Loading...
Item H2 J �� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS County of Monroe � ��r�i �r � s�� Mayor Heather Carruthers,District 3 The Florida.Keys Mayor Pro Tem Michelle Coldiron,District 2 Craig Cates,District 1 David Rice,District 4 Sylvia J.Murphy,District 5 County Commission Meeting June 17, 2020 Agenda Item Number: H2 Agenda Item Summary #6630 REVISED BACK-UP AY OF MEETING BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: Building TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Karl Bursa(305) 453-8759 10:00 A.M. AGENDA ITEM WORDING: A presentation by Woods Hole Group detailing their ongoing review and technical findings of FEMA's Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Monroe County and direction to develop meal materials. ITEM BACKGROUND: As part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Risk MAP study for South Florida, PRELIMINARY Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) for Monroe County were released on December 27, 2019. These maps show FEMA's preliminary data on Flood Zones and required Base Flood Elevations for Monroe County which will replace the effective 2005 maps once they are finalized and adopted by the County. During the week of January 27th, 2020, FEMA held Preliminary Map Open House Meetings where the public was invited to meet with FEMA representatives and staff members from the various municipalities to discuss the Preliminary Maps and how the changes would impact property owners. Last year, in anticipation of the new maps, the Monroe County BOCC approved a contract for Woods Hole Group, Inc. to provide assistance to Monroe County Staff to review and comment on the updated FIRMS. Representatives of Woods Hole Group have been working side by side with Staff to analyze the maps and the data used to create them for any discrepancies, inconsistencies, or errors in methodology. While Woods Hole Group has not yet completed its full review of FEMA's Risk MAP study, this presentation is an in-progress update to brief the BOCC on some of the more relevant findings their review has produced thus far. Woods Hole Group has also been in communication with the consulting group, Ransom, hired by Fair Insurance Rates in Monroe (FIRM) to review the Risk MAP study and the Preliminary FIRMS. This presentation includes an update on key study components identified and being evaluated by Woods Hole Group together with Ransom's input. Further, during the FEMA Open House Meetings, FEMA staff agreed to review Woods Hole Group findings prior to the formal appeal process. Woods Hole Group noted inconsistencies both in method of risk modeling and in areas identified that need additional adjustment during their review. The review has evaluated various components of FEMA's Risk MAP study, including: • Storm selection • Statistical analysis of storm sets • Wave model validation • ADCIRC+SWAN model mesh resolution • ADCIRC+SWAN modeling of reefs • Overland modeling of mangroves • Transect spacing & location for overland modeling • Topography Early findings from the review indicate potential inconsistencies with standard practices on key components of the Risk MAP study