Loading...
R10-037 II 1 RESOLUTION NO. RIO - 037 2 3 4 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, 5 FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF BOYNTON 6 BEACH TO APPROVE AND ADOPT THE 2009 REVISED 7 PALM BEACH COUNTY UNIFIED LOCAL MITIGATION 8 STRA TEGY PLAN j AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE 9 DATE. 10 11 12 WHEREAS, Palm Beach County is susceptible to a variety of natural and man-made 13 disasters; and 14 WHEREAS, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, was enacted to establish a national 15 disaster hazard mitigation program to reduce the loss of life and property, human suffering, 16 economic disruption, and disaster assistance costs resulting from disasters, and to assist state, 17 local and Indian tribal governments in implementing effective hazard mitigation measures to 18 ensure the continuation of critical services and facilities after a natural disaster, and 19 WHEREAS, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, as a condition for qualifying for and 20 receiving future Federal mitigation assistance funding, requires such governments to have Federal 21 Emergency Management Agency approved hazard mitigation plans in place that identify the 22 natural hazards that could impact their jurisdictions, identify actions and activities to mitigate the 23 effects of those hazards, and establish a coordinated process to implement plans; and 24 WHEREAS, Palm Beach County's Local Mitigation Strategy, in coordination with 25 governmental and non-governmental stakeholders having an interest in reducing the impact of 26 natural disasters, and with input from the private sector and other members of the public, 27 developed and revised the Palm Beach County Unified Local Mitigation Strategy; and 28 WHEREAS, the 2009 revised Unified Local Mitigation Plan has been approved by the E :\Data\85\ltems \80\ 1 067\609\Reso _- _Local_Redevelopment_ Strategy_Plan .doc II I 1 Florida Division of Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management Agency 2 subject to adoption by the County Board of County Commissioners; and 3 WHEREAS, the LMS Steering Committee recommends the formal adoption of the 2009 4 Revised Unified LMS Plan, including planned future enhancements described therein, by the 5 County and all 38 participating municipalities. 6 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF 7 THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, THAT: 8 Section 1. The foregoing "Whereas" clauses are hereby ratified and confirmed as 9 being true and correct and are hereby made a specific part of this Resolution upon adoption 10 hereof. 11 Section 2. The City of Boynton Beach hereby approves and adopts the 2009 Revised 12 Unified Local Mitigation Strategy Plan (attached hereto as Exhibit A) in its entirety, as revised by 13 the LMS and approved by the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners, the Florida 14 Division of Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 15 Section 3. The City of Boynton Beach authorizes the appropriate City of Boynton Beach 16 Officials to pursue available funding opportunities for implementation of proposed mitigation 17 initiatives described in the Plan, and upon receipt of such funding or other necessary resources, 18 seek to implement the actions in accordance with the mitigation strategies set out by the plan. 19 Section 4. The City of Boynton Beach will continue to support and participate in the LMS 20 planning and implementation process as required by FEMA, the Florida Division of Emergency 21 Management, and the Palm Beach County LMS Steering Committee. 22 Section 5. The City Commission directs the City of Boynton Beach Clerk to transmit an 23 original of the executed Resolution to the Palm Beach County Division of Emergency E :\Data\85\ltems\80\ 1 067\609\Reso _ - _Local_Redevelopment_ Strategy_Plan .doc II I 1 Management, attention LMS Coordinator (712-6481), for filing in the Office of the Clerk and 2 Comptroller. 31 Section 6. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon passage. :th. 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED this ~ day of April, 2010. 5 6 7 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA 8 .) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ATTEST: 24 25 .P~ 26 27 M. Prainito, MMC 28 Clerk 29 At9" ?~2:~~~~, 30 31 32 (COliIat~ ~1l1)~~1!~1 . "..'" ~f" 33 ;~':.,~ '-"'.!k';'fI '''.:'''e '\" .:.,.,. '!:,~1.t~i;!~, .;1:.. "',:,;_.{~~fJ' ..,\t)"l"1*,~\W~ '*~'t . """J:::'i"~~~~M,,~~~\t:.,,/.:~>~' -,' E :\Data\85\ltems\80\ 1 067\609\Reso _ -_LocaL Redevelopment_ Strategy-Plan .doc PALM BEACH COUNTY UNIFIED LOCAL MITIGATION STRATEGY 2009 TABLE of CONTENTS PART 2: PLAN SECTIONS Paae 1.0 PURPOSE AND PROGRAM OVERViEW........ ....... ................... ....... .......... ............ 1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ... ............................... ......... ......... ........ ......... ......... .............. 1-1 1.2 PURPOSE.. ................ ....... ............................. ....... ................................... ......1-1 1.3 PROGRAM ORGANIZATION .... ........... ........ ......... ......... ........ ......... .......... ..... 1-1 1.3.1 ORIGINAL LMS STRUCTURE.............................................................. 1-1 1.3.2 REVISED LMS STRUCTURE ...............................................................1-2 1.4 LMS PARTICIPATION REQUiREMENTS....................... ......... ............... ........1-4 1.5 JURISDICTIONAL ADOPTION OF THE LMS ..................................................1-5 1.6 NEW JURiSDiCTIONS/ENTITIES.... ........................... .......... ............... ..........1-6 2.0 GUIDING PRINCiPLES............................................ .......... .......................... ....... .. .2-1 2.1 METHODOLOGY... .... ...... ......... .'.... ....... ... ......... ..... ... ......... ..... ... ......... ....... ..... 2-1 2.2 PROCESS...................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 MITIGATION STRA TEG IES............................................................................ 2-3 2.4 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .................. ..... ............ ...... ............. 2-3 2.4.1 GOALS................................................................................................ 2-3 2.4.2 OBJE CTIVES ...................................................................................... 2-4 2.4.3 BENEFITS........................................................................................... 2-4 3.0 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS ........................... 3-1 3.1 HAZARD I DENTIFICA TION .................................. ................. ..................... ...3-1 3.1.1 NATURAL HAZARDS.... ..................... ....... .......................................... 3-2 3.1.1.1 FLOODING.......... .......... ........................................... ......... 3-3 3.1.1.2 HURRICANEITROPICAL STORM ...... ..... ................ ..........3-8 3.1.1.3 TORNADO ................... ............ ......... ......................... ...... 3-16 3.1.1.4 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM/LIGHTNING ....................... 3-18 3.1.1.5 DROUGHT....................................... ................ ................3-19 3.1.1.6 EXTREME TEMPERATURES. ........ ......... ........ .......... ......3-22 3.1.1.7 AGRICULTURAL PEST AND DiSEASE........................... 3-24 3.1.1.8 WILDFIRE/URBAN INTERFACE ZONE........................... 3-25 3.1.1.9 MUCK FIRE ... ............................ ....... .......... ....... .............. 3-27 3.1.1.10 SOIUBEACH EROSiON.................................................. 3-27 3.1.1.11 SEI SMIC HAZARDS........................................................ 3-29 3.1.1.12 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS.................................................... 3-30 3.1.1.13 EPiDEMiCS........................... ......... ........ .........................3-30 3.1.2 TECHNOLOGICAL HAZARDS ... ................. ......... ......... .............. ...... 3-34 3.1.2.1 DIKE FAILURE....... .......... ....... ....... .......... .......... ....... ......3-34 3.1.2.2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ACCiDENT........................... 3-34 3.1.2.3 RADIOLOGICAL ACCIDENTS ......... ......... ......... .............. 3-35 3.1.2.4 COMMUNICATIONS FAILURE ................. ..... .............. ....3-36 3.1.2.5 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASE ............................3-36 3.1.2.6 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ACCIDENTS ...................3-37 3.1.2.7 WELLFIELD CONT AMINA TION ................. .......... ........... 3-38 3.1.2.8 POWER FAILURE (OUTAGES)... ........ ......... ........ ........... 3-39 Page 1 TABLE of CONTENTS ( Continued) Paae 3.1.3 SOCIETAL HAZARDS......................................... ........ ......................3-40 3.1.3.1 CIVIL DiSTURBANCE...................................................... 3-40 3.1.3.2 TERRORISM AND SABOT AGE ............ ............... ............ 3-40 3.1.3.3 I MMIGRA TION CRiSiS.................................................... 3-42 3.2 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT................................................................. 3-42 3.2.1 NATURAL HAZARDS...........,............................................................ 3-43 3.2.1.1 HURRICANES AND TROPICAL STORMS ...................... 3-43 3.2.1.2 FLOODING............. ................... ................. ............ .........3-45 3.2.1.3 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM/LIGHTNING ....................... 3-46 3.2.1.4 WILDFIRE/URBAN INTERFACE ZONE........................... 3-46 3.2.1.5 MUCK FI RE ..................................................................... 3-47 3.2.1.6 TORNADO............ ................. ......... ........ ......... .......... ......3-47 3.2.1.7 EXTREME TEMPERATURES. ........ ......... .................. ......3-47 3.2.1.8 COASTAL AND BEACH EROSION .................................3-48 3.2.1.9 AGRICULTURAL PEST AND DiSEASE........................... 3-48 3.2.1.10 DROUGHT................... .......... ......... ........ ................. ........3-48 3.2.1.11 EPI DEMIC........................................................................ 3-48 3.2.1.12 SEISMIC HAZARDS........................................................ 3-49 3.2.2 TECHNOLOGICAL HAZARDS.......................................................... 3-49 3.2.2.1 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ACCIDENT........................... 3-49 3.2.2.2 RADIOLOGICAL ACCIDENTS. ......... ........ ......... .............. 3-50 3.2.2.3 COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM FAILURE ........................ 3-51 3.2.2.4 TRANSPO,TATION SYSTEM ACCIDENTS ...................3-51 3.2.2.5 WELLFIELD CONT AMINA TION ....... .......... ....... .............. 3-52 3.2.2.6 POWER FAI LURE........................................................... 3-52 3.2.3 SOCIETAL HAZARDS..................................... ................. .................3-52 3.2.3.1 CIVIL DiSTURBANCE............................................... ....... 