Resolution 065-20201
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMNIISSIO?
RESOLUTION NO. 065 -2020
A RESLOUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
ADOPTING THE MONROE COUNTY REPETITIVE LOSS
AREA ANALYSIS AS REQUIRED TO ADVANCE IN THE
COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM.
WHEREAS, Monroe County is currently a participating community in the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); and
WHEREAS, Monroe County became eligible and entered the NFIP Community Rating
System (CRS) in 2016; and;
WHEREAS, Monroe County's voluntary participation in the NFIP's Community Rating
System (CRS) provides residents of unincorporated Monroe County with a 25% discount on a
standard NFIP flood insurance policy in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA); and
WHEREAS, each improvement in CRS Class rating (starting from a Class 10) translates
into a 5% premium discount on qualifying NFIP policy -holders within the SFHA, meaning that a
CRS Class 4 status makes qualified policy-t within the community eligible for a 30% total
premium discount; and
WHEREAS, Monroe. County is currently rated as a CRS Class 5% community and
achieving CRS Class 4 status would result in an additional 5% discount for qualified policy-
holders within the SFHA; and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Commission supports the goal of a CRS Repetitive
Loss Area Analysis to provide guidance on how to reduce damage from repetitive flooding and
outlining appropriate mitigation measures;
NOW THREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18'
19
21
22
Z3
24
25
26
27
Section 1. The Board hereby adopts the Monroe County Repetitive Loss Area Analysis, a
copy of which is attached hereto.
Section 2. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida,
at a regular meeting of the Board held on the 190` day of February 2020.
A
Mayor Heather Carruthers Yes
Mayor Pro Tem Michelle Coldiron Yes
Commissioner Craig Cates Yes
Commissioner David Rice Yes
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy Yes
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
y
BY
f Mayor Heathekarri&Vers
MADOK, CLERK
By
Deputy Clerk
Page 2 of 2
t�Al .. COUI N ?
Ai�P
J%T
T. MLL1
ASSIS"FANT NTY ATTORMiiT
Deft,
�`t��
r
ii
v
�Z X
c-;
C"
CZ)
Y .;v
M
N
g
•
ff1�
Q
Monroe County
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis
February 1, 2020
OLORI LEHR INC.
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis
Monroe County, Florida
ExecutiveSummary........................................................................................................................
2
Chapter1. Introduction...................................................................................................................
5
Background.................................................................................................................................
5
RepetitiveLoss Areas.................................................................................................................
6
TheProcess.................................................................................................................................
7
Chapter 2. The Flood Problem......................................................................................................
10
HistoricalFloods.......................................................................................................................
10
Hurricane Irma, September 2017..............................................................................................
14
FutureFlooding.........................................................................................................................
16
Impactof Flooding....................................................................................................................
16
ProblemStatement....................................................................................................................
18
Chapter 3. Mitigation Measures....................................................................................................
20
StructuralProjects.....................................................................................................................
20
BeachStructures...................................................................................................................
20
Seawalls................................................................................................................................
22
BeachNourishment...............................................................................................................
22
Natural Resource Protection.................................................................................................
24
DrainageImprovements........................................................................................................
24
NonstructuralProjects...............................................................................................................
26
MitigationFunding...............................................................................................................
26
Acquisition............................................................................................................................
30
Elevation...............................................................................................................................
31
MitigationReconstruction....................................................................................................
33
Barriers..................................................................................................................................
33
DryFloodproofing................................................................................................................
35
WetFloodproofing................................................................................................................
37
FloodInsurance.........................................................................................................................
38
References.................................................................................................................................
40
Chapter 4. Selecting Mitigation Measures....................................................................................
41
CountyProjects.........................................................................................................................
41
NonstructuralProjects...............................................................................................................
42
Building Mitigation Selection Matrix.......................................................................................
45
Chapter5. Recommendations.......................................................................................................
47
CountyActions.........................................................................................................................
47
PropertyOwner Actions...........................................................................................................
48
Appendix A. Area Summaries....................................................................................................
A-1
Appendix B. Input Questionnaire...............................................................................................
B-1
Appendix C. Flood Insurance Terminology...............................................................................
C-1
Monroe County RLAA — 1 — February 1, 2020
Executive Summary
Monroe County is subject to periodic flooding from rain, sea level rise, and storm surge. One
measure of the intensity and impact of these floods is flood insurance claims. Between 1978 and
2017, there were 11,205 flood insurance claims paid in unincorporated Monroe County. Of
those, 10,896 (97%) were from the six major storms discussed in Chapter 2. The average claim
payments for the last two, Wilma and Irma, were over $30,000 and $35,000, respectively.
Many properties in the County have been subject to repetitive floods. Nationally, the cost of
paying repetitive insurance claims have made them a priority for the National Flood Insurance
Program. Under FEMA's definition of a repetitive loss property, only a little more than 1% of
the County's flood insurance polices account for 19% of the claim payments since 1978.
Repetitive flooding is therefore a major concern in Monroe County.
Analysis
Instead of focusing on just the 391 officially designated repetitive loss properties that have
flooded two times or more in the past, this analysis looks at repetitive loss areas. An "area" has
the repetitive loss properties designated by FEMA and other nearby properties that are exposed
to the same flood risk (often called "repetitive loss properties in waiting"). Monroe County has
60 repetitive loss areas which have from one to 699 properties with a total of 9,546 properties.
Appendix A has maps and summary data on the 60 repetitive loss areas in unincorporated
Monroe County. The data come from a windshield survey, claims data, and County Appraiser
files. The exact location of the 391 FEMA-designated repetitive loss properties cannot be
identified because of the Privacy Act. For this analysis, there is no differentiation between
FEMA repetitive loss, single loss, insured but no claim payments, and uninsured properties. All
properties exposed to the repetitive flood hazard deserve attention. The table below has summary
data on the 60 areas.
Area
RLs
Historic Loss
Similarly Situated
Total
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
14
130
346
490
4
1
25
129
155
5
1
3
63
67
6
1
8
51
60
7
3
63
307
373
8
1
1
9
7
49
178
234
10
1
1
11
1
2
2
5
12
4
7
92
103
13
7
30
187
224
14
1
1
15
1
3
54
58
16
13
4
98
115
17
1
1
2
Monroe County RLAA —2— February 1, 2020
Area
RLs
Historic Loss
Similarly Situated
Total
18
1
4
8
13
19
5
15
236
256
20
1
1
21
1
1
22
2
3
7
12
23
1
2
3
24
2
2
25
3
13
24
40
26
1
2
1
4
27
7
89
309
405
28
16
29
45
29
17
73
137
227
30
21
66
98
185
31
5
11
36
52
32
1
119
302
422
33
1
2
1
4
34
2
43
107
152
35
1
6
22
29
36
4
38
225
267
37
2
55
141
198
38
3
78
101
182
39
1
4
4
9
40
16
98
250
364
41
2
8
35
45
42
56
113
500
669
43
29
181
179
389
44
24
150
298
472
45
9
60
209
278
46
6
98
147
251
47
9
120
278
407
48
2
9
15
26
49
3
58
89
150
50
25
25
108
158
51
3
9
26
38
52
7
33
146
186
53
3
177
419
599
54
2
16
34
52
55
1
198
247
446
56
2
4
9
15
57
5
3
13
21
58
4
21
25
59
1
1
60
19
53
478
550
1370
2,374
6,799
9,543
1 FEMA's Repetitive Loss List contains 391 properties. Twenty-one addresses on the list are properties with multiple buildings located on one
Monroe County parcel ID. The information provided by FEMA is not sufficient to determine which building on such parcels is the one on FEMA's
list.
Monroe County RLAA —3— February 1, 2020
Solutions
Chapter 2 of this report reviews past floods and their impacts on people and property. Chapter 3
discusses alternative mitigation projects to address these impacts. They are organized under two
approaches:
Flood control projects
Beach structures
Seawalls
Beach and dune nourishment
Drainage improvements
Nonstructural projects
Acquisition
Elevation
Mitigation reconstruction
Barriers
Dry floodproofing
Wet floodproofing
Different projects do better in different situations, so Chapter 4 identifies ways to determine the
best approaches to mitigate the impacts of repetitive flooding. Chapter 5 concludes with
recommendations for the County and for repetitively flooded property owners. County actions
focus on protecting critical facilities and roads and helping property owners with information,
technical assistance, and funding. Recommended property owner actions include learning about
nonstructural measures that they can implement and sources of financial assistance and
maintaining flood insurance coverage.
Monroe County RLAA — 4 — February 1, 2020
Chapter 1. Introduction
Monroe County is subject to periodic flooding from rain, sea level rise, and storm surge. While
one flood is bad enough, many areas of the County have been subject to repetitive floods, which
take their toll and leave residents worrying about the next flood.
This report is an analysis of the repetitive flood problem in the unincorporated areas of Monroe
County. It reviews past floods, their impacts on people and property, alternative ways to address
these impacts, and concludes with recommendations for County officials and property owners
who want to be proactive to address their future risk of flooding.
Background
The majority of the buildings in Monroe County are in a
coastal floodplain. Many were built before January 1975,
when Monroe County adopted its first floodplain
regulations, which means they were likely built without
any flood protection considerations. The following table
shows this data:
Built before 1/1/1975 Built after 1/1/1975
4,490 9,472
Nearly 14,000 properties in the County's unincorporated
areas are covered for flood damage with a flood insur-
ance policy under the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP). Of these, 437 meet the NFIP's definition of a
repetitive loss property and 7 meet the NFIP's definition
of a severe repetitive loss property (see box).
The NFIP has been faced with the task of paying claims
while trying to keep the price of flood insurance at an
affordable level. It has a particular problem with
Repetitive loss property: a property
that has had two or more claims of
more than $1,000 paid by the National
Flood Insurance Program within any
10-year period since 1978. Although
some of these properties have had
mitigation measures applied to them,
most remain at risk of flooding.
—CRS Coordinator's Manual, p. 120-7
Severe Repetitive Loss property:
As defined in the Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 2004, those 1-4 family
properties that have had four or more
claims of more than $5,000 or two to
three claims that cumulatively exceed
the building's value. For the purposes
of the CRS, non-residential buildings
that meet the same criteria as for 1-4
family properties are considered
Severe Repetitive Loss properties.
—CRS Coordinator's Manual, p. 120-8
repetitive flood loss properties, which are estimated to have cost $13 billion nationwide since
1978. Repetitive loss properties represent only 1.3% of all flood insurance policies, yet
historically they have accounted for nearly 25% of the claims nationally. Monroe County's
repetitive loss properties also represent only about 1.3% of all flood insurance policies but they
account for 6.6% of the more than $282 million in historic claims payments in the
unincorporated areas of the County.
Because of this, the NFIP encourages reducing the repetitive loss problem and they offer
mitigation programs to do so. Mitigating these repeatedly flooded properties will reduce the
overall costs to the program, to the communities in which they are located, and to the individual
homeowners. Ultimately, mitigating repeatedly flooded properties benefits everyone.
While the primary objective of this analysis is to help the residents of Unincorporated Monroe
County, it also meets a requirement of the Community Rating System (CRS). The CRS is a
Monroe County RLAA — 5 — February 1, 2020
voluntary program that recognizes and encourages floodplain management activities that exceed
the minimum NFIP requirements. Communities receive credit for their floodplain management
activities, such as land use regulations, public information programs, and flood warning and
response plans. Plans and projects that address repetitive loss properties are an important credit.
Unincorporated Monroe County is currently a CRS Class 5 which provides a 25% discount on
NIFIP flood insurance policies issued in the Special Flood Hazard Area (see Appendix C for
floodplain management terminology). A Class 5 rating means NFIP insurance policy holders in
the unincorporated areas of the County save approximately 5.2 million dollars each year.
As a participant in the CRS, Monroe County is obligated to map and address its repetitive loss
areas. It can receive additional CRS credit if it undertakes an analysis of the problem that
identifies appropriate activities that can mitigate the impact of repetitive flooding. This document
meets the criteria for a CRS-accredited Repetitive Loss Area Analysis (RLAA).
Repetitive Loss Areas
Properties on FEMA's repetitive loss list are not the entire problem — they are an indicator of a
repetitive flooding problem that can also affect other properties. As described in the CRS
Coordinator's Manual,
It is important to note that the only reason a property appears on FEMA's list is because the structure
had flood insurance and received two or more claims of at least $1,000 during any given 10-year
period. These properties are merely representative of the community's overall repetitive flooding
problem.
Other structures near the ones listed by FEMA may have been uninsured during the floods, may have
had single flood insurance claims, or may have had multiple claims under different policies that the
system did not recognize as being the same repetitively flooded address. From a community perspec-
tive, it is not fair to single out those properties that happen to be on FEMA's list. All properties with
the same exposure to repeated flood damage should be addressed. — CRS Coordinator's Manual, page
500-10.
The CRS requires communities to look at repetitive loss areas. Repetitive loss areas consist of
neighboring buildings (including uninsured ones) that were subject to the same flood as those on
the FEMA list. A line must be drawn to include the properties on FEMA's list and all other
nearby properties with buildings exposed to the same repetitive floods.
Privacy Act: All use of flood insurance data must abide by the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a).
"Personally identifiable information" such as the names or addresses of specific properties that
are covered by flood insurance or have received flood insurance claims, the amounts of such
claims, etc., may not be released outside of local government agencies or to the public.
General or aggregated information, such as total claims paid for a community or an area or data
not connected to a particular property may be made public. For example, a community may
publish a map showing a repetitive loss area or a list of addresses in that area, provided that it
does not show which individual addresses or parcels are covered by a flood insurance policy or
received insurance claim payments.
Monroe County RLAA — 6 — February 1, 2020
Therefore, this report and the database described in Chapter 4, do not include information on
flood insurance policies. Non-NFIP information, such as building foundation types and assessed
value, can be used and released. The addresses in the repetitive loss area can be publicized, but
the list will not identify which properties had or have a flood insurance policy, which are listed
as repetitive loss properties, or how much a particular property received in insurance claims.
Monroe County's Repetitive Loss Areas: The Planning & Environmental Resources
Department's GIS office mapped repetitive loss properties, properties that received a single flood
insurance claim, and all similarly situated properties. This information was used to identify and
delineate the repetitive loss areas.
There are 60 repetitive loss areas in Monroe County.
They have from one to 699 properties with a total of
9,545 properties in the 60 repetitive loss areas. There
are seven areas that have only one property, i.e., there
are no other similarly situated structures nearby. The
exact location of these seven properties is not shown in
this report, but their general areas are mapped. For the
other areas, there is no differentiation between repetitive
loss, single loss, insured but no claim payments, and
uninsured properties. An example of an area map is to
the right.
Most of the areas include buildings that have been
elevated or otherwise protected from repetitive
flooding. While these buildings are less likely to
experience interior flooding, they have repetitively
flooded properties nearby and the street flooding often
causes building access issues. Therefore, they are
included in the repetitive loss areas.
The Process
The analysis was prepared following a standard five step planning process. The process is also
needed to meet the CRS credit criteria, as shown in quotes for each step.
Step 1: "Advise all the properties in the repetitive loss areas that the analysis will be conducted
and request their input on the hazard and recommended actions." — This was completed with a
letter sent by Adam Ferguson, Administrator of the County's Floodplain Program. The letter
went to all residents of the County in the Summer of 2017, advising that there would be staff
conducting visual surveys of the buildings in their neighborhoods. It had this note:
The RLAA work that the County is doing would be much more effective with any additional data
residents in these areas may be able to provide. You are encouraged to participate in the planning
process by providing historical information concerning floods that have impacted your property. Be
part of the solution and help us improve the analysis by completing a questionnaire ... Your
participation will be used to help determine the appropriate flood protection measure(s) to be
considered for properties in your area.
Monroe County RLAA — 7 — February 1, 2020
The field surveying started, but work was put on hold after the
County was hit by Hurricane Irma in September 2017. It restarted
in 2019 and a second notice was distributed with the County's
annual outreach project in September 2019 (right). The
questionnaire is included as Appendix B to this report.
Only 20 people took advantage of this opportunity. Their com
are included in the information on their repetitive loss areas in
Appendix A.
Step 2: "Contact agencies or organizations that may have plans or
studies that could affect the cause or impacts of the flooding." --
The RLAA planners contacted the following offices. The findings
and comments from these contacts are incorporated into the various
chapters of this document.
—> Monroe County Disaster Recovery Department
—> Monroe County Engineering, Roads & Bridges Department
Monroe County Land Authority
Monroe County Planning and
Environmental Resources Department
Monroe County Sustainability &
Projects Department
Florida Department of Economic
Opportunity
n
,OEFacrsoN
Step 3: "Visit each building in the repetitive
loss area and collect basic data. The site visit must collect data sufficient to do a preliminary
determination of the cause of the repetitive flooding and of the mitigation measures that would
be appropriate.... The person conducting the visit should not have to enter the property
adequate information should be collected from observations from the street."
Several approaches were used to collect data. County staff visited every area and recorded key
information on each building. Items collected (to the extent that things could be seen from the
street) included:
— Use (single family home, commercial, etc.)
—Number of stories
— Foundation type
— Foundation condition
— Wall type
—Wall condition
— HVAC location
— Estimated height above grade
Monroe County RLAA — 8 — February 1, 2020
Dates from the Monroe County Property Appraiser, such as date of construction, were also
included.
Flood insurance data were reviewed but not included in the same database due the Privacy Act
requirements. Data on each building was collected in a database that is explained in Chapter 4.
The causes of the repetitive damage are covered in Chapter 2 and appropriate mitigation
measures are reviewed in Chapters 3 and 4.
