The URL can be used to link to this page

Item D24 Revised 3/99 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: June 19,2002 Division: Public Safety Bulk Item: Yes X No 0 Department: Emergency Management AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of revisions and updates to the Monroe County Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS). ITEM BACKGROUND: The Local Mitigation Strategy is a document mandated by the Department of Community Affairs to promote disaster mitigation planning and activities in each community throughout the state. Through consensus achieved by participants from various County, municipal, and non-profit agencies, the LMS has been revised to include new mitigation activities that will enhance the community's ability to better prepare for and respond to natural and technological disasters. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: The BOCC approved the Monroe County Local Mitigation Strategy in June of 2000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. TOTAL COST: Q BUDGETED: Yes 0 No 0 COST TO COUNTY: Q REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes 0 No X AMOUNT PER MONTH YEAR APPROVED BY: COUNTY ATTY D OMB/PURCHASING D RISK MANAGEMENT D DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR APPROVAL: ~ ~ DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR NAME: ~ DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL: DIVISION DIRECTOR NAME: .::r~LS ., ,z,e ~I "- . o::s- ~~2- DOCUMENTATION: INCLUDED: X TO FOLLOW: 0 NOT REQUIRED: 0 DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM #: ~~/ June 2002 Annual Update Monroe County Local Mitigation Strategy Plan Presented by: Monroe County Local Mitigation Strategy Planning (LMS) Group The LMS group consists of a variety of individuals, community group members, and governmental agency members. The meetings are open to the public and we encourage anyone interested to attend and join the group. Mission Statement - The Mission of the Monroe County Local Mitigation Strategy Planning Group is to proyide sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long term risk to human life and property from natural and manmade hazards and their effects. Vision- The Vision of the LMSPG is to haye representation form all effected groups and municipalities to ensure active participation in an effort to achieye a thorough, up to date functional document listing priority projects to create a disaster resilient community. Members attending meetings in 2001-2002 is listed in appendix I The updated plan consists of a new log of prioritized projects and a description of new projects on the list (see appendix 2). The only other modification ofthe plan is the format ofthe project inclusion application. The Characterization Form for Characterization of Proposed Mitigation Initiatives was based on the state's suggested model plan Mitigation 20120 Software created by "emergency response planning & management inc." (see appendix 4). The actual new projects are in appendix 5. We have also included the ranking criteria for quick reference, please see appendix 3. This package contains the updated portions of the document. I I - Appendix 1 ~ OJ) ~ ~ ~ ~ -= = rJJ. 0 = J.. o~ ~OJ) ~ = OJ) .- ~~ ._ J.. ~ 0 --~ ~ ~ o ~ o.n a a - I o.n 0\ ('.I \0 - a - I o.n 0\ ('.I E '" 0 ::l to! .... ~ ~ N '" IZl - ~ :r: E ~ E t;: -< ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0 u .... u ~ ;:: .:g ~ ~ "" S S "l ,~ ~ '(; <lJ ~ E ~ .~ ~ C2 u "0 "" 0 <lJ "" .... ::: u ..0 .... '2 "" .... E "" '(; ,~ <lJ ....:l U -< -< a:l 0 -<:t 0\ r--- -<:t I ('.I o.n 00 - M -<:t ('.I I ('.I o.n 00 M 00 M \0 I N 0\ N 00 a -<:t - I M 0\ ('.I -<:t o.n -<:t N I \0 0\ N a ('.I M ~ a('.lr--- o.n ('.I \0 0\ ('.I \0 -M-<:t I I I ('.IM-<:t r--- o.n \0 00 00 \0 '0 o >.,..l::l _ C) .C CZl o >. -B E ::: ;l;l 0 -<0 >-, -u C':l en rIlgQ) .....:l ~ ~"O 0 ....... u' ... C':l I-< "0 0 "'" ""';l:::~>' .....:l o......:l O"'.g 0.";:: (.I...O~-<~CQu C) .C - C) Q) ~ >. ...... U ~ ~ $1 d) ~ >. 0I:l 0I:l Q) 0... I o U C) 'C ...... C) Q) @ ~ - o C) Z "0 U-l ::: Q) I-< ~..::= ...... 0 g ~~~ U-lCQ........ 8 ~!:::: C':l ~~u o.n a - a I -<:t \0 \0 r--- 00 \0 r--- r--- ('.I - 00 I I 0\ ('.I 00 0\ ('.I ('.I ('.I a - 00 ('.I - - 00 I I 0\ ('.I 00 0\ ('.I ('.I >. ::: ...... o en '0 Q) u ~ >. >. Q) Q) ~ ~ ....... ....... O,..l::l 0 og>. . _ ll) .'t: UCQu N C) .~ Q) 'm >. I-< o CQ "0 ~ I-< Q) .E C) C':l .....:l I >< .~ C':l ~ Q) .~ ~ ::: ::: -< r--- \0 \0 M I M -<:t r--- M M a a I M -<:t r--- ::: o ,..l::l 1a ~ ~ ....... o >. ...... U ...... ,..l::l 0I:l 'C ~ ::: '@ ~ ...... ...... .s E ~ ('.I ('.I - a I ('.I r--- 00 \0 0\ M -<:t o.n \0 ('.I \0 I I 0\ o.n 00 0\ ('.I ('.I \0 r--- a -<:t I ('.I r--- 00 a \0 a - o.n \0 N \0 I I 0\ o.n 00 0\ ('.I N en Q) ...... .E C':l ,..l::l u C) ...... '0 ,..l::l 1a u ...... ~~ E t::rIl ...... >. Q) Q) -:: ~ -< .u .... ::: rIl 0 g C':l >'CZl u~~~ Q)..... C) o~ ~.C S ~ .C S ~O~~ ...... ...... Q) ~ C) C':l I-< CQ C':l ~ I-< '@ CQ Q) ::: C':l 5 Q) 0. 0. C2 Q) t:: C':l 5 ...... > ~ '" '" ;:l Cl) ;:l ~ '" e; ~ '" B ;:l 0 ;:l '" 0 ~ ;:l .5 :5 0 - ~ vi .5 0 '" '(;j '" :J E E E 0 .,j I@ 0 - (,) E .... '(;j 0 .5 I~ (,) :J 0 (,) 0 "'0 @ ~ ~ vi :J ~ Cl) '(;j '0 0: .... 0 I~ '(;j s::: '0 t:: .,j E 0 0 ::c: c...i ~ g '" @ '" ~ s::: .... s::: ~ U ~ Cl) I~ (,) ~ s::: 0::: ~ ~ 0 "'0 0: 0: '" s::: "'0 - Cl) ...... o::l -< s::: ~ Cl) .~ 0: '" ;> .~ ~ "'0 vi s::: ':l ..... 0: ~ 0 .... :E ~ 0: (,) 5 Cl) .... u ~ Cl) ~ 0: e 0: 1: ~ CI:l o::l ::c: p... :;E ::c: .... :E " lrl C"l M r--- 00 --' M 00 00 M --' M M r--- ~ \0 0 0 I \0 r--- 00 0\ r--- 00 00 C"l M \0 --' 0 r--- C"l C"l r--- ~ 0 --' 0 M --' M M r--- ~ ~ C"l M C"l 00 0 M ~ 0 0\ 0 ~ \0 --' ~ ~ 00 ~ 0\ I I I I I I I I 1 I I .1 I I I M ~ C"l ~ C"l \0 0\ C"l 0\ C"l C"l C"l M lrl 0 ~ 0\ r--- 0\ 0\ 0\ 00 0\ 00 0\ 0\ r--- 0\ 0\ lrl r--- C"l 00 C"l C"l C"l C"l C"l C"l C"l C"l 00 C"l C"l 00 \0 C"l r--- 00 I M ~ r--- j j s:: s:: .9 ,9 ...... ...... ~ ~ > > "@ "@ CI:l CI:l CI) CI) ~ ~ E-< E-< --' --' \0 lrl 1 ~ 0\ C"l 0\ --' M C"l 1 C"l r--- 00 p. ~ u ~ CI) CI:l lrl --' 00 lrl I ~ 0\ C"l CI) u ~ 4-< o CI.l ~ u CI.l ....... ;:l CI) o ob s:: o U lrl ~ M C"l I ~ \0 \0 u ~ ::E M M o ~ I \0 0\ C"l r--- --' ~ lrl I M ~ r--- 00 lrl \0 C"l ~ M ~ \0 1 I C"l 0\ 0\ 00 C"l C"l o 00 00 M I \0 0\ C"l C"l \0 lrl ~ I C"l 0\ C"l \0 lrl ~ ~ I C"l r--- 00 C"l 00 ~ ~ I C"l 0\ C"l C"l ~ ~ ~ 1 C"l 0\ C"l CI.l CI.l o I-; U "'0 CI) ~ s:: ~ u 'C CI) S -< <<-< o I-; CI) .0 ~ ~ U CI) s:: u o I-; ~ CI) ~ S I-; S ~ 0 ::Eu 0/) s:: 'C CI) CI) s:: '50 s:: ~ u ::E >. u s:: >........ ~ ...... 0/) , s:: '=::' CI) ;:l~ CI.l o ..... s:: u G 0 CI) E U OO/)CI) I-; I-; I-; ~ CI) ;:l o S ~ ::E~z CI.l >. o .-::: .~ a >. , S ...... CI) ;:l 5 CI:l ::r: oel-; U'S t8 CI) ;:l ...... ~ S .~ ~s.o o 0 ~ ::Eu::r: --' ~ \0 o I M 0\ C"l CI.l >. ...... u s:: s:: ~ CI) I-; 0/) d I-; >. CI) ~ 1:: S ~.E g E .b d'U 0 0::1 0 CI) . '':;: 0 ,~ ~ ~ 2~ 0 ti: ~8~::Eti::E CI) I-; I-; 0 0 CI) 0/) ::E ~ ~ S I-; - U I ~ ~ 0 s:: ~ CIl 2 ...... "'0 4-.. ...... 0 0/) CI.l "'0 CI.l ~ ~ d:> 0 I-; ~ t:: CI.l I-; ~ U t:: ~ ~ ...... 1:: CI.l t:: s:: u CI) I-; t:: CI) CI:l t:: t:: 'S 0/) ..9 "'0 co CI) "'0 0 CI) CI) I-; ~ ~ ~ ~ CI) ~ ri: ...... 'g t:: CI) "@ ::I t:: ::r: ...... t:: ~ co 0 0 CI) :>.. ::l ;:;s ;:;s ......"l CI) ~ .....; >. ~ ~ ::r: ~ CI.l ~ CI) CI.l ...... I-; t:: P. 'C "5 0- ~ ~ g. u ~ 1:::: a > ~ CI) CI) ~ CI) ~ ~ ;:;s ;:;s a co ...... CI) ...... U co >-, CI:l >-, U -=: co CI:l 0 ell :3 ~ ~ ell "0 E ell :3 ell .... ~ ;:I 0 ell ~ u E 0 0 ell E S 0 ~ 0 I ~ Vi 0 ~ S .J:; l::: C! I@ ~ ~ 0 ~ E E CO "0 '0; ~ .c ell I~ '0; .J:; (';l 0 :: E I@ ~ ell ~ 'N u U.:>t:. :9 0\ "0 ):! I~ ~ @)O@ N Q Q (1) l::: ....J '~ \0 ~ E-< ~ ~ > (';l "0 ~ ~ ~ .?: ell ..... o "'0 .... ...... ~ .....:l ~ ~ "3 "0 U U ell U :3 ::;e ::;e ell 0 Cl '..... (]) N ...... U on CO 01 01 M N I ~ M \0 III ~ M N I ~ \0 \0 4-0 o (1) on ~ - > (';l~ "'0 (';l ~ (/J ~] cnc;; ...... ...... 01 o 00 \0 I N 01 N 1.0 M III N I 01 00 N III ~ r- 1.0 I N 01 N 1.0 o III N I 01 00 N ..... N N ..... I N 01 N 1.0 00 o o I ~ 1.0 \0 M 01 ..... III I III 01 N U "'0 '..... l::: ~::o ~ E~C~ (1) ...... (1)...... .......1::...... I-< .;:7on.;:7 .......0...... :9 l::: (';l l::: 15 ..c::: .g :.a ~8~ ~"5..c::: U 8::E8 8<u 4-o0~(1)..c:::<1) (1)~,_~ '..... 0 ...... 0 (/J 0 ,::: 0 -E-.;;:: ~ ~ ~~ ~~..c::: (1) ~ 0 2 0 0 0 0 ~ Cl~::EO::E~::E::r:U (1) U tt3 l::: 0 o ~(/J '.c l::: U 0 2 (/J ...... ~ ~ l:: o . 0 u~UJ U@: l::: ::E::E~ ...... (/J (1) ~ >, (1) ~ 4-0 o >, ...... u 1: (/J (';l >'0 ~co (';l l::: ..... 0 ~..c U (';l .1:: ~ o (1) ...... (/J ,~ e ::r:~ >, .E o ..c::: ...... ~ (';l on l::: 'Cii ~ o ..c::: ~ ~ I:: o ..c::: ~ ~ ::E 4-0 o >, ...... u (/J (/J (/J >, E (1) 2 I-< (';l U I:: (1) (1) 'N (1) "'0 (';l >, E :5 (1) c.:J .N (/J > I-< 'I:: (1) 0 (';l (';l I-< (1) (';l U (1) 0 I-< (1) (';l ~ l::: 0 ~ I-< ~ H I:: .....:l (1) I:: ::E ';; P=1 c.:J U ~ "'0 (1) co ~ 'I:: > (1) 0 - (1) ..c::: (/J H :.0 >, ~ 01) b (1) (';l (';l ~ ...... "'0 c.2 ..c::: ~ "'0 I:: ..c::: on H ;.a (1) U U ..0 I:: ~ (1) (1) 0 ::l ::l .... ~ P2 Q (1) :.:5 0 I-< 0 (1) N ....., ~ ~ Cl Cl ~ 0 ....., c.:J Appendix 2 M C C M ~ o ~ ~ ~ en ~ > ~ V) V) V) V) V) V) 0 0 0 V) 0 V) 0 V) 0 0 0 V) V) V) V) 0 V) V) V) V) 0 0 V) 0 0 0 V) V) V) 0 0 V) 0 N N 0 00 00 00 \0 \0 \0 V) V) M M N N N N .... .... .... 0 0 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 00 l"- I"- I"- \0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 "<t "<t "<t "<t "<t M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N '" ... = '0 =-- CI.l CI.l CI.l 0 0 0 Z Z Z -< -< -< -l -l :r: -l :r: CI.l CI.l CI.l .- .- U .- U ..... ..... -< ..... -< 0 -l >- >- 0 -l -l u.l -l 0 u.l u.l -- Z 0 >- -< 0 -< <: <: 0 0 Z 0 :s z >- ~ >- ~ -l ~ ~ >- >- ~ ~ > > >- >- >- -l ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ >- >- f-< 0 >- ~ >- CI.l CI.l -l CI.l CI.l CI.l -l CI.l CI.l -l CI.l CI.l -l -l CI.l Z ~ u.l ~ u.l z :> u.l u.l Z ~ ~ u.l U ~ ~ ~ f-< f-< Z :> U u u.l u.l 0 Z u.l U ~ f-< u.l :> 0 z z ~ u.l Z ~ 0 5 ~ 5 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 5 5 ~ 0 u.l u.l 5 5 0 0 0 ~ ~ u 0 ~ 0 5 5 ~ u 0 0 5 ~ 0 ~ <: ~ CI.l CI.l ~ -< ~ <: f-< ~ ~ - z z ~ 0 >- 0 >- >- 0 >- >- >- 0 0 >- CI.l 0 0 0 >- 0 CI.l CI.l >- >- >- >- >- CI.l 0 0 >- Cl >- >- >- 0 >- >- 0 ~ u u.l u u.l <: ~ u.l u.l <: u u u.l C2 0 0 u u u <: ~ C2 C2 u.l u.l u.l -< u.l C2 u u u.l ~ u.l <: <: u u.l -< U ~ ~ -l ~ ~ -l ~ ~ u U -l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -l ~ ~ ~ ~ -l -l ~ -l ~ u.l u.l ..... u.l u.l ~ ~ u.l u.l u.l ..... u.l u.l u.l u.l 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... ..... ..... 0 0 ..... I 0 0 0 ..... 0 I , ..... ..... ..... ..... I 0 0 ..... 0 ..... ..... ..... 0 ..... ..... 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ::E 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ::E 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ::E 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ Co-' Z >- Z >- >- <: >- >- >- z z >- -l ~ Z Z Z >- <: >- >- >- >- >- -l Z Z >- <: >- >- >- z >- >- z ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ -l ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ <: ~ 0 0 0 ~ -l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 f-< -l f-< f-< f-< 0 f-< ~ 0 0 ::E t3 ::E t3 t3 CI.l t3 t3 t3 ::E ::E t3 ::E z ::E ::E ::E t3 CI.l ::E ::E t3 t3 t3 t3 t3 ::E ::E ::E 0 CI.l t3 0 0 ::E t3 t3 ::E .- .- .- CI.l ~ u.l ~ U ~ 0 u Cl ~ ~ CI.l f-< CI.l -< u.l f-< u.l CI.l Gi' <: u.l u.l CI.l u.l ::E ~ CI.l ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 z u.l CI.l ~ u5 ~ ::E u.l CI.l -l u.l <: :s ~ ~ 0 0 ~ CI.l ~ Z 0 CI.l -l U ~ Z 0 ~ u ~ ~ z ::J 0 u.l 0 ~ ~ u.l ::l ~ u.l u.l 0 >- ~ >- ~ 0 CI.l u.l 0 CI.l 0 u.l ~ ::E CI.l z u.l 0 >- 1: .- ~ 0 ~ ..... -< 0 z ~ ::E > ~ ~ -< t3 t3 z ~ u.l .- ~ <: 0 0 0 ~ u.l > ~ ~ z ::J ~ ..... <: 0 ~ ~ ::E :r: ~ u.l 0 u.l 0 CI.l Z ~ CI.l 0 > <: 0 0 CI.l ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ CI.l ~ U ~ ~ ::E u.l <: u u.l ~ 0 ~ ~ ::E ~ z u.l ~ C2 ~ 0 u ~ ~ -< ~ <: 0 <: ~ u.l f-< ~ ~ ~ CI.l u.l ~ ::E ~ u Z ..... ..... ::E z 0 0 0 u.l ..... >- ~ u.l 0 >- 0 u.l -- ti 0 ~ .- ~ ~ ..... .- ~ CI.l ~ u.l ::E u.l >- u.l 0 Z u.l ~ ..... z >- 0 >- u > ~ > 0 u.l Z ~ ~ 0 ..... u.l <: <: ~ <: 0 ..... CI.l u.l 0 0 z u.l 0 ~ ~ z u.l u.l CI.l -l Z t3 z ~ 0 I 0 2 u.l ~ Z 0 0 <: u ~ 0 Z f-< ~ ::J z 0 ~ CI.l ~ U ~ Z z ti <: c<l CI.l @ :r: ~ ~ 0 .- u 0 u ~ <: -< :?; -< u.l ::E I -- f-< -- -l 0 CI.l' Z ~ 0 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ CI.l CI.l Z ~ -l CI.l ::E ~ G 0 u.l ..... CI.l u.l 0 u.l -l ~ ~ u.l ~ 0 u.l ~ u.l CI.l ~ C2 CI.l ~ ~ ~ -l ~ Z ~ Z ~ ~ <: :r: ~ <: u.l u.l ~ ~ ~ CI.l ~ ~ ::J -l CI.l u.l ~ 0 ::E u.l f-< ~ 0 ::E u ~ u.l u.l >- 0 <: u.l ~ u.l u.l ~ V) -l CI.l U -< ~ -< ~ ~ u.l ~ U 0 :?; ~ ~ u.l u.l > ;;... ~ 0 >- .- -l Z U Z ..... u.l <: ~ ~ CI.l ..... ~ ~ u.l CI.l U 0 <: ~ ~ 0 ~ z ..... <: 0 CI.l ~ ~ u.l CI.l ~ co <: ~ CI.l u.l u.l ~ u.l ~ ..... ~ ~ 0 z 0 :r: ::E ::E CI.l u ~ ~ ~ z Z f-< >- > 0 > 0 ~ u ~ 0 0 CI.l CI.l ~ 0 f-< CI.l 0 >- ~ <: <: ~ ~ 0 0 CI.l U u.l ~ Z ~ ~ ~ 0 u.l 0 ti u.l ~ u.l u.l u.l Z co u 0 <: -l ~ ~ 2@ z z ~ ~ CI.l ~ U .- .- z 0 CI.l -l u.l ~ Z 0 f-< u.l ~ CI.l 0 ::E ~ CI.l :?; u.l c<l c<l u.l ~ Z ~ ~ 0 I 0 -< 0 <: CI.l ~ ::E 0 CI.l ~ <: <: ~ u.l ~ U CI.l ::E =-- CI.l 0 ::E <: 1= ~ >- ~ u.l 0 Z >- Z Z ~ 0 co ~ < 0 0 0 ~ 0 CI.l ~ ~ u ~ z ~ ~ CI.l u.l u.l u.l ~ ::E u ~ 0 z u.l ~ 0 u u u ...... CI.l -< 0 ::E <: 0 >- ~ ~ u.l 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 = u.l U u.l Z CI.l u.l CI.l <: u -l -l ~ ~ u 0 ~ 0 u.l -l ~ -l ~ U Co-' ~ ~ 0 ::J ..... u.l ~ u.l 0 :r: 0 ::E ~ <: <: u.l u 0 z ..... <: ::E -l co u.l co ~ CI.l ~ -< ~ -l ~ ~ 0 ~ z u.l ~ CI.l ..... -l - 0 >- f-< ~ >- >- 0 > -< u.l u.l ::E ~ u.l ~ -< ~ = ~ u.l -l -l ~ ~ ~ CI.l tI: u ~ u ~ u <: <: ~ :r: ~ u.l z ::E f-< CI.l 0 CI.l U u.l u.l ~ :r: ~ <: -l CI.l ~ CI.l ~ u.l ::E U) ::E -l 0 ::E > 0 <: >- CI.l CI.l CI.l ~ I Z u.l 0 >- Z -l Z CI.l Z Z ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 z ~ z CI.l CI.l 0 ::c: -< z ::E ~ <: z .- ~ <: 0 -l <: ~ 0 r- ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ u.l CI.l u.l c<l u.l CI.l u.l <: 0 .- -l -l u.l ~ -l >- >- :r: u 0 u.l u 5 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ::E u.l ~ 0 > ::E u > ~ <: ~ ..... u.l u.l u.l ::J ~ 0 ~ u -- f:::; ~ -- <: ~ ti ~ ~ u.l ~ :r: u CI.l 0 >- 0 0 ~ u.l > -l > ::E :r: 0 ~ ~ z t3 u.l <: ~ -l 0 CI.l ~ u.l ::E u.l u.l Z co ::E CI.l >- ~ <: z 0 u.l ~ u.l u.l 0 ~ U -l 5 0 u.l 1= ~ u 0 ..., c.:: 0 u.l Z ~ ::E 0 N U ::E <: ::E ..... ~ -- z 0 u.l f-< ~ <: -l 0 U 0 u.l 0 ti 0 CI.l Z 0 ~ u.l 0 <: ~ u -l <: ~ ~ ~ tI: ~ u.l 1= > ~ CI.l 1= 0 1= -l Z ~ 0 z ~ CI.l ::E E u u.l u.l u.l S :r: ~ ~ u.l u.l ~ 0 ::E ~ 0 z u.l 0 CI.l U) u <: u.l ~ u.l Z ~ > ~ u.l ~ u.l 0 u.l ..... u.l -l u.l 0 c.. :r: u.l 0 >- ~ >- >- u 0 ~ <: u.l ..... u.l S >- :r: ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ -l co u.l u CI.l z <: u.l u ~ ~ 0 0 0 -< ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ::E ~ 0 ~ r- > CI.l r- r- u.l u r- f-< ~ ~ r- CI.l ;:J z 5 >- z ~ 5 >- 5 0 ~ ::E ~ ~ u.l 0 -l u.l co 5 >- u.l -l ~ ~ u.l >- >- -l ~ ~ .- w w r- ::E f-< ~ ~ w U 0 r- CI.l ~ 0 r- <: w ~ w ~ -l Z 0 0 ~ ::E -l CI.l W 0 W -< w :r: z 0 ~ >- 0 ~ w > w 0 0 0 t3 w 0 ti ~ ~ -l > ~ -< r- ::E 0 t3 z CI.l 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ..... c<l ~ ~ w ..... 0 z z ti 0 w ~ =-- u w -- 0 -l ::J f-< -< -< -< -< ~ -< 0 ..... ~ 0 tI: tI: 0 0 ..... 0 f-< ~ f-< -l W ~ ::E u ~ u 0 w ::E =-- ::E 0 ~ 0 0 S2 -l ~ 0 ~ 0 0... ~ W ~ 0 ::E z -< ~ CI.l -< co -l -< -< w :r: :r: :r: ~ :?; = 0:::: 0:::: 0:::: w CI.l 0:::: ~ 0 0 <: 0 ~ u u u u ~ CI.l Z z ::E z :> z >- -< w ~ ~ u.l -l ..... Z ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ UJ 0 > z ~ 0 ~ -l -l 0 0 ~ -l ::J CI.l 0 iZl CI.l ~ -< iZl iZl ~ -< 0 ~ 0:::: 0:::: 0 >- ~ iZl -l W W u.l W ~ W 0 W W 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 w ~ 0 iZl -l u.l -< W .....l ~ ~ ~ ~ u.l ~ -< ....:l 0 ~ ::E ~ ~ 0 iZl 0 U ~ ::E ~ u ~ ::E 0 iZl U ~ ~ ~ ~ w ..... ~ w ~ p.., 0... 0... 0... 0... ~ ~ ~ u.l .- .... N M '<t" V) 1.0 I"- 00 0\ 0 .... N M '<t" V) 1.0 I"- 00 0\ 0 .... N M '<t" V) 1.0 I"- 00 0\ 0 .... N M '<t" V) 1.0 I"- 00 0\ .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M N o o N iZl r- u UJ .., o IX C- o UJ iZl o C- o IX C- iZl ~ :::! iZl ~ :::! :::.i N Q Q N ~ o ~ ~ ~ r.IJ. ~ > ~ 0 0 0 0 V) V) <:> 0 0 V) V) V) 0 V) V) V) V) V) V) 0 0 V) 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... 0 0'1 t- V) 1.0 N t- t- t- t- 1.0 V) N - 0 0'1 0'1 1.0 V) V) N 0 0 N N N ..... ..... ..... Q'\ M M N N N N N N N N N ..... - ..... - - ..... ..... - lI'l ...,. 0 r-:- t- j Z Z ;>; t-< -< -< E-< 2 ::r: .....l .....l ~ CI.l CI.l CI.l 0 ;>; u .... .... .... 0 ::r: -< .... .... .... CI.l t-< t-< ~ 0 0 0 ~ E-< ;:J .....l ~ o::l ~ ~ ~ ~ z -< .... -< z 0 >- 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ z -< -< -< 0 ~ Z t-< f:: t-< ~ t-< 0 >- .....l t-< .....l t-< >- >- t-< >- >- >- .....l t-< t-< ~ >- >- .... CI.l CI.l CI.l .....l Z Z .....l CI.l .....l CI.l CI.l .....l CI.l CI.l ~ 0 Z t-< t-< CI.l ~ U ~ == z ~ 0 t-< >: ~ >: ~ t-< t-< ~ f-o f-o f-o >: ~ ~ Q 0 ~ ~ ;:J ~ 25 ~ 0 0 ~ U ~ 0 0 ~ ~ S ~ ~ S S z ~ ~ r"'l ~ .... 0 .... .... !:: f-o -< -< ;:J -< E-< 0 0 ::r: >- CI.l >- == E-< >- >- 0 >- 0 >- 0 >- 0 0 >- 0 0 0 0 >- >- ~ E-< ~ U U t-< ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u -< -< ~ ~ ~ ~ u u ~ u u u ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ CI.l ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ .....l .....l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 E-< .... ~ z 0 0 ~ .... I .... ~ .... .... 0 .... .... 0 .... 0 .... 0 0 .... 0 0 0 0 .... .... ~ Q -< ~ ~ ~ 0 f:: 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 ::E 0 ::E 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ::E 0 0 -< ~ 0 Z Z >- >- .....l >- E-< 0 >- >- Z >- >- -< >- -< >- Z Z >- Z Z Z -< >- >- E-< ~ 0 0 ~ t-< ;:J t-< 0 ~ t-< t-< 0 f-o f-o .....l f-o .....l t-< 0 0 t-< 0 0 0 .....l t-< t-< 0 0 ::E ::E ~ 0 ::E 0 E-< 0 0 0 ::E 0 0 CI.l 0 CI.l 0 ::E ::E 0 ::E ::E ::E CI.l 0 0 E-< ~ .... .... .... ~ u Ui f0- Ul ~ :1 ~ t-< ~ CI.l 0: -< Ul CI.l 0 .... :s 0 '-"' CI.l t-< ~ Z .... CI.l f-o ~ .... >- ::E z .....l CI.l CI.l 0 .... ~ ~ >- ::E .... u CI.l ~ - 0 ~ CI.l -< f-o ~ Q -< .....l f-o f-o .... z 25 r"'l ::E p... >- Z f-o ::E CI.l ~ ;;J ::r: Eo-< >- ~ z ::E p... z u ~ ~ >- CI.l ::E -< 0 ~ ~ U .... Z U 0 CI.l ~ ~ ~ .... >- E-< 0 .... o::l Z ~ z 25 CI.l t-< .... f-o Z o::l ~ ~ gj CI.l 0 ;:J .... .... -< 0 f-o >- p... CI 0 .....l 25 z ~ ~ ;:J 0 ~ 0 CI ;;2 ~ Eo-< CI.l ::E ~ gj CI.l ~ 0 ~ Z CI.l Z -< f:: S gj CI.l ;;2 >- 0 >- 0 ~ ~ Z 0 .... ~ 0 .... 0 E-< Z -< ~ .... Z 0 ::E 0 0 ;:J 0 Z 0 f:: ~ f::; ~ 0 > CI.l CI.l ~ t-< p... ~ f:: 0 t-< 25 0 0 .... CI.l 0 0 CI.l :3 f-o U U f-o ~ ~ Z ~ .... .....l U 2 0 Eo-< .... ~ -< CI.l .... ~ ~ Z .....l ~ 0 ~ CI p... 0 :3 CI.l ~ ~ 0 u Z 0 ..... ~ 0 ~ f:: ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~ o::l f-o Z 0 0 ~ f-o f-o 0 ;;J -< z ~ 0 z f:: t-< 0 :>< < z ~ == gj z -< .... u .... 0 ~ -< gj .....l ~ ::r: -< p... CI.l ~ Q f:: ~ ::E ;;2 -< z ~ ~ u ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ::r: p... ~ .... CI.l ~ ~ Z t-< r"'l Z -< f-o ::E >- ~ f:: r;j -- .....J p... ~ U .... ~ 0 ~ p... ;;2 CI.l ~ -< ;:J 0 -< CI.l ::E u -< -< ~ f-o Z CI.l ::r: CI.l 25 CI.l ~ t-< ~ ::r: ~ f:: E-< ~ 0 f-o U .....J >- CI.l ::E CI.l ;:J t-< -< ;:J p... 0 ~ ;:J -< 0 ~ 0 0 U CI.l p... -< U CI.l CI.l ~ U ~ .... 0 CI.l -< ~ ::r: ~ ~ U .... f-o Z 0 ~ ~ Z ~ CI.l f:: .... ~ ~ .... .....J ~ ~ f-o ~ 0 "'":l CI.l -< z ::E "'":l .....J ~ CI.l .... Z f-o ~ ~ CI.l -< 0 0 ::r: ::E CI.l u 0 N 0 -< 0 ~ 0 ;:J ;:J 0 -< -< ~ -< ~ 0 ~ -< -< ~ 0 -< 0 ::E ;:J t-< 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ f-o ::E ::r: ~ CI.l .... Z Z .....l ~ ~ ~ .....J Ei:: ::E ::r: f-o .....l ::E ~ ::E p... ;:J CI.l ~ ~ -< CI.l ~ CI.l -< -< ~ ~ >- -< -< .... p... ~ ~ ~ >- ::E 0 0 ~ .... CI.l Q >- 0 Z 0 .....J .....J Q > ::E t-< Z .....l 0 gj f-o > ~ 0 U .....J 0 ;:J Z ~ 0 .....J ~ Z p... @ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 U ~ ::E S ~ f-o ~ @ ::r: .....J -< ::E f-o 0 0 ~ Z 0 CI.l 25 ~ N 0 CI.l f:: z -< f-o -< .....J ~ 0 0 0 CI.l f:: 0 f:: ~ .... 0 CI.l ;;2 ~ 0 0 >- 0 ;;2 ~ .....J f-o >:; ::E >- -< CI.l U 0 .... ::E f:: ~ ~ U ~ 0 Z ~ f-o CI.l u P2 ;;2 >- ;;2 Z U f-< f-< f-< Z U 0 >- -< ~ 0 ::E 0 CI.l 0... 0 .... .... ~ ~ ~ :::> CI.l CI.l .... ~ ;;2 -< ~ ~ u ::E ~ ~ ;:J ~ ~ ;:J f-< .... ~ 0 0 0 0 f-o ~ ~ .... f- f-< CI.l CI.l Z t-< CI.l >- U Z -< 0 -< ~ Z >- Z :;; CI.l -< :;; ~ ~ 0 .....J .....J ::E 0 ~ 0... f-< ~ CI.l ~ -< ~ ~ f-< t-< ~ -< ;:J 8 f-< ~ t-< ~ gj ~ .....J gj ;:J 0 .....l p... ~ CI.l 0 CI.l CI.l .....l ~ o::l .... CI.l ~ 0 CI.l ~ ::E CI.l ~ ~ ~ ::r: u .... 0 - N M '<T V) 1.0 t- oo 0'1 0 - N M '<T V) 1.0 t- oo 0'1 0 - N M '<T '<T '<T '<T '<T '<T '<T '<T '<T '<T V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 N o o N Ul fo- U Ul (3 c:.: C- o Ul Ul o C- o c:.: C- Ul ~ :::! Ul ~ :::! ~ Appendix 3 LMS PROJECT EVALUATION & PRIORITAZATION PROCEDURES & INFORMATION Procedures to Prioritize Municipal and County Miti2ation Initiatives The following criteria have been selected and prioritized by the Working Group to evaluate mitigation initiatives. Weighting factors have been assigned to certain criteria, Other criteria are included to provide necessary project information. The Local Mitigation Strategy is a "work in progress". As such, the Working Group may make adjustments to this section as the process continues. Recommended Local Mitigation Strategy Proiect Evaluation and Prioritization Criteria 1. Meeting LMS Goals and Objectives (Consistency with Guiding Principles) And Number of Goal(s) met- Points awarded from Goals and Objectiyes List to a maximum of 150 points, 2. Percentage of population seryed by the project (permanent population) - 20 points if up to 10% served, 40 points if up to 25%, 60 points if up to 40%, 80 points if up to 65%,100 points ifup to 80%, 130 points ifup to 100%. 3. Type and Number of Hazards Addressed. - points awarded from Hazard List priorities to a maximum of 110 points (listed below). 4, Cost Effectiyeness - Based on Cost/Benefit Analysis developed by the applicant using LMS Criteria provided below*). A ratio of 1 to 1 will receive 20 points, thereafter, each increase will receive an additional 10 points e.g, 1 to 2 ratio will receive 20 points, etc.) 5. *Economic Benefits - 30 points if economic benefit is demonstrated 6. * * Social Benefits - 20 points if social benefit is demonstrated, 7. Environmental Benefits - 20 points if environmental benefit is demonstrated, 8, Time Frame - 20 points if 6 months or less. 10 points if 6 months to one year. 5 points if one to two years. 0 points if more than two years. 9. Financial Feasibility- YesINo 10. Technical Feasibility - YesINo 11. Funding Availability - YesINo, 12. Legal Authority - YesINo 13, Consistency with Plans, Codes, Ordinances, Policies, etc. - YesINo >l:Economic Benefits are those s"4;~h as business operations.F n:nprpve debris removal and re to'their customers. **Social Benefits 'are those th stalling shutters in a com , . e c hazard impacts in public parks. Monroe County LMS Working Group Hazards List Priorities And Evaluation Points 1. Tropical Cyclones, Hurricanes, Tropical Storms, Tropical Depressions, and other Severe Weather - 20 points . Floods . Tornadoes . Wind 2. Utility OutageslDisruption - 15 points . Electric Power . Water . Sanitation 3. Transportation Disruption - 10 points 4. Economic Emergencies - 10 points 5. Communications Disruption - 10 points 6. Mass Immigration - 5 points 7. Hazardous Materials Incidents - 5 points 8. Coastal Oil Spills - 5 points 9. Radiological Emergencies - 5 points 10. Epidemiological Emergencies - 5 points 11. Drought - 5 points 12, Wildland Fires - 5 points 13. Terrorism/Civil Disturbance - 5 points 14, Military Conflict - 5 points Elements for LMS Cost/Benefit Analysis Land-Based, Construction and/or Equipment Projects 1. Estimated Project Cost: 2. Expected Useful Life of the Project 3. Frequency of the hazard the project is designed to address, and if applicable accumulated cost of past repairs from emergency events both declared and undeclared 4. Estimate of direct and indirect benefits . Casualties -Estimate the number of deaths and injuries, which could be avoided by the mitigation action. . Damage -Estimate the amount of physical damage for both structural and non-structural portions of the project. . Contents Damage -Provide an estimate of the physical damage to a building's contents, . Displacement Cost - Estimate the projected amount of rental and other costs incurred when the facility is not in use. 5. Monetary Value . Assign a dollar value to primary damage, including contents. . Assign dollar values to ancillary damage such as social benefits, environmental damage, and loss of function. 6. Disaster Frequency -Document the years of repeated occurrence of the hazard also indicate declared disasters. 7. Determine costlbenefit ratio and include in project proposal. Non-Construction Projects, e.g. Planning Studies, Maps, Public Information and Education, etc. 1. Estimated Project Cost: 2. Frequency of the hazard the project is designed to address, and if applicable accumulated cost of past repairs from emergency events both declared and undeclared 3. Estimate of direct and indirect benefits Describe Economic Benefits of project and provide approximate percentage of benefits, Describe Social Benefits, of project and provide approximate percentage of benefits, (For example, studies relating to ways to address disaster-related business loss may have 100% economic benefit, etc,) Describe Environmental Benefits of project and provide approximate percentage of benefits. 4. Disaster Frequency -Document the years of repeated occurrence of the hazard also indicate declared disasters, 5. Determine cost/benefit ratio Elements for LMS Cost/Benefit Analysis Non-Construction Projects, e.g. Planning Studies, Maps, Public Information and Education, etc. Example #1: Proposal to conduct professional countywide study to determine the short and long-term effects of salt water on local landscaping. The study will include recommendations for prevention of future loss of vegetation. 1. Estimated Project Cost: $30,000 2. Frequency ofthe hazard the project is designed to address, and if applicable accumulated cost of past repairs from emergency events both declared and undeclared Local vegetation is affected by salt-water spray in events involving high winds, especially hurricanes and serious storms, This problem occurred from Hurricane Georges, September 1998 and Tropical Storm Mitch, November 1998 and will occur in any future wind event. Such events have a high frequency of occurrence, 3. Estimate of direct and indirect benefits . Describe Economic Benefits of project and proyide approximate percentage of benefits- Protection of vegetation from the detrimental effects of salt water could result in 100 % benefit due to reduction in loss of landscaping. . Describe Social Benefits, of project and provide approximate percentage of benefits. - Protection of vegetation from the detrimental effects of salt water could result in 100 % benefit due to prevention of landscaping loss, . Describe Enyironmental Benefits of project and provide approximate percentage of benefits. - Protection of vegetation from the detrimental effects of salt water could result in 100 % benefit due to protection of natural landscaping. 4. Disaster Frequency -Document the years of repeated occurrence of the hazard also indicate declared disasters. - Hurricane Andrew, August 1992,Hurricane Georges, September 1998 and Tropical Storm Mitch, November 1998 and will occur in any future wind event. Such events have a high frequency of occurrence, 5. Provide dollar value estimate oflong-term benefit - Determining a means to protect or prevent negative effects of salt water on county vegetation could result in saving approximately $1 million dollars of lost landscaping, 6, Determine costlbenefit ratio (divide project cost by benefit cost) - 1/3 Hypothetical Examples: Scores are based on "Procedures to Prioritize Municipal and County Mitigation lni tiati ves" . Example Number 1: Proposal to conduct professional county-wide study to determine the short and long-term effects of salt water on local landscaping, including recommendations for ways to prevent future vegetation loss. 1, Meeting LMS Goals and Objectives (Consistency with Guiding Principles) Points awarded from Goals and Objectives List to a maximum of 150 points, Project meets Preseryation of Property and Assets, Preservation of the Economy- 20 points 2, Percentage of people served by the project (permanent population) - Percentage of people served - 100% of county population - 130 points 3. Type and Number of Hazards Addressed, - Number of points awarded from Hazard List Priorities. Addresses Hazard #1 for 20 points and Hazard #12 for 5 points - 25 points 4. Cost Effectiveness - Based on CostlBenefit Analysis developed by the applicant using LMS Criteria proyided below*). A ratio of 1 to 1 will receiye 10 points, thereafter, each increase will receive an additional 10 points e.g. 1 to 2 ratio will receive 20 points, etc,) - 1/3 cost benefit ratio = 30 points 5. Economic Benefits - 30 points if economic benefit is demonstrated - Project is designed to identify means of preserving landscape a vital part of the county's allure for tourism - 30 points 6. Social Benefits - 20 points if social benefit is demonstrated - the entire Key's society could benefit from protection of county vegetation - 20 points 7. Environmental Benefits -20 points if enyironmental benefit is demonstrated - saving trees and plants is critical to the environment. 