3-52 3.2.3.2 TERRORiSM AND SABOTAGE....... ........... ....... ..............3-52 3.2.3.3 IMMIGRATION CRI SIS ....................................................3-52 3.2.4 VULNERABILITY OF CRITICAL FACiLITIES.................................... 3-53 3A VULNERABILITY OF CRITICAL FACILlTI ES.. ............ ........ ........ ....... ........ .3A-1 3B COUNTYWIDE MITIGATION INITIATIVES .................................................3B-1 3.3 RISK ASSESSMENT................... .............. ......... ......... ........ ................. ........ 3-53 4.0 INVENTORY AND EV ALUA TION OF EXISTING HAZARD MANAGEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, PROCEDURES, ORDINANCES, PROJECTS, AND ACTIVITIES ........4-1 4.1 GOVERNMENTAL.. ......................... .................... ....... ........ ......... .......... .......4-1 4.1.1 FEDERAL.......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 STATE............................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.3 REGIONAL... ....... ....... .......... ........ '" ........ ....... .......... ....... ..... ....... ... ... 4-3 4.1.3.1 TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL ...... 4-3 4.1.3.2 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT........ 4-4 4.1.4 LOCAL ...........".................................................................................. 4-5 4.1.4.1 PALM BEACH COUNTy....................................................... 4-5 4.1.4.2 MUNICIPALI~IES...................................... ........ ............ ......4-26 Page 2 ~ I TABLE of CONTENTS (Continued) Paae 4.1.5 I NTERGOVERNMENT AL COORDINATION... ................ ................. 4-31 4.2 PRIVATE SECTOR BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS ................................4-34 4.2.1 BACKGROUND, .... .......... ... .... ... .... ........ ......... ..... ........ ............ .... .....4-34 4.2.2 ACCOMPLISHMENTS...... ................. ......... ........ ..... ............ ............4-35 4.2.2.1 OBJECTIVE 1 .......................................................... ........... 4-35 4.2.2.2 OBJECTIVE 2.......................................... ...........................4-36 4.2.2.3 OBJECTIVE 3................................ .....................................4-37 4.2.2.4 OBJECTIVE 4..... ..................................... ...........................4-38 4.3 STRENGTHENING THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ....................4-39 5.0 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGY... .............. ............ ........ ............ ....5-1 5.1 DEVELOPMENT AND RATIONALE.............................................................. 5-1 5.1.1 COMMUNITY BENEFIT..................................................................... 5-3 5.1.1.1 COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM CREDIT ............................5-3 5.1.1.2 PROJECT BENEFIT ............................................................. 5-4 5.1.1.3 COMMUNITY EXPOSURE ................................................... 5-4 5.1.1.4 COST EFFECTiVENESS...................................................... 5-5 5.1.2 COMMUN ITY COMMITMENT ........................................................... 5-7 5.1.2.1 CONTAINED WITHIN THE EXISTING GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN.......................................................... 5-7 5.1.2.2 CONTAINED WITHIN AN EXISTING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN OR OTHER GOVERNING DOCUMENT......... .......................... ................. ..................... 5-7 5.1.2.3 PUBLIC SUPPORT............................................................... 5-8 5.1.3 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION.... ................ ................ ............. .........5-8 5.1.3.1 CONSISTENCY WITH EXISTING REGULATORY FRAMEWORK...................................................................... 5-8 5.1.3.2 FUNDING AVAILABILITy..................................................... 5-9 5.1.3.3 MATCH I NG FUNDS.............................................................. 5-9 5.1.3.4 TIMEFRAME FOR ACCOMPLISHING OBJECTIVES ......... 5-10 5.2 TIE-BREAK PROCEDURE ........................................................... ...............5-10 5.3 LMS EV ALUA TION PANEL.......... .................... ........ ..................... ...... ........ 5-11 5.3.1 ELIGIBILITY FOR FEDERAL FUNDING .......................................... 5-11 5.4 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION UPDATING PROCESS ................................. 5-11 6.0 CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCEDURES ............................................................ 6-1 6.1 BACKG ROUND............................................................................................. 6-1 6.2 CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCEDURE. ............. ..... ......... ......... ................ 6-2 7.0 LMS REVISION PROCEDURE ..............................................................................7-1 7.1 REGULAR LMS UPDATE PROCEDURES.................................................... 7-2 7.2 DECLARED EMERGENCY ASSESSMENT .................................................. 