Orange County Local Mitigation Strategy

Transcription

1 Orange County Local Mitigation Strategy 1

2 Table of Contents Executive Summary 4 Introduction 5 Purpose 5 Scope 6 Community Mitigation Goals and Objectives 6 Participating Individuals 8 Participating Jurisdictions, Organizations and Agencies 9 Mitigation Planning Organization 11 Orange County Emergency Response Team 11 Orange County Office of Emergency Management 11 LMS Working Group 11 Mitigation Planning Process 14 Establishing the Planning Schedule 14 Updating the 2003 LMS 14 Hazard Identification and Risk Estimation 17 Vulnerability Assessment 17 Developing Hazard Mitigation Initiatives 18 Public Participation 18 Stakeholder s Participation 19 External Organization Participation 20 Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans, Studies and Reports 20 Benefits of the Planning Process 21 Orange County Demographics 22 Population Characteristics 22 Housing 24 Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis 25 Hazard Mitigation Planning Software Program 25 Mapping for Emergency Management, Parallel Hazard Information System (MEMPHIS) 25 Hazard Identification and History 27 Hazard Occurrences 53 Hazard Severity Scoring 53 Hazard Risk Estimation 54 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) 58 Critical Facilities 63 Jurisdiction Policies for Control of Vulnerabilities 64 Land Use 66 Land Use Findings 66 2

3 Future Land Use 67 Mitigation Responsibilities 68 Orange County Local Mitigation Strategy Working Group 68 Orange County Office of Emergency Management 68 Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM) 68 Federal Emergency Management Agency 69 Development of Mitigation Initiatives 70 Priority Ranking for Proposed Mitigation Initiatives 71 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Prioritization 73 Benefit-to-Cost Ratio 73 Sorting of Mitigation Initiatives 75 Potential Funding Sources 77 Implementation and Maintenance of the LMS 78 Implementation and Incorporation 78 Plan Monitoring and Maintenance 82 LMS Annual Evaluation 82 Five Year Maintenance Schedule 82 Action Items for Plan Implementation 83 Deleted, Deferred and Completed Projects 84 Appendices 1 Appendix A- LMS By-Laws 2 Appendix B- LMS SOPs 7 Appendix C- Hazard Maps 24 Appendix D- Repetitive Loss Area Maps 25 Appendix E- Critical Facility Maps 26 Appendix F- Mitigation Initiatives 27 Appendix G- Public and Stakeholder s Comments on the LMS 28 Appendix H- Adoption Resolutions 32 Appendix I- Floodplain Ordinances 33 Appendix J- Jurisdiction s Relative Risk Scores 40 3

4 I. Executive Summary Since 1992, the State of Florida has experienced numerous Federal Disaster Declarations. These events included Hurricanes Andrew, Erin, Opal, Earl, Georges, Charley, Francis, Jeanne, Wilma; Tropical Storm Fay, flooding associated with El Ninõ weather conditions, wildfires and tornadoes. Approximately $30 billion was spent in post-disaster recovery for Hurricane Andrew. Many of the affects of these disasters were felt in Orange County, either as a threat or in the aftermath of the event. Orange County experienced a significant tornado in 1998 and wildfires in In 2004 Orange County was directly impacted by Hurricanes Charley, Frances and Jeanne. Numerous smaller disasters have also occurred to include: Election Day Storm in 2006, Apopka area Tornado in 2006, Groundhog Day Storm in 2007 and Tropical Storm Fay in The identification, reduction and management of risks from disasters are becoming increasingly important. If effective action is not taken, human and economic costs of disasters to communities in the State are escalating so rapidly that it may not be possible to ever fully recover. The Orange County LMS Working Group is intent on finding reasonable approaches to making communities more resistant to disasters and ensuring that any redevelopment in their aftermath continues to lessen future vulnerability to those impacts. One of the most effective ways to do this is to have every local government recognize the importance of hazard mitigation and/to develop and adopt the Local Mitigation Strategy. Local government, citizens, businesses, industry, educational institutions, and community organizations must strive together to meet mitigation objectives. This Local Mitigation Strategy is a compilation of the efforts of these stakeholders' efforts to identify their mitigation goals and objectives, and develop mitigation initiatives based on the hazards and vulnerability of Orange County. Implementation of the hazard mitigation objectives can only be accomplished through personal awareness and responsibility, coupled with governmental regulation and enforcement, as well as public awareness and support. The objective of this Local Mitigation Strategy is to make Orange County a safer, more disaster resistant community. 4

5 II. Introduction The Orange County Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) Working Group has been established to make the population, neighborhoods, businesses and institutions of the community more resistant to the impacts of hazards. The LMS Working Group has undertaken a comprehensive, detailed evaluation of the vulnerabilities of the community to all types of future natural and technological hazards in order to identify ways to make the communities of the planning area more resistant to their impacts. The end result of this process and assessment is the Orange County Local Mitigation Strategy. A. Purpose The Orange County LMS and its underlying planning process, is intended by the LMS Working Group to serve many purposes. These include the following: Provide a Methodical, Substantive Approach to Mitigation Planning: This relies on a step-wise application of soundly-based planning concepts in a methodical process to identify vulnerabilities to hazards and to propose the mitigation initiatives. Enhance Public Awareness and Understanding: The Orange County LMS Working Group and its member organizations conduct a number of community outreach and public information programs. The purpose of this program is to engage the community as a whole in the local mitigation planning process and to educate them to the hazards we face and the steps they can take to minimize the impacts of these hazards. Create a Decision Tool for Management: This approach is intended to provide a decision tool for the management of participating organizations and agencies to explain why the proposed mitigation initiatives should be implemented, identify which should be implemented first, and point out the economic and public welfare benefits of doing so. Promote Compliance with State and Federal Program Requirements: This plan is specifically intended to assist the participating local governments to comply with Federal, State and local mitigation requirements. 5

6 B. Scope Enhance Local Policies for Hazard Mitigation Capability: A component of the hazard mitigation planning process conducted by the LMS Working Group is the analysis of the existing policy, program and regulatory basis for control of growth and development, as well as the functioning of key facilities and systems. Assure Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination of Mitigation-Related Programming: Proposed mitigation initiatives are reviewed and coordinated among the participating jurisdictions so the initiatives are compatible with the interests of adjacent jurisdictions. Provide a Flexible Approach to the Planning Process: The planning process is flexible in meeting the analysis and documentation needs of the planning participants. The planning program utilized provides for the creation of this document, as well as the preparation of numerous other reports regarding the technical analyses undertaken. The LMS was created in accordance to the requirements established in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K) and Florida Administrative Code 9G- 22. This plan applies to Orange County to include the county government s departments, divisions and constitutional officers and the municipalities within the County that have adopted this plan. The following sections of the Orange County Local Mitigation Strategy present the detailed information to support these purposes. The remainder of the plan describes the planning organization developed by the LMS Working Group, as well as its approach to managing the planning process. C. Community Mitigation Goals and Objectives 1. Protect the health, safety and welfare of the public Inform and educate the public about potential hazards and property protection measures Ensure that new development and redevelopment complies with all applicable federal, state and local regulations Provide sufficient shelter space to satisfy in-county demand 2. Minimize the effects of hazardous materials incidents Maintain a capability to respond to hazardous materials incidents 3. Encourage economic diversification and development 6

7 Assist and encourage new economic development and post-disaster redevelopment 4. Maintain a high state of preparedness/coordination to mitigate and respond to disasters Develop the capacity to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from all hazards 5. Reduce the cost of disaster response and recovery Advocate property acquisition or retro-fitting for repetitive loss properties Establish and implement a plan for post-disaster temporary housing Efficiently manage all local disasters 6. Encourage the protection of natural resources Partner with the State and other agencies in the acquisition of lands and/or development rights for environmental protection Protect and restore wetlands and critical upland habitats Provide and encourage preservation of open space 7. Stormwater Improvement Maintain and improve existing drainage systems to regulate management of storm water runoff Protect the function of natural drainage features and aquifer recharge areas 8. Reduce property damage caused by flooding Identify and correct local flooding conditions Encourage projects that are in concert with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) 9. Regulate and prioritize the construction and/or enhance the protection of critical facilities and infrastructure Prioritize and retrofit existing critical facilities and infrastructure Encourage capital improvement expenditures for critical infrastructure 10. Minimize the effects of pandemic influenza and other diseases Continue to enhance measures addressing pandemic influenza or other disease outbreak 7

8 11. Minimize the effects of a terrorist attack Continue to enhance the capacity to aid in the prevention of and response to terrorist attacks D. Participating Individuals The following individuals are members of the LMS Working Group and contributed their time, knowledge or information in completing this plan. Planning Committee Chris Schmidt- Chair, Orange County Planning Division Orville Watson- Vice Chair, Orange County Utilities Cecil Davis, Ranger Drainage District Ed Fleming, Florida Division of Forestry Dan Kucik, Orange County Fire Rescue Ron Ribaric, Orange County Public Works Rod Lynn, Orange County Public Works Steering Committee Bob Olin- Chair, Orange County Building Division Bart Wright, City of Maitland Cecilia Bernier, Town of Windermere Charles Anderson, Orange County Public Schools Danny Vereen, Town of Eatonville John Williamson, City of Winter Garden Ken Neuhard, City of Maitland Linda Balsavage, Town of Oakland Michael Coker, Florida Division of Forestry Robert Kelly, Lockheed Martin Blain Mustain, Orange County Human Services Eric Alberts, Walt Disney World Resorts Amy Wallenhurst, Town of Windermere Joseph Mastandrea, Orange County Public Schools Phil Harris- Vice Chair, Private Citizen Rich Firstner, City of Ocoee Olabisi Slade, City of Orlando Vince Sandersfeld, City of Apopka Manny Soto, City of Orlando Sean Gallagher, Florida Division of Forestry Steven Gillis, City of Belle Isle Pete McNeil, City of Ocoee 8

9 John Freeburg, City of Edgewood Randall Mells, City of Winter Park E. Participating Jurisdictions, Organizations and Agencies The following municipalities and county departments, divisions, nongovernmental organizations, agencies and private sector partners are currently active members of the LMS Working Group and contributed to the LMS document: City of Apopka City of Belle Isle Town of Eatonville City of Edgewood City of Maitland Town of Oakland City of Ocoee City of Orlando Town of Windermere City of Winter Garden City of Winter Park American Red Cross of Central Florida Ranger Drainage District Wedgefield Firewise Community Florida Division of Forestry Orange County Office of Emergency Management Orange County Public Works Department Orange County Fire Rescue Department Orange County Growth Management Department Orange County Facilities Management Division Orange County Property Appraiser s Office Orange County Sheriff s Office Orange County Convention Center Orange County EMS Office Orange County Environmental Protection Division Orange County Animal Services Division Orange County Extension Services Orange County Parks and Recreation Division Orange County Public Safety Communications Division Orange County Capital Improvements Division Orange County Building Division Central Florida Intelligence Exchange Orange County Utilities Department Orange County Public Schools Walt Disney World Resorts Orange County Human Services Division University of Central Florida Holden Heights Front Porch Association Health Central Hospital 9

10 Salvation Army The only municipalities that have not participated in the past or issued a resolution approving the LMS are: City of Lake Buena Vista City of Bay Lake The Reedy Creek Improvement District has expressed an interest in joining the LMS Working Group but did not participate in the development of this plan. 10

11 III. Mitigation Planning Organization A. Orange County Emergency Response Team (OCERT) This team is comprised of County departments, divisions, municipalities, nonprofit organizations and private sector partners. Their mission is to safeguard citizens and visitors by ensuring the rapid response and recovery of the County to a variety of hazards. This team s members are identified in the Orange County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. This team is normally involved in the prevention, preparedness, response and recovery phases; however, several members have representation on the LMS Working Group. The efforts of the Long-Term Recovery/Unmet Needs Organization and Disaster Housing Coordinator overlap and are intertwined with the efforts of the LMS Working Group. Many of the members of the OCERT routinely contribute to the mitigation program and submit proposed mitigation initiatives. B. Orange County Office of Emergency Management (OEM) This office is authorized by County Ordinance, County Regulation and Florida State Statute 252 to save lives and protect property through the administration of a comprehensive emergency management program. This office is the coordinator of the OCERT and serves as the administrative officer of the LMS Working Group. C. LMS Working Group This working group is the county s mitigation planning organization. It is composed of representatives from Orange County government, municipalities, non-governmental organizations (NGO) and private sector partners. Under Rule 9G-22 they are responsible for administering the county s Local Mitigation Strategy and overseeing the ranking and submission of projects under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). Steering Committee The Steering Committee represents all of the local jurisdictions and key organizations participating in the planning process and is the group that makes the official decisions regarding the planning process. The Steering Committee serves as the official liaison of the Orange County LMS Working Group to the community, as well as makes assignments to the Planning Committee and other ad-hoc or fixed committees the Steering Committee may form. The Steering Committee currently has representatives from the following agencies, non-governmental organizations and private sector partners: City of Apopka 11

12 City of Belle Isle Town of Eatonville City of Edgewood City of Maitland Town of Oakland City of Ocoee City of Orlando Town of Windermere City of Winter Garden City of Winter Park Orange County Government Orange County Office of Emergency Management Orange County Fire Rescue Department Orange County Growth Management Department Orange County Public School Walt Disney World Resorts Orange County Human Services Division Planning Committee The Planning Committee coordinates the actual technical analysis and planning activities that are fundamental to the development of this plan. These activities include conducting the hazard identification and vulnerability assessment processes, as well as receiving and coordinating the mitigation initiatives that are proposed by the LMS Working Group for incorporation into this plan. The Planning Committee is made up of selected technical staff from the organizations of the participating jurisdictions. The coordinating process undertaken constitutes a peer review of the proposed mitigation initiatives submitted for incorporation into the plan. The following agencies, non-governmental organizations and private sector partners currently are represented on the Planning Committee: Orange County Government Ranger Drainage District Wedgefield Firewise Community Florida Division of Forestry Orange County Office of Emergency Management Orange County Public Works Department Orange County Growth Management Department Orange County Facility Management Division Orange County Property Appraiser s Office Orange County Sheriff s Office Central Florida Intelligence Exchange Orange County Utilities Department 12