Step 4: "Review alternative approaches and determine whether any property protection
measures, or drainage improvements are feasible." — Both structural flood control and
nonstructural building mitigation measures were reviewed. Property protection measures and
drainage improvements are in Chapter 3. Feasibility is covered in Chapter 4.
Step 5: "Document the findings." — All of this information and the repetitive loss area maps are
included in this document, Monroe County's Repetitive Loss Area Analysis.
The draft of this document was posted for public review. The annual outreach project sent to the
repetitive loss areas in December of 2019, encouraged the recipients to access the draft online
and review it. Questions or comments on the draft as well as other flood protection topics were
encouraged. While the initial request for public input in Step 1 brought comments, no comments
were received on the draft document by the comment deadline.
The draft of this document was presented to the Monroe County Board of County
Commissioners at the January 22" d meeting. The Commissioners and public were given an
opportunity to ask questions and make comments. While there were no questions or comments
from the public, the Commissioner asked quite a few very relevant questions. The questions
related to:
—> The viability of residential floodproofing,
—> The process for inclusion of similarly situated structures in the repetitive loss areas, and
Providing more data to the public on individual properties, such as adding the elevation
of the lowest floor to the data in the next iteration.
Overall, the Commissioners' comments were positive in nature. They agreed that it is of benefit
to the community to look at repetitive loss areas to access possible mitigation to reduce future
loss.
Monroe County RLAA — 9 — February 1, 2020
Chapter 2. The Flood Problem
As noted in the County's outreach projects (right) "All
of Monroe County is identified as a coastal floodplain
and may be subject to flooding."
Flooding in Monroe County comes in four ways:
Heavy Rains: Hurricanes, tropical storms, and summer thunderstorms
have the potential to unload heavy rainfall, which backs up drainage
systems and causes flooding.
Storm Surge: Water that is pushed toward the shore by strong storm
winds, can cause severe flooding in coastal areas.
Flash Flooding: Flash flooding is caused by sudden heavy rainfall and
can occur in just a few hours or less. Moving water from flash floods
can lift rocks and debris and damage homes and buildings.
King Tides: These especially high tides can flood streets and low 1_ying.
areas. They are occurring more frequently due to sea level rise.
Historical Floods
A
All of these types of floods contributed to repetitive building damage and the subsequent flood
insurance claims. However, a review of the claims found that the repetitive loss claims in
Monroe County can be tied almost exclusively to tropical storms and the associated storm surge.
There were six major storms over the past 2 decades that account for the bulk of the damage and
claims. In fact, 97% of all the paid claims in the unincorporated portions of Monroe County
came from these six storms. They are summarized in the table below.
Major Storm Summary
Name
Landfall
Category'
Paid Claims'
$ Claims'
Georges
Sept. 1998
3
3,055
$ 37,066,289
Mitch
Nov. 1998
Trop. Storm
41
$ 244,287
Irene
Oct. 1999
1
396
$ 3,859,108
Rita
Sept. 2005
2
171
$ 4,074,089
Wilma
Oct. 2005
3
4,070
$ 123,466,400
Irma
Sept. 2017
4
3,163
$ 110,714,342
Totals
10,896
$ 279,424,515
1. Category is the category on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale when the
storm hit Monroe County.
2. Claims figures are for all of unincorporated Monroe County, not just the
repetitive loss areas.
Monroe County RLAA — 10 — February 1, 2020
The following review shows the variations in the storms and their impacts, but they consistently
resulted in flood insurance claims. It should be noted that the tropical storm or hurricane
category is a relative indicator of the severity of a storm, but not a measure of storm surge or
flood levels, which varied throughout the County.
Hurricane Georges, September 1998: On
September 16, a depression was upgraded
into Tropical Storm Georges and further
into Hurricane Georges the next day. The
eye of the storm passed near Key West
about midday on September 24.
Wind: The storm reached its peak intensity
on September 20 with winds of 155 mph,
just below Category 5 status on the Saffir-
Simpson Hurricane Scale. Wind gusts near
the center of the storm over the Keys reached
125 mph.
Rain: Rainfall amounts amounted to a maximum of 8.41 inches in Tavernier and 8.38 at Key
West International Airport.
Storm surge: Upon making landfall, Hurricane Georges brought a storm surge of up to 12 feet
in Tavernier, with similar but lesser amounts along the rest of the Keys. Waves up to 10 feet put
many parts of the Overseas Highway under water.
Damage: Strong winds downed palm
trees and power lines, leaving all of the
Keys without power. The most severe
damage was sustained between
Sugarloaf Key and Big Pine Key in the
Lower Keys. Georges' waves overturned
2 boats in Key West. 1,536 houses were
damaged with 173 homes destroyed,
many of which were mobile homes
(right).
Flood insurance claims: Based on claim
locations, Hurricane Georges was
predominantly a Middle and Lower
Keys event.
Number of paid claims: 3,055
Total payments: $37,066,289
Average payment: $12,133
Monroe County RLAA — 11 — February 1, 2020
Hurricane Mitch, November 1998: Mitch
formed in the western Caribbean Sea on
October 22. It drifted to Central America,
where it caused a great deal of damage and
killed more than 9,000 people. Mitch then
weakened, moved back, and
struck Florida as a strong tropical storm on
November 5.
Wind: Key West International
Airport reported peak wind gusts of 55 mph
and sustained winds of 40 mph, the only
report of tropical storm force in the state.
Rain: Hurricane Mitch caused moderate rainfall.
Storm surge: Hurricane Mitch caused a storm surge of up to 4 feet in the Lower Keys before
making landfall on the Florida west coast.
Damage: In the Florida Keys, multiple buildings that had been damaged by Hurricane Georges
were leveled by Hurricane Mitch.
Flood insurance claims: Hurricane Mitch was a relatively isolated event, judged by flood claims:
Number of paid claims: 41
Total payments: $ 244,287
Average payment: $ 5,958
Hurricane Irene, October 1999: Not to be
confused with a larger storm in 2011, this
Hurricane Irene developed in the
western Caribbean Sea on October 13 and
moved northward, hitting western Cuba.
The storm strengthened over the Florida
Straits, attaining hurricane status on
October 15. It passed over Key West,
turned more to the north-northeast, and
struck mainland Florida at Cape Sable.
Rain: Hurricane Irene was a wet Florida
hurricane, dropping 12 inches of rain on Key West. The rainfall flooded roads throughout the
Keys, prompting officials to close 50 miles of U.S. Highway 1.
Storm surge: While moving through the Florida Keys, Hurricane Irene produced a storm surge of
up to 2.3 feet in Key Vaca, while Key West reported a surge of 1.5 feet.
Damage: Hurricane Irene had moderate wind gusts that caused power outages throughout the
Keys, but overall damage was minor.
Monroe County RLAA — 12 — February 1, 2020
Flood insurance claims: Hurricane Irene largely appeared to be an Upper Keys event, with most
of the claims in Key Largo or Tavernier.
Number of paid claims: 396
Total payments: $ 3,859,108
Average payment: $ 9,745
Hurricane Rita, September 2005:
Hurricane Rita was the fourth -most
intense Atlantic hurricane ever recorded and
the most intense tropical cyclone ever
observed in the Gulf of Mexico. Part of the
record -breaking 2005 Atlantic hurricane
season, which included three of the six most
intense Atlantic hurricanes ever recorded
(along with #1 Wilma and #6 Katrina).
Hurricane Rita formed near the Bahamas on
September 18 and moved through the Florida
Straits. Upon entering the Straits of Florida on September 20, Hurricane Rita strengthened into a
Category 1 hurricane. After passing south of Key West, Hurricane Rita turned northwest into the
Gulf and intensified into a Category 5. It was a Category 3 when it hit Louisiana's Gulf coast.
Wind: The highest sustained winds were recorded in Key West at 62 mph.
Rain: Hurricane Rita produced rainfall of 2-4 inches in the lower and middle Keys with greater
than 6 inches estimated by radar in portions of the Upper Keys.
Storm surge: A maximum storm surge of 5 feet was recorded in Key West. Storm surge along
portions of the Atlantic shores of the middle and upper Keys were recorded at 3-4 feet.
Flood insurance claims: Hurricane Rita was another Upper Keys storm in terms of flood
insurance claims paid. Most of the paid claims were located in Key Largo and Tavernier.
Number of paid claims: 171
Total payments: $ 4,074,089
Average payment: $ 23,825
Hurricane Wilma, October 2005:
Hurricane Wilma was the most intense
tropical cyclone ever recorded in the
Atlantic basin. After impacting Central
America and Mexican Yucatan Peninsula, a
powerful trough turned the hurricane to the
northeast and accelerated its forward
motion.
Monroe County RLAA — 13 — February 1, 2020
Wind: Wilma hit Cape Romano, Florida, as a 120 mph major hurricane. Overall, average winds
across the inhabited Lower Keys were estimated at 70 to 80 mph with gusts up to 90 mph.
Rain: Rainfall across the Lower Keys was fairly light but typical for a fast-moving hurricane,
1.50 inches measured at Pennekamp State Park in Key Largo.
Storm surge: Low-lying areas of the
Keys received several feet of water that
flooded homes. The Lower Keys experi-
enced an unusual flood: it occurred
twice. First, as the storm approached
Florida, it pushed water across the keys
from south to north.
As the storm finally crossed into the
Everglades, all the water that had been
pushed by the storm was released as
Wilma crossed the peninsula. This
caused additional flooding and costly
damage, from a "backwash" of up to 8 feet; this second round of flooding constituted the peak of
the storm surge.
"Storm surges of 4 to 5 ft were observed over much of the lower and middle Florida Keys,
locally to near 7 ft. However, a storm surge of near 9 ft was estimated visually in the Marathon
area. Storm surges were generally in the 4 to 5 ft range over the upper Keys. This resulted in
considerable flooding over substantial portions of the Keys." — "Tropical Cyclone Report —
Hurricane Wilma," NOAA National Hurricane Center, 2006
Flood insurance claims: Hurricane Wilma affected the entire county with a wide distribution of
flood claims. It affected the Middle and Lower Keys at a higher ratio per developed property.
Number of paid claims: 4,070
Total payments: $ 123,466,400
Average payment: $ 30,336
Hurricane Irma, September 2017
Hurricane Irma made landfall at Cudjoe
Key on September 10. It then hit Marco
Island and moved on to Georgia2.
2 (Quotes in this section are from the County's webpage, www.monroecounty-1.gov/726/Hurricane-Irma-Recovery, Hurricane Irma in
Florida. Mitigation Assessment Team Report, ("MAT Report") FEMA P-2023, 2018, and Tropical Cvclone Report, Hurricane Irma,
NOAA-National Hurricane Center, 2017.)
Monroe County RLAA — 14 — February 1, 2020
Wind: Cudjoe Key had maximum winds near 130 mph. "Buildings designed and constructed to
comply with the Florida Building Code met expectations by performing well structurally." —
MAT Report
Rain: "...rainfall totals of 10 to 15 inches were common across the peninsula and the Keys...
NOAA
Storm surge: "The combined effect of
storm surge and the tide produced
maximum inundation levels of 5 to 8 ft
above ground level for portions of the
Lower Florida Keys from Cudjoe Key
eastward to Big Pine Key and Bahia
Honda Key... Maximum inundation
levels of 4 to 6 ft above ground level
occurred across the Middle and Upper
Keys." — NOAA
"Although inundation alone was a
significant source of damage, some of
the more dramatic structural failures
observed were a result of the added force
of wave action and scour." — MAT
Report
Damage: "In unincorporated Monroe
County, approximately 727 homes were
destroyed and another 1,034 homes are
considered to have substantial damage
... the hardest -hit areas were the mobile
homes, manufactured homes and RVs."
— County website.
"Hurricane Irma dramatically demon-
strated the benefit of investment in a
hardened infrastructure. The primary
roadway system, water, and wastewater
systems remained largely resilient to
these natural forces. The electrical grid and the communications system, however, remain highly
vulnerable to wind and storm surge." — County webpage.
"Some of the structures destroyed by the storm were MH units located in the floodplain. Very
few of these houses were elevated to the base flood elevation. Buildings constructed at or near
grade were subject to deeper and more damaging flooding from either storm surge or rainfall -
induced flooding." — MAT Report
Monroe County RLAA — 15 — February 1, 2020
Flood insurance claims: There were more than 4,600 claims submitted from Monroe County
policy holders following Hurricane Irma.
Number of paid claims: 3,163
Total payments: $ 110,714,342
Average payment: $ 35,003
The average residential claim was $30,578 and the average non-residential claim was $89,254.
The average payments were certainly higher overall than from the previous storms.
Future Flooding
"Due to the impacts of climate change and sea level rise, ... the frequency and severity of
flooding conditions are expected to increase in the future. Surge heights are predicted to be
greater due to sea level rise and climate change is expected to periodically cause more intense
rainfall which will exacerbate freshwater flooding." — Monroe County Local Mitigation Strategy,
(2015 Update) Section 5.2.1, page 5-5.
"Monroe County is ground zero for experiencing the impacts of global climate change and sea
level rise. Along the chain of islands that is barely above the sea, many streets already are
flooding numerous times throughout the year from extreme fall and spring tides.
"Habitat for wildlife that once was high and dry continues to have seawater encroach on the
lands. Rising seas have begun to affect some roads and other County infrastructure, as well as
some homes and businesses — and will continue to do so into the future." — www.monroecounty-
fl.gov/803/Sustainability
In short, given that sea levels will rise and severe weather will become more common, we can
expect future flooding to be worse that what has been experienced in the past.
In response to these concerns, the Board of County Commissioners has initiated several
programs and projects to address the impact of climate change. These include adopting an
Energy and Climate Element into the Comprehensive Plan, creating a Sustainability office,
participating in the Southeast Florida Regional Compact for Climate Change, and funding
projects to raise critical infrastructure and roads flooded during high tides.
Impact of Flooding
Water covering a barrier island is a flood, but not necessarily a flood problem. Flood problems
arise when the water inundates streets and houses and closes schools and businesses.
The number and average amounts of flood insurance claim payments have increased over the
years. One reason for this is that more people are purchasing flood insurance, which is a good
thing. However, simply looking at the insurance claims numbers does not tell the whole story of
how flooding impacts people.
Building damage: First, it is important to note that an insurance claim does not pay for all the
damage to a building. The property owner or tenant must pay for:
Monroe County RLAA — 16 — February 1, 2020
The deductible, which has normally been $1,000 in recent years, but many policy holders
opt for larger deductibles to save on premiums;
—> Repairs to damage that cost more than the policy's amount of coverage;
Damage to the contents of the building (unless the owner or tenant has taken out contents
coverage); and
Damage to property not covered by flood
insurance, such as landscaping, vehicles,
items kept outdoors, and currency.
Second, much of the property damage is hidden. A
building may look sound after the water goes down,
but wood will swell when wet. Plywood can come
apart. Gypsum wallboard will fall apart if it is
bumped before it dries out. The longer these
materials are wet, the more moisture, sediment and
pollutants they will absorb. To properly clean a
building requires weeks of stripping, drying (right),
cleaning, and rebuilding. If a building is not
properly cleaned (often because it wasn't covered
by insurance), a health hazard remains hidden
behind the walls.
Machinery like appliances and gasoline engines
may look like they just got wet, but the sediments
and chemicals in the water mean they will not work
safely unless they are properly dried and cleaned.
Other contents, such as mattresses and upholstered
furniture, are usually not worth the cost of restoring
them to a useful and safe condition.
Life safety: Shallow, slow moving, floodwaters usually do not cause much damage to buildings.
However, it doesn't take deep water to be dangerous to people. A car will float in shallow mov-
ing water (right). This is one
reason floods kill more people
trapped in vehicles than any-
where else. To help reduce this
hazard, the County is making a
major effort to raise roads that
flood during high tides and
heavy storms.
OVA
Cars and small SUV's will float - deep is 12"?
re 5'4" -8'3' tall ar. r.:. e.-+n ng sneskers,��
your pant legs will be soaked. The water will be
about hallway up your leg but below the knee.
How deep is T? IJ
IF you're 64" - 6'3'tall and es wearing esneakers,
your showill be entirely submergd. The water
will be ator above the tops of your anktes.6" of
swiNyflowing water can knock a person over.
Monroe County RLAA — 17 — February 1, 2020
Electrocution is the number two cause of flood deaths, claiming lives in a flooded area that is
carrying a live current created when electrical components short. People also die of heart attacks,
especially from exertion during a flood fight.
Floods can damage gas lines, floors and stairs, creating secondary hazards such as gas leaks and
unsafe structures. They can extinguish pilot lights and short circuit electrical wiring —causing
conditions ripe for a fire. Fire equipment may not be able to reach a burning building during high
water.
Health: Three general types of health hazards accompany floods. The first comes from the water
itself. Floodwaters carry whatever was on the ground that the runoff picked up, including dirt,
oil, animal waste, and lawn and industrial chemicals. The water can be a breeding ground for
bacteria, such as E. coli, and other disease causing agents.
The second type of health problem comes after the water is gone. Stagnant pools become
breeding grounds for mosquitoes, and wet areas of a building that have not been cleaned breed
mold and mildew. A building that is not thoroughly and properly cleaned becomes a health
hazard, especially for small children and the elderly.
These health problems can be aggravated when air conditioning ducts in a forced -air system are
not properly cleaned after inundation. When the air conditioner is turned on, the sediments left in
the ducts are circulated throughout the building and breathed in by the occupants.