8, Time Frame - 20 points if 6 months or less, 10 points if 6 months to one year. 5 points if one to two years. 0 points if more than two years. - Project time frame is two years - 5 points 9, Financial Feasibility - Yes/No - Yes 10. Technical Feasibility- Yes/No - Yes 11. Funding Availability - Yes/No - Yes 12. Legal Authority - Yes/No- Yes 13, Consistency with Plans, Codes, Ordinances, Policies, etc, - Y es/N 0- Yes Total Number of Points = 280 Example Number 2 - Proposal by Municipality X to install emergency generators in all local business establishments within the municipality's jurisdiction, 1. Meeting LMS Goals and Objectives (Consistency with Guiding Principles) Points awarded from Goals and Objectives List to a maximum of 150 points. Project meets Preservation of Property and Assets and Preservation of the Economy - 20 points 2, Percentage of people served by the project (permanent population) - Percentage of people served - 100% of municipal population - 130 points 3. Type and Number of Hazards Addressed, - Number of points awarded from Hazard List Priorities. Addresses Hazard #1 for 20 points, Hazard #2 for 15 points, and Hazard #6 for 10 points - 45 points 4. Cost Effectiveness - Based on Cost/Benefit Analysis developed by the applicant using LMS Criteria provided below*), A ratio of 1 to 1 will receive 10 points, thereafter, each increase will receive an additional 10 points e.g. 1 to 2 ratio will receive 20 points, etc.) - 1/3 cost benefit ratio = 30 points 5. Economic Benefits - 30 points if economic benefit is demonstrated - Project is designed to identify means of preventing business closures from power losses after a disaster. - 30 points 6. Social Benefits - 20 points if social benefit is demonstrated - If businesses could remain open this would assist the local population by providing stores, restaurants, etc. for them to use following a disaster. - 20 points 7. Environmental Benefits -20 points if environmental benefit is demonstrated - No environmental benefits - 0 points. 8. Time Frame - 20 points if6 months or less, 10 points if6 months to one year. 5 points if one to two years, 0 points if more than two years, - Project time frame is six months - 20 points 9. Financial Feasibility - Yes/No - Yes 10. Technical Feasibility- Yes/No - Yes 11. Funding Availability - Y es/N 0 - Yes 12. Legal Authority - Yes/No- Yes 13, Consistency with Plans, Codes, Ordinances, Policies, etc. - Yes/No- Yes Total Number of Points = 295 Elements for LMS CostlBenefit Analysis Land Based, Construction and/or Equipment Projects Example #2: Proposal by Municipality X to install emergency generators in all local business establishments within the municipality's jurisdiction 1. Estimated Project Cost: $750,000 2. Expected Useful Life of the Project - 20 years 3. Frequency of the hazard the project is designed to address, and if applicable accumulated cost of past repairs from emergency events both declared and undeclared - Municipal power outages are likely to occur from high winds, especially hurricanes, serious storms, and tornadoes. This problem occurred from the tornadoes that occurred in 1997, Hurricane Georges, September 1998 and Tropical Storm Mitch, November 1998 and will occur in any future wind event. Such events have a high frequency of occurrence. 4. Estimate of direct and indirect benefits . Casualties -Estimate the number of deaths and injuries, which could be avoided by the mitigation action, - 0 . Damage -Estimate the amount of physical damage for both structural and non-structural portions of the project. - 0 . Contents Damage -Provide an estimate of the physical damage to a building's contents, - 0 . Displacement Cost - Estimate the projected amount of rental and other costs incurred when the facility is not in use. - If businesses could not be used for two weeks following an event because of lack of power, estimated economic losses for municipal businesses are approximately $1 million 5, Monetary Value Assign a dollar value to primary damage, including contents, - 0 Assign dollar values to ancillary damage such as social benefits, environmental damage, and loss of function. - $1.5 million including economic loss and social benefit to residents, 6. Disaster Frequency -Document the years of repeated occurrence of the hazard also indicate declared disasters. - This problem occurred from the tornadoes that occurred in 1997, Hurricane Georges, September 1998 and Tropical Storm Mitch, November 1998 and will occur in any future wind event. All of these events resulted in declared disasters, 7, Determine cost/benefit ratio (divide costs by benefits dollar) value and include in project proposal. - $750,000 divided by 2,500,000 = 1/3 Appendix 4 Monroe County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Characterization of Proposed Mitigation Initiatives Characterization Instructions Purpose Central to the Monroe County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan are the proposed mitigation initiatives that the participating jurisdictions and organizations would implement when resources become available to do so, It is through implementation of the proposed mitigation initiatives that the communities of Monroe County will become truly disaster resistant. The purpose of this form is to provide a method for participating jurisdictions and organizations to document and characterize the mitigation initiatives that they have proposed, and to introduce them into the Mitigation 20/20™ database for processing by the Monroe County LMS Planning Group, Who should complete this form: This form should be completed by representatives of the agency or organization desiring to propose the initiative, with the intention of implementing it when resources become available, The form can be most effectively completed by those jurisdiction or organization personnel that are very familiar with the involved facility, system or neighborhood that is the subject of the proposed initiative, These individuals can provide the type of informed judgment and site-specific information that will be needed to complete this form, Information and predictions will be needed regarding the details of the initiative, costs and benefits of the proposed initiative, the environment in which it is to be initiated, and the characteristics of the people and community infrastructure it is intended to benefit. Jurisdiction and/or organization personnel that have access to this type of information would be the most suitable to complete this form, The Scope of the Mitioation 20/20™ Initiative Characterization Process: The mitigation initiative characterization form requests a substantial amount of information, Like the other forms used in the Mitigation 20/20™ software program, it is intended to rely on the best judgment of informed individuals, who base their findings on reasonable assumptions, estimates and approximations, During the development of a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, proposed mitigation initiatives only need to be characterized in a preliminary manner, suitable for an initial planning document and involving a commensurate level of effort. As funding or implementation opportunities become available for the proposed initiative, the information contained in this form will create a starting point for development of specific, detailed information necessitated by the funding agency and its budget documentation requirements, In most cases, it is anticipated that the form could be completed with a few hours of effort by a knowledgeable individual. C:\OOGuments and Settings\amannix\My Oocuments\LMS Characterization edited FORM.doc 1 Copynghl, 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All nghls reserved Several of the computations necessary for the initiative characterization process, as well as most of the prioritization criteria, are automated in the Mitigation 20/20™ program, Therefore, this form only requests the necessary input information and, upon entry of the data, these factors will be calculated, While the form will be incomplete in the sense that several of the prioritization results are not shown, the output of the Mitigation 20/20™ program and the Monroe County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan will reflect all of these results. SUQQested Approach: It is suggested that the LMS Planning Group support staff make several copies of this form available to representatives of all participating jurisdictions at the beginning of the planning period. Key organizations may also wish to develop proposed mitigation initiatives, and they will also need copies of these instructions and the form, By distributing the form early in the planning process, it will be available for use throughout the planning process at any time the participant wishes to develop and submit an initiative, In order to complete the Monroe County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the information will be needed by the LMS Planning Group staff for entry into the Mitigation 20/20™ software program, The LMS Planning Group support staff will also need to provide training to representatives of the jurisdictions in how to develop the initiatives and complete the forms. A deadline for submittal of completed forms should also be set, and this deadline should be consistent with allowing time for the support staff to enter data and prepare the next edition of the plan, Individuals intending to complete the forms will need, in most cases, the following types of information: . One copy of the form for every mitigation initiative to be proposed, . A copy of the LMS Planning Group's statements of planning goals and objectives for the current planning period, · Vulnerability information regarding the facility, system or neighborhood of concern, · Information regarding the characteristics of the initiative intended to be proposed, such as what it will be, its likely cost, the needed permits, etc, using the form as a guide, · Information and estimates regarding the intended benefits of the proposal, such as the damages to be avoided, the number of people to be benefited, the economic benefits, etc, · LMS Plan Goals/Ranking Criteria - filled out based applicant's suggested rankings. Upon receipt of the completed forms from the jurisdictions and other participating organizations, the support staff must then enter the information from each into the LMS ranking program in order to complete the process, The characterization form is attached, C\Documents and Settings\amannix\My Documents\LMS Characterization edited FORM,doc 2 Copyright, 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights reserved Monroe County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Characterization of Proposed Mitigation Initiatives Characterization FORM Jurisdiction Name: Date form completed: Organization/agency submitting initiative: Contact Individual Name: Address: Is this initiative new or a revision of an earlier initiative? (0 one) New 0 Revision 0 If it is a revision, give the LMS Planning Group identification number of initiative: I. INITIATIVE DESCRIPTION Initiative Name: Briefly describe the initiative: If the initiative is structural or involves a specific location, attach a map showing the location, 0 if map is attached: 0 Write the goals and objectives established by the Local Mitigation Strategy Planning Group is most applicable to this initiative: 0' the category of the initiative: 0 Structural 0 Non-structural 0 Mixed/both C:\Documents and Settings\amannix\My Documents\LMS Characterization edited FORM,doc 3 Copyright. 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights reserved Describe the "worst case" disaster scenario and its direct and indirect impact on the facility, system or neighborhood to be protected by the proposed initiative: (Be Concise) What is the dollar value of the total direct losses for damages or destruction to the facility, system or neighborhood likely in this scenario: $ Attach Cost to Benefit Analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses) What is the dollar value of the total indirect losses (e,g" lost job income, lost revenue, extra operating costs, etc,) likely in this scenario: $ Attach Cost to Benefit Analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses) Total of direct and indirect losses under this scenario: $ Will the initiative avoid or prevent all of these direct and indirect losses0? 0 yes 0 no If no, what percent decrease in losses can be estimated? % What is the adjusted direct and indirect losses under this scenario (The total of direct and indirect losses multiplied by the percentage of decrease in losses): $ How many people would be injured, sickened or killed in the "worst case" scenario without this initiative? injured, sickened, killed Are there valuable cultural, historic or environmental resources that would be protected by the initiative?0: yes 0 no 0 If yes, list or describe these resources: II. INITIATIVE BENEFITS Is a designated "critical facility" to be benefited by the proposal?0: yes 0 no 0 If yes, give the following information for each facility benefited: Facility Name/Description Type of Critical Facility Identification Number Describe the consequences of the total or partial loss of the critical facility(ies) listed in the "worst case" scenario: For all types of proposed initiatives, including those for protection of critical facilities, give the following: 1, Number of people directly and indirectly benefited: 2. Percentage of the jurisdiction's population or organization's client based benefited: % 3, Number of structures to be benefited: 4, Total estimated value of the structures and contents: $ 5, Number of businesses to be benefited: C\Documents and Settings\amannix\My Documents\LMS Characterization edited FORM,doc 4 Copynght. 2001 emergency response planning & management. inc. All nghls reserved 6. Total estimated number of employees benefited: 7. Valuable environmental resources to be protected?0: yes 0 no D 8. Valuable cultural or historic resources to be protected?0: yes 0 no 0 If #7 or #8 are "yes," provide the following: Name of resource Location/address Size Current Status (acres, # of (Registered. structures, protected, etc.) etc,) IV. COST OF THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE Estimate the total cost to implement to proposal (for design and construction, construction management, purchase and installation, etc.) $ What is the anticipated useful life of the proposal? years Calculate the annual cost to implement the proposal? (Divide the cost to implement the proposal by its useful life): $ per year Estimate the annual cost to maintain or service the proposal: $ per year Determine the total annual cost to implement and maintain the proposal (Add the annual cost to implement the proposal to the annual cost to maintain the proposal): $ per year Briefly explain any important assumptions or estimates used to develop the annual cost to implement the proposal: ~ THE COST IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL Some mitigation initiatives could result in costs to others for their implementation, in addition to costs to the proposal's sponsor or the organization that implement the proposal, This section allows the "cost impact," if any, to be estimated, No cost impact is foreseen from implementation of the proposal (0 for correct): D Estimate any initial or immediate cost impact of implementation: $ Estimate the annualized immediate cost impact of implementation (Divide the initial cost impact by the useful life of the proposal): $ per year Estimate any ongoing, annual cost impacts amounts: $ per year Calculate the annualized cost impact of the proposal (Add the annualized immediate cost impact to the annual ongoing cost impacts): $ per year Identify the group most likely to bear this cost impact (Check all that apply): C:\Documents and Settings\amannix\My Documents\LMS Characterization edited FORM,doc 5 Copyright. 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights reserved ." Grou D Educational institutions D Retail businesses D Service businesses D Manufacturers D Tourism businesses VI. COMPARISON OF BENEFITS TO COSTS ." Grou D Health care facilities D Local overnment D Public safet or anizations D Local Utilities D Other: A. List the total annualized cost of "not taking action" or not implementing the proposal is (This is the adiusted direct and indirect losses divided by the useful life of the proposal) (Specify Design Storm) $ per year B, Give the total annualized cost to implement (From above): $ per year C. Give the total annualized cost (with inflation) with impact of implementation (From above): Inflation rate - average consumer price index increase for 10 years. $ per year Calculate the preliminary benefit to cost ratio (Divide "A" by the sum of "B" + "C"): The preliminary benefit to cost ratio only considers values that can be measured in dollars. The Mitigation 20/20™ approach considers "intangible" benefits of the proposed initiative as well, such as lives saved and injuries prevents, as well as valuable environmental or cultural resources protected, This is done by applying "multipliers" to the preliminary benefit to cost ratio to increase it to a level commensurate with the intangible benefits it would derive, These multipliers are the following: Multi Iier Value 1.0 1,5 Public Health and Safet Factor No benefit Benefits up to 1,000 people Multi Iier Value 1,0 1,1 2,0 Benefits 1, to 50,000 people 1,3 2,5 1,5 Valuable Resource Factor No benefit Benefits less than 10 acres or one structure/site Benefits 10-50 acres or two structures sites Benefits more than 50 acres or more than 2 structures 3,0 Calculate the adiusted benefit to cost ratio for the proposal (multiply the preliminary ratio by the applicable multiplier listed in the table): VII. FEASIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTATION Check the statement that most applies to this proposal regarding its consistency with other applicable plans, programs or policies of the jurisdiction or proposing agency (Le, State Emergency Management Plan, Capital Budget, LMS, Plan, Comprehensive Plan): C:\Docurnents and Settings\arnannix\My Docurnents\LMS Characterization edited FORM.doc 6 Copyright. 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights reserved o The proposal is listed in at least 3 other documents or is highly consistent with other plans o The proposal is listed in at least 2 other documents and is consistent with other plans o The proposal is listed in at least 1 other document and is not inconsistent o The proposal is not listed in any documents o The proposal is in conflict with other documents (list conflict) o The proposal may have inconsistencies and needs more analysis If applicable, list any documents that support this proposal or type of proposal, giving the following: Document Title Issued by Date issued I Section or page edition number for number proposal reference List the permits and approvals likely to be needed for implementation: o No permits or approvals required o Local permits/approvals: o State permits/approvals: o Federal permits/approvals: Estimate how long it will take to complete implementation of the proposal: years Check the statement that most accurately describes implementation effort needed for this proposal: o The proposal would be relatively easy to accomplish o The proposal is not anticipated to be difficult to accomplish o The proposal is somewhat difficult to accomplish o The proposal is difficult to accomplish o The proposal if very difficult to accomplish Check the statement that most accurately describes how the community would react to the implementation of the proposal: o The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community o The proposal would benefit those affected, with minimal adverse reaction from others o The proposal would be somewhat controversial o The proposal would be strongly opposed by most o The proposal would be strongly opposed by nearly all If the proposal would be expected to be generally acceptable to the community, are there special interest groups or stakeholders that would oppose it?0: yes 0 no 0 If yes, identify these groups: VII. FUNDING SOURCES C:\Documents and Settings\amannix\My Documents\LMS Characterization edited FORM.doc 7 Copyright, 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights reserved Check the single most appropriate category of funding for the proposal from the list below: ,/ Fundino Cateoorv ,/ Fundino Cateoorv ,/ Funding Categorv D Agricultural assistance D General funding sources D Retrofit public/historic structures D Alternative power D Infrastructure systems D Rivers/streams - restoration/preservation D Codes/ordinances D New public buildinQs D Stafford Act (HMGP) D Communications D Parks/natural area D Stormwater/flood control development/preservation structures D Dune restoration - D Plans and procedures D Training - emergency erosion control services D Emergency response D Public education D Wetlands development equipment and restoration If existing funding sources for the proposal have been identified or are very likely to be used, identify them here: Check the statement below that most accurately defines the funding situation for the proposal: o No potential funding sources can be readily identified o The only non-local potential funding source is federal hazard mitigation grant money o Partial funding could be accomplished with local matching funds (budget or grants) C:\Documents and Settings\amannix\My Documents\LMS Characterization edited FORM,doc 8 Copyright, 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights reserved Appendix 5 LMS PROJECT PRIORITIZA TION FORM OLD MARINER'S HOSPITAL HURRICANE SHUTTERS Points 1, Meeting LMS Goals & Objectives & Number of Goals met ~~~~I~~~~Jj~~t\t~~~~J~l A. Preservaton & Sustainability of Life Health, Safety & Welfare - 50 Pts 50 B, Preservation of infrastructure from hazard-related damage - 30 Pts 30 c. Minimize damage & maintain roads & bridges during a disaster - 30 Pts D. Protection of critical facilities from hazard-related damage - 10 Pts 10 E. Preservation of property & assets from future losses - 10 Pts 10 F. Preservation of economy during times of disaster - 10 Pts 10 G. Preservation and protection of the environment - 10 Pts 2. Percentage of permanent population served by the project: )1~~1i~Jf:',I~~~~~% A. Up to 10% 20 Pts B. 11 to 25% 40 Pts C, 26 to 40% 60 Pts 0, 41 TO 65% 80 Pts E, 66 to 80% 100 Pts F, 81 to 100% 130 Pts 130 3, Type and number of hazards addressed: li~~~~I(~{~~\~\~'! A. Hurricanes and other severe weather 20 Pts B. Utility outages or disruption 15 Pts 15 C, Transportation disruption 10 Pts 10 D. Economic Emergencies 10 Pts 10 E. Communications disruption 10 Pts 10 F. Mass immigration 5 Pts G. Hazardous materials incidents 5 Pts 5 H. Coastal oil spills 5 Pts 5 I. Radiological emergencies 5 Pts 5 J, Epidemiological emergencies 5 Pts 5 K. Drought 5 Pts L. Wildland fires 5 Pts M. Terrorism/Civil disturbance 5 Pts 5 N. Military conflict 5 Pts 5 4, Cost effectiveness based on Cost/Benefit Analysis: ~i~~:}!I~?i;1$ji~~~:~~ A. Ratio of 1 to 1 10 Pts B. Ratio of 1 to 2 20 Pts c. Ratio of 1 to 3 30 Pts D. Ratio of 1 to 4 etc, 40 Pts 40 5. Economic Benefits f!J~~I~~~.li~~{ A. If economic benefit demonstrated 30 Pts 30 6. Social Benefits ';W~f~{tr~tt~~i~u~l A. If social benefit is demonstrated 20 Pts 7. Environmental Benefits A. If environmental benefit demonstrated 20 Pts 8. Time Frame 'oc, A. Six (6) months or less 20 Pts 20 B. Six (6) months to one year 10 Pts C, One to tYJO years 5 Pts 9, Financially feasible? YES or NO YES 10. Technically feasble? YES or NO YES 11. Funding Available? YES or NO YES 12, Have legal authority: YES or NO YES TOTAL POINTS 425 old mariners hospital shutters.xls4/1/02 Monroe County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Characterization of Proposed Mitigation Initiatives Characterization FORM Jurisdiction Name: Monroe County Date form completed: 02/20/02 Organization/agency submitting initiative: Monroe County Contact Individual Name: Don Miner Address: 1100 Simonton Street - Rm 2-216, Key West, Florida 33040 Is this initiative new or a revision of an earlier initiative? (0 one) New [8] Revision 0 If it is a revision, give the LMS Planning Group identification number of initiative: I. INITIATIVE DESCRIPTION Initiative Name: Old Mariner's Hospitial- Hurricane Shutters Briefly describe the initiative: Remove and replace existing hurricane shutters with new shutters to meet Cat. 5 wind load requirement. If the initiative is structural or involves a specific location, attach a map showing the location. 0 if map is attached: [8] Wnte the goals and objectives established by the Local Mitigation Strategy Planning Group is most applicable to this initiative: Protect building from potential storm damage. o the category of the initiative: 0 Structural [8] Non-structural 0 Mixed/both .st_'v.1S\/\pp:lcatlcns\Mariner's Hospital Shutters.doc Copyright, 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights reserved 3 Describe the "worst case" disaster scenario and its direct and indirect impact on the facility, system or neighborhood to be protected by the proposed initiative: (Be Concise) Destruction of Department of Health Facility serving the Upper Keys and destruction of Police Operation Facility necessary to protect citizens from all hazards. What is the dollar value of the total direct losses for damages or destruction to the facility, system or neighborhood likely in this scenario: $ Attach Cost to Benefit Analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses) What is the dollar value of the total indirect losses (e.g., lost job income, lost revenue, extra operating costs, etc.) likely in this scenario: $ Attach Cost to Benefit Analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses) Total of direct and indirect losses under this scenario: $ Will the initiative avoid or prevent all of these direct and indirect lossesli'1? 18I yes 0 no If no, what percent decrease in losses can be estimated? % What is the adjusted direct and indirect losses under this scenario (The total of direct and indirect losses multiplied by the percentage of decrease in losses): $ How many people would be injured, sickened or killed in the "worst case" scenario without this initiative? injured, sickened, 150killed Are there valuable cultural, historic or environmental resources that would be protected by the initiative?li'1: yes 0 no 18I If yes, list or describe these resources: II. INITIATIVE BENEFITS Is a designated "critical facility" to be benefited by the proposal?li'1: yes 18I no 0 If yes, give the following information for each facility benefited: Identification Number Describe the consequences of the total or partial loss of the critical facility(ies) listed in the "worst case" scenario: Loss of Police Operations Center, and County/State Medical facility serving the community. For all types of proposed initiatives, including those for protection of critical facilities, give the following: 1. Number of people directly and indirectly benefited: 0 2. Percentage of the jurisdiction's population or organization's client based benefited: 100% 3, Number of structures to be benefited: 1 D\My Fiies\U\llS\Applications\Mariner's Hospital Shutters,doc Copyright, 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc, All rights reserved 4 4, Total estimated value of the structures and contents: $ 5, Number of businesses to be benefited: 5 6, Total estimated number of employees benefited: 125 7. Valuable environmental resources to be protected?0: yes 0 no C8l 8, Valuable cultural or historic resources to be protected?0: yes 0 no C8l If #7 or #8 are "yes," provide the following: Name of resource Location/address Size Current Status (acres, # of (Registered, structures, protected, ete,) ete.) i IV. COST OF THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE Estimate the total cost to implement to proposal (for design and construction, construction management, purchase and installation, etc.) $ 175000 What is the anticipated useful life of the proposal? 