2014-85 2015 Revised Unified Palm Beach County Local Mitigation Strategy PlanRESOLUTION 2014 -85
�) A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF
NORTH PALM BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE
2015 REVISED UNIFIED 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, in coordination with governmental
and non - governmental stakeholders having an interest in reducing the impact of disasters, and
with input from the private sector and other members of the public, developed and revised the
Palm Beach County Local Mitigation Strategy; and
WHEREAS, the 2015 revised Local Mitigation Strategy has been approved by the Florida
Division of Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management Agency subject to
adoption by the County Board of County Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, the LMS Steering Committee recommends the formal adoption of the 2015 Revised
Local Mitigation Strategy, including planned future enhancements described therein, by the
County and all 38 participating municipalities.
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 2015 Revised Local Mitigation Strategy Plan (attached hereto as Exhibit A) in its
entirety, as revised by the LMS Steering Committee and approved by the Palm Beach County
(, Board of County Commissioners, the Florida Division of Emergency Management and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Section 3. The Village 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 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014.
(Vill4'ge Seal)''
MAYOR
ATTEST:
VILLAGE CLERK
Page 2 of 2
�tiA�H c
a -
ogether
Local mergeric[es
re
Mitigation Strategy ���,t�r
2015
BEM
Palm Beach County
Public Safety Department
Division of Emergency Management
20 South Military Trail
West Palm Beach, FL 33415
561 - 712 -6400
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
This page intentionally left blank
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Table of Contents
Tableof Contents ............................................................................................. ...............................
3
SECTION 1: PLANNING PROCESS ............................................................ ...............................
7
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................... ...............................
7
1.2 Purpose .............................................................................................. ...............................
7
1.3 Program Organization ....................................................................... ...............................
7
1.3.1 LMS Structure ............................................................................ ...............................
7
1.3.2 Standing Committees ................................................................. ...............................
9
1.3.3 Community Rating System (CRS) Cooperating Committees .............................
10
1.4 Participation Requirements ............................................................. ...............................
10
1.5 Jurisdictional Adoption ................................................................... ...............................
11
1.6 New Jurisdictions / Entities ............................................................... ...............................
11
1.8 Guiding Principles ........................................................................... ...............................
12
1.9 Process ............................................................................................... .............................12
1.10 Strategy ........................................................................................ ...............................
13
1.11 Benefits .......................................................................................... .............................13
SECTION 2: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS ...............
17
2.1 Hazard Identification ....................................................................... ...............................
17
2.1.1 Natural Hazards ....................................................................... ...............................
20
2.1.1.1 Flooding .............................................................................. .............................20
2.1.1.2 Hurricane /Tropical Storm ................................................. ...............................
34
2.1.1.3 Tornado ............................................................................... .............................44
2.1.1.4 Severe Thunderstorm / Lightning ....................................... ...............................
48
2.1.1.5 Drought ............................................................................... .............................49
2.1.1.6 Extreme Temperatures ...................................................... ...............................
52
2.1.1.7 Agricultural Pest and Disease ........................................... ...............................
55
2.1.1.8 Wildfire/Urban Interface Zone ......................................... ...............................
57
2.1.1.9 Muck Fire ......................................................................... ...............................
58
2.1.1.10 Soil/Beach Erosion ........................................................... ...............................
59
2.1.1.11 Sea Level Rise .................................................................. ...............................
62
2.1.1.12 Seismic Hazards ............................................................... ...............................
63
2.1.1.13 Geologic Hazards ............................................................... ...............................
64
2.1.1.14 Pandemic .......................................................................... ...............................
66
3
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
2.1.2 Technological Hazards ............................................................. ...............................
70
2.1.2.1
Dike Failure ..................................................................... ...............................
70
2.1.2.2
Hazardous Materials Accident .......................................... ...............................
71
2.1.2.3
Radiological Accidents (Nuclear Power Plant Accident) . ...............................
72
2.1.2.4
Communications Failure ................................................... ...............................
73
2.1.2.5
Hazardous Materials Release ............................................ ...............................
73
2.1.2.6
Transportation System Accidents ..................................... ...............................
73
2.1.2.7
Coastal Oil Spill ................................................................ ...............................
74
2.1.2.8
Wellfield Contamination .................................................. ...............................
75
2.1.2.9
Power Failure ( Outages) ................................................... ...............................
76
2.1.3 Human - Caused Hazards ........................................................... ...............................
77
2.1.3.1
Civil Disturbance .............................................................. ...............................
77
2.1.3.2
Terrorism and Sabotage .................................................... ...............................
77
2.1.3.3
Mass Migration Crisis ...................................................... ...............................
79
2.2 Vulnerability
Assessment ................................................................ ...............................
79
2.2.1 Natural Hazards ....................................................................... ...............................
81
2.2.1.1
Hurricanes and Tropical Storms ....................................... ...............................
81
2.2.1.2
Flooding .............................................................................. .............................83
2.2.1.3
Severe Thunderstorm / Lightning ....................................... ...............................
84
2.2.1.4
Wildfire/Urban Interface Zone ......................................... ...............................
84
2.2.1.5
Muck Fire ......................................................................... ...............................
85
2.2.1.6
Tornado ............................................................................... .............................85
2.2.1.7
Extreme Temperatures ...................................................... ...............................
85
2.2.1.8
Coastal & Beach Erosion / Sea Level Rise ...................... ...............................
86
2.2.1.9
Agricultural Pest and Disease ........................................... ...............................
88
2.2.1.10
Drought ............................................................................... .............................88
2.2.1.11
Pandemic .......................................................................... ...............................
88
2.2.1.12
Seismic Hazards ............................................................... ...............................
88
2.2.2 Technological Hazards ............................................................. ...............................
89
2.2.2.1
Hazardous Materials Accident .......................................... ...............................
89
2.2.2.2
Radiological Accidents (Nuclear Power Plant Accidents) ..............................
90
2.2.2.3
Communications System Failure ...................................... ...............................
92
2.2.2.4
Transportation System Accidents ..................................... ...............................
92
0
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
2.2.2.5 Wellfield Contamination .................................................. ...............................
92
2.2.2.6 Power Failure .................................................................... ...............................
93
2.2.3 Human Caused Hazards ........................................................... ...............................
93
2.2.3.1 Civil Disturbance .............................................................. ...............................
93
2.2.3.2 Terrorism and Sabotage .................................................... ...............................
93
2.2.3.2 Mass Migration Crisis ...................................................... ...............................
93
2.2.4 Vulnerability of Critical Facilities ........................................... ...............................
95
2.3 Risk Assessment .............................................................................. ...............................
95
SECTION 2A: VULNERABILITY OF CRITICAL FACILITIES ............... ...............................
98
SECTION 213: VULNERABILITY OF RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES..
100
SECTION 3: MITIGATION STRATEGY .................................................. ...............................
104
3.1 Governmental .................................................... ............................... ............................104
3.1.1 Federal ........................................................ ............................... ............................104
3.1.2 State ............................................................ ............................... ............................105
3.1.3 Regional ..................................................... ............................... ............................106
3.1.3.1 Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPQ ... ...............................
106
3.1.3.2 South Florida Water Management District ..................... ...............................
107
3.1.4 Local .......................................................... ............................... ............................108
3.1.4.1 Palm Beach County ........................................................ ...............................
108
3.1.4.2 Municipalities ................................................................. ...............................
129
3.1.5 Intergovernmental Coordination ............................................ ...............................
135
3.2 Private Sector ................................................................................ ...............................
137
3.2.1 Background ................................................ ............................... ............................137
3.2.2 Accomplishments ....................................... ............................... ............................140
3.3 Strengthening the Role of Local Governments ............................. ...............................
143
SECTION 4: PROCEDURES .................................................................... ...............................
146
4.1 Project Prioritization Methodology ............................................... ...............................
146
4.1.1 Development and Rationale ................................................... ...............................
146
4.1.2 Community Benefit ................................................................ ...............................
148
4.1.3 Community Exposure ............................................................ ...............................
149
4.1.4 Cost Effectiveness .................................................................. ...............................
150
4.1.5 Area Benefit ........................................................................... ...............................
152
4.1.6 Project Implementation .......................................................... ...............................
152
5
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
4.1.7
Community Commitment ...................................................... ...............................
153
4.2 Tie
-Break Procedure .................................................................... ...............................
155
4.3 LMS Evaluation Panel ................................................................. ...............................
155
4.3.1
Eligibility for Federal Funding .............................................. ...............................
155
4.4 Project
Prioritization Updating Process ........................................ ...............................
156
4.5 Conflict
Resolution Procedures ..................................................... ...............................
157
4.5.1
Background ................................................ ............................... ............................158
4.5.2
Procedure ............................................................................... ...............................
158
Appendix A:
Risk & Vulnerability Analyses Data .................................... ...............................
162
Appendix B:
Countywide Mitigation Initiatives ..................................... ...............................
194
Appendix C:
Hazard & Risk Assessment Maps ...................................... ...............................
200
Appendix D:
Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms ................. ...............................
204
Appendix E:
Prioritized Project Lists ...................................................... ...............................
206
Appendix F:
Funding and Data Sources .................................................. ...............................
214
Appendix G:
Local Mitigation Strategy Coordination ............................ ...............................
216
Appendix H:
Repetitive Loss Properties .................................................. ...............................
290
Appendix I:
Project Scoring Examples .................................................. ...............................
292
Appendix J:
NFIP and CRS Status and Activities .................................. ...............................
300
Appendix K:
Mitigation Assessment Teams (MATs) ............................. ...............................
304
Appendix L:
List of Acronyms ................................................................ ...............................
308
AppendixM:
Maps ....................................................... ............................... ............................310
31
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
SECTION 1: PLANNING PROCESS
1.0 Introduction
The Palm Beach County Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) was formally adopted by the County,
municipalities, and the LMS Steering Committee in 1999. Initial development of the LMS was
funded, in part, by the Florida Department of Community Affairs/Florida Division of Emergency
Management (FDCA/FDEM) with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds
earmarked for the development of comprehensive hazard mitigation planning.
The LMS was established and continues to operate in accordance with prevailing federal, state
and local guidelines and requirements. In 2004 the plan and program were substantially
modified to enhance operational effectiveness and to comply with new federal guidelines
established in response to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of the LMS is to develop and execute an ongoing strategy for reducing the
community's vulnerability to identified natural, technological and human caused hazards. The
strategy provides a rational, managed basis for considering and prioritizing hazard - specific
mitigation options and for developing and executing sound, cost - effective mitigation projects.
The LMS also provides a basis for justifying the solicitation and use of local, state, federal, and
other funding to support hazard mitigation projects and initiatives.
1.3 Program Organization
1.3.1 LMS Structure
The current structure meets federal guidelines and criteria established in response to the Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000 and Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (See figure 1).
Local Mitigation Strategy Coordinator
The LMS Coordinator is a staff member within the County's Division of Emergency
Management and serves as the coordinator for all mitigation projects, committees, and mitigation
funding designated for the County. The LMS Coordinator 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 a minimum of
every five (5) years. The 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 Florida Division of Emergency Management, the LMS Steering Committee, the
Board of County Commissioners, and local municipalities. The LMS Coordinator is responsible
for the continued maintenance of the LMS as well as the storing and filling of all documents
pertaining to mitigation issues. In addition, the LMS Coordinator is responsible for the
coordination of the Project Prioritization List that scores and ranks projects in the County that are
7
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
eligible for Federal monies. This process is conducted through the Evaluation Panel. Panelists
are solicited by the LMS Coordinator on behalf of the Steering Committee based on LMS
member recommendations and are subject to approval by the Steering Committee. The LMS
Coordinator interfaces with appropriate 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 CEMP. In addition the LMS
Coordinator seeks opportunities at the regional, county and municipal levels to:
• Update plans, policies, regulations and other directives to include hazard
mitigation priorities
• Encourage the adoption of mitigation priorities within capital and operational
budgets and grant applications
• Share information on grant funding opportunities
• Offer guidance for carrying out mitigation actions
• Explore opportunities for collaborative mitigation projects and initiatives
• facilitate and coordinate the application process and serve as a primary communication
link with funding agencies
LMS Working Group
The LMS Working Group represents a broad cross - section of public sector and private sector
organizations and individuals, including the general public, regional universities, neighboring
emergency management departments, and state coordinators. The Working Group serves as an
umbrella organization for coordinating all mitigation programs and activities, supplies the
staffing for all committees of the LMS, and is the primary mechanism and forum for exchanging
information and mobilizing the vast expertise and resources of the community.
LMS Steering Committee
The LMS Steering Committee consists of 15 members composed of seven municipal
representatives, two county /local government representatives, one state /federal government
representative, one university /college representative, one healthcare industry representative, one
non - profit representative, and two representatives from the private sector. The 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. 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.
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
----------- 7--- - -i - --
i
Z
1.3.2 Standing Committees
Rc . Aug 2014
• Evaluation Panel - Designated to review, evaluate, score and rank mitigation projects
applying established local, state and federal prioritization processes and criteria.
• Revisions Sub - Committee - Designated to review, update, and verify that subsequent
LMS plans meet all federal guidelines and criteria. In addition, the revisions committee
meets as needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the plan as well as to monitor and update
the plan during the five (5) year cycle. The revisions committee has a standing meeting
once a quarter. If no issues or concerns with the plan are proposed or presented, the
committee does not meet. Eighteen months before the plan is up for revisions, the
standing meeting is held regardless of whether changes need to be made. Monthly
meetings of the committee are held 12 months before the plan expires to ensure all
address with the revision are being met.
• Hazard and Vulnerability Analysis Sub - Committee - Provides a detail assessment of
hazards that may affect Palm Beach County (PBC) and provides mitigation
recommendations.
9
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
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.
• Flood Mitigation Committee - Comprised of representatives from the county's active
CRS communities, who collaborate on a full range of Outreach Projects Strategy (OPS)
initiatives and promote CRS participation. (This committee is being transitioned to the
Program for Public Information (PPI)).
While there is no regulation that requires the CRS committee to meet or coordinate, Palm
Beach County has a very involved CRS user group that passes information and best
practices and meets on a scheduled basis. Out of the 38 municipalities in Palm Beach
County, 28 are in the CRS user group. A chart in appendix J shows that list as well the
number of insured homes each have in that municipality as well as their CRS rating.
1.4 Participation Requirements
Since the LMS is written directly from input from all stakeholders, it is important to make sure
that the entire PBC community is represented. Each group has different participation
requirements; however, all groups are strongly encouraged to participate in the process.
Jurisdictions
Municipal and County participation is 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 Working Group
meetings; or
• Participation of the representative or officially designated alternate(s) in a majority of the
Steering Committee meetings, and
• Participation in a majority of subcommittee meetings; or
• Participation in special conference call meetings of the Steering Committee or
subcommittees; and
• Have an officially executed resolution adopting the revised LMS plan on file with the
County. In order for a jurisdiction to be eligible for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
10
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
(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 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 one 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 general public is strictly voluntary, their attendance, comments,
contributions, and support are actively invited, sought, monitored and fully documented.
In order to promote the opportunity for broad participation, at a minimum, notices and agendas
for all general meetings of the LMS are posted through some combination of newspaper ads or
public service announcements; social media, postings on county and municipal websites,
announcements in the county and municipal newsletters and calendars, and blast faxes and e-
mailings to all previous participants.
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 Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
and the LMS Steering Committee.
1.6 New Jurisdictions/Entities
In the event municipal jurisdictions are added, deleted, or merged within the County, the LMS
will appropriately adjust its membership rolls as necessary and require any newly defined
jurisdictions to provide documentation necessary for participation in the program.
11
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
1.7 Jurisdictional Participation
Palm Beach County has 38 municipalities. In addition to jurisdictions being encouraged to
participate, each member is provided minutes from the previous working group or steering
committee meeting within once week following the meeting. Participation is also monitored with
sign -in sheets. This information along with a roster of the primary LMS representative from each
municipality can be found in appendix G. You will also find summaries of both working group
and steering committee meetings.
1.8 Guiding Principles
The LMS guiding principles are an expression of the community's vision of hazard mitigation
and the mechanisms through which it is striving to achieve that vision. The principles address
concerns of the community relative to natural, technological, and human caused hazards.
1.9 Process
As part of the process, a survey was distributed to each jurisdiction to understand their local
issues. The LMS Steering Committee, along with the LMS Working Group, assessed existing
plans, studies, and 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 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
12
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
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
7) Local adoption following a public hearing
8) Periodic review and update
1.11 Benefits
Adoption of this strategy will provide the following benefits to both County and municipal
governmental entities:
• Compliance with Administrative Rules 9G -6 and 9G -7, Florida Administrative Code
(FAC), requirements for local Comprehensive Emergency Management Plans to identify
problem areas and planning deficiencies relative to severe and repetitive weather
phenomenon, and to identify pre and post- disaster strategies for rectifying identified
programs
• Universal points from the National Flood Insurance Program's (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 of all hazard mitigation
13
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
• 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
1.12 Criteria and Procedures for Revision
This document will be updated a minimum of every five (5) years by the LMS Coordinator with
the assistance of the Revision Subcommittee and approval by the Steering Committee with input
from the LMS Working Group.
The public is given an opportunity to review this document and provide comments through the
County website, as well as committee meetings. Revisions may also be made based upon
experience from any significant events such as a hurricane, tornado, sea level rise, hazardous
materials spill or any other occurrence where mitigation could benefit the community. Changes
in federal, state, and local laws will also be reflected in the updated version of this document.
The revisions will then be distributed to all affected parties by the LMS Coordinator.
• The evaluation criteria which are used include:
o New mandates from federal, state or local agencies that require changes to the
Local Mitigation Strategy New or changing laws, policies or regulations.
o Societal developments or significant changes in the community that must be
added to the 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 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.
14
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Once revisions are approved by the Steering Committee, the LMS Coordinator provides the copy
to all members, on the website, and to the State for approval. Once approved by the State, the
LMS Coordinator distributes to members for final adoption by governing body.
1.13 Goals
• Reduce the loss of life, property, and repetitive damage from the effects of natural,
societal and technological hazards from all sources but especially hurricanes, tornadoes,
major rainfall and other severe weather events
• Achieve safe and fiscally sound, sustainable communities through thoughtful long -range
planning of the natural and man -made environment
• Take preventative actions to reduce the number of repetitive loss properties published
annually by FEMA on the list of "Repetitive Loss Properties"
• Qualify the county and jurisdictions for incremental improvements on the Community
Rating System classification in relation to flood insurance under the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) and to reduce flood hazards
• Optimize the effective use of all available resources by establishing public /private
partnerships, and encouraging intergovernmental coordination and cooperation
• Promote awareness and preparedness through the distribution of information on hazards
and measures to mitigate them
• Increase the level of coordination of mitigation management concerns, plans and
activities at the municipal, county, state and federal levels of government in relation to all
hazards
• Establish a program that facilitates orderly recovery and redevelopment, and minimizes
economic disruption following a disaster
• Ensure an enforceable commitment for the implementation of the local hazard mitigation
strategy
1.14 Objectives
The ultimate objectives of the LMS are to:
Improve the community's resistance to damage from known natural, man -made, and
environmental hazards
Place Palm Beach County in a position to compete effectively and productively for pre
and post- disaster mitigation funding assistance
The ultimate objectives of the LMS are to:
• Improve the community's resistance to damage from known natural, man -made, and
environmental hazards
• Place Palm Beach County in a position to compete effectively and productively for pre
and post- disaster mitigation funding assistance
15
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
• Encourage strong jurisdictional, nongovernmental and public participation and support of
LMS activities
• Reduce the cost of disasters at all levels
• Facilitate community recovery when disasters occur
• Minimize recurrence of damage by incorporating mitigation into post disaster rebuilding
• Promote intelligent development
• Encourage strong jurisdictional, nongovernmental and public participation and support of
LMS activities
• Reduce the cost of disasters at all levels
• Facilitate community recovery when disasters occur
• Minimize recurrence of damage by incorporating mitigation into post disaster rebuilding
• Promote intelligent development
16
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
SECTION 2: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS
This section represents an update of the 2004 and 2009 hazard and vulnerability analysis. It
addresses, in part, the following FEMA requirements:
Requirement: §201.6(c)(2): The plan shall include a risk assessment that provides the factual
basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk
assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and
prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified 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 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.
2.1 Hazard Identification
Section 2.1 and Table 2.1 list the general hazards to which PBC is vulnerable and indicates their
projected impact potential across the entire spectrum of community exposure and services.
Section 2.1, Hazard Identification, describes these hazards in detail and discusses County -wide
exposures; Section 2.2, 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
County -wide 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. Most
hazards in Palm Beach County affect the entire county equally. However, there are a view that
maybe more concentrated in one area of the county. For 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 devidided down into four geographical areas: Northern Palm Beach,
Southern Palm Beach, Western Palm Beach, and Coastal Palm Beach County.
In each of the hazards identified and defined, the latest occurrence of that event hazard is listed.
For example the last major hurricane to hit Palm beach County was 2007. Therefore, there would
be no examples beyond that point.
17
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
In addition, the charts with show probability of occurance and impact. These will be rated as low
= under 5% chance of occurring, medium, 5% - 15% chances of occurring, or High, greater than
15 %. These rating responds with the information of the charts presented.
Each disaster affects Palm Beach County differently based the severity and scope of the disaster
and where it occurred in the County. While impacts to structures, infrastructure, people, and the
environment will be addressed in each individual hazard, in most cases unless the disaster is
significant, (major or catastrophic), in duration and destruction, impact will be minimum and can
be handled with resources within the county. If not specifically discussed in the hazard, it is
assumed that there would be none or minimum impact to the to the County.
The presented charts will provide additional information on impacts.
Disasters are classified by the magnitude of their effect. The recognized classification system is
as follows:
Minor Disaster - Any disaster that is likely to be within the response capabilities of local
government and results in only minimal need for state or federal assistance. The damage
level to life and property is minimal and can be controlled and contained with resources
within the municipality, or county in which they occurred.
Major Disaster - As defined under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.0 5122) a major disaster is any natural catastrophe (earthquakes,
explosion, fire, flood, high water. Hostile actions, hurricanes, landslide, mudslide,
storms, tidal wave, tornado, wind - driven water, snowstorms, or drought), or, regardless of
cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United States, which in the
determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to
warrant disaster assistance under this Act to supplement the effort and available resources
of 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 local response
resources and mechanisms: causes a severe long -term effect on general economic
activity; and severely affects state; local, and private sector capabilities to begin and
sustain response activities.
The hazards identified in Table 2.1 and discussed in Section 2.1 are organized based on their
maximum projected impact potential. This means that hazards capable of producing the
maximum community -wide impact, such as hurricanes and floods, are discussed first. This does
not mean other identified hazards are less important or less worthy of mitigation, it simply means
that their potential to affect the total community is lower.
In
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Table 2.1 Identification and projected impact potential for hazards
Projected Impact Potential
19
NEEL
Flood
Hurricane /Tropical
storm
Tornado
Severe
thunderstorm
Drought
Temperature
extremes
Agricultural
pest/disease
Wildfire
Muck Fire
Soil /beach erosion
Seismic hazards
Sea Level Rise
19
Hazard Category
Herbert Hoover Dike
Breach
Hazardous material
accident
Radiological
accidents
Communications
failure
Hazardous material
release
Transportation
accident
Wellfield
contamination
Power failure
(outage)
Civil disturbance
Terrorism and
sabotage
Mass migration crisis
2.1.1 Natural Hazards
2.1.1.1 Flooding
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Projected Impact Potential
Frequencies from flooding associated with rain events other than tropical storms and hurricanes
are more difficult to estimate. Eastern Florida shows an annual dry cycle stretching from early
November through mid -May. During this part of the year, monthly rainfall rarely exceeds 2.5 to
4.0 inches per month. The wet season, beginning in mid -May and running through late October,
shows monthly rainfall levels in the area to be 6.0 to 8.5 inches. Heaviest rainfall usually occurs
in June and September. In PBC, the eastern or coastal section of the County receives more rain
than the western section. This rainfall pattern coupled with the hurricane season (June through
November) makes PBC particularly vulnerable to flooding associated with late season tropical
storms and hurricanes because they typically occur when the water table is high and the ground
20
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
is saturated. More information is available through the PBC Flood Awareness website accessible
at:http://pbcgov.com/dem/floodawareness/.
Historical Flooding Events
Flood of fall 1947. This flood is generally considered to be the most severe flood recorded in
southern Florida. Heavy rainfall, including the rains from two hurricanes, occurred over a period
of five months. Many parts of PBC were flooded for months and there was extensive damage to
dairy pastures and agriculture in general. Such a flooding event would be much more significant
today because of the increase in land development.
Flood of October 1952. As occurred in 1947, this flood was preceded by five months of heavier
than normal 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 which required supplemental feeding of cattle. Vegetable
growers and dairy farmers also suffered significant losses as a result of this flood.
Rains of January 1957. On 21 January 1957, PBC received 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 pumped out. Local crop damage was estimated at
$1,000,000.
Flood of June 1959. Heavy rains fell across most of central Florida from 17 to 21 June. These
rains were associated with and followed a tropical depression, and caused extensive flooding in
poorly 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 of October 1966. On 22 October 1966, heavy rains ranging from eight to ten inches over a
24 -hour period destroyed approximately 4,200 acres of vegetable crops.
Rains of March 1982. On 28 and 29 March 1982, PBC was subjected to a severe coastal storm
with heavy rains and high winds. Lantana measured 16 inches of rain over a 24 -hour period.
High seas sunk a Haitian freighter and a total of 11 people were drowned.
The Great Thanksgiving Holiday East Coast Storm of 1984. A strong low pressure system
developed east of Florida and coupled with a high pressure system to produce an extremely
strong pressure gradient leading to gale force winds and high seas along the entire Florida east
coast. Heavy rains fell over most of central Florida, and this surface runoff, coupled with the
wind packing of seawater along the coast resulted in extensive coastal erosion and flooding.
Many coastal structures were damaged or destroyed, including several in PBC.
Flood of January 1989. On 21 and 22 January 1989, PBC experienced a gale with subtropical
storm characteristics that caused extensive beach erosion and dropped four to six inches of rain
across the County. This caused ponding of water in low -lying areas. Several homes and a motel
were damaged. Road flooding caused several accidents.
21
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
The Unnamed Storm of October 1995. Almost exactly one year after the Hurricane Gordon
flooding incident in 1994, a stalled frontal system dropped over 15 inches of rain on PBC over a
period of 29 hours. In the intervening year between these two events, some communities in PBC
had conducted a number of mitigation projects and initiatives designed to improve drainage and
prevent flooding in known flood prone areas. These mitigation projects and initiatives
undoubtedly reduced the extent of flooding and flood related damages during the 1995 flooding
event, nevertheless, the County did experience significant flooding again in 1995.
Unnamed Storm of January 1999. On Saturday 2 January of 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 fairly 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 hour period. Flooding
was even more extensive than in the 1995 event, but it is interesting to note that many areas
where flooding mitigation projects had been implemented remained dry, or showed a minimum
of damage compared to areas where planned mitigation had not yet been implemented. Hardest
hit were the Riviera Beach and Lake Park jurisdictions with a total of over $6,000,000 damage
between them. Flooding was extensive along Northlake Boulevard. Erosion caused the collapse
of a portion of I -95 that was under construction. Table 2.2 shows the final damage assessment
in PBC from this storm.
Record Rainfall June - July 2002. On July 14, 2002 a record 27 consecutive days of rain came to
a conclusion. The combined June - July rainfall total was six inches below the all time record.
June rainfall was 20.16" (12.5% above normal). The County experienced five days of one inch
or more rain. The water level in Lake Okeechobee rose to 12.57 feet. Because this rainy period
was preceded by an extended dry period and rains were spread over several days, flooding was
limited to street flooding.
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, 8 inches at
Deerfield Beach and 7.18 inches at the Hillsboro Canal. Widespread storm -total amounts of
three to five inches occurred in southeast and interior south Florida with southwest Florida
averaging one to three inches. Rainfall flooding was mostly minor except for a few locations in
PBC, which had up to three feet of standing water. A section of I -95 in PBC was closed due to a
large sinkhole. Within the confines of the Herbert Hoover Dike, water levels on Lake
Okeechobee fluctuated up to five feet above and below normal.
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 miles west of West Palm Beach International
Airport measured 9.10 inches with 8.79 inches of that occurring in a 24 -hour period. At Moore
Haven, 5.99 inches of rain was measured. Widespread storm -total amounts of one to four inches
occurred in most of southeast and interior south Florida with Miami -Dade County and Collier
22
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
County averaging one half to one inch. Mostly minor rainfall flooding was observed except
locally in Palm Beach Gardens, Jupiter and in the farmlands of western PBC where it was more
severe. Within the confines of the Herbert Hoover Dike, water levels on Lake Okeechobee
fluctuated up to seven feet above and below normal causing severe flooding of some marinas.
Flood of June 5, 2005. Eight inches of rain in three hours caused flooding in streets and
businesses in Boca Raton and in Highland Beach. Cars were stalled and Federal Highway was
closed for a nine -block section from NE 20 to NE 29 Street.
Hurricane Wilma October 24, 2005. Rainfall amounts across South Florida generally ranged
from two to four inches across southern sections of the peninsula to four to six inches across
western Collier County and around Lake Okeechobee, with a 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 the 15th. Other locations in Central and Southern PBC
received between six and eight inches of rain. Northern Broward County received lesser
amounts in the two to three inch range. Several streets and roads were closed in the city of West
Palm Beach, with water reaching up to three feet deep in some areas. Hardest hit was the
neighborhood of Pineapple Park. Many vehicles were stranded in the deep water, with local
police receiving about 120 calls for assistance. No significant damage was reported to property
despite water entering homes and businesses. Florida Power 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 people arrived as of 8:20 PM.
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 22 January. Maximum observed
rainfall amounts were between four and six inches in Boynton Beach, although Doppler radar
estimated as much as ten inches of rain fell in just over three hours. Numerous reports of
flooding were reported. A trained spotter reported water getting into houses in the corridor west
of Federal Highway and east of Congress Avenue between Boynton Beach Boulevard and
Woolbright Road. Water rose to as high as two feet along sections of Congress Avenue.
Significant flooding was reported at the parking lot of Boynton Beach mall. The I -95 on -ramp at
Gateway Boulevard was closed due to the water depth, as were sections of Boynton Beach
Boulevard. Dozens of vehicles stalled and 40 traffic accidents were reported due to the rain and
standing water. The combination of a mid and upper level trough moving east across South
Florida and a developing warm frontal boundary provided the necessary atmospheric conditions
for intense rains and flooding in the Boynton Beach area on 22 January.
March 22, 2008. Heavy rain across the Wellington area produced multiple reports of knee deep
water in yards and across roadways. Heavy rain across central portions of PBC including the
Wellington area produced flooded roads and water approaching a structure.
23
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
May 24, 2008. Flooding reported at the intersection of Linton Boulevard and Congress Avenue
making the intersection impassable. Flooding also reported along Nassau Street with water
intruding into some homes. Flood waters were near two feet deep at some locations. A
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. A total of about 5,000 customers lost power. Significant flooding was
reported in the Palm Beach Gardens and North Palm Beach areas. Flooding was most severe in
the area of Pearl Street and Riverside Drive, and along US 1 near PGA Boulevard. Water
reached the windows of cars in some cases. The flooding along US 1 was exacerbated by
construction on the highway.
August 14, 2010. Strong and slow- moving thunderstorms produced flooding in the Jupiter area
due to light atmospheric flow and copious moisture. A spotter reported severe street flooding in
Jupiter and the closing of Central Boulevard and Indian Creek Parkway. 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 4 days.
An estimated 2,000 customers lost power across South Florida due to the rain. Rainfall amounts
of 6 to 9 inches fell over southeastern PBC in less than 6 hours, leading to numerous reports of
flooded streets and some road closures. No reports were received of water entering structures.
August 26, 2012. Tropical Storm Isaac moved west - northwest across the Florida Straits south of
the Florida Keys on 26 August. The northern edge of the wind and rain area associated with
Isaac affected the South Florida peninsula throughout the day on the 26th. Isaac continued on a
west - northwest track into the Gulf of Mexico on the 27th with winds, rain and flooding
continuing over parts of South Florida. Moderate to severe flooding affected a large portion of
metro PBC west of the Florida Turnpike. Hardest hit communities include The Acreage, Royal
Palm Beach, Loxahatchee and Wellington. Canals were overtopped and communities were
stranded by high water for several days after the 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 fell on 26 and 27 August.
It is important to note that many of the areas that experienced heavy flooding in both the 1994,
1995, and 2012 rainfall events were not in designated flood zones. For those areas where the
24
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) did indicate a flooding hazard, these two events both
exceeded the 100 -year storm levels and occurred back -to -back. The 1999 event was extremely
localized, but rainfall exceeded all previous records in specific areas, and was beyond the design
capacity of virtually all drainage systems in the County.
Often when these types of intense rainfall events occur, streams and drainage ditches tend to
reach peak flood flow concurrently with tidal water conditions associated with coastal storm
surge. This greatly increases the probability of flooding in the low -lying areas of the coastal
zone. Areas along the Intracoastal Waterway are particularly susceptible to flooding under these
conditions. The most flood prone areas in the eastern portion of PBC poorly drained soils, a high
water table, and relatively flat terrain; all of which contribute to their flooding problems. Flat
terrain and heavily wooded areas aggravate flood problems by preventing rapid drainage in some
areas.
January 9, 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 of time. From roughly 8pm until midnight, several locations received
over 12 inches of rain in just those few hours, with one mesonet site just west - southwest of
Hypoluxo receiving an astonishing 22.21 inches during the same time frame according to
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
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.
Estimated rainfall totals in that area were almost 12 inches, according to the South Florida Water
Management District. A number of home say minor damage and a presidential declaration were
sought but not granted due to the damage not meeting federal threshold guidelines.
Flood Water Sources and Frequency of Occurrence
Sources of flood waters in PBC include:
• The Atlantic Ocean
• The Intracoastal Waterway
• Lake Okeechobee
• The West Palm Beach Canal
• The Hillsboro Canal
• The North New River Canal
• The Miami Canal
Major water retention areas include:
• Corbett Wildlife Management Area
• Loxahatchee Wildlife Refuge and WCA No. 2
• The Rotenberger/Holey Land Area
25
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Floodplains designated on the FIRM are based on the 1% annual flood chance or the 100 -year
flood event. The 500 -year flood event with a 0.2 % annual chance of occurrence is used to
designate other areas of the community, which may have some vulnerability to flooding.
Additional flood information is addressed in Section 2.2.1.2 The PBC Flood Insurance Rate
Maps are currently being updated but were not available for this update.
Table 2.2 Final damage assessment from the January 1999 storm.*
Jurisdiction or
Number of
Residential and
I Public
Total
Geographic Area
Structures
Business Loss
Infrastructure
Jurisdiction Loss
Damaged
Loss
Unincorporated
Palm Beach
94
$884,000
$119,655
$1,002,655
County
Lake Park
2
$2,008,200
$67,000
$2,075,200
Riviera Beach
201
$2,927,075
$28,000
$2,965,075
Palm Beach
126
$675,400
$12,000
$688,400
Gardens
North Palm
25
$40,000
B
$40,000
Beach
North Jupiter
1
B
B
--
Northern Palm
Beach
B
B
$51000
$51,000
Improvement
District
Total County
460
$7,524,675
$288,655
$7,822,220
Losses
* Data from PBCDEM.
26
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
As a relatively flat, low lying, heavily developed coastal county that experiences
frequent intense rain events and periodic tropical storms, Palm Beach County is
especially susceptible to flooding. Palm Beach County flooding has historically taken
one of the following forms:
1. Flash flooding resulting in the rapid buildup of flood waters from intense localized
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.
Palm Beach County's torrential rains, low and flat terrain, and large number of inland
water bodies, conspire to create a significant probability for inland flooding. An
additional, increasingly significant, contributing factor is rapid water runoff associated
with the vast areas of impervious surfaces created by new development, creating flood
prone 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 South Florida Water Management District, "Many new residents to
Palm Beach County are alarmed when they see standing water in streets or driveway
swales. In other places, that could be a cause for concern, but in our region, it's
something you can expect to see after a soaking summer shower."
Palm Beach County averages over 60 inches of rain a year and more than 130 rain days,
with most of it coming between the months of June and November. Most developed
areas are clustered along the coasts or near large waterways. Virtually flat, with most
areas at or only slightly above sea level, even moderate rains can accumulate quickly.
The Water Management Challenge
Rainfall has been critical to South Florida's history, feeding its natural wetlands and
refreshing surface -water and groundwater reservoirs. Its water management issues differ
from those of most other areas in the country. Where most areas are concerned with
protecting "scarce" water resources, South Florida's challenge is managing an
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
27
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
fueled the state's population growth and taxed the seemingly abundant water supply.
Now choices must be made between further population growth, environmental
protection, and an adequate, safe water supply.
The area's high hydrologic variation, low physical relief, and limited storage and
conveyance capacities, make water management challenging. A delicate balance must
be struck, dealing with extremes: flooding versus drought and open land versus crowded
urban areas. Actions range from enforcing water restrictions during dry periods to
precautionary or emergency flood management during wet periods and storm events.
With annual rainfall averaging over 60 inches (but varying widely), and more than 50
percent occurring in 4 months (June to September)... with the 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 Palm Beach County is relatively level. The mean elevation is 15
feet above sea level. Ocean coastal beachfront gradually slopes up to a dune line with
top elevations of 12 to 23 feet. From the dune line there is a 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
5 to 12 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 Palm Beach County. Other sizeable bodies of water include
Lake Mangonia (540 acres) and Clear Lake (401 acres) in West Palm Beach and Lake
Osborne (356 acres) in southern Lake Worth and northern Lantana.
The West Palm Beach Canal connects Lake Okeechobee and Lake Worth. A vast
network of canals is interconnected with the West Palm Beach Canal. A system of lakes
runs north and south within 8 miles of the east coast. The Loxahatchee River system is
located in the northern section of the county and is interconnected with the Loxahatchee
Slough.
The map below shows the relative distribution of primary surface water areas within
Palm Beach County
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
PeIm 6eathCOUMV
Primary WSkeFFtakI1FE5 ..
.I5
• I'I■
- •* ''l
I
Y••Y•Y� •t. �I� I
Natural & Beneficial Flood Water Storage Areas
The following areas, designated as "Environmentally Sensitive lands" are undisturbed
natural areas of Palm Beach County that act as natural storage areas for flood waters,
reduce the possibility of flooding nearby residences, and help to recharge the
groundwater aquifer.
• Bee Line Corridor (1399 acres)
• Delray Oaks (25 acres)
• Frenchman's Forest (150 acres)
• High Ridge Scrub (40 acres)
• Juno Hills (560 acres)
• Jupiter Ridge (269 acres)
• Loxahatchee River (368 acres)
• Loxahatchee Slew (10389 acres)
• Fox Property (1538 acres)
• Pal -Mar (6944 acres)
• Rosemary Scrub (14 acres)
• Royal Palm Beach Pines (748 acres)
• Sea crest Scrub (54 acres)
• Yamato Scrub (217 acres)
• Leon M. Weekes Area (12 acres)
The map below shows these natural and beneficial flood water storage areas:
29
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
MtUfal and aspiefi of Mod Wawr 54o C A rins
rAa.r *=
i... cur .. F�a�r��i4�+ sw�i Yh •*
Flood Prone Areas
Flood prone areas are widely scattered throughout the county. Areas close to inland
bodies of water and lower elevation areas in the northern and southern sections of the
county are particularly susceptible to inland flooding.
The map below depicts Special Flood Hazard Areas areas within the county designated
by FEMA as having a one percent chance of inundation in any given year. While some
areas of the county might believe they are immune from flooding based on recent
history, published elevations, and /or designations on Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRMS), virtually the whole county has proven to be susceptible to short term localized
flooding when extraordinary rain events have exceeded the capacity of natural runoff
and absorption.
A review of recent flood events suggests that Palm Beach County significantly
surpasses the national average of 25% of flooding occurring outside of Special Flood
Hazard Areas. Even a significant number of county properties designated as "repetitive
flood loss list" by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) lie outside Special
30
a
�imxl.,mri
-'
�Ya
--
WRTM
��
•J
p
..
rAa.r *=
i... cur .. F�a�r��i4�+ sw�i Yh •*
Flood Prone Areas
Flood prone areas are widely scattered throughout the county. Areas close to inland
bodies of water and lower elevation areas in the northern and southern sections of the
county are particularly susceptible to inland flooding.
The map below depicts Special Flood Hazard Areas areas within the county designated
by FEMA as having a one percent chance of inundation in any given year. While some
areas of the county might believe they are immune from flooding based on recent
history, published elevations, and /or designations on Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRMS), virtually the whole county has proven to be susceptible to short term localized
flooding when extraordinary rain events have exceeded the capacity of natural runoff
and absorption.
A review of recent flood events suggests that Palm Beach County significantly
surpasses the national average of 25% of flooding occurring outside of Special Flood
Hazard Areas. Even a significant number of county properties designated as "repetitive
flood loss list" by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) lie outside Special
30
Flood Hazard Areas.
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Palm Beach County
Special Flood Hazard Amas
L*Lt 0"Co *"
r
1
r� . 8dlx
4
{rF1`n�
Historically, the Palm Beach County rainfall area has the highest annual rainfall in
South Florida, followed by Broward County and Miami -Dade rainfall areas. The
county's east coast communities receive higher rainfall levels than the inland and
western areas. Even during drought years, there have been instances where the coastal
rainfall in eastern areas of the county were close to the average. Because there are no
large impoundments in the eastern coastal rainfall areas, runoff has to be discharged into
the Atlantic Ocean.
Flood Control
Flood control in Palm Beach County is dependent on a complex, integrated system of
canals, waterways and flood control devices operated by the South Florida Water
Management District, 20 drainage districts, and thousands of privately owned canals,
retention /detention lakes and ponds.
The county's drainage system is designed to handle excess surface water in three stages.
The "neighborhood or tertiary drainage systems" (made up of community lakes, ponds,
street and yard drainage grates or culverts, ditches and canals) flow into the "local or
secondary drainage system "(made up canals, structures, pumping stations and storage
31
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
areas) and then into the "primary flood control system" (consisting of South Florida
Water Management District canals and natural waterways and rivers), ultimately
reaching the Atlantic Ocean.
The Water Control Districts serving Palm Beach County include the following:
South Florida Water Management District
Acme Improvement District
Pahokee Drainage District
ast Beach Water Control District
elican Lake WCD
ast Shore Water Control District
ine Tree WCD
Gladeview Drainage District
itta WCD
ighland Glades Drainage District
Seminole WCD
Indian Trail Improvement District IShawano Drainage District
ake Worth Drainage District South Florida Conservancy District
Foxahatchee Groves WCD
South Indian River WCD
[North Palm Beach Heights WCD South Shore Drainage District
[Northern PBC Improvement District
PB Water Catchment Area
Drainage System Maintenance
Palm Beach County's drainage systems consist of a combination of natural
drainageways and channels, engineered channels, storm sewers and ditches, and
detention /retention basins contiguous to drainage systems. These systems can easily lose
their carrying capacity with debris accumulation, sedimentation buildup and /or
vegetation growth, becoming ineffective for flood prevention. Extensive maintenance is
necessary to ensure flood preparedness.
Responsibility for inspection and maintenance of drainage systems falls to a variety of
organizations depending on the type of system involved:
• South Florida Management District and the various water control districts provide
oversight for the routine inspection of the drainage systems under their purview and
for debris clearance and other maintenance activities.
• Storm drain maintenance falls within the purview of the County's Road & Bridge
Division, municipal public works departments, and the State Department of
Transportation.
• Inspection, clearance, and maintenance of privately owned systems are the
responsibilities of property owners and associations.
In rare instances, environmental regulations may prohibit removing natural debris and
new growth from some drainageways.
32
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Maintenance activities, most commonly, include ongoing monitoring, debris and
sediment removal, and the correction of problem sites and damaged systems by field
crews. Quite often, maintenance actions are prompted by citizen complaints and reports.
Given the shear size of the County, the vigilance of citizens is a critical element in
identifying potential drainage problems. The County has ongoing programs for
structural and permanent changes to channels or basins (e.g. enlargement of openings,
installation of grates to catch debris, 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 the potential for mold infestation, which can create health problems for
occupants and lead to costly cleanup and repairs.
Flooding can cause damage to cars and outdoor equipment, contaminate water systems,
and interrupt water treatment. Sewage overflow raises health concerns.
Significant expanses of street flooding are common, can be costly in terms of loss of
function for extended periods of time, and can create dangerous, even potentially
deadly, driving conditions.
33
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Post storm accidents, especially electrocutions, are not uncommon, when people wander
into flood waters where live wires or generators are present.
2.1.1.2 Hurricane /Tropical Storm
For many years, the risk of significant loss of life and property due to hurricanes seemed small.
Many, if not the majority, of existing homes and businesses along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf
Coasts were constructed during the 1970s and 1980s, a period of relatively inactive hurricane
formation. Most of the people currently living and working in coastal areas have never
experienced the impact of a major hurricane. Hurricanes that impacted Florida during the 1970s
and 80s were infrequent and of relatively low intensity. Homeowners, business interests, and
government officials grew to regard hurricane risk as manageable by private insurance
supplemented occasionally by federal disaster funding and subsidized flood insurance. The
hurricane risk did not seem sufficient to warrant increased investment in mitigation. Two major
hurricanes, Hugo in 1989 and Andrew in 1992, forced a reevaluation of this risk assessment.
While experts sometimes disagree on the annual cost of hurricane damage, all sources agree that
hurricane Andrew was one of the most costly hurricane event ever to affect the U.S. Insured
losses from 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.
South central 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.
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, 55 storms of hurricane intensity have passed within 125 miles of PBC. This
represents an average of one hurricane every two years. The number of direct hits on the
southeastern Florida coastline between 1899 and 2013 has been as follows:
34
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
• Category 1 Storms:
(winds 74 to 95 mph) = 9 storms
• Category 2 Storms:
(winds 96 to 110 mph) = 3 storms
• Category 3 Storms:
(winds 111 to 120 mph) = 17 storms
• Category 4 Storms:
(winds 121 to 155 mph) = 16 storms
• Category 5 Storms:
(> 155 mph) = 9 storms
A storm surge is a large dome of water often 50 to 100 miles wide and rising anywhere from four
to five feet in a Category 1 hurricane up to 20 feet in a Category 5 storm. The storm surge
arrives ahead of the storm's actual landfall and the more intense the hurricane is, the sooner the
surge arrives. Water rise can be very rapid, posing a serious threat to those who have waited to
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 and inland flooding and heavy rainfall
that usually accompany these storms. Hurricane Andrew, a relatively "dry" hurricane, dumped
ten inches of rain on south Florida and left many buildings extensively water damaged. Rain
water may seep into gaps in roof sheathing and saturate insulation and ceiling drywall, in some
cases causing ceilings to collapse.
Aside from direct property damage, the potential for crop damage and economic disruption from
hurricanes and tropical storms is significant. Tropical Storm Mitch dropped as much as 10
inches of rain in some south Florida areas, which resulted in approximately $20 million in direct
crop damage in PBC. The largest 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 mills in PBC and the one in Hendry combined lost
about $500,000 a day in wages. The mills remained down until the fields dried out.
Palm Beach County has 671 listed farm proprietors with approximately 8,000 employees and a
total annual payroll of $12,894,000. PBC has approximately 627,924 acres of farmland currently
valued at $2,417,525.
Historical Hurricane /Tropical Storm Events
Hurricane of September 1902. This hurricane made landfall near West Palm Beach on 11
September 1902 and exited the state near Tampa Bay on the 12th. Maximum - recorded winds
35
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
were only 78 mph, however 14 deaths were attributed to this storm and one ship was wrecked
near Jupiter. Damages specific to PBC are not recorded.
Hurricane of July 1926. A Category 1 hurricane with winds of 90 mph made landfall near
Jupiter on the morning of 27 July 1926. This hurricane circled inland along Florida's east coast
and exited the state at the Florida /Georgia border on 28 July. By that time, it had been
downgraded to a tropical storm. Palm Beach County experienced high winds and flooding.
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
11 August and crossed the state in a northwesterly direction exiting to the Gulf of Mexico near
Crystal River on the 12th. 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. Palm
Beach 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 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 6th most intense U.S. Hurricane
at landfall. This storm crossed the Florida Keys into the Gulf of Mexico then turned back toward
the northeast and struck the Florida mainland just south of Naples. It then turned north moved
across Ft. Myers, where it turned again to the northeast, moved across the state, and exited
Florida at just north of Daytona Beach. Rainfall ranged from five to ten inches in an 80 to 100-
36
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
mile wide belt following this storm's track. Lakes and streams overflowed their banks and
forced the evacuation of many homes throughout central Florida. The high water closed many
roads and inundated considerable agricultural land. At least 12 people were killed statewide and
more than 1,794 were injured.
Hurricane Cleo of August 1964. This small but destructive storm moved northward into
Biscayne Bay on 27 August 1964. Palm Beach County received three to five inches of rain
associated with this storm, mostly in the eastern portion of the County. Most sustained 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 people killed and 40 injured in Okeechobee,
one killed and seven injured in La Belle, 40 injured at Big Coppit Key, two injured at Bassinger,
three injured in Haines City, four at Crystal Springs, 11 in Malabar, and 12 in Cape Canaveral.
Most of those injured lived in manufactured housing. Damage estimates totaled $5 million to
public property and $26 million to private property.
Hurricane David of September 1979. Hurricane David moved over the Dominican Republic
with winds of 165 mph, but weakened drastically before reaching Florida's east coast. David
raked the eastern coastline of Florida from PBC 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 to five feet above normal along the eye track and
one to two feet above normal elsewhere along the Florida's east coast. Light to moderate erosion
was reported along the PBC coastline. Storm rainfall was quite variable from location to
location. Totals generally ranged from six to nine inches, but some stations reported as much as
11 inches during the storm's passage.
Tropical Storm Isidore of September 1984. Tropical Storm Isidore made landfall near West
Palm Beach on 27 September 1984 and moved inland toward Orlando. Highest winds were 72
mph and rainfall was reported to be five to seven inches over a 24 -hour period. There was some
flooding, but this 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. Palm Beach 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 12 October. It moved
across the state and exited Florida into the Atlantic just north of Vero Beach on 16 October.
Although the maximum sustained winds reported from Gordon were only 52 mph, the storm
caused eight deaths and 42 injuries.
37
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Palm Beach County had experienced a period of extensive growth during the 1970s and 1980s.
Most of this growth took place in the form of residential and commercial land development in
the eastern portion PBC close to the 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 2 August
1995. Brevard County bore the brunt of this storm with sustained winds of approximately 100
mph. While PBC was spared most of the damages associated with Erin's wind field, heavy rains
of up to 8 inches in 2 hours were associated with the backside of this storm and flooding
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 4 and 5 November 1998, it had been
downgraded to a tropical storm. Palm Beach County received minimal rains from this storm,
which passed to the north of the County. Extensive agricultural damage was reported throughout
South Florida.
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 25 August about 1400 miles east of the Lesser Antilles and
reached hurricane strength on 26 August. Frances became a Category 4 Hurricane on 28 August
while about 700 miles east of the Lesser Antilles. Frances then moved generally west - northwest
and weakened to a Category 2 hurricane while crossing the northwest Bahamas. After stalling
for about 12 hours on 4 September in the Florida Straits between Grand Bahama Island and the
southeast Florida coast, the center of the nearly 70 -mile diameter eye crossed the Florida coast
near Sewalls Point, at 1 A.M. EDT, 5 September with the southern eyewall affecting the extreme
northeast portion of PBC. Frances moved farther inland just north of Lake Okeechobee and
weakened to a tropical storm before crossing the entire Florida Peninsula and exiting into the
Gulf of Mexico just north of Tampa. It made a second landfall as a tropical storm in the eastern
Florida Panhandle.
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Sustained tropical storm -force winds likely occurred in all six south Florida counties. Although
no sustained hurricane -force winds were officially observed in any of the six south Florida
counties, a National Weather Service (NWS) instrument on the eastern shore of Lake
Okeechobee at Port Mayaca, just across the PBC border, measured a sustained wind of 85 mph.
At West Palm Beach International Airport, the highest sustained wind was 64 mph with a peak
gust of 82 mph and the lowest observed barometric pressure was 972 millibars. A SFWMD
instrument measured a peak wind gust of 92 mph over the eastern portion of Lake Okeechobee.
The estimated peak wind gust in the Palm Beach metro area was 91 mph at Jupiter Inlet with a
peak wind gust of 87 mph measured by a Coastal- Marine Automated Network (C -MAN) station
at Lake Worth Pier. In Glades County near the western shore of Lake Okeechobee, the highest
measured sustained wind was 60 mph with a peak gust of 90 mph. In Clewiston, a sustained
wind of 60 mph with a gust of 80 mph was estimated.
A maximum storm -total rainfall amount of 12.56 inches was measured at Palm Beach
International Airport with 10.26 inches of that occurring in a 24 -hour period. Unofficial storm -
total rainfalls included 9.56 inches at Boynton Beach, eight inches at Deerfield Beach and 7.18
inches at Hillsboro Canal. Widespread storm -total amounts of three to five inches occurred in
southeast and interior south Florida with southwest Florida averaging one to three inches.
Rainfall flooding was mostly minor except for a few locations in PBC, which had up to three feet
of standing water. A section of I -95 in PBC was closed due to a large sinkhole. The maximum
storm surge was estimated to have ranged from two to four feet along the northeast Palm Beach
Coast to one to two feet along the northeast Broward Coast.
Within the confines of the Herbert Hoover Dike, water levels on Lake Okeechobee fluctuated up
to five feet above and below normal. Coastal beach erosion was moderate in Palm Beach and
portions of Broward counties.
There were no confirmed tornadoes. There were no known direct deaths, but at least nine people
died in the aftermath. Six 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 weeks after Hurricane Frances, Hurricane
Jeanne struck the same area of southeast Florida. Hurricane Jeanne formed from a tropical
39
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
depression just east of the Leeward Islands on 12 September. She moved across Puerto Rico and
Hispaniola then turned north into the Atlantic and became a hurricane on 20 September. Jeanne
made a clockwise loop for three days in the Atlantic north of Hispaniola before moving west -
northwest. It strengthened to a Category 2 Hurricane while over the northwest Bahamas and
then made landfall around 11 P.M., 25 September near the south end of Hutchinson Island,
nearly coincident with the landfall point of Hurricane Frances just three weeks before. The 40-
mile diameter eye was not quite as large as Frances, but the southern eyewall again affected
northeast PBC. After landfall, Jeanne initially moved along a track similar to Frances, just north
of 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 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 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 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 to four feet along the northeast Palm
Beach Coast to one to two feet along the northeast Broward Coast. Within the confines of the
Herbert Hoover Dike, water levels on Lake Okeechobee fluctuated up to seven feet above and
below normal causing severe flooding of some marinas. Beach erosion was moderate in Palm
Beach.
There were no confirmed tornadoes. There were no known direct deaths but four persons died in
the aftermath. An unknown number of injuries occurred. Storm surge and winds at the coast
caused damage to condos, marinas, piers, seawalls, bridges and docks, as well as to boats and a
few coastal roadways. Inland wind damage to building roofs, mobile homes, trees, power lines,
signs, and outbuildings occurred mainly over PBC and portions of eastern Glades and Hendry
IN
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
counties. Preliminary damage estimates for Jeanne in southeast Florida were $220 million,
including $260 million in PBC, $50 million in Broward and $10 million in Miami -Dade.
Agricultural Damage in PBC was estimated at $20 million. Florida Power and Light reported
outages occurred to 591,200 customers in PBC, 165,900 in Broward, 25,100 in Miami -Dade,
5,200 in Collier, 2,000 in Hendry and 1,500 in Glades. An estimated 12,524 persons sought
refuge in public shelters in PBC.