The third health problem is the long-term psychological impact
of having been through a flood and seeing one's home dam-
aged and irreplaceable keepsakes destroyed. The cost and labor
needed to repair a flood -damaged home puts a severe strain on
people, especially the unprepared and uninsured. There is also
a long-term problem for those who know that their homes can
be flooded again. The resulting stress on floodplain residents
takes its toll in the form of aggravated physical and mental
health problems.
For all these reasons, repetitive flooding has an impact on
people that a flood insurance policy will not prevent.
Problem Statement
5
All of Monroe County is considered to be in a coastal floodplain and flooding is not uncommon.
One measure of the frequency of floods is FEMA's repetitive loss standard: two floods in any ten
year period that result in flood insurance claims for more than $1,000 each.
Since 1998, 21 years ago, the County has experienced six major storms that have resulted in
much larger claim payments. The primary cause of flood damage has been storm surge flooding
during these major storms. Heavy rain and subsequent drainage problems have contributed to the
flood damage, but their impact is hard to measure when entire areas are flooded by storm surge.
Monroe County RLAA — 18 — February 1, 2020
Between 1978 and 2017, there were 11,205 flood insurance claims paid in unincorporated
Monroe County. The average paid claim was for $21,413. Of those, 10,896 (97%) were from the
six major storms discussed in this chapter. The average claim payments for the last two, Wilma
and Irma, were over $30,000 and $35,000, respectively. Clearly, addressing repetitive losses will
go a long way to addressing the problems of flooded buildings in Monroe County.
Insurance claims do not tell the full story of the impact of flooding, not even the full cost of
repairing and replacing damaged property. There are also safety, health, and mental health
impacts, as discussed in this chapter. While this analysis focusses on damage to property, other
County programs are working to lessen all the impacts of flooding. Reducing damage to
insurable buildings will have spin off benefits on the safety, health, and mental health issues, too.
Monroe County RLAA — 19 — February 1, 2020
Chapter 3. Mitigation Measures
This chapter reviews the things that can be done about repetitive flood damage. There are two
general approaches. The most popular approach is to control the water — keep it away from
people and property. In a typical riverine situation, this involves building structures like dams
and floodwalls to store flood waters away from development or levees, channelization and
drainage improvements to move or divert waters away from developed areas.
In a coastal area, there are few options to control flooding from the ocean. Structures, such as
groins and seawalls have an impact on smaller storms, but are usually not big enough to control
all floods. Generally, these "structural projects" are on public property and are funded by a
government agency.
There are many situations where structural projects will not work or do not make economic
sense. There is an alternative to controlling water and that is to modify the affected property so
the water does not cause a problem. This approach is called nonstructural projects, which include
moving buildings out of the hazard area, raising the damage prone parts above flood levels and
other modifications to eliminate or reduce the potential for damage. These projects are on private
property and are usually the responsibility of the property owner, although there are government
funding programs.
It should be noted that Monroe County and its property owners are not faced with an "either/or"
decision. It is not a case of doing one or the other. One can be more effective than the other in
different situations, so both approaches should be pursued.
Structural Projects
Beach Structures
Beaches and sand dunes that form naturally over time provide a measure of protection to inland
property. If a building is far enough back from the water, the waves break on the beach and
dissipate inland. Monroe County does not have many natural beaches, so there are not many
places where structures will impact inland flooding. Plus, they have several limitations, as
discussed below.
Beach structures help preserve the natural
protection provided by beaches and dunes.
Jetties, groins, and breakwaters are built out
into the ocean to direct water or sand to an
area to be protected or catch sand that is
moved along the shoreline by a lateral
current. They are made of large boulders,
concrete, steel, wood, or a combination of
these materials. Other structures have the
same impact on the movement of sand
(photo).
Monroe County RLAA — 20 — February 1, 2020
Advantages of beach structures:
They can collect sand in front of the building(s) to be protected if there is a natural or
artificial source upcurrent.
Disadvantages of beach structures:
—> These structures keep sand from flowing naturally along the shoreline.
Sand builds up on one side of the groin (updrift accretion) at the expense of the other side
(downdrift erosion). If the current direction is constant all year long, a groin "steals" sand that
would normally be deposited on the downdrift end of the beach. The amount of sand on the
beach stays the same. A groin merely transfers erosion from one place to another further
down the beach....
As soon as one groin is built, property owners downdrift of it may start clamoring for the
government to build groins to save "their" beach. Eventually, the beach may become lined
with groins. Since no new sand is added to the system, groins simply "steal' sand from one
part of the beach so that it will build up on another part. There will always be beach erosion
downdrift of the last groin. — http://beachapedia.orci/Shoreline Structures
They can adversely impact natural functions and essential habitat, especially for sea
turtles and birds.
—> They require continual expenditures for maintenance
Regulatory restrictions on beach structures:
The County's Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan Policy 102.7.3 reads "Shoreline hardening
structures, including seawalls, bulkheads, groins, rip -rap, etc., shall not be permitted
along shorelines of CBRS units." Coastal Barrier Resource System areas can be seen on
the Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the County at https:Hmsc.fema.gov.
Policy 212.5.1 states: "No new bulkheads, seawalls or other hardened vertical shoreline
structures shall be permitted on open water (unaltered shorelines)." There are additional
criteria for such structures that would protect existing development, but they generally
limit the works to the use of natural vegetation, replacement of existing structures, or
severely eroding areas.
Policy 212.5.4 states: "Shoreline structures shall be designed to protect tidal flushing and
circulation patterns. Any project which may produce changes in circulation patterns shall
be approved only after sufficient hydrographic information is available to allow an
accurate evaluation of the possible impacts of the project." Because the purpose of a
structure to catch sand is to change circulation patterns, these projects are contrary to
County policy.
Because of the problems structural measures cause to other properties, they are generally
discouraged. For example, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Coastal
Armoring Policy and Guidelines states "Coastal armoring, however, may negatively
impact the integrity and natural functioning of the beach and dune system, and it may
also increase the vulnerability of adjacent unarmored properties to storm damage." The
policy limits these structures to certain situations, such as protecting "significant public
infrastructure.
Monroe County RLAA — 21 — February 1, 2020
Seawalls
As with jetties and groins, seawalls are also structures made of boulders, concrete, etc. Instead of
jutting into the water, they run parallel to the shore. They are usually constructed to stop erosion
from undermining a building rather than to stop waves or flooding, but they can serve both
purposes.
Advantages of seawalls:
—> The area behind the wall is protected from smaller storms.
Disadvantages of seawalls:
As with jetties and groins, seawalls can
transfer the problem to the adjacent areas
that do not have a wall ("flanking
erosion").
Seawalls can be expensive, especially if a
long stretch of beach is to be protected.
Walls, especially vertical walls, aggravate
beach erosion. Waves that hit the walls
take sand with them when they wash
back. An example of this is in the photo
above.
People want to cut down mangroves to
install seawalls, adversely impacting
natural functions and essential habit and destroying the protection provided by mangrove
stands.
Regulatory restrictions on seawalls:
Most seawall designs will create an obstruction to flow and would be prohibited in
V Zones.
—> See also the regulatory restrictions for beach structures on page 21.
The County's Comprehensive Plan Policy 210.1.6 reads "Seawalls shall be prohibited on
any beach or open water (unaltered) shoreline."
Beach Nourishment
Instead of, or in addition to, structures, some communities bring sand in to rebuild an eroding
beach or line of dunes. This is especially popular where tourism and the beach are a vital part of
the local economy. It requires the right kind of sand that matches what is currently on the beach
and that does not erode too fast. The sand is usually pumped in from an offshore supply, but
sometimes trucked in from another location.
Monroe County RLAA — 22 — February 1, 2020
Advantages of beach nourishment:
—> The protection provided by the beach is increased.
Restores habitat for turtles and other threatened and endangered species that live or nest
on beaches.
Disadvantages of beach nourishment:
There are few places in the County with beaches protecting structures. Most beaches are
in public parks or natural areas.
Beach nourishment can be very expensive. Most major projects are funded by the US
Army Corps of Engineers, which requires lots of lead time for planning and appropriating
the federal funds. There can still be a substantial local cost share.
It is a temporary solution. The natural erosion process is not stopped. In some cases
another nourishment project may be needed in ten years or sooner. Panama City Beach
(above) has had projects in 1998, 2005 (to replace sand lost to Hurricane Ivan), 2011, and
2017, although not all at the same locations.
These projects send people the message that areas behind beaches will always be
protected, leading many to double -down on development, tearing down small cottages
and replacing them with big structures.
Nourishment projects are generally disruptive to beach life for some period. Trucking
sand in can mean weeks of dump -trucks damaging roads. Most projects include tractors
driving up and down beaches. Plants and animals that live on the beach get smothered
and the water is muddied.
Re ug latory restrictions on beach nourishment:
Each project gets approval from several state and federal agencies that ensure that the
project will not have adverse impacts.
Monroe County RLAA — 23 — February 1, 2020
Natural Resource Protection
The County has several programs that are
designed to protect natural resources that have
a spin off benefit on flood mitigation. For
example, the County has undertaken some
coral reef restoration projects, funded under
the RESTORE Act with money from the BP
oil spill. The spin off benefit is that reefs in
good condition will help reduce the impact of
waves on nearby beaches.
Another program is acquisition of sensitive
lands. The top priorities for land to be
purchased by the Monroe County Land
Authority include designated natural areas,
habitat for threatened or endangered species,
and habitat buffer areas.
There are also regulations to protect natural features, such as seagrass and mangrove stands. Like
healthy coral reefs, these areas reduce the impacts of waves, protecting inland areas.
Advantages of natural resource protection:
These activities are funded and administered by different offices, extending the number
of programs that benefit floodprone properties.
The resulting open space has little to no development to be damaged by a flood and
provides a natural buffer from water and waves.
Disadvantages of natural resource protection:
Because the thrust is to protect natural areas, many of the areas affected are not built on
so there may be minimal benefits to floodprone buildings.
Re ug latory restrictions on natural resource protection
Restrictions would generally be to limit adverse impacts on natural functions, such as
critical habitat. For example, the area could not be graded to build a seawall or other
flood protection measure.
Drainage Improvements
Due to the topography and small size of the islands and the rural character of the unincorporated
areas, Monroe County does not have a master drainage system that collects stormwater with
underground storm drains and delivers it to larger pipes which discharge it into the ocean.
Instead, surface runoff flows to the streets which carry it to the ocean. Close to the discharge
point in many locations, the surface water is directed into outfall pipes.
Monroe County RLAA — 24 — February 1, 2020
In some king tide events, the tidewater inundation of outfall pipes has caused reverse conveyance of
saltwater through stormwater systems and an associated discharge from stormwater inflow structures
into low-lying roads and yards. Although such flooding has often been observed — and is perhaps
most obvious — on days without rainfall (i.e., "sunny days"), more severe flooding will inevitably result
from the co -occurrence of large rainfall events with high tides that impede the regular functioning of
stormwater discharge systems. — Monroe County Watershed Management Plan, 2019
This system handles small drainage areas that do not collect enough stormwater to create much
of a drainage problem for buildings, although there are some instances of buildings flooded
during heavy rains. While there is "nuisance" flooding, the biggest concern with the drainage
system is the flooding of roads.
In cooperation with the Department of Engineering, Roads & Bridges, the County's
Sustainability office is initiating the Roads Adaptation Plan. This is a program to protect roads
from flooding during high tides, which are expected to get worse over time with sea level rise.
These projects may improve drainage if the higher roads act as levees and keep shallow
floodwaters away from properties.
Construction on two pilot projects will start in 2020. One is in repetitive loss area 27, the Sands
Subdivision. More information about the master analysis and maps of problem sites and project
locations will be produced in 2020. Each project will be different, so property owners should
check any that will be in their area to see how they may address local drainage conditions.
Advantages of drainage improvements:
—> They reduce nuisance flooding and help keep the roads open during high water.
Disadvantages of drainage improvements:
The projects planned by the County may not be large enough to affect larger flows that
flood buildings.
County projects address flooding on roads and County property. Private property owners
need to fund projects on their own property.
This can be a typical scene in Repetitive Loss Flooded road in Repetitive Loss Area 22,
Area 7, Twin Lakes. The Sands Subdivision.
— Monroe County News Release, 91412019
Monroe County RLAA — 25 — February 1, 2020
Re ug latory restrictions on drainage improvements:
All construction that affects the ground surface in the SFHA is considered development
and needs a floodplain development permit. The applicant needs to be sure that the
project will not redirect or increase flows onto neighbors.
Nonstructural Projects
While structural projects are the focus of most repetitive loss area analyses, Monroe County does
not offer many opportunities for their application. There are few beaches that provide protection
to buildings and, in most places, drainage systems on private property are too small to warrant
public expenditures. The natural resource protection measures do apply to many areas
throughout the County, but, as with beaches, they do not always correlate with repetitively
flooded buildings. These shortcomings do not mean these measures should not be pursued, but
that other approaches may be more effective for more properties.
Nonstructural mitigation projects address each building separately. There are two types of
nonstructural projects: those for all flooding hazards and those limited to drainage and shallow
flood problems:
Deeper flooding Shallow flood depths
Acquisition Barriers
Elevation Dry floodproofing
Mitigation reconstruction Wet floodproofing
Protection from deeper flooding and protection to at least the base flood elevation is preferred.
However, not every repetitively flooded building is subject to deep flooding. Even with deep
coastal storm surge, there are inland areas where the water was shallow. Of 4,375 paid flood
insurance claims in the 60 repetitive loss areas, 2,802 (64%) were under $10,000. Of the 3,152
claims paid in the County after Irma, 1,536 (49%) were under $10,000. To be designated a
repetitive loss property by FEMA, there only needs to be two claims, each over $1,000.
Buildings with such small claim payments were probably not flooded more than a foot or two
over the first floor. This opens up the County's options for addressing repetitive flooding — not
every building needs to be acquired or elevated if other less expensive measures can reduce the
risk of flood damage in areas of shallow flooding.
Nonstructural projects are usually initiated by the property owner, so this section is written with
the owner as the reader. See Chapter 4 for guidance on selecting which measures are appropriate
for different building types and depth of flooding. Sources of funding for these measures is
covered next.
Mitigation Funding
There are several State, FEMA, and HUD grant programs that the County has and may still apply
for, either in an annual application cycle or after a disaster declaration. Most of these require a
local cost share, which is usually assumed by the benefitting property owner. Most are provided
to local governments, not directly to the property owner.
Monroe County RLAA — 26 — February 1, 2020
On page 29 is a matrix summarizing the programs and the types of projects they fund.
Federal Grants
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program: HMGP grants are provided to communities following a
Presidential Disaster Declaration. They are administered by FEMA. The key purpose of this
grant program is to enact mitigation measures that reduce the risk of loss of life and property
from future disasters. Grants are typically 75% FEMA and 25% non -Federal. The latter share can
be funded by the state, the community, or, most often, by the property owner. For more
information: www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigationag tion-grant-program.
Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant Program: FMA provides funds to assist communities
implement measures that reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to buildings,
manufactured homes, and other structures insured under the National Flood Insurance Program.
Applicant properties must be covered by flood insurance because the NFIP funds these grants.
Funds are typically made available by FEMA on an annual basis; a disaster declaration is not
required. The cost share is similar to HMGP. For more information: www.fema.gov/flood-
mitigation-assistance-grant-program.
Pre -Disaster Mitigation: This FEMA program provides funds to states and communities for
hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects for any natural hazard.
As with FMA, PDM follows an annual competitive application process and is not tied to a
disaster declaration. For more information: www.fema.gov/pre-disaster-mitigation-grant-
pry
Community Development Block Grant: There are two parts of this grant which is funded by
the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and administered through the
Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). One has an annual appropriation and
application process and funds projects that benefit low and moderate income families. The other
CDBG program provides funds to the state after a disaster declaration. The current version of
this is Rebuild Florida, described below. For more information:
www.hud.gov/program_offices/comm planning/communitydevelopment/programs
State Grants
Rebuild Florida: This is a program of DEO to help Florida's long-term recovery efforts from
Hurricanes Irma and Michael. It funds demolition, repair, reconstruction and elevation of
primary homes. Monroe County has received Rebuild Florida funds and manages them under the
Voluntary Home Buyout Program, which is described on the next page.
Florida Forever: This program is the state's main funder of acquisition of conservation and
recreation lands. It is administered by the Department of Environmental Protection which passes
appropriated funds to a variety of other state agencies that acquire lands for their programs, such
as the Division of Recreation and Parks and water management districts. The Legislature has not
appropriated funds every year.
The Florida Keys Environmental Stewardship Act was passed in 2016. It sets aside funds from
Florida Forever for projects in the Keys.
Monroe County RLAA — 27 — February 1, 2020
For more information: https:Hfloridadep�zov/lands/environmental-services/content/florida-
forever and www.monroecounty-fl.gov/721/Florida-Keys-Stewardship-Act.
Local Programs
Voluntary Home Buyout Program: This is a County -managed program supported by funds
from Rebuild Florida. It is described in more detail in the box below.
Voluntary Home Buyout Program
In September 2019, Monroe County submitted an application to the state for this disaster
recovery program. Its objective is to acquire residential property in high flood -risk areas
impacted by Hurricane Irma.
Under this program, the County will purchase properties at the pre -Hurricane Irma fair
market value for both the land and the structure. Priority properties are located in low -
and moderate -income areas. Any existing structures will be demolished, and the property
will be used for permanent open space, conservation, recreation, or stormwater manage-
ment systems in perpetuity.