25years Calculate the annual cost to implement the proposal? (Divide the cost to Implement the proposal by its useful life): $7000 per year Estimate the annual cost to maintain or service the proposal: $0 per year Determine the total annual cost to implement and maintain the proposal (Add the annual cost to implement the proposal to the annual cost to maintain the proposal): $7000 per year Briefly explain any important assumptions or estimates used to develop the annual cost to implement the proposal: None V. THECOSTIMPACTOFTHEPROPOSAL Some mitigation initiatives could result in costs to others for their implementation, in addition to costs to the proposal's sponsor or the organization that implement the proposal. This section allows the .cost impact, " if any. to be estimated, No cost impact is foreseen from implementation of the proposal (0 for correct): I:8J Estimate any initial or immediate cost impact of implementation: $ 0 Estimate the annualized immediate cost impact of implementation (Divide the initial cost impact by the useful life of the proposal): $0 per year Estimate any ongoing, annual cost impacts amounts: $0 per year Calculate the annualized cost impact of the proposal (Add the annualized immediate cost impact to the annual ongoing cost impacts): $0 per year ;: ;::-;:es,UvlS\App!ications\Manner's Hospital Shutters.doc COpyright, 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights resllfVed 5 Identify the group most likely to bear this cost impact (Check all that apply): ./ ./ Grou D D Educational institutions D D Retail businesses D D Service businesses D D Manufacturers D D Tourism businesses ./ D VI. COMPARISON OF BENEFITS TO COSTS A. List the total annualized cost of "not taking action" or not implementing the proposal is (This is the adiusted direct and indirect losses divided by the useful life of the proposal) (Specify Design Storm) $ per year 8, Give the total annualized cost to implement (From above): $ per year C, Give the total annualized cost (with inflation) with impact of implementation (From above): Inflation rate - average consumer price index increase for 10 years. $ per year Calculate the preliminarv benefit to cost ratio (Divide "A" by the sum of "B" + "C"): The preliminary benefit to cost ratio only considers values that can be measured in dollars. The Mitigation 20/20™ approach considers "intangiblen benefits of the proposed initiative as well, such as lives saved and injuries prevents, as well as valuable environmental or cultural resources protected. This is done by applying "multipliersn to the preliminary benefit to cost ratio to increase it to a level commensurate with the intangible benefits it would derive, These multipliers are the following: Multi Iier Value 1,0 1,5 Public Health and Safe Fador No benefit Benefits up to 1,000 people Multi Iier Value 1.0 1.1 2,0 Benefits 1, to 50,000 people 1,3 Valuable Resource Fador No benefit Benefits less than 10 acres or one structure/site Benefits 10-50 acres or two structures sites Benefits more than 50 acres or more than 2 structures 2,5 1.5 3,0 Calculate the adiusted benefit to cost ratio for the proposal (multiply the preliminary ratio by the applicable multiplier listed in the table): VII. FEASIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTATION Check the statement that most applies to this proposal regarding its consistency with other applicable plans, programs or policies of the jurisdiction or proposing agency (Le. State Emergency Management Plan, Capital Budget, LMS, Plan, Comprehensive Plan): o \My Fiies\LMS\Applications\Mariner's Hospital Shutters,doc COPyright 2001 emergency response planning & management. inc. All rights reserved 6 ~ The proposal is listed in at least 3 other documents or is highly consistent with other plans o The proposal is listed in at least 2 other documents and is consistent with other plans o The proposal is listed in at least 1 other document and is not inconsistent o The proposal is not listed in any documents o The proposal is in conflict with other documents (list conflict) o The proposal may have inconsistencies and needs more analysis If applicable, list any documents that support this proposal or type of proposal, giving the following: Document Title Issued by Date issued I Section or page edition number for number DroDosal reference Mainer's CD's Capital Plan List the permits and approvals likely to be needed for implementation: o No permits or approvals required ~ Local permits/approvals: o State permits/approvals: o Federal permits/approvals: Estimate how long it will take to complete implementation of the proposal: Oyears Check the statement that most accurately describes implementation effort needed for this proposal: ~ The proposal would be relatively easy to accomplish o The proposal is not anticipated to be difficult to accomplish o The proposal is somewhat difficult to accomplish o The proposal is difficult to accomplish o The proposal if very difficult to accomplish Check the statement that most accurately describes how the community would react to the implementation of the proposal: ~ The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community o The proposal would benefit those affected, with minimal adverse reaction from others o The proposal would be somewhat controversial o The proposal would be strongly opposed by most o The proposal would be strongly opposed by nearly all If the proposal would be expected to be generally acceptable to the community, are there special interest groups or stakeholders that would oppose it?0: yes 0 no t8l If yes, identify these groups: .~ ~ -' Fiies\UV1S\App!ications\Mariner's Hospital Shutters. doc Copyright, 2001 emergency response plannIng & management, inc. All rights resarvad 7 VII. FUNDING SOURCES Check the single most appropriate category of funding for the proposal from the list below: '" '" D D o Alternative power o D D D Codes/ordinances Communications D D Public education Dune restoration - erosion control Emergency response e ui ment If existing funding sources for the proposal have been identified or are very likely to be used, identify them here: Monroe County Capital Projects Plan Check the statement below that most accurately defines the funding situation for the proposal: o No potential funding sources can be readily identified o The only non-local potential funding source is federal hazard mitigation grant money r8J Partial funding could be accomplished with local matching funds (budget or grants) D\My Fi!es\LMS\Appiications\Mariner's Hospital Shutters. doc Copyright, 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights res8fV8d 8 .' OLD MARINER'S HOSPITAL SHUTTER PROJECT 50 HIGH POINT ROAD PLANTATION KEY, FLORIDA LMS PROJECT PRIORITIZA TION FORM TERRORISM TRAINING 1. Meeting LMS Goals & Objectives & Number of Goals met A. Preservaton & Sustainability of Life Health, Safety & Welfare - B, Preservation of infrastructure from hazard-related damage _ C, Minimize damage & maintain roads & bridges during a disaster - 0, Protection of critical facilities from hazard-related damage- E. Preservation of property & assets from future losses- F, Preservation of economy during times of disaster- G, Preservation and protection of the environment - 2. Percentage of permanent population served by the project: A. Up to 10% B. 11 to 25% C, 26 to 40% 0, 41 TO 65% E, 66 to 80% F. 81 to 100% 3, Type and number of hazards addressed: A. Hurricanes and other severe weather B, Utility outages or disruption C, Transportation disruption D. Economic Emergencies E. Communications disruption F. Mass immigration G, Hazardous materials incidents H, Coastal oil spills I. Radiological emergencies J, Epidemiological emergencies K. Drouaht L. Wildland fires M, Terrorism/Civil disturbance N. Military conflict 4. Cost effectiveness based on Cost/Benefit Analysis: A. Ratio of 1 to 1 B. Ratio of 1 to 2 C. Ratio of 1 to 3 0, Ratio of 1 to 4 etc. 5, Economic Benefits A. If economic benefit demonstrated 6. Social Benefits A. If social benefit is demonstrated 7. Environmental Benefits A. If environmental benefit demonstrated 8. Time Frame A. Six (6) months or less B. Six (6) months to one year C. One to two years 9. Financially feasible? 10. Technically feasble? 11, Funding Available? 12, Have legal authority: YES or YES or YES or YES or NO NO NO NO TERRORISM TRAINING.xls4/6/02 Points 50 Pts 30 Pts 30 Pts 10 Pts 10 Pts 10 Pts 10 Pts (.~-;:}?!W~l~tf~~~t~~\,:J:X;; 50 30 30 10 10 10 10 20 Pts 40 Pts 60 Pts 80 Pts 100 Pts 130 Pts 80 .- 20 Pts 15 Pts 10 Pts 10 Pts 10 Pts 5 Pts 5 Pts 5 Pts 5 Pts 5 Pts 5 Pts 5 Pts 5 Pts 5 Pts 15 10 10 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 ~;i\~.2iJ;~\;'; I"~"~ 10 Pts 20 Pts 30 Pts 40 Pts 40 !~~~~l~~tf,Uf:~ 30 ;l~~t~itv. . 20 :~!!;,1~~~B*;~~ , 30 Pts 20 Pts 20Pts 20 Pts 10 Pts 5 Pts 10 YES YES YES YES TOTAL POINTS 425 Monroe County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Characterization FORM Jurisdiction Name: City of Key West Date Form Completed: 2/28/02 Organization/agency submitting initiative: City of Key West Contact Individual Name: Annalise Mannix-Lachner. P.E. Address: PO Box 1409. Key West. FL 33041-1409 Is this initiative new or a revision of an earlier initiative? Check one: New L Revision_ If it is a revision, give the LMS Planning Group identification number of initiative: I. INITIA TIVE DESCRIPTION lnitiatiye Name: Terrorism training and supplies. Briefly describe the initiative: This initiative is designed to provide police. fire. code. and public works employees with basic knowledge of signs of terrorism and a first and second response, If the initiative is structural or involves a specific location, attach a map showing the location. Check if map is attached._ Write the goals and objectives established by the Local Mitigation Strategy Planning Group that are most applicable to this initiative. Check the category of the initiative _ Structural -X- Non-Structural Mixed/both Identify the hazards intended to be addressed by this initiative: Natural Hazard T echnoloe;ical Hazards Societal Hazards High winds - Hurricane X Hazardous materials Transportation Flooding (Storm Surge) X Utilities X T errorismlCivil Disturbances - Tropical Storm X - Loss of electric service Economic Crisis - Trooical Depression X - Loss of water service Military Conflict - Tornado - Loss of sewer service Mass Immie;ration Wind Coastal Oil Soill Drought Telecommunications Failure . Wild Land Fires X Radioloe;ical Accident Eoidemiologist Emergency Describe the ''worst case" disaster scenario and its direct and indirect impact on the facility, system, or neighborhood to be protected by the proposed initiative: (Be concise). The result of radio 10 gical or bioterrorism could affect the entire community. What is the dollar value of the total direct losses for damages or destruction to the facility, system, or neighborhood likely in this scenario: $100.000 Attach Cost to Benefit analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses.) What is the dollar value of the total indirect losses (e.g., lost job income, lost revenue, extra operating costs, etc.) likely in this scenario: $1.000.000 Attach Cost to Benefit Analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses.) Total of direct and indirect losses under this scenario: $1.100.000 Will the initiative avoid or prevent all of these direct and indirect losses? Yes -X-No Ifno, what percent decrease in losses can be estimated? 50% What are the adjusted direct and indirect losses under this scenario (The total of direct and indirect losses multiplied by the percentage of decrease in losses): $550.000 How many people would be injured, sickened, or killed in the "worst case" scenario without this initiative? 45.000 Injured 45.000 Sickened 1.000 Killed Are there valuable cultural, historical, or environmental resources that would be protected by the initiative? Yes -1L No If yes, list or describe these resources. II INITIATIVE BENEFITS Is a designated "critical facility" to be benefited by the proposal? If yes, give the following information for each facility benefited: Yes -1LNo Facility Name/Description Type of Critical Facility Identification Number Describe the consequences of the total or partial loss of the critical facility(ies) listed in the "worst case" scenario: For all types of proposed initiatives, including those for protection of critical facilities, give the following: 1. Number of people directly and indirectly benefited: 26.800 2. Percentage of the jurisdiction's population or organization's client base benefited: 100% 3. Number of structures to be benefited:.Q 4. Total estimated value of the structures and contents:...Q 5. Number of businesses to be benefited: 8.000 6. Total estimated number of employees benefited: 12.000 7. Valuable environmental resources to be protected? _ Yes -X- No 8. Valuable cultural or historic resources to be protected? _ Yes -1L No If#7 or #8 is ''yes'', provide the following: Name of Resource Location! Address Size Current Status (Acres, # of (Registered, protected, structures, etc.) etc.) III COST OF THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE Estimate the total cost to implement the proposal (for design and construction, construction management, purchase and installation, etc.) $150.000 What is the anticipated useful life of the proposal? 10 years Calculate the annual cost to implement the proposal. (Divide the cost to implement the proposal by its useful life): $15.000 per year Estimate the annual cost to maintain or service the proposal: $5.000 per year Determine the total annual cost to implement and maintain the proposal (Add the annual cost to implement the proposal to the annual cost to maintain the proposal): $20.000 per year Briefly explain any important assumptions or estimates used to develop the annual cost to implement the proposal: Developing the program the first year is estimated at $20.000. trailer at $80.000. with five training days per year at $5.000. IV THE COST IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL Some mitigation initiatives could result in costs to others for their implementation, in addition to costs to the proposal's sponsor or the organization that implements the proposal. This section allows the "cost impact", if any, to be estimated. No cost impact is foreseen from implementation of the proposal. l True False Estimate any initial or immediate cost impact of implementation: $ Estimate the annualized immediate cost impact of implementation (Divide the initial cost impact by the useful life of the proposal: $ per year Estimate any ongoing, annual cost impact amounts: $ per year Calculate the annualized cost impact of the proposal (Add the annualized immediate cost impact to the annual ongoing cost impacts): $ per year Identify the grou most likely to bear this cost impact (Check all that a ply) Grou Grou The General Public Educational Institutions Bu ers of Pro ert Retail Businesses Develo erslBuilders Service Businesses Pro e Owners Manufactures Transients/Tourists Tourism Businesses Grou Health Care Facilities Local Government Public Safet Organizations Local Utilities Other: V COMPARISON OF BENEFITS TO COSTS A. List the total annualized cost of "not taking action" or not implementing the proposal is (This is the adiusted direct and indirect losses divided by the useful life of the proposal) (Specify Design Storm) $110.000 per year B. Give the total annualized cost to implement (From above): $5.000 per year C. Give the total annualized cost (with inflation) with impact of implementation (From above): Inflation rate - average consumer price index increase for 10 years. $ per year Calculate the preliminary benefit to cost ratio (Divide "A" by the sum of"B" + "C"): 220 The preliminary benefit to cost ratio only considers values that can be measured in dollars. The Mitigation 20/20 approach considers "intangible" benefits of the proposed initiative as well, such as lives saved and injuries prevented, as well as valuable environmental or cultural resources protected. This is done by applying "multipliers" to the preliminary benefit to cost ration to ina-ease it to a level commensurate with the intangible benefits it would derive. The multipliers are the following: Multiplier Public Health and Safety Factor Muhiplier Valuable Resource Factor Value Value 1.0 No benefit 1.0 No benefit 1.5 Benefits up to 1,000 people 1.1 Benefits less than 10 acres or one structure/site 2.0 Benefits 1,000 to 50,000 people 1.3 Benefits 10-50 acres or two structure sites 2.5 Benefits 50,000 to 250,000 people 1.5 Benefits more than 50 acres or more than 2 structures 3.0 Benefits more than 250,000 eo Ie Calculate the adiusted benefit to cost ration for the proposal (multiply the preliminary ratio by the applicable multiplier listed in the table): 2 VI FEASmILITY OF IMPLEMENTATION Check the statement that most applies to this proposal regarding its consistency with other applicable plans, programs, or policies of the jurisdiction or proposing agency (Le., State Emergency Management Plan, Capital budget, LMS Plan, Comprehensive Plan): -.X The proposal is listed in at least 3 other documents or is highly consistent with other plans. The proposal is listed in at least 2 other documents and is consistent with other plans. The proposal is listed in at least 1 other document and is not inconsistent, The proposal is not listed in any documents, The proposal is in conflict with other documents (list conflicts), The proposal may have inconsistencies and needs more analysis. If applicable, list any documents that support this proposal or type of proposal, giving the fo llowing: Document Title Issued By Date Issued! Section or page number Edition Number for proposal reference LMS Plan Monroe County 2000 Emergency Mgmt Plan Monroe County / City of 2000 Key West Police Training City of Key West 2000 Fire Training City of Key West 2000 List the permits and approvals likely to be needed for implementation: -.X.. No permits or approvals required. Local permits/approvals, State permits/approvals, Federal permits/approvals. Estimate how long it will take to complete implementation of the proposal: I year Check the statement that most accurately describes implementation efforts needed for this proposal: -.X.. The proposal would be relatively easy to accomplish. The proposal is not anticipated to be difficult to accomplish. The proposal is somewhat difficult to accomplish. The proposal is difficult to accomplish. The proposal is very difficult to accomplish, Check the statement that most accurately describes how the community would react to the implementation of the proposal: l The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. The proposal would benefit those affected, with minimal adverse reaction from others, The proposal would be somewhat controversial. The proposal would be strongly opposed by most. The proposal would be strongly opposed by nearly all. If the proposal would be expected to be generally acceptable to the community, are there special interest groups or stakeholders that would oppose it? _ Yes -X No If yes identifY these groups. VII FUNDING SOURCES Check the single most appropriate category of funding for the proposal from the list below: Funding Category Funding Category Funding Category Agricultural assistance General funding sources Retrofit public/historic structures Alternative power Infrastructure systems Rivers/streams - restoration/preservation Codes/ordinances New public building Stafford Act (HMGP) Communications Parks/natural area Stormwater/flood control development/preservation structures Dune restoration - erosion Plans and procedures X Training - emergency control servIces Emergency response Public education Wetlands development and equipment restoration If existing funding sources for the proposal have been identified or are very likely to be used, identify them here: Check the statement below that most accurately defmes the funding situation for the proposal: No potential funding sources can be readily identified. The only non-local potential funding source is federal hazard mitigation grant money. ...lL Partial funding could be accomplished with local matching funds (budget or grants). LOWER KEYS NON-STRUCTURAL WILDLAND FIRE HAZARD REDUCTION INITIATIVE 1, Meeting LMS Goals & Objectives & Number of Goals met A. Preservaton & Sustainability of Life Health, Safety & Welfare- B, Preservation of infrastructure from hazard-related damage - C. Minimize damage & maintain roads & bridges during a disaster - 0, Protection of critical facilities from hazard-related damage- E. Preservation of property & assets from future losses - F. Preservation of economy during times of disaster - G, Preservation and protection of the environment - 2, Percentage of permanent population served by the project: A. Up to 10% B. 11 to 25% C. 26 to 40% D. 41 TO 65% E. 66 to 80% F, 81 to 100% 3, Type and number of hazards addressed: A. Hurricanes and other severe weather B, Utility outaQes or disruption C, Transportation disruption D, Economic Emergencies E, Communications disruption F, Mass immigration G, Hazardous materials incidents H. Coastal oil spills I, Radiological emergencies J. Epidemiological emergencies K. Drought L. Wildland fires M, Terrorism/Civil disturbance N, Military conflict 4, Cost effectiveness based on Cost/Benefit Analysis: A. Ratio of 1 to 1 B, Ratio of 1 to 2 C, Ratio of 1 to 3 0, Ratio of 1 to 4 etc. 5, Economic Benefits A. If economic benefit demonstrated 6, Social Benefits A. If social benefit is demonstrated 7, Environmental Benefits A. If environmental benefit demonstrated 8. Time Frame A. Six (6) months or less B. Six (6) months to one year C, One to two years 9, Financially feasible? 10, Technically feasble? 11, Funding Available? 12, Have legal authority: LMS PROJECT PRIORITIZA TION FORM YES or YES or YES or YES or NO NO NO NO SENIOR CITIZEN PlAZA SHUTTER PROGRAM.xls4I1/02 50 Pts 30 Pts 30 Pts 10 Pts 10 Pts 10 Pts 10 Pts 20 Pts 40 Pts 60 Pts 80 Pts 100 Pts 130 Pts 20 Pts 15 Pts 10 Pts 10 Pts 10 Pts 5 pts 5 Pts 5 Pts 5 Pts 5 Pts 5 Pts 5 Pts 5 Pts 5 Pts 10 Pts 20 Pts 30 Pts 40 Pts 30 Pts 20 Pts 20 Pts 20 Pts 10 Pts 5 Pts TOTAL POINTS Points ;,..:;~fj~;tW~iWA~~,;:~'~~?;A::~}{r 50 30 30 10 10 10 10 20 20 15 5 40 30 20 i:i~~;::(i~;;~;,~'!:<~ 20 5 YES YES YES YES 325 Monroe County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Characterization FORM Jurisdiction Name: Monroe County Date Form Completed: 2/27/02 Organization/agency submitting initiative: Lower Keys Wildland Fire Hazard Reduction Initiative (Working Group) Contact Individual Name: Chris Bergh. The Nature Conservancy Address: PO Box 420237 Surnmerland Key. Florida 33042 Is this initiative new or a revision of an earlier initiative? Check one: New L Revision_ If it is a revision, give the LMS Planning Group identification number of initiative: I. INITIA TIVE DESCRIPTION Initiative Name: Lower Keys Non-Structural Wildland Fire Hazard Reduction Initiative. Briefly describe the initiative: This initiative is designed to remove accumulation of fuel from lower Florida Keys Wildland/urban interface areas using mechanical and manual prescribed fire treatments to reduce wildfire hazards. If the initiative is structural or involves a specific location, attach a map showing the location. Check if map is attached.~ Write the goals and objectives established by the Local Mitigation Strategy Planning Group that are most applicable to this initiative, Preservation and sustainability of life. preservation of infrastructure (power). preservation of property. preservation of environment. Check the category of the initiative _ Structural X Non-Structural Mixed/both Identify the hazards intended to be addressed by this initiative: Natural Hazard T echnolo12;ical Hazards Societal Hazards High winds - Hurricane Hazardous materials X Transportation Flooding (Storm Surge) X Utilities Terrorism/Civil Disturbances - Tropical Storm X - Loss of electric service Economic Crisis - Tropical Depression - Loss of water service Military Conflict - Tornado - Loss of sewer service Mass ImmiJ2;l'ation Wind Coastal Oil Spill Key employer crisis Drought Telecommunications Failure X Wild Land Fires Radiological Accident Epidemiolo12;ist Emergency Describe the ''worst case" disaster scenario and its direct and indirect impact on the facility, system, or neighborhood to be protected by the proposed initiative: (Be concise). Accumulated fuel will eventually result in a wildfire that local resources cannot suppress. Homes and businesses along with human life could be lost. Electrical service could be severed and transportation hindered. What is the dollar value of the total direct losses for damages or destruction to the facility, system, or neighborhood likely in this scenario: $5.000.000 Attach Cost to Benefit analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses.) What is the dollar value of the total indirect losses (e.g., lost job income, lost revenue, extra operating costs, etc,) likely in this scenario: $ Attach Cost to Benefit Analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses.) Total of direct and indirect losses under this scenario: $5.000.000 Will the initiative avoid or prevent all of these direct and indirect losses? .-lL Yes No If no, what percent decrease in losses can be estimated? % What are the adjusted direct and indirect losses under this scenario (The total of direct and indirect losses muhiplied by the percentage of decrease in losses): $5.000.000 How many people would be injured, sickened, or killed in the "worst case" scenario without this initiative? Dozens Injured Hundreds Sickened very few Killed Are there valuable cultural, historical, or environmental resources that would be protected by the initiative? .-lL Yes No If yes, list or describe these resources. The pinewoods of this area. though adapted to fIre. could be wiped out by an uncontrolled wildfIre under bad conditions, Endangered species including Key Deer would suffer as a result. II INITIATIVE BENEFITS Is a designated "critical facility" to be benefited by the proposal? If yes, give the following information for each facility benefIted: Yes .-lL No Facilitv Name/Description Type of Critical Facility Identification Number Describe the consequences of the total or partial loss of the critical facility(ies) listed in the "worst case" scenario: For all types of proposed initiatives, including those for protection of critical facilities, give the following: 1. Number of people directly and indirectly benefIted: 5.000 2, Percentage ofthe jurisdiction's population or organization's client base benefited: 10% 3. Number of structures to be benefited: 400 4, Total estimated value ofthe structures and contents: $ 16.000.000. 5. Number of businesses to be benefIted: 50 6. Total estimated number of employees benefIted: 200 7. Valuable environmental resources to be protected? .-lL Yes No 8. Valuable cultural or historic resources to be protected? _ Yes .-lL No If#7 or #8 is ''yes'', provide the following: Name of Resource Location! Address Size Current Status (Acres, # of (Registered, protected, structures, etc.) etc.) Conservation Lands Big Pine, No Name 2,000 acres + Protected Conservation Lands Cudjoe, Upper Sugarloaf III COST OF THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE Estimate the total cost to implement the proposal (for design and construction, construction management, purchase and installation, etc.) $ 200.000. What is the anticipated useful life of the proposal? 2 years Calculate the annual cost to implement the proposal. (Divide the cost to implement the proposal by its useful life): $100.000 per year Estimate the annual cost to maintain or service the proposal: $10.000 per year Determine the total annual cost to implement and maintain the proposal (Add the annual cost to implement the proposal to the annual cost to maintain the proposal): $110.000 per year Briefly explain any important assumptions or estimates used to develop the annual cost to implement the proposal: $100.000/year for two years would be sufficient to mechanically/manually remove fuel load. $10.000/year in subsequent years would provide maintenance of low hazard state, Funding is in place for the maintenance already. IV THE COST IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL Some mitigation initiatives could result in costs to others for their implementation, in addition to costs to the proposal's sponsor or the organization that implements the proposal. This section allows the "cost impact", if any, to be estimated. No cost impact is foreseen from implementation of the proposal, l True False Estimate any initial or immediate cost impact of implementation: $ 0 Estimate the annualized immediate cost impact of implementation (Divide the initial cost impact by the useful life of the proposal: L.Q,. Estimate any ongoing, annual cost impact amounts: U Calculate the annualized cost impact of the proposal (Add the annualized immediate cost impact to the annual ongoing cost impacts): ~ to bear this cost im act Check all that a Grou Educational Institutions Retail Businesses Service Businesses Manufactures Tourism Businesses GrOll Health Care Facilities Local Government Public Safet Or anizations Local Utilities Other: V COMPARISON OF BENEFITS TO COSTS A. List the total annualized cost of "not taking action" or not implementing the proposal is (This is the adiusted direct and indirect losses divided by the useful life of the proposal) (Specify Design Storm) $2.500.000 per year B. Give the total annualized cost to implement (From above): $110.000 per year C. Give the total annualized cost (with inflation) with impact of implementation (From above): Inflation rate - average consumer price index increase for 10 years. $ per year Calculate the preliminary benefit to cost ratio (Divide "A" by the sum of"B" + "C"): The preliminary benefit to cost ratio only considers values that can be measured in dollars. The Mitigation 20/20 approach considers "intangible" benefits of the proposed initiative as well, such as lives saved and injuries prevented, as well as valuable environmental or cultural resources protected. This is done by applying "multipliers" to the preliminary benefit to cost ration to increase it to a level commensurate with the intangible benefits it would derive. The multipliers are the following: Multiplier Public Health and Safety Factor Multiplier Valuable Resource Factor Value Value 1.0 No benefit 1.0 No benefit 1.5 Benefits up to 1,000 people 1.1 Benefits less than 10 acres or one structure/site 2.0 Benefits 1,000 to 50,000 people 1.3 Benefits 10-50 acres or two structure sites 2,5 Benefits 50,000 to 250,000 people 1.5 Benefits more than 50 acres or more than 2 structures 3.0 Benefits more than 250,000 people \ I................." >xi .... . \> . ..... Calculate the adjusted benefit to cost ration for the proposal (multiply the preliminary ratio by the applicable multiplier listed in the table): 1.3 VI FEASIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTATION Check the statement that most applies to this proposal regarding its consistency with other applicable plans, programs, or policies of the jurisdiction or proposing agency (i.e" State Emergency Management Plan, Capital budget, LMS Plan, Comprehensive Plan): The proposal is listed in at least 3 other documents or is highly consistent with other plans, l The proposal is listed in at least 2 other documents and is consistent with other plans. The proposal is listed in at least 1 other document and is not inconsistent, The proposal is not listed in any documents. The proposal is in conflict with other documents (list conflicts). The proposal may have inconsistencies and needs more analysis. Ifapplicable, list any documents that support this proposal or type of proposal, giving the following: Document Title Issued By Date Issued! Section or page number Edition Number for proposal reference National Key Deer Refuge Fire US Fish and Wildlife Mgmt. Plan Service Terrestris Preserve Wildfire Plan The Nature 2001 1 Conservancy List the permits and approvals likely to be needed for implementation: No permits or approvals required. l Local permits/approvals. Land clearing permits required from Monroe County Growth Management Department for private lands State permits/approvals. Federal permits/approvals. Estimate how long it will take to complete implementation of the proposal: 2 years Check the statement that most accurately describes implementation efforts needed for this proposal: The proposal would be relatively easy to accomplish. The proposal is not anticipated to be difficult to accomplish, l The proposal is somewhat difficult to accomplish. The proposal is difficult to accomplish, The proposal is very difficult to accomplish. Check the statement that most accurately describes how the community would react to the implementation of the proposal: The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community, l The proposal would benefit those affected, with minimal adverse reaction from others. The proposal would be somewhat controversial. The proposal would be strongly opposed by most. The proposal would be strongly opposed by nearly all. If the proposal would be expected to be generally acceptable to the community, are there special interest groups or stakeholders that would oppose it? l Yes _ No If yes identify these groups, Some people might want vegetation to remain very dense for privacy. others resist any vegetation management activities VII FUNDING SOURCES Check the single most appropriate category of funding for the proposal from the list below: Funding Category Funding Category Funding Category Agricultural assistance General funding sources Retrofit public/historic structures Alternative power Infrastructure systems Rivers/streams - restoration/preservation Codes/ordinances New public building Stafford Act (HMGP) Communications X Parks/natural area Stormwater/flood control development/preservation structures Dune restoration - erosion Plans and procedures Training - emergency control services Emergency response Public education Wetlands development and equipment restoration If existing funding sources for the proposal have been identified or are very likely to be used, identify them here: Existing operations/ funds from United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Florida Division of Forestry. The Nature Conservancy. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. and Big Pine Volunteer Fire Department might playa support role but will not be sufficient to address the fuel load problem. Check the statement below that most accurately defmes the funding situation for the proposal: No potential funding sources can be readily identified, The only non-local potential funding source is federal hazard mitigation grant money. l Partial funding could be accomplished with local matching funds (budget or grants), 0 i :Jd' :2 ;J S. IP . 01 if 0 n ;If' C. ii "'--1' :r 1.:' . Q, ... ~...." ~ ~ ").... l } ~- , .. 1\ ~<<.oc~ '~ ... .;~ " '. .':' ". tl.. ~ " . ~ (lie l' . /'I.... '~ I . ''', I - ~. , .,f:J . ~ \) ..,; <1 .~ ~ CII o (II :z ClI !; r c: ~t ~n~rrJ- l~'P : tp /'!J fb tP"....., &~' .II - , 111 ~ to ~ .. J~' ,. .spoeppo.I suId SAa}I JaMO,! . I ~!tI ,.t . _ Kt of the Lower Keys Wildland Fire Hazard Reduction Initiadve LMS October oi, 2001: ission of the Lower Keys Wildland Fire Hazard Reduction Initiative . the threat of wildfire, ensuring a safe environment for citi2ens and resources through; public education, implementation of appropriate e planning and implementation ofhazard reduction mitigation strategies."' ; a public education/media campaign, identification ofhigb hazard areas, unol infrastructure, modification ofloca1 regulations to facilitate hazard redu . on, increases. fire suppression and presaibed fire staff and training opportunities, coo tion oftrai . g and implementation activities, implementation ofmechanica1lmanual fuel r uction and ibed fire for fuel reduction on public and private lands. on the Lower Keys islands with the greatest risk of wildland fire. These Name Key. Cudjoe Key and Upper Sugar loaf Key. AlJ of these islands . on that is prone to wildfire and. in fact, depends on periodic low-intensity development oCCUIled on these islands little respect was paid to this fact interface, ~herc the leaves meet the eaves, n has since developed fuels. The massive increase in these fuel loads as a result of back- to- 8 and; 1999 has resulted,in a critical net61 to address fire hazard reduction. Monroe County LMS this initiative is divided into two projects. one non-structural in nature. The non-structural project, desco"bed below, tation of a public education/media campaign, improvement/addition of (fire breaks), increases in :fire suppression and prescribed fire staff ) and training opportunities and implementation of mecbanicaJ/manual fuel ed fire for fuel reduction on public and private lauds. minutes 8/30/01 and 9/27/01. WFHRIparticipants include; United fe Service (USFWS), Florida Division of Forestry (FDOp), Florida mnental Protection (FDEP), Monroe County (Board of County Steward, Planning Department, Emergency Management and Fire ey Volunteer Fire Department (VFD), Fire Control and Disaster M) and Tbe Nature Conservancy (fNC). Also relevant is the USFWS for the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuge Complex. LMS Goals and 0 ectives: The non-structural WFHRI project addresses Monroe County LMS oaIs includin II . Pieservati and Sustainability of Life, Health, Safety ana Welfare · Preservati of Infrastructure including Electrical Utilities . PresCMlti of Property and Assets from Future Losses . Preservati and Protection of the Natural Environment . Percentag fpennanent population served by the project is 10% (about 500 homes and b sincsses with an estimated 2 residentslhome) , 't!:I ... <> Es ted Cost: $1 ,000 (51 OK for public education materials and workshops, $IOK for trainin , $1 OK for su It of volunteer programs including the Big Pine Key Volunteer Fire Dep ent and TN GreenSweep, S20K for implementation of prescribed fire and 550K for con t mecbanicaV anual fuel reduction). iii iii iii LMS PROJECT PRIORITIZA TION FORM LOWER KEYS STRUCTURAL WILDLAND FIRE HAZARD REDUCTION !NITIA TIVE Points 1. Meeting LMS Goals & Objectives & Number of Goals met ,.-..',..... A. Preservaton & Sustainability of Life Health, Safety & Welfare- 50 Pts 50 B, Preservation of infrastructure from hazard-related damage - 30 Pts 30 C. Minimize damage & maintain roads & bridges during a disaster - 30 Pts 30 0, Protection of critical facilities from hazard-related damage- 10 Pts 10 E. Preservation of property & assets from future losses - 10 Pts 10 F, Preservation of economy during times of disaster- 10 Pts 10 G, Preservation and protection of the environment - 10 Pts 10 2. Percentage of permanent population served by the project: "c A. Up to 10% 20 Pts 20 B, 11 to 25% 40 Pts C, 26 to 40% 60 Pts D, 41 TO 65% 80 Pts E. 66 to 80% 100 Pts F. 81 to 100% 130 Pts 3. Type and number of hazards addressed: c......!;" < <',( A. Hurricanes and other severe weather 20 Pts 20 B. Utility outages or disruption 15 Pts 15 C. Transportation disruption 10 Pts D. Economic Emergencies 10 Pts E. Communications disruption 10 Pts F. Mass immigration 5 Pts G. Hazardous materials incidents 5 Pts H, Coastal oil spills 5 Pts I. Radiological emeraencies 5 Pts J. Epidemiological emergencies 5 Pts K. Drought 5 Pts L. Wildland fires 5 Pts 5 M, Terrorism/Civil disturbance 5 Pts N. Military conflict 5 Pts 4, Cost effectiveness based on Cost/Benefit Analysis: ... A. Ratio of 1 to 1 10 Pts B. Ratio of 1 to 2 20 Pts C, Ratio of 1 to 3 30 Pts 0, Ratio of 1 to 4 etc, 40 Pts 40 5, Economic Benefits ,<f""""'" ......Jvn.> A. If economic benefit demonstrated 30 Pts 30 6. Social Benefits ,ii" .f"""", . A, If social benefit is demonstrated 20 Pts 20 7. Environmental Benefits .!;',",. .' A. If environmental benefit demonstrated ..'(.e." .',. 20 Pts 20 8, Time Frame 'Ii " A. Six (6) months or less 20 Pts B, Six (6) months to one year 10 Pts C, One to t\NO years 5 Pts 9, Financially feasible? YES or NO YES 10, Technically feasble? YES or NO YES 11, Funding Available? YES or NO YES 12. Have legal authority: YES or NO YES TOTAL POINTS 320 LOWER KEYS STRUCTURAL WILDLAND FIRE HAZARD REDUCTION ININIATVE,xls4/1/02 Monroe County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Characterization FORM Jurisdiction Name: Monroe County Date Form Completed: 2/27/02 Organization/agency submitting initiative: Lower Keys Wildland Fire Hazard Reduction Initiative (Working Group) Contact Individual Name: Chris Bergh. The Nature Conservancy Address: PO Box 420237 Surnmerland Key. Florida 33042 Is this initiative new or a revision of an earlier initiative? Check one: New L Revision If it is a revision, give the LMS Planning Group identification number of initiative: I. INITIA TIVE DESCRIPTION Initiative Name: Lower Keys Structural Wildland Fire Hazard Reduction Initiative, Briefly describe the initiative: This initiative is designed to add fire hydrants and other water delivery alternatives to areas of the lower keys threatened by wildland / urban interface ftre. If the initiative is structural or involves a specific location, attach a map showing the location. Check if map is attached.~ Write the goals and objectives established by the Local Mitigation Strategy Planning Group that are most applicable to this initiative. Preservation and sustainability of life. preservation of infrastructure (power). preservation of property. preservation of environment. Check the category of the initiative X Structural Non-Structural Mixedlboth Identify the hazards intended to be addressed by this initiative: X T echnolo ical Hazards Hazardous materials X Utilities X - Loss of electric service - Loss of water service - Loss of sewer service Coastal Oil S ill Telecommunications Failure Radio 10 ical Accident X Describe the "worst case" disaster scenario and its direct and indirect impact on the facility, system, or neighborhood to be protected by the proposed initiative: (Be concise). Accumulated fuel will eventually result in a wildfrre that local resources cannot suppress. Homes and businesses along the Wildland/urban interface. along with human life could be lost. Electrical service could be severed and transportation hindered due to smoke, What is the dollar value of the total direct losses for damages or destruction to the facility, system, or neighborhood likely in this scenario: $5.000.000 Attach Cost to Benefit analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses,) What is the dollar value of the total indirect losses (e.g., lost job income, lost revenue, extra operating costs, etc.) likely in this scenario: $ N/A Attach Cost to Benefit Analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses,) Total of direct and indirect losses under this scenario: $5.000.000 Will the initiative avoid or prevent all of these direct and indirect losses? AYes No Ifno, what percent decrease in losses can be estimated? % What are the adjusted direct and indirect losses under this scenario (The total of direct and indirect losses multiplied by the percentage of decrease in losses): $5.000.000 How many people would be injured, sickened, or killed in the "worst case" scenario without this initiative? Dozens Injured Hundreds Sickened very few Killed Are there valuable cultural, historical, or environmental resources that would be protected by the initiative? AYes No If yes, list or describe these resources. The pinewoods of this area. though adapted to fIre. could be wiped out by an uncontrolled wildfrre under bad conditions. Endangered species including Key Deer would suffer as a result. II INITIATIVE BENEFITS Is a designated "critical facility" to be benefited by the proposal? If yes, give the following information for each facility benefited: Yes ANo Facility Name/Description Type of Critical Facility Identification Number Describe the consequences of the total or partial loss of the critical facility(ies) listed in the "worst case" scenarIO: For all types of proposed initiatives, including those for protection of critical facilities, giye the following: 1. Number of people directly and indirectly benefited: 5.000 2, Percentage of the jurisdiction's population or organization's client base benefited: 10% 3. Number of structures to be benefited: 400 4. Total estimated value of the structures and contents: $ 16.000.000. 5. Number of businesses to be benefited: 50 6. Total estimated number of employees benefited: 200 7. Valuable environmental resources to be protected? A Yes No 8. Valuable cultural or historic resources to be protected? _ Yes A No If#7 or #8 is "yes", provide the following: Name of Resource Location! Address Size Current Status (Acres, # of (Registered, protected, structures, etc.) etc,) Conservation Lands Big Pine, No Name 2,000 acres + Protected Conservation Lands Cu~oe,UpperSugMillaf III COST OF THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE Estimate the total cost to implement the proposal (for design and construction, construction management, purchase and installation, etc.) $ 100.000. What is the anticipated useful life of the proposal? 1 yeM Calculate the annual cost to implement the proposal. (Divide the cost to implement the proposal by its useful life): $33.000 per yeM Estimate the annual cost to maintain or service the proposal: $7.000 per yeM Determine the total annual cost to implement and maintain the proposal (Add the annual cost to implement the proposal to the annual cost to maintain the proposal): $40.000 per yeM Briefly explain any important assumptions or estimates used to develop the annual cost to implement the proposal: It will take time to coordinate plans. engineering. and permitting. Once water supply is in place it should only take $7.000/yeM to maintain with existing funds, IV THE COST IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL Some mitigation initiatives could result in costs to others for their implementation, in addition to costs to the proposal's sponsor or the organization that implements the proposal. This section allows the "cost impact", if any, to be estimated. No cost impact is foreseen from implementation of the proposal, l True False Estimate any initial or immediate cost impact of implementation: $ 0 Estimate the annualized immediate cost impact of implementation (Divide the initial cost impact by the useful life of the proposal: ~ Estimate any ongoing, annual cost impact amounts: U Calculate the annualized cost impact of the proposal (Add the annualized immediate cost impact to the annual ongoing cost impacts): ~ Id .fy h tikI be hi (Ch k 11 ha I ) enh t e group most e yto Mt s cost nnpact ec a t tappy Group Group Group The General Public Educational Institutions Health CMe Facilities Buyers of Property Retail Businesses Local Government Developers/Builders Service Businesses Public Safety Organizations Property Owners Manufactures Local Utilities TransientsIT ourists Tourism Businesses Other: V COMPARISON OF BENEFITS TO COSTS A. List the total annualized cost of "not taking action" or not implementing the proposal is (This is the adiusted direct and indirect losses divided by the useful life of the proposal) (Specify Design Storm) $2.500.000 per year B. Give the total annualized cost to implement (From above): $40.000 per year C. Give the total annualized cost (with inflation) with impact of implementation (From above): Inflation rate - average consumer price index increase for 10 years, $ per year Calculate the preliminary benefit to cost ratio (Divide "A" by the sum of"B" + "C"): The preliminary benefit to cost ratio only considers values that can be measured in dollars. The Mitigation 20/20 approach considers "intangible" benefits of the proposed initiative as well, such as lives saved and injuries prevented, as well as valuable environmental or cultural resources protected. This is done by applying ''multipliers'' to the preliminary benefit to cost ration to increase it to a level commensurate with the intangible benefits it would derive. The multipliers are the following: Multiplier Public Health and Safety Factor Multiplier Valuable Resource Factor Value Value 1.0 No benefit 1.0 No benefit 1.5 Benefits up to 1,000 people 1.1 Benefits less than 10 acres or one structure/site 2.0 Benefits 1,000 to 50,000 people 1.3 Benefits 10-50 acres or two structure sites 2,5 Benefits 50,000 to 250,000 people 1.5 Benefits more than 50 acres or more than 2 structures 3.0 Benefits more than 250,000 people ..... .......... .. \...... ..............>....... .. .... ... . ... Calculate the adiusted benefit to cost ration for the proposal (multiply the preliminary ratio by the applicable multiplier listed in the table): 1.3 VI FEASIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTATION Check the statement that most applies to this proposal regarding its consistency with other applicable plans, programs, or policies of the jurisdiction or proposing agency (i,e" State Emergency Management Pl~ Capital budget, LMS Plan, Comprehensive Plan): The proposal is listed in at least 3 other documents or is highly consistent with other plans. .2L The proposal is listed in at least 2 other documents and is consistent with other plans. The proposal is listed in at least 1 other document and is not inconsistent, The proposal is not listed in any documents. The proposal is in conflict with other documents (list conflicts), The proposal may have inconsistencies and needs more analysis, If applicable, list any documents that support this proposal or type of proposal, giving the following: Document Title Issued By Date Issued! Section or page number Edition Number for proposal reference National Key Deer Refuge Fire US Fish and Wildlife Mgmt. Plan Service Terrestris Preserve WildfIre Plan The Nature 2001 1 Conservancy List the permits and approvals likely to be needed for implementation: No permits or approvals required. l Local permits/approvals. Monroe County and FKAA permits for hydrant installation --X.. State permits/approvals, SFWMD permits might be necessary Federal permits/approvals. Estimate how long it will take to complete implementation of the proposal: 3 years Check the statement that most accurately describes implementation efforts needed for this proposal: The proposal would be relatively easy to accomplish. --X.. The proposal is not anticipated to be difficult to accomplish. The proposal is somewhat difficuh to accomplish, The proposal is difficult to accomplish, The proposal is very difficult to accomplish. Check the statement that most accurately describes how the community would react to the implementation of the proposal: --X.. The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. The proposal would benefIt those affected, with minimal adverse reaction from others. The proposal would be somewhat controversial. The proposal would be strongly opposed by most, The proposal would be strongly opposed by nearly all. If the proposal would be expected to be generally acceptable to the community, are there special interest groups or stakeholders that would oppose it? _ Yes l No If yes identify these groups. VII FUNDING SOURCES Check the single most appropriate category of funding for the proposal from the list below: Funding Category Fundin~ Cate~ory Funding Cate~ory Agricultural assistance General funding sources Retrofit public/historic structures Alternative power X Infrastructure systems Rivers/streams - restoration/preservation Codes/ordinances New public building Stafford Act (lIMGP) Communications Parks/natural area Stormwater/flood control development/preservation structures Dune restoration - erosion Plans and procedures Training - emergency control servIces Emergency response Public education Wetlands development and equipment restoration If existing funding sources for the proposal have been identified or are very likely to be used, identify them here: FKAA may have funds for hydrants Check the statement below that most accurately defmes the funding situation for the proposal: No potential funding sources can be readily identified, The only non-local potential funding source is federal hazard mitigation grant money, X Partial funding could be accomplished with local matching funds (budget or grants), " 19ute 1. Lower f ~ \' ,I , I . ~ I I, 11 I : I ;q !, .1 , !i l' :1 !I , I :~ '. 'j '.. ' ~! " , :1 1, . ' i ". . · ifl '~--"('o;J!!1l 0 d.,iA E'J;:.;~r~'Q i. i:'~~ ~ ,?"". ..'!k't ..Ill! If" .", "-~1{\ ~. ,;~ ,;n'J )-'gl .rP ~:"f., ral' w~ ~~ , "A ". .~..) ';4T~'. . , ~ ~ :#-"1 -.- ~ :.:,I~""f' . . ,.,- w.:f'- 1'I.-j:1!~ .' ."",-.., . c.r" D. ,~.:t:. -- ~~!1:;-~ ~"'c. "" I /.t"~ dI , ~-S' ....~~~:r .........:. ..I, '~':;r"'-' -.f1Y ""f..... 'c;::js~ ~~ . t-;..".~. · : .r~~.." '\J3 ~1"P' ~II"'- 4 ~ ~S::' tI,~.f~8i;~. ~ _. ,'~I:~'Fi ~ . "" '~ \.G. i. D ~~~ \ki1~ ~g;~ ~. ~ 'Z ~<lV,J~" Y1S'" 'i~ . --," "16:' \\ ~..~ . ... ~~~,: ~~~ ~ {~~-\ . "~;".rf ,~~.~~~\, .,OJ') ....~nl *'. 4 -C-' ~~y ~ :~ <lit ,,~II; ~ \. .' .0 ~~~ ~ <-\f:' ~:\ ,~.I ~~.,~. . :., . '. II ','"1 ':~' ~I ~ :' 4.~~i .. .f. >4- ~t~' . 9 ~"Qo " I · ."t--~ '" ..... ,k' ..'. ~1t ~ ,.~), -'O'hl. ..i. "~~,,~~:t. '\,UI!5-",t"" ~ .. . . 1';,\. ~_." . I) I)' .-<: .I.!,"&!l ':!~, , " ~l~~) '41 .I. ..... ~ ,;,'~~'j~~~t ,,,'~~~l , I ,I. . "TIT 'J .... '\ '; '~~:");"il ....t "'-0 'l ~ .., '\;.-_0.,., &..,; i .,1 :~"'''''ti , I ~ ~ ~~.' ":17'." , ~ .1" ",,-j spine rocldands. II ,$/ () \ .rl~ - .. r.\'b.. . . ,..~~ " ~~ looI 1 . '\. " . .~ tt u 1 :;i u o a: . c it (;;.1 ..""of .. . () .?~ II , - iJ j :i III as z~.Q ~ " In o Stru lural Project r the Lower Keys WUdland Fire Hazard Redaction Initiative for onroe Coun LMS October 4, 2001: .ssion of the Lower Keys Wildland Fire Hazard Reduction Initiative . the threat of wildfire, ensuring a safe environment for citizens and p ation afna resources through; public ooucation, implementation of appropriate legis ation. coopera ve planniJig and implementation ofhazard reduction mitigation strategies." Thes strategies me de; a public education/media campaign, identification of high hazard areas~ imp vement offi ntroJ infr8.stru~ modification ofIoeal regulations to facilitate hazard red . on, increases fire suppression and prescribed fire staff and training opportunities, . stion of . g and implementation activities, implementation ofmechanicallmanual uction and enDed fire for fuel reduction on public and private lands. ~ on the Lower Keys islands with the greatest risk ofwildland fire. These Name Key~ Cudjoe Key and Upper Sugar loaf Key. All of these islands tion that is prone to wildfire and, in fact, depends on periodic low-intensity development occmred on these islands little respect was paid to this fact interface, "where the leaves meet the eaves," has since developed tora1 fuels. The massive increase in these fue1loads as a result ofbacle-to- 8 and 1999 has resulted in a critical need to address fire hazard reduction. . e Momoe County LMS the WFHRI is divided into two projects, one non-structural in nature. The structural proj~ descn"bed below, consists hydrants in strategic locations within the target areas to provide water for to a lesser degree, prescnDed fire activities. LM Goals and 0 goals including; · Prcservati . Preservati . Preservati . Preservati . Percenta and . Type and . Cost em . minutes 8/30101 and 9127/01. WFHRlparticipants include; United . Senice (USFWS), Florida Division of Forestry (FDOF). Florida nmcntal Protection (FDEP)~ Monroe County (Board of County Steward, Planning Department, Emergency Management and Fir.c Volunteer Fire Department (VFD)~ Fire Control ond Disaster M) and The Nature Conservancy (TNe). Also relev~t is the USFWS for the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuge Complex. ecdves: The structural WFHRI project addresses Monroe County LMS and Sustainability ofUCe, Health, Safety and Welfare of Infrastructure including Electrical Utilities ofPropCrty and Assets from Future Losses and Protection of the Natural Environment ofpennanent population served by the project is 10% (about Soo homes sincsses with an estimated 2 residentslhome) of Hazards addressed includes; Wildland fires veness (waiting for numbers from MC) LMS PROJECT PRIORITIZA TION FORM FLAGLER AVENUE TIDE VALVE 1. Meeting LMS Goals & Objectives & Number of Goals met A. Preservaton & Sustainability of Life Health, Safety & Welfare - B, Preservation of infrastructure from hazard-related damage- C, Minimize damage & maintain roads & bridges during a disaster - D. Protection of critical facilities from hazard-related damage- E Preservation of property & assets from future losses - F, Preservation of economy during times of disaster- G. Preservation and protection of the environment - 2. Percentage of permanent population served by the project: A. Up to 10% B, 11 to 25% C, 26 to 40% 0, 41 TO 65% E. 66 to 80% F, 81 to 100% 3, Type and number of hazards addressed: A. Hurricanes and other severe weather B. Utility outages or disruption C. Transportation disruption 0, Economic Emeraencies E Communications disruption F, Mass immigration G, Hazardous materials incidents H, Coastal oil spills I, Radiological emergencies J, Epidemiological emergencies K, Drought L. Wildland fires M. Terrorism/Civil disturbance N, Military conflict 4. Cost effectiveness based on Cost/Benefit Analysis: A. Ratio of 1 to 1 B. Ratio of 1 to 2 C, Ratio of 1 to 3 0, Ratio of 1 to 4 etc, 5. Economic Benefits A. If economic benefit demonstrated 6, Social Benefits A. If social benefit is demonstrated 7. Environmental Benefits A. If environmental benefit demonstrated 8. Time Frame A. Six (6) months or less B. Six (6) months to one year C. One to two years 9, Financially feasible? 10. Technically feasble? 11. Funding Available? 12, Have legal authority: YES or YES or YES or YES or NO NO NO NO FLAGLER AVENUE TIDE VALVExls4/1/02 Points ,',:';~'er;D}:N':.':.7z.".;:t,:.7.:.;.:~;,iS-}/':-' ;~.";tjit~-';:;--: " 50 Pts 30 Pts 30 Pts 10 Pts 10 Pts 10 Pts 10 Pts 50 30 10 10 . 20 Pts 40 Pts 60 Pts 80 Pts 100 Pts 130 Pts 40 .". .. 20 Pts 15 Pts 10 Pts 10 Pts 10 Pts 5 Pts 5 Pts 5 Pts 5 Pts 5 Pts 5 Pts 5 Pts 5 Pts 5 Pts 20 10 ,;~~s~tJ~>~ .~ 10 Pts 20 Pts 30 Pts 40 Pts 50 }~~b"~ii~~i?!~li 30 ~~~~;J) ~~ji~g~I~If,~R)ff );ftij;r~%I~~,l~\~).l 20 30 Pts 20 Pts 20 Pts 20 Pts 10 Pts 5 Pts YES YES YES YES TOTAL POINTS 290 Monroe County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Characterization of Proposed Mitigation Initiatives Characterization FORM Jurisdiction Name: Key WestDate form completed: 2-28-02 Organization/agency submitting initiative: City of Key West Contact Individual Name: Annalise Mannix-Lachner Address: PO Box 1409, Key West, FL 33040 Is this initiative new or a revision of an earlier initiative? (0 one) New [8J Revision 0 If it is a revision, give the LMS Planning Group identification number of initiative: I. INITIATIVE DESCRIPTION Initiative Name: Flagler Ave, Tide valve flood control Briefly describe the initiative: This iniative is designed to provide hurricane flood protection to residents/structures If the initiative is structural or involves a specific location, attach a map showing the location, 0 if map is attached: 0 Write the goals and objectives established by the Local Mitigation Strategy Planning Group is most applicable to this initiative: o the category of the initiative: [8J Structural 0 Non-structural 0 Mixed/both C:\Documents and Settings\jpulvino\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3A\LMS 3 Characterization edited FORMflagler.doc Copyright, 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights reserved Describe the "worst case" disaster scenario and its direct and indirect impact on the facility, system or neighborhood to be protected by the proposed initiative: (Be Concise) the result will be protection to 250 homes, 45 businesses 2 Governmental offices and transportation corridor What is the dollar value of the total direct losses for damages or destruction to the facility, system or neighborhood likely in this scenario: $ 101 OOOOAttach Cost to Benefit Analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses) What is the dollar value of the total indirect losses (e,g" lost job income, lost revenue, extra operating costs, etc,) likely in this scenario: $ 18000 Attach Cost to Benefit Analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses) Total of direct and indirect losses under this scenario: $ 1028000 Will the initiative avoid or prevent all of these direct and indirect losses0? 0 yes ~ no If no, what percent decrease in losses can be estimated? 75% What is the adjusted direct and indirect losses under this scenario (The total of direct and indirect losses multiplied by the percentage of decrease in losses): $ 771000 How many people would be injured, sickened or killed in the "worst case" scenario without this initiative? 