Hurricane Wilma October 24, 2005. Wilma was a classic October hurricane, which struck South
Florida as a Category 2 hurricane on October 24th, 2005. Wilma developed from a tropical
depression near Jamaica, a typical source region for October tropical cyclones, on the afternoon
of 15 October. It became the 21st named storm of the season during the morning hours of 17
October which tied the record for the most named storms in one season originally set back in
1922. Wilma underwent a rapid intensification cycle, which began on 18 October and ended in
the early morning hours of 19 October, with a central pressure decrease of 88 millibars in only
12 hours. The central pressure reached 882 millibars, making Wilma the most intense hurricane
ever in the Atlantic Basin, lower than Hurricane Gilbert in September 1988. Wilma went on to
make landfall on Cozumel Island just off the Yucatan Peninsula as a strong category 4 hurricane
on 21 October, then drifted erratically over the Yucatan Peninsula through the evening 22
October. 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 AM Monday October 24th 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 AM, 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 AM
Monday October 24th as a Category 2 hurricane with maximum sustained winds of around 105
mph. It traversed the southern peninsula in about four hours. Rainfall amounts across South
41
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Florida generally ranged from two to four inches across southern sections of the peninsula to
four to six inches across western Collier County and around Lake Okeechobee, with a maximum
amount of 7.21 inches in Clewiston, Downtown Miami and Northeast Miami.
In Collier, Miami -Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, the winds killed a total of five
people. Total damage estimates from all the effects ranged from $9 to $12 billion. Extensive
damage to crops was reported, with an estimated $222 million in crop damage for Miami -Dade
County alone. Damage was widespread, with large trees and power lines down virtually
everywhere, causing over 2 million customers to lose power. Structural damage was heaviest in
Broward and Palm Beach counties where roof damage and downed or split power poles were
noted in some areas. High -rise buildings suffered considerable damage, mainly in the form of
broken windows. This was observed mainly along the southeast metro areas. An 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 20 to 21 October. 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 1 November. Damage was minor and mainly confined to a few downed power lines.
Around 5,000 customers lost power in the three- county area of Palm Beach, Broward, and
Miami -Dade. Rainfall amounts were light, ranging from a half -inch (0.5) to nearly two inches.
A strong pressure gradient between high pressure over the Mid - Atlantic States and Tropical
Storm Noel over Hispaniola and eastern Cuba caused a prolonged period of strong east winds
over Southeast Florida and the adjacent waters. As Noel moved north across the western
Bahamas, the strong winds continued across southeast Florida. The event caused severe beach
erosion, coastal flooding, and minor wind damage. The event lasted into the first few days of
November.
Tropical Storm Fay of August 15 -22, 2008. The center of Tropical Storm Fay moved across Key
West early in the evening of August 18th and into the mainland of South Florida at Cape Romano
shortly before 5 AM on the 19th. Minimum central pressure was 989 millibars at landfall, but
continued to decrease after landfall to 986 millibars at Moore Haven on the southwest shore of
Lake Okeechobee.
Maximum sustained winds were estimated to be around 60 mph at landfall, however as the storm
tracked across the western Everglades and Southwest Florida the radar presentation continued to
organize and winds increased to around 65 mph around Moore Haven. A maximum wind gust of
79 mph was recorded on a South Florida Water Management gauge on Lake Okeechobee as the
storm passed. Wind gusts of tropical storm force were felt area -wide, with sustained tropical
storm force winds experienced over portions of mainland Monroe, Collier, Hendry and Glades
counties as well as the immediate coastal sections of Miami -Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach
Counties. Wind damage was most significant in the areas affected by tropical storm force
42
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
sustained winds, primarily around Lake Okeechobee and interior sections of southwest Florida,
with only minor wind damage elsewhere.
The storm caused over $10 million in beach erosion along PBC's coastline. A 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 to six inches in southeast Florida, and six to eight
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 fatality, four injured,
and $2.949 million in property damage. Two tornadoes produced $1.25 million in damage, but
caused no injuries or fatalities. The one fatality and three of the injuries were indirectly caused
by Fay with a traffic accident in PBC. The direct injury occurred when a kite surfer on Fort
Lauderdale Beach lost control during a squall and was slammed into a building along AlA. Fay
caused tropical storm force winds, significant rainfall flooding in some areas and two confirmed
tornadoes.
Hurricane Irene of August 2526, 2011. Hurricane Irene passed over the western Bahamas
about 170 miles east of the Florida coast. The western fringes of Irene impacted southeast
Florida with high surf and winds bordering on tropical storm force. Winds to marginal tropical
storm force and high surf impacted the PBC coast as the outer fringes of Hurricane Irene passed
over the area. Sustained winds to 26 knots with gusts to 46 knots were measured near the coast
from Jupiter through Boynton Beach associated with intermittent squalls. Wind damage was
limited to a few uprooted trees and knocked down tree branches, causing minor power outages.
High surf pounded the coast during the day, causing damage to Lake Worth Pier totaling $2,000
and injuring 8 people at Boynton Inlet when a large wave crashed onto the jetty while onlookers
were present. Maximum storm surge at Lake Worth Pier was 1.28 feet with a maximum tide of
1.55 feet.
Tropical 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 tornadoes
occurring over a span of four hours in Lake Worth, Okeechobee Boulevard and east of I -95, a
warehouse district just south of Okeechobee Boulevard, Tamarind Avenue, and Banyan
Boulevard. Additional detail related to the tornadoes is discussed below.
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 26th, passing just south of Key West. Rain
bands and winds on the north side of the circulation of Isaac affected Southeast Florida
throughout the day of the 26th and part of the 27th. Highest winds over land were recorded
along and near the southeast Florida coast where the highest sustained winds ranged from 40 -45
mph, with 25 -30 mph sustained winds over most inland areas as well as over southwest Florida.
Highest wind gusts ranged from 50 -60 mph over most land areas to as high as 65 mph along the
Atlantic coast and just offshore. Three -day rainfall totals ending at 8 AM August 28th ranged
from 5 -7 inches across southeast Florida to 2 -5 inches over interior and southwest Florida. The
primary exception was over northern metro Broward County and much of PBC where 8 to 12
43
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
inches fell, with maximum amounts up to 15 -18 inches from west of Boynton Beach to
Wellington, The Acreage, Royal Palm Beach, and Loxahatchee. These areas of highest rainfall
amounts experienced severe flooding with communities cut off for several days after the storm.
Maximum storm tide values were observed at 4.9 feet at Naples, with estimates of 5 to 7 feet
along the southern Collier County coast from Goodland to Everglades City. Highest estimated
inundation values of up to 2 feet above ground level were noted in Goodland and Everglades
City. Major beach erosion was also observed along the Collier County beaches, with moderate
beach erosion along the Atlantic beaches. All of the associated effects of Isaac in south Florida
resulted in about $17.2 million in property damage. Specifically, 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 25 October 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 25 October. Several Weather
Flow sensors along and near the PBC coast recorded Tropical Storm Force wind gusts during the
evening of October 25th 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 the 28th the main impact along the PBC coast were large northeast
swells generated by the storm, which pummeled the Southeast Florida coast with significant
beach erosion and coastal flooding. Large breaking waves of possibly over 20 feet were
estimated along the coast. As a result, major coastal flooding occurred with the most significant
impacts experienced from central Palm Beach north, including the Manalapan area where
beachfront structures were threatened by water intrusion. In all, there was an estimated $14
million in damage 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 Pier on
October 28th at 7:12 AM along with a maximum storm surge of 2.28 feet on 28 October at 2:26
AM. Similar tide and surge levels were measured at the highest daily high tide during this
period, generally between 7:00 and 9:00 AM.
2.1.1.3 Tornado
Florida ranks third in the United States in the number of tornado strikes, and the first in the
number of tornadoes per square mile. The odds of a tornado striking any specific point in
southeastern Florida are 0.004, or once per 250 years.
Tornadoes are classified using the Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale as follows:
..
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
end speed Relative
;rate Potertlial damage
i nptr hrikh frequency
Minor damage.
(Peels surface oft some roots; some damage to gutters or siding; branches broken off trees;
65-85 105-137 53.5% shalow- rooted trees pushed over.
,Confirmed tornadoes with no reported damage (i e., those that remain In open fields) are always
rated EFO.
II
Moderate damage. Al
EF1 1 85-110 138 -178 31 .b% Roots severely stripped; mobile homes overturned or badly damaged; loss of exterior doors;
windows and other glass broken. _
IConsiderable damage.
FF? 111 -135 119218 10.7% Roofs torn off well - constructed houses; foundations of frame homes shifted; mobile homes
completely destroyed; large trees snapped or uprooted, light- object missiles generated; cars lifted I
off ground.
I
'Severe damage.
E F
IErdVe stories of weft - constructed houses destroyed; severe damage to farge buildings such es Ili
; 136 -156 218 -266 3.496 shopping malls; trains overturned; trees debarked, heavy cars lifted off the ground and thrown;
structures with weak foundations blown away some distance.
i
Extreme damage to near -tolal destruction.
EF I 1 %-2170 267-322 07% Well - constructed houses and whole frame houses completely leveled; cars thrown and small -
missiles generated
Massive Damage.
FFI a2w a322 �O 1% Strong frame mouses leveled off foundations and swept away, steel - reinforced concrete structures
crilically damaged, high -rise buildings have severe structural deformation - Incredible phenomena will
occur.
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. Occasional wind - storms accompanied by tornadoes such as the winter storm of
1992 are also widespread and destructive. Of the 124 tornadoes seen in PBC between 1950 and
2002, 87 were classified as FO tornadoes (59 %), 28 (21 %) were classified Fl, eight (9 %) were
classified as F2, and one (1 %) was classified as an F2 tornado. Between 1950 and 2008 there
have been 277 reported tornadoes, 102 people injured and one death in PBC as a result of a
tornado. The damage is estimated at over $150 million dollars since 1950. Since 2008 there
have been six (6) reported tornadoes.
When a tornado threatens, only a short amount of time is available for life -or -death decisions.
The NWS issues two types of alerts:
• A Tornado Watch means that conditions are favorable for tornadoes to develop
• A Tornado Warning means that a tornado has actually been sighted
E.
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
August 7, 2002. On August 7, 2002, there was a Tornado Watch issued by the NWS. Two
tornadoes touched down later that evening in the northern part of PBC. Jupiter suffered damage
to a shopping plaza. No injuries were reported. A second tornado touched down in
unincorporated PBC in a mobile home park causing major damage in some areas. The tornado
moved in the direction of east southeast toward Interstate 95. The tornado caused considerable
damage to an industrial park located in unincorporated PBC/Riviera Beach. The tornado
continued in the same direction damaging several neighborhoods in Riviera Beach. It continued
through additional neighborhoods in Riviera Beach just north of Blue Heron Boulevard. The
damage path was narrower until it lifted or dissipated near the intersection of Blue Heron
Boulevard and Old Dixie Highway.
From all of the evidence considered, including some damage that was very close to F2 damage,
National Weather Service Forecast Office (WFO) Miami classified the unincorporated PBC -
Riviera Beach tornado as F1 on the Fujita scale, meaning that winds were approximately 72 to
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 miles long. There were no deaths,
but 28 individuals suffered minor injuries. There were 22 dwellings destroyed and a total of 226
suffered damage. The damage has been estimated to be $70 to $80 million dollars.
June 12, 2008. A small waterspout briefly moved onshore at Delray Beach just north of Atlantic
Avenue. The waterspout stirred up some beach umbrellas and blankets, and dissipated shortly
after touching land.
August 19, 2008 Wellington Tornado. At about 1:20 AM on August 19, 2008 a tornado
associated with a spiral band of strong thunderstorms rotating around the circulation of Tropical
Storm Fay moved through the Village of Wellington. The tornado began near Polo Mark Middle
School near the intersection of Lake Worth Road and Isles View Drive and ended just southwest
of Wellington High School. The tornado had an approximate damage path of 2.75 miles from
the southeast to the northwest and was around 100 yards wide at its widest point, but averaged 70
to 80 yards in width.
The tornado moved through a number of equine farms and polo grounds as well as two
subdivisions in Wellington. The most significant damage was to Palm Beach Equine Clinic,
where stables were de- roofed, power poles snapped, and many trees fell in crisscrossing patterns.
The Equine Veterinary lost more than 95 percent of its roof tiles; a heavy trailer was tossed about
40 yards from its previous location northwest of the International Polo Club; and an apartment
home near Folkstone Circle lost about 70 percent of its roof tiles. There were no deaths or
injuries to people or animals.
March 21, 2009 Palm Beach Gardens Tornado. A warm front lifted north through South Florida
during the day of March 21. Unstable air south of the front combined with 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
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Street, and lifted near Palm Beach Gardens High School. Minor roof damage was noted to a few
residential buildings, as well as, uprooted trees and a damaged fence near Palm Beach Gardens
High School. Final tornado rating was EFO based on an Emergency Management survey and
analysis of damage photos.
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 2 miles northeast of Belle Glade. The PBC Sherriff's
office reported a tornado 2 miles northeast of the PBC Sherriffs 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 located in the Northeast Gulf of
Mexico continued to move over South Florida. Severe thunderstorms developed during the late
morning into the afternoon with severe wind gusts and eight tornadoes occurring over a span of
four hours. This event spawned the most number of tornadoes in one day over the southern
Florida peninsula since October 14, 1964 when Hurricane Isbell also spawned eight tornadoes.
All of the tornadoes were of EFO intensity.
A brief tornado in Lake Worth touchdown occurred and damage was confined to a few homes on
North A Street and 15th Avenue, between US 1 and I -95. Damage was minor and consisted
primarily of vegetation and debris from a nearby park.
First report of damage was to a carport south of Okeechobee Boulevard and east of I -95. The
tornado traveled through a warehouse district just south of Okeechobee Boulevard and east of
Australian Avenue, damaging roofs and doors to a warehouse building. The 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; Discontinuous
47
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
path of 1.2 miles and tornado width of probably no more than 20 yards. Maximum winds were
likely in the upper end of EFO scale (75 -85 mph), with most areas along the path probably
experiencing low end EFO winds (65 -75 mph).
2.1.1.4 Severe Thunderstorm/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.
When a severe thunderstorm approaches, the NWS will issue alerts. Two 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
Thunderstorms are common in PBC, and area residents are quite familiar with them and the
severe weather they can bring. In 1997, thunderstorms produced 102 tornadoes and other
damaging winds and hail. These winds injured 121 people and caused over $28 million in
damage throughout the state.
Perhaps the most dangerous and costly effect of thunderstorms is lightning. As a thunderstorm
grows, electrical charges build up within the cloud. Oppositely charged particles gather at the
ground below. The attraction between positive and negative charges quickly grows strong
enough to overcome the air's resistance to electrical flow. 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. Florida leads in
the nation in lightning related deaths and injuries (National Lightning Safety Institute). Florida
also has the most strikes, about 12 strikes per square kilometer per year in some places (National
Lightning Safety Institute). Nationwide, lightning related economic losses to over $5 billion
dollars per year, and the airline industry alone loses approximately $2 billion a year in operating
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
costs and passenger delays from lightning. From July of 1959 to August of 2002 there have been
25 deaths and 92 injuries as a result from lightning strikes. The peak months for lightning strikes
are June, July, and August, but no month is safe from lightning danger.
In Palm Beach County, from January 2004 — July 2014, experienced 90 thunderstorm events
with winds gust over 50 miles per hours between January 2004 and July 2014 with the highest
wind gust occurring in the city of Riviera Beach with wind gust reaching 80 miles per hour on
August 2, 2004. This event caused $5000 in damage when wind gust blew shingles off a duplex
home and blew down power lines. There was only one recorded injury that occurred on February
26, 2008 when thunderstorm winds produced damage at the Moroso Motor Sports Park on
BeeLine Highway in North Central Palm Beach County. An awning was blown off a trailer, and
a man was injured when a 400 -500 pound water barrel struck him. Damage was also done to a
truck on site. The total amount of damage for that event was also $5000. Total property damage
for all combined 90 events was estimated at $106,000. There was no recorded crop damage or no
other recorded injuries.
2.1.1.5 Drought
Drought is a normal, 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. Although it has
many definitions, drought originates from a deficiency of precipitation over an extended period
of time, usually a season or more (National Drought Mitigation Center, 1998) or a lack of water
levels on the ground. It produces a complex web of impacts that spans many sectors of the
economy and reaches well beyond the area producing physical drought. This complexity exists
because water is essential to our ability to produce goods and provide services (National Drought
Mitigation Center, 1998).
A few examples of direct impacts of drought are: reduced crop, rangeland, and forest
productivity; increased fire hazard; reduced water levels; increased livestock and wildlife
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 (NCDC) reports the
estimated cost as $40 billion (National Drought Mitigation Center, 1998).
In PBC, the primary sources of water are Lake Okeechobee, watershed areas, and the County's
wellfields. Normally, excess water from an interconnected series of lakes, rivers, canals, and
marshes flows into Lake Okeechobee via the Kissimmee River. When this cycle is disrupted by
..
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
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 fires increases substantially during extended
droughts, which in turn places both human and wildlife populations at higher levels of risk.
The South Florida Water Management District and County staff manage the County's water
resources. A countywide, uniform, forceful, contingency plan is in place to effectively restrict
the use of water that complements the District's water management efforts during periods of
critical water shortage.
The driest year on record for Florida was 2000. The worst drought on record for PBC was from
2000 to 2001. From November 2000 until February 2001, PBC recorded its four driest months
on record. An illustration of this dry period occurred after Irene in 1999, when Lake
Okeechobee was recorded to be at 18 feet. By May of 2001, it had dropped to nine feet. Lake
Okeechobee's average is about 12 feet.
Palm Beach County averages between 50 -60 inches of rain a year. In the year 2000, there was
less than 40 inches of rain. However, records illustrate rainfall often varies 20 inches above or
below the annual average. This leads to the potential drought conditions.
Significant droughts since 1970 to impact PBC include:
1970 - 1971 Drought. Lake Okeechobee reached a minimum stage of 10.29 feet National
Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) on June 7, 1971. A rainfall deficit of 42 percent was reported
as average for Lake Okeechobee and the Northern, Central, and Southern Everglades for the
eight -month period from October 1970 to May 1971.
1972 —1974 Drought. The 1972 -1974 Drought was comparable to the 1971 -1972 drought. The
rainfall deficit during this period was 47 percent. The minimum lake stage of 10.98 feet NGVD
was reached on May 21, 1974.
1980 1982 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 years resulted in the decline of the
Lake Okeechobee stage from 17.46 feet NGVD on January 1, 1980 to 9.79 feet NGVD on July
21, 1981. The 7.7 -foot drop in water level was 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 upper Kissimmee, lower Kissimmee, and Lake Okeechobee
rain areas had an average deficit of 14 inches. The Lake Okeechobee water level declined from
15.14 feet NGVD to 11.82 feet NGVD between January 1, 1985 and June 12, 1985. The South
Florida Water Management District had to initiate back pumping to increase water supply. A
water shortage plan was also implemented.
50
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
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.
2007 Drought. A severe drought affected the region from late 2006 through 2007. This drought
followed back -to -back years of unprecedented hurricane activity and higher- than - normal rainfall.
On July 2, 2007, water levels in Lake Okeechobee reached an all -time record low of 8.82 feet,
eclipsing the mark of 8.97 feet set during the 2001 drought. Rainfall directly over the lake was
low enough to qualify the 2007 drought as a 1 -in- 100 -year event. Just north of the lake, along
the tributary Kissimmee River and Upper Chain of Lakes, low rainfall produced a 1 -in -50 -year
drought. Only 40 inches of rain fell on the region in an 18 month period, about one -half the
average. More than 200 days passed without water flowing from the Kissimmee River into Lake
Okeechobee.
A combination of voluntary and mandatory water use restrictions were enacted by the SFWMD
in early 2007. Drought conditions diminished somewhat on the coasts during the wet season,
however, water supplies in the center of the region (Kissimmee Valley and Lake Okeechobee)
continued to decline. Widespread drought conditions continued into late 2007, particularly in the
Lake Okeechobee watershed, evidenced by record -low water levels and dry water control
structures in the vicinity of the lake.
A wetter than normal February, March, early April and, summer 2008 finally interrupted the
extended drought. Punctuating this increased rainfall was the passage of Tropical Storm Fay on
August 18 and 19. Fay was a very wet tropical storm, which brought a general average of 7 to
10 inches of rain into southern PBC, including Lake Okeechobee and surrounding areas.
Isolated amounts near the southwest shore of Lake Okeechobee were in the 12 to 15 inch range,
with Moore Haven recording a two -day total of 16.17 inches. Despite this relief, water use
restrictions continued into 2009 and beyond in order to balance longer -term regional water
availability and supply needs.
The 2007 Drought was abnormal. Typically, when one part of the regional system is
experiencing drought conditions, backup water supplies are available through operation of the
Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project. Previous to the 2007 drought, the SFWMD
51
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
had never experienced a situation where all three major water storage areas of the system — the
Upper Kissimmee Chain of Lakes, Lake Okeechobee, and the Water Conservation Areas —
simultaneously had substantially below normal water levels approaching record lows. Lakes in
the Upper Kissimmee area were below their regulation schedule and not available as a source of
water to Lake Okeechobee. Lake Okeechobee was anticipated to reach a new record and not be
available to send backup water supplies to the Lower East Coast. At the same time, the Water
Conservation Areas were nearing their minimum regulation schedule, below which no water
could be withdrawn. Without a schedule deviation authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the District is not able to withdraw water from these areas to recharge the coastal
canals.
The period from November 2005 to March 2007 ranked as the third driest period in recorded
history. The Governing Board of the District imposed mandatory water shortage restrictions in
areas around Lake Okeechobee in November 2006 and in Southeast Florida in March 2007.
Nevertheless, drought conditions intensified substantially. Compounding the lack of rainfall
there were consistently windy conditions, low humidity, and lack of cloud cover contributing to
above average evapotranspiration rates.
August 2011 Drought. Rainfall amounts in August ranged from 4 to 6 inches over parts of
interior southwest Florida to over 10 inches over parts of southeast Florida. Overall, rainfall
averaged near to above average over most areas, leading to gradually improving drought
conditions. Lake Okeechobee remained over 2 feet below the normal level for this time of year.
Underground water levels remained below normal over much of south Florida, especially over
the metro east coast sections.
There has been no significant effect to the County as a result of past droughts.
2.1.1.6 Extreme Temperatures
Freezing Temperatures
According to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, a moderate freeze may be
expected every one to two years. Severe freezes may be expected on an average of once every
15 to 20 years. Freezes pose a major hazard to the agriculture industry in PBC on a recurring
basis, and are a significant threat to the economic vitality of the Florida's vital agriculture
industry. Palm Beach County has experienced seven significant freezes between 1970 and the
present.
Florida has experienced a number of severe or disastrous freezes, when the majority of the winter
crops are lost. The lowest temperature ever recorded in the state is 12 °F (NCDC). Since
December 1889, there have been at least 22 recorded severe freezes; the most recent being in
1996, when a Presidential Disaster Declaration was issued for crop losses exceeding $90 billion.
During this event, there was an extensive loss of citrus trees and the majority was not replanted.
52
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
On rare occasions, the winter of 2000 -2001 for example, there were over 20 nights between
November and March where temperatures or wind chill readings fell below 40 °F.
Freezing conditions primarily affect agriculture and homeless indigents in PBC. While PBC
enjoys warm weather through -out the years, freezing does occur, primarily in the months late
December and January. During the night temperatures can dip to as low as 35 degrees but
normally is not sustained for more than three hours before the temperatures rises above 40
degrees. Palm Beach County's Cold weather shelter plan calls for shelters to be open if there is a
sustained temperature of 40 degrees or below or wind -chill factor of 35 degrees or below for
four consecutive hours. In the past 5 years the shelters have only been activated three times for
one day each. When conditions are predicted to fall below thrushlods, the shelter plan manager
and the County Warning point is alerted. During 2013, the shelters were opened once and closed
the next morning with less than 10 people in the entire Palm Beach County using the shelter.
Recent significant freezes include:
The 1977 Freeze. Climaxing one of the coldest winters ever recorded in the eastern United
States, a severe cold outbreak of arctic air swept into Florida January 18 through 21, 1977. Snow
was reported as far south as Homestead and a severe freeze affected all of the State's citrus and
vegetable crops.
In South Florida agricultural areas, the freeze was one of the most severe of this century.
Temperatures were below freezing for 10 to 14 hours, and 28 °F or colder for four to eight hours.
An unusually heavy frost accompanied these freezing temperatures and extended to the coast.
West Palm Beach recorded an all -time low of 27 °F. Some farmers in the area reported
temperatures near 20 °F.
A U. S. Department of Agriculture report indicated the following crop loss statewide: Citrus
25 %, vegetables 95 -100 %, commercial flowers 50 -75 %, permanent pastureland 50 %, sugar cane
40 %. It is estimated the 1977 freeze cost the Florida economy $2 billion (1977 dollars).
The 2009 Freeze. Agricultural damages from a January 2009 freeze were assessed. Seventy
million citrus trees and tens of thousands of acres of fresh fruits and vegetables were in regions
where temperatures remained below 20 °F for several hours for two consecutive days. In the
Glades area, freezing temperatures lasted as long as 12 hours. Early estimates indicated that the
bean crop was destroyed and as much as 85% of the corn crop was lost. Sugar cane also took a
hit, but damage was not known until harvest time. This event was the most destructive since the
1989 freeze. Tens of millions of dollars, if not hundreds of millions of dollars, in losses are
possible. A second freeze occurred two weeks later causing some additional crop damage, but
was not as severe.
Extreme Heat
Temperatures that remain 10 °F or more above the average high temperature for a region and last
for several weeks are defined as extreme heat (FEMA, 1996). Humid conditions, which add to
the discomfort of high temperatures, occur when an area of high atmospheric pressure traps hazy,
53
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
damp air near the ground. The highest temperature ever recorded in PBC was on July 21, 1942
at 101 °F at Palm Beach International Airport. In a normal year, approximately 175 Americans
die from extreme heat. However, in 1995 the national death toll was 1,021 (NWS, S, 1997).
Human bodies dissipate heat in one of three ways: by varying the rate and depth of blood
circulation; by losing water through the skin and sweat glands; and by panting. As the blood is
heated to above 98.6 °F, the heart begins to pump more blood, blood vessels dilate to
accommodate the increased flow, and the bundles of tiny capillaries penetrating through the
upper layers of skin are put into operation. The body's blood is circulated closer to the surface,
and excess heat is released into the cooler atmosphere. Water diffuses through the skin as
perspiration. The skin handles about 90% of the body's heat dissipating function.
Heat disorders generally have to do with a reduction or collapse of the body's ability to cool itself
by circulatory changes and sweating, or a chemical (salt) imbalance caused by too much
sweating. When the body cannot cool itself, or when it cannot compensate for fluids and salt lost
through perspiration, the temperature of the body's inner core begins to rise and heat - related
illness may develop. Studies indicate that, other factors being equal, the severity of heat
disorders tend to increase with age. Heat cramps in a 17- year -old may be heat exhaustion in
someone 40 and heat stroke in a person over 60.
When the temperature gets extremely high, the NWS has increased its efforts to alert the general
public as well as the appropriate authorities by issuing Special Weather Statements. Residents
should heed these warnings to prevent heat related medical complications. As a result of the
latest research findings, the NWS has devised the "Heat Index" (HI). The 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 consecutive days. Possible heat disorders related to the corresponding HI
are listed below.
In most cases, extreme heat affects those who do not have the ability to stay inside during
extreme heat. Palm Beach County does not have a significant population of people that
experience heat related injuries. Although the County does have a sheltering program, shelters
have never activated shelters due to heat.
54
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
This chart represents the averages and potential extreme temperatures of south Florida.
South FL Monthly Averages (Degrees Fahrenheit)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Avg 660 680 710 740 790 820 820 820 820 790 740 690
Temp
Record 880 940 920 990 980 980 990 980 980 980 910 890
High '79 '64 '77 '71 '02 '09 '82 '64 '77 '00 '02 '09
Record 280 220 200 400 510 600 640 660 610 470 250 200
Low '77 '89 '80 '50 '92 '66 '75 '81 '65 '76 '50 '89
Avg Rain 2.6" 2.2" 2.5" 2.5" 6.2" 9.8" 7.4" 8.0" 9.4" 6.4" 2.9" 2.2"
2.1.1.7 Agricultural Pest and Disease
Florida is among the top three agriculture - producing states in the nation. Agriculture generates
farm cash receipts of nearly $6 billion annually, of which citrus and vegetable crops contribute
more than 40 percent. The industry is susceptible to many hazards including freezes, droughts,
and exotic pests or diseases. Agricultural crops are grown throughout the state and every region
is vulnerable to the effects of an exotic pest or disease infestation. As a result, Florida uses the
second highest volume of pesticides in the nation.
Agriculture and citrus production play a key role in the PBC economy; 54% of the County is
farmland. The main threats to the PBC agriculture industry are Citrus Canker, Tomato Yellow
Leaf Curl Virus (TYLCV), and the Mediterranean Fruit Fly (Medfly), and sugarcane pests.
However, as it relates to PBC, we have not experienced or had any issues as it relates to
Agricultural Pest and Disease over the past 10 years.
Citrus Canker
Citrus Canker was found in PBC in numerous locations in 2002. The Florida Department of
Agriculture (FDACS) reported cases of orange and grapefruit trees infected in the southern and
northern parts of the County. Citrus Canker is a bacterial disease that causes premature leaf and
fruit drop. It affects all types of citrus, including oranges, sour oranges, grapefruit, tangerines,
lemons, and limes. Symptoms found on leaves and fruit are brown, raised lesions surrounded by
an oily, water - soaked area and a yellow ring or halo.
There is no known chemical compound that will destroy the Citrus Canker bacteria. In order to
eradicate the disease, infected trees must be cut down and disposed of properly. In 2002, legal
cases over the cutting down of infected and exposed trees began when citrus canker was
55
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
discovered in PBC. The FDACS wanted to search a 70- square -mile area of PBC for diseased
trees. It is a highly contagious disease that can be spread rapidly by windborne rain,
lawnmowers and other landscaping equipment, animals and birds, people carrying the infection
on their hands or clothing, and moving infected or exposed plants or plant parts. There is great
potential to impact Florida's $9.1 billion citrus industry.
Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus (TYLCV)
This virus is believed to have entered the state in Dade County sometime in early 1997.
Symptoms vary among tomato types, but in general, leaves produced shortly after infection are
reduced in size, distorted, cupped inward or downward, and have a yellow mottle. Less than one
in ten flowers will produce fruit after TYLCV infection, severely reducing yields.
The virus is transmitted by adult silverleaf whiteflies. Although frequent applications of
pesticides help to decrease whitefly populations and suppress the spread of TYLCV, virus
management through whitefly control is not possible in years where whitefly populations are
high. Fortunately, the virus is not transmitted through seed or casual contact with infected plants
(Polston & Brown, 1997).
Mediterranean Fruit Fly ( Medfly)
Another threat to PBC's agriculture industry is the Medfly. It is one of the world's most
destructive pests and infests more than 250 different plants that are important for U.S. food
producers, homeowners, and wildlife. It is considered the greatest pest threat to Florida's $1.5
billion citrus crop, as well as endangering many other economically significant crops. For
example, a Medfly outbreak in 1997 cost an estimated $26 million to eradicate. If a long -term or
widespread Medfly infestation were to occur, Florida growers would not be permitted to ship
numerous fruit and vegetable crops to many foreign and domestic markets. The movement of
fruits and vegetables, even within the state, would be disrupted, which could lead to higher prices
in the supermarket. If the Medfly is not eradicated in Florida, on -going pesticide treatments by
homeowners and commercial growers will be necessary. Costly post - harvest treatment of fruits
and vegetables to meet quarantine restrictions of domestic and foreign markets would also be
required.
Adult Medflies are up to 1/4 inch long, black with yellow abdomens, and have yellow marks on
their thoraxes. Their wings are banded with yellow. The female Medfly damages produce by
laying eggs in the host fruit or vegetable. The resulting larvae feed on the pulp, rendering the
produce unfit for human consumption. In addition to citrus, Medflies will feed on hundreds of
other commercial, backyard fruit, and vegetable crops.
Because Medflies are not strong fliers, the pest is spread by the transport of larval- infested fruit.
The major threats come from travelers, the U.S. mail, and commercial fruit smugglers. Several
steps have been taken to prevent new infestations. State and federal officials are working with
postal authorities to develop ways to inspect packages suspected of carrying infested fruit. In
56
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
addition, public education efforts carrying the message, "Don't Spread Med" are being
expanded.
Sugarcane Pests
Changes in sugarcane agriculture, including new disease and insect pests have seriously
impacted the quality of cane and juice delivered to the mill for processing. These changing
developments affect the level of sucrose, purity, fiber, and color of cane resulting in a loss of
sugar and decrease in the quantity and quality of sugar produced (United States Department of
Agriculture, 1998).
2.1.1.8 Wildfire/Urban Interface Zone
The recent wildfires that burned throughout Florida, specifically central Florida, are examples of
the increasing wildfire threat, which results from the Wildland/Urban Interface. 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 wild fires.
There are three different classes of wildland fires. A surface fire is the most common type and
burns along the floor of a forest, moving slowly and killing or damaging trees. A ground fire is
usually started by lightning and burns on or below the forest floor. Crown fires spread 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 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
57
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
steep slopes will tilt the flame and the convection column uphill increasing the chance of igniting
a structure. Structures extending out over a slope have the greatest likelihood of ignition from
convection.
Firebrands also pose a threat to structures in the 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 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.
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 Division of Forestry Districts,
two helicopters, and a Type 1 Air Tanker contained the fire after 26 hours. Due to the near
perfect wildfire conditions, the fire suppression units were unable to keep up with these rapidly
moving fires. The estimated damage was $4.2 million. Over 5,000 people were evacuated, most
self - evacuated from the area.
On Thursday, April 10, 2002, a brush fire occurred in a heavily wooded area just east of the
Acreage on the north side of Northlake Boulevard. Fueled by high winds, and low humidity, the
fire eventually burned approximately 450 acres, destroyed a number of vehicles and trailers
stored on the property, and required several days to fully extinguish. A helicopter was called in
to aid in extinguishing the wildfire. The helicopter made a total of 58 water drops. A loss of
$250,000 of timber was lost in relation to the wildfire.
Palm Beach County has over 587,649 acres of vegetation and trees that could be potentially
destroyed or damaged in an uncontrolled muck or wildfire. The majority of these areas are in the
western and south western part portion of county. These acres are under contract with the Florida
Departmet of agriculture to be protected in case of fire with coordination with Palm Beach
Country Fire Rescue.
2.1.1.9 Muck Fire
A muck fire is a fire that consumes all the organic material of the forest floor and also burns into
the underlying soil. It differs from a surface fire by being invulnerable to wind. If the fire gets
deep into the ground, it could smolder for several years. In a surface fire, the flames are visible
and burning is accelerated by wind, whereas in a muck fire, wind is not generally a serious factor
(Canadian Soil Information System, 1996). Another extraordinary fact about muck fires has to
do with their release of carbon dioxide. A peat bog that is on fire can release more carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere than all the power stations and car engines emit in Western Europe
in one year (New Scientist, 1997). This type of fire could have a significant impact on global
warming.
Muck fires are not a frequent threat to Florida. However, during a drought in the 1980s, fires in
the Everglades consumed the rich, dried out muck that had once been the bottom of the swamp.
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
These fires burned deep into the ground and required specialized, non - traditional firefighting
techniques.
A muck fire occurred in June of 1999. There were about 20,000 acres of muck, brush, and
sawgrass on fire in the Rotenberger Wildlife Management Area located in Southwestern PBC.
In May 2008, a muck fire, spawned by an extended drought, scorched the dried up edges of Lake
Okeechobee between Moore Haven and Clewiston covering an area of over 5,800 acres.
In Palm Beach County, most of the muck area is owned by the sugar cane industry and not
owned by the county. The corporation conducts controlled burns each year to over 300,000
acres of muck area to prepare the land for seasonal growth. These areas are monitored very
closely. If a muck fired occurred, that required Country resources, they would be provided with
coordination.
2.1.1.10 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 most powerful 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.
Undisturbed by humans, soil is usually covered by shrubs and trees, by dead and decaying leaves
or by a thick mat of grass. Whatever the vegetation, it protects the soil when the rain falls or the
wind blows. Root systems of plants hold the soil together. Even in drought, the roots of native
grasses, which extend several feet into the ground, help tie down the soil and keep it from
blowing away. With its covering of vegetation stripped away, soil is vulnerable to damage.
Whether the plant cover is disturbed by cultivation, grazing, deforestation, burning, or
bulldozing, once the soil is bare to the erosive action of wind and water, the slow rate of natural
erosion is greatly increased. Losses of soil take place much faster than new soil can be created,
and a kind of deficit spending of topsoil begins. With the destruction of soil structure, eroded
land is even more susceptible to erosion.
The occurrence of erosion has greatly increased, usually at a rate at which soils cannot be
sustained by natural soil regeneration. This is because of the activities of modern development
and population growth, particularly agricultural intensification. It is also in the field of
agriculture that most efforts have been made to conserve soils, with mixed success (Union of
International Associations).
59
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Beach Erosion
Wind, waves, and longshore currents are the driving forces behind coastal erosion. This removal
and deposition of sand permanently changes beach shape and structure. Most beaches, if left
alone to natural processes, experience natural shoreline retreat. As houses, highways, seawalls,
and other structures are constructed upon or close to the beach, the natural shoreline retreat
processes are interrupted. The beach jams up against these man -made obstacles and narrows
considerably as the built -up structures prevent the beach from moving naturally inland. When
buildings are constructed close to the shoreline, 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
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).
Palm Beach County under the department of environmental resources has a shoreline
enhancement and restorarion program that anticipates erosion of beach and shoreline areas and
takes pro- active measures to protect the costal areas. The plan is also adaptable to respond to
disasters that may cause an effect to the shoreline.
Palm Beach County's forty -six (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, thirty one (31) of the County's 46 miles are listed as critically eroded by Florida's
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). While there is no one solution to beach
erosion, several methods are utilized by Palm Beach County - each with its own merits and
drawbacks. The first approach is to facilitate sand transfer at the inlets in order to restore the
natural flow of sand. The second approach includes protecting the existing dunes and beaches
and restoring the portions of shoreline that are already degraded. The last approach includes
evaluating erosion control structures for use along beaches that may not 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
•1
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
extent possible. Through the Shoreline Enhancement & Restoration Program, the County is able
to provide publicly accessible beaches, support the tourist -based economy, restore beach habitat
and protect upland property. Funding for this capital improvement program is derived from a
portion of "bed tax" fees administered through the Tourist Development Council, as well as
funds from the state, the federal government and municipal partners Modifications to natural
tidal inlets and the creation and stabilization of artificial inlets affect the natural littoral transport
of sediments. Therefore, efforts to maintain the natural sediment movement in and around all
four inlets in Palm Beach County are encouraged. Transfer of material from the north side of an
inlet to the south prevents beach quality sand from being lost to the interior of an inlet or from
becoming impounded within near shore shoals. Since the dissolution of the South Lake Worth
Inlet District in 1996, the County has been responsible for the management of the South Lake
Worth Inlet (Boynton Inlet) and the development of the Inlet's Management Plan.
In 2011, the County constructed a new sand transfer plant (STP) and rehabilitated the north and
south jetties. The STP is operated by the County and transfers approximately 70,000 cubic yards
of material per year to the beaches south of the Inlet. The County also dredges the Inlet's interior
sand trap approximately every six years. Sand from the trap is pumped into the 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.
In 2011, the County constructed a new sand transfer plant (STP) and rehabilitated the north and
south jetties. The STP is operated by the County and transfers approximately 70,000 cubic yards
of material per year to the beaches south of the Inlet. The County also dredges the Inlet's interior
sand trap approximately every six years. Sand from the trap is pumped into the near shore along
the beach south of the Inlet.
Since the dissolution of the South Lake Worth Inlet District in 1996, the County has been
responsible for the management of the South Lake Worth Inlet (Boynton Inlet) and the
development of the Inlet's Management Plan. In 2011, the County constructed a new sand
transfer plant (STP) and rehabilitated the north and south jetties. The STP is operated by the
County and transfers approximately 70,000 cubic yards of material per year to
the beaches south of the Inlet. The County also dredges the Inlet's interior sand trap
approximately every six years. Sand from the trap is pumped into the near shore along the beach
south of the Inlet.
Recent erosion events include:
Hurricanes Frances & Jeanne (September 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
61
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
surge level for Category 2 Hurricane Jeanne was 10.8' (NGVD). Surge levels in PBC were
significantly lower. Both storms caused significant beach erosion along the coastline of PBC.
Tropical Storm 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 to three feet over northern PBC. A strong pressure gradient between high pressure over the
Mid - Atlantic States and Tropical Storm Noel over Hispaniola and eastern Cuba caused a
prolonged period of strong easterly winds over Southeast Florida and the adjacent waters. As
Noel moved north across the western Bahamas, the strong winds continued across southeast
Florida. The event caused severe beach erosion, coastal flooding, and minor wind damage. The
event began in the last week of October.
Hurricane Sandy of October 25, 2012. The main impact of Hurricane Sandy to the Palm Beach
coast was large northeast swells generated by the storm, which pummeled the Southeast Florida
coast with significant beach erosion and coastal flooding. Large breaking waves of possibly over
20 feet were estimated along the coast. As a result, major coastal flooding occurred with the
most significant impacts experienced from central Palm Beach north, including the Manalapan
area where beachfront structures were threatened by water intrusion. In all, there was an
estimated $14 million in damage sustained in PBC. A maximum storm tide of 5.2 feet above
mean lower low water (MLLW) was
observed at Lake Worth Pier on October 28th 80
72
at 712 AM EDT along with a maximum 64
storm surge of 2.28 feet on October 28th at 2 56
226 AM EDT. Similar tide and surge levels 48 - A2
were measured at the highest daily high tide 40-
e1
during this period, generally between 7 and 9 8 24
AM. m 16 AR4
8
2.1.1.11 Sea Level Rise
Sea level rise is defined as a mean rise in sea
level. Since 1870, global sea level has risen
by about 8 inches. Due to numerous factors
such as greenhouse gas warming, estimates of
future sea level rise vary for different regions,
but global sea level for the next century is
a
e
1950
2000 2050 2100
Year
Projection of sea level rise from 1990 to 2010, based
on three different emissions scenarios. Also shown:
observations of annual global sea level rise over the
past half century (red line), relative to 1990.
Source: NRC 2010
62
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
expected to rise at a greater rate than during the past 50 years. Sea level rise predictions are
complex and are based on multiple scenarios of global temperature change and greenhouse gas
emission. As coastal populations increase, vulnerability of those populations to sea level rise
increases as well.
Sea Level Rise is a new hazard for the County. Palm Beach County did not monitor or record
any incidents of Sea level Rise before 2013. All future occurrences will be tracked and recorded
and included in current and future updates."
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 ten miles inland. Such an event would present a tremendous warning
challenge and a virtually impossible evacuation response. Subsequent research by the Tsunami
Society, a body of scientists solely dedicated to the study of tsunamis, has concluded the threat
has been grossly overstated. The society challenged many of the assumptions made relative to
the 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. However, the deadly Asian tsunami in
December of 2004 has rekindled interest in revisiting the research.
The threat of a tsunamis impacting PBC is considered to be extremely low (approximately 5% or
less per century). Tsunamis are most often generated by earthquake- induced movement of the
ocean floor. Landslides, volcanic eruptions, and even meteorites can also generate a tsunami.
They are often incorrectly referred to as tidal waves, but a tsunami is actually a series of waves
that can travel at speeds averaging 450 (and up to 600) miles per hour in the open ocean. 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. This would also make them unnoticeable from the air.
As tsunami waves approach a coast, their speed decreases, and their amplitude increases.
Unusual wave heights have been known to be over 100 feet high. However, waves that are 10 to
20 feet high can be very destructive and cause many deaths or injuries.
There has been no reported or recorded Tsunamis in Palm Beach County History.
Earthquakes
Although Florida is not usually considered to be a state subject to earthquakes, several minor
shocks have occurred over time, but only one caused any damage (Zirbes, 1971). Earthquakes
will not be discussed further in this plan as they pose no risk to the county.
63
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
• In January 1879, a shock occurred near St. Augustine that is reported to have knocked
plaster from walls and articles from shelves. Similar effects were reported in Daytona
Beach. The shock was felt in Tampa, throughout central Florida, and in Savannah,
Georgia as well (Zirbes, 1971).
• In January 1880 another earthquake 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 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).
• There have been no recorded earthquakes in Palm Beach County.
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). However, PBC have 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.
Me
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
At this time, Palm Beach County has not experienced any Sinkholes or Subsidence. They are not
common to the PBC area. But due to the frequency of this hazard in other locations throughout
the State, these hazards are included in the LMS.
"
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
2.1.1.14 Pandemic
Infectious diseases emerging throughout history have included some of the most feared plagues
of the past. New infections continue to emerge today, while many of the old plagues 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. Most recently, millions of pounds of possibly contaminated beef from the Hudson
packing plant were seized by the Department of Agriculture and destroyed.
While this plan addresses all potential pandemic diseases, those that have actually affected PBC
will be addressed in that disease discussion.
Avian (Bird Flu) H5N1
Although there are many forms of bird flu, the form that has most recently concerned health
officials is the H5N1 flu virus carried by wild birds (many migratory). While wild birds seldom
get sick from the virus, they can easily pass the virus to farm birds such as chickens, ducks, and
turkeys being raised for food. These farm birds get sick, which poses a serious health risk.
It is thought that both the 1957 Asian Flu and the 1968 Hong Kong Flu pandemics had avian
origins. Quarantine and depopulation (culling) and surveillance of affected flocks have helped
contain outbreaks. The current bird flu virus originated in Hong Kong in 1997 and disappeared
after that. It reemerged in 2002 and has since caused havoc worldwide.
Historically, bird flu viruses had not been passed from birds to humans. However, that changed
in 1997, when people became infected by a serious, deadly form of bird flu. Most of these
infections occurred in Asian countries among people who had had close contact with farm- raised
birds. Sick birds had to be killed in great numbers in hopes of stopping the spread of the virus.
It was suspected that the bird flu virus was passed to humans through bird droppings, saliva or
contaminated surfaces on cages, tractors, and other farm equipment.
..
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Because viruses can change (mutate) quickly, experts worry that bird flu will one day be passed
easily from person to person. The H5N1 bird flu virus has proven to be extremely lethal. Even
though only a few hundred people thus far have been stricken by the H5N1 virus, more than half
of those have died.
The first case of H5N1 was traced to a farmed goose in China in 1996. Human infections were
first reported in Hong Kong in 1997 (18 cases, 6 fatal). According to the World Health
Organization, who monitors global disease outbreaks, as of April 2009, there have been
approximately 417 human cases and 257 deaths in 15 countries from H5N1 influenza, none in
the United States. The highest number of cases and deaths occurred in Indonesia (141 cases, 115
deaths) and in Vietnam (110 cases, 55 deaths). Other countries with cases and deaths have
included Egypt, China, and Thailand.
In June 2006, the World Health Organization confirmed a human -to -human transmission of the
bird flu in Indonesia. Although the H5N1 virus had mutated, the mutation apparently was not
severe enough to trigger an avian influenza pandemic. Experts believe, however, that the virus
may eventually spread to all parts of the world.
Swine Flu A (HINT)
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.
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
When the 2009 H1N1 flu outbreak began in April 2009, CDC began reporting the number of
laboratory- confirmed cases, hospitalizations and deaths associated with 2009 H1N1 flu in the
United States that were reported by states to CDC. These initial case counts, and subsequent
ongoing laboratory- confirmed reports of hospitalizations and deaths, are thought to represent a
significant undercount of the actual number of 2009 H1N1 flu cases in the United States
A paper in Emerging Infectious Diseases authored by CDC staff entitled "Estimates of the
Prevalence of Pandemic (H1N1) 2009, United States, April —July 2009" reported on a study to
estimate the prevalence of 2009 H1N1 based on the number of laboratory- confirmed cases
reported to CDC. Correcting for under - ascertainment, the study found that every case of 2009
H1N1 reported from April — July represented an estimated 79 total cases, and every hospitalized
case reported may have represented an average of 2.7 total hospitalized people. Since that time,
67
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
CDC has been working to develop a way to estimate, in an ongoing way, the impact of the 2009
H1N1 pandemic on the U.S. in terms of 2009 H1N1 cases, hospitalizations and deaths.
The CDC reports that in 2013 the H1N1 virus, although not elimated, had been contained and a
vaccine is now available that was not available during the height of the 2009 outbreak. Although
deaths are still being reported in the United States, they are becoming more rare.
The origins of the new virus are not known. One theory is that Asian and European strains
traveled to Mexico via migratory birds or human travelers, then combined with North American
strains in Mexican pig factory farms before jumping over to farm workers. The Mexican health
agency believes the original disease vector may have been flies multiplying in manure lagoons of
pig farms.
The American cases were found to be made up of genetic elements from four different flu
viruses, the North American swine influenza, the North American avian influenza, human
influenza, and swine influenza typically found in Asia and Europe.
Within one month of detection, officials in the United States had confirmed that seven people in
California, two students from a high school in Texas, and a married couple in Kansas were
infected with A/09(H1N1) swine flu; all recovered. New York State had confirmed cases as
well. The cases in Kansas and New York were linked to travel to Mexico; most of the cases in
California and Texas were not linked to travel, suggesting localized outbreaks of the virus. At
this writing, isolated cases of suspected swine flu were surfacing across the U.S. and abroad
daily. Deaths will certainly result. Government health agencies continue to closely monitor
developments.
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.
Mosquitoes become infected when they feed on infected birds, which may circulate the virus in
their blood for a few days. Infected mosquitoes can then transmit West Nile virus to humans and
animals while biting. The virus is located in the mosquito's salivary glands. During feeding, the
virus may be injected into the animal or human, where it may multiply, possibly causing illness.
The more DEET a repellent contains the longer time it can protect you from mosquito bites.
Most people who are infected with the West Nile virus will not have any type of illness. It is
estimated that 20% of the people who become infected will develop West Nile fever: mild
symptoms, including fever, headache, and body aches, occasionally with a skin rash on the trunk
of the body and swollen lymph glands.
.:
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
The symptoms of severe infection (West Nile encephalitis or meningitis) include headache, high
fever, neck stiffness, stupor, disorientation, coma, tremors, convulsions, muscle weakness, and
paralysis. It is estimated that 1 in 150 persons infected with the West Nile virus will develop a
more severe form of disease.
SARS
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) is a viral respiratory illness caused by a corona
virus, called SARS- associated corona virus (SARS -CoV). SARS was first reported in Asia in
February 2002. Over the next few months, the illness spread to more than two dozen countries
in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia. According to the WHO, during the SARS
outbreak of February — July 2002, a total of 8,427 people worldwide became sick with SARS; of
these, 812 died. In the United States, there were 192 cases of SARS among people, all of whom
got better. There were eight cases reported in Florida. However, PBC had no reported cases of
SARS.
The main way that SARS seems to spread is by close person -to- person contact. The virus that
causes SARS is thought to be transmitted most readily by respiratory droplets (droplet spread)
produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes. Droplet spread can happen when droplets
from the cough or sneeze of an infected person are propelled a short distance (generally up to 2
feet) through the air and deposited on the mucous membranes of the mouth, nose, or eyes of
persons who are nearby. The virus also can spread when a person touches a surface or object
contaminated with infectious droplets and then touches his or her mouth, nose, or eye(s). In
addition, it is possible that the SARS virus might spread more broadly through the air (airborne
spread) or by other ways that are not now known.
Malaria
About 1,200 cases of malaria are diagnosed in the United States each year. Most cases in the
United States are in immigrants and travelers returning from malaria -risk areas, mostly from sub -
Saharan Africa and the Indian subcontinent. Each year in the United States a few cases of
malaria result from blood transfusions, passing from mother to fetus during pregnancy, or
transmission by locally infected mosquitoes. For the year 2002, as of September 14, eight cases
of malaria were reported in PBC. In 2008, there were four reported cases, eleven in 2011,
sixteen in 2010, and seven in 2011.
Humans get malaria from the bite of a malaria- infected mosquito. When a mosquito bites an
infected person, it ingests microscopic malaria parasites found in the person's blood. The
malaria parasite must grow in the mosquito for a week or more before infection can be passed to
another person. If, after a week, the mosquito then bites another person, the parasites go from
the mosquito's mouth into the person's blood. The parasites then travel to the person's liver,
enter the liver's cells, grow, and multiply. During this time when the parasites are in the liver,
the person has not yet felt sick. The parasites leave the liver and enter red blood cells; this may
take as little as 8 days or as many as several months. Once inside the red blood cells, the
parasites grow and multiply. The red blood cells burst, freeing the parasites to attack other red
.•
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
blood cells. Toxins from the parasite are also released into the blood, making the person feel
sick.
Symptoms of malaria include fever and flu -like illness, including chills, headache, muscle aches,
and tiredness. Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may also occur. For most people, symptoms
begin ten days to four weeks after infection, although a person may feel ill as early as 8 days or
as late as one year later.
Any traveler who becomes ill with a fever or flu -like illness while traveling to Malaria risk areas
and up to one year after returning home should immediately seek professional medical care. A
person should tell his /her health care provider that they have been traveling in a malaria -risk
area.
Persons living in and travelers to, any area of the world where malaria is transmitted may
become infected. Malaria can be cured with prescription drugs.
2.1.2 Technological Hazards
2.1.2.1 Dike Failure
Dam /levee failure poses a threat to population and property in several areas of PBC. All are
earthen structures and 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 (PBC CEMP, 2011).
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 Herbert Hoover Dike is continuously monitored by the Army Corp of Engineers in
partnership with the SFWMD.
The Corps is currently implementing a dam safety process to lower the risk across the entire
HHD system. The Corps is constructing enhanced cutoff walls along the most vulnerable areas.
Construction of the cutoff wall helps reduce the risk by eliminating existing piping and
preventing additional internal erosion through the dike and foundation. Construction between
Port Mayaca and Belle Glade was completed in 2012. The Corps will also replace or remove 22
culverts within the HHD system. Replacement work began in 2012 to Culverts 2 and 4A near
South Bay among others. The Corps anticipates removing or replacing all the culverts with
construction continuing through 2018. Until work to stabilize the dike is completed by the Army
70
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Corp of Engineers, there is the potential for stability problems and /or seepage to occur from
heavy rainfall raising the level of the lake above 18 feet. Policy changes within the SFWMD
maintain the water levels of Lake Okeechobee at low levels, thereby, reducing potential risk. A
catastrophic failure of the Herbert Hoover Dike could pose a significant danger to the residents,
local economies, and environment of PBC and South Florida. This threat is greater and has a
more severe impact in the three western PBC Cities of South Bay, Belle Glade, and Pahokee.
2.1.2.2 Hazardous Materials Accident
Hazardous materials accidents can occur anywhere there is a road, rail line, pipeline, or 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 four percent resulted in
injuries, and less than six percent resulted in evacuation.
Emergencies involving hazardous materials can be expected to range from a minor accident with
no off -site effects to a major accident that may result in an off -site release of hazardous or toxic
materials. The overall objective of chemical emergency response planning and preparedness is
to minimize exposure for a wide range of accidents that could produce off -site levels of
contamination in excess of Levels of Concern (LOC) established by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Minimizing this exposure will reduce the consequences of an emergency to
people in the 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
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.
71
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Palm Beach County has not experienced any significant hazardous material accidents in the past
ten (10) years.
2.1.2.3 Radiological Accidents (Nuclear Power Plant Accident)
While an actual 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.
The St. Lucie nuclear power plant is located on Hutchinson Island approximately four miles east -
northeast of the City of Port St. Lucie, approximately 5.5 miles north of Martin County /St. Lucie
County boundary line. This facility is owned and operated by the Florida Power & Light
Company. Palm Beach County is located more than 20 miles from the plant and is well outside
the 10 mile Emergency Planning Zone /potential plume area, so there is not a risk to direct
radiation exposure. Therefore, PBC would provide assistance to St. Lucie and Martin Counties
in the unlikely chance of an accident at the plant. Palm Beach County municipalities located in
part or whole within 50 miles of the power plant (Tequesta, Jupiter Inlet Colony, Jupiter, Juno
Beach, Palm Beach Gardens, North Palm Beach, Lake Park, Riviera Beach, Mangonia Park,
West Palm Beach, Palm Beach, Pahokee, Royal Palm Beach, Haverhill, Glen Ridge, Wellington,
72
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Palm Springs, Greenacres and Lake Clarke Shores) fall within the `Ingestion Pathway Zone'
meaning if there is a major release at the power plant, radioactive contamination could be
deposited as far as 50 miles affecting food and water supplies.
