The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 04_08/08/2013 VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL FORM Meeting Date: Meeting Type: Regular Ordinance #: August 8, 2013 Consent Agenda: Yes Resolution #: Originating Department: Community Development � M CT �ne �rF your ) ;� Preliminary FEMA/Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Review. Presentation by Consultants Thomas Conboy and Richard Tomasello. . � Account #: N/A Amount of this item: Current Budgeted Amount Available: Amount Remaining after item: Budget Transfer Required: No Appropriate Fund Balance: No EXECU, - FEMA is in the process of updating the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) from 1982. Consultants Thomas Conboy and Richard Tomasello conducted an engineering review of the Village of Tequesta proposed preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report. ,� .: �ILS: s ., Department Head � � �. Finance Director �-� ` Reviewed for Financial Sufficiency ❑ �- No Financial Impact � ,� �� Attorney: (for legal sufficiency) Village Manager: Submit for Council Discussion: 0 ,�-�'"' '� -1 —�-, � Approve Item: ❑ Deny Item� � ------ .-- - -- --- - - ------- — - —� '� SPECiAL INSTRUCTiONS FOR CLERK: (�f you wish to have agEeements signed, be sure to include the , number of copies you want signed and place "Sign Here" sticker on them} � - --------- -- --- -- -- - ---- ---- --- - _ ------- ---- -- L_— � Form Amended: 10/20/11 VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA � 345 Tequesta Drive � ,, ; � ,. Tequesta, FL 33469 June 29, 2013 Mapping Partner c/o Daryle Fontenot AECOM 6201 Fairview Road, Suite 400 Charlotte, North Carolina 28210 Ref.: Village of Tequesta, Palm Beach County, Florida. Community No. 120228. Preliminary FEMA/Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Review. Dear Mr. Fontenot, The Village of Tequesta received the Preliminary copies of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report for Palm Beach County, Florida and Incorporated Areas for our review and comments. We have conducted a preliminary review, please see following comments: 1. Deadline to Conduct a Preliminarv Review The proposed map along with the letter were mailed on Friday, May 31 and the Village received it on Monday, June 4 FEMA requires that comments be sent no later than 30 days from the date of the letter. Palm Beach County municipalities agreed that in order to conduct this preliminary review more time was needed. The current FEMA maps are from 1982. It is relevant and critical to ensure that flood zones are property depicted on the proposed FEMA map since it will have a direct impact on the insurance rates of the Village residents. 2. Municipality Boundaries In November 2012, the Village of Tequesta annexed three (3) properties on US Hwy 1 that are not included in the proposed map. Please see following property addresses and Property Control Numbers (PCN) that need to be included as part of the Village's current boundaries: 19600 US Hwy 1- PCN 60-43-40-30-02-004-0010 19590 US Hwy 1- PCN 60-43-40-30-02-004-0050 19578 US Hwy 1- PCN 60-43-40-30-02-004-0090 Also, the Village is conducting an annexation special election on August 27, 2013. This referendum impacts two unincorporated areas, and it has the potential to change the Village's boundaries. 3. Graphic Representation In comparison with the 1982 map which clearly delineates the zone designations, the graphic representation of the proposed map makes it difficult to identify and read the different flood zones. Please take into consideration that the map is not only used by professionals but by residents at large and it needs to be easy to read and understand. As part of the CRS (Community Rating System) we make this map available to Village residents. 