7-4 Page 3 TABLE of CONTENTS (Continued) PART 3: APPENDICES Paae APPENDIX A: RISK & VULNERABILITY ANALYSES DATA.....................................A-1 RELATIVE VULNERABILITY TO HAZARDS, BY LOCAL GOVERN ME NT .................................................................... .A-2 RELATIVE PROBABILITY TO HAZARDS, BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT...... ....................................................... ....... .A-4 DATA SOURCES USED FOR THE PALM BEACH COUNTY HAZARD VULNERABILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENT... .................................... ......................... .A-6 RISK ASSESSMENT HAZARD EVALUATION FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY .........................................................A-22 RISK ASSESSMENT BY HAZARD AND JURISDICTION................A-28 I MPACT ANALySiS...................... ............ ......... ....................... .......A-34 APPENDIX B: COUNTYWIDE MITIGATION I NITIA TIVES................. ....... ............... .B-1 PALM BEACH COUNTY INITIATiVES...... ...... ............. .............. ........B-2 JURISDICTIONAL INITIATIVES .................................................... ....B-5 INTER-GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ................. ........ ....... ...B-35 PRIVATE SECTOR COORDINATION.. ........ ....... ............... ............ .B-36 APPENDIX C: HAZARD & RISK ASSESSMENT MAPS .......................................... C-1 APPENDIX D: INCORPORATION INTO OTHER PLANNING MECHANI S MS.................................................................................. D-1 TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL COMPREHENSIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ...................................................................... D-2 PALM BEACH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN... .......... ................... ..................... D-4 Page 4 TABLE of CONTENTS ( Continued) Paae APPENDIX D: COMPREHENSIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT (Continued) PLAN, HAZARD MITIGATION INVENTORy..................................... D-7 EXISTING HAZARD MITIGATION PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS............................... ................. .......................... D-10 CURRENT AND FUTURE LAND USES.......................................... D-12 APPENDIX E: PRIORITIZED PROJECT LISTS. ..... ................................................. .E-1 APPENDIX F: POTENTIAL MITIGATION AND PROTECTIVE MEASURES....................................................................................... F-1 APPENDIX G: FUNDING AND DATA SOURCES .................................................... G-1 APPENDIX H: PLAN ADOPTION........ ............ ................... ......................... ............. H-1 APPENDIX I: MEETING SUMMARIES................ ............ .......................... ...... ....... ..1-1 APPENDIX J: REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTI ES .................................................... J-1 APPENDIX K: PLAN MAINTENANCE..,........................ .......................................... ..K-1 APPENDIX L: PROJECT SCORING EXAMPLES.......................... ........ ........ ...... ..... L-1 APPENDIX M: LMS COMMITTEE MEMBERS ......................................................... M-1 APPENDIX N: LIST OF ACRONYMS ....................... ....... ..... ........................ ....... ..... N-1 SPECIAL APPENDIX I EXPANDED HAZARDS LIST......................................................... SAI-1 SPECIAL APPENDIX II THE HAZARD ENVIR:ONMENT... .......... .................. ......... ............ SAII-1 SPECIAL APPENDIX III NFIP & CRS STATUS & ACTIVITIES .......................................... SAII'-1 SPECIAL APPENDIX IV MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAMS......................................... SAIV-1 Page 5 TABLE of CONTENTS ( Continued) PART 4: HAZARD MAPS Paae HAZARD MAPS · AGRICUL TURAL PEST AREAS.................................................................................... HM-1 · COUNTY -WiDE.... ............ ..................... ............. ......................................... ................. HM-2 · COASTAL EROSION AREAS.................................... ........... .............. ......... ........... ....... HM-3 · EV ACUA TION ZONES............................................................................... ................... HM-4 · FLOOD PRONE AREAS ............ ......................................... ................................. .......... HM-5 · HERBERT HOOVER DIKE BREACH AREAS... ...................... ........ ..... ..................... ..... HM-6 · HURRICANE WI ND SPEED............................. .......... ....... ......... ........................... ........ HM-7 · MUCK SOIL AREAS ................ ...................... ............................ ........ ......... ............ ....... HM-8 · RADIOLOGICAL HAZARD AREA ........................................ ......... ...... ........................... HM-9 · STORM SURGE AREAS ............................................................................................. HM-1 0 · TRANSPORTATION SySTEMS.................................................................................. HM-11 · TSUNAMI THREAT AREA........... ................................................................................ HM-12 · WELLFIELD PROTECTION ZONE AREAS...... ............ .......... .......... ............ ............... HM-13 · WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE AREAS ....... ............. ...... ......... ................................ HM-14 HAZARD MAPS WITH CRITICAL FACILITIES · AGRICULTURAL PEST AREAS WITH CRITICAL FACILITIES ................................ HMCF-1 · COUNTY-WIDE WITH CRITICAL FACILITIES ......................................................... HMCF-2 · COASTAL EROSION AREAS WITH CRITICAL FACILITIES .................................... HMCF-3 · FLOOD PRONE AREAS WITH CRITICAL FACILITIES ............................................ HMCF-4 · HERBERT HOOVER DIKE BREACH AREAS WITH CRITICAL FACiLITIES........... HMCF-5 i:>age 6 TABLE of CONTENTS ( Continued) Paae · HURRICANE WIND SPEED WITH CRITICAL FACILITIES ...................................... HMCF-6 · MUCK SOIL AREAS WITH CRITICAL FACILITIES .................................................. HMCF-7 · RADIOLOGICAL HAZARD AREA WITH CRITICAL FACILITIES .............................. HMCF-8 · STORM SURGE AREAS WITH CRITICAL FACILITIES ........................................... HMCF-9 · TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS WITH CRITICAL FACILITIES .............................. HMCF-10 · TSUNAMI THREAT AREA WITH CRITICAL FACILITIES ....................................... HMCF-11 · WELLFIELD PROTECTION ZONE AREAS WITH CRITICAL FACILITIES ............. HMCF-12 · WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE AREAS WITH CRITICAL FACILITIES ............... HMCF-13 Pa~ie 7 SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND PROGRAM OVERVIEW 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Palm Beach County Unified 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 (FDCA) 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 improve 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 Palm Beach County LMS is to develop and execute an ongoing unified strategy for reducing the community's vulnerability to identified natural, technological and societal hazards. The strategy provides a rational, managed basis for considering and prioritizing hazard-specific mitigation option!:; and for developing and executing sound, cost- effective mitigation projects. The LMS also p~ovides a basis for justifying the solicitation and use of local, state, federal and other monies to support hazard mitigation projects and initiatives. 1.3 PROGRAM ORGANIZATION 1.3.1 Original LMS Structure The original LMS structure consisted of three levels; (1) the larger body of public agencies, non- profit organizations, private institutions, and members of the public at large interested in participation in LMS activities, (2) the Steering Committee, and (3) subcommittees. The Steering Committee, the policy and decision body of the LMS consisted exclusively of designated representatives from the county and the 37 municipal jurisdictions. Voting rights were restricted to one officially designated primary member and two alternates from each jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction had one vote on LMS matters and a quorum vote was required for Steering Committee approval. Written notice from the manager/mayor of the jurisdictional governing body to the Chair of the LMS Steering Committee or to the Director, Palm Beach County Division of Emergency Management was required to designate new voting members. While jurisdictions could have multiple voting representatives present at any Local Mitigation Strategy meeting, each jurisdiction was limited to one vote. While voting on important LMS issues was resl.ricted as described above, attendance and participation in general meetings was open to the '::ommunity at large. An LMS Chair and Vice Chair were elected every' other year; unlimited successive terms were permissible at the will of the Steering Committee. Page 1-1 The LMS Chair was authorized to establish standing and ad hoc subcommittees as needed to further the goals and objectives of the LMS. Four subcommittees were established in the early stages of the LMS to assist with initial program and plan development. They included: The Hazard and Vulnerability Analysis Subcommittee, the Outreach and Education Subcommittee, and the Financial and Legal Issues Subcommittee. Over the course of program development, the Outreach and Education Subcommittee evolved and changed its name to the Community Rating System (CRS) Subcommittee to reflect its growing focus on CRS outreach and education and other CRS issues. The Hazard and Vulnerability Analysis Subcommittee and Financial and Legal Issues subcommittees gradually became inactive as the LMS matured, but were subject to reactivation if future needs warranted. A fifth subcommittee, the Update/Review Subcommittee, was created to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the LMS and recommend changes to ensure the LMS plan remained current, compliant, focused, and responsive to community interests and needs. An additional standing subcommittee, the Evaluation Panel was established specifically to review, score and prioritize LMS mitigation projects submitted by LMS steering committee members and other partner organizations in accordance with guidelines, procedures and criteria developed early in the program. Under the original project prioritization process, the Panel prepared and submitted Prioritized Project Lists (PPLs) to the Steering Committee for approval and adoption twice a year. With FEMA's issuance of new funding criteria based largely on benefit-cost justifications the role and skill requirements of the Evaluation Panel had to be reexamined. 