13 The Orange County LMS Working Group Structure Office of Emergency Management Steering Committee Planning Committee Special Committees (Public Information, etc) Bylaws of the LMS Working Group The Orange County LMS Working Group has adopted bylaws to establish its purpose and responsibility, to create a structure for the organization, and to establish the other fundamental characteristics of the Orange County LMS Working Group as a community service organization. The current edition of the bylaws is enclosed as an appendix to this plan. LMS Standard Operating Procedures The planning process undertaken by the LMS Working Group is generally described in detail in these standard operating procedures. The process described in the procedures mainly addresses how hazard mitigation initiatives are to be developed and processed using the Mitigation Planning Software Program. These procedures involve both a technical approach to the planning and an organizational methodology for incorporating mitigation initiatives into the Orange County Local Mitigation Strategy. The general technical analysis process is discussed in this section. 13

14 IV. Mitigation Planning Process The planning process has been started with the development of the Orange County LMS Working Group as an organization and by obtaining participation from local government jurisdictions, key organizations and institutions. The planning work conducted to develop this document relies heavily on the expertise and authorities of the participating agencies and organizations. The LMS Working Group is confident that the best judgment of the participating individuals, because of their role in the community, using readily available information, can achieve a level of detail in the analysis that is more than adequate for purposes of local mitigation planning. A. Establishing the Planning Schedule For the updating and improvements of the LMS, the Orange County LMS Working Group establishes the planning schedule. At the outset of the planning period, the LMS Working Group defines the goals that the planning process is attempting to achieve, as well as the specific objectives within each goal that will help to focus the planning efforts. B. Updating the 2003 LMS The Orange County LMS Working Group and the Office of Emergency Management had to make substantial improvements and additions to the 2003 version of the Local Mitigation Strategy. The Office of Emergency Management (OEM) was charged by the LMS Working Group with evaluating the LMS against the current FEMA planning guidance. The format of the plan was significantly changed to a more standard planning format. The sections listed below contained significant improvement based on lessons-learned or were required changes by the State of Florida and FEMA. If a section is not listed that signifies that there were no or few significant changes from the 2003 version. The review process involved OEM making changes to the plan and then forwarding the changes to the LMS Working Group (as a whole or as individual members) for their review and input. 1. Introduction Section A more complete list of the participating jurisdictions, organizations and agencies were added to include those jurisdictions that are currently not participating in the LMS. 2. Mitigation Planning Organization Section This section added a description of the roles and responsibilities of the Orange County Emergency Response Team. This team is responsible for 14

15 responding to and recovering from disasters and emergencies. Following a disaster the members of the team benefit from mitigation grants. 3. Mitigation Planning Process Section This section includes additions detailing how public and stakeholders were involved in the plan development and execution. This section also lists the existing plans, studies and reports which were referenced and portions were includes in the LMS. 4. Orange County Demographics Section This section was updated to include current information from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Orange County Planning Division. This information is also identical to the information contained in the county s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP). 5. Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis Section This section now includes information obtained through the Mapping for Emergency Management, Parallel Hazard Information System (MEMPHIS). Improvements were also made to standardize the hazard identification portion with the county s CEMP for the purpose of uniformity and to aid the county in maintaining Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP). This section also includes significantly more information on the National Flood Insurance Program, to include a listing of the municipalities participating in this program. It also includes a description of these participating jurisdiction s floodplain ordinances. There is also a portion that addresses examples and actions of NFIP community assistance and monitoring activities. This section also contains information on the Repetitive Loss Properties in the county which wasn t included in the 2003 version. Finally, this section includes a prioritized list to maintain compliance with NFIP. 6. Land Use Section This section includes updated information on current and future land use in Orange County. This information is based on information provided by the Orange County Planning Division. 7. Mitigation Responsibilities Section This section added information on the responsibilities of the Florida Division of Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management Agency in mitigation planning and administration. 15

16 8. Development of Mitigation Initiatives Section The 2009 version of the LMS includes updated information on how projects are prioritized to receive funding through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). 9. Implementation and Maintenance of the LMS Section This section is a new addition to the 2009 plan. It includes the following additions: Success Stories: This portion contains various programs and projects that have successfully communicated the importance of mitigation to the public and/or stakeholders. Areas of Improvement: These describe areas where increased participation on the part of the LMS Working Group and/or OEM will further educate the public and stakeholders on the benefit of hazard mitigation. Annual Evaluation of the LMS: This portion establishes the annual schedule the LMS Working Group will following to maintain the LMS and hold committee meetings. Five Year Maintenance Schedule: This schedule is established in the LMS to maintain the plan for review and approval by the State of Florida and FEMA every five years. 10. Appendices The Appendices section includes several additions to include: Appendix C- Hazard Maps: This section includes maps obtained from the State of Florida and from Orange County INFOMAP system that displays visually the hazards within the county. Appendix D- Repetitive Loss Area Maps: This map was produced through Orange County s INFOMAP Secure. It contains the locations of the repetitive loss properties within Orange County. Appendix E- Critical Facility Maps: This map was produced through Orange County s INFOMAP Secure. It contains information on critical facilities (fire and police stations, government buildings, schools, etc) throughout Orange County. Appendix F- Mitigation Initiatives: In the 2003 LMS these initiatives were included in the plan with a limited description of the initiative and cost. The 2009 LMS put the initiatives in an excel document and included additional information allowing individuals to sort the information more easily. Appendix G- Public and Stakeholder s Comments: This section includes the public and stakeholders comments on the 2009 version of the LMS. 16

17 Appendix I- Floodplain Ordinances: This section contains the floodplain ordinances of the jurisdictions participating in NFIP. C. Hazard Identification and Risk Estimation The LMS Working Group identifies the natural and technological hazards that threaten all or portions of the county. Where possible, specific geographic areas subject to the impacts of the identified hazards are delineated. The LMS also uses general information to estimate the relative risk of the various hazards as an additional method to focus analysis and planning efforts. The LMS finally compares the likelihood or probability that a hazard will impact an area, as well as the consequences of that impact to public health and safety, property, the economy, and the environment. This comparison of the consequences of an event with its probability of occurrence is a measure of the risk posed by that hazard to the community. The Orange County LMS Working Group compares the estimated relative risks of the different hazards it has identified to highlight which hazards should be of greatest concern during the upcoming mitigation planning process. Depending on the participating jurisdiction, a variety of information resources regarding hazard identification and risk estimation have been available. The planners representing the jurisdiction have attempted to incorporate consideration of hazard specific maps, including flood plain delineation maps, whenever applicable, and have attempted to avail themselves of GIS-based analyses of hazard areas and the locations of critical facilities, infrastructure components and other properties located within the defined hazard areas. D. Vulnerability Assessment The first avenue is a methodical, qualitative examination of the vulnerabilities of important facilities, systems and communities to the impacts of future disasters. For the participating jurisdictions and organizations, this is done by the individuals most familiar with the facility, system or communities through a guided, objective assessment process established by the Mitigation Planning Software Program. The process ranks both the hazards to which the facility, system or neighborhood is most vulnerable, as well as the consequences to the community should it be disrupted or damaged by a disaster. This process typically results in identification of specific vulnerabilities that can be addressed by specific mitigation initiatives that could be proposed and incorporated into this plan. As an associated process, the Orange County LMS Working Group also reviews past experiences with disasters to see if those events highlighted the need for specific mitigation initiatives based on the type or location of damage they caused. Again, these experiences can result in the formulation and characterization of specific mitigation initiatives for incorporation into the plan. 17

18 The second avenue for assessment of community vulnerabilities involves comparison of the existing policy, program and regulatory framework promulgated by local jurisdictions to control growth, development and facility operations in a manner that minimizes vulnerability to future disasters. The Orange County LMS Working Group members can assess the individual jurisdictions existing codes, plans, and programs to compare their provisions and requirements against the hazards posing the greatest risk to that community. If indicated, the participating jurisdiction can then propose development of additional codes, plans or policies as mitigation initiatives for incorporation into the Orange County Local Mitigation Strategy for future implementation when it is appropriate to do so. E. Developing Hazard Mitigation Initiatives The development and inclusion of mitigation initiatives is covered in greater detail in Section VIII of the LMS. The following is a brief synopsis of the submittal and inclusion process: An LMS Working Group member or other organization identifies a need (personnel, resource and/or infrastructure, etc) and submits a proposed mitigation initiative to the Office of Emergency Management OEM, as the LMS Working Group administrative officer, will work with the agency and/or organization submitting the initiative to ensure they provide adequate information OEM will then schedule an LMS Working Group meeting or add the review of this initiative to an already scheduled meeting The LMS Planning Committee is responsible for conducting a technical review of the proposed mitigation initiative The Planning Committee can either recommend that the proposed initiative be reviewed by the Steering Committee or send it back to the sponsoring organization for further revisions If recommended the Steering Committee will review the proposed initiative and evaluate it against existing initiatives and the goals of the LMS. They can either approve it or not. If the proposed initiative is approved it is added as an approve initiative within the LMS F. Public Participation Residents need to understand the hazards and their role in minimizing the impacts to their families and businesses. It is important for the public to realize that there are actions they can take to protect themselves, such as obtaining the necessary insurance for personal property, especially for renters and mobile home owners. Orange County will continue to provide information to residents and businesses through speaking engagements, written materials, web site updates and press releases. 18

19 In the update and completion of this plan the public was solicited for comments. Prior to the plan being submitted to the State and FEMA the LMS is normally posted on OEM s website and the public is invited to send comments on the plan to OEM for possible inclusion. Besides distributing the plan electronically, copies of it are placed in Orange County Public Libraries. Following FEMAs review of the LMS, the Working Group asks OEM to post the LMS to OEMs website for final public comment. These examples of solicited public comments are conducted every five years when the plan is required to be submitted to the State of Florida and FEMA. Proof of compliance is contained in Appendix G of this plan. In accordance with the State of Florida Sunshine Laws the LMS Working Group meeting notices, committee meeting minutes and updates to the Orange County LMS are published on OEMs website. The LMS committee meetings according to State law are open to the general public. The changes to the LMS plan were reviewed and approved by the LMS committees on Monday, September 21, Public participation in the maintaining and updating the LMS over the next five years will be facilitated by either holding LMS meetings and inviting the public or holding meetings specifically designed to seek comments from the public. Orange County will also continue to post the LMS on the OEM website and we are investigating utilizing social networking sites to further inform and educate the public. G. Stakeholder s Participation In 2007 ERP&M, a contractor updated the LMS under the direction of the Office of Emergency Management and the LMS Working Group. In the 2008 to 2009 planning process the LMS was reformatted and additional information was included based on the FEMA Local Mitigation Plan Review Crosswalk. During the planning process the principal planner dedicated to this project was the OEM Planner. The OEM Communications/Warning Coordinator provided additional planning support to the OEM Planner. The LMS was written and reviewed initially by the OEM staff. This staff prepared the draft of the LMS, assembled the information to include in the plan, and reviewed it internally. The plan was then submitted to the LMS Working Group who was given the completed plan and asked to provide technical review which included all of the sections of the plan. The municipalities and Orange County representatives participated in the development and revision of the LMS. This participation included the following activities: Providing critical information to the Office of Emergency Management Participating in LMS Briefing and Working Group meetings 19

20 Regularly providing updated information to the LMS Working Group and OEM H. External Organization Participation Orange County works closely with our neighboring counties, the private sector and other partners. In the 2009 LMS planning process the following groups were also involved in the preparation of this plan: University of Central Florida Walt Disney World Resorts Seaworld Adventure Parks and Discovery Cove Central Florida Intelligence Exchange These different groups provided plan content review, submitted information to include in the plan, and subject matter expertise. I. Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans, Studies and Reports In the development of the Orange County LMS the Office of Emergency Management and the LMS Working Group members used the following sources. The information contained in these plans, reports and information sources were included throughout the plan to better reinforce the relationship between the LMS planning process and other growth management, land use and emergency management planning already being used within the County. The plans and reports include: Orange County Comprehensive Plan Policy Orange County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan City of Apopka Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Component City of Maitland Comprehensive Plan City of Orlando Comprehensive Plan Mapping for Emergency Management, Parallel Hazard Information System (MEMPHIS) Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Sinkhole Database Florida Department of Health Epidemiology Database Florida Division of Forestry, Forestry Fire Management Information System (FMIS) Mapping Tool Orange County INFOMAP Secure- Emergency Operations Orange County Repetitive Flood Loss Properties Database City of Orlando Repetitive Flood Loss Properties Database Florida Drought Action Plan Central Florida Intelligence Exchange, Florida Domestic Terrorism Overview Orange County Stormwater Management Division Lake Index Orange County OEMs Mitigation Planning Software Program 20

21 J. Benefits of the Planning Process It is important to emphasize that the procedure used by the LMS Working Group is based on the following important concepts: A multi-organizational, multi-jurisdictional planning group establishes specific goals and objectives to address the community s vulnerabilities to all types of hazards. The planning procedure utilizes a logical, stepwise process of hazard identification, risk evaluation and vulnerability assessment, as well as review of past disaster events, that is consistently applied by all participants through the use of common evaluation criteria. Mitigation initiatives are proposed for incorporation into the plan only by those jurisdictions or organizations with the authorities and responsibilities for their implementation. The process encourages participants to propose specific mitigation initiatives that are feasible to implement and clearly directed at reducing specific vulnerabilities to future disasters. Proposed mitigation initiatives are characterized in a substantive manner, suitable for this level of planning, to assure their cost effectiveness and technical merit. Initiatives are also coordinated among jurisdictions through a peer review process to assure that conflicts or duplications are avoided. All mitigation initiatives to be incorporated into the plan are prioritized. The plan is periodically reviewed and adopted by the participating jurisdictions governing bodies to ensure that the mitigation actions taken by their organizations are consistent with each community s larger vision and goals, as well as their overall unique needs and circumstances. 21

22 V. Orange County Demographics A. Population Characteristics The Orange County Planning Division has placed the total county population at 1,066,113 people in 2007, with 1,189 residents per square mile. Orange County had a household population of 1.0 million - 506,000 (50 percent) females and 496,000 (50 percent) males. According to the US Census Bureau, the median age of County residents is 34.3 years. Below is a breakdown of the percentages of the different age groups within the county: 9% of the county is 65 years and over 10% of the population is between the ages 18 and 24 24% are between the ages of 45 and 64 26% of the County s population is under 18 years old 31% are between the ages 25 and Orange County Municipal General Population Municipality Population Total Apopka 40,280 Bay Lake 20 Belle Isle 5,886 Eatonville 2,493 Edgewood 2,278 Lake Buena Vista 23 Maitland 16,209 Oakland 1,938 Ocoee 33,658 Orlando 234,130 Windermere 2,678 Winter Garden 30,838 Winter Park 28,921 Unincorporated Orange County 715,627 Orange County Planning Division Special Medical Needs and Disabled Populations The county anticipates the needs of persons requiring special medical attention and/or those having no personal transportation through the People with Special Needs Program. As of 2009 there were over 3,726 people on the special needs registry. According to the U.S. Census, Orange County has an estimated 129,863 individuals with a disability. These individuals have various forms of disabilities including: Deaf and/or Hard of Hearing 22

23 Blind and/or Visually Impaired Physical Disabilities Mental Disabilities Medical Disabilities Migrant Populations The Orange County Health Department licenses two permitted labor camps in Orange County. However, in recent years, this has been a declining program in Orange County primarily due to weather freezes and the decline of farming. Senior Citizens Orange County s senior citizens population (65 years and older) stands at 99,531. This accounts for 9% of the total population. Non-English Speaking According to the U.S. Census Bureau in 2007, 658,608 spoke English as their first language Languages Spoken at Home (Orange County, FL) Subject Number English only 658,608 Language other than English 306,058 (Spanish, Other Indo-European languages, Asian and Pacific Island languages and other languages) Source: U.S. Census Bureau Homeless Population Orange County s current homeless population is estimated at 6,500 individuals. A homeless person is defined by the State as an individual: Sleeping in a place not meant for human habitation Sleeping in an homeless emergency shelter Living in transitional housing having come into that housing from the street or from an homeless emergency shelter According to the Health Care Center for the Homeless there are 150 homeless camps within the county. These are located mainly in eastern Orange County. Seasonal Population In 2007, Orange County hosted 45.9 million domestic visitors and 2.6 million international visitors. Approximately, 61% of the domestic visitors were here for recreational purposes. To accommodate these visitors Orange County has over 111,348 hotel rooms. 23

24 Inmate Population The Orange County Jail serves as the County s central correctional facility. This facility is the 3rd largest jail system in the State of Florida with more than 1,700 employees including over 1,000 certified correctional employees. The jail s population stands at over 3,500 inmates. B. Housing According to the U.S. Census Bureau in 2007 there was a total of 440,117 housing units in Orange County. This includes apartments, houses, mobile homes, recreational vehicles and vans. The average price for owning a home in Orange County is $154,000. Housing Units in Orange County FL, 2007 Estimates Types of Housing Number Percentage Occupied housing 392,252 92% units Owner-occupied 238,108 59% housing units Renter-occupied 154,454 40% housing units Vacant housing units 47,555 7% Source: U.S. Census Data Manufactured Home Parks According to the U.S. Census Bureau in 2007 there were 19,805 individuals living in mobile homes within Orange County. There are over 100 manufactured home parks within Orange County. 24

25 VI. Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis This section of the Orange County Local Mitigation Strategy summarizes the results of the hazard identification and vulnerability assessment processes undertaken by the LMS Working Group members. The intent of this section is to provide a compilation of the information gathered and the judgments made about the hazards threatening Orange County as a whole, and the potential vulnerability to those hazards. A. Hazard Mitigation Planning Software Program The Orange County Office of Emergency Management utilizes a hazard mitigation planning software program. The software program used by Orange County is Mitigation 20/20. This program is utilized for data-storage for information contained in the LMS. It is also utilized in part with damage estimates to homes and businesses. In the 2009 version of the LMS, OEM heavily used MEMPHIS to prepare the potential dollar losses for properties. OEM is planning on replacing Mitigation 20/20 in the near future. Throughout the plan there are various calculations and scores that are derived from the hazard mitigation planning software program. Further information on the formulas used is available upon request. B. Mapping for Emergency Management, Parallel Hazard Information System (MEMPHIS) The Orange County LMS Working Group and OEM utilized the Mapping for Emergency Management, Parallel Hazard Information System (MEMPHIS) program in the creation of the Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis section of the LMS. MEMPHIS was used in the following sections: Hurricanes/Tropical Storms: Historical storms (past 153 years for tropical cyclones and past 50 years for winter storms) were simulated using the Arbiter of Storms (TAOS) model, version Winds, wave, rainfall, and storm surge perils were computed, and hazard zones created. Flood zones and wind layers were created, and tables were created based on percent damage expected. Additionally, FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) data was ingested, and the tabular data sets were run for comparison. Tornadoes: Tornado track data since 1950 from the National Weather Service was analyzed to determine the annual probability that a tornado would cause damage to a structure in each 90m grid cell in Florida. The data was stratified into four annual probability classes: High risk (1 in 100 or greater), Medium risk (1 in 101 to 1 in 250), or low (1 in 250 to 1 in 500 chance). 25

26 Wildfires: The wildfire potential map was created by reclassifying the land cover data sets created for the hydrologic models. These data sets were reclassified to equate the Anderson Level II classification to fuel models used in the National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS). These fuel models are an indication of the ability of a fire to start and spread in the given terrain type, and are used as the input to the Fire Potential Index as well as fire spreading models. The resulting map was compared with the NFDR Fuel Model Map created by the US Forest Service (USFS). The NFDR Fuel Model Map is used for the next generation fire danger rating system being developed by USFS, and is a nationwide map at a resolution of 1000 meters per grid cell based on data from Each of the fuel models was assigned to a risk code of low, medium, or high, based on fire spreading potential during a climatologically dry year, and processed with the statewide parcel data base to create the tables supplied with the LMS analysis. The mode of the fuel types within 500 meters of the parcel was used to determine risk category for the parcel. Flooding: This document presents population at risk, housing, and damage estimates based on Census 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary File 3: Technical Documentation, 2002). Tax records from the same time frame (2000) were obtained from the Florida Department of Revenue. All other data (topography, land cover, historical hurricane activity) is from spring The analysis is at the level of the Census Block Group (CBG). Each BG is treated as a point. The relevant hazard data such as wind and water levels were extracted from the TAOS output files and processed by the automatic report generator. Sinkholes: Sinkhole potential was determined according to points assigned to each 90m grid cell in the state. Three classes of points were assigned, for distance to historic sinkholes, geology, and soils: o 2 points if cell was within 2000m of an existing sinkhole; o 1 point if cell between 2000m and 5000m of an existing sinkhole; o 1 point if the cell was in the same U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) surface geologic unit as an existing sinkhole; o 1 point if the cell was in the same NRCS soil unit as an existing sinkhole. Thus, each cell was assigned a value from 0 to 4: o 0: no significant risk o 1: low risk o 2: moderate risk 26

27 o 3: high risk o 4: very high risk. C. Hazard Identification and History Hurricanes/Tropical Storms Background Because of its subtropical location and long coastline, Florida is particularly susceptible to hurricanes. The greatest threats posed by a hurricane are storm surge, wind damage and inland flooding. All of Orange County would be vulnerable to hurricane damage from high winds, rain-induced flooding and hurricane-spawned tornadoes. History Orange County was significantly impacted by the 2004 Hurricanes (Charley, Frances and Jeanne). Hurricane Charley had the most significant impact on the county. The aftermath of Hurricane Charley included the following: Progress Energy reported 265,000 customers without power. Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) reported 150,000 customers without power. 400 out of the 626 Orange County lift stations were without power, resulting in sewage system backups throughout the county. There were 425 inoperable traffic signals. The Initial Damage Assessment conducted by the Orange County Property Appraiser s Office calculated total parcels damaged were 26,700; the corresponding value estimated $881.5 million in damages. Most recent storm to impact Orange County was Tropical Storm Fay in This storm produced some localized flooding due to 15 to 20 inches of rain. Two Orange County areas were hardest hit, one was Riverdale Road off of Buck Road near the Little Econ River where 20 homes were impacted, and the west side of the Econ River south of State Road 50 near Sunflower Trail where the river overflowed its banks and impacted the wells of residents in this area. Probability According to the National Hurricane Center between 1925 to the present a total of four storms (category 1-5) have passed directly through Orange County. Another 16 storms passed relatively close to Orange County to seriously affect the county. The probability of future storms affecting the county is high. 27

28 Vulnerability Orange County s Eastern border is only 15-miles from the Florida Coast. Based upon this and that the county is centrally located within the Florida Penisula, the county is extremely vulnerable to Hurricanes and Tropical Storms. The population, buildings/homes and overall cost rises significantly from Category 1-5 storms, according to the Mapping for Emergency Management, Parallel Hazard Information System (MEMPHIS). The population most at risk during a category 1 storm are individuals with a disability. However, during a category 2 to 5 storm the population most at risk includes minority populations. Single-family residences are consistently at risk during all five storm categories. The second most vulnerable structures are multi-family residences. The breakdown of this information is included in more detail in the graphs below. All of the municipalities are vulnerable to this hazard but the following municipalities have greater vulnerability: City of Bay Lake: This municipality consists of several manufactured homes which are more vulnerable to tropical storm/hurricane force winds. City of Belle Isle: This municipality has a large number of trees that can be knocked down by tropical storm/hurricane winds. City of Winter Park: This municipality, because of it s position in eastern Orange County, is more vulnerable to high winds than the municipalities in other parts of the county. Severity/Impact A hurricane impacting Orange County could result in billions of dollars in property damage and lost revenue. The storm could also severely disrupt government services and businesses as well as cause major disruption in our critical infrastructure (electrical, telecommunication, water, wastewater, etc). The potential countywide impact of a hurricane and/or tropical storm can be rated as high. This score is based on the storm intentisty and track. A worstcase scenario is a Category 5 storm impacting Brevard County and continuing on to impact Orange County which, on the Eastern portion of the county is only 15 miles from the coast. This storm may weaken to either a Category 3 or 4 by the time it impacts Orange County s more urban areas in the central and western parts of the county but even that strong of a storm would result in significant damage to homes, businesses, infrastructure and public service resources and facilities. 28

29 Population at Risk Storm Category Minority Population Over 65 Disabled At or below the Povery Line Language Isolated Household Single Parent Household Category Category 2 229,595 74, ,001 88,729 17,705 50,895 Category 3 280,638 89, , ,233 19,664 61,409 Category 4 280,638 89, , ,233 19,664 61,409 Category 5 280,638 89, ,233 19,664 61,409 Storm Category Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Single- Family Residence Manufactured Home Structures at Risk Multi-Family Residence Commercial Agriculture Govt./ Institutions ,668 4,144 37,894 15,045 3,403 6, ,578 4,948 46,619 17,291 4,287 7, ,578 4,948 46,619 17,291 4,287 7, ,578 4,948 46,619 17,291 4,287 7,541 Maximum Damage Summary for Orange County Storm Category Tax Parcel based Wind Damage Census based Wind Damage Uninhabitable Housing Units Category 1 $ Million $ Million.1% of Total Housing Units Category 2 $3.70 Billion $2.72 Billion.6% of Total Housing Units Category 3 $11.11 Billion $7.98 Billion 1.8% of Total Housing Units Category 4 $30.07 Billion $21.27 Billion 4.9% of Total Housing Units Category 5 $61.14 Billion $42.54 Billion 9.9% of Total Housing Units 29

30 Tornadoes Background Florida experiences the highest number of tornadoes per square mile of all 50 States. Florida has averaged 52 reported tornadoes per year since 1961, with an average of two fatalities per year. Florida s tornadoes are generally of shorter duration (three miles) and have narrower paths (125 yards wide). Tornadoes in other portions of the nation are generally fourteen (14) miles long and 300 to 400 yards wide. History The most significant tornado to ever impact Orange County occurred on February 22-23, A total of seven tornadoes struck Osceola, Orange and Seminole counties killing 42 people and injuring 260 others. Three of these storms were rated as F-3s. A total of 3,000 structures were damaged and 700 destroyed. In 2004 a F-0 or F-1 tornado struck the Deerwood Mobile Home Park damaging 14 manufactured homes. On October 7, 2006 a F-0 tornado caused major damage to 32 homes and minor damage to 28 others. Also three businesses suffered damage. This incident resulted in a Disaster Declaration from the Small Business Administration. Probability According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as of 2004, Florida was ranked number 1 in the number of tornadoes per square mile, most of which are weak and referred to as "spawn tornadoes." However, strong ones do occur. While tornadoes can occur at any time during the day or night, they tend to form during the late afternoon and into the evening. The expected tornado size would be approximately 20 yards wide, with a.1 mile path. Most tornadoes are expected to touch down for relatively short periods of time in a bounce type pattern. The occurrence of a tornado touchdown on an annual basis is considered high. Vulnerability Due to the frequency and unpredictable pattern of tornadoes, all of Orange County is vulnerable to tornado induced damages. While the probability of occurrence is high, the damage potential is also high due to the concentrations of populated areas and the large number of manufactured homes throughout the County. Since the costs associated with an individual event are not considered high, but the population affected may be high, the level of vulnerability is considered moderate. According to MEMPHIS the high zone, which includes a majority of the county as detailed in the map below, has the greatest potential for maximum impact of lives affected and property damage. The total population potentially 30

31 affected is 891,160, with 282,331 structures potentially at risk. The total value of these structures is estimated at $176 Billion. All of the municipalities are vulnerable to this hazard but the following municipalities have greater vulnerability: City of Bay Lake: This municipality consists of several manufactured homes which are more vulnerable to high winds. City of Belle Isle: This municipalities has a large number of trees that can be knocked down by high winds. City of Orlando: The city has several manufactured home parks in the county which are particularly vulnerable to this hazard. City of Winter Park: This municipality, because of it s position in eastern Orange County, is more vulnerable to high winds than the municipalities in other parts of the county. Severity/Impact A tornado impacting Orange County could result in millions of dollars in property damage and lost revenue. This hazard could also disrupt government services and businesses as well as cause major disruption in our critical infrastructure (electrical, telecommunication, water, wastewater, etc). Typically, the disruptions will be limited to a small geographic area. Similar to hurricanes/tropical storms the impact countywide is dependent on it s path and intensity. This hazards impact can be ranked as medium. In the event a tornado touches down, it normally damages or destroy s select neighborhoods and communities. It seldom has a countywide impact. 31

32 Tornado Risks Zone Total Population at Risk Total Structures at Risk Total Value of Structures Low (1 in 500) 0 0 $8.15 Million Medium (1 in 5,184 2,933 $1.17 Billion 250) High (1 in 100) 891, ,331 $ Billion Lightning Background Florida leads the nation in lightning-related deaths and injuries. Since 1959, an average of ten people have been killed and 33 injured each year as a result of lightning. The peak month for lightning strikes is July, but June and August have a significant number, and no month is immune from lightning danger. History According to the National Weather Service one lightning casualty occurred for every 86,000 flashes in the United States and one death occurred for every 345,000 flashes. The corridor from Tampa Bay, FL to Titusville, FL (a.k.a. "Lightning Alley") receives the most lightning in the United States on an annual basis. From 1959 to 2007, 449 people were killed by lightning strikes and another 1,788 were injured. Probability There is a high probability that lightning strikes will continue to occur in Orange County resulting in the ignition of wildfires, property damage and injury and death. Vulnerability Although Orange County has a high incidence of lightning strikes and thunderstorms, there are no significant numbers of people impacted by these events. The economic costs are low, but response costs tend to be high, therefore, the level of vulnerability is moderate. All areas in the County are considered vulnerable to lightning strikes. All 13 municipalities are equally vulnerable to this hazard. All structures are at risk from lightning strikes unless they have been hardened by lightning mitigation efforts. The threat is defined in terms of the chances that a thunderstorm or lightning will cause economic damage or loss over $50. MEMPHIS provides information on thunderstorms and hail (lightning is included) in the risk assessment. For Thunderstorms (including lightning) the probability is in five categories: Very High (25) High (50) Medium (100) 32

33 Low (200) Very Low (500) Structures at risk for KAC Thunderstorm Damage Risk Zone Total SF Res Mob MF Res Commercial Agriculture Gov/Instit Home V. High (25) High (50) Medium (100) Low (200) V. Low (500) Severity/Impact Lightning impacting Orange County and it s municipalities is a regular occurrence especially during the summer months. This hazard, if it impacts a home, business or government facility, can result in thousands of dollars in property damage and at times can disrupt government services, businesses and critical infrastructure. Typically, the disruptions will be limited to a small geographic area. This hazard s impact to Orange County can be ranked as low. It has the ability to disrupt critical infrastructure but on a limited basis and typically affects one community. Droughts/Heat Waves Background Drought is a persistent and abnormal moisture deficiency having adverse impacts on vegetation, animals and people. There are generally three types of droughts: Meteorological drought is usually based on long-term precipitation departures from normal, though high temperatures often play a role. Hydrological drought refers to deficiencies in surface and subsurface water supplies. Agricultural drought occurs when there isn t enough soil moisture to meet the needs of a particular crop at a particular time. Droughts can affect most of the State, resulting in reduced rainfall or standing water which can affect fire conditions and/or public or agricultural water consumption in the most catastrophic of scenarios. History Droughts have affected Florida for the last several decades to include the early 1970s, the early 1980s, , and Between 33

34 November 1999 to May 2001 the water levels in Lake Okeechobee dropped to the lowest levels ever recorded. Orange County was directly impacted in the Spring of 1998 and lasted until The St. Johns River Water Management District reported that as a result of prolonged dry conditions, groundwater and surface water levels were at or below recorded levels. In May 2000 over 500 domestic self-supply wells were going dry. Another drought impacted Florida in The St. Johns River Water Management District, as a result, continued permanent lawn and landscape irrigation rules. Probability The probability of the occurrence of a drought is high, given historical weather patterns. Vulnerability Orange County has a moderate amount of acreage designated for conservation, public lands and agricultural land uses. When this acreage becomes parched during a drought, the area becomes vulnerable to wildfires. The economic impact from these events has not been high, as other reasons have been cited for the decrease in agricultural land uses. Therefore, the vulnerability is considered low due to the number of people impacted by a drought being not overly significant and compared to other events the economic costs are low. All 13 municipalities are equally vulnerable to this hazard. There is no potential dollar loss for droughts on buildings and facilities within Orange County because droughts do not physically affect buildings. Severity/Impact A drought/heat wave typically results in very minimum structural or financial losses with the exception of the agricultural sector who may suffer severe losses depending on the length of the drought/heat wave. This hazard has no real impact on government services and business. It would impact critical infrastructure, especially water services. This hazard impact countywide is ranked as high. The impact of this hazard could have both short and long-term effects on the county s population by limiting the amount of drinking water. This hazard can also have a profound impact on the county s agricultural base. Flooding Background Riverbank overflow or ponding are the primary flooding hazards prevalent in Orange County. Flooding resulting from riverbank overflowing is almost always caused by heavy rains within a drainage area and the subsequent inability of a river to accommodate the added runoff. There are several drainage areas within Orange County which would be similarly affected, 34

35 including the Big and Little Econlockhatchee Rivers, the St. Johns River, Boggy Creek and Shingle Creek. Ponding occurs in low areas that are characterized by either poorly drained or supersaturated soils (i.e. high water table). This type of flooding is prevalent in the East and South end of Orange County where the drainage basins are located. Other areas of the County with a chronic history of flood problems, are in southwest Orlando. History In August 2003 there was some localized flood in the vicinty of Big and Little Sand Lakes. The water levels were higher than expected and Orange County Public Works Department set-up emergency pumps to prevent water instrusion in nearby homes. There were several homes that experienced water intrusion as a result of this incident but all damage was considered minor. As mentioned in the history for Hurricanes/Tropical Storms, TS Fay caused some localized flooding in Orange County regularly experiences localized flooding but very few instances have resulted in significant damage or injuries. Probability Although flooding does result from hurricanes, it can also occur during thunderstorms, as well as during prolonged summer thunderstorm activity. Prolonged periods of rainfall have shown increased potential for causing damage to property and the need for evacuation of residents due to flooding. The likelihood of flooding within Orange County is a high probability. Vulnerability A significant number of people can be affected by flooding. The most vulnerable areas are those that include pre-flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) housing. The economic costs are high and the likelihood of flooding is also high. The historical records of the Orange County Office of Emergency Management were used to document the occurrences of flooding within the county. The Community Rating System report documents the repetitive loss properties within the County. According to MEMPHIS the X Zone, which according to the map below is located in the central portions of Orange County, is the most vulnerable area. MEMPHIS estimates that 726,777 people are vulnerable along with 225,237 structures. The estimated total value of these structures is $125 Billion. The total vulnerability to flooding is considered high. According to MEMPHIS the following municipalities, based on their location, are more vulnerable to this hazard: City of Belle Isle Town of Eatonville City of Edgewood 35

36 City of Maitland City of Orlando Severity/Impact A flood could result in millions of dollars in property damage and lost revenue. This hazard could also disrupt the government services and businesses as well as cause major disruption in our critical infrastructure (electrical, telecommunication, water, wastewater, etc). Typically, the disruptions will be limited to a small geographic area. The impact of this hazard countywide is ranked as medium. The county s stormwater management system has effectively managed flooding in the past. Only certain areas of the countywide are more susceptible to flooding. Orange County FEMA FIRM Zones Zone Total Population at Risk Total Structures at Risk Total Value of Structuures AE 79,910 36,136 $20.27 Billion X500 19,987 3,155 $6.35 Billion X 726, ,237 $ Billion A 68,685 18,320 $9.89 Billion ANI 985 2,416 $15.17 Billion IN 0 0 $13.06 Billion VE 0 10,768 $9.34 Billion UNDES 0 1,180 $5.75 Billion AO 0 61,465 $66.11 Billion D 0 4,865 $4.63 Billion AH 0 2,408 $15.17 Billion V 0 0 $13.06 Billion 100IC 0 10,343 $9.29 Billion 36

37 Sinkholes Background Sinkholes are common where the rock below the land surface is limestone, carbonate rock, salt beds, or rocks that can naturally be dissolved by ground water circulating through them. As the rock dissolves, spaces and caverns develop underground. Sinkholes are dramatic because the land usually stays intact for a while until the underground spaces just get too big. If there is not enough support for the land above the spaces then a sudden collapse of the land surface can occur. Orange County is suspectible to sinkholes ranging from slow-developing small diameter sinkholes to larger sinkholes that can develop with little or no warning. 37

38 History The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has recorded a total of 192 sinkholes within Orange County from 1965 to the present. On August 8, 2002 a sinkhole occurred beneath Fire Station #20 but no significant damage was reported. On June 3, 2002 the Chateau Du Lac Condominiums was impacted by a sinkhole, as a result the building was a total loss. On October 14, 2004 Orange County Fire Rescue was called to a sinkhole affecting a home at 43 rd Street in Belle Isle. The house was deemed unsafe to enter by the Orange County Building Division. Probability Orange County is particularly prone to sinkhole occurrence due to its geography. The probability of a sinkhole occurring in the County is high, although the individual risk is not great. Twice the monthly average of sinkhole incidents are received during the rainy season when compared to the dry season. Vulnerability The number of people affected by sinkhole damage is relatively small, the economic costs are not high, but the likelihood of sinkholes occurring is high, therefore, the vulnerability, as compared to the other hazards is moderate. The Office of Emergency Management documents all voluntary reports of subsidence on public or private property. Although no ordinance exists requiring individuals to either report subsidence or sinkholes or, if reported, to provide results of the investigation to the County, repair of damage due to a sinkhole requires a building permit. All buildings and infrastructure in the County are vulnerable to sinkholes. While Florida law does not require individuals to report sinkhole activity, (2)(a) requires an insurer (insurance company) to file a report on any claim they have paid for a sinkhole loss with the respective county clerk of court who in turn is required to record the report and certification. In 2005, a database was created to track current and past sinkholes within the State of Florida. According to MEMPHIS the most vulnerable individuals are located in the medium zone which includes all of Orange County with a total of 609,690 atrisk individuals. The total structure at risk stands at 180,022 in the medium zone and the total value of these structures is $ Billion. All 13 municipalities are vulnerable to this hazard. However, based on the Florida Department of Environmental Protect Sinkhole Type, Development and Distribution in Florida available on their website the following municipalities are located in areas where sinkholes are larger in diameter and develop abruptly: City of Apopka City of Ocoee City of Maitland Portions of the City of Winter Park Town of Oakland 38

39 Portions of the City of Orlando City of Winter Garden The following municipalities are located in areas where the sinkholes are small in diameter and develop gradually: City of Belle Isle City of Edgewood Portions of the City of Orlando City of Lake Buena Vista City of Bay Lake Severity/Impact Sinkholes can result in thousands or millions of dollars in property damage. This hazard could also disrupt government services and businesses as well as cause major disruption in our critical infrastructure (electrical, telecommunication, water, wastewater, etc) but on a very limited basis. Typically, the disruptions will be limited to a small geographic area. Orange County is suspectible to sinkholes ranging from slow-developing small diameter sinkholes to larger sinkholes that can develop with little or no warning. The risk countywide is ranked as medium. While the entire county is affected the frequency of large sinkholes forming and affecting large areas of the county is a low probability. Sinkhole Risks Zones Total Population at Risk Total Structures at Risk Total Value of Structures Low 33,448 11,523 $6.80 Billion Medium 609, ,022 $ Billion High 131,513 56,471 $30.10 Billion Very High 81,690 26,216 $14.37 Billion Extreme 35,368 10,402 $5.49 Billion 39

40 Animal and Plant Diseases Background In 2005 there were 42,500 commercial farms which utilized 10 million acres across the State. The Florida agricultural industry has created 756,993 jobs and has an overall economic impact of $87.6 billion annually. Based on this, a number of diseases can affect the agricultural and livestock industry. Examples of these diseases are: Hoof and Mouth Citrus Canker Mad Cow Over 1,500 individuals are employed in the agricultural industry within Orange County. The county is ranked the 19 th largest producer of Citrus and the 32 nd largest producer of Beef Cattle in the State. History In the past five years there has been no significant plant or animal disease that has affected Orange County. Probability The probability of exotic pest infestation is seasonal and considered low, depending on the growth cycle of the species. 40

41 Vulnerability Commercial growers are extremely vulnerable to financial ruin from exotic pest infestation. Recovery from destruction of mature trees due to infestation takes years to overcome. The loss of income for multiple years would be financially devastating. While the probability of occurrence is moderate, the economic cost would be high to certain segments of the population. Therefore, the vulnerability would be high. Orange County s agricultural areas are most vulnerable to exotic pests as a result of the economic impact. The following municipality is more directly impacted by this hazard based on their economy: City of Winter Garden Severity/Impact Animal and Plant Diseases can result in thousands or millions of dollars in lost revenue to the agricultural industry in the county. The impact countywide of plant and animal diseases is ranked as low. Only about 1,500 individuals are employed in the agricultural industry. While some of our food supplies are produced locally the vast majority comes from outside of the county. The following municipalities have a greater potential to be impacted by this hazard: City of Apopka Town of Oakland City of Winter Garden Human Diseases Background According to the Orange County Health Department there are a variety of diseases and viruses that can inflict individuals in Orange County. Some of the diseases or viruses that could impact Orange County include: Botulism E. Coli Hepatitis A, B, and C Meningitis (Bacterial & Mycotic) Salmonellosis Tuberculosis West Nile Virus Influenza History There hasn t been any significant human diseases or epidemics within Florida in the last five years. However, Orange County has occassionally experienced small-scale health related incidents. According to the Florida 41

42 Department of Health between January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2008 there were two confirmed cases of Dengue Fever, one confirmed case of E. Coli and seven confirmed cases of Meningistis within the State. Probability The probability for a disease outbreak is low. However, seasonal residents, migrant populations, and the number of uninsured residents do present a chance for infectious diseases to rapidly spread. Vulnerability Orange County is moderately vulnerable due to the large annual influx of seasonal residents and tourists. Rapid spread of these diseases would result in significant numbers of people being affected and high economic costs involved with replacement costs for livestock. All areas of the county are considered vulnerable to a disease outbreak. All of the municipalities are equally vulnerable to this hazard. Severity/Impact Human Diseases, especially when they reach an epidemic or pandemic phase, can result in thousands or even millions of people ill or dying and billions of dollars in lost revenue. This hazard could also disrupt government services and businesses as well as cause major disruption in our critical infrastructure (electrical, telecommunication, water, wastewater, etc) through the workplace absence of the individuals who maintain these systems and operations. Typically, these disruptions can include the entire county. The impact of human diseases countywide is ranked as high. These diseases do not acknowledge political boundaries. These diseases can have an impact on the county infrastructure, businesses and government services not on the mechanisms but on the individuals who run these services and systems. Wildland Fires Background Orange County s typical fire season is from January through May. Because of the County s continuing growth the Wildland/Urban interface is an issue. A Wildland/Urban Interface is defined by the State of Florida as the geographical point where two diverse systems (wildland and urban) meet and affect each other and give rise to conflicts. History Wildland Fires are a constant threat within the State of Florida and Orange County. In the past 10 years Orange County Fire Rescue Department and the other municipal fire departments have responded to thousands of wildland 42

43 fires. Fortunately, only a small percentage of these incidents were significant enough to involve other agencies and organizations. On April 1, 2004 Orange County Fire Rescue Department responded to a muck fire at the intersection of Wheeler Rd. and Fort Christmas Rd. OEM was requested to respond to facilitate resource support from Orange County Utilities Department. Most recently a wildland fire occurred in April and May 2009 which required the establishment of the Orlando-Volusia Wildfire Complex. The complex included over 40 wildfires and 8,000 acres scattered from southern Volusia to southeast Orange County. A DOF Type II Incident Management Team, over 100 forestry firefighters, and numerous pieces of specialized equipment came from all over the state in support of the incident. The majority of the fires in the complex were in Orange County, covering over 3,000 acres. Probability The predominance of forested acreage, current patterns of development and historical weather conditions indicate the probability of occurrence is high. The threat of fires cannot be eliminated, but public education and the use of prescribed burns can be used to better manage this hazard. Vulnerability There have been several areas identified by the Florida Division of Forestry as problem areas. Although Orange County does not have problems as severe as adjacent counties, a significant number of people in the County can be impacted by wildfires. The level of vulnerability is high due to the patterns and location of new development, and there is a high probability of occurrence and costs associated with these events. According to MEMPHIS the most vulnerable population is contained in Level 7 with an estimated 177,385 people. Level 7 is scattered throughout Orange County as you can view on the map below. The most vulnerable structures are located in Level 1 which is also scattered throughout the county with an estimated 67,926 vulnerable structures. The total value of these structures is estimated at $36.14 Billion. According to MEMPHIS the following municipalities are vulnerable to this hazard based on their location and land-use in the county: City of Apopka Town of Oakland City of Orlando City of Winter Garden City of Lake Buena Vista City of Bay Lake 43

44 Severity/Impact Wildland Fires can result in injuries and deaths of citizens and firefighters and thousands or millions of dollars in property damage. This hazard could also disrupt government services and businesses as well as cause major disruption in our critical infrastructure (electrical, telecommunication, water, wastewater, etc) but on a limited basis. Typically, the disruptions will be limited to a small geographic area. The impact on Orange County is rated as medium based upon the fact that this hazard does not affect the entire county s population, services and infrastructure. The following municipalities have the greatest potential to be impacted by this hazard: City of Apopka Town of Oakland City of Orlando City of Winter Garden City of Lake Buena Vista City of Bay Lake Wildland Fire Risks Zone Total Population at Risk Total Structures at Risk Total Value of Structures Level 1 (Low) 38,894 67,926 $36.14 Billion Level 2 44,565 37,826 $20.35 Billion Level 3 104,909 41,842 $20.49 Billion Level 4 5,858 6,182 $3.16 Billion Level 5 (Medium) 59,199 25,452 $14.26 Billion Level 6 76,987 21,480 $10.96 Billion Level 7 177,385 61,293 $34.83 Billion Level 8 100,863 26,506 $16.00 Billion Level 9 (High) 38,932 22,888 $13.47 Billion 44

45 Hazardous Materials Background Orange County currently has over 200 facilities that use, store, and/or produce extremely hazardous substances. There are over 6,000 hazardous chemicals licensed for transport by the U.S. Department of Transportation, many of which have a disastrous effect if released in an accident. History Over the past 10 years there has been numerous incidents involving hazardous materials fortunately only a few of these incidents have involved other county agencies and the State and Federal governments. On December 14, 2004 Orange County Fire Rescue responded to possible acid explosion at 2603 Challenger Tech Court. Nitaric Acid was exposed to water from the sprinker system. There were no serious injuries or damage to the structure. On March 31, 2008 at Diamond R Fertilizer Plant at 501 North Hennis Road a chemical reaction involving ammonium nitrate occurred created a significant amount of smoke in the building. Due to smoke in the area Winter Garden issued a mandatory evacuation of the surrounding residential areas at 1400 hours (to the East, West and South). For those individuals who were not immediately evacuated they were instructed to Shelter-in-place via a Code Red message issued by the County Warning Point. The incident was 45

46 declared under control by 2103 Hours by the City of Winter Garden and the shelter at Dillard St. Elementary was closed and area residents were allowed to return home. Probability Spills or releases of hazardous materials during transport are common, and the probability of a hazardous materials transportation incident is high. The event will most likely occur during a vehicle accident along one of Orange County's major transportation routes. In addition, two railroad lines pass through the County transporting unknown amounts of hazardous materials. The probability of a release or spill is high. In addition, the incidence of an accidental spill of any hazardous material during transport is highly probable. Vulnerability The majority of the releases at a site are small, affecting only the building of origin and a relatively small number of people. Economic costs are usually low. Vulnerability to the release or spill of a hazardous material is moderate, and depends upon the amount and type of material spilled or released, and the location of the incident. All 13 municipalities are equally vulnerable to this hazard. Severity/Impact Hazardous materials incidents can result in minor to serious injuries and cause thousands or millions of dollars in property damage. This hazard could also disrupt government services and businesses as well as cause major disruptions in our critical infrastructure (electrical, telecommunication, water, wastewater, etc) but on a very limited basis. Typically, the disruptions will be limited to a small geographic area. The countywide impact of this hazard is rated as high due to the number of facilities that produce and store extremely hazardous substances. Several major transportation routes and railroad tracks crisscross the county and the State which increases the potential for this hazard to affect the county s population. Infrastructure Disruptions Background This hazard can involve disruptions to the county s transportation routes and modes (air, rail, roads, bridges, etc), the ability to produce and distribute electrical power and/or the distribution and collection of water and/or wastewater. These disruptions can be caused by a number of events to include but not limited to: 46

47 Natural or Technological Disasters Sabotage Equipment Failures History On July 10, 2003 the Valencia Estates Mobile Home Park reported that an unknown party broke into the control panel and turned off the well pumps and turned on the high pressure pumps. Apparently, someone tried to burn out the system. The facility was backup and operational a day later. On July 29, 2006 the College Park Towers at 5200 Eggleston Ave. lost power. A total of 22 senior citizens were affected and had to be temporarily sheltered for a few hours in buses. However, power was restored and the residents were allowed to return home. On February 26, 2008 human error resulted in 584,000 customers being without power for a few hours in mainly southern Florida. This outage affected 26 transmission lines and 38 substations. One of the substations affected serves three of the generation units at Turkey Point, including a natural gas unit as well as both nuclear units, which, as designed, automatically and safely shut down. Orange County did experience some limited power outages in the southern parts of Orange County. Probability The probability of a short-term infrastructure disruption is medium. However, a long-term disruption is considered low. Vulnerability At-risk areas of the county s population are extremely vulnerable to sudden and unexpected loss of power and other types of infrastructure disruptions. While the probability of occurrence is low, the economic cost would be high in a worst-case scenario. Therefore, the vulnerability would be high. All areas of the County are considered vulnerable to a power failure and other types of infrastructure disruptions. All 13 municipalities are equally vulnerable to this hazard. Severity/Impact Infrastructure Disruption can result in usually minor injuries but could cause millions of dollars in property damage or loss of revenue. This hazard could also disrupt government services and businesses but on a limited basis. These disruptions could include a small geographic area or the entire county. This hazard s impact countywide is rated as high. This hazard has the potential to affect the entire population, services and other critical infrastructure. 47

48 Radiological/Nuclear Accidents Background The State of Florida currently has three nuclear power plants, these include: Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant The St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant is the closest to Orange County and is located approximately 100 miles away. There are several facilities within Orange County (hospitals, universities) who use small amounts of radioactive substances for medical and research purposes. History The Florida Bureau of Radiation Control responds to about 200 incidents a year involving radioactive materials. In the past 10 years there have been no significant incidents within the county. Probability Orange County has been designated as an ingestion county for the launch of Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators at the Kennedy Space Center. In the event of a launch emergency Orange County would be at risk for longterm exposure. The probability of a launch emergency is considered moderate. Vulnerability Although there would be a significant number of residents affected by an incident, the probability of occurrence is low, and the economic cost is low, therefore the level of vulnerability is low. The following municipalities are vulnerable to this hazard: City of Belle Isle Town of Eatonville City of Edgewood City of Maitland City of Orlando City of Winter Park Severity/Impact A radiological/nuclear related incident could have profound affects on the county based on its proximity and the size and intensity. In a worst-case scenario it could contaminate portions of the county and injures and kill residents. This hazard would also have a profound impact on our local and statewide economies. 48

49 This hazard s impact countywide is rated as low. The nearest nuclear power station is over 50 miles away from the county which places Orange County out of the Emergency Planning Zone. Civil/Social Disturbances and Special Events Background This type of hazard refers to riots and/or peaceful or non-peaceful protests. Any of these events can seriously impact the economic wellbeing and the safety and security of Orange County s citizens and visitors. Orange County is a major tourist destination in the Southeastern United States. Because of this the County hosts several special events. These events draws crowds in the hundreds of thousands. Examples of these events include: Presidential Visits Conventions and Conferences Concerts History According to the Central Florida Intelligence Exchange there have been five peace rallies/protests since 2005, all primarily in downtown Orlando s jurisdiction. These rallies included the National Tea Party (TEA-Taxes Enough Already) protesting taxes. Another one of these rallies was a Peace (anti-war) March at Lake Eola in Over the last 20 years Orange County has been a hub of special events. Annually the Home Show at the Orange County Convention Center draws in 100,000 people. The President of the United States also makes frequent trips to Central Florida normally flying into Orange County. Probability Orange County does not have a history of large-scale civil riots occurring, at least during the last 10 years. The county does have a history of non-violent demonstrations. Because of Orange County s prominent position within the State of Florida the probability of more non-violent demonstrations remains high. The probability of Orange County hosting special events is high. The Orange County Convention Center is the 2 nd largest convention center in the United 49

50 States. Also within Orange County are three of the largest theme parks in the Southeastern United States. These events and venues generate income for the county, as well as private interests. With the interstate system constantly expanding, there is easy access to the County from other areas. Vulnerability A civil and/or social disturbance could have a localized or countywide impact. If an incident occurred it could cause severe disruption to businesses throughout the county. It could also impact vulnerable populations who may be living or working in the area. The vulnerability of the county is considered medium based on the probability of the occurrence and the potential economic losses. All 13 municipalities are equally vulnerable to this hazard. The vulnerability level of a special event varies with the size of the event, the location, and the venue. For purposes of this document, special event will be defined as a large outdoor gathering. Special events encompass all areas of public safety, i.e. traffic, access, security, public health, fire safety, and weather. The number of people affected by a special event is high. Economic and response costs are moderate and the vulnerability is moderate. All 13 municipalities hold certain types of special events every year to include parades, block parties, etc. Therefore all of the municipalities are vulnerable based on the size of the special event and other factors. Severity/Impact A civil or social disturbance, depending on its size and related issues, would result in a disruption to normal county operations and commerce. Typically, these events result in minimal deaths or injuries but the potential is there. This hazard can also interfere with government services and businesses as well as cause major disruptions in our critical infrastructure (electrical, telecommunication, water, wastewater, etc) but on a very limited basis. Typically, the disruptions will be limited to a small geographic area. The impact of this hazard countywide is rated low. This hazard has only the potential to affect small portions of the county without affecting the entire county. A special event s impact countywide is rated as low. This hazard can only affect small segments of the county at a time. Terrorism Background Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, terrorism is defined as an activity that involves an act dangerous to human life or potentially destructive to critical infrastructure or key resources and is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or other subdivision in which it occurs and is intended to intimidate or coerce the civilian population or influence a 50

51 government or affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. History There has not been an extensive history of terrorist attacks within Orange County. There have been several threats that have occurred over the last 10 years but did not materialize or were stopped before they could be carried out. The history of threats or attacks thwarted before they could have occurred has been documented by the Federal and State governments and the Central Florida Intelligence Exchange. The U.S. Department of Justice arrested seven Florida men on 23 June 2006 for plotting attacks against targets in Illinois and in Florida. The suspects allegedly pledged an oath of allegiance to al-qaida in March 2006 and began planning to attack offices of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other government buildings in southern Florida. Authorities on the morning of May 28, 2006 investigated a homemade device categorized as a weapon of mass destruction under Florida statutes that someone had placed on top of a window air conditioning unit at an adult video store that had been the center of a controversy within the community. Probability Due to Orange County being a tourist destination with worldwide attention, a terrorist attack could have serious implications to life and property as well as the long-term economic well-being of the County. The probability of an attack though is rated as moderate. Vulnerability The number of people affected by terrorism is significant, since one of the objectives of terrorists is to create as much human suffering and property damage as possible. The costs associated with terrorism are high. All critical infrastructure or key resource locations are vulnerable to terrorism. The vulnerability of the county is considered high. All 13 municipalities are equally vulnerable to this hazard. Severity/Impact A terrorist incident can result in serious injuries and deaths, cause billions of dollars in property damage and significantly impact the county and the State s economy. This hazard could also disrupt government services and businesses as well as cause major disruptions in our critical infrastructure (electrical, telecommunication, water, wastewater, etc). This hazard has the potential to affect the entire county s population, services and infrastruture. This hazard, even if it impacts elsewhere in Central Florida, can seriously impact the county s economy and/or services. 51

52 Hazard Identification Table Hazards Identification Method Why was it identified? Hurricanes and Coastal Storms Review of past disaster declaration Input from residents Risk Assessments The county is vulnerable to hurricane threat every season Hurricanes and coastal storm have caused damage Tornadoes National Weather Service Orange County Office of Emergency Management (OEM) Florida is vulnerable to tornadoes on a year-round basis Lightning National Weather Service Florida is the lightning capital of the world. Drought/Heat Wave Review of past incidents reported to the Orange County OEM Information collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Recent years of drought have resulted in hardship for agricultural interests and conservation/public lands in the county Flooding Sinkholes Animal and Plant Diseases Review of FIRMS maps Input from Orange County Public Works Department Incidents reported to Orange County OEM Permit applications for repairs Florida Department of Environmental Protection Past incidents reported to Orange County and the State of Florida Associated with the effects of a hurricane or severe thunderstorm annually Heavy rains or drought trigger increased sinkhole activity Geology of the county makes it prone to sinkholes Concerns of residents regarding sinkhole activity impacting their property Recovery from infestations takes years to overcome and financial impacts are devastating to growers Human Disease or Pandemic Health Department records Concerns of public regarding these types of diseases Wildfires Review of past wildfire incidents The Florida Division of Forestry has identified several high risk wildfire areas in the county Orange County has significant wildlands and wildland-urban interfaces within the county Hazardous Materials Spill Incidents reported to Orange County OEM Large amounts of truck traffic moving through the county Infrastructure Disruption Incidents reported to Orange County OEM Secondary impact caused by disruptions Nuclear/Radiological Incident Incidents reported to the State Watch Office N/A and the Orange County OEM Civil Disturbances Incidents reported to Orange County OEM Secondary impact caused by incidents Terrorism Public input Terrorism incidents/threats that have occurred in other parts of the country Heightened sense of security since September 11, 2001 Proximity of major theme parks within Special Events The # of special events held within the county Public input Orange County Concerns of public about incidents occurring at special events 52

53 D. Hazard Occurrences The chart below documents the number of occurrences of the hazard within Orange County. This chart simply assigns a numerical value to the number of times these hazards have occurred and were recorded by a Federal, State or county agency charged with recording their occurrence. This chart only records hazard occurrence for the last five years (2004 to 2009). Hazard Occurrence Hazard Occurrence Hurricane/Tropical 6 Wildland Fire 4 Storm Tornado 7 Hazardous Materials 6 Lightning 200 Infrastructure 9 Disruption Drought/Heat 2 Radiological/Nuclear 0 Wave Accident Flooding 15 Civil/Social 20 Sinkhole 2 Disturbances and Special Events Animal & Plant 0 Terrorism 2 (Threats) Diseases Human Diseases 5 E. Hazard Severity Scoring The following hazards that can impact Orange County have been ranked according to their severity. They are ranked as High, Medium or Low. These scores are determined by the following: High: This score is assigned when there is a potential for the following: high number of injuries/deaths, significant interruption to the economy of the county and the jurisdiction and/or the hazard can significantly damage the county and/or jurisdictions environment and/or the hazard can cause damages or losses in the amount of $5 Million or more. Medium: This score is assigned when there is a potential for the following: a low number of injuries/deaths, a temporary interruption to the economy, a temporary impact to the environment and/or the hazard can cause damages or losses in the amount of $100,000 or more. Low: This score is assigned when there is a potential for the following: little or no number of injuries/deaths, no interruption to the economy, the hazard does not affect the environment and/or the hazard can cause damages or losses in the amount of $10,000 or more. 53

54 Orange County Hazard Severity Chart Jurisdiction Hazards H/TS T L D F S A & P HD WF HM ID R/N C&SE T Apopka H H L M M M L H M M M L M H Belle Isle H H L M M M L H L M M L L H Eatonville H H L M L M L H L M M L L H Edgewood H H L M M M L H L M M L L H Maitland H H L M M M L H L M M L L H Oakland H H L M M M L H L M M L L H Ocoee H H L M M M L H L M M L L H Orlando H H L M M M L H M M M L H H Windermere H H L M M M L H M M M L L H Winter Garden H H L M M M M H M M M L L H Winter Park H H L M M M L H L M M L L H Unincorporated Orange County H M L H M M M H M M M L H H Legend Hazards HS/T: Hurricane/Tropical Storm T: Tornado L: Lightning D: Drought/Heat Wave F: Flooding S: Sinkhole A&P: Animal & Plant Diseases HD: Human Diseases WF: Wildland Fire HM: Hazardous Materials ID: Infrastructure Disruption R/N: Radiological/Nuclear Accident C&SE: Civil/Social Disturbances and Special Events T: Terrorism Severity Level H: High M: Medium L: Low F. Hazard Risk Estimation In this process, the Planning Committee and representatives of individual jurisdictions identify all of the natural and technological hazards that could threaten the county. When the hazard types are identified as relevant to, or of concern for, that jurisdiction, the participants can make an estimate of the risk each poses to the jurisdiction being evaluated. The information collected is entered into the Mitigation Planning Software Program. This system then utilizes the system and processes highlighted below to ascertain a risk score for each of the participating jurisdictions. 54

55 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE The estimate of risk is based on the judgment of the planners regarding the likely frequency of occurrence of the hazard event compared to its probable consequences. For purposes of this analysis, risk is defined as a relative measure of the probability that a hazard event will occur in comparison to the consequences or impacts of that event. That is, if a hazard event occurs frequently, and has very high consequences, then that hazard is considered to pose a very high risk to the affected communities. In comparison, if a hazard event is not expected to occur frequently, and even if it did, the consequences would be minimal, then that hazard is considered to pose a very low risk. This relationship between frequency of occurrence and consequences of an event can be illustrated by the following graph: Very Frequent Unexpected or Very Rare Level of Risk Posed by the Event Low Risk High Risk Zero or minimal consequences CONSEQUENCES OF THE EVENT Severe or catastrophic consequences This graph illustrates that some hazards can be defined as low risk, for they do not occur often enough and/or do not result in significant impacts even when they do. In comparison, other hazards may occur often enough and/or have sufficiently severe consequences when they do, that they must be considered high risk. Each of the hazards considered to be a threat to the jurisdiction can be qualitatively assessed for its probability of occurrence and its likely consequences, so that it can be indicated on the graph as falling either above or below a dotted line that can be considered to separate high and low risk hazards. 55

56 By considering the relative risk of the different hazards that threaten each participating jurisdiction, greater priority can be given to the higher risk hazards in order to most effectively utilize the time and resources available for the mitigation planning process. In this way, the Mitigation Planning Software Program used for Orange County supports what can be termed risk-based planning because it facilitates the participants capabilities to focus on the highest risk hazards. To do this, the Orange County LMS Working Group derives a relative risk score using a qualitative process in which planners record, on a numeric scale, the likely frequency of occurrence, the extent of the community that would be impacted, and the likely consequences in terms of public safety, property damage, economic impacts and harm to valuable environmental resources. The numeric total of the assessments of each of these is considered in this plan to constitute the relative risk score. In the mitigation planning process utilized in Orange County, all of the participating jurisdictions utilize the same numeric criteria to classify the risk that a defined hazard poses to each jurisdiction. Use of common evaluation criteria enables the planning group as a whole to make comparisons of the relative risk of one hazard type in relation to another, and the composite risk posed by three categories of hazards addressed (natural, technological and societal), as well as to compare the total relative risk among all participating jurisdictions. As noted above, such comparisons can also be used to guide and prioritize the planning process by enabling planners to focus on the highest assessed risk for a hazard, for a hazard category or for the involved jurisdictions. The common risk estimation numeric factors used by all participants in the planning are as follows: 56

57 RISK FACTOR Area Impacted Health and Safety Consequences Consequences to Property Consequences to Environmental Resources Economic Consequences Probability of Occurrence EVALUATION CRITERION ASSIGNED VALUE No developed area impacted 0 Less than 25% of developed area impacted 1 Less than 50% of developed area impacted 2 Less than 75% of developed area impacted 3 Over 75% of developed area impacted 4 No health or safety impact 0 Few injuries/illnesses 1 Few fatalities, many injuries/illnesses 2 Numerous fatalities 3 No property damage 0 Few properties destroyed or damaged 1 Few destroyed many damaged 2 Few damaged many destroyed 2 Many properties damaged and destroyed 3 Little or no environmental damage 0 Resources damaged with short term recovery 1 practical Resources damaged with long term recovery 2 feasible Resources destroyed beyond recovery 3 No economic impact 0 Low direct and / or low indirect costs 1 Low direct and high indirect costs 2 High direct and low indirect costs 2 High direct and high indirect costs 3 Unknown but rare occurrence 0 Unknown but anticipate an occurrence years or less occurrence 2 25 years or less occurrence 3 Once a year or more occurrence 4 In this process, a single, numeric value is selected from each of the six risk factors. The six values are then used to derive a total relative risk value for a particular hazard that is weighted for the probability of its occurrence and applied to a particular jurisdiction. The total relative risk score for a particular hazard is calculated by adding the selected numeric values for each of the Impact Area, Health & Safety, Property, Environment and Economy categories and multiplying this total by the numeric value selected for the Probability of Occurrence, or, in other words, by using this formula: Area Consequences to Health and Safety Consequences to Probability of Impacted Consequences Property Environmental Economic [ ] x Occurrence Resources = Relative Consequences Risk 57

58 The resulting numeric value for relative risk can vary from zero, meaning the identified hazard poses no estimated risk at all to the jurisdiction, up to a maximum of 64, which means that hazard poses a very substantial risk to the jurisdiction. In deriving these estimates of risk for each hazard, the participating jurisdictions have utilized any available information regarding the geographic areas that may be impacted by each identified hazard, as well as population, infrastructure and facilities within those impacted areas. This has included inventories of valuable environmental resources, as well as factors that are influential to the economic well being of the community. Total Relative Risk Score Each of the hazards is assigned a risk rating per each jurisdiction. The risk rating score is added up and the total is used as the Jurisdiction s Risk Rating Score in the Mitigation Planning Software Program. The risk scores are divided into two categories; natural hazards and technological hazards. The total risk rating scores for the municipalities and for unincorporated Orange County is in Appendix J. G. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) NFIP Participating Members The following municipalities have stated that they are participating in NFIP to some extent: City of Apopka City of Belle Isle Town of Eatonville City of Edgewood City of Maitland Town of Oakland (Pending) City of Ocoee City of Orlando Town of Windermere City of Winter Garden City of Winter Park Orange County Government Adoption and Enforcement of Floodplain Management Requirements The following municipalities, special districts and Orange County have adopted floodplain ordinances. The jurisdictions are: City of Apopka, : Floodplains City of Belle Isle, Article V: Floodplains City of Edgewood, Chapter 106: Flood Damage Prevention 58