4. Access to Information bv Residents Please clarify if FEMA's web site will make it possible for Village residents to enter their address and learn which flood zone their property is in, as this will provide relevant and easily accessible information. 5. Engineerin� Review Comments Please see enclosed engineering review comments prepared by the Village's engineering consultants. The Village of Tequesta understands how important this FEMA initiative is and its impact on residents and the business community, and would like to cooperate throughout this review process so that the final map will accurately represent the Village flood zones. Should you have questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 561.768.0457 or nzacarias@tequesta.or�. Sincerely, / �`��o�. za�c Nilsa Zacarias, AICP 1 Community Development Director cc: Mr. Michael Couzzo, Village Manager Mayor and Council Members Enclosed: Engineering Review Comments � SOUTH FLORIDA ENGINEERING TOMASELLO CONSULTING and Consulting, LLC Engineers, Inc. .� f,4�a U.S. lligh�nay 1. �iu�� 906 Center Street � � �'orth Palm Beach � I ,�� upiter FL'33458 ;<, � „ � a.� . � �,,,,�,, - ,F, ! - ,— , 3<a l n June 29, 2013 Mapping Partner c/o Daryle Fontenot AECOM 6201 Fairview Road, Suite 400 Charlotte, North Carolina 28210 Ref.: Village of Tequesta, Palm Beach County, Florida. Community No. 120228. Preliminary FEMA/Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Review. Dear Mr. Fontenot, We understand it is very important that FEMA is working diligently on the Flood Insurance Study for Palm Beach County. South Florida Engineering and Consulting LLC and Tomasello Consulting Engineers, [nc. have reviewed the Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and the documentation provided in the Preliminary Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for the Village of Tequesta. The last FIS was performed for the Village in 1982. It appears that there were no new analyses performed to revise the base flood elevations within the Village of Tequesta. Yet the preliminary FIRM maps have changed from the 1982 FIS. Some of the residents of the Village will benefit and other residents will be impacted by insurance rate changes due to the modification of the flood zone boundaries. It is important that this FIRM is accurate so that the residents of the Village are properly insured and are paying fair rates for their insurance. We would like to better understand the reasons for the changes, when we understand there have been no new analysis performed to revise Base Flood Elevations. We have conducted an engineering review of the FIS Please provide clarifications on the following comments: 1. Palm Beach County is one of the most populated and hydrologically complex areas in Florida but the preliminary F[RMs do not appear to be commensurate with these realities. [n general, the proposed floodplains do not compare well to other parts of Florida and the methodologies used to produce the FIRMs are dated. Numerous counties throughout Florida were studied at a finer level of detail and with more modern technologies when their FIRMs were produced. Examples are Hernando, Sarasota, and Marion County, among many others. For example, creating hard copy basin delineations on USGS topographic maps is not a typical method of parameterizing a hydrologic model in Florida and this method is not part of FEMA's current guidelines for FIRM production. 1 of 3 2. The modeling used to produce the FIRMs is regional in scale. The current models used to produce the Village FIRM should be revised far the following reasons, including but not limited to: a. Calibration and Verification. There is little to no documentation of adequate calibration and verification of the models. A separate and documented calibration and verification for each model should be undertaken before the FIRM is finalized. Methods should include information from local experts to confirm they are adequate for this area. 3. The datum conversions from NGVD-29 to NAVD-88 are not well documented