The purpose of the County radiological preparedness program is to prepare to receive, shelter
and decontaminate (if necessary) potentially contaminated evacuees from an accident at the St.
Lucie nuclear power plant. A radiological emergency response plan is developed and exercised
in order to have reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can be taken in the event
of a radiological emergency.
2.1.2.4 Communications Failure
As society emerges from industrial production into the age of information, we are seeing new
kinds of technological accidents /disasters. Recently, a communications failure occurred that was
the worst in 27 years of satellite service. Some major problems with the telecommunications
satellite Galaxy IV drastically affected 120 companies in the paging industry (Rubin, 1998).
Radio and other forms of news broadcasts were also affected. The pager failure not only
affected personal and business communications, but emergency managers and medical personnel
as well. More commonly, communication failures occur due to power outages.
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.
Palm Beach County has not experienced any significant hazardous material releases in the past
ten (10) years.
2.1.2.6 Transportation System Accidents
Florida has a large 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 recent notorious example is the crash in the
73
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Everglades of the Value Jet Flight 592 on May 11, 1996, which resulted in 110 fatalities and cost
millions of dollars to respond, severely taxing the financial and public safety resources of Dade
County. Similarly, a major transportation accident could involve a large number of tourists and
visitors from other countries, given Florida's popularity as a vacation destination, further
complicating the emergency response to such an event.
Palm Beach County has not experience any significant Transportation System Accidents in the
past ten (10) years.
2.1.2.7 Coastal Oil Spill
As a major industrial nation, the United States produces, distributes, and consumes large
quantities of oil. Petroleum -based oil is used as a major power source to fuel factories and
various modes of transportation, and in many everyday products, such as plastics, nylon, paints,
tires, cosmetics, and detergents. At every point in the production, distribution, and consumption
process, oil is invariably stored in tanks. With billions of gallons of oil being stored throughout
the country, the potential for an oil spill is significant, and the effects of spilled oil can pose
serious threats to the environment.
In addition to petroleum -based oil, the U.S. consumes millions of gallons of non - petroleum oils,
such as silicone and mineral -based oils, and animal and vegetable oils. Like petroleum products,
these non - petroleum oils are often stored in tanks that have the potential to spill, causing
environmental damages that are just as serious as those caused by petroleum -based oils. To
address the potential environmental threat posed by petroleum and non - petroleum oils, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has established a program designed to prevent oil spills. The
program has reduced the number of spills to less than 1 percent of the total volume handled each
year (Environmental Protection Agency, 1998).
Spilled oil poses serious threats to fresh water and marine environments, affecting surface
resources and a wide range of subsurface organisms. Most oils tend to spread 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
74
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
gelling agents are most useful in helping to keep oil from reaching shorelines and other sensitive
habitats. Physical methods are used to clean up shorelines as well. Wiping with sorbent
materials, pressure washing, 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.
Palm Beach County has 45 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 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. In 2010. While the spill
did not affect the water ways or coastal communities of Palm Beach County, it did put PBCDEM
and other supporting agencies throughout the County on alert. Extensive plans were coordinated
to prepare for a potential containment and oil clean up response.
2.1.2.8 Wellfield Contamination
As communities become more aware of both the potential health risks and the economic effects
of ground water contamination, they are beginning to look increasingly toward preventative
efforts. Even when no immediate hazard appears to exist, a community should be concerned
about protecting its drinking water supply for three reasons: to reduce potential risks to the health
of the community; to avoid the costs of cleaning up contamination and providing alternative
water supplies; and to prevent the negative economic impacts on community development that
ground water contamination can cause.
The development of wellfield protection programs is a major preventative approach for the
protection of community drinking water supplies. Wellfield protection is a means of
safeguarding public water supply wells by preventing contaminants from entering the area that
contributes water to the well or wellfield over a period of time. Management plans are
developed for the wellfield protection area that include inventorying 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 percent 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).
75
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
While most of these diseases were short-term digestive disorders caused by bacteria and viruses,
hazardous chemicals found in wells nationwide also pose risks to public health.
The 1986 Amendments to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act require states to implement
wellfield protection programs for public water wells. Prevention strategies include 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.
On August 14, 2002, the largest power outage occurred in the northeast and Midwest states. The
power outage started around 2 o'clock in the afternoon and was out in some places until Monday
the 18th. 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 stages (Florida Reliability Coordinating Council):
76
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
• Generating Capacity Advisory - A Generating Capacity Advisory is primarily for
information purposes. It starts utility tracking activities, and it initiates inter - utility and
inter - agency communication. No action by the public is required. General 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.
• 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.
2.1.3.2 Terrorism and Sabotage
Terrorism
The FBI defines terrorism as, "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property
to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in
furtherance of political or societal objectives." A 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.
77
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
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
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. Palm Beach County is not
immune from acts of terrorism. The 2001 World Trade Center bombing was the largest terrorist
attack the United States has ever experienced. After the World Trade Center attack, it was
learned that many of the perpetrators resided in and the (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 US citizens including one 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.
The federal government has recognized that the United States has entered the post -Cold War era.
As a result, federal planning guidelines regarding military threats are in transition. However,
nuclear weapons continue to be a serious planning concern especially in areas surrounding
military installations. The influx of undocumented aliens into South Florida from areas
unfriendly to the interest of the United States is monitored by those involved with the emergency
management of government.
Computer Accidents and Sabotage
The President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection (PCCIP) recently reported that
there is an increasing threat that the U.S. could suffer something similar to an "Electronic Pearl
Harbor ". Networked information systems present new security challenges in addition to the
benefits they offer. Long -term power 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
full 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
easily accessible everywhere. A personal computer and an internet service provider anywhere in
the world are enough to cause a great deal of harm.
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Threats include:
• Human error
• Insider use of authorized access for unauthorized disruptive purposes
• Recreational hackers — with or without hostile intent
• Criminal activity — for financial gain, to steal information or services, organized crime
• Industrial espionage
• Terrorism — including various disruptive operations
• National Intelligence — information 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.
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 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,
water, transportation, medical, police protection, and other social services.
2.2 Vulnerability Assessment
Palm Beach County is a diversified county. While all PBC residents are exposed to the hazards
identified in Table 2.1 to some degree, geographic location and other factors greatly affect
individual vulnerabilities and probabilities relating to specific hazards illustrated in 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
79
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
hazard events for each identified hazard within PBC. Appendix B includes mitigation initiatives
to reduce the impacts of each jurisdiction risks for PBC in reference to the individual hazards
identified in Section 2.1 Additional maps will be located in Appendix C. These maps will be
illustrated by hazard addressing critical facilities having the potential to be effected by hazard.
The critical facilities will have a potential dollar loss figure tied to it.
With the assistance of the DEM, the LMS conducted impact analyses to assess the potential for
detrimental impacts from all identified natural, technological, and human caused hazards.
Results of these analyses are summarized below. Impacts were categorized into the following
groupings: health and safety of the resident population in the affected area; health and safety of
incident responders; impacts on the continuity of government and non - government operations;
impacts to property, facilities and infrastructure; impacts to the 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 Palm Beach County affect the entire county equally. However, there are some
that may be more likely in one area of the County. For example, a Herbert Hoover Dike breach
would cause more damage to the western communities. For the purpose of this document, the
County has been divided into four geographical areas: Northern Palm Beach County, Southern
Palm Beach County, Western Palm Beach County, and Coastal Palm Beach County.
In each of the hazards identified and defined, the latest occurrence of that event hazard is listed.
For example the last major hurricane to hit Palm beach County was 2007. Therefore, there would
be no examples beyond that point.
In addition, the charts show probability of occurrence and impact. These will be rated as low =
under 5% chance of occurring, medium, 5% - 15% chances of occurring, or High, greater than
15 %. These rating responds with the information of the charts presented.
• An impact rating of "Low" for any hazard type means the hazard is not likely to have any
measurable or lasting detrimental impact of a particular type and consequences will likely
be rectified promptly with locally available resources. The chances here are less than 5 %.
• An impact rating of "Medium" means there will likely be a 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 %.
• 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
are greater than 15 %.
• Multiple ratings indicate detrimental impacts might easily vary within the range
indicated.
a
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
2.2.1 Natural Hazards
2.2.1.1 Hurricanes and Tropical Storms
From 1920 through 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
warming may cause changes in storm frequency and the precipitation rates associated with
storms. A modest 0.9 degree Fahrenheit (0.5 degree centigrade) increase in the mean global
temperature will add 20 days to the annual hurricane season, and increase the chances of a storm -
making landfall on the U.S. mainland by 22 %. The warmer ocean surface will also allow storms
to increase in intensity, survive in higher latitudes, and develop storm tracts that could shift
farther north, producing more U.S. landfalls.
Currently an average of 1.6 hurricanes strikes the U.S. every year. Severe (Category 4 or 5 on the
Saffir- Simpson scale) hurricanes strike the U.S. on the average of one every 5.75 years.
Annually, hurricanes are estimated to cause approximately $1.2 billion in damages. The
proximity of dense population to the Atlantic Ocean, as well as the generally low coastal
elevations, significantly increases the County's vulnerability. The potential for property damage
and human casualties in PBC has increased over the last several decades primarily because of the
rapid growth this county has experienced since 1970, particularly along the vulnerable coastline
areas.
Hurricane damage is caused by two factors:
• High winds
• Storm surge (discussed under "Flooding ")
Generally, it is the wind that produces most of the property damage associated with hurricanes,
while the greatest threat to life is from flooding and storm surge. Although hurricane winds can
exert tremendous pressure against a structure, a large 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. Once a structure's integrity is breached, the driving rains
associated with hurricanes can enter the structure and completely destroy its contents. Hurricane
winds are unique in several ways:
• They are more turbulent than winds in most other type storms
• They are sustained for a longer period of time (several hours) than any other type of
atmospheric disturbance
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
• They change slowly in direction, thus they are able to seek out the most critical angle of
attack on a given structure.
• They generate large quantities of flying debris as the built environment is progressively
damaged, thus amplifying their destructive power
In hurricanes, gusts of wind can be expected to exceed the sustained wind velocity by 25 to 50
percent. This means a hurricane with sustained winds of 150 mph will have wind gusts
exceeding 200 mph. The wind's pressure against a fixed structure increases with the square of
the velocity. For example, a 100 mph wind will exert a pressure of approximately 40 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 by eight foot sheet of plywood nailed over a window,
there would be 1,280 lbs of pressure against this sheet in a 100 mph wind, and 2,904 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 percent just 15 feet above ground level.
The wind stream generates uplift as it divides and flows around a structure. The stream
following the longest path around a building, 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 to
five times greater than those exerted on other parts of the roof.
Once the envelope of the building has been breached through the loss of a window, door, or roof
damage, wind pressure on internal surfaces becomes a critical factor. Openings may cause
pressurizing or depressurizing of a building. Pressurizing pushes the walls out, while
depressurizing will pull the walls in. Internal pressure coupled with external suction adds to the
withdrawal force on sheathing fasteners. Damages from internal pressure fluctuations may range
from blowouts of windows and doors to 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
fully engineered, and office and industrial buildings which are considered "marginally
engineered," residential construction is considered "non- engineered." Historically, the bulk of
wind damage experienced nationwide has occurred to residential construction. Fully engineered
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
construction usually performs well in high winds due to the attention given to connections and
load paths.
Hurricane winds generate massive quantities of debris, which can easily exceed a community's
entire solid waste capacity by three times or more. Debris removal is an integral first step toward
recovery, and as such must be a critical concern of all those tasked with emergency management
and the restoration of community services. The Arbiter of Storms (TAOS) model predicts the
following quantities of debris for PBC given the following hurricane strengths:
Storm Strength
Tropical Storm
Debris
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 cubic yards /acre
Category 5 Hurricane
44,874,888 cubic yards /acre
Both the Town of Palm Beach and City of West Palm Beach are old, historical communities on
PBC's east coast. Their age alone makes them particularly vulnerable to hurricane damage.
Both cities have old, historically significant structures whose loss would represent the loss of
irreplaceable cultural resources. The age and construction type of much of the housing in West
Palm Beach and to a lesser extent in many of the other coastal communities, suggests these
communities would be hit very hard by a major storm.
2.2.1.2 Flooding
Flooding in PBC results from one or a combination of both of the following meteorological
events:
• Tidal surge associated with northeasters, hurricanes, and tropical storms
• Overflow from streams and swamps associated with rain runoff
Major rainfall events occur in association with hurricanes, tropical storms, and thunderstorms
associated with frontal systems.
When these types of intense rainfall events occur, streams and drainage ditches tend to reach
peak flood flow concurrently with tidal water conditions associated with coastal storm surge.
This greatly increases the probability of flooding in the low -lying areas of the coastal zone.
Areas along the PBC coast are particularly susceptible to flooding under these conditions. The
most flood prone areas in the 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.
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
In response to mounting losses from flooding nationwide, the United States Congress initiated
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in 1968. The program is administered through
FEMA. Under this program, FEMA produces Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) which show
areas subject to various levels of flooding under different conditions. This flood risk information
is based on historic, meteorological, hydrologic, and hydraulic data, as well as open -space
conditions, flood control works, and development.
Appendix C Flood Section, presents a generalized picture of the flood prone areas in PBC
based on the 1992 version of the FIRM maps. Note that NTFIP flood zones B and C do not
appear in the legend, as they are not on the PBC FIRM map.
In addition to the FIRM maps there are two numerical models, which predict the effects of storm
surge in PBC. The older model, developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, is called the Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model.
Appendix C Flood Section illustrates the areas of PBC vulnerable to this type of flooding.
The State of Florida acquired another model for predicting hurricane storm surge as well as wind
and property damage. This model, known as The Arbiter of Storms (TAOS) model, predicts
storm surge height and wind field intensity for Category 1 through Category 5 hurricanes.
Appendix C, Flood Section illustrates the areas of PBC subject to flooding during a Category 5
Hurricane. It is important to remember that the TAOS model projections are based on a
Maximum of Maximums (MOM) 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 Severe Thunderstorm/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
other factors being equal, residential and retirement communities have a historically higher
vulnerability in terms of lightning fatalities.
2.2.1.4 Wildfire/Urban Interface Zone
Less urbanized communities and areas within the County are more 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
.,
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
these areas have an extensive canopy of slash pine (Pinus elliotii) and sand pines (Pinais clauses),
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.
2.2.1.5 Muck Fire
Muck fires have never occurred in PBC. The only areas where this hazard might produce
impacts are the western portions of the County. At the present time, muck fires are not
considered a significant hazard anywhere other than the Pahokee, Belle Glade, and South Bay
areas in the western County.
2.2.1.6 Tornado
Historical data indicates the frequency of tornadoes in PBC is relatively low. However, the
vulnerability does exist as proven in June of 2012 when PBC was affected by a tornado. Some
individual communities have a higher vulnerability to this hazard due to the type of construction
or numbers of mobile homes (manufactured housing units) within their boundaries.
2.2.1.7 Extreme Temperatures
Temperature extremes, both freezes and periods of excessive heat, impact communities with a
larger senior population to a greater extent than those with younger populations. Inland
communities away from the moderating influence of the ocean or the estuary are more
vulnerable to temperature extremes, as are areas with significant agricultural assets.
The increase in temperature across the U.S. in this century is slightly smaller, but of comparable
magnitude to the increase of temperature that has characterized the world as a whole. The
increase in minimum temperature and the related increase in area affected by much above normal
minimum temperatures are also found in many other countries of the northern hemisphere.
Worldwide precipitation over land has changed little through the twentieth century; increases
noted in high latitudes have been balanced by low- latitude decreases. By comparison, the
change in precipitation in the U.S. is still relatively moderate compared to some of the increases
and decreases at other latitudes. Decreases in the day -to -day differences of temperature observed
in the U.S. are also apparent in China and Russia, the only other large countries analyzed as of
this date. The persistent increase in the proportion of precipitation derived from extremely heavy
precipitation has not been detected in these other countries.
A Climate Extremes Index (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
l
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
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.
2.2.1.8 Coastal & Beach Erosion / Sea Level Rise
Palm Beach County's vulnerability to coastal and beach erosion is moderate along its entire
coastline. The most significant areas of beach erosion are the areas south of the stabilized inlets
where the natural flow of laterally transported sand has been artificially interrupted. Many areas
in PBC have been the subject of major beach re- nourishment projects sponsored jointly by the
County and Army Corps of Engineers. Inland communities report some erosion problems along
major canals and around water control structures.
The 2014 update of the Vulnerability Assessment Section of the LMS integrates sea level rise as
a potential hazard. The Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact estimates that a 2-
foot sea level rise is the most probable planning scenario for the immediate future. PBC
completed an assessment of vulnerability due to sea level rise in a report entitled "Overview
Analysis of the Vulnerability of Southeast Florida to Sea Level Rise, South Florida Regional
Climate Change Compact Inundation, Mapping and Vulnerability Assessment Work Group,
April 2011." In this report, the County conducted an inundation analysis, identifying land at
elevations below sea level, highlight areas located near PBC's coastline and tidal waterways.
The report concluded that limited physical infrastructure in PBC is at risk at the one, two and
three foot sea level rise scenario. Initially low volume roads and parking areas may be impacted
at one foot and increase to up to forty -one (41) miles of roadways as the sea level continues to
rise to three feet. Property with a current taxable value of $296 -557 Million may become
vulnerable as sea level rises. Facilities such as wastewater treatment, emergency evacuation
shelters, landfills, airports, ports, and power plants will likely not be affected by sea level rise.
An initiative conducted by Florida Department of Economic Opportunity in 2011 to analyze sea
level rise integration utilized PBC as a pilot study (Statewide Post - Disaster Redevelopment
:.
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
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
and region due to its topography. Due to dense population along the coast, the potential for
property damage and human casualties continues to increase. Florida not only has the most
people at risk from hurricanes, but it also has the most coastal property exposed to these storms.
While there continues to be debate among the experts, global climate change is likely to impact
the development, intensity, and frequency of hurricanes in the world. Similarly, the condition of
a higher sea level will increase the total inundation resulting from the storm surge. Section
2.1.1.10 address the vulnerability 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 salt water ponds, salt water marshes, and mangrove swamp
as potential sensitive impacted habitats. In Appendix C, the sea level rise map illustrates PBC's
vulnerability to 2 feet sea level rise.
Generally, the areas in the northern parts of the jurisdiction do not appear they will suffer as
much inundation in comparison with the southern parts of the County, particularly along the
Intracoastal Waterway. Most of the areas in PBC that are impacted by sea level rise are already
fully developed or consist of natural lands. The rise in sea level will result in losses of land and
structures, impact on utilities and infrastructure, and cause a reduction in value of real estate.
The map illustrates isolated area below sea level and areas inundated with 2 feet sea level rise.
Areas within PBC that may be most problematic consist of those already below sea level. Cities
in the northern portions of the County that are most inundated include Juno Beach, and the
coastal areas of North Palm Beach and Palm Beach. The areas most inundated in Juno Beach
and North Palm Beach includes the designated natural areas. The land uses most impacted are
the residential, commercial, and recreation designations. Further analysis of this area may be
necessary to determine if future land uses may be changed over time in order to decrease
vulnerability to hurricane storm surge augmented by sea level rise. Land uses in the southern
portions of the County include residential and commercial designations.
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
2.2.1.9 Agricultural Pest and Disease
Agricultural pests and disease are a more significant hazard in those areas of PBC where
agriculture is a more significant element in the economic base. The western portion of PBC is a
major ranching and farming area and there are numerous nurseries and smaller agriculture
related businesses located throughout the County.
2.2.1.10 Drought
Palm Beach County overall has a moderate vulnerability to the impacts from drought due to the
County's large agricultural land use in the west and extensive urbanization in the east. Overall,
PBC has a narrow reserve of potable water and this could become a significant problem during a
long -term drought. The western area of the County is most vulnerable to the impacts of drought
because this area is extensively involved in farming and ranching. The urbanized communities
along PBC's coast are less vulnerable economically due to their location and non - agri cultural
economic base. Potential impacts to PBC's potable water supply by saltwater intrusion during
drought conditions are generally low, with the exception of the City of West Palm Beach, which
draws its water from surface supplies.
2.2.1.11 Pandemic
Florida is more vulnerable than many other states to possible outbreaks of infectious diseases due
to the large number of international and U.S. tourists it attracts. In addition, vulnerability to
disease hazards has increased by the number of illegal immigrants reaching U.S. shores. Palm
Beach County's vulnerability to pandemic outbreaks, while higher than some other Florida
counties due to its large immigrant population is still considered only moderate. Medical
facilities are adequate for 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.
Palm Beach 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. Palm Beach County
has the dubious distinction of having had the second highest number of fatalities (following
Galveston, Texas) of any county in the United States. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
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 prominent geologists
(Ward & Day) created a major debate and concern over whether a predicted volcanic collapse in
the Canary Islands could generate a mega tsunami, which could traverse the Atlantic Ocean at jet
aircraft speeds (8 to 9 hours) and devastate the eastern coast of the U.S., including Florida. It
was postulated that the wave, at impact on the Florida coast, could be approximately 50 meters
high and cause damage inland as far as 20 km. This mega tsunami would cause unprecedented
destruction and loss of life.
Subsequently, more comprehensive and rigorous research published by 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 (s) 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 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.
..
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
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, 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.
2.2.2.2 Radiological Accidents (Nuclear Power Plant Accidents)
The Florida Power and Light St. Lucie
Nuclear Power plant is located on south
� W
Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County.
In the US, federal regulations define
two distinct planning zones with regard
to commercial nuclear power plant
emergency planning. The Plume
Exposure Pathway Emergency
Planning Zone, commonly known as
the EPZ, has a radius of 10 miles .� i
(16 km). The focus of the EPZ defines , ...._
the geographic area for the -- -
management of protective actions" r-
related to the direct exposure to, and __ _
inhalation of, airborne radioactive _ r�
contamination in citizens. The
Ingestion Planning Zone, commonly
known as the IPZ, has a radius of about
50 miles (80 km). The focus of the IPZ Figure 2.2: St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant 10 Mile EPZ
is to define the geographic area for the
management of protective actions
related to the ingestion of food and liquid contaminated by radioactivity that may reach the food
supply. Approximately 45% of PBC falls within the 50 -mile radius Ingestion Pathway Zone
(IPZ) for the St. Lucie Nuclear Power plant. This means that a significant portion of PBC is
vulnerable to a nuclear power plant accident. Fortunately, the frequency with which nuclear
power plant accidents occur is very low, and the overall risk to the citizens of PBC is therefore
considered low.
.E
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
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:
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
E106EE
FORI PE
3
9T -L IE -- PORT .lOCIE
�.
NuJre.: ` Y•' AJPRER
�` - RIVIERA 9EACH
WEST PA EACH'
x
AM
...:■ GipN
Figure 2.3 50 Mile Ingestion Pathway Map for St.
Lucie Nuclear Power Plant (Copyright (0 2010 GIs
Dolph Map LLC — Used with permission)
• Loss of life or potential physical injury (including long -term effects such as cancer)
• Loss of property (displacement from homes)
• Palm Beach County is within the 50 mile IPZ making contamination of food supplies and
drinking water a possibility
• Exaggerated media reporting could lead to heightened public alarm. 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
ten 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). Palm
Beach County must be prepared to shelter 10 percent (11,000 people) of the evacuating
population. All evacuees will be sheltered in Palm Beach, Indian River, and /or Brevard
Counties. Currently, there are 19 shelters of which 18 are schools.
There are several safety design measures at the plant and stringent federal safety standards
govern plant operations (e.g. plants have protective barriers and are designed to withstand
91
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
aircraft attack, tornados, severe accidents and earthquakes). It is most likely that an accident
would slowly progress from one stage of emergency classification to the next. A "fast breaker"
accident is very unlikely, but the plant can shut down operations within 2 seconds if needed.
Most likely, an accident would slowly progress providing time to warn the public and implement
protective measures. In the case of a radioactive release, Florida Power and Light and the
American Nuclear Insurers organization would reimburse evacuees for damage or re- location
2.2.2.3 Communications System Failure
Communication failures have a greater potential to produce adverse economic impacts in
business -based rather than retirement or residential communities. On the other hand,
communication system failures in residential and retirement communities may put more human
lives at risk. Palm Beach County's vulnerability to communication system failures is generally
considered moderate. Basically, PBC's vulnerability to this hazard is no greater or less than
most other Florida coastal counties.
2.2.2.4 Transportation System Accidents
Palm Beach International Airport is a major commercial air transportation hub, with extensive
commercial passenger and freight business as well as a significant amount of private or general
aviation activity as well. The airport is located directly to the south and west of the City of West
Palm Beach and the runway approaches pass directly over both the Town of Palm Beach and the
City of West Palm Beach. Aviation is an important element of the economy in PBC, and this
activity raises the County's vulnerability to aviation associated accidents.
Vulnerability to transportation system accidents is also associated with the highway and rail
systems that run through PBC. Individual community and population center vulnerabilities to
this hazard are entirely dependent upon location. Again, the communities built on the eastern
sand ridge of the County are most vulnerable. Major transportation hubs, rail yards, trucking
centers, and the Port of Palm Beach all raise these communities' vulnerabilities to transportation
system accidents and breakdowns. Transportation accidents have occasioned blockages on the
major highways throughout PBC. Due to their locations along the rail line, the eastern cities
have higher vulnerabilities to rail system accidents. The Town of Palm Beach and the City of
West Palm Beach are also more vulnerable to plane crashes due to their location relative to the
Palm Beach International Airport. The central, unincorporated portion of the County has a
higher vulnerability to major highway accidents due to the presence of Interstate 95 and the
Florida Turnpike.
2.2.2.5 Wellfield Contamination
Wellfield contamination has not been a major problem for most of PBC. There is some potential
exposure to this hazard in the eastern portion of the County, but overall the vulnerability to this
hazard is considered low at this time.
92
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
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 Cities of West
Palm Beach, Delray Beach, Boynton Beach, and Rivera 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. Recently (within the last 2
years), the potential for civil disturbance appears to have been reduced as a result of community
based police activities and the generally overall strong national economy.
2.2.3.2 Terrorism and Sabotage
The possibility for terrorism and sabotage in PBC does exist, but the County's vulnerability to
this hazard is low. The City of West Palm Beach has a slightly higher vulnerability to terrorism
since it is the center of 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.
2.2.3.2 Mass Migration Crisis
Reviewing the data on past illegal immigration and mass population movements, such as the
Haitian influx and Cuban raft incidents of the 1980s, indicates that illegal immigration has never
reached a crisis state for the local authorities in PBC. Palm Beach County's vulnerability to this
hazard is moderate, however, due to demographic features. The cities of West Palm Beach,
Delray Beach, Boynton Beach, Rivera Beach, South Bay, Pahokee, and Belle Glade all have a
slightly higher vulnerability to illegal immigration impacts due their larger populations of Latin
American and Caribbean immigrants.
93
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
..
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
2.2.4 Vulnerability of Critical Facilities
In Appendix C, 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.
Palm Beach 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.
2.3 Risk Assessment
In order to effectively plan hazard mitigation projects and allocate scarce financial resources, a
community's vulnerability to a specific hazard must be coupled with other critical factors to
perform a risk assessment.
Risk, or the probability of loss, depends on three elements:
• Frequency — How frequently does a known hazard produce an impact within the
community?
• Vulnerability — How vulnerable is a community to the impacts produced by a known
hazard?
• Exposure — What is the community's exposure in terms of life and property to the
impacts produced by a specific hazard?
Once these three factors are established, the risk level faced by a community with regard to any
specific hazard can be calculated using the Risk Triangle approach (Crichton, 1999).
In this approach, these three factors become the sides of a triangle, and the risk or probability of
loss is represented by the triangle's area (Figure 2.3a). The larger the triangle's area, the higher
the community's risk with respect to a given hazard. If a community wishes to reduce its
potential for loss or risk of impacts from any given hazard, it can attack the problem by reducing
l
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
any one of the three elements forming the sides of this triangle; the frequency of a hazard's
occurrence, the vulnerability of the community, or the exposure of the community.
For example, if a community wishes to reduce its exposure to hurricanes, it could move off of
the barrier islands. This actually happened in the 1870s when an entire community on the North
Carolina barrier islands moved to the mainland after suffering two devastating hurricanes in
three years. By moving out of harm's way, a community drastically reduces its exposure and
therefore its potential for loss from a given natural hazard (Figure 2.3b).
In today's world, the potential to relocate an entire community off the barrier islands is, to say
the least, remote. A community may, however, reduce its vulnerability to hurricanes by
strengthening its buildings. If buildings are hardened, vulnerability is reduced and there is a
corresponding reduction in a community's probability of loss (Figure 2.3c).
In terms of natural hazards, there is very little, if anything that can be done to change the
frequency with which they produce impacts in a community. Mitigation planning relative to
those hazards must therefore focus on reducing the community's 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
Palm Beach 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 C by hazard. This is to give a clear image of
potential risk throughout PBC hazard specific with potential dollar losses estimated tied to
assessed property values. This assessment will be linked to Appendix B and Appendix D
illustrating mitigation actions being addressed in the PBC comprehensive plans. The overall
strategy is to mitigate to reduce damage of a potential hazard.
I;PROBAB4G � �•p '9 ILITY �Qi�
OF
LOSS
FREQUENCY
(a)
Figure 2.3 a, b, c Risk Triangle
FREQUENCY
Z
5vF� L��yF
FREQUENCY
(C)
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
This page intentionally left blank
97
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
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(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types
and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the
identified hazard area.
Numbers and types of existing residential, commercial and critical service facilities and
infrastructure are referenced in Appendix C:
With regard to future facilities, the following should be considered:
• Developable coastal areas of the County in are substantially built out. Future
development is likely to be replacement and upgrading of existing facilities.
• Development in the Coastal High Area is strictly limited and managed by local
ordinances and codes which tend to meet or exceed those recommended of the State.
• Future growth throughout the County is guided by the managed growth tiers which
consider hazard vulnerability.
• Virtually the whole County is potentially vulnerable to isolated flooding during excessive
rain events, even areas lying outside Special Flood Hazard Areas. Repetitive flood loss
properties are widely scattered - not clustered - because PBC has no riverines or
significant elevation variations to speak of
• All new residential, commercial and critical service facilities will be built to meet or
exceed South Florida Building hurricane standards. Several local developers are now
building Category 5 type structures.
• Wildfire mitigation practices are being promoted for development in the wildland -urban
interface areas.
Quantitative and evaluative analyses of the vulnerability of future residential, commercial and
critical services structures remains highly uncertain in today's economically unstable climate.
As the State of Florida and the US as a whole show signs of gradual economic recovery, it may
be premature to predict long -term trends. Economic and scientific sources to illustrate definitive
trends for analysis are not currently available. The PBC Property Appraiser's 2012 Annual
Report, continued to indicate a decline. Palm Beach County property values decreased 1.6% in
2011 over 2010. However, the Property Appraiser has provided preliminary reports that this past
year may be the first indication of property value stabilization and perhaps recovery. There was
a .2% increase from 2011 to 2012 (Palm Beach Post). This one year trend may be indicative of
.•
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
longer term stabilization and possible economic recovery throughout the Florida real estate
markets. The Table below details the 2011 - 2012 property value trends by city.
Palm Beach County property values, 2012
The tax base for Palm Beach County and 15 of its 38 cities increased in 2012 over 2011,
according to property values released Thursday by Palm Beach County Property Appraiser
Gary Nikolits.
Taxingauthority
2011 taxable value
2012taxablevalue*
Change
Jupiter inlet Colony
$219,723,894
$225,671,708
2.7%
Palm Beach
$11,623,306,786
$11,886,934,990
2.3%
Ocean Ridge
$679,547,225
$691,696,740
1.8%
Highland Beach
$1,732,047,474
$1,757,376,550
1.5%
Atlantis
$388,429,635
$393,534,454
1.3%
Boca Raton
$16,363,274,000
$16,560,029,766
1.2%
Tequesta
$765,017,585
$774,190,994
1.2%
Palm Beach Gardens
$7,764,780,280
$7,857,161,573
1.2%
Gulf Stream
$655,987,005
$663,376,897
11%
Manalapan
$827,434,621
$835,128,355
0.9%
Wellington
$5,321,076,907
$5,363,252,199
0.8%
Juno Beach
$923,299,324
$930,175,700
0.7%
Haverhill
$61,889,841
$62,152,684
0.4%
Delray Beach
$6,149,055,201
$6,165,908,059
0.3%
Jupiter
$7,135,152,279
$7,141,702,641
01%
North Palm Beach
$1,488,137,908
$1,482,462,167
-0.4%
Village of Golf
$119,930,349
$119,387,173
-0.5%
Lake Clark Shores
$183,471,629
$182,061,305
-0.8%
Riviera Beach
$3,015,088,751
$2,984,416,026
-1.0%
South Bay
$47,767,240
$47,143,078
- 1.30 /a
Loxahatchee Groves
$182,211,218
$179,669,330
-1.4%
South Palm Beach
$262,590,986
$258,096,679
-1,70/o
Boynton Beach
$3,752,272,309
$3,679,832,193
-1.9%
Lantana
$693,539,420
$679,420,341
-2.0%
Royal Palm Beach
$1,839,840,870
$1,796,690,341
-2.3%
Hypoluxo
$252,780,829
$246,832,783
-2.4%
West Palm Beach
$8,373,665,157
$8,107,372,057
-3.2%
Mangonia Park
$134,517,228
$129,982,169
-3.4%
Lake Park
$446,581,002
$431,077,363
-3.5%
Palm Beach Shores
$507,453,154
$489,799,594
-15%
Briny Breezes
$37,552,579
$36,006,571
-43 %
Greenacres
$1,192,441,995
$1,135,022,141
-4.8%
Lake Worth
$1,106,255,651
$1,044,793,780
-516%
Palm Springs
$592,925,084
$550,032,594
-7.2%
Belle Glade
$279,225,613
$255,490,876
-8.5%
Cloud Lake
$4,596,019
$4,198,557
-8.6%
Glen Ridge
$14,944,150
$13,231,343
-11.5%
Pahokee
$78,899,300
$67,128,976
-14.9%
Unincorporated
$39,052,983,536
$39,363,723,234
0.8%
All Cities
$85,216,710,498
$85,228,440,747
0.00 /0
Palm Beach County
$124,269,694,034
$124,592,163,981
0.3 %
School Board
$132,048,705,669
$132,205,503,114
0.10/0
* Without new construction
Source: Property Appraiser's Office CHRISTOPHER SMITH/ The Palm Beach Post
••
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
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.
Numbers, 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 2009, there has been moderate growth in residential and
commercial properties throughout the State of Florida (Bergstrom Center for Real Estate Studies,
2012). However, there is still a cloud of uncertainty in the market place. Higher demand for
housing, more occupancy in apartments and retail are providing lifts to the industry. According
to the Property Appraiser's 2012 Annual Report, PBC property values have decreased 1.6% in
2011 over 2010. However, there was a .3% increase in 2012. Assuming we can get past the
uncertainty of the current environment and avoid another recession, it is expected that the Florida
real estate markets will continue to improve at a slow but positive pace over the next year.
The following observations are offered with regard to future facilities:
• Developable coastal areas of the County are substantially built out. Future development
in these areas will likely be replacement and upgrading of existing facilities.
• Development in the Coastal High Area is strictly limited by local ordinances and codes
which tend to meet or exceed those recommended by the State of Florida.
• Future growth throughout the County is guided by the managed growth tiers which
consider hazard vulnerability.
• Virtually the whole County is potentially vulnerable to isolated flooding during excessive
rain events, even areas lying outside Special Flood Hazard Areas. Repetitive flood loss
properties are widely scattered - not clustered - as the County has only one river and no
significant elevation variations to speak of
• All new residential, commercial and critical service facilities will be built to meet or
exceed South Florida Building hurricane standards. Several local developers are now
building Category 5 type structures.
• Wildfire mitigation practices are being promoted for development in the wildland -urban
interface areas.
100
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
The following pages provide assessments of the dollar values of existing properties at risk at this
writing, by hazard, by jurisdiction.
Methodology for Assessing Vulnerability of Existing Structures
After considering the advantages and limitations of the Hazards U.S. Multi- Hazard (HAZUS-
MH) modeling software, it was decided instead 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 and diversity, and by highly variable and incompatible databases and record keeping
practices. The primary data source is the Property Appraiser Database (PAPA). The PAPA
database is not well suited for purposes of vulnerability assessments but it is the best data
available.
A comprehensive profile of PBC's built environment is contained in the Special Appendix. It
describes the residential, commercial, industrial, government, education, healthcare, religious,
and other building stocks.
The paragraphs below provide a brief summary of existing residential and commercial
properties.
Residential Units
According to Property Appraiser data, there are an estimated 373,495residential structures in
PBC. Nearly 53 percent of the County's single family residential units are single story
structures, 45 percent are multi - story, and 1.2 percent are manufactured homes. The residential
housing stock is well distributed throughout the eastern portion of the County. Forty three (43)
percent of residential units reside in the unincorporated areas of the county. The seven
municipalities of West Palm Beach, Boca Raton, Boynton Beach, Palm Beach Gardens, Jupiter,
Wellington and Delray Beach collectively have about 37% of PBC's residential units. The
southern municipalities of Boca Raton, Delray Beach and Boynton Beach collectively have an
estimated 56,979 residential units; the northern municipalities of Palm Beach Gardens and
Jupiter have 37,791units; West Palm Beach has 25,130 units; and the communities of Wellington
and Royal Palm Beach have 48,477 units. The western communities of Belle Glade, Pahokee
and South Bay have approximately 4,920 total residential units.
The overwhelming majority of residential structures (81 %) are of CB Stucco construction.
Thirteen and a half percent have exterior wall of wood in the form of wood siding, wood frame
stucco or board batten. The balance is constructed of a variety of other materials. The County's
database consists of approximately 25 categories, many of which have a multiplicity of
variations.
101
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Commercial Properties
Commercial properties were even more challenging to estimate. Property Appraiser data
indicates that there are approximately 11,277 commercial and 7,401 industrial structures
countywide. In addition other non - residential structures include 1,600 government structures,
750 healthcare facilities, and another 7,778 registered facilities of other types.
Number & Assessed Values of Residential & Commercial Property at Risk
Deriving an accurate estimate of residential property values at risk from hazards is complicated
by a number of factors. Property Appraiser data is maintained on a parcel by parcel basis, not by
structures. Certain gaps in values occur because of the diversity of property types. Land values
had to be backed out of assessed property values. Assessments represent market values, not
replacement costs. Homestead exemptions were also backed out of analyses. Multi- family
residential structures (like high rise condominiums, co -ops, townhouses, zero lot line units) are
considered to be understated in the results.
The methodology used to estimate the value of residential property at risk involved a number of
compromises using best available data. Parcel data was extracted from the Property Appraiser
database. 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.
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.
102
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
This page intentionally left blank
103
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
SECTION 3: MITIGATION STRATEGY
3.1 Governmental
3.1.1 Federal
The National Mitigation Strategy has been developed to provide a framework for reducing the
exposure of all Americans to the catastrophic losses caused by natural disasters. Federal
mitigation action planning is directed toward protecting U.S. citizens by:
• Utilizing the scientific and technical knowledge resulting from the research efforts of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (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 only 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
104
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Team provides access to federal resources not available at the state and local levels. An on-
scene coordinator is designated to manage federal resources and support.
• The national warning and communications center for emergencies involving the release
of hazardous materials. It is manned 24 hours a day, and is located at the U.S. Coast
Guard headquarters in Washington, D.C.
3.1.2 State
The Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM), under the Executive Office of the
Governor, has primary responsibility in disaster response and mitigation. The FDEM developed
the Florida Hazard Mitigation Strategy (FHMS) to establish a comprehensive program to
effectively and efficiently mobilize and coordinate the state's services and resources to make
Florida's communities more resistant to the human and economic impacts of disasters. The
Strategy achieves this purpose by the following actions:
• Improving the understanding and awareness of the natural, technological, and human
caused hazards faced by the people, property, businesses, and institutions within the State
of Florida;
• Defining the goals, objectives and priorities of the FDEM for hazard mitigation and post -
disaster redevelopment in Florida;
• Developing and implementing programs to promote hazard mitigation throughout the
state;
• Enhancing programs among state agencies and local governments to more effectively
guide post- disaster redevelopment to minimize community vulnerability to future
disasters;
• Increasing the identification of mitigation opportunities and maximizing the utilization of
available funding;
• Improving coordination of programs within the FDEM related to hazard mitigation and
post- disaster redevelopment;
• Facilitating coordination between the FDEM and other federal, state, regional, local and
private sector programs related to hazard mitigation and post- disaster redevelopment;
• Describing clearly the State of Florida's hazards mitigation program- implementation
tasks and establishing schedules for their completion;
• Designating who is responsible for the development and implementation of hazard
mitigation and post- disaster redevelopment programs;
105
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
• Encouraging public participation and involvement in the development and
implementation of the strategy; and
• Identifying and prioritizing hazard mitigation and redevelopment initiatives, programs,
and projects prior to a disaster.
The FHMS provides the FDEM with operational and programmatic guidance to promote the
goals and objectives of the nationally based National Mitigation Strategy as coordinated by
FEMA.
The FDEM has the lead role in coordinating state resources to support local government unless
the scope of the emergency warrants a higher degree of state involvement. This may occur when
emergencies involve multi jurisdictional hazards, when local governments believe the
emergency is beyond the capabilities of local resources, or when the Governor determines there
is an overriding concern for the safety of the public. For these situations, the Governor can
designate the primary responsibility for emergency response to the state by issuing an Executive
Order under the provisions of Section 252.36, Florida Statutes (F.S.).
The FDEM is the designated State Watch Office (SWO) as the notification point in the event of a
hazardous materials incident. As such, the FDEM is responsible for receiving notification of 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 Local Emergency Planning Committee (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
106
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
first response personnel; hospital and hazardous materials response team needs; public hazardous
chemical awareness and reporting seminars; public and private sector hazardous materials
emergency exercises; and assisting public and private facilities with chemical emergency
preparedness planning.
Section 186.507, F.S. directs regional planning councils to prepare strategic regional policy
plans. One of the elements that the plan must address is emergency preparedness. The TCRPC
promotes mitigation initiatives within Section 5.0, Emergency Preparedness, of its "Strategic
Regional Policy Plan ". (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 South Florida Water Management District ( SFWMD) along with the four
other water management districts were enabled under Section 373.069, F.S. As required under
Section 373.036(2), F.S., each district has prepared a district water management plan. The plan
provides the overarching vision for the districts.
The key elements of the plans are:
• Environmental protection and enhancement
• Water supply
• Flood protection
• Water quality protection
One of the purposes of the plan is to provide a framework to address issues of water
conservation, extreme drought and flooding. The SFWMD administers several programs that
107
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
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 year period
• To establish standard canal survey criteria
• To develop construction plans and specifications to implement restoration of conveyance
to the canals
In addition to private applicants, local units of government involved in building new stormwater
systems or retrofitting older ones are required to petition the SFWMD for a surface water
management permit approval.
Besides flood control, the SFWMD is responsible for protecting existing water resources from
excessive drawdown during periods of drought, and protecting wellfields from contamination.
Also, the District administers the "Save Our Rivers" program for the purpose of protecting
environmentally sensitive lands. Some of the lands purchased under the program have been
situated in the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA); thus, in addition to achieving the program's
primary goal - the protection of environmentally sensitive resources - the intensity and density of
development in CHHAs is reduced.
3.1.4 Local
3.1.4.1 Palm Beach County
Palm Beach County occupies approximately 1,993 square miles on Florida's southeastern
Atlantic coast. It is the second largest county in the state in terms of land area. It has
approximately 44 miles of coastal shoreline that fronts the Atlantic Ocean.
Palm Beach County is the third most populated county in the state. In 2010 the countywide
population was listed as 1,320,134 (US Census). That is an increase of nearly 200,000 people
from the 2000 census. It is projected that by the year 2020, the population will increase by over
another 200,000 to about to 1,597,535. The majority of the growth is expected between the
coastal ridge and Water Conservation Areas.
1'
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Thirty -eight (38) municipalities exist in the County. In terms of population, they vary
significantly. The City of West Palm Beach is the largest (99,919) while the Town of Cloud
Lake (133) is the smallest (see Table 3.1). There are three urban centers of population along the
coast: in south PBC, the Boca Raton/Delray Beach/Boynton Beach area (combined population —
213,131); the West Palm Beach/Lake Worth/Riviera Beach area (combined population —
167,317) in central PBC; and in north PBC, the Palm Beach Gardens /Jupiter area (combined
population — 103,608). Two other centers of population exist in the County. One is the Glades
agricultural communities of Belle Glade, Pahokee, and South Bay that border on Lake
Okeechobee, (combined population — 27,992). This area has unique needs because of its relative
physical isolation from the highly urban area along the Atlantic coast. The other area, rapidly
urbanizing, is the Royal Palm Beach/Wellington /Greenacres (combined population — 128,221)
area. Based on projected population, the City of Palm Beach Gardens is expected to experience
the largest population increase among the municipalities in PBC by the year 2020.
As growth has occurred, and PBC has become more and more urbanized, large portions of the
County have experienced shifting land use patterns, moving from rural, agricultural areas to
emerging residential communities, industrial and business employment centers. Land in PBC is
used for three major purposes: urban uses, agriculture, and protecting environmentally sensitive
resource areas (e.g., water conservation areas, Corbett Wildlife Refuge, beach areas). Table 3.2
provides a synopsis of each municipality.
From a hazards perspective, transportation is an important component shaping the overall
development pattern. Being a major urban county, the residents and businesses are serviced by
many suppliers that depend upon the air, rail, and trucking industries that distribute goods
throughout the region. Key major modes of transportation traverse throughout PBC. The area is
served by major transportation corridors (e.g., Interstate 95, Florida Turnpike), three rail lines
(Florida East Coast Railroad, CSX Railroad and Tri- Rail), the Port of Palm Beach, and Palm
Beach International Airport. As the area becomes more urban and more congested, the potential
for transportation accidents will increase.
Within PBC, the SFWMD operates six major drainage canals: C -18, C -17 (Earman River), C -51
(West Palm Beach Canal), C -16 (Boynton Canal), C -15 (drains 75 square miles in southeastern
PBC), and the Hillsboro Canal. Secondary stormwater drainage canals drain into these regional
conveyance system drains. Prior to the construction of the extensive SFWMD canal system,
flooding was a common occurrence, and served as a limiting factor to growth. In addition to
providing drainage relief, the regional drainage facilities also benefit the area's water resources.
Eastern PBC generally relies upon local rainfall and water stored in the Water Conservation
Areas for its water. The regional SFWMD system can move water from Lake Okeechobee,
through the Water Conservation Areas, and then to eastern PBC where the water helps
supplement local recharge of urban wellfields. Palm Beach County's connection to the SFWMD
regional system makes it less vulnerable to drought conditions than if it depended solely on local
supplies. The south County wellfields would be seriously impacted by the loss of recharge from
surface water systems.
109
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
It is the goal of PBC to protect human life and property by limiting public expenditures in areas
subject to destruction by natural disasters (especially within the coastal high hazard 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 38
municipalities maintain a series of coordinated, interlinked preparedness and recovery plans
including, 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;
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.
Palm Beach County and its 38 municipalities participate in a full complement of federal, state,
and local mitigation programs and initiatives. Representative of these programs and initiatives
are the LMS, CRS, NFIP, FMAP, Citizens Emergency Response Team (CERT), Continuity of
Operations, counter - terrorism, radiological emergency preparedness initiatives, and hazardous
materials. The collective purpose of these activities is the elimination or mitigation of hazards
presenting significant risk to PBC and its residents.
110
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Palm Beach County's population by city
Eleven of Palm Beach County's 38 cities saw population declines from 2000 to 2010, with
the town of Palm Beach seeing the largest actual number drop: 2,120 people or 20.3
percent of its 2000 population.
2000 2010 2000.2010 Percentage of 2010 population
clty/tmm populauon population Increase WHITE BLACK HISPANIC
Atlantis
2,005
2,005
0.0%
88.3%
1.2%
7.4%
Belle Glade
14,906
17.467
17.2%
8.8%
55.6%
34.2%
Boca Raton
74.764
84.392
12.9%
79.1%
5.0%
11.9%
Boynton Beach
60,389
68,217
13.0%
53.6%
29.6%
12.8%
Briny Breezes
411
601
46.2%
98.8%
0.3%
0.8%
Cloud Lake
167
135
- 19.2%
71.1%
5.9%
23,0%
Delray Beach
60,020
60,522
0.8%
59.2%
27.7%
9.5%
Glen Ridge
276
219
-20.7%
69.4%
1.4%
28.3%
Golf
230
252
9.6%
98,8%
0.4%
0.8%
Greenacres
27,569
37,573
36.3%
40.8%
16.0%
38.3%
Gulf Stream
716
786
9.8%
94.1%
0.3%
4.3%
Haverhill
1,454
1,873
28.8%
45.4%
22.1%
29.2%
Highland Beach
3.775
3.539
-6.3%
94.6%
0.3%
3.6%
Hypoluxo
2,015
2,588
28.4%
83.1%
6.7%
6.8%
Juno Beach
3,262
3,176
-2.6%
93.1%
0.7%
3.8%
Juplter
39,328
55,156
40.2%
82.6%
1.4%
12.7%
Juplter Inlet Colony
368
400
8.7%
94.5%
0.0%
1.3%
Lake Clarke Shores
3,451
3,376
-2.2%
70.8%
2,1%
24.7%
Lake Park
8,721
8.155
-6.5%
33.2%
53.7%
8.0%
Lake Worth
35,133
34,910
-0.6%
38.1%
18.9%
39.6%
Lantana
9,437
10,423
10.4%
56.3%
21.4%
18.6%
Loxahatchee Groves'
--
3.180
-
74,2%
3.1%
18.7%
Manalapan
321
406
26.5%
89.9%
3.9%
4.7%
Mangonla Park
1,283
1,888
47.2%
6.7%
81.3%
9.2%
North Palm Beach
12,064
12,015
-0.4%
87.8%
2.5%
6.9%
Ocean Ridge
1,636
1.786
9.2%
93.6%
0.2%
4.3%
Pahokee
5.985
5,649
-5.6%
9.7%
55.4%
33.8%
Palm Beach
10,468
8,348
-20.3%
94.1%
0.5%
3.9%
Palm Beach Gardens
35,058
48,452
38.2%
823%
4.2%
8.9%
Palm Beach Shores
1,269
1,142
-10.0%
95.9%
1.1%
2.4%
Palm Springs
11,699
18,928
61.8%
35.4%
10.5%
50.6%
Riviera Beach
29,884
32,488
8.7%
22.9%
65.0%
7.4%
Royal Palm Beach
21.523
34,140
58.6°%
51.1%
21.8%
20.4%
South Bay
3,859
4.876
26.4%
11.4%
64.0%
23.2%
South Palm Beach
699
1,171
67.5%
93.9%
0.4%
4.6%
Tequesta
5,273
5.629
6.8%
91.1%
0.5%
6.1%
Wellington
38,216
56.508
47.9%
64.8%
10.0%
19.4%
West Palm Beach
82,103
99,919
21.7%
41.6%
31.5%
22.6%
Unincorporated
521,447
587,844
12.7%
63.5%
12.2%
20.1%
County total
1,131,184
1.320,134
16.7%
60.1%
16.8%
19.0%
Incorporated in 2OO6
Source U.S. Ceram Bureau
CHRISTOPHER SMITH/ Staff Aftt
Table 3.1: Total Population- 1.3million
111
Municipality Location Urban /Rural Community Character Percent Source Economic Base
(Residential/Work- Built Year (Agricultural /Business /Industrial/
ing /Retirement) Out Residential /Retirement)
Atlantis
Inland
Urban
Residential
NI
Residential/Retirement
Belle Glade
Lakefront
Rural
Working
75
89
Agricultural
Boca Raton
Coastal
Urban
Working
97
2014
Business/Residential
Boynton
Beach
Coastal
Urban
Residential
NI
Business/Residential
Briny
Breezes
Coastal
Urban
Retirement
100
89
Retirement
Cloud Lake
Inland
Urban
Residential
94
89
Retirement/Residential
Delray Beach
Coastal
Urban
Residential/Working
98.9
08
Business
Glen Ridge
Inland
Urban
Residential
86.3
89
Residential /Commercial
Golf
Inland
Urban
Residential
NI
Residential
Greenacres
Inland
Urban
Residential
97
06
Residential /Commercial
Gulfstream
Coastal
Urban
Residential
NI
Residential
Haverhill
Inland
Rural/Urban
Residential
96
89
Residential /Commercial
Highland
Beach
Coastal
Urban
Residential/
Retirement
98
08
Residential/Retirement
Hypoluxo
Coastal
Urban
Residential
NI
Retirement
Juno Beach
Coastal
Urban
Residential
90
2014
Residential /Commercial
Jupiter
Coastal
Urban
Residential/Working
90
2014
Business/Residential
Jupiter Inlet
Colony
Coastal
Urban
Residential
99
08
Residential/Retirement
Lake Clark Inland Urban Residential 96 2014 Residential /Commercial
Shores
Lake Park Coastal Urban Working 95 08 Business
Lake Worth Coastal Urban Residential NI Commercial
Lantana Coastal Urban Residential NI Residential /Commercial
Loxahatchee Inland Rural Residential NI 09 Residential
Groves
Manalapan
Coastal
Urban
Residential
NI
Residential
Mangonia
Park
Inland
Urban
Working
85
2014
Working/Residential
North Palm
Beach
Coastal
Urban
Residential
98
89
Residential /Commercial
Ocean Ridge
Coastal
Urban
Residential
NI
Residential/Retirement
Pahokee
Lakefront
Rural
Working
NI
Agricultural
Palm Beach
Coastal
Urban
Residential
97
2014
Residential /Commercial
Palm Beach
Gardens
Inland
Urban/Rural
Residential/Working
95%
2014
Agri cultural/Business
Palm Beach
Shores
Coastal
Urban
Residential
NI
Residential/Retirement
Palm Springs
Inland
Urban
Residential
96
2014
Residential /Commercial
Riviera
Beach
Coastal
Urban
Working
94
Industrial
Royal Palm
Beach
Inland
Urban
Residential
90
Business /Industrial/Residential
South Bay
Inland
Rural
Residential/Working
91
89
Agri cultural /Industri al
South Palm
Beach
Coastal
Urban
Residential
100
89
Residential/Retirement
Tequesta
Coastal
Urban
Residential
95
89
Residential/Retirement
Wellington
Inland
Urban
Residential
NI
Residential
West Palm Coastal Urban Residential NI Business
Beach
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
County Agencies with Key Roles in Mitigation
Within the existing county organizational structure, there are a number of departments that play
key roles in hazard mitigation. They are as follows:
Public Safety Department (PSD). The PSD is composed of five divisions: Division of
Emergency Management (DEM), Animal Care & Control Division, Consumer Affairs Division,
Medical Examiner's Office, and Victim & Justice Services Division. During emergency events
(e.g., hurricanes), the DEM has the lead role in coordinating the resources and key agencies, non-
profits, and private sector entities involved in the emergency situation.
Department of Planning, Zoning & Building (PZ &B). The PZ &B is comprised of three
divisions: Planning, Zoning and Building. The PZ &B has primary responsibility for
administering the PBC Comprehensive Plan, and appraising and updating it from time to time.
In addition to its long -range planning role, 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 municipality Gulf
Stream.
Department of Environmental Resource Management (ERM). The ERM is involved in the
evaluation and assessment of environmental projects (e.g., shoreline stabilization projects, beach
erosion initiatives), and administering various environmental ordinances (i.e., Irrigation & Water
Conservation, Sea Turtle Protection /Sand Preservation Ordinance, Stormwater Pollution
Prevention, Vegetation Protection and Preservation, Turnpike Wellfield Protection). To mitigate
erosion and enhance and restore the beaches and dunes along its coastal shorelines, the County
has developed a Shoreline Protection Plan. The County avoids the use of shoreline armoring
(except as a measure of last resort). Preferred alternatives include beach nourishment, dune
restoration, and inlet sand transfer.