59 City of Maitland, Chapter 6.5: Flood Damage Prevention City of Winter Garden, Chapter 90: Floods City of Winter Park, Article V: Environmental Protection Regulations Orange County Government, Article I: Orange County Floodplain Management Regulations All of these municipalities and special districts have enacted the ordinances list above and all of them have a permitting system built into the ordinance. They also include enforcement standards and options. The text of these ordinances is included in Appendix I. The Town of Oakland has its first reading of their NFIP application scheduled for July This municipality is not located within a floodplain so they have no ordinance recognizing one. However, they are pursuing NFIP participation for their residents ability to obtain homeowner s insurance. The various floodplain ordinances passed by the municipalities contain several interesting provisions that are noteworthy to mention in the LMS. The City of Apopka floodplain ordinance in, Section and 0.3 address standards for reducing flood hazards in areas covered in the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. An example of this is located in Section B 2 which states that all new construction and substantial improvements to the lowest level of the building shall be designed to equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for automatic entry and exit of floodwater. The City of Belle Isle, in Section , exempts the city from liability for any flood damage resulting from a larger flood that occurs on rare occasions. Also, under Section (4) the city requires that all new construction and substantial improvements be constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage. The City of Edgewood, in Section , covers standards for streams without established base flood elevations. These are areas located within identified special flood hazard areas but there is no base flood data. It requires that no encroachment shall be located within a certain distance of the stream bank. The City of Maitland s ordinance mirrors the other municipal ordinances. The City of Winter Garden, in Section of their floodplain ordinance, specifically addresses mobile homes in greater detail than the other municipal ordinances. Beyond simply anchoring mobile homes, Winter Garden requires that any new mobile home parks where the repair, reconstruction or improvement of the streets, utilities and pads equals or exceeds 50% of the value of streets, utilities and pads, they are required to: Stands and lots shall be elevated on compacted fill or on pilings. Adequate surface drainage and access for a hauler shall be provided. For elevation on pilings, the lots shall be large enough to permit steps. The City of Winter Park s floodplain ordinance is contained within their Environmental Protection Regulations. In Section the administration of this ordinance falls to the City s Building Official which differs from the other municipalities who usually assign this to the City Manager. 59

60 Floodplain Identification and Mapping The municipalities and jurisdictions listed here have, through local ordinance, taken steps to identify their floodplain areas and map them based on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps that are developed and distributed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. These jurisdictions include: City of Apopka, : Floodplains City of Belle Isle, Article V: Floodplains City of Edgewood, Chapter 106: Flood Damage Prevention City of Maitland, Chapter 6.5: Flood Damage Prevention City of Winter Garden, Chapter 90: Floods City of Winter Park, Article V: Environmental Protection Regulations Orange County Government, Article I: Orange County Floodplain Management Regulations The existing and projected floodplains for all of Orange County (including the municipalities) are included in INFOMAP, which can be accessed at: Community Assistance and Monitoring Activities The jurisdictions that have adopted NFIP by ordinance have some provisions in their ordinances for monitoring activities. A key component of monitoring includes the permitting process for new construction and remodeling. All of the jurisdictions identify specific steps builders and/or individuals should take to develop or not to develop on areas designated as a special flood hazard area. Community assistance can be interpreted as part of monitoring activities. Another example of community assistance which is available to all residents of Orange County is found in INFOMAP. INFOMAP, as noted earlier in this plan, is the county s GIS system. Information contained in this system is available to the public who have access to the internet. One of the layers in INFOMAP is the floodplain mapping. Individuals can also call Orange County s Stormwater Management Division to obtain more information on whether they reside in a floodplain. Orange County has also made the following information available on-line at: Flood Protection Tips ps.htm?wbc_purpose=basic Flood Insurance Rate Map Updates ate+map+updates.htm?wbc_purpose=basic Orange County Floodplain Management Plan ment+plan.htm?wbc_purpose=basic 60

61 Frequently Asked Questions Questions.htm?wbc_purpose=Basic The City of Apopka has been a member of the Community Rating System since 1987 and is currently rated as a seven. They currently do not conduct community assistance visits. However, the State of Florida conducts a review of their program every five years. The last time this occurred was in In regards to community outreach the City of Apopka sends to all in a floodplain or those obtaining flood insurance a detailed letter concerning the FEMA process. They also send letters to all financial institutions, real estate companies, insurance companies and home owner associations letting them know the City is available to assist in floodplain determination. The city also provides information on NFIP at the Orange County Library System, North Orange Branch in Apopka. Information is also available at the City of Apopka s Community Development Department s office during normal business hours. The city also has some information available on their website on flood preparedness at: 4 The City of Orlando is the only other participating municipality in the Community Rating System. They entered the program on August 30, 1974 and were last reviewed in They currently hold a class six designation. The City of Orlando is regularly in contact with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region IV representatives as well as our local ISO representatives; their last community assistance visit was conducted on July 20, The City has a comprehensive outreach program for public education as required by the NFIP. As part of their annual recertification process, the City sends flood information flyers distributed in Orlando Utilities Commission bills; informational letters are sent to each repetitive loss property owner explaining flood loss options; notification of the availability of floodplain information is sent to the Florida Bankers Association, the Realtors Association and the Florida Association of Insurance Agents; a complete library of floodplain information is kept at the public library and notification of the availability of FIRM maps is made periodically. The city has established on their website information that assists in educating the residents. This site is at: The Orange County municipalities and Orange County government continues to participate in NFIP through regular meetings and activities. The county and the municipalities meet yearly to discuss floodplain ordinances, mapping 61

62 updates and public information opportunities. These meetings have been conducted in concert with regularly scheduled Orange County OCERT Bi- Monthly meetings. This also includes a plan to address the repetitive loss areas, specifically the county and the municipalities meeting annually to determine where Federal mitigation grant programs can be utilized to address repetitive loss areas. The Orange County Public Works Department also posts on INFOMAP the current and projected floodplain areas in the county to include information on the municipalities. This information is also available to the general public. Repetitive Loss Properties For the purposes of this plan Repetitive Loss Properties are those insured under the National Flood Insurance Program. The Federal Emergency Management Agency established a Repetitive Loss Properties Strategy. The primary objective of this strategy is to eliminate or reduce the damage to property and the disruption of life caused by repeated flooding of the same properties. Orange County government and the municipalities are all participants in NFIP. As part of this commitment these jurisdictions are responsible for identifying repetitive loss properties. Orange County has identified seven repetitive loss properties; two of these sites are within the City of Orlando. Their locations are identified in Appendix D of this plan. A majority of these properties are in close proximity of large lakes which threatens these properties if the lakes overflow. Historically, these properties have reported multiple losses of property. One of them reported nine losses of property; three reported four losses of property and three reported two losses of property. One of these properties is susceptible more to rainfall accumulating on their roofs; the others are susceptible to water intrusion from the nearby lakes overflowing. The following municipalities do not currently have identified repetitive loss properties: City of Apopka City of Belle Isle Town of Eatonville City of Edgewood City of Maitland Town of Oakland City of Ocoee Town of Windermere City of Winter Garden City of Winter Park All of the properties identified are private residences and their information was recorded by the responsible municipality or Orange County government. These government agencies recorded the number of times flooding has 62

63 affected these residents. The NFIP Repetitive Loss Update Workshop is included in Appendix D. Mitigation Initiatives Orange County and its municipalities who are participating members in the LMS Working Group have agreed to the following prioritized list to maintain compliance with NFIP. The list below was developed, prioritized and approved by the LMS Working Group, Steering Committee: 1. Maintain all records pertaining to floodplain development. 2. Continue to notify the public when there are proposed changes to the floodplain ordinance or Flood Insurance Rate Maps. 3. Maintain the map and Letter of Map Change repositories. 4. Promote Flood Insurance for all properties. 5. Complete Community Rating System outreach programs 6. Encourage the relocation of homes and/or businesses in existing floodplains 7. Encourage protective work or relocation of properties designated as Repetitive Loss Properties 8. Encourage stormwater management projects that are aimed at lessening the effect of localized flooding There are several examples of these types of projects in Appendix F. NFIP Sanctioned Areas The Reedy Creek Improvement District which provides government and infrastructure services to the cities of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista is designated as a sanctioned area. They are continuing to work in concert with the State of Florida and Orange County to be designated as unsanctioned. H. Critical Facilities There are two definitions in place in the State of Florida of what constitutes critical infrastructure. The first is contained in the Scope of Work which forms the contract between the State of Florida and 67 counties. This scope of work is signed by the County Emergency Manager twice a year and allows the county to receive the Emergency Preparedness Assistance Base Grant from the State. The Scope of Work s definition is: Emergency Shelters Fire Rescue and Emergency Medical Stations Disaster Recovery Center fixed sites Other facilities as identified by the county The critical facilities within Orange County are identified via map in Appendix E. 63

64 The other definition in use was developed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and is contained in the National Infrastructure Protection Plan. The assets in the critical infrastructure category include systems, places and people that are needed to provide continuity of operations in eighteen potential sectors which are: Water Supply and Delivery Agriculture and Food Energy (other than nuclear) Chemical/Hazardous Materials Banking and Finance Transportation Postal and Shipping Telecommunications Information Technology National Monuments and Icons Emergency Services Government Facilities Healthcare and Public Health Commercial Assets Defense Industrial Base Dams Nuclear Power Critical Manufacturing The list of critical facilities compiled in accordance with the National Infrastructure Protection Plan is maintained by the Orange County Sheriff s Office and available to review only upon written request and only according to the Final Rule: Procedures for Handling Protected Critical Infrastructure Information. I. Jurisdiction Policies for Control of Vulnerabilities An important aspect of the vulnerability assessment process is to determine if the local jurisdictions have policies, plans, codes or requirements in place that are intended to avoid or minimize the vulnerability of the community to the hazards that threaten it. These policies and programs can take many forms, such as building and land use codes, hazard mitigation and emergency response plans, requirements for facility operations and maintenance, etc. If local government s policies, plans and requirements effectively address the hazards posing the greatest risk to the community, then the vulnerability to future disasters can be reduced. Just like the vulnerability assessment process being undertaken by the Orange County LMS Working Group for facilities, systems and neighborhoods, the assessment of the extent to which the policy framework 64

65 responds to the hazards of concern is another vehicle to identify the need for mitigation initiatives. In this case, however, the mitigation initiatives proposed by a participating local government jurisdiction would be non-structural in concept, i.e., the development of new plans, codes or policies to address the identified hazards and to reduce the present or future vulnerabilities of the community. 65

66 VII. Land Use Orange County is projected to be the fastest growing county among Florida s counties. In terms of future growth, about 63% of the projected growth by 2030 will be due to people moving into the county. In general, most population growth in the county from 1990 to 2000 occurred in four sub-regions. These regions are: Northeast Orange County, between the University of Central Florida and north of the Beachline Expressway (SR 528) Northwest Orange County, in the vicinity of the City of Apopka South Central Orange County, Hunters Creek, Meadow Woods and Falcon Trace Southwest Orange County, between Disney and south of State Route 50 Future population growth is anticipated to occur in already approved developments as well as in Horizon West, the Innovation Way Activity Corridor and within infill areas and activity centers located in the county s Urban Service Area. A. Land Use Findings Low density, single-family development is the major urban land use. Orange County s total area is approximately 1,003 square miles. Subtracting wetlands and surface water acreage brings the total land area to 580,000 acres. Commercial and Office land use in Orange County accounts for 10,683 acres or less than 3% of the developed urban area. Commercial areas are predominately associated with the distribution of products and services. This category includes retail and wholesale sales and services, professional 66

67 services, cultural and entertainment and tourist lodging. Institutional land use accounts for 27,934 acres. These uses include land in educational, medical, religious, military, correctional and governmental uses. Transportation and Utilities consists of airports, railroad stations and yards, utility facilities and major roads. Transportation accounts for 30,535 acres or 6% of the county s existing land use. Finally, residential land use accounts for 13% of the county s urban areas. Residential data can be divided into: Low density (80% of residential area) Low-medium density (11% of residential area) Medium density (9% of residential area) B. Future Land Use The Orange County Comprehensive Policy Plan, Destination 2030 has projected the potential land use for Orange County. Orange County s Residential Capacity Analysis underscores the need for retention of residential acreage and more housing options. Combined with the projected population of Orange County by 2030 the County s Planning Division estimates that a projected 150,000 new households would need to be accommodated within the existing residential land use. Projected commercial land use took into account the established gross and net demand estimates for commercial acreage through the year The analysis indicated a deficit of 198 acres in the county by Total office space by 2030 is anticipated to be 1,812 acres while total supply was estimated to be at 3,294 acres. The county will therefore have a surplus of 1,482 acres by Industrial land use has a projected need of 2,374 acres by Something worth mentioning regarding industrial land use is that viable neighborhoods in Orange County coexist with industrial land use. 67

68 VIII. Mitigation Responsibilities The Federal, State and local Government responsibilities for hazard mitigation create an interlocking framework of governmental involvement. This section describes the personnel involved in response, recovery, planning and hazard mitigation. A. Orange County Local Mitigation Strategy Working Group Florida Administrative Code 9G-22 requires each of the 67 counties to have a formal working group and an LMS. This working group is required to include: Representation from various agencies of county government which may include, but not be limited to, planning and zoning, roads, public works and emergency management Interested municipalities within the county Interested private organizations, civic organizations, trade and commercial support groups, property owners associations, Native American Tribes or authorized tribal organizations, water management districts, regional planning councils, independent special districts and non-profit organizations The Working Group shall have the following responsibilities according to 9G- 22: Designate a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson To develop and revise an LMS as necessary To coordinate all mitigation activities within the County To set an order of priority for local mitigation projects To submit annual LMS updates to the Florida Division of Emergency Management B. Orange County Office of Emergency Management This office is authorized by County Ordinance, County Regulation and Florida State Statute 252 to save lives and protect property through the administration of a comprehensive emergency management program. This office serves as the administrative officer of the LMS Working Group. C. Florida Division of Emergency Management FDEM is also responsible for hazard mitigation under 44 CFR, Part 206, Subpart M, Florida State Statute 252 and Florida Administrative Code 9g-22. FDEM appoints a State Hazard Mitigation Officer, who reports to the Governor or an authorized representative, and who serves as the point of contact for all matters relating to Section 409, Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee and Implementation. FDEM prepares and submits, in accordance with the FEMA-State Agreement and the requirements of this subpart, a Local 68