and some potential errors have been found. The effect of changing references from National Geodetic Vertical Datum NGVD29 in the Flood Insurance Study of 1982 to North American Vertical Datum NAVD88 in the Preliminary Flood Insurance Study of 2013 would have less impact on the flood maps if the flood elevations were mapped to tenths of a foot. The static base flood elevations (BFEs) in the Village of Tequesta are rounded off to the nearest whole foot, the reference change has led to base flood elevations (BFEs) �vest of the barrier islands that are often 0.56 feet higher on the proposed map than the BFEs of the old map. For example, all of the Loxahatchee River Northwest Fork shoreline within the Village of Tequesta is shown on the effective FIRM (1982) as a special flood hazard area (SFHA) with a BFE of 6 ft .'�rGVZ)29 (4.44 ft-NAVD88). This same shoreline is mapped as a SFHA with a 5 ft-NAVD88 (6.56 :'�'G�I)29) BFE on the proposed FIRM. Please confirm that the preliminary FIRM map of 2013 has actually increased the flood elevation along this shoreline by 0.56 feet via the reference conversion only. Please Identify all BFE's brought in from the 1982 FIS which were converted to NAVD and have gone up by .56 ft due to this rounding issue with the reference conversion. 4. ADDITION OF A 2 FOOT WAVE SETUP - Please confirm there were no new analyses performed to revise the base flood elevations within the Village of Tequesta vicinity. Confirm there is a wave setup value of 2 feet that was introduced along the Atlantic Coast to account for this previously unaddressed phenomenon of wave setup. Confirm that for this Preliminary study update, the FEMA contractor added the wave setup to the wave heights of the previous study. The available documentation is not clear on how this was done. Please provide documentation and clarification on how it resulted in the flood zones on the Atlantic Ocean shorelines defined on the Preliminary FIRM. Typically in a new analysis this wave setup value would have been added to the effective still water elevation (SWEL) that included the effective study 1% storm surge and astronomical tides. Then, this new SWEL would have been used as an input to the wave height analysis (WHAFIS) transect. 5. Does FEMA plan to perform a Surge Study for South Florida using ADCIRC and SWAN Coupled Models? If so when will this effort be completed and the documentation available? Will it be incorporated into the FIRM Maps at that time? 2of3 6. Please provide the status of the documentation that will ultimately be in the Technical Study Data Notebook regarding the Atlantic Coastal Analysis and the Loxahatchee River Wave Height Analysis. We have extensive knowledge of South Florida Hydrology and it is our objective to work closely with FEMA and FEMA's mapping partner to provide local expertise and assist in developing fair and accurate Flood Insurance Rate Map for the Village of Tequesta. Respectfully, x �� ___,a_ ;-� _ '� 7 ��' � ��` - vd Thomas V. Conboy, P.E. State of Florida # 59289 � / �H...�� "�J / Richard Tomasello, P.E. State of Florida # 15233 3 of 3 � SOUTH FLORIDA ENGINEERING TOMASELLO CONSULTING and Consulting, LLC Engineers, Inc. �� 649 U.S. flighw�ay l, ,5uitc 4 5906 Center Street � NorCh Palm Reach I I ��lu'; lupitf;r, FI, 33458 I'h��[lc - �hl 41? f�4�a;,� I'Ittiri�� SF�I �i75 :3910 Nilsa Zacarias, AICP Community Development Director Village of Tequesta 345 Tequesta Drive Tequesta, FL 33469 July 5, 2013 RE: Response to FEMA Floodplain Mapping Effort Dear Ms Zacarias, South Florida Engineering and Consulting LLC and Tomasello Consulting Engineers Inc. conducted a review and analysis of the proposed H IIZM (H lood lnsurance kate Map) as follows: Uescribe tramework of l equesta Flooding conditions and determining factors involved in delineating FEMA flood zones, compare preliminary FIRM with the existing 1982 FIRM, identify changes in relation to