and with available data used to support FEMA's study. While further review of these issues is ongoing, the scale of impacts to the Preliminary FIRMS ranges from the entire County to individual neighborhoods. This presentation will provide additional information regarding the study components reviewed, issues of concern, independent analyses performed, the impact and scale of the issues and recommended next steps. On May 4, 2020, County Staff and Woods Hole Group submitted some of these findings to FEMA requesting that FEMA reconsider the Preliminary Maps in advance of the start of the required notice in the Code of Federal Register (CFR) and the appeal period, which is expected to begin in the fall of 2020. It was hoped that early coordination with FEMA regarding Woods Hole Group's findings could help to limit the need for an appeal of the Preliminary FIRMS, while still maintaining the County's ability to appeal, if issues remain with the methods used by FEMA to develop the maps. Staff received a reply from FEMA on June 11, 2020 addressing each of the 21 comments Monroe County and Woods Hole Group had on the Preliminary Maps. In each case, FEMA respectfully declined to make any adjustments or changes to the Preliminary Maps and analysis as it is currently presented. Therefore, staff are seeking direction for Woods Hole to develop appeal materials. Monroe County sent a request to FEMA on April 20, 2020 asking FEMA to delay the start of the Appeal Period for the Flood Insurance Rate Maps in light of the COVID-19 Pandemic and the resulting challenges it presented. Staff received a reply from FEMA on June 1, 2020 respectfully declining to delay the Appeal Period's start. Based on this communication, Staff was able to create an updated timeline for the Flood Insurance Rate Map Reviews, Appeal, and Approval as shown below. � H.2 � � �, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS County of Monroe � ��r�i �r � s�� Mayor Heather Carruthers,District 3 The Florida.Keys Mayor Pro Tem Michelle Coldiron,District 2 Craig Cates,District 1 David Rice,District 4 Sylvia J.Murphy,District 5 County Commission Meeting June 17, 2020 Agenda Item Number: H.2 Agenda Item Summary #6630 BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: Building TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Karl Bursa(305) 453-8759 10:00 A.M. AGENDA ITEM WORDING: A presentation by Woods Hole Group detailing their ongoing review and technical findings of FEMA's Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Monroe County. ITEM BACKGROUND: As part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Risk MAP study for South Florida, PRELIMINARY Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) for Monroe County were released on December 27, 2019. These maps show FEMA's preliminary data on Flood Zones and required Base Flood Elevations for Monroe County which will replace the effective 2005 maps once they are finalized and adopted by the County. During the week of January 27th 2020, FEMA held Preliminary Map Open House Meetings where the public was invited to meet with FEMA representatives and staff members from the various municipalities