Facilities Development and Operation (FD &O). This department is responsible for the
development of County buildings including sitting, real estate, design and construction, and
operations of the facilities. The department is responsible for overseeing the construction of
capital projects as well as the long -term maintenance of County facilities (e.g., emergency
management operations center).
Engineering and Public Works Department (EPWD). The EPWD is responsible for project
design and construction of roads and bridges and street improvements (includes stormwater
drainage facilities), and vehicular and pedestrian traffic control, as well as the maintenance of the
facilities.
PBC Fire Rescue (PBCFR). Palm Beach County Fire Rescue provides fire suppression,
emergency medical services, fire prevention and community education programs throughout
PBC. The department not only serves the unincorporated County, but many municipalities.
They include: Belle Glade, Canal Point, Cloud Lake, Glen Ridge, Haverhill, Juno Beach, Jupiter,
Lake Clarke Shores, Lake Park, Lake Worth, Lantana, Manalapan, Pahokee, Royal Palm Beach,
114
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
South Bay, South Palm Beach and Wellington. The County also provides fire- rescue dispatch
service to other municipalities. Besides emergency services, the Department provides other
types of services. The Bureau of Safety Services is responsible for ensuring that buildings
comply with appropriate fire codes. The department also offers public education programs
which focus on fire safety guidelines for schools, community groups, and individuals. In
addition, the department has responsibility for coordination of fire protection, hazardous
materials mitigation, and advance life support services.
Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office (PESO). Besides their responsibilities for crowd and traffic
control during emergency events such as hazardous waste truck spills, the Sheriffs Department
is responsible for enforcing PBC's dumping ordinance.
Mitigation Policies and Ordinances
Policy Plans. The two key policy plans that address issues related to natural and technological
hazards include: the County Comprehensive Plan and the County Comprehensive Emergency
Management Plan. They are described, briefly below.
• County Comprehensive Plan
Palm Beach County's Comprehensive Plan provides the framework for future
development within the unincorporated area, and provides mechanisms and standards
through which changes could occur. The directives include implementing County-
wide growth management strategies while providing the opportunities for flexibility
that recognize and maintain the diversity of lifestyles. The Comprehensive Plan
contains the nine required plan elements, as set out in Section 163.3177, F.S. They
include: Conservation, Coastal Management, Utilities (i.e., potable water, 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 improvement
and coastal management policies and priorities. Key references can be found in
Policy 1.4 of the Capital Improvement Element; and Section 2, Objective 2.4 and
115
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
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 38
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.
• Palm Beach County 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
- Transportation
- Workplace /School Violence
116
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
The CEMP addresses evacuation in terms of local and regional evacuation, public
shelter, disaster response and recovery, rapid deployment of resources,
communications and warning systems, training exercises, and agency responsibilities.
These responsibilities constitute Emergency Support Functions (ESF). Each ESF is
headed by a lead agency which has been selected based on its authorities, resources,
and capabilities in the functional area. The ESFs serves as the primary mechanism
through which outside assistance to PBC is coordinated.
In the Mitigation section of the CEMP, there is extensive language stating the
objectives and details of the Local Mitigation Strategy. The mitigation techniques
within the two plans include projects, policies, or programs which will reduce,
eliminate, or alleviate damage caused by disasters. Moreover, the CEMP and the
LMS work collectively to improve the community's resistance to damage from
known natural, technological, and human caused hazards.
Ordinances. Hazard - related ordinances are administered primarily by the PZ &B, ERM or Fire -
Rescue departments. The list of relevant ordinances includes:
- Irrigation & Water Conservation
- Sea Turtle Protection /Sand Preservation
- Stormwater Pollution Prevention
- Countywide Wellfield Protection
- Turnpike Wellfield Protection
- Lot Clearing
- Zoning
- Building Code
- Fire Prevention Code
- Vegetation Protection and Preservation
County Mitigation Plans, Programs Projects/Initiatives
There are a number of projects and initiatives PBC has implemented to mitigate potential
damage resulting from various hazards.
Palm Beach County has also made a statement of the importance of hazard mitigation, by
incorporating within its Comprehensive Growth Management Plan policy 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
access to buildings by both personnel and apparatus, and whether there is adequate vehicle
ingress and egress.
117
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
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 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 Programs (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;
3. Emphasize less costly nonstructural flood control regulatory measures over structural
measures;
118
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
4. Reduce costs to the federal and state governments by shifting the burden from the general
taxpayer to floodplain occupants.
Palm Beach County and its 38 municipalities participate in the NFIP (Appendix J). In return for
NFIP making flood insurance available to property owners, the County and municipalities are
required to adopt ordinances to manage development within 100 -year floodplains to prevent
increased flooding and minimize future flood damage. Palm Beach County Flood Insurance
Rate Maps published by the FEMA date as far back as 1978 are used as the basis for delineating
the 100 -year floodplain and identifying regulated land.
Flood Damage Prevention Ordinances
Palm Beach County's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, covering the unincorporated areas
of the County, can be accessed through the PBC Planning, Zoning and Building Division's
website. Municipal residents should contact their respective building department officials to
determine what requirements are in effect for their jurisdictions.
Floodplain Permitting
The 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 must not increase
flooding or create a dangerous situation during flooding, especially on neighboring properties. If
a structure is involved, it must be constructed to minimize damage during flooding. Permitting
officials work with applicants to discourage development in the floodplain wherever possible,
but when unavoidable, the effects of development must be minimized.
The permitting review process is a requirement for continued community participation in the
NFIP. Violations can not only jeopardize a community's standing in the NFIP; moreover, they
can impact the ability of residents to obtain flood insurance. Residents witnessing development
occurring without permits are asked to protect their rights by reporting violators to the local
permit office.
Map Modernization Program
Palm Beach County is an active participant in the Map Modernization Program. Since
September 2000, PBC and its 38 municipalities have been working with FEMA, their contract
consultants, local engineering agencies, the SFWMD and the County's contract consultant in the
development of a complete new set of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS). The data being
provided to FEMA's contractor includes new accurate Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR)
developed elevation data obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and from a PBC
contract with Florida International University.
We anticipate the availability of a complete set of new FIRMS for all of PBC prior to December
2014. In addition, the coordination process established between all of the agencies listed above
119
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
will provide for faster coordination of future changes with FEMA, to ensure continued
improvement in the currency and accuracy of the FIRMS.
Community Rating System (CRS)
In 1991, the NFIP implemented the Community Rating System (CRS) for 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
Palm Beach County and most of its municipalities. Palm Beach County joined the CRS program
in October of 1991.
As an incentive and reward for participation, the flood insurance rates of residents in CRS
communities may be reduced by up to 45% to reflect the reduced flood risk resulting from
activities that meet CRS's three goals: reducing flood losses, facilitating accurate insurance
ratings, and promoting the awareness of flood insurance.
Communities can earn points in creditable activity areas grouped into four areas of emphasis:
promoting public awareness, reduction of flood damage, improved mapping and regulations; and
enhanced flood preparedness. Based on the number of points earned, each CRS community is
ranked in one of ten classes (with Class 1 requiring the most points). In turn, a community's
class rating determines the amount of flood premium reduction its residents are eligible to
receive. Communities are encouraged to improve their class ratings. Property owners residing
within a Special Flood Hazard Area, an area subject to the one percent chance a year, may
qualify for anywhere between 5% and 45% discount. Property owners outside the Special Flood
Hazard Area 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 an ongoing basis using information gathered annually from 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
Committees, comprised of public and private sector representatives, are encouraged to develop
and promote mitigation project ideas and strategies.
Table 3.4 outlines the communities involved in the CRS program. All the communities involved
in the CRS program have program activities that follow the same strategies. Palm Beach
County's CRS program activities overlap and are inextricably interlinked with the activities of
the LMS program. While the objectives of the CRS program are many, its key strategic
objectives include:
120
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
1. Heightening public awareness of flood threats in PBC
2. Discouraging /managing development in flood plains
3. Minimizing flood losses in the community
4. Mitigating to eliminate repetitive loss properties
5. Ensuring residents have access to the most cost 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. 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 Community Outreach Plan, Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, the Five
Year Strategic Plan, documentation associated with Community Rating System recertification,
DEM website, etc. Outreach activities take many forms, including (but not limited to):
presentations, workshops, courses, multilingual brochures, flyers, websites, media releases,
plans, telephone directory postings, mailings and inserts, expos, on -site briefings, special
websites and website postings, and library holdings. Many of these activities are done in
cooperation with private - public partners and sponsors.
Another significant part of mitigation outreach education are the community outreach
presentations that are conducted throughout the Palm Beach Community. 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.
A representative listing of some of the more significant outreach and education activities
includes:
• Annual publication of a Hurricane & Flood Survival Guide (3 languages)
121
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
• Annual Hurricane & Flood Awareness Expo(s)
• AT &T Directory Emergency Information Pages (4 Directories)
• Preparation /distribution of hazard and audience - specific brochures
• Business preparedness and post- disaster needs posting websites
• Business disaster planning guide - CD
• Flood Information website
• Emergency Information website
• Social Media (Twitter/FaceBook)
• LMS meetings open to the public
• Library holdings through the County Library System
• Special programs for association represented communities
• On -site presentations, structural evaluations, and planning assistance for special- interest
groups such as home owner associations, property management firms, businesses,
churches & synagogues, public gathering facilities, etc.
• Speakers bureau of County (paid and volunteer staff), municipal, not - for - profit, and
private business volunteers
• Participation in numerous fairs and expos hosted by public and private sector groups
• Annual hurricane call -in event sponsored by a local TV affiliate
• 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 Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and relevant
Community Rating System documentation.
Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMAP)
The Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMAP) is a NFIP initiative administered by the
FDEM to help communities identify and implement measures to reduce or eliminate the long-
term risk of flood damage to homes and other structures insurable under the NFIP.
Presently PBC offers the program on a limited basis to owners of "repetitive flood loss"
properties based on the availability of federal and state funds and the availability of local
resources to administer the program. The program provides homeowners with reasonable, cost -
effective hazard mitigation options and potential public and private financing alternatives.
122
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
The FEMA contributes 75% of eligible mitigation costs. The remaining 25% must come from
non - federal sources. The homeowner must contribute at least 12.5 %. However at the present
time, PBC requires the homeowner to contribute the full non - federal share.
Examples of flood mitigation projects that might qualify for FMA funding assistance include:
• Elevation of flood prone structures
• Relocation of flood prone structures
• Demolition (with or without rebuilding at higher elevation)
• Acquisition
• Various flood proofing measures.
Information and support is provided in a variety of forms to potential FMA applicants to assist
them in developing projects and preparing application packages. Through the County's LMS
committee structure, the 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.
123
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Table 3.4. Summary of repetitive loss properties by local government and Community Rating System (CRS)
120192
PBC - Unincorporated
41
96
7
15%
0
000000
City of Belle Glade
0
0
NP
0%
120195
City Boca Raton
10%
of ,3
120196
City of Boynton Beach
5
30
8
10%
000000
Town Briny Breezes
0
0%
of
120198
Town of Cloud Lake
1
2
8
10%
125102
ray eac
120200
Town of Glen Ridge
0
0
NP
0%
000000
City of Greenacres
0
125109
Town of Gulf Stream
2
5
8
10%
1202051
Town of Haverhi
1
UK
NP
125111
Town of Highland Beach
0
0
9
5%
124
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
125
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
120219
City of Pahokee
1
UK
NP
0%
r120220
Town of Palm Beach
43
114
7
15%
120221
City of Palm Beach Gardens
2
4
7
15%
513
0
0
120223
Village of Palm Springs
IF
1
2
8
10%
125142
City of Riviera Beach
6
UK
NP
000000
Village of Royal Palm Beach
0
0
NP
0%
City of South Ba
120227
City of South Palm Beach
3
10
8
10%
120228
Village o e 1141, 1e !IW
1 WERNOW
8
10%
125157
Village of Wellinon
0
0
9
5%
120229
City of West Palm Beach
18
40
7
15%
• Based on the
FEMA Florida Repetitive Loss List • NP Non - Participant
in the CRS Program
• UK Unknown
126
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Elevation of New and Substantially Improved Structures
Damage to "new" and "substantially improved" floodplain structures is minimized by elevating
the lowest floor of occupied areas a specified amount above the 100 -year flood elevation.
Substantially improved structures are those where the cost of reconstruction, rehabilitation,
additions or other improvements equals or exceeds 50% of the building's market value.
Substantially improved structures are subject to the same elevation standards as new structures.
Check with your local permit office for specific requirements in your jurisdiction.
Elevation Certificates
To verify that a building has been properly elevated, building officials require the completion of
an Elevation Certificate by a professional engineer or surveyor. After the lowest floor is in
place, its elevation above sea level is determined by a survey. The Elevation Certificate is part
of the permit record and must be submitted before the building may be occupied.
Further information on the requirements for floodplain development, the permitting process and
Elevation Certificates can be obtained from your local permit office.
Documented Repetitive Losses
Palm Beach County adheres to FEMA's definition of repetitive loss properties, that is, properties
whose owners have received payment for more than one claim within a 10 -year period of their
flood insurance policies as recorded by the NFIP. Table 3.4 summarizes the repetitive losses
from PBC and the incorporated areas. Also, present data on each community's CRS score
indicates the percent reduction in National Flood Insurance rates each community's residents
receive if they participate actively in the CRS program. Appendix H identifies and locates each
repetitive loss property and evaluates its continued vulnerability to flooding damage.
At this writing, FEMA records accounted for 183 registered repetitive loss properties within PBC
unincorporated and its jurisdictions. The number has grown steadily with the increased tropical
activity and extraordinary rain events the County has experienced. A significant percentage of
these repetitive loss properties lie outside PBC's recognized special flood hazard areas.
The PBC LMS's goal is to reduce the number of repetitive loss properties throughout the County
and prevent new properties from being added to the list. The County takes great strides in trying
to reduce and prevent repetitive loss properties. Palm Beach County takes part in various
programs to reduce and prevent repetitive losses such as FMA and CRS as demonstrated above.
The 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 throughout the
Mitigation section of the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan as the guiding source for
mitigation activities pre and post disasters. Also, the Capital Improvement Plans reflect
mitigation objectives to prevent repetitive loss properties.
127
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Since its inception, PBC's LMS has placed a major emphasis on drainage improvement projects
as a major flood mitigation strategy. Indeed, drainage improvement projects have had a
predominant representation on the LMS prioritized project list. Some large -scale drainage
improvement projects, perceived to be beyond the threshold for funding assistance applications,
have historically been handled locally by Capital Improvement Plans rather than through the
LMS. The LMS drainage projects are often coordinated with larger self - funded community
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
Palm Beach County first submitted project applications for FMAP assistance in 1999. It was not
until 2002 that the initial two projects were approved for FMAP funding. The projects were
completed in 2003. These projects provided all jurisdictions an opportunity to learn about the
program and information that would be useful in planning their own programs. These two
completed projects have been successful since two properties have been 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 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
128
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
deflection wall, creation of swales, and the installation of improved drainage systems. 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 38 municipalities (see Table 3.1). There is wide variation among the
jurisdictions in terms of community character. Community character is shaped by factors such
as land use mix, density, size of population, and location (e.g., on the Atlantic Ocean, adjacent to
Lake Okeechobee, inland). Due to the differences, it is not unusual for local governments to
have different perspectives relative to the significance various hazards have on their community.
Certainly there are hazards that all jurisdictions, regardless of the community character, have
concern over such as flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes. In agricultural communities like Pahokee,
South Bay and /or Belle Glade, agricultural 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 Jupiter), hazards such as beach erosion and shoreline stabilization generate
considerable concern among the residents.
Table 3.2 delineates the location, type, community character, economic base, and degree to
which each of the participating municipalities within PBC is "built -out" at the present time. 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 Ocean 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 uses other than
those which are characteristic of rural areas
Rural - Areas characterized by activities which are largely based on agricultural
uses or the extraction of natural resources, or areas containing large proportions of
undeveloped, unimproved, or low density property
• Community Character
Residential - Land use is primarily for housing
Retirement - Land use is primarily for adult housing communities
Working - Land use is primarily connected with the sale, rental, and distribution
of products or performance of services
129
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
• 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 — 99,919)
has an organizational structure that is considerably more complex than some of the smaller
communities like Atlantis, Cloud Lake or Jupiter Inlet Colony.
The following is a brief discussion of typical agencies within the municipal organizational
structure having hazard mitigation functional responsibilities.
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 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;
however, municipalities may not amend their local building code to be less stringent, or make
changes to the technical provisions of the Florida Building Code without going through a formal
130
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
technical amendment process which requires demonstration of unique local geographical need
for the amendment and an analysis of the cost impact of the proposed technical amendment. If
local technical amendments are enacted and adopted by a community, then the amendments
automatically sunset during the next statewide code adoption (unless the local technical
amendment is adopted statewide by the Florida Building Commission).
Public Works and Engineering. While not all municipalities have a public works and
engineering department, all generally perform this function in some manner. If it is under a
contractual arrangement, there is someone in the jurisdiction responsible for overseeing the
consultant. The group having responsibility for public works and engineering has the
responsibility for implementing structural improvements (e.g., stormwater facility retrofit,
shuttering buildings, constructing new EOCs).
Fire 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 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, in the Conservation, Coastal Management, and Infrastructure elements
(Appendix D).
• Local Emergency Management Plans
A number of municipalities have adopted emergency management plans. Most
follow the content of the PBC CEMP. Their focus is on emergency response
versus long -term hazard mitigation.
131
Local Mitigation Strategy 2015
Ordinances and Other Plans. Other types of ordinances and plans municipalities that have
adopted that are relevant to hazard mitigation include:
• Incorporating the 2010 edition of Florida Building Code complete with Appendices
A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J and K
• Adding window glazing and /or shuttering requirements to their building codes
• Becoming affiliated with the Community Rating System (CRS) program (currently 29
out of 38 local governments are CRS qualified)
• Emergency Water Restriction ordinances
• Stormwater Master Plan
• Flood Damage Prevention and Protection Ordinance
Mitigation Projects/Initiatives /Outreach
A LMS Survey was prepared and distributed to all participating local governments as a means to
inventory and assemble data on mitigation projects and initiatives each governmental entity had
or was implementing. Projects are defined as capital facilities. Initiatives can be anything from
purchase of property and relocation of homes or businesses, to upgraded building codes, to
incentives, to public information campaigns, to preparedness training and drills, to professional
development seminars. Thirty -six municipalities responded. There is wide variation; while a
number of municipalities have not undertaken any mitigation projects, others have been highly
proactive, completing multiple projects /initiatives. The following provides a general discussion
of 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
132
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
• Installing a radio telemetry monitoring system for public utilities
• Sirens /loudspeaker warning system used for severe storms /lightning
Codes /Ordinance Amendments. Many municipalities incorporated the Florida Building Code
2010 Edition. Some of the more important features include:
• Modifying building codes to require floor slab or wood joists be above the 100 -year
floodplain and a minimum of 18 inches above the crown of the road
• Requiring the elevation of structures
• Trusses manufactured in accordance with local wind models
Other actions municipalities have taken include:
• Modifying existing Local Development Regulation (LDR) to incorporate windborne
debris impact standards
• Amending LDR to include section titled, 'Building and Property Maintenance: Hurricane
Precautions
• Professional Development Training. Twenty -three municipalities reported that their staff
received professional development training over the course of a year. The amount of
training staffs received differed by jurisdiction.
• Computer -Aided Management of Emergency Operations (CAMEO) is a system of
software applications used to plan for and respond to chemical emergencies. Developed
by EPA 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
133
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
• 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
other types of preparedness training based on their Municipal CEMP or EAP as reported to the
LMS Coordinator:
• Structural fire drills
• Tornado drill
• Chemical spills
• Terrorist response
• Chlorine leak drills
• Communication tests
• Generator tests
Education /Public Awareness. It is common practice among local governments to distribute
informational materials to its citizens, especially as it relates to hurricanes. Among the 18 local
governments reporting, the scope of their programs varied. The following are methods
municipalities in PBC use to disseminate information about hazards or an impending emergency
event:
• Annual correspondence mailed to the residents reminding them of the need to be
prepared for a hurricane
• Hurricane Survival Guide
• A Homeowner's Guide to Hurricane Retrofit
• Classes on Emergency Response Training
• Discussions with residents about hurricane preparedness
• Hurricane preparation video shown on city cable station
134
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
• Brochures on variety of disaster /emergency topics, including insurance, pet care, business
interests, children and disasters, lightning and tornado safety
• FAX -back system with a menu of public safety information
• Emails to residents
• Communicator NXT or a similar system which automatically dials and plays recorded
information regarding imminent emergencies
• City newsletter
3.1.5 Intergovernmental Coordination
An essential element of the hazard mitigation process is intergovernmental coordination.
Disasters know no boundaries; governments and service providers increasingly must work
together to strengthen communities against the loss of life and property. Coordination is
important not only horizontally at the local level between county, municipalities, non - profit
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.
Metropolitan Planning Organization
The Metropolitan Planning Organization of PBC, commonly known as the MPO, coordinates
local, state, and federal funding for thoroughfare improvements. The policy board is comprised
of 18 voting members (i.e., 5 representatives of the BCC, 13 representatives from the
municipalities), and one non - voting member (i.e., Secretary of the Florida Department of
Transportation, District IV). Two key policy documents of the MPO are the long -range
transportation plan, and the five -year transportation improvement plan (TIP). The TIP identifies
and schedules all future roadway improvements in the near -term.
Local Government Comprehensive Plans
One mechanism to achieve intergovernmental coordination is the local comprehensive plan.
Each comprehensive plan contains an intergovernmental coordination plan element.
Palm Beach County Comprehensive Emergency Plan
Palm Beach County's CEMP as described in the section titled, 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
135
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
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 coordination system to ensure that the
State of Florida is prepared to respond to the occurrence of emergencies and disasters. The plan
describes roles and responsibilities of state agencies, special districts, local governments, and
voluntary organizations, unites the efforts of these groups for a comprehensive approach. The
plan is divided into three sections.
The Basic Plan: Outlines how the state will assist counties in
response, recovery, and mitigation of disasters;
details responsibility at various levels of
government; describes method of operations and
financial management policies; ensures continuity
of government; and addresses recovery issues.
Specific Response/Recovery Actions
Response Functional Annexes
Actions that are unique to a specific hazard, and are
described in the Basic Plan and Response Functions
sections.
Present the State's strategies for disaster response
by outlining Emergency Support Functions (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.
136
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
• The Comprehensive Plan Amendment Coordinated Review Process does not diminish or
transfer existing authority with respect to planning and implementation decision of the
participants.
The Multi- Jurisdictional Issues Coordination Forum
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.
EM Team
Emergency Management Team is an organization of professionals from agencies and
municipalities throughout PBC who share a mutual interest in emergency management issues.
The EM Team meets once a month. Meeting notices of related interest and other information are
distributed in advance of the scheduled meeting date. Members of EM Team benefit by:
• Receiving the latest information from federal, state and local levels of government
concerning all issues relating to comprehensive emergency management;
• Strengthening ties and 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
137
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Business Community Recovery and Redevelopment Strategy program. Since private sector
involvement was important in both efforts, the DEM a committee for education and outreach was
created. In addition, staff from the DEM and the PBC Office of Economic Development
coordinated with each other on all relevant issues of mutual interest to both programs.
The following groups have participated actively in the program:
• Business Alliance
• 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
• 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
• Suntrust Bank
• Marine Industries Association of
Palm Beach County, Inc
• Pratt & Whitney
• Bank Atlantic
Perhaps the greatest accomplishment, beyond the specific accomplishments outlined in this
section, has been special collaborative relationships now established between the private sector
and public sector entities. Cornerstone partnerships in this endeavor now exist between the
DEM and Economic Development Divisions, and participating municipalities on the public side
and a network of participating Chambers of Commerce.
The initiatives outlined in this section are an integral part of the ongoing local disaster mitigation
strategy. In the private sector, efforts are directed at minimizing private sector losses, improving
business survival rates, protecting and preserving the economic base provided by businesses, and
speeding the overall community recovery process.
Four key objectives were addressed:
Obiective I Establish improve intergovernmental and private sector
coordination.
Obiective 2 Refine the hazard and vulnerability analysis for the economic
sector.
Obiective 3 Evaluate local available resources, identify gaps, and develop
appropriate funding mechanisms and strategies to fill any gaps.
138
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Objective 4 Create a public education program focusing on educating the
business community to be prepared for disasters and able to
recover quickly.
139
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
3.2.2 Accomplishments
The following summarizes the improved accomplishments of the private sector work effort of
the Outreach and Education Committee by objective:
3.2.2.1 Objective 1: Establish improved intergovernmental and private sector
coordination.
Three 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.
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.
140
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Task 3
Establish Business Hotlines, Business Aid and Redevelopment Assistance Centers. An important
element in the support of private sector preparedness and timely recovery is the ability of
businesses to stay abreast of critical information. An objective in this project was to provide the
business community with a single -point contact for accessing important business - related
information to assist pre- disaster preparations and post- disaster recovery activities. As part of its
partnership agreements with various Chambers of Commerce throughout the County, PBC
Emergency Management is encouraging 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
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 funding mechanisms and strategies to fill the gaps.
Exploratory initiatives were explored relating to ensuring post- disaster cash flow, creating
emergency loan programs and community credit programs, expediting the processing of post -
disaster loans, and establishing a "bridge loan" capability. The policies and programs of area
banks were reviewed, various loan funds examined, and state and federal agency programs,
including "Operation Open for Business," were reviewed. Among the most glaring "gaps"
uncovered that could impact PBC businesses were the following:
• Meeting the managers and officials they may need to call on in times of emergency or
disaster.
141
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
• Insurance typically does not cover all business losses.
• Banks will not necessarily loan money to victimized businesses and may not relax their
requirements for financial documentation and credit status in emergency periods.
• Business interruption insurance is seldom 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.
3.2.2.4 Objective 4: Create a public education program focusing on educating the
business community to be prepared for a disaster and able to
recover quickly.
Two tasks of this objective address a program to enable the business community to educate and
prepare itself, reaching the greatest number of businesses in the shortest time possible.
Task 1
Train Chamber of Commerce staff and the business community. 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 all business losses
• Distribution of specially designed BARR pamphlets and business cards
• "Business" location on the County's Emergency Management web site
142
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
• Booths in expos, fairs, trade shows
• Presentations to business, professional and public sector groups
• Media interviews and articles
• Presentations at the National and Florida Governor's Hurricane Conference
• Participation in other initiatives
One -on -one contingency planning assistance for larger businesses. In this task, members of
several Chambers of Commerce and mentors from large and medium -sized businesses have been
trained to train others and make presentations raising the business community's awareness of
preparedness issues and options. These efforts will continue.
Task 2
Develop a written business contingency planning guide. It was reasoned that preparation and
distribution of a business contingency planning workbook and a business contingency plan
template would be 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.
A copy is available on the South Florida Disaster Resiliency Coalition website.
Conducting workshops will continue to be a priority, as will be the training of industry trainers
and the development of mentors to continue planning initiatives after the grant period concludes.
3.3 Strengthening the Role of Local Governments
As has been described earlier in this document, local governments in PBC have taken steps to
strengthen themselves both in terms of capital facility improvements and ordinances, regulations,
and programs. Becoming more disaster - 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:
143
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
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 permitted 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;
3. Integrate the LMS into the PBC CEMP as appropriate and within the state specified
guidelines.
4. Assess existing CRS programs to determine ways to strengthen and improve the local
jurisdiction's CRS rating and support non -CRS communities to join the program.
5. Recommend that public building construction, whether it be new construction or
renovation of older public structures, incorporate hazard mitigation building practices,
whenever financially feasible;
6. Recommend to the appropriate authorities, the incorporation of safe room requirements in
the local building code.
7. Update existing PBC post- disaster redevelopment plans, and prepare a model plan as a
guide for local jurisdictions.
8. Support BARR in the continuing effort of 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.
11. Seek avenues to provide technical assistance in grant writing and engineering for local
jurisdictions in the support of LMS projects.
12. Develop a model CEMP mitigation element as a guide for local jurisdictions in
mitigation plan development.
13. Seek opportunities and potential funding sources to bury electrical wires, especially in
multi jurisdictional projects.
14. In order to increase shelter capacity countywide, support the retrofitting of all appropriate
structures suitable for use as shelters.
144
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Develop and disseminate multi -media outreach program countywide which will support the
goals of LMS.
145
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
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 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and continued compliance with NFIP
requirements, as appropriate.
4.1.1 Development and Rationale
The project prioritization methodology is the means by which the LMS Steering Committee or some
designated subset of that Committee will develop the single prioritized list of mitigation projects, which
is one of the ultimate goals of the LMS effort. The only projects eligible for FEMA approval have to be
submitted by a local government who participated in the planning process. These local governments
must follow and continue to follow PBC's Local Mitigation Strategy's participation rules in Section 1.
Palm Beach County 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 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.
146
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
To be effective and gain the support of all the communities involved, the criteria used to rank and
prioritize proposed mitigation projects must accomplish the following objectives:
1. They must be fair and objective. Mitigation projects proposed by small communities must have
equal opportunity to achieve as high a higher priority than mitigation projects proposed by larger
communities or the County. Likewise, mitigation projects proposed by economically disadvantaged
communities must have the opportunity to achieve as high a priority than those projects proposed by
more affluent communities.
2. 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.
3. They must be functional and tied to real -world considerations such as competitive grant funding
requirements. Palm Beach County will be developing a list of prioritized mitigation projects that will
have to compete with a prioritized list of similar type projects from other counties in the state.
4. They must be simple, easily understood, and relatively easy to apply. Many potential mitigation
projects will have to be prioritized by the Steering Committee or some subset thereof. This means that
individual committee members will be scoring many projects. These individuals must be able to work
through the project scoring process relatively rapidly for each project they evaluate.
5. 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.
6. 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:
1. Community Benefit The single most important consideration for any mitigation project is "What
benefit does the community derive from this effort?" How, and to what extent does this mitigation
project benefit the citizens of a community?
2. Community 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.
3. Project Implementation. Is this project technically, financially, and legally feasible? Basically this
overarching requirement addresses the ease with which a project can be implemented. How easily can
147
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
required permits be obtained? What is the time frame for accomplishing this project's goals? Are there
any technical problems that must be overcome to implement this project?
4. 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 Flood Mitigation and/or Sea Level Rise — Does the proposed project or initiative mitigate
against flooding and/or sea level rise?
Flood Mitigation Points Awarded
(maximum of 5)
Flood and /or Sea Level Rise 5
Damage Reduction
Mapping and Regulatory 4
Flood Preparedness 3
Public Information 2
Other 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.
Points under this criterion are awarded based on the nature of the facility or infrastructure element being
hardened or protected. If the proposed projects mitigate a problem in a primary critical facility such as a
hospital, EOC, or emergency shelter it would receive 10 points under this criterion. Primary critical
facilities are defined as "Facilities critical to the immediate support of life and public safety." These are
the facilities the community cannot afford to have any loss of function, even for a short period of time.
Flooding produces a widespread direct and indirect danger to large segments of the community, while at
the same time damaging or potentially damaging such critical infrastructure elements as roads and
stormwater drainage systems. Therefore, a project reducing or preventing stormwater accumulation and
flooding during storm events would receive 8 points under this criterion.
Secondary critical facilities are defined as, "Facilities that will be critical for community recovery and
restoration of services." Projects that help protect these types of facilities will be awarded 6 points.
UM
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Public convenience facilities are quality of life facilities such as parks, recreation areas, and non-
essential public buildings. Projects protecting these types of public property will be awarded 4 points
under this criterion.
Residential structures are defined as private homes. Projects protecting these types of property will be
awarded 2 points under this criterion.
Project Benefit Points Awarded
(maximum of 10)
Primary Critical Facilities 10
Stormwater /flooding 8
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 fi°equently 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 for
possible nuclear power plant meltdown by providing lead lined emergency shelters would score lower
than a project which mitigates for a more frequent, but less catastrophic type of disaster, such as the
flooding of a library.
Data for this evaluation will come from the Hazard Vulnerability Analysis (HVA) portion of the LMS
project, and will be community specific. For example, communities on the coastline experience
thunderstorms, lightning, and frequent localized short term flooding, but in most, the exposure in terms
of life and property damage is relatively low. Some specific communities, however, such as mobile
home parks, or areas with known drainage problems, have much higher exposures to ill effects from
thunderstorm hazards. The entire coastline has a high exposure to damage from tropical storms and
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.
149
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
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
6 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 ($) Before Project - Loss Exposure ($) After Project) - Cost of the Project
"A key criterion for mitigation projects to be eligible for funding is that they be cost effective." This is a
direct quote from the FEMA 1996 guidelines for determining the cost - effectiveness of mitigation
projects. "Mitigation efforts can be justified only to the extent to which the averted losses in terms of
life and property exceeds the cost of a given mitigation project or effort." In other words, if a mitigation
project costs more than what it is designed to protect, why do it?
While a positive 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.
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 above formula is derived from that publication. It was
developed to allow administrators to rapidly screen potential mitigation projects in a three step process:
1. Screen the project by reviewing the application data;
2. Conduct a quick Benefit/Cost analysis; and
150
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
a. If the quick analysis yields a Benefit/Cost Ratio greater than one, continue processing the
application; or
b. 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 community is also considering raising the floor of this library building by 2 ft at a cost of $75,000.
Such a project would protect the books from storm surge under all but category 5 hurricane conditions,
or approximately 85 % of the time. The residual exposure associated with this plan would be 15 % or $
13,500.
Applying the formula:
($ 90,000 - $ 13,500) - $ 75,000 = 1.02
The 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
151
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
4.1.5 Area Benefit
4.1.5.1 How many people stand to benefit front the project implementation?
Area Benefit Points
(maximum of
Multiple Jurisdictions 5 points
Community 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 in the existing
Comprehensive Growth Management Plan
Is the project or initiative consistent with or incorporated within the existing Comprehensive Growth
Plan or equivalent document?
Contained Within the Existing
Comprehensive Growth Management Plan
(CGMP)
Points
(maximum of 10)
Contained within a specific Policy/Plan
10 points
Contained in "Goal" with proposed Policy/
amendment
8 Points
Contained within a broad "Goal
5 Point
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 plans or amendments to plans which have been
proposed but not yet officially adopted. One of the objectives of the LMS is to encourage local
governments to officially adopt mitigation measures into their Comprehensive and Emergency
Management Plans. If a community wants to improved the score of a proposed mitigation project or
initiative it can propose an amendment to its CGMP or CEMP containing the measure.
152
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Contained within an Existing
Emergency Management Plan (or
other functional plan)
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 environmentallcultural 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 will be an extra step in implementing
such a project and the timeline to accomplish the project must be extended accordingly. Projects which
are consistent with the existing legal and regulatory framework will receive 5 points. Projects which are
in conflict with some aspect of the existing regulatory framework will receive lower point scores
depending upon the seriousness and numbers of regulatory barriers to be overcome in implementing the
proposed project.
Consistency with
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.
If so, award 5 points.
153
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
4.1.7.2 Funding Availability - Is there a funding source currently available for this particular
project?
Ten points will be awarded to any project for which funding is currently available. If funding is
anticipated but currently not available, points will be awarded as follows:
Funding Availability
Points
(maximum of 10)
Funds available now
10 Points
Available in 1 year
8 Points
Available in 2 years
6 Points
Available in 3 years
4 Points
Available in 4 years
2 Points
Available in 5 years+
1 Point
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
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 Points
Accomplishing Objectives (maximum of 5)
1 Year 5 Points
2 Years 4 Points
154
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
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 much
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
examples showing how this scoring process is applied in ranking proposed mitigation projects.
4.2 Tie -Break Procedure
In the case of tie scores, three questions may be applied.
• Ties decided by #1 will be so ranked: remaining ties not broken with question #1 will have question
#2 applied.
• Ties decided by question #2 will be so ranked; remaining ties not broken will have question #3
applied.
• Ties decided by question #3 will be so ranked; remaining ties not broken with question #3 will be
ranked in the order of the magnitude of effect on the community - these projects will be ranked in
accordance with the number of people that will be helped by the project, largest first.
Question #1: Which project has the highest Community Benefit score?
Question #2: Which project has the highest Community Commitment score?
Question #3: Which project mitigates for the most frequently occurring hazard?
4.3 LMS Evaluation Panel
The Evaluation Panel is responsible for reviewing and scoring proposed projects submitted to the LMS
as a basis for prioritization. Panelists are solicited by the LMS Coordinator on behalf of the Steering
Committee based on LMS member recommendations and are subject to approval by the Steering
Committee. 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.
4.3.1 Eligibility for Federal Funding
In order to be deemed eligible for federal monies projects must:
155
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Produce a Benefit Cost Analysis ratio greater than 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.
The LMS Coordinator from the County's Division of Emergency Management staff serves on the
Evaluation Panel.
4.4 Project Prioritization Updating Process
STEP 1
Each year in January and July, 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.
Palm Beach County DEM staff will activate the update process by distributing "Project or Initiative"
Proposal Forms to local governments, as well as to non - profits and other entities seeking funding for
hazard mitigation -type projects, and by notifying all Evaluation Panel members that the PPL ranking
process is being initiated. All applicants will have to submit their proposed projects /initiatives by the
submission date in order to have their proposed projects considered for inclusion in the updated PPL.
In addition, at the time an applicant submits their proposed projects; they must also identify which of
their projects that are already on the existing, adopted PPL have been completed or for which funding is
in process.
All proposals will be submitted to the DEM office, on the "Project or Initiative" Proposal Form by the
submission date identified in the letter of solicitation. For a project/initiative to be considered, Proposal
Forms must be filled out completely. The contact person and fax number listed on the Proposal Form
will serve as the official point -of- contact for the applicant.
Once a year in the month of April, the evaluation panel will meet to purge the PPL to ensure outdated
projects or those projects funded by local municipalities are removed from the list. The new list will be
revised each July.
STEP 2
Once the proposals have been received, DEM staff will review each proposal for completeness. DEM
staff will notify, in writing, via email or fax, those applicants who's Proposal Form(s) have not been
completed fully. The applicant will be notified that they have one week from the date of receipt of the
notification to submit additional information. If supplemental information is inadequate or no new
information is submitted, the proposer will be notified that their project will not be eligible for inclusion
on the PPL this cycle.
STEP 3
DEM staff will compile copies of the proposals (includes supporting materials), and transmit copies to
the Evaluation Panel members no later than four weeks prior to the scheduled Evaluation Panel meeting.
156
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
STEP 4
Each Evaluation Panel member will score all proposal forms. Each member will transmit copies of their
scored "Project or Initiative" Proposals Forms to DEM staff, no more than 14 days after they received
the forms.
STEP 5
DEM staff will average the attribute scores for each project received from each Evaluation Panel
member. DEM staff will create a summary sheet that documents the results of the scoring. A "new"
Draft PPL will be generated based on the scores received from the Evaluation Panel.
STEP 6
DEM staff will provide each applicant the "new" Draft PPL prior to the LMS Evaluation Panel meeting,
and invite applicants to attend and provide comment.
STEP 7
The Evaluation Panel will hold a meeting to review the scoring and finalize the Draft PPL. A quorum of
the Evaluation Panel must be present during the meeting, Panel members will discuss possible
inaccuracies and /or reliability of information used by proposers, such as obsolete cost data, questions
regarding project feasibility, and project tie - breakers (see Project Tie -Break Procedure). Before the
meeting concludes, a vote will be conducted to approve the "new" Draft PPL as submitted by the
Evaluation Panel or as modified. DEM staff will transmit a copy of the approved "new" Draft PPL to
the Steering Committee for approval.
STEP 8
DEM staff will schedule a meeting of the Steering Committee. One week in advance of the scheduled
meeting, the "new" Draft PPL will be distributed to the Steering Committee membership.
STEP 9
At the scheduled Steering Committee meeting, the Draft PPL will be presented.
Project applications received after the submission deadline, but before the next project prioritization
updating process, may be accepted by the Steering Committee as UNRANKED projects. Prior to the
PPL adoption vote, such projects will be presented for consideration. The Steering Committee may vote
to include any or all of these projects on the draft PPL as "unranked." Unranked projects will be listed
on the PPL under the sub - heading of Unranked Projects which will appear immediately following the
list of ranked projects. Unranked projects will automatically be ranked in the next ranking cycle.
Following discussion of the Draft PPL, the Steering Committee will adopt it as submitted or with
modifications. Specific justification is required for any modification to the ranking of the projects as
submitted by the 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
157
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
4.5.1 Background
With multiple local governments involved in the development of the PBC LMS, differences of opinions
may arise over the course of the program with regard to goals, objectives, policies and projects. In cases
where an impasse occurs, a procedure is needed that can be activated to resolve such conflicts. This
section describes the procedure that will be used to resolve conflicts arising among the participating
governmental entities in the development and implementation of the PBC LMS.
The two types of conflicts that may arise are issues and disputes. Issues are technical problems that are
susceptible to informal resolution by DEM staff. Disputes are problems that require formal resolution
by neutral third parties. In either case, resolution and settlement are best settled through mutually
agreed -upon understanding between the disputing parties. When that is not possible, some form of
binding resolution is needed.
The Subcommittee will be comprised of three people: one member of the Subcommittee will be
appointed by the Steering Committee Chair, a second person will come from the intergovernmental
issues forum and appointed by their chair, and a third member will be someone drawn from the Steering
Committee who has been selected by mutual agreement of the Steering Committee chair and the
intergovernmental issues forum chair (This individual or their municipality cannot be involved
personally in the conflict).
Once the Subcommittee has been selected, DEM, as lead agency will prepare a memorandum
delineating the dispute, include supporting documentation when available, and schedule the
Subcommittee meeting.
If no resolution could be reached, the issue would then be heard by the entire Steering Committee. The
vote of the Steering Committee would be binding. DEM staff shall provide support.
4.5.2 Procedure
The following provides a 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.
158
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
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 Steering Committee Chair and IGIF representative to select individuals to serve
on the Conflict Resolution Subcommittee (an ad hoc committee) within seven (7) calendar days. Before
the selection process is completed, a verification of a willingness to serve will have been completed.
Only voting members or alternates of the Steering Committee are eligible to serve on the Subcommittee.
STEP 4
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 signature blocks, one for the
Chair of the Subcommittee and two for the representatives of the disputing parties. By their signature,
all parties will formally agree to the mediated result. A copy will be provided to each party 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
159
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
If the impasse is not resolved at the Subcommittee level, DEM will schedule a meeting of the full 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 Steering Committee is held. The representative of each disputing party will present
their positions and the Chair of the Subcommittee will present the views of Conflict Resolution
Subcommittee. At the end of the meeting, if no mutually acceptable compromise is achieved, the
Steering Committee will vote to accept one solution from among the offered solutions or those that may
develop at this special Steering Committee meeting. This resolution vote of the Steering Committee will
be final.
The outcome of the meeting will be detailed in a memorandum of understanding that will be prepared by
DEM. This memorandum will be signed by the Steering Committee Chair. Thereafter, a disputing
party can exercise the legal remedy of going to court.
160
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
This page intentionally left blank
161
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Appendix A: Risk & Vulnerability Analyses Data
The risk and vulnerability data presented in this Appendix are submitted in partial fulfillment of the following
FEMA requirements:
RISK ASSESSMENT: §201.6(c)(2): The plan shall include a risk assessment that provides the
factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local
risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and
prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards.
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(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(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.
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 -4: PBC Impact Anal
Table A -5: Data sources used for the Palm Beach County Hazard Vulnerability and Risk Assessment
162
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
This page intentionally left blank
163
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Table A -1: Relative Vulnerability to Hazards, by Local Government
y
164
MUNICIPALITIES
Hazard Category
High
H: Hi h
"M
4.1
o
x
M: Medium
L: Low
o
o
cr
o
x
75
o
C7
x
o
0.
V: Very Low
a�
°
c-
�
o
a�
�
�
o
p
�
�
�
a�
a�
a�
x
o
a�
o
U
Q
C7
C7
C7
C7
�
a
a
O
ti
1
Flood
H
M
H
H
H
M
M
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
L
M
H
M
M
H
H
H
H
L
M
H
L
M
H
H
M
M
H
L
M
H
M
H
H
Hurricane /tropical storm
H
M
H
H
H
H
M
H
M
M
M
H
M
H
M
H
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
M
M
H
H
H
H
M
H
M
H
M
H
H
M
M
H
Tornado
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Severe thunderstorm and
H
M
M
M
M
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
H
M
M
M
M
H
M
M
M
M
M
H
M
M
M
M
H
lightning
Drought
H
L
H
M
M
L
L
M
H
H
L
M
L
H
L
M
M
M
L
L
L
L
H
L
L
M
L
H
M
M
L
M
L
L
H
L
L
H
M
Temperature extremes
M
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
H
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
H
L
M
M
Agricultural pests and
H
V
H
L
L
L
V
L
V
V
L
L
V
V
V
L
M
V
V
V
V
V
M
V
V
L
V
H
L
M
V
V
V
V
H
L
V
M
L
disease
Wildfire /urban interface
H
L
H
M
L
V
L
L
M
M
L
L
L
V
V
L
M
V
V
V
L
L
M
V
V
L
V
H
V
M
V
V
L
M
H
V
V
M
M
zone
Muck fire
H
V
H
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
L
V
V
V
V
H
V
V
V
V
V
L
H
V
V
L
L
Soil/beach erosion
M
L
M
M
M
M
V
M
H
H
V
M
V
H
V
H
H
V
L
V
M
M
L
V
M
M
H
V
H
M
M
L
H
V
V
H
M
V
V
Seismic hazards
(sinkholes /soil failure)
L
V
V
V
M
V
V
V
M
M
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Tsunamis
L
M
V
H
H
H
M
H
M
M
L
M
L
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
V
H
L
H
H
V
H
M
H
L
L
V
V
H
V
V
L
HAZARDS TECHNOLOGICAL
Hazardous materials
M
L
M
M
M
V
L
H
H
H
M
V
M
V
H
L
H
V
M
M
M
M
M
H
M
M
V
L
V
M
V
M
H
L
M
L
V
M
H
accident
164
Local Mitigation Strategy 2015
165
MUNICIPALITIES
Hazard Category
Communit; Vulnerability
H: High
�
�
>O
�'
M: Medium
,
66
O
U
x
c7
L: Low
C
E.
ti
CC
aMM�
p(
7y
o
x
O
y
Q�y
�
,�
M
O
C/j
Sti
l
--1-�I
CC
V: Very Low
icz
Radiological accidents
(including nuclear power
L
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
L
L
L
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
L
L
V
V
V
V
V
L
plant accidents)
Communications failure
M
V
L
M
M
V
V
M
L
L
V
V
V
V
V
V
M
V
L
M
M
M
M
V
L
V
V
L
V
M
L
L
M
L
L
M
M
V
M
Hazardous material
release
M
L
M
M
H
M
M
H
L
L
M
V
L
V
L
L
M
L
M
M
M
M
L
L
L
M
V
L
V
M
V
L
M
M
M
L
L
M
H
Transportation system
accident
H
L
H
M
H
V
L
H
L
L
V
V
M
V
L
L
H
V
M
M
M
M
M
L
M
M
V
L
V
V
V
L
H
L
H
L
M
M
H
Wellfield contamination
M
L
V
M
M
V
M
M
H
H
V
V
V
V
V
L
M
V
L
L
L
L
M
V
L
M
V
V
V
M
V
V
M
L
V
V
L
M
H
Power failure (outages)
M
V
M
M
M
V
V
M
M
M
V
V
V
V
V
L
M
V
V
V
V
V
M
V
V
M
V
M
V
M
L
M L
M
M
H
M
L
M
Herbert Hoover Dike
M
L
H
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
H
L
M
L
L
L
M
H
L
L
M
L
CAUSED HUMAN HAZARDS
Civil disturbance
M
V
L
L
M
V
V
M
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
L
V
V
L
L
L
L
V
L
L
V
V
V
L
V
L
L
V
V
V
L
V
M
Terrorism and sabotage
L
V
V
L
L
V
V
L
V
V
L
V
V
V
V
L
L
V
V
L
L
L
L
V
L
V
V
V
M
V
V
L
L
V
V
V
L
V
M
Immigration crisis
M
V
M
L
M
V
V
M
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
L
V
V
L
L
L
L
V
V
V
L
M
V
V
M
L
M
V
M
L
V
V
M
165
Local Mitigation Strategy 2015
Table A -2: Relative Probability of Hazards, by Local Government
166
MUNICIPALITIES
Hazard Category
Community Vulnerabilit^
o
0
o
U
4.1
H: High
1
U
C7
,x
cz
M: Medium
A
A
�
L: Low"
�
�°
a
°
p
°
�
V: Very Low
H
l
p
U
Q
c7
c7
c7
C7
��
ti
ti
ct
z
O
w
w
l
'1
Flood
H
M
M
H
H
M
M
H
M
M
M
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
H
H
M
M
H
M
H
H
M
H
H
H
M
H
L
M
H
M
M
H
Hurricane /tropical storm
H
M
M
H
H
H
M
H
M
M
M
H
M
H
H
H
H
H
M
H
H
M
H
H
M
H
H
M
H
M
H
M
H
M
M
H
M
M
H
Tornado
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
M
L
M
M
M
L
L
L
M
M
M
L
M
H
Severe thunderstorm/
lightning
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
H
H
Drought
H
L
H
L
M
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
H
M
M
L
L
L
L
H
L
L
H
M
Temperature extremes
M
L
M
L
L
V
L
L
L
L
L
V
L
V
V
V
H
V
L
V
V
L
M
V
L
L
V
M
L
L
V
L
L
L
M
L
L
M
M
Agricultural pests and
disease
H
V
H
L
M
V
V
M
V
V
L
V
L
V
V
V
M
V
L
V
V
L
M
V
L
V
V
H
L
L
V
L
L
V
H
L
V
M
L
Wildfire /urban interface
H
V
H
L
M
V
V
L
V
V
L
V
L
V
V
V
M
V
L
V
L
L
H
V
L
L
V
H
V
L
V
V
L
M
H
V
V
M
M
zone
Muck fire
H
V
H
V
L
V
V
L
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
L
V
V
V
V
V
H
V
V
V
L
L
H
V
V
L
L
Soil/beach erosion
M
V
L
M
M
M
V
M
V
V
V
M
V
M
M
H
H
H
V
V
M
V
V
H
V
M
H
L
H
V
H
V
H
V
L
H
M
V
L
Seismic hazards
(sink holes/soils failure)
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Tsunamis
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
L
V
V
V
V
V
L
TECHNOLOGICAL
1
Hazardous materials
accident
M
L
L
M
M
V
V
L
L
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
L
V
V
L
L
V
L
V
L
M
V
M
V
L
V
L
M
L
M
L
V
M
H
166
Local Mitigation Strategy 2015
167
MUNICIPALITIES
Hazard Category
Cnmmunit; Vulnerability
o
T
i
H: High
o
o
U
x
M: Medium
�
�,
�,
0
N
N,x
'75
L: Low
P�
k
y
0
,�'
a
cd
0
a
w
w
V: Very Low
U
w
0
w
v
�7
>
0
0
0
0.01
0.01
U
Q
7
C0J`
C7
Radiological accidents
(including nuclear power
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
L
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
plant accidents)
Communications failure
M
V
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
V
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
V
L
M
Hazardous material
L
L
L
L
L
V
L
H
L
V
L
V
V
V
V
L
L
V
V
L
L
V
L
V
M
M
V
L
V
L
V
V
L
L
L
L
L
M
H
Ielease
'Transportation system
H
L
M
M
M
V
L
H
L
V
L
V
L
V
V
V
L
V
V
L
L
L
M
V
M
M
V
M
V
M
V
V
M
L
M
L
L
M
H
accident
Wellfield contamination
M
L
V
M
M
V
V
M
L
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
L
V
V
L
L
V
M
V
M
L
V
L
V
L
V
V
M
L
L
V
V
M
H
Power failure (outages)
M
M
V
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
L
M
M
M
M
M
M
L
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
H
M
V
M
Herbert Hoover Dike Breach
M
L
H
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
H
L
M
L
L
L
M
H
L
L
M
M
CAUSED HUMAN HAZARDS
Civil disturbance
M
V
L
L
L
V
V
M
V
V
L
V
V
V
V
V
L
V
V
L
L
V
V
V
L
L
V
L
L
L
V
V
L
V
L
V
V
V
M
Terrorism and sabotage
L
V
V
L
L
V
V
L
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
L
V
V
V
L
V
V
L
V
V
V
L
L
V
V
V
L
V
L
V
V
V
M
Immigration crisis
L
V
L
L
L
L
V
M
V
V
V
L
V
L
L
L
L
L
V
V
L
V
L
L
V
L
L
V
V
V
L
V
L
V
L
L
V
V
M
167
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Table A -3: Risk Assessment by Hazard and Jurisdiction
MUNICIPALITIES
Hazard Category
Communit; Vulnerability o
H: High o o
M: Medium
L: Low >°c ° ¢ C2 2
C7 o U P�
V: Very Low "� > o o ct
U Q C7 C7 C7 C7 a a a Z O i v° �'
Frequency
Vulnerability
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
H
H
Exposure
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
H
H
Risk
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
H
H
Hurricane/Tropical Storm
Frequency
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
H
H
Vulnerability
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
H
H
Exposure
M
H
M
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
H
M
M
H
M
M
H
Risk
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
H
H
Tornado
Frequency
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
L
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Vulnerability
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Exposure
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Risk
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Thunderstorm/Lightning
Frequency
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
I .:
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Frequency
MUNICIPALITIES
Hazard Category
Vulnerability
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
o
H
Vulnerahilit; Ratinu
H
H
M
H
H
Exposure
M
M
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
0
M
M
M
0
M
M
4.1
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
4.1
M
M
,�
H: High
M
H
H
M
M
M
M
Risk
M
M
H
M
M
M
M
y
M
M
M
M
M
M
�
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
H
M
M: Medium
M
°�
a
o
H
M
M
M
M
Temperature Extremes
°'
x
x
ay
L: Low
c7
x
Frequency
L
L
L
L
L
L
0
3
L
y
¢
L
CZ
w
(x
N
N
N
Pa
N
Pa
v
L
cd
w
cd
Pa
cd
w
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
CC
3
L
L
L
w7
L
v
L
L
Vulnerability
M
M
U
w
M
M
M
M
0
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
w
M
M
M
M
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
H
M
L
M
'�
'� '�
M
M
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
� �
-Y
-Y
W
-Y
U
'r
V
V V
V
W
W
Fil
L
M
M
Risk
M
M
H
M
M
Z
O
M
M
M
M
M
W
W
CIS
CIS
�
✓
✓
Vulnerability
H H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H H
H
H
H
H
H
H H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Exposure
M M
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
M M
M
M
M
M
M
M M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
H
M
M
M
M
M
H
H
M
M
H
M
Risk
M M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M M
M
M
M
M
M
M M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Drought
H
L
H
M
H
H
H
M
H
H
M
L
H
M
H
H
L
H
M
H
L
H
L
L
H
L
L
H
Exposure
M
M
L
H
H
H
M
Frequency
Vulnerability
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
M
H
H
Exposure
M
M
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
H
M
M
M
M
M
H
H
M
M
M
M
Risk
M
M
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
H
M
M
M
M
M
H
H
M
M
M
M
Temperature Extremes
Frequency
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Vulnerability
M
M
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
H
M
L
M
M
Exposure
M
M
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
H
M
L
M
M
Risk
M
M
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
H
M
L
M
M
Tsunamis
Frequency
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Vulnerability
M
M
L
H
H
H
M
H
M
L
L
H
L
H
M
H
H
H
M
H
H
M
L
H
M
H
H
L
H
M
H
L
H
L
L
H
L
L
H
Exposure
M
M
L
H
H
H
M
H
M
L
L
H
L
H
M
H
H
H
M
H
H
M
L
H
M
H
H
L
H
M
H
L
L
L
L
H
M
L
H
Risk
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Agricultural Pests/Diseases
Frequency
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
L
M
M
M
M
L
M
M
169
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
170
MUNICIPALITIES
Hazard Category
o
Vulnerability Rating
H: High
M: Medium
a
o
o
'
x
x
75
°'
o
L: Low
C7
x
o
U
a
ct
•�
�/��
'�
'�
'�
�
ct
of
o
>
o
y
MNN
O
MMO
7MM-r
rl
//'N'
//��
//O��
//3��-I
C�
MM
,MM?