10injured, sickened, killed Are there valuable cultural, historic or environmental resources that would be protected by the initiative?0: yes 0 no ~ If yes, list or describe these resources: II. INITIATIVE BENEFITS Is a designated "critical facility" to be benefited by the proposal?0: yes 0 no ~ If yes, give the following information for each facility benefited: Name/Descri tion T e of Critical Facili Govt center Identification Number Describe the consequences of the total or partial loss of the critical facility(ies) listed in the "worst case" scenario: flooding will cause the blockage of the street and destruction of landscaping and damage to homes, businesses, etc For all types of proposed initiatives, including those for protection of critical facilities, give the following: 1, Number of people directly and indirectly benefited: 1800 2, Percentage of the jurisdiction's population or organization's client based benefited: 14% C:\Documents and Settings~pulvino\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3A\LMS 4 Characterization edited FORMflagler.doc Copyright, 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights reserved 3, Number of structures to be benefited: 297 4, Total estimated value of the structures and contents: $ 7000000 5, Number of businesses to be benefited: 8000 6, Total estimated number of employees benefited: 200 7, Valuable environmental resources to be protected?0: yes 0 no [gI 8. Valuable cultural or historic resources to be protected?0: yes 0 no [gI If #7 or #8 are "yes," provide the following: Name of resource Location/address Size Current Status (acres, # of (Registered, structures, protected, etc,) etc,) IV. COST OF THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE Estimate the total cost to implement to proposal (for design and construction, construction management, purchase and installation, etc,) $ 150000 What is the anticipated useful life of the proposal? 30years Calculate the annual cost to implement the proposal? (Divide the cost to implement the proposal by its useful life): $15000 per year Estimate the annual cost to maintain or service the proposal: $5000 per year Determine the total annual cost to implement and maintain the proposal (Add the annual cost to implement the proposal to the annual cost to maintain the proposal): $500 per year Briefly explain any important assumptions or estimates used to develop the annual cost to implement the proposal: Installation and design, $150,000 ~ THECOSTIMPACTOFTHEPROPOSAL Some mitigation initiatives could result in costs to others for their implementation, in addition to costs to the proposal's sponsor or the organization that implement the proposal, This section allows the "cost impact, n if any, to be estimated, No cost impact is foreseen from implementation of the proposal (0 for correct): ~ Estimate any initial or immediate cost impact of implementation: $ Estimate the annualized immediate cost impact of implementation (Divide the initial cost impact by the useful life of the proposal): $ per year Estimate any ongoing, annual cost impacts amounts: $ per year C:\Docurnents and Settings\jpulvino\Local Settings\Ternporary Internet Files\OLK3A\LMS 5 Characterization edited FORMflagler,doc Copyright, 2001 emergency response panning & management, inc. All rights reserved Calculate the annualized cost impact of the proposal (Add the annualized immediate cost impact to the annual ongoing cost impacts): $ per year Identify the group most likely to bear this cost impact (Check all that apply): Educational institutions Retail businesses Service businesses Manufacturers Tourism businesses VI. COMPARISON OF BENEFITS TO COSTS A. List the total annualized cost of "not taking action" or not implementing the proposal is (This is the adiusted direct and indirect losses divided by the useful life of the proposal) (Specify Design Storm) $233333 per year 8, Give the total annualized cost to implement (From above): $5000 per year C. Give the total annualized cost (with inflation) with impact of implementation (From above): Inflation rate - average consumer price index increase for 10 years, $ per year Calculate the preliminarv benefit to cost ratio (Divide "A" by the sum of "B" + "C"): The preliminary benefit to cost ratio only considers values that can be measured in dollars. The Mitigation 20/20™ approach considers "intangible" benefits of the proposed initiative as well, such as lives saved and injuries prevents, as well as valuable environmental or cultural resources protected, This is done by applying "multipliers" to the preliminary benefit to cost ratio to increase it to a level commensurate with the intangible benefits it would derive. These multipliers are the following: Multi Iier Value 1,0 1.5 Public Health and Safet Factor No benefit Benefits up to 1,000 people Multi lier Value 1,0 1,1 2,0 Benefits 1, to 50,000 people 1,3 2.5 1,5 Valuable Resource Factor No benefit Benefits less than 10 acres or one structure/site Benefits 10-50 acres or two structures sites Benefits more than 50 acres or more than 2 structures 3,0 Calculate the adiusted benefit to cost ratio for the proposal (multiply the preliminary ratio by the applicable multiplier listed in the table): 2 VII. FEASIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTATION Copyright, 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights reserved C:\Documents and Settings~pulvino\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3A\LMS 6 Characterization edited FORMflagler.doc Check the statement that most applies to this proposal regarding its consistency with other applicable plans, programs or policies of the jurisdiction or proposing agency (i.e. State Emergency Management Plan, Capital Budget, LMS, Plan, Comprehensive Plan): o The proposal is listed in at least 3 other documents or is highly consistent with other plans o The proposal is listed in at least 2 other documents and is consistent with other plans [8] The proposal is listed in at least 1 other document and is not inconsistent o The proposal is not listed in any documents D The proposal is in conflict with other documents (list conflict) D The proposal may have inconsistencies and needs more analysis If applicable, list any documents that support this proposal or type of proposal, giving the following: Document Title Issued by Date issued I Section or page edition number for number proposal reference LMS PLAM COUNTY 2000 LMS Plan /Citv of Kev West 2000 List the permits and approvals likely to be needed for implementation: o No permits or approvals required [8] Local permits/approvals: D State permits/approvals: o Federal permits/approvals: Estimate how long it will take to complete implementation of the proposal: 1 years Check the statement that most accurately describes implementation effort needed for this proposal: [8] The proposal would be relatively easy to accomplish o The proposal is not anticipated to be difficult to accomplish o The proposal is somewhat difficult to accomplish D The proposal is difficult to accomplish o The proposal if very difficult to accomplish Check the statement that most accurately describes how the community would react to the implementation of the proposal: [8] The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community o The proposal would benefit those affected, with minimal adverse reaction from others D The proposal would be somewhat controversial o The proposal would be strongly opposed by most o The proposal would be strongly opposed by nearly all C:\Documents and Settings\jpulvino\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3A\LMS 7 Characterization edited FORMflagler.doc Copyright, 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights reserved If the proposal would be expected to be generally acceptable to the community, are there special interest groups or stakeholders that would oppose it?0: yes 0 no IZI If yes, identify these groups: VII. FUNDING SOURCES Check the single most appropriate category of funding for the proposal from the list below: '" D Alternative power Codes/ordinances Communications Dune restoration - erosion control Emergency response e ui ment Public education D D If existing funding sources for the proposal have been identified or are very likely to be used, identify them here: Infrastructure Check the statement below that most accurately defines the funding situation for the proposal: o No potential funding sources can be readily identified IZI The only non-local potential funding source is federal hazard mitigation grant money IZI Partial funding could be accomplished with local matching funds (budget or grants) C:\Documents and Settings\jpulvino\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3A\LMS 8 Characterization edited FORMflagler,doc Copyright, 2001 emergency response planning & menagement, inc. All rights reserved LMS PROJECT PRIORITIZA TION FORM EAST MARTELLO FOUNDATION RESTORATION Points 1, Meeting LMS Goals & Objectives & Number of Goals met ~~~.f.~llt A. Preservaton & Sustainability of Life Health, Safety & Welfare - 50 Pts B, Preservation of infrastructure from hazard-related damage - 30 Pts 30 C. Minimize damage & maintain roads & bridges during a disaster - 30 Pts 30 0, Protection of critical facilities from hazard-related damage - 10 Pts E. Preservation of property & assets from future losses - 10 Pts 10 F, Preservation of economy during times of disaster - 10 Pts G, Preservation and protection of the environment - 10 Pts 2. Percentage of permanent population served by the project: Jr'lj~,~~il~~ A. Up to 10% 20 Pts B, 11 to 25% 40 Pts C. 26 to 40% 60 Pts 0, 41 TO 65% 80 Pts 80 E. 66 to 80% 100 Pts F, 81 to 100% 130 Pts 3, Type and number of hazards addressed: )1~~Ii~t~i~f!:\;? A. Hurricanes and other severe weather 20Pts 20 B. Utility outages or disruption 15 Pts C. Transportation disruption 10 Pts D, Economic Emergencies 10 Pts E. Communications disruption 10 Pts F, Mass immigration 5 Pts G. Hazardous materials incidents 5 Pts H. Coastal oil spills 5 Pts I. Radiological emeraencies 5 Pts J, Epidemiological emergencies 5 Pts K. Drought 5 Pts L. Wildland fires 5 Pts M. Terrorism/Civil disturbance 5 Pts N. Military conflict 5 Pts 4. Cost effectiveness based on Cost/Benefit Analysis: A. Ratio of 1 to 1 10 Pts B, Ratio of 1 to 2 20 Pts C. Ratio of 1 to 3 30 Pts D. Ratio of 1 to 4 etc. 40 Pts 40 5, Economic Benefits A. If economic benefit demonstrated 30 Pts 30 6. Social Benefits A. If social benefit is demonstrated 20 Pts 20 7. Environmental Benefits A. If environmental benefit demonstrated 20 Pts 20 8. Time Frame A. Six (6) months or less 20 Pts B. Six (6) months to one year 10 Pts C. One to two years 5 Pts 5 9. Financially feasible? YES or NO YES 10, Technically feasble? YES or NO YES 11, Funding Available? YES or NO NO (ONLY LMS) 12, Have IElQal authority: YES or NO YES TOTAL POINTS 285 EAST MARTELLO FOUNDATION RESTORATION.xls4/1/02 Monroe County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Characterization FORM Jurisdiction Name: Monroe County Date Form Completed: 2/26/02 Organization/agency submitting initiative: Monroe County Contact Individual Name: Don Miner Address: 1100 Simonton Street. Key West. Florida 33040 Is this initiative new or a revision of an earlier initiative? Check one: New L Revision Ifit is a revision, give the LMS Planning Group identification number o/initiative: I. INITIATIVE DESCRIPTION Initiative Name: East Martello Foundation Restoration. Briefly describe the initiative: This initiative is designed to restore deteriorating foundation on brick structure to maintain structural integrity. If the initiative is structural or involves a specific location, attach a map showing the location. Check if map is attached.~ Write the goals and objectives established by the Local Mitigation Strategy Planning Group that are most applicable to this initiative. Preserve historic structure from repetitive damage - preserve educational facility. Check the category of the initiative X Structural Non-Structural Mixedlboth Identify the hazards intended to be addressed by this initiative: Natural Hazard Technological Hazards Societal Hazards X High winds - Hurricane Hazardous materials Transportation X Flooding (Storm Surge) Utilities X T errorismlCivil Disturbances X - Tropical Storm - Loss of electric service X Economic Crisis - Tropical Depression - Loss of water service Military Conflict - Tornado - Loss of sewer service Mass Immigration Wind Coastal Oil Spill X Key employer crisis Drought Telecommunications Failure . Wild Land Fires Radiological Accident .. Epidemiologist Emergency Describe the ''worst case" disaster scenario and its direct and indirect impact on the facility, system, or neighborhood to be protected by the proposed initiative: (Be concise). Loss of historic structure employment. art and artifacts, What is the dollar value of the total direct losses for damages or destruction to the facility, system, or neighborhood likely in this scenario: $1.000.000 Attach Cost to Benefit analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses.) What is the dollar value of the total indirect losses (e.g., lost job income, lost revenue, extra operating costs, etc.) likely in this scenario: $60.000 Attach Cost to Benefit Analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses.) Total of direct and indirect losses under this scenario: $1.060.000 Will the initiatiye avoid or prevent all of these direct and indirect losses? l Yes No Ifno, what percent decrease in losses can be estimated? % What are the adjusted direct and indirect losses under this scenario (The total of direct and indirect losses multiplied by the percentage of decrease in losses): $ How many people would be injured, sickened, or killed in the "worst case" scenario without this initiative? _ Injured Sickened Killed Are there valuable cultural, historical, or environmental resources that would be protected by the initiative? l Yes No If yes, list or describe these resources. Historic building -last of3 Martello Towers left standing in this country, Irreplaceable art. history. and artifacts - educational facility. II INITIATIVE BENEFITS Is a designated "critical facility" to be benefited by the proposal? If yes, give the following information for each facility benefited: Yes lNo Facir NamelDescri tion T of Critical Facir Identification Number Describe the consequences of the total or partial loss of the critical facility(ies) listed in the "worst case" scenario: For all types of proposed initiatives, including those for protection of critical facilities, give the following: 1. Number of people directly and indirectly benefited: Population of Monroe County 2. Percentage of the jurisdiction's population or organization's client base benefited: 100% 3. Number of structures to be benefited: .1 4. Total estimated value of the structures and contents: $ 5. Number of businesses to be benefited:.l 6. Total estimated number of employees benefited: 30 7. Valuable environmental resources to be protected? l Yes No 8. Valuable cultural or historic resources to be protected? l Yes _ No If#7 or #8 is "yes", provide the following: Name of Resource Location! Address Size Current Status (Acres, # of (Registered, protected, structures, etc.) etc,) East Martello 3501 S. Roosevelt Blvd. Registered, Protected III COST OF THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE Estimate the total cost to implement the proposal (for design and construction, construction management, purchase and installation, etc,) $ What is the anticipated useful life of the proposal? 100 years Calculate the annual cost to implement the proposal. (Divide the cost to implement the proposal by its useful life): $21.200 per year Estimate the annual cost to maintain or service the proposal: $5.000 per year Determine the total annual cost to implement and maintain the proposal (Add the annual cost to implement the proposal to the annual cost to maintain the proposal): $27.200 per year Briefly explain any important assumptions or estimates used to develop the annual cost to implement the proposal: Staff and architect's estimates IV THE COST IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL Some mitigation initiatives could result in costs to others for their implementation, in addition to costs to the proposal's sponsor or the organization that implements the proposal. This section allows the "cost impact", if any, to be estimated. No cost impact is foreseen from implementation of the proposal. l True False Estimate any initial or immediate cost impact of implementation: $ 0 Estimate the annualized immediate cost impact of implementation (Divide the initial cost impact by the useful life of the proposal: LJt. Estimate any ongoing, annual cost impact amounts: U Calculate the annualized cost impact of the proposal (Add the annualized immediate cost impact to the annual ongoing cost impacts): ~ to bear this cost im act (Check all that a ply) Grou Educational Institutions Retail Businesses Service Businesses Manufactures Tourism Businesses Grou Health Care Facilities Local Government Public Safet Or anizations Local Utilities Other: V COMPARISON OF BENEFITS TO COSTS A. List the total annualized cost of "not taking action" or not implementing the proposal is (This is the adiusted direct and indirect losses divided by the useful life of the proposal) (Specify Design Storm) $32.000 per year B. Give the total annualized cost to implement (From above): $27.200 per year C. Give the total annualized cost (with inflation) with impact of implementation (From above): Inflation rate - average consumer price index increase for 10 years, $ per year Calculate the preliminary benefit to cost ratio (Divide "A" by the sum of"B" + "C"): 1.2 The preliminary benefit to cost ratio only considers values that can be measured in dollars. The Mitigation 20/20 approach considers "intangible" benefits of the proposed initiative as well, such as lives saved and injwies prevented, as well as valuable environmental or cultural resources protected. This is done by applying "multipliers" to the preliminary benefit to cost ration to increase it to a level commensurate with the intangible benefits it would derive. The multipliers are the following: Multiplier Public Health and Safety Factor Multiplier Valuable Resource Factor Value Value 1.0 No benefit 1.0 No benefit 1.5 Benefits up to 1,000 people 1.1 Benefits less than 10 acres or one structure/site 2.0 Benefits 1,000 to 50,000 people 1.3 Benefits 10-50 acres or two structure sites 2.5 Benefits 50,000 to 250,000 people 1.5 Benefits more than 50 acres or more than 2 structures 3.0 Benefits more than 250,000 eo Ie Calculate the adiusted benefit to cost ration for the proposal (multiply the preliminary ratio by the applicable multiplier listed in the table): .u. VI FEASIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTATION Check the statement that most applies to this proposal regarding its consistency with other applicable plans, programs, or policies of the jurisdiction or proposing agency (i.e., State Emergency Management Plan, Capital budget, LMS Plan, Comprehensive Plan): The proposal is listed in at least 3 other documents or is highly consistent with other plans. --X.. The proposal is listed in at least 2 other documents and is consistent with other plans. The proposal is listed in at least 1 other document and is not inconsistent. The proposal is not listed in any documents. The proposal is in conflict with other documents (list conflicts), The proposal may have inconsistencies and needs more analysis. Ifapplicable, list any documents that support this proposal or type of proposal, giving the following: Document Title Issued By Date Issued! Section or page number Edition Number for DI'Ooosal reference Architectural Conservation Dr. Diana Godwin 2001 11 - 21 (pages) Assessment of East Martello List the permits and approvals likely to be needed for implementation: No permits or approvals required. .lL Local permits/approvals, State permits/approvals. Federal permitslapproyals. Estimate how long it will take to complete implementation of the proposal: years Check the statement that most accurately describes implementation efforts needed for this proposal: l The proposal would be relatively easy to accomplish. The proposal is not anticipated to be difficult to accomplish. The proposal is somewhat difficuh to accomplish, The proposal is difficult to accomplish, The proposal is very difficult to accomplish, Check the statement that most accurately describes how the community would react to the implementation of the proposal: .lL The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. The proposal would benefit those affected, with minimal adverse reaction from others. The proposal would be somewhat controversial. The proposal would be strongly opposed by most. The proposal would be strongly opposed by nearly all, If the proposal would be expected to be generally acceptable to the community, are there special interest groups or stakeholders that would oppose it? _ Yes -X No If yes identify these groups. VII FUNDING SOURCES Check the single most appropriate category of funding for the proposal from the list below: Funding Category Funding Category Funding Category Agricultural assistance General funding sources Retrofit public/historic structures Alternative power Infrastructure systems Rivers/streams - restoration/preservation Codes/ordinances New public building Stafford Act (HMGP) Communications Parks/natural area Stormwater/flood control development/preservation structures Dune restoration - erosion Plans and procedures Training - emergency control servIces Emergency response Public education Wetlands development and eQuipment restoration If existing funding sources for the proposal have been identified or are very likely to be used, identify them here: Check the statement below that most accurately defmes the funding situation for the proposal: No potential funding sources can be readily identified. l The only non-local potential funding source is federal hazard mitigation grant money. Partial funding could be accomplished with local matching funds (budget or grants). . ~~ "'APQ~~'S~:'~;.:.;;:~'::-:;~"_\,~j,--_'d' · ....- 1iC/ ri!9. ,!;. ~\9.~\~~t>.>~~-.,;:~,~.~-~.- EAST MARTELLO MUSEUM FOUNDATION PROJECT 3150 SOUTH ROOSEVELT BLVD KEY WEST, FLORIDA LMS PROJECT PRIORITIZA TION FORM MONROE COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Points 1. Meeting LMS Goals & Objectives & Number of Goals met ~'g~i~rfl~I~lyyi A. Preservaton & Sustainability of Life Health, Safety & Welfare- 50 Pts 50 B, Preservation of infrastructure from hazard-related damage - 30 Pts C. Minimize damage & maintain roads & bridges during a disaster - 30 Pts D. Protection of critical facilities from hazard-related damaoe - 10 Pts E. Preservation of property & assets from future losses - 10 Pts F. Preservation of economy during times of disaster - 10 Pts G, Preservation and protection of the environment - 10 Pts 2, Percentage of permanent population served by the project: A. Up to 10% 20 Pts B, 11 to 25% 40 Pts C, 26 to 40% 60 Pts 0, 41 TO 65% 80 Pts E. 66 to 80% 100 Pts 100 F. 81 to 100% 130 Pts 3, Type and number of hazards addressed: A. Hurricanes and other severe weather 20 Pts 20 B. Utility outages or disruption 15 Pts C, Transportation disruption 10 Pts 10 0, Economic Emeroencies 10 Pts E. Communications disruption 10 Pts 10 F, Mass immigration 5 Pts G, Hazardous materials incidents 5 Pts 5 H, Coastal oil spills 5 Pts 5 I. RadiolOQical emergencies 5 Pts J. Epidemiological emergencies 5 Pts K. Drought 5 Pts L. Wildland fires 5 Pts M. Terrorism/Civil disturbance 5 Pts 5 N, Military conflict 5 Pts 5 4, Cost effectiveness based on CostlBenefit Analysis: )~..Iia~ A. Ratio of 1 to 1 10 Pts B. Ratio of 1 to 2 20 Pts 20 C. Ratio of 1 to 3 30 Pts 0, Ratio of 1 to 4 etc. 40 Pts 5. Economic Benefits Jt!t~illf~~iltq~ A. If economic benefit demonstrated 30 Pts 6. Social Benefits A. If social benefit is demonstrated 20 Pts 7. Environmental Benefits A. If environmental benefit demonstrated 20 Pts 8. Time Frame A. Six (6) months or less 20 Pts B. Six (6) months to one year 10 Pts 10 C, One to two years 5 Pts 9, Financially feasible? YES or NO YES 10. Technically feasble? YES or NO YES 11. FundinQ Available? YES or NO NO 12, Have legal authority: YES or NO YES TOTAL POINTS 260 MONROE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS.xls4/9/02 / Monroe County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Characterization of Proposed Mitigation Initiatives Monroe County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Characterization of Proposed Mitigation Initiatives Characterization FORM Jurisdiction Name: Monroe County Date form completed: 2/13/02 Organization/agency submitting initiative: Monroe County Public Works Contact Individual Name: Rufus Frazier Address: 3583 S. Roosevelt Blvd" Key West, FL 33040 Is this initiative new or a revision of an earlier initiative? (Itr one) New ~ Revision D If it is a revision, give the LMS Planning Group identification number of initiative: I. INITIATIVE DESCRIPTION .-"~",...' -, -,,""'::::11'> Initiative Name: Monroe County Communications Improvement P~~~!I~~ Briefly describe the initiative: Monroe County Public Works has been using the same VHF frequency for over 20 years. A supervisor in the field cannot talk to another employee over four or five miles away. Public Works is the key organization in storm preparations and recovery and reliable communications are critical. Public Works' current system does not provide effective communications. The Monroe County Sheriff's Office is in the process of acquiring a new $8 million, 800M Hz, communications system county wide, and Public Works could utilize this infrastructure by replacing the vehicle and handheld VHF radios they currently have. This would provide state-of-the- . art communications at minimum cost for Public Works. . If the initiative is structural or involves a specific location, attach a map showing the location. Itr if map is attached: 0 Write the goals and objectives established by the Local Mitigation Strategy Planning Group is most applicable to this initiative: 1. Preservation and sustainability of life health, and welfare. . o the category of the initiative: D Structural ~ Non-structural D Mixedlboth dentifv the hazards intended to be addressed bv this initiative: -/ Natural Hazard -/ TechnoloaicaIHazards.... ;'.:c}: r?i;v"/ "0" .. ";;Soeiital.Hazards 0 Hiah winds-Hurricane r Hazardous materials 0 TransDortation 0 Flooding (Storm Surge) C Utilities l- Terrorism/Civil Disturbances 0 - TroDical Storm - Loss of electric service Economic crisis [J - Tropical Deoression - Loss of water service Militarv Conflict 0 - Tornado - Loss of sewer service Mass Immiaration C. \ TEM P\PWCommlmprovement. doc Copyright, 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights reserved 1 D D D D . C~l~;Y: tn""orover::ent. doc 2 COPYright, 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights reserved Describe the "worst case" disaster scenario and its direct and indirect impact on the facility, system or neighborhood to be protected by the proposed initiative: (Be Concise) Public Works base stations will be lost and if cell phones are down emergency communications would extremely limit a coordinated recovery effort, jeopardizing lives. What is the dollar value of the total direct losses for damages or destruction to the facility, system or neighborhood likely in this scenario: $ Attach Cost to Benefit Analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses) What is the dollar value of the total indirect losses (e,g"lost job income, lost revenue, extra operating costs, etc,) likely in this scenario: $ Attach Cost to Benefit Analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses) Total of direct and indirect losses under this scenario: $ Will the initiative avoid or prevent all of these direct and indirect lossesltl? Dyes 0 no If no, what percent decrease in losses can be estimated? % What is the adjusted direct and indirect losses under this scenario (The total of direct and indirect losses multiplied by the percentage of decrease in losses): $ How many people would be injured, sickened or killed in the "worst case" scenario without this initiative? 100injured, . sickened, 10killed Are there valuable cultural, historic or environmental resources that would be protected by the initiative?ltl: yes 0 no ~ If yes, list or describe these resources: II. INITIATIVE BENEFITS Is a designated "critical facility" to be benefited by the proposal?ltl: yes D no D If yes, give the following information for each facility benefited: Facilitv Name/Description Tvpe of Critical Facilitvldel1tificationNumber Describe the consequences of the total or partial loss of the critical facility(ies) listed in the "worst case" scenario: For all types of proposed initiatives, including those for protection of critical facilities, give the following: 1. Number of people directly and indirectly benefited: 80000 2. Percentage of the jurisdiction's population or organization's client based benefited: 100% 3. Number of structures to be benefited: 4, Total estimated value of the structures and contents: $ c. \TEM P\PWComm I mprovement. doc Copyright, 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights reserved 3 , 5. Number of businesses to be benefited: 6, Total estimated number of employees benefited: 100 7. Valuable environmental resources to be protected?0: yes [gI no D 8, Valuable cultural or historic resources to be protected?0: yes 0 no [gI If #7 or #8 are "yes," provide the following: Name of resource Location/address Size Current Status (acres, # of (Registered, structures, protected, etc,) etc.) i IV. COST OF THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE Estimate the total cost to implement to proposal (for design and construction, construction management, purchase and installation, etc.) $ 150000 What is the anticipated useful life of the proposal? 