to discuss the Preliminary Maps and how the changes would impact property owners. Last year, in anticipation of the new maps, the Monroe County BOCC approved a contract for Woods Hole Group, Inc. to provide assistance to Monroe County Staff to review and comment on the updated FIRMS. Representatives of Woods Hole Group have been working side by side with Staff to analyze the maps and the data used to create them for any discrepancies, inconsistencies, or errors in methodology. While Woods Hole Group has not yet completed its full review of FEMA's Risk MAP study, this presentation is an in-progress update to brief the BOCC on some of the more relevant findings their review has produced thus far. Woods Hole Group has also been in communication with the consulting group, Ransom, hired by Fair Insurance Rates in Monroe (FIRM)to review the Risk MAP study and the Preliminary FIRMS. This presentation includes an update on key study components identified and being evaluated by Woods Hole Group together with Ransom's input. Further, during the FEMA Open House Meetings, FEMA staff agreed to review Woods Hole Group findings prior to the formal appeal process. Therefore, staff are seeking BOCC direction and Packet Pg. 1643 H.2 endorsement of sending these findings to FEMA prior to the appeal process, in hopes that FEMA will utilize this information to remedy inconsistencies found by Woods Hole Group, both in method of risk modeling and in areas identified that need additional adjustment. The review has evaluated various components of FEMA's Risk MAP study, including: • Storm selection • Statistical analysis of storm sets • Wave model validation • ADCIRC+SWAN model mesh resolution • ADCIRC+SWAN modeling of reefs • Overland modeling of mangroves • Transect spacing & location for overland modeling • Topography Early findings from the review indicate potential inconsistencies with standard practices on key components of the Risk MAP study and with available data used to support FEMA's study. While further review of these issues is ongoing, the scale of impacts to the Preliminary FIRMS ranges from the entire County to individual neighborhoods. This presentation will provide additional information regarding the study components reviewed, issues of concern, independent analyses performed, the impact and scale of the issues and recommended next steps. County Staff and Woods Hole Group have submitted some of these findings to FEMA requesting that FEMA reconsider the Preliminary Maps in advance of the start of the required notice in the Code of Federal Register (CFR) and the appeal period, which is expected to begin in the fall of 2020. Early coordination with FEMA regarding Woods Hole Group's findings could help to limit the need for an appeal of the Preliminary FIRMS, while still maintaining the County's ability to appeal, if issues remain with the methods used by FEMA to develop the maps. Monroe County sent a request to FEMA on April 20, 2020 asking FEMA to delay the start of the Appeal Period for the Flood Insurance Rate Maps in light of the COVID-19 Pandemic and the resulting challenges it presented. Staff received a reply from FEMA on June 1, 