�"
'�
'�
O
yF0�
fy
Vulnerability
H
M
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
H
M
M
M
L
M
M
M
H
M
M
M
Exposure
H
L
H
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
H
L
L
L
L
L
L
H
L
L
L
L
Risk
M
L
H
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
H
L
L
L
L
L
L
H
L
L
L
L
Wildfire/Urban Interface
Frequency
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
M
L
Vulnerability
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
M
L
Exposure
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Risk
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
M
L
Muck Fires
Frequency
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Vulnerability
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Exposure
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Risk
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Soil /Beach Erosion
Frequency
L
L
L
M
M
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
M
L
M
M
L
L
M
M
L
L
M
L
M
M
L
M
L
M
L
M
L
L
L
M
L
L
Vulnerability
L
L
L
H
H
L
L
L
H
L
L
L
L
H
L
H
H
L
L
H
H
L
L
H
L
H
H
L
H
L
H
L
H
L
L
L
H
L
L
Exposure
L
L
L
M
M
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
M
L
H
H
L
L
H
H
L
L
H
L
H
H
L
H
L
H
L
H
L
L
L
H
L
L
Risk
L
L
L
M
M
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
M
L
M
M
L
L
M
M
L
L
M
L
M
M
L
M
L
M
L
M
L
L
L
M
L
L
Seismic Hazards
Frequency
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
170
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
171
MUNICIPALITIES
Hazard Category
o
Vulnerability Rating
4.1
4
H: High
M: Medium
a
o
U
CIE
L: Low
C
c7
o
U
w
3
Ic7t,
o
U
t
w
w
ct
a�
o
A
A
A
>
c
Q
C7
O
w
w
w
i
i
x
i
U
c7
c7
c7
ti
a
z
rig
Vulnerability
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Exposure
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Risk
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
TECHNOLOGICAL
1
Hazardous Materials Accident
Frequency
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Vulnerability
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Exposure
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Risk
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Radiological Accidents
Frequency
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Vulnerability
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Exposure
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
M
M
M
M
L
M
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
M
M
M
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
M
Risk
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Communications Failure
Frequency
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Vulnerability
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
L
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Exposure
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
L
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
F- Risk
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
L
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
171
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
172
MUNICIPALITIES
Hazard Category
Vulnerability Rating
H: High
°�'
�
°'
4
M: Medium
c
a
o
2�
'
x
x
775
°'
o
L: Low
O
SL
Hazardous Material Release
Frequency
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Vulnerability
M
M
M
M
M
L
M
M
M
M
M
L
M
L
M
L
M
M
M
M
M
M
L
L
M
M
L
M
L
M
M
M
M
M
M
L
L
M
M
Exposure
M
M
M
M
M
L
M
M
M
M
M
L
M
L
M
L
M
M
M
M
M
M
L
L
M
M
L
M
L
M
M
M
M
M
M
L
L
M
M
Risk
M
M
M
M
M
L
M
M
M
M
M
L
M
L
M
L
M
M
M
M
M
M
L
L
M
M
L
M
L
M
M
M
M
M
M
L
L
M
M
Transportation Accident
Frequency
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Vulnerability
M
L
M
M
M
L
L
M
M
L
L
L
M
L
M
L
M
L
L
M
M
M
M
L
M
L
L
M
L
M
L
L
M
L
M
L
M
L
M
Exposure
M
L
M
M
M
L
L
M
M
L
L
L
M
L
M
L
M
L
L
M
M
M
L
L
M
L
L
M
L
M
L
L
M
L
M
L
M
L
M
Risk
M
L
M
M
M
L
L
M
M
L
L
L
M
L
M
L
M
L
L
M
M
M
M
L
M
L
L
M
L
M
L
L
M
L
M
L
M
L
M
Welltield Contamination
Frequency
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Vulnerability
M
L
L
M
M
L
L
M
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
M
L
L
M
L
M
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
M
Exposure
M
L
L
M
M
L
L
M
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
M
L
L
M
L
M
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
M
Risk
M
L
L
M
M
L
L
M
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
M
L
L
M
L
M
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
M
Power Failure (Outages)
Frequency
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Vulnerability
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Exposure
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Risk
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
172
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
173
MUNICIPALITIES
Hazard Category
Vulnerability Rating
U
o
o
4.1
H: High
U
x
M Medium
N
N
Oj
0.
L: LOW
cc�d
ti
¢
cz
1E
C7
C7
7ti
Z
O
Herbert Hoover Dike Breach
Frequency
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Vulnerability
M
L
H
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
H
L
L
L
L
L
M
H
L
L
M
L
Exposure
M
L
H
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
H
L
L
L
L
L
M
H
L
L
M
L
Risk
M
L
H
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
H
L
L
L
L
L
M
H
L
L
M
L
CAUSED HUMAN HAZARDS
Civil Disturbance
Frequency
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Vulnerability
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Exposure
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Risk
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Terrorism and Sabotage
Frequency
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Vulnerability
M
L
M
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
M
M
L
L
M
L
M
L
L
L
M
Exposure
M
L
M
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
M
M
L
L
M
L
M
L
L
L
M
Risk
M
L
M
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
M
M
L
L
M
L
M
L
L
L
M
Immigration Crisis
Frequency
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Vulnerability
M
L
M
L
M
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
M
L
M
L
M
L
L
L
M
Exposure
M
L
M
L
M
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
M
L
M
L
M
L
L
L
M
Risk
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
173
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Table A -4: Impact Analysis
An impact analyses was conducted to assess the potential for detrimental impacts from all identified natural,
technological and human caused hazards. Results of these analyses are summarized below. Impacts were
categorized into the following groupings: health and safety of the resident population in the affected area;
health and safety of incident responders; impacts on the continuity of government and non - government
operations; impacts to property, facilities and infrastructure; impacts to the critical community services;
impacts to the environment; economic and financial impacts; impacts on regulatory and contractual
obligations; and impacts negatively affecting the County's reputation, image, and /or ability to attract public
and commercial interests.
An impact rating of "Low" for any hazard type means the hazard is not likely to have any measurable or
lasting detrimental impact of a particular type and consequences will likely be rectified promptly with locally
available resources. An impact rating of "Medium" means there will likely be a measurable detrimental
impact which may require some time to rectify and may require outside resources and /or assistance.
An impact rating of "High" means the impact will likely be severe and of longer duration, and require
substantial time, resources, and /or outside assistance to rectify. Multiple ratings indicate detrimental impacts
might easily vary within the range indicated.
174
Local Mitigation Strategy 2015
175
Health &
Health &
Continuity
Property,
Economic
Regulatory
Hazard
Safety
Safety
of
Facilities
Historical
Delivery of
Environ-
& Financial
Contractual
Reputation
Residents
Responders
Operations
Infra-
structure
Resources
Services
ment
Conditions
Obligations
of County
Flood
Medium
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium/
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Tropical Storm
Medium
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Hurricane Cat 1
Medium
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Hurricane Cat 2
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Hurricane Cat 3
Medium/
Medium/
Medium/
Medium/
Medium/
Medium/
High
Medium/
Medium
Low/
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Mediu
Hurricane Cat 4
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
/ High
Hurricane Cat 5
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
/ High
Tornado
Low/
Medium
Low
Low/
Low /High
Low
Low/
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
Mediu
Medium
Severe Thunder
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low/
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Storm /Lightning
Medium
Drought
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low/
Medium/
Low
Low
Medium
High
Temp. Extremes
LOW/
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
LOW/
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
Agricultural
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low/
Medium/
LOW
Low/
Pest /Disease
Medium
High
Mediu
Wildfire/Urban
Low/
Medium/
Low
Medium
Low
Low
Low/
Medium/
Low
Low
Interface Zone
Medium
High
/ High
Medium
High
Muck Fires
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Soil /Beach
Low
Low
Low
Low/
Low /High
Low
Medium/
Medium/
Low
Low/
Erosion
Mediu
High
High
Mediu
Seismic Hazards
(Sinkhole
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
soil failure)
175
Local Mitigation Strategy 2015
176
Health &
Health &
Continuity
Property,
Facilities
Historical
Delivery of
Environ-
Economic
Reputation
Hazard
Safety
Safety
of
Infra-
Resources
Services
ment
& Financial
Contractual
of County
Residents
Responders
Operations
structure
Conditions
Obligations
Technological
Hazardous
Medium/
Medium /
Low/
Low,
Low
Low
Medium /
Low/
Low,
Low,
Materials Accident
High
High
Medium
High
Medium
Radiological
Low /
Low/
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low /
Low/
Low,
Low/
Accidents
Medium
Medium
Medium
Financial
Medium
Communication
Medium
Medium
Medium/
Low,
Low
Medium/
Low
Medium/
Low,
Low,
Failure
High
High
High
Hazardous
Medium/
Medium /
Low/
Low
Low
Low
Medium /
Low /High
H
Medium
Low/
Material Release
High
High
Medium
High
Medium
Transportation
Low/High
Low/High
Low/High
Low/High
Low
Low/
Low
Low /High
Low
Low/
Accidents
Medium
Medium
Wellfield
Low/
Low,
Low
Low/
Low
Low/
Medium /
Low/
Low,
Low,
Contamination
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
Medium
Power Failure
Medium/
Medium/
Medium /
Low/
Low
Medium/
Low
Medium/
Low
Low/
(Outage)
High
High
High
Medium
High
High
Medium
Civil Disturbance
Low /High
Low /High
Low /High
Low /High
Low
Low /High
Low
Low /High
Low
Low /High
Terrorism &
Medium/
High
Medium/
Low /High
Low
Medium /
Low /High
Low /High
Low/
Medium/
Sabotage
High
High
High
Medium
High
Immigration Crisis
Low/
Low/
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
LOW/
Low
Low/
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
176
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
This page intentionally left blank
177
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Table A -5: Data sources used for the Palm Beach County Hazard Vulnerability and Risk
Assessment
Source Data Type
Natural Hazards
.
Historical and current data on all types of
Natural Hazards Research Center natural hazards
Atlantic Hurricane Tracking Database
Historical data on hurricane tracks and
intensities
NOAA Tropical Cyclone Database
Historical hurricane data
Colorado State University (Dr. Gray online site)
Hurricane probability
NASA Natural Disaster Reference Database
Historical data on all types of natural hazards
National Weather Service
Weather statistics
National Climate Data Center - On -Line Data
Weather statistics
Base
Atlantic Ocean and Meteorological Laboratory
Hurricane forecast models
Hurricane Research Division
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Emergency management procedures
Tropical Storm Watch Database
Tropical storm data worldwide
Flood 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 plane and
elevation data
Florida State University (Meteorology
Data and expertise concerning all Florida
Department)
natural hazards
Florida Atlantic University
Data and expertise concerning all Florida
natural hazards
National Severe Storms Laboratory
Storm effects data
Independent Insurance Agents of America
Probability data and estimated exposure
(Natural Disaster Risk Database)
Building code recommendations to reduce
exposure
The Arbiter of Storms (TAOS)@ maps and
Florida Division of Emergency Management
computer model projections as well as technical
support and data
178
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
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
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
Building codes and impacts of proposed
statewide unified building code
Palm Beach County Airports Department
Weather data and hurricane protection
procedures
Palm Beach County Comprehensive Growth
Land management, zoning, and hurricane
Management Plan
mitigation related ordinances
Palm Beach County Planning, Zoning, and
Building 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
Palm Beach County School Board
Schools, shelter, and critical facilities data and
emergency management plans
Palm Beach County Law Library
Building codes and ordinances
Palm Beach County Parks & Recreation
Environmental and recreational data and
Department
potential impacts data
Palm Beach County Public Safety Department
Emergency management plans, historical data,
Division of Emergency Management
critical facilities, special needs, and general
guidance
Palm Beach County Division of Criminal Justice
I County prison population and emergency
179
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Source
Data Type
management plans
Division of Animal Regulation
Animal protection, regulation, and control plans
following natural disasters (hurricanes)
Palm Beach County Sheriff Department
Emergency management plans and law enforce-
ment procedures following a natural disaster
Palm Beach County Tourist Development
Potential economic loss and specific areas of
Council
economic vulnerability
Palm Beach County Water Utilities
Critical facilities locations and emergency
management procedures
Palm Beach County Red Cross
Historical data, shelter data, and emergency
management plans
Florida Power and Light and Other
Power grid vulnerabilities, structure, and
Municipal/Private Power Companies (Lake
emergency management plans
Worth Utilities, etc.)
Home Depot/Lowes
Emergency management supply plans for
preparation and recovery
Publix/Winn Dixie
Emergency food supply plans
Southern Bell
Emergency communication maintenance plans
AT &T Wireless Services
Emergency communication maintenance plans
U. S. Cellular Wireless Communications
Emergency communication maintenance plans
The Palm Beach Post
Historical hurricane data
Critical facilities location and emergency
Local Radio and Television Stations
management plans (operating plans) during
natural disaster
Tornadoes
Natural Hazards Research Center
Historical and current data on all types of
natural hazard
The Tornado Project On -Line
Historical data
Optical Transient Detector Data Base
Lightning associated with thunder storms
(lightning statistics)
NASA Natural Disaster Reference Database
Historical data all types of natural hazards
National Weather Service
Weather statistics
National Climate Data Center - On -Line Data
Weather statistics
Base
NOAA Wind Related Fatalities Data Base
I Wind related fatalities
.E
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Source
Data Type
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 (VLSI)
Lightning research and protection measures
Florida State University
Data and expertise concerning all natural
hazards
Florida Atlantic University
Data and expertise concerning all natural
hazards
181
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Source
Data Type
University of Florida Lightning Research
Current research on 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
Data 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 losses
Department
Palm Beach County Public Safety Department
Lightning protection procedures
Division of Emergency Management
Palm Beach County Sheriff Department
Data on communication disruption
Florida Power and Light
Financial losses and power grid disruptions due
to lightning
Southern Bell
Financial losses and communications
disruptions due to lightning
AT &T Wireless Services
Financial losses and communications
disruptions due to lightning
U. S. Cellular Wireless Communications
Financial losses and communications
disruptions due to lightning
The Palm Beach Post
Historical data on significant lightning related
events
Flooding
Association of State Floodplain Managers
Floodplain data, flooding statistics, and
mitigation approaches
Natural Hazards Research Center
Technical data on all natural hazards
NOAA Flood Related Fatalities Data Base
Flood related fatalities
NOAA Hydrologic Information Center
Hydrologic data
NOAA Tropical Cyclone Database
Rainfall associated with storm type events
NASA Natural Disaster Reference Database
Specific flooding and mitigation data
nationwide
NASA Flood Hazard Research Center
Flood research and mitigation approaches
National Weather Service
Climatic data
182
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Source
Data Type
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)
Historical flooding data
Floodwatch 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
Division of Emergency Management
Beach 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
Building Department
affect flood protection
Palm Beach County Property Appraiser
Property value within flood zones
Palm Beach County Automated Information
Historical flooding and critical facilities in
Management
flood zones
183
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Source
Data Type
Palm Beach County Engineering and Public
Highway and storm water management
Works Department
procedures
Palm Beach County Environmental Resources
Water resources and flooding data
Management Department
Palm Beach County Fire and Rescue
Flooding associated fires and injuries
Palm Beach County Health Department
Disease risk and contamination potential
associated with flooding
Palm Beach County Parks & Recreation
Recreational resources at risk due to flooding
Department
Palm Beach County Public Safety Department
Historical flooding data and emergency
Division of Emergency Management
management procedures
Division of Animal Regulation
Animal control problems associated with
flooding
Palm Beach County Sheriff Department
Emergency management procedures associated
with flooding
Palm Beach County Water Utilities
Critical facilities at risk due to flooding and
potential impacts
All independent drainage districts will be
Independent Drainage Districts
contacted for historical data and identified areas
at risk
Palm Beach County Red Cross
Historical flooding data and repetitively
damaged structures data
Florida Power and Light
Flooding emergency plans and critical facilities
at risk
The Palm Beach Post
Historical data on flooding incidents
Temperatures
National Climate Data Center - On -Line Data
Historical records on freezing temperatures
Base
National Weather Service
Historical records on freezing temperatures
U. S. Department of Agriculture - County
Local agricultural data on frequency, impacts,
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
Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer
I Frequency and amount of financial losses to all
.,
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Source
Data Type
Services
agricultural business as a result of freezing
temperatures
Frequency and amount of financial losses to all
Florida Farm Bureau
agricultural business as a result of freezing
temperatures and current mitigation and risk
reduction strategies
Florida State University
Agricultural research and new mitigative
strategies to reduce freeze impacts
Florida Atlantic University
Freeze impacts to aquaculture industry
University of Florida
Agricultural research and new mitigative
strategies to reduce freeze impacts
University of Miami
Agricultural research and new mitigative
strategies to reduce freeze impacts
Environments at risk from freezing and
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
environmental consequences of current
agricultural mitigation strategies
South Florida Water Management District
Climate records and water demands associated
with freeze mitigation
Historical impact and financial losses resulting
Palm Beach County Department of Agriculture
from freezing temperatures in Palm Beach
County
Palm Beach County Citrus and Farming Interest
Historical freeze losses and current mitigation
strategies
Palm Beach County Red Cross
Impacts to poor and homeless due to freezing
temperatures
National Weather Service
Climate 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 - County
Controlled burning /muck deposits
Extension Agents
U. S. Geological Survey
Soil types /muck deposits
Florida Geological Society
Soil types /muck deposits
185
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Source
Data Type
The Wildfire Assessment System
Wildfire statistics and containment procedures
Florida Forest Protection Bureau
Florida specific wildfire statistics and current
preventative practices
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Natural resources at risk and protective
measures
Florida specific wildfire statistics, fire fighting
Florida Fire Chief s Association
technology, and potential mitigative measures
for Florida communities
South Florida Water Management District
Water resources and right of way management
practices
Palm Beach County Department of Agriculture
Land use patterns in Palm Beach County to
establish areas at risk
Palm Beach County Planning Zoning & Building
Land use patterns in Palm Beach County to
Department
establish areas at risk
Palm Beach County Parks & Recreation
Land use patterns in Palm Beach County to
Department
establish areas at risk
Palm Beach County Fire Rescue - Fire
Land use patterns in Palm Beach County to
Prevention Bureau
establish areas at risk and current or in -place
protective measures
Wildfire Magazine Data Base
Wildfire statistics
Palm Beach Post
Historical data on Palm Beach County
wildfires /muck fires
Drought
National Weather Service
Climate data and drought predictions
National Climate Data Center - On -Line Data
Climate data
Base
U.S.G.S. Historical and Real Time Data on
Water resources
Water Resources of South Florida
U. S. Department of Agriculture - County
Historical data on droughts and the economic
Extension Agents
impacts to local agriculture
Florida Citrus Commission
Economic losses to the citrus industry from
droughts
Florida Department of Citrus
Economic losses to the citrus industry from
droughts and current irrigation technology
Florida Forest Protection Bureau
Drought statistics
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Environmental impacts of droughts to natural
ecosystems
Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer
I Agricultural losses due to droughts and current
:.
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Source
Data Type
Services
irrigation technology
South Florida Water Management District
Water allocations during drought conditions
Palm Beach County Department of Agriculture
County specific economic losses from drought
and current economic vulnerability
Palm Beach County Parks & Recreation
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 during
Municipal water utilities
times of droughts in cities
Water rationing plans
Coastal & Beach Erosion
A
Maintenance records for the Intracoastal
Florida Inland Navigational District
Waterway and other Palm Beach County
navigable waters
South Florida Water Management District
Canal maintenance and erosion
Palm Beach County Environmental Resources
Environmental problems associated with
Department
erosion control and natural resources threatened
by erosion
Palm Beach County Engineering and Public
Current erosion prevention measures
Works Department
Palm Beach County Parks & Recreation
Current erosion prevention measures
Department
Palm Beach County Coastal Municipalities
Current erosion prevention measures
Jupiter Inlet District
Information on beach erosion in and around
Jupiter Inlet
Port of Palm Beach
Information on beach erosion in and around
channel and inlet
Diseases Agricultural Pe!W1
U. S. Forest Service
Forest diseases and current
problem /preventative measures
U. S. Dept. of Agriculture - County Extension
Local agricultural pest and potential exotic
Agents
treats
U. S. Customs
Current programs to prevent introduction of
agricultural pest and diseases
Florida Farm Bureau
Economic losses due to agricultural pest and
diseases
187
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Source
Data Type
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 ri sk and
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
environmental consequences of current or
proposed control measures
Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer
Economic losses from agricultural pest and
Services
diseases and current control technology
Palm Beach County Department of Agriculture
Economic losses and current control programs
Palm Beach County Parks & Recreation
Pest control programs on public lands
Department
U. S. Geological Survey
Geologic structure and seismic risk
Florida Geological Society
Geologic structure and soil characteristics
Technological
Radiological Hazards
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Nuclear power plant regulation, accident
statistics, and emergency procedures
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Nuclear power plant accident statistics, and
emergency procedures
National Emergency Management Agency
Nuclear power plant and radiological
emergency management procedures
Florida Division of Emergency Management
Nuclear power plant and radiological
emergency management procedures
Florida Emergency Preparedness Association
Radiological emergency management
procedures
State & Local Emergency Data Users Group
Radiological accident management database
Data Base
Florida Power and Light Emergency Plan
Industry emergency management plans
Palm Beach County Division of Emergency
Management Comprehensive Emergency
Local radiological emergency management plan
Management Plan (CEMP)
Hospital Plans - Both Radiological Materials
I Local radiological emergency plans and
IM
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Source
Data Type
Disposal (Hazardous Waste) and Mass Radiation
safeguards
Casualties or Nuclear Accident Plans
Hazardous
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 Plan for Hazardous Materials
Florida District and Local Emergency Planning
Local sources and emergency management
Committee (LEPC) Emergency Plan for
plans (vulnerabilities)
Hazardous Materials
Facilities Database for Users of Extremely
Hazardous Substances (EHS) and Hazardous
Geo- referenced local database of users
Materials
Florida Division of Emergency Management
Methodology for handling hazardous material
releases
Florida Emergency Preparedness Association
Methodology for handling hazardous material
releases
Highway spill data for hazardous material spill
Florida Department of Transportation
data
Methodology for handling hazardous material
releases
State & Local Emergency Data Users Group
Spill and release of hazardous materials
Database
statistics
Hazardous material emergency plans and
Florida Fire Chiefs Association
containment procedures
Spill /release statistics
Palm Beach County Division of Emergency
Methodology for handling hazardous material
Management
releases
Palm Beach County Fire Rescue
Methodology for handling hazardous material
releases
Municipal Fire and Police Departments
Methodology for handling hazardous material
releases
..
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
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
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 hazardous
materials releases)
Boating /shipping accidents (including oil and
Florida Marine Patrol
hazardous materials releases) and spill
containment procedures
Palm Beach County Airports Department
Aircraft accident statistics and airport safety
procedures
Palm Beach 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 (including oil and
Marine Unit and Environmental Crimes Unit
hazardous materials releases), spill containment
procedures, and environmental crimes statistics
Railway accident statistics (including oil and
Florida East Coast Railway
hazardous materials releases), and safety
procedures
Railway accident statistics (including oil and
CSX Rail
hazardous materials releases), and safety
procedures
Palm Beach County Fire Rescue
Accident statistics involving injuries in Palm
Beach County
Municipal police and fire departments
Accident statistics involving injuries in the
cities
190
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Source
Data Type
Power/Communications/Computer Grid System
Failures
Florida Power and Light Emergency
Historical data and emergency management
Management Plans and Historical Database
plans
Bell South Emergency Management Plan and
Historical data and emergency management
Historical Database
plans
Cellular and Satellite Communication
Historical data and emergency management
Companies
plans
The Banking Industry (Large Area Network -
LANs Protection and Emergency Restoration
Historical data and emergency management
Plans, as well as historical data on system
plans
failures)
Human Caused Hazards
Civil Disturbance
Federal Bureau of Investigation Database
Historical data
National Security Council Database
Historical data and risk analysis
Drug Enforcement Agency Database
Historical data
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Historical data
Database
U. S. Customs Service
Historical data
U. S. Census Database
Population demographics
Florida Department of Law Enforcement
Historical data and situation plans
Florida Department of Health Education and
Historical data
Welfare
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
Historical data and situation plans
Management
Terrorism and Sabotage
Federal Bureau of Investigation Database
Historical data, situation plans, and risk
analysis
National Security Council Database
Historical data, situation plans, and risk
analysis
Drug Enforcement Agency Database
Historical data
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Historical data and preventative measures
Database
U. S. Census Database
Population demographics
191
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Source
Data Type
Florida Department of Law Enforcement
Historical data, situation plans,
and risk
analysis
Florida Department of Health Education and
Population demographics
Welfare
Palm Beach County Sheriff Department
Historical data, situation plans,
and risk
analysis
Municipal Police Departments
Historical data, situation plans,
and risk
analysis
Palm Beach County Fire Rescue
Historical data, situation plans,
and risk
analysis
Palm Beach County Division of Emergency
Historical data on injuries
Management
American Society for Industrial Security
Risk analysis techniques and database
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
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
Historical data
Database
U. S. Census Database
Population demographics
U. S. Public Health Service
Disease risk
192
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Source
Florida Department of Law Enforcement
Data Type
Historical data
Florida Department of Health Education and
Welfare
Historical data
Florida Department of Labor
Historical data
Palm Beach County Sheriff Department
Historical data
Municipal Police Departments
Historical data
Palm Beach County Fire Rescue
Historical data
Palm Beach County Health Department
Historical data
193
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
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 section addresses 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.
194
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
This page intentionally left blank
195
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Appendix B -1: PBC Initiatives
Palm Beach County and its 38 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 (FMAP), Pre - Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM), Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Emergency Management Preparedness & Assistance
Program (EMPA), CERT, Continuity of Operations, Post Disaster Redevelopment Planning
(PDRP), ESF18, Private- Public Partnership, counter - terrorism, radiological emergency
preparedness initiatives, hazardous materials, etc. The overarching purpose of these activities
is the elimination or mitigation of hazards presenting significant risk to PBC and its residents.
At this writing, PBC is involved in a detailed self- assessment and upgrade (as necessary), of
its mitigation programs and activities in the context of the jurisdiction's overall Emergency
Management program as part of its efforts to meet or exceed the national standards required to
become accredited under the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP). The
County hopes to be among the first Florida communities fully accredited under EMAP.
The LMS program and its companion mitigation programs are described in greater 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. At this writing, approximately 40 flood mitigation projects were in various
stages of execution or on the drawing board of the Technical Advisory Committee.
In accordance with CRS guidelines, letters are mailed annually to repetitive loss property
owners by PBC and municipalities explaining NFIP program benefits, the availability of
mitigation assistance funding through the FMAP 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 new LMS
committee structure, the Technical Advisory Committee is 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
196
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
jurisdiction to support and monitor performance in accordance with FEMA, state and local
guidelines and codes and to oversee and coordinate documentation and funding processes.
In addition to support of projects, mitigation is encouraged and promoted through a
variety of community awareness and education activities including presentations, workshops,
expos, panel discussions, plan reviews, publications, websites, etc. prepared and
presented utilizing networks of public - private sector partners. As opportunities present
themselves, lending institutions and insurers are urged to provide financial incentives for
mitigation. Jurisdictions are urged to accelerate permitting and inspections and, if allowable,
to waive or reduce fees for mitigation projects. In addition to mitigation incentives, millions
of dollars of annual insurance premium savings are realized by a significant segment of PBC
residents residing within the County's CRS participating jurisdictions.
Involvement of Planning, Zoning, and Building, Fire - Rescue and other departments in LMS
activities, including committee participation, bolsters communication among key
agencies and the LMS and ensures that mitigation interests are appropriately
represented in local building codes, fire codes, land -use ordinances, flood loss
prevention ordinances, and other governing documentation.
The PBC LMS plan articulates the goals and objectives of the County and its municipalities
to avoid and /or reduce long - term vulnerability to hazards identified by the hazard
identification and risk assessment processes. More detailed descriptions of the strategies,
programs and actions are contained in the body of the plan and reflected in the list of
prioritized projects in Section 5 and Appendix E. Under the revised committee structure of
the LMS program, increased attention is given to expanding and 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 D).
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 new federal guidelines applying to
grant awards through the Pre Disaster Mitigation, Flood Mitigation Assistance and
HMGPs, particular emphasis is given to technically feasible and environmentally responsible
projects having attractive ratios of loss reduction benefits to cost. Projects involving worthy
benefits that are difficult to quantify, are still given serious consideration in light of
different sets of criteria and are referred to appropriate alternative funding sources not
requiring stringent benefit -cost justifications.
Short-term and long -term recovery strategies are addressed by the County and
municipal Continuity of Operations Plans, the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan,
the Post - Disaster Redevelopment Plan, and specialized plans and procedures covering key
recovery issues such as debris removal, public services resumption, temporary housing, unmet
needs, etc. These plans, procedures and projects address and provide guidance on priorities,
processes, schedules, resource requirements, restoration and redevelopment of critical facilities,
infrastructure, services, and economic redevelopment.
197
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
The PBC Comprehensive Plan includes the following elements: Land Use, Transportation,
Housing, Utility, Recreation and Open Space, Conservation, Coastal Management,
Intergovernmental Coordination, Capital Improvement, Economic, Fire - Rescue, Public School
Facilities, Health and Human Services, Library Services and Historic Preservation. These
elements define the components of the community and the interrelationship among them,
integrating the complex relationships of 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 future risk.
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
This page intentionally left blank
199
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Appendix C: Hazard & Risk Assessment Maps
Appendix C contains hazard boundary and risk assessment maps. Using County and
municipal GIS capabilities, facility inventory lists and property appraiser databases, and other
local, regional, state and national agency databases, the LMS is able to map any location -
specific hazard risk or event and estimate associated physical and financial losses, on
demand. A representative sample of hazard maps available for risk assessment, strategy
development, and other mitigation planning activities are presented in the following
sections of this appendix.
The maps and data in this appendix are presented in partial fulfillment of the following
FEMA requirements:
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): The risk assessment shall include a description of the type
of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction.
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): The risk assessment shall include a description of the ...
location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan
shall include information on previous 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
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.
200
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Further risk assessment detail pertinent to these FEMA requirements are contained in
Appendix A, in the PBC Hazard Environment section, and in the newly formatted,
completed or nearly completed hazard write -ups.
The maps listed in this appendix are cited below. There are three sets of maps included in
this appendix.
PALM
Map
BEACH COUNTY
HAZARD MAP
PRIMARY DATA
SOURCES
Source
Date
FIRM "A" Zones
FEMA
Jun.
2014
Historical Flood Prone Areas
SFWMD
Jun.
2014
Storm Surge Areas
USACE
Jun.
2014
Evacuation Zones
DEM/USACE
Jun.
2014
Coastal Erosion Boundary
PBC ERM
Jun.
2014
Hebert Hoover Dike Breach Reach
SFWMD
Jun.
2014
Wellfield Protection Zones
PBC ERM
Jun.
2014
Wildland Fire Areas
Division of Forestry /PBCFR
Jun.
2014
Radiological Ingestion Pathway Zone
FP &L
Jun.
2014
Muck Fire Areas
PBC ERM
Jun.
2014
Transportation Areas
PBC GIS
Jun.
2014
Hurricane Peak Wind Potentials
NWS/NHC
Jun.
2014
Other Countywide Hazard Threats
(Tornado, Extreme Temps, etc.)
PBC GIS
Jun.
Agricultural Pests
A AL
PBC ERM
Jun.
2014
Tsunami Buffer
Tsunami Society
Jun.
2014
201
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
PALM BEACH COUNTY HAZARD
MAPS
WITH JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES
Part 4: Hazard Maps Page
(Behind Appendices)
Page
Agricultural Area 236
Coastal Beach Erosion Areas 237
County Municipalities 238
Evacuation Zones 239
Flood Hazards — Historical Flood Areas 240
Herbert Hoover Dike Breach 241
Muck Soil Area (Fire) 242
Radiological Hazard 243
Storm Surge Areas 244
Transportation System Hazard Area 245
Tsunami Threat 246
Wellfield Hazards 247
Wildland Fires 248
Wind Sbeed Potentials- Hurricane 249
202
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
This page intentionally left blank
203
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Appendix D: 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, and priorities are
consistent with and cross - referenced with those articulated in other existing plans. In
addition the LMS will seek opportunities at the regional, county and municipal levels to:
• Update plans, policies, regulations and other directives to include hazard
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
204
Local Mitigation Strategy 2015
This page intentionally left blank
205
Local Mitigation Strategy 2015
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- funding 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 71 mitigation projects. However,
not every municipality has a "brick and mortar" mitigation project. All municipalities
provide outreach to their citizens. In addition, the County also provides outreach to all
citizens throughout the County and within the municipalities. This outreach includes
information on all hazards that 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 funded, the project is removed from the pending list and placed on a list
of active projects. Then once the project is completed, the projects will be placed on a
completed list. Potential Projects funding sources include but are not limited: 406 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 us other funding as it is announced
and becomes available), status of project, hazard that project will mitigate against, and
duration until the project is completed once funded and started.
The appendix satisfies, in part, the following FEMA requirements:
206
Local Mitigation Strategy 2015
Requirement: §201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action
plan describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized,
implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a
special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost
benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs.
Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iv): For multi jurisdictional plans, there must be
identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or credit
of the plan.
Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that
identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and
projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis
on new and existing buildings and infrastructure.
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.
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 to which the community is particularly vulnerable ?); "cost
effectiveness" (Does the project meet or exceed the thresholds of benefit to cost ratios
using accepted methodologies ?); "community commitment" (Is the project consistent
with or incorporated in other plans, including COMP plans, CEMPs ?); "public support"
(Is there demonstrated public support for the project ?); and "project implementation
considerations" (What further is required to accomplish implementation?
The feasibility and benefits of ranking "like" projects rather than forcing a single list
of highly dissimilar projects has been discussed by the LMS Evaluation Panel and will
continue to be explored.
The current procedure for prioritizing projects will be retained until any enhancements
are fully developed, deemed acceptable under the rules of LMS by FEMA and the
FDEM, and adopted by the LMS Steering Committee.
207
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
PALM BEACH COUNTY
LMS PRIORITIZED PROJECT LIST
(June 2014)
W.
New,
Potential
Responsible
Deferred,
Hazard Being
Timeframe for
Rank
Project Description
Jurisdiction
Funding
Agency
Completed or
Mitigated
Completion
Source(s)
Deleted
1
Greenbriar Blvd Localized
Wellington
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
Two Years
Flood Reduction Project
2
Forest Hill Blvd Localized
Wellington
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
Two Years
Flood Reduction Project
3
ITID MO Canal
Indian Trail
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
Two Years
Reinforcement and
Improvement
Revetment Repair
District
4
North and South Rd
Boynton Beach
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
Stormwater Improvement
5
South Shore Blvd
Wellington
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
Two Years
Flood Reduction Project
6
Lake Shore
Lake Park
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
Drainage Improvements
7
Pump Station Hardening
Indian Trail
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
Improvement
District
8
New City Services
Lake Worth
Public Works
HMGP
New
Severe Weather
One Year
Complex /EOC
9
Emergency Equipment
Pahokee
Public Works
HMGP
New
Severe Weather
One Year
10
EOC Retrofit
Lantana
Public Works
HMGP
New
Severe Weather
One Year
11
North Flagler Improvements
West Palm Beach
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
W.
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
209
New,
Potential
Responsible
Deferred,
Hazard Being
Timeframe for
Rank
Project Description
Jurisdiction
Funding
Agency
Completed or
Mitigated
Completion
Source(
12
Washington Rd
West Palm Beach
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
Improvements
13
North F St between 3rd Ave
Lake Worth
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
and 6th Ave North Drainage
14
7 Ave North to 1" So, F St to
Lake Worth
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
Dixie Drainage
15
Public Works Retrofit
Wellington
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
16
North Lakeside /Duke /Notre
Lake Worth
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
Dame /Wellesley Dr Drainage
17
Community Center Wind
Wellington
Public Works
HMGP
New
Severe Weather
One Year
Retrofit
18
Property Acquisition
Mangonia Park
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
19
10th Ave N to 13th Ave N, E
Lake Worth
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
and F Streets Drainage
20
EOC Construction /Retrofit
Lantana
Public Works
HMGP
New
Severe Weather
One Year
21
225 Ave N and Park Street
Lake Worth
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
Drainage
22
Gregory Rd Improvements
West Palm Beach
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
23
South Flagler Improvements
West Palm Beach
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
24
3r Ave S to 5t Ave S Drainage
Lake Worth
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
25
Lake Ave to 15t Ave South
Lake Worth
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
Drainage
209
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
210
New,
Potential
Responsible
Deferred,
Hazard Being
Timeframe for
Project Description
Jurisdiction
Funding
Agency
Completed or
Mitigated
Completion
Source(
26
15t Ave North and Dixie
Lake Worth
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
Drainage
27
EOC /Hurricane Community
South Bay
Public Works
HMGP
New
Severe Weather
One Year
Center
28
Repair of City's Stormwater
South Bay
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
System
29
Caroline Ave Improvements
West Palm Beach
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
30 (Tie)
Town Hall Retrofit
Jupiter
Public Works
HMGP
New
Severe Weather
One Year
30 (Tie)
Saratoga Drainage
Royal Palm Beach
Public Works
HMGP
Added
Flooding
One Year
Improvement
32
Heart of Boynton Stormwater
Boynton Beach
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
Study & Improvement
33
10th Ave S and South N Street
Lake Worth
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
Drainage
34
10t Ave S and G Street
Lake Worth
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
Drainage
35
Primary East -West
Indian Trail
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
Conveyance Improvements
Improvement
District
36
Retrofit City Hall
South Bay
Public Works
HMGP
New
Severe Weather
One Year
37
6t Ave South and F Street
Lake Worth
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
Drainage
38
Palmetto Ave and South Pine
Lake Worth
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
Street
39
Elevate Lift Stations
Mangonia Park
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
210
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
211
New,
Potential
Responsible
Deferred,
Hazard Being
Timeframe for
Rank
Project Description
Jurisdiction
Funding
Agency
Completed or
Mitigated
Completion
Source(
40
10t Ave North Drainage
Greenacres
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
Improvements
41
Caroline Area Improvements
West Palm Beach
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
42
Town Hall Impact Retrofit
Jupiter
Public Works
HMGP
New
Severe Weather
One Year
43
18t Ave S and South and
Lake Worth
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
Palmway Drainage
44
Pineapple Park
West Palm Beach
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
Improvements
45
Lift Stations
Mangonia Park
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
46
City Hall Retrofit
Lake Worth
Public Works
HMGP
New
Severe Weather
One Year
47
Public Works Hardening
Belle Glade
Public Works
HMGP
New
Severe Weather
One Year
48
City Hall Retrofit Hardening
Belle Glade
Public Works
HMGP
New
Severe Weather
One Year
49
Individual Mitigation
Mangonia Park
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
Measures
50
Lake Shore Civic Center
Belle Glade
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
Retrofit
51
West Ave A Drainage
Belle Glade
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
52
Northeast Ave H Drainage
Belle Glade
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
53
City Hall, Police, Fire Station
Palm Beach
Public Works
HMGP
New
Severe Weather
One Year
Wind Retrofit
Gardens
211
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
212
New,
Potential
Responsible
Deferred,
Hazard Being
Timeframe for
Rank
Project Description
Jurisdiction
Funding
Agency
Completed or
Mitigated
Completion
Source(
54
PO4 Chemical Building
Mangonia Park
Public Works
HMGP
New
Severe Weather
One Year
Hardening
55
Southeast Ave K Drainage
Belle Glade
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
56
Sheriff's Office Wind Retrofit
Lake Park
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
57
Drainage Improvements at
Belle Glade
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
City Hall
58
Reed Road & Miller Way
Lake Park
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
Stormwater Drains
59
10t Street Stormwater
Lake Park
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
Improvement
60
Radio Communications Tower
Palm Beach
Public Works
HMGP
New
Severe Weather
One Year
Gardens
61
Town Hall Emergency
Glen Ridge
Public Works
HMGP
New
Severe Weather
One Year
Generator
62
Community /Emergency
Lake Park
Public Works
HMGP
New
Severe Weather
One Year
Shelter
63
Stormline Camera
Lake Park
Public Works
HMGP
New
Severe Weather
One Year
64
EOC Construction
Belle Glade
Public Works
HMGP
New
Severe Weather
One Year
65
EOC Radiological Mitigation
Palm Beach County
Public Works
HMGP
New
Radiological
One Year
Study
66
Update Master Drainage Plan
Lake Park
Public Works
HMGP
New
Flooding
One Year
67
Landscape Hardscape
Lake Worth
Public Works
HMGP
New
Severe Weather
One Year
212
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Projects deleted, deferred, or completed from Jan 2012 — Sept 2014
N/A
RamblewoodCir /Harwich Ct.
City of Greenacres
Public Works
Potential
New,
Flooding
One Year
Storm Sweer Enhancement
Responsible
project
Deferred,
Hazard Being
Timeframe for
Rank
Project Description
Jurisdiction
Public Works
Funding
deleted
Severe Weather
One Year
Agency
project
Completed or
Mitigated
Completion
N/A
Hills Drainage
Mangonia Park
Public Works
Source(
deleted
Flooding
One Year
project
68
Demo of Vacant Properties
Lake Worth
Public Works
HMGP
New
Severe Weather
One Year
Projects deleted, deferred, or completed from Jan 2012 — Sept 2014
N/A
RamblewoodCir /Harwich Ct.
City of Greenacres
Public Works
City funded the
deleted
Flooding
One Year
Storm Sweer Enhancement
project
N/A
Community Hall Retrofit
City of Greenacres
Public Works
City funded the
deleted
Severe Weather
One Year
project
N/A
Hills Drainage
Mangonia Park
Public Works
City funded the
deleted
Flooding
One Year
project
N/A
53r St Drainage — Hill East
Mangonia Park
Public Works
City funded the
deleted
Flooding
One Year
project
N/A
53rd St Drainage — Hill West
Mangonia Park
Public Works
City funded the
deleted
Flooding
One Year
project
N/A
RamblewoodCir /Harwich Ct.
City of Greenacres
Public Works
City funded the
deleted
Flooding
One Year
Storm Sweer Enhancement
project
N/A
Community Hall Retrofit
City of Greenacres
Public Works
City funded the
deleted
Severe Weather
One Year
project
N/A
Hills Drainage
Mangonia Park
Public Works
City funded the
deleted
Flooding
One Year
project
N/A
53rd St Drainage — Hill East
Mangonia Park
Public Works
City funded the
deleted
Flooding
One Year
project
N/A
53rd St Drainage — Hill West
Mangonia Park
Public Works
City funded the
deleted
Flooding
One Year
project
213
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Appendix F: Funding and Data Sources
This appendix partially fulfills the following FEMA requirement
Requirement §201.6(c)(3): The plan shall include a mitigation strategy that provides the
jurisdiction's blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment,
based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and
improve these existing tools.
Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): The mitigation strategy shall include a section that identifies
and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being
considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing
buildings and infrastructure.
Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i): The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a description of
mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long -term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards.
Palm Beach County seeks to utilize every available funding source to provide comprehensive
mitigation funding to mitigation projects. We do this by utilizing resources at the local, state,
and federal levels and by being in continued contact with funding agencies and partners
throughout the region.
Key information concerning mitigation dollars is referenced below:
Principal federal and state assistance programs used for mitigation activities include
the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA),
and EMPA. Public Assistance projects, although they may have a mitigation
component, are primarily managed outside the LMS process by the Public
Assistance Unit of the Operations Section. The LMS monitors and assists PA projects
as appropriate. Pre - Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grants are pursued pre- event. Small
Business Administrative loans are coordinated through the Division of Emergency
Management, but typically do not involve the LMS. Given the level of activity
generated by Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne in 2004, Hurricane Wilma in 2005,
and Tropical Storm Fay in 2008 HMGP handled most of the need for near -term
mitigation funds. Other funding sources beyond the above (e.g. Community
Development Block Grants) have not as yet been fully utilized for structural
mitigation, although Economic Development Administration and Public Entity Risk
Institute grant funds and private sector donations were used for the establishment of a
state -of- the -art community wide Post Disaster Redevelopment Plan and business
preparedness initiatives designed to build a more disaster resilient community and
economy..
HMGP, FMA, EMPA, and PDM projects are subject to the standard LMS
submission and prioritization process. However, hazard specific HMGP projects,
submitted specifically in response to county allocations, are, at the discretion of
the LMS Steering Committee and Evaluation Panel may be prioritized using other
214
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
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 potential mitigation funding sources is maintained by DEM and
updated regularly on SharePoint.
215
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Appendix G: Local Mitigation Strategy Coordination
Appendix G provides information on the LMS process works and is coordinated. Included is a roster
of individuals that represent each municipality in Palm Beach County to the LMS Working Group.
Larger municipalities may have more than one representative. In that case, the primary will be
identified. In addition, this appendix will also have copies of press releases to the public informing
them of when and where working groups will be held, meeting minutes and agendas are included to
show the level of participation and coordination that the county enjoys.
216
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
PALM BEACH COUNTY �+^
LM 5 REPRESENTATIVES r
+ + Updated Seplembu it Xx:4 �
C11Y 0� BOYNTON BEACA
NAME
TITLE
PRIMARY
Sko"LlAkY
AC ALSS
PF70RFV
EMAILADIMESS
eKh Skr }rs�al
Tcun Ailomcy
plcnndRC6ownair hpllcpurh.r.23
K
31FJLI§ ratan 111C7
[S61546J,16it$
565 7y7-$ osll
ii€eamrnsn earn
Lejeunq. Ca rhse
AmIskarsl City mpn,W
x
>i
and Bo nron ee;Kh FL
j5r;3I ?42-6%2
lelnyr "htil.uc
SJSerSThdle+
Ct14rKll Pcpsldcnt
x
103 E "fitaftMEsch
703 20N 908'
urinytrxaus.thaler@wmo -aom
Eli[.lohmn
planner
Far+n CkrY Pro Tan
k
BI.d Bagnton deadn Fl
I361I743 i3
ohnsone LL I ux
¢AiilGFez.5w5dlnY�xnhu6,r8.n
Crroi Lar3g
6epusV TCwU CierL
x
Un F FwpntQp"a
eM '.-0ceen Bhd
Brin Breese fL33435
i563f�3335556
de6hlc Maprs
Geariu Cee&mMr
X
91vO 6o4h[en 64BdI FL
L561�743 -5741
maipesA6]tl1)B..3s
TOWN OF HRINW (BREEZES
NAME
MILE
PRIMARY
S"NIQAIWY
Anorle5s
PHONE#
iMAIL 0.130R [M
eKh Skr }rs�al
Tcun Ailomcy
plcnndRC6ownair hpllcpurh.r.23
K
aAM N. ocean Blvd,
etI Br 2Pman 33PF5, FI 35
[S61546J,16it$
565 7y7-$ osll
ii€eamrnsn earn
MKhwl Hill
McVCr
x
>i
N-
ER" erggm j. FL $T.a3s
fS611351- 33.29,
S61 9i*i 57 cell
mhir 210mmr}5t.nec
SJSerSThdle+
Ct14rKll Pcpsldcnt
x
4842 NI.00kan '
6r 6reem. FL 33435
703 20N 908'
urinytrxaus.thaler@wmo -aom
5 }r�}r} MoYna
Far+n CkrY Pro Tan
*
N.Ooean 9kd
Brin 43402 BrRWos, FL 334 .15
541 713 5116
¢AiilGFez.5w5dlnY�xnhu6,r8.n
Crroi Lar3g
6epusV TCwU CierL
x
}{
eM '.-0ceen Bhd
Brin Breese fL33435
i563f�3335556
aunderk ifploghopxprm
Senior Kamer
TOWN OF CLOUD LAKE
py"t
TrtE
PRIG RY
SECONDARY
AI:DRE55
PH4WU
EMAILADDRESS
1591 Glee Road, West
Pelm Brach, FL 33496 1!.61) 6B t -BaGB
plcnndRC6ownair hpllcpurh.r.23
194 WN F*Eid, West
y.�Ltn, oiamthy
Tovm Clerk
x
ftm Beet R, rL33405-
(5611 68&2815
LownolLIP Ukeo3rnsn,curn
3222
AS nt Page
300 LwE Road Mem
Dema ErlW
Mayo+
x
P}IrR 84no. !` $O*Orr
{$Aif 0&201S
trwnaklotdlake?dmyn.rprn
Soatt Rape
Senior Kamer
%
IDDV YFirm"nrrq
#322
wcr90rmdclrr,6eachcarn
1W Lang R.W. Wmt
Marionthaleao -FLNZ
Vlop ?Ang5ar
x
palm Reach, FL334G&
x561:. G2C -2835
tanrrsklwdlake msn.carn
3322
144 Lela* Raad, Wesr
5IAErY, Patrldr
-L unei heembc+
x
Palm 13=6, FL 33446-
[56116W2815
@rson.oam
3222
CM-OF DELFLAY BEACH
}LAME
TILE
PRIMARY
SECONDARY
ADDRESS
PHONER
LIWIAILAGDRE66
1591 Glee Road, West
Pelm Brach, FL 33496 1!.61) 6B t -BaGB
plcnndRC6ownair hpllcpurh.r.23
KONWFIWAw me,
T4riv5tftwi
C•1YManjprInIlem
x
ISQ1 244 -50#4
ste n@nydelrar.m
Reach. FL 33*1141
AS nt Page
1w W;Arilrsi Aviwue,
Mark McPOmcll
preaor
*
Dalr p wh, FI, 3#+344
�&ij 343 -79+43
M€dowell�rn�•pere �r rn
Soatt Rape
Senior Kamer
%
IDDV YFirm"nrrq
561124}7321
wcr90rmdclrr,6eachcarn
E30ra fl. 33444
TOwk OF GLEN MIDGE
NaML
TITLE I PRIMARY
ISECONDAMI
ADDRESS PHONEx
I FMAJI ADDRESS
F.citle Suites
To w3 Mnapr
1591 Glee Road, West
Pelm Brach, FL 33496 1!.61) 6B t -BaGB
plcnndRC6ownair hpllcpurh.r.23
217
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
PALM BEACH CDUNTYr
LM5 REPRESENTATIVES �hr
• iJRAale0Sentem4er 19 201-0
CITY OF GREEN ACRES
+JANE
TITLE
PRIMARY
jrrC0I413AFWj
ADDRESS PIaONELI I Ehb11LADDIUSS
1PHEME91 EMAII.A04RESS
LaL+a Hannah
Vill a Mana r
1)8 4e
>t
5751)VIe"LlWiarre
'arlos Ceders
Public Works Die tw
%
jrutaiwnolhevcrFrllfl.gPM1'
(563I W -.za1A crertmnw.ereeha€re .11.�s
Stearn, FL 39488
K
-
Haverhill, K I3a17
6reeaaaresFL334E3
VILLAGE OF GOLF
NAME
TI1L€
PRIMARY
SELS(WNG4RY
AnoRr,%
1PHEME91 EMAII.A04RESS
LaL+a Hannah
Vill a Mana r
1)8 4e
>t
1665°° Rdad,Gulf
21CowwlrRoad, wilkq m
IGolF,FL334I 6
04511733 -0236 @arnalsm �aceal olF,or�
(5611 -03w
jrutaiwnolhevcrFrllfl.gPM1'
Kathlcm'A'clscr
Stearn, FL 39488
K
-
TGL&N OF GULF STREAM
NAME TITLE
I PRIMWY ISECUNDARY1
PRIMARY
ADDRESS
I PH0146
I EAAAiLADdRF,S.s
W1111am Thrasher Fawn Niamapr
g
Town Admir4sardk[x
1665°° Rdad,Gulf
Ili 27frg1J6
bihrRShdbeulFS[r 1)K rn.ax
(5611 -03w
jrutaiwnolhevcrFrllfl.gPM1'
Kathlcm'A'clscr
Stearn, FL 39488
K
-
Haverhill, K I3a17
(567) 27$4SM
kwWgr@pGi nigh land- Lle9ell. n,us
100Wa ROJ 4 Gulf
To 9n near
%
RehcotoTew TuwnAomurdant
505 ChadmAeSl,
x
eL
F$O)2n.91L6
rtawngidf- "raamara
Ha�hill. FLB417
5mom FL33483
e6tphR0lilt
TnWN ftr HBVFRWII I
NAWL
TIRE
PRIMARY
SECONOARY
AGIJI195,
PwBeJEh
EMAIL AWW55
Janke RWLao
Town Admir4sardk[x
%
X695 Charlate SI
(5611 -03w
jrutaiwnolhevcrFrllfl.gPM1'
Kathlcm'A'clscr
Tawn r iartigcr
K
Haverhill, K I3a17
(567) 27$4SM
kwWgr@pGi nigh land- Lle9ell. n,us
luff Renault
To 9n near
%
505 ChadmAeSl,
5611 M-0370
eL
Ha�hill. FLB417
e6tphR0lilt
RuDll[SaitLy Dlft[ior
�
5595 Char'QHeSt,
;561I689,0370
irach%8153%tnolhavurhgl R.apv
Ha�e.hlll, F43351F
33-187
TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEAfH
NAME
TITLC
PRJMAPN
SECUkOARY
AJ517RESS
PHONEY
EMAIL AMHESS
HJA Sm th Ocean hhd,
Kathlcm'A'clscr
Tawn r iartigcr
K
N&Nand 9oam, FL
(567) 27$4SM
kwWgr@pGi nigh land- Lle9ell. n,us
33167
36145n thOcean Blvd,
Btmri€Rrcwn
Town Clerk
1f
Highbnd'Ench, FL
(5631 2799.598
4L�ravm d.NgNand tea€h.R.us
33567
33-187
awNesi
AsslssnM to lawn
Manama
%
3515 South p€eds7 BIVO,
1%i h and Beth, FL
133497
?5dil T7B�d5a9
xbur�sa�d.h�brel�arh.fl.0
TOWN OF HYPOILUXID
N^%
TPLE
PRIMARY
SECONDARY
ACGRE55
PHONED
EMArLAOURESS
75£45aM Federal
Dvljara Searh
Tkmii Gelk
x
High%vw, itrpolumo, FL
1561) 592 -0155
bsearl h�i3hjK .orQ
33x62
75M SoclLh Fedef*
>In Shultz
udy0f
1I
I(gt", HspNWAiL
(5611 582.0155
IfR tpr llYpplyrppa�r
33567
218
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
PALM BtACH COUNTY Rr�'
*�* EM5 REPRESENTATIVES SSLIdLkl�kylernlax a�. 2014 �
. *J�
TIUViN OF JUNOREACH
NAME
TITLE
PRIMARY
SECOmftaft
AEORLU
FHOFJEII
LMARAEl51tt55
Androa Bobbins
Pr•d Caordmatloa
x
3urn
9
X561165 &0316
9 Wn5@alus dr.R.us
TuJy Mel ianu
Public Wok!•
GiFter
x
. Jum
i5�6 1 4 65 6-113 1�
ar"wilpluw.beech.hys
FL 33469
09
TOWN OF JUMER
mw
TITLL
PRIMARY
SLCONDARY
AEORLU
PFR }NER
EMA14APORM
i{
FL 33465
1561�74rr3iB7
1 ruitt igiatcrinlutum.om
21U MilMilitary Trail,
1 UIDr Road, jlww,
ger Hero
Bull 4q0 PeRk t7lr rk4r
GiFter
x
Lake Clark sharm,iL
15&1) 7-41-2%9
rprte iupiter.11.us
FL 33469
lu tb.FL 134Sa
219MIIItaryTr$II,
n Lynth
#'lanslxarmner
x
Lake Clarke Shorm F L
(5g) 741 -346
5 ma�lUO ter.jl.us
1 Iter, Fe 3345A
DiredaraiP�lhlit
210 M111tBry Traik
BtrridR trir
1jSMle,;$U4lwvff
x
it
Witer, PC 33451t
1551M7412TB5
-dmWr@iujfiter.fi.us
IUPITER INLET COLONY
7OWN OF I AIcE O ARKS SHORES
NAR7E
116E
PEIMMY
i urer us' "
AC RF55
bhnPluieL
:Itit+i
i{
FL 33465
1561�74rr3iB7
1 ruitt igiatcrinlutum.om
mi eaMadm hoed,
1 UIDr Road, jlww,
f!hieFWe%Smith
Gale Allen
GiFter
k
Lake Clark sharm,iL
�561�74f 3J99 allrnuf lupllr7nlnt€dnnv. nit
wsmithfta7u lwhre.ora
FL 33469
7OWN OF I AIcE O ARKS SHORES
NAR7E
116E
PEIMMY
SF.�:WJGARY
AC RF55
PHONFx
EMAU.ADDRESS
mi eaMadm hoed,
f!hieFWe%Smith
Chid oFPaliBe
k
X
Lake Clark sharm,iL
FUA1 9&&I WS
wsmithfta7u lwhre.ora
32406
1345 Barb4d4s Road,
llramrrhykUsae
Fftaty Clerk
x
Lake Clarke Shorm F L
1�562)R64 -1525
thauseglakedarke.w
33406
DiredaraiP�lhlit
174! 6Brbados FtaBd,
{lark
lawn ManaWlA0mIP
it
Lake Clarke Yiiuts. rL
X561]4]%1555
ddark@IakvLW c•vra
Works
33406
1781 BarbWQar Rnad.
Mary pinkerrw
rQwn Ova
x
Lake Otokp 51iwo. Fl
�561i 96&615
mobikErdi gpljjlpiKlarlx!A3rS
33406
TOWN OF LAKI1 PARK
NAME
TITLE
PRIFAAR
SECONDARY
ADDRESS
PHONEfl
EMIULADDMSS
535 Park Ayerkue, Lake
halnSugnnan
Tcwmi2�raber
k
IS(1�JSH1# #OD
rblgarman�rink8paikilorida�fr
Pa�& FL 334x3
sAr. hrkAV nuu. Lake
pl. ' Rittmerl
Pr6wt M6rrB6er
x
r561)EAS -3345
rpietmen @hkep3rkRrrlrLi4mo
PSrIL FL 33444
DiredaraiP�lhlit
535 P4rkAvew4Leke
Attlnl
x
[S6 LjBSi -3345
QlturnSDlakenarLRo IdaR
f w
Works
Par FL3Rd03
{71Y OF LAKE WORTH
1 I I I7 W0 dude HiewaY, I W11 wry MI)
Rr�vm PubbcSerripr. Brrcrtor %
Lakr Warlq. F1.334150
219
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Ca.— PALM SEACH COUNTY � LNIS REPRESEf�i�1TIV�$
updptoAygplemher 18. 2D1a• V-7
Duraync€stdLr
FlislMan er
I Aodae55 I PHONEY I EMAiLADDRW
%
7 Morth Dina Wrra'K,
(5614533 -73x2
dertplle Inkewuth.uY
La"ann.FLaM
I)cbbJc Manm
laver. FAan r
LakrWorth,FL334[D
Linda Stumpf
Itarla umgp
Pylpll� Swykes
(561j30 -2594
1514'iIRrq.nian3kspan.rx&
7 WeLh Di.6e HjOT.W,
{561 5L1 1720
mkuqnL�§loxahat[he ekWveS(I.Jj
MBi k Haney
Manar
ge
7S
Lake Worth, FL 334€0
j551J 7?3 -2d 1&
qh.o
TCf Wd OF LANTANA
hAW-L
TFTLE Plummy Tsmixilmny
I Aodae55 I PHONEY I EMAiLADDRW
Robert Ha�erlY
;cmmand[+ x
SOOGrcyno0dsi]rcly,
{Sdi�SaO -4000 eha.,envi¢�rnrpna.00R
0MA1LADDRLi4
La"ann.FLaM
I)cbbJc Manm
laver. FAan r
8 5W6reynblds linlq,
;SbiP5dL56Y0 dmanxolantana.orp
Linda Stumpf
Lantana, FL 33462
TOVIR0F LOXAHATCHEE GROVES
NAME
TITLE
PRIMARY
SECONDARY
AWFE55
PHONEA
0MA1LADDRLi4
EWSauth Occon
1d57Biorrthlrn9h+d,
Linda Stumpf
Y
NuiRvArd, mRr*4per4
(561j30 -2594
1514'iIRrq.nian3kspan.rx&
ManBpnla P ;� F4
Imi) 69:5-1235
mkuqnL�§loxahat[he ekWveS(I.Jj
MBi k Haney
T::vrn kxanapei
x
Smle2, Lc s hwchpp
j551J 7?3 -2d 1&
6w South Ofean
A�jxtFmprgprrt}
Lisa Pe' mch
Tiw•:. {le.k
��r0u9F. Fl 33474
BoulLererd,rtxialaPar4
a4
—
kpPr7rienonunal3 uap.ork
Town rddndKer
x
x
uk prn FJp .