the 1982 FIRM, describe impacts of identified changes, present overall analysis of proposed FIRM and its impact to Tequesta residents as its relate to flood insurance, and any other matter that it is relevant about the proposed FIRM and critical to the Village of Tequesta. Please find attached a digital version of the "Review of FEMA's Proposed Flood Insurance Rate Map Updates for the Village of Tequesta" and a letter to FEMA providing comments for the Village on the Preliminary FIRM maps (PDF and Word format). Based upon the attached review we recommend: That the home owners west of Jupiter Sound that are going to be included in the proposed FIRM's SFHA investigate the possibility of a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) if they believe that their lowest adjacent grade is above the BFE. A LOMA is a letter from FEMA stating that an existing structure or parcel of land - that is on naturally high ground and has not been elevated by fill - would not be inundated by the base flood. Being designated as a X-Zone or a Shaded X-Zone through a LOMA would allow the home owner to make the decision whether or not to buy flood insurance and would allow lower premium (preferred) rates. Further investigation into how the proposed SFHAs were expanded to inciude the Atlantic shoreline structures in SFHAs. Further documentation needs to be provided by FEMA. Any homeowner in a SFHA, on either the effective or proposed FIRM, should purchase flood insurance. Likewise, any buildings near the SFHA that have floor elevations within a few feet of the BFE should also consider purchasing flood insurance. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Res ectfully, V � -� 1 � Thomas V. Conboy, P.E. State of Florida # 59289 �� Richard Tomasello, P.E. State of Florida # 15233 � SOUTH FY,ORIDA ENGINEERING "�""`. ' . ` �� - �R,�,��. CON3ULTING � Ganaul#ing, LLC � Engineere, Inc. � 6•44 ;."-S- ^=igh�c-�v 1, Sui?e 4 �406 C:�tFr S�e_t _�er'� ?sL*n Pe�Tz, F� ��4r.� Jupi:j. F� 334�8 =aca�: �6I-4I2-699- = _hanF: 561-5; 5-°�91^v REV�Ew oF FEMA PROPOSED FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP UPDATES FOR THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA INTRODUCTION The effective flood insurance study, accomplished in 1982 included a storm surge modeling and joint probability analysis to derive the still water flood elevations (SWEL) that include tide and surge effects. Wave Height Analyses for Flood Insurance Studies (WHAFIS) simulations were accomplished along wave transects on the Atlantic Coast and within the Loxahatchee River to evaluate the wave height contributions to base flood elevations (BFEs). The Effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps also display B and C-zones that are equivalent to the new Shaded-X (also call 0.2% Annual Chance) and Un-Shaded-X zones, respectively. FEMA FRAMEWORK FOR UPDATING TEQUESTA�S FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS (FIRMS) The intent of this report is to present a summary of the proposed Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and the changes they represent to the effective FIRMs (1982). There has been no new modeling (surge or wave height analyses) performed as part of this map update. The map changes were brought about by three basic revisions to the flood mapping: 1) Vertical reference change, 2) The addition of a 2-foot wave setup on the Atlantic Ocean shoreline, and 3) Re-delineations of the floodpiain using the former flood study results applied to the latest LiDAR topography. Each of these revisions affect at least parts of the proposed map revisions for the Village of Tequesta. VERTICAL REFERENCE CHANGE Elevalioos io Eleratiom in \G\ YA\'D88 The vertical reference used in the effective Flood Insurance Study (FIS, 1982) was the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD29). FEMA no longer uses the NGVD reference and has converted to the North