The County's submittal had 62 properties that owners voluntarily signed up for. The total
cost was estimated at more than $25 million. To date, the State has allocated only $15
million to the County, so a point prioritization system was approved by the Board of
County Commissioners:
5 points for homes that were substantially damaged as a result of Hurricane Irma;
5 points for homes that are located in the V Zone;
5 points for repetitive loss structures as designated by the NFIP;
10 points for severe repetitive loss structures as designated by the NFIP, and
5 points for high probability of sea level rise inundation as detailed in the maps in the
County's GreenKeys Plan.
It should be noted that repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss structures are those
specifically designated by FEMA based on flood insurance claims. It does not include
other properties located in the mapped repetitive loss areas that only had one or no
insurance claims.
Property owners may still apply in case more funds are made available. For more
information, see www.monroecounty-fl.gov/1133/Voluntary-Home-Buyout-Program
Land Authority acquisition program: This is a program to acquire designated natural areas,
habitat and habitat buffer areas for threatened or endangered species, sites to build resilient
affordable housing, designated V zone properties, areas for recreational facilities, and areas with
deteriorated infrastructure where the cost of maintaining and/or repairing the infrastructure
exceeds the value of private lands." (Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan Policy 102.4.2) Sales must
be voluntary.
Monroe County Density Reduction Lot acquisition program: This is a voluntary program to
retire development rights for certain properties. The County purchases the property from willing
sellers. Purchased lots can be sold, but they come with a deed restriction to prohibit the
development of the property with new housing units. The revenue derived from the sale of these
deed restricted properties can help replenish the program's funds.
Monroe County RLAA — 28 — February 1, 2020
Monroe County Less Than Fee acquisition program: This is another voluntary program to
retire building rights. The County purchases the right to build a house on a vacant property from
adjacent property owners. The owners retain ownership of their vacant property, but they can
only use it for legally allowed accessory uses like a swimming pool, open yard or garage.
Flood Insurance
A flood insurance claim is paid directly to the policy holder after a flood. It can help fund
nonstructural projects in two ways. The first is to incorporate mitigation measures in the repairs
and reconstruction funded by a claim payment. For example, an area can be wet floodproofing
by replacing a flooded wooden floor with a tile or concrete floor that can be flooded again
without being damaged.
The second tool is Increased Cost of Compliance. This comes automatically with all flood
insurance policies. Up to $30,000 is available as an additional claim payment to help pay for a
mitigation measure that is required by law. For example, if a flooded house was deemed to be
substantially damaged, it would be required to be elevated. ICC can help fund the mandated
project. It can also be used toward the non -Federal match of a FEMA or HUD grant. As a flood
insurance claim tool, it can only be used if the damage was caused by a flood. For more
information: www.fema. gov/increased-cost-compliance-coverage
Eligible Activities by Funding Program
c
J
U)
c
O
4
O)
2
E
>
[p
O
O
O
C
O
C
N
O
O
O
O
E
O
-
O
-
O
C
O
�
-O
O
O
�O
O
N
�
M
>
(1)
EL-
C
Q
Q
L
03
0
0
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
✓
✓
✓
2
✓
Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant
✓
✓
✓
2
✓
Pre -Disaster Mitigation
✓
✓
✓
2
✓
Community Development Block Grant
✓
✓
✓
Rebuild Florida
✓
✓
Florida Forever
✓
Voluntary Home Buyout Program
✓
Land Authority acquisition program
✓
✓
Density Reduction Lot acquisition
✓
Less Than Fee acquisition
✓
Flood insurance claim payment
✓
✓
Increased Cost of Compliance
✓
✓
1. While no program's description identifies barriers as eligible projects, barriers
can be one of the most inexpensive measures, so full funding support may not
be needed.
2. Only funds dry floodproofing of nonresidential buildings
Monroe County RLAA - 29 - February 1, 2020
Acquisition
This mitigation measure involves buying the repetitive loss property and clearing the site. This is
particularly useful in areas where the cost to rebuild private properties and public infrastructure
exceeds the value of properties in the area. The biggest constraint to use of this approach is
funding: while it is the most effective nonstructural measure, it is also the most expensive.
There are several grant programs that fund acquisition, as noted in the previous section. Some of
the programs currently administered in the County have other objectives, such as supporting
affordable housing. There are two programs that specifically support flood mitigation: the
Voluntary Home Buyout Program and the Monroe County Land Authority.
Acquiring repetitively flooded properties supports the "managed retreat" approach, which is the
voluntary buyout of homes to allow the shoreline to move inland. High -risk areas are identified
where this type of policy is the best long term solution. Then acquisition, planning, and
regulatory techniques are used to reduce or stop development in the areas and relocate existing
development out of harm's way.
Advantages of acquisition:
It is the best way to avoid building damage: remove the building from harm's way
Depending on the funding source, the land can be reused for a public benefit, such as a
park, habitat, stormwater basin, or drainage improvements.
Land Authority priorities take growth pressures off of flood prone areas, sensitive lands
and critical areas.
Create more open space that may handle flood waters or restore vegetation as a buffer.
Disadvantages of acquisition:
If FEMA funds are used, the owner
must be a willing seller. If there are
unwilling sellers, a project will result
in a checkerboard pattern of empty lots
next to lots with buildings whose
owners did not want to sell (right).
If FEMA funds are used, the parcel
must be deeded to a public agency that
agrees to keep it in open space. There
is a concern about the County owning
and being responsible for maintenance
of a number of small lots scattered
around the County There is a related
concern about the loss of property tax
revenue.
Monroe County RLAA — 30 — February 1, 2020
Acquisition at fair market value can be very expensive. It is not usually done without
outside funding. This adds time and work to the process.
Re ug latory restrictions on acquisition:
There are no restrictions on removing a building from a hazard area. There may be
restrictions if the structure will be physically moved to another site.
Elevation
Getting the building and utilities above the flood level on its existing site is considered the most
effective approach to mitigating on site. All damageable portions of the building and its contents
are high and dry during a flood, which flows under the building instead of into it. The
effectiveness of elevation after a storm is shown in the pictures from Big Pine Key below.
rt .
House near shoreline and subject to wave action/
high water velocity was washed off its foundation
and destroyed.
"Figure 3-3: Typical range in flood damage observed along Avenue D, in order along the street as
indicated (Big Pine Key, FL)" from page 3-4 of Hurricane Irma in Florida, Mitigation Assessment Team
Report, ("MAT Report") FEMA P-2023, 2018
Monroe County RLAA — 31 — February 1, 2020
If a residential building is substantially
improved or substantially damaged
beyond 50% of its pre -storm value, the
County's ordinance and National Flood
Insurance Program regulations require
the building to be elevated above the
base flood elevation (see "Terminology"
and "County Code Definitions,"
Appendix Q.
Depending on the foundation type,
elevation can also be the most expensive
measure. Most of the cost to elevate a
building is in the preparation and founda-
tion construction. The cost to elevate six
feet is little more than the cost to go up
two feet. Elevating an existing building
is usually cost-effective for wood frame
buildings on posts/piles or crawlspace
New and substantially improved buildings in the VE Zone have
the bottom of the lowest supporting member of the lowestfloor
elevated at or above the base flood elevation plus one foot.
Enclosures must be 299 square feet or less and able to break
away during a storm. This worked in the above case. Buildings
in the AE Zone can have floodable enclosures below the
elevated floor, as in the case of the photo 4 on the next page.
— Hurricane Irma in Florida, FEMA P-20233, 2018
because it is easiest to get lifting equip-
ment under the floor and disruption to the habitable part of the house is minimal. Elevating a slab
house is much more costly and disruptive.
There are several grant programs that can support elevation projects. The County has applied for
and may still apply under FEMA's PDM and FMA programs at any time. Three properties were
elevated with these funds recently. Further, after Irma, the State initiated Rebuild Florida funded
by HUD and set aside $50 million for projects such as this.
Advantages of elevation:
Best protection for a building left on site
Will bring a substantially damaged structure up to code requirements
Can reduce flood insurance premiums for buildings in the SFHA
Eligible for most mitigation grants (provided the lowest floor is elevated at least two feet
above the base flood elevation)
Disadvantages of elevation:
—> Projects can be very expensive, especially for slab foundations (e.g., > $100,000)
The area below the elevated floor must remain floodable (see "wet floodproofing,"
page 37)
Owners may resist because the appearance of the structure will change or they have
trouble with stairs.
Monroe County RLAA — 32 — February 1, 2020
Re ug latory restrictions on elevation projects:
The project should meet all regulatory requirements for a new elevated building in the
SFHA (found at www.monroecouniy-fl.gov/692Building-Requirements). This will also
qualify the structure for lower flood insurance premiums.
Enclosed areas below elevated buildings are limited to 299 square feet.
There are zoning restrictions on the height of the peak of the roof.
There may be issue with meeting setback requirements with additions of stairs, landings
and utilities.
Mitigation Reconstruction
This approach is based on the determination that the building is in bad shape and is not worth the
cost of elevating or retrofitting. The building is torn down and a new one is constructed on the
site. As a new building, it must meet all the flood and building code standards in force at the
time. In effect, the owner obtains a new home and the community replaces a damage -prone
house for one that meets all the mitigation criteria.
Advantages of mitigation reconstruction:
Best protection short of removing the building from the flood hazard area
Will replace a substantially damaged structure for one that meets code requirements
Will reduce flood insurance premiums for buildings in the SFHA
Eligible for most mitigation grants, including Rebuild Florida
Disadvantages of mitigation reconstruction:
Can be expensive. It may be difficult for the owner of a dilapidated building to afford a
new residence.
The cost of construction in the County is well above average, reducing the number of
people who can afford this measure.
Re ug latory restrictions on mitigation reconstruction:
The new building would have to meet all code requirements for a new building. Some of
these are discussed under Elevation regulatory restrictions.
Barriers
Small floodwalls or berms constructed around one or more properties are more dependable if
flood depths are less than 3 feet and floodwaters rise and fall quickly. Levees and berms are
more suitable for larger lots, and small floodwalls that are located close to the house are
appropriate for Monroe County neighborhoods with limited front and side yard space.
Monroe County RLAA — 33 — February 1, 2020
The following provisions need to be considered in the design of a barrier:
There should be minimal openings in the barrier. These generally require "human inter-
vention," meaning someone needs to be available to put sandbags or a moveable gate in
the gap and have enough lead time to take action.
If floodwaters remain for several hours or days, there will likely be seepage under the
barrier. The more permeable the soil, the more floodwaters seep under the barrier. The
Soil Survey ofMonroe County, Keys Area, Florida, US Natural Resources Conservation
Service, 1995, identifies 19 soils types in the County. All but two are listed as Hydrologic
Group D, which is described as Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff
potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink -
swell potential, soils that have a permanent high water table, soils that have a claypan or
clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious
material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
Soils 7 (Udorthents) and 16 (Bahiahonda) are in
Hydrologic Group B, which "have a moderate rate
of water transmission." In effect, most of the soil
types in the County would be appropriate for
barriers with limited under seepage. However, the
soil type should be checked for each location. One
can access the Soil Survey and the maps (example,
right) at https://ufdc.ufl.edu/LIF00025712/00001/88x
Even if a property is not located in soils 7 or 16, it is
still a good idea to have a soil sample checked by an
engineer to determine the rate of permeability.
A system may be needed to prevent sanitary sewer backup from flowing into the
building.
Advantages of barriers:
—> Lower cost. A berm of earth can be
built by the owner.
No need to alter or modify the
building.
Disadvantages of barriers:
Will not fit on small lots with no
room to set the barrier back from the
property line.
If human intervention is needed,
there needs to be someone available
on short notice to close openings, etc
C
Monroe County RLAA — 34 — February 1, 2020
Inspections and maintenance needed to fix holes or cracks that may develop over time.
If overtopped, the flood damage will be the same as if there was no mitigation measure.
Will not bring a substantially damaged structure up to code requirements
Does not reduce flood insurance premiums
Not eligible for most mitigation grants
Regulatory restrictions on barriers:
The Florida Building Code prohibits diverting water onto someone else's land. It can be
difficult to set a barrier far enough back from the property line to meet this requirement.
Solid walls and filling projects of a size large enough to control flooding are not allowed
in V Zones.
As structures, barriers would need to meet setbacks and open space and clearing
allowances.
—> No filling is permitted in mangroves, wetlands or submerged lands.
Dry Floodproofing
This technique involves making the
building walls watertight and capable of
withstanding water pressures. In effect,
the walls and floor are the barrier to
water. Therefore, it only works for a
building with a waterproof floor, i.e., a
building on a slab foundation.
The following provisions need to be
considered in a dry floodproofing
design:
Make sure there are no cracks in
the slab.
Impermeabl+
wall surface
Gasket alone
.... 1 edge of
fl Shield
N Flood level
,- r
_ J
Bolted connection Shield
For dry floodproofing, the walls are made watertight and
all openings are protected with permanent or removable
shields.
— Floodproofing Non -Residential Buildings, FEMA
Monroe County RLAA — 35 — February 1, 2020
Make the walls watertight. This is easiest to do for concrete or masonry walls. The walls
can be covered with a waterproof sealant and with a brick or stucco veneer to camouflage
the sealant. Houses with wood, vinyl, or metal siding need to be wrapped with plastic
sheeting to make the walls watertight, and then covered with a veneer to protect the
plastic sheeting.
Do not attempt to dry floodproof more than 2 — 3 feet above the slab. A house is not built
strong enough to withstand a lot of lateral pressure. Even if the building is in sound
condition, tests by the Army Corps of Engineers have shown that water pressure on a
typical house can collapse the walls and/or buckle the floor.
Account for sewer backup and other sources of water entering
the building. For shallow flood levels, this can be done with a
floor drain plug, standpipe, or backup valve.
Provide closures, such as removable shields or sandbags, for the
openings; including doors, windows, dryer vents, and weep
holes.
Floor drain float plug
Not all parts of a structure need to be dry floodproofed. It is difficult to floodproof a
garage door, for example, so some owners let the garage flood and floodproof the walls
between the garage and the rest of the house. Appliances, electrical outlets, and other
damage -prone materials located in the garage should be elevated above the expected
flood levels (see example, page 37).
Advantages of dry floodproofing:
Lower cost
Does not divert water problems to the neighbors
Will bring a substantially damaged nonresidential structure up to code requirements
Can reduce flood insurance premiums for a nonresidential structure in the SFHA
Eligible for most mitigation grants for nonresidential buildings
Disadvantages of dry floodproofing_:
—> Not effective for elevated buildings or buildings on crawlspaces
—> If human intervention is needed, there needs to be someone available on short notice to
close openings, etc.
—> Will not bring a substantially damaged residential structure up to code requirements
—> Does not reduce flood insurance premiums for a residential building
—> Not eligible for most mitigation grants for residential buildings
Regulatory restrictions on dry floodproofing: If the building is substantially damaged or the
project is a substantial improvement in the SFHA, then this measure is only allowed for
nonresidential buildings.
Monroe County RLAA — 36 — February 1, 2020
Wet Floodproofing
The wet floodproofing approach allows water into the building so there is no water pressure on
the walls and floor. Everything that could be damaged by a flood is removed or elevated above
the flood level. Structural components below the flood level are replaced with materials that are
not subject to water damage. For example, concrete block walls are used instead of wooden studs
and gypsum wallboard. The air-conditioning components and water heater are permanently
relocated to a higher floor.
ELECTRICAL
FIXTURES
AIR HANDLER & WATER HEATER
MOVED TO 'HIGH ER LEVEL
�-d
.. ...I. .....1
LIM IT STORAGE TO READILY OPENINGS ALLOY) WATER
MOVEABLE ITMS TO ENfI=R AND �XFF
It can be seen that wet floodproofing only works for two types of buildings:
Buildings with a second floor. There must be a level above the flooded area for
everything that needs to stay dry.
Elevated buildings and buildings on crawlspaces with air-conditioning components,
ductwork, or other utilities below the first floor, where the area below the first floor is
wet floodproofed.
Advantages of wet floodproofing:
—> No matter how little is done, flood damage is reduced. See the examples below.
—> Lower cost
—> Does not divert water problems to the neighbors
Because the building will effectively be an elevated structure, wet floodproofing has the
same benefits as elevation if the elevated floor is at or above the BFE:
Monroe County RLAA — 37 — February 1, 2020
o Will bring a substantially damaged structure up to code requirements
o Can reduce flood insurance premiums for a structure in the SFHA
o Eligible for most mitigation grants for buildings
Disadvantages of wet floodproofing:
The owner loses what might be a finished floor. While the area can still be used, there
should be no carpeting, furniture, insulation, and other materials subject to water damage
that cannot be removed in time.
—> If items are kept or stored in the floodable area, there needs to be adequate warning time
to remove damageable contents.
—> Clean up after the flood is still required.
Regulatory restrictions on wet floodproofing:
Generally there are no permits required for moving things out of a floodable area.
However, altering the electrical system or installing openings in the building walls may
need permits. Therefore, check with Building & Permitting for permit requirements for a
specific project.
Power outlet
Thousands of dollars in damage can be prevented by simply elevating appliances in a garage or
raising an air conditioning unit on blocks, above the flood level.
Flood Insurance
Although not a measure that mitigates property damage from a
flood, a National Flood Insurance Program flood insurance policy
has the following advantages for the homeowner or renter:
A smaller flood may not result in a disaster declaration.
Flood insurance may be the only source of assistance to help
owners of damaged property pay for cleanup and repairs.
There are more private
flood insurance policies
on the market today. This
section only applies to
policies sold under the
National Flood Insurance
Program.