(561184$-3435
r 11 tawnnfmaoannlarrar
oft[ K. Whipple
U%—Clerk
54407, LwarWchee
j5r1] 754.436
�15�II11� ^�I�E9hatdi49pr44eStl.p
x
Orom% FL 33474
av
TCYWN OF MANALAPAN
NAME
THEE
PkIMARr 5k£OubAky
AtTC %5-
PHRNEp
EMAIL?%DDPESS
EMAILADDRfSS
EWSauth Occon
1755 € il6Fany bF16. ,
Linda Stumpf
To Manaper
Y
NuiRvArd, mRr*4per4
(561j30 -2594
1514'iIRrq.nian3kspan.rx&
ManBpnla P ;� F4
Imi) 69:5-1235
sallul wn 511aP41 �p
FL 33x62
3A47
6w South Ofean
A�jxtFmprgprrt}
Lisa Pe' mch
Tiw•:. {le.k
x
BoulLererd,rtxialaPar4
15643934W
kpPr7rienonunal3 uap.ork
Town rddndKer
x
x
F L 33462
(561184$-3435
r 11 tawnnfmaoannlarrar
TOWN OF PAA NGON IA PARK
HOME
TrrLE
PRIMARY
S €LCwDARY
.oEaRE55
PHOM
EMAILADDRfSS
1755 € il6Fany bF16. ,
Albury
Taxn Clerk
x
x
ManBpnla P ;� F4
Imi) 69:5-1235
sallul wn 511aP41 �p
3A47
rrn
A�jxtFmprgprrt}
1355 k Tiffany Drro ,
LeeLerSr4bxell
Town rddndKer
x
x
Mwpr*m ParlG, Pt
(561184$-3435
r 11 tawnnfmaoannlarrar
Mary
335507
k.ol3r
k.mm
1755 f Tdkfiy Drk P,
Irri5ta5:nr+nors
WoLay Tisyp Clerk
x
Mangmia Park, FL
(561F SiE•12�5
nisi n nani ,l�vmoFmpnpgnlanar
33407
k.00m
1755 E TIF{arw Drive,
Fatfiu8 Waa;A
DepLAy Tcwn{lerk
%
Mangcrnia Park, FL
prl1 .J 4A•1235
rgr. toxmarmnrrtunidoafk.[
3340]
m
VIELAGF OF NORTH PALM BEACH
NAME
TrTLE
PRIMARY
SECONDARY
AIZAESS
Pmor1FU
FLIAII A4pP[jS
9907FIAEhla D&trc Falia
Jim Kelly
YAI*eManaSw
x
15611.1 541 -33f1
IkellpWall ixti3$%
Beach Gardlns33d10
A�jxtFmprgprrt}
]9a7Fu§&IBDfi%L-,PBlf+l
huckHuPr
x
�3f 3�9 0 f
chUifWylll,�1¢ nBEi orb
Mary
Be ch Gardena 33430
220
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
r PALM BEACH COUNTY Z
LIMS REPRESENTATIVES
w,±
LlptlalcA Srptam6or 10, 391.4
CITY OF ATLANTIS •
NAPAt
1111t
PRSY,fARY
5FC1)NCARY
AODRE56
PN01%10
0k4gMLA6t3RES3
�WOrarpTree W%
Moihora[49
Lisy rla„ager
X
X
A1IRnjIiF 39#b3
(SG11 %S 1J99
mthamrnn at,an#IgII.kOr
>F °is,gn Pyhalamen
Lip '.Icrk
Y
N
K
2WOramge Tree Orlvc
4561196.i-1F94
rpuhalaines,�5laMlsfigov
Assistant to 1he {ity
AilaMIsFE,13a52
..........
= keeeMazuk
Utilities
%
25G0farjeTreeUrive
3561f465 -7J -04
akMaeldpSliFl. uv
1peu
Mkt%&O L;Saoe
xnanaacr
!r
1laml&ik,33A6Z
(551,1962-4W4
rnlasalle @mybaca,us
iuppwSerioc
3500rarip tree gmy
3obi,iAckerman
fuLkwoft
x
X
walirawW,Belle
IS6119GS -1794
rabrlaGtl .shcllsouth.al L
Ma r
11ardiG 33162
;hlef Rabprt dbngdd
Pallrc Chlcf
x
260 Orange Tr Crivc
1561; 965.1700
Imaryp111 sllaniisR gyf
pghT; h fluff
CikyClgrk
y
Ms k, 93AB2
15611 q32 -1GSr9
S14nalL G' �e Fl.aom
CRY OF BELLE GLADE
NAME
TITLE
P ?Ir.IA.Hw
UOMPM7
ADORE55
PHONEA
EMAILAJODRESS
1100e.Umie, Luther
LarnaxHarreue
CiLYManager
%
X
PHIS JrFJhdW,Beik
FSdsjS9r2-1.601
Ih 11c,@aolingLa0eAM
ilieFtdr mm
Gran LsAdminimaw
N
Gbdc~ Fl. 93i [)
L'S61)343-7d57
Iharrnonfdlrmloom.c+!
Assistant to 1he {ity
114 Dr. Mania I-wher
9eaerlYS44kk
ErODEiprigFr4lect
x
FSegJfWdWrBelie
(561]992 -1623
bsmgCmbvIIvrJadc-Farm
Mkt%&O L;Saoe
xnanaacr
!r
Ghde,FL33430
(551,1962-4W4
rnlasalle @mybaca,us
L14 Or. Martin tattler
MONMManiasdeEX;
fuLkwoft
x
X
walirawW,Belle
(5611992.1216
numptn1pbelile adefum
Glade. FL 33534
� 11W)r1mel.
ErllerjjexV M;aMapr
x
111) CJr, Martln LoMer
(5671 9,22 L22d
sarlmarw wpb.orp
pghT; h fluff
CikyClgrk
y
KinglrSlw! W, Belle
15611 q32 -1GSr9
S14nalL G' �e Fl.aom
c latle. Ft 1344
CITY OF BOCA BATON
NAME
ME
MIFA4RY
SEOOnfxaRY
AnpRT37A
PHONER
FMAII ADDRESS
ODI Ciemalis 54reet,
Rnph wall
Senior 54mffl6ArLlr0
%
Gly Hall 2DI W.
{561[635-6561
rw 1pwpb o
ilieFtdr mm
Gran LsAdminimaw
N
Nimetio Pork RcLlloca
L'S61)343-7d57
Iharrnonfdlrmloom.c+!
5"rm Watgr
avian, FL 33932
(rwr 'Ward
ErODEiprigFr4lect
9
ngrea Ave. Suite
1561 }494 -1124
Lward @web.ure
Mkt%&O L;Saoe
AssllLagk Fie Chief
!r
2w Bars Ratan, FL
(551,1962-4W4
rnlasalle @mybaca,us
x.3997
CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH
NAMF
TITLE
PRIMARY
SECONDARY
ADDRESS
Pr7ONEH
EM4ILADIMESS
ODI Ciemalis 54reet,
Rnph wall
Senior 54mffl6ArLlr0
%
eel Pakm Mml3. FL
{561[635-6561
rw 1pwpb o
33401
5"rm Watgr
AD] clegkml:551",
(rwr 'Ward
ErODEiprigFr4lect
9
WLesl, palm Beard. R
1561 }494 -1124
Lward @web.ure
Coardlmlor
33441
ie nHodfm ;nn
Grams C6mplionce
X
m lbeseli. FL
F563j J32Z -13#3
54offrna,ln &wtli,.trc
E3004
� 11W)r1mel.
ErllerjjexV M;aMapr
x
rg�n RM;L W kft
(5671 9,22 L22d
sarlmarw wpb.orp
F1 33441
221
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
PALM BEACH COUNTY
LM 5 itEPRESENTATIVES
i + Updated Sepicrnher it Xa �pd
'°20w ld` 1
CITwOH DDYNTON BEACIF
NWF
tltLf
FRIMARY
S €CI)NDARY
ADLALSS
p"O"Fil
EMAIL ADUMSS
$hn Skr,�ndnl
Town .4ilwncF
plmndcetownpiphpllspurh.npi
j
>{
3M L B ayntan 6co[h
[561 a6a,16m,
$t71 }91' o¢ll
Ifidi�rnil��2d157
Lcjcurx, {aridse
Asils[an! GtT u?mRE4 -r
X
9
eF.d "rpn mach FL
{5411 742-6012
mnUn3G&ht l.ra
9n Thaleo
CAtrKII PMd4;nt
x
100 E fltGd iaaudi
703 2M 8097
hrinybraci s.thalenLdhwhammm
Ell[ Johmon
Planner
Town CkriProTern
x
Rlod 9.3wban Beach FL
4$02 ra. Ocean 6)4
Briny Erft2os, FL 34'05
'ohn ne hhUt
WStr$$v.rt,raln, vah c[YII
h "u,
Carpi Larsg
L1rpuSy TCIYII Gerk
1W F Eloynt01s84a
x
LL9 62N.Dce$n 9hd
Briny RreezCSJL3305
Ea6hle Majors
ri Snto- CaadlrMOr
v
0146Wynt -0M1 'Bean FL
15615 7 4 2 -RdL]
wipfsdPbbfi.us
TOWN OF 614 1NY BREEZES
NAME
LIRE
PRIWRV
SFr mr14RY
ADPRE5S
PHONES
LmAri. AbaFWM
$hn Skr,�ndnl
Town .4ilwncF
plmndcetownpiphpllspurh.npi
j
>{
4BOY N. (icaan glsd,
&I 6r6piF5. 3335
[561 a6a,16m,
$t71 }91' o¢ll
Ifidi�rnil��2d157
WF3ael Hill
M$yar
x
9
-1§11
4 N- mwl 4 .
6nrrk ergpmn$. FL 31,a35
[561} 251 -329,
56119�i 757 Pell
mhWl'i 2 Wranngst.nec
9n Thaleo
CAtrKII PMd4;nt
x
4 3z N. ocean Euvo'
9r6l 9r$em. FL 33435
703 2M 8097
hrinybraci s.thalenLdhwhammm
Wrksira MrAni
Town CkriProTern
x
4$02 ra. Ocean 6)4
Briny Erft2os, FL 34'05
551 74351.16
WStr$$v.rt,raln, vah c[YII
h "u,
Carpi Larsg
L1rpuSy TCIYII Gerk
i', Irr6mPRO, PLU;nprT
x
LL9 62N.Dce$n 9hd
Briny RreezCSJL3305
{Sf+ }f -933y* 45¢
hlVrrtpNntlCrk @Yah00.[OrH
TOWU OF CLOVID LAKE
F14Fl.L
nTL1
PRIVM
SECONDARY
ADDffM
Pn4hfu
FteAILADDRESS
1597 Cie,- Read, Yreri 1561} 691 -88a
Pelm Reach, FL 33406
plmndcetownpiphpllspurh.npi
j
LOU LargFmdI West
arawlm,Oomkhy
Iwm:lerk
x
PsJmBemli,R334o6-
(5 6 61 686-N15
tQAkQ'1CIDutlI7keS3fnw)z5;urn
3.122
A495tmt PER�E
700 LwE Arad. W eu
Donna Erisw
h "u,
k
i', Irr6mPRO, PLU;nprT
{SGlf Cp�6• iS
tawnpkloudlaloe�pmsn.[orn
t Pape
Senjur P1an+�er
k
IDONW firm Aveorrq
#333
a err h
106 Lang Rand,'Afmi
MarionChaleau -F4kffl
Vlpe Ppga ar
x
Palm Reach, FL3346&
1561} 69&2915
LDMa kiiau dl2{.eEE n.ram
3222
1U4I.elsq Ra$d, Vies[
5Ia#ersl,Pe[rldk
CaunciNKrnb-
x
Palm Re h, FL 3344&
[5511U&2815
t6Ttiou�eke�msn.mm
3222
UUOF DELRAY BEACH
#LAME
MILE
PRIMARY
SECONDARY
ADDRE55
PHONER
Fh7ALLAIDDRES5
1597 Cie,- Read, Yreri 1561} 691 -88a
Pelm Reach, FL 33406
plmndcetownpiphpllspurh.npi
j
1ODrEW Flrit Awma,
Terry SVrnxn
mmorinwilggdm
x
IS1}24R -1494
siewarl @mydelrar.orrm
Derr Head. FL 334M
A495tmt PER�E
1WPJVd PlrstAxnur,
Mark M6R4Irmell
Olfecmr
mglr E ph, Fl, UA44
X61} 243 -74+43
M[dowell�rnoderrey_, rn
t Pape
Senjur P1an+�er
k
IDONW firm Aveorrq
565124}7$ 9
a err h
EH!Iray Reack FL 33444
T0wkC1F GLEN RIDGE
N J,ML
- T_E PRIMARY
SECONIAM
ADDRESS PHON E01
FIVIAJS ADDRESS
F.1ic11clle 5ui[el
TorA� Manager x
1597 Cie,- Read, Yreri 1561} 691 -88a
Pelm Reach, FL 33406
plmndcetownpiphpllspurh.npi
j
222
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
PALM BEACI4 COUNTY
LM 5 REPRESENTATWES
Updated Leoemher 1$. M
� {ORi Oi*
TOWN OF OCEAN RIDGE
NAME
TITLE
FRIk6it4Y
SECONDARY
IME55
PH4NEA
EMAILADVAES5
41n Jghnxnn
L1Irtulor pF PuWlr,
x
a�90dtlMe Nar
4130 Nors40cean
1561r 924-73112
alahnsnn�dlrotLSehL#eercLni
Ker;schgnck
Town Mang
x
160 5941h Cc" Noe L
BaVer ard, Ooeao Rjd ,
{561 732.2635
tL0& LP- QUanrL0 a A[j&=
r[A yrasN+IA6an
CRrerLaroFComm4nily
156"373 -mg
curywaumanIAdlri
FL 33415
45bij92� 553A A27
�r�M +ur 7Slr,oluahpkee corn
Sue FrankTm
Dereloj3nriri
x
6*5D Norm UG4RR
X56112"-3457
SF kS.n�ahseay0rhall.nra
Karen Hanc! aA
TOwM1 Clerk
w
RaulFwd, OGean RWp.
r563) 732.25U
k Dc;LnrdgefioWa
Ebp y BruLw
plredur aFIrLRnW
x
Rahotr �fi 33476
rl 33435
euluLaNEejYljOdhakee.00ln
CITY OF PA"OKEE
NAME
TWE
PFUMARV
SFDAN.7AFIY
ADD"
ppomEll
EMAILADDAEss
41n Jghnxnn
L1Irtulor pF PuWlr,
x
a�90dtlMe Nar
207 hagmia Grim
1561r 924-73112
alahnsnn�dlrotLSehL#eercLni
ILC9m
Mark
Enr¢rgenry
160 5941h Cc" Noe L
Eahgkim. FL ##476
561-404 -7014
KWBGdrom
r[A yrasN+IA6an
CRrerLaroFComm4nily
156"373 -mg
curywaumanIAdlri
247 &eganla 4rNe
45bij92� 553A A27
�r�M +ur 7Slr,oluahpkee corn
Sue FrankTm
Dereloj3nriri
x
fahakee, Ft 33975
X56112"-3457
SF kS.n�ahseay0rhall.nra
Todd :'Rle
['ILy Engineer
8
n a i4e�
156E 53'[
lP,a4Le -L1x Isom
Ebp y BruLw
plredur aFIrLRnW
x
Rahotr �fi 33476
- ,2 #1q
2414
euluLaNEejYljOdhakee.00ln
TOWN OF PALM BEAC4#
NAME
TITLE
PRIMARY 5ECONDAKy ADEIRE55
PRONEN
tlsi47LAUDRE55
PRONEN
p-KofREGASpec
3f4tauthCouRiyFwad,
Tan i..rre
IbmdFehwmrLR1Par pfp,3Imhva
a�90dtlMe Nar
Pr' is
%
Palm gg,Xh, i1 334S4
45611UVA65
ILC9m
OV mampr
Enr¢rgenry
160 5941h Cc" Noe L
ball, Palm Amch
561-404 -7014
KWBGdrom
Marrow meNt
x Pa4manach. Pi��6D
156"373 -mg
curywaumanIAdlri
Ouaenr, FL ZWL
Cborr1zn36or
Sue FrankTm
Pe"T9L`n(Jgrk
CM OF PALM MACH GARCENS
NAME
TITIE
PRIMARY
SECONDMY
AGGRFSS
PRONEN
EMAILADDA655
Ewyonne Brownlrig
Tan i..rre
x
10500 Nprlh Wkwy
35611 OW3457
E�tM jm3th$ownhallm
An0e1a BruA i
OV mampr
x
ball, Palm Amch
561-404 -7014
ahroxKl @0UI4pgm
Ouaenr, FL ZWL
Sue FrankTm
Pe"T9L`n(Jgrk
x
10!9DD torLh MIIIWY
X56112"-3457
SF kS.n�ahseay0rhall.nra
Todd :'Rle
['ILy Engineer
8
Trail, Pakh Beadt
561- 004.7012
lP,a4Le -L1x Isom
Gardens, FL H410
TE]ULrN OF PALM REACI- SHOR=S
223
247 Edward& Long. P*rn
Ewyonne Brownlrig
Tan i..rre
x
35611 OW3457
E�tM jm3th$ownhallm
Bea[h Shores, FL 33A4t
747 E4yraM Lang, Palm
Sue FrankTm
Pe"T9L`n(Jgrk
x
X56112"-3457
SF kS.n�ahseay0rhall.nra
&aA Shares„ {1 33404
2437 E6ht3�ds Lane, Fain
U4endy Cratrlree
BYIIdIng Clem
x
(561)844 -3437
Awfi el EAPA2ownhall.rnz
Brecli Shares. rL33404
C rAhu IJndskogg
TbNO MelrOger
X
247 Edwards Lane, P41rm
15$1) 64b, 67
LllydskcnA¢IpGSirwnrr�l orQ
Beech Shores, FL 38404
223
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
{ PALI41 BEACH COUNTY r,w
(Ne.,) LM5 REPRESENTATIVES
�deted Septemker 1�.2TI3 y*
k+fLLAGE OF PALM SPRINGS
NARAE TITLE
PRIMARY
SCCOffDARY
ADEIM55
PHONE11 EMAIL AIDUSS
Iflm {'lass �Cashro DIr&E(Cr. Land
x
PaulWebscee
226{lpress Lane, Palm
35 11 948 4816 as caar R a
Dev6b nikpt
Rayal Palm 9each,FL
{5151�759 -5173
In FL39461
LL
Poch Readle Wlage Mary
(561) 58&OM
x
226CYpreso- La _ Palm
{51511 M5-4010 Xede sFlarx
2399 fwgn4p rir, RMWO
S in FL M461
Hi}ntlUlnfnn
X46 i !!Ant P4hlic Service
X
a each, FL 334Eyt
126 Cypress tone. Palm
Mlla¢e Engnmr
hnROUSe
K
dhd., Rural NIrn imm.
(561} 79Ci-5161
{5611 965 -4011) t,s sro
Iroe�sp.orA
a or
Citk57UftiK9tio n6
S In FL 33x61
FL 3411
tel€ure5eniaes
2ZG {ypruss Lane, Palm
Ynlllam#,olson
%
:S611 96S-4010 fan w sit
5 i F43i4[rl
vILtAGL OF ROYAL PALM REACH
CITYOF RIVIERA BEACH
NAME
DtrmdorDfPublic
SECDNDAFLYI
ACORM
1[996Ob55:1-. bL 71IMd.
Fr.IAILADDRESS
rLVrcrceU a'kY
PaulWebscee
19pps
R
(SW x45 -3472
Rayal Palm 9each,FL
{5151�759 -5173
yAyMterd>iroya Imfieach.00m
K
Aeac]t, FL3,4,,
(561) 58&OM
rlA9LJr@p ,4hW mbc%wh,cnrn
X3411
Director of Pjhlic
2399 fwgn4p rir, RMWO
d ua.a. r
Hi}ntlUlnfnn
10ARayal FalmHeach
X
a each, FL 334Eyt
Chratnphet Willi
Mlla¢e Engnmr
chwrcail SVeeuL
K
dhd., Rural NIrn imm.
(561} 79Ci-5161
UftXjn@jQj loellnheaoh.00m
charwe4G��?ALWlmtxa rheum
Citk57UftiK9tio n6
FL 3411
CITYOF RIVIERA BEACH
NAME
ME PRIKU
SECDNDAFLYI
ACORM
PHONEY
Fr.IAILADDRESS
rLVrcrceU a'kY
City Ln In¢,tF g
A
PufillchVnrks0lrrrrtor
2392 hvenL 'L', k6is
(SW x45 -3472
ibaikrr@rhrt wAhcom
1561j261 576
kerrc @soulhsasKler.wm
K
Aeac]t, FL3,4,,
(561) 58&OM
rlA9LJr@p ,4hW mbc%wh,cnrn
SDUffiBa FL234&¢
Director of Pjhlic
2399 fwgn4p rir, RMWO
d ua.a. r
Hi}ntlUlnfnn
worts
X
a each, FL 334Eyt
E;5671 Ads 4r5B4
h wlnsan r+rl SarA
MY 0� 5OUrH BAY
14AME
TrrLE
I PRIMARY
I SULNOMI
ADIALSS
PHONEp
EN.44 PMESS
rdgarlCcrr
PufillchVnrks0lrrrrtor
X
3355W 2nd Aremur,
1561j261 576
kerrc @soulhsasKler.wm
K
Sou41I Fells MaEh Fl
(561) 58&OM
rlA9LJr@p ,4hW mbc%wh,cnrn
SDUffiBa FL234&¢
TOWN Of SOUT14 PALM BEA04
NAW
TITLE
PfuMAAY SEWNEnxx
ADWE55
PHONE*
EMILADDABS
A21 South ocean Hlwl,
Hex Iayler
Tawn MenaW
K
Sou41I Fells MaEh Fl
(561) 58&OM
rlA9LJr@p ,4hW mbc%wh,cnrn
33484
d ua.a. r
DIrCOGE of
3577 South Ocnn h1wd,
chwrcail SVeeuL
Chid of PEAiee
x
South Pa)m agpdh, FG
�56a1 SM -7172
charwe4G��?ALWlmtxa rheum
Citk57UftiK9tio n6
334
VILLAGE OF TEO!UESTA
WWI
T11LE P31MA Rr
5E10r4o LR4
Atl[]RtA
PHONRR
I E IMI. AD MSS
345 Tecluesd Dr,
lan+tf wenand
Filre{lYef x
1561y36d-0d5d
T9 u¢sga, FL 34469
d ua.a. r
DIrCOGE of
345 Tequftta Dr,
Husaincarlas
%
[561�3A flr150
�Lariar_ @teKacstiarg
Citk57UftiK9tio n6
T uesla FL 33469
VILLAGEOF WELLINGTON
NAME TITLE: I PpJ --%RY I SECONDARY AWALESS I PHtlwkP EMAIL AaEAM
224
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
PALM BEACH 001JNTY F:.rvr
LMS REPRESENTATIVES
1JIG(Wed Sea(earnef 10, 2014 :
riiia'fr7�rJ��Y lsT�1ET,FS:�YiT�:I
NAdMF
TITLE
PRIMARY
SKONUSRY
Inco overt Hl
PHONES
FrlA11.A RE55
Nlroe #K dnncWa
LmeFgencyManagr
359MLIR Palln9ea:ls
Gardens FL 3341&
15611 7231)
Wgllln FS 4�411
15510 791�733
rYeNanree115La wellll l g�
Arn tlames
dep+rLY artaF�ad�
x
12300 forest Hill Elvd„
[5$1 }7575h4
harnesiwcllml:ternil.iLprr
EPccul
Srniocs
x
WMingtM FL 33414
541- 712{4a1
Qledwekadhrn, N
Qnakm
Coartllnatar
Waw For9rl Hill 60491.
Paul StAekl
W&Vg Manager
x
4le1111 00, FL 33414
(565 }793 -dC�6
pauls�yL�ll�fpggll err
TBn4a�rrlGtcE
CFO
x
12340 Fares? Hill LM.d.,
i561) 79J-4L15
In u ltLelFD wrmnlRVn a
+I.R
an FL�3414
riiia'fr7�rJ��Y lsT�1ET,FS:�YiT�:I
NAdMF
TITLE
PRIMARY
SKONUSRY
AOME55
PHONES
FrlA11.A RE55
L7-re0o+of 4perabnns
OlrertwDfEngine ing
359MLIR Palln9ea:ls
Gardens FL 3341&
15611 7231)
4010emati551,We51
mwhan9ram-^ -y
x
t561Ib222422
Ibramley @KpL.orlt
EPccul
Srniocs
x
Pal, 9eadr, rL 33a4S
541- 712{4a1
Qledwekadhrn, N
Qnakm
Coartllnatar
TCirr#tls St. INUO
Ralpbwall
WinrSystcnnAnatrsl
X
[561)ED5-6E61
pmIl0woh,aa
Palm eaach, FL 3W3
molls , West
&tkwomiHoffmann
Grani Cawllanee
x
nlm%;b:h.FI,1,U01
15631x777'543
shoFmnnno ph.nrG
Starn- 1Weta
401 Clemmiri Slrou,
]e'ffr"Rgnaylt
MamprtSarior
x
'WG1F81as Beath, Fl.
15611494']15:
Irpnaw6fwnP..or,;
prwt Hoer
33401
441 014rnarls ."41.
Mnnrucl d6onralce
L141111:195, nr lr*grarg
x
West Palm 9eardl, FL
(561�a4d -lG@S
mmnvh�x�wam.org
Preleal CwMtktar
334Lri
Pd—th— palm Raarh fnunrti trmnen,rpmpnl I]IctrlM
�1aME
nrLE
vRlrO 5EC4rCWY
A[1QFE55
M*wil
MAILADURESS
Rcn fmundlre -. LML Chaff
L7-re0o+of 4perabnns
x
359MLIR Palln9ea:ls
Gardens FL 3341&
15611 7231)
Ioen@npbridx i;
Indian Trial Improvement District
NAME I TITLE j MIMMV ISECONDAKYJ ADDRESS I rrH4NFiv I =MAWL AUGR: 55
him Shallnu A knl6stn6m 134766114 5r North I 166E} 77: -4Fs77 i;h.illrSanEpindlinlrall.tOln
Paim Reath County
Division a# Emersenc,r Mah Meht
NAME
FWI-g
YH-.M--tNr
JSECIDNDARYI
AgAL55
I FHONER
I EMAILIDDRE55
Projcrls
b3Sout1l
EPccul
1:090lrwWr /LMS
x
West Palm beach FL
541- 712{4a1
Qledwekadhrn, N
Qnakm
Coartllnatar
33x1}
FreawreCoast RegionaLPlanning Council
NAM@ TITLE I 11111M R4 SEQDNDASf AWRE55 I PHrMLN LMAILADM
Kite s ElrNerwftLvProkeers ¢71$WComrlgAAW 1772j83a-1587 k1LOp1@ttt
Crordinelor I I Stuart FL 3{949
225
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
PALM BEACH COUNTY
LM5 REPRESENTATIVES ,nr,
Updaled September 19, 2014 eI
�Ltrw aV#' ,t
South Flo4da Water Marraeement bktrlet
NAME
TITLf.
PxIrdARY
SLLANDARY
ADDRESS
I PHUNEA
I EMAILAWFLEss
Fmer9en€y
44SOeReMeet4roiea
(%roct6r
.4Siistdllt 605Mipr
I
{5611137 -775
47[35ep Ir7r5lu
1561] 554-91f}2
gp,R rrY�red[rass phGAr0.
neTalslrn
FmerprwYand
{5611233 -2701
(5611682-2215
1LalslrgL P?md w
Security Man maws
WT!Wlfflio
EMSoedalisii
I tin n I lolarxrKRy
14.441E
TITLE
I PRIMARY [SEWNIDARY
j AhulkU&
PHDHfu
EM .41cADDUS5
De.heimCasev
Fmer9en€y
44SOeReMeet4roiea
(%roct6r
Or. Martha Mehais 11irafesmir and twor
I
{5611137 -775
47[35ep Ir7r5lu
1561] 554-91f}2
gp,R rrY�red[rass phGAr0.
Kvriny nRml:sr$a¢ Fadlille>
florid Aalantic tjnlwerxlty
r.AMF TITLE
PR3F,tp,RY
SE CONDARY
ACCBES5 P14ONEH 'EMAIL ADDRESI;
pr. Al .�6raarmpn¢ Proei5)r ma Egita'
I
I j
jStl 20.031.4 ainm�ma to .
Or. Martha Mehais 11irafesmir and twor
I
I
I rnchaas fau.em -I
PAI m R.-ark lESltra it llptrF
NAME
TtFtE
PRIMARY
ISECOHDARY1 ADDHEINJ PNKMrA I EMAIL .4DI�e.
hr%sFilivl
4ir4Lt0,ol5eLvih
FMAH AppRE55
5$7 666 -39LGI
Vwy Laskoo pn
IMArLay, . $afal f i,k
Difecmof or Finance Fa
561 969 -41115 lies ki . I 0 FalirbiaxlLsime
Palm Beach CaLintw DlsnSter Rernwerw r --Aron
NAME 1111 Psimm{5'
I %rrX3N7ARY
ADDRESS
-pHE1N #k
EMALLASbRE55
emiFerBeckman IDIrcictar
FMAH AppRE55
mark G i
��
5611375 -9682
bxklrsl' bedre.
Difecmof or Finance Fa
1561] 554-91f}2
gp,R rrY�red[rass phGAr0.
A177PYIfian RPA Cro¢s Grfariar Palm R,aarh Chantar
NAME
TITLE
I 1111 MRY
ISECONDARNI
ACCCESS
T 1`46ME11
FMAH AppRE55
mark G i
��
I'rectar. Erne r�arlvr
Se*vioes
Difecmof or Finance Fa
1561] 554-91f}2
gp,R rrY�red[rass phGAr0.
Kvriny nRml:sr$a¢ Fadlille>
{5611233 -2701
krampers9 phcgw.prg
Palm Rearh Caumtil LLhrarw SwCFANi
,varnL I IIRE,
NR1MARr I 5@GpNLaaR'0
A41311f55
I PHONEf
EMAILAUDKEy7,
gi�n hill ssislant[Aractor
5611 233 -2735
Difecmof or Finance Fa
Kvriny nRml:sr$a¢ Fadlille>
{5611233 -2701
krampers9 phcgw.prg
226
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
cot. PALM BEACH COUNTY {LIMS REPRESENTATIVES
4.piated SurAumtrr ]l5, 2011 ".� t` ` .�A!
Palm Beach CGLtnty Sheriff's Office
4ME hi'LL I FR1MAhr IMCONDAFLY1 ADDRESS I Fr1L w %WL ADDRESS
4Ld Nrourwkl LIeLlenant I I I 1 $61 712 -" inurvnnRcIddW
P =Im R89CK r- niirl }t1 Fire- RPVL1P
RWE
T1T1F
I FRIMARY 5FDDNDVm A U`1E65 I PHONES I EMAILADDRf55
Ni$dBBker
N1*SroPGhler
105 Pike oad,
R L%Elf¢1rrF406 IsOakerWOG€vaa,anz
tihlesi Palm Ncoeh, 1.39t1
1 1561) 7335192
dwis y.uriz
RlehardGathrigh7 RWI; Diretim I K I
Palm Bea rhCounro Plannine. Zanirw and Buddine
NArAL I 71TL€ I PRI&WA T ISEGONDARY1
ADDRESS
I PHOrllw
I EMAILADIwESS
114 Wi5e j9.ildirq0Hidi I k I
1
1 1561) 7335192
dwis y.uriz
RlehardGathrigh7 RWI; Diretim I K I
I
I 561 -73 5195
r h' wur
Florida divi9ion of
Catvin, Giordanp & Aswr=iaEes
hWL TFTLE PRIMARY jS1Wf?DAqYj Aa0RES& i PWND EMAILAD13ML5
k -n{, WntharlRgan 3L j96419Q1-77d1 -
Meae amens
Ni f7 I
Urban LPd @LIE of halm Beach Counnr
NAME THE
nirax;ti j5EmNr)ARyj
Ar1DR4,L5
I FIKNFU
I EMAIL APDRESS
l'1i1;F N. Au%imllan AVp.,
J%3.1 On-IME1
BnIIft"WWn %qu PrgWept
x
%*5t Palm Rearh, FI
Tanl7r rSOn69lllpgi€.Orx
33411
aMCI
Trp*al ShIPPln6
NAME TTFIE PRIMARY ISECONOMI ADDRESS WONEY WARAD2OMYS
fdck Murrell 111reiliderimeChaimmm 561 Fl01-3454 , r o iial,corn
ConsulvAn #S
227
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
PALM PEACH COUNTY
LMS REPRESENTATIVES
I;plj87�Sp mUer1$bG14
Valente Advisers
NAME TITLE I PRIMARY I.&E�DHCARVj ADDRESS I wr.Eu T LM441L Anil
Businms fleweloarnenl
Rrla rri
F14ML
TITLE
PRIMARY
'SE {ONUnM
ADDRESS PHOWN EMAILACIDUSS
Ir{I tilnnllrl
r'r4olli6nl
jCimdai
I PH@NErt
065 835.]]50
Kul Todd I Hip Rowiirw KRr
561 355 -3624
I
I
I llknrelffimraw
P.Em ROOrh r,%,,ri I, Frrsnnmer nF i,.
NAME
TITLE
PRIMARY
SVnNDAF:'?
ADnRCM
PHOHEE EMAIL AtORM
Shtp,y Hawdrd
jCimdai
I PH@NErt
EMAIk PIDDE
Kul Todd I Hip Rowiirw KRr
561 355 -3624
I
I
I llknrelffimraw
nra
Bank Atlanw - CmIlmoen€u
Planninr
NAME
TITLE
PRIWRY
ISECONDARVI ADORES} I PHQravj I
EMIAILADDRE53
Re4erta Cohen
pfeslder,L of
Assot;eGon 0
CaArWwLy Planners
ADDRESS
I PH@NErt
EMAIk PIDDE
Kul Todd I Hip Rowiirw KRr
X
I
I
I llknrelffimraw
Palm Oearh C4ufaw
Administrati -im -
Water
RP.54urC23
ri AW rl ME
PRIMARY
ISEKONDAKYJ
ADDRESS
I PH@NErt
EMAIk PIDDE
Kul Todd I Hip Rowiirw KRr
X
I
I
I llknrelffimraw
nra
Palm Rcarh enrrrlty Haxlrh rlannrlr a rt
h41ME
I TILE
PRIMARY
SL03rtDAHTI ADM9 5
I PHor F+r I
WAIL ADCALSS
'Grasso
EM Nep Cmrd.
I S
9nq {Iwnakli Rrre#
I %] .671-4D16
asw oh.sta c.il c
Ir airanrr Services nffira Irlr
NAME
I TITIF
I PRIMARY
15ECONDARYI ADDRESS I NIGH R EMAIL ADI)RE!i
He it lilrx
IjQf�R$ 5 eGdIM[
228
�C}R1Y•
westeate�mb;@dv*
CRAL
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
PALM BEACH OOUNTY
LMS REPRE5ENTATIVES
Updated Sep6nnherIt 20iI
rgALAE
7Rk
PRIMARY SECONDARY ADDRESS
PHONIA
I EMAILAWRESS
`Inpc Mir•hel
EgE:{WI prgkIpr
X
NankNardel
erfthel r
11.1.
InsOeLtor General
WAME
TITLE I PRIMARY ISECONDARVI
AIX]RE55 I PIiONEq
EIAdILADDfiESS
Mwmp Hered�e
mheredla
NankNardel
1
11.1.
229
i�ACN C,
w �
Public Affairs Department
P.O. Box 1989
West Palm Beach, Fl. 33402-19[39
(561) 355 -2754
FAX: (561) 355 -'3819
www,pbcgov.com
Palm Beach County
Board of County
Comrnissionen
Priscilla A, 79ylor. Mayor
Paulette Burdick. Vice Mayor
Had R. Valeche
Shelley Vana
Steven L. Abrams
Mary Lou Berger
Jess R_ Sarllamarla
County Administrator
Robert Weisman
'An r.'qual WVrtsnity
Affi —bye Action E. np[vyer
Meclronic Press Release
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
News Release
For release: 5129114
Contact: Rob Shelt, 561 - 712 -6317
Palm Beach County Local
Mitigation Strategy General
Meeting
On June 11, 2014 at 10;00 a.m., the Palm Beach County
Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) Working Group will hold a
general meeting of its public and private- sector membership.
This meeting is open to the public. The meeting will be held
at the following location:
City of South Bay
335 SW 2 "d Ave
South Bay, FL 33493
The LMS Working Group is coordinated by the Palm Beach
County Department of Public Safety's Division of Emergency
Management. The LMS Working Group is comprised of
county, municipal, and community partners, that prepares and
promotes local strategies and projects to reduce long -term
risks to life and property from natural, technological, and
human - caused disasters. The resulting pre and post disaster
mitigation strategies and projects are supported by a variety
of state and federal programs and funding sources, in
accordance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.
Topics will include updates on the LMS program, mitigation
funding streams, and the Project Priority List (PPL). Public
attendance and comments are welcome and encouraged,
230
mm�
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
News Release
a �
For immediate release: December 2, 2013
F <ORI'D Contact: Kelvin Bledsoe
Special Projects Coordinator
Public Affairs Department (5(1).712 -6481
P.o, Box 1989 Kbledsoe @pbcgov.org
Wes[ Palm Beach, FL 33.902 -1969 i.
(3611 3,55 -275.1 li
FAX (5W) 5!,5.,5e19 Palm Beach County Local
"- ,V,,.uh goVc° "' Mitigation Strategy General
Meeting
Pal"' Beach County
'..
The Working Group of the Palm Beach County Local
Board of County
Commissinners
oners '
Mitigation Strategy (LMS) will hold a general
meeting of its public and private- sector membership
Shalleyb'ana. (hair
at 10:00 a.m. on December 4, 2013, In the Village of
sle,"' L ,1hra,,,a. "e cha"inan
Royal Palm Beach, 1050 B (Farber training Facility)
Karen r, Marcus
Royal Palm Beach Blvd, Royal Palm Beach.
Paulette Burdick
lSntl Aarnnso„
The LMS, comprised of County, municipal and
community partners, prepares and promotes local
Jessrt.Sanwmar;a
strategies and projects to reduce long -term risks to
Pr{seillanihy,nr
life and property from natural and man -made
disasters. Resulting pre and post disaster
mitigation strategies and projects are supported by
County Administrator
a variety of State and Federal programs and funding
Bohr, lvefsm.tn
sources, in accordance with the Disaster Mitigation
Act of 2000.
:hi 1:i�urd cgr�wrvnnin
,I /�irrnm7it•�I, gran Cu {ulopr
I.Ipclronk Press Release
Topics at the December 4th meeting will include
updates on the LMS program, mitigation funding
streams, and the Project Priority List.
Public attendance and comments are welcome.
231
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Xcxe�G� News Release
For immediate release: August 6, 2013
NORIbt Contact: Kelvin Bledsoe
Special Projects Coordinator
Public Affairs Department (561) 712 -6481
I>o_ Box 1989 Kbledsoe @pbcgov.org
141cst Patin Beach. PL 33402 -1989
(561) 5552754
FAX (51,1) 3553819 Palm Beach County Local
wwwpb`g om Mitigation Strategy General
Meeting
>Ul 17qurr! !Jp/t�;Rru tirp
ri %l�rutrinr'r: i<'frdui !'�nrpJn3 e-r.'
Gleclronic Press Release
Topics at the Aug 31s' meeting will include
updates on the LMS program, mitigation
initiatives, and expected mitigation grants.
Public attendance and comments are welcome.
232
The Working Group of the Palm Beach County
Palm Beach County
Board of County ..
Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) will hold a
Commissioners '..
general meeting of its public and private- sector
Sitell'ykana, Chair '..
membership at 10:00 a.m. on August 7, 2013,
5t.,,.en1. Abrams. ViceChatrinan
at Flagler Gallery, 401 Clematis Ave, West Palm
Kareit7. 0.9nrcne
Beach.
Paulette liuulicic
'.
The LMS, comprised of County, municipal and
NutAarorso„
community partners, prepares and promotes
JevsR.Sant,rn ""
local strategies and projects to reduce long -term
PtlscillaA.,Ityl °` '
risks to life and property from natural and man -
made disasters. Resulting pre and post disaster
mitigation strategies and projects are supported
County Administrator
by a variety of State and Federal programs and
Rob"(Weisman
funding sources, in accordance with the Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000.
>Ul 17qurr! !Jp/t�;Rru tirp
ri %l�rutrinr'r: i<'frdui !'�nrpJn3 e-r.'
Gleclronic Press Release
Topics at the Aug 31s' meeting will include
updates on the LMS program, mitigation
initiatives, and expected mitigation grants.
Public attendance and comments are welcome.
232
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
News Release
• . For immediate release: December 8, 2012
Contact: Jesse Spearo
�ORl� Special Projects Coordinator
Public Affairs Department (561) 712 -6481
1'e. box 1489 j sp earo @ap b cgo v. o rg
.
llml T'aim Beach, H 33402 11)81)
1,61135 i275,i Palm Beach County Local Mitigation
FAX 15611 35,391 9
www.pbcgov Cool) Strategy General Meeting
: -ur c�yrr�NOj,xn/unrrr
f �nrnarr. -f. riou J_'ni,���rr
Electronic PrCSs Release
233
The Steering Committee of the Palm Beach County
Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) will hold a general
meeting of its public and private - sector membership
Palm `
10:00 AM to Noon on December St" 2012 at the City
Commissioners
of Lantana.
Hurt Airortson. Chair
lure, r.Aiarctrs,.'icc C,,a,r
The LMS, comprised of County, municipal and
Shcllev Vann
community partners, prepares and promotes local
strategies and projects to reduce long -term risks to
Srcvc "`. Abtanls
life and property from natural and man -made
disasters. Resulting pre and post disaster mitigation
" " "' "^ "'' °r
strategies and projects are supported by a variety of
State and Federal programs and funding sources, in
accordance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.
County Administrator
WbcrrWCisman
Topics at the December St" meeting will include an
update on the project prioritization list, status of
municipal adoption of the LMS Plan. Additional topics
will be upcoming training for members and partners.
The featured speaker will be Pam Mackie, from the
South Florida Water Management District.
Public attendance and comments are welcome.
: -ur c�yrr�NOj,xn/unrrr
f �nrnarr. -f. riou J_'ni,���rr
Electronic PrCSs Release
233
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
n
hi
Palm leach County
Public Safety Department
Division of Emergency Management
Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS)
Working Group Meeting
'■ Call to Order and Introductions
a Ken Roundtrim, LM Chair
Northern Palm Beach County Improvement
District
. vVel -came
• Leondrae Camel, City Manager
City of South Bay
+ Flood Vlitlgation Pruiect5
• Westgate CRA Presentation
Ellzee h4i[h G, Executive Director, Westgate CRA
Governar's Hurricane Conference
* Grant funding Opportunities
0 Residential Construction Mitigation Program
.v Project Prioritization List Update
gh Project Submissions Timetable
id LMS Plan Update
.-o Evaluation CQmmitteq R "isiQns
,d LMS Times
A Reso Intl o n Revision
.�. . next Meeting
+ December 10, 2014
Location TBD
;a Upcoming Training
;+ Survey
# Questions /comments
.a Adjourn
234
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
F
Palm Beach County
Division of Emergency Management /Public Safety
Department
Focal Mitigation Strategy (LIDS)
Working Group Mecting
r
,41 Call to Order and Introductions - Chair
Lq welcome- Vallage of Royal Palm Beach
■ Grant funding opportunity (Res�dentiat Constructlon
Mitigation Grant Program (RC14P))
N Priuject PrioHtlzation List (PPQ Update
A Project submissions time table for May 201
a LMS Plan update
ti Steering Committee revisions
rig Evaluation Committee revisions
I. Future Meeting bate
Hi Committee alternates
is Spacial ReCDOElition
:a Upcoming Training
QuestlonsjCornments
'w Adjournment
235
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Palm Beach County
Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS)
Working Group Meeting
•
4 Call to Order and IntroducliQn!s - Chair
++ Welcome- City of West Palm Beath — Ralph WaIJ
14 Grant Money Available for LMS
.i June 2013 Project Prioritization List (PPL) Update
1■ Update. Phase iI for projects on PPL
., LMS Quick Reference Refresher -Why is the LEES
Impartant
LMS Plan update 2014
-d Project submissions time table
A Steering and Evaluation comraIttee Transition
mi Participation Requirements
4 Future Meeting Date
Upcoming Training
r Segf 9170 Mass Fafaiirias lrtGrdenr Raaponsa
■ Sepf 9/10 iCS40bi43 400 Advarwed iach39rnt
CPMMand ,3ystem Command e. Gerwaf Staff
apt 41/13 fCS3001G300;nfermodiale rneicraw
Conmand System for Fxpsnding ipr jdorrts
It Questions /Carnmenks
•* Adjournment
236
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Palm Beach County
Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS)
Working Cr u p Meeting
237
+
Call to Order and Introductions
,*
Welcome -Town of Lantana Manager Debbie Manzo
Pecember S, 2012
.%
Grant Morley Available for LMS Update
*
LMS Times Newsletter Fall Issue
i.
Hazards - Year In RevIew
Town of Lantana
.
,q
Update of Ongoing Projects
.
Current and Expected Eundinq Sources
Lan,'iina. FL 33462
a
2 -012 Project Prioritization List (PPL) Update
-r
Uptorrririg Training
• G -393 Nitogatroa fer Emergency Naaagers. pecem ber
10 - 11 and ]anuaTy 30 -11
■ G -276 Benefit -Cost Arrafysrs; Enfry love) TrainiV
March 6 • 7
. ERP7 061 Hurricaf a ROSNON Community Ngnning
acrd ❑Aes)gn, March 19 — March 20
•1m
Featured Speaker — Parn Mac'Kie, South Florida
Water Management District
■
hiltlgatlon Success Storles
w
s
Participation Requirements
Future Meeting Dates & 2014 LMS Plan Update
G
+
Questlona }Comments
1+
Adjournment
237
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
4�t
ILI'
Sian -if) beet
M S` Working Group
June 11, 2014
335 SW 2 "° Avv
City of South 11q, F1 33 439
Name............. ............. PhIDRCNUm Emill City or +
_ Address. o n1adoq......
A
EI
Ile � t
�WVWA
Fr,/,r geu: u
238
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
LMS Working romp
June It, $014
338 SW 2 "' Ave
City of Sonth INy, FI 33439
4MC..................... .. PhaimNum Fuiuil
Add rose.,
o �Ir
4 / r'
`i A,j
qj(.
q1I O�
,A,j
_ �t?�t, ra f le c
� cis
City or
org*niaatiou ......
...., ,
(e 6?jv
PA
w; k #' P
K I - _j,,af fatM{._, LLjII �,s 1 jt .- 11'^LI&
239
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Si,��t -!�i Shcer
LMS WoLking Grog
December 4, 2013
Farber is -ohdag facility
Villagv of RoyaI Palm Beitch, FI 33411
Nam... - ..,......
-.,
1lhooke
Num.........
]i.nUil
1�dimft.--- ........
C icy at
4 HnIT.atl4li,,,,,..,,
Ncw
111C1t1bW
-
i LT--
T
- (P
4 �5'dI.Q
AlT i f
}
�� r3n C air
1
-
r4.
frLV��y
0
+ 0
240
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
•4�fi R
k
�pRL4E'
, izir -im .Sheer
LMS WoLking Group
Derembep- 4, 2013
Fitrber (stifling Fnciliiy
Village of Royal F ahn Beaeli, Fl 33411
None.......................
Pb)nc
limail
{'ikyur
New
t fo r3
�r {fit
�[I OL i nvI
O8u6,vL.y,filr•
4 �Chr 1 L�vj
6 '��7� j! J
4 Y tpd>1 1 /FWArt
Z44:'
-CII
JM.14dfj"kLCEW"
ad)-t'1 doLd
7u4o
SeL-L 1Llk
-ate S
241
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
_L
,x
5ls.,n -in 251, eeI
L S Working Group
De -Cember4, ZO13 .'
Farber trailuing facility
Village of Royal Palm Duch. Fi 33411
N,krcw .......................
Mone
N11111— ......
T31110
Addvo 5____...._...
Cilyor T*iCU'
Ugfini7a1101i......... 111clubt2r
O�rj
242
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
i 'toRld� ' EMS Working Crraup �
Siva -in Sheer
August 7, 2013
rlagler Gallery
City Hall
e$t Palm Beach, F1 33901
Nama-------- -- ------ -------
PWiw
Email
Cilyor
LRS
Num......
Addims ..................
rtFOmiPUI6rrn......
group
.....,.
........
Menkb
vr' yep
❑ r Lt0
44 L
�,:r �:.cS 1. ti+ s✓ Q+
TO J/, .5 :.
fALL, z
i;,;f I
u
ty
L{
55err,e,S�,�+,
_fQirx L" 6^
in -
, mf"
�-�
L
I
�]
-� ..
if
lrnG R e A [rCA'I1'
�1 -145
-;3 r X44 -ZNLV Z- y
'?or.,nl &,d&vvz
243
Pag t of 2
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
1,M S Working Group !
.Sik-ar4PI beet
ugust 7, Zfl B
Flstgler Gallery
C by lull
West Palm Reach, F] AMOI
Tame ................... ....
Pi;;
Email
City or
LMS
........
Num......
Address ..................
organization,,.,..
Group
Mem
or Po
{�_s�
Rub
S6 1
1F1 r1 D---b C
k S fa�3
�}5y}'li lbr}
,w&'V LO b, I
nns
Zl�hr w.tkt.- _
P P
P.6-va hCkr
L VL ? + J
r
DI
(
Bde;6
C4 t r.A.�Yx�-
r�?t G {'l
244
Pag -1 of 2
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
ti•
{aa LMS Working Group
Sign -in Sheet
L4fSSteerI*n2 Cominiftee
August 7, 24113
Flagler Gallery
City Hall
West Palm Beach, Fl. 33101
Name ............... ........
..........
?how
Numn .....
Email
Address. .................
City or
organization......
.....-
LMS
Group
Memb
er: yes
or no
r` C,--
e
— q4,q
`qt
M Af" e5 0— 4414
14r 1
WC 6(dlf
s
v
, L'.' -
Tom,
VYNO.e rk
+
0(Fb 111f
!
ywfrf.')
A gw-
1
fage i of 2
245
>1
bJJ
O
CG
O
�-4
F=
C3aiilffS ft* COMMEJfoitYCEntl2r, WPB
EDC 5igrt PM Sheet
A
.Sign in
LM.S
Wednesday,
NAME
working, roue meetime
Aity lith- 2012
AGENCY
PHONE
9.,
12 12M.
Imly
P-MAIL
-ALA4.W n
A f A Aofl
2
3
,S,�
-nvf
977-,77 -Ri,
7
r 7 -
2
-7z��a -
10
4-Z/Xl-e
13
I
0.1c JQ AJ'. &.-a
14
X-
z
17
IZ,
6tk,�
b,:�& Ci
rd n F Jf Ypt.--ile
18
-
133 a-s q
I -ec,
19
tZfO4 r-'
-,o
123
Ina
F iN
603-&—�w
.