2020 respectfully declining to delay the Appeal Period's start. Based on this communication, Staff was able to create an updated timeline for the Flood Insurance Rate Map Reviews, Appeal, and Approval as shown below. Packet Pg. 1644 H.2 Updated Schedule l 3 lull. i Jul, Aug- SOP- Ort Ncnm [7 C. JAn. Fora- MA( Apr_ MAy �1 lu 5. E lu'I- � Aug ``s, &P- a t viti eeixd Perim) €t�'t+rr!es l i yRul I �rpe€ar Period.daogawry � I I I :r�raaaraa�iiry orxaplaarrce Period 3 I ffertrv�+FIMs Recekved • Schedule is earliest possible the County could expect Effective EIRI'4 Assumes the pre-appeal period ,activities began on June 1, 2020 Assumes no appeal or comments received PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: On August 21, 2019, the Monroe County BOCC approved a contract for Woods Hole Group, Inc. to provide assistance to Monroe County Staff to review and comment on the FEMA Draft Flood Maps for Monroe County. On September 18, 2019, Monroe County Floodplain Management Staff delivered a review of the Draft Maps,proposed changes, and initial reactions/findings of Staff at the monthly meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. On January 22, 2020, Monroe County Floodplain Management Staff delivered an update on the Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps and the Consultation Coordination Officer(CCO) and Public Open House Meetings. On April 20, 2020, the Monroe County BOCC, through Chief of Floodplain Regulatory Operations Karl Bursa, sent a letter to FEMA requesting an 18-month delay to the start of the Appeal Period for the Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Packet Pg. 1645 H.2 On June 1, 2020, FEMA sent a letter declining the Monroe County BOCC's request for delay of start of the Appeal Period. In this communication, FEMA also provided the County with an updated timetable showing the approximate beginning of the Appeal Period in September of 2020 following the conclusion of Pre-Appeal activities. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests Woods Hole Group forward their complete technical findings to FEMA in advance of the Appeal Period to support reconsideration of methodology used in risk modeling and for selected areas of Preliminary Maps. DOCUMENTATION: Timeline 03 2020 Preliminary_Map_Review_BOC_Mtg_3-18-2020 Preliminary_Map_Review_BOC_Mtg_6-2-2020 v4 FINANCIAL IMPACT: Effective Date: N/A Expiration Date: N/A Total Dollar Value of Contract: N/A Total Cost to County: N/A Current Year Portion: N/A Budgeted: N/A Source of Funds: N/A CPI: N/A Indirect Costs: N/A Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts: N/A Revenue Producing: N/A If yes, amount: Grant: N/A County Match: N/A Insurance Required: N/A Additional Details: N/A N/A REVIEWED BY: Assistant County Administrator Christine Hurley Completed 02/28/2020 1:24 PM Packet Pg. 1646 H.2 Rick Griffin Completed 02/28/2020 1:27 PM Steve Williams Completed 02/28/2020 2:54 PM Budget and Finance Completed 03/02/2020 8:22 AM Maria Slavik Completed 03/02/2020 9:44 AM Kathy Peters Completed 03/02/2020 5:21 PM Board of County Commissioners Completed 03/18/2020 9:00 AM Board of County Commissioners Pending 