1.3.2 Revised LMS Structure In July 2003, the Update/Review Subcommittee was reconstituted as an Administrative Subcommittee with the broader mission of providing guidance and assistance necessary to bring the plan and program into compliance with the new federal guidelines and criteria established in response to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations. This process is explained in Section 1.2.4. The group met numerous times over the course of an 18 month period to review FEMA's feedback, expectations and requirements, develop plans and strategies for the revision process, and monitor and review plan revisions. The group's charter was eventually expanded to include taking a critical look at the effectiveness of the overall LMS program. A number of important recommendations and actions emerged from this later responsibility. Among the Committee's observations were the following: . The LMS Steering Committee, composed of the County and 37 municipal members, was considered too large and unwieldy to serve as an effective policy and decision body . Although the county had many active mitigation :Jrograms and initiatives, too often they functioned as independent, uncoordinated activities . Greater attention needed to be given to ensuring mitigation projects were cost-effective and focused on threat-specific mitigation priorities and strategies . The LMS had failed to effectively tap the county's vast resources and expert-rich public and private sectors. . The LMS had not adequately exploped and used non-traditional sources for potential mitigation funding assistance Page 1-2 . Many of the county's jurisdictions, particularly the smaller municipalities, lack the in- house technical resources, funds, and expertise necessary to effectively execute FEMA's mandated Benefit-Cost analyses . The plan revision process afforded an excellent opportunity to also reconsider and revamp the LMS program structure and operating.,philosophy, and . The increased competition for scarce mitigation-. assistance funds would undoubtedly place a premium on optimizing program efficiency and responsiveness In response to these and other considerations, in June 2004 the LMS voted unanimously to adopt and phase into implementation a number of significant program changes and enhancements proposed by the AdministrCjltive Subcommittee. Among the executed and/or planned actions are the following: LMS Steerinq Committee Effective July 2004, the LMS Steering Committee was reduced from thirty-seven members to fifteen members. comprised 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 Local Mitigation Strategy program board of directors. As such, it is the primary decision and policy body for LMS sponsored mitigation activity. LMS Workinq Group The LMS Working Group is comprised of the full body of the LMS, representing a broad cross- section of public sector and private sector organizations and individuals, including the general public. The Working Group serves as an umbrella or~lanization for coordinating all mitigation programs and activities, supplies the staffing and expertise for the standing and ad hoc committees of the LMS, and is the primary mechanism and forum for exchanging information and mobilizing the vast expertise and resources of the community. Standinq Committees After submission of the 2004 plan several standing LMS Gommittees were established for the purpose of facilitating, bolstering, and supporting LMS activities. These included: . Evaluation Panel, designated to review, evaluate, score and rank mitigation projects applying established local, state and federal prioritization processes and criteria. . Flood Mitiqation 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, strategi'ss, plans and projects for LMS consideration and action that optimally benefit to the ~veater community. . Flood Mitiqation Committee - CRS Outreac~: Subcommittee, comprised of representatives from the county's 26 CRS communities, who collaborate on a full range of Outreach Projects Strategy (OPS) initiatives 9nd pre mote CRS participation Page 1-3 Ad Hoc Committees In addition, two ad hoc committees were formed: . Plan Inteqration Committee charged with monitoring the LMS plan for compliance and assisting with the linkage between the LMS and other local plans, and supporting plan updates and revisions. . Administrative Committee, originally established to facilitate and assist the LMS plan revision process in response to the new federal guidelines evolving from DMA2000. The committee was also charged with serving as an interim decision body for the LMS until the Steering Committee was formally reorganized and functioning. 1.4 LMS PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS Since the Unified Local Mitigation Strategy is written directly from input from all meetings, it is important to make sure that the entire Palm Beach County community is represented. The following groups are invited to all Local Mitigation Strategy meetings. Each group has different participation requirements; however, all groups are strongly encouraged to participate in the planning process. J u risd ictions Municipal and county participation are 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 officially designated alternate(s) in three (3) out of four (4) Steering Committee meetings where plan revisions will be addressed; . Consecutive absences will be cause for disqualification for 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; . Participation in subcommittee meetings may be substituted for Steering Committee attendance in meeting the 3 out of 4 rule pending approval by the Chair; . Subject to pre-meeting and post-meeting roll calls, participation in special conference call meetings of the Steering Committee or subcommittees will be credited for purposes of participation; and . Have a dully executed resolution adopting the revised LMS plan on file with the county and the LMS. . In order for a jurisdiction to be eligible for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) and Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) funding programs, they must have an executed resolution/interlocal agreement adopting the LMS on file with the LMS and have participated in the revision