Z-5
215
27
4
ZL-t GTE i2e
7- V�
EDC 5igrt PM Sheet
A
.Sign in
0
N
bJJ
N
O
.5
I�
CG
U
O
- 4P
} Gaines Pack Commufucy Omer, 14fP$
L S Working Group Meeting
= W$dncsday. juhf 11th. 2012
k
29at..
SIgn
�r
NAME
t d�
AGENCY
vac.:caFS
PHONE
EMAIL
f
rf rrr
31
32�,c,
4C °+•v
a�ia.J�.P#
d� $. s
is�: df ! 7aa-
35
35
32
�1toi' �{j@4r1
F
-fk ¢
v¢f4xf u
v
G
`�+ f;,,rfo,
M43
:Wy, + F�
d'
a {fie} •F _
i ` rrhhw
46
i ., -wr
K4
+, f
e47
}L L..
Der-
�- { t.
41.41? q,
413
,lam S-;.= ' Z)
f S+7
i f
r, iGt li ?
f
r s s
IN A 4-Y r a
St
52
a
54
`5
56
57
sa
58
EOCSign in Sheet
20f2
J
40z
Sign ]n Sheet
k
�pR19t'
Amudees:
■
Nirl■ Rr`ch Cnim y
■
DEM
+
70wn of Driny t1mms
■
Town afClnud Uks
■
Town offrkm Ridge
■
1 iS*n of Maogonia
Park
■
PRIM Bench county
*
P1mma4g. Lm iMg, and
Builcung
r
Palm beach C'auaty
Fire Rckuc
*
himitutc For
5usloir"Uc
coffin urtilio
+
Cidy (1rpahokce
■
lown of Briny Brce,2ra
Absent:
CilyDfnaantis
■
Tawt1 of{'ruIfSlrVom
-
Town of lake Park
*
7051R1 ❑f Saudi Pe1m
8rmcil
■
Palm Bracb shgrifr!k
Offi m
■
Anwk7 Rx Red Crass
*
PEPIM Btwh County
Waver Remuirrr m
Patin BcaCIN CMINty
DWarimentofHrn3ih
•
VUL2g2 0 'T4 Cgtj .-tta
YilhEe aflaolf
Baekground;
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
LMS Warking 'G routs
Meeting Summary
June 11, 2014
South Bay
■ Town dI -aloe clades
Shl m
+
01yortnDmton13rach
■ Towu of1"Mlm ntnvls
■ Vitligenf PnIm
Spring€
■ -C11pvfSeuu4h Llay
■ rasvu VFJ13p■tC7
■ Norlh�!rh Palm lieaalt
-COMLy InkpivVeIrium
Dismu
In�EianF'f rill I
ImprovmaLt Ditalrict
■ Ylinge of Royal Palm
Iieoalt
■ Snulh Rlorida Watcr
E4id UgUnCEI DiRIVid
■ Tamm ofPal■u Ikmch
Shores
■ Tawn of hia laEapipi
« 'Gown Of Palm Brach
SLMec
r I,yrim Un1wraity
* Fledde Alim Iii
Uoiveraay
• Palm 13 -vCL1 Sumo
C:oUcr
■ DEUNI mr Rxetwery
GneJi6mi
*
Tow aftieverhill
LIT
• Vww:slgate C KA
■ City of Luke Wurlll
■ CityofRiveeru lkr&&
■ Tuwn of LumhgIV h%P
Gray"
C'ily pf lead palpu
Bench
■
City afiircal Cft%
Town ❑f Bunn Desoie
+ Timm ar 3 Dar Inlet
1•,9Ila1Yy
+ Tmm Orlaulatio
• City ur 00110 ON&
■ City at D6ray Hmrh
■ 1'-CMI1 OFFlij�3LIpncF
9each
• Tcmn of Hypulnao
r OleRam ore
■ C y ofnwa Raton
+ City orl'alm E mil
clardens
T1 1c LMS Working Cimup 6 winpriscd o f the Ful l lu>dy of lktc LMS, mpresent 4 a broad cruLN
WGiorl of pubfic semyr aild private scclur orgaltizaltiom and individuals, including the gcyicual
public_ Tfic Working Ceroup serves as an urnbmNk orgffr i utiun for coordinatbIg all Mitigation
programs and oedivitii:y, :upplius Elie staffuig utRi $xNrtjW For the standing and ad hoc
columittil � 0f the I,M.S, and is the primary i11erhmrtlsrn and Forum for exclanpip, information
and luobilizing flit vast exportim slid l+emurcey ormic wimutunity_
Pege I of 2
i•
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
liiglllights:
* Ken Rtntrtdtron, The LMS Srmwiug ('cuoilliliee CliviLr, opened Iho nkuiag Vfidt qi grectiEag wild
provided ilia As in IIi6 City of Stuul h 134y for hosting lies meeting. ht addition, he laid cvcryonc in
tlic wtmt introduce thcinselves and state 6a orVahm[Lon they rrprmcni.
■ Mr. K%L -Scit M then iatrodueed 1,mkdrae Camel, 1llc Oiy maFiaigty, nfSuuLh Hay wlaa provided
tut greetings froth lbr -City.
* Kcivio Bledaoc, LMS Cowdinalor for Palm Beaoh County (FK.'), iulrodkwed fuzee Michel, IIit
Execatiwe Director of [he 3Y8sigate C]tA whn provide Ilse p-mup With a presentaliotl on miLlption
1>nr'j0cts rlLe WnlgaLc ('RA lr:kwe eitha 4irnnplclod 4r ot,r ehm-mitly underwAy, much of it being
funded by Hazard Miiigni-ion Grant NOgMtn FUEEding.
r Mr_ 13le&rtc 13Rn a brief ductiplion of what he prescntr(L at lire GOwtrnor'a Hiarricauc
00E1fercElC4�.
■ latortnalian nn Ilke Realdwi;R1 CunatnicdEOn {Thant F'rogtant IYas discussed. 'I'lic RFP lead been
rcicased and Mr. BW4oc shied tlt.�t lie would selid it Dart to all working !troop niciribers the
following rby.
* Thu PPI, list Ilan bait up -d2tLcd and w111 be sent to lire sinic by June 19, 20J4. A complete list of
O,e new 11151. will be sesiL ouL Lu nL1 working group mvnibss4 on Frtday Jude 13, 2A14,
• Um prrdmt suhmissiall titrieiioc was discussed. Tho 11mL windnw 10 stti?n ij prujecls will he
C haWba 7, 2a 14 ilirough Nov -wnbtr {, 201 i4. 'Phere nre prntntly ? t pMjot=rs on tltw PPL wph the
add it Lau of ilhe project submilled by the Vi I Iglgc of Royal NJm Brach which vinked 30 ouL of 7 P.
■ '11 io 24109 LMS pJa10 is eurremLy beii>,g reviaetj and is due Lcr the Srale by Ady 30, 2014 iii draft
chum.
"Elm LMS I."Wrion Committee made some charlpm ro the "Ping procedure Ito P- crj is to
rtsfled llte gmwing Conde oi' S'f'E bevel Rise. C;arisse L&Jeunc, f4s-sistani Clip i RFMggt,
Buyidon llnwh. briefod the chutlges in thr scoring sysitmi, as well as the proposed rew]kiliniti for
aeinpiion mice Lhc LMS Updaic hart l+ecr, jkNiewad bx the z,karo.
■ The summer %dditivll of;he LMS Limn ruin be pubs isbed {tat July 1. 2014- Meilibm. are asked 10
provide arLiele5- In addition, Lhe group wig iIlfcrmed tltaL the April Issue of ilic r,ms l'lntea went
up to F LMA and F=iVed a good rtv4pimkae
■ Ncxi rnocthtlg date for the INS forking gawp is 5CJ3edal"I for D ember l0, 2014_ The location
will eitliff lie IheCily uFllawerhill or Ilse lowfn 6f PE313 t DcKh-
■ W.liile nQ 1rAining oppurtimi6m were prescntcd aL the tneeting, mcmhas inleresled ill LrEining
s1kimid�nto. r rae.Mridadia>,alef_ dlo tarorm.as x Fprtliymr.Ttraining
inforrtlatkirt„
■ Wf GDLdbCrg, DIN 1'kwning tMaresga, prdv!S d tike Working Croup Ow a survey will be
dhiLhibuLod within Ivro weeks to iiscerinin what type or information or q$itlings Owt LLtcy 54'nu14
like to rocein.RL lutgtrc meeLhigs.
Submitted lxy
Kelvin I31edytwe, LMS C'oordiriat ❑r
Approved 'hy
Ken RoLmdtroe, LMS Steering Catnni ttee Chair
Pa 2of2
249
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
7
I,M S Working Group
h9celing Summary
August 7, 2013
V4'est palm Beau r City Hall (Fin gler Gajjery}
Attendees:
Pahq tkaeh Cowry • Tolmi ui'Uke C:Lorke * NOL113M POIn1 Ekea411
DEM Stara C'o,laiy IrILFO 'emau
City ofBeHr G[Adk; ■ Ci1 f of tjoynjon Brads District
• Tomi of ffriny Breems . Toxm of I.snumui + Indiim I'Tail
• ToWn ofClo,ld Lakc + 'I'oun of Mlengorlm improv mom 1)L%ulrl
• City oMaleap Brad, Park . Villar oCROYA Palm
• Dix,steF Rmwvery + Tr} 13ahk Bach
orGIM RislP F Palm Springs + x I I
• City aGrnenazC.4 ■ Tow 1 0win Rifte TCwn of ]upllsr Inlet
• TownerHavatLiR ■ Tovm ofPsIm Beach Cblony
■ Tuunr oflfighund ■ Village c f patrol South Ririda Water
Baach Springs Management rKNIFia
a Tcvmi vrllypoltrxo ■ C;ityo{Srx,rl, Jivq
■ City of Pahakec ■ Yi1U1gc Uf wellioglnn
■ Juno EkaRO11 r C ht. ofw" Palau
+ Tvwn orLlrmy Ekrce¢ex L3euch
■ Town of haw Rea" • Town oflrysilk�t
Ahsent:
Racicground:
Vie LMS Working Grouts is wTr4xiPslxl ofthe full body «sibs 1,M S, rcpr Seating a btmui cross
!+xlion of pubk seclnr mr pnvata sector orgrll,iv.mtluns and hdividuak, iA0,ILx1irlg 1FIc aerleraj
public. The, Working Qrolrp sme:s as on umbmilu organirfaion fol' u5prdin8d Ina gill I -nitig2tiien
progz-turts aad m ivilies, supplies the siLLll1T1Lt and expertise for Lhe- I�tfulding and ad hoc
NVEIofA
250
CitypfAtlauLi.%
■ pain,lieashcvInly
I VWSPorCrolf
•
Ciiy of Bma Rn tau
Piro
■ 7'-rwn nr Pa111s 130ECh
*
I owo af{.iuLfsirra119
■ Palm Beach Sheriffs
Shares
■
Tuwu of Lake I'ark
OffKtt
■ 7'mm oFMfLlialopan
■
04y of Lake Waeth
• Aineriran Red Crom
I own of PEAM Rvor.; a
CAY of Pala} BevtCh
* Palm f3rac11 Cbunly
57uocs
G9rdene
Wat1x Rcsouroey
• 1,ynn L;nivemity
*
C_IlyOfRiV14Li11uwb
■ Palm Rr, hCdinly
I Hcwida Atlande
T43" of Lcxahatchee
11I411ning, 7.ouiu$, auul
U 11%,crsity
Grgvp,g
Bviiding
I Pallri Rknich flare
*
1owo ofSouOk 1'81111
■ Pa1n, PaKh C,,Alnly
College
Cieadl
L7cpRrllne34 of NO 11
+ Vi 1111p or rcqueEu
Racicground:
Vie LMS Working Grouts is wTr4xiPslxl ofthe full body «sibs 1,M S, rcpr Seating a btmui cross
!+xlion of pubk seclnr mr pnvata sector orgrll,iv.mtluns and hdividuak, iA0,ILx1irlg 1FIc aerleraj
public. The, Working Qrolrp sme:s as on umbmilu organirfaion fol' u5prdin8d Ina gill I -nitig2tiien
progz-turts aad m ivilies, supplies the siLLll1T1Lt and expertise for Lhe- I�tfulding and ad hoc
NVEIofA
250
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
committees of the LMS, and is the primary mechanism and forum for exchanging information
and mobilizing the vast expertise and resources of the community.
Highlights:
• Kelvin Bledsoe, LMS Coordinator for Pahn Beach County (PBC), facilitated the first of two
Working Group meetings for 2013.
• Ken Roundtree, LMS Chair + Director of Operations for Northern Palm Beach County
Improvement Distric(, welcomed the Working Group and thanked our host Ralph Wall, City of
West Palm Beach.
• Ralph Wall, West Pahn Beach City provided comments on behalf of the City and welcomed us to
his facility
• Kelvin Bledsoe discussed the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program grant
• The PPL list Was mentioned and explained by Kelvin Bledsoe
• The project submission date window was listed. The window will be open for new projects from
October 7, 2013 and closes Nov 6, 2013
• Kelvin Bledsoe, The Local Mitigation Strategy Coordinator provided a slide show on the LMS
project and history and stressed the fact that for a City to be eligible to receive funds from FEMA
through the LMS process that they needed to be active members of the LMS. Active membership
was defines:
I) Participation of the representative or officially designated alternate(s) in three (3) out of four
(4) Steering Committee meetings where plan revisions will be addressed;
2) For the General Membership the participation requirements dictates that all
jurisdictional representatives attend both Working Group Meetings.
3) Consecutive absences will be cause for disqualification for the LMS, subject to
appeal and review by the LMS Chair.
4) All rights and privileges will be tenninatcd during a period of disqualification and
formal reapplication;
5) Participation in subcommittee meetings may he substituted for Steering Committee
attendance in meeting the 3 out of 4 rule pending approval by the Chair;
6) While suspended, member cannot submit projects for review.
• A committee was established to write and update the LMS plan for 2015.
• Lists were put out for individuals who wanted to serve on the LMS Steering Corrunittee, the
Evaluation Committee, or Working Group.
Page 2 of 3
251
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
* The ucxt st, ing cuumirdae mcetir&g (Sepiumbcr 18, 2013 - i'Hb79MIoy 1:41af7$ &C1par11 Ruiiding)
;W [?4,aluuticn commitree (Nov4mmher 7, 2* 13 - Lnaorgency Menaganarl bui[ {ling) dwc!% W,;Te
almounuexl.
+ Addilioml mecring amwtmwnenLt rrtclaMed the dales nF dko Dmotnber Siaaging artmmittee {
December 11, 2013)..Lnd uccolib'.f I.MS Working irnolk 1+teetirr� (Deucmher,t, n 1 3 - 1CtSi7 i]
Royal Palm Brach Blvd, Royal Palm Bomb - 11):01] Rrn,j
■ 'No phair cxplaimd that each member tret.,d J to have rin allema i4e assiprad
■ C1rlr rrext LMS Cimup weriog will liuve a gueal %peakex
* TRAIN ITG' REM fIYl.} ER-S iWnup at: http: jFrPe. ll.Drit] rdlNastcr .nrWjypOloi!ili&rnj.ns x
"00 yowr mitilAriglij qn." worLsha , November 14, 20 1.3 4.04 p,ra M4Lrtin C.oi`uly
I°uMix Ufcty Camp[ex, SLuarr, [-'L
guhm 41 Cd by
Kelvin Blc(Lwe, LMS Cuoul.irrator
A.pprovcd by
Ken Roundtree- LMS Sle4ring Culmiaktee dsair
Page 3 of 3
252
ancr� r
4rk7tylF
Atgendecs:
*
Pairu 6taell C�,wrfy
ULM
*
City of ilkl I-e Gladc
w
f own al'iiriny Bree=s
-
Town of G7oad LAC
■
City of f]elrap f5wtli
•
Town of Gteo Ridge
■
cry ofGrmlwC s
+
Toum of I t1thinnd
Beach
-
Iulvn of'Hypolwo
CSiynf NLokce
Ivwn of BrinyBfu- ra
+
Town of I Ake! Clarke
Shwa
*
C'i3y of Bnyn,u 11h Beach
Absent:
* Cily 44Al l"lis
Town ONUL s FUM
+ Town of Lesko Park
■ Town afSouth Pa hn
Bnell
+ PAITM mach OCRIaty
rkc
Prdm IICadi ShetiffLn
OFf"
* ATklc cu Red CrM8
• Palm Bmlt Cuunly
WRICr RCU*Lfct�s
• Palm I+aacll COnoLy
PLB"iog, lump- and
Buitding
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
!,1145 Working Group
Meeting Summary
December d, 2013
Royal Palm Beach
• TOwn of Lnolaoa
* Toms of Palen N;xh
* Village of Palm
Spring.cl
■ My Of5nul11 Flag
* Viltarge of Wclliuglan
b TMM oflupilet
* Nacllrern Patol Beach
Cmm,Y lmprov=cnl
uisLTeci
* lay &n Trail
lmpmvennenr DiHtrict
• Village of "l. PRIM
Read
• &Mh I` ida Walcr
lY3na @k,"n1 UasuNu
* Palrn lkrach Cmicily
aePerllnenl uflleakh
w Village 4Tl:qucsL2
Village uPGulf
• down of Pa Lm Bcach
shorn
Tcnvn ofMauslapan
* 'Fowo -Df PBzns Tleach
Snares
■ Lynn lJoiverslly
r` flwrda Ailiagtie
UuivorsiLy
■ Innllll Beach Staid
Cal legs
V
a Lrrban League Of f l:m
[}tw-h Conmty
■ Glcwnoxe
■ WesL$wle C'RA
Cily-of flout IL94CWL
C'ity -Of! Lice Wnrllr
■ City of Palhl Rwdl
UnDICOB
■ City urRiasura Beaell
* 'l'cnm Of UgalbWhoc
Urwxx
* I'mm of llaverhilI
r Taun nCJuno J)eaell
* 'I'mm of Mlviouk A
P$rk
■ 'I.uwn of i]orais Rikipr
■ Cily of WCSL Palm
amch
■ Town itf JM3jj r hills
calla ny
B3 ckground:
The LMS W0Aing Group is -co inpri.wl of lira full body ofthv INS, rgimsui ing a bmW sruss
section OF public sector and pTivatC soetnr organizations kind individuals, brLa Odirlg III[, general
PUbfig, Vu Working Group scncs as an mnhre]Ia organization for cnnrdioating all mitigation
programs acid ac[ivdics, supplies the slaiiigg alai expertise for the d0ding Mill ad it ❑c
Page 10f 3
253
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
catYIniiftt>es of file LMS, and is the vVh wry mecisanism and forum for exolianhing info imldk)Ll
and mo-biiiziq the vast uxpertisc aLxi resso-t nws or0w oommnnuy_
Itigillights:
r kelvin Bledsnm, I.M8 Cooddusntur rdr Palm HCACII County (PBC), facilitated 117c Dommbur 4,
2113 Working ?irmp rmming.
■ Kcn Roundiree, INS Civur a Dirm<w -of Opeta[iuns for Northern Palen Beach ('aunty
1mpmvemanl Disarm WCICOirsed the Workmn [group and llrauked our hoar, Chris marsh and the
Viltagc of 1{oyai 13 RIM Deaoh
r Chris Marsh, Viilago of Royal Palen Buell - provlt d M=rnb i ou Behalf of [he City and
wcicnmod us ra his facility
1afY'Cinldtsurg, PIa,Iniog Manager for jibe mvision orJ;mergency ManagclnQnl was Inlroduccd
Kolv.in Bledsoe discussed Funding opportunities wish the Rcsidaival Comtrudion Miligalion
G rats[ Prc)pa,n.
i -De PPL list was mvicwpd mekidu jed and explained by Kel Yin Bledsoe_ The lief will Ire acrublxx3
tti mtnove- pmimts Ilim are either being funded by tocai cities or am no lt,ogu Yalta. C'onrd[natinR
w[lI be mado %wil h cities thal have pmrocls on rho list. The list will be [wised 1 +y January 31, 2014
and sen[ to Florida Division of &mergearcy Management.
■ The pmject subinies[nn date windows tivere listed aPd A%- ussed. 11 was determined Llmi DCM
wnuW provide all cil[es wish the evnluation wrsrk kneel Io awsisl Ihem sabmitt[ug steamer prDJCC1S
P-ph -";.
* Future nwvting dates of the StcxxinR C'otnmithe and working group meetings for X014 morn,
discussed and 1 istetl.
■ LMS update was discussed with rime 6ims listed ao when portions or t[le pieu would be raw iced
or up-�Let-md_
■ It was discumd Thal the working group lilmtings Were mandatsuy and 1!sat Iimsc cities dull hove
inimxi two in a row would he cmnlualed slid pomible have any pmjecls they have 1130 PPL. list
renwYod.
■
711e LMS reviainns committoe was nne"tioued by ben me_
■ Jorhn Bonne from the Village of Wel[ingtrnl was pmented a W Ht me Dapot gift ccrrificma For
11is years of service: id Use LMS commillees 11501 lie scrycd on fo include scrvirLg as 11W UhrLir OF
Ilse LMS evEdinktiou commit" JOW1 wi[I hta rotiriifg 111i5 monih. He will be misSod.
• The Chair explained thaI moh memberr moodcd in have mi allmkate aa9ig73cci
'Graining appartililltles wer4 presented tp Sh19 9MR11}. TLme iofertMcd [o disaroter IraLHii"
should go to : Id {v;litrac,flai lckpllisasfer.or lr�rllntrinf-m-r lsiA
Page 1-of 3
254
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Submitted by
Kelvin Bledsoe, LMS Coordinator
Approved by
Ken Roundtree, LMS Steering Committee Chair
Page 3 of 3
255
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
to .S i
(.*2D ` L1V>tS Working Group
Meeting Summary
December 5, 2012
l'uwn of l antuna — Town Hall
Attendees:
* Palm Beech Crlauty
■
Town al'Larium
■
realm lte■ch County
1XV
■
Tflwn of Man$4Nia
Firc Rescue
Oily rrf AtlentiB
Park
■
Rahn death 3hrriie s
+ Cily of lirllcGladc
■
OeacH Cit rof Pahukee
MICE
■ City of Boca Rai411
r
Town ofQcean Ridge
■
Amreriann Red cr(K&
+ Town of Briny $roan
r
Two of Palm Ewmh
■
Noeih— Pallrl 1 #e�talr
* Town of Claud LAC
•
City of Palm Beach
County Improvc[nent
+ Cily of Delmy iirxiah
t` *meats
l),8IraC[
■ Towo oFG len Ridgc
*
Village of Palm
■
Indian DO
■ City of tj(vwW6W5
46rig5
Jmprovement dis[Nrl
* Town of lulfstrcani
■
Ci[y of Riviera U*nh
■
NIm Flwh Cokinty
■ Tom) of 1 laverhlal
+
Ckyof Sou[h 13ay
Wa[a Resovnc4
* Towo or]- Ughlak
■
Town of Saulh Palen
■
Nlrn Beach C =ormty
Elra4h
]mach
Atannirq. Zming,, and
* Tnwo of Frypol"o
Wlage of Wellinglon
building
* '11'0wii ofJuno Brach
*
City ofWCEt PRIM
•
Palm Bach (�uuoty
a Town efl..ake Clack:
Dead
fkPW 11elrt orIi4mm
Shores
*
Town ofLnkshalclice
+
VIIlap ofl'equasts
■ TPwnorl Ake NA
Cravn
*
Vi u4p Or Ra!gLI paim
+ City of lake Word'n
*
Town of 9upita:r
peach
+ City oFBavuwa Scsch
Absent:
■ Town bf JWPller Inlol ■ Town of palm Beach Villgtge of NIV6 Nlnt
Colon) slims Beath
Vil lagn uri�otf
Baekgroun4
[he LT++tS Working Group is oomprkwd of the full body of the LMS, mpresenting a hmRd cross
section of public sector al-4 pTivalc sector organizations and individuals, iucluditig the gcnetal
public. The Working (iripup s n-V5 as an umbrella organization for cni rdinatirlg all mitigation
pm8rf3ms ars{i activities, supplies the staffing and expertise ror the sWnding and ad hoe
cort mitres u{ the LMS, and is the primary mechanism and lorum Or rnhanging infvmiatir211
and mubilixing life vast expertise acid rmS ur"s of lht camrnuaity.
Page t of 2
256
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Highlights;
• Jme Spearo, LMS Ct mrdinutur For PAril Hrmlr C'n i% I1'BC} lkililated Lhe wound vF Iwo
WGFkinb Group mwinp for 201-2
■ ucbbic Manor, !'own Manager, weicoined the Working Cmip and highlighted many greut
aspects of the town,
+ Informatim was provided on cunrnr HMO, Wding from TS Debbie, AIL applicants with
prujeals h5ted on the most current Project Prioritization Lkt (PPL) arc siblc to apply thmat h
egrarro For IfMGP Tier III funds, Submission dtadlinc is February 15, 2013.
■ Tha updAled Nr ect Priodlizalion Last Q11 I,) will be rcicmcd by Dw mbeT 20 and can 6e Pound
ih the LMS Comer.
r 'There ore currently I� midgation pmjecls ongoiug in Palni Bdiw t County From Frsncc.9, ,Ieanne.
Trilm. and Vay.
■ Kemal jiLrisdicliom ineludiog Town uC Juno Flew-},, City- pf &oyarron Bead% ViIIW of
Wollintton, and Ciry PCC-MU acres briefed t1le WoPking Gruup on the status rFPtheir mitigation
proj"ts.
■ PBU Divisioir of Enrergerrcy Monagemem has !'ands svai Inkrle rrqm the Stale Howeland Smuriry
Gmnt Prugrwn (81 i13GP') for a parri at plan update, It was identi Pied thel tite bell use for the funds
spay 6e Far a portion of the LMS Plan 5ertiorr III - Hazard and Vidrivabi I ity Anakysis, Project
tirork will be owlipleted by Lhc end of March 2U 13.
+ rtwt red SpeAkoa, Pim Mac'1Cie — Stmrrtll Wrida Winer Mannemem District discussed the
oamplex kature 1)f flood events and the mvromenr of water througloout tho region. Ms_ MAe'Kie
is avaiMIc to spcRk rocommunity orgarizeiot,s, municipal officials, "well as elected offu:jals
on these complex lupies_ Please uuntwt Ms. Mfw,Kjrp ar the following to schfdule a trusting:
Pam Msu'Kir (56i) 682 -2655 yr pMEg. iQasfwnitLgpy
■ 7'jltAlNlN(; REMINDER - Slgampat: htiu:# 1t�. 11��r3daJisasrer .nrgJtrpe�gpjnfnrrrF.A�uY
G -J93 Mftlgairlorl for Emergency Managers, 7a noary 30 -31-
Broward County EOC
6-278 6errefit -Cast Analysis., Entry Level Training, March 6 — 7 -
Pairn Beach County FOG
c: 890 -UPS Hurricane Resilient CDminunrty Planning and mealy 1,
March 19 — March 28 — Iirowrird County EDC
Submiacd by
Jesse Spearo, LMS Cpk)rO11Li31M-
257
PagezDf2
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
irN 14'rnr r�s
u��rAy.i
Y
F
Palm Beach County
Public Safety Department
Division of Emergency Management
Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS)
Steering Committee Meeting
Call to Order; Welcomellfitroductions - Chair
Last Meetliag Summary
LM5 Program update - Jeff Goldberg
+ Meeting Frequently changes
a Roberts Rules of Order
* Grant funding opportunities
Projeok Prioritization List (PPL) Update
iie LMS Times
;■ Upcoming Training
;.4 Next meeting date
258
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
pains Beach County
U[Visian of Emergency Managernant
LNIS Steering ContmittL -e Meeting Mtnutes
Weduesclny, September i0; 2014 -1 LOO a.m.
DEM Coufar4nceR001H.3
Attcudecs:
Ajma Jamel - DSM Disaster Consultants
Rcbuca Creighton Delray Medical Cetiter
C'nrlc7s c' eno - Ommacm, _
David Rotor - Jupiter
i]cbbie R-Rn}o - Lantana
Ken RoLiidtree - Northam P13C 11T*. Dist
A Ivill Jp}ttYBpn - Pelmkee
Uyen L7aU - Royal Palrh Bmtk
_ Kelvin 13WNoc -
rr, T f' Ahr— - �
Karla White-- City of Lake Worth
PLUS Wiscr PBcp'L&13
Jennifer Berkirwn -
ical
11) Call to Order: Weleonse.+ mmduetions- K-pn Roundtrae, LMS Choiirrnan
• Kcn Rokncllrcc called meeting to order
• I ntivductions of all attendeue
2) L$at 14Mpeting Summary
■ A review ort11�: 1,MS StCQdrLgCommitteeulinute& [r4311 June 4, 2014 wars OwWljc led
for accuracy.
■ TWO ofvm#iorts mmlc_ Bullet 6, sewed sentence c3saiYg Ixrb] ttP Scum Rolla 7,
third sente,YCc, olwngc suspLmsc to response-
■ See Alrarr<rmem ! ?bl'ee ing Sawm Pry C'omected Cory
+ All other iLems appmlood from CItG ImA mating held on Jtnic 4, 2014.
3) LM Program Update -Jeff Goldberg
• Meeting Rrequesitly Changes - wilt meet quarterly and keep time of t 1 101) a.m, -
■ Roberts Rules of Order- will failow guidelines arid ruies Ior t4ir and onlcrly
'Tw0ngs.
Rooluiion - Jc f}. spoke with Vanessa at the State and fepnde chat Modiii tipas al-C
minor. Tht ma lust ion will be condncted today or iunkirrow and the State will adviw
Mien pa - "cd, We now have 38 municipalities- See Auaclrmmg 2 Rexalamrirrrr Draft
tJT challgQs hi rod. This will go before Elie Bggrd by DDwmbcr 11 x . Svnic of the
rhangcs inc]Wc using the word hig local mkigatirm w .9- unified arKI 9pciling out the
woTd FEMA. When the State notifies Jelfol- awpgroval he will send to all 1ulemk".
'talc resLltition will then be st1tt to the StA u w d FEMA will generate a letter, At Iliac
Page I o f 3
259
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
L�J
point, vac will hauc an approvod LMS whicl5 goes io tltit Board. Em -wotai rcuvlutiom
ore Timli tl by mid-Navcnilrt:r-
o Motion to accept charges and addie,g awtNrrtent - all in Favor- motion
passed.
o The quest ion was raised: What is required (f f X98 Districts and how do we
incorporate them into LMS? Metrai,tn oflhc cannmiQcz are advised of
uipt atcs. Ken Todd might be able to rtnt%out to the districts since lie is
workb,g with mappir& Jeff will k,1tloirn c1465sations from the Stato.
4) Grant FundiugOppertunRWg- Kelvin Uledsae
Kelvin spoke with the State a f Florida and Owir rnil igalion person is adv ising that
mcmica are available, Discussion from the &qoup was Il:W i 's diffieull to obtain
funding after applying. 1 I's not wort h flit % s*Ju - it lakes rttoni hs. However, the
process has been stmamt'uied. The State is k open to ussist - let's requnt they atteiid
our December 10"' Working Cn%auf Lodi -jcuyy now pmcalurm and give infonmti0ij
on grants, )cmnifer 13eckjuan notes C:ummualily Block Granis are availahk. Kelvin
wi]I devetop gnestions for the Slaw prior to Iheir arrival end will obtain additiaiwl
information on funding -
S) Pr@jeet PrloritiznUon List (PPL) Update
• The Evaluation Conlirtittee met and ev:p4wetl Village: of royal Palm Beach - 31
projects,
City of Gree,la:rm rerwyca sumo prDjocts - now at 71, They have witil Oetober 7 "'
to suhmil - Rri optn Window of 30 days- 'Phis is chaLcd by Carlos Cedt:,Sb t,f
Greemacres.
6) Quarterly L141 S Timres - Kelvin Bledsoe
■ The LMS Times is an opportunity for munieipatites to highlight their xNovvmvnts.
Kelvin uragesi Fulnbcrs w submit articles-
■ Sidowtc: Hcalth Care Industry reins are needed - Jeffrez lml oul LLI Rehe" FrOrm
Doiray and Join James frown PSC M-adical Society was in altoidanct, He intmduood
himself.
+ Jeaniki Seck,nsn froin I]RU advised shit rain $ubMit Mn �iple, us wall as Nug Wisp
from VZ&B. Pictures are welootne to include; in the TA9 Times- Tliv next
pubticatioil is Oaohar 1" and submissions arc: Ti =Axl by October to
■ It was asked if die LM cat, he placed on l 4 wehsitc. f ommlly, the Admin Fuaancc
secMioii handles the webcite. However, talc P1+1nning vx6onwill sPuon be h)Vilargeof
Updating tine website.
7) Upcoming Training - Kelvin Bledsoe
■ }uaa is an excellent HenofhslC'ost Analysis class ot'fered by the State - Jeff will gut
more in Formal ion for [be grotil).
■ S>~WMD hosting CFM (Cenifed F3u(fd Plait Mailuger) exam (4 Ix5ut) At Ellwrct
oflFiscs. Thcy will sand Kelvin die enjail to distribute,
page 1 01 -3
260
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
S} (�nc- �tlon�+�'amments
■ Food zone quoqt ions came up arwl thc7, can be addrex!x[ to Doug. There is a(rnfitsiorl
with the 100 y"r flood phns, as well as the low -risk olvi high -risk. t)hm cart
fonvaLrd call- to iho Goad mfonnation hwlutik-- }ye awn ittu]TpQrtw the hotline number
into the DEM wobsite "A+Iake a Plan" information, Se mh mginc features would b-
hdpfut 10 have on the DEM wch�:ilc as well.
■ 01A.2tes by Doug inr.Nde flood zones INit are changing F+r Palm 8cach Coutily. ']'he
maps are on4e. Please look at rwvoTtiks and dirmt airy qoubliuns to the flood plan
hotline. Kelvin will distribute Ilio hotline number as inquiries ar�sc, The nieeiings are
tonight in DelleGlwdc withreeitleatls,
+ P13C not owacnt with the flood maps. SWN!D did ji(PI model CSI flood stQgAm.
'there is all appeals process of 90 days and FEMA will f cdd ms each appeal. There is
a 6 mmnth window wW then maps will >x; final. 65,000 are going in - wsidenis will
need to aNuiru flood insurance_ 35,000 do riot tooth tIoucl pWns. South Counly
areas seems In 1'm4 the wianers - Cireenaures, Palm 5priarg�;, and the Acreage all look
good_ Ilnlx,t:; Will after 1980 shki -vld be elevated and okay, Km Tcrdd can he
contacted for assistance-
* More Wo-rknig Group htmtiogs arc desu+ed. We will conduct 4 meet higs pl�r yc &r.
r We w ill k*Cp tltc Sleeril�P, Co MM4tce moat uig t ime of I i ;I)o a.m since it may
eorifina with DEM team meetings on occasion-
+ Our LMS meetings are -of high cal iber xid we thank al i 0-tiro incmbers.
CRS questions eupii u5 rc�-ccrtifitatlnn, flood wanting systemce,, Acd!L, And
criordinatirg of act M les arc now handled by Brian Hw ley, DEM.
+ Annual conference meeting is sct for February 2015 iii Orlando_ if the group waijrIn
prLqent a husi practice panel, plcaso advise Jeff_
9) Next McTIing 1 }ate: ccrnb4r3, 201 ,
Adjourunirnt. 12; i3 p.m
261
Page 341fI
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Palm Beach County
Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS)
Steering Committee Meeting
r DIY 6
a Call to Order and Irltroduetions
a Prior Steering committee meeting notes
+ GOV2r W'S Hurricane Conference presentation
+ LMS Evaluation Committee - Updated PPL
Iw Funding SGuroes
Future committee Meeting Dates
■ LMS Plan Update - Schedule
■
LMS Tlmes
;a New LMS i2i�ViQW Tool
iy Ques#ionslComments
ia Adjownrnent
,* Upcoming Training
262
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
LMS Steering C'ownlitce
ecting SUhilmAry
C J v ne d, 2014
Attendees:
Andrea Jame[- DSM DiaasterCaitistlltanis
Mike Rearm - FDEM
Carlos Cedeno Cheenwo'cs
David Ro tar - Ju '
Nbbie Manor =Largatlo _
*Kerr Roiindtrec- Northem PIIC Imp, Dist
Alvin Johnson Pahokee _
[_WT LcZkoyjan• l'ahn Beach State C(PTlege
MickgrouYP4:
Kcluin Dlcdsoe - F$CDEM
Jeff Goldberg PaCDEM
Nigal B akcr - IIBCFR
170UA Wise- PUCPB&Z
Fd Kcrr- South Say —
AIG-1 Ortt%;V - WCt A Palm Deach
Ralph W411 - West Palm Beach
The LMS Stu-in4g Ccrnminee serves as the Vocal Mitigation Strategy (LMS) pixogram 130814 ti3I'
Direc'Ion; thcTcfora. is (lie ltrigtgry d isk)n and pahcy body for LMS sponsored mitigatialt
aetivily. This wLannit1w roect`s oil qunrltrly basis for die purpnse ui'rcvi vying the plan aixl
idc-nlifying updale racluireirtent�,
Highlights:
IF KenRoundtree welornrxl lk grotipaul iliaiiked evayune farcoruirtg
• A. review of the LMS Stm7ing Crinunittee minutes from the March 5, 2014 Wij$
riductod for accuracy. tlnc currcclion to be made regarding rilkc ndccs.
• Kelvin DIWsuo gave an rrwervlcw his prescutation at the Gowcrnor'x Hurricane
Confer L!c in Orlando. TIw presentation wits "lntcgraf np, Climate CTMrs84 fn(o Pouf
Fmv ney I'lans." k+lr_ l3le6oa cxpl:;tinud haw this. was being aoc4mplisficd in Palm
Beach C i)unky. By integrate ig the term " -wa level rise" into on. local scxw6ng uritcria so
IN, it rids -rlaoding am1for 5c:* lxvcl. Risc we ensure the system was Lair t-u cdics t1Mt
do twi have a sca level rise imt ,
+ Mr. Bledsoe presentee !hc proposal molution for adnptfng the LMS to the commjlteE,
Alkv a great cliscris%o Pn it was cictcrmined that the term "sca lcvcl risk" would bL
rc mvcd from paragraph 4 ;i invv d already apimarod in pargrupb 1,
Good discussion was held on Or- best way to stay etcgagrd in sca level rise iistegnitipn.
■ The 11 e'L list wu hriefact rcgai -d hug the inclusin3t ut`�L pwicck submitted by the villAgD or
Royal Palin Beach. Thal project ranked 30 out of 71 with a school of65,2,
a TI-w }tram opportunities for the Pre- Dimmicr Mitigation and the FI)N d Miligatinn
Ass[AHnuc grant programs_ 13001 are duty on Juno 6, 201+t_ I]rte tai tlw watch regaircrrtonts
and tlse 9horl suspense tinie, Palm Beatclt C'owy will not be going alter eitlict- of those
grunts but will be preNi -iiog out to apply next year. lrl eddilion the Rcsidejtiiul
Curis(ruction Grant Prograto tvfts lwiofcd. Thcrc was also a disOA4s; qri 49t drveduping a
method and possible wmmitiuc for phis Ater mitigM6)n IUnding opportunities for fbte
next FY cycle_
gage I of 2
263
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
• LMS Plan update was discussed with a review of the time lines developed.
• The Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM) has introduced a
crosswalk/evaluation tool to assist in updating LMS plans. That tool will be emailed with
the meeting summary.
• The Summer Edition of the LMS Times newsletter will be published July t, 2014.
Committee members are encouraged to submit photos and articles on mitigation.
• There will be a State Hazard Mitigation Plan Advisory Team webinar scheduled for June
10, 2014 from 1:00 PM — 4:00 PM. Webinar information will he emailed.
• Future committee meeting dates are as follows:
o Next LMS Working Group Meeting: June 11, 2014.
o Next Steering Committee Meeting: September 10, 2014
• The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m.
Summary:
Provided by Kelvin Bledsoe, LMS Coordinator
Approved by, Ken Roundtree, LMS, Chairman*
Page 2 of 2
264
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Palm Bath County
Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS)
Steering Committee Meeting
.* � s
■ Ca II to Order acrd lntr4ducti0rns
i■ Prior Steering committee meeting notes
A Sea Level Rise - Carlsse LeJeune
r■ Fending Sources
no ruture committee Meeting Dates
.4 PPL List Scrub
ry LHS Plan Update Schedule
-4 Emergency Management Plans
!41 LMS Times Article request and publishing dates
i New Members
'w Evaluation Committee
.o Questions /Cornments
-a Adjournment
:i Upcoming Tr ,91pling
265
*40-r
Attendee:
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
LMS Steering Committee
Meeting Summary
March 5, 2014
Marcos Wa fosnada - IIelle Gla4c
C:arisse Lejeune - BoythtentPum -Ji
Andrea Jar4el DSM Di ."xter cornsWtRnts
Dwayne Estelle - Lake Worth
Kolvin Bledsoe PBCT)F.M
Larry I-e"vjrinr- Palm Bcnt:ln Slate Co [loge
Dail Beasley - PBCFR
*Ken Rounditee —1` oillwm PBC Imp. List
Vicky l7elbosqu ve - 9vwlt1 Bay
Ralph Walt- Wcsl Pslm Beath
Mary Aacollso- IIelle GLulo
Carlos Codena - Greciou
David R.otar - Jupker
Alven hlohiiggn- PW10kGe
JefGoldberg - PBCOFM
Kept Todd — P13C
Doug WL%e - PUCPB&7.
1=d Kerr - Spout Roy
Vyen Dang - Royal Pilm RrnQh
Ba4 JkWund;
'The LMS Steering Ckimmittm surves as the Local MkIpLion StnA y (i.M9) proparn Board of
Direckprr�; OlurOurc, mrvcs as the primary deei %ion and ppli y body Fur LMS sponsnred
luitigadorl attivily. This aomrnOae meets ten quarterly b.ois ror IIL purpose of rcvicwing the
plan and idend fy frig updale r+xtwraments,
Wghlights'.
■ Ken Roundtrec wq:l -oirM1 evcryonc to the first Steering CO3mnittee Nl"Lt kg (iflho year
mid thaoW evveyono for owyn np, Fie had everyone introduce th"Oves.
A review oftic last LMS nwcting minutes held December I [, 2013 Was a)tx1uv%5d,
■ Carisfie Lojnur o, lh,c Assistant City Kuiager for the City of Boypton Beads, [ rov&d an
oWsAanding presentation on Sea: Level Rtae. She 8040 the putcntial a&05 and iinpws
on Palm Beach County- She a1w provided hind -oWs with Witivnal informatbon.
At the tirno of the meeting there wire lio funding oppprtunitieN evadable. However, l
rcceivud an email from the §tote with pptnilial funding upportu Hcs for tougal
wmmunitics. (tt&w)
Dear COMM Lmlty Reslllenq Network,
266
Pace 1❑Ez
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
I'd like to pass along Informatlon �cgardl#rg A CRe&T grant opportunity for voastaf we si liency efforts
funded Via NOAA- This partiquly opportunity 15 @Vallaula to resiliency Work being done along Florida's
Gulf Coast. You can revle~w the specific requirements here If you arc intiRrastpd:
httwjAkiww.grant5 -9v 1Pwppfprants lvlew•aopor tun itM_html79ML= g,13
Alpplleatiolis are due by April 11r X014, and the max awards 5i00,DDD_ Here is a short des €rlptlon
provided at the above Ilnk:
'ThP Pi�VP4�s� of Ua;, r0ko it l0SukH gram propoasfa (ram &00 a oroomoaj on9 fo rtnpfemEnf aofuailss rher arlhome
resiLerx�- ro nafwV harardandcfimeteruks though a kc A rogkvkJ, ar nalbo arnstwa k
Prr "8k%8ubak4W0 i F&SPwn13 bNs snnauncermmf skwkproAvk&, 6orte&:raipu6ke curconaes hTcmau?
oorrtmund s f e+ar�of io K+oh rising existing and fufth%risks rn Me rofiffaJ Onvrawnerrl. ir*aafruofure, kxef
g. WKr4r+kwab?B papukU na. Pr s8is rrwsf afs4 fe waq% enhance, or a�ema s human orleela2vj
riE4w k M wNdr one ar mfrs coastal JWz rd ksws cdrr he aftimsed gnxq a pirlrrrYrahk6 ro WftAMCe
k, r DUrli 4fon. cor}osrallon, DDwd Mi'ari. ;gny w OGUab4Y8li0n.'
r Fulurcexrmmkcc meetirrg dates were preumlcd-
o Next LMS Steering Comnyittee moeting. June 4, 21014.
o [text LMS Working Group MccitbT; June 11, 2014.
LMS Update was discussed with u rovicw 0IFthe, time lines developed_
■ The spring edition of the LNIS Timor rims€ctter will be published April t, 201.1.
Committee members are encourzr t to submit photos and articles an initigation.
■ It was aruiowioc that our nff�v LMS (:valualiun sub-committee Chair, is Carlas CeKlutw',
from the City of Greenaca+es_ Adttiffpu 4rbuir mcmbar wcre nand as %well.
■ ]ufC Guktberg mcl)tiorted rraining opportunities to ik group %14 highlighted nn up-
a�lrigg rnitigtrlivn doss
G393- Mitigation for Emerg&roy Mftiuigors ml the Broward EOC on March 20 an t
21, 2014. Please sign up thmup)i SERT TRAC a# it'
you hmvc trouble registering, please wrilma Gu%FtnYo Vilcbca, YB{'DEM Training
C'oorduiator at 561- 712 -6483
■ Thy OMLing was adjourned at 12;05 p.rn.
S urnmary_
Provided by Kelvin G1nd&ov, f,MS Caordinutor
Approvod by, Kcn Rciundtrur, LMS C,hainnan■
Page 2 of 3
267
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
County
Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS)
.Steering Committee Meeting
+ Gall to Order and tntrocloctloris
Prior Steering committee meeting nMes
Hazard Realignment Presentation
+ runding Sources
# Future committee Meeting Dates
LMS Plan Update
.im LMS Times
it Member Transitl -on
q QuestionsiComments
Eq Adjournment
w Upcoming Training
•:
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
H
LMS Steering Committee f�
Meeffng Summary
Dumber 11, 2013
Attendee:
David Rotas - Jupiter Dwayne Ls tcllo - Cily Of Lake Work
itaiPh Wail - Nest faire Beach Bill Johnson - FBC DEM
K4;n Roundtree- Northern ETC imp. Dist. JcfTGoklbcrg- PBC DEM
Larry Lesknvjan- Paim 13mlf Srada C-ullegr
Karla Whhc -City 0fLake Wrtih
Kelviii Bledsoe • f BC DEM
Background,
The LmS Steering Cartliilltter` Paervo as the Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) prograw hcmrd of
direuom; themfort, uCrv�,s as the primary decision and policy body fns LMS gwynsored
ir4tigatkin ectiwGty. This oummittec awots on quarterly basis for ilia puTnse arreviewing the
plan Wd &ler,tifying updaleroquircmcnfs,
Highlighm:
* Kcn Roundtree we1wnml everyane t{) the ]er,k Siccairtg C'ommittcc Mccting oftk yt!a
and Ihan M everymr idpc pomFng.
lk Evcryonc introduced themnlvcs_
■ A rcvk�w of the Iasi LMS meeting held Jutra 14, 2013 was uotuJt+ctcsl,
■ Kcn diwusscd the jAGr working group maetiog, Md Junc 19, 2013, attul inforined
cvcuyoiw thaA they had a suiruitary available ofIk Iasi rnw ing and gawc uvcryone time
us i;k quesitnrss_
■ JeffGokiberg PUC DFM - rrnwrgcncy prvgrarn roordioator (Planning Section Chief)
provided H brir on the Haaani Realignment for Hazard Specific. Plans and how ih=
would be im �FFex c to tiro Lhr1S and county. He discussed tliat our alignnient is its line CDW
Iht: gyrate 4& feclaaI goverumcm and uses C trtpt herssi a Plarirtitig ❑ui &ioee 101 (C:PG
101 ) and CI'G 201 as our guides.
gage 1 of z
269
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
• Funding sources were discussed and it. Kelvin gave a presentation on potential new
funding opportunity from the state's Residential Construction Mitigation Grant Program.
• Future committee meeting dates were presented
• I.MS Update was discussed with a review of the time lines developed.
• The LMS Times newsletter is going to be restarted with a potential publishuig date of late
January 2014. There will be 4 annual issues: Winter, spring, summer, and fall. Cities
were asked to provide any stories on mitigation success that should be included in the
newsletter.
• It was announce that our LMS Evaluation sub- committee Chair, John Bonde was retiring
at the end of December and that we would select a new chair for that position in the near
future.
• A slide on future mitigation and incident management training was presented.
• LMS Steering committee members were informed that the slide presentation along with
CPG 101, and CPG 201 would be sent out to them
• The meeting was adjourned at 12:17 p..m.
Summary:
Provided by Kelvin Bledsoe, LMS Coordinator
Approved by, Ken Roundtree, LMS Chairman
Page 2 of 2
270
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
a: I'
Palm Beach County
Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS)
Steering Committee Meeting
+ Call to 0 rd er a nd xn"ductio ns
Prior Working Group Meeting
June 19, 2013 r Current and Expected F=unding Sources
;a Recommendatlorws from Evaluation Panel
lip OO•
Beach County EOC w 2013 Project Priaritization Ust (PPL) Update
tw State Response to LMS Inquiries
,d Future Steering committee Meeting bates
.4 Future LMS Plan Updates
. -+ LMS Work Group Meeting dates
• Meetf ng Rost
,a Member Transition
• New Community {9usiness Members
r. Committees needed
Le Questians}Comment5
w Adjournment
+ Reminder of Upcoming Training
CERT Training July and August
■ G -300 lntermedtate Incident Command Systems and
Control Sept 11 -13
e G -400 Advanced Tnrident Command Systam� ajid
ier Command & General Staff: Complex Inddents
271
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
„M.
LMS Steering Committee Lot
Meeting SummRry
,tune 19,201;3
Debble lwif+ m Lantana
Mph Wall - West Paitn Beach
CAgse LaJeune - Boynton Beach
Kett koundtree - No thern IIRC Imp. 17is1.
James Farrell - P13C. Library
Riclhard CiaA11ryhl - PT3C 1361&ng Diwi,.6nn
Bvv fly Su,l1- uvlle Glade
Paul Qorling - D),Iray Brach
Zoic Burgess - Highlaml Btac_h
Bcth McElroy - SFW D
Dobra R. Buff - City of Belle Glade
David Rotawr - Jupilcr
Dill Johnsun - PBC DFM
Ed Ken- - Soulh Day
Paul Blo&k un - PDC fir¢ Rrs
Jennifer Bcckman -PBC DRC
] ahn Bonde - Wrllingtan
Larry Lcskovj an- Palm Bcach State College
Alvin Jolurson -City of PahGhee
Chris Marsh - Village of Royal l'alin 13cnh
Karla White cityori.akL� words
rejoin Dledmw, 1113C DUN
13Mkamulld;
The 1.M9 Steering Cttmmiacu saves as the Local Mitigalion Stralcgy (LMS) program board of
dircelim; thtTu UCC, save• as the primary decision and police body for LMS sponsored
rnhigation aedivIty- This winmittee meets on quanerly basis for Lhc purpose of mviewiq the
plan anal identirying updmv requirements.
liighlighps;
t Kcn Ruundtrcc weleomai everyone to the 2vd quarterly Steering Comniltiee Meeririg of
the year Ow al vicar.
+ Ken introduced the new LMS coprdinater, Kelvin Rledsoe, acid thou aJlo%wd everyone in
the roam to inimcluce themselves, including die City they were Isar,,.
+ Kcn discussed the prior working group meeting and inforlued everycue that thep [)Id a
sunmiwy available of the fast meeting and }have -everyniie tin» 10 rrViaw [hi8 nines and
asked if There were my gnestiorrs.
■ VLuiding sources were discussed wkd it Nwis kirterniAud Thal W ft lime lhere WC no qeW
rttttidi nP snrjrces avgi lable.
272
Pale 1 of 3
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
• John Bonde discussed the Evaluation Committee's last meeting and informed the LMS
committee that the two projects evaluated had been integrated into the PPL list that will
be sent forward if the LMS Steering Committee had no objections. Hearing none, the
PPL list was approved and was forwarded to the State.
• Ken then discussed the State's response to questions the Evaluation Committee had
concerning the current and future PPL list. The final result was that the county had the
ability to submit the list in any form that they want the State to consider. The county sets
the priorities.
• The next date for the Steering committee was decided to be September IS, 2013 at
111 :00 a.m. at the EOC.
• LMS updates will be worked through the steering committee. The Plan will be broken
down and sent to members for input and commendations and then discussed at the
quarterly steering committee meetings. The LMS coordinator will begin to send out
portions needed to be reviewed immediately.
• The LMS news letter will continue with support from the steering committee. It was
determined that the Letter was a very useful tool for getting the work out on LMS issues.
• Ralph Wall from the City of West Palm Reach agreed to host the working group
meeting. It was determined that the meeting would be either in July or August based on
dates available for the venue. Ralph confirmed the date for Wednesday July 31, 2013 at
10:00 am. Parking will be in the City Center Parking Garage adjacent to City Hall at the
comer of Banyan Boulevard and Dixie Highway. Ralph is working on having the parking
validated. The address for City Hall is 401 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, 33401.
This meet is a mandatory meeting for all municipalities.
• The LMS newsletter will continue to be published with the help and input from the
steering committee and the community.
• The Steering committee discusses group and committee transition, The 1valuation
committee Chair will be retiring in December. The LMS chair asked that the group
consider serving on or having a member of their city serving on the committee. The Chair
stated that he would be contacting members to assess their interest.
• The Committee discussed adding members to the steering committee and at a minimum
ensuring that based on the charter that the required members are on the committee. The
list will be reviewed to ensure we are meeting minimum requirements and also ensure
that those on the committee are regular attendees.
Page 2 of 3
273
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
• The LMS Steering committee Chair stated that committees would be formed as needed to
accomplish the goals of the LMS.
• After the meeting agenda was finished, there was helpful discussion by Carisse Lejeune
(City of Boynton Beach) and Ralph Wall (City of West Palm Beach) concerning items
critical to the municipalities in Palm Beach County, Ralph provided some hand -outs to
the group and Carisse referenced the Biggert Waters ACT (Slides attached).
• The meeting was adjourned at l 1:58 a.m.
Summary:
Provided by Kelvin Bledsoe, LMS Coordinator
Approved by, Ken Roundtree, LMS Chainnan
274
Page 3 of 3
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Palm Beach County
Local Mitigation Strategy LS
Steering Committee Meeting
• � y
:■ hall to Order and Jntfadvrrtions
■ Prior Working Group Meeting
• Current and Expected Funding Sources
;r Recommendations from 15valuation Pane]
=a 2412 Project Prioritization List (PPL) Update
•+ Future Meeting Dates & 2014 LMS Plan Updake
.-* Question5yComments
+ Adjournment
+ Reminder of Upcoming Training
a 6-3k3 Miugauon Ior E+n&-go4cy Managers, December
10 - 11 and 3anuary 30 -31
v 5 -278 LAM*&- CostAnaiyss_ entry ievei Tralnhpg,
March 6 -J
BRO- 1 Hurricane kaslJkerat Community Planning
and Aes+7rrr Mamb 19 - March 20
275
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
T
Palm Beach County
Local Mitigation Strategy (LIMB)
'Steering Committee Meeting
�I
w Call to Order and Introductions
14 Prldr Working Giroup Meeting
• Current and Expected Funding Sources
+ Recommendations from Evaluation Panel
a 2412 Project Prioritization List (PPl*) Update
Future N9"Ong pates & 2014 LM5 Plan Update
Questions }Comments
. Adjournment
■ Reminder of Upcoming Training
4 +•39 MiU lion ADr E- weryency Nanagersr becerabeF
10 — I I and January 30 -31
• 6.27.5 Befwti t -Czt Analysis: Eotry levee! 7ralning,
March b - 7
0 Bfto• ooi kjarrlcane R&giilerrr Community Pknat ng
and Vesogn, March 19 — March 20
276
N
J
J
Palm Beach County Division of Emergency Management
. i
LM5 *Steering Committee Meeting
Sign -In Sheet
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
NAME
1PLEASE MWn
SIGNATURE AGCY /ORGANIZATION
EMAIL
TELEPIMOM
ILI
I lit
,' -TO
t'
-_�c
]s
!
s VO
kJ14 IP M loVs , , c i.