American Vertical Datum (NAVD88}. For the Palm Beach County fIS, the NAVD88 reference is assumed to be at a plane that :��„29 � :��o8a is 1.56 feet higher than the NGVD29 plane. In other words, � subtract 1.56 ft from the 1982 maps which are in NGVD29 to convert elevations on these maps to NAVD88. To convert elevations on the FEMA's proposed updated FIRM's from NAVD88 . � : i � � ■ . I 1 ,._. . _ . ; � to NGVD29 add 1.56 ft. The elevation 0.00 ft-NAVD = 1.56 ft-NGVD and the elevation of 0.00 ft NGVD29 =-1.56 ft NAVD88. The effect of changing references would have less impact on the flood maps if the flood elevations were mapped to tenths of a foot. But since the static base flood elevations (BFEs) in the Village of Tequesta are rounded off to the nearest whole foot, the reference change has led to base flood elevations (BFEs) west of the barrier islands that are often 0.56 feet higher on the new map than the BFEs of the old map. For example, all of the Loxahatchee River Northwest Fork shoreline within the Village is shown on the effective FIRM (1982) as a special flood hazard area (SFHA) with a BFE of 6 ft-NGVD. This same shoreline is mapped as a SFHA with a 5 ft-NAVD BFE on the proposed FIRM which is equivalent to a BFE of 6.56 ft-NGVD. So, the new map has actually increased the flood elevation along this shoreline by 0.56 feet via the reference conversion only. On the west side of the North Branch of the Loxahatchee the effective FIRM displays SFHAs with BFEs of 7 ft-NGVD (mostly along the water's edge) and 6 ft-NGVD further inland. The 7 ft-NGVD BFEs are presumably a result of the wave effects along the shoreline that are attenuated to 6 ft-NGVD by mangroves and shoaiing further aiong the transect. The east side of the North Fork is shown on the effective FIRN1 as SFHA with a 6 ft- NGVD for the entire shoreline within the Village limits. The proposed map displays a 5 ft-NAVD BFE along the entire North Fork shoreline (east and west side) within the Village limits. Again, it should be noted that this 5 ft-NAVD BFE is equal to 6.56 ft-NGVD, 0.56 feet higher than most of the effective BFEs. Along the portions of the Intracoastal Waterway that are within the Village limits, the effective SFHAs have BFEs that range from 6 to 7 ft-NGVD. The proposed map reflects SFHA with only a 5 ft-NAVD BFE. The Atlantic Ocean shoreline within the Village is also impacted by the reference change, but the other changes including the re-delineation and the wave setup had more of an impact. These impacts will all be discussed in the following section. ADDITION OF A 2 FOOT WAVE SETUP As described above, there were no new analyses performed to revise the base flood elevations within the Village of Tequesta vicinity. However, there is a wave setup value of 2 feet that was introduced to account for this previously unaddressed phenomenon. For this study update, the FEMA contractor added the wave setup to the wave heights of the previous study, but the available documentation is not clear on how this was done and how it resulted in the flood zones defined on the FIRM. Typically in a new analysis this wave setup value would have been added to the effective still water elevation (SWEL) that included the effective study 1% storm surge and astronomical tides. Then, this new SWEL would have been used as an input to the wave height analysis (WHAFIS) transect. RE-DELINEATION OF FLOODPLAIN USING RECENT LIDAR TOPOGRAPHY The re-delineation is intended to use the previously computed (effective) flood elevations and the new LiDAR topography to revise the floodplain and x-zone delineations. This re-delineation was done in addition to the vertical reference change, with the intent to relocate the gutter lines (which identify the 0.5 foot divides between coastal BFEs). Gutter lines are the contours of 0.5' intervals from the WHAFIS results (e.g. 5.5 ft-NAVD gutter divides the 5.0 ft-NAVD static BFE from the 