process. Appendix H includes the Page 1-4 , Board of County Commissioners agenda item summary, along with a copy of all executed adoption resolutions. Non-Governmental Orqanizations (NGO's) and other Governmental Entities In order to qualify for LMS grant sponsorship, NGO's and other governmental entities must: . Have an dully executed letter of commitment to the LMS on file with the county and LMS; and . In the judgment of the LMS Steering Committee, actively participate in and otherwise support LMS activities. The Public and Private Sector The Palm Beach County Unified Local Mitigation Strategy 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 the following: newspaper ads or public service announcements; postings on county and municipal websites, announcements on the county's TV station (Channel 20), postings in county and municipal newsletters and calendars, and blast faxes and e-mailir gs to all previous participants. 1.5 JURISDICTIONAL ADOPTION OF THE LMS Adoption of the LMS is subject to the following FEMA requirements: Requirement ~201.6(c)(5): The local hazard mitigation plan shall include documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan (e.g., City Council, County Commissioner, Tribal Council). Requirement ~201.6(c)(5): For multi-jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan must document that it has been formally adopted. Requirement ~201.6(a)(3): Multi-jurisdictional plans (e.g., watershed plans) may be accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated in the process... Statewide plans will not be accepted as multi-jurisdictional plans. All jurisdictions wishing to participate in and share in the benefits deriving from the LMS program must complete and file a fully executed resolution (see Appendix H) which conforms to the adoption standards jointly established and amended by the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners and the LMS Steering Committee. Resolutions are kept on file by the Minutes Section of the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. , Page 1-5 1.6 NEW JURISDICTIONS/ENTITIES In the event municipal jurisdictions are added, deleted, or merged within the county, the LMS will appropriately adjust its member rolls as necessary and require any newly defined jurisdictions to provide documentation necessary for participation in the program. A new municipal jurisdiction (Loxahatchee Groves) was incorporated in November of 2006 a subsequently joined the LMS. Page J-6 SECTION 2: 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, man-made, and environmental hazards. 2.1 METHODOLOGY In formulating the guiding principles for the LMS, several techniques were employed. One involved a review of appropriate plans, policy statements, laws, codes, and ordinances of each participating local jurisdiction. As part of this process, a survey was distributed to each local jurisdiction. The surveys provided information about the jurisdiction's development plans and regulations, and hazard mitigation projects they have implemented. With 37 local jurisdictions involved, defining a community-wide vision became far more complex than one local government defining its mission for local hazard mitigation. Therefore, a facilitated discussion with the Steering Committee was conducted. Using this approach, a comprehensive list of hazards of concern to the local governments was developed. From these defined hazards, the Working Group identified areas of concern. These areas of concern included: . 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 These concerns, along with information generated from the inventory of local planning documents and ordinances, led to the mitigation goals and objectives established in Section 2.3. Palm Beach County's Unified Mitigation Strategy is built upon comprehensive processes including multi-jurisdictional hazard identificaLon, risk and impact analyses, program capability assessments, operational and disaster experil3nce and cost-benefit analyses. These processes, and their results to date, are described in Section 3 of the LMS and in the Situation Section of the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. These processes are applied on an ongoing basis and additions and changes are reflected in revisions to the LMS plan. Hazards most likely to affect each of the county's jurisdictions, tile risks those hazards pose to each jurisdiction, the potential impacts of those hazards, jurisdictional capabilities to implement and support mitigation strategies, and cost-benefit analyses of mitigation strategies and projects are integral Page 2-1 considerations in developing, prioritizing and implementing mitigation strategies and initiatives at the county and municipal level. 2.2 PROCESS The strategy used for the development and revision process of the Palm Beach County Unified Local Mitigation Strategy Plan, 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. Coordinated and Integrated Programs and Plans within LMS 6. Review and analysis of possible mitigation activities 7. Local adoption following a public hearing 8. Periodic review and update This hazard mitigation plan contributes to the overall mitigation strategy outlined above and illustrated in Figure 2. 