06/17/2020 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 1647 :poddnS o} s6uipuid 10 uOIIBIuasaad0008 Nn ) ozoz £0 auiiawl-L :ivawLi3euv N r r_ a ion LU < a a � c� a 1 � 1 • LL m m 'Scp ru +� �! ru E ' M r Gfi L +� ��� � r � • um • ICY LY � • R IT J , i E *� + co �' • py • v2 + Ll • � '�� ' i • i � f 10 uoi}e}uasaadOOOS Nn ) OZOZ-9�-£ BIW OoeMainab deW Aieulwilaad :}u ell'Ve}}�y N r a Y � a W W L O u V da O vLI Of 4 O � 3: LL u_ L am z D � O a a W u �I 0� L - L O oo < V42 x a E > V � 4� 401 0 � � 0 ra o Q CL cc . 1e u011e}uesead0008 Nn ) OZOZ-86-£ 61w 008 Main8N—dew—Aieulwilead :Iueuay3ePV c vt coo d y Y 1 a x , M Q� }m W M O a r O •� p _O �7 Ou O O 06 � � -->' zz � � — Q Q O U o + + +, O S � U U u O L C) C) > O Q 2T � � Q cn Q Q O c6 2 U w U L N m 9t Ln Qo � cn LL 10 u011eIuasaad0008 Nn ) OZOZ-84-£ 61w 008 MainaN-dew-Aieulwilaad :juowLj3ejjy r LO N r 2 � a Q� e c� M a a � ~ • 4-1 v 4� � ° � _ LLI v •� 4� 00 �ui V LL. - a ) LL � Q O OTC " a� F Q E •� 0° a� OLLo Q- Q L-. Q Q O O x w w 0 _ LL LLo c6 I Ocu cu cuc6 •— c6 (1) cv C _ rl N M I_f) lD r-.. CU Q -r,-ai 0- ca O LL L z Q V 10 u011eIuasaad0008 Nn ) OZOZ-84-£ 61w 008 MainaN—dew—Aieulwilaad :Iuauay3BPV N L' to N r 2 � a � N a u — a ate-+ > O cn O • 4 C6 � OC— V •� t/) r v •�--+ 1 cn 06 c6 ca t A '— QL v — O Q � U Q to to ate-' Ca M Q ro m cn (B N N Q O F •t�A _ro I � O > v _ _O '� 0 �p � +-, Q Ca ---' _ i Q •v 0 W v O '� w ro F O CA_ Ln � O v_ ' O O cn O L � • oC s +-' .L-) Q cc — 0 IL IL G LL I Q s 3: 2 G� o � W LL • • 0 10 u014e4uasaad33O8 Nn ) OZOZ-86-£ 64W O08 Mainau—deW Aieulwilaad :4uOw43e44d s� S� R s � a C x r'— i • • CL O v j m p v }' .- v N -0 rL. i � 4-j v m Q v o LL O o° � z r3 w Qj V 0 O CAA v O '''' v v i caCA < v �' G .0 v v F O 2 � o v O Q 06 N o O DC U n cn � c6 U > _ Qj LLJ _ v > v O _ LLI LL • 10 u011eIuasaad0008 Nn ) OZOZ-84-£ 61w 008 MainaN—dew—Aieulwilaad :Iuauay3BPV it LO to N r 2 � a m c� a C 0 C6 Lf) « U Q C— `. 0 cn CAA ,� Q W c6 co LL CU � Q � Q � QL � m Q Q Q Q ca 0 Ln 0 C: _0 oQ � J 0 � Q 2 0 o � w � L o (1) _0 J 4-J 0 C U 0 cn ra U O cn = O 00 Q '� Q. 0 U U Q) cn Ln o6 au 06 -0 ) C37 CL c6 3: u E _0 LU i o O v 10 u014e4uasaad0008 Nn ) OZOZ-86-£ 64W 008 Mainau-deW Aieulwilaad :4uOw4:De44d cc N = LL � a X LL � a d- � ca r Ln z .> 00 00 i Cl d- o N r Q � aMJ N 00 i i cl � r +.+ O Ca E O 0 r,. U UU M Ln � _ ry a u U fB N V) ;? � L � a � ca 00 u Ix > (D ° vi m W .« O r� cl E d- 6 }'CL LLI z LL ~ 1 0- Wu *-x ci OL — c� J .93 41 W z O 4 � .� - V� a V E a LIG E () .= L J , W ..� 4 LL to ff° , a {4 J LL CL n D W d_ L n Ja F LL 3 V 10 uOl4e4uasaad0008 Nn ) OZOZ-86-£ 64W 008 Mainau—deW Aieulwilaad :4uOw43e44V to LO N Q j U to _ c6 a ra� c6 O +� Y O ra O C6 — c6 cn _ L U C6 O � -0 -0 r 'c6 ra a--+ cn -0 L-. a--+ O � � can � raO -0 _0cu � -0 c6 Q c6 c6 c6 U ' QL ra ra 'o Cl) °) O wca > E C. LL > O c6 cn c6 M LL 'C4 J 00 tea. M O Ol Ol Ol Ol O `` r-I r-I O1 fV i V ra LL M I� I7� iO `` a-J C1A �- U V ,- U C. a1 L O Q Q C) - a a '� • 0 � E2 3 • _ ► W W o fV O M O 00 0) O a) O Ln O M } e cc N ,Jj f�7 f�7 f�Y 3 a C O �4 C e 10 u011eIuasaad0008 Nn ) OZOZ-84-£ 61w 008 MainaN—dew—Aieulwilaad :Iuauay3BPV ,- LO N +� _ O _ 2 T _0 O � C a E CU ,V cn E -0 — W a � � � •c6 � O cn Q > -c co = > a- - �7 N co N N OO LD � r m L •■ O rD r pp 0! Q OO O r`.. C r W r. m rn rn « CV L t N r — N 00 G1 � � r — � W A� N rn W T Or Q7 N C r4 vi � r x � z 10 u014e4uasaad33OS Nn ) OZOZ-86-£ 64W O08 Mainau—deW Aieulwilaad :4uOw43e44V co -0 LO = 0Ln N .