6.0 ft-NAVD static BFE). The static BFEs were compared to the new LiDAR topography. Where the static BFE's were higher than the LiDAR topography (presented in 5' by 5' raster format), the land was identified as a floodplain with a static BFE assigned. If the topography was higher than the 2 static BFE, the land was identified as a, shaded X-zone or 0.2% zone. If the topography was higher than the 500- year or 0.2% annual chance flood elevation, then the FIRM designation would be X-zone. For the portions of the Village west of the barrier islands, the BFEs were affected by a combination of the better resolution topography and the changed vertical reference. The Atlantic shoreline re-deli�eation included the 2 foot wave setup. The results led to mapping a velocity (VE) zone significantly further inland impacting structures that were previously in Zone C. Flood insurance in a velocity (VE) zone is significantly greater than in Zone C. SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO FIRM The hard copy maps of the Preliminary FIRMs for Tequesta have changed significantly from the 1982 FIRM. The FIRM map symbology change stands out as the biggest change in the appearance of the Preliminary FIRMs. There are now two panels (hard copy maps) as opposed to 1 panel for the 1982 FIRM. The two changes that make it confusing when comparing the hard copy maps are that the datum has changed from NGVD 1929 ±o NAVD 1988, and the Terminology of flood zones has changed. Table 1 is taken from page 117 IS-9 "Managing Floodplain Development through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)". TABLE 1— FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ZONES Ze�r?l 1Ir LOQ-yerarLe 800dpi� Th�eac �atppes afAZmes A 'I�ee hese �od� �@e.dbf y�e mdho�k„ i`. �Es ae noltdel�.d'1Ls a a�aBed a�6eedA la.ear � �ppio�leAZme. �1.3& ISese umoom as �6eed A 7.mce (o�, A7 a A14).1Lis is ir 6ase 800dpl� wLeoe �e FIRM shoars a BE'E (dd �)- .�E 1Le 6we 800dpLmm �e�e bame flood dev� seydo�ed. AE Tmes �marooc� mnear fom�tFiR1d4 m�doflll-A30 ZaaeX �O 1Le ha� 8nodpl� wbh sheet 8ow, paodog, a smIlo� 8uad�g. � 8aod d�plbs (fe� i600e �amdl ae PEUmded .d�H Sh�ar 800d�oa 6a� 8aa� �s � p[avided A9! A� m 6e pales�d &am bae 800d by levees a Fedml Flood Pialuli�9psl�s mdze�m BFEs a�mtde�ed �R 'Oie 6a� 800dpimm tlot �� deaeti6e�n of a ge�iaodg am� goari �ote�un syslrmdiN is �tL� pmoesg a� bem�n�adtap�a�cidr a 100-xer� ��leadaf9ood � 7.o�e �' a�1d �' 7Le em�al � ai�jed m a�balp F�ad (wave actiaiu} evhae �•E HfFs � mtde� m�eF7BZlC CE 'ltr co�tal u� �oLjectto s cdodtg 5aad (wrn acUOO) w6ae �Fs a�gacidedm�r F1Rl�� Zu�e B ud A� afmod�e Saod �ria� �y tLe ma bdwem I�e l� af the I00. 7.one � 7"� �d SOtLg� 800d� B Za�es �e ��ed b de�e basr � (shaded) � �'� � �� 5�16e 100-yea �aod, ar Hoa�ag sv�de�o�'I�ffi�me�ator�e aze� le� �m 1 �e mle Zose G afld A� a�'�18nod� �s&Y d�d m FIItMs ae dwa� t� SOQ� Zoae � 9'� 800d kvrl Zme C map l� pmdmg md lonl ��adi�s � �� drm'tw�tad�ledsbdyad�m�bae�adp�Z�e%�(he � dei�ed �o be a�de d�c i94�800d �d ptWecled by lea� 8� 10Q� 9ood. Zo� D Ama of �d�emmed bat poss�Je 800d h�ds. FlOOd Ins�ana� AAa�► Zon� Nate ffiat ffie speciat F1ood Har�nd Atea (SFHA) incfi�des aaly A awd V Zanes_ 3 For the Village of Tequesta's Flood Zones Table 2 shows the Terminology changes between the 1982 and Preliminary 2013 FIRM maps. TABLE 2— OLD VS. NEW TERMINOLOGY FOR TEQUESTA�S FLOOD ZONES Old New Terminology Terminology A7 = AE C = X 6 = Shaded X V8 = VE AH = AH Table 3 and 4 which are taken from the Flood Insurance and Flood Maps - Fact Sheet - National Flood Insurance Program, November 2010, explain the risk levels associated with each flood zone and the Insurance requirements for each flood zone respectively. TABLE 2— RISK LEVEL FOR FLOOD HAZARD ZONES (FLOOD INSURANCE AND FLOOO MAPS - FACT SHEET - NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PR06RAM, NOVEMBER 2010� �` � � r�� ° "' �� '� �r � , uro ¢ � �.