Monroe County RLAA — 38 — February 1, 2020
A policy is always in effect — there is no need for human intervention.
It is an excellent "backup" for a flood protection project where the flood is higher than
the protection level.
Coverage is available for the contents of a home as well as for the structure.
Renters can buy contents coverage, even if the building owner does not buy coverage for
the structure itself.
Policy holders may be eligible for funding for a mitigation project after a flood through
Increased Cost of Compliance (see www.fema.gov/increased-cost-compliance-coverage).
Flood insurance premiums are based
on several factors, including the flood
zone of the building, the age of the
structure, and how high the lowest
floor is above or below the base flood
elevation. Properties in Zone X,
outside the Special Flood Hazard
Area, generally have the lowest
premiums, but properties in the SFHA
with the lowest floor a foot or more
above the BFE can actually have
lower premiums because their flood
protection level is documented.
Premiums are going up for all
buildings, especially buildings that are not primary residences, severe repetitive loss properties,
and those buildings constructed before the County joined the National Flood Insurance Program
in June 1973. The County is in the NFIP's Community Rating System as a Class 5, which pro-
Comparison of Insurance Premiums
Type
Zone
Elevation *
Premium
Pre-1970
AE
N/A
$1,030
Elevation Rated
AE
3 feet > BFE
$283
Elevation Rated
AE
2 feet > BFE
$365
Elevation Rated
AE
1 feet > BFE
$597
Elevation Rated
AE
At BFE
$1,235
Elevation Rated
AE
1 feet < BFE
$2,793
Out of SFHA
X
N/A
$910
Premiums are for an primary residence one story single family
house, on a slab foundation, $100,000 coverage on the structure,
no contents coverage, $1,500 deductible, CRS Class 5. A second
home or rental property would have a higher premium.
The BFEs is found on the County's Flood Insurance Rate
Map. See Appendix C
—Source: October 2019 Flood Insurance Manual.
vides a 25% reduction in premiums on SFHA properties.
The best way to reduce the cost of flood insurance is to elevate the building above the base flood
elevation. Nonresidential structures that have been dry floodproofed to one foot above the BFE
can also benefit from lower premiums. The reduction in premiums for buildings that are higher
than the base flood elevation ("> BFE") can be seen in the Comparison of Insurance Premiums
table above. The rates and premiums are different for other types of buildings.
For more information on National Flood Insurance Program insurance policies, see
https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program and https://www.floodsmart.gov/
Monroe County RLAA — 39 — February 1, 2020
References
General References
Homeowner's Guide to Retrofitting, 3rd Edition, FEMA (2014), FEMA P-312,
https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/480 (Covers all the measures
discussed in Chapter 7)
Floodproofing: How to evaluate your options, US Army Corps of Engineers, 1993,
httDS:Hcdm l 602l . contentdm. ocic. ora/digital/collection/n 16021 Coll 11/id/3 56
Reducing Flood Risk to Residential Buildings That Cannot Be Elevated, FEMA, 2015,
FEMA P-1037, https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/109669
Elevation
Raising and moving the slab -on -grade house with slab attached, FEMA, 1990,
https:Hcdml602l.contentdm.ocic.org/digital/collection/p 16021 Coll 11/id/4
Crawlspace Construction for Buildings Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas, FEMA,
2001, Technical Bulletin 11, https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/3527
Protecting Manufactured Homes from Floods and Other Hazards, FEMA, 2009, FEMA
P-85, https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/2574
Dry Floodproofing
Floodproofing Non -Residential Buildings, FEMA, 2013, FEMA P-936,
https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/34270
Non -Residential Floodproofing - Requirements and Certification, FEMA, 1993,
Technical Bulletin 3, htti)s://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/3473
Wet Floodproofing
Wet Floodproofing Requirements, FEMA, 1993, Technical Bulletin 7,
https://www.fema.gov/media-librga/assets/documents/3503
Protecting Building Utility Systems From Flood Damage, FEMA, 2017, FEMA P-348,
https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/3729
Flood Damage Resistant Materials Requirements, FEMA, 2008, Technical Bulletin 2,
https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/2655
Openings in Foundation Walls and Walls of Enclosures, FEMA, 2008, Technical Bulletin
1, https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/2644
Monroe County RLAA — 40 — February 1, 2020
Chapter 4. Selecting Mitigation Measures
Chapter 3 reviews two kinds of mitigation measures: structural flood control projects that work
to keep water away from a building and nonstructural measures that reduce a building's vulner-
ability to damage by flood waters. Flood control projects are typically implemented by a govern-
ment agency on public property and building mitigation measures are usually implemented by
the building owner.
As noted at the beginning of Chapter 3, it is not a case of doing one or the other. Each can be
more effective in different situations, so both approaches should be pursued. However, since the
measures are usually the responsibility of different parties, this Chapter does treat them
separately, i.e., how should the County proceed and what should a property owner do.
County Projects
The review of flood control projects in Chapter 3 identifies two general types of projects: beach
protection (beach structures, beach nourishment, and seawalls) and drainage improvements.
Beach projects: The County should review its existing policies on beach projects. It should
review the advantages and disadvantages, regulatory restrictions, and the predictions on sea level
rise and determine whether current policies need to be revisited.
This is consistent with the County's Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Policy 1503.1.8 which
directs the County to evaluate and develop potential stabilization options:
Within five (5) years after the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan [2016], Monroe County shall
develop a shoreline stabilization strategy to protect and enhance the built and natural environments
from erosion and sea level rise impacts prioritizing natural green infrastructure approaches. Monroe
County shall assure shoreline stabilization strategies are found to be in the public interest in light of
that area's vulnerability to climate change impacts. Monroe County shall also consider public access
to beaches, minimizing adverse impacts to coastal processes and resources, impacts to neighboring
properties, and the values and functions of beaches and coastal/marine systems, relative to shoreline
stabilization strategies.
Drainage improvements: The County's
drainage improvements are all related to
projects on County property, especially
County roads. These are being
implemented with available funds in a
priority order based on need and road
conditions. The program to raise roads to
protect them from high tides and sea
level rise has started with an analysis of
all known problem sites. It will identify
which projects to prioritize based on the
inundation risk, including nuisance
flooding.
Monroe County RLAA — 41 — February 1, 2020
In short, the County is already reviewing and selecting flood control measures that meet County
policies and standards for public funding.
Nonstructural Projects
Elevation, floodproofing, and the other nonstructural projects are done on private property,
typically by the owner, or at least with the owner's initiative and involvement. There are 9,545
buildings in the repetitive loss areas. Each building is different and the County's database does
not have complete data on all of them. Therefore, this section provides a step-by-step process
that owners (and County staff) can use to select the appropriate measure or measures. It is
written in second person, addressed to the owners.
Step 1. Know your hazard: Start with a clear idea of where your floodwaters come from and
how high they may go. Check with your neighbors who have lived there longer than you. How
high did past floods go?
Often past floods did not go as high as the National Flood Insurance Program's or the County's
flood protection levels. NFIP premium reductions start for buildings with the lowest floor at or
above the base flood elevation (BFE). Premium rates are reduced if the building is protected to a
higher level.
The County and the Florida Building Code require new construction and substantial improve-
ments to be at least one foot above the BFE. It is recommended that a voluntary mitigation
project protect to at least that level. Why protect to the last flood if going one or two feet higher
will provide better protection and, possibly, help reduce your flood insurance premium?
You can find information on the flood hazard and the base flood elevation at the Monroe
County Planning and Environmental Resources Department. Base flood elevations are shown on
the County's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).
You can see the current effective FIRM at
http:/msc.fema.gov.
FEMA has published draft revisions to the FIRM,
which can be seen at www.monroecouniy-fl.gov/
1151/New-Draft-Coastal-Flood-Maps. An example
is to the right. The drafts may show higher eleva-
tions that will take effect in the near future. Both the
current and draft FIRMS are on aerial photo base
maps, so you can locate your house on the flood
hazard map.
For more information on FIRMS, see Appendix C and the County's "Know Your Flood Risk"
webpage, http://www.monroecouniy-fl.gov/1084/Know-Your-Flood-Risk
v
EMA
Step 2. Know your building: The most important factor in selecting mitigation measures is the
foundation. What type is it? Is it in sound condition? Other information is identified in the
Mitigation Selection Matrix on page 45. The field surveying work by the County in 2017 and
2019 collected this information and recorded it in a database used for this report.
Monroe County RLAA — 42 — February 1, 2020
The database is open to the public
and can be accessed at
https://mcgis4.monroecounty-
fl.gov/MCGIS/CRS/CRS RLAA
Public.html. You can download
a summary sheet for any property
like the generic one illustrated
here.
Note that the sheet may have
entries such as "No Data" or
"Unable to Determine." The
summary sheet shows what the
surveyor could see.
There were many occasions
where the field surveyor could not
see an item from the street. Two
examples of this problem are
shown below.
It is also possible that the
information collected in 2017 is
no longer correct or the field
surveyor did not see the whole
structure. It would be helpful for
the County's efforts if the correct
information was provided by the
owner. To get the database
dtd rid rr t mil
Property ID: 00000000-000000 Monroe County, Florida
Repetitive Loss Area: 43^
30 Beautiful Drive
Subdivision_ Beautiful Drive Subdivision
Longitude: 520 26' 38.461" W
Latitude: 35' 39' 9.589" N
Observations
Number of Stories_ 1
Date of Construction: 1971
Elevated: No Data
Walls_ Wood. Frame
Foundation Type- Slab on grade
HVAC_ Unable to Determine
13
one - >cn ream me Zan m 2019 un�rre—me 1--mmure 1�e ca.ea e�
- .,jai oosau—, such as veae—, ano rences. conecoanm
Example Property Summary Sheet
(the actual sheets have a photo of the building)
up a e a co ec , e a
Floodinformationgmonroecounty-fl.gov or call (305)_407-5685
9(EEP OUT
f
These are examples of photos on the summary sheets where the field surveyor could not see all the
items that were needed. For example, one cannot verify the foundation type for the building on the left.
Monroe County RLAA — 43 — February 1, 2020
Step 3. Determine the building condition: If the structure is in bad shape, is it worth a
mitigation project to protect it? Should you pursue an acquisition project or tear it down and
build a new building that meets all the flood protection code standards? There are programs that
might be able to provide financial assistance for these options.
If it is on a slab -on -grade foundation, is the slab in good shape? Are there any cracks that would
mean that a dry floodproofing project would leak?
If the building is on an elevated foundation or crawlspace, are the supports and floor joists in
good condition? Are there cracks in the walls or other signs of settling? These don't mean you
cannot do a mitigation project, but an engineer or contractor should be aware of any weaknesses
when they plan the project.
Step 4. Go through the Mitigation Selection Matrix: On the next page is a matrix to help
select the most appropriate mitigation measure. This process is not an absolute determinant. It
does not replace an onsite inspection by an architect, engineer, or experienced contractor. It is
designed to give you the more likely cost-effective mitigation approaches for your building.
Step 5. Check on regulatory requirements: Start with getting familiar with the basic rules
which are summarized on the Building and Permitting Department's website:
—> http://www.monroecounty-fl.gov/692/Building-Requirements and
—> http://www.monroecounty-fl.gov/693Build-ResponsiblyProtect-Your-Property
Some of the rules are different for properties in the Special Flood Hazard Area (see "Terminol-
ogy" In Appendix C) and some of the standards in V Zones are different from those in A Zones.
Sit down with a permit official. Contact information is provided in the above websites. See if
there are limitations to what you'd like to do. If so, discuss what options there are. Limitations
don't mean you cannot do something, it means that there may need to be adjustments to, for
example, ensure that you don't increase a flooding problem on a neighbor.
The most important regulatory requirement is the substantial improvement or the "50% rule." It
only applies to properties in the SFHA, but that includes most of the County. If the cost of your
project is more that 50% of the value of your existing building, then it will be considered a
substantial improvement. For a residence, this means that elevation, acquisition, or mitigation
reconstruction are your only options. For a nonresidential building, dry floodproofing would be
one more allowable option, too. In both cases, you will have to protect the building to one foot
above the BFE.
After a flood, fire, or other damage to the building, if the cost to repair the building equals or
exceeds the value of the building before the damage, then it is considered substantially damaged
and the substantial improvement rule applies, too. The above websites have links to more
information on these requirements.
Monroe County RLAA — 44 — February 1, 2020
Step 6. Check out funding possibilities: Chapter 3 identifies some funding sources and which
measures are eligible or not eligible. A flood insurance policy can help after a flood. Certain
kinds of disaster assistance can help after a disaster that is large enough to warrant a disaster
declaration, but it makes more sense to mitigate before the next big storm. The Floodplain
Management and Emergency Management offices may know of more recent opportunities.
Building Mitigation Selection Matrix
Building Mitigation Selection Matrix
c
o
U
0)
�
0)
�
i
+J
0
O
O
i
C
O
C
O
Q
Q
0
to
P
M
tea)
N
L
L
O
O
Q
w
CO
0
Dilapidated building
1
1
Flood depth < 2' over the first floor
Manufactured, modular housing
4
1
4
2
3
Piers, posts, open elevated foundation
3
1
3
2
Crawlspace or elevated w/enclosure
4
1
4
2
3
Slab -on -grade, concrete or masonry walls
3
4
3
1
2
Slab -on -grade, other types of walls
2
4
2
1
Flood depth > 2' over the first floor
Manufactured, modular housing
3
1
3
2
Piers, posts, open elevated foundation
2
1
2
Crawlspace or elevated w/enclosure
3
1
3
2
Slab -on -grade, one story
2
1
2
Slab -on -grade, two or more stories
3
2
3
1
V Zone regulatory restrictions
X
Residential substantial improvement in SFHA
X
X
X
Nonresidential substantial improvement in SFHA
X
X
Residential eligible for Funding?
$
$
$
Nonresidential eligible for Funding?
$
$
$
$
Numbers are 1st choice, 2nd choice, etc.
X = not permitted. See the "regulatory restrictions" headings in Chapter 3.
$ = eligible for most grant programs, provided protection is to the BFE
"Substantial improvement" includes substantially damaged buildings
Monroe County RLAA — 45 — February 1, 2020
This matrix provides a preliminary recommendation for mitigation measures based on summary
information on the building. It is designed to provide guidance on where to start. It does not
replace a site inspection by a qualified engineer or architect.
If the building is in good condition, determine the depth of past flooding over the first floor.
What is the highest the water has gotten? There are more possible approaches to protecting a
building to a flood depth of less than two feet over the first floor (< 2'), including barriers and
dry floodproofing. The options for buildings that have been or can expect to be in deeper
floodwaters (> 2' over the first floor) are generally limited to elevation, acquisition, and letting
the lower area flood (wet floodproofing).
After you've identified the flood depth, check the type of construction or foundation.
Manufactured homes and buildings on crawlspaces are relatively easy to raise to a higher level,
so the first choice is to elevate them. This is shown by the number "1" in the "Elevation"
column.
The matrix shows the second choice ('2"), third choice (" 3"), etc. These are not as effective or
may be more expensive than the first choice, but they can still help reduce the risk of damage.
There may also be a regulatory restriction on a measure. For example, if a residential building in
the Special Flood Hazard Area is substantially damaged or being substantially improved, it can
only be elevated or moved out of harm's way. County and NFIP regulations do not allow barriers
or floodproofing under these conditions. This is shown by the "X" in the column for those
measures.
Step 7. Implement what you decide to do.
Step 8. Maintain or obtain a flood insurance policy. Except for acquisition, no mitigation
measure is a 100% guarantee against a higher flood in the future. Your premiums may well be
lowered by your project and if there is substantial damage from a flood, your policy will help
cover the cost of a more secure mitigation measure.
Monroe County RLAA — 46 — February 1, 2020
Chapter 5. Recommendations
As noted in Chapters 3 and 4, there are two main categories of measures to address the County's
repetitive flooding: flood control projects implemented by the County and building mitigation
projects initiated by the property owners. The following recommendations are therefore
organized by the lead entity.
County Actions
1. Adopt this Area Analysis according to the process detailed in the CRS Coordinator's
Manual.
a. Lead office: Building Department/Monroe County BOCC
b. Timeline: January 2020
c. Funding: Staff time and/or with assistance from consultants
d. Note: For continued CRS credit, there must be an annual evaluation report and an update
every three years, so there will be a need for some staff or consultant time every year.
2. Complete the Shoreline Stabilization Strategy proposed in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
a. Lead office: Planning & Environmental Resources Department
b. Timeline: To be initiated in 2020 and completed by April 2021.
c. Funding: To be determined (this may be done by in-house staff or with the assistance of a
consultant)
d. Note: This will provide guidance and set priorities for County beach nourishment and
other shoreline protection projects.
3. Complete the analysis of repetitively flooded critical facilities, roads, and stormwater
locations pursuant to the Roads Adaptation Plan.
a. Lead office: Sustainability
b. Timeline: Initiated in 2019, to be completed in 2020.
c. Funding: No new funds are needed for this analysis as this project has already been
budgeted.
d. Note: This will provide guidance and set priorities for County projects to protect critical
facilities, raise roadways above expected future flood levels, and improve stormwater
facilities.
4. Encourage and assist the owners of repetitively flooded structures to pursue mitigation
measures including: acquisition, elevation, mitigation reconstruction, barriers, and
floodproofing.
a. Lead office: Building Department
Monroe County RLAA — 47 — February 1, 2020
b. Timeline: Ongoing
c. Funding: Staff time and or with assistance from consultants
d. Note: This is currently being done under credited CRS outreach projects that provide
information and technical assistance to property owners on mitigation measures. The
projects also advise the reader to contact the Monroe County Building Department for
advice on potential mitigation resources. Other than revising the information provided by
these projects, there is no expected need for new resources.