� CUZ CL - Cu �, Q Q OD -0 - -� -� 4 E 4 E r L CU C r O Ln (1) CU Q O O , r LL , , - *A ............. ............... . OD 0LL U a co 0 � r m LL Q L ° � J m LL r > ♦ " O m Co rn rn O � � cN oQ o 0 0Q . �. a0 N r a0 (w) N61aH ane o (s} poiaad anent o o CO c o _.. LL '- l o �' �_ (a r = co cn cn u� 3 OL C C C o Sd C 1e u011eIuasaad0008 Nn ) OZOZ-84-£ 61w 008 MainaN—dew—Aieulwilaad :Iuauay3BPV a, LO to N r 2 � a m c� a c6 c6 %O � v7 � ° O0 O v Q v v 0 Q � i v 4-' O ' o � _ L v ° 4 � > ° N . v _0 X �' O O ca v � ° v Z O o v co v c� CL E E O O _ GJ c6 • Mm v > pa pp E ° Q+r � Q v LL v N m 0 O � Q L v Vf v a-=+ • O � O v n a `^ z O woo v Q � 'gin E : C6 M v �, > �O v v O N c6 v O z � — O V �' O Q �, dJ v �' C v o o ° o v � O p = U v N Ln 10 u014e4uasaad33O8 Nn ) OZOZ-86-£ 64W O08 Mainau-deW Aieulwilaad :4uOw43e44d o c� N O 0 N a •- N > O O O m O v) E a� n a� 4 ca � LU 44 in +J N '2 ul O � on W N Vf A 7 Q � (AM a-J O e �+ O N 10 u014e4uasaad33O8 Nn ) OZOZ-86-£ 64W O08 Mainau—deW Aieulwilaad :4uOw43e44d cc N 2 � a as �a � a • • im a-J LU44 L • O ' a-J � L ul s q L •N �r 4-J Q � o V � a-+ a-+ NI - - 10 u011eIuasaad00O9 Nn ) OZOZ-84-£ 61w 008 MainaN—dew—Aieulwilaad :Iuauay0ePy N cc N � a as � 3 g,. t hcFvl4� i W • 44 r � + i i 0 4-j �d I'J1tr��111� (Ilffl��lr[Illil,ll" � Ilf(IIi1lf!!!��c,th Vf nip i ii IJt1�ti�"I(I'I'Ill�i�K�iui�llllli(J�si 6E�u��4�°6i����YiUt���i 7 �u. ,f m a-+ Vf • a-+ N}y f� r s 2 10 uoi}e}uasaadOOOS Nn ) OZOZ-9�-£ BIW OoeMainab deW Aieulwilaad :}uGwt43ellV cc N � 2 � a as �a x z a � a • u a-J s y • LU O N ' C, 0 T ,O V � �V O � �+ U 4 O � ca � ,- MENNEN z z SEMEN V o 4- + V� 10 u011eIuasaad0008 Nn ) OZOZ-84-£ 61w 008 MainaN—dew—Aieulwilaad :}uauay3BPV N o 0 71 0 1 0 • • . • o • 1 W • . V/ • 1 . U . . o . . g O 06 • • m •• « 1 1 • • 0 O . 1 W LLI • 1 • • V/ • CD J " W " • • o a . 1 • " J v , 1 1 (A1 . O � � o 1 1 0 1 1 " CD 1 1 � W • • 8 �il sO 00 ° J. . o . . o a CD O 4 - • • o .N CD a--+ 14 c O ((f V U00 g � J » U w » (880AVN'u)nal3 10 u011eIuasaad0008 Nn ) OZOZ-84-£ 61w 008 MainaN-dew-Aieulwilaad :Iuauay3BPVLO to to N r 2 � a m o O a CL c6 v OCL +_+ > O c6 +�-+ av-+ . N a — O N O N +-+ C6 N v m N o O E ° U o?S v p CL (A - o E °o >- o c4-ji) N 4-j v ♦..+ v w v i O Z > O N N v +� v7 � v7 v c6 O j. v — Q 6 4-j E 4-j v U c6 06 � v v � � v v7 O > o O U o > a) � N O i i v O O v O V av-+ cn N m06a-+ E LL v7 c6 N v N v O O O N Q rq � N — ,u .� O O O fV Q) LUIn °' _ `� _ _ E — v Ln Q a v o v m'> ca w o = O Q O dJ +, 0 U �C >� N Q Q cn rn rn 10 u014e4uasaad33OS Nn ) OZOZ-86-£ 64W o08 Mainau—deyy Ajeulwilaad :4uOw43e44d _ c� = O O O O N ate-+ � O i a a) o � O C: C CL ca •— - > • Ou j, > 0 C: O ' IE • z LLI • U r' • • CC • • ..