�, � � �� ECI$� �� - =.r- .�-- �" .� � � .x:��. . �„;�: r . . _ -- . �_ ' . _ �, ,.¢. s. High Flood Risk AE, A, AH, AR, A99 or AO Zoae. These prop�ties havz a one percmt chance of floodina in any year — and are more tLan twice as likely to be damaged by a flood as by fire. �'� or �' Zone. These properfies have a on�e perc�t chance of flooding in any year and also face Lazards assceieted wifh coastal storm �eaves. Iasarancc note: Flood insurance is mandatory in high-risk areas for most mortgages tLat are secured by loans from federalty regnlated or insnred lend�s. Moderate-to-Low Sh�ded X Zonc These properties are in moderate-to-low risk areas. T'he risk is rechued in these areas Flood Risk biR not removed X Zone. These properties ere in an are�a of overall lower risk. Insarance note: Lower cost, Prefe�rred Risk Poficies are often an option in these areas, starting at S 129 p� year. Flood insivance coverage is not m�dated in X zones� bnt is recommended, as the risk for flood is sfill very reaL Keep in mind tLat while your propeity could be desigosted as moderate-to-low risk, it may still be geogaplucally close to a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). 4 T8bI2 3— INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS �FLOOD INSURANCE AND FLOOD MAPS - FACT SHEET - NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM, NOVEMBER ZO1O� �_� ,. � ,, ��; _ , , ., , , ,� ._ v� � �; . s " , !F MAPS SHOW.., THESE REQUIREM�fS; OpTIO�NS AND�Si�►YING� APPLY ��``� ��= CLnnge firom �� ce is mandatoiy. Flood '+n�»�ce will be fede►�ally r�quired for most mortgage holders. 143oderatc-to-Lo� ��e costs way rise to reflect the hue nat�re of the flood risk. As avith all rypes of insurance, when �� g � d�e chance of loss increases, so does the cost of instuauce. Higher policy deduchbles are one option for �� lowering insmance pr�iuubs. Your flood insttrance agent can provide you with ��ahie infoimation on w�ays to save. Graadfatkering offers savings. The NaQamal Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has •`grandfath�ing" mles to recognize policyttoldecs wl� Leve built in co�liance with the flaod map or who maintain cantinuous cove�age. An +namn agent can provide more details on how to save. Change 6�om Higti F7ood iasorsinee � optloaal bat reeommeaded. TLe rlsk hos oaty been redoeed, uot remoueA. Flood RLslc to Flood '+n�TMa+.�^ can slill be obtained at lower rates. �ioderate-to-Lo� Cenvenioa offers saviags. An e�sti� policy can be conv�ted to a lower cost Prefemed Risk Poliry. Rtsk i�o Cbaage ia Rislt No cba�ge iu �saraace nies. Propecty owners should talk to their ins�uance a�ent to learn tH�r Level specific risk and take steps to proteM their propetty and assets. GIS ANALYSIS Comparing the electronic data behind the hard copy maps using GIS (Geographic Information System) it is easy to filter out the changes due to map symbols, terminology and datum. In Map 1 we did not show the areas going from Zone X(shaded) and Zone X(unshaded) 154 acres and from Zone X(unshaded) and Zone X(shaded) 25 acres, because both are outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area and for insurance purposes they are very similar. It also makes the important changes stand out more on the Map. In Map 1 there is a legend showing the colors of each of the areas that have changed from one effective zone to another. The zone changes are shown in Table 4. Table 4 shows that 21% of the Villages 1440 acres have changed Flood Zone Designation in the preliminary 2013 FIRM maps. The arrow in the Risk column is up if the new Flood Zone has increased in insurance risk. The shaded rows in Table 4 represent zones not designated on Map 1. TABLE 4 CHANGE ANALYSIS BETWEEN Z9H2 AND PRELIMINARY ZO13 FIRM MAPS 2013 No Change from 1982 Preliminary Acres Risk 1982 FIRM Acres X(shaded) to AE 13.84 T X(shaded) 112.74 � AE 316.05 �Y.:� �' � "'�' �, , �_�. �� AE to