1 Planning Process Diagram. The Palm Beach County Unified Local Mitigation Strategy summarizes the activities to as:;ess the effects of storm flooding, hurricanes, and all other hazards specific to our area and recommends mitigation activities. In following this strategy, all areas are addressed to reduce the amount of damage after a hazard occurs through mitigation efforts. Participation is encouraged by any individual, agency, organization and jurisdiction who would like to take part in the planning process defined in Section 1. All parties are encouraged to participate in the revision planning process occurring at "Steering Committee" meetings with suggestions, comments, involvement and feedback documented from all participants. To ensure all jurisdictions, organizations, and the public are represented throughout the entire revision of the planning process, each meeting will be operated in accordance to Robert's Rules of Order. These procedures are in place to meet the overall objective of the LMS which is to have a plan representative of the entire county and to be a true Unified Local Mitigation Strategy. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 set new requimments to be met in all mitigations plans across the country. The LMS Working Group decided the work would be completed by the Administrative sub-committee. The meetings were open to anyone who wished to participate. Direction to meet all new requirements were discussed by the Steering Committee. The direction was established through a series of sub-committee meetings. The sub-committee sent requests out to all communities to review and update charts, and to complete a narrative about mitigation initiatives within each community. In addition, all communities were asked to review new additions to the plan for comment and recommendation. However, the LMS Working Group, ultimately made the final decision. The Rublic was invited to all LMS Working Group meetings to comment before any changes were " finalized within the mitigation plan. Also a Page 2-2 diagram below illustrates all the components that made up the new planning process for the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requirements. The original planning process documenting public involvement can be located in Section 4.2. 2.3 MITIGATION STRATEGIES Palm Beach County's unified LMS encompasses diverse mitigation strategies, including, but not limited to: hazard elimination, hazard reduction, hazard modification, control of hazard release, protective equipment, establishment of hazard warning/communication systems and procedures, redundancy of critical resources and capabilities, mutual aid agreements and public-private partnership initiatives, contract services and resources, construction and land-use standards, and training and education. 2.4 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES All mitigation goals and objectives must be consistent with the goals and objectives of the county and the individual jurisdictional comprehensive plans, codes and ordinances, as well as any other jurisdictional documents reflecting aspirations for the welfare, safety and quality of life of their citizens. In a county as large and diverse as Palm Beach County, no single list of mitigation goals is going to encompass every conceivable mitigation goal and objective. The overall objective is to reduce the vulnerabilities to hazards which directly affect Palm Beach County. In so doing, the following goals will serve provide guidance to the LMS: 2.4.1 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 tllrough 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 incre'llental improvements on the Community Rating System classification in relation to flf)od 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 Page 2-3 . 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 2.4.2 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 . 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 i lcorporating mitigation into post disaster rebuilding . Promote intelligent development 2.4.3 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 (F.A.C.), 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) Community Rating System (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 Mitigation Assistance grant program, which provides funding for pre-disaster mitigation projects and activities r Page 2-4 . Compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 allowing Palm Beach County to compete competitively for grant money; . Identify and prioritize projects for funding under the State of Florida's Residential Construction Mitigation Program, to help reduce losses from repetitive flooding damage . Set forth the guiding principles with which both the County and municipal governmental entities of Palm Beach County will address the issue of all hazard mitigation (Section 2.0, Guiding Principles) . 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 3. 0, Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis) . Review and evaluate the existing legal, regulatory, and response framework currently in place to deal with hazard mitigation (Section 4. 0, Inventory and Evaluation of Existing Hazard Management Goals, Policies, Procedures, Ordinances, Projects, and Activities) . Develop a detailed method by which Palm Beach County (municipalities and County government) can evaluate and prioritize proposE'd mitigation projects along with new federal requirements (Section 5.0, Project Priori"ization Methodology) . Develop a conflict resolution procedure by which municipalities and county governmental entities can resolve any differences that arise over prioritized mitigation projects or mitigation strategies (~ection 6. 0, Conflict Resolution Procedures) . Develop the process and schedule by which this entire Unified Local Mitigation Strategy will be reviewed and updated (Secliion 7 .0, Review and Revision Procedures for the Palm Beach County Local Hazard Mitigation Strategy) . Ensures jurisdictional plans are consistent and supportive . f , Page 2-5 ..