5. Develop a website devoted to the property mitigation measures recommended by this
Analysis.
a. Lead office: Building Department/Floodplain Management
b. Timeline:2020
c. Funding: Staff time
d. Note: This site would include summaries of the measures, the Mitigation Selection
Matrix in Chapter 4, and links to more information, County staff contacts, and financial
assistance programs. It would qualify for the CRS' website credit.
6. Continue to assist interested property owners in applying for mitigation grants.
a. Lead office: Building Department/Floodplain Management
b. Timeline: Ongoing
c. Funding: Staff time and/or with assistance from consultants
Property Owner Actions
7. Learn about property mitigation and funding sources and pursue one or more mitigation
projects in accordance with the seven steps outlined in Chapter 4.
a. Lead: Property owners
b. Timeline: Ongoing
c. Funding: Personal time for research. Personal funds for implementation (except those
projects that are eligible for funding assistance).
d. Note: County Actions 4, 5, and 6 would provide support for this task.
8. Purchase or maintain a flood insurance policy on the building and/or contents.
a. Lead: Property owners and renters
b. Timeline: Ongoing
c. Funding: Personal funds to pay the insurance premiums.
d. Note: See the discussion and website links at the end of Chapter 4
Monroe County RLAA — 48 — February 1, 2020
9. Stay up to date with what Monroe County is doing in regard to flood protection, including
announcements on available financial assistance.
a. Lead: Property owners and renters
b. Timeline: Ongoing
c. Funding: Personal time for periodically checking the mitigation measures website that
will be developed (County Action 5).
Monroe County RLAA — 49 — February 1, 2020
Appendix A. Repetitive Loss Area Summaries
There are 60 repetitive loss areas in Monroe County. They are numbered 1 — 27 and 29 — 61. The
original Area 28 was a single repetitive loss property. During the analysis it was concluded that
the property better fits in an adjacent repetitive loss area, so it was merged into that other area. It
was decided to not renumber all the rest of the areas because the databases were already tied to
the numbers.
Questionnaire responses: The notice to residents about the upcoming repetitive loss area
analysis went to the Upper Keys on June 8 and to the Lower Keys August 30, 2017, just before
Hurricane Irma. This timing explains why 15 of the returned questionnaires came from the
Upper Keys and none were submitted from properties in the Lower Keys. Therefore, the
invitation was distributed again with the County's annual outreach project, which is shown on
page 5. Only one response was received this time, also from the Upper Keys.
Of the 20 questionnaires received from both of these efforts, four of them were outside the 60
repetitive loss areas. The rest came from six of the areas — 4, 7, 9, 12, 13, and 16. Their
comments are summarized on the pages for those areas.
Of the 20, only seven reported having been flooded. Fourteen carry a National Flood Insurance
Program policy and 15 responded "yes" to the question "Are you interested in learning more
about flood mitigation (methods of reducing the risk of flooding to a building and its contently'
Maps: This Appendix has a map for each of the 60 areas. The area boundaries were drawn to
include three types of properties:
—> Properties on the original FEMA repetitive loss list,
Nearby properties with one flood insurance claim. Some of these properties had two
flood insurance claims that did not qualify as repetitive losses (e.g., two claims more than
ten years apart), and
—> Other similarly situated properties exposed to the same flood hazard.
The numbers for each type are shown in the tables on the following pages.
As explained in Chapter 1, the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) requires that "personally
identifiable information" such as the addresses of properties that are covered by flood insurance
or have received flood insurance claims cannot be shown on maps that are made public.
Therefore, the maps only show the streets and the boundaries of each area.
There are ten areas where all the properties mapped are the ones on the FEMA repetitive loss list
or have had other claims. Showing these areas would reveal information contrary to the Privacy
Act. The property or area boundary is not shown on the maps for these ten areas. Instead, their
maps only show their general location.
Area Data Summaries A-1 February 1, 2020
Area Summary Tables, top rows: The top rows of information in the following tables provide
general statistics about the properties. In some cases, there is "no data" for some of the entries.
For example, it is difficult to determine if a building is occupied, especially after Irma, during the
summer when the owners may live up north, or if the surveyor looked at a rental unit during the
week it was empty. Rather than guess, the surveyor would leave the item blank.
The land use data came from the County Property Appraiser's database. There are 9,545
properties in the 60 areas, broken down as follows:
9,359
Residential
132
Commercial
22
Institutional
18
Industrial
12
Government
2
Other
Ninety-eight percent (98%) of the repetitive loss area properties are residential and, based on
field data, the vast majority of the residential properties are single-family homes.
Flood insurance claim data: The number of flood insurance claims is the number of all claims
submitted. There were 17,190 claims submitted from these 60 areas since 1978. Thirty-five
percent (5,985) of these claims were "closed without payment." This does not mean that those
properties were not flooded. The most common reasons for not paying a claim are:
—> The flood damage occurred during a new flood insurance policy's 30-day waiting period;
The claims adjuster concluded that the eligible damage was less than the policy's
deductible; or
The water damage was not caused by a qualifying event, which is defined in a flood
insurance policy as "A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation
of 2 or more acres of normally dry land area or of 2 or more properties from (a) Overflow
of inland or tidal waters, (b) Unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters
from any source..."
This last reason means that there is no coverage for flooding from a broken pipe or sewer
backup. Similarly, there is no flood insurance coverage if a windstorm breaks a window and rain
gets contents wet. Windstorm damage is not a covered peril on homeowners policies in Florida's
coastal counties, so some people submit a flood insurance claim. If the only damage was origin-
ally caused by a windstorm, the claim would be closed without payment (there is separate
windstorm insurance available).
This analysis considers all claims submitted as a good measure of the number and frequency of
flooding problems, even if some claims were not paid. The claims closed without payment were
not included in calculating the average claim payments. For example in Area 1, there were four
claims submitted. One was closed without payment. The payments for the other three totaled
$75,022 for an average payment of $25,007.
Area Data Summaries A-2 February 1, 2020
Area Summary Tables, bottom rows: The bottom rows have information that guides the
selection of appropriate building mitigation measures:
Buldings with more than one story have a wet floodproofing option.
Buildings on piers, posts, walls, or crawlspaces are the easiest to elevate. Those on walls
or crawlspaces have wet floodproofing requirements. Buildings on slab -on -grade
foundations are the only ones that can be dry floodproofed.
Buildings with floors elevated eight feet or more may already be adequately mitigated.
Wood frame walls, modular housing, and manufactured homes are best for elevation.
Concrete and masonry walls on slab foundations are the best for dry floodproofing.
These factors are included in the Building Mitigation Selection Matrix in Chapter 4,
Area Data Summaries A-3 February 1, 2020
Area Location Maps
Areas 1 — 22 are on or near Key Largo.
This analysis does not include repetitive loss areas in the incorporated cities, between Tavernier
and Big Pine Key. Area 23 is on West Summerland Key. The most westernmost repetitive loss
area, 60, is just east of the Key West city limits.
Area Data Summaries A-4 February 1, 2020
Area 1
Key Largo
As a single property repetitive loss area on northern Key Largo, the exact location is not shown
on a map.
Area 1 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
1
Claims submitted
4
Residential
1
Yes
1
Other claims
Total payments
$75,022
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
Average payment
$25,007
Institutional
No data
No data
Total buildings
1
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
1
Piers, posts, etc.
< 8 feet
Concrete
2
Enclosed walls
8-12 feet
Wood frame
3
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
Masonry
1
4
Slab -on -grade
1
Modular housing
No data
Other
Manufact. home
No data
Other
No data
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-5 February 1, 2020
Area 2
Key Largo
Both properties in northern Key Largo are on FFMA's repetitive loss list, so the exact location is
not shown on a map.
Area 2 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
2
Claims submitted
25
Residential
Yes
2
Other claims
Total payments
$884,607
Commercial
2
No
Similarly situated
Average payment
$52,036
Institutional
No data
No data
Total buildings
2
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
1
Piers, posts, etc.
< 8 feet
Concrete
2
2
1
Enclosed walls
8-12 feet
Wood frame
3
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
2
Modular housing
No data
Other
Manufact. home
No data
Other
No data
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-6 February 1, 2020
Area 3
Key Largo: Lake Surprise Estates and Sexton Cove Estates
Area 3 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
14
Claims submitted
255
Residential
487
Yes
438
Other claims
130
Total payments
$2,535,917
Commercial
1
No
11
Similarly situated
346
Average payment
$11,686
Institutional
2
No data
41
No data
Total buildings
490
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
381
Piers, posts, etc.
279
< 8 feet
334
Concrete
44
2
79
Enclosed walls
111
8-12 feet
60
Wood frame
12
3
30
Crawlspace
38
> 12+ feet
40
Masonry
2
4
Slab -on -grade
17
434
Modular housing
80
No data
Other
14
Manufact. home
326
No data
31
Other
9
No data
17
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-7 February 1, 2020
Area 4
Key Largo: Paradise Point Cove, Stillwright Point
Five questionnaires were completed by Area 4 residents. Only one reported having been flooded.
That was in the yard in 2005 and 2012 by tropical storms and in 2019 by a king tide.
Two of the properties
had been wet flood -
proofed and a third
owner had regraded
the yard for drainage
protection. All three
reported that their
projects had been
"beneficial."
Two respondents
listed locations of
chronic street
flooding needing
County action.
Area 4 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
1
Claims submitted
59
Residential
155
Yes
150
Other claims
25
Total payments
$1,153,219
Commercial
No
1
Similarly situated
129
Average payment
$28,127
Institutional
No data
4
No data
Total buildings
155
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
23
Piers, posts, etc.
7
< 8 feet
14
Concrete
99
2
93
Enclosed walls
127
8-12 feet
110
Wood frame
46
3
39
Crawlspace
5
> 12+ feet
15
Masonry
1
4
Slab -on -grade
8
139
Modular housing
6
No data
Other
2
Manufact. home
No data
6
Other
No data
3
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-8 February 1, 2020
Area 5
Key Largo: Riviera Village
Area 5 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
1
Claims submitted
9
Residential
67
Yes
65
Other claims
3
Total payments
$195,905
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
63
Average payment
$32,651
Institutional
No data
2
No data
Total buildings
67
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
35
Piers, posts, etc.
< 8 feet
7
Concrete
45
2
25
Enclosed walls
22
8-12 feet
16
Wood frame
17
3
7
Crawlspace
2
> 12+ feet
1
Masonry
2
4
Slab -on -grade
35
24
Modular housing
No data
Other
5
Manufact. home
No data
3
Other
No data
3
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-9 February 1, 2020
Area 6
Key Largo: Key Largo Mobile Homesites
Area 6 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
1
Claims submitted
15
Residential
59
Yes
58
Other claims
8
Total payments
$72,527
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
51
Average payment
$5,579
Institutional
No data
2
No data
Other
1
Total buildings
60
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
55
Piers, posts, etc.
3
< 8 feet
4
Concrete
4
2
4
Enclosed walls
8
8-12 feet
3
Wood frame
3
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
4
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
11
Modular housing
1
No data
Other
Manufact. home
54
No data
49
Other
No data
1
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-10 February 1, 2020
Area 7
Key Largo: Bermuda Shores, Cross Key Waterways, and Twin Lakes
W111
Two Area 7 residents completed the questionnaire described in Chapter 1, step 1. Neither had
been flooded and neither had installed any mitigation measures.
Area 7 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
3
Claims submitted
100
Residential
373
Yes
317
Other claims
63
Total payments
$1,251,811
Commercial
No
6
Similarly situated
307
Average payment
$15,846
Institutional
No data
50
No data
Total buildings
373
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
246
Piers, posts, etc.
14
< 8 feet
9
Concrete
270
2
83
Enclosed walls
106
8-12 feet
51
Wood frame
74
3
29
Crawlspace
2
> 12+ feet
62
Masonry
2
4
5
Slab -on -grade
16
122
Modular housing
13
No data
10
Other
3
Manufact. home
14
No data
232
Other
No data
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-11 February 1, 2020
Area 8
Key Largo:
As a single property repetitive loss area on central Key Largo, the exact location is not shown
on a map.
Area 8 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
1
Claims submitted
3
Residential
1
Yes
1
Other claims
Total payments
$59,912
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
Average payment
$19,971
Institutional
No data
No data
Total buildings
1
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
Piers, posts, etc.
< 8 feet
1
Concrete
2
1
Enclosed walls
1
8-12 feet
Wood frame
1
3
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
Modular housing
No data
Other
Manufact. home
No data
Other
No data
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-12 February 1, 2020
Area 9
Key Largo: Trailer Village
One questionnaire came from an Area 9 resident. That address had been flooded twice in the
yard (2012 (tropical storm) and 2016 (heavy rain)). It had also been flooded over the first floor
before 2005.
That property had a mitigation
project: the air conditioning unit
had been elevated. It was reported
to have been beneficial.
The respondent voiced concerns
that a flood insurance policy was
covering fewer items than before,
such as siding or skirting not
attached to the structure.
Area 9 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
7
Claims submitted
80
Residential
234
Yes
169
Other claims
49
Total payments
$829,556
Commercial
No
6
Similarly situated
178
Average payment
$11,061
Institutional
No data
59
No data
Total buildings
234
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
187
Piers, posts, etc.
12
< 8 feet
35
Concrete
31
2
32
Enclosed walls
41
8-12 feet
9
Wood frame
1
3
13
Crawlspace
18
> 12+ feet
27
Masonry
1
4
Slab -on -grade
8
71
Modular housing
9
No data
2
Other
2
Manufact. home
182
No data
153
Other
No data
10
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-13 February 1, 2020
Area 10
Key Largo: Buttonwood Shores
As a single property repetitive loss area on central Key Largo, the exact location is not shown on
a map.
Area 10 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
1
Claims submitted
N/A
Residential
1
Yes
1
Other claims
Total payments
N/A
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
Average payment
N/A
I Institutional
No data
No data
Total buildings
1
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
1
Piers, posts, etc.
< 8 feet
Concrete
1
2
Enclosed walls
8-12 feet
Wood frame
3
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
1
Modular housing
No data
Other
Manufact. home
No data
Other
No data
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-14 February 1, 2020
Area 11
Key Largo: Sunset Cove
Area 11 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
1
Claims submitted
10
Residential
1
Yes
3
Other claims
2
Total payments
$223,159
Commercial
4
No
Similarly situated
2
Average payment
$22,316
Institutional
No data
2
No data
Total buildings
5
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
3
Piers, posts, etc.
1
< 8 feet
1
Concrete
3
2
2
Enclosed walls
8-12 feet
Wood frame
1
3
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
3
Modular housing
No data
Other
Manufact. home
No data
1
Other
No data
1
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-15 February 1, 2020
Area 12
Key Largo:
Key Largo
Beach
There was one
completed
questionnaire
described in
Chapter 1, step
1. The owner
had been
flooded over
the first floor
by Hurricane
Wilma in 2005.
The respondent
reported "no
damage other
than rugs but
water was only 3-4 inches inside."
The respondent does have a flood insurance policy.
Area 12 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
4
Claims submitted
28
Residential
103
Yes
97
Other claims
7
Total payments
$209,505
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
92
Average payment
$11,027
Institutional
No data
6
No data
Total buildings
103
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
12
Piers, posts, etc.
2
< 8 feet
4
Concrete
84
2
72
Enclosed walls
51
8-12 feet
27
Wood frame
9
3
14
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
22
Masonry
3
4
Slab -on -grade
38
53
Modular housing
No data
5
Other
Manufact. home
1
No data
12
Other
No data
6
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-16 February 1, 2020
Area 13
Key Largo: Buccaneer Point
Pirates Cove
Five Area 13 residents
completed the
questionnaire. Two had
been flooded, both in
2005. One had water
over the first floor and
the other only had it in
the yard. The former
had also had yard
flooding from heavy
rain in 2017.
Two respondents
provided a list of
frequent street flooding
sites. They also noted
"we need help."
A third resident reported that they had not been flooded in the 30 years they had lived there.
Area 13 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
7
Claims submitted
66
Residential
223
Yes
110
Other claims
30
Total payments
$1,744,812
Commercial
No
1
Similarly situated
187
Average payment
$33,554
Institutional
No data
113
No data
Other
1
Total buildings
224
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
37
Piers, posts, etc.
6
< 8 feet
4
Concrete
63
2
121
Enclosed walls
153
8-12 feet
92
Wood frame
34
3
63
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
63
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
42
159
Modular housing
5
No data
3
Other
1
Manufact. home
No data
22
Other
No data
122
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-17 February 1, 2020
Area 14
Key Largo: Mandalay Bay Area
As a single property repetitive loss area on southern Key Largo, the exact location is not shown
on a map.
Area 14 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
1
Claims submitted
N/A
Residential
Yes
1
Other claims
Total payments
N/A
Commercial
1
No
Similarly situated
Average payment
N/A
I Institutional
No data
No data
Total buildings
1
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
Piers, posts, etc.
< 8 feet
Concrete
1
2
1
Enclosed walls
8-12 feet
Wood frame
3
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
1
Modular housing
No data
Other
Manufact. home
No data
Other
No data
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-18 February 1, 2020
Area 15
Key Largo: The Harborage
Area 15 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
1
Claims submitted
8
Residential
58
Yes
57
Other claims
3
Total payments
$18,167
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
54
Average payment
$3,633
Institutional
No data
1
No data
Total buildings
58
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
43
Piers, posts, etc.