X(shaded) 40.31 y VE 0.06 AE to VE 0.25 T X(unshaded) 704.31 AE to X(unshaded) 49.58 J� Total 1133.17 AH to X(unshaded) 6.34 y X(unshaded) to AE 2.25 T X(unshaded) to VE 14.56 T t6i �..,�� Total 306.68 Map 1 displays the changes in the flood zone designations between the Effective and the Preliminary (Proposed) FIRMs. The zone changes are color coded as specified in the Map 1 legend. Both of the Proposed and the Effective 5 i - --- _ __ --- - - _--- - --- - I I ( � �5E1�::.:� \ ` �St�� g � � \�� = � 10' \ �; i ;1r 5�) `\\ �`�j , �\ z ��,�� ; ��,. � �� m �� ,�,�\�� i � � , ��\\\��, o `TE q�� \•• " .-\ ' �fi JU \\\\�� ;��\�; b ' � V ' C • � � ��ppp99g9,C0�79P �� \� ��\\�-� � � � � 1A� � ��\\�V�\ �� - ----�-- ��`` �\\�\\\��\\�� ; I �� \\��\�� "��\\ � ;�� ,��:,;:: �\\\��\,� - � \�� \� "°\ �� ; � , . � � � , �, �.;��, ,� ,��A _ g .�O � �� ,�,\ ��,\ � � � . � � � � �� : i �\\\ \\\\\`\\\\�\\\\\�� ffi ..i, E � � a « C\\\\\�� \��\��\\�� \� � � � _ o > K x � � � � � � �� \�� . �Av � � � a < s s s �� .� m > LL z � � �� w �� o ��.� � , �\��\\\ ��\\\`��.� �� \ ��\� \�� \ \ \ \\\\ \\\ \ uq` � �. li .. � i \ \��\\\\\ \ ` W o ,-''��\ � \J °° .:\ � \\\\\ .� � u i � ""., x �\\�\�� x � � �` y x I ,.�- �" << �� I a � ,...._ .__. -at�` � � �:�� (s pR G 7H FO \�� \:� �\�� I � N � � �\\� �� c \ 1C � s�ibh �� V` �a �\` � �� \ \ � ,�� ° . �\�� fS��`�� \ � \\� \� \ �� \� ��\ �\ . � \�� \\� � � �� > \ � �1� � Q � A A � V��V �- � \ \..��.�A� � A� �AA� � �A �, �� \�� \� � ti\\ � ;� � �� o . �,� e. \ �� \\\ �� '�\ � �.�� ` . i � �\�� p.� � � � : � � � �� . � � � �; � �; � �� \, I \ . � \ :` I � ` � \� I � \ �' I \• I � I � i a 0 i c� � I j � � I �. ` Q* � \ < . \ \`� `�\� i ,� '� .. � �� , � � �� . \� � �� i \�� °�x:. � - �. �� ..=r�. . `; ` � ��µ� : \ � �' j I \�\ \ \ �� \�J �' � � j, � �\\V �i- ;��' 3�_ � ' '\��; '� , 12089C0160F �U 12099C0159F 7 flood elevations (BFEs — referenced to NGVD) are also on Map 1 with the Proposed in parentheses. West of the Intracoastal Waterway these increased flood elevations had minimal impacts on the extent of the SFHAs in the developed areas. Several homes in the vicinity of Tequesta Drive and Beacon Street are in the SFHA on the Proposed FIRM that are in Zone B(0.2%) on the Effective map. However, most of the homes fronting the Northwest Fork are shown on the Effective FIRM as being in the SFHA, but are shown to be in Zone X on the Proposed FIRM. RECOMMENDATIONS We would recommend that the home owners west of the Intracoastal Waterway that are going to be included in the proposed FIRM's SFHA investigate the possibility of a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) if they believe that their lowest adjacent grade is above the BFE. A LOMA is a letter from FEMA stating that an existing structure or parcel of land - that is on naturally high ground and has not been elevated by fill - would not be inundated by the base flood. Being designated as a X-Zone or a Shaded X-Zone through a LOMA would allow the home owner to make the decision whether or not to buy flood insurance and would allow lower premium (preferred) rates. We recommend further investigation into how the proposed SFHAs were expanded to include the Atlantic shoreline structures in SFHAs. Further documentation needs to be provided by FEMA. We would recommend that any homeowner in a SFHA, on either the effective or proposed FIRM, purchase flood insurance. Likewise, any buildings near the SFHA that have floor elevations within a few feet of the BFE should also consider purchasing flood insurance. 6 Abbreviations SWEL - Still Water Flood Elevations WHAFIS - Wave Height Analyses for Flood Insurance Studies BFE - Base Flood Elevations FIRM - Flood Insurance Rate Map NGVD29 - National Geodetic Vertical Datum NAVD88 - North American Vertical Datum FIS - Flood Insurance Study BFE - Base Flood Elevation SFHA - Special Flood Hazard Area WHAFIS - Wave Height Analysis LOMA - Letter of Map Amendment 8