20+years Calculate the annual cost to implement the proposal? (Divide the cost to implement the proposal by its useful life): $7500 per year Estimate the annual cost to maintain or service the proposal: $1500 per year Determine the total annual cost to implement and maintain the proposal (Add the annual cost to implement the proposal to the annual cost to maintain the proposal): $9000 per year Briefly explain any important assumptions or estimates used to develop the annual cost to implement the proposal: The whole project involves purchasing new radios V. THE COST IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL Some mitigation initiatives could result in costs to others for their implementation, in addition to costs to the proposal's sponsor or the organization that implement the proposal, This section allows the "cost impact, " if any to be estimated. No cost impact is foreseen from implementation of the proposal (0 for correct): D Estimate any initial or immediate cost impact of implementation: $ 150000 Estimate the annualized immediate cost impact of implementation (Divide the initial cost impact by the useful life of the proposal): $ per year Estimate any ongoing, annual cost impacts amounts: $ per year Calculate the annualized cost impact of the proposal (Add the annualized immediate cost impact to the annual ongoing cost impacts): $ per year Identify the group most likely to bear this cost impact (Check all that apply): '~~', CJ\/\JC:cmmlrnorcvement.dcc Copyright. 2001 emergency response plaming & management. inc. All rights reserved 4 , ./ D D D D D Grau. Educational institutions Retail businesses Service businesses Manufacturers Tourism businesses VI. COMPARISON OF BENEFITS TO COSTS A. List the total annualized cost of "not taking action" or not implementing the proposal is (This is the adiusted direct and indirect losses divided by the useful life of the proposal) (Specify Design Storm) $ per year 8, Give the total annualized cost to implement (From above):. $ per year C. Give the total annualized cost (with inflation) with impact of implementation (From above): Inflation rate - average consumer price index increase for 10 years. $ per year Calculate the preliminarv benefit to cost ratio (Divide "A" by the sum of "B" + "C"): The preliminary benefit to cost ratio only considers values that can be measul8d in dollars. The Mitigation 20/20TM approach considers "intangible" benefits of the proposed initiative as well, such as lives saved and injuries prevents, as well as valuable environmental or. culturall8sources protected. This is done by applying "multipliers" to the preliminary benefit to cost ratio to increase it to a level commensurate with the intangible benefits it would derive. These multipliers al8 the following: Multi Iier Value 1.0 1.5 Public Health and Safe Factor No benefit Benefits up to 1,000 people Benefits 1, to 50,000 people Multi lier Value 1.0 1.1 2.0 1.3 2.5 1.5 Valuable Resource Factor No benefit Benefits less than 10 acres or one structure/site Benefits 10-50 acres or two structures sites Benefits more than 50 acres or more than 2 structures 3,0 Calculate the adiusted benefit to cost ratio for the proposal (multiply the preliminary ratio by the applicable multiplier listed in the table): 2 VII. FEASIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTATION Check the statement that most applies to this proposal regarding its consistency with other applicable plans, programs or policies of the jurisdiction or proposing agency (Le. State Emergency Management Plan, Capital Budget, LMS, Plan, Comprehensive Plan): C:\TEMP\PWCommlmprovement,doc Copyright, 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc, All rights relllMld 5 , o The proposal is listed in at least 3 other documents or is highly consistent with other plans o The proposal is listed in at least 2 other documents and is consistent with other plans o The proposal is listed in at least 1 other document and is not inconsistent [8J The proposal is not listed in any documents o The proposal is in conflict with other documents (list conflict) o The proposal may have inconsistencies and needs more analysis If applicable, list any documents that support this proposal or type of proposal, giving the following: ! Document Title Issued by Date issued I Section or page I edition number for i number proposal reference i ~ List the permits and approvals likely to be needed for implementation: [8J No permits or approvals required D Local permits/approvals: D State permits/approvals: D Federal permits/approvals: Estimate how long it will take to complete implementation of the proposal: years Check the statement that most accurately describes implementation effort needed for this proposal: [8J The proposal would be relatively easy to accomplish o The proposal is not anticipated to be difficult to accomplish D The proposal is somewhat difficult to accomplish D The proposal is difficult to accomplish o The proposal if very difficult to accomplish Check the statement that most accurately describes how the community would react to the implementation of the proposal: [8J The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community D The proposal would benefit those affected, with minimal adverse reaction from others D The proposal would be somewhat controversial o The proposal would be strongly opposed by most o The proposal would be strongly opposed by nearly all If the proposal would be expected to be generally acceptable to the community, are there special interest groups or stakeholders that would oppose it?0: yes 0 no C8J If yes, identify these groups: VII. FUNDING SOURCES :: ;;~: ::;\.^jCGmmlmorovementdoc COPyright, 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights reserved 6 Check the single most appropriate category of funding for the proposal from the list below: ./ ./ 181 Public education D D Alternative power D D D D Codes/ordinances Communications D D D Dune restoration - erosion control Emergency response e ui ment If existing funding sources for the proposal have been identified or are very likely to be used, identify them here: Road Gas taxes & Ad valorem Check the statement below that most accurately defines the funding situation for the proposal: o No potential funding sources can be readily identified o The only non-local potential funding source is federal hazard mitigation grant money ~ Partial funding could be accomplished with local matching funds (budget or grants) C: \ TEM P\PWComml m provement. doc Copyright, 2001 emergency response planning & management. inc. All rights reserved 7 LMS PROJECT PRIORITIZA TION FORM KEY WEST CITY HALL HURRICANE SHUfTERS Points 1, Meeting LMS Goals & Objectives & Number of Goals met ~'*l~~{~~I,~~t~t~ZK~~~c: A. Preservaton & Sustainability of Life Health, Safety & Welfare - 50 pts 50 B, Preservation of infrastructure from hazard-related damage- 30 pts 30 C, Minimize damage & maintain roads & bridges during a disaster - 30 pts D, Protection of critical facilities from hazard-related damage - 10 pts 10 E. Preservation of property & assets from future losses - 10 pts 10 F, Preservation of economy during times of disaster - 10 pts G, Preservation and protection of the environment - 10 pts 2. Percentage of permanent population served by the project: A. Up to 10% 20 pts B, 11 to 25% 40 pts C. 26 to 40% 60 pts 60 D. 41 TO 65% 80 pts E. 66 to 80% 100 pts F. 81 to 100% 130 pts 3. Type and number of hazards addressed: !jt~7~;;tJ'\~~~1,;{ii,~; A. Hurricanes and other severe weather 20 pts 20 B. Utility outages or disruption 15 pts C, Transportation disruption 10 pts D, Economic Emergencies 10 pts E. Communications disruption 10 pts F. Mass immigration 5 pts G, Hazardous materials incidents 5 pts H. Coastal oil spills 5 pts I. Radiological emergencies 5 pts J, Epidemiological emergencies 5 pts K. Drought 5 pts L. Wildland fires 5 pts M, Terrorism/Civil disturbance 5 pts 5 N, Military conflict 5 pts 4. Cost effectiveness based on Cost/Benefit Analysis: ~y,{~~W~~'t~lt\;~i;fi A. Ratio of 1 to 1 10 pts B. Ratio of 1 to 2 20 pts C. Ratio of 1 to 3 30 pts D. Ratio of 1 to 4 etc. 40 pts 40 5, Economic Benefits ~~ili~~~i?~!~( A. If economic benefit demonstrated 30 pts 6. Social Benefits )@~~f:~1~$I;f~~t~!(;jl A. If social benefit is demonstrated 20 pts 7. Environmental Benefits A. If environmental benefit demonstrated 20Pts 8, Time Frame f/~;~j~lft1~;;ll,;(\r;~ A. Six (6) months or less 20 pts B. Six (6) months to one year 10 pts C, One to two years 5 pts 5 9, Financially feasible? YES or NO YES 10, Technically feasble? YES or NO YES 11. Funding Available? YES or NO YES 12. Have legal authority: YES or NO YES TOTAL POINTS 260 KEY WEST CITY HALL HURRICANE SHUTTERS.xls4/6/02 Monroe County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Characterization FORM Jurisdiction Name: City of Key West Date Form Completed: 2/28/02 Organization/agency submitting initiative: City of Key West Contact Individual Name: Annalise Mannix-Lachner, P,E. Address: PO Box 1409, Key West, FL 33041-1409 Is this initiative new or a revision of an earlier initiative? Check one: New L Revision If it is a revision, give the LMS Planning Group identification number of initiative: I. INITIA TIVE DESCRIPTION Initiative Name: Key West City Hall Hurricane Shutters Briefly describe the initiative: This initiative is designed to provide hurricane protection to City Hall. If the initiative is structural or involyes a specific location, attach a map showing the location. Check if map is attached.-L Write the goals and objectives established by the Local Mitigation Strategy Planning Group that are most applicable to this initiative. Check the category of the initiative --X- Structural _ Non-Structural Mixedlboth Ident. the hazards intended to be addressed b this initiative: Teennolo . iCa.lHazMds X Hazardous materials Utilities - Loss of electric service - Loss of water service - Loss of sewer service Coastal Oil S ill Telecommunications Failure Radiolo ical Accident Describe the ''worst case" disaster scenario and its direct and indirect impact on the facility, system, or neighborhood to be protected by the proposed initiative: (Be concise). The result will be protection to Governmental offices and records. What is the dollar value of the total direct losses for damages or destruction to the facility, system, or neighborhood likely in this scenario: $6.000.000 Attach Cost to Benefit analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses.) What is the dollar value of the total indirect losses (e.g" lost job income, lost revenue, extra operating costs, etc.) likely in this scenario: $300.000 Attach Cost to Benefit Analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses.) Total of direct and indirect losses under this scenario: $6.300.000 Will the initiative avoid or prevent all of these direct and indirect losses? Yes ---X- No Ifno, what percent decrease in losses can be estimated? 75% What is the adjusted direct and indirect losses under this scenario (The total of direct and indirect losses multiplied by the percentage of decrease in losses): $4.125.000 How many people would be injured, sickened, or killed in the "worst case" scenario without this initiative? Injured Sickened Killed Are there valuable cultural, historical, or environmental resources that would be protected by the initiative? Yes l No If yes, list or describe these resources. II INITIATIVE BENEFITS Is a designated "critical facility" to be benefited by the proposal? If yes, give the following information for each facility benefited: X Yes No Facility NamelDescription Type of Critical Facility Identification Number City Hall Government Center Describe the consequences of the total or partial loss of the critical facility(ies) listed in the ''worst case" scenario: Police, fire, clerk, city manager, mayor, and revenue offices would need to be relocated, files would be destroyed. For all types of proposed initiatives, including those for protection of critical facilities, give the following: 1. Number of people directly and indirectly benefited: 26.800 2. Percentage of the jurisdiction's population or organization's client base benefited: 100% 3. Number of structures to be benefited: ~ 4. Total estimated value ofthe structures and contents: $7.000.000 5. Number of businesses to be benefited: 8.000 6. Total estimated number of employees benefited: 200 7. Valuable environmental resources to be protected? _ Yes --X.. No 8. Valuable cultural or historic resources to be protected? _ Yes l No If#7 or #8 is "yes", provide the following: Name of Resource Location! Address Size Current Status (Acres, # of (Registered, protected, structures, etc,) etc,) ITI COST OF THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE Estimate the total cost to implement the proposal (for design and construction, construction management, purchase and installation, etc.) $150.000 What is the anticipated useful life of the proposal? 30 years Calculate the annual cost to implement the proposaL (Divide the cost to implement the proposal by its useful life): $5.000 per year Estimate the annual cost to maintain or service the proposal: $300 per year Determine the total annual cost to implement and maintain the proposal (Add the annual cost to implement the proposal to the annual cost to maintain the proposal): $5.300 per year Briefly explain any important assumptions or estimates used to develop the annual cost to implement the proposal: Installation and design: $150.000 IV THE COST IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL Some mitigation initiatives could result in costs to others for their implementation, in addition to costs to the proposal's sponsor or the organization that implements the proposal. This section allows the "cost impact", if any, to be estimated. No cost impact is foreseen from implementation of the proposal. l True False Estimate any initial or immediate cost impact of implementation: None Estimate the annualized immediate cost impact of implementation (Divide the initial cost impact by the useful life of the proposal: None Estimate any ongoing, annual cost impact amounts: None Calculate the annualized cost impact of the proposal (Add the annualized immediate cost impact to the annual ongoing cost impacts): None Check all that a Grou Educational Institutions Retail Businesses Service Businesses Manufactures Tourism Businesses Grou Health Care Facilities Local Government Public Safet Or anizations Local Utilities Other: V COMPARISON OF BENEFITS TO COSTS A. List the total annualized cost of "not taking action" or not implementing the proJX>sal is (This is the adiusted direct and indirect losses divided by the useful life of the proJX>sa1) (Specify Design Storm) $233.333 per year B. Give the total annualized cost to implement (From above): $5.300 per year C. Give the total annualized cost (with inflation) with impact of implementation (From above): Inflation rate - average consumer price index increase for 10 years. Calculate the preliminary benefit to cost ratio (Divide "A" by the sum of"B" + "C"): 233333 divided by 6000 = 38.9 or 38:1 The preliminary benefit to cost ratio only considers values that can be measured in dollars. The Mitigation 20/20 approach considers "intangible" benefits of the proposed initiative as well, such as lives saved and injuries prevented, as well as valuable environmental or cultural resources protected. This is done by applying "multipliers" to the preliminary benefit to cost ration to increase it to a level commensurate with the intangible benefits it would derive. The multipliers are the following: Multiplier Public Health and Safety Factor Multiplier Valuable Resource Factor Value Value 1.0 No benefit 1.0 No benefit 1.5 Benefits up to 1,000 people 1.1 Benefits less than 10 acres or one structure/site 2,0 Benefits 1,000 to 50,000 people 1.3 Benefits 10-50 acres or two structure sites 2.5 Benefits 50,000 to 250,000 people 1.5 Benefits more than 50 acres or more than 2 structures 3.0 Benefits more than 250,000 people ---- ..... 1sal (multiply the preliminary ratio by the applicable multiplier listed in the table): 76 VI FEASIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTATION Check the statement that most applies to this proJX>sal regarding its consistency with other applicable plans, programs, or JX>licies of the jurisdiction or proJX>sing agency (i.e., State Emergency Management Plan, Capital budget, LMS Plan, Comprehensive Plan): The proJX>sal is listed in at least 3 other documents or is highly consistent with other plans. The proJX>sal is listed in at least 2 other documents and is consistent with other plans. -X- The proJX>sa1 is listed in at least 1 other document and is not inconsistent. The proJX>sal is not listed in any documents, The proJX>sal is in conflict with other documents (list conflicts). The proJX>sa1 may have inconsistencies and needs more analysis. Ifapplicable, list any documents that support this proposal or type of proposal, giving the following: Document Title Issued By Date Issued! Section or page number Edition Number for proposal reference LMS Plan Monroe County 2000 LMS Plan City of Key West 2000 List the permits and approvals likely to be needed for implementation: No permits or approvals required. l Local permits/approvals. State permits/approvals. Federal permits/approvals. Estimate how long it will take to complete implementation of the proposal: 1 year Check the statement that most accurately describes implementation efforts needed for this proposal: l The proposal would be relatively easy to accomplish. The proposal is not anticipated to be difficult to accomplish. The proposal is somewhat difficult to accomplish. The proposal is difficult to accomplish. The proposal is very difficult to accomplish. Check the statement that most accurately describes how the community would react to the implementation of the proposal: l The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community, The proposal would benefit those affected, with minimal adverse reaction from others. The proposal would be somewhat controversial. The proposal would be strongly opposed by most The proposal would be strongly opposed by nearly all If the proposal would be expected to be generally acceptable to the community, are there special interest groups or stakeholders that would oppose it? _ Yes -X No If yes identify these groups. VII FUNDING SOURCES Check the single most appropriate category of funding for the proposal from the list below: Funding Category Funding Category Funding Category Agricultural assistance General funding sources Retrofit public/historic structures Alternative power Infrastructure systems Rivers/streams - restoration/preservation Codes/ordinances New public building X Stafford Act (HMGP) Communications Parks/natural area Stormwater/flood control development/preservation structures Dune restoration - erosion Plans and procedures Training - emergency services control Emergency response equipment Public education Wetlands development and restoration If existing funding sources for the proposal have been identified or are very likely to be used, identify them here: Infrastructure Check the statement below that most accurately dermes the funding situation for the proposal: No potential funding sources can be readily identified. l The only non-local potential funding source is federal hazard mitigation grant money. l Partial funding could be accomplished with local matching funds (budget or grants). () - ~ I )> r r LMS PROJECT PRIORITIZA TION FORM EAST MARTELLO WINDOW REPLACEMENT Points 1, Meeting LMS Goals & Objectives & Number of Goals met };ilft~jlf~~~~~Jl~~: A. Preservaton & Sustainability of Life Health, Safety & Welfare - 50 Pts B. Preservation of infrastructure from hazard-related damage - 30 Pts 30 c. Minimize damage & maintain roads & bridges during a disaster - 30 Pts D. Protection of critical facilities from hazard-related damage - 10 Pts E, Preservation of property & assets from future losses - 10 Pts 10 F, Preservation of economy during times of disaster - 10 Pts G. Preservation and protection of the environment - 10 Pts 2. Percentage of permanent population served by the project: J~f'~tl~(~lwf A. Up to 10% 20 Pts B, 11 to 25% 40 Pts C, 26 to 40% 60 Pts 0, 41 TO 65% 80 Pts 80 E. 66 to 80% 100 Pts F, 81 to 100% 130 Pts 3, Type and number of hazards addressed: A. Hurricanes and other severe weather 20 Pts 20 B, Utility outages or disruption 15 Pts C, Transportation disruption 10 Pts D. Economic Emergencies 10 Pts E. Communications disruption 10 Pts F. Mass immigration 5 Pts G, Hazardous materials incidents 5 Pts H, Coastal oil spills 5Pts I. Radiological emergencies 5 Pts J. Epidemiological emergencies 5 Pts K. Drought 5 Pts L. Wildland fires 5 Pts M, Terrorism/Civil disturbance 5 Pts 5 N, Military conflict 5 Pts 4. Cost effectiveness based on Cost/Benefit Analysis: A. Ratio of 1 to 1 10 Pts B. Ratio of 1 to 2 20 Pts C, Ratio of 1 to 3 30 Pts D. Ratio of 1 to 4 etc, 40 Pts 40 5. Economic Benefits ~~fl 30 A. If economic benefit demonstrated 30 Pts 6. Social Benefits A. If social benefit is demonstrated 20 Pts 7, Environmental Benefits )1~.i~I~~~t~t~j A. If environmental benefit demonstrated 20 Pts 8, Time Frame A. Six (6) months or less 20 Pts B, Six (6) months to one year 10 Pts C. One to two years 5 Pts 5 9, Financially feasible? YES or NO YES 10. Technically feasble? YES or NO YES 11, Funding Available? YES or NO NO 12, Have legal authority: YES or NO YES TOTAL POINTS 240 EAST MARTELLO WINDOW REPLACEMENT.xls4I1/02 Monroe County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Characterization FORM Jurisdiction Name: Monroe County Date Form Completed: 2/26/02 Organization/agency submitting initiative: Monroe County Contact Individual Name: Don Miner Address: 1100 Simonton Street, Key West, Florida 33040 Is this initiative new or a revision of an earlier initiative? Check one: New L Revision_ If it is a revision, give the LMS Planning Group identification number of initiative: I. INITIA TIVE DESCRIPTION Initiative Name: East Martello Restoration and Replacement of Windows. Briefly describe the initiative: This initiative is designed to restore historic windows. replace and hurricane proof existing new windows, If the initiative is structural or involves a specific location, attach a map showing the location. Check if map is attached.--X- Write the goals and objectives established by the Local Mitigation Strategy Planning Group that are most applicable to this initiative. Protect building from repetitive damage due to storm winds and flooding, Check the category of the initiative X Structural Non-Structural Mixed/both Identify the hazards intended to be addressed by this initiative: Natural Hazard Technolo~ical Hazards Societal Hazards X High winds - Hurricane Hazardous materials Transportation X Floodin~ (Storm Sur~e) Utilities X T errorismlCivil Disturbances X - Tropical Storm - Loss of electric service X Economic Crisis X - Tropical Depression - Loss of water service Military Conflict X - Tornado - Loss of sewer service Mass Immi1U8tion X Wind Coastal Oil Spill Drought Telecommunications Failure Wild Land Fires Radiolo~ical Accident Epidemiolo~ist Emer~ency Describe the ''worst case" disaster scenario and its direct and indirect impact on the facility, system, or neighborhood to be protected by the proposed initiative: (Be concise). Loss of historic structure due to repetitive damages. loss of art. history. and artifacts, What is the dollar value of the total direct losses for damages or destruction to the facility, system, or neighborhood likely in this scenario: $1.000.000 Attach Cost to Benefit analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses.) What is the dollar value of the total indirect losses (e.g., lost job income, lost revenue, extra operating costs, etc.) likely in this scenario: $60.000 Attach Cost to Benefit Analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses.) Total of direct and indirect losses under this scenario: $1.060.000 Will the initiative avoid or prevent all of these direct and indirect losses? l Yes No Ifno, what percent decrease in losses can be estimated? % What are the adjusted direct and indirect losses under this scenario (The total of direct and indirect losses multiplied by the percentage of decrease in losses): $ How many people would be injured, sickened, or killed in the "worst case" scenario without this initiative? _ Injured Sickened Killed Are there valuable cultural, historical, or environmental resources that would be protected by the initiative? l Yes No If yes, list or describe these resources. Art. history and artifacts of the Florida Keys education facility. II INITIATIVE BENEFITS Is a designated "critical facility" to be benefited by the proposal? If yes, give the following information for each facility benefited: Yes lNo Facility Name/Description Type of Critical Facility Identification Number Describe the consequences of the total or partial loss of the critical facility(ies) listed in the "worst case" scenario: For all types of proposed initiatives, including those for protection of critical facilities, give the following: 1, Number of people directly and indirectly benefited: Population of Monroe County 2. Percentage of the jurisdiction's population or organization's client base benefited: 100% 3. Number of structures to be benefited: ~ 4. Total estimated value of the structures and contents: $1.000.000 5, Number of businesses to be benefited:.1 6. Total estimated number of employees benefited: 30 7. Valuable environmental resources to be protected? l Yes No 8. Valuable cultural or historic resources to be protected? l Yes _ No If#7 or #8 is ''yes'', provide the following: Name of Resource Location! Address Size Current Status (Acres, # of (Registered, protected, structures, etc.) etc.) East Martello 3501 S. Roosevelt Blvd. Registered, Protected III COST OF THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE Estimate the total cost to implement the proposal (for design and construction, construction management, purchase and installation, etc.) $500.000 What is the anticipated useful life of the proposal? 