1
< 8 feet
37
Concrete
6
2
6
Enclosed walls
14
8-12 feet
12
Wood frame
3
9
Crawlspace
34
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
49
Modular housing
9
No data
Other
3
Manufact. home
40
No data
6
Other
2
No data
1
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-19 February 1, 2020
Area 16
Key Largo: Sunrise Point
There were two questionnaires completed from this area. Neither had been flooded. One had
elevated the utilities and reported it was beneficial. He also reported not carrying flood
insurance.
Area 16 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
13
Claims submitted
49
Residential
111
Yes
111
Other claims
4
Total payments
$701,546
Commercial
3
No
1
Similarly situated
98
Average payment
$18,462
Institutional
1
No data
3
No data
Total buildings
115
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
30
Piers, posts, etc.
11
< 8 feet
31
Concrete
94
2
65
Enclosed walls
79
8-12 feet
51
Wood frame
15
3
19
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
8
Masonry
4
1
Slab -on -grade
22
90
Modular housing
1
No data
Other
1
Manufact. home
No data
2
Other
4
No data
1
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-20 February 1, 2020
Area 17
Key Largo: With only two properties in this area on southern Key Largo, the exact location is
not shown on a map.
Area 17 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
1
Claims submitted
5
Residential
2
Yes
2
Other claims
Total payments
$17,506
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
1
Average payment
$5,835
Institutional
No data
No data
Total buildings
2
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
2
Piers, posts, etc.
< 8 feet
Concrete
1
2
Enclosed walls
8-12 feet
Wood frame
1
3
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
2
Modular housing
No data
Other
Manufact. home
No data
Other
No data
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-21 February 1, 2020
Area 18
Key Largo: Sunset Gardens
Area 18 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
1
Claims submitted
6
Residential
13
Yes
12
Other claims
4
Total payments
$205,376
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
8
Average payment
$34,229
Institutional
No data
1
No data
Total buildings
13
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
10
Piers, posts, etc.
1
< 8 feet
1
Concrete
11
2
2
Enclosed walls
2
8-12 feet
2
Wood frame
3
1
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
8
3
Modular housing
1
No data
Other
Manufact. home
No data
2
Other
1
No data
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-22 February 1, 2020
Area 19
Tavernier: Blue Water Trailer Village & Tavernier Ocean Shores
Area 19 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
5
Claims submitted
82
Residential
255
Yes
237
Other claims
15
Total payments
$339,930
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
236
Average payment
$10,623
Institutional
No data
19
No data
Industrial
1
Total buildings
256
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
130
Piers, posts, etc.
26
< 8 feet
147
Concrete
70
2
94
Enclosed walls
109
8-12 feet
88
Wood frame
12
3
32
Crawlspace
100
> 12+ feet
Masonry
1
4
Slab -on -grade
6
235
Modular housing
3
No data
Other
Manufact. home
148
No data
15
Other
4
No data
18
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-23 February 1, 2020
Area 20
Tavernier: Tavernier Harbor
As a single property repetitive loss area on southern Key Largo, the exact location is not shown
on a map.
Area 20 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
1
Claims submitted
4
Residential
Yes
1
Other claims
Total payments
$103,217
Commercial
1
No
Similarly situated
Average payment
$51,609
Institutional
No data
No data
Total buildings
1
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
Piers, posts, etc.
< 8 feet
Concrete
1
2
2
Enclosed walls
8-12 feet
Wood frame
3
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
1
Modular housing
No data
Other
Manufact. home
No data
Other
No data
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-24 February 1, 2020
Area 21
Tavernier: Tavernier Heights
As a single property repetitive loss area on southern Key Largo, the exact location is not shown
on a map.
Area 21 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
1
Claims submitted
3
Residential
1
Yes
1
Other claims
Total payments
$67,925
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
Average payment
$22,642
Institutional
No data
No data
Total buildings
1
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
Piers, posts, etc.
< 8 feet
Concrete
2
1
Enclosed walls
8-12 feet
Wood frame
1
3
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
Modular housing
No data
Other
1
Manufact. home
No data
Other
No data
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-25 February 1, 2020
Area 22
Tavernier: Largo Beach
Area 22 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
2
Claims submitted
13
Residential
12
Yes
12
Other claims
3
Total payments
$86,717
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
7
Average payment
$8,672
Institutional
No data
No data
Total buildings
12
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
3
Piers, posts, etc.
1
< 8 feet
5
Concrete
8
2
6
Enclosed walls
8
8-12 feet
5
Wood frame
4
3
3
Crawlspace
1
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
2
10
Modular housing
No data
Other
Manufact. home
No data
Other
No data
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-26 February 1, 2020
Area 23
West Summerland Key: Spanish Harbor Key
Area 23 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
1
Claims submitted
14
Residential
Yes
1
Other claims
Total payments
$308,293
Commercial
No
1
Similarly situated
2
Average payment
$25,691
Institutional
2
No data
1
No data
Government
1
Total buildings
3
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
1
Piers, posts, etc.
1
< 8 feet
2
Concrete
2
2
2
Enclosed walls
1
8-12 feet
Wood frame
1
3
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
2
Modular housing
No data
Other
Manufact. home
No data
1
Other
No data
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-27 February 1, 2020
Area 24
Big Pine Key
With only two properties in this area southern Big Pine Key, the exact location is not shown on a
map.
Area 24 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
2
Claims submitted
3
Residential
Yes
1
Other claims
Total payments
$34,908
Commercial
2
No
Similarly situated
Average payment
$17,454
Institutional
No data
1
No data
Total buildings
2
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
Piers, posts, etc.
< 8 feet
1
Concrete
1
2
1
Enclosed walls
1
8-12 feet
Wood frame
3
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
1
Modular housing
No data
1
Other
Manufact. home
No data
1
Other
No data
1
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-28 February 1, 2020
A
Area 25
Big Pine Key: Long Beach Estates
u
Area 25 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
3
Claims submitted
29
Residential
38
Yes
32
Other claims
13
Total payments
$549,010
Commercial
2
No
Similarly situated
24
Average payment
$21,960
Institutional
No data
8
No data
Total buildings
40
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
3
Piers, posts, etc.
2
< 8 feet
7
Concrete
31
2
31
Enclosed walls
31
8-12 feet
24
Wood frame
5
3
3
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
2
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
4
33
Modular housing
1
No data
3
Other
1
Manufact. home
No data
2
Other
No data
3
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-29 February 1, 2020
Area 26
Big Pine Key: Warner Street
YAk
A
Area 26 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
1
Claims submitted
7
Residential
4
Yes
4
Other claims
2
Total payments
$48,891
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
1
Average payment
$8,149
Institutional
No data
No data
Total buildings
4
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
2
Piers, posts, etc.
1
< 8 feet
3
Concrete
1
2
2
Enclosed walls
2
8-12 feet
Wood frame
2
3
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
3
Modular housing
1
No data
Other
Manufact. home
No data
1
Other
No data
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-30 February 1, 2020
Area 27
Big Pine Key: Sands Subdivision, Atlantis, Grieser, Hollerich, Whispering Pines, Ross Haven
Area 27 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
7
Claims submitted
191
Residential
397
Yes
Other claims
89
Total payments
$1,654,017
Commercial
5
No
Similarly situated
309
Average payment
$11,486
Institutional
No data
405
No data
Government
1
Total buildings
405
Industrial
2
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
342
Piers, posts, etc.
177
< 8 feet
Concrete
93
2
35
Enclosed walls
138
8-12 feet
Wood frame
131
3
1
Crawlspace
1
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
1
Slab -on -grade
62
No Data
405
Modular housing
37
No data
26
Other
Manufact. home
116
No data
27
Other
2
No data
26
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-31 February 1, 2020
Area 28
Big Pine Key: Whispering Pines
Area 28 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
Claims submitted
28
Residential
44
Yes
Other claims
16
Total payments
$296,265
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
29
Average payment
$17,427
Institutional
No data
45
No data
Government
1
Total buildings
45
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
32
Piers, posts, etc.
11
< 8 feet
Concrete
12
2
11
Enclosed walls
25
8-12 feet
Wood frame
31
3
1
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
Masonry
1
4
Slab -on -grade
7
No data
45
Modular housing
1
No data
1
Other
1
Manufact. home
No data
1
Other
No data
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-32 February 1, 2020
Area 29
Big Pine Key: Palm Villa, Tropical Bay
Area 29 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
17
Claims submitted
171
Residential
227
Yes
Other claims
73
Total payments
$3,014,565
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
137
Average payment
$23,551
Institutional
No data
227
No data
Total buildings
227
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
209
Piers, posts, etc.
26
< 8 feet
Concrete
35
2
13
Enclosed walls
96
8-12 feet
Wood frame
74
3
Crawlspace
15
> 12+ feet
Masonry
96
4
Slab -on -grade
86
No data
227
Modular housing
16
No data
5
Other
Manufact. home
1
No data
4
Other
1
No data
4
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-33 February 1, 2020
Area 30
Big Pine Key: Doctor's Arm, Punta Brisa
Area 30 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
21
Claims submitted
162
Residential
182
Yes
Other claims
66
Total payments
$2,628,854
Commercial
2
No
Similarly situated
98
Average payment
$21,031
Institutional
1
No data
185
No data
Total buildings
185
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
126
Piers, posts, etc.
13
< 8 feet
Concrete
1
2
51
Enclosed walls
89
8-12 feet
Wood frame
82
3
Crawlspace
10
> 12+ feet
Masonry
93
4
Slab -on -grade
70
No data
185
Modular housing
3
No data
8
Other
Manufact. home
No data
3
Other
6
No data
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-34 February 1, 2020
Area 31
Big Pine Key: Big Pine Shores, Koehn's
Area 31 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
5
Claims submitted
28
Residential
51
Yes
16
Other claims
11
Total payments
$199,716
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
36
Average payment
$9,986
Institutional
1
1 No data
36
No data
Total buildings
52
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
28
Piers, posts, etc.
8
< 8 feet
9
Concrete
9
2
16
Enclosed walls
19
8-12 feet
7
Wood frame
20
3
Crawlspace
2
> 12+ feet
36
Masonry
20
4
Slab -on -grade
14
Modular housing
1
No data
8
Other
2
Manufact. home
No data
7
Other
No data
5
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-35 February 1, 2020
Area 32
Big Pine Key: Eden Pines Colony
Area 32 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
1
Claims submitted
238
Residential
419
Yes
Other claims
119
Total payments
$2,228,487
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
302
Average payment
$16,507
Institutional
2
No data
422
No data
Government
1
Total buildings
422
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
367
Piers, posts, etc.
34
< 8 feet
Concrete
18
2
52
Enclosed walls
293
8-12 feet
Wood frame
277
3
1
Crawlspace
29
> 12+ feet
Masonry
106
4
Slab -on -grade
65
No data
422
Modular housing
18
No data
2
Other
Manufact. home
No data
1
Other
2
No data
1
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-36 February 1, 2020
Area 33
Big Pine Key: Pond Lane
Area 33 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
1
Claims submitted
4
Residential
2
Yes
4
Other claims
2
Total payments
$29,297
Commercial
2
No
Similarly situated
1
Average payment
$7,324
Institutional
No data
No data
Total buildings
4
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
1
Piers, posts, etc.
2
< 8 feet
3
Concrete
2
2
3
Enclosed walls
1
8-12 feet
Wood frame
2
3
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
1
3
Modular housing
No data
Other
Manufact. home
No data
Other
No data
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-37 February 1, 2020
Area 34
Big Pine Key: Cahill Pines and Palms
Area 34 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
2
Claims submitted
97
Residential
139
Yes
Other claims
43
Total payments
$589,541
Commercial
11
No
Similarly situated
107
Average payment
$10,719
Institutional
No data
152
No data
Industrial
1
Total buildings
152
Government
1
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
123
Piers, posts, etc.
25
< 8 feet
Concrete
1
2
24
Enclosed walls
107
8-12 feet
Wood frame
92
3
Crawlspace
4
> 12+ feet
Masonry
34
4
Slab -on -grade
13
No data
152
Modular housing
18
No data
5
Other
Manufact. home
2
No data
3
Other
5
No data
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-38 February 1, 2020
Area 35
Big Pine Key: Piney Point
Area 35 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
1
Claims submitted
30
Residential
28
Yes
28
Other claims
6
Total payments
$840,868
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
22
Average payment
$44,256
Institutional
1
No data
1
No data
Total buildings
29
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
10
Piers, posts, etc.
3
< 8 feet
5
Concrete
25
2
18
Enclosed walls
15
8-12 feet
13
Wood frame
4
3
1
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
11
18
Modular housing
No data
Other
Manufact. home
No data
Other
No data
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-39 February 1, 2020
Area 36
Little Torch Key: Jolly Roger Estates
Area 36 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
7
Claims submitted
114
Residential
265
Yes
Other claims
38
Total payments
$611,225
Commercial
2
No
Similarly situated
225
Average payment
$11,754
Institutional
No data
267
No data
Total buildings
267
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
191
Piers, posts, etc.
10
< 8 feet
Concrete
26
2
72
Enclosed walls
225
8-12 feet
Wood frame
153
3
Crawlspace
1
> 12+ feet
Masonry
53
4
Slab -on -grade
25
Modular housing
28
No data
3
Other
Manufact. home
No data
6
Other
4
No data
3
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-40 February 1, 2020
Area 37
Little Torch Key: Ladies Acres, Mates Beach,
Area 37 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
2
Claims submitted
121
Residential
195
Yes
Other claims
55
Total payments
$1,925,214
Commercial
3
No
Similarly situated
141
Average payment
$22,919
Institutional
No data
198
No data
Total buildings
198
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
165
Piers, posts, etc.
12
< 8 feet
Concrete
4
2
25
Enclosed walls
103
8-12 feet
Wood frame
72
3
1
Crawlspace
46
> 12+ feet
Masonry
31
4
Slab -on -grade
30
No data
198
Modular housing
35
No data
7
Other
Manufact. home
38
No data
7
Other
16
No data
2
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-41 February 1, 2020
Area 38
Little Torch Key: Coral Shores Estates
Area 38 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
3
Claims submitted
121
Residential
182
Yes
181
Other claims
78
Total payments
$1,425,418
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
101
Average payment
$14,848
Institutional
No data
1
No data
Total buildings
182
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
161
Piers, posts, etc.
140
< 8 feet
148
Concrete
4
2
19
Enclosed walls
20
8-12 feet
20
Wood frame
12
3
1
Crawlspace
9
> 12+ feet
1
Masonry
1
4
Slab -on -grade
1
169
Modular housing
12
No data
1
Other
Manufact. home
151
No data
12
Other
No data
2
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-42 February 1, 2020
Area 39
Big Torch Key: Dorn's
Area 39 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
1
Claims submitted
4
Residential
9
Yes
9
Other claims
4
Total payments
$10,321
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
4
Average payment
$2,580
Institutional
No data
No data
Total buildings
9
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
Piers, posts, etc.
< 8 feet
3
Concrete
3
2
9
Enclosed walls
9
8-12 feet
6
Wood frame
5
3
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
9
Modular housing
1
No data
Other
Manufact. home
No data
Other
No data
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-43 February 1, 2020
Area 40
Ramrod Key: Breezeswept Beach,
0
Area 40 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
16
Claims submitted
233
Residential
361
Yes
Other claims
98
Total payments
$1,608,423
Commercial
3
No
Similarly situated
250
Average payment
$10,245
Institutional
No data
364
No data
Total buildings
364
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
265
Piers, posts, etc.
40
< 8 feet
Concrete
2
80
Enclosed walls
288
8-12 feet
Wood frame
213
3
2
Crawlspace
2
> 12+ feet
Masonry
79
4
Slab -on -grade
26
No data
364
Modular housing
64
No data
17
Other
1
Manufact. home
No data
7
Other
5
No data
3
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-44 February 1, 2020
Area 41
Ramrod Key: Ramrod Shores
Area 41 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
2
Claims submitted
24
Residential
45
Yes
43
Other claims
8
Total payments
$482,401
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
35
Average payment
$34,457
Institutional
No data
2
No data
Total buildings
45
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
22
Piers, posts, etc.
7
< 8 feet
6
Concrete
9
2
22
Enclosed walls
21
8-12 feet
22
Wood frame
29
3
1
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
15
28
Modular housing
5
No data
Other
1
Manufact. home
No data
1
Other
No data
2
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-45 February 1, 2020
Area 42
Cudjoe Key: Summerland Beach, Summerland Cove Isles, Summerland Estates,
Summerland Key Cove
low
Area 42 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
56
Claims submitted
362
Residential
643
Yes
Other claims
113
Total payments
$4,879,876
Commercial
24
No
Similarly situated
500
Average payment
$18,988
Institutional
1
No data
669
No data
Industrial
1
Total buildings
669
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
474
Piers, posts, etc.
59
< 8 feet
Concrete
292
2
172
Enclosed walls
492
8-12 feet
Wood frame
169
3
20
Crawlspace
6
> 12+ feet
Masonry
117
4
Slab -on -grade
107
No data
669
Modular housing
71
No data
3
Other
2
Manufact. home
12
No data
3
Other
3
No data
5
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-46 February 1, 2020
Area 43
Cudjoe Key: Venture Out
A
Area 43 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
29
Claims submitted
461
Residential
389
Yes
371
Other claims
181
Total payments
$4,255,769
Commercial
No
1
Similarly situated
179
Average payment
$10,037
Institutional
No data
17
No data
Total buildings
389
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
274
Piers, posts, etc.