69 Mitigation Strategy(s) or updates to existing plan(s), as required under FDEM participates on the Hazard Mitigation Survey Team or Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team activated after a Federal disaster declaration. They arrange for appropriate state and local participation on the Hazard Mitigation Survey Team or Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team, follow-up with state agencies and local governments to ensure that appropriate hazard mitigation actions are taken and coordinate plans and actions of local governments to ensure that they are not in conflict with each other or with state plans. In addition, FDEM ensures that the activities, programs and policies of all state agencies related to hazard evaluation, vulnerability, and mitigation are coordinated and contribute to the overall lessening or avoidance of vulnerability to hazards. D. Federal Emergency Management Agency The Federal responsibilities for Hazard Mitigation Planning are outlined under 44 CFR, Part 206, Subpart M is assumed by FEMA. FEMA has oversight of all pre- and post-disaster hazard evaluation and mitigation programs and activities. FEMA is responsible for administering the hazard mitigation program. The hazard mitigation programs and activities include: the disaster preparedness improvement grant program, hazard mitigation assistance program, hazard mitigation grant program, leadership of hazard mitigation survey teams and interagency hazard mitigation teams; and planning activities conducted under Section 409. FEMA is also responsible for the appointment of a Federal Hazard Mitigation Officer for each disaster to manage hazard mitigation programs and activities. In addition, FEMA provides technical assistance to state and local governments in fulfilling mitigation responsibilities. 69

70 IX. Development of Mitigation Initiatives Once the information is added to the Mitigation Planning Software Program, it is considered a proposed initiative. The information used to characterize the initiative is submitted to the LMS Working Group for review. At this point, an initiative is considered to be a pending initiative that is being processed for incorporation into the plan, after which point it then becomes an approved initiative. Upon receipt of a pending initiative, the LMS Planning Committee first evaluates the merits of the proposal and the validity of the judgments and assumptions that went into its characterization, as well as considers its potential for conflict with other jurisdiction s programs or interests. The Planning Committee also assures that the proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives established for the planning period and confirms that it would not duplicate or harm a proposal submitted by another jurisdiction or agency. If there is such a difficulty with a proposed initiative, it is returned to the submitting organization for revision or reconsideration. Once the Planning Committee has reviewed and coordinated the submitted initiative, and is satisfied regarding its merit, it is forwarded to the Steering Committee as a proposed initiative for formal consideration regarding incorporation into the Orange County Local Mitigation Strategy. The Steering Committee again can assure that the proposed initiative is consistent with the goals and objectives for the planning period and would be beneficial for the community as a whole if and when implemented. If so, the Steering Committee then votes to incorporate the proposed initiative into the strategy. The proposed initiative is then considered to be approved, and officially becomes a part of the LMS. Updating the LMS Initiatives During routine updates of the Orange County Local Mitigation Strategy, each mitigation initiative included in the plan is evaluated to determine if it is still valid or should be removed from the plan, or whether its implementation should be a priority or deferred until a later time. This approach is considered to define the priority for implementation of a specific mitigation initiative, in the judgment of the planning group, intentionally to allow for the adjustment of implementation schedules to respond to changes in the community or environmental conditions expected in the near future. This process utilizes four categories of priority for implementation of an initiative: Current meaning that the Steering Committee recommends that the proposing agency or organization strive to implement the initiative as a part of their normal course of business. The current initiative are further prioritized by the following categories: 70

71 o Completed: This indicated the initiative has been completed and that the sponsor is continuously monitoring and maintaining it. o Going through the HMGP 2004 Grant Process: This indicates that this project was submitted for funding through HMGP and is currently still in process (final approval, design, construction, etc). o Pending: This indicates that the initiative is awaiting the allocation of funds to begin. o Partially Completed: This indicates that the project has been partially completed and is awaiting additional funds to complete it. o On-Hold: This project was placed on hold either because of lack of funds or other issues. Pending Initiatives refer to initiatives that have not been formally presented to the LMS Working Group for approval but will be in the near future. Deferred meaning that action for implementation of the initiative can be postponed until additional resources or time are available, or Terminated meaning that, for a variety of reasons, an initiative should be removed from the mitigation plan and no action taken for its implementation. In this way, the Orange County mitigation planning process objectively prioritizes proposed mitigation initiatives using an objective, fixed set of criteria, but has the flexibility to adjust the implementation schedule of the initiatives to respond to unique or unanticipated conditions. A. Priority Ranking for Proposed Mitigation Initiatives The LMS lists all of the mitigation initiatives currently in the order of their priority scores. The priority scores are based on 10 separate prioritization criteria used by all of the planning participants to allow the Orange County LMS Working Group to compare various mitigation initiatives. The specific priority scores are based on a numeric classification system explained in the following table: 71

72 Lowest Priority Highest Priority Numeric Score Priority Criterion Total Population Benefited Percentage of Population Benefited Cost of Initiative Cost Impact of Initiative Health and Safety Considerations Benefit to Cost Ratio Consistency with Other Plans and Programs Feasibility of Implementation Probability of Community Acceptance Probability of Receiving Funding Less than 10,000 people benefited Less than 5% benefited More than $1,000,000 More than $1,000,000 No benefit Less than 1.0 Not in any other documents or is in conflict Very difficult to accomplish Would be strongly opposed by nearly all No potential funding sources can be readily identified 10,000 to 25,000 people benefited 5% to 25% benefited $500,000 to $1,000,000 $500,000 to $1,000,000 Benefits up to 1,000 people Between 1.0 and 2.0 May have inconsistencies; Needs study Difficult to accomplish Would be strongly opposed by most Only potential source is a mitigation grant 25,000 to 75,000 people benefited 25% to 50% benefited $250,000 to $500,000 $250,000 to $500,000 Benefits 1,000 to 50,000 people Between 2.0 and 3.0 Is in at least 1 document and not inconsistent Somewhat difficult to accomplish Would be somewhat controversial Could be accomplished with local matching funds 75,000 to 150,000 people benefited 50% to 75% benefited $1 to $250,000 $1 to $250,000 Benefits 50,000 to 250,000 people Between 3.0 and 4.0 Is in at least 2 documents or consistent Not difficult to accomplish Would directly benefit those affected; no other adverse reaction Funding from local budget or grants 150,000 or more people benefited More than 75% benefited No Cost ($0) No Cost Impact ($0) Benefits more than 250,000 people Greater than 4.0 In at least 3 documents or highly consistent Easily accomplished within a year Would be endorsed by the entire community High probability for grant funding It is possible to see from this table that the minimum priority rank for a proposed initiative would be zero, while the maximum would be forty. As noted above, this priority ranking may differ from the priority for implementation assigned to a specific mitigation initiative based on unanticipated conditions or situations occurring at a certain time, which could change with such conditions. The priority ranking given through application of the ten criteria in the above table will remain 72

73 constant through time because of the inherent characteristics of the proposed initiative, unless those characteristics are also modified. All of the initiatives are listed by the priority score assigned to each as a result of the common process to characterize and prioritize mitigation initiatives that are used by all participants in the planning process. This priority score is a long-term characterization value directly associated with each specific initiative based on its own merits at the time it was first proposed by the individual participant. The priority score is intended to serve as a guideline for the LMS Working Group regarding the relative desirability of implementation of a specific mitigation initiative in relation to the other proposed initiatives incorporated into the plan. It also provides the estimated cost to implement each initiative, based on the calculations provided by the organization that would be responsible for this action. This cost can be used to assess funding opportunities as they arise to determine which of the higher priority initiatives could be implemented with the amount of financial support likely to be available. B. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Prioritization The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) provides grants to States and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the HMGP is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster. The HMGP is authorized under Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. The available HMGP funds shall be allocated to the counties included in the relevant presidential disaster declaration, as defined in Section (1), F.S., in proportion to each county s share of the federal disaster funding from the Public Assistance, Individual Assistance and Small Business Administration programs as of 90 days after the disaster declaration as reported by FEMA. Upon notification from the State of Florida to the OEM that HMGP funds have been allocated to Orange County a meeting of the LMS Working Group will be convened. The Working Group is responsible establishing a priority list of projects. The LMS Steering Committee is responsible for determining how to prioritize these projects. The projects to receive funding through HMGP must be listed as initiatives in the Orange County LMS. C. Benefit-to-Cost Ratio All mitigation initiatives entered into the Mitigation Planning Software Program receive a priority score and benefit-to-cost ratio estimated through the Mitigation Planning Software Program. A key analytical measure used by the Orange 73

74 County LMS Working Group is the benefit to cost ratio, which expresses the estimated benefits, in dollars, in comparison to the estimated costs to implement and maintain the proposed mitigation initiative. For an initiative to be considered cost effective, the dollar value of the benefits derived needs to exceed the costs to implement and maintain the initiative, or, in other words, the benefit to cost ratio should be greater than 1.0. The Mitigation Planning Software Program calculates a benefit to cost ratio. This process begins with the sponsor of a proposed mitigation initiative estimating the direct and indirect costs of the worst case disaster scenario that the mitigation initiative is intended to address. If the initiative were to be implemented these are the future costs that would be avoided, or, in other words, the benefits derived from implementing the initiative. Both direct costs of the disaster scenario are considered, such as structural damages, as well as indirect costs, such as lost wages. The total of the direct and indirect costs are then divided by the predicted life of the initiative, in years. This then gives the dollar benefits of the project on an annual basis. The cost side of the benefit to cost ratio is estimated by determining the estimated cost to initially implement the proposal, such as initial construction cost for a bricks and mortar project, or the development costs for a training program. This value is then divided by the predicted life of the initiative, in years, to give an annual cost to implement the proposal. To this amount is then added any annual costs that implementation of the project would incur, such as annual operations and maintenance costs or annual implementation costs. Next, the approach then considers any cost impact of the proposal, or the costs that would be incurred by others in the community due to implementation of the initiative, such as the economic effect on new construction of adopting a more stringent building code. The cost impact figure is also annualized by the life of the project, and then any annual cost impact values, such as an annual user fee or tax, is added to give a total annual cost impact. By dividing the annual costs of the benefits of the proposal by the annual cost and cost impact necessary to implement the proposal, a preliminary benefit to cost ratio is estimated. Again, this approach allows the LMS Working Group and OEM to quickly and easily derive a benefit to cost ratio that is suitable for planning purposes and for use in the local mitigation planning process. The preliminary ratio provides a simplified calculation of whether a proposal would be economically justifiable, based on whether the benefit-to-cost ratio is greater than one. If it is greater than one, the economic benefits of implementing the project exceed the economic costs of doing so. The LMS Working Group recognizes that there will be mitigation initiatives proposed to address public health and safety issues or for the protection of valuable cultural or environmental resources. These values cannot be readily defined as dollar amounts. Therefore the Mitigation Planning Software Program applies multipliers to the preliminary benefit to cost ratio to account for these factors. The first multiplier is to account for health and safety benefits of a 74

75 proposal, and the second is to consider the protection of valuable environmental resources that would be derived from implementation of an initiative. The two multipliers are applied in sequence to the preliminary benefit to cost ratio, beginning with the safety/health multiplier. The multipliers increase the preliminary benefit to cost ratio proportionally to the health/safety or resource protection value of the proposal. For example, in this way, retrofitting of a hospital or museum roof to withstand high winds, which may not have a preliminary benefit to cost ratio greater than one, and hence not be economically justifiable, can, after application of the appropriate multipliers, be seen as justified due to the safety/health or cultural resource benefit it will impart. After application of these multipliers, the Mitigation Planning Software Program refers to the derived ratio as the final benefit to cost ratio. The multipliers used for the predicted health and safety benefits of a proposed mitigation initiative are: 1. If there is no health and safety benefit: a multiplier of 1 is applied, which leaves the preliminary ratio unchanged. 2. If up to 1000 peoples safety and health would be benefited, the multiplier of 1.5 is applied 3. If up to 50,000 people would be benefited, a multiplier of 2.0 is applied 4. If up to 250,000 people would be benefited, a multiplier of 2.5 is applied 5. If more than 250,000 people would be benefited, a multiplier of 3.0 is applied. For the protection of valuable cultural or environmental resources by implementation of a proposed initiative, the following multipliers are then applied: 1. For no benefit to valuable resources, a multiplier of 1 is applied. 2. For a benefit to up to 10 acres of a valuable environmental resource and/or one culturally valuable structure, a multiplier of 1.1 is applied 3. For a benefit to up to 50 acres of a valuable environmental resource and/or two culturally valuable structures, a multiplier of 1.3 is applied 4. For a benefit to up to more than 50 acres of a valuable environmental resource and/or more than two culturally valuable structures, a multiplier of 1.5 is applied D. Sorting of Mitigation Initiatives The Mitigation Planning Software Program allows the LMS Working Group and OEM to designate what type of projects these initiatives are. The choices available on the system include: Equipment Modifications: This can include the modification of equipment purchased utilizing mitigation grants or through other funds to aid the 75

76 responsible agency in their role in the five phases of emergency management. Equipment Purchase: This entails the purchase of equipment for various reasons by the responsible agency. Other Non-Structural: Actions that can involve non-structural work on future and existing buildings. Examples can include efforts to elevate or relocate structures. Other Structural: Actions that involve the modification of existing buildings or infrastructure to protect them from a hazard, or removal from the hazard area. Examples include structural retrofits, flood proofing, storm shutters, and shatter-resistant glass. Personnel Training: This entails the training of personnel on their roles and responsibilities before and following an emergency and/or disaster. Policy/Code Development: Government administrative or regulatory actions or processes that influence the way land and buildings are developed and built. These actions also include public activities to reduce hazard losses. Examples include planning and zoning, building codes, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and storm water management regulations. Property Acquisition: This includes the purchase of public and private lands to lessen or eliminate the impact of hazards on the structures on these lands. Public Education: Actions to inform and educate citizens, elected officials, and property owners about potential risks from hazards and potential ways to mitigate them. Such actions include outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school-age and adult education programs. Structural Retrofit: This type of project involves retrofitting existing facilities to reduce the impact of a hazard on it. Structural: This project involves building a facility incorporating mitigation techniques into the construction. The following codes are included in Appendix F to designate the type of project: Equipment Modifications: (EM) Equipment Purchase: (EP) Other Non-Structural: (ONS) Other Structural: (OS) 76