25 years Calculate the annual cost to implement the proposal. (Divide the cost to implement the proposal by its useful life): $20.000 per year Estimate the annual cost to maintain or service the proposal: $5.000 per year Determine the total annual cost to implement and maintain the proposal (Add the annual cost to implement the proposal to the annual cost to maintain the proposal): $25.000 per year Briefly explain any important assumptions or estimates used to develop the annual cost to implement the proposal: Staff and architect's estimates IV THE COST IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL Some mitigation initiatives could result in costs to others for their implementation, in addition to costs to the proposal's sponsor or the organization that implements the proposal. This section allows the "cost impact", if any, to be estimated. No cost impact is foreseen from implementation ofthe proposal. l True False Estimate any initial or immediate cost impact of implementation: $ 0 Estimate the annualized immediate cost impact of implementation (Divide the initial cost impact by the useful life of the proposal: ~ Estimate any ongoing, annual cost impact amounts: U Calculate the annualized cost impact of the proposal (Add the annualized immediate cost impact to the annual ongoing cost impacts): ~ to bear this cost im act (Check all that a pI ) Grou Educational Institutions Retail Businesses Service Businesses Manufactures Tourism Businesses Grou Health Care Facilities Local Government Public Safety Or anizations Local Utilities Other: V COMPARISON OF BENEFITS TO COSTS A. List the total annualized cost of "not taking action" or not implementing the proposal is (This is the adiusted direct and indirect losses divided by the useful life of the proposal) (Specify Design Storm) $42.400 per year B. Give the total annualized cost to implement (From above): $25.000 per year C. Give the total annualized cost (with inflation) with impact of implementation (From above): Inflation rate - average consumer price index increase for 10 years. $ per year Calculate the preliminary benefit to cost ratio (Divide "A" by the sum of"B" + "C"): .L1 The preliminary benefit to cost ratio only considers values that can be measured in dollars. The Mitigation 20/20 approach considers "intangible" benefits of the proposed initiative as well, such as lives saved and injuries prevented, as well as valuable environmental or cultural resources protected. This is done by applying "multipliers" to the preliminary benefit to cost ration to increase it to a level commensurate with the intangible benefits it would derive. The multipliers are the following: Muhiplier Value 1.0 1.5 Public Health and Safety Factor Multiplier Value 1.0 1.1 Valuable Resource Factor No benefit Benefits up to 1,000 people 2.0 Benefits 1,000 to 50,000 people 1.3 No benefit Benefits less than 10 acres or one structure/site Benefits 10-50 acres or two structure sites Benefits more than 50 acres or more than 2 structures 2.5 Benefits 50,000 to 250,000 people 1.5 3.0 Benefits more than 250,000 eo Ie Calculate the adiusted benefit to cost ration for the proposal (multiply the preliminary ratio by the applicable multiplier listed in the table): 1.87 VI FEASffiILITY OF IMPLEMENTATION Check the statement that most applies to this proposal regarding its consistency with other applicable plans, programs, or policies of the jurisdiction or proposing agency (i.e., State Emergency Management Plan, Capital budget, LMS Plan, Comprehensive Plan): The proposal is listed in at least 3 other documents or is highly consistent with other plans. l The proposal is listed in at least 2 other documents and is consistent with other plans. The proposal is listed in at least 1 other document and is not inconsistent. The proposal is not listed in any documents. The proposal is in conflict with other documents (list conflicts). The proposal may have inconsistencies and needs more analysis. If applicable, list any documents that support this proposal or type of proposal, giving the following: Document Title Issued By Date Issued! Section or page number Edition Number for proposal reference Architectural Conservation Dr. Diana Godwin 2001 N/A Assessment of East Martello Historic Structure and Planning Bert Bender 1990 N/A Report List the permits and approvals likely to be needed for implementation: No permits or approvals required. l Local permits/approvals. X State permits/approvals. Federal permits/approvals. Estimate how long it will take to complete implementation of the proposal: 2 years Check the statement that most accurately describes implementation efforts needed for this proposal: X The proposal would be relatively easy to accomplish. The proposal is not anticipated to be difficuh to accomplish. The proposal is somewhat difficult to accomplish. The proposal is difficult to accomplish. The proposal is very difficult to accomplish. Check the statement that most accurately describes how the community would react to the implementation of the proposal: l The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. The proposal would benefit those affected, with minimal adverse reaction from others. The proposal would be somewhat controversial. The proposal would be strongly opposed by most. The proposal would be strongly opposed by nearly all. If the proposal would be expected to be generally acceptable to the community, are there special interest groups or stakeholders that would oppose it? _ Yes ..x No If yes identify these groups. VII FUNDING SOURCES Check the single most appropriate category of funding for the proposal from the list below: Funding Category Funding Category Funding Category Agricultural assistance General funding sources X Retrofit publiclhistoric structures Alternative power Infrastructure systems Rivers/streams - restoration!preservation Codes/ordinances New public building Stafford Act (HMGP) Communications Parks/natural area X Stormwater/flood control development/preservation structures Dune restoration - erosion Plans and procedures Training - emergency control servIces Emergency response Public education Wetlands development and equipment restoration If existing funding sources for the proposal have been identified or are very likely to be used, identify them here: Check the statement below that most accurately defmes the funding situation for the proposal: No potential funding sources can be readily identified. l The only non-local potential funding source is federal hazard mitigation grant money. Partial funding could be accomplished with local matching funds (budget or grants). .~ ~PQv,.s:f}~:: - ,k~;"'.-, J,..,_....' ~ ;~~;::~...:.....~~-~-_.->-' 'Q\9t.~c::' )~ .~. ),JJ~r,;,'.~_~,_/-.;.t>. EAST MARTELLO MUSEUM WINDOW PROJECT 3150 SOUTH ROOSEVELT BLVD KEY WEST, FLORIDA LMS PROJECT PRIORITIZA TIOH FORM EAST MARTELLO STORMWATER RETENTION Points 1. Meeting LMS Goals & Objectives & Number of Goals met ~.lir"t~~ A. Preservaton & Sustainability of Life Health, Safety & Welfare- 50 Pts B. Preservation of infrastructure from hazard-related damaae- 30 Pts 30 C. Minimize damage & maintain roads & bridges during a disaster - 30 Pts D. Protection of critical facilities from hazard-related damage- 10 Pts E. Preservation of property & assets from future losses - 10 Pts 10 F. Preservation of economy during times of disaster - 10 Pts G. Preservation and protection of the environment- 10 Pts 2. Percentage of permanent population served bv the project: A. Up to 10% 20 ptg B. 11 to 25% 40 Pts C. 26 to 40% 60 Pts 60 D. 41 TO 65% 80 Pts E. 66 to 80% 100 Pts F. 81 to 100% 130 Pts 3. Type and number of hazards addressed: A. Hurricanes and other severe weather 20 Pts 20 B. Utility outages or disruption 15 Pts C. Transportation disruption 10 Pts 10 D. Economic Emen:Jencies 10 Pts E. Communications disruption 10 Pts F. Mass immigration 5 Pts G. Hazardous materials incidents 5 Pts H. Coastal oil spills 5 Pts I. Radiological emergencies 5 Pts J. Epidemiological emergencies 5 Pts K. Drought 5 Pts L. Wildland fires 5 Pts M. Terrorism/Civil disturbance 5 Pts N. Military conflict 5 Pts 4. Cost effectiveness based on Cost/Benefit Analysis: A. Ratio of 1 to 1 10 Pts B. Ratio of 1 to 2 20 Pts 20 C. Ratio of 1 to 3 30 Pts D. Ratio of 1 to 4 etc. 40 Pts 5. Economic Benefits }ifl~litt~~~~~ A. If economic benefit demonstrated 30 Pts 30 6. Social Benefits 20 Pts j~l~~tI1 A. If social benefit is demonstrated 7. Environmental Benefits A. If environmental benefit demonstrated 20 Pts )l~.,t~~~(J 8. Time Frame A. Six (6) months or less 20 Pts B. Six (6) months to one year 10 Pts 10 C. One to two years 5 Pts 9. Financially feasible? YES or NO YES 10. Technically feasble? YES or NO YES 11. Funding Available? YES or NO NO 12. Have legal authority: YES or NO YES TOTAL POINTS 210 EAST MARTELLO STORMWA TER RETENTION.xls4/6/02 Monroe County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Characterization FORM Jurisdiction Name: Monroe County Date Form Completed: 2/26/02 Organization!agency submitting initiative: Monroe County Contact Individual Name: Don Miner Address: 1100 Simonton Street. Key West. Florida 33040 Is this initiative new or a revision of an earlier initiative? Check one: New L Revision_ Ifit is a revision, give the LMS Planning Group identification number o/initiative: I. INITIA TIVE DESCRIPTION Initiative Name: East Martello Drainage Plan Briefly describe the initiative: This initiative is designed to provide adequate drainage to serve the property for stormwater control. If the initiative is structural or involves a specific location, attach a map showing the location. Check if map is attached.~ Write the goals and objectives established by the Local Mitigation Strategy Planning Group that are most applicable to this initiative. Check the category of the initiative _ Structural _ Non-Structural ---X- Mixedlboth Identify the hazards intended to be addressed by this initiative: x X X X Technolo ical Hazards Hazardous materials Utilities - Loss of electric service - Loss of water service - Loss of sewer service Coastal Oil S ill Telecommunications Failure Radiolo ical Accident X Describe the ''worst case" disaster scenario and its direct and indirect impact on the facility, system, or neighborhood to be protected by the proposed initiative: (Be concise). Loss of historic structure. art. history. artifacts. iobs. access to airport. and roads. What is the dollar value of the total direct losses for damages or destruction to the facility, system, or neighborhood likely in this scenario: $1.000.000 Attach Cost to Benefit analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses.) What is the dollar value of the total indirect losses (e.g., lost job income, lost revenue, extra operating costs, etc.) likely in this scenario: $60.000 Attach Cost to Benefit Analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses.) Total of direct and indirect losses under this scenario: $1.060.000 Will the initiative avoid or prevent all of these direct and indirect losses? l Yes No If no, what percent decrease in losses can be estimated? % What are the adjusted direct and indirect losses under this scenario (The total of direct and indirect losses multiplied by the percentage of decrease in losses): $ How many people would be injured, sickened, or killed in the ''worst case" scenario without this initiative? _ Injured Sickened Killed Are there valuable cuhural, historical, or environmental resources that would be protected by the initiative? l Yes No If yes, list or describe these resources. Historic structure. art. and historic artifacts. II INITIA TIVE BENEFITS Is a designated "critical facility" to be benefited by the proposal? If yes, give the following information for each facility benefited: Yes lNo Facility Name/Description Type of Critical Facility Identification Number Describe the consequences of the total or partial loss of the critical facility(ies) listed in the ''worst case" scenario: For all types of proposed initiatives, including those for protection of critical facilities, give the following: 1. Number of people directly and indirectly benefited: Population of Monroe County 2. Percentage of the jurisdiction's population or organization's client base benefited: 100% 3. Number of structures to be benefited:-1 4. Total estimated value of the structures and contents: $10.000.000 5. Number of businesses to be benefited: 20 6. Total estimated number of employees benefited: 30 7. Valuable environmental resources to be protected? l Yes No 8. Valuable cultural or historic resources to be protected? l Yes _ No If#7 or #8 is "yes", provide the following: Name of Resource Location! Address Size Current Status (Acres, # of (Registered, protected, structures, etc.) etc.) East Martello 3501 S. Roosevelt Blvd. Registered, Protected III COST OF THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE Estimate the total cost to implement the proposal (for design and construction, construction management, purchase and installation, etc.) $280.000 What is the anticipated useful life of the proposal? 15 years Calculate the annual cost to implement the proposal. (Divide the cost to implement the proposal by its useful life): $18.660 per year Estimate the annual cost to maintain or service the proposal: $2.000 per year Determine the total annual cost to implement and maintain the proposal (Add the annual cost to implement the proposal to the annual cost to maintain the proposal): $20.660 per year Briefly explain any important assumptions or estimates used to develop the annual cost to implement the proposal: Bert Bender IV THE COST IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL Some mitigation initiatives could result in costs to others for their implementation, in addition to costs to the proposal's sponsor or the organizatim that implements the proposal. This section allows the "cost impact", if any, to be estimated. No cost impact is foreseen from implementation of the proposal. l True False Estimate any initial or immediate cost impact of implementation: $ 0 Estimate the annualized immediate cost impact of implementation (Divide the initial cost impact by the useful life of the proposal: ~ Estimate any ongoing, annual cost impact amounts: U Calculate the annualized cost impact of the proposal (Add the annualized immediate cost impact to the annual ongoing cost impacts): L...Q to bear this cost impact (Check all that a Grou Educational Institutions Retail Businesses Service Businesses Manufactures Tourism Businesses Grou Health Care Facilities Local Government Public Safe Or anizations Local Utilities Other: V COMPARISON OF BENEFITS TO COSTS A. List the total annualized cost of "not taking action" or not implementing the proposal is (This is the adiusted direct and indirect losses divided by the useful life of the proposal) (Specify Design Storm) $70.666 per year B. Give the total annualized cost to implement (From above): $20.660 per year C. Give the total annualized cost (with inflation) with impact of implementation (From above): Inflation rate - average consumer price index increase for 10 years. $ per year Calculate the preliminary benefit to cost ratio (Divide "A" by the sum of"B" + "C"): 3.4 The preliminary benefit to cost ratio only considers values that can be measured in dollars. The Mitigation 20/20 approach considers "intangible" benefits of the proposed initiative as well, such as lives saved and injuries prevented, as well as valuable environmental or cultural resources protected. This is done by applying "multipliers" to the preliminary benefit to cost ration to increase it to a level commensurate with the intangible benefits it would derive. The multipliers are the following: Multiplier Public Health and Safety Factor Muhiplier Valuable Resource Factor Value Value 1.0 No benefit 1.0 No benefit 1.5 Benefits up to 1,000 people 1.1 Benefits less than 10 acres or one structure/site 2.0 Benefits 1,000 to 50,000 people 1.3 Benefits 10-50 acres or two structure sites 2.5 Benefits 50,000 to 250,000 people 1.5 Benefits more than 50 acres or more than 2 structures 3.0 Benefits more than 250,000 peo Ie Calculate the adiusted benefit to cost ration for the proposal (multiply the preliminary ratio by the applicable multiplier listed in the table): 4.4 VI FEASIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTATION Check the statement that most applies to this proposal regarding its consistency with other applicable plans, programs, or policies of the jurisdiction or proposing agency (i.e., State Emergency Management Plan, Capital budget, LMS Plan, Comprehensive Plan): The proposal is listed in at least 3 other documents or is highly consistent with other plans. The proposal is listed in at least 2 other documents and is consistent with other plans. X The proposal is listed in at least 1 other document and is not inconsistent. The proposal is not listed in any documents. The proposal is in conflict with other documents (list conflicts). The proposal may have inconsistencies and needs more analysis. If applicable, list any documents that support this proposal or type of proposal, giving the following: Document Title Issued By Date Issued! Section or page number Edition Number for proposal reference East Martello Historic Bert Bender 1990 Structure and Planning Report Architectural Dr. Diana Godwin 2001 Conservation Assessment List the permits and approvals likely to be needed for implementation: No permits or approvals required. l Local permits/approvals. State permits/approvals. Federal permits/approvals. Estimate how long it will take to complete implementation of the proposal: 2 years Check the statement that most accurately describes implementation efforts needed for this proposal: X The proposal would be relatively easy to accomplish. The proposal is not anticipated to be difficult to accomplish. The proposal is somewhat difficult to accomplish. The proposal is difficult to accomplish. The proposal is very difficult to accomplish. Check the statement that most accurately describes how the community would react to the implementation of the proposal: l The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. The proposal would benefit those affected, with minimal adverse reaction from others. The proposal would be somewhat controversial. The proposal would be strongly opposed by most. The proposal would be strongly opposed by nearly all. If the proposal would be expected to be generally acceptable to the community, are there special interest groups or stakeholders that would oppose it? _ Yes ..x No If yes identify these groups. VII FUNDING SOURCES Check the single most appropriate category of funding for the proposal from the list below: Funding Category Funding Category Funding Category Agricultural assistance General funding sources Retrofit public/historic structures Alternative power Infrastructure systems Rivers/streams - restoration!preservation Codes/ordinances New public building Stafford Act (HMGP) Communications Parks/natural area Stormwater/flood control development/preservation structures Dune restoration - erosion Plans and procedures Training - emergency control servIces Emergency response Public education Wetlands development and equipment restoration If existing funding sources for the proposal have been identified or are very likely to be used, identify them here: Check the statement below that most accurately dermes the funding situation for the proposal: No potential funding sources can be readily identified. l The only non-local potential funding source is federal hazard mitigation grant money. Partial funding could be accomplished with local matching funds (budget or grants). 'U... p.v.s::f.!-~"" ...--~".,...., 1-- ...... ~ - -r~:;~' - -.<<\';:"-:'~''''.:;'''-nt ;~ J ..~ ~ ~",....... -~ rJ..lI"L VI......" , ,~- ~~~ ...... '; "t~. ..:''\~ nloJ ..~<~. , 1"""-'- '''' ~ 1(\~~\~::;>"~)..P-" \,~~,:".:;;;.--:.::...-'.\ ",~,...v....--~--....-~ EAST MARTELLO MUSEUM DRAINAGE PROJECT 3150 SOUTH ROOSEVELT BLVD KEY WEST, FLORIDA LMS PROJECT PRIORITIZA TION FORM PK RECYCLING YARD SHUTTERS 1. Meeting LMS Goals & Objectives & Number of Goals met A. Preservaton & Sustainability of Life Health, Safety & Welfare - B. Preservation of infrastructure from hazard-related damage - C. Minimize damage & maintain roads & bridoes during a disaster - D. Protection of critical facilities from hazard-related damage- E. Preservation of property & assets from future losses - F. Preservation of economy during times of disaster - G. Preservation and protection of the environment - 2. Percentage of permanent population served by the project: A. Up to 10% B. 11 to 25% C. 26 to 40% D. 41 TO 65% E. 66 to 80% F. 81 to 100% 3. Type and number of hazards addressed: A. Hurricanes and other severe weather B. Utility outages or disruption C. Transportation disruption D. Economic Emergencies E. Communications disruption F. Mass immigration G. Hazardous materials incidents H. Coastal oil spills I. Radiological emergencies J. Epidemiological emergencies K. Drought L. Wildland fires M. Terrorism/Civil disturbance N. Military conflict 4. Cost effectiveness based on Cost/Benefit Analysis: A. Ratio of 1 to 1 B. Ratio of 1 to 2 C. Ratio of 1 to 3 D. Ratio of 1 to 4 etc. 5. Economic Benefits A. If economic benefit demonstrated 6. Social Benefits A. If social benefit is demonstrated 7. Environmental Benefits A. If environmental benefit demonstrated 8. Time Frame A. Six (6) months or less B. Six (6) months to one year C. One to two years 9. Financially feasible? 10. Technically feasble? 11. Funding Available? 12. Have legal authority: YES or YES or YES or YES or NO NO NO NO 50 pts 30 pts 30 pts 10 pts 10 pts 10 pts 10 pts 20 pts 40 pts 60 pts 80 pts 100 pts 130 pts 20 pts 15 pts 10 pts 10 pts 10 pts 5 pts 5 pts 5Pts 5 pts 5 pts 5 pts 5 pts 5 pts 5 pts 20 pts 20 10 pts 5 pts Points :,~~~~"~~t'J;!~r~:{:~~~7:~?r~JK{ 30 10 60 , '.' ','",. 20 _.l:~!i:(l 40 YES YES YES YES TOTAL POINTS 210 PK RECYCLING YARD SHUTTERS.xls4I1/02 Monroe County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Characterization of Proposed Mitigation Initiatives Characterization FORM Jurisdiction Name: Monroe County Date form completed: 2/11/02 Organization/agency submitting initiative: Monroe County Roads & Bridges Dept. Contact Individual Name: Dennis Harbaugh Address: 186 Key Heights Dr., Tavernier, FL 33070 Is this initiative new or a revision of an earlier initiative? (It[ one) New ~ Revision 0 If it is a revision, give the LMS Planning Group identification number of initiative: I. INITIATIVE DESCRIPTION Initiative Name: PK Recycling Yard Shutters Briefly describe the initiative: Installation of storm shutters on Recycling Yard Buildings. If the initiative is structural or involves a specific location, attach a map showing the location. 0" if map is attached: [8J Write the goals and objectives established by the Local Mitigation Strategy Planning Group is most applicable to this initiative: 5. Preservation of property and assets from future losses. . o the category of the initiative: 0 Structural ~ Non-structural 0 Mixedlboth C: \TEM P\P K recycli ng S h u tterse h a racterization. doc Copyright. 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights reS8lV8d 3 Describe the "worst case" disaster scenario and its direct and indirect impact on the facility, system or neighborhood to be protected by the proposed initiative: (Be Concise) Wind will significantly damage building. What is the dollar value of the total direct losses for damages or destruction to the facility, system or neighborhood likely in this scenario: $ 100000Attach Cost to Benefit Analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses) What is the dollar value of the total indirect losses (e.g., lost job income, lost revenue, extra operating costs, etc.) likely in this scenario: $ Attach Cost to Benefit Analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses) Total of direct and indirect losses under this scenario: $ 100000 Will the initiative avoid or prevent all of these direct and indirect losses0? C8;] yes D no If no. what percent decrease in losses can be estimated? % What is the adjusted direct and indirect losses under this scenario (The total of direct and indirect losses multiplied by the percentage of decrease in losses): $ 100000 How many people would be injured, sickened or killed in the "worst case" scenario without this initiative? injured, sickened, killed Are there valuable cultural, historic or environmental resources that would be protected by the initiative?0: yes 0 no ~ If yes, list or describe these resources: II. INITIATIVE BENEFITS Is a designated "critical facility" to be benefited by the proposal?0: yes D no !:8J If yes, give the following information for each facility benefited: i Facility Name/Descrietion Tvee of Critical Facility Identification Number : Describe the consequences of the total or partial loss of the critical facility(ies) listed in the "worst case" scenario: For all types of proposed initiatives, including those for protection of critical facilities, give the following: 1. Number of people directly and indirectly benefited: 2. Percentage of the jurisdiction's population or organization's client based benefited: % 3. Number of structures to be benefited: 4. Total estimated value of the structures and contents: $ 5. Number of businesses to be benefited: - r::-. P K recycling Sh uttersCharacterization. doc Copyright, 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights reserved 4 6. Total estimated number of employees benefited: . 7. Valuable environmental resources to be protected?~: yes 0 no 0 8. Valuable cultural or historic resources to be protected?~: yes 0 no 0 If #7 or #8 are "yes," provide the following: Name of resource Location/address Size Current Status (acres, ,,"-of (Beg!$tered, structures, PfOtected.etc.) rete:) IV. COST OF THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE Estimate the total cost to implement to proposal (for design and construction, construction management, purchase and installation, etc.) $ 3000 What is the anticipated useful life of the proposal? 25years Calculate the annual cost to implement the proposal? (Divide the cost to implement the proposal by its useful life): $120 per year Estimate the annual cost to maintain or service the proposal: $0 per year Determine the total annual cost to implement and maintain the proposal (Add the annual cost to implement the proposal to the annual cost to maintain the proposal): $120 per year Briefly explain any important assumptions or estimates used to develop the annual cost to implement the proposal: V. THE COST IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL Some mitigation initiatives could result in costs to others for their implementation, in addition to costs to the proposal's sponsor or the organization that implement the proposal. This section allows the .cost impact, " if any. to be estimated. No cost impact is foreseen from implementation of the proposal (~ for correct): 0 Estimate any initial or immediate cost impact of implementation: $ 3000 Estimate the annualized immediate cost impact of implementation (Divide the initial cost impact by the useful life of the proposal): $120 per year Estimate any ongoing, annual cost impacts amounts: $ per year Calculate the annualized cost impact of the proposal (Add the annualized immediate cost impact to the annual ongoing cost impacts): $ per year Identify the group most likely to bear this cost impact (Check all that apply): C. \ TEMP\PKrecyclingShuttersCharacterization.doc Copyright, 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights reserved 5 -/ -/ Grou 0 0 Educational institutions 0 0 Retail businesses 0 0 Service businesses 0 0 Manufacturers 0 0 Tourism businesses VI. COMPARISON OF BENEFITS TO COSTS A. List the total annualized cost of "not taking action" or not implementing the proposal is (This is the adiusted direct and indirect losses divided by the useful life of the proposal) (Specify Design Storm) $6000 per year B. Give the total annualized cost to implement (From above): $120 per year C. Give the total annualized cost (with inflation) with impact of implementation (From above): Inflation rate - average consumer price index increase for 10 years. $ per year Calculate the preliminary benefit to cost ratio (Divide "A" by the sum of "B" + "C"): 50 The preliminary benefit to cost ratio only considers values that can be measured in dollars. The Mitigation 20/20™ approach considers "intangible" benefits of the proposed initiative as well, such as lives saved and injuries prevents, as well as valuable environmental or cultural resources protected. This is done by applying "multipliers" to the preliminary benefit to cost ratio to increase it to a level commensurate with the intangible benefits it would derive. These multipliers are the following: Multi lier Value 1.0 1.5 Public Health and Safe Factor No benefit Benefits up to 1,000 people Multi Iier Value 1.0 1.1 2.0 Benefits 1, to 50,000 people 1.3 Valuable Resource Factor No benefit Benefits less than 10 acres or one structure/site Benefits 10-50 acres or two structures sites Benefits more than 50 acres or more than 2 structures 2.5 1.5 3.0 Calculate the adiusted benefit to cost ratio for the proposal (multiply the preliminary ratio by the applicable multiplier listed in the table): 50 VII. FEASIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTATION Check the statement that most applies to this proposal regarding its consistency with other applicable plans, programs or pOlicies of the jurisdiction or proposing agency (Le. State Emergency Management Plan, Capital Budget, LMS, Plan, Comprehensive Plan): .- ~ :=;J[ P\ PKrecyciingShuttersCharacterization .doc Copyright 2001 emergency response plenning & management. inc. All rights reserved 6 D The proposal is listed in at least 3 other documents or is highly consistent with other plans D The proposal is listed in at least 2 other documents and is consistent with other plans D The proposal is listed in at least 1 other document and is not inconsistent cgj The proposal is not listed in any documents D The proposal is in conflict with other documents (list conflict) D The proposal may have inconsistencies and needs more analysis If applicable, list any documents that support this proposal or type of proposal, giving the following: Document Title Issued by Dateissuedl 8ectionorpage editiOn number fOr number Mmoulreference List the permits and approvals likely to be needed for implementation: D No permits or approvals required cgj Local permits/approvals: D State permits/approvals: o Federal permits/approvals: Estimate how long it will take to complete implementation of the proposal: 112years Check the statement that most accurately describes implementation effort needed for this proposal: cgj The proposal would be relatively easy to accomplish D The proposal is not anticipated to be difficult to accomplish o The proposal is somewhat difficult to accomplish D The proposal is difficult to accomplish o The proposal if very difficult to accomplish Check the statement that most accurately describes how the community would react to the implementation of the proposal: cgj The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community D The proposal would benefit those affected, with minimal adverse reaction from others D The proposal would be somewhat controversial o The proposal would be strongly opposed by most D The proposal would be strongly opposed by nearly all If the proposal would be expected to be generally acceptable to the community, are there special interest groups or stakeholders that would oppose it?~: yes 0 no ~ If yes, identify these groups: VII. FUNDING SOURCES C: \ TEM P\PKrecyclingShuttersCh aracterization. doc Copyrigh~ 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights reserved 7 Check the single most appropriate category of funding for the proposal from the list below: ./ Fundin Cate 0 ./ ./ 0 I Agricultural assistance ~ 0 ! 0 I Alternative power 0 Infrastructure systems 0 0 Codes/ordinances 0 0 0 Communications 0 0 I Dune restoration - 0 0 ! erosion control i Emergency response 0 Public education 0 ! e ui ment If existing funding sources for the proposal have been identified or are very likely to be used, identify them here: Check the statement below that most accurately defines the funding situation for the proposal: o No potential funding sources can be readily identified o The only non-local potential funding source is federal hazard mitigation grant money ~ Partial funding could be accomplished with local matching funds (budget or grants) - :::v1 P\P Krecycimg Sh uttersCharacterization. doc Copyright, 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights reserved 8 / Venal Ave PkR Yard om 00 / / j ~~ ~ ~- 0 ,.,""....