267
< 8 feet
265
Concrete
2
110
Enclosed walls
109
8-12 feet
110
Wood frame
3
1
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
1
Masonry
1
4
Slab -on -grade
1
376
Modular housing
No data
4
Other
Manufact. home
375
No data
12
Other
No data
13
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-47 February 1, 2020
Area 44
Cudjoe Key: Cudjoe Ocean Shores, Cutthroat Harbor
Area 44 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
24
Claims submitted
338
Residential
454
Yes
Other claims
150
Total payments
$1,979,770
Commercial
13
No
Similarly situated
298
Average payment
$8,425
Institutional
1
No data
472
No data
Industrial
4
Total buildings
472
No data
472
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
399
Piers, posts, etc.
67
< 8 feet
Concrete
125
2
71
Enclosed walls
383
8-12 feet
Wood frame
144
3
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
19
No data
482
Modular housing
192
No data
2
Other
Manufact. home
No data
3
Other
3
No data
8
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-48 February 1, 2020
Area 45
Cudjoe Key: Cudjoe Gardens Sacarma
Area 45 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
9
Claims submitted
138
Residential
269
Yes
Other claims
60
Total payments
$2,036,505
Commercial
9
No
Similarly situated
209
Average payment
$25,142
Institutional
No data
278
No data
Total buildings
278
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
222
Piers, posts, etc.
51
< 8 feet
Concrete
244
2
52
Enclosed walls
74
8-12 feet
Wood frame
3
1
Crawlspace
1
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
149
No data
278
Modular housing
31
No data
3
Other
Manufact. home
1
No data
3
Other
No data
2
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-49 February 1, 2020
Area 46
Sugarloaf Key: Gulf Shores, Indian Mound Estates, Vacation Harbor
Area 46 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
6
Claims submitted
168
Residential
240
Yes
Other claims
98
Total payments
$6,032,204
Commercial
9
No
Similarly situated
147
Average payment
$49,853
Institutional
2
No data
251
No data
Government
1
Total buildings
251
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
193
Piers, posts, etc.
92
< 8 feet
Concrete
90
2
55
Enclosed walls
109
8-12 feet
Wood frame
3
Crawlspace
1
> 12+ feet
Masonry
2
4
Slab -on -grade
47
No data
251
Modular housing
135
No data
3
Other
Manufact. home
19
No data
2
Other
No data
5
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-50 February 1, 2020
Area 47
Sugarloaf Key: Sugarloaf Shores
Area 47 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
9
Claims submitted
217
Residential
406
Yes
Other claims
120
Total payments
$3,535,402
Commercial
1
No
Similarly situated
278
Average payment
$23,888
Institutional
No data
407
No data
Total buildings
407
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
304
Piers, posts, etc.
18
< 8 feet
Concrete
269
2
95
Enclosed walls
338
8-12 feet
Wood frame
3
1
Crawlspace
1
> 12+ feet
Masonry
2
4
1
Slab -on -grade
49
No data
407
Modular housing
131
No data
6
Other
Manufact. home
No data
1
Other
No data
5
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-51 February 1, 2020
Area 48
Sugarloaf Key: Sugarloaf Beach
0
Area 48 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
2
Claims submitted
20
Residential
26
Yes
21
Other claims
9
Total payments
$516,745
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
15
Average payment
$27,197
Institutional
No data
5
No data
Total buildings
26
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
5
Piers, posts, etc.
4
< 8 feet
11
Concrete
16
2
13
Enclosed walls
16
8-12 feet
6
Wood frame
8
3
7
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
3
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
4
20
Modular housing
No data
1
Other
1
Manufact. home
No data
1
Other
2
No data
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-52 February 1, 2020
Area 49
Saddlebunch Key: Bay Point
Area 49 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
3
Claims submitted
154
Residential
150
Yes
Other claims
58
Total payments
$3,766,393
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
89
Average payment
$37,291
Institutional
No data
150
No data
Total buildings
150
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
114
Piers, posts, etc.
51
< 8 feet
Concrete
62
2
34
Enclosed walls
82
8-12 feet
Wood frame
3
1
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
16
No data
150
Modular housing
62
No data
1
Other
Manufact. home
25
No data
1
Other
1
No data
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-53 February 1, 2020
Area 50
Big Coppitt Key: Boca Chita
y
`
ini,
4Y®
lk-
""
f � t - Y l
R /
n
Area 50 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
25
Claims submitted
160
Residential
158
Yes
151
Other claims
25
Total payments
$9,432,211
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
108
Average payment
$18,886
Institutional
No data
7
No data
Total buildings
158
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
150
Piers, posts, etc.
146
< 8 feet
145
Concrete
2
4
Enclosed walls
4
8-12 feet
5
Wood frame
3
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
150
Modular housing
No data
4
Other
Manufact. home
152
No data
8
Other
dataE]66No
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-54 February 1, 2020
Area 51
Geiger Key: Boca Chita Ocean Shores
Area 51 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
3
Claims submitted
35
Residential
37
Yes
36
Other claims
9
Total payments
$555,925
Commercial
1
No
Similarly situated
26
Average payment
$26,473
Institutional
No data
2
No data
Total buildings
38
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
8
Piers, posts, etc.
2
< 8 feet
5
Concrete
18
2
28
Enclosed walls
26
8-12 feet
23
Wood frame
20
3
2
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
8
Modular housing
No data
Other
1
Manufact. home
No data
1
Other
No data
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-55 February 1, 2020
Area 52
Geiger Key: Geiger Mobile Homes Tamarac Park
Area 52 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
7
Claims submitted
87
Residential
186
Yes
180
Other claims
33
Total payments
$477,623
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
146
Average payment
$8,845
Institutional
No data
6
No data
Total buildings
186
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
153
Piers, posts, etc.
85
< 8 feet
120
Concrete
5
2
26
Enclosed walls
33
8-12 feet
31
Wood frame
2
3
5
Crawlspace
33
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
151
Modular housing
29
No data
2
Other
Manufact. home
148
No data
35
Other
No data
2
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-56 February 1, 2020
Area 53
Big Coppitt Key: Coppitt Subdivision, Johnsonville, Porpoise Point, Similar Sound
Area 53 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
3
Claims submitted
370
Residential
569
Yes
2
Other claims
177
Total payments
$11,213,882
Commercial
14
No
1
Similarly situated
419
Average payment
$40,483
Institutional
8
No data
596
No data
Industrial
3
Total buildings
599
Government
5
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
357
Piers, posts, etc.
114
< 8 feet
235
Concrete
264
2
172
Enclosed walls
277
8-12 feet
159
Wood frame
107
3
55
Crawlspace
9
> 12+ feet
6
Masonry
2
4
Slab -on -grade
169
400
Modular housing
145
No data
15
Other
3
Manufact. home
66
No data
27
Other
2
No data
13
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-57 February 1, 2020
Area 54
Big Coppitt Key: Rockland Village
Area 54 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
2
Claims submitted
44
Residential
50
Yes
20
Other claims
16
Total payments
$267,408
Commercial
2
No
7
Similarly situated
34
Average payment
$10,696
Institutional
No data
25
No data
Total buildings
52
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
23
Piers, posts, etc.
16
< 8 feet
15
Concrete
29
2
23
Enclosed walls
27
8-12 feet
28
Wood frame
8
3
4
Crawlspace
2
> 12+ feet
2
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
5
45
Modular housing
1
No data
2
Other
Manufact. home
12
No data
2
Other
No data
2
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-58 February 1, 2020
Area 55
Key Haven
Area 55 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
1
Claims submitted
277
Residential
446
Yes
14
Other claims
198
Total payments
$15,664,460
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
247
Average payment
$75,310
Institutional
No data
432
No data
Total buildings
446
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
321
Piers, posts, etc.
1
< 8 feet
Concrete
427
2
113
Enclosed walls
128
8-12 feet
3
Wood frame
3
6
Crawlspace
4
> 12+ feet
Masonry
8
4
Slab -on -grade
304
No data
443
Modular housing
2
No data
6
Other
Manufact. home
No data
9
Other
No data
9
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-59 February 1, 2020
Area 56
Stock Island: Maloney Subdivision
Area 56 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
2
Claims submitted
13
Residential
7
Yes
15
Other claims
4
Total payments
$521,359
Commercial
3
No
Similarly situated
9
Average payment
$40,105
Institutional
1
1 No data
No data
Industrial
4
Total buildings
15
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
10
Piers, posts, etc.
< 8 feet
1
Concrete
9
2
5
Enclosed walls
1
8-12 feet
1
Wood frame
2
3
Crawlspace
1
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
11
2
Modular housing
1
No data
Other
Manufact. home
No data
2
Other
3
No data
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-60 February 1, 2020
Area 57
Stock Island: Maloney Ave #1
Area 57 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
5
Claims submitted
62
Residential
15
Yes
18
Other claims
3
Total payments
$638,931
Commercial
6
No
Similarly situated
13
Average payment
$12,528
Institutional
No data
3
No data
Total buildings
21
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
19
Piers, posts, etc.
14
< 8 feet
14
Concrete
1
2
2
Enclosed walls
1
8-12 feet
1
Wood frame
3
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
1
Modular housing
No data
Other
2
Manufact. home
20
No data
3
Other
No data
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-61 February 1, 2020
Stock Island: Maloney Ave #2
Area 58
.,,
811—A. �._.1
ii
rr
Area 58 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
4
Claims submitted
48
Residential
25
Yes
24
Other claims
Total payments
$614,168
Commercial
No
Similarly situated
21
Average payment
$14,283
Institutional
No data
1
No data
Total buildings
25
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
25
Piers, posts, etc.
23
< 8 feet
23
Concrete
2
Enclosed walls
8-12 feet
Wood frame
3
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
23
Modular housing
No data
Other
Manufact. home
23
No data
2
Other
No data
2
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-62 February 1, 2020
Area 59
Stock Island
As a single property repetitive loss area on Stock Island, the exact location is not shown on a
map.
Area 59 Data Summary
00
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
1
Claims submitted
N/A
Residential
Yes
1
Other claims
Total payments
N/A
Commercial
1
No
Similarly situated
Average payment
N/A
Institutional
No data
No data
Total buildings
1
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
1
Piers, posts, etc.
< 8 feet
Concrete
2
Enclosed walls
8-12 feet
Wood frame
3
Crawlspace
> 12+ feet
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
1
Modular housing
No data
Other
Manufact. home
No data
Other
1
No data
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-63 February 1, 2020
Area 60
Stock Island: Stuart Subdivision
Area 60 Data Summary
Type
Insurance
Use
Occupied
Repetitive loss
19
Claims submitted
95
Residential
543
Yes
464
Other claims
53
Total payments
$1,552,835
Commercial
5
No
1
Similarly situated
478
Average payment
$21,871
Institutional
No data
85
No data
Industrial
1
Total buildings
550
Government
1
Stories
Foundation
Elevated Floors
Walls
1
406
Piers, posts, etc.
218
< 8 feet
288
Concrete
153
2
99
Enclosed walls
120
8-12 feet
56
Wood frame
22
3
39
Crawlspace
8
> 12+ feet
2
Masonry
4
Slab -on -grade
148
346
Modular housing
157
No data
6
Other
Manufact. home
199
No data
56
Other
4
No data
15
See page A-1 for more information on these entries.
Area Data Summaries A-64 February 1, 2020
Appendix B. Input Questionnaire
This appendix is the questionnaire for resident input as it appeared on the County's website.
RLAA - Public Input Questionnaire
Your responses to the questions below will help the County identify and offer flood damage reduction
activities for individual homeowners. It is very important that you answer as many questions as possible, and
that you provide specific details where possible. The more complete picture we have of past flooding events
and their consequences, the better range of mitigation opportunities we can provide. Each questionnaire
submitted plays an important part in building a more resilient and informed Monroe County. This
questionnaire is also a critical step toward helping the County achieve its goal of obtaining a Community
Rating System (CRS) Class 4, which will result in a 30% savings on National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) policies issued in the flood zone (AE or VE-zones); smaller discounts are available for policies
covering structures outside of the floodplain. We also encourage you to utilize the comments section to share
your thoughts and opinions on the RbAA, flooding risks, and flood insurance maps in Monroe County in
general. Thank you again for your support in this process. and please do not hesitate to contact the County
Floodplain Program with any questions or concerns.
Address1 *
Monroe County RLAA B-1 February 1, 2020
Do you awn or Rent this homelstructure?
-- Select One --
What type of foundation does the homelstructure have?
-- Select One -- V1
If "Other" selected above, enter detail here.
How many stories does the building have?
-- Select One -- ]
Has this homelstructure ever flooded before to your knowledge?
-- Select One -- v
a W0I01 *j ATV 101 Ito] . I :1
Please enter the flood event year (enter 4 digit year value, i.e. 1980).
Please indicate which of the following locations where flooding occurred relative to your
homelstructure. Check all that apply.
D In the Yard
Beneath the Floor
❑ Over the First Floor
❑ Don't Know
What do you believe was the primary cause of the flooding at your property?
-- Select One -- v
Monroe County RLAA B-2 February 1, 2020
What length of time were the flood waters were present in these same areas?
-- Select One -- v
FLOOD EVENT TWO
Please enter the flood event year (enter 4 digit year value, i.e. 1980).
Please indicate which of the following locations where flooding occurred relative to your
homelstructure. Check all that apply.
❑ In the Yard
❑ Beneath the Floor
Over the First Floor
❑ Don't Know
What do you believe was the primary cause of the flooding at your property?
1—select One -- v
What length of time were the flood waters were present in these same areas?
-- Select One --
I�tz•�a�■��. rrrr.l����
Please enter the flood event year (enter 4 digit year value, i.e. 1980).
Please indicate which of the following locations where flooding occurred relative to your
homelstructure. Check all that apply.
F1 In the Yard
❑ Beneath the Floor
0 Over the First Floor
❑ Don't Know
What do you believe was the primary cause of the flooding at your property?
-- select One --
u
v
Monroe County RLAA B-3 February 1, 2020
What length of time were the flood waters were present in these same areas?
-- Select One -- �
SECTION TWO
Have you, or any previous owner or tenant, installed any flood proofing or protection on the
property?
Yes No Unsure
If you answered "Yes" to the previous question, please indicate which measures you believe to have
been implemented at your homelstructure or property. Check all that apply:
❑ Elevated Utilities ❑ Sandbagged Perimeter of Structure
❑ Water -Proofed Outside Walls ❑ Elevated Building
❑ Re -Graded Yard or Landscaping Designed
RemovelRedirect Flood Waters
❑ [Permanently] Removing or Relocating
Contents Above Anticipated Flooded Areas
If "Other" selected please provide detail:
❑ Other: Please Detail
If you made any selections under the previous Question, do you believe that these activities
benefited your building/structure?
Yes
-) No
Unsure
If you made any selections under Question 8, and you believe they were successful, please share
why you feel this way:
Monroe County RLAA B-4 February 1, 2020
Is the building/structure currently covered by a flood insurance policy?
0 Yes - A National Flood ) No Not Sure
Insurance Program (NFIP)
policy
(..i Yes - A private flood
insurance policy
Are you interested in learning more about flood mitigation (methods of reducing the risk of flooding
to a building and its contents)?
Yes No 0 Unsure
If you answered "YES' to the previous question, please provide a methodidetail how you may be
contacted:
Please feel free to share any comments, questions, or feedback you have regarding this
Questionnaire, flood mitigation, or the NFIP in general.
Monroe County RLAA B-5 February 1, 2020
Appendix C. Flood Insurance Terminology
These terms are used throughout this repetitive loss area analysis.
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): The map
published by FEMA that identifies the Special
Flood Hazard Area and provides other informa-
tion for insurance rating and regulating new
construction. Monroe County's FIRM can be
found at https:Hmsc.fema.gov
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA): The area rQE'L%,`
mapped on the FIRM as subject to the base
flood (also called the 1% chance or 100-year
flood). It is the shaded area designated with theroNE
x
letters "AE" or "VE" on the FIRM. In the
ZONE
example from the County's FIRM on the right, the SFHA is the light blue Zones AE and VE.
The grey areas are "Zone X," outside the SFHA.
The SFHA is subject to development and construction regulations and the Federal requirement
that flood insurance be purchased as a condition of Federal aid (including mortgages from
Federally -regulated or insured lenders). The VE Zones are coastal high hazard areas subject to
damage by wave action, where construction regulations are more stringent than for A Zones.
Base Flood Elevation (BFE): The elevation of the base flood in relation to sea level. In the
example from the County's FIRM above, the elevation is in parentheses after the Zone designa-
tion. "EL 9" means the BFE is nine feet above sea level. There is no BFE in Zone X, outside the
SFHA because the ground is higher than the BFE.
County Code Definitions: The flood rules for the County's unincorporated areas are in Chapter
122 of the County's Code of Ordinances. Most of the rules are required as a condition of parti-
cipating in the National Flood Insurance Program. The following provisions are for properties in
the SFHA.
Substantial damage means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of
restoring the structure to it's before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the
market value of the structure before the damage occurred. All structures that are determined to be
substantially damaged are automatically considered to be substantial improvements, regardless of the
actual repair work performed. If the cost necessary to fully repair the structure to its before damage
condition is equal to or greater than 50 percent of the structure's market value before damages, then
the structure must be elevated (or flood proofed if it is nonresidential) to or above the base flood
elevation (BFE), and meet other applicable NFIP requirements. — Section 122-3.
Substantial improvement means any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of
a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before
the "start of construction" of the improvement. This term includes structures which have incurred
"substantial damage," regardless of the actual repair work performed. — Section 122-3.
Monroe County RLAA C-1 February 1, 2020