- I- 16- r'rac.
l
jej
r
O
n
a
o�
CD
N
O
N
J
00
CP40 Palm Beach CourAy Division of Emergency Management
LMS Steering Committee Meeting
r + Sign -In Sheet
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
s
1
E7 -A;j I9
NAME
�lEA�SE PRIiV
SFGNATiURE AGENCY' %ORQANIZA1rFO1N
EMAIL TELEPROME
I 5tO
A7 0
933
r
O
n
a
CJQ
O
CD
CJQ
N
O
3
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
mow.
H
y w,�
M .+
LS Steering Committee
LMS Sleefinz Committee
June 4,2014
Emergency Mfinagemeot
M". .t.......... ,...........
I'hwe
Email
City ur
.....................
dig
,g,f
W'7 7.
el ov&&tu
orgauizelion........_
{
Q-1 f J ,Y*C. Y7. w
s �or.�l7 r4 yl
02V
UD-23C
LA. Tnr�qJ Q &—f 6-0�,
&�A
, T:,,7
t
C
4 %� Lff zxo fw7 R�S+CG I�M1I` t l i� .Fr �e 16f
279
4
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
at,N
I.MS Sfictriag Committee
i rI -in sheer
LMS Steerinz Committee
March 5, 2014 .�
Emergency Managem -ed
.............
Pha»e
NuLtunT......
f mail
Atka ess .....................
U-JVA , ' CV)
cllyl
organization_.._,,,,,
Car-( S 5
i -
s �1 ,
`{ - foo I L
1 �•i
I l � c�
/'s
4 0-17"V
0 --
-VO 7�' deal,,
Page 1oi 3
.o
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
k wm
wryN
oati LMS Steering Committee
L S Skean Committee,
March 5, 2014
Emergency Management
.......... j I'1►ai7c Gmail e�y1
lumucr, , ,,.. Address., , . , , , c�rgttnirutian
W (n
J..KI
-Toj) t-)
vf
IV)��
{ /
,t
04/-
x
O cav--
1'BC,
=qGl.�V-Chrn � -� � 9 Z-
281
PaPI of 2
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
RorN- LMS Steering Committee
sign -in sheer
ML ` Steeriniz Committee
aecembier11,2013
Emergency Management
Nunn..........................
.......
Rom
Num......
Email
Addre%s ...............
City or
{,....,
OA
I L4---f
C 1-6
G lfV l *"0
€oI
c, ,J, tk,
6p
- r
+✓ ,�
Pagel of3
282
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
rt
F oR� UMS STEERING COMMITTEE
PALM BEACH COUNTY UNIFIED LM
Member sign4n sheet
(Jame 19, 2013)
" *Debbie Manzo - Lantana a 61' t
Scott ]."ape - Delray Beach
Pawl f]trrlins -Nlroy F caa PJ
Allan Ortman - West Palm Beach
David Rotor - Jupiter
Ed Kerr - Saudi Bay
Joan Bormie - Wellingkv
C.ari-we Le]uene- Boynton B€
Beverly Scott - iiel le Glk&
Ralph WAIL - Wcsl PaLm Bras
Alison Boy&Hank Erikson -
Link Walther - Continental &
Kathie Kearney N()C I I I&
—Tom 5 win - Verizon Wit%ele%
Larry Lnkovjan- Palm Dead.
A] Grasso - PBC Hcaith Np
Peter Newman - PBC Health
Jentsifer I3ecirman - DGSosler Recovcry C`.oaiilion g L,
Tony Carper - Area 7 Regional Courdi motor, ` '*
Florida DEM - -- -
283
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Kepi Todd - Palm Beach C uumy
Paul 131nekson- Palm Beach County ¢ _
*Kett Raundu+ae - Northern Pakm BcacEr County lmprcavemsni District
ue
Jim Shallman -Indian -Grail Improvement District
Kelvin Bledsoe (rwnc voting) DFM - PtIYn Rt!aab {runty
* - Chairperson
* *- Vi�e•CJtair �`
f /
I�4I +rL {#
01 a
4 C�_ 1
.,
f
R1tl�
Karen Teuune- Pel,tt DvArsh
&l Karr- Sotith Say - Absaenl
Carisse Lejeune - Boyrltop beach
Kelvin Blcclsoe— LMS C x)rdiwfjF
Karla White Chke Worth
Backgl+aund:
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
.mom,
1,M5 fivaluatlon PH 116
Meeting SUknlharY
May 22, 2014
Jmnll�-r Beckman - PBC bRC
Ken Roundirer- NP(JD
Ca4m l•C&mn Green Acres - Chair
The LMS E.ualllatiO3i Pafiei 33 {lcsigr3atCtd 1D eyaluate, revjeW. 23VA3rc, and rank, mitigatiotl projix.ts
tltrtrUgh Csta4l.Wied local, zitatt; send i'LxlcraI 1)1'Ioritizatlop pro-otmw4 miAl Criteria.
highlights:
■ The new I-ME Claalr opened the mcetmg utld atlnwed everyone to introduce thelrl-yclvcs.
There were Iwo view mciubers to the wwaluasittn wmirittm; Darla While, wW Carim
L.cJeane,
■ Tlie 1'anel discussed IhL one project that mas subaftactl # it mviow From the villagt (IF
Royal Palm BeacJL The pmjgcl was scored and earne i11 at rtunnccr 3I of 71. The City [11'
Green Aems retry( vW Iwo proiccts off the 1wevkws PPI. list leaving 71 romahiuig-
* Scores were relehsud For all members, once agoin dommlraling a clear pattern between
reviewers alld their swmms. 'this demonstrates the EvftImitiun Panel's ability m seewre
prlects consWcAtly rvvu a Continuum The group was pl{asc that they were com -Utrni
acrosm the hoard.
11 WU Mill agMLd that the committcV "c 341 mmrt twice a year, nnoe in Mey alnd once in
Nov mhi,r with the date In he Frtl Ks IN: Trmviirg approadied atu] mold k- agrmi uposf.
t'age 1 of 2
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
• The next Evaluation committee meeting is scheduled for Thursday, November 6, 2014 at
2:00 p.m, at the EOC.
• All new projects be submitted 30 days before the next evaluation panel meeting, which
would be October 7, 2014, This provides the panel to have suitable time to review new
proposed projects.
• The LMS Steering Committee meeting is scheduled for June 4, 2014. Recommendations
will be made to Steering Committee for final PPL approval.
Summary submitted by,
Kelvin Bledsoe, LMS Coordinator
Palm Beach County Division of Emergency Management
Page 2 of 2
:•
n
i
IP {6R14+'
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
LMS E:vahintion Peucl
Mcciltsg S kimmary
mby 34, 2413
Karen Temnic- Palm Rcsrah
Ed Kerr - South Bay
lien Routldtite- NPC.lT)
loom Guerrero EM Program C T� 3irmtor
Absent - Paid Dorlirsg, CIOTAY Duach
C3ackgnound.
r
r.
u
Jenniicr Rcckrrurn - 1' BC DA
lahu T#mlt!- Wetlingrton
Ahxnnl - Paul 31ockson• 118C Fire Resum
KeIYIrk Bledsoe - TrMS Coordinator
The LMS Evaluation Prrtwl La dusignaiod to evaluate, veview, Six„ e, and rink mitigtion pie jean
th. ough established beet, state and Waal prioritization pmce�--�o arul rri1cri&
Hi lIgh"t
a The new LMS WOrdin:11 or umi New ELnerga y progmttt =T)jirtutuT was introduced to
die panel_ .
■ 1'11;13aIWJ discussed the reLami roLmd of projects tlugt were tip tar review (2)_ This ntimber
was a great relief froin 41st 14Si Pulml of pro -act that included 52 sulxmissu,ws. Tlnc 110w
list was approved W lx,- prwm I. to 1k LMS stmitig coirunittee with wrrergiogw,
• SCOM, SYere reletscd CqT #rll iracmhcm mice a�;aiu dermpiL tatirtg a ulcor pwlemi between
reviewers aisd their Suure$. This dmonsirates the Evatuatiott P,ttttl's jibility to score
projects cnnr-istently fomr n Lontirluorrr. The group was fleece tlsrIt they 5we,rC ex7nsisteut
across the lxwrrcl.
■ The Panel disc -9ml had a Very long disco& ;ion on which thu r'undi3 wcrc awardmi, to
whwn tlsey wcrc aiwsnlcd to, aitd what the prnetr" wars otw4 qhc rc�ainmuldadDlis left
our wmmitiae and were Convarded to the Slate: The committee wanted to I ww wF�
pa3gp 1 of z
287
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
there a possibility of submitting lists by disaster event instead of simply adding to the list
twice a year, thereby having projects changing priorities without reasonable justification.
• The LMS Coordinator stated that he would inquire from the state how this process is
done to provide better guidance to the county, especially the LMS Steering committee.
• The community also discussed was there a possibility to have a procedure to protect
smaller municipalities in the request for projects.
• The committee discussed member transition, the process of replacing members who
maybe leaving the committee due to retirement or other reasons. The chair
recommended that it be a subject at the LMS steering committee meeting.
• We will elect a new chair at the nest scheduled LMS Evaluation committee meeting.
• It was discussed and approved that the committee would meet twice a year, once in May
and once in November with the date to be set as the meeting approached and could be
agreed upon.
• The next Evaluation committee meeting is scheduled for Thursday, November 7, 2013 at
2:00 p.m, at the EOC.
• The committee recommended that all new projects be submitted 30 days before the next
evaluation panel meeting. That date is 7 October 2013. This provides the panel to have
suitable time to review new proposed projects.
• The LMS Steering Committee meeting is scheduled for June 19, 2013. Recorru-nendalions
will be made to Steering Committee for final PPL approval.
Surnmary submitted by,
Kelvin Bledsoe, LMS Coordinator
Palm Beach County Division of Emergency Management
Page 2 of 2
NM
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
This page intentionally left blank
..
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Appendix H: Repetitive Loss Properties
In accordance with the following FEMA requirement, the PBC LMS includes repetitive flood
loss properties in its risk assessments:
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): The risk assessment must also address National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) insured structures that have been repetitively damaged floods.
In addition, PBC's LMS and Community Rating System programs monitor the number and
locations of flood prone properties countywide. At this writing, there were an estimated 285
FEMA- registered repetitive flood loss properties in the combined jurisdictions of incorporated
and unincorporated PBC.
Repetitive Loss Properties
Repetitive loss properties are defined by the National Flood Insurance Program as: "properties
with two or more NFIP claims of at least $1,000 in any rolling ten year period." Repetitive -loss
properties constitute a significant drain on the resources of the NFIP, costing about
200,000,000 annually. Repetitive -loss properties comprise approximately 1 percent of currently
insured properties but account for 25 to 30 percent of claims losses. They represent a
key target of the NFIP for mitigation, including relocation, elevation and buyouts.
As of June 2014 PBC has a total of 66 repetitive loss properties with a total estimated cost
of $1,861,366. A list of repetitive loss properties is available in this appendix
290
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Repetitive Loss Properties in Palm Beach County
Appendix H
291
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Appendix L• Project Scoring Examples
Requirement: §201.6(c)(3)(iii): The mitigation strategy section shall include an action plan
describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and
administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the
extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed
projects and their associated costs.
This appendix supports the above FEMA requirement by providing a few examples of
PBC's current project scoring process using the criteria established at the program's inception.
This process is used as the basis for ranking (prioritizing) proposed projects. 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 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
Water. They have recently completed a large and very nice public library located on the
Intracoastal Waterway. The library has many windows and a picturesque view of the
waterway. The building itself is engineered to withstand category 5 hurricane force winds, but
it is located in an area that can expect a 5 foot above mean high tide storm surge during storms
rated at category 3 or higher. A storm surge of this magnitude will flood the bottom floor of
this library to a depth of 2 feet. Equipment and books threatened by such an event are valued
at an estimated $200,000. It will cost approximately $60,000 to raise the books and
equipment in this library 3 ft above their current level. This would eliminate the $60,000 of
exposure in all but the most catastrophic hurricanes of category 5 strength, achieving and an
estimated 80% reduction in potential losses.
Applying the 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:
COMMUNITY BENEFIT
This is a Flood Damage Reduction activity and is awarded 10 points here;
292
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Libraries are considered secondary critical facilities and 6 points are awarded here;
In terms of Community Exposure $200,000 is considered moderate and the frequency of the
hazard this project mitigates for, Category 3 or higher storm surge, is low. Therefore Moderate
(M) Exposure (E) + Low (L) Frequency (F) = 4 points under category; and
Cost Effectiveness in terms of the Benefit/Cost Ration is 2.67; therefore 12 points are awarded
here.
This project's score under Community Benefit is 32.
COMMUNITY COMMITMENT
This project is not contained within a specific policy of Community A's Comprehensive Growth
Management Plan, but this type of mitigation is addressed as a broad goal in the Coastal
Management Element of that plan. Five points are awarded under this category;
Although libraries are considered secondary critical facilities this project is not part of any
emergency management plan. It is, however, part of the Library Department's long -term
strategic plan, which has been officially adopted by the City Council. Ten points are awarded
here;
While there is considerable public support for the library in general, and there is every reason to
believe there would be widespread public support for this mitigation project if it was presented
to the public, this has not yet been done. Most of the citizens of Community A are not aware of
the potential problem this mitigation project addresses. No points can be awarded here at this
time. (Community A could change this score by holding public workshops on the problem and
soliciting voter response questionnaires or other methods.)
This projects score under Community Commitment is 15 points.
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
There are no regulatory problems with this project and 5 points are awarded here;
Although the exposure is clearly visible, there has not been a severe hurricane since this library
was constructed and therefore there is no history of loss or repetitive loss for this structure.
Flood hazard mitigation money available now is directed toward structures suffering repetitive
losses, and consequently no funds are immediately available. FEMA and other funding sources
are being reviewed and it is believed that funds for this type of mitigation project will be
available within the next 1 to 2 years. This project is awarded 6 points in this category;
Community A is an affluent community and despite the fact that the public is currently unaware
of this problem, the City Council feels confident enough of public support to commit a 50%
match, or $30,000 toward this mitigation effort. The project is awarded 5 points here; and if
funding was to become available, this project could accomplish its objective of raising library
293
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
books and equipment above the category 3 storm surge level in less than one year. The project is
awarded 5 points here.
This project's score under Project Implementation is 21 points.
The Final Score for this proposed mitigation project is 68 points.
EXAMPLE 2: COMMUNITY B - RV PARK FLOODING PREVENTION
Community B has a large RV park with very poor drainage. Every time there is a minimal rain
event this area floods, causing significant danger and health hazards to the residents in terms of
flooded power outlets and sewage- contaminated standing water. These events also cause the
town and county considerable expense and inconvenience such as traffic problems, emergency
services disruption, and clean -up. This type of flooding happens approximately eight times per
year with an estimated expense to the town and county of $3,000 per event. Correcting this
problem will require a substantial reworking of the local drainage system. The estimated cost
for this mitigation effort is $400,000.
If the flooding this project is designed to correct occurs eight times a year at a cost of $3,000 per
event to the town and county in terms of police, fire /rescue, and utility worker time
involvement, then Community B has a documented exposure of $24,000 per year to this hazard.
If we assume the life expectancy of a drainage project to be 30 years, the potential savings to the
town and county could be as high as $720,000. A reduction in the frequency of these flooding
events by 90% would make the Benefit/Cost ratio on this project:
($720,000 - $72,000) $400,000 = 1.62 Benefit/Cost Ratio therefore, this is a viable project.
Applying the Scoring Criteria (See Attached Score Sheet) this project would be scored as
follows:
COMMUNITY BENEFIT
This project is a Flood Damage reduction project and is awarded 10 points under the CRS Credit
criterion.
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 4 points here.
Based on individual flooding events the community's exposure is low, but when considered
over time this exposure becomes much higher. Points are awarded under this criterion based on
a Medium Exposure and a High Frequency of occurrence. Nine points are awarded under this
criterion.
The cost effectiveness based on the Benefit/Cost ratio for this project is 1.62; therefore 8 points
are awarded here.
294
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Total project score under Community Benefit is 31 points.
COMMUNITY COMMITMENT
This proposed project is contained within a broad mitigation goal under the Coastal Element of
Community B's CGMP, but Community B has developed a proposed specific Policy
amendment directed toward this type of drainage system retrofit. The project is awarded 8
points here.
This project is also contained within the Flood Plain Management Plan for Community B, which
has been officially adopted. Award 10 points in this category.
This problem has been the subject of numerous letters and editorials in the local paper. It has
also been the subject of one advertised public meeting. Award 5 points here.
Total project score under Community Commitment = 23 points
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
This project requires a considerable amount of construction work. While it is consistent within
the local regulatory frame work there are regional and possibly national issues that will have to
be addressed. Since the project will be discharging stormwater runoff into some body of water
there will be water quality issues that must be dealt with. If Federal money is used, an NPDES
review will be required. While all these issues can be addressed, they will delay implementation
of the project and increase its cost. Award only 1 point under this criterion.
At the moment there are no identified sources for funding for this project. Once the LMS is
adopted it is believed the Federal Government will make available, through the State DEM some
funds to implement priority mitigation projects. These funds may be available within 1 to 2
years. Award 6 points under this criterion.
While Community B is relatively affluent they are not in a position to match more than 10% or
$40,000 on a project of this magnitude. Award 1 point under this criterion.
If funding were immediately available for this project it would take approximately three years
before this project could be permitted, bid, constructed, and operational. Award 3 points under
this criterion.
Total project points under Project Implementation = 11
The Final Score for this proposed mitigation project is 65 points.
EXAMPLE 3: 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
295
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
flooding and wind damage. They have an estimated $300,000 worth of computer,
communications, and emergency response equipment housed within these vulnerable facilities.
The county provides Community C with its Fire/Rescue services and is presently building a
new, hardened fire station to serve this section of the county. County Fire /Rescue Services have
offered to provide Community C space within their new building, but Community C will have to
have this space fitted for Emergency Management Operations. Fitting this space and moving
Community C's existing equipment into it will cost Community C an estimated $60,000. By
undertaking this move Community C should reduce the exposure to its physical assets by 95%
as well as position its Emergency Management Personnel in a much safer environment.
Applying the Benefit/Cost formula shows:
($300,000 - $15,000) $ 60,000 = 4.75 Benefit/Cost Ratio therefore, this is a viable project.
Applying the Scoring Criteria (See Attached Score Sheet) to this project would be scored as
follows:
COMMUNITY BENEFIT
Although not its specific aim, this project may be classified as a Flood Damage Reduction
activity. Award 10 points under this criterion.
This project addresses hardening of a Primary Critical Facility. Award 10 points here.
The currently utilized location of emergency management operations is highly vulnerable to
sever tropical storms, hurricanes, or tornadoes and all these types of storms occur with medium
frequency. Thus, we have a High Exposure = Medium Frequency = 8 points for this criterion.
The cost effectiveness for this proposed project expressed as the Benefit/Cost Ration is
4.75, thus 20 points are awarded in this criterion. Total Community Benefit Points = 48
COMMUNITY COMMITMENT
The concept of developing a hardened EOC for Community C is expressed in both a goal and a
specific Policy of their CGMP. Award 10 points under this criterion.
Development of a permanent, protected EOC is also contained with Community C's Emergency
Management Plan. Award 10 points under this criterion.
There is no real public support for, or opposition to, this project. Although it is believed the
public would be highly supportive of this project if it were presented to them, they are at this
time unaware of the problem. No points can be awarded in this criterion.
Total Community Commitment points = 20
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
There are no regulatory problems with this proposed project. Award 5 points here.
296
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
There is an identified funding source through the State Department of Emergency Management
for the project at this time. Award 10 points here.
Community C will match with funds and in -kind services 20% of the cost of this project. Award
2 points for this criterion.
This project can be accomplished as soon as the new fire station is ready for occupancy in
approximately six months. Award 5 points here.
Total Project Implementation Points = 22 points
The Final Score for this proposed mitigation project is 90 points.
EXAMPLE 4: COMMUNITY D - 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 not a flood - related project so no points are awarded here.
There are primary critical facilities located in the area threatened by wildfire so this project does
mitigate for threats to critical elements of the community's infrastructure. Award 10 points here.
The community has a high exposure to wildfire ($3 million) and wildfires have occurred with
moderate frequency recently in south Florida. Award eight points for this criterion.
The project has a Benefit/Cost Ratio of 9.0. Award 20 points under this criterion.
Total Community Benefit Points = 38 points
297
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
COMMUNITY COMMITMENT
Controlled burning is currently expressed as a broad Goal under Community D's CGMP, but it
is the subject of a specific Policy amendment which has been proposed. Award eight points
here.
Controlled burning is not addressed in any existing emergency management plans, but following
last summer's wildfire outbreaks, controlled burning plans have been developed and proposed.
Award 6 points under this criterion.
The danger of wildfire and the desirability of a controlled burn program have been the subjects
of two publicly advertised meetings and a considerable number of letters and written comments
from the public at- large. Award 5 points for this criterion.
Total Community Commitment points = 19
PROJECT 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 4 points for this criterion.
The county and the City have agreed to put up the funding for this program so funds will be
available as soon as the program has been legally adopted by Community D. Award 10 points
here.
Community D will match 50% of the funds required for this program. Award 5 points here.
Once the program is in place it will begin to accomplish its stated goals immediately. Award 5
points here.
Total Project Implementation Points = 24 points
The Final Score for this proposed mitigation project is 81 points.
.•
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
This page intentionally left blank
299
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
Appendix J: NFIP and CRS Status and Activities
This appendix is intended to provide current data and information on NFIP and CRS status and
activities countywide in fulfillment of the following FEMA requirement:
Requirement: §201.6(c)(3)(ii): The mitigation strategy must also address the jurisdiction's
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and continued compliance with
NFIP requirements, as appropriate.
The tables on the following pages provide summaries of NFIP and CRS status and activities by
jurisdiction. A variety of FEMA, ISO and local resources were used to prepare the summary
tables.
Detailed summaries of CRS activities, class ratings and insurance savings are included. The
number and value of NFIP insurance policies in effect, claims activity, and savings realized
from CRS participation are also included on a jurisdiction be jurisdiction basis. Currently the
CRS program is generating close to $5 million in insurance premium savings countywide.
At this writing, the County's CRS program has been evaluated June 2014. A final score is yet to
be determined. This information is maintained at the EOC by the CRS Coordinator.
300
Local Mitigation Strategy 2015
CID
Name
Policies in Force
Class Rating
120192
PALM BEACH COUNTY *
74,897
5
120193
ATLANTIS, CITY OF
439
7
120195
BOCA RATON, CITY OF
14,333
8
120196
BOYNTON BEACH, CITY OF
9,709
7
120198
CLOUD LAKE, TOWN OF
8
7
120207
HYPOLUXO, TOWN OF
1,163
8
120208
JUNO BEACH, TOWN OF
1,737
5
120211
LAKE CLARKE SHORES, TOWN OF
251
8
120212
LAKE PARK, TOWN OF
869
8
120213
LAKE WORTH, CITY OF
1,583
8
120214
LANTANA, TOWN OF
1,139
9
120215
MANALAPAN, TOWN OF
224
8
120216
MANGONIA PARK, TOWN OF
49
8
120217
NORTH PALM BEACH, VILLAGE OF
3,603
7
120220
PALM BEACH, TOWN OF
74,897
7
120221
PALM BEACH GARDENS, CITY OF
3,290
8
120223
PALM SPRINGS, VILLAGE OF
1,445
8
120227
SOUTH PALM BEACH, TOWN OF
1,601
8
120228
TEQUESTA, VILLAGE OF
1,362
8
120229
WEST PALM BEACH, CITY OF
6,823
6
125102
DELRAY BEACH, CITY OF
8,312
9
125109
GULF STREAM, TOWN OF
353
7
125111
HIGHLAND BEACH, TOWN OF
4,134
9
125119
JUPITER, TOWN OF
8,453
6
125134
OCEAN RIDGE, TOWN OF
1,316
7
125137
PALM BEACH SHORES, TOWN OF
989
8
125157
jWELLINGTON, VILLAGE OF
676
7
CRS Chart - Appendix J
301
Local Mitigation Strategy 2015
Palm Beach County and its municipalities will continue their commitment to NFIP by
continuing to:
• Enforce the Floodplain Management Ordinance which regulates new development
and substantial improvements in the special flood hazard areas.
• Inform the community by news releases and open public meeting
• Community Outreach
• 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.
• Public Education Seminars
• Updated mapping provided to each municipality
• Mapping placed in all county libraries
• Maintain public records and make them available for review.
• Community outreach
• 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
• Continue to promote flood insurance to property owners.
o Increase and continue outreach presentations to community and home
owners associations
• Continue to update the public and enable their participation in the flood remapping
prod ect.
• Community outreach
• News releases and county public TV
• Maintain flood hazard publications at the main branch of the library.
302
Local Mitigation Strategy 2015
• Where feasible, continue to identify /acquire land in the SFHA open
space /preservation.
• Promote hazard flood mitigation to the public.
• LMS posted on the County website
• Grant information posted on County website
• Integrate into outreach presentation
• Continue drainage maintenance and drainage system improvement projects.
o Encourage more drainage projects through -out the county in all LMS
meetings
• Continue floodplain management activities and target a Class 5 Rating.
• Adopt and enforce the floodplain management plan
• Schedule quarterly meetings with CRS User Group and invite all 38
municipalities
• Provide continued education and best practices to all municipalities
• Provide robust community assistance program
• Community outreach presentations
• Town hall meetings in different municipalities
• Press releases and TV programs
• Telephone information Hotline Floodplain and Mapping questions
• New map pick up information
• Outreach to municipalities not participating in the CRS/NFIP
• Provide continued outreach, best practices to municipalities that are not part
of the CRS/NFIP
• Document each municipality not a participant in the CRS/NFIP and
continue providing them with best practices incentives to participate
• Ensure that municipalities not participating in the CRS/NFIP are members
of the LMS working group, allowing them still to receive mitigation
information
303
Local Mitigation Strategy 2015
Appendix K: Mitigation Assessment Teams (MATs)
Should PBC be impacted by a natural disaster deemed by FEMA to be of national
significance, teams of technical specialists, referred to as Mitigation Assessment Teams
(MATS), might be mobilized by FEMA, in conjunction with State and local officials, to
conduct on -site qualitative engineering analyses to assess damage to government offices,
homes, hospitals, schools businesses, critical facilities and other structures and
infrastructure. The purpose of the assessment would be to determine the causes of
structural failures (or successes) and to evaluate the adequacy of local building codes,
practices and construction materials for the purpose of improving future performance.
They also might use the opportunity to review the effectiveness of previous mitigation
proj ects.
Most frequently MATS would be mobilized by FEMA's Directorate in response to joint
federal, state and local requests for technical support.
The technical make -up of MATS will depend largely on the nature and extent of damage
incurred. Disciplines most commonly represented are likely to include: civil and coastal
engineering, hydraulics, architecture, construction, and building code development and
enforcement. If the damage is severe enough, representatives from FEMA Headquarters,
Regional Office engineers, representatives from other Federal agencies and academia, and
experts from the design and construction industry may also participate. State
representatives would be dispatched by the Mitigation Bureau. The County would be
expected to provide local team members and support services as defined below.
At the county level, during activations, the Operations Section Chief will be responsible
for coordinating with the Logistics Section to arrange for local personnel, equipment,
vehicles, data, and other resources necessary to support MAT assessments. Once staffed
and equipped, MAT activities will be closely supported by the Damage Assessment and
Impact Assessment Units of the Operations Section under the direction of the Operations
Section Chief. Most likely FEMA and State representatives will bring personal resources
such as laptop computers, cell phones, GPS, etc. with them in their Go Bags, however,
backup inventories and sources for local resources will be maintained.
According to NIMS /ICS task force guidelines, federal and state MATS may choose to
coordinate their activities with local law enforcement homeland security units who
commonly perform critical infrastructure and key resource (CMR) 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).
304
Local Mitigation Strategy 2015
Lists of needed resources will be prepared by the Operations Manager and given to the
Logistics Manager who will be responsible for maintaining the inventories at the EOC or
other PBC facilities and ensuring equipment is secured, available and ready for
deployment. Access to special or emergency resources beyond the working inventory, may
be available through the Purchasing Unit, through the ESF 18 (Business & Industry)
functions at the regional and state levels, through WebEOC source lists or though private
sector partners party to the Business Continuity Information Network (BCIN). The BCIN
is a web -based service available to local businesses, county emergency management, and
organizations that assist businesses to gather and share critical information that support
continuity efforts before, during and after a disaster. Available year round as a public
service, this trusted, business -to- business, community network provides participating
companies a tool to track their key employees and supply chain status, and locate needed
recovery goods and services.
The County will provide appropriate public sector and private sector technical,
operational, logistical, administrative, and planning expertise necessary to support the
mitigation assessment mission. Lists of emergency contacts will be maintained by the
Logistics Section.
Depending on the geographic distribution and severity of damage throughout the PBC, the
MAT might establish its base(s) of operation at the EOC or at sites near any or all of the
six Emergency Operating Areas (EOAs).
The MATS may work in conjunction with Damage Assessment Teams or independently,
based on need, time priorities and the availability of State and FEMA MAT personnel.
The mission of the MATS is to learn exactly what happened and why, and how to reduce
disaster damage in the future. Key questions include: How did buildings perform? Did
winds exceed building codes? Did 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 measures such as shutters used?
Were local, State and Federal building standards and ordinances sufficient?
Palm Beach County is the largest county by area in the U.S. east of the Mississippi River.
Most of its population and development are heavily concentrated in the eastern corridor
within 10 miles of the coastline. The County's emergency management planning is based
on the assumption that the County may not be serviced effectively by a single EOC
location. Consequently, the County has been divided into six Emergency Operations
Areas, each of which is equipped to function on its own before, during and after a disaster.
Pre - equipped field response trailers are available for deployment year round. Where lead
times are sufficient, resources will be pre - staged. Mitigation assessment resources may not
be available for all EOAs concurrently, in which case the Operations Section Chief will
work with the MAT to identify priorities and will request additional resources through
Logistics.
305
Local Mitigation Strategy 2015
If available local personnel resources are insufficient, the County may be able to draw
mutual aid support from neighboring counties on an as needed basis. The Logistics and
Operations Sections may also coordinate with FDEM, as necessary and appropriate, to
arrange for field support from organizations such as the International Code Council.
Based on a comprehensive analysis of assessment data compiled in the field, the teams
will prepare recommendations regarding construction codes and standards, building
design, and best practices that PBC, its municipalities and the construction industry can
use to reduce future disaster damage. Throughout the process, the MAT will consult with
partnering government agencies and supporting private sector organizations to ensure
consensus on each phase of the investigation, including methodology, data collection, and
analysis. This will help to ensure the MAT's final recommendations represent the most
current and best available data and technical expertise. Once consensus is reached, FEMA
will issue a series of "Recovery Advisories" that will provide initial guidance on building
issues and best practices that can be used in the reconstruction process. FEMA will also
publish a comprehensive report that provides local decision makers with information and
detailed technical recommendations for improving building construction and design,
building code policy and enforcement, and mitigation activities that can limit or eliminate
damages in future disasters.
MAT observations and recommendations submitted to the LMS will provide a basis for
future mitigation strategies, initiatives and projects and the optimum uses of mitigation
assistance funds.
The DEM recovery section will provide oversight. The recovery and post- disaster
coordinator from the recovery section along with the LMS Coordinator will facilitate and
coordinate the application process and serve as a primary communication link with
funding agencies.
Public information will be coordinated through the Joint Information Center (managed by
ESF -14), based on cleared information provided by the MATS and Disaster Recovery
Centers. Longer -term, information will be integrated into media releases, LMS and CRS
outreach activities, public presentations, presentations at professional conferences, training
curricula, etc.
At this writing, Standard Operating Guidelines for mitigation assessment activities are in
the early planning stage. DEM will coordinate with the Inspections Section of the
County's Building Department to lay a foundation for development of Standard Operating
Guides. Many of the 38 municipalities of the County have their own building departments,
officials, and procedures and will be an integral part of the procedure development
process. Several of these departments can draw from their damage assessment experiences
following Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and to a lesser extent their experiences following
Hurricane Frances, Jeanne and Wilma which impacted PBC. Organizations such as the
PBC Builder's Association and the Building Code Advisory Board of PBC will also need
to be consulted.
306
Local Mitigation Strategy 2015
This page intentionally left blank
307
Local Mitigation Strategy 2015
Appendix L: List of Acronyms
ALF
Assisted Living Facility
BCC
Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners
CDC
Center for Disease Control
CEI
Climate Extremes Index
CEMP
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
CERT
Community Emergency Response Team
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
EMPA
Emergency Management Preparedness & Assistance
EOA
Emergency Operations Area
EOC
Palm Beach County Emergency Operations Center
ERM
Environmental Resource Management
ESF
Emergency Support Function
FDACS
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
FDEM
Florida Division of Emergency Management
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHMS
Florida Hazard Mitigation Strategy
FIRM
Flood Insurance Rate Maps
I"
Flood Mitigation Assistance Program
GCRI
Greenhouse Climate Response Index
GIS
Geographic Information System
HHD
Herbert Hoover Dike
HMGP
Hazard Mitigation Grants Program
ICS
Incident Command System
IPZ
Ingestion Pathway Zone
LMS
Local Mitigation Strategy
LDR
Local Development Regulations
LEPC
Local Emergency Planning Committee
LOD
Letter of Dispute
MAT
Mitigation Assessment Team
MLLW
Mean Lower Low Water
MOM
Maximum of Maximums
MPO
Metropolitan Planning Organization
NCDC
National Climactic Data Center
NFIP
National Flood Insurance Program
NGO
Non - Governmental Organization
NGVD
National Geodetic Vertical Datum
NHC
National Hurricane Center
NIMS
National Incident Management System
1'
Local Mitigation Strategy 2015
List of Acronyms Cont.
NIPP
National Infrastructure Protection Plan
NOAA
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration
NWS
National Weather Service
OPS
Outreach Project Strategy
PAPA
Property Appraisers Database
PDM
Pre - Disaster Mitigation
PDRP
Post Disaster Redevelopment Plan
PPL
Project Prioritization List
PZB
Department of Planning, Zoning, & Building
SARS
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
SFWMD
South Florida Water Management District
SLOSH
Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes
SWP
State Warning Point
TCRPC
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
TYLCV
Tomato yellow Leaf Curl Virus
WFO
National Weather Service Forecast Office
WHO
World Health Organization
309
Local Mitigation Strategy 2015
Appendix M: Maps
310
a
LAKE
OKEECHOBEE
SPA HOH
m ers�
ooker wy State Road 80
hip !
E
N
- \, _y OUTH LLE
D
BAY LADE
W
LLINGTON
R
Y
C
O
U
N
T
Y
d�
2
a
Agriculture Area
Agriculture Area County Boundary — Railroad Municipal Area
0 1 2 4
F�OH10A
_J
M Ilee
ISS GIS LS]
,\ pbcgov .orgVssIGISIWorklbnmton\LMS 20141Agri culture Area.mxd
June 17, 201
310
Local Mitigation Strategy 2015
Martin TEQUESTA Northern PBC
COU nty� `}'y`
PAL/lf l
GREENACRES WOR SEACqq
ATLANTIS , SOUThi�PALlE?
Jupiter to Lantana
J V ITER
E�TI
Lantana Rd BE�CH
- cean A /,I
I/ C1
W Irdiantown RdE fdianto .Rd
I
AN Tq j'�I
f=' � MAMA APAN
JUPITER
'`y
Y;r
m HYPO I1X0
I/\ F
i JU 1
1 0 OCEr 1If
BEA
Z- R7j�gE
g
Yt PALM BE CH
GARDE VS
H m� t
1''1
!r�1
Boynton Be_a_ch Blvd W Boynton Beac lvd - carp five A
3
moo, 1
f/I T
Y j
`o S
LL 1
L
¢
PGA BN d
B kY
A
o � 8 / ZES
GOLF
� O
NORTH PALM -
BOYNTON '� T
BEACH
Northlake Blvd -n
BEACH v) G ,
k
ST M
m
AKE m
+ C
RK v A
9 z Fi
W lue Heron vd [�,,�LL Tl
RI 1 PALM
O
trACH
C SH � S
Ave Atlantic Ave m C
W
_
A
ptl an�jO
/ E
ONlA
PA N
w A
Lu
T
DELRAY � j
N
BEACH 4/1,
WEST
ro'f
PALM W Ili Rd
l+
BEACH ✓'
r�,l
n"
yyo HIGH6IAND
Okeech ee Blvd I
BOCH
' �c
g
z (° %
a o j I
HAVERHILL
Q
c�
_ I'rl
✓� C
Southern Blvd cL�o Y+ A
WYamato Rd �I
—
{
!
RID E t 4 N
PAM
.AK' BEAT H
8OCA
Forest Hill Blvd CLARK
RATON
Z
SHORE
PALM LA E=
%,)
W 2d
GI es Rd
t'i
;i
✓I
— SPRINGS O THE
ri
I Southern PBC
rn m
Worth Rd a_
W Imelto Park Rd I /'I Lantana to
-
LaKe
.a GREENACRES o Z
Boca Raton
o ATLANTIS Z C Oi(TM PALM
LL
Lantana Rd 6 AN N�CH
_ _ _____ _
_ ___— —_—
m W cean ve f
NAM Ap
Broward County ______—____ —_
d �
Coastal Erosion Area
� <ORIOP
® Coastal Erosion Area - Railroad Municipal Area I County Boundary
Not To Scale
ISS GIS Services
vlpbcgov- orgtisslGISvWorkvbn orto n L MS 2014vCo astal Erosion Area mxd
dune 18 2o1
311
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
312
Martin County
Indiantown Rd t NL ER
I
OL Y
I
�
I
<� LIPITER
iUNO
EFAC
PALM BED
CAREENS
OKEECNOBEE P IY
`w
'kORTH }I
_ LI4�BEACH
Nor<hl . ak. Blvd Lq t
PAN KEE cgs
�
PA
H WEST = RI VI AH
PALM — 8
m EEgGH � M ON a'H ES
r
t m 4R I A
PAM T
A
State Road BO -� BEA H �
Ro Y4L Okeecho6 Blvd ,y
a LOXAHATCHEE PALM N
Hendry ount
ry y
LSE BEACH Y'] r
GROVE HAVERHILL
- -� a E
Southern BIvdH
84Y F est V 66 Rlvd
SHOR
WELLINGTON PALM
GREENACRljRfNGS THE G
E
rol{TH
'Lanta andl 'PA
I
A.TLANFIS M
A
CH N
A A PAN
H i0
q«� N
E
Bo n n Beach BIVOGYN _
-�
y m BEA
G F GOLF EyTLES
s $4M
' Atla ti�A,le GEL N
i
I f JiL]7N0
H
_W Yamala.
_
Yamato Rd �
Glatles Rd_ __ � J
r� J 1
_Palmetto P 'k Rd— 'CA
ON'
air County �
RCH
Palm Beach County
ACORIOr
Railroad [ County Boundary Municipal Area
o 1.zs zs s
ISS GIS Services
\5 pbcgov .org\iss1GISlWork\bnorton\LMS 20141County Map.mxd
Miles
June i8 201
312
Local Mitigation Strategy 2015
o,s Evacuation Zones
N
Category 1 and Higher Category 5 and Higher Railroad
Category 2 and Higher Category 4 and Higher Municipal Area Not To Scale
F <OR1dA Category 3 and Higher County Boundary
ISS CIS Services %pbcgov orgliss\GlS\Work%rorton\LMS 20141Evacuation Zones.mxd June 18 201
313
Local Mitigation Strategy 2015
Historical Flood Areas
•�� Historical Flood Area Railroad Municipal Area County Boundary o0 1 2244
�°"Cp RlOA M tles
ISS GIS Services ��pbcgov .orgliss\GIS\Worklbnorton\LMS 20141Historical Flood Areas.mxd June 18 201
314
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
315
Martin County f -rEuFS -�
r----------------------- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- - -- — - - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- -- PER
Indiantown Rd NL-
OL Y
(� UPf7ER
NJNO
I
BFAC
LAKE PALM BEAOH
G RDENS
O KEEG'N 08 EE / c P fv ly
L OR7H
BFACH 1
Nor hhke Bhlf
PAH
Sh`y,, WE5r RANI A,�H PA
✓ PALM =_ 8
.3H ES
N SFAH M ON
AR I A
PAM
St2tH Read 80 � �41y;y L
I7 y ROY4L Okeechp6 B1,d [`
,q
LOXAHATCHEE PALM iA N
GROVES SEACH
HAVERHfLL T
Southern BIvdR
aA BNd LAKE C R E
I
F eat tflR SHOR �
PALM
WELLINGTON S PflvGs O
Hendry County I
3REENRCRE5 TH i L
I
E
Tanta and 'OV TH A
— ATLAN rISL4 A PA M N
cH
A A PAN
N
U E
� Bon r ach gl_vd eovN _
B
m YA I
Y
:GCLF E ES
o U�
3 iM
1
a t/2
gtla tic Ave BEL A 11
I
f NtWmo
�H
_ VJ Yamato _
Yam to Rd
J I
palmetto P fk Rd A f
ae
Rmward County
Herbert Hoover Dike Breach Inundation Area
26' Lake Level and Multiple Breaches. Data based on 1998 EAP N
Less Than 1 Day Inundation -- Railroad
® 1 - 8 Days Inundation i` - -� County Boundary
A�oat01*
B- 12 Days Inundation Municipal Area
ISS GIS Services
N:1Worklbnorton\LMS 20141HHD Inundation,mxd I June z 20i
315
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
316
Martin County rewesPZ,-
r---------- - - -` -- — ----------------------------------------------------- TEF
Indiantown Rd � NL
I o�gvr
�
iUNC�
BFA-A
I
PALM SEACH
GA ROENS `
L A K E
s`
I OKEECHOBEE PGA N
j
OREA TU
L e CH
�2q m, NorYhlake _ ��
Bfvd
PAIKEE SOS RK PALM
WEST slvl a
PALM �_. B .SES
�j ZM Ill
RNI
M
m
State ROdd 80 PA H L
�� I �� &nYaLOkeecho62e d a
LO_G_AHATCHEE PA"W -.. i. N
f HAVERH(LL T
Hendry County LADE
so n arr Bib
BAY F BSt Hl}I Blvd LAKE KE C
_
sHO
WELLINGTON EENACRES PALM( Q
°PRINGS
C
TH rV
'SOW�T{f L
} L-t. a Rd PAf'M
- ATLANT(s
E H N
rA A
4 A PAN
N
n 0 E
BOYN f_
�
l�JY
LS Fee GOLF E�ZES
y
i - F
a�
Atla tICA e BE H Jlrr
j
4N➢
Y—m to R - EACH
I
pla Rd_ ,• �
~
`'� E'a�metto Park d CA i
— _— _— _— _— _— _— _— _— _— _— _— _ —_ —_� ------ _---- -_— _— _— _— _— _— _ —_ —_ —_ — J ' +.� rt?N- 1
Broward County---- - - - - -- ,^.�
Muck Soil Area
/
Muck Soil --° Railrcad Municipal Area IJ County Boundary
o t 2s ss s
FLOR19Ai
Miles
ISS GIS Services
l�pbcgov .orgliss\GISlWorklbnorton\LMS 20141Muck Soils.mxd
June i8 201
316
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
317
Martin County _ iFQUrs 1�T
_
I dia town Rd \J NLsr
oLdiv�
�a
0 Miles
\B[Tv�R
PALM BEACH ' 0,F, s dKEEC;,ObEF � 40 Miles I P 't
/l S
y x\ LOLEACH
}. Northlaka Blvd 'r. LA
PAH,yp,% E ��BS m_ PAR PAL!
WEST , Rf VI AaIAOyH
PALO 5HO ES
0 Miles a BL CH M Nf
o �q � R
�sV
M PA4M T
:r "?_ �
jN S�
State Rcad ed% aAUH L
I1 LOXAHATCHEE PALM BI v d
,q RovALOkeechohee A
—
L F { •'! GROVES &EACH HAVER i EL j
Southern BIvdR 1�
Hendry County acv - H4113Nd acEC R E to
F i est
LM
KELLfNGTON
SPRINGS C
i EENACRES E I C
u rH
Lanta a Rd ATL�INTfSUTH 'y
A A�CH n
- P
L XPAN
L XO
O �C N
V �fo�E
Bo n n Be,a Ch BlVtl 1S?YN
SFA
L F w GOLF EdZES
u 0P
O� lLL o S4M
Zw
Ave �pC �
g
H 0
��H�CH
=i
I WYarnato
I 'famato Rd L°�
li Glades Rd ��
I-
f ` Palmetto PArk Rd I- _
------------------------------ --------------------------_ --- ---------- Tom r
—1
4�$Q,ACf( COs?i
Radiological Hazard Area
St Lucie Nuclear Power Plant IPZ - Railroad Municipal Area I� County Boundary
N
o f 2s zs s
FZOBYOA
ISS GIS Services
I I l�pbcgov .orgliss\GISlWorklbnorton\LMS 20141Radiological Hazard Area.mxd
Miles
June i8 201
317
Local Mitigation Strategy 2015
Martin r-- ----- ------- I
Northern PBC
GREENACRES LpKF 8EL
County
ATLANTIS OR EH sour b Lm
- - - -- rENUESrA Jupiter to Lantana
LANEANA BE �ry
PJ TER
I
ET
I
OL Y
Indiantown W Indiantown Rd E ndia t t2d
-
r
N
MAN �IPAN
JUPITER —
5.�
�
NYPOL X0
7
JUNO
BEACH
K
r
y 1`
B-ovntoi Beach BL-d ! A
r
- 3 l
o
R1 )rE� I
�
i L
PGA Blvd 'L
B p�Y A
SR ¢Es
PAE RDE d
GOLF + N
GARDENS NS
NORT
PALM
BOYNro i T
BEACH
BEACH
Northle a vd
SERE
a
AKf
C
RK A
x
II
8 r
m N lue Heron Bfv e Heron 1Vd T
DELRAY i O
R PAL EACH
H S ES L
BEACH
( `'
i,
1 A
E
OMA
P N
I
i A
II4
f
N
WESr PALM _
BEACH 5 p
1
We stRd !�+
z l
g CH
tiI
Okeecho6e Blvd al Pal �imay 0
!! lJ
f
I
f
� C
HAOERH(LL
I
Southern Blvd
Ir A
RID
N
P
BEA H
Forest Hilf 8t L I
BOCA I
RATON
KE
SNORES _ I
I
~ SPRINGS 3
I
_ �
WELLINGTON EENACRES g I
I Southern PBC
N LL
I Lantana to
Lake Worth Rd
Boca Raton
o OR
T I
ATLANTIS 50 H
ana
Lant R P
W ntana dBE N
1
- - - - —�_— - - -- +
— —
}J�---
ANT 'APAN
Broward County _------- _ - - - --
A`��•ACH COC -._
Storm Surge Area
SLOSH Inundation — Railroad Municipal Area j_J County Boundary
"' <ostvP
Not To Scale
ISSGISServices
vlpbcgov- orgAisslGlSv Workv bncr1cMLMS2014 vStorm Surge Area rnxd
June :L8, 201
318
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
319
-
Martin County iEu s 1
- -- — �— ��------- � - - - -- - ----------- - - - - -- PER
r
�-------------------
IndiantI— Rd NL
OL Y
NJNO
BEAC
PALM 3-'A--b 1
L A h E Cz4R0EN5
OKEECHOBEE
OFA )
�+ L BFACH
o tniaka Bltt
��9 F
PA XEE PA Y
'Ili � RaPC�xES
PAM — B
`�'
- N BEACH M ON
a Z AR I A
n
PAM �
GS n; State Roatl 80 \� ° q y L
ROY4L Okeecho6 Blyd A PAW
Hendry ount I
rY Y
_ LO GROVES EE SE H HAVER
_� LADE — T
Soume,n
i
�4V BNd:
_ F e t Hill
PALM
WELLINGTON S'RfNGS I O
GREENACRE5 E i C
TH
E
I
Santa aria 'OV TH .4
ATLAN T'SLA A PA M N
cH
U A A PAN
p H L E
N
Ul E
r Bon �BB.ach BIVd EOVN _
B EEA
m Y I
2 Y
G m F r :GCLF E ES
P
� LL LL 5 M
A
j
gtla SIcA e BEL
I
I NtWmo
H
_ W Yamato
�\ Yam to Rd j
Rd I
t
palMetto P rk Rd A
�1'�-------
--------- - - - - -- ----------- - - - - -- - - -- Browarld Gount - - -T -w 1
�eNCRC
0
aGZK
Transportation Hazard Area
1 Mile Buffer of Transportation Mode --- Railroad N
® Airport Municipal Area
o 1 s
I_ County Boundary
Port
ISS GIS Services
1lpbcgov .orgliss5GIS\WorklbnortonALMS 20141Transportation Hazard Area.mxd June i8 2o1
319
Local Mitigation Strategy 2015
Martin
County rEQUES / 1ti Northern PBC
- - -`
/PALN+I
GREENACRES ATLANTIS wOR �EACf;
Jupiter to Lantana
ITER
/sOUTO7,PALM
Rd CH
Lantana / l���
cean A I
g$ ET
n'
Rd W Indiantown
_.
ndiar n Rd Ejlnd(
/ tZd
P' t
ANTA
APAN
�
JHPIrER
1
m y,_ >
�
HY XOr
�OCEr N
Z- iR74 qE
1
/ i�1t
Boynton Be_a_ch Blvd W Boynton Beac lvd r•�yJ�epfive A
t
L
PGA Blvd !' / y
/B�t}rJY A
o ZES
P
GARDENS E.
m NORTH ./ "
GOLF o, //f N
/
PALM //�
BEACH yq,
` w
BOYNTON % �
BEACH v)
Northleke Blvd T
xiM
\R11C
Heron Be3yiid T
P',,y, EACH
,,//l O
R
I / /
A
Ave W Atlantic Ay e '��x Ci
A +an'° �/i
E
OAVA
P N,!%ff�
A
/
WESTPAL �l
DELRAY
BEACH u�l N
/I
BEACH
�r�Rd
/•�,j
C
Ge ohee Blv oyel / �//I Way m
y P�0 /G`F(jrIAND
fMCH
14AVERM L
C
Southern Blvd
-
WYamatoRd ;I
/
D A
GLL •+
H /•���I
// /I
ZA"Vol
Forest Hill Blvd q
BOCA
RATON
LAKE
CL AR '
W /
PALM
SPRINGS SHORE
GIa I
Ces Rry
%I
GREENACRES
Rd
jr1 Southern PBC
_ W Imelto Park Rd j / �'� Lantana to
/,�t
LaKe Worth
/
� I/ •I
AK
Boca Raton
m I � , I
o
ATLANTIS L o SO
w ntana sarl H
w. ANT AP
Lantana Rd W
------ t- - - - - -- +
}ice:
Broward Count i
y- - - - - -- --- - - - - --
Tsunami Threat Area
<OR�9
® Tsunami Threat Area -- Railroad Municipal Area fj County Boundary
Not To Scale
ISS GIS Services
N 1WorklbnortonlLMS 2014 \Tsunami Threat Area mxd
June 18 201
320
Local Mitigation Strategy 2015
321
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- _ - --- Martin County -- -- - -- -- -- 11111111111111111h E4UESTA- 4TER
Indiantown Rd INLET
OL NY
Y!r
y NO
AC4Q
PAL
GAR � At
TH
.
Nxthlake B EACH G
- -. .lvd ... 0
WEST M 8 ACH
a PALM
BEACH Onts
% ` R
„ �M1lel61 Rd A
n ROY m Okeech :2 T
a 9
\� LOXAHATCHEE PALS .�Hl� L
'. State Road 80 GROVES SEA
So ern Blvd A
o
L PALL N
�z LA EAQH
Lest Hill Blvd LAR T
WELLINGTON e P IOR = I
SP
Ak Lake d L
GREENAQRES W C
OF
Lantana_ Rd_ _ ATLANTIS E�CHLM
LA dARAN Q
UP rn
r
( BOYNTON E N E
E4CH
IDjtE
! A
Bo ntori Be i
a I` N
Iffy
F' GOLFS
EFES
U41
qAM
W Attar)
Atlantic Ave _ pE I
8E I
VI
01
H LAND
Varnatoallilm L— EsICH
vl
>r
GVedos Rd .a m III
Palmetto P v � O!
�I z
----------- - - - - --
— —' I
Broward County ` ` EL
d •G i
Welifield Protection Zone Areas
• �<OBIOP • r
■ Wellfield Protection Zone =-- Railroad Municipal Area ; County Boundary n r 2 4
ISS GIS Services
I\ pbcgov.org %iss\GIS\Worklbnorton%LMS 20141Wellfield Protection Areas.mxd June z8 2o1
321
Local Mitigation Strategy 2015
322
mpena- 8C s - - --
TERUESTA
Martin County--
------------------
---------- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - -
JU 1TER
INLET
W Indianlown Rd COLQN
JUPITER V
Fa �Tij '�•
nn
p Be b' F-
El es
theP,ihes
' C
/ n JUNO
~ BEACH
PALM BEACH m
GARDENS o
LL
PGA Blvd
a!
mE NORTH
_ rtirlake Blvd PALM
� EACH
—Z L E
E
PA
TYi Blue Heron Blv
Cre g WEST PALM ��� R!V C
B
BEACH
M ON7
PA
Whit
4dce
\
are
�o} ROYAL —
D er Ltor� /,F - LOX�h'elC 1'� PALM r`
��- / / - Ate BEACH Okeechobee Blvd
Co n Thousand Q
Pinesc
State Road m
80 /// - HAVERHILL
/f Southern Blvd CLOPD
�L
el ling nn / ' iy m RIDE
/ a LAK
m FCresl Hill Blvd CLA
_ ! - SHORE
P ALM
GS
Z GREENACRESSPRI
LA
/ WO I.
Lake Worth Rd
o a Q
Of o ATLANT7S8!
j
Lantana Rd -)
U
Hom land w
BOYNTONR
.�.
Wildland Urban Interface Area
- 1 County Boundary — Railroad Risk Area Municipal Area
0 0
<aatd!
Mies
ISS GIS Services
1\ pbcgov .org \iss\GIS\WorklbnmtoMLMS 20141Wildland Urban Interface Area. mxd
June 18 2o1
322
Local Mitigation Strategy 1 2015
323
Martin County _
r------------------------------ - - - - -- - -- — "- - - - - -- --------- - - - - --
I - I_ndiantoml Rn _ Nl
f I L Y
}
■
UPf TER
I
i
XA
eC��{1y
t� I
LAKE PALM a'AGH 'y
GARDENS
O KEEG'N 08 EE '�c _ P fv � 't
OR
L FA EACH'`
0
PAH �aSy WEST �RUJ A� {H
PALM - e
RFA"H M O
1-4 N
y AR A
�y L
HATCHES
H
Hendry County
SE
r L4 _ GvES 1, ir T
eA R E 'o
'PAL
170mph YILLLMIGTGN PIN I O
NRC
i C
TH i E
I
rogTH A
A PA M
� N
H
80mp 1 A. PAN
4 H Z p
N
E
avN
Y
E ES
'I
� Uf�F
$f
5 SAM
�a �' 1
I
TEL A
'I
1B H
1
I
f NtWmo
CH
I�
I
VJ Yamato
+
AJ.
A
�—
-- ----------------- ---- ------------- - - - - -- -
Browar ----ld Count �` " ° -- - - - -- TGN . !
$QAC`��
Wind Speeds - Risk Category III and IV Buildings
Railroad Municipal Area IJ County Boundary
A <OKI
ISS GIS Services
� Miles
\% pbcgov .orgliss\GIS\Worklbnorton\LMS 20141Wind Risk.mxd June 18 2o1
323