--............ y //~." '-.. /( '\ LMS PROJECT PRIORITIZA TION FORM SENIOR CITIZEN PLAZA SHUTTER PROGRAM Points 1. Meeting LMS Goals & Objectives & Number of Goals met 1~~f~t~~~~~:.7~'f;t~~Pf;Y::"; A. Preservaton & Sustainability of Life Health, Safety & Welfare- 50 Pts 50 B. Preservation of infrastructure from hazard-related damaae - 30 Pts 30 C. Minimize damaQe & maintain roads & bridges durinQ a disaster - 30 Pts D. Protection of critical facilities from hazard-related damage - 10 Pts E. Preservation of property & assets from future losses - 10 Pts 10 F. Preservation of economy during times of disaster - 10 Pts G. Preservation and protection of the environment - 10 Pts 2. PercentaQe of permanent population served by the project: A. Up to 10% 20 Pts 20 B. 11 to 25% 40 Pts C. 26 to 40% 60 Pts D. 41 TO 65% 80 Pts E. 66 to 80% 100 Pts F. 81 to 100% 130 Pts 3. Type and number of hazards addressed: i5\IJ?~~~~'gl~\;0'~ A. Hurricanes and other severe weather 20 Pts B. Utility outages or disruption 15 Pts C. Transportation disruption 10 Pts D. Economic Emergencies 10 Pts E. Communications disruption 10 Pts F. Mass immigration 5 Pts G. Hazardous materials incidents 5 Pts H. Coastal oil spills 5 Pts I. Radiological emergencies 5 Pts J. Epidemiological emergencies 5 Pts K. Drought 5 Pts L. Wildland fires 5 Pts M. Terrorism/Civil disturbance 5 Pts N. Military conflict 5 Pts 4. Cost effectiveness based on CostIBenefit Analysis: A. Ratio of 1 to 1 10 Pts ,,' B. Ratio of 1 to 2 20 Pts C. Ratio of 1 to 3 30 Pts D. Ratio of 1 to 4 etc. 40 Pts 40 5. Economic Benefits A. If economic benefit demonstrated 30 Pts 6. Social Benefits ,ii~~~[\r1~~i~&t\WN5i A. If social benefit is demonstrated 20 Pts 20 7. Environmental Benefits ~i~~~J~i~ A. If environmental benefit demonstrated 20 Pts 8. Time Frame /' A. Six (6) months or less 20 Pts B. Six (6) months to one year 10 Pts 10 C. One to two years 5 Pts 9. Financially feasible? YES or NO YES 10. Technically feasble? YES or NO YES 11. FundinQ Available? YES or NO YES 12. Have legal authority: YES or NO YES TOTAL POINTS 200 SENIOR CITIZEN PLAZA SHUTTER PROGRAM.xls4/1/02 ~ Monroe County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Characterization of Proposed Mitigation Initiatives Characterization FORM Jurisdiction Name: Monroe County Date form completed: February 2, 2002 Organization/agency submitting initiative: Key West Housing Authority Contact Individual Name: Richard C. Casey, Jr. Address: 1403 12th Street, Key West, FL 33040 Is this initiative new or a revision of an earlier initiative? (0 one) New ~ Revision 0 If it is a revision, give the LMS Planning Group identification number of initiative: N/A I. INITIATIVE DESCRIPTION Initiative Name: Senior Citizen Plaza Shutter Program Briefly describe the initiative: The initiative is to shutter 357 windows and install 205 storm doors at the Senior Citizen Plaza at 1400 Kennedy Drive, Key West, FL 33040. If the initiative is structural or involves a specific location, attach a map showing the location. 0 if map is attached: ~ Write the goals and objectives established by the Local Mitigation Strategy Planning Group that is most applicable to this initiative: Public Health, Safety, and Welfare; and Preservation of Property and Assets. o the category of the initiative: ~ Structural 0 Non-structural 0 Mixed/both \\KWHA_SERVER\USERS\BerardL\LMS\LMS Characterization edited FORM mess with.doc 3 Copyright, 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights reserved Describe the "worst case" disaster scenario and its direct and indirect impact on the facility, system or neighborhood to be protected by the proposed initiative: (Be Concise) In any disaster scenario, our senior citizens are the most difficult population to evacuate due to all of the problems associated with advanced age. In the "worst case" scenario, the Senior Citizen Plaza could be completely destroyed, killing as many as 223 senior citizens. According to staff at the Senior Citizen Plaza, fewer than 10 residents have evacuated even during the threat of a major storm. What is the dollar value of the total direct losses for damages or destruction to the facility, system or neighborhood likely in this scenario: $ 79 m Attach Cost to Benefit Analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses) What is the dollar value of the total indirect losses (e.g., lost job income, lost revenue, extra operating costs, etc.) likely in this scenario: $ 1,671 ,600/yr Attach Cost to Benefit Analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses) Total of direct and indirect losses under this scenario: $ 79 m Will the initiative avoid or prevent all of these direct and indirect losses0? 0 yes I:8J no If no, what percent decrease in losses can be estimated? 75% What is the adjusted direct and indirect losses under this scenario (The total of direct and indirect losses multiplied by the percentage of decrease in losses): $ 60 m How many people would be injured, sickened or killed in the "worst case" scenario without this initiative? injured, sickened, 223 killed Are there valuable cultural, historic or environmental resources that would be protected by the initiative?0: yes 0 no I:8J If yes, list or describe these resources: N/A II. INITIATIVE BENEFITS Is a designated "critical facility" to be benefited by the proposal?0: yes 0 no I:8J If yes, give the following information for each facility benefited: Facilitv Name/Description Type of Critical Facility Identification Number Describe the consequences of the total or partial loss of the critical facility(ies) listed in the "worst case" scenario: N/A For all types of proposed initiatives, including those for protection of critical facilities, give the following: 1. Number of people directly and indirectly benefited: 229 \\KWHA_SERVER\USERS\BerardL\LMS\LMS Characterization edited FORM mess with.doc 4 Copyright, 2001 I emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights reserved I 2. Percentage of the jurisdiction's population or organization's client based benefited: 1 % 3. Number of structures to be benefited: 1 4. Total estimated value of the structures and contents: $ 79 m 5. Number of businesses to be benefited: 0 6. Total estimated number of employees benefited: 6 7. Valuable environmental resources to be protected?l': yes 0 no IZI 8. Valuable cultural or historic resources to be protected?l': yes 0 no IZI If #7 or #8 are "yes," provide the following: Name of resource Location/address Size Current Status (acres, # of (Registered, structures, protected, etc.) etc,) IV. COST OF THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE Estimate the total cost to implement to proposal (for design and construction, construction management, purchase and installation, etc.) $ 299,575 What is the anticipated useful life of the proposal? 20+ years Calculate the annual cost to implement the proposal? (Divide the cost to implement the proposal by its useful life): $15,000 per year Estimate the annual cost to maintain or service the proposal: $500 per year Determine the total annual cost to implement and maintain the proposal (Add the annual cost to implement the proposal to the annual cost to maintain the proposal): $15,500 per year Briefly explain any important assumptions or estimates used to develop the annual cost to implement the proposal: Data/costs taken from similar storm shutter/door project recently completed at another KWHA facility. V. THE COST IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL Some mitigation initiatives could result in costs to others for their implementation, in addition to costs to the proposal's sponsor or the organization that implement the proposal. This section allows the "cost impact, " if any, to be estimated. No cost impact is foreseen from implementation of the proposal (0' for correct): I:8J Estimate any initial or immediate cost impact of implementation: $ 0 Estimate the annualized immediate cost impact of implementation (Divide the initial cost impact by the useful life of the proposal): $0 per year Estimate any ongoing, annual cost impacts amounts: $0 per year \\KWHA_SERVER\USERS\BerardL\LMS\LMS Characterization edited FORM mess with.doc 5 COPyrigh~ 2001 emergency response planning & management. inc. All rights reserved Calculate the annualized cost impact of the proposal (Add the annualized immediate cost impact to the annual ongoing cost impacts): $0 per year Identify the group most likely to bear this cost impact (Check all that apply): ./ Grou o Educational institutions o Retail businesses o Service businesses Manufacturers Tourism businesses VI. COMPARISON OF BENEFITS TO COSTS A. List the total annualized cost of "not taking action" or not implementing the proposal is (This is the adiusted direct and indirect losses divided by the useful life of the proposal) (Specify Design Storm) $3,950,000 per year B. Give the total annualized cost to implement (From above): $15,500 per year C. Give the total annualized cost (with inflation) with impact of implementation (From above): Inflation rate - average consumer price index increase for 10 years. $0 per year Calculate the preliminary benefit to cost ratio (Divide "A" by the sum of "B" + "C"): 255 The preliminary benefit to cost ratio only considers values that can be measured in dollars. The Mitigation 20/20™ approach considers ''intangible'' benefits of the proposed initiative as well, such as lives saved and injuries prevents, as well as valuable environmental or cultural resources protected. This is done by applying "multipliers" to the preliminary benefit to cost ratio to increase it to a level commensurate with the intangible benefits it would derive. These multipliers are the following: Multi Iier Value 1.0 1.5 Public Health and Safe Factor No benefit Benefits up to 1,000 people Multi Iier Value 1.0 1.1 2.0 Benefits 1, to 50,000 people 1.3 2.5 1.5 3.0 Valuable Resource Factor No benefit Benefits less than 10 acres or one structure/site Benefits 10-50 acres or two structures sites Benefits more than 50 acres or more than 2 structures Calculate the adiusted benefit to cost ratio for the proposal (multiply the preliminary ratio by the applicable multiplier listed in the table): 280 VII. FEASIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTATION \\KWHA_SERVER\USERS\BerardL\LMS\LMS Characterization edited FORM mess with.doc 6 Copyright. 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights reserved Check the statement that most applies to this proposal regarding its consistency with other applicable plans, programs or policies of the jurisdiction or proposing agency (Le. State Emergency Management Plan, Capital Budget, LMS, Plan, Comprehensive Plan): o The proposal is listed in at least 3 other documents or is highly consistent with other plans o The proposal is listed in at least 2 other documents and is consistent with other plans o The proposal is listed in at least 1 other document and is not inconsistent [gJ The proposal is not listed in any documents o The proposal is in conflict with other documents (list conflict) o The proposal may have inconsistencies and needs more analysis If applicable, list any documents that support this proposal or type of proposal, giving the following: Document Title Issued by Date issued I Section or page edition number for number proposal reference List the permits and approvals likely to be needed for implementation: o No permits or approvals required [gJ Local permits/approvals: Bldg permit o State permits/approvals: o Federal permits/approvals: Estimate how long it will take to complete implementation of the proposal: 1 ye-ar Check the statement that most accurately describes implementation effort needed for this proposal: [gJ The proposal would be relatively easy to accomplish o The proposal is not anticipated to be difficult to accomplish o The proposal is somewhat difficult to accomplish o The proposal is difficult to accomplish o The proposal if very difficult to accomplish Check the statement that most accurately describes how the community would react to the implementation of the proposal: [gJ The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community o The proposal would benefit those affected, with minimal adverse reaction from others o The proposal would be somewhat controversial o The proposal would be strongly opposed by most o The proposal would be strongly opposed by nearly all \\KWHA SERVER\USERS\BerardL\LMS\LMS Characterization edited FORM mess with.doc 7 - COPyright, 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights reserved If the proposal would be expected to be generally acceptable to the community, are there special interest groups or stakeholders that would oppose it?0: yes 0 no [8J If yes, identify these groups: VII. FUNDING SOURCES Check the single most appropriate category of funding for the proposal from the list below: ~ o o Alternative power Codes/ordinances Communications ~ o o Infrastructure systems ~ 181 o o o Dune restoration - erosion control Emergency response e ui ment Public education o o If existing funding sources for the proposal have been identified or are very likely to be used, identify them here: Check the statement below that most accurately defines the funding situation for the proposal: o No potential funding sources can be readily identified [gI The only non-local potential funding source is federal hazard mitigation grant money D Partial funding could be accomplished with local matching funds (budget or grants) \\KWHA_SERVER\USERS\BerardL\LMS\LMS Characterization edited FORM mess with.doc 8 COPyright. 2001 emergency response planning & management, inc. All rights reserved COST-TO-OENEFIT ANALYSIS IN THE EVENT OF DESTRUCTION OF THE FACILITY (INSTALLATION STORM SHUTTERS AND DOORS AT THE SENIOR CITIZEN PLAZA) ITEM COST 350,000 sq ft x $225/sq ft new construction cost $78,750,000 205 storm doors @ $325 ea (materials and installation) $66,625 9318 sq ft windows x $25/sq ft (materials and installation) $232.950 $299,575 Difference between rebuilding and installing storm shutters and doors $78,450,425 The largest benefit of this project - saving human lives - is extremely difficult to measure in dollars. The norm of considering the personal cost placed by people willing to live in high- risk environments in return for higher payor other benefits does not apply in this case as only fewer than 10 percent of the senior citizens are employed at all, and those who are employed are still very-low to low income. The indirect effect of the loss of only the building would be the loss of apartments and efficiencies to house the community's very-low and low-income elderly. As the residents of this complex do not evacuate, however, it is unlikely that they would survive if the building did not survive, making the loss of their housing almost a moot point. The cost of providing 199 interim units at a conservative $700 per month ($1,671,600/yr) to the next generation of very-low and low-income housing would presumably be passed on to local government. The probability of that amount of additional housing being available in the event of a severe storm is unpredictable. Key West Housing Authority - Characterization Form CHARACTERIZATION FORM - MAP OF SENIOR CITIZEN PLAZA LOCATION IJ ~NORTH_ MapPolRt ~'"I ~;,:. . Stock ""," -", Island. Gulf of ;::(1...J::j'I__ _'=_,-=- -"'<\'_'~ Mexico (51 . . I.....,. _".', \ I ---11 T . /~>;{~r:}~1~~';,;~i1~~iC'= ._. ./<::::./..~.~... H140l~: K;.~~~~~;~~~.~5rJ'e~, ,~,l :~~ ==~~~,.;;/. ..r;P:' ,;,:~~\;:~~~~~,,,..~~~~};;;~~p:::::~:-.~'i{.:::-.'~:,,,, \::-., ("'"" .' " ~ .,~, ~.....t"$...., ...., 15A t' ,~.-..., .. . I "..'. . 1 I . . ?-.' ..Il'. - .' -,1- , ".' " ';-' , , ..-.-:1 ..:/. ~ .:' ';. . :..;. \ . . '~.-'::.:.- : .~:'...... . "-'.' I'j '::-.:::l..~.)..:.~:~~<~?/<.tl:)"i:~.." ~::~\j~-~::~ ::.:" . .:::-=.:.' "'~-:::; I, "':,.'....:'.;-\.-;.\";..U'! .:....,~\i~\et Florid:i'Kevs'.~ I" ':"~/>::::~::'.~;.~',,;.~':::::.~~;:_,,-=:>., :::'..' :,;,~ ."',.' , !(MA) ':.':".;" A.\..:...'.:.:A.....{5A.~:_.::::. ,'. - ->-west:'~t. m. - -==-. ..---J IT' .:~~:.:::<~~~....:<;)~:~~...:;'.\:=~=:: - ~ Key:~~~V.v.Wul~~ -.~::, :1:1 :~j""" ~E!yWE'-st ....': i International' -:.,.~::.-\..>..:... ',', Airport._ ~< .:~}..:,.~.::-::.::i~....,.. .. . .-.-.1;.~'eII.d:=4A1A):====-=;_;~.::~:::::<... . '. ..... . ., od)se'lO , ., . ';:'~~.:'.::..'::' ':">_<5='1"" ' . ~..comp~U"'. ~'. Key West Housing Authority - Characterization Fonn &I g LMS PROJECT PRIORITIZA TION FORM STADIUM MOBILE HOME PARK Points 1. Meeting LMS Goals & Objectives & Number of Goals met ',:-,";"L:t{)~.,_,;<,:~,-".- ,_. ;"'<'2}.<"'"- h >,.,.>.,.-, A. Preservaton & Sustainability of Life Health, Safety & Welfare _ 50 Pts 50 B. Preservation of infrastructure from hazard-related damage _ 30 Pts C. Minimize damage & maintain roads & bridges durina a disaster _ 30 Pts D. Protection of critical facilities from hazard-related damage- 10 Pts E. Preservation of property & assets from future losses _ 10 Pts 10 F. Preservation of economy during times of disaster- 10 Pts G. Preservation and protection of the environment _ 10 Pts 10 " "'."" ..,. 2. Percentage of permanent population served by the project: >"t: A. Up to 10% 20 Pts B. 11 to 25% 40 Pts 40 C. 26 to 40% 60 Pts D. 41 TO 65% 80 Pts E. 66 to 80% 100 Pts F. 81 to 100% 130 Pts 3. Type and number of hazards addressed: <-<...:..>..Y,., -;' ..".'-'. . A. Hurricanes and other severe weather 20 Pts 20 B. Utility outages or disruption 15 Pts C. Transportation disruption 10 Pts D. Economic Emergencies 10 Pts E. Communications disruption 10 Pts F. Mass immigration 5 Pts G. Hazardous materials incidents 5 Pts H. Coastal oil spills 5 Pts I. Radiological emergencies 5 Pts J. Epidemiological emergencies 5 Pts K. Drought 5 Pts L. Wildland fires 5 Pts M. Terrorism/Civil disturbance 5 Pts N. Military conflict 5 Pts 4. Cost effectiveness based on Cost/Benefit Analysis: :./<""" .'," A. Ratio of 1 to 1 10 Pts B. Ratio of 1 to 2 20 Pts C. Ratio of 1 to 3 30 Pts D. Ratio of 1 to 4 etc. 40 Pts 5. Economic Benefits ;, 'k', .... (, A. If economic benefit demonstrated 30 Pts 6. Social Benefits A. If social benefit is demonstrated 20 Pts 7. Environmental Benefits A. If environmental benefit demonstrated '.'.".'; 20 Pts 20 8. Time Frame '., .'... ,"'''''> / A. Six (6) months or less 20 Pts B. Six (6) months to one year 10 Pts C. One to two years 5 Pts 5 9. Financially feasible? YES or NO YES 10. Technically feasble? YES or NO YES 11. Funding Available? YES or NO YES 12. Have legal authority: YES or NO YES TOTAL POINTS 155 STADIUM MOBILE HOME PARK.xls4/6/02 Monroe County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Characterization FORM Jurisdiction Name: City of Key West Date Form Completed: 3/25/02 Organization!agency submitting initiative: City of Key West Contact Individual Name: Annalise Mannix-Lachner, P.E. Address: PO Box 1409, Key West, FL 33041-1409 Is this initiative new or a revision of an earlier initiative? Check one: New L Revision If it is a revision, give the LMS Planning Group identification number of initiative: I. INITIA TIVE DESCRIPTION Initiative Name: Replace trailers located at Stadium Mobile Home Park Briefly describe the initiative: This initiative is designed to remove trailers and replace with raised housing for 429 families. If the initiative is structural or involves a specific location, attach a map showing the location. Check if map is attached.-X- Write the goals and objectives established by the Local Mitigation Strategy Planning Group that are most applicable to this initiative. Check the category of the initiative -L Structural _ Non-Structural _ Mixedlboth Ident' the hazards intended to be addressed b this initiative: Natural Hazard Techn()lo ical Hazards X Hi h winds - Hurricane Hazardous materials X Floodin (Storm Sur e) Utilities X - Tro ical Storm - Loss of electric service - Tro ical De ression - Loss of water service - Tornado - Loss of sewer service Wind Coastal Oil S ill Drou t Telecommunications Failure Wild Land Fires Radiolo ical Accident E idemiolo ist Emer ency Describe the "worst case" disaster scenario and its direct and indirect impact on the facility, system, or neighborhood to be protected by the proposed initiative: (Be concise). The result will be protection to homes from flooding. What is the dollar value of the total direct losses for damages or destruction to the facility, system, or neighborhood likely in this scenario: $15.300.000 Attach Cost to Benefit analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses.) What is the dollar value of the total indirect losses (e.g., lost job income, lost revenue, extra operating costs, etc.) likely in this scenario: $7.650.000 Attach Cost to Benefit Analysis (Show how you arrived at your losses.) Total of direct and indirect losses under this scenario: $22.950.000 Will the initiative avoid or prevent all of these direct and indirect losses? l Yes No Ifno, what percent decrease in losses can be estimated? _ What are the adjusted direct and indirect losses under this scenario (The total of direct and indirect losses multiplied by the percentage of decrease in losses): $ How many people would be injured, sickened, or killed in the "worst case" scenario without this initiative? 100 Injured Sickened ~ Killed Are there valuable cultural, historical, or environmental resources that would be protected by the initiative? Yes l No If yes, list or describe these resources. II INITIA TIVE BENEFITS Is a designated "critical facility" to be benefited by the proposal? If yes, give the following information for each facility benefited: Yes lNo Facility Name/Description Type of Critical Facility Identification Number Describe the consequences of the total or partial loss of the critical facility(ies) listed in the "worst case" scenarIO: For all types of pro posed initiatives, including those for protection of critical facilities, give the following: 1. Number of people directly and indirectly benefited: 1.440 2. Percentage of the jurisdiction's population or organization's client base benefited: 5% 3. Number of structures to be benefited: 360 4. Total estimated value of the structures and contents: $21.600.000 5. Number of businesses to be benefited: .Q 6. Total estimated number of employees benefited: J! 7. Valuable environmental resources to be protected? _ Yes --.2L No 8. Valuable cultural or historic resources to be protected? _ Yes l No If#7 or #8 is "yes", provide the following: Name of Resource Location! Address Size Current Status (Acres, # of (Registered, protected, structures, etc.) etc.) In COST OF THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE Estimate the total cost to implement the proposal (for design and construction, construction management, purchase and installation, etc.) $50.000.000 What is the anticipated useful life of the proposal? 30 years Calculate the annual cost to implement the proposal. (Divide the cost to implement the proposal by its useful life): $1.666.667 per year Estimate the annual cost to maintain or service the proposal: $0 per year Determine the total annual cost to implement and maintain the proposal (Add the annual cost to implement the proposal to the annual cost to maintain the proposal): $0 per year Briefly explain any important assumptions or estimates used to develop the annual cost to implement the proposal: Assuming that units would be condo units. the fees would pay for the annual cost. IV THE COST IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL Some mitigation initiatives could result in costs to others for their implementation, in addition to costs to the proposal's sponsor or the organization that implements the proposal. This section allows the "cost impact", if any, to be estimated. No cost impact is foreseen from implementation of the proposal. l True False Estimate any initial or immediate cost impact of implementation: None Estimate the annualized immediate cost impact of implementation (Divide the initial cost impact by the useful life of the proposal: None Estimate any ongoing, annual cost impact amounts: None Calculate the annualized cost impact of the proposal (Add the annualized immediate cost impact to the annual ongoing cost impacts): None to bear this cost im act (Check all that a ly) Grou Educational Institutions Retail Businesses Service Businesses Manufactures Tourism Businesses Grou Health Care Facilities Local Government Public Safet Or anizations Local Utilities Other: V COMPARISON OF BENEFITS TO COSTS A. List the total annualized cost of "not taking action" or not implementing the proposal is (This is the adjusted direct and indirect losses divided by the useful life of the proposal) (Specify Design Storm) $765.000 per year B. Give the total annualized cost to implement (From above): $1.666.667 per year C. Give the total annualized cost (with inflation) with impact of implementation (From above): Inflation rate - average consumer price index increase for 10 years. $ per year Calculate the preliminary benefit to cost ratio (Divide "A" by the sum of"B" + "C"): Q The preliminary benefit to cost ratio only considers values that can be measured in dollars. The Mitigation 20/20 approach considers "intangible" benefits of the proposed initiative as well, such as lives saved and injuries prevented, as well as valuable environmental or cultural resources protected. This is done by applying "multipliers" to the preliminary benefit to cost ration to increase it to a level commensurate with the intangible benefits it would derive. The multipliers are the following: Multiplier Public Health and Safety Factor Multiplier Valuable Resource Factor Value Value 1.0 No benefit 1.0 No benefit 1.5 Benefits up to 1,000 people 1.1 Benefits less than 10 acres or one structure/site 2.0 Benefits 1,000 to 50,000 people 1.3 Benefits 10-50 acres or two structure sites 2.5 Benefits 50,000 to 250,000 people 1.5 Benefits more than 50 acres or more than 2 structures 3.0 Benefits more than 250,000 eople Calculate the adjusted benefit to cost ration for the proposal (multiply the preliminary ratio by the applicable multiplier listed in the table): 21 VI FEASIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTATION Check the statement that most applies to this proposal regarding its consistency with other applicable plans, programs, or policies of the jurisdiction or proposing agency (i.e., State Emergency Management Plan, Capital budget, LMS Plan, Comprehensive Plan): The proposal is listed in at least 3 other documents or is highly consistent with other plans. The proposal is listed in at least 2 other documents and is consistent with other plans. The proposal is listed in at least 1 other document and is not inconsistent. The proposal is not listed in any documents. The proposal is in conflict with other documents (list conflicts). The proposal may have inconsistencies and needs more analysis. If applicable, list any documents that support this proposal or type of proposal, giving the following; Document Title Issued By Date Issued! Section or page number Edition Number for proposal reference LMS Plan Monroe County 2000 LMS Plan City of Key West 2000 List the permits and approvals likely to be needed for implementation: No permits or approvals required. l Local permits/approvals. State permits/approvals. Federal permits/approvals. Estimate how long it will take to complete implementation ofthe proposal: 2 years Check the statement that most accurately describes implementation efforts needed for this proposal: The proposal would be relatively easy to accomplish. X The proposal is not anticipated to be difficult to accomplish. The proposal is somewhat difficult to accomplish. The proposal is difficult to accomplish. The proposal is very difficult to accomplish. Check the statement that most accurately describes how the community would react to the implementation of the proposal: l The proposal is likely to be endorsed by the entire community. The proposal would benefit those affected, with minimal adverse reaction from others. The proposal would be somewhat controversial. The proposal would be strongly opposed by most. The proposal would be strongly opposed by nearly all. If the proposal would be expected to be generally acceptable to the community, are there special interest groups or stakeholders that would oppose it? _ Yes X No If yes identify these groups. VII FUNDING SOURCES Check the single most appropriate category of funding for the proposal from the list below: Funding Category Funding Category Funding Catee;ory Agricultural assistance X General funding sources Retrofit publiclhistoric structures Alternative power Infrastructure systems Rivers/streams - restoration!preservation Codes/ordinances New public building Stafford Act (HMGP) Communications Parks/natural area Stormwater/flood control development/preservation structures Dune restoration - erosion Plans and procedures Training - emergency control services Emergency response Public education Wetlands development and equipment restoration If existing funding sources for the proposal have been identified or are very likely to be used, identify them here: Check the statement below that most accurately defmes the funding situation for the proposal: No potential funding sources can be readily identified. l The only non-local potential funding source is federal hazard mitigation grant money. l Partial funding could be accomplished with local matching funds (budget or grants). ~ ~j ;j ~ & ;:g ~ ...., ~:::~) "~ c: