................................5 ............................ SECTION 1: PLANNING PROCESS ............................................ ................. 11 1.1 Introduction................................................................................ 1.2 Purpose...........................................................................................................................11 1.3 Program Organization.................................................................................................... 11 1.3.1 LMS Structure ........... --......................................................................................... 12 1.3.2 Standing Committees.............................................................................................. 14 1.3.3 Community Rating System {CRS} Cooperating Committees ................................. 15 ....................................... . 1.4 Participation Requirements................................................... . 15 1.5 Jurisdictional Adoption.................................................................................................. 17 1.6 New dririsdictions/Entities.............................................................................................. 17 1.7 Jurisdictional Participation.....................................................................................I....... 17 1.8 Guiding; Principles.......................................................................................................... 17 1.9 Process............................................................................................................................18 1.10 Strategy....................................................................................................................... 18 1.11 Benefits.......................................................................................... ...................19 1.12 Criteria and Procedures For Revision.......................................................................... 19 1.13 Goals...........................................................................................................................23 1.14 Objectives ........... ........ ............................................................................. I.................. 23 SECTION 2: HAZARD ID17-NTIF[CATION AND VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS ............... 26 2.1 Hazard Iden tification ................................................................... -.-.......................... 27 2.1.1 Natural Hazards...................................................................................................... 30 2.1.1.1 Flooding ............. .................................... .•--..................................................... 30 2.1.1.2 Hurricane/Tropical Storm................................................................................47 ?.1.1.3 Tornado............................................................................................................58 2.1.1.4 Severe Thunderstorms/Lightning.................................................................... 63 2.1.1.5 Drought...........................................................................................................64 2.1.1.6 Extreme Temperatures..................................................................................... 67 2.1.1.7 Agricultural Pests and Diseases ....................... 70 2, l . l .8 Wildfire/Urban interface Zone........................................................................ 75 2.1.1.9 Muck Fire ....................................... . ................................................................ 77 7 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 2.1.1.10 Soil/Beach Erosion.......................................................................................... 78 2.1.1.11 Sea Level Rise................................................................................................. 81 2.1.1.12 Seismic Hazards.............................................................................................. 83 2.1.1.13 Geologic Hazards............................................................................................ 84 2.1.1.14 Pandemic/Communicable Diseases................................................................. 85 2.1.2 Technological Hazards............................................................................................ 88 2.1.2.1 Dike Failure..................................................................................................... 89 2.1.2.2 Hazardous Materials Accident......................................................................... 90 2.1.2.3 Radiological Accidents (Nuclear Power Plant Accident) ................................ 91 2.1.2.4 Communications Failure.................................................................................. 92 2.1.2.5 Hazardous Materials Release........................................................................... 93 2.1.2.6 Transportation System Accidents.................................................................... 93 2.1.2.7 Coastal Oil Spill............................................................................................... 93 2.1.2.8 Wellfield Contamination................................................................................. 95 2.1.2.9 Power Failure (Outages).................................................................................. 95 2.1.3 Human -Caused Hazards.......................................................................................... 97 2.1.3.1 Civil Disturbance............................................................................................. 97 2.1.3.2 Domestic Security............................................................................................ 97 2.1.3.3 Mass Migration Crisis..................................................................................... 99 2.1.3.4 Workplace/School Violence.......................................................................... 100 2.2 Vulnerability Assessment............................................................................................. 101 2.2.1 Natural Hazards.................................................................................................... 102 2.2.1.1 Hurricanes and Tropical Storms.................................................................... 102 2.2.1.2 Flooding.........................................................................................................104 2.2.1.3 Coastal & Beach Erosion / Sea Level Rise .................................................... 106 2.2.1.4 Severe Thunderstorms/Lightning.................................................................. 107 2.2.1.5 Wildfire/Urban Interface Zone...................................................................... 108 2.2.1.6 Muck Fire...................................................................................................... 108 2.2.1.7 Tornado..........................................................................................................108 2.2.1.8 Extreme Temperatures................................................................................... 108 2.2.1.9 Agricultural Pests and Diseases..................................................................... 109 2.2.1.10 Drought..........................................................................................................109 2.2.1.11 Pandemic/Communicable Diseases............................................................... 110 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 2.2.1.12 Seismic Hazards............................................................................................ 110 2.2.2 Technological Hazards.......................................................................................... 111 2.2.2.1 Hazardous Materials Accident....................................................................... 111 2.2.2.2 Radiological Accidents (Nuclear Power Plant Accidents) ............................ 112 2.2.2.3 Communications System Failure................................................................... 113 2.2.2.4 Transportation System Accidents.................................................................. 113 2.2.2.5 Wellfield Contamination............................................................................... 114 2.2.2.6 Power Failure................................................................................................. 114 2.2.3 Human Caused Hazards........................................................................................ 114 2.2.3.1 Civil Disturbance........................................................................................... 114 2.2.3.2 Domestic Security.......................................................................................... 115 2.2.3.3 Mass Migration Crisis................................................................................... 116 2.2.3.4 Workplace/School Violence.......................................................................... 116 2.2.4 Vulnerability of Critical Facilities........................................................................ 117 2.3 Risk Assessment........................................................................................................... 118 SECTION 2A: VULNERABILITY OF CRITICAL FACILITIES ............................................ 121 SECTION 213: VULNERABILITY OF RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.. 125 SECTION 3: MITIGATION STRATEGY................................................................................. 133 3.1 Governmental...............................................................................................................133 3.1.1 Federal...................................................................................................................133 3.1.2 State.......................................................................................................................134 3.1.3 Regional................................................................................................................136 3.1.3.1 Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC).................................. 136 3.1.3.2 South Florida Water Management District .................................................... 137 3.1.4 Local.....................................................................................................................138 3.1.4.1 Palm Beach County....................................................................................... 138 3.1.4.2 Municipalities................................................................................................ 159 3.1.5 Intergovernmental Coordination........................................................................... 164 3.2 Private Sector............................................................................................................... 167 3.2.1 Background........................................................................................................... 167 3.2.2 Accomplishments..................................................................................................168 3.3 Strengthening the Role of Local Governments............................................................ 172 SECTION4: PROCEDURES................................................................................................... 175 9 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 4.1 Project Prioritization Methodology.............................................................................. 175 4.1.1 Development and Rationale.................................................................................. 175 4.1.2 Community Benefit............................................................................................... 177 4.1.3 Community Exposure........................................................................................... 178 4.1.4 Cost Effectiveness................................................................................................. 179 4.1.5 Area Benefit.......................................................................................................... 181 4.1.6 Project Implementation......................................................................................... 181 4.1.7 Community Commitment..................................................................................... 183 4.2 Tie -Break Procedure................................................................................................... 184 4.3 LMS Evaluation Panel................................................................................................ 185 4.3.1 Eligibility for Federal Funding............................................................................. 185 4.4 Project Prioritization Updating Process....................................................................... 186 4.5 Conflict Resolution Procedures.................................................................................... 188 4.5.1 Background...........................................................................................................188 4.5.2 Procedure.............................................................................................................. 189 ACRONYMS.............................................................................................................................. 193 10 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 SECTION 1: PLANNING PROCESS 1.1 Introduction The 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. In 2016, DEM was accredited by the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP), demonstrating excellence and accountability in emergency management through a peer-reviewed standards, assessment, and accreditation process, including standards on mitigation practices. 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 finding to support hazard mitigation projects and initiatives. 1.3 Program Organization This section addresses, in part, the following FEMA requirements: Requirement: §201.6(c)(1) Documentation of how the plan was prepared must include the schedule or timeframe and activities that made up the plan's development as well as who was involved. (Element Al) Requirement: §201.6(c)(4)(i) The plan must identify how, when, and by whom the plan will be monitored. The plan must identify how, when, and by whom the plan will be evaluated. The plan must identify how, when, and by whom the plan will be updated. The plan must include the title of the individual or name of the department/agency responsible for leading each of these efforts. (Element A6) Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 1.3.1 LMS Structure The current structure meets federal guidelines and criteria established in response to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (See figure 1.1). Local Mitigation Strategy Coordinator The LMS Coordinator is a staff member within the DEM and serves as the coordinator for all mitigation projects, committees, and mitigation funding designated for the County. The LMS Coordinator facilitates 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 every five (5) years. The LMS Coordinator will be responsible for including minor changes and additions to the LMS during interim periods. Those changes will be documented in the Record of Changes, which can be found in page 3. The LMS Coordinator monitors changes in federal, state, and local laws in the area of mitigation that may affect the County. The LMS Coordinator readies the LMS for approval to the FDEM, the LMS Steering Committee, the BCC, and local municipalities. The LMS Coordinator is responsible for the continued maintenance of the LMS as well as the storing and filing of all documents pertaining to mitigation issues. In addition, the LMS Coordinator is responsible for the coordination of the Project Prioritization List that scores and ranks projects in the County that are eligible for Federal monies. This process is conducted through the LMS Evaluation Panel. Panelists are solicited by the LMS Coordinator on behalf of the LMS Steering Committee based on LMS member recommendations and are subject to approval by the LMS Steering Committee. The LMS Coordinator 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, namely the County's Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (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 communications 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 LMS 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 12 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 information and mobilizing the vast expertise and resources of the community. The LMS Working Group also provides suggested updates to various portions of the LMS to be analyzed and considered for inclusion by the LMS Revisions Committee into the next LMS. The LMS Working Group is the overarching group that all other committees are derived from, and provides guidance, suggestions, research, and input into all aspects of the LMS program. The LMS Working Group is currently led by the Chairperson, a Management Analyst for the City of West Palm Beach, and is coordinated by the LMS Coordinator for DEM. LMS Steering Committee The LMS Steering Committee consists of 15 members composed of seven (7) municipal representatives, two (2) county/local government representatives, one (1) state/federal government representative, one (1) university/college representative, one (1) healthcare industry representative, one (1) non-profit representative, and two (2) representatives from the private sector. The LMS Steering Committee serves as the LMS program board of directors. As such, it is the primary decision and 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 to be compliant with Florida Statute 27P-22.004. 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. The LMS Steering Committee also monitors the implementation of the LMS annually, and makes recommendations to jurisdictions and other LMS members regarding how to implement LMS strategies within their jurisdictions. The LMS Steering Committee is led by the Chairperson, a Management Analyst for the City of West Palm Beach, and is coordinated by the LMS Coordinator for DEM. 13 - - - r♦ -�—�-� - - - `keA mlroaiG1, y cx146t,jt.f awry s � ;�xr+n�rfee r � I I I I Flx�rrt, I I .I �tlf{tk1�1[kl r 4 � CRS Committees^ Figure L I. PBC LMS Structure I.3.2 Standing Committees Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Rev. _VY 7919 LMS Evaluation Panel - Designated to review, evaluate, score, and rank mitigation projects applying established local, state, and federal prioritization processes and criteria. The LMS Evaluation Panel is led by the Public Works Director for the City of Greenacres, and coordinated by the LMS Coordinator for DEM. • LMS Revisions Sub -Committee - Designated to review/monitor, update/evaluate, and verify/revise that subsequent LMS plans meet all federal guidelines and criteria. In addition, the revisions committee meets quarterly either in-person or via teleconference to evaluate the effectiveness of the plan, as well as to monitor and update the plan during the five (5) year cycle. Tile revisions committee has a standing rneeting once per quarter. If no issues or concerns with the plan are proposed or presented, the committee instead holds a teleconference. Eighteen to twenty-four months before the plan is due for revisions, in person meetings are held regardless of whether changes need to be made. Biweekly and monthly meetings of the committee are meld at least 24 months before the plan expires to ensure all address with the revision are being met and to review the document and present suggested changes, updates, and revisions to the LMS Steering 14 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 Committee. The LMS Revisions Subcommittee is led by a Management Analyst for the City of West Palm Beach, and is coordinated by the LMS Coordinator for DEM. • LMS Hazard _and _Vulnerability -Analysis (HVA) Sub -Committee _ Provides a detailed assessment of hazards that may affect PSC and provides mitigation recommendations. Reviews research studies, reports, and technical information regarding possible changes in hazards within PBC and makes recommendations for revision, This subcommittee meets as needed within the revision cycle to provide input to the LMS Revisions Subcommittee relating to hazards and vulnerabilities that may have changed since the last revision. The LMS HVA Subcommittee is led by a Battalion Chief for the City of West Palm Beach, and is coordinated by the LMS Coordinator for DEM. 1.3.3 Community Rating System (CRS) Cooperating Committees ■ Flood Mitigation 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. CRS Committees are led and coordinated by the CRS Coordinator for DEM. • Program for Public Information - Comprised of representatives from the county's active CRS Coln Ill Lill ities, local business leaders, and members of the public, this group collaborates on a frill range of Outreach Projects Strategy (OPS) initiatives and promote CRS participation. This CRS Committee is led and coordinated by the CRS Coordinator for DEM. • CRS Users Group — Comprised of representatitves of the county's CRS CamIII Lill ities. this group meets quarterly to discuss issues of the day regarding CRS updates, collaborates on best practices for achieving higher levels within various CRS activities, and shares information regarding CRS -related training. While there is no regulation that requires the CRS committees to meet or coordinate, PBC has a very involved CRS use]• group that passes information and best practices and meets quarterly. Out of the 39 municipalities in PBC, 28 are involved in the CRS user group. A chart in Appendix .1 shows the number of Repetitive Loss Properties, the number of insured homes in each municipality, and their CRS rating, Table 3.1 also shows number of repetitive loss properties, total loss claims, CRS ratings, and insurance discountS ror PBC and each jurisdiction. 1.4 Participation Requirements Since the LMS is written using 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. 15 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Jurisdictions Municipal and County participation is critical 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 LMS Working Group meetings; or • Participation of the representative or officially designated alternate(s) in a majority of the LMS Steering Committee meetings, and • Participation in a majority of subcommittee meetings; or • Participation in special conference call meetings of the LMS 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 (HMGP), Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMAP), and Pre -Disaster Mitigation (PDM) funding programs, they must have an officially adopted resolution and a fully executed interlocal agreement. More than two (2) absences of the LMS Working Group meeting will be cause for disqualification from the LMS, subject to appeal and review by the LMS Chair. All rights and privileges will be terminated during a period of disqualification and formal reapplication. All jurisdictions will be notified of meetings via email at least one (1) week in advance, and will be updated with meeting summaries thereafter. Non -Governmental Organizations (NGO) and other Governmental Entities In order to qualify for LMS grant sponsorship, NGOs and other governmental 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 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, 16 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 announcements in the county and municipal newsletters and calendars, and blast e -mailings to all previous participants. Additionally, the LMS Coordinator actively solicits new LMS members by reaching out to at least 30 private sector and/or non-profit organizations annually to encourage their participation in the LMS. 1.5 Jurisdictional Adoption 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 established and amended by the PBC 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. 1.7 Jurisdictional Participation The County has 39 municipalities. In addition to jurisdictions being encouraged to participate, each member is provided minutes from the previous LMS Working Group or LMS Steering Committee meeting within one week following the meeting. Participation is also monitored with sign -in sheets. This information along with a roster of the primary LMS representative from each municipality can be found in Appendix L. Also located in Appendix L are the minutes and sign -in sheets of the LMS Working Group, Steering Committee, HVA Subcommittee, and Revisions Subcommittee meetings. The following jurisdictions currently have LMS members. Details (such as names and titles) can be found in Appendix L: Atlantis, Belle Glade, Boca Raton, Boynton Beach, Briny Breezes, Cloud Lake, Delray Beach, Glenn Ridge, Golf, Greenacres, Gulf Stream, Haverhill, Highland Beach, Hypoluxo, Juno Beach, Jupiter, Jupiter Inlet Colony, Lake Clarke Shores, Lake Park, Lake Worth Beach, Lantana, Loxahatchee Groves, Manalapan, Mangonia Park, North Palm Beach, Ocean Ridge, Pahokee, Palm Beach, Palm Beach Gardens, Palm Beach Shores, Palm Springs, Riviera Beach, Royal Palm Beach, South Bay, South Palm Beach, Tequesta, Wellington, West Palm Beach, and unincorporated Palm Beach County. 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. The 17 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 County's LMS prides itself on working to reduce hazards and vulnerability through well- designed and effective mitigation projects and activities. 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 strategies. 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 LMS 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 • Redevelopment/reconstruction • Development practices/land use • Intergovernmental coordination • Public participation • Repetitive flood loss properties • Historical structures 1.10 Strategy The strategy 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) Hazard area 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 18 Local Mitigation Strategy 20?t) 7) Evaluation of effectiveness of current LMS 8) Local adoption following a public hearing 9) 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 (NFIP) CRS Program for developing a Floodplain Management Program, which may help further reduce flood insurance premium rates for property owners • Access to FEMA's Federal grant 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 oraH hazard mitigation ■ Identify the known hazards 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 Vulnerability Analysis} • Develop a detailed method by which PBC (municipalities 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 11.12 Criteria and Procedures for Revision This section partially addresses the following FEMA requirements: Requirement: §201.6(b)(1) The plan must document }tow the public was given the opportunity to be involved in the planning process and ]low their feedback was incorporated in the plan. 'rile opportunity for participation must occur during the plan development, which is prior to the comment period on the final plan and prior to the plan approval/adoption. (Element A 1 and A3) Requirement: §201.6(c)(1) Documentation of how the plan was prepared must include the schedule or timeframe and activities that made up the plain's development as well as who was involved. (Element A3) 19 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 This document will be updated a minimum of every five (5) years by the LMS Coordinator with the assistance and input of the LMS Revision Subcommittee, LMS Steering Committee, LMS Working Group, and approval of the LMS Steering Committee. As many items have changed in the past five (5) years for PBC communities, the following is a description of the review process to show changes the development of several of the sections and priorities from the previous plan: • Planning Introduction Section: This section includes an overview of the plan, an introduction, a discussion on the scope and purpose of the document, along with goals and objectives, and the participants in the planning process. This section was revised to reflect the most current approaches taken by the PBC LMS Working Group and standing committees. • Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis: All hazards received a new review and identified as potential or emerging trends with other hazards classified as "threats" and not "hazards." Most of the historical occurrences were updated to include current events, facts, or figures since the previous update. Other methodologies for a hazard and vulnerability tool were assessed. Sea Level Rise and flooding objectives received new emphasis and heavily incorporated to a new section within the LMS. • Development of Mitigation Initiatives: Several LMS Committee meetings and Working Group meetings were devoted to enhancing project submissions and revisions to the Project Priority List and Project Submission Form in order to more accurately rank older projects and receive information on new projects. Much of this section was revised to reflect the changes discussed. However, some of the information on funding sources and benefit cost ratios remains unchanged from its source information and remains a subject of detailed education efforts to stakeholder members in order to form well detailed project submissions. • Implementation and Maintenance of the LMS: This remains important due to continuing turnover from the membership of the Working Group. New members have been identified and continue to act as stakeholders to the whole community. • Appendices These sections were updated accordingly based on newer and relevant information. As PBC supports many LMS Committees, we utilized sample document outcomes from each Group to detail actions taken to implement the LMS. The public is given an opportunity to review this document and provide comments through the County website, public meetings held both prior to and after revisions have been made to actively solicit public input into the LMS, online surveys, as well as committee meetings. Ongoing maintenance 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, state, and local laws will also be reflected in the updated version of this document. The revisions will then be 20 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 distributed to all affected parties by the LMS Coordinator. The Record of Changes, located at the front of this document, will be used to record ongoing maintenance of the plan during interim periods between complete revision cycles. • The evaluation criteria which are used include: o New mandates from federal, state, or local agencies that require changes to the Local Mitigation Strategy, including new or changing laws, policies or regulations. o Societal developments or significant changes in the community that must be added to the current LMS. o Changes in the Comprehensive Plan or any other form of standard operating procedure. o The mitigation opportunities implemented. The priorities for implementation are the same. o Recommendations or lessons learned from any major incidents that have occurred 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 workable will be set aside for further review and revision, or dropped as no longer feasible. Once revisions are approved by the LMS Steering Committee, the LMS Coordinator provides the copy to all members, on the website, and to the State of Florida's Mitigation Bureau for approval. After approval by the State, the LMS Steering Committee and LMS Coordinator hold a public showcase to allow a final chance for public input. Once the LMS Revisions Subcommittee reviews public comment for possible inclusion, and makes any final revisions required by the State, the LMS Coordinator distributes to members for final adoption by governing bodies. Communities will then present the LMS to the public after adoption through the same public meetings/websites/etc. process used in the update cycle. 21 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 The following graphic shows the current LMS2020 Timeline, detailing the schedule and timeframe adopted by the LMS Steering Committee in 2016 for the 2020 revision cycle. 2020 Local Mitigation Strategy Timeline Palm Beach County Mvision of Emergency Management ranv,ry dart luM oenmeer �A' a�19 Sp J:m � ry Presentation of 2015 stekahalder Input of 1010 fnunly State Review of nesolutlan to LMS to Stakeholders ORAfT LM20155 LMS ?t 2020 LMS Stakeholder ItamiuVon to 2 a fdlejar In15at 2010 LMS to Ada Ado Y41�O tM5 LM swouus OEM nil rcb6 [f:d Ruriib[rP ro oluGand BCC.4. PrsrrrrtM aN P knri�r m[v�dGan pp �Pr dim�b tedw .. LnG �Oarl.39 PrprNand mf53ers SNS iWUd 0.M.P[ad . -'paldrim Nip[ Pte' ane mTr r W IP WT.rid proem 4At5 WWnf-A.6 from VA -4 Pr u;di° w 1 4F—IlRrrr racrnxd VIZ NGO%LW reM1den5le Rwog LLM'ry GraupaiM 2015",I vc Com.rvnr� fmm7r[ws; u�dwu RlrDics [o�?x5N from FEFNard tM RaN If MNR9, Pdv.rW StaaM[SP?Gemminm Rerirr 5ub ie 5fa[RaP Cdnrinaa slbc AM Vragrt xfNTearitld fimmlau -.&Vvd xor4heA{ ce5sln V."N , [NF uPdrt e.,W krdoaJe frm xacTrlol Ewq�en, 5t &KC "U. anrgxi Plar�ra�,Eaira wnnea�.s —4—tcps are HRp wdalu Figure 1.2: LMS2020 Timeline for PSC 22 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 1.13 Goals 1. Reduce the loss of life, property, and repetitive damage from the effects of natural, human caused, and technological hazards from all sources but especially hurricanes, tornadoes, major rainfall, and other severe weather events. 2. Achieve safe and fiscally sound, sustainable communities through thoughtful long-range planning of the natural and man-made environment. 3. Take preventative actions to reduce the number of repetitive loss properties published annually by FEMA on the list of "Repetitive Loss Properties." 4. Qualify the county and jurisdictions for incremental improvements on the CRS classification in relation to flood insurance under the NFIP and to reduce flood hazard risk. 5. Optimize the effective use of all available resources by establishing public/private partnerships, and encouraging intergovernmental coordination and cooperation. 6. Promote awareness and preparedness through the distribution of information on hazards and measures to mitigate them. 7. 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. 8. Establish a program that facilitates orderly recovery and redevelopment, and minimizes economic disruption following a disaster. 9. Ensure an enforceable commitment for the implementation of the local hazard mitigation strategy. 1.14 Objectives The ultimate objectives of the LMS are to: 1. Improve the community's resistance to damage from known natural, human caused, and environmental hazards. 2. Place PBC in a position to compete effectively and productively for pre- and post - disaster mitigation funding assistance. 3. Encourage strong jurisdictional, nongovernmental, and public participation and support of LMS activities. 23 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 4. Reduce the cost of disasters at all levels. 5. Facilitate community recovery when disasters occur. 6. Minimize recurrence of damage by incorporating mitigation into post -disaster rebuilding. 7. Promote intelligent development. 24 Local Mitigation Strategy ( 2020 This page intentionally left blank 25 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 SECTION 2: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS This section represents a hazard and vulnerability analysis, through a comprehensive HVA assessment commissioned by the County done in 2013. As part of the LMS2020 Update, the LMS HVA Subcommittee reviewed the following plans, studies, reports, and technical information, and provided updated information to be added to Section 2: • Florida State Hazard Mitigation Plan Drafts (2017) • 2016 Palm Beach County Supplemental Summary, Statewide Regional Evacuation Study, Palm Beach County Appendix (technical data update report on demographics, regional hazard analysis, and regional vulnerability and population analysis) • The Favorability of Florida's Geology to Sinkhole Formation (June 2017) • State of Florida Mitigation Goals and Capabilities (2018 draft) • Florida Repetitive Loss Strategy (2017 draft) All other documents used in the creation of the comprehensive HVA assessment in 2013 are listed in Appendix A. This section addresses, in part, the following FEMA requirements: Requirement: §201.6(b)(3): The plan must document what existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information were reviewed. 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 hazards. 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 occurrences 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 by floods. 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. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. 26 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 2.11 Hazard Identifieatioii Section 2.1 and Table 2.1 list the general hazards to which PBC is vulnerable and indicates their projected impact potential across [lie entire spectrum of community exposure and services. Section Z.I. Hazard Identification, describes these hazards in detail and discusses countywide exposures; Section 2.2, Vulnerability Assessment, discusses specific vulnerabilities faced by the individual governmental entities, County and municipal, forming the PBC community. Vulnerability, probability, and risk assessments for the County and municipal jurisdictions, and a countywide impact analysis are contained in Appendix 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 Appendix C and Section 2B. The majority of hazards in PSC affect most areas of the county equally. However, there are a few that maybe more concentrated in one (1) area of the county. For example, a Herbert Hoover Dike Breach would cause more severe damage to the western communities. For the purpose of this document, the County has been divided into four (4) geographical areas: Northern Palm Beach, Sputhern Palm Beach, Western Palm Beach, and Coastal PBC. in each of the hazards identified and defined, the latest occurrence of that event hazard is listed, For example the last major hurricane to PBC was in 2017, In addition, the charts will show probability of occurrence and impact. These are rated as low. Linder 5% chance of occurring, medium, 5% - 15% chances of occurring, or High, greater than 15% chance. These rating correspond with the information in the charts. Each disaster affects PBC differently based on the severity and scope of the disaster and where it occurred in the County. While impacts to structures, infrastructure, people, and the environment will he addressed within each individual hazard, in most cases unless the disaster is significant, (major or catastrophic), in duration and destruction, impact will be minimal and can be handled with Nsources within the County, If not specifically discussed in the hazard, it is assumed that there would be no or niinimal impact to the to the County. The charts in Appendix A 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 m'sninial and can be controlled and contained with resources within the mtin icipality, 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 (earthquakes, explosion, fire, Hood, 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 27 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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 States, 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 Iocal response resources and inechanisms: 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. Table 2.1 Identification and projecied impact potential far hazards Hazard Category Flood ii u rrie ane1T'ropical I Tornado Severe thunderstorm Drought Temperature cxtrcmes Agricultural pestldisease Wildfire Muck Fire saillheaeh erosion Seismic haJards Sea Level Rise Geologic Pandetn is Projected Impact Potential b C E E �e� us 2 c a �, 3 v', ' ., ' o _ E n,'� -9--e� E a u 3 .: a E 8 •r 'C Rl u c v [ `u - 'n a E J J 28 IIa7ard Category I lerhert Hoover Dike Breach Hazardous material accident Radiological accidents (nuclear power plant) Communications failure Hazardous material release Transportation accident Wellfield contamination Power failure (outaae) M Civil dislurbancc Dornesiio Security; Tcrrorisin, sabotage, and cyber attacks Mass migralion Wor4131a¢e.! school violcncc Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 Projected Impact Potential W, e c n w 6 $ e e ac S E '_ 8 R ac E t,7.r J J J W, Local Mitigation Strategy 2620 2.1.1 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 .lune and September. In PBC, the eastern or coastal section of the County receives more rain than the western section, however, all of PBC can be affected by flooding. 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 is saturated. Based strictly on the historical flooding events presented below, the probability of even a minor flooding event somewhere in PBC over the past 10 years tends to lean towards at least once annually. More information is available through the DEM webpage accessible at: http:llpbcgov.com/flood. Historical Flooding Events Flood q/ fidl 1917. This flood is generally considered to be the most severe flood recorded in southern Florida. Heavy rainfall, including the rains from two (2) hurricanes, occurred over a period of five (5) months. Many parts of PBC were flooded for months and there was extensive damage to dairy pastures and agriculture in general. Stich 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 (5) months of heavier than normal rainfall, 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 that required supplemental feeding of cattle. Vegetable growers and dairy farmers also suffered significant losses as a result of this flood. Rains of'.Ianu ary 1957. On January 21, 1957, PBC received nine (9) to 21 inches of rainfall within a 24-hour period. There was severe flooding in the vegetable garden areas of the County and much crop damage. Some fields had to be primped out. Local crop damage was estimated at $1.()00,000. Flood o1'.1ifne 1959. Heavy rains fell across most of central Florida from .lune 17 to 21. These rains were associated with and followed a tropical depression, and caused extensive flooding in poorly drained, low-lying agricultural areas and some residential sections. Considerable pasture land and some citrus land in PBC were inundated. Some highways also sustained damage from these flood waters. Rains oj'Ocloher 1966. On October 22, 1966, heavy rains ranging from eight (8) to ten (10) inches over a 24-hour period destroyed approximately 4,200 acres of vegetable crops. 30 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 Rains of March 1982. On March 28-29, 1982, PSC was subjected to a severe coastal storm with heavy rains and high winds. Lantana measured 16 inches of rain over a 24-11our period. High seas sunk a Haitian freighter and a total of 11 people were drowned. The Greal Thanksgiving Holidaj, East Coast Storm of 1984. A strong Iow-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 extensive coastal erosion and flooding. Many coastal structures were damaged or destroyed, including several in PBC. Flood of Januar}' 1989. On January 21 - 22 1989, PBC experienced a gale with subtropical storm characteristics that caused extensive beach erosion and dropped four (4) to six (6) 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. The Unnamed Storm of Ocloher 1995. Almost exactly one (1) 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 (2) 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. Unnamed Slorin of .famearj• 1999. On Saturday, .January 2, 1999, a cold front stalled over the northern part of PBC. Warm, moist air from the Bahamas became entrained in this frontal system and produced a localized. intense rain event in northern PBC. initial reports indicated 21 inches of rain in a 12 -hour period. This later turned out to be an erroneous 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 170ur 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 a[ong Northlake Boulevard. Erosion caused the collapse of a portion of 1-95 that was under construction. Table 2.2 shows the final damage assessment in PBC. from this storm. Record RairVidl .1une - Aly 2002, On .fufy 14, 2002, a record 27 consecutive days of rain concluded. The combined June - July rainfall total was six (6) inches below the all-time record. June rainfall was 20.16" ( 12.5% above normal). The County experienced five (5) days of one (1) inch or more rain. The water level in Lake Okeechobee rase to 12.57 feet. Because this rainy period was preceded by an extended dry period and rains were spread over several days, flooding was limited to street flooding. 31 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Hurricane Frances September 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 rainfalls included 9.56 inches at Boynton Beach, eight (8) inches at Deerfield Beach and 7.18 inches at the Hillsboro Canal. Widespread storm -total amounts of three (3) to five (5) inches occurred in southeast and interior south Florida with southwest Florida averaging one (1) to three (3) inches. Rainfall flooding was mostly minor except for a few locations in PBC, which had up to three (3) 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 (5) feet above and below normal. Hurricane Jeanne September 25, 2004. A South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) gauge measured a maximum storm -total rainfall amount of 10.22 inches over the eastern portion of Lake Okeechobee. A SFWMD gauge about four (4) 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 (1) to four (4) inches occurred in most of southeast and interior south Florida with Miami - Dade County and Collier County averaging one-half (1/2) to one (1) 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 (7) feet above and below normal causing severe flooding of some marinas. Flood of June 5, 2005. Eight (8) inches of rain in three (3) 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. Hurricane Wilma October 24, 2005. Rainfall amounts across South Florida generally ranged from two (2) to four (4) inches across southern sections of the peninsula to four (4) to six (6) inches across western Collier County and around Lake Okeechobee, with a maximum 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 December 15. Other locations in Central and Southern PBC received between six (6) and eight (8) inches of rain. Northern Broward County received lesser amounts in the two (2) to three (3) inch range. Several streets and roads were closed in the city of West Palm Beach, with water reaching up to three (3) 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 and 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 (5) people arrived as of 8:20 PM. 32 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Flood of January 22, 2008. Intense rains affected Boynton Beach and the northwest section of Delray Beach during the late afternoon and evening hours of January 22. Maximum observed rainfall amounts were between four (4) and six (6) inches in Boynton Beach, although Doppler radar estimated as much as ten inches of rain fell in just over three (3) 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 (2) feet along sections of Congress Avenue. Significant flooding was reported at the parking lot of Boynton Beach mall. The 1-95 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 warm frontal boundary provided the necessary atmospheric conditions for intense rains and flooding in the Boynton Beach area on January 22. 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. 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 (2) feet deep at some locations. A shortwave 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. 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. Rainfall 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 four (4) days. An estimated 2,000 customers lost power across South Florida due to the rain. Rainfall amounts of six (6) to nine (9) inches fell over southeastern PBC in less than six (6) hours, 33 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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 August 26. 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 rains 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 occurred on August 26 and 27. 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 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, 2014. 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. From roughly 8:00 p.m. until midnight, several locations received over 12 inches of rain in just those few hours, with one (1) 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). In 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. 34 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 Estimated rainfall totals in that area were almost 12 inches, according to the SFWMD. A number of homes sustained minor damages and a presidential declaration was sought but not granted due to the damage not meeting federal threshold guidelines. October 21, 2014. During the afternoon hours, portions of coastal PBC were inundated with flooding rains for the second time this year. Although this event was not near to the magnitude of the flood event in January, it did produce copious amounts of rainfall over a short period. Many roads were blocked which left motorists stranded. Portions of metro PBC received anywhere from one (1) to three (3) inches of rainfall while some coastal locales received nearly 10 inches. The worst impacted areas were between downtown West Palm Beach and Riviera Beach where many roads became flooded and impassable. March 24, 2016. A combination of daytime heating, deep moisture, and a passing upper level system lead to numerous afternoon showers and thunderstorms across South Florida, especially across the east coast metro areas. Heavy rainfall from training storms also brought flooding across southern PBC. Heavy rainfall fell across northern Broward and southern Palm Beach counties during the afternoon hours. Flooded roadways were reported in Boca Raton, including portions of USIHFederal Highway. Numerous cars were stalled along flooded roadways. Flood damages were sustained to several buildings including the library on the camps of Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton. Flood damages were also sustained to the Boca Raton city hall where water came in through damages to the roof during the heavy rainfall and lead to a couple of inches of water in the first floor main hallway. Water damage was also reported in the Town Center at Boca Raton. Rainfall amounts measured around five (5) to six (6) inches of rain in six (6) hours across the region. June 3-9, 2017. A disturbance meandered across the Gulf of Mexico and led to nearly a week of heavy rainfall across South Florida. The storm set a record rainfall in PBC, breaking the 1904 record set in West Palm Beach with 4.18 inches of rain. During the entire week, over 8.54 inches of rain fell, but only caused street flooding. The county did not experience flooding inside houses, as the flood control measures were successful in handling the rain amounts, although street flooding was common during this time. Hurricane Irma September 10-11, 2017. Hurricane Irma, while causing millions of dollars of damage to the State of Florida as it tracked through the Florida Keys, north across the Gulf coast, and then across the state towards Jacksonville, surprisingly did not cause an issue with flooding damage in PBC. It is acknowledged that mitigation efforts over the years are likely reducing the amount of flooding during these fast-moving rain events, and only wind damage was sustained. 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 35 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 • 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 RotenbergerlHoley Land Area 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 0.2 % annual chance of occurrence is used to designate other areas of the community, which may have same vulnerability to flooding. Additional flood information is addressed in Section 2.2.1.2. The PBC Flood Insurance Rate Maps are were updated and went into effect October of 2017. Table 2.2 Final damage assessmentfrom the January 1999 storm. * Jurisdiction or Number of Residential and Public Total Jurisdiction Geographic Structures Business Loss Infrastructure Loss Area Damaged Loss Unincorporated Palm Beach 94 $884,000 $119,655 $1,002,655 Count 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 DEM. As a relatively flat, low lying, heavily developed coastal county that experiences frequent intense rain events and periodic tropical storms, PBC is especially susceptible to flooding. Flooding in the County has historically taken one (1) of the following forms: 36 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 1. Flash flooding resulting in the rapid buildup of flood waters from intense localized precipitation 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 Flooding Significant factors contributing to inland flooding include rainfall intensity, rainfall frequency, rainfall duration, surface conditions, topography, and inadequate natural drainage. The 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 areas where they did not previously exist. In 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 SFWMD, "Many new residents to PBC 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." The 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 overabundance 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 agricultural, tourism, and real estate industries whose success has 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 37 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 management during wet periods and storm events. With annual rainfall averaging over 60 inches (but varying widely), and more than 50% occurring in four (4) months (June to September) and with the rainy 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 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 gradual 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 five (5) to twelve feet in a drainage valley. Further inland, elevations remain relatively stable. Primary Surface Water Areas Lake Okeechobee, the largest fresh water lake after the great lakes, is South Florida's primary water reservoir. Approximately 250 square miles of the lake are within the geographical boundaries of PBC. 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 Beach and northern Lantana. The West Palm Beach Canal connects Lake Okeechobee and Lake Worth Beach. A vast network of canals is interconnected with the West Palm Beach Canal. A system of lakes runs north and south within eight (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. The map on the following page shows the relative distribution of primary surface water areas within PBC. 38 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 Figure 2.1: Surface water areas in PBC Natural & Beneficial Flood Water Storage Areas The Following areas, designated as "Environmentally Sensitive lands" are undisturbed natural areas of PBC that act as natural storage areas for flood waters, reduce the possibility of flooding nearby residences, and help to recharge the grOLindwater aquifer. Table 2.3 Environmentally Sensitive Lun(lvlNalural W aler Storage Areas in PBC NAME Intlla neawn-Rd �+ u Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge 143953.77 Blazing Star Preserve 24.14 I g ti 138.7 C-51 and L-8 Reservoir 1 9 Y Il - it weu°.nvr e.6 !F Mm W lett I L.a°0.wa&.•AiNrvrTrl .tiwd�rrlMA7fe l: ie X�1J1' II.iRyr RrfrNe ,Tyrar!•inv I i 2 J 1 � 1 ' M—b .T. rbyJw i+re........•r uFhdifi•.Nnnrg.axxlArcri __.__. ---------- Primary Water Features Primary PEP LMS Plan ems'%,n Wren C.^4'apo U�, W�dse Ef Y: Wham coymafF��Ma'L aA'.CIY'1M Wyfv Water City Boundary � Palm 6aaeh Cam Bounda Railroad EDCounty Boundary pity ..,.ksro..�r".a,.,,.a..a..nusrvr.w..� nr.�,s,,so•a Figure 2.1: Surface water areas in PBC Natural & Beneficial Flood Water Storage Areas The Following areas, designated as "Environmentally Sensitive lands" are undisturbed natural areas of PBC that act as natural storage areas for flood waters, reduce the possibility of flooding nearby residences, and help to recharge the grOLindwater aquifer. Table 2.3 Environmentally Sensitive Lun(lvlNalural W aler Storage Areas in PBC NAME TOTAL ACRES Acreage Pines Natural Area 115.61 Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge 143953.77 Blazing Star Preserve 24.14 C-18 Triangle Natural Area 138.7 C-51 and L-8 Reservoir 1263.73 39 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Carlin Park 120.31 Coral Cove Park 31.42 Cypress Creek Natural Area 2083.12 Cypress Creek/Loxahatchee 3547 Cypress Knee Slough Preserve 29.31 Delaware Scrub Natural Area 15.8 Delray Oaks Natural Area 24.5 DuBois Park 18.69 Dupuis Reserve 21891.61 East Coast Buffer 20757.95 East Conservation Area 195.93 Everglades Agricultural Area 52125.5 Everglades and Francis S. Taylor Wildlife Management Area 671831 Florida Atlantic University Ecological Site 91.6 Frenchman's Forest 173.15 Gentle Ben Flowage Easement 334.81 Gopher Tortoise Preserve (City of Boca Raton) 8.8 Grassy Waters Preserve 12800 Green Cay Nature Center and Wetlands 100 Gumbo Limbo Environmental Complex 20 Herbert Hoover Dike 774.8 High Ridge Scrub Natural Area 39.26 Holey Land Wildlife Management Area 35350 Hungryland Slough Natural Area 2895.29 Hungryland/SFWMD Parcels 7859.99 Hypoluxo Scrub Natural Area 96.71 Indian Mounds 436.25 J. W. Corbett to Loxahatchee NWR Connector 35 J. W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area 60348 Jackson Riverfront Pines Natural Area 3.01 John C.& Mariana Jones/Hungryland Wildlife & Environmental Area 12735 John D. MacArthur Beach State Park 437.57 Jonathan Dickinson State Park 11458.68 Juno Dunes Natural Area 577.7 Juno Park 18.2 Jupiter Beach Park 46.49 Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Area 126.28 Jupiter Mangroves Natural Area 0.92 Jupiter Ridge Natural Area 271.32 40 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Lake Harbor Tract 632 Lake Okeechobee Connector 7.73 Lake Park Scrub Natural Area 54.93 Leon M. Weekes Environmental Preserve 12 Limestone Creek Natural Area 51.62 Loggerhead Park 17.26 Loxahatchee Slough Natural Area 12838.32 Loxahatchee Slough Public Use Natural Area 640 Loxahatchee Slough Research Natural Area 2560 Lynn University Scrub 11.46 Morikami Museum and Japanese Gardens 188.53 North Jupiter Flatwoods Natural Area 146 North Ocean Ridge Mangroves Natural Area 8.69 Ocean Ridge Hammock Park 8.54 Ocean Ridge Natural Area 12.35 Okeeheelee Park North 900 Okeeheelee Park South 812 Pahokee Marina and Campground 30 Paw -Paw Preserve 3 Pine Glades Natural Area 6641.98 Pine Jog Environmental Education Center 150 Pond Cypress Natural Area 1736.18 Pondhawk Natural Area 78.7 Radnor 153.7 Red Reef Park 67 Riverbend Park 680 Rosemary Ridge Preserve 7.29 Rosemary Scrub Natural Area 13.59 Rotenberger Wildlife Management Area 29297 Royal Palm Beach Pines Natural Area 773.23 Seacrest Scrub Natural Area 53.69 Serenoa Glade Preserve 9 Snook Islands Natural Area 117.65 South Beach Park 24.77 South County Regional Park 314.46 South Inlet Park 11.1 Spanish River Park 94.4 Stormwater Treatment Areas 47605.32 Strazzulla Tract 2701 Sweetbay Natural Area 1094 41 Local Mitigation Strategy f 2020 Wellington/Acme Marsh 363.61 Winding Waters Natural Area 550.01 Yamato Scrub Natural Area 216.7 TOTAL AREA (in acres) 1,176,895.73 Tile map below shows these natural and beneficial flood water storage areas: W.ro, cam bur., F w uepw a ��•rn� rr _ -_._ W. tlntl d I B � � � it I �p� •;.,sir � Istli � AYrwAA .. yr -s . I ^Irn Ir If � 4 NH07 bI i:ili Si [q1 MVdL•fia rt=gip {rus.1 P.A �w SV[� i r -R, t�n�! �su lWvd I idr`RA 7•e _ f7rowwd --------- C—ry� :R! Natural and Beneficial LMS Flood Water Storage Pll,n �'•^ w� �J NaluralArea City Boundary t*TM" Railroad I County Boundary Palm Beach County ..aW res.r. «�..x...iww.•.,..owre...n.. Figum, .2.2: Natural and Beneficial Flood Water Storage 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 southel•il sections of the county are particularly susceptible to inland flooding. The map below depicts Special flood Hazard Areas within the county designated by FEMA as having a 1% 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 FIRMS, virtually the whole county has proven to be susceptible to short term 42 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 localized flooding when extraordinary rain events have exceeded the capacity of natural runoff and absorption. A review of recent flood events suggests that PBC significantly surpasses the national average of 25% of flooding occurring outside of Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA). Even a significant number of county properties designated as "repetitive flood loss list" by the NFIP lie outside SFHAs. The map below shows the SFHAs in PBC. Figni•e 2.3: Special Flood Hazard Areas Historically, the PBC 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. 43 ,.•a ry.rw. Intl nmon•Rd &e—k Hw Hkc N� 5 ul N` u �� Atir f �r 'i Special Flood Hazard LMS Plan w""'"•� �v:r,mrt.a.n ca.n ..ro.a, waw w.. •re ve•., - e�ea.y��r .mmeew,aaew:..nnr w+n� o Special Flood Hazard Area City Boundary Palm Bach County Railroad —1 County Boundary ei,,N,9 °, ,�"d �;,,",°"-"0" y..�,•:.,sa-a Figni•e 2.3: Special Flood Hazard Areas Historically, the PBC 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. 43 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Flood Control Flood control in PBC 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 (3) 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 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 PBC include the following: South Florida Water Management District _.. .. -... _-.__._w_� .� _ cme Improvement District s.�,_u_ _...- pahokee Drainage District (East Beach Water Control District elican Lake WCD East Shore Water Control District ine Tree WCD Gladeview Drainage District itta WCD Highland Glades Drainage DistrictSeminole 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 rSouth Shore Drainage District Northern PBC Improvement District PB Water Catchment Area South Florida Water Management District (an LMS member) has identified `'areas of interest" within PBC, which are those places where frequent flash flooding and minor flooding events have been known to occur based on reports they have received and logged into a database over many years. The map below illustrates these "areas of interest". 44 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 SFWMD EmeWncyOperations Features Figure 2.4: SFWMD Areas of Interest related to flood concerns Drainage System Maintenance The 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: • SFWMD 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. • Inspection, clearance, and maintenance of privately owned systems are the responsibilities of property owners and associations. 45 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 In rare instances, environmental regulations may prohibit removing natural debris and new growth from some drainageways. 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 sheer 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, installation of hard bank protection, construction of new retention basins, etc.) to reduce flooding and maintenance problems. Coastal communities commonly undertake 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 are 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. Vulnerability 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 are 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 potential for mold infestation, which can create health problems for occupants and 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, and can create dangerous, even potentially deadly, driving conditions. Post storm accidents, especially electrocutions, are not uncommon, when people wander into flood waters where live wires or generators are present. 46 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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 affected 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 (2) major hurricanes, Hugo in 1989 and Andrew in 1992, forced a reevaluation of this risk assessment. While experts sometimes disagree on the annual cost of hurricane damage, many sources agree that hurricane Andrew was one of the most costly hurricane events ever to affect the U.S. Insured losses from hurricane 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. Southcentral Florida is particularly exposed to the dangers presented by hurricanes, due to its topography. The region is largely a flat, low-lying plain. The potential for property damage and human casualties in PBC has been increased by the rapid 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. With Hurricanes Matthew (2016) and Irma (2017) striking close to PBC, renewed interest in hurricane safety and mitigation has been produced, as hurricanes may affect any jurisdiction within PBC. 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 temperatures 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 hurricane 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, 57 storms of hurricane intensity have passed within 125 miles of PBC. This represents an average of one (1) hurricane every two years. The number of direct hits on the southeastern Florida coastline between 1899 and 2019 has been as follows: • 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 129 mph) = 17 storms 47 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 • Category 4 Storms: (winds 130 to 156 mph) = 16 storms • Category 5 Storms: (> 157 mph) = 9 storms A storm surge is a large dome of water often 50 to 100 miles wide and rising anywhere from four (4) to five (5) 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 evacuate flood prone areas. A storm surge is a wave that has outrun its generating source and become a long period swell. The surge is always highest in the right -front quadrant of the direction 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, 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 ten inches of rain in some south Florida areas, which resulted in approximately $20 million in direct crop damage in PBC. The largest monetary 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 (6) mills in PBC and the one (1) in Hendry combined lost about $500,000 a day in wages. The mills remained down until the fields dried out. There are 671 listed farm proprietors with approximately 8,000 employees and a total annual payroll of $12,894,000 in PBC. It also 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 September 11, 1902, and exited the state near Tampa Bay the next day. Maximum -recorded winds were only 78 mph, however 14 deaths were attributed to this storm and one (1) ship was wrecked near Jupiter. Damages specific to PBC are not recorded. Hurricane of .hdy 1926. A Category 1 hurricane with winds of 90 mph made landfall near Jupiter on the morning of July 27, 1926. This hurricane circled inland along Florida's east coast Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 and exited the state at the Florida/Georgia border on July 28. By that time, it had been downgraded to a tropical storm. The County experienced high winds and flooding. Hurricane of September 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 5th 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 central Florida was affected by this killer storm, PBC mainly experienced wind damage and flooding from the associated rains. Hurricane of September 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. Hurricane of August 1929. A weak hurricane made landfall near Fort Pierce on the morning of August 11, 1929, and crossed the state in a northwesterly direction exiting to the Gulf of Mexico near Crystal River the next day. Minimal damage and flooding was experienced in PBC. Hurricane of' June 1945. This hurricane entered Florida from the Gulf of Mexico making landfall near Cedar Key and moving east-northeast to exit the state near St. Augustine. The County received heavy rains and high winds from this storm. Hurricane 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 barometric 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 occurred. 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 Beach were reported. Stuart sustained severe damages from this storm. Statewide, over 500 people lost their homes as a result of this storm. Hurricane Donna of September 1960. Hurricane Donna was the sixth 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 state, and exited Florida at just north of Daytona Beach. Rainfall ranged from five (5) to ten inches in an 80 to 100 -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 49 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 many roads and inundated considerable agricultural land. At least 12 people were killed statewide and more than 1,794 were injured. Hurricane Cleo of August 1964. This small but destructive storm moved northward into Biscayne Bay on August 27, 1964. The County received three (3) to five (5) inches of rain associated with this storm, mostly in the eastern portion of the County. Most sustained damage was associated with wind rather than flooding. Hurricane Agnes of June 1972. Hurricane 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 (6) people killed and 40 injured in Okeechobee, one (1) killed and seven (7) injured in La Belle, 40 injured at Big Coppit Key, two (2) injured at Bassinger, three (3) injured in Haines City, four (4) 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 northward. 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 (3) to five (5) feet above normal along the eye track and one (1) to two (2) 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 (6) to nine (9) inches, but some stations reported as much as I 1 inches during the storm's passage. Tropical Storm Isidore of September 1984. Tropical Storm Isidore made landfall near West Palm Beach on September 27, 1984, and moved inland toward Orlando. Highest winds were 72 mph and rainfall was reported to be five (5) to seven (7) inches over a 24-hour period. There was some flooding, but this occurred 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. Rainfall from this event did minor damage, mostly along Florida's west coast. The County suffered moderate agricultural losses. Tropical Storm 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 October 12, 1994. It moved across the state and exited Florida into the Atlantic just north of Vero Beach on October 16. Although the maximum sustained winds reported from Gordon were only 52 mph, the storm caused eight (8) deaths and 42 injuries. The 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 50 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 portion of PBC close to the Intracoastal 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 August 2, 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 two (2) hours were associated with the backside of this storm and flooding occurred in low-lying areas along the PBC's northern edge. Tropical Storm Mitch of October 1998. Hurricane Mitch was one of the deadliest storms in Atlantic history. By the time, it reached Florida on November 4 and 5, 1998, it had been downgraded to a tropical storm. The County received minimal rains from this storm, which passed to the north of the County. Extensive agricultural damage was reported throughout South Florida. Hurricane 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 incessant 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 Friday evening (October 15), 125,000 homes in PBC were without power. Hurricane Frances of September 4, 2004. Hurricane Frances formed from a tropical depression in the deep tropical Atlantic on August 25, about 1400 miles east of the Lesser Antilles and reached hurricane strength on August 26. Frances became a Category 4 Hurricane on August 28, 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 September 4 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 September 5, 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. Sustained tropical storm -force winds likely occurred in all six (6) south Florida counties. Although no sustained hurricane -force winds were officially observed in any of the six (6) south 51 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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 -MAN) station at Lake Worth Beach 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 - total rainfalls included 9.56 inches at Boynton Beach, eight (8) inches at Deerfield Beach and 7.18 inches at Hillsboro Canal. Widespread storm -total amounts of three (3) to five (5) inches occurred in southeast and interior south Florida with southwest Florida averaging one (1) to three (3) inches. Rainfall flooding was mostly minor except for a few locations in PBC, which had up to three (3) 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 (2) to four (4) feet along the northeast Palm Beach Coast to one (1) to two (2) feet along the northeast Broward Coast. Within the confines of the Herbert Hoover Dike, water levels on Lake Okeechobee fluctuated up to five (5) 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 (9) people died in the aftermath. Six (6) of these deaths occurred in PBC, mainly as the result of vehicle -related accidents or from drowning. An unknown number of injuries occurred. 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 occurred 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 occurred 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 (3) weeks after Hurricane Frances, Hurricane Jeanne struck the same area of southeast Florida. Hurricane Jeanne formed from a tropical depression just east of the Leeward Islands on September 12. She moved across Puerto Rico and Hispaniola then turned north into the Atlantic and became a hurricane on September 20. Jeanne made a clockwise loop for three (3) days in the Atlantic north of Hispaniola before 52 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 moving west-northwest. It strengthened to a Category 2 Hurricane while over the northwest Bahamas and then made landfall around 11 P.M., September 25 near the south end of Hutchinson Island, nearly coincident with the landfall point of Hurricane Frances just three (3) 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 Lake 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 data 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 Broward, Hendry, and Collier counties. Although no sustained hurricane -force winds were officially observed in any of the six (6) south Florida counties, portions of northern PBC mostly likely experienced them. A SFWMD 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 Beach 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 SFWMD instrument. The lowest barometric pressure of 960.4 millibars was measured at a SFWMD site in the Martin County portion of Lake Okeechobee. A SFWMD gauge measured a maximum storm -total rainfall amount of 10.22 inches over the eastern portion of Lake Okeechobee. A SFWMD gauge about four (4) 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. 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 (2) to four (4) feet along the northeast Palm Beach Coast to one (1) to two (2) feet along the northeast Broward Coast. Within the confines of the Herbert Hoover Dike, water levels on Lake Okeechobee fluctuated up to seven (7) 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 (4) persons died in the aftermath. An unknown number of injuries occurred. Storm surge and winds at the coast caused damage to condominiums, 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 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 53 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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. Hurricane Wilma October 24, 2005. Wilma was a classic October hurricane, which struck South Florida as a Category 2 hurricane on October 24, 2005. Wilma developed from a tropical depression near Jamaica, a typical source region for October tropical cyclones, on the afternoon of October 15. It became the 21st named storm of the season during the morning hours of October 17, which tied the record for the most named storms in one (1) season originally set back in 1922. Wilma underwent a rapid intensification cycle, which began on October 18 and ended in the early morning hours of October 19, 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 Yucatan Peninsula as a strong Category 4 hurricane on October 21, then drifted erratically over the Yucatan Peninsula through the evening October 22. Wilma began to move off 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 States moved south and forced a southwesterly steering flow. The hurricane made landfall as a Category 2 storm shortly before 7:00 a.m. 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 state, 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 a.m., a SFWMD meteorological station located at the south end of Lake Okeechobee reported sustained winds of 102 mph. The highest recorded gusts were in the 100-120 mph range. The 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 state, with an average forward speed of 25 mph. Wilma exited the east coast over northeastern PBC near Palm Beach Gardens around 11:00 a.m. Monday October 24 as a Category 2 hurricane with maximum sustained winds of around 105 mph. It traversed the southern peninsula in about four (4) hours. Rainfall amounts across South Florida generally ranged from two (2) to four (4) inches across southern sections of the peninsula to four (4) to six (6) inches across western Collier County and around Lake Okeechobee, with a maximum amount of 7.21 inches in Clewiston, Downtown Miami and Northeast Miami. 54 2-15 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 In Collier, Miami -Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, the winds killed five (5) 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 virtually everywhere, causing over two (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 F1 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 attributed to tornadoes, but were instead likely caused by "mini -swirls", small 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 October 20-21. The interaction of Noel with a strong high-pressure area located over the Mid -Atlantic States produced strong winds over southeast Florida and the adjacent waters well before Noel made its closest passage to the area early on November 1. 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 (2) 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 Storm 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 5:00 a.m. the next day. 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 sustained winds, primarily around Lake Okeechobee and interior sections of southwest Florida, with only minor wind damage elsewhere. 55 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 The storm caused over $10 million in beach erosion along PBC's coastline. A maximum rainfall total of 16.17 inches was reported with this event at Moore Haven 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 (3) to six (6) inches in southeast Florida, and six (6) to eight (8) inches in southwest Florida, with isolated amounts up to ten inches in coastal PBC. All the associated effects of Tropical Storm Fay in South Florida resulted in one (1) fatality, four (4) injured, and $2.949 million in property damage. Two (2) tornadoes produced $1.25 million in damage, but caused no injuries or fatalities. The one (1) fatality and three (3) 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 (2) confirmed tornadoes. Hurricane 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 affected southeast Florida with high surf and winds bordering on tropical storm force. Winds to marginal tropical storm force and high surf affected 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 Beach Pier totaling $2,000 and injuring eight (8) people at Boynton Inlet when a large wave crashed onto the jetty while onlookers were present. Maximum storm surge at Lake Worth Beach Pier was 1.28 feet with a maximum tide of 1.55 feet. Tropical Storm 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 (8) tornadoes occurring over a span of four (4) hours in Lake Worth Beach, Okeechobee Boulevard and east of I-95, a warehouse district just south of Okeechobee Boulevard, Tamarind Avenue, and Banyan Boulevard. Additional details related to the tornadoes is discussed below. Hurricane 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 8:00 a.m. August 28 ranged from five (5) to seven (7) inches across southeast Florida to two (2) to five (5) inches over interior and southwest Florida. The primary exception was over northern metro Broward County and much of PBC where eight (8) to twelve (12) 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 56 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 communities cut off for several days after the storm. Maximum storm tide values were observed at 4.9 feet at Naples, with estimates of five (5) to seven (7) feet along the southern Collier County coast from Goodland to Everglades City. Highest estimated inundation values of up to two (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, Isaac'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. Hurricane Sandy 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 October 25 as it moved slowly north across the northwest Bahamas. Tropical storm force wind gusts were first observed along the coastal PBC region by early in the evening of October 25. 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 and then northeast over the Atlantic waters north of the Bahamas through October 28, the main effect 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 sustained in PBC. A total of 44,270 customers lost power. A maximum storm tide of 5.2 feet above mean lower low water (MLLW) was observed at Lake Worth Beach Pier on October 28 at 7:12 a.m. along with a maximum storm surge of 2.28 feet on October 28 at 2:26 a.m.. Similar tide and surge levels were measured at the highest daily high tide during this period, generally between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. Tropical Storm Andrea of June 5-7, 2013. During the early evening of June 5, 2013, Tropical Storm Andrea formed in the east -central Gulf of Mexico becoming the first named storm of the 2013 tropical season, and over the next 48 hours, Andrea would pummel portions of south Florida with heavy rainfall and major flooding. Andrea even spawned three (3) tornadoes including an EF -1 tornado that tore through portions of northeast PBC. Although Andrea never made landfall in south Florida, it had far-reaching impacts that mainly affected the east coastal areas. During the early morning hours of June 6, convective rain bands well to the southeast of the storm center streamed across the south Florida area spawning three (3) tornadoes. The first occurred just after 3:00 a.m. and affected the town of Belle Glade in PBC. Only minor damage to trees and power lines was sustained from this tornado and was rated as an EF -0. Just a few hours later, another tornado ripped through The Acreage community in north central PBC. 57 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Hurricane Matthew of October 7, 2016. Hurricane Matthew moved north along the east coast, previously hitting Cuba and Haiti, it moved into Florida as a much weaker hurricane than before. Matthew never made landfall, as the eye barely missed Cape Canaveral. Matthew killed twelve people in the state, produced flooding and high winds, and knocked out power to 1.1 million people. Despite significant preparations, PBC was not directly impacted. Hurricane Irma of September 10-11, 2017. Tropical Storm Irma formed on August 30 and intensified into a Category 5 cyclone on September 5. Irma attained its peak intensity with winds of 185 mph later that day and maintained Category 5 intensity when it made landfall on Cuba on September 9. Land interaction disrupted the storm temporarily, but once again it strengthened to a Category 4 storm with winds of 130 mph when it made landfall in Cudjoe Key of the Florida Keys early on September 10. A few hours later, it struck Marco Island, Florida, with winds of 115 mph. Irma steadily weakened as it continued north and west. It was the strongest hurricane in terms of windspeed to hit Florida since Charley in 2004, and the most intense in terms of pressure since Andrew in 1992. Irma killed at least 82 people in Florida. Preliminary damage estimates for PBC were over 145 million dollars in damage. According to Florida Power and Light, 680,799 PBC customers lost power, and more than 20% of the County's customers remained without power four (4) days after the storm. With peak winds of 185 mph, Irma was the strongest Atlantic storm outside of the Gulf of Mexico or Caribbean Sea on record, and is the 11th most intense hurricane on record in the Atlantic basin. Maintaining peak intensity for 37 consecutive hours, Irma is the only tropical cyclone on record worldwide to have had winds that intense for such a long duration. Surprisingly, very little flood damage was reported, and almost all damage was wind -related. Tropical Storm Philippe of October 22, 2017. Philippe made landfall over the Everglades in southwest Florida with winds of 45 mph. Effects were relatively minor in Florida, although Philippe brought moderate rain and spawned a few weak tornadoes, including one (1) in West Palm Beach. Some localized flooding was reported, mostly on streets with very few homes affected. 2.1.1.3 Tornado According to NOAA, Florida ranks third in the United States in the average number of tornado strikes, and first in number of tornadoes per square mile according to Florida State University's Florida Climate Center. However, Florida tornadoes are generally weaker than those striking the Plains and other southern states. 58 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 Tornadoes are classified using the Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale as follows: Wind speed RePAN& scale Potential damage mph knrh 1requenry Minor damage. Peels sur We off some roofs; some damage to gutter s or siding branches broken of f trees; 65-95 105-137 63.5% shallow -roofed freesluslledOver. Confirmed tornadoes with no reported damage (i.e.. those Ihat remain in open fields] are always rated EFO. Moderate damage. EF7 $6-110 138-178 31.6% Roofs severely stripped, nFobile homes ovedwned or badly damaged; loss of exterior dears; windows and other glass broken. QnWerable damage. EF2 -111-135 179-218 10.7% Roofs two cif well -Constructed houses; foundations of frame Iwmes shifled; moble homes completely destroyed; large trees snapped or vprMed; fight -object missiles generaied; cars lifted off gmnd I severe damage, bAFe stories of well-conslruded houses destroyed; severe damage to large buirtings such as EFS 13&'165 1213-286 I 3A% shopping malls; trains overturned; trees debarked; heavy cars lifted oil the ground and (hrown; structures wAh weak iound#tions blown away some distance. i 11 I � Extreme damage to near -101W destruelion, 166-200 26T-322 0.7% Wel-Constructed houses and whole }mine houses connpfetely leveled; cars thrown and small rcissies generated. x200 1 )-322 1 -*A% I !Massive Damage. strong frame houses leveled oft foundations and swell away: Steel• reinforce d concrete MrVaurev ism iWically damaged, high rise Moldings have severe slruclural delormation. Incredible phenomena wit ' ecew i Figure 2.5: Enhanced Fujita Scale A tornado is a violent windstorm characterized by a twisting, funnel -shaped cloud. It 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. All of PBC is can be afTected by a tornado. According to the Tornado History Project, of the 169 tornadoes seen in PSC between 1950 and January 2016, 113 were classified as FO tornadoes (G7°/o), 46 (27%) were classified as F1, nine (5%) were classified as F2, and one (0.6%) was classified as an F3 tornado. One (1) death and 102 injuries have been attributed to tornadoes in the County in this period, with total estimated damages of more than 150 million dollars. When a tornado threatens, only a short amount of time is available for life -or -death decisions. The NWS issues two (2) types of alerts: 59 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 • A Tornado Watch means that conditions are favorable for tornadoes to develop • A Tornado Warning means that a tornado has actually been sighted Historical Tornado Events August 7, 2002. On August 7, 2002, there was a Tornado Watch issued by the NWS. Two (2) 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 Weather Forecast Office (WFO) Miami classified the unincorporated PBC -Riviera Beach tornado as F1 on the Fajita scale, meaning that winds were approximately 72 to 112 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 (4) miles long. There were no deaths, but 28 individuals suffered minor injuries. There were 22 dwellings destroyed and 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 a.m. on August 19, 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 (2) 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% 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 •l Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 near Folkstone Circle lost about 70% 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 warm 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 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. March 21, 2009 Glen Ridge Tornado. A second tornado touchdown occurred in West Palm Beach near Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard and Australian Avenue. This 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 two (2) miles northeast of Belle Glade. The PBC Sheriff's office reported a tornado two (2) miles northeast of the PBC Sheriffs 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 area, 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 vegetation, including an uprooted large avocado tree and several large branches snapped off or broken. About 20 trees in total 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 included severe thunderstorms with severe wind gusts and eight (8) tornadoes occurring over a span of four (4) hours. This event spawned the most number of tornadoes in one day over the southern Florida peninsula since October 14, 1964 when Hurricane Isbell also spawned eight (8) tornadoes. All of the tornadoes were of EFO intensity. A brief tornado in Lake Worth Beach touched down 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 vegetation and debris from a nearby park. 61 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 The 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 tornado then crossed Okeechobee Boulevard 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 Banyan Boulevard. The tornado followed a discontinuous path of 1.2 miles and its width of probably no more than 20 yards. Maximum winds were likely in the upper end of EFO scale (75-85 mph), with most areas along the path probably experiencing low end EFO winds (65-75 mph). June 6, 2013. Convective rain bands associated with Tropical Storm Andrea streamed across South Florida spawning three (3) tornadoes that affected PBC. The first (EF -0) affected the town of Belle Glade with minor damage to trees and power lines. Another tornado (EF -1 with maximum sustained winds of 100 mph) ripped through The Acreage community damaging several homes and snapped trees and power lines as it tracked across a residential area just west of 130th Avenue between 69th Street and 87th Street. Most damage was to roofs; the garage door of one (1) home was damaged leading to the roof being completely punctured above the garage. A few vehicles were also moved from their original locations and a 30 -foot boat was flipped on its side. There was one (1) serious injury from this tornado when an 85 year-old woman was struck by flying debris from a large oak tree that broke through her bedroom window. A third (EF -0) tornado touched down across inland Broward County just east of U.S. Highway 27 about six (6) miles north of Alligator Alley and tracked north, likely crossing over into southern PBC. January 28, 2016. A line of strong storms moved onto the Gulf Coast just after 5:00 a.m. and moved across the South Central Florida peninsula. A small area of rotation quickly developed at the northern end of the line as it approached the PBC coast. A brief EF -0 tornado touched down in Delray Beach and Boynton Beach. January 23, 2017. A strong squall line intensified well ahead of a cold front over the eastern Gulf of Mexico during the early morning hours of January 23. The line produced tornadoes in Palm Beach and Miami -Dade counties. Tornado damage was first noted in the Mirabella neighborhood of Palm Beach Gardens west of the Florida Turnpike between PGA Boulevard and Donald Ross Road, then followed a somewhat discontinuous path ENE across Palm Beach Gardens to Juno Beach where it moved offshore at the Juno Beach Pier. At Dwyer High School, the tornadic winds as well as flying debris broke windows, damaged a softball field and caused a small hole in the ceiling over a classroom in the school's main building. It continued into Juno Beach Condo mobile home park where eight (8) units sustained damage. The tornado moved offshore at the Juno Beach Pier around 1:49 a.m. where a wind gust of 87 mph was recorded at Juno Beach Pier at 1:50 a.m. The roof was lifted off of one (1) lifeguard stand near the pier, and wood railings were damaged at the north side of the pier. 62 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 2.1.1.4 Severe Thunderstorms/Lightning A severe thunderstorm is defined as a thunderstorm containing one or more of the following phenomena: hail 2/4" 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 individual 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 rotation 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. Florida has more thunderstorm activity than any other US state. PBC residents are quite familiar with thunderstorms and the severe weather they can bring. When a severe thunderstorm approaches, the NWS will issue alerts. Two (2) possible alerts are: • Severe Thunderstorm Watch - Conditions are favorable for the development of severe thunderstorms • Severe Thunderstorm Warning - Severe weather is imminent or occurring in the area The most dangerous and costly effect of thunderstorms is lightning. As a thunderstorm grows, electrical charges build up within the cloud, and 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. Racing 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 average, more people are killed by lightning than any other weather event. According to NOAA, Florida leads in the nation in lightning related deaths and injuries, with 51 deaths statewide from 2007 — 2018. Florida also has the most strikes, about 12 strikes per square kilometer per year in some places, according to the National Lightning Safety Institute. The peak months for lightning strikes in Florida are June, July, and August, but no month is safe from lightning danger, and all of PBC is equally vulnerable to this hazard. According to NOAA's storm events database, from January 2007 — September 2018, PBC experienced 96 thunderstorm events with winds gust over 50 miles per hour. These events cumulatively caused $93,500 in property damage and $5,000 in crop damage. The highest wind 63 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 gust in this time was 70 miles per hour on April 4, 2013 in the Town of Ocean Ridge. There was only one (1) recorded injury that occurred on February 26, 2008 when thunderstorm winds produced damage at the Moroso Motor Sports Park on Beeline Highway in North Central PBC. An awning was blown off a trailer, and a man was injured when a 400-500 pound water barrel struck him. 2.1.1.5 Drought Drought is a normal, recurrent 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. Even in Florida, where annual rainfall averages about 60 inches, drought is a regular part of the climate. Although it has many definitions, drought typically means a deficit of precipitation from normal values over an extended period, usually a season or more (National Drought Mitigation Center, 1998). Drought 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 mortality 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 occurred in 1987-1989, and the National Climatic Data Center 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 periods of drought, one of the potentially most damaging effects is substantial 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 fres increases substantially during extended droughts, which in turn places both human and wildlife populations at higher levels of risk. The county averages between 50 and 60 inches of rain per year, with annual rainfall varying up to 20 inches above or below the annual average. The SFWMD 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. 64 Local Mitigation Strategy 2024 The worst drought on record for PBC was from November 2000 to February 2001. Lake Okeechobee dropped from 18 feet after Hurricane Irene in October of 1999 to nine (9) feet by May of 2001. Lake Okeechobee's average is about 12 feet. The year 2000 was also the driest year on record for the State of Florida. The graph below shows periods of drought for PBC from January 2000 through January 2018. The y-axis is the percentage of PBC covered by drought conditions, and the colors indicate the drought levels as defined by the US Drought Monitor in the legend below the graph. According to this data, exceptional drought occurred in the County in the winters of 2001 and 2011, with extreme drought conditions occurring in 2007 and 2009. Patin Beach County IPL} P-- Area 100 OCW + LO �4 f000' ael.7[3=: xo KAI j IL carE b � DO (Abnormally dry) Dl (Moderate drought) WD2 (Severe drou9111) WD3 (Extreme drought) EID4 (Exceptional drr)r)gl7t) Figure 2.6: PBC droughts January 2000 through January 2018. The following are signif icant droughts that have affected PBC since 1970, but none have resulted in major negative impacts to the county: 1970 - 1971 Draught. Lake Okeechobee reached a miniIrsum stage of 10.29 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) on June 7, 1971. A rainfall deficit of 42% 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 comparable to the 1971-1972 drought. The rainfall deficit during this period was 47%. The minimum lake stage of 10.98 feet NGVD was reached on May 21, 1974. 1980 — 1942 Drought. The 1980-1982 Drought was one of the most severe droughts ever in South Florida. A more than 20 -inch rainfall deficit over two (2) 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 65 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 July 21, 1981. The 7.7 -foot drop in water level was attributed 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 tipper 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. 1988 — 1989 Drought. South Florida experienced a severe drought from September 1988 to August 1989, during which there was a 21 -inch rainfall deficit in the Everglades Agricultural Area and the Lower East 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 continuation of the 1988-1989 drought. From June 1989 through May 1990, a nine -inch rainfall deficit occurred 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. This is considered the worst drought on record for PBC, and also the driest year on record for the State of Florida. 2007 Drought. A severe drought affected the region from late 2006 through 2007, following 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 drought. Rainfall directly over the lake was low enough to qualify the 2007 drought as a 1 -in -100 -year event. Only 40 inches of rain fell on the region in an 18 -month period, about half the average. More than 200 days passed without water flowing from the Kissimmee River into Lake Okeechobee. This also marked the first time SFWMD experienced a situation where all three (3) major water storage areas of the system — the Upper Kissimmee Chain of Lakes, Lake Okeechobee, and the Water Conservation Areas — simultaneously had substantially below normal water levels approaching record lows. A combination of voluntary and mandatory water use restrictions were enacted by the SFWMD in early 2007. Widespread drought conditions continued into late 2007, particularly in the Lake Okeechobee watershed. e Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 A wetter than normal spring and summer of 2008 finally interrupted the extended drought. Water use restrictions continued into 2009 and beyond, in order to balance longer-term regional water availability and supply needs. August 2011 Drought. Rainfall amounts in August ranged from four (4) to six (6) inches over parts of interior southwest Florida to over ten (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 two (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. 2.1.1.6 Extreme Temperatures Freezing Temperatures According to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, a moderate freeze may be expected in the state every one (1) to two (2) years on average, and severe freezes every 15 to 20 years. Florida has experienced a number of severe or disastrous freezes, when the majority of the winter crops are lost. According to the Florida Climate Center, there have been 12 significant "impact freezes" in the state since 1894, the most recent being in 1996, when a Presidential Disaster Declaration was issued for crop losses exceeding $90 billion dollars. During this event, there was an extensive loss of citrus trees and the majority were not replanted. Freezes pose a major hazard to the agriculture industry in PBC on a recurring basis, and are a significant threat to the economic vitality of the County's agriculture industry. The county has experienced seven (7) significant freezes between 1970 and the present. Freezing conditions primarily affect agriculture and homeless people in PBC. While PBC enjoys warm weather throughout the year, freezing does occur, primarily in the months late December and January. During the nighttime hours, temperatures can dip to as low as 35 degrees, but this normally is not sustained for more than three (3) hours before the temperatures rises above 40 degrees. The 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 (4) consecutive hours. In the past five (5) years, the shelters have only been activated three (3) times for one (1) day each. When conditions are predicted to fall below thresholds, the Duty Officer is alerted by the County Warning Point. In the winter of 2017 - 2018, the shelters were opened four (4) times and closed the next morning. Significant freezes since 1977 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. 67 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 In South Florida agricultural areas, the freeze was one of the most severe of this century. Temperatures were below freezing for 10 to 14 hours, and 28°F or colder for four (4) to eight (8) 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 1989 freeze. Tens of millions of dollars, if not hundreds of millions of dollars, in losses are possible. A second freeze occurred two (2) weeks later causing some additional crop damage, but was not as severe. 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 (2) 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% 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 (2) weeks later causing some additional crop damage, but was not as severe. Historic freeze of January 2010. A historic cold snap of both duration and magnitude began on New Year's Night when the first of two (2) arctic cold fronts moved through south Florida. After a brief warm-up on Friday, January 8, a stronger arctic front moved through during the pre- dawn hours of Saturday, January 9. Several daily low and low maximum temperature records were either tied or broken during this period. West Palm Beach had an average 12 -day temperature of 49.9 degrees between Jan 2 and Jan 13, the lowest on record for any 12 -day period (previous record 50.9 degrees set from January 16-27, 1977). Impacts were significant, particularly to the agricultural industry with statewide estimated crop losses in the $500 million range. Heavily agricultural areas west and southwest of Lake Okeechobee, primarily over Glades, Hendry, and inland Collier counties, registered anywhere from five (5) to seven (7) days of freezing temperatures. March 2014 Freeze. A cold late -season air mass settled over South Florida, causing temperatures to drop to near or slightly below freezing on the morning of March 4th across the Lake Okeechobee and interior areas of southern Florida. Temperatures in the low to mid 30s in western PBC led to frost formation during the early morning hours of March 4, leading to some crop damage. Damage was mainly to corn, with less than 20% of the crop damaged. Crop damage is estimated and based on total number of acres damaged which was approximately 3,000-4,000 acres. Unofficial temperature readings in some of the fields were as low as the mid- 20s, but these values were likely not representative of the larger area. PBC estimated crop losses were over $3 million dollars. Me Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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, damp air near the ground. 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 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 HI, 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 (2) consecutive days. Possible heat disorders related to the corresponding HI are listed below. Data from the Palm Beach International Airport weather station, acquired from the Florida Climate Center, indicate that between July 1938 and December 2016, there were 130 days with maximum temperatures above 95 degrees Fahrenheit, of which 18 were above 97 degrees. The highest temperature ever recorded at the station was on July 21, 1942 at 101 degrees Fahrenheit. In most cases, extreme heat affects those who do not have the ability to stay inside during extreme heat. The county does not have a significant population of people that experience Beat related injuries. Although the County does have a sheltering program, shelters have never activated shelters due to heat. Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Heat Index Effects of Exposure 80°F -907 Fatigue possible with prolonged exposure and physical - activity 90°F -105°F Sunstroke, heat cramps with prolonged exposure 105°F -120OF 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 groups Figure 2.7: Heat Index Effects of Exposure 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° 680 710 74° 79" 820 82° 820 820 79° 740 690 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 '50 '92 '66 '75 '81 '65 '76 '50 '89 Avg Rain 2.6" 2.2" 2.5" 15" 6.2" 9.8" 7.4" 8A" 9.4" 6.4" 2.9" 2.2" Figure 2.8: Averages and Record Temperatures in South Florida. 2.1.1.7 Agricultural Pests and Diseases Florida agriClllture generates farm cash receipts of nearly $8 billion annually. The state ranks 18"' nationally in total farin cash receipts, second in vegetable and melon cash receipts, 1 1 "' in crop cash receipts, and generates more than 50% of total U.S. citrus production. The industry is susceptible to many hazards including freezes, droughts, and exotic pests or diseases. Agricultural crops grown throughout the state and every region are vulnerable to the effects of an exotic pest or disease infestation. According to PSC Cooperative Extension, the county is one of the 10 largest agricultural counties in the United States, and leads the state of Florida in total agricultural sales with an estimated $1.42 Million in 2016-2017. Agricultural wages and salaries are also first in the state at more than $316 million. Tile county's 452,242 acres dedicated to agriculture represent 36% of its total land area. The main threats to the PBC agriculture industry are Citrus Canker, HLB (greening disease), the Mediterranean Fruit Fly (Medfly), and sugarcane pests. 70 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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 20 years. Citrus Canker Citrus Canker was found in PBC in numerous locations in 2002. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (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 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 affect Florida's $9.1 billion citrus industry. Huanglongbing (HLB)/Citrus Greening Disease Huanglongbing (HLB), also known as citrus greening or yellow dragon disease, is one of the most serious citrus diseases in the world. It is widespread in Asia, Africa, and the Saudi Arabian Peninsula. In July 2004 it was reported in Brazil, and in August 2005 it was found for the first time in the U.S. in south Miami -Dade County. Huanglongbing is a bacterial disease that attacks the vascular system of plants. Once infected, there is no cure for the disease, and in areas where the disease is endemic, citrus trees decline and die within a few years. There are three (3) known forms: Asian, African and Brazilian. The HLB bacteria is transmitted primarily by insect vectors (Asian citrus psyllids), but can also be spread through plant grafting and movement of infected plant material. Even though the pathogens are bacteria, the disease does not spread by casual contamination of personnel and tools or by wind and rain. Though citrus is the primary plant host for HLB, other citrus relatives can also get the disease. Common HLB host plants include the Chinese box orange (Severinia buxifolia) and the curry leaf (Murraya koenigii). While HLB disease and the Asian psyllid share many of the same host plants, some host plants are specific to the disease and others to the psyllid. The entire State is under Federal quarantine for citrus greening and Asian citrus psyllid. Federal law restricts the movement of live citrus plants, plant parts, budwood, or cuttings outside of Florida. Subsequent U.S. detections of the disease have occurred in numerous citrus -producing States and U.S. Territories. 71 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 The map on the following page from FDACS indicates instances of citric canker and citris greening in South Florida, including PSC. IMMGKALEE CHRP AREA Date: 1110/2017 Broward. Chartatte, Collier, Glades, Hendry. Lee, Miami -Dade, Monroe. Palm Brach and Sarasota coumias C+iRP Office Locatipm, - Hghways Ccowry u. Cm .emial Claus Prc&don Amn - Cuus GreermWNLBj Spec -mens - Csrus Canker IMMOKALEE CHIRP OFFICE 424 East Market Road, Unit 18 Immokalee. Florida 34142 PHONE: 239.658-3684 FAX: 239.658.3692 Figuo-e 2.9: Citrus Canker and Citrus Greening in South Florida 72 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 Mediterranean Fruit Fly (Medfly) Another possible threat to PBC's agriculture industry has been the Medfly. it is one of the -world's most destrLECtive pests and infests more than 250 different plants that are important for U.S. food producers, homeowners, and wildlife. It had been considered one of the greatest pest threats 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 $25 million to eradicate. Florida growers were not permitted to ship numerous fruit and vegetable crops to many foreign and domestic markets. The movement of fruits and vegetables, even within the state if affected, would be disrupted, which could lead to higher prices in the supermarket. Adult Medflies are up to 114 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 had been taken to prevent new infestations. State and federal officials working with postai authorities, continue to inspect packages suspected of potentially carrying infested fruit. Eradication efforts and close inspections have allowed the USDA to report no known Medfly infestations in PBC nor l'Iorida in over 20 years. htipsllwwwinyayiyWaieainlb- povlorofilelmeditzanean-fru it -fly The USDA continues to apply Integrated Pest Management to determine the magnitude of pest inlestations and crop diseases, It applies an ecosystem -based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification Of Cultural practices, and use of resistant varieties. The PBC LMS Committees have tried to provide the most comprehensive information possible for each potential hazard. In some instances the information was incomplete or there was only partially available data. Our Committees will C011tlllUe its research, seek Out further analytical tools or databases, and include new information in the LMS whenever possible as part of its annual monitoring. We based the Medfly hazard on a probability scale Of occurence. This scale takes into effect the likelihood that PBC will be impacted by the hazard within a given period of time or the return rate of a hazard, and is based on the historical data, estimated return periods, recurrence, or Chance of Occurrence. • Very Low — Although the hazard is noted, no previous occurrence has been recorded: or less than a 4.1% chance of occurrence; or a 100 -year event or greater, ■ Low — The hazard has occurred 10 years or more ago, or greater than 0.1 % to l .0% chance of occurrence, or a 100 -year event. 73 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 • Medium — The hazard has occurred in the past 6 to 10 years; or greater than 1.0% to 2.0% chance of occurrence; or a 50 -year event. • High — The hazard to occurred in the past 1-5 years; or greater than 2.0% chance of occurrence; or less than a 50 -year event. Sugarcane Pests and Diseases Florida leads the nation in production and value of sugarcane, accounting for 52 percent of the total U.S. value for sugarcane for sugar and seed. Most of the commercial sugarcane industry is located in South Florida around the southern tip of Lake Okeechobee. Palm Beach County accounts for approximately 70 percent of the commercial sugarcane acreage. The remainder is grown in the adjacent counties of Hendry, Glades, and Martin. The crop is harvested from late - October through mid-April. As a tropical grass, sugarcane has evolved to resist many pests that are common in semi -tropical environments, but there are still key pests for the crop. These pests include: sugarcane borer, white grubs, wireworms, yellow sugarcane aphid, and lesser cornstalk borer on the sugarcane grown on sand. Insect problems vary during the growing season and from one season to the next because of varying factors such as the weather and cultural practices. There are a number of sugarcane diseases known throughout the world. However, very few have affected Florida sugarcane historically. Until 2008, no fungicides were used in this crop and varietal resistance to brown rust kept this disease under economic thresholds. However, orange rust has was found in Florida in 2007, and again, varietal adjustments and several cultivars use fungicides to maintain economically acceptable yields. We also based the Sugarcane Pests and Diseases hazard on a similar probabity scale of occurance as the Medfly. This scale takes into effect the likelihood that PBC will be impacted by the hazard within a given period of time or the return rate of a hazard and is based on the historical data, estimated return periods, recurrence, or chance of occurrence. • Very Low — Although the hazard is noted, no previous occurrence has been recorded; or less than a 0.1% chance of occurrence; or a 100 -year event or greater. • Low — The hazard has occurred 10 years or more ago; or greater than 0.1% to 1.0% chance of occurrence; or a 100 -year event. • Medium — The hazard has occurred in the past 6 to 10 years; or greater than 1.0% to 2.0% chance of occurrence; or a 50 -year event. • High — The hazard to occurred in the past 1-5 years; or greater than 2.0% chance of occurrence; or less than a 50 -year event. There have been no measureable outbreaks recorded for PBC or surrounding counties. 74 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 2.1.1.8 Wildfire/Urban Interface Zone The Wildland/Urban 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 relatively untouched wildlands, people living in these communities are increasingly threatened by wildfires. There are three (3) 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 rapidly by wind and move quickly by jumping along the tops of trees. Wildland fires are usually 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 equipment 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 wildland/urban interface zone are vulnerable to ignition in three (3) 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 contact 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 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 wildland/urban 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 one (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 burns after contact, and the materials, design, and construction of the structure. The LMC Committees based Wildfire (above) and Muckfire (below) impacts on a severity scale based on the magnitude of the hazard and the on-going mitigation measures in place to 75 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 counteract those hazards. The severity describes how intense a hazard may be felt and comprised of its impacts, as well as any mitigation actions to offset the impacts. Magnitude — the degree to which impacts may be felt or a measured intensity: Human Impacts — Possibility of death or injury to the population o Very Low — Minimal possibility of death or injury o Low — Less than 2 deaths or 10 injuries reported or expected o Medium — Between 2 — 5 deaths or 10 — 25 injuries reported or expected o High — More than 5 deaths or 25 injuries reported or expected • Property Impacts — Physical losses and damages to property, buildings, or other critical infrastructure o Very Low — Minimal possibility of physical loss and/or damage o Low — Physical losses and/or damages are reported or expected to be less than $10,000 o Medium — Physical losses and/or damages are reported or expected to be between $10,000 and $1,000,000 o High — Physical losses and/or damages are reported or expected to be greater than $1,000,000 • Spatial Impacts — Amount of geographic area affected o Very Low — Minimal geographic area affected o Low— Up to 25% of total area or jurisdiction affected o Medium — 26%-50% of total area or jurisdiction affected o High — 50% or more of total area or jurisdiction affected • Economic Impacts (Interruption of businesses, infrastructure, or government services) o Very Low — Minimal interruption of services or no more than 12 hours o Low — Interruption of services between 1 — 3 days o Medium — Interruption of services between 3 — 7 days o High — Interruption of services greater than 7 days 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 assistance from Indian River, Martin, Palm Beach, Broward, and Okeechobee Counties and units from two (2) Division of Forestry Districts, two (2) 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 76 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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. The five (5) federal agency managing forest fire response and planning for almost 10 million acres in Florida are the United States Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, the National Park Service, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Services. There are other State agencies that have a significant number of wildfires but conduct a lot of prescribed fires, namely the Florida Forest Service. They determine the magnitude of size, intensity, acreage, and potential for evacuations. The 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 southwestern part portion of county. These acres are under contract with the Florida Department of Agriculture to be protected in case of fire in 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 stations and car engines emit in Western Europe in one year (New Scientist, 1997). This type of fire could have a significant impact on the overall climate. Much like wildfires, we based this hazard on a severity scale as indicated above. 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. 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 Lake Okeechobee between Moore Haven and Clewiston covering an area of over 5,800 acres. In PBC, 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. The National Park Service or the Florida Forest Service may determine the magnitude of size, intensity, acreage, and potential for evacuations. If a muck fired occurred that required Country resources, they would be provided with coordination. NVA Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 2.1.1.10 Soil/Beach 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 (2) most powerfiil erosion agents are wind and water; but in most cases these are damaging only after humans, animals, insects, diseases, or fire have removed or depleted natural vegetation. 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. While there is no scale of determination, magnitude of soil erosion affect may be determined by economic impact given to the an area, agriculture type, or land development. 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 possibly susceptible to erosion. Beyond coastal PBC, soil erosion has become less prevalent as sustained land zoning ordinances, regulated land development, wildfire mitigation efforts, university agricultural extension information practices, and long matured agricultural conservation efforts contribute greatly a diminished hazard. 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, coastal 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 rap" such as large boulders, concrete rubble, or even old tires. Although these structures may serve to protect 78 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 beachfront property for a while, the resulting disruption of the natural 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). The County, under the Department of Environmental Resources Management, has a shoreline enhancement and restoration program that anticipates the magnitude of beach soil erosion and shoreline areas and takes pro -active measures to protect the coastal areas. The plan is also adaptable to respond to disasters that may cause an effect to the shoreline. The County's 46 miles of ocean shoreline has been subjected to coastal 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, 33.6 of the County's 46 miles are listed as critically eroded by Florida's Department of Environmental Protection as of December 2017. They also list two (2) non -critically eroded areas (0.9 mile) and one (1) critically eroded inlet shoreline area (0.8 mile). While there is no one solution to beach erosion, several methods are utilized by PBC - 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 qualify 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 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 finds 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 (4) inlets in PBC 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. 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 79 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 interior sand trap approximately every six (6) years. Sand from the trap is pumped into the nearshore along the beach south of the Inlet. 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. PBC utilized a spatial impact for a hazard analysis by which the amount of geographic area is affected by either or both soil and beach erosion vulnerabilities and offset impacts may be felt by the municipality stakeholders. • Very Low — Minimal geographic area affected • Low —Up to 25% of total area or jurisdiction affected • Medium — 26%-50% of total area or jurisdiction affected • High — 51% or more of total area or jurisdiction affected Recent erosion events include: Hurricanes Frances & Jeanne (September 2004). 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 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 Noel 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 Island, and South Palm Beach/Lantana, where severe to locally extreme beach erosion occurred. A steel sea wall protecting the Condado condominium complex in Singer Island 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 (2) to three (3) 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 Sanely 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 :1 Local Mitigation Strategy 202() 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 beaclhfi•ont 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 rnean lower low water (MLLW) was observed at Lake Worth Beach Pier on October 28 at 7:12 a.m. along with a maximum storm surge of 2.28 feet on October 28th at 2:26 a.m. Similar tide and surge levels were measured at the highest daily high tide during this period, generally between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. Hutri-icane Irmo of September 10-11, 2017. Hurricane Irina, which centered over southwest Florida when it made landfall, caused an estimated $44 million dollars in damages from lost sand in PBC, according to County sources (htt ://cbsl2.com/weather/hurricane-stories/hurricane- iz7na-causes-moor-erosion-in-yalm-beach-county). The hurricane removed enough sand from the area's 46 mile coastline to fill 380 Olympic -sized swimming pools. A nourishment project completed years ago was undone by the force of the waves and wind from Hurricane Irma. Some sand was also lost in the Town of Palm Beach as well. 2.1.1.11 Sea Level Rise Sea level rise is defined as a mean rise in sea level. Since 1874, global sea level has risen by about eight (8) inches. Nationally, sea level has risers 6.5 inches since 1950, and the rate of increase is accelerating with sea levels now rising by an average of one (1) inch every five (5) years (NOAA Tides and Currents). As coastal populations increase. vulnerability of those populations to sea level rise increases as well. The curves below represent the 2015 Unified Sea Level Rise Projection for Southeast Florida. In the snort term, sea level rise is projected to be six (6) to ten (10) inches by 2430 and 14 to 26 inches by 2064 (above the 1992 mean sea level). In the long term, sea level rise is projected to be 31 to 61 inches by 2100. For critical infrastructure projects with design lives in excess of 50 years, use of the upper curve is recommended with planning values of 34 inches in 2060 and 81 inches in 2100. Projected sea level rise, especially by 2060 and beyond, has a significant range of variation as a result of uncertainty ill future greenhouse gas emissions and their geophysical effects, the incomplete quantitative understanding of all geophysical processes that might affect the rate of sea level rise in climate models, and the limitations of cru•rent climate models to predict the fliture. For these reasons, the Sea Level Rise Work Group of the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact has produced a guidance document describing recommended planning, applications of the Unified Sea Level Rise Projection (see www.sotitheastfloridaelimatecoml2act.org . 81 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 aD Unified Sea level Rise Projection f 5outheast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact, 2015) 70 J RL N � (U Q1 � c � m E 240 w w a m y 30 ra W r m t P C %rt ro v In IPCCAR5 Year Median (inches) 2030 6 2060 14 2100 31 USACE High NOAA Hig! (Inches) (inches) 10 12 26 34 61 81 26" _ _ --- - y r VSAf_! Ine�mncl�«I i3uAR 1�lvrmcdl ��� �a•.�• a �- 1992 2ULX) 201(l 2020 203U 2[140 205U "W turd A= 2U90 )IIX-1 Year *These projections ate rulerciiwd to nncan sea level at the Key West tide gauge. 'the projection includes th= gloNd curves adapted 1hr regional application: the Jnedian of the DICC AR5 RC11$.5 smiario a� dw lowest boundary (blue chshed cure), the USACE Fligh etaw as the upper boundary Bary for die short term for use tmtil 2060 (solid blue l'uie), and rhe NUM l ligh curve as the uppernwst boundary ror niediurn and long tcrin tlSC (orange solid curve). 'Me table lists tlx: projection values at years 2030, 2060, and 2300. 11te USACE Intcmtcdiate or NOAA hJtennediale 1.ow cuvc is displayed on the figure for reference (green chished curve). Ibis scenwia %nuld require signifrealu reductions in Bret 1h0Use gas craLssions in order to W plausible and docs not reflect cturnent emissions trends. Figure 2.10: Unified Sea Level Rise Projection The Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact defines the consequences associated with sea level rise to include the following direct physical impacts: • Coastal inundation of inland areas • Increased frequency of flooding in vulnerable coastal areas • Increased flooding in interior areas resulting from impairment of the region's stormwater infrastructure (i.e., impacts to gravity drainage systems, saltwater intrusion into the aquifer and local water supply wells, and contamination of the land and ocean with pollutants and debris and hazardous materials released by flooding) Consequences of sea level rise also include socio-economic impacts such as displacement, decreases in property values and tax base, increases in insurance costs, loss of services, and impaired access to infrastructure. Sea Level Rise is a relatively new hazard for the County and much of the Atlantic Coast resulting in increasing flooding frequency in coastal communities. The County did not monitor or record any incidents of Sea level Rise before 2013. High tide flooding which results in public inconveniences, often termed "nuisance flooding'' or `:sunny -day flooding." is increasing ill frequency as sea level rises. Additionally, perigean spring tides, or tidal events which occalr- when a new or full moon are closest to the earth, are especially concerning to the public in South Florida. These tides, also known as "king tides," occur once or twice a year and produce slightly larger tidal ranges. In South Florida, we often see the effects of tidal Flooding dining the fall 82 Local Mitigation Strategy 2024 (September—December) with the highest tide of year usually Occurring in October. For example, according to the NOAA tide table below for the Lake Worth Beach Pier, highest predicted tides of 2017 were as follows: Table 2.4 NOAA 2017 Ticle Table, Lake Worth Beach Pier Octobers -11. 2017 October 8.2017 3.85 October 17-22, 2017 October 18-20, 2017 3.57 November 2-9.2017 November 5. 2017 4.01 December 2-7, 2017 December 4, 2017 4.00 When heavy rains or coastal storms coincide with high tide conditions, flooding can be exacerbated. Low-lying, coastal communities in PBC are most vulnerable to tidal flooding, and [licit risk is expected to increase as sea levels rise. Impacts include reduced access/egress to dwellings, businesses, parking lots and marinas; loss of business revenue; damage to vegetation and vehicles; and potential property damage. 2.1.1.12 Seismic Hazards Tsunamis Recent, widely published, research by British and American scientists warned of potential catastrophic 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 10 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 probability 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. The threat Of a tsunamis impacting PBC is considered to be extremely low (approximately 5% or less per century). Tsunamis are most omen generated by earthquake -induced movement of the ocean floor. Landslides, volcanic eruptions, and even meteorites can also generate a tsunami. They are often incorrectly referred to as tidal waves, but a tsunauni is actually a series of waves that can travel at speeds averaging 450 (and up to 500) miles per liour in the open ocean. In 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. "Phis would also make them unnoticeable from the air. As tsunami waves approach a coast, their speed decreases, and their amplitude increases. Unusual wave heights Dave 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. 83 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 There have been no reported or recorded Tsunamis in PBC history. Earthquakes Although Florida is not usually considered to be a state subject to earthquakes, several minor shocks have occurred in recorded time, causing little if any damage. PBC has not been susceptible to earthquake activity. Therefore, earthquakes will not be frilly profiled in the LMS. • 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 occurred, 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 occurred in September, October, and November, 1886 (Zirbes, 1971). • In June 1892, Jacksonville experienced a minor shock that lasted about ten (10) seconds. Another earthquake occurred 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). 2.1.1.13 Geologic Hazards Sinkholes 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, the 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). Sink holes vary in size, length and depth. 84 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 We based Geological hazards on a probabity scale of occurance. This scale takes into effect the likelihood that PBC will be impacted by this hazard within a given period of time or the return rate of a hazard and is based on the historical data, estimated return periods, recurrence, or chance of occurrence. • Very Low — Although the hazard is noted, no previous occurrence has been recorded; or less than a 0.1% chance of occurrence; or a 100 -year event or greater. • Low — The hazard has occurred 10 years or more ago; or greater than 0.1% to 1.0% chance of occurrence; or a 100 -year event. • Medium — The hazard has occurred in the past 6 to 10 years; or greater than 1.0% to 2.0% chance of occurrence; or a 50 -year event. • High — The hazard to occurred in the past 1-5 years; or greater than 2.0% chance of occurrence; or less than a 50 -year event. PBC has not had any reported sinkholes as they are 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. 2.1.1.14 Pandemic/Communicable Diseases 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 are 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 vulnerability 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, rodent/insect 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. While this plan addresses all potential pandemic diseases, those that have actually affected PBC will be addressed in that disease discussion. 85 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Avian (Bird Flu) H5N1 Although there are many forms of bird flu, the form that has most recently concerned health officials is the H5N1 flu virus carried by wild birds. 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. There have been very few rare cases of H5N1 being transmitted to humans, mostly in Asia. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends if you work closely with birds such as poultry farms, and develop conjunctivitis or flu-like symptoms, to seek medical attention to rule out H5N1. 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 humans have no natural immunity. This is termed by the CDC as a "variant" virus. 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 hospitalizations and deaths) in the United States. Influenza viruses that normally circulate in pigs are called "variant" viruses when they are found in people. Influenza A H3N2 variant viruses (also known as "H3N2v" viruses) with the matrix (M) gene from the 2009 H1N1 pandemic virus were first detected in people in July 2011. The viruses were first identified in U.S. pigs in 2010. In 2011, 12 cases of H3N2v infection were detected in the United States (Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia). In 2012, 309 cases of H3N2v infection across 12 states were detected. In 2013, 19 cases of H3N2v across five (5) states were detected. The CDC assessment from 2017 states it's possible that sporadic infections and even localized outbreaks among people with this virus may occur. While there is no evidence at this time that sustained human -to -human transmission has occurred, all influenza viruses have the capacity to change and it's possible that this virus may change and become widespread in people. Illness associated with H3N2v infection so far has been mostly mild with symptoms similar to those of seasonal flu. Like seasonal flu, however, serious illness, resulting in hospitalization and death is possible. There have been no documented cases of any of the H1N1 or variants in the state of Florida since 2011. :• Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 MERS-CoV MERS-CoV is a novel corona virus causing severe acute respiratory illness. Corona viruses are transmitted by close person-to-person contact. Corona viruses are thought to be transmitted most readily by respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes, or through living with or caring with someone who has a confirmed case of MERS. The virus also can spread when a person touches a surface or object contaminated with infectious droplets and then touches his or her mouth, nose, or eye(s). Signs and symptoms of MERS-CoV are fever, cough, and shortness of breath. The death rate is 30-40% of all people who have reported with MERS. West 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. The West Nile Virus is an arthropod -borne virus (arbovirus) most commonly spread through infected mosquitoes. In a very small number of cases, the virus has been transmitted through blood transfusions, organ transplants, and from mother to baby during pregnancy, delivery, or breastfeeding. Most people (70-80%) who contract West Nile Virus never develop symptoms. Those with symptoms include a fever with headache, body aches, joint pains, vomiting, diarrhea, or rash. Some severe symptoms (less than I% will exhibit) are serious neurologic illness such as encheaphalitis or meningitis. SARS Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) is a viral respiratory illness caused by a corona virus, called SARS-associated corona virus (SARS-CoV). It is transmitted by close person-to- person contact. The virus that causes SARS is thought to be most readily spread by respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes, or when a person touches a surface or object contaminated with infectious droplets and then touches his/her nose, mouth, or eyes. Signs and symptoms of SARS generally begins with a high fever (greater than 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and may include headache, overall feeling of discomfort, and body aches. Some people will also have mild respiratory symptoms. Malaria Malaria is a parasite (P.faliciparztm, Rvivax, Rmalariae, and Rovale) that infects humans primarily after being bitten by an infected mosquito. It also can be transmitted from infected mothers to their babies during pregnancy or during delivery, and in rare cases, through blood transfusions. Malaria was eradicated from the US in the early 1950's, and nearly all cases today in the US are from recent overseas travelers. 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 (10) days to four (4) weeks after infection, although a person may feel ill as early as eight (8) days or as late as one (1) year later. 87 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Dengue Dengue fever is caused by any of four (4) closely related viruses, or serotypes of dengue 1-4. Dengue is transmitted by the bite of infected mosquitoes (Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus) which are found throughout the world, including PBC. Signs and symptoms include severe headache, high fever, severe eye pain (behind the eyes), muscle, bone, and joint pain, low white cell count, mild bleeding manifestation (e.g., nose or gum bleed, petechiae, or easy bruising), and rash. Dengue hemorrhagic fever is a similar illness but also occurring with hemorrhagic manifestations. A person can be infected separately by all four (4) dengue fever serotypes, and research has shown that infection by more than one increases the chances of developing dengue hemorrhagic fever. Ebola Ebola Virus Disease is a rare and deadly disease most commonly affecting people and nonhuman primates (monkeys, gorillas, and chimpanzees). It is caused by an infection of one (1) of five (5) known Ebola virus species, four (4) of which can cause disease in people: Ebola virus, Sudan virus, Tai Forest virus, Bundibugyo virus, and Reston virus (only nonhuman primates and pigs, not humans). Ebola spreads to people through direct contact with bodily fluids of a person who is sick or who has died from the virus. It enters through broken skin or mucous membranes in the eyes, nose, or mouth. In 2014, the Ebola virus drew national attention with one (1) suspected case in the County. DEM worked with Florida Health and other key stakeholders to develop the Port of Entry sections of this plan that would mitigate against passengers coming into PBC affected with any communicable disease. As of March 29, 2016, the World Health Organization terminated the Public Health Emergency of International Concern for the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. There have been no cases in the US since before that time. Zika Zika is a virus which spreads to people primarily through the bite of an infected Aedes species mosquito. It can also be passed through sex from a person who has Zika to his or her sex partners, and it can be spread from a pregnant woman to her fetus. In 2015, Zika was not a nationally reportable disease however, nine (9) cases, representing 15% of all US cases of symptomatic infections, occurred in the State of Florida. In 2016, Florida reported 1,115 cases, representing 22% of all US cases of infections. In 2017, this number dropped significantly to 110 cases, and in 2018 dropped again to 14. As of this writing, there have been no reported cases in Florida in 2019. This is due to efforts by local, state, and federal health and government officials identifying outbreaks and using mitigation strategies (i.e. mosquito spraying) to reduce the chances of infected mosquitoes transmitting the virus. The County has a very active mosquito spraying program which has likely limited the spread of Zika from the Aedes species mosquito. PBC bases Pandemic Diseases on a probabity scale of occurance. This scale takes into effect the likelihood that PBC will be impacted by disease hazards within a given period of time or the Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 return rate of a hazard and is based on the historical data, estimated return periods, recurrence, or chance of occurrence. • Very Low — Although the hazard is noted, no previous occurrence has been recorded; or less than a 0.1 % chance of occurrence; or a 100 -year event or greater. • Low — The hazard has occurred 10 years or more ago; or greater than 0.1% to 1.0% chance of occurrence; or a 100 -year event. • Medium —the hazard has occurred in the past 6 to 10 years; or greater than 1.0% to 2.0% chance of occurrence; or a 50 -year event. • High — The hazard to occurred in the past 1-5 years; or greater than 2.0% chance of occurrence; or less than a 50 -year event. 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 are state, regionally, locally, or privately controlled. The most significant risk related to dam/levee failure is flooding due to substantial rainfall and its eastward migration to final discharge in the Indian River Lagoon. Structural and non-structural techniques to slow and contain this runoff incorporate several drainage systems, some dating back to 1919. Rainfall in excess of designed capacities could cause erosion of constructed drainage facilities and flooding of many areas including primary roadway evacuation routes (CEMP, 2015). The Herbert Hoover Dike (HHD) was completed in 1927 to protect PBC citizens from experiencing another 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 HHD is continuously monitored by the Army Corps of Engineers in partnership with the SFWMD. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has finalized a key report that authorizes additional rehabilitation work on the HHD that surrounds Lake Okeechobee in south Florida. The Corps' Jacksonville District received notification in 2017 that the dam safety modification report for the dike has been approved, marking the culmination of a four-year effort to conduct a risk assessment of the 143 -mile earthen structure and develop alternatives for its rehabilitation. The report, known as HHD Dam Safety Modification Study Environmental Impact Statement focuses on a tentatively selected plan to extend embankment repairs over 28 miles on the south and west sides of the structure. The approved repairs include installing 24 miles of seepage barrier, commonly known as a partial cutoff wall from Moore Haven to Lake Harbor (this is in addition to installing 6.8 miles of 0 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 seepage barrier between Lake Harbor and Belle Glade approved in a 2015 report). The Corps also plans to install four (4) miles of cutoff wall near Lakeport. In addition, engineers recommended armoring the embankment around the State Route 78 bridge near the Harney Pond Canal and installing floodwall near water control structures on the Harney Pond and Indian Prairie Canals. Jacksonville District engineers anticipate rehabilitation work on the dike will continue until the mid -2020s, around 2025. The current cost of additional construction features is estimated at $900 million. A catastrophic failure of the HHD could pose a significant danger to the residents, local economies, and environment of PBC and South Florida. Completion of the HHD rehabilitation projects will serve to better protect the PBC communities of Belle Glade, Pahokee, and South Bay. 2.1.2.2 Hazardous Materials Accident Hazardous materials accidents can occur anywhere there is a road, rail line, pipeline, or fixed 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, radioactive, or pose other hazards and are regulated by the Department of Transportation. Out of approximately 1,662 hazardous materials incidents reported statewide in 1997, no known fatalities were reported, less than 4% resulted in injuries, and less than 6% 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 area near to facilities, which manufacture, store, or process hazardous materials (TCRPC). Large 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 Hazardous Materials Hazard Specific Plan. In addition to the County's Hazardous Materials Hazard Specific 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 a Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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 medical 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 medical wastes resulted in some of the used products ending up on Atlantic Ocean beaches. The 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 release of radioactive material is extremely unlikely and the immediate threat to life extremely low, vulnerability 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 occurred that could reduce the plant's level of safety, 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. State 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 State of Florida are involved in preparedness planning for a commercial nuclear power plant emergency. 91 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 The St. Lucie nuclear power plant is located on Hutchinson Island approximately four (4) miles east-northeast of the City of Port St. Lucie, approximately 5.5 miles north of Martin County/St. Lucie County boundary line. This facility is owned and operated by the Florida Power & Light Company. The county is located more than 20 miles from the plant and is well outside the ten (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. The 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, Pahokee, Royal Palm Beach, Haverhill, Glen Ridge, Wellington, 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 has been developed and is exercised in order to have reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. 2.1.2.4 Communications Failure Perhaps the most common cause of communications failures during disasters is the physical damage to devices or components that make up a network infrastructure. Hurricane -force winds, floodwaters, terroristic or cyber activity can all create physical disturbances that have the power to do significant damage to cities and the vulnerable communications equipment that's responsible for supporting these areas. Disruptions caused by physical damage have the potential to be incredibly costly and time consuming to restore, as they require maintenance or sometimes replacement of complex network hardware to re-establish communications. This is especially problematic if major installations such as cell towers or fiber-optic cables are involved. If a cell tower is severely damaged or even knocked down, it not only causes major disruptions in the area's wireless communications but is extremely expensive to replace and will remain a significant problem until the service provider is able to get a repair crew into the affected area. Likewise, damage to fiber-optic cables can be an even greater challenge to repair. Because the cables are concealed underground, large portions of earth and roadway may need to be excavated just to pinpoint the exact location of the damage. Wireless links are also susceptible to disruption or damage during disasters, as different wavelength signals can be cut off by heavy rain, or high winds. The transmitter itself can also receive damage or be knocked out of alignment with its receiver. While these issues are sometimes cheaper and less difficult to correct than damage to wired infrastructure, it nonetheless remains a serious obstacle to rescue efforts if knocked offline during a disaster. 92 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 2.1.2.5 Hazardous Materials Release 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 hazardous materials. Coordinating procedures for hazardous material response are found within the County's Hazardous Materials Hazard Specific Plan. Mishandling and improper disposal or storage of medical 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 medical wastes resulted in used products ending up on Atlantic Ocean beaches. The county has not experienced any significant hazardous material releases in the past ten years. 2.1.2.6 Transportation System Accidents Florida has a large transportation 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 several 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 notorious regional example is the crash in the 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 Miami -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. The county has not experienced any significant Transportation System Accidents in the past ten 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, 93 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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 % 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 horizontally 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 devastating, 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. Natural and synthetic sorbent materials 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 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, raking, and bulldozing can be used to assist natural environmental recovery processes. Scare tactics are used to protect birds and animals by keeping them away from oil spill areas. The County has 46 miles of Atlantic Ocean coastline that is subject to contamination caused by an oil spill. By Executive Order, the responsibility for preparing response plans for coastal oil spills is designated to the Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Florida Marine Patrol. There are two (2) 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 Horizon/BP 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 history. During the next 87 days an estimated 4.9 million barrels (210 million gallons) of oil were released. While the spill did not affect the waterways or coastal communities of PBC, it did put DEM and other supporting agencies throughout the County on alert. Extensive plans were coordinated to prepare for a potential containment and oil clean up response. 94 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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 (3) 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 potential 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 vitally important natural resource. It is a source of drinking water for more than half of the U.S. population and more than 95 % of the rural 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). 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 maintaining the isolation distances from potential contamination sources, reporting to the state violations of the isolation distance to the state, 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 (Outages) 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. 95 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 On August 14, 2002, the largest power outage occurred in the Northeast and Midwest states. The power outage started around 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon, and was out in some places until August 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 hazards such as tree roots. To address times when generating capacity is tight, or falls below consumer demand due to state 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 state of preparedness. The Contingency Plan has four (4) stages (Florida Reliability Coordinating Council): • 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 information may be distributed to consumers to forewarn them of conditions if necessary. • Generating Capacity Alert - A Generating 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 status reports are provided to agencies and the 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. 96 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 • 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 status 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. With the election of President Donald Trump in 2016, and his properties located in PBC, there has been a marked escalation of protests and civil disturbances. These are most evident in the winter months when the president spends many weekends at his home in the Town of Palm Beach. Agencies throughout PBC spend much time and resources to ensure the safety of the president and his family when they are in the area, as well as the safety of protesters in the areas surrounding his home in Palm Beach. The PBC LMS HVA Subcommittee recognizes this increased likelihood of civil disturbances in the analyses of probabilities located in Appendix A. Additionally, Presidential visits, while bringing civil disturbance issues, are also, by nature, domestic security hazards, therefore the planning process for those visits is contained in the PBC Domestic Security Plan. 2.1.3.2 Domestic Security 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 terrorist incident could involve the use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) 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. It is recognized that the state has many critical and high-profile facilities, high concentrations of population and other potentially attractive venues for terrorist activity that are inherently vulnerable to a variety of terrorist methods. Governmental/political, transportation, commercial, infrastructure, cultural, academic, research, military, athletic, and other activities and facilities constitute ideal targets for terrorist attacks, which may cause catastrophic levels of property and environmental 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 97 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 create a pandemic. Terrorists have the potential to create disasters, which threaten the safety of a large number of citizens. In the recent years, terrorist acts have become a reality for the nation. The 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 (terrorists) pilots took flight lessons in PBC. In addition, Anthrax, which was dispersed via the postal system in late 2001, claimed the lives of five (5) US citizens including one (1) person from PBC. It was determined that he became infected with the disease at American Media Incorporated (AMI), in Boca Raton, his place of employment. A second employee became infected and survived. In the past two (2) decades, terrorism has had a significant influence on the daily lives of Americans. The consistent attacks abroad and intermittent attacks within the United States have made most communities more conscious of the growing risks and vulnerabilities in a free environment. The advancement of technologies has made our communities more vulnerable to the impacts from these hazards. It should be noted that the impact of a terrorist attack can extend well beyond the immediate targeted facility. The effects of terrorism include: • Direct Result: Injury, illness, or death. • Psychological Reactions: fear, anxiety, stress, shock, revulsion, long-term emotional effects, post-traumatic stress. • Economic, Political, and Social Impacts. The terrorism incident at the Pulse Night Club in Orlando on June 12, 2016 is a prime example of other acts of terrorism that are emerging in society today. A heavily armed man entered the nightclub and killed 49 victims and injured over 50 more. While no incidents of terrorism to this scale have ever occurred in PBC, the regional Fusion Center and local law enforcement work together on a daily basis to be on alert for signs of impending terrorist activity in the South Florida region. Sabotage, Computer Accidents, and Cyber Attacks The President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection (PCCIP) 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 outages 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 data. Today, the right command sent over a network to a power generating station's control computer could be just as effective as a backpack frill of explosives, and the perpetrator would be harder to identify and apprehend (Rubin, 1998). With the growth of a computer -literate population, increasing numbers of people possess the skills necessary to attempt such an attack. The resources to conduct a cyber attack are now 98 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 easily accessible everywhere. A personal computer and an internet service provider anywhere in the world are enough to cause a great deal of harm. 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 warfare, intended disruption of military operations As the internet becomes more and more important, 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 card payments, Social Security payments, pharmacy transactions, airline schedules, etc. There have been multiple cyber attacks in recent years involving the theft of citizen's private information such as bank account numbers, social security numbers, etc. The PBC LMS HVA Subcommittee recognizes this, and in their most recent update to this hazard profile of the LMS, advised that the threat will only become greater as we continue to transition the bulk of our financial transactions over to online platforms. 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 occurred in 1994, when the state responded to two (2) 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 Cubans. 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 state 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, 99 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 water, transportation, medical, police protection, and other social services. The County's Mass Migration Hazard Specific Plan addresses the response to this hazard should it occur in PBC. The LMS HVA Subcommittee recognizes that natural hazards (such as hurricanes) have the potential to influence other hazards such as Mass Migration. An example of this is the influx of American citizens from Puerto Rico into Florida following the devastation from Hurricane Maria in September of 2017. While not illegal, the burden of such a sudden migration of persons from one area of the US to another can severely strain local and state resources. 2.1.3.4 Workplace/School Violence A workplace/school violence incident could occur without warning in a number of settings. The workplace will be defined as a place of business or government offices where commerce occurs; schools are educational settings which can be both public and private. Acts of violence in the workplace are handled by municipal or county law enforcement, dependent on jurisdictional boundaries. Palm Beach County School Police would have a large role in the response to an act of violence in a school. Due to the current international climate and following the rising trend of active shooter/assailant incidents, public safety agencies have remained at a level of heightened awareness. The number of active shooter/assailant incidents are on the rise with less use of traditional weaponry, making it difficult for law enforcement agencies to detect would-be attackers. In 2014, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) published a study and defined an active shooter as, "an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area" (Blair, P., Schweit, W., 2014). The County will adopt the FBI's definition of an active shooter/assailant with one adjustment to the verbiage. Within this plan, the word "shooter" will be accompanied by the word "assailant", as "active shooter/assailant" to coincide with an international trend of the word "assailant", stated in the aforementioned FBI report. "Assailant" was defined by the report as "those (who) commit violence in the workplace or schools, using weapons other than fire arms to commit killings or attempted killings." (Blair, P., Schweit, W., 2014). These weapons include but is not limited to the use of knives, hatchets, vehicles, explosives, and blunt objects (e.g., baseball bats, metal pipes). The school violence incident at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida (Broward County) on February 14, 2018 resulted in 17 deaths and 14 injuries. This further emphasizes the importance of planning for these types of incidents. Due to the nature of the incident being in an adjacent county to PBC, special attention will be paid to the outcomes identified in the after -action report to assist in continued planning in the unfortunate event such an incident occurs in PBC. Planning for such an incident isn't limited to the incident itself, but should include planning for memorials/vigils, reunification and survivor care, as well as many other considerations. The 1IVorkplace/School Violence HSP addresses the County's response to such an incident. Local Mitigation Strategy l 2020 2.2 Vulnerability Assessment The County is diversified. While all PBC residents are exposed to the hazards identified ill Table 2.1 to some degree, geographic location and other factors greatly affect individual vulnerabilities and probabilities relating to specific hazards illustrated in Appendix A for the County and each jurisdiction. Factors influencing vulnerability include community location, type of construction, demographics, and cultural characteristics. Table A-1 summarizes individual community vulnerability within PBC. Table A-2 relates the probability of future 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 Appendix G. 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 critical 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 PBC 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 (4) geographical areas: Northern PBC, Southern PBC, Western PBC, and Coastal PBC. In addition, the charts show probability of occurrence and impact. These will be rated as low = under 5% chance of occurring, mediLim, 5% - 15% chances of occurring, or High, greater than 151/0. These rating responds with the irilormation of the charts presented. • An impact rating of "Low'- for any hazard type means the hazard is not likely to have any measurable of lasting detrimental impact of a particular type and consequences will likely be rectified promptly with locally available resources. Chances here are less than 5%. • An impact mating 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. The chances here are between 5% - 15%. As such, the hazard is considered a threat to the whole community of PBC. • 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. The chances 101 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 are greater than 15%. As such, the hazard is considered a threat to the whole community of PBC. • Multiple ratings indicate detrimental impacts might easily vary within the range indicated. 2.2.1 Natural Hazards 2.2.1.1 Hurricanes anti Tropical Storms From 1920 throrzgh 1959, a total 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 severity in the world's entire hurricane spawning grounds. Since 1995, there have been 62 Atlantic hurricanes, 12 of which occurred in 2010 alone. Global warning may caLise 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. landralls. Currently an average of 1.75 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 three (3) every five (5) years (0.60 per year) (see http://www.aom 1. noaa.ov/ltrd/tcfa iC19.html). Annually, hurricanes are estimated to cause approximately $12 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 ror property darnage and human casualties in PBC has increased over [lie last several decades primarily because of the rapid growth this county has experienced since 1970, particularly along the vulnerable coastline areas. 1-4urricane damage is caused by two !actors: • 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 percentage 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. Deice a structure's integrity is breached, the driving rains associated with hurricanes can enter the strUitUre and completely destroy its contents. 1-11,11-rickrne winds are unique in several ways: 10? Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 • 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 atmospheric disturbance 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 sustained wind velocity by 25 to 50 %. 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 lbs per square foot on a flat surface, while a 190 mph wind will exert a force of 122 lbs per square foot on that same structure. In terms of a four (4) by eight (8) 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 2,904 lbs 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 % 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, generally 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 (2) to five (5) 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 total 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 catastrophic failures in any other type of building. Single-family residential construction is particularly vulnerable because less engineering oversight is applied to its design and construction. As opposed to hospitals and public buildings which are considered frilly engineered, and office and industrial buildings which are considered "marginally 103 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 engineered," residential construction is considered "non -engineered." Historically, the bulk of wind damage experienced nationwide has occurred to residential construction. Fully engineered 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 (3) 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: Table 2.5 Arbitor of Storms Model Strength DebrisStorm Tropical Storm 156,142 cubic yards/acre Category 1 Hurricane 1,049,571 cubic yards/acre Category 2 Hurricane 2,182,522 cubic yards/acre Category 3 Hurricane 7,421,401 cubic yards/acre Category 4 Hurricane 16,289,149 cubicyards/acre Category 5 Hurricane 44,874,888 cubicyards/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 Vulnerability 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 are 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 104 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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. Post storm accidents, especially electrocutions, are not uncommon, when people wander into flood waters where live wires or generators are present. Flooding in PBC results from one or a combination of both of the following meteorological events: • Tidal surge associated with northeasters, hurricanes, and tropical storms • Overflow from streams and swamps associated with rain runoff • Coastal inundations from lakes and basins 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 eastern portion of the County feature poorly drained soils, a high water table, and relatively flat terrain, 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. In response to mounting losses from flooding nationwide, the United States Congress initiated the NFIP in 1968. The program is administered through FEMA. Under this program, FEMA produces FIRM maps 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. Appendix G, Map Section, presents a generalized picture of the flood prone areas in PBC based on the 2017 version of the FIRM maps. In addition to the FIRM maps there are two (2) numerical models, which predict the effects of storm surge in PBC. The older model, developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 105 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 Administration, is called the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes model. Appendix G, Map 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. Appendix G, Map 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 or absolute worst-case scenario. For this analysis, we have considered the TAOS model projections as reflecting total, worst-case exposure for PBC. 2.2.1.3 Coastal & Beach Erosion / Sea Level Rise The 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. PBC completed an assessment of vulnerability due to sea level rise in a report entitled "Analysis of the Vulnerability of Southeast Florida to Sea Level Rise, South Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Inundation, Mapping, and Vulnerability Assessment Work Group, August 2012." 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 (1), two (2) and three (3) foot sea level rise scenario. Initially low volume roads and parking areas may be impacted at one (1) foot and increase to up to 41 miles of roadways as the sea level continues to rise to three (3) feet. Property with a current taxable value of $396-557 million may become vulnerable at one (1) foot of sea level rise; properties valued at $3.6-4.5 billion may be vulnerable at three (3) feet of rise. One (1) school, one (1) landfill site, and one (1) hospital are estimated to be impacted at the higher three (3) foot sea level rise scenario. 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 Planning Initiative: Phase V). It concluded that while sea level rise was not addressed as an independent hazard category, other identified hazards may anticipate 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 flood 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 state 106 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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, 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 associated with beach and soil erosion stating that the natural forces of wind, waves, and long shore currents move the natural 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 vulnerable due to bridges being inaccessible from local roadway inundation, and coastal marinas could experience impacts. Natural habitats may also become increasingly vulnerable as water salinity levels and areas of inundation alter. Palm Beach County Assessment prioritizes saltwater ponds, saltwater marshes, and mangrove swamp as potential sensitive impacted habitats. In Appendix G, the sea level rise map illustrates PBC's vulnerability to a two (2) foot sea level rise. Generally, the areas in the southern parts of the County do not appear they will suffer as much inundation in comparison with the central parts of the County, particularly along the Intracoastal Waterway. In the northern part of the County, large areas of projected inundation occur around existing natural waterways including the Loxahatchee River, Admiral's Cove, and Frenchman's Harbor. 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. 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. 2.2.1.4 Severe Thunderstorms/Lightning Risk of severe thunderstorms and lightning is high (Appendix A Table A-3) in PBC, but many of the jurisdictions shown in Appendix 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 vulnerability to economic impacts from lightning than residential or retirement communities. All 107 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 other factors being equal, residential and retirement communities have a historically higher vulnerability in terms of lightning fatalities. 2.2.1.5 Wildfire/Urban Interface Zone Less urbanized communities and areas within the County are more vulnerable 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 southern and western portion of the Village of Wellington, the unincorporated 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 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 generate 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. 2.2.1.6 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. 2.2.1.7 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 vulnerability to this hazard due to the type of construction or numbers of mobile homes (manufactured housing units) within their boundaries. 2.2.1.8 Extreme Temperatures Extreme temperatures, 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 vulnerable to temperature extremes, as are areas with significant agricultural assets. 108 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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 (CEI), defined by an aggregate set of conventional climate extremes indicators, supports the notion that the climate of the U.S. has become more extreme in recent decades, yet the magnitude and persistence of the changes are not now large enough to conclude that the climate has 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 natural 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. There 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. 2.2.1.9 Agricultural Pests and Diseases 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 The 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 109 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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 vulnerable 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/Communicable Diseases 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. The 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 current 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. The county does have a major vulnerability to levee failure around the eastern boundary 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. The county has the dubious distinction of having had the second highest number of fatalities (following Galveston, Texas) of any county in the United States. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maintains 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 (2) 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 (eight (8) to nine (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 110 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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 several 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 that might be generated 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 (3) 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 vulnerability 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. Specific areas with higher vulnerability 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 Beach, West Palm Beach, Riviera Beach, Lake Park, Palm Beach Gardens, Jupiter, and Tequesta) are extremely vulnerable to toxic material spills and releases from transportation system accidents, primarily rail accidents. The Florida East 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. Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 2.2.2.2 Radiological Accidents (Nuclear Power Plant Accidents) The Florida Power and Light St. Lucie Nuclear Power plant is located on south Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County. In the US, federal regulations define two (2) distinct planning zones with regard to commercial nuclear power plant emergency planning. The Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency;Mk Planning Zone, commonly known as the EPZ, has a radius of 10 miles' (16 km). The focus of the EPZ defines the geographic area for the management of protective actions ; r+';' A4, 1 related to the direct exposure to, and - - - -.- - - = = ��--- "' w•_ inhalation of, airborne radioactive A.,r contamination in citizens. The Ingestion Planning Zone, commonly l_ known as the IPZ, has a radius of about . 50 miles (80 km). The focus of the IPZ is to define the geographic Figure 2.11: St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant 10 Mile EPZ 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-inile radius lPZ 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 vett' low, and the overall risk to the citizens of PBC is therefore considered low. Nuclear emergency is perhaps the single hazard facing PBC which has received massive emergency management attention at all levels of government. Emergency management planning and regulation relative to nuclear power plant accidents exists at the federal, state, local, and corporate levels. Drills are held routinely and extensive documentation is required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. as well as several other federal agencies. Contingency planning for nuclear accidents at the plant itself appears to be well in hand. Of greater risk to the citizens of PBC is the transport of fissionable material to and from the plant. Such materials transfers are k 111T Mr'ukk �• f Wa ' . �. ' Ipolu/ Rrc r 5wc E VIG OtE r � naw PlE '• i�- - 6i L 'IE PORT 'I•LIICIE JUNTER RMERA BEACH �y,�•� ':� �x''D WEST EACH' Figure 2.12: 50 Mile Ingestion Pathway Map foJGIS l..ucie Nuclear Power Plant (Copyright 0 2010 Dolph Map LLC -- Used with permission) Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 handled with a great deal of care and there has never been a significant accident during any such transfer. Again, while PBC's vulnerability to such accidents is high, the risk that this hazard will produce an impact within the community appears to be low. Some risks to PBC include: • Loss of life or potential physical injury (including long-term effects such as cancer) • Loss of property (displacement from homes) • The 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. Impacts 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 10 miles of the power plant. If an accident at the plant took place during tourist season, PBC could expect half this population to evacuate into PBC (approximately 110,000 evacuees). The County must be prepared to shelter 10 % (11,000 people) of the evacuating population. All evacuees will be sheltered in Palm Beach, Indian River, and/or Brevard Counties. 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 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 two (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. The 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 113 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 activity raises the County's vulnerability to aviation associated accidents. Another busy airport for general aviation is the Lantana airport, which has been a source of many non-commercial incidents over the years. 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 PBC. 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 International Airport. The east -central portion of the County has a higher vulnerability to major highway accidents due to the presence of Interstate 95 and the Florida Turnpike. Due to their locations along the rail line, the eastern cities have higher vulnerabilities to rail system accidents. The Brightline express train, which began service between Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach in November of 2017, with plans to ultimately service between Miami and Orlando, has a potential top speed of 125 mph, which is much faster than other regional commuter trains. It is anticipated by the LMS HVA Subcommittee that there will be additional people struck while ignoring rail crossing warning devices, due to the high speeds that the public is not accustomed to in the area. 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. 2.2.2.6 Power Failure Power failures have the same potential impacts in all PBC communities. The vulnerabilities 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 municipalities of West Palm Beach, Delray Beach, Boynton Beach, Palm Beach, and Riviera Beach are considered to have relatively high vulnerability to this hazard. There has been significant civil unrest in certain areas of these cities in the past and a significant potential for such unrest remains. Within the past two (2) years, particularly with the election of the US President who 114 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 owns and frequents a home in PBC, the numbers of civil disturbance activities have increased significantly, although they are most often considered peaceful in nature. This is expected to continue through 2020 and possibly 2024. The LMS HVA Subcommittee has recognized and elevated the level of vulnerability to civil disturbance for the Town of Palm Beach due to the civil disturbances that they have in the area of the President's Palm Beach home. 2.2.3.2 Domestic Security Terrorism, Sabotage, and Cyber Attacks The possibility for terrorism, sabotage, and cyber attacks in PBC does exist. The County's vulnerability to this hazard is moderate and thus this hazard is considered a threat to the PBC community. The City of West Palm Beach has a slightly higher vulnerability to terrorism since it is the center of government and also by the role played by aviation in the local economy, but this vulnerability is still considered only moderate. 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 vulnerability 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 States. 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. Crime/terrorism hazards will damage or impair the County's infrastructure, disrupt commerce, and possibly result in large-scale health emergencies, disease outbreaks, and/or epidemics. Public awareness of terrorist incidences worldwide has increased since 2001, and the percentage of terrorist events resulting in fatalities continues to grow. As a metropolitan area and a key tourist/economic component of the United States, PBC could be a possible target for terrorist activities. Government buildings, large market sectors, critical infrastructure, tourist attractions, and large-scale events are all prime targets for terrorist organizations. Additional vulnerabilities include: • Transportation Systems — highways, railways, waterways, and airports are vital to the transportation of materials, goods, services, and people. • Population — an attack on a large population is attractive to gain large media attention. • Industry — large manufacturers and companies house hazardous materials. Disruption of these facilities can have an economic impact and cause physical damages to property and loss of lives due to the large volume of hazardous materials housed. • Utilities — there is a large dependency on telecommunications, power, water, wastewater, and pipeline services for daily activities and operations. 115 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Government Buildings — an attack on government buildings is attractive in order to deliver a political statement. Entertainment/Recreation — anywhere that attracts large populations is an attractive target. The Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) provides detailed information regarding the crime/terrorism hazards mentioned below that could affect PBC. Terrorism (see Domestic Security HSP) Bomb Threat Incident • Cyber -Security Incident (see also PBC Information Systems Services (ISS) Department Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plan and IT Security Policy Manual). 2.2.3.3 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 state for the local authorities in PBC. The county's vulnerability to this hazard is moderate, however, due to demographic features, and thus, mass migration is a threat to the public. 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 impacts due their larger populations of Latin American and Caribbean immigrants. 2.2.3.4 Workplace/School Violence While a workplace/school violence incident statistically ends within five (5) minutes, the consequences of the attack could last well beyond a single operating period (deemed to be 12 hours in duration per the CEMP) 70% of the time (Blair, P., Schweit, W., 2014), including many years, as these types of incidents create a detrimental psychological impact on the community. The County's vulnerability to this hazard is moderate and thus, this hazard is considered a threat to the PBC community. A workplace/school violence incident tends to occur with the following actions: 1. An assault is acted upon by an active shooter/assailant. 2. Law enforcement moves into the scene to neutralize the assailant. 3. Fire rescue moves into the scene to assist wounded victims. 4. Victims are transported to health care facilities (e.g., hospitals). 5. Services are provided to victims and/or victims' families, such as victim and family mental health counseling. Economic consequence management occurs. Coordinated public messages and press releases are conducted. Other numerous foreseen and unforeseen consequences may emerge. ice Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Due to the majority of these type of incidents ending within five (5) minutes, planning will focus a strong focus on preparedness and mitigation, including the practice of educating the public on recommended actions they can take prior to an incident. 2.2.4 Vulnerability of Critical Facilities In Appendix G, maps demonstrate the vulnerability of each hazard in relation 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 narrative for each identified hazard by jurisdiction. The county determined a criticality based on the relative importance of its various 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 unincorporated 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. Appendix M specifically addresses critical facilities in PBC. 117 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 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 factor's to perform a risk assessment. Risk, or the probability of loss, depends on three (3) elements: • Frequency — How Frequently does a known hazard produce an impact within the comnunlity? • Vulnerability — flow vulnerable is a community to the impacts produced by a known hazard? * Exposure -- What is the community's exposure in ternns of life and property to the impacts produced by a specific hazard? Once these three (3) 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 (3) factors become the sides of a triangle, and the risk or probability of loss is represented by the triangle's area (Figure 2.3a). The larger the triangle's area, the higher the community's risk with respect to a given hazard. lfa community wishes to reduce its potential for loss or risk of impacts From any given hazard, it can attack the problem by reducing any one of the three (3) elements Forming the sides of this triangle; the frequency of a hazard's occtirl'eilce. the vulnerability oi'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 barrier islands. This actually happened in the 1$70s when an entire community on the North Carolina barrier islands moved to the mainland after suffering two (2) devastating, hurricanes in three (3) years. By moving out of harm's way, a C0111n1t111itV drastically redUCLS its exposure and therefore its potential for loss from a given natural hazard (Figure 2.3b). In today's world. the potential to relocate an entire coninitinity 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 corresponding reduction in a community's probability of loss (Figure 2.3c). MN' ..PROBABILITY of HFR�i LO5S FREQUENCY FREQUENCY (a) Figure 2.13: a, b, c Risk Triangles (b) Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 FREQUENCY (C) 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 vulnerability 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 The county's potential for loss relative to each of the hazards identified. In addition, Appendix A will include a risk assessment by jurisdiction. The risk assessments will be illustrated by means of maps located in Appendix G 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 refers to Appendix B and Appendix G illustrating mitigation actions being addressed in the PBC comprehensive plans. The overall strategy is to mitigate to reduce damage of a potential hazard. 119 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 This page intentionally left blank 120 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 SECTION 2A: VULNERABILITY OF CRITICAL FACILITIES This subsection assesses the vulnerability 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(e)(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 Appendix J: With regard to fiihure 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. Several local developers are now building Category 5 type structures. • Wildfire mitigation practices are being promoted for development in the wildland-urban interface areas. As the State of Florida and the US as a whole are currently experiencing economic growth, the current trend for PBC is increased values year over year. The PBC Property Appraiser's 2017 Annual Report, continued to indicate a modest to significant rise in values. County property values increased 7.9% in 2016 over 2015. There was a 7.3% increase from 2017 over 2016 (Palm Beach Post/Property Appraiser Data). This trend may be indicative of longer term stabilization and economic growth throughout the Florida real estate markets. The Table below details the 2016 — 2017 property value trends by city. 121 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Table 2A 2016-2017 property valve trends by city an PBC Atlantis 5468.7 million $491.5 million 4.86 Belle Glade 5311.5 million 5324.8 million 4.27 Boca Raton S21 bi lion 522.5 billion 7.22 Boynton Beach S5 billion SSA billion 8.25 Briny Breezes 541.3 million $44.9 million 9.59 Cloud Lake 55.4 million $5.7 million 6.49 Delray Beach' 59.8 billion 59.6 billion 9.53 Glenridge S16 million $16.1 million 7.7 Greenacres 51.5 billion $1.7 billion 1047 Gulf Stream S1 billion 51.1 billion 2.87 Haverhill 580.5 million $85-6 million 7 57 Highland Beach $2.2 billion 52.4 billion $ 43 Hypoluxo $313 million 5329.9 million 5.41 Juno Beach 51.3 billion 51.4 billion 7.49 Jupiter 59 7 billion 510.3 billion 679 Jupiter Inlet Colony 5300 5 million 5319.7 million 6.41 Lake Clark Shares 5227 million 5242.3 million 6 74 Lake Park 5574.8 million 5627 million 9.08 Lake Worth • 51.5 billion 57.6 billion 11 54 Lantana 5889.9 million 5855 7 million 7 4 Loxahatchee Graves 5254 million 5294.4 million 1587 Manalapan 57.2 billion S12 billion 691 Mangonia Park 5170 million 5181.3 million 6.65 North Palm Beach 51.8 billion 52.1 billion 15 1S Ocean Ridge 5851 million 5939 7 million 5.47 Pahokee Sa1.3 million 582 million 086 Palm Beach S1 S.9 billion 516.9 billion 6.42 Palm Beach Gardens 510.1 billion 510.9 billion 7.84 Palm Beach Shores 5550.9 million $575.3 million 443 Palm Springs 5909.5 million 51.1 billion 22 Riviera Beach 54.9 billion 55.1 billion 3.29 Royal Palm Beach 52.5 billion $2.7 billion 7.80 South Bay 561.1 million $64.8 million 5.79 122 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 South Palm Beach 5305.2 million 5326 million 6.75 Tequesta S1 billion SIA billion 5-84 Village of Golf S155.4 million S161 million 3.61 Wellington S7.5 billion S8 billion 7.7 West Palm Beach S11 billion 511.5 billion 8.35 Westlake 527.4 million undefined "Includes debt service. Source Paim Sea --h (-OLFFI \ PI(Telty At)ptaiSer • Created v:ith Datava pper 123 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 This page intentionally left blank 124 Local Mitigation Strategy 2024 SECTION 2B: VULNERABILITY OF RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES This subsection assesses the structural 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 vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard area. Nutnbers; types and characteristics of existing residential, commercial and critical service facilities and infrastructure are referenced in Appendix C. Since the last update of the LMS in 2415, there has been significant growth in residential and commercial property spending throughout the State of Florida. Specifically, there was $16 billion in 2015, up from $12.5 billion in 2014, in non-residential starts (The Associated General Contractors of America - htt ://files.a c.or files/economic state facts/FLstim. df, 2016). Also, according to ConstructConnect, there was a $4.1 billion increase (16.8%) in non-residential construction over 2016(https://www.constructeonnect.com/wp content/uploads/201 8/0 1 /Construction-Industry-Sna shat -Packs e -December -2017. df). However, there is still a cloud of uncertainty in the marketplace. Higher demand for housing, more occupancy in apartments, and retail are providing lifts to the industry. According to the Property Appraiser's Comparison of Taxes Lcvied htt ://www. be ov.com/ a a/ df/tax/Palm%2OBeach°/o20Count %2OTable°/`201%20- %2dComparison%20of%20Taxes°/a20Levied.pdf ), there was a 4.25% increase in FY 16 over FY16. Based on the information obtained, the LMS expects that the Florida real estate markets will continue to improve in the near term. The following observations are offered with regard to future facilities: ■ Developable coastal areas of the County are substantially built nut. 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. • Ftrture growth throughout the County is guided by the managed growth tiers which consider hazard vulnerability. • Nearly 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 County has only one (1) river and no significant elevation variations. ■ 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. 125 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 Wildfire mitigation practices are being promoted for development in the wildland-urban interface areas. The following pages provide assessments of the dollar values of existing properties at risk as of this writing, by hazard, by jurisdiction. Methodology for Assessing Vulnerability of Existing Structures It was decided to use local property appraisal databases, 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, diversity, highly variable and incompatible databases, and inconsistent record keeping practices. The primary data source is the Property Appraiser Database (PAPA). The PAPA database is not well suited for purposes of vulnerability assessments, but it continues to be 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 data, there are an estimated 597,300 residential parcels and 681,915 structures in PBC. The residential housing stock is well distributed throughout the eastern portion of the County. Forty-six (46) percent of residential units reside in the unincorporated areas of the county. The seven (7) municipalities of West Palm Beach, Boca Raton, Boynton Beach, Palm Beach Gardens, Jupiter, Wellington and Delray Beach collectively have about 34% of PBC's residential units. The overwhelming majority of residential structures (75.6%) are of CB Stucco construction. Less than 5% have exterior walls composed of wood in the form of wood siding, wood frame stucco, or board batten. The remaining structures are constructed of a variety of other materials. The PAPA database consists of approximately 25 categories, many of which have a multiplicity of variations. We have summarized the Property Appraiser Residential Dwelling Data in the following tables: 126 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Table 2B-1 Summary Table of Property Appraiser's DWELDAT table 127 # of Total Buildings as Reconstruction Row Labels Count of Parcels # of Buildings a % of Total Cost "NEW" Atlantis 1,254 1,256 0.18% $254,022,317 Belle Glade 2,929 18,940 2.78% $287,422,651 Boca Raton 40,011 40,551 5.95% $11,785,957,207 Boynton Beach 31,692 31,798 4.66% $3,940,998,201 Briny Breezes 483 515 0.08% $12,297,643 Cloud Lake 57 74 0.01% $4,704,027 Delray Beach 30,493 32,370 4.75% $5,738,831,451 Glenridge 96 117 0.02% $10,886,520 Greenacres 14,564 14,665 2.15% $1,726,179,797 Gulf Stream 693 763 0.11% $507,066,313 Haverhill 650 690 0.10% $77,261,878 Highland Beach 4,147 4,155 0.61% $2,127,633,865 Hypoluxo 2,058 2,062 0.30% $345,009,508 Juno Beach 3,024 3,145 0.46% $1,086,321,716 Jupiter 28,333 28,510 4.18% $7,076,077,900 Jupiter Inlet Colony 231 237 0.03% $78,962,167 Lake Clarke Shores 1,458 1,462 0.21% $210,013,605 Lake Park 2,620 2,678 0.39% $257,159,212 Lake Worth Beach 12,366 13,293 1.95% $1,076,319,402 Lantana 4,227 4,364 0.64% $473,198,178 Loxahatchee Groves 1,915 3,108 0.46% $166,003,197 Manalapan 314 348 0.05% $281,715,595 Mangonia Park 454 461 0.07% $29,530,667 North Palm Beach 7,348 7,386 1.08% $1,553,473,914 Ocean Ridge 1,429 1,451 0.21% $570,290,662 Pahokee 1,184 2,224 0.33% $109,978,252 Palm Beach 9,427 10,034 1.47% $6,594,956,531 Palm Beach Gardens 25,163 25,220 3.70% $7,300,319,779 Palm Beach Shores 960 976 0.14% $450,713,626 Palm Springs 7,346 7,649 1.12% $622,990,777 Riviera Beach 14,153 14,365 2.11% $3,388,691,372 Royal Palm Beach 13,309 13,355 1.96% $1,997,437,235 South Bay 696 737 0.11% $66,991,807 South Palm Beach 1,865 1,865 0.27% $377,345,901 Tequesta 3,245 3,250 0.48% $704,566,726 Unincorporated PBC 261,177 313,648 46.00% $42,855,956,432 127 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Village of Golf 178 212 0.03% $69,466,662 Wellington 22,628 24,875 3.65% $5,143,668,770 West Palm Beach 43,120 49,084 7.20% $7,005,681,217 Westlake 3 22 0.00% $90,567 Grand Total 597,300 681,915 100.00% $116,366,193,247 Table 2B-2 Residential Structures by Exterior Wall Type in PBC # of Row Labels Buildings # of Buildings as a % of Total CB STUCCO 515,518.00 75.60% Data Not Available 81,596.00 11.97% WOOD FRM STUCCO / HOLLOW TILE 30,295.00 4.44% WOOD SIDING 21,205.00 3.11% VINLY/ALUM/CON SIDING 9,216.00 1.35% PRECAST PNL/REIN. CONC 7,228.00 1.06% CONC. BLOCK 2,775.00 0.41% BD & BATTEN 2,586.00 0.38% ABOVE AV 1,769.00 0.26% ASB. SHG. 1,683.00 0.25% COMMON BR 1,533.00 0.22% MOD. MET. 1,451.00 0.21% CEMENT BR 1,180.00 0.17% WOOD SHT/PLY 965.00 0.14% BD & BATTEN ABAV 605.00 0.09% MINIMUM 545.00 0.08% CEDER/REDWOOD 497.00 0.07% PREF. MTL. 346.00 0.05% CORR. MTL. 305.00 0.04% BELOW AV 151.00 0.02% WOOD SHINGLE 125.00 0.02% PREFAB PNL 123.00 0.02% NONE 44.00 0.01% FACE BR 42.00 0.01% COMP OR WALL BD 29.00 0.00% STONE 28.00 0.00% REIN. CONC. 28.00 0.00% SINGLE SIDING 21.00 0.00% N/A 10.00 0.00% 128 Local Mitigation Strategy 220 CORR. ASB 8.00 0.00% GLASS THERM. 8.00 0.00% Grand Total 681,915.00 100.00% Commercial Properties Property Appraiser data indicates that there are approximately 27.113 commercial parcels with 93,663 commercial structures countywide. The cost of reconstruction for those structures is estimated at $4213. These data are sUrnmarized as follows: Table 213-3 Propert}? Appraiser commercial parcels, buildings, and reconslr itelion cosls Total Court of # of Reconstruction Row Labels Parcels Buildings Cost "NEW" APARTMENTS 566 7085 $90,857,080 APARTMENTS - SENIOR 136 583 $745,667,390 APARTMENTS -TOWNHOUSE 240 2439 $275,973,010 APARTMENTS HIGH RISE 76 166 $1,107,670,140 APARTMENTS LOW RISE 2360 13273 $2,494,273,710 ARENA 22 92 $65,151,650 AUDITORIUM 51 190 $198,478,770 AUTO DEALER/E-SERVICE 221 503 $397,041,740 AUTO SERVICE GARAGE 589 1162 $228,464,660 BANK/MAIN OFFICE 68 83 $163,998,920 BAR/TAVERN 59 81 $14,292,510 BARNS 77 499 $20,869,530 BIOTECH RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT 5 18 $109,427,140 BOWLING ALLEY 5 5 $11,142,650 CAR WASH - AUTOMATIC 63 174 $28,849,830 CAR WASH - MANUAL 23 52 $4,731,980 CAR WASH SERVICE STATION 59 121 $5,518,540 CINEMA/THEATER 25 89 $148,427,510 CLUBHOUSE 2059 7302 $664,267,440 COCKTAIL LOUNGE 13 17 $14,130,710 COLD STORAGE 46 149 $27,207,590 COLLEGES/ UNIVERSITY 117 2451 $454,763,910 COMM SHOPPING CENTER 522 1538 $1,662,495,900 COMMERCIAL MIXED USE 7 14 $1,120,150 CONVENIENCE FOOD MKT 339 381 $157,669,290 CORRECTIONAL 4 18 $21,866,464 COUNTRY CLUB 44 79 $93,237,260 129 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 COUNTRY CLUB/W GOLF CRSE 235 611 $570,708,050 CULTURAL FACILITIES 18 63 $66,317,120 DAY CARE CENTER 293 898 $179,421,570 DEPARTMENT STORES 25 36 $524,076,830 DISCOUNT DEPT STORE 222 506 $634,188,470 DOG/HORSE TRACK 2 3 $11,889,840 DORMITORY 168 1355 $177,997,490 DOWNTOWN ROW TYPE 233 588 $798,459,400 DRUG STORE FREESTANDING 101 136 $204,242,310 EDUCATION/RELIGIOUS 686 2788 $762,696,870 EFFICIENCY APARTMENT 152 870 $10,141,580 FRANCHISE FOOD 305 481 $151,734,460 FUNERAL HOME 56 83 $45,185,670 FURNITURE STORE 39 47 $115,005,720 GARAGE STORAGE 216 1641 $24,577,620 GOVERNMENTAL 230 581 $1,352,307,010 GUARDHOUSE 195 301 $14,275,180 GYMNASIUM 73 313 $159,228,740 HANGAR 117 2295 $98,893,460 HEALTH CLUB 20 54 $82,664,890 HEAVY MANUFACTURING 8 62 $14,558,190 HOME IMPROVEMENT 18 18 $113,686,030 HOSPITALS 55 240 $1,987,367,100 HOTEL- HI RISE 62 67 $802,272,940 HOTEL/MOTEL BUSINESS 183 401 $70,636,450 HOTEL/MOTEL LO RISE 69 180 $128,017,100 KWIK LUBE 22 34 $7,720,700 LIBRARY 16 20 $46,856,750 LIGHT MANUFACTURING 299 495 $267,410,760 MEDICAL OFFICE BLDG 514 889 $940,204,290 MEGA WAREHOUSE DISCOUNT 1 1 $9,510,660 MINI WAREHOUSE 811 4286 $681,328,480 NEIGHBORHOOD BANK 331 491 $291,768,180 NURSING HOME 195 413 $723,602,060 OFFICE BLDG L/R 1-4S 2419 5664 $4,458,268,930 OFFICE H -R 5ST 98 140 $2,062,303,420 OFFICE/WAREHOUSE 439 624 $863,516,210 PARKING GARAGE/DECK 128 454 $1,339,513,930 POLICE/FIRE STATIONS 129 228 $155,135,930 PREFAB AGR STORAGE 3 3 $557,920 PREFAB WAREHOUSE 3 5 $355,010 PRIVATE CLUB 25 96 $58,324,040 130 RADIO/TV TRANSMITTER BLD RADIO/TV/ PIC STUDIO RAIL/BUS/AIR TERMINAL REGIONAL SHPMALL/CNT RELIGIOUS RESIDENTIAL BARNS RESORT HOTEL RESTAURANT RETAIL MULTI OCCUP RETAIL SINGLE OCCUP SCHOOL SERVICE STATION NO BAYS SERVICE STATION W/BAYS SFR CONVERT TO COMM SKATING RINK SOCIAL/FRATERNAL HALL STADIUM STRIP SHOPPING CNTR SUPER REG SHOPMALL SUPERMARKET TECHNICAL MANUFACTURING TELECOMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT VETERINARY CLINIC WAREHOUSE DISCOUNT STORE WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSE SINGLE TENANT WAREHOUSE STORAGE Grand Total Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 12 67 $4,062,600 6 8 $24,837,130 29 261 $153,228,510 13 61 $206,053,610 729 1147 $788,236,760 4 11 $2,254,680 34 92 $780,258,840 402 787 $286,309,480 247 357 $274,740,480 1111 1472 $484,404,130 757 3024 $2,807,540,590 121 141 $30,522,400 47 49 $11,962,570 446 657 $84,783,500 3 4 $5,992,760 93 121 $37,954,760 2 48 $52,017,990 988 1318 $1,075,897,500 7 13 $971,117,190 145 349 $505,114,130 40 276 $263,439,810 31 55 $54,179,050 61 92 $45,197,240 9 15 $60,086,930 214 420 $660,284,960 2 2 $758,280 4550 15791 $1,998,645,550 27,223 93,663 $41,884,404,210 Number & Assessed Values of Residential & Commercial PCODerty at Risk Deriving an accurate estimate of residential property values at risk from hazards is complicated by multiple factors. However, the Property Appraiser does calculate the estimated cost of reconstruction based upon its knowledge of the building and its construction, as well as estimated costs of construction. This value is provided the RCN ("reconstruction value new") which is used above. 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. It 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. 131 Local Mitigation Strategy 2 021 Estimating the Value of Property 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, hospitals, and other critical medical facilities, shelters, adult living facilities, etc. For security reasons and their sensitive nature critical facility listings are excluded from publicly distributed copies of the LMS plan. A list is maintained by DEM and made available to authorized personnel. 132 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 SECTION 3: MITIGATION STRATEGY 3.1 Governmental Local Mitigation Strategies take into account an abundance of information from the Federal and State levels, as each has their own mitigation strategy as well. For example, the Federal Government has the National Mitigation Strategy, and the State of Florida has the State Hazard Mitigation Plan. Strategies, goals, and objectives from these are very beneficial for local LMS officials to use in the formulation of their own strategies, as they help align the overall mitigation goals with each other, in order to make all communities more resilient after a disaster has occurred. This section, in part, addresses the following FEMA requirements: Requirement 44CFR 201.6(c)(2)(i): Does the Plan include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events for each jurisdiction? (Element 116) Requirement 44CFR 201.6(c)(2)(ii): Is there a description of each identified hazard's impact on the community as well as an overall summary of the community's vulnerability for each jurisdiction? (Element R7) Requirement 44CFR 201.6(c)(2)(ii): Does the Plan address NFIP insured structures within each jurisdiction that have been repetitively damaged by floods? (Element R9) Requirement 44CFR 201.6(c)(3)(i): Does the Plan include goals to reduce/avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards? (Element S1) Requirement 44CFR 201.6(c)(3)(ii) and 201.6(c)(3)(iv): Does the Plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects for each jurisdiction being considered to reduce the effects of hazards, with emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure? (Element S4/S5) Requirement 44CFR 201.6(c)(4)(ii): Does the Plan describe a process by which local governments will integrate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms, such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate? (Element S10/S11) 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: 133 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 • Utilizing the scientific and technical knowledge resulting from the research efforts of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 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 after disaster strikes; • Establishing a National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program to increase the availability of applied seismic research, develop state 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 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 day, and is located at the U.S. Coast Guard headquarters in Washington, D.C. 3.1.2 State The FDEM, under the Executive Office of the Governor, has primary responsibility in disaster response and mitigation. The FDEM developed the State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP) 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 SHMP Strategy achieves this purpose through the following goals and objectives: 134 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Goal 1: Implement and effective comprehensive statewide hazard mitigation plan. o Objective 1.1: Provide training opportunities and encourage staff to pursue professional development. o Objective 1.2: Pursue methodologies that will enhance mitigation successes. o Objective 1.3: Integrate mitigation practices throughout all state plans, programs, and policies. Goal 2: Support local and regional mitigation strategies. o Objective 2.1: Maintain up-to-date risk assessment information in coordination with local communities. o Objective 2.2: Assist in integrating hazard mitigation concepts into other local and regional planning efforts such as comprehensive plans, local mitigation strategies, and comprehensive emergency management plans. o Objective 2.3: Ensure that all communities are aware of available mitigation finding sources and cycles. o Objective 2.4: Assist in the integration of climate change and sea level rise research into state, local, and regional planning efforts. o Objective 2.5: Conduct all possible actions to mitigate severe repetitive loss properties. Goal 3: Increase public and private sector awareness and support for hazard mitigation in Florida o Objective 3.1: Work with other state and regional entities to incorporate mitigation concepts and information into their outreach efforts. o Objective 3.2: Educate Florida's private sector about mitigation concepts and opportunities. o Objective 3.3: Develop and integrate hazard mitigation curriculum into higher education. o Objective 3.4: Educate state risk management entities on mitigation incentives. o Objective 3.5: Support hazard mitigation research and development. Goal 4: Support mitigation initiatives and policies that protect the state's cultural, economic, and natural resources. o Objective 4.1: Support land acquisition programs that reduce or eliminate potential future losses due to natural hazards and that are compatible with the protection of natural or cultural resources. o Objective 4.2: Support restoration and conservation of natural resources whenever possible. o Objective 4.3: Seek mitigation opportunities that reduce economic losses and promote responsible economic growth. o Objective 4.4: Retrofit existing state-owned facilities. o Objective 4.5: Participate in climate change and sea level rise research that will further the state and local government's ability to plan for and mitigate the impacts of future vulnerability. o Objective 4.6: Coordinate effective partnerships between state agencies for floodplain management. 135 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 The SHMP 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 as the notification point in the event of a hazardous materials incident. As such, the FDEM is responsible for receiving notification of an 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 LEPC's in providing warnings and instructions to the general 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 departments 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 departments 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. The 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 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 136 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 promotes mitigation initiatives within Section 5.0, Emergency Preparedness, of its "Strategic Regional Policy Plan". (Appendix B). • Strategy 5.1.1 Direct development away from areas 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. • Strategy 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 SFWMD along with the four (4) 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 SFWMD administers several programs that achieve hazard mitigation relative to flooding, hurricanes, and drought. The SFWMD operates and maintains the regional drainage system throughout its jurisdictional area. Local drainage systems are operated by a variety of special districts, private property owners, and local governments. The local systems typically convey water from individual 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 SFWMD maintains an ongoing "Canal Conveyance Capacity" evaluation program. The objectives of the program are: • To implement a systematic approach to the inspection of all SFWMD canals to determine the need for periodic dredging • To inspect all canals over a five (5) year period 137 Local Mitigation Stratevy I '1020 • 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 stonnwater systems or retrofitting older ones are required to petition the SF WMD for a surface water management permit approval. Besides flood control, the SI~WMD 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 ror the purpose of protecting environmentally sensitive lands_ Some of the lands purchased tinder 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 CHI-iAs is reduced. 3.1.4 Local 3.1.4.1 Palm Beach County The County Occupies approximately 1.993 square miles on Florida's southeastern Atlantic coast. It is tale second largest county in the state in terms of land area. It has approximately 46 miles of coastal shoreline that fi-onts the Atlantic Ocean. The county is the third most populated county in the state. In 2010 the countywide population was listed as 1,320.134 (US Census). That is an increase of nearly 200,000 people firorn the 2000 census, It is projected that by the year 2020, the population will increase by over another - 200,000 to about 1,597,535. The majority of the growth is expected between the coastal ridge and Water Conservation Areas. Thirty-nine (39) municipalities exist in the County. In terms of population, they vary significantly. The City of West Palm Beach is the largest (110,396) while the City of Westlake (5) is the smallest (see Table 3.1 . There are three (3) urban centers of population along the coast: in south PBC, the Boca Raton/Delray Beach/Boynton Beach area (combined populatiOn — 231,593); the West Palm Beach/Lake Worth Beach/Riviera Beach area (combined population — 183,399) in central PBC:; and in north PBC, the Palm Beach Garder[S/Iupiter area (combined l-)opulation — 1 13,979). Two (2) 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 — 28,394). ]'his area has unique needs because of its relative physical isolation from the highly urban area along the Atlantic coast. The other area, rabidly urbanizing, is the Royal Palm Bcacli/WellingtonlCireenacres (combined population — 139.030) area. Based upon the estimates provided by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida, the City of West Palm Beach has experienced the largest population growth amongst the municipalities of PBC. with an estimated growth of 10,053 during the period of 2010 through 2018. 138 Local Mitigation Strategy 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 (3) 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), four (4) rail lines (Florida East Coast Railroad, CSX Railroad, Tri -Rail, and Brightline), the Port of Palm Beach. and Palm Beach International Airport. Brightline is a new high-speed railroad service that currently services West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale, but plans to expand from Orlando to Miami. As the area becomes more urban and more congested, the potential for transportation accidents will increase. Within PSC, the SFW MD operates six (6) major drainage canals: C -I S, C-17 (Earman River). C-51 (West Palm Beach Canal), C-16 (Boynton Canal), C-15 canal, 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 occurrence atter significant rainfall events, 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 Laky: Okeechobee and the Water Conservation Areas for its water. The regional SFWMD system can move water from Lake Okeechobee, the Water Conservation Areas, and then to eastern PBG where the water helps supplement local recharge of urban weIIlie Ids . The county's connection to the SFWMD regional system makes it less vulnerable to drought conditions than if it depended solely on IocaI supplies. In general. the south County wellfields would be seriously impacted by the loss of recharge from surface water systems. It is the goal of PBC to protect human Iire and property by limiting public expenditures in areas subject to destruction by natural disasters (especially within the coastal high hazard area), maintaining and implementing an effective emergency management program, and providing for orderly recovery and redevelopment in a post -disaster period. Toward this end, PBC and its 39 municipalities maintain a series of coordinated, interlinked preparedness and recovery plans inclriding, but not limited to: Comprehensive 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; 139 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and Local Emergency Plans, which establishes the framework to ensure that PBC and the municipalities will be adequately 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; Continuity of Operations Plan, which ensures the continuance of essential governmental functions during any emergency or situation that, might otherwise disrupt normal operations. 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. The County and its 39 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, Community Emergency Response Team, Continuity of Operations, counter -terrorism, radiological emergency preparedness initiatives, and hazardous materials. The collective purpose of these activities is the elimination or mitigation of hazards presenting significant risk to PBC and its residents, with a focus on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. 140 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 County, City April 12017 Estimate Total Change April 12010 Census Inmates Estimates less 2010-2017 Inmates April 1, 2017 Palm Beach County 1,414,144 94,010 1,320,134 2,898 1,411,246 Atlantis 2.024 19 2.005 0 2.024 Belle Glade 17.290 -177 17.467 0 17.290 Boca Raton 91.797 7.405 84.392 0 91.797 Bovnton Beach 73.992 5.775 68.217 0 73.992 Brinv Breezes 422 -179 601 0 422 Cloud Lake 139 4 135 0 139 Delrav Beach 65.804 5.282 60.522 0 65.804 Glen Ridee 227 8 219 0 227 Golf 258 6 252 0 258 Greenacres 39.770 2.197 37.573 0 39.770 Gulf Stream 1.001 215 786 0 1.001 Haverhill 2.063 190 1.873 0 2.063 Hiehland Beach 3.609 70 3.539 0 3.609 Hvooluxo 2.725 137 2.588 0 2.725 Juno Beach 3.400 224 3.176 0 3.400 Juolter 61.388 6.232 55.156 0 61.388 Juoiter Inlet Colonv 407 7 400 0 407 Lake Clarke Shores 3.409 33 3.376 0 3.409 Lake Park 8.784 629 8.155 0 8.784 Lake Worth 37.946 3.036 34.910 0 37.946 Lantana 10.797 374 10.423 24 10.773 Loxahatchee Groves 3.321 141 3.180 0 3.321 Manalaoan 421 15 406 0 421 Maneonia Park 2.033 145 1.888 0 2.033 North Palm Beach 12.574 559 12.015 0 12.574 Ocean Ridee 1.812 26 1.786 0 1.812 Pahokee 5.889 240 5.649 355 5.534 Palm Beach' 8.291 130 8.161 0 8.291 Palm Beach Gardens` 52.591 4.151 48.440 0 52.591 Palm Beach Shores 1.200 58 1.142 0 1.200 Palm Serines 23.250 4.322 18.928 0 23.250 Riviera Beach 35.057 2.569 32.488 0 35.057 Roval Palm Beach 37.485 3.345 34.140 0 37.485 South Bav 5.215 339 4.876 1.934 3.281 South Palm Beach' 1.400 42 1.358 0 1.400 Teouesta 5.731 102 5.629 0 5.731 Weliineton 61.775 5.267 56.508 0 61.775 Westlake"" 5 5 0 0 5 West Palm Beach' 110.396 10.053 100.343 246 110.150 UNINCORPORATED' 618,446 31,014 587,432 339 618,107 "Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida Figure 3.1: PBC Population Estimates as of April 1, 2017 141 • as c E E E E E E EE v c i v a a a a,�' a U U U cp }, � vim, ti y a1 c, G� p cC id cd [� c� cd cd rd V ccs � C] +,� rn' V� N 4J Vi. 'ar •s:+ 'ar 'V '++ 27 'w [/� +:+ +: N 7.. •a=-� C5 �r N N N C •r N 7] G] A] 4l G,7 h1 G] N 6.7 v GJ N 4] N cl�.C\� ;� - ,a =limp . .� ti e� 9 sces (c � i; iCs iG �G �° �' 01 •+' bA CU 'y:+ 4] 'a.+ '+.: 'r:+ 'i:+ 'r:+ •a:+ i:a 47 •a.+ �:+ 'i:+ 'i=+ �-=i--'. OS ��+ •N o p p N + rn rn cn 0 ria ' ('0 I ch 40'+� rn cn rn N v a� v 2 C c� ns as cd ca cd cd ca as ]UU U UU� ;000�a U U a7 GQ U ami F -aa k cd o •4; C.7 � , o � i v .� � �, � r, �" d•OQG�.WGDmm'U❑LJC(J'C�:��ZmZ :--�tiU .7.a .�W —1 po p a 7sz o a;�IP INT �. r. I � 0 � m p z,;aGQ GQ 1 AQ (n [n m A, N �A cCt a2 o a� o- Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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 Safety Department (PSD). The PSD is composed of six (6) divisions: DEM, Animal Care & Control Division, Consumer Affairs Division, 9-1-1 Technical Services Division, Victim Services Division, and 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 (3) 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, PZ&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 (1) 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 Welliield 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 (FD&O). This department is responsible for the development of County buildings including siting, 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 19 municipalities. They include: Belle Glade, Cloud Lake, Glen Ridge, Haverhill, Juno Beach, Jupiter, Lake Clarke 144 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Shores, Lake Park, Lake Worth Beach, Lantana, Loxahatchee Groves, Manalapan, Pahokee, Palm Springs, Royal Palm Beach, South Bay, South Palm Beach, Wellington, and Westlake. The County also provides fire -rescue dispatch service to 13 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 Sheriff's Office (PBSO). Besides their responsibilities for crowd and traffic control during emergency events such as hazardous waste truck spills, the Sheriff's Department is responsible for enforcing PBC's dumping ordinance. Mitigation Policies and Ordinances Policy Plans. The two (2) 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 The 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 (9) required plan elements, as set out in Section 163.3177, F.S. They include: Conservation, Coastal Management, Utilities (i.e., potable 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. 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 language which recognizes, concurs with, and links the County's LMS objectives, processes, and project prioritization criteria with capital 145 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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 Policies 2.4-e and 3.1-c of the Coastal Management Element. By virtue of their intended purpose to mitigate public hazards, projects carried on the LMS Prioritized Project List are considered to meet the County's standards 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 39 municipalities and PBC and be governed by appropriate policies, procedures and/or either interlocal agreements or resolutions. Appendix B Conservation Element: Policy 1.3-e: The County shall pursue 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 shall 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 incorporated to avoid future destruction and loss of life. • Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) The BCC has adopted the CEMP. It is an operations -oriented document that establishes 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 146 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 - Transportation - Workplace/School Violence 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 CEMP, there is extensive language stating the objectives and details of the Local Mitigation Strategy. The mitigation techniques within the two (2) 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 Welliield 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. The County has also made a statement of the importance of hazard mitigation, by incorporating within its Comprehensive Growth Management Plan policy statements regarding the development of a county -wide Local Mitigation Strategy. In addition to its CEMP, there are special hazard plans that apply to unique situations. They address hazards such as coastal 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 147 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 access to buildings by both personnel and apparatus, and whether there is adequate vehicle ingress and egress. The 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/evacuation 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. The code now requires a finished floor elevation at six (6) inches above minimum 100 -year flood level. The County's building code also requires corrosion resistant hurricane clips, water resistant 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." These are buildings/developments that are highly vulnerable to damage during a hurricane. In pre -storm stage, Fire -Rescue personnel identify 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/alarms. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) The function of NFIP 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 NFIP. The 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 NFIP are to: 1. Provide flood insurance coverage not generally available in the private market; 2. Stimulate local floodplain management to guide future development; 148 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 3. Emphasize less costly nonstructural flood control regulatory measures over structural measures; 4. Reduce costs to the federal and state governments by shifting the burden from the general taxpayer to floodplain occupants. The County and its 39 municipalities participate in the NFIP {Appendix 1}. 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 and updated in 2017 are used as the basis for delineating the 100 -year f]oodplain and identifying regulated land. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinances The County's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, covering the unincorporated areas of the County, can be accessed through the DEM's website (http://discover.12bcgov.org/pu bl iesafety/dem/Pub l i cati ons/Flood-Damage-Ordinance-Arti cle- 18.pdf#search=flood%20prevention]. Municipal residents should contact their respective building department officials to determine what requirements are in effect for their jurisdictions. Floodplain Permitting The NFIP 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 most 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 unavoidable. the effects of development must be minimized. The permitting review process is a requirement for continued commtniity participation in the NFIP. Violations can not only jeopardize a coltlntunity'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. Mal) Modernization Program The County is an active participant in the Map Modernization Program. Since September 2000. PBC and its 39 municipalities have been working with FEMA, their contract consultants, local engineering agencies, the SFWMD, and the County's contract consultant in the development ora complete new set of FIRM maps. The data provided to FEMA's contractor included new accurate Light Detection and Ranging (L1DAR) developed elevation data obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and from a PRC contract with Florida International University. 149 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 As of October 5, 2017, that complete set of new FIRM maps for all of PBC has been put into effect. The coordination process established between all of the agencies listed above will continue to 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 CRS for encouraging and recognizing community flood plain management activities that "exceed" these minimum NFIP standards. 'Today more than 900 communities across the nation participate in CRS, including PBC and most of its municipalities. The County joined the CRS program in October of 1991. As an incentive and reward for participation, the Flood insurance rates of residents in CAS communities may be reduced by up to 45% to reflect the reduced flood risk resulting from activities that meet CRS's three (3) 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 (4) 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 (10) 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. CominLill ities are encouraged to improve their class ratings. Property owners residing within a Special Flood Hazard Area, an area subject to the l % chance a year, may qualify for anywhere between 5% and 45% discount. Property owners outside the Special Flood Hazard Area qualify 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 all ongoing basis using information gathered annually r'rom FEMA and state 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 annually 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 C'ommittees, comprised of public and private sector representatives, are encouraged to develop and promote mitigation project ideas and strategies. Table 3.1 outlines the communities involved in the CRS program. All the communities involved in the CRS program have program activities that follow the same strategies. The County's CRS program activities overlap and are inextricably interlinked with the activities of the LMS 150 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 program. While the objectives of the CRS program are many, its key strategic objectives include: 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 affordable 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. Today, a countywide CRS committee's purpose is to provide information to the community and involve the community in mitigation efforts. The countywide CRS Committee has been organized and adopted by PBC as a Program for Public Information. One major effort of this committee has been to encourage countywide participation in the CRS program by providing technical assistance to communities wishing to enter the CRS program, and assisting those communities already 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 Training and Exercise Plan, Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, the Five (5) 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. These 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 presentations 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. 151 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 A representative listing of some of the more significant outreach and education activities includes: • Annual publication of a Hurricane & Flood Survival Guide (3 languages) • Annual Hurricane & Flood Awareness Expo(s) • 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. • Participation in numerous fairs and expos hosted by public and private sector groups • Course 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 County 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 CEMP and relevant Community Rating System documentation. Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMAP) The FMAP is an 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 and state fiends 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. 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. 152 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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 Hazard Vulnerability Analysis Subcommittee, as well as FDEM, is available to offer technical and administrative guidance and assistance to applicants, including assistance with benefit -cost computations. 153 C) N O N tn tn O N O N bA N a3 r. 0 a3 bA cq U O 5, 03 Z., bA O R P-4 TW P FO z P-4 z 0 x 03 72 2 0 w W w a� 03 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 Elevation of New and Substantially Improved Structures Damage to "new" and "substantial[}, improved" floodplain structures is minimized by elevating the lowest floor of occupied areas a specified amount above the 140 -year flood elevation. Substantially improved structures are those where the cost of reconstruction, rehabilitation, additions or other improvements equals or exceeds so% of the building's market value. Substantially improved structures are subject to the same elevation standards as new structures, Check with your local permit office for specific requirements ill 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 ort the requirements for floodplain development, the permitting process and Elevation Certificates can be obtained from your local permit office. Documented Repetitive Losses The County adheres to FEMA's definition of repetitive loss properties, that is, properties whose owners have received payment for more than one (1) claim within a 10 -year period of their Flood insurance policies as recorded by the NF'1P. Table 3.1 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 Colll]]lUllity's residents receive if they participate actively in the CRS program. Appendix H contains repetitive loss properties and evaluates its continued vulnerability to flooding damage. Currently, FEMA records accounted for 337 registered repetitive loss properties within unincorporated PBC and its jurisdictions as of December 31, 2017. 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 PBG L1VIS's goal is to reduce [lie number of repetitive loss properties throughout [Ile 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. The County takes part in various programs to reduce and prevent repetitive losses such as FMA and CRS as demonstrated above. Tlie LMS also has various plans incorporated into it to ensure it correlates with the other objectives throughout the County and its jurisdictions. The LMS is referenced throUglrout the Mitigation section of the Comprehensive Emergency Management Pian as the guiding source for mitigation activities pre and post disasters. Also, the Capital Improvement Plans reflect mitigation objectives to prevent repetitive loss properties. 157 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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 representation on the LMS prioritized project list. Some large-scale drainage improvement projects, perceived to be beyond the threshold for finding 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 drainage 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 Properties The County first submitted project applications for FMAP assistance in 1999. It was not until 2002 that the initial two (2) 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 (2) completed projects have been successful since two (2) properties have been taken off the repetitive loss properties list. Project #1 - Elevation Project The first project involved a home in the unincorporated area of PBC referred to as "The Acreage." The property has amassed four (4) insurance losses since 1988 despite, the fact that the property does not reside in Special Flood Hazard Area. The 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 Project The second FMAP project involved a multiple flood loss property located 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 158 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 deflection wall, creation of swales, and the installation of improved drainage systerns. These measures permit flood water runoff to be redirected around the structure rather than through it. These projects served two important 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 organize and manage their local initiatives. They also provided lessons learned that will be valuable in developing a model for County jurisdictions and residents seeking FMA assistance. 3.1.4.2 Municipalities Within PBC, there are 39 municipalities (see Table 3.1 . There is wide variation among the _jurisdictions in ten -ns of community character. Community character is shaped by factors such as land use mix, density, size of population, and location (e.g., oil 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 cOmmLill ity. Certainly there are hazards that all jurisdictions, regardless of the community character, have concern aver such as flooding, 11tn•ricanes, tornadoes. In agricultural c0111111unities like Pahokee, South Bay and/or Belle Glade, agriculttil'al pests, freezes, and drought are more likely to be of greater concern, while in communities bordering the Atlantic Ocean (e.g„ Ocean Ridge, Palm Beach, and ]upiter), hazards such as beach erosion and shoreline stabilization generate considerable concern among the residents. The information in the section below was reviewed, inserted, and agreed upon by PBC and its participating jurisdictions as a way to demonstrate examples of how mitigation has been incorporated for each jurisdiction -vv ithin the scope of the PBC Unired Local Mitigation Strategy. Figure 3.2 delineates the location, type, community character, economic base, and degree to which each of the participating municipalities within PBC is "bu'slt-out" at the present time. The following defines the headings displayed in the table: • Location Coastal - Municipality borders on the Atlantic Ocean Inland - Municipality does not border on the Atlantic acerin or Lake Okeechobee Lakefront - Municipality borders on Lake Okeechobee Urban/Rural Urban - Area characterized by activities predominantly based on the manufacture, production, distribution, or provision of goods and services in a setting which typically includes residential and nonresidential development LI%CS Other thMur 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 property ■ Community Character Residential - Land use is primarily for housing Retirement -Land use is primarily far adult /lousing com311unities 159 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Working - Land use is primarily connected with the sale, rental, and distribution of products or performance of services • Percent Built Out • Economic Base Agricultural - 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, rental, 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 Residential/Retirement - 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 functional responsibility. A city like West Palm Beach (population — 110,396) 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 finctional responsibilities. Emergency Management. Emergency management responsibilities generally fall within the purview of public safety, fire, and/or police departments. West Palm Beach is one of the few municipalities that have a staff person 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 chief) 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 staffs, 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 departments 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 (1) municipal government, the County Building Division reviews and issues their permits. The -community 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 equal or more stringent than the "base" version of the Code; 160 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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 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 Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs). Fire Departments. While many cities contract with the PBC Fire Rescue Department, there are others that operate their own fire -rescue departments. In some instances, 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 eight (8) plan elements: Conservation, Infrastructure (i.e., potable 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, are in the Conservation, Coastal Management, and Infrastructure elements. • Local Emergency Management Plans 161 Local Mitigation Strategy 12015 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 hazard mitigation. Ordinances and Other Plans. Other types of ordinances and plans municipalities that have adopted that are relevant to hazard mitigation include: • Incorporating the 2017 Florida Building Code (6" edition) 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 CRS program (currently 29 out of 39 local governments are CRS qualified) • Emergency Water Restriction ordinances • Stormwater Master Plan • Repetitive Loss Area Analysis • Flood Damage Prevention and Protection Ordinance • Adoption of FDEM Model Floodplain Ordinance which 1) eliminates the possibility of having conflicting or duplicative regulations for buildings, 2) keeps local programs consistent with the Florida Building Code even when it changes over time, and 3) incorporates clarifying language from FEMA guidance documents to address problems DEM has observed in the field. 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 what 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 • Installing a radio telemetry monitoring system for public utilities • Sirens/loudspeaker warning system used for severe storms/lightning 162 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015 Codes/Ordinance Amendments. Many municipalities incorporated the Florida Building Code 2017 (6th 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 • Establishing increased freeboard of one (1) to two (2) feet above the Base Flood Elevation in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) • Addition of a specified accumulation of modification and repair costs (i.e. 5 years) for substantially damaged or substantially improved structures in the SFHAs. • 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 Training. Tiventy-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 and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 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 • Annual state hurricane conference training sessions • Natural hazards mitigation and recovery • Yearly conference of National Fire Protection Association • Yearly conference of Building Officials Association of Florida • Training sessions with Federal Emergency Management Agency • Building Inspector courses on topics like hurricane resistant structural design, roofing updates, wood construction, and fire resistance and egress Preparedness Training. Fourteen (14) local governments reported that they conduct preparedness training and drills for emergency situations. They carry out hurricane exercises and 163 Local Mitigation Strategy 12015 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 and Community Emergency Response Team • Discussions with residents about hurricane preparedness • Hurricane preparation video shown on city cable station • StormWatch, a preparedness series on the County Cable TV channel produced by DEM • 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 • Everbridge or a similar system which automatically dials and plays recorded information regarding imminent emergencies, as well as sending out blast text messages to subscribers of the service. • City newsletter and County's "LMS Times" mitigation newsletter • Various social media outlets 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 organizations, and the private sector, but also vertically with key state and federal agencies. Besides the potential of the LMS initiative, there are several other coordination mechanisms that already exist. They are described briefly below. 164 Local Mitigation Strategy 12415 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., five (5) representatives of the BCC. 13 representatives from the municipalities), and one (1) non-voting member (i.e., Secretary of the Florida Department of Transportation, District 1V). Two key policy documents of the MPO are the long-range transportation plan, and the five-year transportation improvement plan (TIP). The TIP identi fies 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 Management Plan The County's CEMP, as described in the section titled Mitigation 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 The LEPC is an important vehicle to coordinate administering regional compliance with hazardous 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 coordinntion 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 (3) sections. The Basic Plan: Outlines how the state will assist counties in response. recovery, and mitigation of disasters: details I-espansibility at various levels of government; describes method of operations and financial management policies: ensures continuity of government; and addresses recovery issues. 165 Local Mitigation Strategy 12015 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 State's strategies for disaster response by outlining ESF. ESF's are structured from the Federal 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 adequate 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. • 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 The forum has been established through a resolution/interlocal agreement. The primary goal of this entity is to establish a mechanism that will provide a means 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 taken by the Executive Committee. All members of this forum must be participants in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Coordinated Review Interlocal Agreement. Emergency Management (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 bi-monthly. Meeting notices of related interest and other information are distributed in advance of the scheduled meeting date. Members of EM Team benefit by: 166 Local Mitigation Strategy 12015 • Receiving the latest information from federal, state, and local levels of government concerning all issues relating to comprehensive emergency management; • Strengthening ties and sharing 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 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 • Business Loan Funds of the Palm Beaches • Florida Light & Power Company • Palm Beach State College • Florida Insurance Council • Black Business Investment, Inc. • Brown Distributing • Home Depot • Tourist Development Board • Motorola • Farm Bureau West • Port of Palm Beach • Palm Beach County Purchasing Department • Delray Beach Chamber of Commerce 167 • Delray Beach Community Development Agency • WPBF Channel 25 • PBC Information System Services Department • The Boynton Beach Mall • Palm Beach County Economic Office • Fidelity Federal of the Palm Beaches • Poe & Brown, Inc • The Northern Palm Beach Chamber of Commerce • Small Business Bank • SLlntrUst Bank • Marine Industries Association of Palm Beach County, Inc • Pratt & Whitney • Bank Atlantic Local Mitigation Strategy 12015 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 (4) key objectives were addressed: Obiective 1 Establish improve intergovernmental and private sector coordination. Objective 2 Refine the hazard and vulnerability analysis for the economic sector. Objective 3 Evaluate local available resources, idents gaps, and develop appropriate finding mechanisms and strategies to fill any gaps. Obleclive 4 Create a public education program focusing on educating the business community to be prepared for disasters and able to recover quickly. 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 intergovernmental and private sector coordination. Three (3) tasks related to this objective represent the beginning points for an ongoing, long-range program to improve intergovernmental and private sector collaboration, coordination and relations. Task 1 Prepare a comprehensive vendor list and inventories of equipment and supplies. The primary thrust of this task was to create a system whereby businesses victimized by disasters could access vendors and suppliers to procure goods and services necessary to rebuild and resume normal business operations. 168 Local Mitigation Strategy 12015 Early in the project, the Economic Development Specialist met with the purchasing staff of several County and municipal agencies relative to the characteristics of their databases and their potential suitability for business disaster applications. With the assistance 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 database, 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 databases. 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 comprehensive list of needs for emergency contracts and agreements, and secure sources for items needed by the response community 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. 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 chambers 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 sector. The LMS definition (as described earlier) of critical facilities includes several economic sector facilities, notably nursing and convalescent centers, and public communication facilities in what are designated as primary critical facilities, and financial institutions, pharmacies, 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 Appraiser's office completes the automated inventory 169 Local Mitigation Strategy 12015 conversion of commercial and industrial properties into an ArcView database, secondary critical facility information will be merged with the database file. The vulnerability of the business community to potential disasters was analyzed. Mapping and tabular products were developed that may be used by commercial/industrial 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 database 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 finding mechanisms and strategies tofill 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. • 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 purchased 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 corporate 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 Impact and the City of Deerfield Beach's Operation Open for Business. 170 Local Mitigation Strategy 12015 3.2.2.4 0f jective 4: Creme ra public education program facarsing on educating the hrtsiness community to he prepared _for a disaster and rahle to recover quickly. Two (2) 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 i Train Chamber of Cointzei-ce .sl(i anel the business crlllil wnil)j During the course of the project, staff members 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 a]I business losses • Distribution of specially designed BARR pamphlets and business cards ■ "Business' location on the County's Emergency Management web site • 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 presentations raising the business community's awareness of preparedness issues and options. These efforts will continue. Task 2 Develop ci 117"itlen hiesiness Coi7lTl9£,'�'19C�' planning guide, It was reasoned that preparation and distribution of a business contingency planning workbook and a business contingency plan template would be practical 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 tailored to their specific needs, More information regarding business survival and recovery can be found on DEM's website at http://di scoyer.12bcgo v.orgZpu bl icsafety/dein/HurricanePl an n iiig/Protecting-Bu s i ness.aspx. 171 Local Mitigation Strategy 12015 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 -resistant 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 training augmented. Ideas were generated 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: 1. Projects on the LMS PPL should be incorporated in local government comprehensive plans, capital 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 pennitted under Section 163.3177 (7) (h) & (1), F.S., local governments could incorporate optional comprehensive plan element for public safety, or a hazard mitigation/post-disaster redevelopment plan; Integrate the LMS into the PBC CEMP as appropriate and within the state specified guidelines. 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. 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 coordination 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 continue ongoing funding and staffing for the continuation of LMS. 10. Recommend emergency building permit procedures to local authorities and jurisdictions. 172 Local Mitigation Strategy 12015 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. Develop and disseminate multi -media outreach program countywide which will support the goals of LMS. 173 Local Mitigation Strategy 12015 This page intentionally left blank 174 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 SECTION 4: PROCEDURES 4.1 Project Prioritization Methodology This section satisfies, in part, the following FEMA requirements: 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. Requirement: §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy] must also address the jurisdiction's participation in the NFIP, and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate. 4.1.1 Development and Rationale As the Goals and Objectives of the LMS were reviewed by the Working Group, Steering Committee, and specifically the Revisions Committee in 2018, it was determined that our priorities have slightly changed over the recent years. The only relatively recent hazard which is getting more attention in project development is projects related to Sea Level Rise. Our 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. The County established a scoring procedure when the plan was first written in 1999. The scoring procedure is detailed below along with examples in Appendix 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 175 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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 Appendix E. In addition, Appendix F is a list of potential funding sources for mitigation projects. There have been no changes in priorities in the evaluation process since the last LMS update. 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: • 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. • They 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 individual 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. • They must be functional and tied to real-world considerations such as competitive grant funding requirements. The 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. • They must be simple, easily understood, and relatively easy to apply. Many potential mitigation projects will have to be prioritized by the LMS Steering Committee or some subset thereof. This means that individual committee members will be scoring many projects. These individuals must be able to work through the project scoring process relatively rapidly for each project they evaluate. • They must be individually 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 detail as possible to eliminate arbitrary variation in how various individuals might score the same category. The prioritization process will be an ongoing 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: 176 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 • 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 COM mLin ity? ■ Community Commitment 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. • Project Implementation Is this project technically, financially, and legally feasible? Basically this overarching requirement addresses the ease with which a project can he implemented. How easily can required permits be obtained? What is the time frame for accomplishing this project's goals? Are there any technical problems that most be overcome to implement this project? The rationale for each scoring criterion on the Project/Initiative Evaluation Score Sheet, 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 Community Benefit — What benefit does the community derive from this effort? How and to what extent does this mitigation project benefit the citizens of a community? Mitigation Benefit Points Awarded (maximum of 5 Dania a Reduction 5 Mapping and Regulatory 4 Preparedness Against Hazard 3 Public Information 2 ether 1 4.1.2.2 Project Benefit - Does the project address critical elements of the community infrastructure'? 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. 177 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 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 ten (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 eight (S) points under this criterion. Secondary critical facilities are defined as, "Facilities that will be critical for community recovery and restoration of services." Projects that lielp protect these types of facilities will be awarded six (6) points. 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 four (4) points under this criterion. Residential structures are defined as private homes. Projects protecting these types of property will be awarded two (2) points under this criterion. Project Benefit Points Awarded (maximum of 10) Primary Critical Facilities 10 8 -Storrilwater/flooding Secondary critical facilities 6 Public Convenience facilities 4 Residential Structures 2 4.1.3 Community Exposure 4.1.3.1 Does the project mitigate 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 catastrophic 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 Far possible nuclear power plant meltdown by providing lead liner[ 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 library, 179 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 Data for this evaluation will come from the 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 hurricanes. 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 evaluated in weighing the merits of one mitigation project against another. Specific guidelines for assigning points under this evaluation criterion are as follows: Community Exposure # of People or $ Value of Property Frequency or Risk of Occurrence Points Awarded (maximum of 10) High High 10 Points Moderate High 8 Points Low High 5 Points High Moderate 9 Points Moderate Moderate 7 Points Low Moderate 4 Points High Low 5 Points Moderate Low 2 Points 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 formula: (Loss Exposure ($) Before Project - Loss Exposure ($) Atter 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 Benefit/Cost Ratio is an absolute requirement for FEMA funding, it should be a primary consideration in evaluating any mitigation idea. For this reason, it is the single most highly valued component of the project prioritization criteria. 179 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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 evaluation 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 formula above is derived from that publication. It was developed to allow administrators to rapidly screen potential mitigation projects in a three (3) step process: Screen the project by reviewing the application data; Conduct a quick Benefit/Cost analysis; and If the quick analysis yields a Benefit/Cost Ratio greater than one (1), continue processing the application; or If the Benefit/Cost 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 Benefit/Cost ratio of 3.15. The entire formula must be used in the submission in order to obtain maximum credit. The community is also considering raising the floor of this library building by two (2) feet 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 = 1.02 180 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 The benefit/cost 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 Benefit/Cost 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: Benefit/Cost Ratio Points (maximum of 20) 4.0 or greater 20 Points 3.0 to 3.9 16 Points 2.0 to 2.9 12 Points 1.0 to 1.9 8 Points <1.0 0 Points 4.1.5 Area Benefit 4.1.5.1 How many people stand to benefit from the project implementation? Area Benefit Points maximum of 5 Multiple Jurisdictions 5 Points CornrilLinity 3 Points Neighborhood 1 Point 4.1.6 Project Implementation 4.1.6.1 Contained Within the Existing Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (CGMP)--Is the project or initiative consistent with or incorporated ill the existing Comprehensive Growth Management Plan? Contained Within the Existing Points Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (maximum of 10) CGMP Contained within a specific Policy/Plan 10 Points Contained in "Goal" with proposed Policy/ 8 Points amendment Contained within a broad "Goal" 5 Points :JET Local Mitigation Strategy [ 2020 Contained in a proposed amendment 3 Points Not in conflict with the CGMP 1 Point 4.1.6.2 Contained Within an Existing Emergency Management Plan or Other Functional Plan Developed by an Official 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 pians 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. Contained within an Existing Emergency Management Plan (or other functionalplan) Points (maximum of 20) Officially adopted 10 Points Proposed/Not officially adopted 6 Points Not in conflict with any plan 2 Points 4.1.6.3 Consistency with Existing Regulatory Framework - is the project consistent with existing legal and regulatory and environmental/cultural framework? Does the proposed project require any changes or waivers in existing building, zoning, or environmental statutes or ordinances? If changes or waivers are required, there w i I l 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 five (S) points. Projects which are in conflict with some aspect of the existing regulatory framework will receive lower point scores depending upon the scriouslIess and numbers of regulatory barriers to be overcome in implementing the proposed project. 182 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 Consistency with Regulatory Framework Points maximum of 5 No regulatory issues 5 Points Local issues 4 Points Regional 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 problem? 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. Subsection b (above) can be letters from affected citizens, minutes from a public meeting in which members of the public request something be done to mitigate an ongoing issue (of which the project was developed), etc. If so, award five (5) points. 4.1.7.2 Funding Availability - Is there a f finding source currently available for this particular project? Ten (10) 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: Funding Availability Points (maxima n of 10) Funds available now 10 Points Available in 1. year 8 Points Available in 2 years G Points Available in 3 years 4 Points Available in 4 years 2 Points Available in 5 ears+ 1 Point Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 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: Matching Funds/In-Kind Services Points maximum of 5 Match of 50% or more 5 Points 40 to 49% 4 Points 30 to 39 % 3 Points 20 to 29 % 2 Points 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. Timeframe for Accomplishing Objectives Points maximum of 5 1 Year 5 Points 2 Years 4 Points 3 Years 3 Points 4 Years 2 Points 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 111Ltc11 of the critical information required for scoring as possible when they submit their projects. To help with this the attached Mitigation Project Proposal Form has been developed. Appendix i contains four (4) examples showing how this scaring process is applied in ranking proposed mitigation projects. 4.2 Tie -Break Procedure In the case of tie scores, three (3) questions may be applied. 184 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Ties decided by #1 will be so ranked: remaining ties not broken with question #1 will have question #2 applied. Ties decided by question 42 will be so ranked; remaining ties not broken will have question 93 applied. Ties decided by question #3 will be so ranked; remaining ties not broken with question 43 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 frequently occurring hazard? 4.3 LMS Evaluation Panel The LMS Evaluation Panel is responsible for reviewing and scoring proposed projects submitted to the LMS as a basis for prioritization. Panelists are solicited by the LMS Coordinator on behalf of the LMS Steering Committee based on LMS member recommendations and are subject to approval by the LMS 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 are expected to exercise objectivity and independent judgment in their evaluations and scoring. The LMS Evaluation Panel members will notify the LMS Coordinator and recuse themselves from evaluating any projects submitted by their own agency, or any agency they may have been employed by in the past. This is to eliminate any potential conflict of interest or bias either in favor of, or to the detriment of any project submission that may be on the agenda for evaluation. In such cases, an alternate evaluator, usually the LMS Coordinator or DEM Planning Manager, will evaluate those projects on a case-by-case basis. 4.3.1 Eligibility for Federal Funding In order to be deemed eligible for federal monies projects must: Produce a Benefit Cost Analysis ratio greater than one (1), and Meet additional program requirements, including being judged to be "environmentally sound" and "technically feasible." Federal funding may require additional applications or supporting documents which will be requested based upon each individual federal program. 185 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 The LMS Coordinator from the County's Division of Emergency Management staff serves on the LMS Evaluation Panel. They will serve as an alternate evaluator for potential conflicts as well as in the place of any primary evaluator who may be sick or unavailable for scoring during an evaluation period. Also, any employee of the Division of Emergency Management may be called upon to act as an alternate evaluator if one is not available at the time of project scoring or if there are multiple primary evaluators who have conflicts on a project. 4.4 Project Prioritization Updating Process STEP 1 Each year after the Spring and Fall Submission/Evaluation period, the existing countywide PPL will be updated. The approved PPL will be in effect until a new PPL has been adopted by the PBC LMS Steering Committee. The County's DEM staff will activate the update process by notifying all LMS members of the beginning and ending dates for the submission period, and by notifying all LMS Evaluation Panel members that the PPL ranking process is being initiated, along with deadlines for submitting projects and evaluating projects. Everyone will be reminded where to locate the project submission forms in the DEM electronic LMS project tracking system, and provided with a guidance document explaining each requested item on the submission form. 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 must be submitted electronically before the published deadline in the original notification. For a project/initiative to be considered, online proposal forms must be filled out completely. The contact person and phone number listed on the online proposal form will serve as the official point -of -contact for the applicant. As these Federal grants are awarded only to governmental and private non -profits primarily, if a private citizen within a jurisdiction has a viable and eligible project, it will be up to the jurisdiction to sponsor the project and complete all necessary submissions, applications, and monitoring of awards to remain complaint with current guidelines. A private citizen cannot be an applicant for these funds, but must remain a subapplicant, with the jurisdiction being the applicant and retaining responsibility for all required documentation. 186 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Once per year, 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 after each submission/evaluation period. STEP 2 Once the proposals have been received, DEM staff will review each proposal for completeness. DEM staff will then notify the LMS Evaluation Panel of which projects they do not feel are completed, and the evaluation panel will decide whether to go ahead and score the project, or to reject the project and have the DEM staff member notify the submitting party via email that their project was rejected by the evaluation panel for being incomplete and will not be eligible for inclusion on the PPL during this cycle, while encouraging them to resubmit their proposal during the next submission/evaluation period. STEP 3 DEM staff will notify LMS Evaluation Panel members that all projects have been submitted, and are ready on the online platform for them to begin scoring. STEP 4 Each LMS Evaluation Panel member will score all proposals in the online platform. Each member will notify the LMS Coordinator via email when they have completed scoring all projects during the evaluation period, but no later than the last day of the period given to them by DEM staff when they were first notified that the submission/evaluation period had been initiated. In the unlikely event that the online platform malfunctions or will not accept the evaluator's scores, a paper form will be distributed to the affected evaluator to complete the scoring process and email back to the LMS Coordinator. STEP 5 DEM staff will re -check the average attribute scores for each project received from each LMS Evaluation Panel member in the online platform. This will be provided to the Evaluation Panel members at their meeting. STEP 6 The LMS Evaluation Panel Meeting is open to the public or proposers if they choose to attend and would like to see the scoring process, however, the evaluators will only evaluate the project proposals based on what was provided in the application. STEP 7 The LMS Evaluation Panel will hold a meeting to review/finalize all scores and create the Draft PPL. A quorum of the LMS 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 data, questions regarding project feasibility, and project tie -breakers (see Project Tie -Break Procedure). Before the meeting concludes, a vote will 187 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 be conducted to approve the "new" Draft PPL. DEM staff will provide a copy of the approved "new" Draft PPL to the LMS Steering Committee for approval. STEP 8 DEM staff will schedule a meeting of the LMS Steering Committee. One (1) week in advance of the scheduled meeting, the "new" Draft PPL will be distributed to the LMS Steering Committee membership. STEP 9 At the scheduled LMS 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 LMS Steering Committee as UNRANKED projects. Prior to the PPL adoption vote, such projects will be presented for consideration. The LMS 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 LMS 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 LMS Evaluation 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 Resolution Procedures 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. 188 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 The Subcommittee will be comprised of three (3) people: one (1) member of the Subcommittee will be appointed by the LMS Steering Committee Chair, a second person will come from the Division of Emergency Management and be selected by the Director, and a third member will be someone drawn from the LMS Steering Committee who has been selected by mutual agreement of the LMS Steering Committee chair and the Director of DEM (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 LMS Steering Committee. The vote of the LMS Steering Committee would be binding. Other DEM staff shall provide support to the committee. 4.5.2 Procedure The following provides a detailed, 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. The 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. STEP 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 staff 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 party. 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 LMS Steering Committee Chair and DEM Director to select individuals to serve on the LMS Conflict Resolution Subcommittee (an ad hoc 189 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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 of the LMS Steering Committee are eligible to serve on the Subcommittee. STEP 4 Within 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. STEP 6 In an effort to expedite the process, DEM staff will make every attempt to schedule the meeting within two (2) calendar weeks from the date 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. STEP 8 If resolution is achieved, DEM staff will prepare a memorandum documenting the issue and the mutually agreed upon resolution. The memorandum will contain three (3) signature blocks, one (1) for the Chair of the Subcommittee and two (2) 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 and 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 If the impasse is not resolved at the Subcommittee level, DEM will schedule a meeting of the frill LMS 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 date and time. STEP 11 A meeting of the LMS Steering Committee is held. The representative of each disputing party will present their positions and the Chair of the Subcommittee will present the views 190 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 of LMS Conflict Resolution Subcommittee. At the end of the meeting, if no mutually acceptable compromise is achieved, the LMS Steering Committee will vote to accept one (1) solution from among the offered solutions or those that may develop at this special LMS Steering Committee meeting. This resolution vote of the LMS 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 LMS Steering Committee Chair. Thereafter, a disputing party can exercise the legal remedy of going to court. 191 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 This page intentionally left blank 192 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 ACRONYMS BCC Board of County Commissioners CDC Centers for Disease Control CEI Climate Extremes Index CEMP Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan C -MAN 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 EOC 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 FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps FMAP Flood Mitigation Assistance Program GCRI Greenhouse Climate Response Index GIS Geographic Information System HHD Herbert Hoover Dike HLB Huanglongbing disease HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 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 MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NGO Non -Governmental Organization NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum NOAA National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration NWS National Weather Service PAPA Property Appraisers Database PPL Project Prioritization List PZ&B Department of Planning, Zoning, & Building SARS Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area SFWMD South Florida Water Management District SHMP State Hazard Mitigation Plan TCRPC Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council WFO NWS Weather Forecast Office 193 APPENDICES R&IM Palm Beach County Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 Contents Appendix A: Risk & Vulnerability Analyses Data 3 'Fable A-3.1: Risk Assessment by Hazard and Vulnerability to 15 People, Property, Environment, and Government Operations 15 Table A-4: Impact Analysis 19 Appendix B: Countywide Mitigation Initiatives 39 B-1: I'BC Initiatives 40 Appendix C. incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms 43 Appendix D: Public Involvement in the LMS Planning Process 46 Appendix E: Prioritized Project Lists 75 Appendix F: Funding and Data Sources 92 Appendix G: Hazard & Risk Assessment Maps 95 Appendix 1-1: Repetitive Loss Properties 1 I ] Appendix I: Project Scoring Examples 131 Appendix 3: NFIP and CRS Stratus and Activities 141 Action Plan and Recommendations 161 Appendix K: Mitigation Assessment Teams (MATS) 167 Appendix L: LMS Coordination and Documentation (Separate Appendix due to large volume ofineeting minutes and sign -in sheets) 174 Appendix M: Critical Facilities (separate Appendix due to being exen-ipt From disclosure pursuant to Florida Statute § 119.071(3)). 170 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 This page intentionally left blank Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 Appendix A: Risk & Vulnerability Analyses Data The risk and vulnerability data presented in this Appendix addresses, in part, 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)(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. 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 occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events. Requirement §201.6(e)(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. 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, vulnerability 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, by local government Table A-2: Relative Probability of Hazards, by local government Table A-3: Risk Assessment by Hazard by Jurisdiction Table A-3.1: Risk Assessment by Hazard and Vulnerability to People, Property, Environment, and Government Operations Table A-4: PBC Impact Analysis Table A-5: Data sources used for the Palm Beach County Hazard Vulnerability and Risk Assessment -t goeag m[Bd >SaM :9 a > .. DIB[[SaM x x _a z�2 2 2 .a a > > i[ol uq[aM = . > > gauag[ uqud gmog > > > {Bg ][;nos -j I a.. . x � > � qmg ugBd pgo7g .a ] a > .j > > > goBag BJalAI-d .j j .a 7 > �+ PZ salgS gneag iu[sd c a > > > > suap ug go$ag iuwu[sd .a > > q''paQ ugBd > >1 = 7 2 aaxollud a Z Z Z Z> > aSpm uBaap .� xC� a > > > > X ij,,wag tu[Bd gl.roN X � . 7 �r.. ..] ....] > r� err J lm ulmew > > > > > x, > 7 sano]r7 aa][oIBE[nxrrl P.UElU6'[ > 1 > > LIVOAN 0191 .a > > > > > ], ;Z Vud aNul x .1 .� > > .a > S sa]ol{s DIJBIZ) aKB-I r uoioj laInl Bali nr .� :5 > > > > > x jalidnr . ] > > gouag ounr a S > x J X oxnjod4H �7 .a > > > > > yoeag plreJz[SM �] > > > > [[!l[IaneH a a > > a > > > 7 u111alis J[l'9 > > saaoumaa!) > > > 1 > > X �� J[oD 3 PM 11319 jr� � .j > Aping Ed[ao i", w] ..a > > w l v; PuoF9 1 .� > > > > z '. sa'DWE dufag ] a > > > x x �"' g:1Ba£f uoluXag ."� .a .� > f r LIMA BOOB x � � � .a � � > > 5 apu[J a[[ag _a a Z > > — > > jnf1O;] 11a]B.lil .IO�lll [C N❑ CG +N+ C N ❑ a� C7. � ❑ c3 'a � p V �_ ,:, -ti � � ;? • � ' oh � U � y: 4" a"si cu a � E � rJiN� h r `. W-. I--' U] 'ten ❑ Lu Q "a N r a y -t C) \ _ : 7 tn m k = = I 4 2 2 2 > > * 2 2 2 Q Q = 2 ;> > 2 » » 2 > > 2 2 2 Q 2 a a= > 2 2 Q > _ > > = 2 a = 7 > $ > > 2 a a » 2 > » > 2 Q > Q > > a = > > > 2 k _> 2 2 2 2> > 2 > > > > a > 2 > 2 _ > I = > > 2 » > > > > Q > > = I > 2 » > Q > 2 2 = > » Q = > 2 > _ > > > » > » k 2 2 2 » Q= = 2 2 I a> Q Q 4 Q 2 k m Q> a Q 2 2 2> = a Q 2 2 > > > » 2 ° 2 w > > _ > > » 2 ^ > Q Q >> c >> > ? > > > > _ > > I > 4 > > >2 w w _ >> > 2 Q = 2 Q > > 2 Q 4 = m = >> > 2 2 = 2 2 a m» > 2 4 I > > > > 2 > > > > Q > > > 2 2 = 2 3 = 2 > » _ > 2 = > > 2 4 a > _ > > > 2 jƒ § \ ■g g A% \ka ®•�� @ S 2 �6 a 3 �` ■ 2 ja§�7� 2 §§ k § § � 2 $ »§\ /�/) A\\ _ : 7 tn C) (V Q Cq �. ugnd ax DSOAk 2 x 1 x a , 7 i -� ;� 17 x x r -I J 7 7 uDl'2u111aN �F ulsanNU : z a ' ' y 7 7 -� x x a a .a 7 x 7 -} wind ginos x fug} ginog x x i x x x a 7 > -� uilud [u °�f a x .a 7 a > > ' -� E[MOU x x -a —4 x 7 s uis g wlud a x a .a y > ' -� PlUOU wlud x x Y] x i 7 7 7 > ' .a gonag wind x x -a a J J 7 ;> -� ilonaf} wind x ]C r x .a > x x > -� aailvi}nd x ]7 x > -j 7 7 03p. d unaao x x x 7 > ' 7 x 7 > rulnd guom x x a 7 7 7 -a > J ' .� aagalnElexoZ > > euE3luu j x 7 ] w1 ra 7 7 7 > .a guOM o f ]C x x 7 ' .a 7 7 7 Kwd DWI x x a x 7 7 � > ' ' .a DARK) DWI 7 > 7 lalu} rale[ o f x x a x 7 7 ' > x 7 > -a .[al;dn f x x x x c > w > ; x > > a gouaq oun f > ;> 7 , 2. , > .a oxnIo 1-1 > ' 7 > ' 7 .a Il[y�aAPi 1 x a x .a a a .a > > .a uivaals 3[ng > 7 7 > > sasonuaa�r� .a `.0 .a ' 7 > J T > 7 > r j a p'.�i ual .a x a Ma > 7 7 > ' a gasa�} ugaa x x .a x a a .a > > .a x a > 7 > > > > .a 01131 pnol") r saaaa�>} uita x -a x 7 > 7 7 :2 > 7 a :.7 S a .a x x x a �a 7 7 w > 7 7 > 7 > -� .� aPulJ 3llaf1 siu,ally pa}r..�o aoan�nfl� -- x x x x x x x r 7 7 .� e2 � v ��7r. V b � C •�. � O � � W � y � � � � N' o c� o a , x a m nn D x ,, ¢ °a a 3 N o y C�3' S 'a3 CA N a. 7o �. 0 N N a gauDg "nd isaM X x > :i X ]C m i 'i .a a4ulisar,& a .a > a 2 a > > ,.a a uol uIllOAk �g n > > e > > > .] uisanba.L > .a > , .a > a > > -a r[aeag oiled glno$ .� .a > a > x a > > 7 ern Fl ginog goeag ugnd In og .� .� > .a a a > > > .a gvnag ezaintg> to a .a .) .a s ulz s uged .a > > > > ,a > > > swoils E[OH ugnd > > > a > > > > .a suapnE) gaeag uged .a .a > goeag utlud > > aaKoged .a > > -� a$p!2I En aap > > > > > a > > a a gaea£I mind guom > > a .a K.n:d eluo'Amw > a e .a > > .a mdulnueW > > > .a > > > sanoID aagaingexo-I > .a a > > e[[elun-I > > > a a > a > > > i[aeau gizoM ZV I � .� > lied a'[S l a .� 7 a .a a > > -a saivy5 01319D 04u7 > > > a > a > > > a uolo� la[UI aalr of > > 7 a > > > > aaiidnf .a a > gaeag ounf > > a > > oxn[o H > > > .a > > .a > > a -a gaeati > > > .a > > 7 7 [[n[Iannl-I > > > a > .a > > > a muajis3ln9 > > > > > a > > a a sasauuaaJ[) > > .a a > a a a > > > > > a a 3109 > > > .a > > a2pi�I fra[9 a a > .a a a .> > > > a :r aIn"I POD > 7 > a a > > > > 7 sa7aaag datag > > > > > a > > a a .j C gaeog [[olu, og > ^ U Uolu}I eaog �' > ORO > > > x a > S shoofly > > > ra YOunoo pa}iaaodaoauiun to £, w eY O N IE y � � G V i� '� E'� N a N � � 'SLS" _n `c� � �J ❑ C' � N p _� � Cj 7 � 3a4 w 5 •yam• .[�,� xi 2 fl � �, � � x ani y � a m � p O vi y O m .SC a C) N O N gasaq ruled 1s'OAk x= = _x x x a a gaeag uilu j glnog ABU LIJILUS .4 eaaini2l t[aeaESaIDLIS qoupg 43183H uged t[ 5:7.1C7d[) ONJO1LLlE:.�'O' qll� ` x x x x x x x z � a� a z • uo[n7 ialul .r71tc tnf uxiti .a x Ilnlsane]-I o PR[ gaua�l xPup(I M: _ 11011321 .S c � W �una�) palp.ind.�oaulu;] i � L � � � rrII �, O' 7C �, Sl C ❑ N N O y V1 y "1 asp v W fL� r4 r; i ti] i C> 7 2 2 �.....� =$= Q 3 2 Q 2 = 2 2 Q= Q= 2 2 Q 2 2 2 Q Q Q Q Q= Q 2 2 2 Q= I Q 2 2 4 2 2 2 - 2 2 Q$$ Q 2 2 Q y I 2 2 4 2 2 2 X 7 Q 2 = �s > X} Q 2 2 Q 2 2 Q 2 = \ � & w I ƒ 0 O gJUDU ua[ed lsaA\ ulsanbaZ puaq uqud glnag AvU glnoS T T a s a s a a gosaII luted l AOA gaeal l eaainQl slaullcis ullud a a a a a a a a T a Saang$ gasaQ uged a a sn apse goea[Z utlud 110eaQ uged a .a a s -3 gauag luted gluoN a s a a .a a a a s x T 1 Kmd ei1[o3IEWW mde[eEmpq san019 aagolBllexo•I PROU 1[uoM oKLlI Ilud OV SasogS 03NI1e1D a$g'[ XEioloD la[ul joildnr aalidnf gouq[ ounr a s a a a a a a a a X x goeog punlg$IlI.1 .a 7 a 1 �] ,.7 a .a i� T a llfgaanl:ll u:L3alS3lnf) salaenae.ir� a s a a a a a a a a a s .a a � 3100 a s a .a l a _j a a a a gaeag Kloilaq ale'I P1101D .�. t[ona uoluXog ^_ 110jull Lao£l 5 sill[LIIV a s a a a a a .� a a .a .a s �]llRl1 � pa]Y..1 [li[.Ill7l1[i[iI j � -� � a • Lj ? 7 �" y iCC. X. Nom• � y N � y d '.fid M Q 44 W j3. >fs., k' t/im+ > tLa rI] �. 75.] �3.. a N N a �a a Ind [p'7 j[ .rc• tjasaQ atainr�q 4 a �] ..7 .a � � � � .a � a .a � a . alb, milledsuo ple u[F.d ;. a pili usaap ucculamh !a a 2>F. ISM axe? ' a a a s a a z a a a a ON IIJOCIAI a a a a .a 2 M a a a szvaalu Allutl a Pq,)w; q uolu21 t:aofl a .a Ad .a .a a❑i .a .] .� a � •C "O a a ..4 a s s u ++ junoLy palruo aoamufl � •L � E +°; V eLa epi �' ❑ m a 6 7 c� 7 w v 7 w st 7 ;:2w ua N queaFl UIN ISIML tpuoil '` 1pugu Lnlpd IV - WA q�Pafl P13IAIi1 a a a a �oupu�, MINI SoAoLl, qopqj Lulea tionil UJI2d a tpulEf ` a a a a a a a a O-apI C a s a s lOu LLlIP.d WON !• G ,G U Pllnm IN �r r .� �] a �1 a� �1 .14DAUJIJ Dati011"CrMUT a a a a I.Ivd 00-1 a a a a n ! pI!.NI ( LII a a a lutalIS 31( .11;7 • = 1 L 1. .a � � � .� � � � a � � � .a a a a 1r'j ptl%-) sazaal�[ , u!JO J f1' 0 ,� lunaj pajPao .rnairtup .a 0 •� U d C � rz N J 4'mnu Lult"] lsam I aa lj-w )g ull •d [p i32C ilaeafl zrlaint2C -a a .� .j a �a .� , a a � d "0101[g q5blFI n=I 'l •a ,� a a aaa , SSI Ll. L fl n=I ,23 L Llai:aEl called =I I�! _d LIMOBIMIN a s a a a_Armin a IL'Bd OIL -1 cnT pia, . q Bali n[ LI7e:)fl l)liitills Il I liiq.lanel.l ulLa.11, jjn MOD DW!N UaIDtjOt3 a a a a -41a -- ----------- s c, ', � f l ^ a � azaaxfj nuia£l LpeaEl 110JUALoil P ra w d mind ILmu,y palY.io .nanm;] a D Q a . t .�1 ] a t� L � � C ' •� 7. 0 y 71 ry .41 b 3 y w N vQ' � yPj 4 N v' � a � i t6 � x � ❑ P 7 � O ❑ G `. LL. > w x rb 1pleag Uilu'l Isom � I. -I I � I I -. I :;; 1 il Mir, A AJOIRafj C) ("I ; , 4 -; -j -j 5- 2, ;u',)P-rR() IIIEM ullr.d Ow. tjmnq Otillf MP311 M [Ed q-m3jj puLlLpiii I ac piu lleamo jln() 1111y'd 11PON *11M ultwillmi'v 3100 SOALM9 �IJLJO 1131%Iq P[mplir] ole'l ptlo[D Wl -1 1 --� I --j I I � 1� 1T cr AMID, jolul l3T.MTTT' Ow. tjmnq Otillf q-m3jj puLlLpiii I jln() 3100 1131%Iq ole'l ptlo[D AjunoZ) pajuwodioz)u!ufj cr Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Table A-3.1: Risk Assessment by Hazard and Vulnerability to People, Property, Environment, and Government Operations Based on the vulnerability, probability, and risk assessments conducted of all possible hazards that could impact Palm Beach County's municipalities in tables A-1 through A-3, an analysis was made to determine the risk these hazards pose as a threat across the entire spectrum of community exposure and service elements that define the whole community for the county. Risk is defined as the probability of loss and depends on three factors: Frequency Vulnerability Exposure Frequency is defined as how often a known hazard produces a detrimental impact within the community. Vulnerability is defined as how quickly the county can recover from the incidents caused by the hazard. The longer it takes to recover from the incident, the higher the vulnerability factor. Exposure means the extent life, property, and community resources (including responders) face the detrimental impact(s) of the hazard. Risk Measurement The following scale was used to assess the risk potential to people, property, the environment, and government operations within the county using the magnitude classification system from Section 2.1 (pg. 18): L=Low A hazard with a `'Low" risk rating indicates that it is not likely to have any measurable or lasting detrimental impact and will likely be rectified promptly with locally available resources, thus not considered a threat to the whole community. 1. People: The damage level to life is minimal (i.e., deaths and injuries) or there are no reported deaths and injuries. 2. Property: Damage to property is minimal or there are no reported damages to property. 3. Environment: No damage was done to the environment or little detrimental impact was caused by the disaster. 4. Government Operations: Local and county government operations were not interrupted by the disaster or results required minimal state or federal assistance. A low overall risk rating indicates that the hazard has less than a 5% chance of occurring and should it occur, it will likely cause a minor disaster or an incident that will be rectified promptly by local or county resources. 15 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 M=Mediurn A hazard with a "Medium" risk rating indicates that it has a 5%-15%chance of occurring and will likely cause a "Major Disaster" as defined under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122). 1. People: The damage level to life is significant (i.e., deaths and injuries). Reported numbers of victims meet the classification of Mass Casualty Incident (MCI) Level i from the Mass Casualty/Mass Fatality Plan at a minimutn�. 2. Property: Reported damage to property is significant enough to warrant disaster assistance from the federal government under a Presidential Disaster Declarationz. 3. Environment: Reported damage to the environment is significant enough to warrant disaster assistance from the federal government tinder a Presidential Disaster Declaration. 4. Government Operations: The economy and local and county government operations are partially or completely interrupted for some time by the disaster- and results requires assistance from state or federal partnering agencies. Public confidence in the jurisdiction's governance are detrimentally impacted. A tried iurn overall risk rating indicates one of the fol lowing results: 1. The hazard has a 5%-15% chance of occurring and will likely cause sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant disaster assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. 2. The hazard has less than 5% chance of OCC urring based on lustoricaI data (e.g., radiological accident), but should it occur, the hazard will cause sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant disaster assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. As such. the hazard is considered a major threat to the whole community. "=High The hazard with a "High" risk rating indicates that it has more than 15% chance of occurring and Avill likely cause a catastrophic disaster. 1. People: A disaster caused by the hazard produces a substantial number of deaths and/or injuries. 2. Property: The hazard will likely cause extreme damage or destruction to facilities that provide and sustain human needs (e.g., hospitals, schools). 3. Env ironrnent: The hazard will likely cause a inajor detrimental impact on the environment (e.g., severe erosion of beaches). 4. Government Operations: The hazard will likely cause an overwhelming demand on state and local response resources and mechanisms. Local and private sector capabilities will have difficulties starting or sustaining and delivering governmental and community services. I An NICI Le�,el I is defined as an emergency involving 5-10 victims. 2 closest hospitals, and at Icast I Timinua tenter. 2 1n order for a Presidential Disaster Declaration to he niade, the Florida Division orEniergency Management mist determine the need far %decal assistance by reporting a threshold of the loss of governinental properties and need for individual assistance through a Preliminary Damage Assessinent. 16 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 An overall high-risk rating indicates that the hazard has a probability of occurrence greater than 15% and is considered a significant threat to the community. Detrimental impacts from the hazard will require substantial time, resources, and/or outside assistance to rectify damages. More than likely, there will be long-term effects on the general economy, the private sector, and public confidence in the jurisdiction's governance. 17 People Property Environment Government Health and Safety . Private and Operations of: Public owned . Delivery of ■ Residents . Facilities services Visitors 0 Historical . Continuity of Hazard • Responders Resources government Overall • Infrastructure • Continuity of Risk operations • Economy ■ Public confidence in jurisdiction's overnance Natural Hazards Flood • Coastal and inland H H H H H inundation ■ Sea level rise* • Storm surge Hurricane/tropical H H H M H storm Tornado M M L L M Severe thunderstorms/ M M L L M lightning Drought M L 11 M M Extreme M L L M M temperatures Agricultural pests M L L M M and diseases Pandemic/ communicable M L L M M diseases Wildfire/ L L L L L urban interface zone Mucic fire L L L L L Soil/beach Erosion L L M L L Geologic Hazards • Sinkholes L L L L L • Subsidence Seismic Hazards • Earthquakes L L i. L ■ Tsunamis Technological M M Hazardous materials M T_ M M accident'" 17 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 5ca Icvel rise is considered a type of flood. "Oil spill is considered a type of hazardous material accident. 18 People Property Environment Government Health and Safety • Private and Operations of: Public owned . Delivery of Residents 0 Facilities services • Visitors . Historical 0 Conti nuityOf Hazard Responders Resources government Overall • Infrastructure • Continuity of Risk operations • Economy ■ Public confidence in jurisdiction's governance Hazardous materials release M M. M L M Radiological accident • Nuclear Power M L M L M Plant accident Communications failure M L L M M Transportation system accident • Airplane • Ground M M L [.. M • Rai l • Maritime Well#ield Contamination M M H L M Power failure • Outages M L L M M Dike Breach • Herbert Hoover M M M L M Dike Domestic Security Human Caused Hazards • Terrorism M M L I, M • Sabotage • Cyber attack Workplace/ school violence • Active Shooter/ M M L M M Assailant Civil disturbance I. L L L L Mass Migration L L L L L 5ca Icvel rise is considered a type of flood. "Oil spill is considered a type of hazardous material accident. 18 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Table A-4: impact Analysis An impact analysis was conducted to assess the potential of detrimental impacts from all possible natural, technological and human caused hazards in Palm Beach County. Results are based from previous vulnerability and risk assessments and are summarized in the following table according to essential elements that make up the whole community aspect of Palm Beach County. Impacts were measured against the following groupings: 1. Health and safety of the resident population in the affected area; 2. Health and safety of incident responders; 3. Continuity of government and non-government operations; 4. Property, facilities, and infrastructure; S. Delivery of critical community services; G. Environment 7. Economic and financial conditions 8. Regulatory and contractual obligations; and the 9. 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. Although the PBC Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) allows for the flexibility and adaptability to provide the emergency organizational structure for all hazards, regardless of type or size, and identifies the roles, responsibilities, and lines of authority for that structure, 12 Core Hazards have been identified as likely causing major and catastrophic disasters. These hazards were found to have a classification of "Medium" and/or "High" impact to the county's community elements. As such, 12 dedicated. Hazard Specific Plans (HSPS) were developed to address the response, recovery, and mitigation of disasters caused by these hazards. In the following table, HSPS have been arranged vertically by alphabetical order (and not by severity of impact to the County) within categories as follows: Agmt. - -- Technological Human Caused Agricultural Pests & Diseases Dike Failure Domestic Security Communicable Disease Hazardous Materials Mass Migration Fire Nuclear Power Plant Workplace/School Violence Floods Transportation Severe Weather 19 C) CV CIl r� "s 3 3 3 a° S S .°} �° ° 3 3 3o d a $ T 71 eh, ah 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 x x� s2 s 3 s 3 s ° " x '� � ° I a a T cb lob th 3 3 3 a a a N V] iG N 14cC N Cl "N .»�, � � [-+ y j rs _U � ,q G � � � � C �i��dOO CV p '� ❑y❑ CN D •� �A N rYj a 0 •G�i •- A F [c. H "�' "•.[.' x �." .'i, I-" cn "v+ [.] x ua AS Qa, rFJ ❑ ,�' o.U� 3 � � p Ln c� y r� C) N 0 N A C7l 3� 3 '� 3 `$• 3 3 3 3 3 3 ti . t 3 3 3 3 3 $ 3 S 29, s 3 w d ,sq a r � � � � .a •� '��- � � � � r� � 'Sa ate. ft M � V O '� � � u G Q �� Qiax ?L � j �� P � ❑ p A C7l Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 Table A-5: Data sources used for the Palm Beach County Hazard Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Source Natural Hazards Data Storms and Northeaster$) Hurricanes and Severe Storms (Includes Tropical Historical and current data on all types of natural Natural Hazards Research Center 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, Hurricaine Forecast models Hurricane Research Division Federal Emergency Management Agency Emergency management procedures Tropical Storm Watch Database Tropical storm data worldwide Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Community Areas vulnerable to potential rising water Status Book 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 plain and elevation data Florida State University (Meteorology Data and expertise concerning all Florida natural Department) hazards Florida Atlantic University Data and expertise concerning all Florida natural hazards National Severe Storms Laboratory Storm effects data Independent Insurance Agents of America Probability data and estimated exposure (Natural Disaster Risk Database) Building code recommendations to reduce exposure The Arbiler of S1orins (TADS)e maps and Florida Division of Emergency Management computer model projections as well as technical support and data 22 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Source Data Type Florida Department of Environmental Protection Environmental risk, exposure to hurricanes, 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 Building codes and impacts of proposed Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council 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 codes and zoning ordinances Building Department Palm Beach County Property Appraiser Tax assessor records for use in determining dollar value of exposed property Palm Beach County Automated Information 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 Schools, shelter, and critical facilities data and Palm Beach County School Board 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 Emergency management plans, historical data, Palm Beach County Public Safety Department critical facilities, special needs, and general Division of Emergency Management guidance 23 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 24 Palm Beach County Division of Criminal Justice County prison population and emergency management plans Division of Animal Regulation Animal protection, regulation, and control plans following natural disasters (hurricanes) Emergency management plans and law Palm Beach Courrty Sheriff Department enforcement procedures fallowing 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 commruiication maintenance plans AT&T Wireless Services Emergency communication maintenance plans U. S. Cellular Wireless Corn munications Emergency commLill ication 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 �1 Toi-nadoes and. Thunderstorms Historical and current data on all types of natural Natural Hazards Research Center hazard The Tornado Project On -bine 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 24 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Source Data Type NOAA Wind Related Fatalities Data Base Wind related fatalities 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 Lightning strike data National Climate Data Center - On -Line Data Lightning strike data Base NOAA Lightning Related Fatalities Data Base Lightning fatalities National Lightning Safety Institute (NLSI) Lightning research and protection measures Florida State University Data and expertise concerning all natural hazards 25 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 Source Data Type Florida Atlantic University Data and expertise concerning all natural hazards University of Florida Lightning Research Current research an lightning causes and effects Laboratory 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, Hata on major fires caused by lightning Division of Emergency Management Florida Fire Chief s Association Data on fires caused by lightning 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 lasses 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 diSI-LIP0011S dLIC 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. Cellula[' Wireless COi11111L1i11Cations financial losses and communications disruptions due to lightning The Palm Beach Post Historical data on significant lightning related events Association of State Floodplain Managers Floodplain data, flooding statistics, and mitigation approaches Natural 1 lazards Research Center Technical data on all natural hazards NDAA Flood Related Fatalities Data Base Flood related fatalities NDAA Hydrologic Information Center Hydrologic data NDAA Tropical Cyclone Database Rainfall associated with storm type events NASA Natural Disaster Reference Database Specific 11oodirig and mitigation data nationwide NASA Flood Hazard Research Center Flood research and mitigation approaches 2G Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 Source Data Type National Weather Service Climatic data 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, Historical meteorological data Hurricane Research Division 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) Flood Historical flooding data watch Data Base 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 Independent 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 Beach Division of Emergency Management County Florida Association of Floodplain Managers Flooding data specific to Florida Florida Department of Environmental Protection Environmental parameters and risk associated with 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 affect Building Department flood protection Palm Beach County Property Appraiser IProperty value within flood zones 27 Local, Mitigation Strategy 1 2 02) 0 F Data Type Sou ree Palm Beach County Automated Information Historical flooding and critical facilities in flood Management zones 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 j Historical data on flooding incidents Freezing Temperatures National Climate Data Center - On -.Line Daw Aw l listorical 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, Extension Agents and financial losses due to freezing 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 F Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 29 Source Data Type Frequency and amount of financial losses to all Florida Department of Agriculture & ConsLimer agricultural business as a result of freezing Services 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 Florida State University Agricultural research and new mitigation strategies to reduce freeze impacts Florida Atlantic University Freeze impacts to aquaculture industry University of Florida Agricultural research and new mitigation strategies to reduce freeze impacts University of Miami Agricultural research and new mitigation strategies to reduce freeze impacts Environments at risk from freezing and Florida Department of Environmental Protection environmental consequences of current agricultural mitigation strategies Climate records and water demands associated South Florida Water Management District 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 Impacts to poor and homeless due to freezing Palm Beach County Red Cross temperatures rZone an(I Muck Fires National Weather Service Climate data/drought predictions National Interagency Coordination Center Wildfire repots Reports National Climate Data Center - On -Line Data Climate data Base U. S. Forest Service Wildfire reports and preventative measures U. S. Department of Agriculture - Cnunt}' Controlled burning/muck deposits Extension Agents U. S. Geological Survey Soil types/muck deposits Florida Geological Society Soil types/muck deposits 29 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 30 Data Type Sou ree 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, firefighting Florida Fire Chief's Association technology, and potential mitigation 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 Palrn 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 Prevention Land use patterns in Palm Beach County to establish areas at risk and current or in-place Bureau protective measures Wildfire Magazine Data Base Wildfire statistics Palm Beach Post Historical data on Palm Beach Count} wildfires/muck. fires Drought and High Tempevatures National Weather Service Climate data and drought predictions National Climate Data Center - On -Line Data Climate data Base U.S.G.S. 1-1istoricat and Real Time Data on Water Water resources Resources of South Florida U. S. Department of Agriculture - Count)' Historical data on droughts and the econoillic Extension Agcnts 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 I' lorida Depariment of Environmental Protection Environmental impacts of droughts to natural ecosystems Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Agricultural losses due to droughts and current Services irrigation technology 30 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 31 Source South Florida Water Management District Data Type 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 Recreational resources impacted by droughts Department 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 dining Municipal water utilities times of droughts in cities Water rationing plans Coastal & Beach Erosion 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 erosion Department control and natural resources threatened by erosion Palm Beach County Engineering and Public Current erosion prevention measuresWorks Department Palm Beach County Parks & Recreation Current erosion prevention measures Department Palm Beach County Coastal Municipalities Current erosion prevention measures .hipster 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 Diseases U. S. Forest Service Forest diseases and current problem/preventative measures U. S. Dept. of Agriculture - County Extension Local agricultural pest and potential exotic treats Agents U. S. Customs Current programs to prevent introduction of agricultural pest and diseases Florida Farm Bureau Economic losses due to agricultural pest and diseases 31 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 32 Source 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 Seismic Hazards U. S. Geological Survey Geologic structure and seismic risk Florida Geological Society Geologic structure and soil characteristics Technological Hazards Radiological 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 I lorida 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 Radiological accident management database Base Florida Power and Light Emergency Plan Industry emergency management plans Palin 13each County Division of Emergency Management Comprehensive Emergency Local radiological emergency management plan Management Plan (CEMP) 32 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Source Hospital Plans - Both Radiological Materials Data Type Local radiological emergency plans and Disposal (Hazardous Waste) and Mass Radiation safeguards Casualties or Nuclear Accident Plans Hazardous Materials 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 } Spill response procedures .Emergency Pian for Hazardous Materials Florida District and Local Emergency Planning Local sources and emergency management plans Committee (LEPC) Emergency Plan For (vulnerabilities) Hazardous Materials Facilities Database for Users of Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHS) and Elazardous 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 statistics Database 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 Methodology for handling hazardous material Municipal Fire and Police Departments releases 33 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2420 Source Data Type 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 Local Gasoline and Natural Gas Companies Location of critical facilities/infrastructure elements Transportation System Accidents 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 (including oil and hazardous Carrier Compliance Division materials releases) Florida Highway Patrol "truck accidents (including oil and llazardOU5 materials releases) Boat] nglshIppijig 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 International 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 (includiltg ail 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 Power/Communications/Computer Grid System Failures )4 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 35 DataType Historical data and emergency management plans Source Florida Power and Light Emergency Management Plans and Historical Database Bell South Emergency Management Plan and Historical Database Historical data and emergency management plans Cellular and Satellite Communication Companies Historical data and emergency management plans The Banking Industry (Large Area Network - LANs Protection and Emergency Restoration Plans, as well as historical data on system fai lures) Ilumaij Caused Hazards Civil Distu rba rice Federal Bureau of Investigation Database Historical data and emergency management plans Historical data National Security Council Database Historical data and risk analysis Drug Enforcement Agency Database Historical data immigration and Naturalization Service Database Historical data 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 Domestic Security: Terrorism, Sabotage, Federal Bureau of Investigation Database Historical data and situation plans I listorical 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 Database Historical data and preventative measures U. S. Census Database Population demographics Florida Department of Law Enforcement I 1 istoricaI data, situation plans, and risk analysis Florida Department of Health Education and Welfare Population demographics Palm Beach County Sheriff Department Historical data. situation plans, and risk analysis 35 Local Mitigation Strategy 12024 Source Municipal Police Departments Data Type Historical data, situation plans, and risk analysis Palin 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 ]tisk analysis techniques and database Mass Migration U. S. Coast Guard Historical data and situation plans immigration 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 Workplace/School Violence Palm Beach County Division of Emergency Workplace/School Violence Hazard Specific Management Plan Miscellaneous Data Sources Federal Bureau of Investigation Database Historical data National Security Council Database Historical data Drug Enforcement Agency Database Historical data Immigration and Naturalization Service Database Historical data U. S. Census Database Population demographics U. S. Public Health Service Disease risk Florida Department of Law Enforcement Historical data Florida Department of 1-Icalth Education and Historical data Welfare Florida Department of Labor Historical data 36 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Source Data Type 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 Sources used by HVA Subcommittee for 2020 LMS Update: Florida Division of Emergency Management State Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Profile Drafts (2017) Palm Beach County Appendix, 2016 Treasure Coast Regional Planning Commission Supplemental Summary, Statewide Regional Evacuation Summary Florida Department of Environmental Protection The Favorability of Florida's Geology to Sinkhole Formation (2017) Florida Division of Emergency Management Mitigation Goals and Capabilities (2018 Draft) Florida Division of Emergency Management Florida Repetitive Loss Strategy (2017 Draft) The above referenced plans and studies were used throughout this document as a review and incorporation of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information in order to bolster this LMS plan. 37 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 This page inlenlionally left blank C: Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Appendix B: Countywide Mitigation Initiatives Appendix B provides a description of representative mitigation programs and initiatives undertaken by PBC and its jurisdictions, and the principles guiding intergovernmental coordination. These 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 sections addresses, in part, the following FEMA requirements: 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. 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. 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)(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. 1H Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 B-1: PBC Initiatives Palm Beach County and its 39 municipalities participate in a full range of federal, state, and local mitigation programs and initiatives. Representative of these programs and initiatives are the LMS, Community Rating System (CRS), National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA), Pre -Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM), Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Emergency Management Preparedness & Assistance Program (EMPA), CERT, Continuity of Operations, Post Disaster Redevelopment Plan (PDRP), ESF18, Private -Public Partnerships, 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. The Palm Beach County Division of Emergency Management successfiilly obtained accreditation by the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) in 2016, proving its commitment to the highest standards in emergency management, including mitigation measures. PBCDEM is committed to, and has been evaluated and accredited as completing EMAP Standards 4.1 through 4.4 relating to mitigation programs. These standards include: • Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment, and Consequence Analysis, • Hazard Mitigation, • Prevention, and • Operational Planning and Procedures. The LMS program and its companion mitigation programs are described in detail 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 maintains updated GIS maps and informational databases 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. These committees, comprised Of public and private sector representatives, are encouraged to develop and promote mitigation project ideas and strategies. As a result, a majority of the projects on the Prioritized Project List (PPL) are flood mitigation projects. In accordance with CRS guidelines, letters are mailed annually to repetitive loss property owners by PBC and municipalities, explaining NFIP program benefits, the availability of mitigation assistance funding through the FMA and other mitigation assistance programs. Non -CRS members of the LMS are encouraged to stay in compliance with NFIP 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 LMS committee structure, members of the Technical Advisory Committee is 40 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 available to offer technical guidance and assistance to applicants, including assistance 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 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. This 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 Appendix E. Under the committee structure of the LMS program, increased attention is given to expanding and refining 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 Q. The 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 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 having attractive ratios of loss reduction benefits to cost. Projects involving worthy benefits that are difficult to quantify are given serious consideration, in light of different sets of criteria and are referred to appropriate alternative funding sources not requiring stringent benefit -cost justifications. 41 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Short-term and long-term recovery strategies are addressed by the County and municipal Continuity of Operations Plans, the CEN/IP, 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 facilities, infrastructure, services, and economic redevelopment. The PBC Comprehensive Plan (COMP) 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 inter -relationship among them, integrating the complex relationships of each 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 practicable, to apply sound mitigation practices to reduce fixture risk. 42 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Appendix C: Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms This appendix addresses the following FEMA requirement: Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(ii): The plan shall include a process by which local 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, data, and priorities are consistent with and cross-referenced with those articulated in other existing plans. This is done with coordination of all 39 municipalities. 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 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 Municipalities Through our dedicated LMS Working Group meetings, all jurisdictions, including unincorporated PBC, consistently incorporate lessons learned and mitigation actions taken into their local plans, including the Comprehensive Plan, LMS, CEMPs, Capital Improvement Plan, and other local plans in which mitigation can play a role in the planning process. This plan is able to describe each community's process to integrate the data, information, and hazard mitigation goals and actions into other planning mechanisms in some of the following examples: • The municipalities have established basic Emergency Management Plans that produces the procedures for all activities of the municipality before, during, and after recognized emergencies. • A Storm Water Management Plan, which is focused on flood -related hazards and de- fines the relevant mitigation goals, evaluates appropriate and feasible mitigation measures and prioritizes such measures into an Action Plan for systematic implementation. • A Floodplain Management Plan manages land and building development in the floodplain. All cities within the county are striving to establish a floodplain management plan and participate in the CRS. The NFIP has stated that the LMS may serve as a floodplain management plan for its participants. All our municipalities and water management districts utilize the LMS as the floodplain management plan. 43 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 • A Comprehensive Growth Management Plan controlling growth and development within the municipality. Municipal and County Agencies and Mitigation Functions PBC municipalities and water management districts each have within their structure certain departments and agencies which affect and promote mitigation. While these agencies may have slightly different names from village to town to city, the role they perform in the mitigation function remains similar. PBC Public Works operates and maintains and operates drainage systems and the secondary canals throughout the County, working with the SFWMD and water management districts to implement flood control operations, when required. Police and fire rescue departments: Many of the municipalities maintain their own Police Departments and/or fire rescue departments. Emergency responders are essential for alert and notification, lifesaving response, prevention and protection activities that all contribute to lessening the impact of identified hazards. The police and fire rescue departments also conduct educational seminars to residents to spread awareness on hazard awareness and emergency preparedness. The Planning, Zoning, and Building Department: The functions of this department relate extensively to a wide range of mitigation projects and on-going mitigation activities. In most Of our cities, the County Building Official is responsible for interpreting and enforcing all laws, codes, ordinances, regulations and municipal policies related to the construction, improvement, expansion, repair or rehabilitation of buildings within the whole County. These departments ensure that all new construction complies with the Florida Building Code which in itself is a major contribution to hazard mitigation. The department is responsible for the management of land development in Special Hazard Areas; preservation of open space; general control of land use intensities; and coordination between the capacity of public infrastructure in relation to proposals of private development. They also ensure all proposed developments in the County conforms to comprehensive plans as it relates to urban design Of public areas and buildings, infrastructure planning and maintenance of flood data and other statistical infonnation. Planning and Development Department: Often as a part of the building department and even, at times, a part of public works. However, a number of our municipalities maintain planning and development as a separate entity which interacts within the mitigation strategy in many ways and must be part of the overall strategy especially in the area of urban land use. Public Works Department: In most of our cities this department is responsible for construction and maintenance of roads, bridges and waterways, and storm water manage- ment including drainage system development, inspection and maintenance, all functions that relate in various ways to hazard mitigation. Public works activities are a major component of any mitigation strategy. 44 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 This page intentionally left blank IN Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Appendix D: Public Involvement in the LMS Planning Process This appendix addresses the following FEMA requirements: §201.6(b)(1) and §201.6(c)(1): The plan will document how the public was involved in the planning process during the drafting stage. §201.6(c)(4)(iii): The plan must describe how the jurisdiction will continue to seek public participation after the plan has been approved and during the plan's implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. The PBC LMS Steering Committee, Working Group, and Revisions Subcommittee worked extensively to gather public interest in reviewing the current plan and providing suggestions or input on the future draft of the plan that you are now reading. There were two (2) public input meetings held prior to any changes being made in the document, in order to gather this public information. The meetings were advertised through press releases, the LMS Times (LMS's quarterly newsletter that is distributed to the public through municipalities and the DEM website), social media (Facebook and Twitter), the DEM webpage, and through our LMS membership through their public interface in other outreach programs being conducted in the lead -up to the meetings. Public input meetings were held on September 28, 2017 and October 4, 2017 during both business hours and after-hours in order to maximize availability to interested citizens. Unfortunately, even with all the effort to gain public interest, very few members of the public attended. Those that did attend did not provide any new information that was not already included in the current LMS document, or had already been identified in the future draft that was about to be written. The LMS Coordinator, at the direction of the LMS Steering Committee, also produced an online survey to gather information from members of the public as to hazards, vulnerabilities, and mitigation for those that were unable to attend a meeting in person. This online survey was advertised via the DEM website, various municipality webpages, social media, and word of mouth. The survey ran for two months and received several responses. The results of those responses were forwarded to the Revisions Subcommittee and the Steering Committee for possible inclusion into the LMS2020 draft document. However, due to Hurricane Irma striking during the time that the survey was online, many of the responses were very hurricane -oriented in nature, not useful for other hazards, and did not provide any new usable information for the LMS2020 draft. Finally, a brochure was produced asking for public input on hazards and mitigation strategies against hazards within PBC, and was distributed by the members of the LMS Working Group, Steering Committee, and Revisions Subcommittee throughout PBC. These brochures announced the public meetings as well as asking for public input through email to the LMS Coordinator. Many municipalities placed these brochures in highly -visible and 46 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 trafficked public areas within their town halls, some were given out at various public outreach events, to neighborhood associations, and placed at other public places (such as grocery stores) in an effort to get public input. Another public meeting, brochure, and online survey was done after the final draft was completed and awaiting approval, to give the public the opportunity to review the final draft document and make any suggestions for editing. There were two (2) public input meetings held, in order to gather this public information. The meetings were advertised through press releases, the LMS Times (LMS's quarterly newsletter that is distributed to the public through municipalities and the DEM website), social media (Facebook and Twitter), the DEM webpage, and through our LMS membership through their public interface in other outreach programs being conducted in the lead -up to the meetings. Public input meetings on the final draft were held on May 2, 2019 and May 20, 2019 during both business hours and after-hours in order to maximize availability to interested citizens. Unfortunately, even with all the effort to gain public interest, very few members of the public attended. The LMS Coordinator, at the direction of the LMS Steering Committee, also produced an online survey to gather information from members of the public as to hazards, vulnerabilities, and mitigation for those that were unable to attend a meeting in person. This online survey was advertised via the DEM website, various municipality webpages, social media, and word Of mouth. The survey ran for four (4) weeks and received few responses. The results of those responses were forwarded to the Revisions Subcommittee and the Steering Committee for possible inclusion into the LMS2020 draft document. However, many of the responses were very hurricane -oriented in nature, not useful for other hazards, and did not provide any new usable information for the final LMS2020 draft. Finally, a brochure was produced asking for public input on hazards and mitigation strategies against hazards within PBC, and was distributed by the members of the LMS Working Group, Steering Committee, and Revisions Subcommittee throughout PBC. These brochures announced the public meetings as well as asking for public input through email to the LMS Coordinator. Again, many municipalities placed these brochures in highly -visible and trafficked public areas within their town halls, some were given out at various public outreach events, to neighborhood associations, and placed at other public places (such as grocery stores) in an effort to get public input. During the plan's implementation, monitoring, and evaluation, the LMS Steering Committee will continue to reach out to the public for input. This will be done through public meetings, online surveys, LMS newsletters, outreach presentations, social media posts, or a combination of any of these methods. The following pages present documentation from the public input outreach that was conducted prior to the drafting of the LMS2020 update. The first set of pages deal with the public meetings. 47 Ilnhlit Affaits D.-pboulral Po Dos 1989 W-1 URI De A0. 11 V7Jill .]444 I salt 1A5.27!L A f -,4.t:1561 t 31!-M 9 n,cx•pb<x"Com PAInl II'mch COW) 110. 4 of coo a l y t"LIm nI 111 I Un tl a I GICVc ii90xL ]1.Iar W llfsa MCXPO lay. Vise h1nyor Nal R Vhkche Dow Korn cr Y*el R t .;MAIM, lfiry L i u De Iga ]U & WT4ard Gonna Adm ini ylrnlor V1:rdcala( 114kcr Ili.'.,::.' a rl i -Pll- Fkomnir Nese Retcase Local Mitigation Strategy 2420 Media Advisory For release August 18, 2617 Contact SImae Ratliff, (561) 112-6481 Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) Public Input Meeting The Palm Beach County Public Safety Departnunt's Division of Emergency lLwagement will be holding two (3) meetings to provide an opporm ity for the pnbiic to view the draft Local Ifiti¢ation Strategy (CAIS) and m.Ae couuuents for consideration into the plates update. The public is encotraged to view the current docuural on the P.wn Beach County Division of Emergency Mamgement's website at httn:': disco ver.obccov.ore nubhcsafeiv. dem NOcit ions Local - :suit igation- S trat a 2� .gdf Who: All interested per5ous 111tat: Public Input to tate Loral lfitigatiou Stratep- (LMS) Update 111ke1 e: Lakei iemr Room — 11'ellington Community Center — 12150 Forest Hill Blvd.—11'elii»gtou, Fl 1111e11: September 28, 2017 filom 5:30 pm — 6:30 pm Or 1111ere: Audito0am — South Florida Water Management Disnirt — 3301 Gun Club Road — West Pahn Beach. F1 111tew October 4, 2017 from 1:30 pm — 2:30 pm Contact: Shane RatW at (561) 712-6481 IN Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 FLOKI ±il►il 'air I? tj The Palm Eno ch ccunll' c�geli�c�r cal Aj illaatlDR btl►ia lfy IN fha CrfalRpdDCw=eNnt uIw by rrrergelrci e.s the Cow ny and I11 31 Inv- Molgaeles ID IdaMYy Own- mvhlty hatardl Prkgtue q eNdptti6% pill ie G, Ind anaged �i�{. L i p,,J ,"Ip to e.tiollna ho raeda. pubile Input is nodded in the _ rlx+as of rwiun(ovr LA18 F020" If you ate uhi He y, 1 ra come en l STI ) r.aaling, .� whale alrweU ail ipp-J! in Wadifle 27 a iyoe Inbar al, 7417017feen 11,:Hr. anon end poulhle loolvoon '�� in lM 2o2ol+aa �1.r 81e to attend the pub11c Input tlreelfrr brorhure �flnked fra+n vur Palm Beach County oiVision of Emefgenoy Management WeLsrte n out at voriaus events} Sr„rl Rom sn..wA -riiut•C.wrSMie t0i alio plc to send input on . nrrwpd,e ae.ye, s ozordf. the EMS Coordinatorwet rull,TSO -csl'a L Kn rl iaats ' bVie), rxq1•1ii ^kj%yaspeA� e over. : nvd SRannte-�p.y,. c.y ' We Need Your Help What Is the LMS? community, and yourinput is not only The Palm Beach County Unlfled The LMS is a document, reviewed and encouraged, it is wvfCornod. Local Miilgatfon Strategy Is about revised every 5 years, that is the FEMA There ate also LMS Working OrOup to undergo an updatet We need approved mitigatlon strategy for Palm i meakngs held quarterly t0 dlscusa mtti- iho ❑u hl lc's ho 1p in making that Beach County and all of its munlcipall- gation, projects, and best praclice3 in update a success. We will he hold- ties. It Is also used by speClal fading rnitigatian" The public is encouraged to Ing 2 pubs lc me stings to so l Iclf In- districts, some non•profts, and other i be part Of the process and attend these put from ilia public and other jurisdiclidns as a guiding document for . � Peelings a. well. stakeholders In Palm Beach Coun- how to identify hazards, develop pro• When are these public preet- ty relating to exlsll ng, none, or up- ", and Instilule tnDSe projects to Ings, and where? Com Ing ha zero s, as wall as mit lga- mitigate hazards. FEMAthenadminls tion strata As to combat exist In Our fir st public mecti ng to gather public gi g tors sevroraf federal grants to help incat hazards within our county, communities deal Wbh, Prevent, and Input will be Thursday, September 29, Our LMS Revisions Committee and millgat0 these Identified hazards 2017 from 5:30 to 6.30 p.m" at the Lak- Steering Committee members will through projects that are submitted, eview Room of the WBRington Cammun!- be on hand to help answer quos- evaluated and ranked on our LMS h Center. 12150 Forest HIII Blvd in Wel. t Ions, but mainly 10 hear hom YOU Project Prioritized List IPP✓_). linglun. Ft regarding mitigation and your Ide- What role does the public Tire second meetl ng will lie held on CC - as so that th oy Can be conslde red play? tuber 4.2017 from 1:30 l0 2-30 P.M. In for Inclusion In tha 2020 LMS for the a0e ihl(i m Of the South FiOrida Wa- Ina public is uemg Splinted For input Palm Beach County, ter management District, 3301 Dun and information 4010 the Fevlslons pia Club FoaC" Wast. Palm Beach, FT.. cess born b2forethe revisions begin, and again after the revision are Your input is needed, so make your made" The LMS works for you in your voice heard. 49 10 VeZ Rei � Palm Beach County Division of Emergency Management ria Home About ifs Like Follow .? Sh;1ry Upcoming [vents Photos 8 Local Ptloa Strategy {LMS} 2020 Public }n... 2 28 Thu 5-71}0 PKI 52}50 Forest Hill Blvd Weeirg!vn. FL 1?4.. * Intere sle 11 Reviews => Videos Events Posts Services Shop Groups Notes offers .lobs Community Manage Promotions See All Posts Palin Beach County Division of Emergency 13 Management 0 Palm Beach County is seeking public input for our 2020 Local Mlhgalion Strategy If interested, please complete this short survey. haps./MwN.surveymonkey conUrf1-KPT3l77 LAIS2020 Public Input Stir%vy Web survey pa+ red bySurveyWrkey. can your um yoown vnine survey rao vAth SurveWonkey's expert ceA W FREE templates Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 Peeple At,. Like Professional FlrefighleisrPararne... Fire :1a Col Palm Beach County Fire House 73 Fin' Sldlrvn Palm Beach County r � Goueramen[ organ�Mksn Government organizations In West Parm Beach, Ftwide Pa ovs liik,.d br Ihis /•4pa ? �4` y Indian RIva rCounty Emergency— l10 i psi TOwr1 of Palin beach Emargeney... American fled Cross O EveAd Po"ves [Brasil) + FraNais(Fmncel Deutsch privacy Tarns lvd.m,aly Au Cnetcea A Fac eboaAS ral'r ® Posted and pinned to the DEM Facebook Page 71 t)eope reached 8/31/17 lk Like IP Comment * Share - LMS working Group meetings serve as tate primary mechanism and forum for exchanging information, planning implementation of updating the Palm Beach Cournv Local htili at G�Sir�teay. and mobilizing the vast experience and resources of the community. Public attendance and comments are welcomed and encouraged. Palm Beach County is currently seeking public input on our 2020 Local Mitigation Strategy. Please use the Iinks below to add your input. 7.' �P.QkIL1g Public kit uLLM52420,jZL�[t DEM Website requesting public input. First link is to the brochure announcing the public Ms 202Q PUPlic Hax rd 5Urvey input meetings on 9/28 and 10/4/17. Second link is to the SurveyMonkey Public Hazard LMS Corner: Survey which runs 8/30/17 to 10/31/17 to solicit public comment on hazards and solutions to hazards (known and unknown) in their local communities, LMS Times 50 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 Palm Beach County is currently seeking public input on our 2020 Local Mitigation Strategy. Please use the links below to add your input. �Seekiivg,pj blit r Innut�LMS 2020 Oraf[ LMS 2020 Public Hazard Survey LMS T' ' h d ft bli i t DEM website 8/31/17 LMS Corner: LMS Times Z91,6 Winter LAtS Times 'tom, 2.017 Winter LMS Times 2017 Summer LMS Times Imes wit pre- ra pu c meet ng announcemen on http://discove r, pbcgov.org/publicsafety/dem/Sect€ons/PI anning-LocaI-Mitigation- 5trategy.aspx Posted on 8/30/17 and left on site until after meetings were over, and announced through email to all municipalities, who then put on their websites, tweeted, and facebook posted on their accounts. un of lake Clarke Shores displaying the LMS Public eting churesintheir Lobby 8/31/17, vn Hall, 1701 Barbados Rd, Lake Clarke Shores, FL. 51 1��CCCCCC------------1 Local Mitigation Strateg} 1 2020 LMS Times Summer 2017 on display at Palm .~ Beach County DEM. Issue includes info about public input meetings. =-5((y���, ■�. , `"' Date taken: 8123117 Zs - 44'lq �`�ip rd .`}� ` .gid:- ' •_- . •ii\:�`�•'y� �,••`• ✓ <l�(� , �: ti�\tel*ti��i.\ j 4 �.� " ,�, lei � .�+• 52 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 F11 ded this event. The e given out et [his event 53 Local Mitigation Strategy 200 This is the article in the LMS Times our guarterly mitigation newsletter announcing the public input meeting dates. LMS2020 Public. Showcase Dates The initial daft of the 2020 Palm Beach County Local Nlitigation Strategy document will be showcased to the public on September 28, 2017 from 5:30.6:30 p.m. at the Lakeview Room of the Wellington Commu- nity Center, 12150 Forest Hill Blvd, Wellington, FL, A second public showcase will be held on October 4, 2017 from 1:30.2:34 p.m. in the auditorium of the South Florida Water Management District, 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, FL. We want to provide an opportunity for the public to view the draft document (LMS2015 is the beginning draft) and make comments for the Revisions Subcommittee to consider in the U-IS2020 update. The public is invited to view the Draft 1202020 (the current LNIS2015 document.) prior to the meeting at Palm Beach Coun- ty Division of Emergency IU-magement's website at hhttn:!! discove • v I J e fPt 1'catians�l.acal• 1,iitigation-,Strategy,ndf and are encouraged to comment at these public showcases, or send your comments to UIS Coordi• nator Shane Ratliff, SR.atlifl@pbcgov.org and they will be com- piled and sent to the Revisions Subcommittee for further anal- ysis and possible inclusion in the LNIS2020. 54 Eacd M g p§on Strategy 2020 The next two aaacsare the sign -in sheets from the Public Input Medi. 55 ` §k 1-0 ^ � § � � § m Z m z\ \ INN \ Q. 311 va § 4 -ISL 20 > q) �/ � A \ / f § � } � t .......... �-_f S 55 Y Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 e 56 3 ."IIIAQ + asNc� 3 mm N G-3 - M (Ibi1 3 a c m 2 F 5 m0 z p N �O p o (k) a It L ;r o � e 56 3 ."IIIAQ + asNc� 3 mm Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 The following pages are documentation relating to the Public Input Survey that was done re -draft to allow PUNic in ut regarding hazards and vulnerabiIities in their communities. LMS Working Group meetings serve as the primary mechanism and forum for exchanging information, planning Implementation of updating the Palm Beach CCounty l yir,�l Mi�iga[ P �Sri3{ggy. and mobilizing the vast experience and resources of the community. Public attendance and coinments are welcomed and encouraged. Palm BeacIt County is currently seeking public input on our 2020 Local Mitigation Strategy. Please use the links below to add your input. Seekine Public Imtut - LMS 2020 ordit DEMI Website requesting public input. First link is to the brochure announcing the public inns zozo ptlhtir Hatar input meetings on 9/28 and 10/4/17. Second link Is to the SurveyMonkey Public Hazard LMS Corner: Survey which runs 8/30/17 to 10/31/17 to solicit public comment on hazards and solutions to hazards (known and unknown) in their local communities. LMS rimes �AC1j 1` 1 -ft 1 Follow R Share ... Palm Beach County Division of Emergency Management p .0 f', E •1.:.. Horne About Upcoming Events Photos Strategy ILM. ZU2fJ Public In... Local 3PPA 1215 'ls Th. 5.:47 Pld 12150 Forest t1i9 eNd. +hkllilg'ort R 234 k Inlere sl rJ Reviews Videos Sr" An Evenls post$ Posts services palm Beach Counly DMsion of Emergency 13 Shop Management Groups Palm Beach Cqunty is seeking Public input for our 2020 Local Lhugati on Notes Stralegy If interested, please complete this short survey Nips yhwrn surveymcinkey corrV gKPT307 Offers Jobs LMS2020 Publid Input Sun-ey 14'eb survey powered by G;."ynlonkey coin create your o+'rt -MI sunny Conwnunity now wft s~.lGr&j ✓5 expert tertrfied FRE t: tenplates Manage Pronw ws I1 peop>e reac neo ♦ Like 1F Commenl 4 share . 57 People Aha UM ProfaSstonal Fimfighlei-S[ParalnO Fire $lghvn Pdlnt such County Fire Holl se 73 Fue' Won 0Palm Beach County ' po•.emmen! etgan�anon i•ove—eni OrpanieatiOM in Wesl Palm fleach• Florida Pines hxrd py chis P+Qe > Indian River Counly Emergency, fit6 ,���• Town of Palm [reach Emergency... + American Red Cross 7. .. Esp9 Porlugud5 1[rasilf ¢ Frary ss lFran: el Deutsch Posted and pinned to the DEM Facebook Page B/31/17 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 f a.- !!= Wr i Ne wrv.l• - i T—O- - t C, 'Noe b nrw Dry [. v. AS4'r l—VI w a•.rS",e a Dais . -.a r. � r•.r• •, !.a3�,s C�.:in. j r.u.s 4in: J. .. Town of Lake Claft shores Appl wrs rL m,a.,w...,�eere,•.w, v.� vneca nam Kea<ncm,.�r Isoe[•+ua ve Loca+ulq.,Lx s,raieq[ u,U� a 6+rwedrhu. ra H�k.,t nuFf b4 ran k�[ack •n ner•,ry l.�ary nyrd, ¢moi :ra[epes,0 P I frS l.p..,.. rs-ad asnes,mose,u:are, r. ezws, w m.ylee vem v orpnyr ne ew,w iL ,.x s,.,,.... a�es+wE� roti, �. r-, N Vdp. lAerN.r d�ihl.J Ne M1sbr.y �qunM�ire�xyb [tl'[el reyensn al Ccurcl rcscarnrl � � yr1 � ` awP nco-s h I.]I5=0_ro Ihrl>lir Intnu Seer? �'1 UOUMY v Vr;r,�,P, Brrtfllcs.., rrw;;',:: �'�.•..«..,r�...a ; a •�tlrir,q Swa.up,aryr,gr[ucsyPaEEr.rr:uu I Id,s r+e-�w nr w.r•.�. �.w,,, m,e r.,r. �•r<:. Lammu�a I, sal e.k.«. a: ,,r, re, ae ;'yWiy� r ua W�[reL•a, ® t„.r,�lr 5ryn rrY•!, IL 7: [:E Na�age r'rYeNOM �]Lur (] Genr�u.r )•j yn,r[ r L ii5,i9urS.S fa�'nli Lakr L„rks Shuns ” .�- 14r1xAV•l:4FL ? :ICLau,Vp[p9 ^ � CaKpra�e�l-A- � ,.[�.SeM i„Wr 6 i.ry Ctiw.,a�t.exr � C-sle-•e,qr,.,-.pp , [-SI e.. Ny.n.. pM ^ The Town of Lake Clarke Shores placed links to the survey on their Facebook page above ABOUT SERVICES RESOURCES POLICE CALENDARS MEDIA SLOGS CRA Ho,rre Local Hazards MEDIA Galleries Palm Banco Counly (Specifically the Lac at hirtigation Slralegy Uml) would kke your feedback in Edenlllying any hazards and strategies to add(uss Inose hazards in efforts to milKjote Warn lhroughdut Yews life County They have designed the Iotknvng 4 que5lwpi Survey to called resp rises of County resrdenrs Neu•slerrers hllps fAvmv surveyrnpnkey Com+rITKPT3D7 W MOST VIEWS Lake Clar4 Shores Torre Wsmry v9Wtres Permfrs and Lfcews Perrrrfr Cherklis[ for Freer Projects Mo-Departrnen[ Crpdole Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 Shane Ratliff From: Rani, Rama errani@sfwmd.gcv5 Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 5:11 PM To: 5660; 5670; 5680 Cc: Shane Ratliff; Corry, Laura; McElroy, Elizabeth Subject: Local Mitigation strategy (LM5) Public Harard Survey All, The LMS is the FEMA approved mitigation strategy document for Palm Beach County and all of its municipalities, it is used as a guide by them, special taxing districts, some non -profits, and other jurisdictions. The document is used to identify hazards, prioritize projects to mitigate them, and m€tigate existing hazards, The LM is rev€ewed and revised every 5 years, and is now due for revision. The public 1s being solicited for Input Into the revisions process. If you would like to read some more about LMS, here is the link: htto:IJdIscover. obLaov.orslaubIIcsafetyldern ISections/PIannIna-Local-Mitigation -5trateay.asox The LMS Revisions is coordinated by PS OEM, the SFW MO is part of the Revisions Subcommittee. The subcommittee created a survey to get your input (available till Oct 31, 2057). Your answers to 4 simple questions would help a lot, here Is the link: This email went out to all of South Florida Water Mgmt District's contacts in LMS 2020 Public Hazard 5urvev the region regarding the survey so that they could participate Thanks, Rama South Florida Water Managenient District also posted links to the survey on their Linkedin Social Media webpage: 59 Rama Rani Section Leader, Systems Modeling U nit at South Florida Water Mana"Mi. District ?S Who's viewed your profile 715 LL:a o{tier Cost ■ Seeatt Rcmiuunfeatmes Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Shaman article, photo, video or idea 4i lhhite an e # trpage rn Video .:..--•.•--:-••-•--:.....�.:.......-----..-. ..- - Sonbr.TopV Rama Rani .:. ' .. ;. - . ..... - ... Section leader, Systems Modeling D nit at Soirt h F lop ida Watt r M a nagemerit Dist rFct Is "The Locat Mitigation Strategy (LMS) fs a document which identifies hazards and strategies to address those hazards and to mitigate them throughout the county. The LMS document is fequlred to be updated f revised every 5 years. WC ...see more LMS71120 Public tnpul Survey suns;mos<y.tom Web surrey Fo•we red by svr+YeyPAonD.e--can+. Crea te}ou r ovin a 41me su rvei row wrth sunt yr.tVUi tetpert..- 6 Oka q Commonr 4 SbIre Lml,«sifr.-4rnt;FnitinL't.E•Fl-i:-.j:Pi�,iOki ;; "•'; ]t ]11tellraer•,e: r1!@ fuel that Powemr. Cyber Vekr-N? -_•it 60 Who to folkavi Manta I vice PA P and and ua� Satyal tE0 at I star; N lfanapjl Mcchryi View att recontf Promoted I Seca I !!1�� Meslcl Placed ® Gybe Belau the Un Are Q Earn eCorrteli Frofe Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 The followingis •s the pre -draft public input survey link as well as the survey itself Web Link 1 aT & https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/TKPT3D7 Recent surveys Ii;ii7Y LMS2020 Public Input Survey Created: o8y301201y I NIedMed! aay^A12017 Survey Design LMS2020 Public Input Survey L—mdd on $13rl.+pi717 0 Responses Responses and Status TOM RESPOH5fS OVEnAI l SURVEVSTATW. 0 OPEN 4 1 L�iIf SIIdtJS I'.C•F� Collectors Su Nay language: Enr,llsh Web Link 1 l: rcHcd: 873nfR017 Theme: Jungte LMS2020 Link created: 6130,'2017 hlanual0ata Entry , OPEN r Manage all surveys Completion rate typical timrspaist RESPONSE Al. ERTS You are gertlng them. M a-ge AIMS The Local Mitigation Stralegy (LMS) is € d%ur *%which identifies hazards and strategies to address thane hazards and to mitigate them throughout the county. The LMS document is required to be updated[revisedevaey 5 years. We aro asking For your help In gather ing your thoughts on the hazards in your area of the county, so that this public input can bP evaluated [or possible inclusion {n the LM52020 docuntent. Thank you for your input? Lel 0 RESP6NSf.5 COLLECTE6 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 1. Which of the following hazards are probable where you live? (you may choose as many as needed) Flooding Dike Failure I HurrimleSIT roplCal Storms I Hazardous Materials Accident Tornado Radiological Accident (Nuclear Power Plan Accident) Severe ThunderstormSILightning Communications Faittve Drought I Hazardous Materials Release Eweme Tem perattrres Transportation Sys cern Accidents Agricultural Pests and Diseases Coastal oil Spills I W!Idfre/Urban inter Face Zone Welltield Contamination 1 Muck Fire Power Failure SoRiBeach Erosion Civil ❑istUrbance Sea Level Rise Domestic Security Geologic Hazards (i.e. Earthquake) •: Mass Migration Crisis Pandemic/Communicable Disease %wor kplace/School Violence 2. Considering the hazards above that are probable where you live, do you have any ideas/suggestions for how to mitigate the hazards you identified? (Note: mitigation is the act of addressing the hazard before it occurs again) please be specific about how this hazard(s) can be mitigated through a project or process. I 3. Are there any other known or unknown hazards that weren't mentioned in Question #1? If so, please identify the hazard(s). 62 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 4. If you entered a hazard in Question #3, what ideas do you have about a solution or project that may mitigate such a hazard? ... ............................. P%vared by a SurveyMonkey See hove easy it is to create a survey. 0 hops n.: wrveymonkcyeom•'�: •' �.± • (rj®Homl. Emergency Manag�Q plan Mabhr •All Rerrur mLMS.'076 Puhpc MgaSurvey r LM X2020 [1L Jf]_ When you c!F<k an the link from Aalm 8earh County Emergency Management's We6page, it !ekes you directly to the Introduction to the public Input survey. The Local Mitigation Strategy [(-MS) is s clot unlent which loon Cities hazards and strategies to address those ha zartls and to miligate them throughout the county. The LMS document is required to be updatedl+eoud every 5 years. We a r a asking roi your help in gathering your thoughts on the hazards in your area or the wunty, so that this public input tan be evaluated for possible inclusion in the LMS2020 dec unlent. Thank you ror your input! AA Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 The following pages present documentation from the public input Outreach that was conducted prior to the finalizing the LMS2020 update. Media Advisory PC �XOK19 For release Apri129, 2019 Contact Joe Mercurio (361) 712-6481 Department of Public Satcty Vision CO mberR,ancy MmLaf ement 2IFaurhl�uh,Fjtrill Local Mitigation Strategy Updated lt1•zl P.11n515r1L h, Fl. i341.s V'Utj7I?t.tt4 Document — LMS2020 I'•�1i.15a I Y ?1 � .a�tat wwwptc�'-rnrn The Local Mitieation Strategy (LMS) is a Palm Beach County doeumerrt nhich identi6ea hazards to the community and stratesies to address these hazards. She LASS document i.s required to be updated`revised every fire (3) years. Its purpose is to prepare and promote local strategies and projects that palm Beach County %ti"f reduce lona-term xisks to life and property from natural; technological, and Board of County human -caused hazards. The Dhriliion of Emergency Management has Commissioners concluded the re:•iew and seeks to publish the updated LMS2020- They are MMS. P.CIllilyd N1,11 tr asking for community help in gathering final thoughts vu the kaxards in your area of the county, so that public input can be evaluated fos possible lnctuston TOW K11 1,0r. Vie TAapir in the LN -IS 2020 doeutnent, Hal K Valtrl'•t Cngq It 'Mmi, The counh. is seeking public input surveys whether in parson or across many different social media platforms. Our first public meeting to -ather public i,*bcn % NaInmr. input will be held on Thursday, May 2, 2019 from 11:00 am, to 12:00 p.=- in Glary tau eoWr the auditorium of the South Florida Water Management District; 33 01 Gust Club %IWuip iy Road, west Faun Beach. The second meetingwill be A'fanday, May 20, 2619 from 3:30 to 6:30 p.m. at the Lakeview Room of the Wellimgton Community Center, 12130 Forest Hill Blvd in Wellington. county Administrator XYho: Palm Beach Counh' Emergents Management L'crdenla C Rapcl What: LLIS2020 Public Input Where: South Florida W ater .klaaaeelnent District Auditorium 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beads Wien: May 11 a.m. —12:00 P.M. Where: wellington Community Center—Lakeview Room 12 13 0 Forest Hill BIvd in Wellin=_ton aneN,urqdL_,:b- WIen: Nay 20 3:50-6:30p.m. Air milds •Aniu11Effpl:.: Contact: Joe Mercurio at (361) 712.6431 Otl ir-iat I POMnlc IA'ItMli cavi 0 # 0, 64 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 �F RCii CLocal Mitigation Strategy2j Fd" Us". WrOPkIC—Foleas it t.11;l'; ksl l 1 �LOR'k .i rna Palm oeacn roursy woos r,Sether ; M •tip. W n nrocelty i s to v (ua ing mcamerit atw by ta. warm mergencieS I rna re 'J? m,e,leiprl.r:es tP lute- ' rTy aemmunxy nexards, poor. IT --.... .--.-. mxmiti(ativn projeRs, .nG tl(at141�q•n( nr;.rPS. PWlia .typo[ if needN •n tet C raged Praoesr W 1.v:alr,g Wr ,>r. �.� 10xa rf yw 4"unml. xe tome i� e . "nbrk rato., pease emea rt input rmerou- EM iupagov.arj a era:cerru p, me pessialeie ..., .._ nrslnn in Ne LA1L 2020- r Ak Palm Beach county 0iv1slon of Eno rgency Ma Fla ge meat wc. Mt�e.c averrY q L P k - Me Vftat is the LYS? We Heed Your Halt Input is nut ndy er,murxged, n is wel. ny LM$,3 dont ills PrI rn Beach County tln Ifind turned rnlnZ r4,dta4d rnd tamed every Ina Losul Alitigullun Suategy JLMSJ MM2 an also LMS Working C. -P years. It is d,e FoONI E,neige-,Mm .ge ,Ment Rgingy (FEMA1 eppfo"d tni¢g.lion k,es raoently undergone . review rnd upd.t., We need the public's ineetinp held quarterry W dew's% nutl• sva[egy for Porn e.ud, Caunry y„d u!I W sglp in fnrki.ng diet vpd ate u sic- getmm p juts, end best practigei In ils,nurwcip.nbes. It is arsOused try krNp.l gess. WO will Oe hording t"Pub- rniligativn '11, public K alrrals engvvx- tnvrrgdisvkss, sone nan.profas, end frtk kit rn!ltings So sPl,t lx repot hP,n rged 0 he pert of the process and at - or junsd dons use Vkfing do raent vn 1 giac.. and atlHr k[a pel.P ld ors in tend d— reg,d.f rnaeengs us well. I.— 1P kdeabfy hrrards, develop pfgect% P.Irn Seecli County relating t0 ex. Whan are these public input- rr,d insllt a tI.- projens W n,nigate isldng er r,cw Irasards, es hell as meati no, and Whore? FEMA Hien udrnknisters snerat rnitigulkon strutegi.s tv .urn hal Cur firsi plhfc 1Meeting. tv gad•er (444'.1 glues, xv hetp $soul cwn,nu„ities tri sung tirxurds within our cv unty' p1b Ec Inert will be hold co Thursday, 014.1 wjnl, pfa14nt rnd rrlitigete tP s She County Specie) Pfcjects Mry 2, 2015 fir -1100 ..— W 1200 ipp,YSNd hll sl 3 V,rovgh pf[rjecis diet CPerdln.tor for Mitlgarien will be P.".rn 0.0 .udimriurn of d,. South Ron• ere sabrndred, 0Yr4rted, and runhed on are I,.r,d ry holy answer questions, d. w.tar M—ge—m Dmukt 3301 ver LMS Proj• PpOriyyW Usti PPL). but termly to herr Irony you re- Gun CIA Rare. Wast Pulte B..d,- coed, ng .. 6gavon, rr,d year kders ,n g .psidlred !ef inclusion to She nee,.tend rntwoing rtikI be Al"illy, Pat --LMS 7020 for Pan Stop, County. Mev 20, 2010 own 510 W 6:30 P et die Lakeview RPdn of d,e W.Ignpvn th► pubdc Is neings 11.1[ed ler COrnmanlry Ganser, 12150 Forest HE mpvt ane inferr,,.tien Int. the 0r,.1 '---" rwisio„s Pfogess 10ensure the Bkre in wrsngrm,. CO—Ty 1i.5 t.Pt+ oaf Vee .Flplopfi• To" mp•a is l e ded, so ,Mak* your ale Stf aSlgiei. lilt LMS weeks to, wemeL—d- xou ir• }vurcwmm�nity, end your Me Local Mitigation Strategy 2024 Palm Beach County Division of Emergency Management May I at 8:00 ANI The Palm Beach County Local Mitigation Strategy has completed the draft of the LMS2020. There is now a post -draft survey available at https:' �v�;��;�.solve} n�onkey.com1rr358LP9Y for the public to give input into the hazards in their area and ways to mitigate those hazards. This survey wi11 only be available until N4 ay 24, 2019, so please click the link below for your opportunity to impact mitigation. You may view the current LI'Y1S2D15 at http'Pdiscover.pbcgov.org_'__ ... LLocaI-Mitigation-Strategy.pdf {330 pages in length, may take some time to dove+nload depending on your internet speed). StyRVEY lONKEYCON1 LMS2020 Post -Draft Public Input Survey Take this survey powered by surveymonkey_com. Create your own survey 483 13 PeolAe Reached Engagements Page Inbox [.ocal Mitigation Strategy 2020 [.Manage Jobs Nohheatroos in Insignis u:;li;rur1[I T [k Liked - 1 Followtnp a1 snare r� Palm Beach County Division of Emergency Management d nFEC-DEN Home About Photos Videos Events Posts Services shop Groups Motes Offers Jobs Community Posts Palm Beach County Division of Emergency Management "' I; r•rs 0 The Local 1.1 Rig Strategy Is a dockrrnent v4hii: n IdenIIFies hazards to The community and strategies to address [hose hazards. The Division of Emergency 1.lanage ment has concluded the ievievl and seeks t0 publish the Updated LMS2020 They are asking for c0mrnunity help in gal herrng final thou grits on the hazard- so trial public Inpu[ can be evaluated for possible Inclusion in the LM 52020. our final public meeting to gather Input will he held on Monday May 20. from 5 30 to b 30 p m at the Lakevlev. Room of the Wellington Community Center 12150 Forest HIII Blvd Welling (on Local Mitigation Strategy MS 20120 aid 12 People Reached Engagements rb I Ike 67 r .. , rori•;e r•I Q Couunom p� Share f- 0 a @9 9 . LMS2020 Public Input Survey The Lalt MidpYion Strategy [LMS) is a ddoument w*kh Wmtires haeerGead spetAelm to mddreo those hrzerdl and ne rritaate mem rh—sirs—e Paim nearh [drniy. Thr FMS document is required to hevpde[M/rrrired rrpyRw [Sj V. We an eking [a your help In ptlCrfi nj your thwghd vn [hr M1exerdN]n your area oT CM1ecvmty,mthatpvhnc input a. 4e mI.md for po.sIbi. IncruGon in the IMS2020 docam@m. Think ryou Tar yovrimm. 1. LYnlen alma edlewtng nanrds err prohrhl. when you riw7ldww ar mmy ar rnedW} 2. [vnridednj thv hurrds ahvw th rt aro pro hr tele whvry you spy dv you boor my Id—jsuiri.srioru for low i"tipir the heterdi you Idrnrllred? INate- mltignlon N the mot Iddreuine the Nlierd bTfon Is attwN asaln) Pit le be Iperhic about how xhts hazard{dean he mldd Iced m roueh a proJ— dr prxeu. 3. Are then any other know Wunknonn hacerds Chit wont t mentioned in Question NI? If so, press@ Idntt7v the h aard[I). Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 se LMS2020 Facebook PaYn Beach County is seskinj pffx input far our updated loco[ MtNItion 5 nF-y daym4nt, LMS2020. We are soin. fm your help in lit1haftj your thoulhis D6 IN hazards in I"( area ofthe county, so that puhlk inp rt a D he svrtu sted for possi h inclusion in the LMS2020 dmm ent. shank yaw for your inptdl hrtpr:/�Isyiw survy}ynonkey.rdmlkb?anjU LMS2020 OiMk Palm Beach County isseerdnppuAkinputforcut updatedtadMOptionSt LPUdocument, INISM0.Weart isiingfwyour halpingiMerit,&Atlcuptsent1mha:aksinyou rareaofthe county, ja that puhlk input an he aduited for pons -Ne inclusidh in the WU020 document. Thank you far your inputl haps j�wwwsurreyiranke,'.wmpo-5�'onssi 4. If yeu entered a hoard m 4venidn N3, whet Ideas do you rove about • zdution or project put mry midget. xu ch as hrxerd? LMS2020 Web Page See mhmoe iR hitps!�/www.surveymonkey.com/create/preview/?sen#TGxN2s(_2e0f�_ 2BGsMFoiSh2rEk4sEpU3NN3gc)FM5kSoj] 30 DESIGN SURVEY PREVIEW & SCORF COLLECT RESPONSES ANALYZE RESULTS PRESENT RESULTS LMS2020 Post -Draft Public Input Survey LMS2020 Public Input Survey (Post -Draft) The Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) is a document %:,hich identifies hazards and strategies to address those hazards and to mitigate them throughout Palm Beach County. The LMS Document is required to be updated/revised every five (5) years. Nle are asking for your help! n gathering your thoughts on the hazards in your area of the County, SO that public input can be evacuated for possibie inclusion in the LMS2020doCLlment. You may read the current version of the LMS document at http://discover.plDcgov.org/pLibticsafety/clen)/PublicatlolislLocal-Mitigation-STrategy.pdf THANK YOU for your inplti" lIK 68 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 �I I I.fNG1'i]N® 'Cigna umily 4C11IPm. Marl, May 20 G t] 0 go_ �_ . � - er ACTIVITY SCHEDULE P. Start Erxl Tune Activity Sam 4:001 PM 5:00 PM 000003) rncn�.es•,.... FdnBss Roan . 5:00 PM 0:00 PM jw2 Funk fdnras Ream 5:30 PM 6.30 PM J.MS PALM MIR Grande Sal4ara nn, eaxrn.rr 5'80 PM 8:30 PM 5B7 Workshop Scminhr Panther Room Rn,r 14 00fl .rr �7�►7�a tot If 69 Local Mitigation Strategy 2420 00'.."wo" Palm Beach County Division of Emergency Management LMS2020 Public Post•Survey Sign -in Sheet Wellington Community Center Monday, May 20, 2019, 5:30 p.m. " Palm Beach County Division of Emergency Management I-MS2020 Public past-Sul'vey R1p* Sign -In Sheet L 90 Lith Ftorida Water Management DIEari0 � Thursday, 2 May, 201911:00 a. m. .......... .._..............._......_... ---..... ........ ........ --- NAME SIGNATURE COMMUNITY EMAIL TELEPHONE ..[PLEASE PHINT) _Lr �erc�.r P. ,C17etcuri[a ��[�c�-Cral'1 "�1z• G'�t'�1 ._. - $rcL�'Ii�r1 05/02J19 viaiarasaie 10' 35 am SFWMD VISITOR Joseph Mercurio Visitor self Meeting E31 Lni:l�y Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 The following pages document the invitation of both 15 non-profit and 15 private sector businesses in the county/region that were invited to be a part of the LMS Working GrOUP From VaneReullf to ^�ttttLy s,.,e.n....�.,.......w •i..e..n...,..a.....„•. k subjech Nc n4refs: Irrr Lim to LMS vsarWry GSKW fiefs: fl+rdq, ]amry 29, 2018 xl:a3A6AM Attschmeetss ]MOOZ PW Good me ming, I am writing to let you all know that you are invited to attend and partedpate In the Palm Beach County Loral Mitigation Strategy (LhIS) Working Group. This email serves to fuSfiII requirements set forth in the Palm Beach County Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS), as well as the National Flood Insurance Program's Community Ratings System [CRS], which require me to reach out to both non- profit organizations and private sector organizations within Palm Beach County annually. If you are not interested, please accept my apologies. If you are interested in what we are ahaut, continue reading below. Mitigation is the act of preventing something that is known to accurfro m occurring again in the future. In Palm Beach County, we are charged with mitigating disasters and hazards that have been identified through a comprehensive Hazard Vulnerability An aiysa. We do this through aur Local Mitigation Strategy document, which is a guide for what hazards exist and how we hope to mitigate againstthose in the future. Ther document is located on the Division of Emergency Management's LMIS webpage at http:lEdiscover.pbcaov.orelpuh�icsa-et y,`dernlSe cti onslP!anr. iris -Lo ca I - blit i"tic n- .Strate=v.ascx . This document, over 300 pages in length, goes very in-depth to identify hazards and how the Working Group will work to mitigate against them. In PBC, we mitigate primarily through highlytechnical projects designed to reduce risk of a particular set of hazards from occurring. This is called aur "Prioritized Project List" which you can find on the same wet) Nn above as well. If you are interested in attending any meetings of the LMS Work ingGroup, we hold our meetings quarterly in March, lune, September, and Decemher. bur next meeting is scheduled for March 14, 2018 at the Intracoastal Park Event Room in Boynton Beach at 9a m. Yuu are welcome to attend and fi nd out how yo u r LMS is working to protect you from haza rds i n PBC. Thank you for your tiro E! - Sincerely, Sj1cttiieat1iff SpedalPmjects Coca hwtor Plmamg Section P&Iic Safety Dep atmenY I ninon ofFmP,gency 2<fsnagemenI Palm Beacb County 1211 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 Fmmt Sliatte Wig Tel 'Y�dlpr ii�urorm.mn'• 'LKorrrv�Ifmitcr:i �P.mrtf: '�rrr�QB�IfourGhhtlaE.tdn" rlxirw n».'. ^ ^Nrxoa&ommri+ mm'. �seles9dirisalleAhmt�,.mm': '(r�e®rRRi.Cun ; 'MfdHr31'.�atYdtned'nn^- •. lrrreirdurdne mm': Subject: Private Sesiar: DMtotkn ba LMS VkvWrg Gr up DOM Kcwoy' k+rt+ay 29, 2010 37:46:00 PM Good afternoon, I am writing to let you all know that you are invited to attend and participate in the Palm Beach County local Mitigation Strategy (LM 5) Working Group- This email serves to fulfill requirements set forth in the Palm Beach County Local Mitigation Strategy (LIVS}, as well as the National Flood Insurance Program's Community Ratings System (CRS), which require me to reach out to bath Ron- profrt organizations and private sector organizations within Pa Inn Beach County annually. If you are not interested, please accept my apologies. If you are interested in what we are about, continue reading below. Mitigation is the act of preventing something that is &nown to occur from accurringage in in the future. In Palm Beach County, we are charged with mitigating disasters and hazards that have been identified through a comprehensive Hazard Vulnerability Analysis. We do thisthrough our Lflcal Mitigation Strategy document, which is a guide for what hazards exist and how we hope to mitigate against those in the future. This document is located on the Division of Emergency Management's LMSwebpaMe athttn JJdIuouer.pbcg91,r�C �pub:icsa'etyldemlSannns±PIanninL-Local-Mitigation- Strategy.aTox . This document, over 300 pages in length, goes very in-depth to identify hazards and how the Working Group will work to mitigate againstthem- In PBC, we mitigate primarily through It ighly technical projects designed to reduce risk of a particular set of hazards from occurring. This is called our "Prioripzed Project List" which you can find on the same web link above as well. If you are interested in attending any meetings of the LMS Working Group, we hold our meetings quarterly in March, June, September, and December. Dur next meeting is scheduled for March 14, 2018 at the Intracoastal Park Event Room in Boynton Beach at 9a m. You are welcome to attend and find o ut how you r LMS is working to protect you from haza rds i n PBC. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, S1+cuf1&?: O'mff Special Projects Coordinator-PIanningSectio n Public Safety Department, Division of Emergency Management Palm Beach County 72 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 PBC Non -Profit Contact information January 2014 anna.poulin@ewrunnerctr.org Edna W Runner West Jupiter- Community Group, Inc. semrichywca@yahoo.com YWCA of Palm Beach County elisabeth.perry@211pbt�.org 2-1-1 Palm Beach/Treasure Coast info(cr�.AchievementCentersFL.org Achievement Centers for Children and Families info@AIzpb.org Alzheimers Care Resource Center of PB info@,gacy.org American Association of Caregiving Youth ..Taavrilos@bocahelpinghands.org Boca Helping Hands info cmboca.or Boca Raton Children's Museum inf6@becpbc.org Boys and Girls Clubs of PBC sgoinez adiocesepb,org Catholic Charities info@Senterfarchildcounseling.org Center for Child Counseling Rich@FloridaFishingAcademy.com .l{Iorida Fishing Academy customercare@,asseForg Girl Scouts of Southeast Florida info.@pbcfoodbank.or PSC Food Bank sharvey@primetimepbo.org Prime Time PBG 73 Local Mitigation Strategy 2420 Palm Beach County Private Sector (Far -Profit) Contact Information Jacqueline@Grellinger.com AXA Advisors a.estatemanagementservices@gmait.cam A+R Estate Management Services ricki2latz@allstate.com Allstate Insurance PBC jupiter@aspi2oolco.com America's Swimming Pool Co information@cruiseBP.com Baharnas Paradise Cruise Line info balfourbeatt us.com Balfour -Beatty Construction info Qgobrightline.com Brightline Rail Company sbutler butterconstructionusa.com Butler Construction Co sbrea,chenmoore.com Chen Moore & Associates (Engineering Firm) sales@chrisallenhomes.com Chris Allen Realty Info e,CRRS.Com Code Red Restoralion info Qcsiteamonline.com Cornerstone Solutions Inc. infoAdigitaltsunamillc.com Digital Tsunami LLC info@efundpro.com EFundPro LLC (Business Finance) 12almbeachgardens&landmarkpb.com_Landmark Insurance of the Palm Beaches 74 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Appendix 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- finding or with grant assistance are dropped and new proposed and planned projects are added. Jurisdictions 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, vulnerabilities, and mitigation strategies. As municipalities complete projects, they will be encouraged to submit new ones. At any given time, a few communities will not have listed projects. The current project list contains 94 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 are 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 evaluated 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 in November to review the project evaluation process. This ensures that the process is current 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 fimded, 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 HMP: Hazard Mitigation Program (FEMA), 404 HMGP: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (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 other funding as it is announced and 75 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 becomes available), status of project, hazard that project will mitigate against, and duration until the project is completed once funded and started. The appendix addresses, in part, the following FEMA requirements: 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. Requirement: §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. Requirement: §201.6(4)(3): The plan must describe the status of mitigation actions in the previous plan by identifying those that have been completed or not completed. For actions that have not been completed, the plan must either describe whether the action is no longer relevant or be included as part of the updated action plan. 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 benefit'' (Does the project address critical elements of the community infrastructure?); "community exposure" (Does the project mitigate an identified hazard or all -hazards 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)? 76 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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 and deemed acceptable under the rules of LMS by FEMA and the FDEM, and adopted by the LMS Steering Committee. This section also contains completed/deferred/deleted projects as well as photos of some of our completed projects within the county that were once on the PPL list. 77 C) N Q N EA z F.0 Fil U MWM Fil a 00 _ ❑ a o D a O L a p a a 4 L a O o Q C o d o +' ++ mo uo W '9p v0 a a� ao a v� r o r o r o o r o r o °' r o °� r o o } a E•� U C o C o c C) ?o o �Lrj ry cm)a , c c Q D� G O a m o^ irF 0 n �' � a U yr A4 v} 14 An in vs � 1 � v }i L ti on nA = L Ll m` LL J u Q LL — C ❑ °° C a _ m _ LLL � N `R w� o 3 t0 3 3 on @ d LL LL 3 E v ❑ `❑ n N n LL q � a-+ LL CU aQ. v N a w Z ,� (V z W z N z z -D z ani z N z z C a7 Q z o 0 "a c L6 L1A NC Q C M C m v Q c m ai a u E u E a u E a a u E a a l7v w L7 0i [7 i7 q� i7 L7 L7 p L'] L7 O ❑ C7 O C7 p ❑ ❑ _ � Q ❑_ _ 4.. = S Q S = C LL N Z Z E m E z E a VSi@+ - 2 � N 61 Y i V ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ w u E ❑ 0 u u u u U u to u CL a a a a a a a C a LU a LL � u @ u ru L c c ❑ m m m m co m L -❑ - u r ,� o u r @ u m ❑ u T M @ y� f ys L C C N y Q x _ C1 d co ❑ 07 nD y v Y o J Ci c Ul r E V1 J J@ m u �1 aA Y 00 C Y DD = U! ..-. *' � J N cry n d9 O7j lff *- O ro m v m mr v° m c� L — C m @ Y fC E w E w P w u (U @ N @ C +� R [D S N Q @ D7 Q3 in L ❑ a+ A D o2f > > L ro = 2! rn 0 d E s° .� +� Q N 2 ❑ u Q c @ Q Y v u 0 p E O E O_ E Q E rn C c u W V +' 4r 0 m �- ami u a a� m kn E a° ° u�i 0 3 N m E>5 d rr10 w m m j _ d v r} z •� rp 'N 'y � Nra ro v, a @ a o E E § — .A ry m It +n kD n as im cm) at co t- Q N Q N C w, o aa o do,a s aLoOo o CD N ry ro C3 Ld 'D mrO ro 6 mp m m m ia Onm royi7- d o w w 7- a va y. a al -4 Y m ra w 0 aLnal a >- D ap >- O i C 0 u m o a Q'0 o a 00 1 m o n o a,o ❑.- Ln o O a CL N Li p�❑"N p c, " c0 a - prf nd ri � ww •MI Q L L y ❑ al N m i w bo C w w W/❑ ❑ L N N ❑ ❑ • ❑ D ❑ - O dl 4 ❑ -� ❑ a1 ❑ Q1 In Ln > 7 Ni Z 4 ya LL z v z ¢+ m z aj z a z ar z ar z aia, z z v z ai z v z Z ,� 0 J a LL O U 0 ¢ U w a a. (D a 0 a tD a (D a cD a a a n: = x x =Ct, z x x x x = z x = L1 L cn E CLJ ^� ii -14 Y ..}�.' L L X L Y LLn Y T 0 - v v u = - u u u u ❑ ❑ :3 a D a D rz a a a rl 0. 3- -C t U m '� = @ }' N V m cLi m al U u a@j m al m GD C fuu (V }1 V p� 0. L ❑a; f"" Q1 m w m Y tl7 m .p m V L ❑ @ d al [9 r6 ❑ m ❑ ..-- m V) ❑ > a7CL 0. N� C 0. J ❑ �0r9 C aJ N C Q) a a v = ro c E N a N al N al "t5ra 0. 7 Y_ a� m v m V+ N N tt7 N 09 al n ❑ ❑ t_ 4 CLO m N m [D a..� KU C LL u @ L Cr7 v U u � Fp C = C ., a1 @ LL aJ C1 ❑ a7 E LI] Y *' Ay OCj A D cU @ w Z Q Q al =� Q a) a .1 -rp ❑ i.� C 61 C C a D rC6 V1 "❑ v OA O Q ++ 47 ro ❑ @ .0 V a F p d @ V in U O D1 0." a Z QI •� f�6 N Q C O O Q N 0 pDq C +�+ V N m a. V) E @ 0 Z w ❑ Q@ a cd w z m Cs �G C H N {r7 Ln CP n DO m a "- N ro N r -I r'I r'I ri r1 N [V !N IV U1 n I 6 1 d E Q O Q O 4 O ✓� O d O d O O O Q N d ' d O Q O Q ++ d wQ L fl �Q i O �Q L N O a�Q O Q �p O mo Q �p gym Q �a rp d Nd i o V Q !C iA Q Q M d rrt 0) } Q d rn Y 4 Y d L4 d d d j Q} m d ap m VL• N Q w 00 01 N O ti C11 w Q Ql m O' O ❑ if'f D [D 7 V7 d E C Q j m d LZ N at L7 d d � f� C Q Q C N t lD N H -1 O H m LL rq bo GD C CA C w C C to C 4-0 O 6 18 O 0 W ❑ LLL4 doto� O dA dA b4 y� _ b,O L ~ m °a L Q 0 OO O o `b' m 3 3 ? E M LL w E E E V E b b o n yr n fuN i❑ n y16. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Q.1 Q N Dl m N Ql 4J N tlJ Ol Dl Dl 91 z z z z z z z z Z Z Z o ; � t0 pD N a m. 0. LL, d Q L1. IZ d a 4 Z Z Z 2 2 2 Z Z Z = = 2 N N L Y -V- 0 ❑ ❑ 9 O V V V V V V V u U V U CL a m 7 7 7 7 D 7 D 7 7 7 U- 0. ol d d a d d a IZ V V U V Y V LLJ V V Q L w Dl [6 cu U7 61 m tl] d sem+ u m m m +.-i d CI] m m m iv iv m o j CLEE 4 t O m a ❑ 7 sn a Y a �u J � C� Y a YX o J C J J 7 bb i6 w a a c Q Y g= v Q, R '@ n ao ❑ n a o o M y in °7 n s❑n 'i m is C] a� '-' W w aJ a� LL v a m Co d Q v t E aJ ❑ 'ry N x v c 07 v ry a cua a tj as G7 "' v z ¢ ra N c LL 7 Q m = C y UJ L Z fO a ❑ N f0 O1 QJ �O f9 b N %`r 4G E °b ❑ x °„'a ° �❑ V zw0 C) zn � CL ma ❑ N d 6 m s ep ¢' � p d ¢ o a�n Q V V t -V 6 0 Z 'O Ll ro Q Z N Ln N J ra ad '7 Ln Cp I- 00 (n O -1 N m V) N N N N N N rfi fel m m m co Q 00 G o o ao a oo o L - aL p [a "voroam d w oo Q m mma } m aa >- amim Q�0o7 aa ') i ri O aj � d m Q o Q a ro rt te p Ln L 'tprnsC oC,o�o C > oLn j 7 LZ 7 Ln tf� m v n m 40 nn 00 -0 to w w on C C C C C C C C C C ru m ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 0 > a) ❑ 6 O 0 D D D '� ❑ ❑ ❑ r — ❑ � ❑ LL ❑ ❑ _ — ❑ O b m LL LL LL ¢ LL � LL Ll Q LL Ll Il � C 4 � N p LL tl�Y 4-6 j,.A 3 3 3 3 3 3 Qj 3 3 3 3 0) 3 m m v v v a Q+ Z E❑ z z z z z z z z z z z z z o a [6 4!] N w, C ry a ci d a a a a a a a a a V L7 Q 0 0 [_7 L7 0 Q C7 L7 0 i 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 T = 2 2 2 aLL N N y y N u] y y y N y y C C o ?� ?� ?: - i Q U V U u ❑ i u V u ri a a CL a a a a. a a 0- d m m m D7 m D7 V D C t U u Sa C ra al m w m w tl0 m V7 L m v U ❑ N m N ❑ m m m Y Y s ❑ ❑ _ m _ ❑- T [per OiF3 C D =_ ❑ ❑ ❑ ru 4-1 Q1 N 7 T 3 Y Y N ❑ ❑ R d cu Y di Y Y J _ ro CO J J J .J .x al y p to Ul (U z y 7 L1.0 O aj n C L7 C. v v in ro a W � o v +. m 3 L i LL o • m , O G Q N Q�1 j N ❑❑ C j., N O1 yru V7 rL U "Eo a C C Q N Itf to Y b o Q) c -y❑- E we E❑ 7 5 m 41 41 v ,. n V C m❑ C .0 L ❑ @ p D co m a' u 1A �' al N d d m O 3 Q, Ln ra m Ln 3@ u c cn o = r 3 a LL 0, n o o d G] ¢ a LJ o s v an .4 � Y d ¢' � in Q r Ld ,tl F ra - C V7 C NLL O ¢ Q CL 'n „� as � V � e � — z N s L- e Y C L[] n co rn o -1 tv m �r Ln LO n 00 [C m m m m rr v Ir cT c er er �r 0.' C w� p 41 o p Q u] d Q O L a ro Q L m O L i o t [9 N m O L O m Q i . Ncs i+ Era r+ d [6 H a� o v o o uo a v o rc a d o ra o ai C a co oo ro p °' p o °' ,n mo m a r p ra d C) o o i o Y Cj Y a O r } O } >- a Y O 7 LD C co C p j 7 n 7 Q C LD ❑ N ❑ O C p O Lr� j '-'� v 0 p LL 0 ih LL LL LL ~ ~ N Ln O� H In LL � N t i? H N {�jl y�j} nu 40 C_ C5 m w ❑ ❑ y � L r N "� 00 to w GO LL ❑A lw5 E to W EA N C C N = 0 L C fV p� _ n L ' ❑ ❑ b ❑ w ❑ ❑ al ❑ M 11 ll 12.. LL LL LL LL J ❑v V7 N61 LL � N T 'p Gl 07 CL W cU v Qj cv W or d a ar a m v v Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 op7 up c m ao v a cL a a a a a a a L- a � � � L7 [7 L7 LJ L7 L7 i7 [7 l7 C7 [,7 C7 L7 z x x z x = x x x x x x = CL N IIS N V1 V1 N V] VI N N N Vi N 0 0 0 v 4 0 0 0 0 G u u u u u u u u u �+ �a 7 7 a 7 7 3 7 7 7 d 0. d 0. 0. 0. d d d t N L V p U C ❑ L ra a ro al [9 w m m u ro V ❑ -- ❑ ro +' LA N '� W [n ❑ rd t9 f6 L m m CC al ..0 m 'i7 m ❑ a a C L 00 v r yr •� CL iEi > m St7 4�j C ❑ Y�pp Y ❑ N Lr% m �[ 1 � _ p N NN ul L 7 I V1 Cj - ❑ I a to ❑ a`^+ W-5-- Z .N c + x ❑ c m cn v .. c v d n� ai O! Q 0- Nr LL Y N— �' a N ❑ a o °' N N ❑ ao❑ Lu❑ a ro ¢ m a s @ c[ Q° W ru a @ ❑ l:7 ° r9 3❑ Q a Y a — U c r- u � c rC. ❑ L nn a @ d ro n C b— S] L v � w a-+ v C ❑ o p v E w oo CL m , m :3 s u n Z U Ln 0 F Ln Lr) sn Y C m Q ti N m Ln w n 00 m o N tG It ui un ul LO Ln Ln in Ln us Ln m to N N r` G o a O o N Q a O o 0 O O }' 0 vo �' o i 0 "o " O ro a O roo O mo O M mo L O L 0 m t d @o 4, [C in 7 0 °' O v T p a, o °' p p v o o d d v o v4 7- p a o} v,o a ro N o, p Q.w G s o o v ro ❑" a,o p❑ }Ci> ❑ 7 0> o o Q D o Q ❑ a ❑ o m a }o as o❑ mo }o w }Q o Q y �n mop 3m ~ ❑ po ,n 3N 3 n ~ 3�+ F 3ut 3N F 0 3n F ❑ ❑o .�o `` n ❑o ?� `� 30 ~ Q ori i tars rY � to � tn ri m Q r vs +Nis V }� crf en vs �s vs �•'� [1p C Qj Vl N_ w L iC ry � 6 al al tll 7 dA = EW OA 00tla ij d4 C 0 a m m o 0 0 0 v m ro v y ❑ ❑ D ❑ ❑ �n = or ❑ c id ❑ ❑ o LL a Z � y � 3 L 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 � a' a ay m m w w m m aJ m w ai m Zz z z z z z z z z z z z z z L u a in bA v+ t, n. a a a a a a a a a a n_ a a- 0 0 l7 0 is 0 0 L7 4 2 2 Z Z 2 S 2 2 2 x = x S S Ia. cn VI VI V] V] �I1 VI N VI VI V1 N V1 Y 0 Y 0 Y 0 Y 0 Y 0 Y 0 Y 0 Y 0 Y 0 Y 0 Y 0 L Y ❑ ❑ d U V V V V u V V V V V V U .app N 61 u U U u L u L U L u -i-- u C C6 u m m m m m m m 19 "a ❑ � •a � a T T U v T m T T T T T m T 12ro T ro T T m °F •' � al O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a er a N N m a Z. �- aJ aJ �J1 LL d �j N m > S9 > m > m m E N aJ li ❑ 7 - E rip c aj Q1 ra c @ d d d m a ❑ Y u - "' C j.+ L m dA 3 ay E V cx 'd d a 7 7 ai 7 C O f9 •� ❑ m T 0 ❑ '� rry d? m C 0 ai v 73 C A Ry a1 al C N N C U �, al C �, N C � " C� 41 C W LLJ d ❑- n❑ n o a= o L d E L ay E v E m E v— 3 ❑ rEa O o v C Q u U u u .❑ Q Qi 2 Cr m j -❑ m j fO j m j C '- m +_ m Ql C w O al i C)� C) C) C)❑ ❑ m O Ln N a F' iw Y E E E E M V i -n lA Op Ch 0 r -I N M L71 m to Ln in Lo v] w �o N n cr c ao o Lco to o o o o a po o CLk 0 v O o at p p 0 NO >-0 0 mr• ren 7 0 p• y Cl G 0 o 1y4 m `n p co � ❑ p a co Ln I o � =lu9 coG v ❑v CU 0 r-i ❑� iL 4❑ ❑ m H L6 l v ��t� N n sr� irn .a � m v m H N a0 N a aD N a on �N m a a N a as as N ❑ an N C m C c C J @ J C C m C m Cm a d m O (V m N fu m p pm pm N Q ❑ q sq 'A 1 V � s b ❑ ❑ LL ¢ LL w ¢ ¢ LL¢ {Q 6 ❑ N 1.1 LL_ 4 m v v v v v v v v v m m aj Z r z z z z z z z z z z z z z z o a d d 0- 0. 0. a a ti. rL a d 0- 0 0 U 0 LI) l7 LD u LD Q l7 C7 0 L7 (D W A u'❑ 'C C5 o 0 o` `❑ `❑ `o a o 0 o a ❑ C d V ci Y u u u 0. 3 d 7 d 7 0. 7 CL 7 0. 3 a. 7 d 7 d 7 a� ❑ d ❑ d ❑ OL ❑ 3 d M w m o a m ❑ J mQj m Y a'0 V m u m m c m c w c L7 7 ro m L t M a ❑ m Q1 7 Of of •- m Q �" ru d C Ol -C m ❑ bn q7 ❑ O i O O C 91Z co d G C p7 m a C C - 1 J C * N C _ ❑Oz m U +u u v 0] b Q �/V Co C uap m D7 gJ ❑ ❑ j ro E ry U] ❑ m f N of E m E C ❑ 7 ❑ ❑w1 N E m L 0 +y' v i a)q ❑ ri1 ❑- 7- .r m E [9 — W c:b _m t4 C OJ CL m m -> ❑ F fO iJ 2 ma) m U m .) m cu in p ❑ ❑ m L ❑ F- ' m 6 H m x w m a ❑ CL m m :5-b w a C cn r. W m 0 r -t r14 m v to e9 n oo m f0 n n n T- 00 00 00 00 W 00 co oa 00 oa CG 00 � � c L d o q q C @ C� d C H N O 41 P N Cl v N ql lfl E U Dui p� D� oq Oa C)q vil F- Q O 6 p ❑ �1 ❑ ❑ 'ZS [p fC d4 T N N N C N L C �w M41 C N � m b ra N m b a y t p " Q p m a Q E ¢- � -a ❑ ❑ O ❑ H 17. m v x LUV N V W al a w v w °„' 0 {p pl C O v E w a pC, wv ni Z C D Z Z Z Z Z C y o N N N N }+ m to �► C a Cl- a a a U C7 C7 C7 0 C7 C y a CL a a a W 2 2 T T d. LA u C V co W N N N N V1 m Y Y Y i Y F 7 E E N QL1 [6 V u U u N in Q S Q y N o T) o Y L o r aj ai rp (V�_ w ❑ Q) L ❑ ❑ Dl C _@ ❑ 1 � ¢ E a G � r E C rQ E y a C�C C G j W O C ❑ U D L Q O v m CL z o v a Ec w _ o ro F b0 ❑ uE b N m Q❑ �a U V= y rj •� CL E U 73 C QJ v7 d x C p ti ry m ra m rn m rn rn a 7r O N kn 00 a as o0 on oq on Q O 6 p ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 'ZS fC T N OJ Q1 to 4 OJ W y y p} Q Q Q � E E � a ❑ ❑ O ❑ 17. m v LUV N V W a w v w °„' 0 {p C Q C O UZn E w a a a ❑ U U ❑ N N N N }+ U U U U n. M n —0 y a CL a a a �] u C V co U ca u m uauq m orvn m m G E E N [6 [O f6 C •m N N N L7 r aj ai v m v a v d v +' ¢ E a E E r OJ j y a C j W O C ❑ U D L Q O a m CL u Ec E _ o ro F b0 N kn 00 O N N M I. Ln tio "O "O "O "O "O "O tio C Co Co f0 f0 f0 f0 C C C C fo fo f0 f0 C '0 "0 "0 N N N N "0 "0 "0 "0 N N N N "0 O O O co m co co O O O O f0 f0 f0 m O O O O t t t t O O O O L L t t O LL LL LL Q Q Q Q " LL LL LL Q Q Q QLL O O v ar v a a -o -o -o -o -o -o -o -o v v "O co f0 fo Y ++ 3 3 3 c v c v v v a a Q U v Ca C Ca C Ca C Ca C CLC C Ca C Ca C CL C Y p p v ° a ° a p uo uo uo uo uo uo uo uo 'o 'o 'o •Q 'Q p p Lu v -o -o -o -o w -o -o -o n. a m a a -0 -0 v -0 v v o v v o v l7 C7 l7 (7 l7 O o .v c_ O c O c o .v c o .� c_ O c O c o c o a v c_ U L 3 `" CL 3 L Q� 3 `" Q `" U 3 `" O L O `" 2 2 2 2 2 (:J c LL Q �Q� � �Q Q �a �a �CL O p ++ U U U U +> U 3 p U U U N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y VI Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L p 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 5 _ _ _ _ _ T5 _ Z _ :B _ Z _ :6 _ :a _ :a _ _ _ — LL N O 7 7 7 3 3 3 7 3 3 7 7 7 3 7 LL LL LL LL LL a a LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL L U U t u ru +L.+ Ln co N 4J _0 4J _0 4J _0 4J _0 4J N m d4 � p N m _0 M (O (O 2 iR m C m E Um N C •L m C co C co C co C +' c C (7 (7 (7 l7 (D co co c O NC ,f° +�° v O co O C C C C O E C 41 4J 4J 41 4J co C C J J J J LL 4) to o m m m m m �, C7 o a m o m c s o �n g -O fo fo 41 _� bo m N 4J Cj f0 - C O ,1-+ C� C 0 Of N C to .0 f` C 4J y.. C 4J C O v� C �p v� m ++ c O N m a) O .` L E ++ `�- N f0 ++ E +' co UO O p p U O ++ C C p C � E O N +' O V co p 7 as L +, +L+ co ra N a) t a E LL 2 in ` + 0 c E .co Q Q 01 v co '� o ao 0 0 o O N L v) Q- ++ vo' E co �_ f0 +� co m c' c O U O N � 3 J w co f0 Oi U Q E O. �o E c -0 > L o 7 ra 0 w C ra E— .O (% v_ t 3 .� of af°i N '� U — c— tO 0 •co O_ N 0) J m a •� C Z o o cco .°Q Z n CL u fO 0 J LL O o cj (n Z p I. C) N O N 00 _ O ul ul ul ul ul CA -p 'p "O CA 00 "O I fa an CA bD "O C M m m C C M f0 p t t t p p CA to O O LL Q Q Q LL LL Q c � LL LL a O O LL a) LU LL w 3 v o ai ai a) Y Y Y u3> .a C� O v v O a a O 0 M a; O 0 a = Z 0 0 0 3 v v a a a a a a W a a a � (D (D (D v c a' v c 2 2 2 2 2 2 (D c=( LL c= LL 2 2 2 C — C — = 2 -NC �C Y Y Y -Ne -Ne t.. O O O O O O O O O O O 3: 3 3 3 Y 3: Y 3 Y 3 Y 3 Y 3 Y 3: Y 3: Y z Z LL LL a LL a LL a LL LL LL LL o _ c0 co m ate) C c E LL LL LL LL LL O O 00 to N > O O p tYJo t"YJo N N N C a CL E E Y oto c +, v c v+ °; c > v o ,, c o c v v pLo U N = T u u U t10v N c 4 C a1 u Y = m C — E c N � L_ a) U O +� ra T O +, Y N +' o v E Ln _ 3 ° — v E v o Q w a, m ami a c LA a E v x O E> E E r= U o E E °r p cC c w O a _ a t a O L„ _ N Ln U — N a N to O 0 cr F3 00 AFJ wo cd U�. U U .j U y y x 0 Kia, w U rd O G1 41 0 O` Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 Appendix F: Funding and Data Sources This appendix addresses, in part, the following FEMA requirements: 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 finding source to provide comprehensive mitigation finding 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. The following list, though not exhaustive, includes many of the ways mitigation projects are funded or encouraged to be funded by the LMS in the county: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) — This program provides finding only after a Presidentially -declared disaster affects the county. It is provided by FEMA, and administered by the State of Florida's Mitigation Branch as an Enhanced Mitigation Plan state. All projects to apply for this program must be included on the County's PPL and each jurisdiction must have adopted the LMS in order to qualify for these funds. Additionally, jurisdictions are encouraged after a disaster to coordinate and use Section 406 funds in conjunction with Section 404 finds as allowable to mitigate future damages. Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) — Again, this is a FEMA -funded program that is released annually. It is not tied to disasters and is intended to mitigate recurring flooding issues within a jurisdiction. It is a nationwide, competitive grant program in which each state may only apply for one grant. Projects applying through this grant program must be included on the County's PPL and each jurisdiction must have adopted the LMS to qualify. Pre -Disaster Mitigation (PDM) — Another FEMA -fended program that is released annually. It is similar to the FMA program except it is not restricted to flood -related projects. It is a nationwide, competitive grant program. Projects applying through this grant program must be included on the County's PPL and each jurisdiction must have adopted the LMS to qualify. Small Business Administration Loan Program — This program is coordinated through the Division of Emergency Management, but typically does not involve the LMS. It 92 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 allows individuals as well as jurisdictions to take out low or no interest loans for specific issues related to mitigation. • Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) — These grants, provided by the federal Housing and Urban Development department, are grants given to jurisdictions for a multitude of reasons and are somewhat flexible on how the jurisdiction may be able to use them. Although they have not been fully utilized or mitigation purposes, the LMS encourages jurisdictions to actively look at these grants as a source of potential funding for their mitigation projects. CDBG is independent of the LMS process, so funds that are used for mitigation are not required to follow the standard LMS submission and prioritization process. However, since these funds are allowable to be used as the local 25% match for HMGP funds, anytime these funds are used for that purpose they must follow the standard LMS processes. • Hurricane Loss Mitigation Program — This program is 100% funded by the State of Florida annually as the only state -funded mitigation program in the nation. It provides small grants to jurisdictions of up to $194,000 dollars for mitigation projects. These fiends are also independent of the LMS process, although HLMP fiinds have often been used to complete small mitigation projects that do not go over that funding limit. We also encourage jurisdictions to use these funds to assist in mitigating Repetitive Loss and Severe Repetitive Loss properties when the costs do not exceed the established funding limit. • Capital Improvement fiords — These are funds paid for locally through tax dollars to improve the capital structure of a jurisdiction. Many prioritized LMS projects over the years have eventually been funded using Capital Improvement funds locally. These funds are independent of the standard LMS process. • Penny Tax — This is a recent funding mechanism that can be used to fund projects locally. The County has a one -percent sales tax with the funding dedicated specifically to infi,astructure projects, including mitigation of infrastructure. The LMS highly encourages jurisdictions to apply for and use the penny tax to complete mitigation projects. Several years ago, 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. Hazard -specific HMGP projects, submitted specifically in response to county allocations, may, at the discretion of the LMS Steering Committee and Evaluation Panel, be prioritized using other criteria relevant to flood mitigation and wind retrofit projects. In 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 mitigation funding sources is maintained on the DEM Sharepoint site. 93 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 This page intentionally left blank 94 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Appendix G: Hazard & Risk Assessment Maps Appendix M 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 data in this appendix addresses, in part, 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 occurrences 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. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): The risk assessment must also address National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) insured structures that have been repetitively damaged by floods. 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. 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. Further risk assessment detail pertinent to these FEMA requirements are contained in Appendix A, in the PBC Hazard Environment section and in the hazard profiles. 95 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 The maps listed in this appendix are cited below. Map Source Historical Flood Prone SFWMD & PBCGIS Areas' Storm Surge Areas USACE Evacuation Zones DEM/USACE Coastal Erosion Boundary PBC ERM Hebert Hoover Dike Breach SFWMD Reach Wellfield Protection Zones PBC ERM Division of Wildland Fire Areas Forests /PBCFR Radiological Ingestion FP&L Pathway Zone Muck Fire Areas PBC ERM Transportation Areas PBC GIS Hurricane Peak Wind NWS/NHC Potentials Other Countywide Hazard Threats (Tornado, Extreme PBC GIS Temps, etc. Agricultural Pests PBC ERM Tsunami Buffer Tsunami Society Southeast Florida Sea Level Rise Possible Regional Climate Inundation Change Compact 96 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Dyl r rnffva cru r �Cr e LAKE OKEECHOBEE PA O•KEE P.....H..-a-w-+m 77B 7G0. ESTLAKE r 1 iH9 DILA E 880 WELL►NQTO BA S v� 27 ---------- Bra Najd Corm! Agriculture'A LMS Plan Agriculture Area City Boundary wP..�rrd..a .•.d.m Rallroad �— — County Boundary PmIm It—h County Dyl Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 98 PALMLAKE CLARKE Hordxrn PBC �.__,..,•____�..,.,,.._.4—\ RPRINGS $HlMarfin PALM Crvvnty I 3up[terlake _ TEgU156 Wwffi O EENACRES LAKF BEACH iYORTH UPI,TER L•akeMorth-Rd INL TC'LONY *-Indian n•Rd ` TLANT►S X41 Sp�TH t PALM 11 BCACH JUPITER 4 LANTANA � �^ I NYPOLUXG JUNQt MANALAPAN r BEACH i � Yrl � t 1 '� OCEAN PGA Blvd Boynton Beacl}•eI•ed RIDE PAX M 7. 1 BEACH ; BOYNTON6EACH r GARDEN V. N RTH t BR►NY 8RE,E2E8 PALMIBEACH l 1 GOLF I Horthtak Blvd 'SL 4 GOLF Boa LAKE PARK 'BTR± AM RIVIERA BEACH t ! N PALL J 5, BEACH DEL RAY BEAC :•, �_ � � BHOREB i WAllantrc' pia; NIAN00WAlI r I y I 0 Atlanlic•PS r PARIf 1 ❑ a I © m ! n WE PA LM {a g BEACH 4V 2 REACH I � I ►cyLANo Okeecnuher•Hl�;d r ; BEACH Ij HAVERH�RILL � Sa u trarn•61vd-amoo. CLQUO CAKEI tc li 1 q- GLEN RIQRE z.; BQCA RATONI r 2' � I f WELL►NG.T.ON 11'4KEA I vi CLARIYE 11j SHARE$ f W Palm'e to•Park•Rd PQM 1� GREENACRES sPR►NQ y 1 II L•ake•Warth• d SoutnemPBC LAME ORT, I ________-- -- 7--_...__'y 1 Lake Waith to Boca Raton l3n7rraM County Cf%/ Coastal Erosion LMS Plan Coastal Erosion Area City Boundary — Railroad CountyBoundsrJ vatsB—A, CovrTy 98 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 99 Martin County TEQUESTA --•-----------------^--------- -- �INL•E1rCOLONY �Wlndlan own•Rd �4I Occan JU TER ' PALM JIyINO BEACH BEACH y. GARDENS, ��• PGA,BIvd—© NORTH 1l MW ,e PAL CH F�x Horthlake•Bivd LA AI OV IERA PARK BEACH •~ Coq WEST PALACBI EACH hm s� PAL M eHOR£9 ��}! BEACH PARK WES TL AN ❑MIA 17n0 � 4 LOX.1 "ATCHE'E I 41 .Bti ` GROVES ROYAL i PALM ' k®ocho ee•$1VG PALM -� BEACH HAVERBEACH 41 BD Soulhe ln•B1vdCL'OUO WtfE GLENRIOQE CAKE CLO RKE GHEENACR£S SHORES WELLINGTON ' LM PA { 4 1�11J SPRINGS WORTH L-ake•Worth•� �E - A•TLANTIS�SU PALM LA MANA1APAN 64�NTON HYPOLUXO lake BEACH J Okeechobee CEAN RIDGE n• i 4 oy I Beach•81vd z ~ 8R►N Y, BREEZES l ! PA Hp KEN Q DOLE v QF ST EA)W �1y3, U I •Aon @£ACHY Irl �� r HrGHLAND 0),_ 6EACH � k.,PUTN BELLE BAY GLADE BeA RATON m- v w a 27 � Pa me Park• d Hroward County Palm Beach County ZA LMS Plan Cit Bou =Railroad Counl eounda Y TY �. _ Y ryass.»:.Q, `� caw, epi -ear. �*a m, nn. rwn we'K"w PaT"eoaGsca.,�Ty r 'ke.Nis 99 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 100 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 101 84m counly ----------------------- -- nA------------- rraue t, UPITFe �Ind]anSvwn•RdcHr @� �Wln�ilantnwn•Rd Lt} (•dna �~ S rt+errr�{ 1 PA40 1 J @FAOH 'O R �H GAFQEKB POA-91vd�©�. 111 � xl K Northlake•Blvd RE CK Pj f 70% - xI wffA FAf,Y P Op' ALM RFA a ®@LACK 7p b aArdAF@ REACH N GO lA ,1y r Wryrsnx@ 441 r P'�'h LOXAHATCNFE seA�K ON04W ROYAL Ok h hea•91Yd { PALL! I G +1 i eewcH 1 � HAYF !LL II (p Sauthern•BlvdclGu e:�KE-'77 V OLlx OftiE I� O EN CLANIiI i C1 MLN�f, 1�ee[IN6TON avirlva@ �-4� SKO�RES C GeEFHACeES i L•Ike•Worth•Rd uxr- I � wamw Q sO rH A T!S_LAiyIA PALM r8lA6H NAVA�AH i f Nrr+ucuxa aarm a EAN Boynton•9each•Blvd xluDE f GOLF eerq'r aerEzrs s oYLF amFAN r l7l � dant D -A a dFr.xAreFA Nli „ f HhWLAAfD iACH p'Io� eOae xara@ r� f almetto•Pgr$-Rd 27 -____________...,_.....__.__--___--------.....� f 6laward Go+rnly Historical Flood r� LMS Plan Flood Area City Boundary Rallroad j } County ry Bounda 1..._ .�_l mM.'a.d �..„,+...� •...•.dam. .;x�d� ""� ^ N'�x i�ria.0 �,+�.v.w�d. roee�xvr+r�,unw�+ P+fm Beach County as7r.ar.w .wor •a pie 101 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 102 Marlin County TEGUE$T $eay IndlBnlOwn•Rd --T —^ B�8� JUP►T R, g f swrlb _ PALM SEAS GARDENS P%! NOrthlak0a3vp ...._. _..� e�� I: WEST PALM LO YYE KE 6EACN- LOXAJATCHIErE t gp O OVES ROr L �+A L E AC NA VER ►L SOU DE out ar r61 d �, rx I� I OREENA RE #j �7 25' - TI�`�!N c4 BERG 7 DELpri 6 N — ----- ---- ----- Broward County Water inundation based on 26' lake level with multiple preaches - Less than 1 day = 5-8 days 1-5 days 8-12 days Herbert Hoover Dike Breach Inundation LMS Plan 0„claMx a -- Railroad City Boundary Coun �Bounda Boundary Ps.a.l.m;.eH.rewh Cwnty �a,�+axxia 102 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 103 maralcum ���j► ., �•—IndlantormRd r, Atlantic IJ Ocoon Rux WO Okeechobee irla: .. r reiar VPGA S NORrY I ti eka 61rd I UUMM� j 9 � ft.i i 1 RI[11 MW IaGN1iCNY '`25th° . bRar� a lfACff YLeme1 NfRiY t t em , eucr r � +rraavm • laux:ur "r OOIf I.NNY�IR!!tl-1 •i 1 1 aaiar 2r u1Fk, I � z daa•w _ almedo —J 1 Park d 13fniVoNd CaarT� — Muck Sail LMS PlanDiutai plt n& dnaWCwyuwxraa.,dhSl a'ra Pah r•---- Muck Soil Railroad City Boundary � County Boundary Ctr*GO Mary am Ir atrf xbg. elpess �Jlamia+r{.tvxe`nnw+1+'�l"9xaayrsrse/c+ •aahnscvss t,lplvGm puraoe nmerenH �^�°a r�a�m aY *•��n1xY,d hu F:dann'Yq i°m r�nlnrrioeldus �' ld' Palm Beach County CaS Sarrse Auer JYi�ary33. 301E 103 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 104 p 1�epyEsrA W I di t Rd� U R s o h[ Kos Ivd � / �IPAF i LM a PALM 8 O IA PARI(/ kafedh� Intl I LAL - 6 N/A/ H LL• uB[v o LI7 /nn CL'P •I OL1EN IP►�OGET LAIf'E C�RIi/E•� i HORES/ ! F PAL $PI:! QS XE L•ak j wort -Rd IWOR�H CREENA iS TLANTI3 SOUrMPALM � LAN oAA s fALA• PAN 80YIvTON 0 � h BEACH POL XO Q •ttC O EAN 7 6 ynte 6Cach•8tvd RIdQC �, @RINY,HREE2E5 Irl Vi PAN E 2 GOLF R[ILP Y 4 STHJEAM N I T 98 �r '-i REL6E rT, DEL+RAY. U ! c•Ava gEACH� I i � f �- HIGH LA NO BEACH .0 RA a iEE =jl 1me"o ParirRd f _.�w�Tw---"'__._.-.-_._.._-_..—'—'—'_--.___._.-._ 8rorrafd Courrf �-----�_-----�•_---- i Radiological Hazard ; LMS Plan Ingest+on pathway Zone Railroad t-----� City Boundary County Boundary 'a.�i, e". wr nµa`.«.., mm .rti.ne..�. Patm Beach C" -W " w.w...,a„ ,..cru. W.r 104 Local Mitigation Strategy l 2020 105 Martin ------L•ake•Warth•Rd County I GRE N CRE9 L; V. I1yaR• H ___-- TEGUESA' PALM SPR►IYpB !� � BE,14CH ArER .1N T COLONY TLANTI 8417W P'4fM •Indlanlown•Rd 7 BEACH r "AlT 7YA I JUPI R HYPOL UX OJ RIANALAPAN � Atlar�llc �1 Ocean JI1N4ti OYN NBEA H BEAEH. OCEAN Boynto r Zteach•Blvd RI E PrrA l BEAC E OARyFt l 1 d � 6R► Y PG 1REEZEB GOLF' l N RTH G LF 11,44 BEAC 1%, Rant lake -Blvd F L.4 E PARK t f y9a OE • V BEAC l Atlanile-Ave 1. j f �aPA�LrM BEACH SHORES ! RAL CN MAANNaNIA i � J AihBoUC '$Qa t ARX �� orf q I CJC:!'F7R wrsr t i �IGHLAND PALM i� EACH ! ll% BEA+C►► Okvochobe •Blvd I I l t I :Tr PALM B CA RATON HAVE6HI�'L + REACH = l til II 9 SouShern•Blvd LOUR ? i f j i LAK k pL EN.��R►Opr + I B RAKE CLARKE W-FalmQ�I[ -Perk-Rd9 j ��FM$HORES p f PA 5PR►N08 j I LA' pREENAERE$ fWG�TH _—_ 8rowerd Cdunly �- •� _, I Storm Surge SLOSH Inundation LMS Plan City Boundary RaiiroadY Boundary •' Palm Beach County acy h.�vu..r.ma�+.���W. aii..Fa 09 Sr.+w sr�iw lr.�ri tM� 105 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 106 --- ----- ----- --------------- ----- �afG11 �._ ____ --India lown-R j B �yf'e Aifaotic j rx Ocean � Lake Okeechobee PA u .OM 40 i �c•ras.,v ? rx i = kort6lake i j A I A�` MAY I ll�Ck �� !1R'liff 11ld7GRC Ak st� eiAcx 'SOuRemoireiir y�` 6 *e�.•FYSMRIf�� 2 d7 IM! k' Ktu+n= SJ,n�Y4141'f Tae�cn i 7', r�xrax. 5 MMS i zs ,nrur npiur� T_ 1 8 1KlN] � h �llgf 1 z E aausurmr Palmetto _ j � ark Rd 8m�v-ro Cnrmh _ _ Transportation Hazard LMS Plan a ulainer. K� PYn BEil Cond's [miRyN+s dsn `as�r'xavasn 3e7�Cbnyf�aim rq rdd,iRT�`x-afiz�rmrrcas �Oritd' 1 Mile buffer of Transportation Mode City Boundary Railroad ' Counry Boundary ��e�:srb a,a„ �.a�g ��yt� ' M"W�.'*a<aa�te� .smc�ruRrv>mt��aµoau�rc, Palm 8aaeh County Cssencaeveau�r2a 106 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Marfrrr r__.._.__...__...._..._— ' Corr+ty q`}, . SNORE ] LAKE I TEOULt OR ENACRES WORTH ' rER PAM tr NL Te ONY e PALM SPRINGS n. BEACH Wlndlant n•Rd 7 y TLANTIS S0 TH ti �PALMiBEACH 1 i — JUPITER !� 1 LANTA'NA I l� Atlantic Oceen HYP LUX i 1 � R7ANALAPAN +.{ JUN1G BEAI� I = OCEAN ' RIDGE i REACH SEACH >'G`F1=Hlyd-ir--.GAI7DENS 1 ' BRINY BREEZES 'I GOLF NORTH PALMlBEACH � GULF STREAM Nnrthla ke Blvd + j $eo L KE PAR►[ ` 1 4 + hm i y t QEL 17AY REACH j PALM 88ACH �HORES W-Atlanilc•A�B it RIVIERA BEACHAHantic ��' Ocean nsANOONIA 4 PARK ,I4 •� ! WEST m I k f BALM B REACH i `f 10 NO I BEACH HOLM — I Gkeaohobea"Blvd BEACH �, s i r� k r f ro f HAVERHIL'L 'E I i f 4 Soi horn -Blvd LOUP } BOCA RATON t GLENFRing LAKEI I CLARKS WPalm'ado-Park-Rd 'T, SHORES { � PALM GREENACRES SPRlNGB 1 WORTH 8rowardCou+lly r° - Tsunami Threat :?+ LMS Plan Tsunami Threat City Boundary Railroad County Boundary --_-1 r.,�� �..�.r...a.w9..•M.•.��.M ten' r " "ew. Palm BVPCti County M•xw.wR" ..a�w�r x.,w`. ass.... o.... s•...r as [dA Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 108 maprin L'uursly TE4UFSTA�j'� -------------___—_- ---________ —-------------------- -I JUPITER �ln lan[own'Rd------- �INL ! r¢LONY WIn lanlown•Rd 1 6e P�f 1�eH V 1 PALM J ND BEACH B ACH OARCENS tis S RTH PGA—BSvd.©� N € `A14BEACH Norihlaka•Blvd S E RIVIERA 9"CH Ivo WEST ' PA •HO)iE CH PALM 19HDRE9 ON, 9� WE TLAI(E BEACH MAH ONI PARK I PA LW � LDXAHATCHEF EACH @4 GI ROVES ROYAL f •Okenachohee'81vd IALM I f BEACH AYER IkL 81 �� Seutharn•Blvd CL'DUO E--��! GLIE�y ILRAEV� CLARKE �j I REENACRES sND ES WELLINGTON LM � S RINGS L•eKE_�QRTH kaNtarNi'Rd 11 11 A•TLA TIS SDITHPALM A TANBE�,CH MANAL+APAN Btl YNTD � } 6 n � H PDLUXD BEACH tl N)R►OOE Bo n -E each-Bld BR► Y BRFEIES OOL LlLF STREAM pry'' —Atlantic—A,.a BEpCH_+ ! r r HIGH O BEACH SOCA RA N" Atlantic r•� L7� m ti Orean m� I 27 Pel etlo• ark• d —'�--_—_------ ._________.�_______ �rnwurcl Cornrrr-- ----_"__"___ Welifield Protection Zone LMS Plan Wellfield Protection Ions City Boundary r_—___ii.u�,aim.b, Railroad County Boundary .narawL.w a �ex.r a : a „�,;: t•' Palm Roach County 108 Local ]Mitigation Strategy 2020 109 __________._________ _______..._...,.,_„_,,,.,,_�___ �. �77'�I7 CU�lf1�____—____________—__-,,,,__,_�___.-. TE12 -STA Indlanlawn•Rd Indapaptnn•Rd Jupiter Farms JUPITER � , Palm Beach Country Est le a wind . Caloosa 1n the Pines I PALM BEACH GARDENS AGA-CeNd Northlake•elvd LA PARK The Acma a I RIVIERA •,ti 1 BEACH WEST PALM WESTLAK£ BEACH MANGONI PARK While Fences a3 Ro al Qear Rain Ascot LOXAHATCHEE ESl fes QROYES '� ' Okaeondbeo•alvd ROYAC Fax Loxahaichee HACH z Trail Groves HAVIER±IHIIL �� $9 SO�ethern•Bly I WELLINGTON H WELLINGTON PALM L7) OREENACRES SPRINGS U7ke-Warth•Rd 5 ATLANTIS Homeland ��� Hl7YNTON @EACH Wildland Urban Interface Risk LMS Plan Wildland Urban Interface Risk City Boundary Railroad County Boundary t__ -_.,,t Palm Bach County OSSA -a erru �wrt1, N16 109 Local Mitigation Strategy l 2020 a-Favt 5ra Level Rise in Pxllsl 0<M1Cl1 Coil lily - I piter Mrx iwa P., tF•b I v w Inu1'riVA-1 ' AW{ VIIM lil, M&6 tM nlNM ` 1 1 I UES 7k �� }I LS�ir �� COLONY >zTI` ti.1, t �JUPI,TE '7V fC9 i - LM &E -AIM GA RQ9-N-.S lam, 14 _-, , -.L� 2 -Feel Sea Lnrl Ill- in PAIR 13-11 C—kkt.' 13 DCA A:dou Arra 2-F9015ra Lrrrl eisr fn PaLn 8ra13 [cooly 8rxr8 A"x Us Nna v1, ern 1- T+Y.K•l,In I Aeon L�,rnldayln M1n Ivl'r.- a Al" Mn tt 1. n, nV-&%7 kql IHIn I �5n y 1.• A• I+� �I�+� I 1 4 i 4 �F J-- J gwmmmF17G,+i�L ry BEA CH W B-0 YMra 6fACFi A.' RIDGE TAI e cA RnrorY �BR111Y R EZIS tow h GULF } talm u lr ❑ E L R A Y q�E A C H f, {( Olt Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Appendix H: Repetitive Loss Properties In accordance with the following FEMA requirement, the PBC LMS includes repetitive flood loss structures in its risk assessments: Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): The risk assessment must also address National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) insured strictures that have been repetitively damaged by floods. In addition, PBC's LMS and Community Rating System programs monitor the number and locations of flood prone properties countywide. Currently, there are 337 FEMA -registered repetitive flood loss buildings 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. According to FEMA Repetitive Loss data provided by FEMA Region IV insurance analysts, as of December 31, 2018 PBC has a total of 337 repetitive loss properties. A chart of repetitive loss properties is available in this appendix. This appendix also includes aggregate data from 1978 to November of 2018 of each municipality as well as unincorporated PBC flood -related losses documented by NFIP. It also includes data from FEMA/NFIP regarding NFIP flood policy information as of November 30, 2018. 111 Belle Glade Boca Raton Boynton Beach Briny Breezes Cloud Lake Delray Beach Glen Ridge Golf Greenacres Gulf Stream Haverhill Highland Beach Hypoluxo .luno Beach Jupiter Jupiter Inlet Colony Lake Clarke Shores Lake Park Lake Worth Beach Lantana Loxahatchee Groves Manalapan Mangonia Park North Palm Beach Ocean Ridge Pahokee Palm Beach Palm Beach County Palm Beach Gardens Palm Beach Shores Palm Springs Riviera Beach Royal Palm Beach South Say South Palm Beach Tequesta Wellington Westlake West Palm Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 LOSS STATISTICS FLORIDA AS OF 11/30/2017 TOTAL CLOSED OPEN CWOP TOTAL COUNTY NAP1E COMMUNITY NAJME ------------------------- ----'------------------------- LOSSES ---------- LOSSES LOSSES LOSSES --------- ----------------- PAYMENTS PALM BEACH COUNTY ATLANTIS, CITY OF 29 ---------- ' 18 _-------- 0 11 316,370.90 BELLE GLADE, CITY OF 8 3 1 4 26,837.91 BOCA RATON, CITY OF 629 208 18 403 2,313,252.56 BOYNTON BEACH, CITY OF S84 250 8 326 1,644,892.91 BRINY BREEZES, T014N OF 13 6 0 7 14,227.77 CLOUD LAKE, TOWN OF 7 5 0 2 20,317.57 DELRAY BEACH, CITY OF 752 340 7 405 2,542,937.58 GLEN RIDGE, TOWN OF 6 4 0 2 8,520.02 GOLF, VILLAGE OF 3 2 0 1 42,999.54 GREENACRES, CITY OF 20 6 0 14 42,206.73 GULF STREAPI, T014N! OF 43 20 1 22 126,963.30 HAVERHILL, TOWN OF 7 6 0 1 70,254.16 HIGHLAND BEACH, TOWN! OF 89 11 4 74 147,732.43 HYPOLUXO, TOWN OF 22 5 0 17 13,145.43 3UNO BEACH, T014N OF 43 22 2 19 314,029.92 JUPITER INLET COLONY, TOWN OF 17 8 0 9 105,470.23 3UPITER, TOWN OF 477 225 1 251 3,158,427.09 LAKE CLARKE SHORES, TOWN OF 19 9 0 10 27,254.62 LAKE PARK, TOWN OF 44 23 0 21 622,665.46 LAKE WORTH, CITY OF 200 107 3 90 703,091.32 LANTANA, TOWN OF 1S2 83 0 69 1,442,016.22 MANALAPAN, TOWN! OF 83 25 2 56 346,198.38 MANGONIA PARK, TOWN OF 13 12 0 1 465,502.44 NORTH PALM BEACH, VILLAGE OF 108 51 0 57 367,768.76 OCEAN RIDGE, TOWN OF 192 91 3 98 1,298,956.70 PAHOKEE, CITY OF 15 4 0 11 45,582.20 PALM BEACH COUNTY * 3,940 1,603 57 2,280 17,625,098.59 PALM BEACH GARDENS, CITY OF 304 166 0 138 1,466,415.10 PALM BEACH SHORES, TOWN OF 58 24 0 34 889,658.54 PALM BEACH, TOWN OF 1,195 672 9 514 13,259,167.40 PALM SPRINGS, VILLAGE OF 83 36 0 47 182,235.26 RIVIERA BEACH, CITY OF 266 89 4 173 1,370,397.84 ROYAL PALM BEACH, VILLAGE OF 36 14 0 22 233,542.42 SOUTH BAY, CITY OF 1 0 0 1 .00 SOUTH PALM BEACH, TOWN OF 65 31 0 34 1,400,361.95 TEQUESTA, VILLAGE OF 75 31 1 43 261,270.90 WEST PALM BEACH, CITY OF 474 277 1 196 3,710,290.10 Appendix H: Aggregate Flood Loss Data since 1978 (source: FEMA/NFIP database) 113 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Policy Statistics Insurance Written Florida In -force whole $ Premium In -force -------- 1j533 1,533 AS OF 11/30/2017 ---------------- -------------- 879,351 962 216,684,200 Policies Insurance Written County Name Community Name ----------- -------------- In -force -------- In -force whole $ ---------------- Premium In -force ---------------- PALM BEACH COUNTY ATLANTIS, CITY OF 379 92,285,300 106,381 BELLE GLADE, CITY OF 123 37,678,000 56,849 BOCA RATON, CITY OF 15,357 4,198,937,000 5,706,223 BOYNTON BEACH, CITY OF 8,885 1,912,665,000 3,169,413 BRINY BREEZES, TOWN OF 67 7,976,400 49,054 CLOUD LAKE, T014N OF 14 3,377,500 5,027 DELRAY BEACH, CITY OF 8,013 2,051,718,700 3,916,055 GLEN RIDGE, TOWN OF 20 5,949,000 8,860 GOLF, VILLAGE OF 30 11,080,000 14,620 GREENACRES, CITY OF 367 95,932,400 133,708 GULF STREAM, TOWN OF 374 116,521,600 370,017 HAVERHILL, TOWN OF 18 5,530,000 6,485 HIGHLAND BEACH, TOWN OF 4,097 984,723,900 1,045,935 HYPOLUXO, T014N OF 1,155 261,308,000 430,588 7UNO BEACH, TOWN OF 1,630 388,395,000 504,600 JUPITER INLET COLONY, TOWN OF 125 42,859,300 50,028 JUPITER, T014N OF 7,605 1,931,B79,700 2,443,015 LAKE CLARKE SHORES, TOWN OF 246 77,986,700 101,682 LAKE PARK, TOWN OF 822 161,573,700 270,898 Unincorporated areas of county only County Name Community Name -------------- Policy Statistics Florida AS OF 11/30/2017 PALM BEACH COUNTY LAKE WORTH, CITY OF LANTANA, TOWN OF MANALAPAN, TOWN OF MANGONIA PARK, T014N OF NORTH PALM BEACH, VILLAGE OF OCEAN RIDGE, T014N OF PAHOKEE, CITY OF PALM BEACH COUNTY PALM BEACH GARDENS, CITY OF PALM BEACH SHORES, TOWN OF PALM BEACH, TOWN OF PALM SPRINGS, VILLAGE OF RIVIERA BEACH, CITY OF ROYAL PALM BEACH, VILLAGE OF SOUTH BAY, CITY OF SOUTH PALM BEACH, TOWN OF TEQUESTA, VILLAGE OF WEST PALM BEACH, CITY OF Appendix H: Flood Policy Data as of 11/30/17 (source 114 Policies Insurance Written In -force In -force whole $ Premium In -force -------- 1j533 1,533 ---------------- 353,943,900 ---------------- -------------- 879,351 962 216,684,200 627,771 237 74,556,300 233,590 41 16,578,400 55,227 3,925 887,138,600 1,038,862 1,332 322,958,300 752,896 70 18,426,000 29,833 65,387 18,161,037,800 23,522,224 3,390 1,082,701,300 1,408,117 732 168,718,200 333,119 7,672 1,988,209,300 5,349,358 1,444 230,103,600 345,982 5,468 1,358,721,900 1,743,504 638 184,218,600 225,393 31 8,913,700 20,909 1,596 340,709,700 407,232 1,324 327,388,200 438,367 7,115 1,884,597,800 2,588,116 FEMA/NFIP database) Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 The following pages address CRS requirements of listing Repetitive Loss Properties, by jurisdiction, via occupancy type and value of structure. Also included is total building payments made by property, total contents payments, number of losses, and total amount paid per property (by jurisdiction). All property identifiers have been removed per FEMA/NFIP request. Community Occupancy Building Tot Building Tot Losses Total Paid Name FMLY Value Payment Contents BOCA RATON, SINGLE 462,749 111,830.10 Payment 2 147,164.47 ATLANTIS, CITY SINGLE 115,298 45,045.72 2,882.00 2 47,927.72 OF FMLY BOCA RATON, SINGLE 462,749 111,830.10 35,334.37 2 147,164.47 CITY OF FMLY BOCA RATON, SINGLE 231,990 13,137.04 0.00 3 13,137.04 CITY OF FMLY BOCA RATON, SINGLE 50,000 673.60 3,826.66 2 4,500.26 CITY OF FMLY BOCA RATON, SINGLE 190,696 22,451.29 4,843.04 2 27,294.33 CITY OF FMLY BOCA RATON, SINGLE 301,989 10,476.19 0.00 2 10,476.19 CITY OF FMLY BOCA RATON, SINGLE 289,438 4,669.53 0.00 2 4,669.53 CITY OF FMLY BOCA RATON, SINGLE 773,953 101,028.25 7,475.30 2 108,503.55 CITY OF FMLY BOCA RATON, SINGLE 109,460 5,228.35 6,466.70 2 11,695.05 CITY OF FMLY BOCA RATON, SINGLE 250,000 9,144.40 0.00 2 9,144.40 CITY OF FMLY BOCA RATON, OTHR- 119,200 662.00 11,250.80 3 11,912.80 CITY OF NONRES BOYNTON OTHER 5,386,966 51,960.54 0.00 2 51,960.54 BEACH, CITY OF RESID BOYNTON SINGLE 225,046 126,626.62 20,000.00 4 146,626.62 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY BOYNTON SINGLE 178,089 17,779.75 3,346.04 2 21,125.79 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY BOYNTON SINGLE 189,406 61,493.54 9,945.05 4 71,438.59 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY BOYNTON SINGLE 98,936 4,079.61 0.00 2 4,079.61 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY BOYNTON SINGLE 121,790 8,972.85 0.00 2 8,972.85 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY BOYNTON SINGLE 125,093 7,989.00 0.00 2 7,989.00 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY 115 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 BOYNTON SINGLE 129,855 4,210.79 0.00 3 4,210.79 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY BOYNTON SINGLE 99,360 23,886.50 15,053.64 2 38,940.14 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY BOYNTON SINGLE 118,971 20,566.35 11,901.79 2 32,468.14 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY BOYNTON SINGLE 333,098 10,087.48 0.00 2 10,087.48 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY BOYNTON OTHR- 892,743 59,993.91 5,812.86 2 65,806.77 BEACH, CITY OF NONRES BOYNTON SINGLE 76,800 45,991.24 12,693.12 4 58,684.36 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY BOYNTON SINGLE 114,870 8,675.27 2,999.87 2 11,675.14 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY BOYNTON SINGLE 53,000 4,648.27 2,102.45 2 6,750.72 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY BOYNTON SINGLE 44,000 5,204.72 2,506.00 2 7,710.72 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY BOYNTON OTHR- 231,120 2,116.94 9,500.62 3 11,617.56 BEACH, CITY OF NONRES BOYNTON SINGLE 40,500 1,989.53 4,017.00 2 6,006.53 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY CLOUD LAKE, SINGLE 50,000 3,115.96 860.00 2 3,975.96 TOWN OF FMLY COCOA BEACH, SINGLE 275,000 12,961.83 0.00 2 12,961.83 CITY OF FMLY COCOA BEACH, SINGLE 302,602 58,581.83 41,984.52 2 100,566.35 CITY OF FMLY COCOA BEACH, SINGLE 697,601 33,483.35 28,760.75 2 62,244.10 CITY OF FMLY COCOA BEACH, OTHR- 380,520 21,950.41 0.00 3 21,950.41 CITY OF NONRES DELRAY BEACH, SINGLE 101,750 5,908.99 0.00 2 5,908.99 CITY OF FMLY DELRAY BEACH, SINGLE 65,000 6,890.85 1,197.56 2 8,088.41 CITY OF FMLY DELRAY BEACH, SINGLE 120,000 7,622.97 0.00 2 7,622.97 CITY OF FMLY DELRAY BEACH, OTHR- 2,990,536 29,043.55 14,552.91 3 43,596.46 CITY OF NONRES DELRAY BEACH, SINGLE 111,000 2,796.80 1,065.24 2 3,862.04 CITY OF FMLY DELRAY BEACH, SINGLE 74,600 2,328.00 500.00 2 2,828.00 CITY OF FMLY DELRAY BEACH, SINGLE 1,212,380 80,590.63 24,593.71 3 105,184.34 CITY OF FMLY 116 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 DELRAY BEACH, SINGLE 250,000 60,106.00 18,073.54 5 78,179.54 CITY OF FMLY DELRAY BEACH, SINGLE 142,000 5,860.59 0.00 2 5,860.59 CITY OF FMLY DELRAY BEACH, SINGLE 377,451 40,599.91 0.00 2 40,599.91 CITY OF FMLY DELRAY BEACH, OTHER 347,767 72,613.28 9,444.79 2 82,058.07 CITY OF RESID DELRAY BEACH, SINGLE 60,000 1,980.72 8,401.34 2 10,382.06 CITY OF FMLY DELRAY BEACH, SINGLE 75,425 3,201.10 1,138.68 2 4,339.78 CITY OF FMLY DELRAY BEACH, SINGLE 351,709 19,226.67 6,500.00 2 25,726.67 CITY OF FMLY DELRAY BEACH, SINGLE 389,760 24,908.79 581.11 3 25,489.90 CITY OF FMLY DELRAY BEACH, SINGLE 63,140 19,686.70 830.89 3 20,517.59 CITY OF FMLY GULF STREAM, SINGLE 531,602 12,590.97 0.00 2 12,590.97 TOWN OF FMLY GULF STREAM, SINGLE 367,500 4,954.38 2,943.91 3 7,898.29 TOWN OF FMLY GULF STREAM, SINGLE 250,000 9,571.25 15,444.52 2 25,015.77 TOWN OF FMLY HAVERHILL, SINGLE 134,360 10,833.51 18,046.38 4 28,879.89 TOWN OF FMLY JUNO BEACH, OTHER 0 0.00 14,421.53 2 14,421.53 TOWN OF RESID JUNO BEACH, ASSMD 9,999,999,99 47,933.87 200.00 2 48,133.87 TOWN OF CONDO 9 JUNO BEACH, OTHR- 0 0.00 39,122.42 2 39,122.42 TOWN OF NONRES JUNO BEACH, OTHER 4,500,000 76,470.08 0.00 4 76,470.08 TOWN OF RESID JUPITER, TOWN OTHR- 553,638 8,244.00 47,601.16 2 55,845.16 OF NONRES JUPITER, TOWN SINGLE 23,560 13,467.60 895.73 2 14,363.33 OF FMLY JUPITER, TOWN SINGLE 235,538 116,842.41 0.00 6 116,842.41 OF FMLY JUPITER, TOWN OTHR- 486,985 78,524.97 19,257.48 2 97,782.45 OF NONRES JUPITER, TOWN ASSMD 9,999,999,99 42,622.57 98,316.09 5 140,938.66 OF CONDO 9 JUPITER, TOWN SINGLE 46,000 8,181.24 4,331.50 2 12,512.74 OF FMLY 117 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 JUPITER, TOWN SINGLE 197,285 6,961.86 1,347.12 2 8,308.98 OF FMLY JUPITER, TOWN SINGLE 267,588 107,429.71 28,928.04 2 136,357.75 OF FMLY JUPITER, TOWN SINGLE 96,890 33,972.90 5,898.33 3 39,871.23 OF FMLY JUPITER, TOWN SINGLE 164,004 19,652.60 0.00 2 19,652.60 OF FMLY JUPITER, TOWN OTHR- 140,628 80,915.05 8,699.23 5 89,614.28 OF NONRES JUPITER, TOWN SINGLE 30,000 2,672.50 4,762.61 3 7,435.11 OF FMLY JUPITER, TOWN SINGLE 3341250 34,392.98 8,025.68 3 42,418.66 OF FMLY LAKE PARK, OTHER 1,650,000 5,169.99 0.00 2 5,169.99 TOWN OF RESID LAKE PARK, OTHR- 75,000 0.00 178,050.0 2 178,050.00 TOWN OF NONRES 0 LAKE WORTH SINGLE 202,620 35,336.48 10,497.50 3 45,833.98 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY LAKE WORTH OTHR- 0 0.00 4,524.70 2 4,524.70 BEACH, CITY OF NONRES LAKE WORTH SINGLE 182,297 34,868.02 10,064.65 3 44,932.67 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY LAKE WORTH SINGLE 35,420 25,527.52 4,211.34 3 29,738.86 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY LAKE WORTH SINGLE 67,000 6,599.48 151.00 3 6,750.48 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY LAKE WORTH OTHR- 32,700 12,985.61 7,628.80 2 20,614.41 BEACH, CITY OF NONRES LAKE WORTH SINGLE 50,000 8,106.61 4,310.18 2 12,416.79 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY LAKE WORTH SINGLE 302,400 86,302.70 3,846.31 2 90,149.01 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY LAKE WORTH OTHR- 250,000 350.00 7,030.50 3 7,380.50 BEACH, CITY OF NONRES LAKE WORTH OTHR- 95,000 9,699.84 0.00 3 9,699.84 BEACH, CITY OF NONRES LAKE WORTH OTHR- 0 0.00 4,369.50 2 4,369.50 BEACH, CITY OF NONRES LAKE WORTH SINGLE 96,000 2,216.42 2,279.40 2 4,495.82 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY LANTANA, SINGLE 382,000 21,631.38 4,168.72 2 25,800.10 TOWN OF FMLY LANTANA, SINGLE 67,589 1,342.91 2,713.92 2 4,056.83 TOWN OF FMLY 118 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 LANTANA, SINGLE 461,191 249,549.25 38,198.12 3 287,747.37 TOWN OF FMLY LANTANA, OTHR- 20,000 0.00 251,961.8 9 251,961.87 TOWN OF NONRES 7 LANTANA, OTHR- 1,286,089 113,393.52 17,828.50 3 131,222.02 TOWN OF NONRES LANTANA, SINGLE 212,550 17,459.26 906.75 2 18,366.01 TOWN OF FMLY MANALAPAN, OTHR- 107,831 0.00 12,120.84 2 12,120.84 TOWN OF NONRES MANALAPAN, OTHR- 290,000 12,658.15 0.00 4 12,658.15 TOWN OF NONRES MANALAPAN, OTHR- 445,000 8,884.38 0.00 3 8,884.38 TOWN OF NONRES MANGONIA SINGLE 115,500 27,089.41 537.75 2 27,627.16 PARK, TOWN FMLY OF MANGONIA OTHR- 0 0.00 458,404.2 9 458,404.23 PARK, TOWN NONRES 3 OF NORTH PALM ASSMD 9,999,999,99 42,002.66 775.00 2 42,777.66 BEACH, VILLAGE CONDO 9 OF NORTH PALM SINGLE 234,520 7,876.42 4,478.30 2 12,354.72 BEACH, VILLAGE FMLY OF OCEAN RIDGE, 2-4 FAMILY 175,940 20,675.79 0.00 2 20,675.79 TOWN OF OCEAN RIDGE, SINGLE 70,000 22,512.42 12,223.50 2 34,735.92 TOWN OF FMLY OCEAN RIDGE, ASSMD 9,999,999,99 48,687.79 19,805.98 2 68,493.77 TOWN OF CONDO 9 OCEAN RIDGE, SINGLE 118,490 45,559.38 45,688.55 2 91,247.93 TOWN OF FMLY OCEAN RIDGE, SINGLE 496,705 15,851.45 2,481.98 3 18,333.43 TOWN OF FMLY OCEAN RIDGE, SINGLE 297,500 11,231.44 8,200.61 2 19,432.05 TOWN OF FMLY OCEAN RIDGE, SINGLE 0 0.00 15,382.55 2 15,382.55 TOWN OF FMLY OCEAN RIDGE, SINGLE 618,681 28,179.53 26,505.39 2 54,684.92 TOWN OF FMLY OCEAN RIDGE, SINGLE 66,119 16,649.03 11,451.25 2 28,100.28 TOWN OF FMLY OCEAN RIDGE, 2-4 FAMILY 105,270 12,915.64 292.10 2 13,207.74 TOWN OF 1>� Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 OCEAN RIDGE, OTHER 1,771,851 47,169.42 0.00 3 47,169.42 TOWN OF RESID OCEAN RIDGE, 2-4 FAMILY 202,820 53,807.06 1,150.50 2 54,957.56 TOWN OF OCEAN RIDGE, SINGLE 120,600 28,747.59 24,794.76 2 53,542.35 TOWN OF FMLY OCEAN RIDGE, 2-4 FAMILY 110,000 64,166.52 20,141.33 5 84,307.85 TOWN OF OCEAN RIDGE, SINGLE 83,224 45,469.86 2,745.00 3 48,214.86 TOWN OF FMLY OCEAN RIDGE, SINGLE 159,450 85,345.69 35,798.47 3 121,144.16 TOWN OF FMLY PAHOKEE, CITY SINGLE 51,600 12,818.20 5,505.45 2 18,323.65 OF FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 97,717 74,340.11 18,267.91 3 92,608.02 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 186,150 40,292.58 13,776.97 2 54,069.55 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 243,621 6,793.53 1,119.82 2 7,913.35 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 99,487 3,702.17 734.02 2 4,436.19 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 375,750 4,351.19 0.00 2 4,351.19 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 103,860 7,400.59 606.30 2 8,006.89 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 450,670 19,611.83 13,522.45 2 33,134.28 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 114,715 22,642.27 26,170.52 2 48,812.79 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 78,167 11,562.11 8,028.76 2 19,590.87 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 251,519 2,844.81 0.00 2 2,844.81 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 406,620 21,088.72 0.00 2 21,088.72 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 73,260 9,013.15 1,200.00 2 10,213.15 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 184,790 8,216.90 2,302.63 2 10,519.53 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 122,919 4,288.42 1,508.22 2 5,796.64 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH 2-4 FAMILY 143,860 38,014.40 0.00 2 38,014.40 COUNTY* PALM BEACH 2-4 FAMILY 129,252 32,749.44 8,615.50 2 41,364.94 COUNTY 120 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 PALM BEACH 2-4 FAMILY 51,384 25,414.04 821.60 3 26,235.64 COUNTY* PALM BEACH 2-4 FAMILY 51,798 25,118.21 0.00 3 25,118.21 COUNTY* PALM BEACH SINGLE 60,960 32,932.46 8,931.05 2 41,863.51 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 135,971 27,547.09 3,713.98 2 31,261.07 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 115,045 22,594.40 9,503.67 2 32,098.07 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 131,583 21,216.27 16,971.20 6 38,187.47 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 111,150 35,256.28 0.00 2 35,256.28 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 273,376 12,241.35 2,393.40 2 14,634.75 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 491,219 6,552.97 0.00 2 6,552.97 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 174,336 8,852.03 2,527.54 2 11,379.57 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 107,235 26,776.86 450.00 4 27,226.86 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 244,218 31,390.37 0.00 3 31,390.37 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 798,879 53,672.40 37,390.91 2 91,063.31 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 192,470 11,483.85 8,941.72 2 20,425.57 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH OTHR- 1,850,396 81,270.23 0.00 2 81,270.23 COUNTY * NONRES PALM BEACH SINGLE 139,616 8,311.51 2,010.06 2 10,321.57 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 250,000 18,881.05 5,000.00 2 23,881.05 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 66,208 10,619.96 9,584.29 2 20,204.25 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 120,185 8,625.89 836.06 2 9,461.95 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 90,000 23,186.54 5,000.00 3 28,186.54 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 100,602 32,620.33 0.00 2 32,620.33 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH OTHR- 191,760 60,891.07 25,541.78 3 86,432.85 COUNTY* NONRES PALM BEACH SINGLE 170,500 27,411.45 1,198.66 2 28,610.11 COUNTY * I FMLY 121 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 PALM BEACH SINGLE 3031680 70,787.48 0.00 2 70,787.48 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 27,400 2,337.01 2,083.50 2 4,420.51 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 15,120 3,102.02 0.00 2 3,102.02 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 91,000 22,596.74 5,906.73 2 28,503.47 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 157,521 41,805.83 5,623.52 3 47,429.35 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 248,838 13,413.30 0.00 2 13,413.30 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 78,700 2,401.38 1,100.50 2 3,501.88 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 240,460 70,873.17 18,602.98 2 89,476.15 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 108,000 3,792.34 3,340.27 3 7,132.61 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 78,883 34,447.80 26,783.60 4 61,231.40 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 101,200 12,291.31 16,036.99 2 28,328.30 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 65,200 48,115.95 19,334.80 2 67,450.75 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 120,960 39,867.86 14,896.99 2 54,764.85 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 93,755 34,745.74 14,412.28 2 49,158.02 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 106,500 24,223.94 20,564.08 2 44,788.02 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 71,995 28,367.31 4,267.50 2 32,634.81 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 250,000 12,102.11 25,786.35 3 37,888.46 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 79,294 7,017.04 0.00 2 7,017.04 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 250,000 42,501.35 5,256.06 2 47,757.41 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 195,932 9,839.43 1,710.96 2 11,550.39 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 136,800 36,206.47 14,140.32 2 50,346.79 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 263,135 63,325.04 7,333.58 2 70,658.62 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 75,000 21,078.28 23,952.04 2 45,030.32 COUNTY * FMLY 122 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 PALM BEACH SINGLE 227,300 14,515.20 0.00 2 14,515.20 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 250,000 53,571.58 21,486.99 2 75,058.57 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 225,682 40,834.35 5,756.46 2 46,590.81 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 160,000 14,525.51 21,657.60 3 36,183.11 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 69,000 4,003.92 817.71 2 4,821.63 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 159,546 34,572.40 16,606.16 5 51,178.56 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 48,800 14,796.15 2,152.57 2 16,948.72 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 145,945 146,933.16 91,715.91 5 238,649.07 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH 2-4 FAMILY 53,600 25,325.66 41048.53 3 29,374.19 COUNTY* PALM BEACH SINGLE 57,513 22,382.22 15,754.31 2 38,136.53 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 57,300 14,111.64 0.00 3 14,111.64 COUNTY * FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 111,810 69,490.84 17,965.39 3 87,456.23 COUNTY* FMLY PALM BEACH SINGLE 239,360 4,028.08 0.00 2 4,028.08 GARDENS, CITY FMLY OF PALM BEACH SINGLE 100,531 4,884.55 811.50 2 5,696.05 GARDENS, CITY FMLY OF PALM BEACH SINGLE 180,056 43,856.76 26,445.16 3 70,301.92 GARDENS, CITY FMLY OF PALM BEACH SINGLE 177,435 4,579.48 0.00 2 4,579.48 GARDENS, CITY FMLY OF PALM BEACH SINGLE 592,381 34,002.32 883.85 2 34,886.17 GARDENS, CITY FMLY OF PALM BEACH SINGLE 250,000 16,667.43 2,208.41 2 18,875.84 GARDENS, CITY FMLY OF PALM BEACH SINGLE 89,700 7,073.42 5,838.79 2 12,912.21 SHORES, TOWN FMLY OF 123 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 PALM BEACH ASSMD 9,999,999,99 189,780.44 19,796.41 3 209,576.85 SHORES, TOWN CONDO 9 OF PALM BEACH, OTHER 1,275,875 29,662.83 0.00 2 29,662.83 TOWN OF RESID PALM BEACH, 2-4 FAMILY 1,020,330 24,489.74 0.00 4 24,489.74 TOWN OF PALM BEACH, 2-4 FAMILY 1,020,700 16,736.56 0.00 2 16,736.56 TOWN OF PALM BEACH, SINGLE 4871556 8,194.07 0.00 2 8,194.07 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 151,574 96,389.89 40,966.33 2 137,356.22 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, 2-4 FAMILY 76,525 16,332.48 6,104.23 3 22,436.71 TOWN OF PALM BEACH, OTHER 686,904 55,010.74 0.00 2 55,010.74 TOWN OF RESID PALM BEACH, OTHR- 462,880 75,214.39 4,169.95 5 79,384.34 TOWN OF NONRES PALM BEACH, OTHR- 361,760 111,682.08 0.00 2 111,682.08 TOWN OF NONRES PALM BEACH, OTHER 250,000 7,691.77 0.00 2 7,691.77 TOWN OF RESID PALM BEACH, SINGLE 387,506 43,582.79 2,204.32 4 45,787.11 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, OTHER 5,782,060 44,489.85 0.00 3 44,489.85 TOWN OF RESID PALM BEACH, SINGLE 94,026 20,592.61 0.00 2 20,592.61 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 2,081,419 306,893.41 100,000.0 3 406,893.41 TOWN OF FMLY 0 PALM BEACH, SINGLE 276,100 19,581.81 35,440.26 2 55,022.07 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 540,000 13,220.11 3,699.81 2 16,919.92 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, 2-4 FAMILY 731,823 33,568.05 0.00 2 33,568.05 TOWN OF PALM BEACH, SINGLE 776,055 28,932.79 183.76 2 29,116.55 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 457,166 4,776.47 0.00 2 4,776.47 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, 2-4 FAMILY 1,020,700 23,805.36 0.00 2 23,805.36 TOWN OF PALM BEACH, ASSMD 9,999,999,99 15,388.48 0.00 2 15,388.48 TOWN OF CONDO 9 124 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 PALM BEACH, SINGLE 300,000 192,857.69 22,047.28 4 214,904.97 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 245,000 42,516.89 29,733.14 2 72,250.03 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 246,240 82,912.95 50,000.00 2 132,912.95 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 368,283 188,673.10 132,993.3 5 321,666.44 TOWN OF FMLY 4 PALM BEACH, SINGLE 257,750 88,300.86 47,526.00 4 135,826.86 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 515,550 269,112.63 112,027.5 3 381,140.22 TOWN OF FMLY 9 PALM BEACH, SINGLE 255,085 164,159.17 56,247.73 5 220,406.90 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 26,500 5,635.31 3,540.17 2 9,175.48 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 408,000 177,203.74 72,034.52 3 249,238.26 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 241,916 20,080.18 0.00 2 20,080.18 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 7,700,000 31,721.17 10,241.95 3 41,963.12 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, OTHER 855,000 12,271.98 0.00 5 12,271.98 TOWN OF RESID PALM BEACH, SINGLE 277,129 39,998.88 69,300.69 3 109,299.57 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 267,385 43,346.96 26,252.84 6 69,599.80 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 597,934 15,417.80 7,477.19 2 22,894.99 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 330,000 74,875.35 34,159.50 4 109,034.85 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 173,972 8,052.61 0.00 2 8,052.61 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 285,000 23,410.66 15,286.94 2 38,697.60 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 305,320 37,140.24 54,393.63 3 91,533.87 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 198,516 6,338.90 0.00 2 6,338.90 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 364,238 21,299.24 50.00 4 21,349.24 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, OTHR- 70,000 29,488.00 0.00 2 29,488.00 TOWN OF NONRES PALM BEACH, OTHER 50,000 11,160.42 0.00 2 11,160.42 TOWN OF RESID 125 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 PALM BEACH, OTHER 250,000 8,342.08 0.00 2 8,342.08 TOWN OF RESID PALM BEACH, SINGLE 10,000 205.00 4,047.00 2 4,252.00 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 152,935 59,680.99 24,116.41 6 83,797.40 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 160,347 11,783.70 0.00 2 11,783.70 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, OTHER 4,284,529 210,896.86 2,805.51 4 213,702.37 TOWN OF RESID PALM BEACH, OTHER 13,137,071 284,760.48 20,451.38 3 305,211.86 TOWN OF RESID PALM BEACH, OTHER 5,266,648 188,274.39 17,996.84 3 206,271.23 TOWN OF RESID PALM BEACH, OTHER 19,000,000 405,705.75 117,762.4 8 523,468.17 TOWN OF RESID 2 PALM BEACH, OTHER 23,561,211 119,977.59 6,915.30 5 126,892.89 TOWN OF RESID PALM BEACH, OTHER 10,416,743 42,478.11 0.00 2 42,478.11 TOWN OF RESID PALM BEACH, OTHR- 4,446,204 13,262.41 0.00 3 13,262.41 TOWN OF NON RES PALM BEACH, OTHER 3,624,000 463,024.76 19,476.11 2 482,500.87 TOWN OF RESID PALM BEACH, OTHER 250,000 16,165.17 0.00 2 16,165.17 TOWN OF RESID PALM BEACH, OTHER 250,000 23,814.03 0.00 2 23,814.03 TOWN OF RESID PALM BEACH, OTHER 5,817,600 11,036.06 0.00 2 11,036.06 TOWN OF RESID PALM BEACH, OTHER 19,045,280 19,383.34 0.00 2 19,383.34 TOWN OF RESID PALM BEACH, SINGLE 717,440 45,059.46 4,413.98 2 49,473.44 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 233,941 117,415.40 74,223.53 6 191,638.93 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 186,600 22,589.43 23,271.49 2 45,860.92 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 300,000 7,032.04 0.00 2 7,032.04 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, OTHER 1,860,480 26,471.63 0.00 2 26,471.63 TOWN OF RESID PALM BEACH, OTHR- 182,431 26,965.42 0.00 2 26,965.42 TOWN OF NONRES PALM BEACH, OTHR- 7,900 0.00 7,339.34 2 7,339.34 TOWN OF NOI 126 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 PALM BEACH, OTHR- 492,030 168,732.36 91,612.99 3 260,345.35 TOWN OF NONRES PALM BEACH, OTHER 179,125 18,610.44 9,639.60 2 28,250.04 TOWN OF RESID PALM BEACH, SINGLE 250,000 22,449.38 0.00 2 22,449.38 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 666,619 86,974.49 8,514.49 4 95,488.98 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 312,484 26,901.43 8,258.89 3 35,160.32 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 366,600 82,242.44 15,239.87 2 97,482.31 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 136,719 16,270.35 0.00 5 16,270.35 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, ASSMD 9,999,999,99 4,153.95 3,133.33 3 7,287.28 TOWN OF CONDO 9 PALM BEACH, OTHER 19,068,120 171,700.61 5,215.13 5 176,915.74 TOWN OF RESID PALM BEACH, OTHR- 14,000 33,148.95 0.00 2 33,148.95 TOWN OF NONRES PALM BEACH, OTHER 25,853,180 18,185.35 0.00 2 18,185.35 TOWN OF RESID PALM BEACH, OTHR- 320,453 9,436.80 0.00 2 9,436.80 TOWN OF NONRES PALM BEACH, SINGLE 269,735 8,815.16 0.00 2 8,815.16 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, ASSMD 9,999,999,99 78,905.23 43,106.37 4 122,011.60 TOWN OF CONDO 9 PALM BEACH, SINGLE 400,000 54,361.44 376.00 2 54,737.44 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 128,000 9,015.91 1,023.00 3 10,038.91 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 203,500 152,220.76 103,557.1 3 255,777.92 TOWN OF FMLY 6 PALM BEACH, SINGLE 404,663 152,507.67 76,436.00 9 228,943.67 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 200,000 2,339.20 425.00 2 2,764.20 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 208,947 135,785.32 50,510.34 2 186,295.66 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 183,107 55,821.51 22,994.91 3 78,816.42 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 198,940 21,690.90 4,856.10 3 26,547.00 TOWN OF FMLY PALM BEACH, SINGLE 509,000 35,757.89 25,955.91 4 61,713.80 TOWN OF FMLY 127 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 PALM SPRINGS, SINGLE 161,949 120,172.66 15,604.95 4 135,777.61 VILLAGE OF FMLY PALM SPRINGS, 2-4 FAMILY 108,097 9,903.44 0.00 2 9,903.44 VILLAGE OF PALM SPRINGS, SINGLE 125,000 18,923.38 13,854.10 2 32,777.48 VILLAGE OF FMLY PALM SPRINGS, SINGLE 36,600 737.88 2,633.88 2 3,371.76 VILLAGE OF FMLY PALM SPRINGS, SINGLE 96,568 30,819.37 17,721.58 3 48,540.95 VILLAGE OF FMLY PALM SPRINGS, SINGLE 100,137 21,633.15 18,728.10 3 40,361.25 VILLAGE OF FMLY PALM SPRINGS, SINGLE 59,339 27,962.92 13,099.48 2 41,062.40 VILLAGE OF FMLY PALM SPRINGS, SINGLE 122,268 30,689.94 1,103.48 2 31,793.42 VILLAGE OF FMLY PALM SPRINGS, SINGLE 1491928 28,669.76 15,713.99 2 44,383.75 VILLAGE OF FMLY PALM SPRINGS, SINGLE 112,200 12,960.48 5,491.15 2 18,451.63 VILLAGE OF FMLY RIVIERA BEACH, OTHER 56,792,275 422,873.19 0.00 2 422,873.19 CITY OF RESID RIVIERA BEACH, OTHER 14,221,700 14,760.01 0.00 2 14,760.01 CITY OF RESID RIVIERA BEACH, SINGLE 58,320 18,671.82 6,279.09 2 24,950.91 CITY OF FMLY RIVIERA BEACH, SINGLE 85,573 14,636.77 7,605.36 2 22,242.13 CITY OF FMLY RIVIERA BEACH, SINGLE 167,471 21,631.17 10,856.66 2 32,487.83 CITY OF FMLY RIVIERA BEACH, SINGLE 244,500 17,733.59 6,832.53 3 24,566.12 CITY OF FMLY RIVIERA BEACH, SINGLE 117,125 21,528.44 11,117.38 2 32,645.82 CITY OF FMLY RIVIERA BEACH, SINGLE 74,126 6,948.74 0.00 3 6,948.74 CITY OF FMLY RIVIERA BEACH, OTHR- 800,000 231,255.64 69,270.04 2 300,525.68 CITY OF NONRES RIVIERA BEACH, OTHER 235,225 14,353.09 0.00 2 14,353.09 CITY OF RESID SOUTH PALM OTHER 20,033,791 1,052,986.8 168,653.1 5 1,221,639.97 BEACH, TOWN RESID 3 4 OF TEQUESTA, SINGLE 289,000 20,021.88 180.24 2 20,202.12 VILLAGE OF FMLY 128 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 TEQUESTA, SINGLE 60,000 3,756.05 2,683.73 3 6,439.78 VILLAGE OF FMLY WELLINGTON, SINGLE 452,100 6,633.80 16,544.57 2 23,178.37 VILLAGE OF FMLY WELLINGTON, SINGLE 4,291,500 13,947.93 10,542.52 2 24,490.45 VILLAGE OF FMLY WEST PALM SINGLE 131,160 17,763.52 8,566.83 4 26,330.35 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY WEST PALM OTHR- 11,100 7,974.99 808.01 2 8,783.00 BEACH, CITY OF NONRES WEST PALM OTHR- 105,900 14,770.83 0.00 2 14,770.83 BEACH, CITY OF NONRES WEST PALM 2-4 FAMILY 115,380 57,635.56 22,898.70 3 80,534.26 BEACH, CITY OF WEST PALM 2-4 FAMILY 244,613 65,285.45 0.00 2 65,285.45 BEACH, CITY OF WEST PALM 2-4 FAMILY 95,040 9,215.07 496.33 2 9,711.40 BEACH, CITY OF WEST PALM 2-4 FAMILY 118,680 42,358.25 0.00 2 42,358.25 BEACH, CITY OF WEST PALM OTHR- 641,313 23,202.92 0.00 4 23,202.92 BEACH, CITY OF NONRES WEST PALM OTHR- 0 0.00 3,467.90 2 3,467.90 BEACH, CITY OF NONRES WEST PALM SINGLE 250,000 17,123.70 0.00 2 17,123.70 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY WEST PALM SINGLE 210,000 4,648.37 576.05 2 5,224.42 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY WEST PALM SINGLE 528,279 29,738.62 9,171.30 4 38,909.92 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY WEST PALM SINGLE 59,550 38,974.78 7,046.95 2 46,021.73 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY WEST PALM OTHR- 1,608,000 124,404.58 0.00 2 124,404.58 BEACH, CITY OF NONRES WEST PALM OTHR- 3,789,807 20,881.09 0.00 2 20,881.09 BEACH, CITY OF NONRES WEST PALM OTHR- 0 0.00 5,805.58 2 5,805.58 BEACH, CITY OF NONRES WEST PALM SINGLE 245,485 71,319.54 0.00 2 71,319.54 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY WEST PALM 2-4 FAMILY 140,420 83,110.85 5,175.00 2 88,285.85 BEACH, CITY OF WEST PALM OTHR- 363,000 17,728.54 10,689.98 2 28,418.52 BEACH, CITY OF NONRES WEST PALM OTHR- 200,000 27,094.60 0.00 2 27,094.60 BEACH, CITY OF NONRES 129 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 WEST PALM SINGLE 160,650 41,301.08 3,171.77 6 44,472.85 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY WEST PALM 2-4 FAMILY 83,250 7,700.23 0.00 2 7,700.23 BEACH, CITY OF WEST PALM SINGLE 129,492 23,980.97 6,408.04 2 30,389.01 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY WEST PALM SINGLE 55,965 55,063.14 0.00 4 55,063.14 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY WEST PALM SINGLE 57,200 40,725.79 0.00 4 40,725.79 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY WEST PALM SINGLE 1821600 46,596.42 698.78 2 47,295.20 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY WEST PALM SINGLE 72,250 1,012.56 14,263.90 2 15,276.46 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY WEST PALM SINGLE 220,106 8,499.24 1,908.72 2 10,407.96 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY WEST PALM SINGLE 433,128 47,622.31 35,904.57 4 83,526.88 BEACH, CITY OF FMLY Appendix H: FEMA RLP Data by jurisdiction as of 11/30/2017 130 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Appendix I: Project Scoring Examples This appendix addresses the following FEMA requirement: 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. In 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 one (1). This appendix illustrates the current scoring process through four examples: • EXAMPLE 1: Community A - Library Wind Retrofit • EXAMPLE 2: Community B - RV Park Flooding Prevention • EXAMPLE 3: Community C - Hardening of an EOC; and • EXAMPLE 4: Community D - Initiation of a Burn Program to Prevent Wildfire losses in the Urban Interface EXAMPLE 1: COMMUNITY A - LIBRARY RETROFIT Community A is a well-to-do community centered along the beach and on the Intracoastal Waterway. 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 five (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 two (2) feet. Equipment and books threatened by such an event are valued at an estimated $200,000. It will cost approximately $60,000 to raise the books and equipment in this library three (3) feet 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 Benefit/Cost 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: 131 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 COMMUNITY BENEFIT This is a Damage Reduction activity and is awarded 10 points here. Libraries are considered secondary critical facilities and six (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) = four (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 (5) 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 Aare 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 five (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 one (1) to two (2) years. This project is awarded six (6) points in this category. 132 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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 five (5) points here; if funding were to become available, this project could accomplish its objective of raising library books and equipment above the category 3 storm surge level in less than one year. The project is awarded five (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 the 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 BENE This project is a Damage Reduction project and is awarded 10 points here. This project addresses a problem within an RV park where there are no permanent residents. It does not address critical elements of the community infrastructure and must be considered as addressing only public convenience considerations. Award four (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 (9) points are awarded here. 133 Local Mitigation Strategy ( 2020 The cost effectiveness based on the Benefit/Cost ratio for this project is 1.62; therefore, eight (8) points are awarded here. 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 eight (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 (1) advertised public meeting. Award five (5) points here. Total project score under Community Commitment = 23 points PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION This project requires a considerable amount of construction work. While it is consistent within the local regulatory framework, 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 one (1) point under this criterion. Currently, 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 fiords to implement priority mitigation projects. These fiords may be available within one (1) to two (2) years. Award six (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 one (1) point under this criterion. If finding were immediately available for this project it would take approximately three (3) years before this project could be permitted, bid, constructed, and operational. Award three (3) points under this criterion. Total project points under Project Implementation = 11 The Final Score for this proposed mitigation project is 65 points. 134 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 EXAMPLE 3: COMMUNITY 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 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: COMMUNITY BENEFIT Although not its specific aim, this project may be classified as a 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 severe tropical storms, hurricanes, or tornadoes and all these types of storms occur with medium frequency. Thus, we have a High Exposure = Medium Frequency = eight (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. 135 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Total Community Commitment points = 20 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION There are no regulatory problems with this proposed project. Award five (5) points here. There is an identified funding source through the State Division 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 two (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 five (5) points here. Total Project Implementation Points = 22 points The Final Score for this proposed mitigation project is 90 points. EXAMPLE 4: COMMUNITY D - INITIATION 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 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: COMMUNITY BENEFIT This is a Preparedness Against Hazard project, so three (3) 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 wildfire ($3 million) and wildfires have occurred with moderate frequency recently in south Florida. Award eight (8) points for this criterion. 136 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 The project has a Benefit/Cost Ratio of 9.0. Award 20 points under this criterion. Total Community Benefit Points = 41 points 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 that has been proposed. Award eight (8) 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 six (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 five (5) points for this criterion. Total Community Commitment points = 19 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 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 four (4) points for this criterion. The county and the City have agreed to put up the funding for this program so finds 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 five (5) points here. Once the program is in place, it will begin to accomplish its stated goals immediately. Award five (5) points here. Total Project Implementation Points = 24 points The final score for this proposed mitigation project is 84 points. 137 Project Title: Sponsor: Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 PALM BEACH COUNTY LMS PRO]ECT/INITIATIVE SCORING SHEET OFFICIAL USE ON LY PROJECT p R"&wrr. AEF. SURED CIZUERLaa P0n7S AVAn.-%BLE POL\t'IS AR ARDED C'onuntuiity Bente£st So project Impleffitentation 25 C'orLmntruty Coa=tmertt 25 PROJECT 1 R4ITLATIVE FINAL SCORE COAL° UNITY BE!ti°EFrI A1:MABLE SCORT\GMTRiiCTIOti AWARDED POUTS POMS Cotwnnerin' Benefit -What benefit Dama;e Reduction -5 doe; the t=n uiuntty derive from this 5 dapping and Regulatory = 3 effort': Hon and to what exteatdoe_ this Piepaiedire :n Against Hazard = 3 mitigation projecr benefit the citizens of Public Information - 2 a communw. Ctriher = I No Benefit - 0 Project Betlefit - Doe; the project Prvnary Critical Faciiitm - 10 addie.. critical elements of the 10 Siam Watar.Tlooding = 3 community infiasnucture7 Secondary Critical Facilities - 6 Public Convenience Facilaivi = a Residential Structw e; No Benefit - 0 ("OM UJt tV Era3osUTe - Doe: the HE + HF = 10 Project rruhgate a fiequently occurring I0 HE + %IF = S problem or a problem to which a HE +I -F - 6 comiuuu its is particularly •ulnetable' LIE - HF = 9 LIE - NIF - I H - Hirt ME - LF={ hl - Medium LE + HF = 5 L = Low LE - NIF - 2 E - Expo;utx LE + LF = l F = Frequeriq of occurteace No Exposure + No Frequency = 0 Cost £gecNsrness - What is the Benefit Cost ratio = 4.0 at greater benefiVeost ratio of the project applpn; 20 -?0 pont; the followitag Ba"f cc on ratio formula. Benefit'C o;t Rano = 3.0 to 3.9 = 16 point Benefit'[ o:t ratio - 2.0 to 2.9 - (Los: Expo-.wo (S) Before Project -Lass 12 point Exposure (S) After Project)- C o:t of the BenefivCo:t ratio - 1.0 to 1.9 - Project S points Benefit'Costratio -- 1.0= 0 points _ tvaBenefit-Hon•manypeople Multiple Jurisdictions=5 stand to benefit from the project 5 Conmruraty - 3 implementation, Neighborhood = 1 No Benefit - 0 TOTAL CO\Lli Nn7V BENEFIT 50 POINTS AWARDED PQIN'TS Page 1 of 3 118 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 PALM BEACH COUNTY LMS PROJECT/INITIATIVE SCORING SHEET PROJECT AA .0 kBLE SCORLiG MTRUMON A1IARDFD LIIPLE]fEATATION' POUTS POL\TS C orttaittment nitltitt the Existing Contain"wohin a specific C ompt eltensit'e Growth f 0 Pohcy'Plaa - 10 'INLanagement Plan or )Equn..lenr Coutamed in "Croal" wrth propoxd Platt- Is the project or initiative Policy+Plan amendment cowastent pith or incorporated nithin .8 she existing Comprehamwe Growth Coatarmed v6uhm a broad "Goat' hianagement Plan or etpmvalent ` 5 document" Contained in a propo:ed Amendment -3 Nor in conflict nith anv Pohcy Plan . =1 ? o Pian =0 C'outaintnent tsithin an Fri:tinp oflicia4y adopted Eine igen cy'AhnagementPlan; to =1d filter Functional Pla:t Propa:edNot officially adopted Developed by an Official Local .6 Governmental Not in ConfhCt With any plan Fndry organization - Iia: this No plan = 0 project or initiative already been proposed as a management initiative or ;tructwal improvement in any emergency plan ar propone6 of adopted by County'•local jtui ;dretion: or entrtr' Consistency with Esistiug Ree datotz• Fraineivork - I: the 5 No :e,;ulatoty issue: = 3 project con:i:teni vroh rxi:tinp legal Local issue; - 4 and regulatory acd Repoual is ue: = 3 ernmonmental cultural framework' Stan issue; = 3 Federal issues = i No C on:istency = 0 TOTAL PROJECT 25 TOTAL POINTS AIVARDM BEPLEAIENTATION POINTS Page 2 of 3 139 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 PALM BEACH COUNTY LMS PRO]ECT/INITIATIVE SCORING SKEET CO:ILIIL= AV .UiASLE SCORING LI5TRUCM0. AWARDED COADffn, EXP POINTS Por\m Public Support - Is these Ha: this project or problem been demotutrated public support for 5 the subject of This pzoject or recd putLem of this problem": A) As Adrertned Public Meeting =3 E) Written evidence of public supporl = Z both A amd s - 5 No evidence of public support = 0 Funding Avail abi im— is there a Fund: available Now = 10 funding :once readily available" I9 I you - S 3 yearn= 6 3 year, - 4 4yens =l i vrais - 1 5- years - 0 Mitrlring. Fends - Aye maicbiay 5 50 "i or more = 5 Rind, or in -Lind :mace: available 40 to 49 % = 4 Col this project? 30 to N % - 3 20 to 29' _? 1t020% 0%=0 Timefi•atoe for Accomplishing 5 1 year= 5 Objectives -Eloy long a-ilI it take 2 years m 4 for the proposed mitigation project 3 vears = 3 to accomplish it: stated goal , 4 years = 2 5 vears = 1 5 -near: = 0 TOLL CC1M NEUNITY 25 POINTS AWARDED CO'.Ml1 1IEAT POINTS ►IAC Ium MI. S 7 t •7616 140 Page 3 of 3 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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 Insurance Program (NFIP), and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate. The tables on the following pages provide su nmaries of NFIP and CRS status by jurisdiction. Sources for summary tables were compiled from the following locations on FEMA's NFIP website: • ht-tps://www.fema.gov/media-librau.y-data/1476294162726- 4795ede7fe5cde0c997bc4389d1265bd/CRS_List of Communites_10_0t_2016.pdf (CRS Class Information for PBC) • https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1493922774199- 5d4a9a625dd3blb90c31577c33a24f61110-5-2017.Consolidated.pdf (FIRM Map latest updates for PBQ • https:/Ibsa.nfipstat.fema.gov/reports/I040.htm (Flood Losses since 1978 i11 PBC) ■ hqps://bsa.nfil2stat.fema.gov/reports/101 t.htm (Policies in -force in PBC) The number and value of NFIP insurance policies in effect, total losses, and claims activity from CRS participation are included on a jurisdiction -by jurisdiction basis. As of this writing, 28 out of 39 jurisdictions are participating in CRS. Currently the CRS program is generating close to $5 million in insurance premium savings countywide on an annual basis. As of this writing, the County's CRS program has been evaluated in April 2017. It has been retained as a Class 5 CRS rating through 2019. However, a final score is yet to be distributed. This information is maintained at the EOC by the CRS Coordinator. 141 Co 120193 120195 12 901 6 120198 125102 120200 125109 125111 120208 125119 120211 120212 120213 120214 120215 120216 120217 125134 r 120220 120221 125137 120223 125142 120227 120228 125157 120229 ID Name PALM BEACH COUNTY ATLANTIS, CITY OF BOCA RATON, CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, CITY OF CLOUD LAKE, TOWN OF DELRAY BEACH, CITY OF GLEN RIDGE, TOWN OF GULF STREAM, TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH, TOWN OF HYPOLUXO, TOWN OF JU NO BEACH, TOWN OF JUPITER, TOWN OF LAKE CLARKE SHORES, TOWN OF LAKE PARK, TOWN OF LAKE WORTH BEACH, CITY OF LANTANA, TOWN OF MANALAPAN, TOWN OF MANGONIA PARK, TOWN OF NORTH PALM BEACH, VILLAGE OF OCEAN R1 DGE, TOWN OF PALM BEACH, TOWN OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, CITY OF PALM BEACH SHORES, TOWN OF PALM SPRINGS, VILLAGE OF RIVIERA BEACH, CITY OF SOUTH PALM BEACH, TOWN OF TEQUESTA, VILLAGE OF WELLINGTON, VILLAGE OF WEST PALM BEACH, CITY OF Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Policies in Farce Class Ra 65,387 5 379 7 15,357 8 8,885 7 14 6 8,013 8 20 10 374 10 4,097 10 1,155 8 1,630 5 7,605 5 246 8 822 8 1,533 8 962 9 237 8 41 10 3,925 7 1,332 7 7,672 7 3,390 10 732 8 1,444 8 5,468 9 1,596 9 1,324 7 6761 6 7,1151 6 Map Date Entry Date 10/5/2017 2/1/1979 10/5/2017 11/1/1978. 10/5/2017 5/15/1978 10/5/2017 1/3/1979 10/5/2017 5/15/1978 10/5/2017 4/9/1971 10/5/2017 5/15/1978 10/5/2017 11/24/1972 10/5/2017 10/16/1970 10/5/2017 5/15/1978 10/5/2017 12/1/1978 10/5/2017 9/22/1972 10/5/2017 11/1/1978 10/5/2017 9/15/1978 10/5/2017 12/1/1978 10/5/2017 3/12/1971 10/5/2017 10/30/1970 10/5/2017 3/1/1978 10/5/2017 8/1.5/1978 10/5/2017 4/9/1971 10/5/2017 5/15/1978 10/5/2017 1/3/1979 10/5/2017 6/25/1971 10/5/2017 3/1/1978 10/5/2017 9/22/1972 10/5/2017 5/15/1978 10/5/2017 6/11/1971 10/5/2017 1/3/2001 10/5/2017 3/1/1979 CR5 Chart - Appendix J *UninCorporated areas of the County Only Nate: All PBC FIRM Maps were officially updated as of 10/5/2417. Entry date is the date the municipality entered the NFIP program. Source: as of 11/30/18 from N FI P Website https://bsa.nf tpstat. feina.izov/reports/101 I .htm 142 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 Name Policies in Force Total Losses Total Losses Paid PALM BEACH COUNTY* 54,725 3,982 $18,312,549.68 ATLANTIS, CITY OF 295 29 $336,370.90 BELLE GLADE, CITY OF 169 9 $26,837.91 ROCA RATON, CITY OF 15,972 637 $3,520,222.52 BOYNTON BEACH, CITY OF 7,849 586 $1,808,039.14 BRINY BREEZES, TOWN OF 61 6 $14,227.77 CLOUD LAKE, TOWN OF 19 7 $20,317.57 DELRAY BEACH, CITY OF 7,681 755 $2,605,335.07 GLEN RIDGE, TOWN OF 26 6 $8,520.02 GOLF, VILLAGE OF 24 3 $42,999.54 GREENACRES, CITY OF 503 20 $42,206.73 GULF STREAM, TOWN OF 355 43 $215,581-04 HAVERHILL, TOWN OF 30 7 $70,254.16 HIGHLAND BEACH, TOWN OF 4,120 90 $443,273.13 HYPOLUXO, TOWN OF 1,341 22 $13,145.43 JUNO BEACH, TOWN OF 1,722 43 $566,945.73 JUPITER INLET COLONY, TOWN OF 127 17 $105,470.23 JUPITER, TOWN OF 8,872 480 $3,251,400.08 LAKE CLARKE SHORES, TOWN OF 211 19 $27,254.62 LAKE PARK, TOWN OF 861 44 $622,665.46 LAKE WORTH BEACH, CITY OF 1,442 200 $747,811.11 LANTANA, TOWN OF 1,167 153 $1,442,016.22 MANALAPAN, TOWN OF 239 83 $552,485.98 MANGONIA PARK, TOWN OF 48 13 $465,502.44 NORTH PALM BEACH, VILLAGE OF 3,953 110 $367,768.76 OCEAN RIDGE, TOWN OF 1,237 193 $1,403,890.71 PAHOKEE, CITY OF 169 15 $45, 582.20 PALM BEACH, TOWN OF 7,521 1,201 $13,635,675.85 PALM BEACH GARDENS, CITY OF 4,711 347 $1,500,704.43 PALM BEACH SHORES, TOWN OF 736 58 $889,658.54 PALM SPRINGS, VILLAGE OF 1,291 83 $182,235.26 RIVIERA BEACH, CITY OF 5,311 267 $1,447,709.46 ROYAL PALM BEACH, VILLAGE OF 1,093 36 $233,542.42 SOUTH PALM BEACH, TOWN OF 1,735 65 $1,400,361.95 TEQUESTA, VILLAGE OF 1,342 75 $261,270.90 WELLINGTON, VILLAGE OF 676 0 $0.00 WEST PALM BEACH, CITY OF 8,021 477 $3,715,504.48 *Unincorporated areas Of the county only Source: As ofOW301I8 I'l,om NFIP Website https://bsa.nFipstat.fei-na.gov/reports/1040.htni 143 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Palm Beach County and its municipalities will continue their commitment to NFIP by continuing to: • Enforce the Floodplain Management Ordinance that 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 (flood 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 Integrate new NFIP information and mapping into already existing strong community presentations o Incorporate Flooding information into every Emergency Management presentation through its Speaker's Bureau, extending the reach of flood/CRS/NFIP information to the public. • Continue to promote flood insurance to property owners. 144 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 o Increase and continue outreach presentations to community and home owners associations o Incorporate flood insurance outreach into every emergency management presentation, increasing the reach of the message throughout the county and municipalities. • Maintain flood hazard publications at the main branch of the library. • 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 Integrate into outreach presentation • Continue drainage maintenance and drainage system improvement projects. o Encourage more drainage projects throughout the county in all LMS meetings • Continue floodplain management activities and maintain a Class 5 Rating. • Adopt and enforce the floodplain management plan o Schedule quarterly meetings with CRS User Group and invite all 39 municipalities o Provide continued education and best practices to all municipalities • Provide a 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/NFIP o Provide continued outreach, best practices to municipalities that are not part of the CRS/NFIP 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 145 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 The following is the latest annual progress report for the County CRS Floodplain Management Plan (2017); �1 A V Palm Beach County Rf Community Raring System `� PALM BEACH COUNTY COVLMINIT7 RATING SYSTEM FLAODPL 411' 2VWN- AGEMENT PLAN PROGRESS REPORT 2017 Palm Beach Cotmty, Florida NF1P Number 120192 1. Marne of tate CRS Floodplain hfanagemeut Plan t iri>}ed LnCai 31irigalion srraregs. ~Note: An increasing number of mtmicip Mies are preparing FloodpLtW Alamagenaent Plans in accordance with the CRS Coordinator's hlmnal Actinty 500 — Flood Dan>age Reduction Activities, specifically. Activity 510 — FIoodplain Management Planning. Sevzral of the connrmnities have completed or are in various stages of corupleting their Floodplain Management Plants according to the 10 step process identified in the n><intu11. Palet Beach County (PSC) Division of Emergency M mageamt is c-m-entty in discussions with the Planning Division and the Building Division of the Planning. Zoning and Building Department in an effort to identify the resources necessvy to accomplish this planning initiative. PBC anticipates completion of the planning imitative pfior to the nest audit. Ctirrently there are 17 nwnicipalities that use the LMS for their floodpiiitt management plan in addition to unincorporated Palm Beach County. 2. Dale Adopled ■ Original adoption September 30. 1999 • Revised Plan approved by FENIk November 2004 ■ Revised Plan approved by FEA1A: Fanwny 2010 • Revised Plan approved by FEIMA February 2015 3 Location where copies are available for revievy Paler Beach County Div'isioa of Emergency Management Emergency operations center 20 Somh hlititary Trail West Palet Beach, F13415 Contact: Shane Ratliff. LMS Coordinator, Planning Section Also posted on the imternet ai the following address: kttp::.discover .pbceov.arzpnbreSafety dens?ubbcatioas•Local-tilitiYation- Sh atemndf»searci�Lhi5 Page I 1 146 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 Palm Beach County Cwnmunlry Rating System 4. Stunnnn�uize :any floodung that ocnured during X017. Pahn Beach County (PBC') along with all of South Florida Subtropical Climate has two seasons. a dry season. roughly from December through mid to kite hiay. and a wet season from approximately 3u ne through October. Palui Beach County averages o%Tr 50 inches of rain a }ear and more than 130 rain days, with most of it coming between the months of June and Nommber. Virtually flat, with nnost areas at of only slightly above sea level, even moderate rains can accunnilate cltnie ly. The area's high hydrologic variatiorn low physical relief and limited storage and conGTyance capacitim make water snanagenneut eery challenging. Actions by local and regional eater ruwagement authorities range from enforcing water restrictions chtring dry periods to precautionary or ennergency flood management during wet periods and stonu events. J.'.1jo u�r{Nr�rc lrr •n�.r�rJ LW This year mll likely be renruibered as a year of extremes. A strong La Nina dominated South Florida's heather at the beginning of the year bringing drought conditions, which led to an active fire weather season The vet season was highlighted by above average rainhIl and several tropical systems, including hurricane Inca which made landfall in Marco Island. The end of the year has brought a return of U Nina conditions. resulting in warns and dry conditions for November and December. Luring this past year SungLua 2017 Rainy Season The South Florida rainy season of 2017 was a wet season across nnost of the area. The wet conditions mostly did not come from tropical cyclones as only one affected the area in early September, which was Major Hurricane Irma tWit came onshore near Everglades City, but from stalled fronts over South Florida in June. South Florida sale between 120 to 184 percent of norms,] rainfall for the rainy season. The only airport that sail, near nnornnnal rainffill for the wet season of 2017 was at West Palin Beach Internkational Airport which was around 35 inches, June x�m the wettest month of the wet season of 2017. while the rest of the wet season fronn July through October was near or just above normal for rainfall. South Florida saw Page 12 147 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 rrfrrKrrc•irr e .r Palm Beach Counly i Cl/ Community Raring System between 150 to 200 percent of normal rainfall over the metro areas with 200 to 220 percent over the interior areas for the month of June. Rainfall nmotmts was behveen 10 to 15 Triches over most of Soutar Florida in Ame- In June, a disturbance meandering across the Gulf of Mexico in combination with an upper level low pressure o, w the 5 west em Gulf of Mexico led to nearly a Rank (top 20) week of heavy rainfall across South 61-76 Florida. The heaviest rainfall fell in the D corridor front Marco Island and southern p Collier northeast into Brow'ard and ` southern Palm Beach counties. Sone 63.55 locations in this swath saw single -day 3rd Wettest rainfall amounts in excess of 10 inches. 59-13 with a few locations as much as 15 inches. resulting in 3 -day event totals of 15 to 20 inches over the entire swath- Elsewhem rainfall amounts ranged from around 4 ' inches across southeru Miami- Dade to 7 to 8 itches aver the rest of South Florida. This storm set a record rainfall in Pahn Beach Coutnty. The fait storm broke a y iW 1904 record set in West Palm Beach with4.18 inches of rain falling. Daring theweek of June 3-9, 2017. oter eight and one half inches (9-54 inches) of rain fell causing street flooding. Although almost 9 inches of rain fell [ituing the week, the county did not experience flooding inside houses. as the flood control measures were successful in handling the rain amounts, although street flooding was commiorr. Location (Beg4ming of Period of Record) 2017 Rainfall (inches) Deparnve front Normal Rank (top 20) C.aual Point 61-76 +9.34 14th Wettest 7uuo Beach 66.40 +1.56 91h Wetter Palm Beach Cmdais 63.55 +7.39 3rd Wettest Palmi BeachInt•l 59-13 -2.89 Airport (1888) Page 1 3 148 41 j Palm Beach County Community Rating System Other areas iil(h high rainfallamounts include: ■ 1 mile south of Soca West. 11.16 inches • 1 mile southwest of Delray Beach 10.85 inches ■ 2 utiles south-southeast of Boca West, 10.47 inches • 3 males northeast of Boca Raton, 9.94 inches • Boynton Beach , 7.31 inches • Lake Worth, 7.17 inches • 2 chiles west-northwest of Delray Beach 7.13 inches • 2 miles east-northeast of Like Wortl3L 7.06 inches • 3 nhiles north-northeast of Boynton Beach 5.98 inches • 1 mile south of AIM Beach_ 5.59 inches ■ Royal Pahn Beach, 5.57 inches • 2 miles northwest of W est Palm Beach. 4.76 inches ■ 2 mites west-southwest of Jupiter, 4.74 inches • 3 utiles east-northeast of Riviera Beach_. 4.4'2 inches 151RICI'-WIDE: 47 H3 • 2 nales east of Royal Palm Beach, 4.42 inches • Jupiter, 3.59 inches • Juno Beach, 2.32 inches 1"ehictes attempt to nm igate Baca Chase D ?we near Mater•berry Drh,e trr imitern Boca Raton, Florida on June 7, 2017. (Allen L),estorle The Palm Beach Post) Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 IQLP rhr. ❑W e -Wer r re il,xr,>;rJ SFWMD Raiptoll 02--JUN-2017 to 17 -QCT -2017 ' x:411 "fr.w �1ti (147`6, +15,38 July was also a wet month where 5 to 10 inches fell over the metro areas and around 10 inches fell aver the interior areas about 110 to 120%ofnornril rainfall for the month - 149 This rainfall was Page 14 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 41 Y � Y � Palm Beach Caunry Community Rating System august xvas a nomas]. month for rainfall across South Florida where 5 to 10 inches fell across the area. Hoy--eivr. September was a wet month again with 10 to 15 incites of rain fell across the area_ This was in the 150 to 200°5 range of nomiai for rainfall. Most of this rain fell during rmjor Hturicane Irrua. Hurric.-me Irma Hurricane Irma formed front an African Easterly Rave. It became a tropical storm on Augast 301 and a hturieane on the 311. By the tiute Httrricane beta stack Barbttda in the northern Leeward Islands arottud 2 a.rn on Wednesday, September 66, it was a Category 5 hurricane with 185 ntph winds. From Friday evening September 81h through Sahuday afternoon September 9'h. Irma moved along the northern coast of Cuba. Interaction with land caused Irma to weaken front a Categoy S to a Category 3 before it began to pull away from the northern coast of Cudia late SattLrday afternoon- On fternoonCin Sunday morning. September 101, Inna strengthened to a Category 4 hturicane as it accelerated toward the Florida Keys. The eye rt><ade Landfall in C`ttdjoe Key as a 130 niph Category4 storm at 9:10 a.nr. The center of Inim then made landfall in Marco Island at 3:35 p.m that afternoon as a Category 3 storm with 115 nipli xvinds. The center moved into central Florida otivernight and into northern Flori& Later on Monday as it weakened. For the most part. South Florida sustained heavy damage to trees and fences. The nt<ajority of South Florida lost pother. For the east coast metro areas of 14tianii-Dade. Broward and Pahn Beach Cotutties. about 95% of the pourer was restored within 1 week after the hurricane- 11 urricane_ lieteorolo,icaIInforumflou Wind Irrt>a was the fust major (Categorn, 3 or higher) hurricane to make landfall in South Florida since Wiln><a of 2005. The east coast metro areas of Miami -Dade. Brouard. and Palet Beach Counties experienced sustained winds of strong tropical force (most of Miami. Ft. Lauderdale. and West Palm Beach saw sustained winds that peaked in the 50- 73 ntpli range.) Most of metro hiianii-Dade. Broward, and Patin Beach experienced wind gusts peaking in the 8 0- 100 ntph range. Very few isolated spots had gusts over 100 mplt, in the 100-111 ntph xange. Storm Sturge In Palet Beach County little significant inundation occurred. Page 1 5 150 Palm Beech County Community Rating System ainfall For the majority of locations where most of the population lives. in SOIA Florida. rainfall amounts iveraged from 6 to 10 inches in association with Irma - Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 48 -Hour Rainfall through 8 AM September 11, 2017 9wru. A908YAWASy AW 53 CwGp cob a vals,[oCo@eHae reyyly� SFWM O and A FOPS data ,i..� r en w.yt�.»m KT �ill..vtr•``1ui..1144M1w1 'Ya#.14.-+ AN r Rainfall linche �A11 1!a 1 •Fl .: w ,•Fe.ew �nI aw Illlii� 2,il low MIDaI-,)m W--- 1rm ILIA '1115nme ama IIw F .I F+n n Southern Palm Beach Cotuity on average received the most rain as the char belon shoe%s: 1 1 1 I1 .! I 111 l IN' Boca R,aton 9.24 in 0800 Alri 109111 NY Boca Raton Erinesnian 9.04 in 1.132.:x,1 r 09111 1V INI Abemleeu Golf Course 8.96 in 0816 AM ! 09111 Abeudeell Golf Course 3.65 in 0700 ANI ! 09111 Lophatchee 8.98 in 1105.AM. 109/'11 Lake Harbor 7.75 in 1105 ANI ! 09.11 Boynton Beach 7.56 in. 0700 AM 109111 NNII' Bora Raton 7.36 in 1141 AM 109.11 Jupiter 7.35 in 1154 AM 109111 N )<loilda G,ai-dens 6.61 in 0800 ANI ; 09? 11 S Juno Beach 6.47 in 0700 AM 109111 Page 16 151 ,r Ned OL Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 0 rGrfhU rnrr rfre tr+ fr aw"ed 6.03 in 0800 AM 109111 Palm Beavh Caunly 5.90 in ! 1155 AM 109111 Community Rating System Borth Palm Beach _ W Jupiter _ 4.32 in I. _0840 A. -lid i 04!11 _ South Bay _ 6.03 in 0800 AM 109111 {SSE NIV Haverhill 5.90 in ! 1155 AM 109111 Borth Palm Beach _ 5.64 in 0840 AM 109/11 11'. Pahn Beach Canal At S-352 5.59 in 0800 M4 09111 Bomfon Beach 3.39 in ! 4840 AM 109111 Lantana 5.05 in 0700.41-1 109111 S Boca Raton 4.65 in ; 0842 AM 109111 Belle Glade 4.4_6 in 0840 AM 109111 S Deh•aK Beach 4.12 in 0$40 AM 109111 _NE Lake Worth 4.07 in -�— 0700 Alhf 109,11 Lake 111oith 3.92 in 0800 AM 109111 Although some areas had significant amount of rannfall from Hurricane Imm. all sections of the water management system worked well as no flooding inside homes rias reported. ling Tide Floo ft Iharing the beginning of October 2017, the National Weather Sertfice issues 8 MXTS Alerts concerning Coastal Flood as the Kung Tide affected coastal comuntnities in all of South Florida itnchtdang Palnn Beacli Couunty. From October 2-S, the NWS issued daily briefings on the King Tide potential, noting that flooding would likely occur on coastal roads. parking lots. and docks in -vulnerableareas during the times of high tide. The NW -S also indicated high tides wound fait late 10;9 and thein on again between 9:30 a.ni-and 11 a -m Saturday. 10.1047 Tidal flooding continued this week to plagiw an area of Delray Beach that's regularly hit. O n October 8'', Delray Beach's Marine lhlay along the Intracoastal Watenvay just south of the Atlantic Avenue $ridge water was ankle-deep nnich of which seeped into houses in the neighborhood. Ian West Palen Reach. FLagler Drive, along the Intracoastal has often been affected by king tide flooding and puddling. Water from the Intracoastal Waterway flooded Lake Trail in Palen Beach and Flagler Drive in West Palm Beach at high tide Thursday. October 5. 2017. As part of a $25 nullion capital stommater facilities inapro%vment program the city is in the process of installing tidal valves and other projects to limit flooding along our waterfront." the city said in a prepared statement. -'The city has already installed a tidal Page 1 7 152 Local Mitigation Strategy 202 urr nx•irr Palm aeach county . F Cwnmunity Rasing System valve at Pershing Way to protect the lift station there frons tidal flooding. This tidal Valve will not allow water from high tides to floe back into the streets." The city also said it has also conducted a Stomm-ater Master Plan to fight sea level rise, claiming it has saved residents more tliun S20 million on insurance prenutuus by identifying areas that should be outside flood plains - A Note-- Concerning the NFIP Maps in Palm Beach County PBC received the drafts of its Flood Insurance Rate Maps and was in the Appeals period of the process for the majority of the year. A special Map Review C'onuntittee nide up of approxinnwely 60 representatives of the County's Flood Mitigation Technical Advisory Committee, representatives from South Florida Water Management District and Water Control Districts, the technnicaI Subcormnittee of the League of Cities, county officials, and municipal representatives reviewed the neaps and reported technical concerns to UAL -k and their contractor AECCIM- The ruips became final in early October_ 5. What impact did the flooding have on repetitive loss areas? As of this writing, we have not received any reports of flooding from repetitive loss property area owners. Any flooding occurring this year inn unincorporated PBC was minor street flooding due to the rate of rainfall versus the rate of stormy water drainage. while no stnuttues were reported flooding daring any unumal rain events. 6. List each element of the plan and note hon- much was accomplished during the previous year - Major progress in the L1l5 program dtuing this reporting period inchtdes: • C Hinges in the LhiS steering C'onniittee membership to meet changing needs an A gain a new perspective including a new LlviS Clmir. • Reconvened the Hazard and Vulnerability Analysis Subconnnittee to oversee and advise the creation of the `-Risk Assessment by Ha=ard and Vulnerability to People. Propem,. environnnent. and Government Operations' and changes in Vulnerability Risk Assessment and Impact Analyses of the LMS- ■ Developnnent and implementation of a new, streamlined, and more user friendly project scoring and prioritization process. and dig italizung the project utilizing the Division's AlebEOC' portal • The LNIS newsletter. published the winter, sinnunter and fta11 of 2017. • The Planning Section is updating the Dike Breach Hazard Specific Plan to Page 18 153 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Palm Beach County EM Community Raffng System included annexes for both the Herbert Hoover Dike and the Corbett Sent Hazard and mitigation analyses of nearly 40 hazards. These hi<azards include natural, htttnan caused and technological. A nen- risk assessment was added to the analyses. Completed the Flood Hazard Specific PLaii addressing stone stupe, coastal flooding. inland flooding, Sea Level Rise. dike breath. Tstui<anus. rogue wages. and severe weather. 7. Were any objectives not reached or are implementation behind schedule? If so. state why. Updates and revisions to the Local Mitigation Strategy Phin are on schedule. The LhiS Update Writing and Revision Coatntittee is meeting and will prepare a draft of the 2020 LNIS for presentation to the L1viS Steering Conntittee. the Working Group and the public S. Should new projects be started or should any of the recommendation or objectives be re�tised? The LMS Prioritized Project List (PPL) was reviewed and updated in the autuum of 2017. Unincorporated Palm Beach County currently does not 1mve arty flood mitigation projects on the list. lett plan on fitttre submissions. Projects on the list for than more than five (5) years at the time of bi-annual reviews are being reviewed. and if necessary. either updated or purged. New projects are considered and scored twice a year daring the scheduled project ev mutation dates int May and December. 9, Progress Reports discussed and'or made available at a public meeting_ The status of all mitigation projects and success stories are reported and discussed at quarterly LMS Working Group mad Steering Committee meetings (open to the public.) Ant update to the w-ebsite includes tke umber of new and existing projects. The PPL is posted on the. DF2i website at least twice each year in May and December. All general meetings are publicized through media releases and posted announcements. See Attaclnten t 1 for two such examples. Page 19 154 Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 Palm &each County CommunityNadag System 10. We 1mve prodded copies of this report to our governing board and local medm The governing board for the CRS is the LMS Steering Conuttittee. Copies of this progress report have been provided to members of the Steering Committee and have been pasted to the homepage of the Palm Beach County Division of Emergency l lanagetuent website for public review and comment. A media release announcing the report and its posting has been executed- The report will be submitted to the governing board. Info) mation Contacts: Brian Hand; CRS Coordinator at (5 61) 713-6335; Slane Ratliff, LUS Coordinator (561) 713-6483 As part of this annual progress report preparation process, the LMS Coor&mtor regmested an update on the srahts of all active county flood mitigation projects from the state. That status inforamlion is being submitted to ISD as part of the CRS recertification process and is available upon request at (561) 712-6325. This report Ims been released to the media via the count's Public Affairs Departn=t aitd posted on the Division of Emergency hiwagement's website Pane j 10 155 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 The following is the annual progress report for the County CRS Floodplain Management Plan (2015-16): PALAi BEACH C'OM Y C'OAlhft NTN Y RaTNG SYSTEM FLOODPLAINMANAGEMENT PLANT PROGRESS REPORT 2015-2016 Palen Beach County. Florida NFIP Mntber 120192 N'artte of the CRS Floodplain lrianagentent Plan i uiJied Local Vidgadanr Strategy Note: An increasing number of muuricipihiies are preparing floodplain Mattagentent Plans in accordance ivith die CRS C'oordinator's hfatual Actinty 500 —Flood Damage Reduction Activities. specifically. Activity 510 — Floodplain ivianagentent Planning. Several of the corrmitaiities have completed or are in various stages of completing their Floodplain Martagerttent Plans according to the 10 step process identified in the mwtral. Patin Beach County (PBQ Division of Emergency Uwagement is currently in discussions with the Planting Division and the Building Division of the Planning. Zoning and Building Department in an effort to identifv the resources necessary to accomplish this planning initiative. PBC anticipates completion of the planning imitative prior to tlse next audit. 2. Date Adopted ■ Original adaption: September 30. 1999 • Reu"iced Plan approved by FFNLA: November 2004 • Revised Plan approv ed by FENLA: January 2010 • Revised Plan approved by FELLA Febntary 2015 3. Location where copies are available for review Palin Beach County Division of Emergency Maingentent Emergency Operations center 20 South Ahlitary Trail Rest Palin Beach. Fl 33415 Contact: Gustavo Vilehez, LhiS C'oordinalm Planting Section Also posled out the interne[ at the following address: httv tutus.pbcgov. coin dent publicatiostspdf2015LNISPlan.udf 4. Suntni vize any flooding fltat occurred during 2015-2016. Palm Beach County (PBC) along with a3 of South Florida Subtropical Climate has two seasons. a dry seasom roughly from December through mud to late May. and a wet season from approximately June through October. Palm Beach C'ouutty averages over 60 inches of rain a year and more thau 130 rain days. will most of it coming between the 156 Local Mitigation Strategy 2024 months of lune and November. Vimuilly flat, with most areas at or only slightly above sea level. even moderate rains can accumulate quickly. The area's high hydrologic variation, low physical relief, and limited storage and conveyance capacities, make water management very challenging. Actions by local and regional water umnagement authorities range from enforcing water restrictions during dry periods to precautionary or emergency flood management during wet periods and storm events. During this past year Fall 2015: The dry season began according to the National Weather Service (NWS) in Heid -October. Due to a very strong l.i Nino, the dry season was predicted to be more active than nonnal and to include a potential for severe weather episodes. The NOAA Climate Prediction Center's outlook for December to February was an above average amount of rainfall in the county. Winter 2015: El Alin impact resulted in a wetter than nornud rainfall for PBC. Severe storms and increased rainfall were more prevalent during the winter as a result. Canal Point had 10.55 inches of rain, a departure of +8_4 inches form nortual, and Paha Beach Gardens area had 8.40 inches, and PBIA registered the 5`h wettest month on record with 9.9 inches of rain, and South BaylOkeelanta registered 11.47 inches. During lanuary, an EF -0 tornado (ww Wdspeeds of 65 to 85 mph) touched down in southern Palm Beach County affecting Delray Beach and Boynton Beach The tornado tially touched down new the intersection of 3`a St and SW 27ih Ave in Delray Beach and traveled northeast causing minor roof damage to a church in Delray Beach, and vegetative danulge. Number of days with measureable rainfall was much higher than normal; especially across the east coast metro areas where anywhere from 36 to 43 days of rain were observed compared to the normal of 21 to 23 days. However. other thin minor street flooding, the drainage system in PBC worked well. Spring 2016 The dry pattern which began in late February persisted throughout the spring, with many areas recording less than an inch of rain for the month of April, but Despite a dry period 157 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 in March and April. dry season rainfall was above average at all South Florida observing sites. Some years, the rainy season begins abruptly, triggered by a large-scale weather system such as low pressure systems near or over Florida. Other years, the onset can be quite subtle and dependent on gradual wind shifts and weather pattern changes which can take weeks to develop. Therefore, the beginning of the rainy season is usually a transition period rather than a sharp onset (Lite. bfid May usually begins the wet or rainy season in PBC. The NVVS identified the start of the wet season to be May 16th. The rainy season usually has three phases: • Late May through early July (`stormiest' part of the season). Severe weather impacts, including strong and damaging winds, tornadoes, excessive lightning, hail, and flooding are most likely to occur during this period. • Early July through mid .August (hotter with intermittent dry periods). • Late August through mild -October (higher rainfall variability due to potential tropical systems and early -fall cold fronts). Summuer 2016 The weather in the sumnmer of 2016 followed the trend set by the N1WS. Rainfall has been above norunal over most of the interior, Everglades and Lake Okeechobee area, with below normal rainfall so far this rainy season along coastal PBC. Overall, flooding has been limited to minor street flooding, and no significant flooding due to climatic rainfall. King Tide Flooding However, the King Tides in 2015 produced some coastal flooding. The fall tides, typically the highest of the year, have been even higher this week because they coincide with the supermoon — so named because the moon is at its closest point to earth this year. The City of Delray Beach's response to the King Tide flooding events by adding three flex valves into some sea walls to allow fresh water to exit which preventing salt iter from entering the city drainage systems. Lantwa and Boynton Beach also experienced some flooding due to the tides. Note: PBC received the drafts of its Flood Insurance Rate Maps and is currently in the Appeals period of the process. A special Map Review Conmrittee wade up of approximately 60 representatives of the County's Flood Mitigation Technical Advisory Committee, representatives from South Florida Water Ivlanagement District and Water Control Districts. the technical Subconunittee of the League of Cities, county officials, and municipal representatives reviewed the maps and reported technical concerns to FEM,,k and their contractor AECOIv1. FEIvLA has visisted the County twice and continues to work with the technical group to optimize the accuracy of the maps including omitted improvements and incorrect operational assumptions. The County is spearheading an 158 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 initiative to create LIDAR maps for consideration by Fa -L4 with flights scheduled for late fall, early winter 2016 to coincide with the dry season when cloud cover should be nmininmal to increase the effectiveness of the LIDAK 5. What impact did the flooding have on repetitive loss areas? As of this writing. we have not received any reports of flooding from repetitive loss property area owners. Given any flooding occurring this year in unincorporated PBC was minor street flooding due to the rate of rainfall versus the rate of storm water drainage, while no structures were reported flooding during any unusual rain events. 6. List each element of the plum and note how much was accomplished during the previous year. Major progress in the LMS program during this reporting period includes: • Changes in the Lh1S steering Committee membership to meet changing needs and gain a new perspective including a new LMS Chair. • Reconvened the Hazard and Vulnerability Analysis Subcommittee to oversee and advise the creation of the "Risk Assessment by Hazard and Vulnerability to People, Property, environment, and Government Operations" and changes in Vulnerability Risk Assessment and Impact Analyses of the LMS. • Development and implementation of a new, streamlined. and more user friendly project scoring and prioritization process, and digitalizing the project utilizing the Division's WebEOC portal. • The LMS newsletter, published the Winter, 2016 and Stunner 2016 editions. The next newsletter is due to be published in Autumn 2016. • The Planning Section is updating the Dike Breach Hazard Specific Plan to included annexes for both the Herbert Hoover Dike and the Corbett Berm • Hazard and mitigation analyses of nearly 40 hazards. These hazards include natural, hummer caused and technological. A new risk assessment was added to the analyses. • Completed the Flood Hazard Specific Plan, addressing storm dirge, coastal flooding, inland flooding. Sea Level Rise. dike breach, Tsunamis. rogue waves, and severe weather. 7. Were any objectives not reached or are implementation behind schedule? If so, state why. Updates and revisions to the Local Mitigation Strategy Plan are on schedule. The LIAS Update Writing and Revision Committee is meeting and will prepare a draft of the 2020 LMS for presentation to the Working Group and Steering Committees as well as the public 159 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 S. Should new projects be started or shouldany of the recommendations or objectives be revised? The LMS Prioritized Project List (PPL) was reviewed and updated iii the Spring of 2016. Palm Beach County currently does not have any flood mitigation projects on the list. but plan on future submissions. Projects on the list for than more than five (5) years at the time of bi .annuual reviews are being reviewed, and if necessary, either updated or purged. New projects are considered and scored twice a year during the scheduled project evaluation dates in May and December. 9. Progress Reports discussed and'or made available at a public meeting. The states of all mitigation projects and success stories are reported and discussed at quarterly LMS Working Group and Steering Com»ittee meetings (open to the public.) An update to the website includes the number of new and existing projects. The PPL is posted on the DEM website at least twice each year in May and December. All general meetings are publicized through media releases and posted announcements. The press release for the last Working Group meeting held (June 22. 2016) is attached. 10. We have provided copies of this report to our governing board and local media. The governing board for the CRS is the LMS Steering Committee. Copies of this progress report have been provided to members of the Steering Committee and have been posted to the homepage of the Palm Beach County Division of Emergency Management website for public review and connient. A media release announcing the report and its posting has been executed. The report will be submitted to the governing board. htfonnation Contacts. Brine Hanley, CRS Coordinator at (561) 712-6325,, Gustavo Vilche_, LLS Coordinator (561) 712-6953 As part of this annual progress report preparation process. the LMS Coordinator requested an update on the status of all active county flood mitigation projects from the state. That status information is being submitted to ISO as part of the CRS recertification process and is available upon request at (561) 712-6325. This report has been released to the media via the county's Public Affairs Department and posted on the Division of Emergency Management's website Local Mitigation Strategy 2020 Action Plan and Recommendations Municipal Integration of Mitigation Measures The following section identifies how the participating municipalities have incorporated mitigation into their planning processes, policies and/or ordinances. The municipalities continuously strive to expand and improve upon their mitigation measures as illustrated below and with the extensive listing of mitigation projects identified in Appendix E. The list below also represents the municipalities and agencies that are expected to adopt the LMS2020. MunicipaUty ,Resolution Date LMS Ado ted Palm Beach County (unicor orated R2014-068 968 Dezember- 16, 2014 City of Atlantis 14-29 November 19, 20I4 City of Belle Glade 2014-3130 December 1, 2014 City of Boca Raton 133-2014 November 25, 2014 City of Boynton Beach R14-1 I0 November 5, 2014 Town of Briny Breezes 2014-30 November 20, 2014 Town of Cloud Lake 2014-07 November 13, 2014 City of Delray Beach 67-14 December 9, 2014 Town of Glen Ride 2014-3 November 5, 2014 City of Green Acres 2014-31 November 17, 2014 Village of Golf 2014-12 November 19, 2014 Town of Gulf Stream 14-17 December 12, 2014 Town of Haverhill 2014-11 November 13, 2014 Town of Highland Beach 14-0098 December 2, 2014 Town of Hypoluxo 14-439 November 19, 2014 Town of luno beach 2014-05 December 10. 2014 Town of Al iter 2-15 Jani-iuy 20, 2015 Ri iter Inlet Colon 2014-10 December S. 2014 Town of Lake Clarke Shores 14-28 November 6, 2014 Town of Lake Park 01-01-15 January 7, 2015 City of Lake Worth Beach 05-2015 JartUary 6, 2015 Town of Lantana R-14-2014 November 24, 2014 Town of Loxahatchee Groves 2015-07 January 26, 2015 Town of Manala an 4-2014 September 23, 2014 Town of Man onia Park 20114-13 December 2, 2014 Village of North Palm Beach 2014-55 November 13, 2014 Town of Ocean Ride 2014-16 December 1, 2414 City of Pahokee 2014-53 November 25, 2014 Town of Palm Beach 2-2015 Januar 13, 2015 City of Palm Beach Gardens 70-2014 December 4, 2014 Town of Palm Beach Shores R-17-14 December 15, 2014 Village Of Palm Springs 2014-66 December 11, 2014 161 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 Village of Ro al Palm Beach 14-43 November 20, 2014 City of Riviera Beach 10-15 January 2I, 2015 City of South Bay 44-2014 November 18, 2015 Town of South Palm Beach 02-2014 January 13, 2015 Villa e of Te uesta 7-15 January 26, 2015 Villa e of Wellington R2014-67 January 13, 2015 City of West Palm Beach 2-15 Jantlary 5, 2015 South Florida Water Management District Board Approval December 14, 2014 Indian Trail Management District Board Approval January 12, 2015 Northern Palm Beach Improvement District Board Approval December 15, 2014 Incorporation of'Existing Policies, Ordinances, and Programs Since the implementation of the LMS, the PBC LMS Coordinator and Chairman of the LMS Working Group along with Working Group members were invited to participate and assist by reviewing municipality and water district local policies, ordinances, and programs to better identify areas where areas of mitigation principals may be aligned. Numerous planning agencies and documents were reviewed and addressed the needs of mitigation actions and recommended how often the local plans may be reviewed or updated into planning factors to assess countywide hazards and risks. They remain successful to discuss, review, and identify areas were PBC as a whole community can be more effective approach to mitigation and resiliency. The incorporation of municipality and district plans includes reviews of the following: • Southeast Florida Regional Climate Action Pian • Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan (PBC Planning, Zoning, and Building) • Palm Beach County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan • Florida Administrative Code 9J-2.0256 Periodic reviews and revisions of the local government ordinances, policies, and programs must occur no less than once every other year. Each municipality that has not yet done so should adopt a Floodplain management ordinance and participate in the Community Rating System (CRS) program. At the present time, the PBC LMS serves as a Floodplain Management Plan when adopted by a Municipality or water management district. After review of the activities in CRS Step 7, located in Sections 3.1.4.2.1.1.1, and appendices E, J, and L, the committee reconnmends the following actions and assigns the following priorities for those actions: Activity Recommended How to Responsible Priority Timeline Action Fund Part Prevention Each jurisdiction None needed Jurisdictional 1 Before the re-evaluate their building officials next LMS 162 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 163 building code with and CRS update the goal of ensuring program cycle a minimum 18 -inch managers freeboard in place, with the goal of raising this requirement to 24 inches in the near future to prevent floods Prevention Each jurisdiction HMGP and Jurisdictional 2 Before the re-evaluate their FMA grants, stormwater next LMS stormwater Capital managers and update management Improve engineering cycle regulations and funds departments adjust (as necessary)the overall volume of future development/ redevelopment of stormwater drains to handle increasing amounts of water as seen through frequent storms during the wet season and the potential for sea - level rise through the year 2040 to prevent floods Prevention Each jurisdiction None needed Jurisdictional 3 By the next should review their administrators update of comprehensive or and land -use these land -use plan and experts documents consider the effects of more frequent storms and sea - level rise in future editions in order to avoid flooding conditions Property Each jurisdiction HMGP, FMA, Grants 2 12/2023 Protection should put and PDM management in procedures in place federal grant cooperation with to sponsor private funding, as jurisdictional 163 Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 164 homeowners in well as HLMP legal and their communities state engineering with repetitive loss mitigation departments or severe repetitive fiends loss in obtaining grant fiends for acquisition projects using available funding streams Property Each jurisdiction HMGP, FMA, Grants 1 12/2023 Protection should put and PDM management in procedures in place federal grant cooperation with to sponsor private funding, as jurisdictional homeowners in well as HLMP legal and their communities state engineering with repetitive loss mitigation departments and severe funds repetitive loss properties in obtaining grants for home elevation projects using available funding streams Natural Each jurisdiction Environment Environmental 2 1/2025 Resource should inventory grants, FMA department in Protection current natural grants conjunction with areas and strive to land - acquire more areas development to provide more /zoning boards natural beneficial flooding protection Natural Each jurisdiction Environment Environmental 1 12/2024 Resource should plan to grants, FMA department in Protection strategically acquire grants conjunction with natural lands land - around newly- development identified /zoning boards neighborhoods during growth periods to allow for some natural protection against flooding 164 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Emergency Each jurisdiction No cost/free Municipal 2 12/2021 Services should acquire the to administrators, Activities capabilities offered municipalities police chiefs, fire by County DEM to within PBC chiefs, allow for them to emergency operate and managers function on the mass notification system within their jurisdictional boundaries to alert residents to all - hazards including flash flooding and hurricanes Emergency Each jurisdiction None needed Emergency 1 Annually Services should participate Managers from during the Activities in a minimum of each jurisdiction first week one(I)annual of May exercise of emergency communications systems, with the most readily identifiable exercise being the annual statewide hurricane exercise (HURREX) to ensure communications capabilities during a flooding or any other hazard situation Public Each jurisdiction Minimal CRS 2 May/June Information should participate finding for Coordinators Annually Activities in a stakeholders handouts, from each (STK) event information, jurisdiction, led annually to and potential by the PBC CRS maximize exposure overtime/com who sets up the of CRS and the p time for the event annually NFIP to the citizens event of their respective jurisdictions. 165 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 Public Each jurisdiction No funding CRS 3 6/2022 Information should develop a needed other Coordinators Activities Program for Public than the from each Information (PPI) members time jurisdiction to maximize public to attend information meetings and coordination and develop a PPI activities related to CRS/flooding in their respective jurisdiction Public Each jurisdiction General funds CRS Coordinator 1 12/2021 Information should maintain a or a small from each Activities supply of CRS grant for jurisdiction in materials/handouts printing costs cooperation with for use in all public of any their public outreach events, localized information or including handouts. public affairs information on FEMA department hurricane/flood handouts are preparedness, available for NFIP, evacuation free zones, and mass notification systems. *Priorities are listed 1 — 3 depending on availability of finds and staffing 166 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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 fixture 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, 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 FDEM 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 lav enforcement homeland security units who commonly perform critical infrastructure and key resource (CI/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 limited so as not to compromise local law enforcement's tactical or strategic capabilities or the region's efforts in Cl/KR programs in support of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP). 167 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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 ESF18 (Business & Industry) functions at the regional and state levels, through WebEOC source lists, or through private sector partners party to the Business Continuity Information Network (BUN). 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. The Logistics Section will maintain lists of emergency contacts. 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 MAI's is to learn exactly what happened and wily, and Ilow to reduce disaster damage in the future. Key questions include: • How did buildings perform? • Did winds exceed building codes'? • Did flood 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 pleasures such as shutters used? • Were local, State, and Federal building standards and ordinances sufficient? FIB i5 the largest County by area in the U.S. east of the Mississippi River. Most of its populatioil and development are heavily concentrated in the eastern corridor within 12 miles of the coastline. The County's emergency management planning is based oil 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 Ird.1 Local Mitigation Strategy 12020 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 fiords. The DEM recovery branch will provide oversight. The recovery and post -disaster coordinator from the recovery branch 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. Mitigation assessment activities are integral to assessing the mitigation program. DEM coordinates with the Inspections Section of the County's Building Department regarding these. Many of the 39 municipalities of the County have their own building departments, officials, and procedures and will be an important part of future procedure development processes. Several of these departments can draw from their damage assessment experiences following Hurricane Andrew in 1992, and their experiences following Hurricane Irma in 2017, which affected PBC. Organizations such as the PBC Builder's Association and the Building Code Advisory Board of PBC may also be consulted regarding these activities. WE Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2020 Appendix L: LMS Coordination and Documentation (Separate Appendix due to large volume of meeting minutes and sign -in sheets) This appendix may be accessed by contacting The Palm Beach County Division of Emergency Management during business hours. This information is open to public inspection. Appendix M: Critical Facilities (separate Appendix due to being exempt from disclosure pursuant to Florida Statute §119.071(3)). 170