• • • • � CO r N • LLI `J • • • •. • • • • LL N O • • • • • -a J Q N Z • U � r N CO • a+ • d 10 uoi}e}uasaadOOOS Nn ) OZOZ-9�-£ BIW OOBMainab deW Aieulwilaad :}uGwt43e}}y N r 2 � a N N W+ T I� (Y (T1 V a u�p N [V QY QY T W N LL LL, s of O � � w O O � u. W � t6 V N O N eG fLn (y C'a N (B4+}AtlN'IC1 kana�tai�/I/4 rBBClndrl i°�i.na��areryn. s , \ W � l `\ 7C W ♦' n n w \� ♦ J C ` IW ♦ \ ♦♦LLLI " h- Zr \ ,- ♦ `J Q .i \ r ♦ e' r. ♦ \ W � 0 w ♦� � � G7• _ ( Co. � � � r ` dy a?C W 47 r x LL ' R cri IL W C Wv4ld) y U. M 10 u014e4uasaad33O8 Nn ) OZOZ-86-£ 64W O08 Mainau—deW Aieulwilaad :4uOw43e44d N Q' 2 ' co t__ v �a a C T i fd� c i 0. 0 t i O a - r y Ja mch C u ri 0 Z Q cm to ice.. V DC '_ _ C) to SC 1e u011eIuasaad0008 Nn ) OZOZ-84-£ 61w 008 MainaN-dew-Aieulwilaad :Iuauay3BPV (, N r 2 � v a Y v v a a--j (6 (n L cn E v c6 — v — c0 O • N N m m o L o aA _O i O v m N • +•+ c6 N j + m •— v • N m cn v +J Lu • V iA U N v7 _Q) v7 p r i v N v7 v i v v Z v E u 4— U 4 Ln v v v v i W O > •- v E v � U — � � � t�A .— Ln p v cn L- v O v7 • CL > E v N •V O N c6 U � N O p 06 4-, Q •� v v L o v o LL w 0 -0 N O O 0 oLn u ,CA a + v v v 2. o E F v N o v O E a) Q v N N V v 10 u014e4uasaad33O8 Nn ) OZOZ-86-£ 64W O08 Mainau—deW Aieulwilaad :4uOw43e44V c z Q U + O > O L O U t�A O106 U Q U c6 cn _ra � cn `� I cn O Q U O Q ' a� w •� w a� DC �, � LL DC a AIX- - AL Z � �• Q # Y d r,a ,d 0.� J V .o 10 u014e4uasaad33O8 Nn ) OZOZ-86-£ 64W O08 Mainalj—deW Aieulwilaad :4uOw43e44d ti Cj _ 0 R' tao ter_ a C li • 40. buo LO G r� tx} n ' � � f /� ��� w • .ems i a r L„ r� 1e u01Muasaad3308 Nn ) OZOZ-86-£ 64W o08 MainaU—deW Aieulwilaad :4uOw43e44d _ o" r` !ice �r 4 d � a b [ q • f, & •��• T n - 5 0' '11;4 Q7 �� ld7 m 0 n Z ■ y T At Y 1e u011eIuasaad0008 Nn ) OZOZ-84-£ 61w 008 MainaN—dew—Aieulwilaad :Iuauay3BPV M N r 2 � a N O O a U a-:+ Q •N a--+ a) cn a) O `� aA cn U v C a) a a) CL c6 , a) >, +�-+ _ 4-j N • v v v v O 4-, O O « O aA O � � v •� O Q vLu m . i � O �' i O M • � p w O c6 E E v7 m p v O v v Op +-� >O N v7 ro O '— cn • v N a) V v > CL m o o v v o � v Q v, — a; v N o > O v O _ _ •- .0 + � � •o Q v v v N C U +.+ � — u E O p - -0 CC cn 'i V v U Q 0 V `n � :n +J 2 (AE cn w a--+ 10 uoi}e}uasaadOOOS Nn ) OZOZ-9�-£ BIW OoeMainab deW Aieulwilaad :}uGwt43e}}y N r 2 � a C6 C— > _ O >` .— M C: -0 r-I r-I a O L OU � O ON O N O +, O U c6 c -I-- Q O « C�JO U Q Q tL-.JO Q U U -0 cn L-- E I..L « O c6 � w O w 0 O O LL E � E � cn U cn ca77777, LA �r i o n! N Y , M1 > r.rF � Va Per 'y � 4 A k, Y- 10 uoi}e}uasaadOOOS Nn ) OZOZ-9�-£ BIW OoeMainab deW Aieulwilaad :}uGwt43e}}y N r 2 � a m c� a a. z r bblu = , • ° r m m i • Oit 0 M . ._ LL W �ev, Jo L.L a o eh tin di co Q 'Sit O _ � 5 O r > O 10 }. ,:. :R IL LL a 10 uoi}e}uasaadOOOS Nn ) OZOZ-9�-£ BIW OOBMainab deW Aieulwilaad :}uGwt43ellV m ti cc N 2 a as �a a AIR,:. �. 1 iy C + t R N i � C O A .x 4 4`w e d� 1 ©b � 4 w LU L w E a a x J �ti � LL 10 uoi}e}uasaadOOOS Nn ) OZOZ-9�-£ BIW OOBMainab deW Aieulwilaad :}uGwt43ellV ti m ti cc N 2 a as �a a H , �e 4 O r � ft, • i y X p. •"... JI. C'j r v `" dl W _ t 51 CL ❑ _ I � dl � o 0 • f. f�� .t. 4 �'. •m, a1 m LLJ aj J. w �VLL LN a cV __...._��11J • • s Y '77 , —' f LN CA , D W NI i wV5 a ❑ Z w Wu,� Ww ,.. cti 10 uoi}e}uasaadOOOS Nn ) OZOZ-9�-£ BIW OOBMainab deW Aieulwilaad :}uGwt43e}}y co N r 2 � a m c� a ". 1 F ra p� Q� j v r W • — 7 ,, ,,•. CJ t�ZZ CL E LL 1�rl�l W ago � F tll n >x, ul 01 17z y N '• °•'. h� O LU a _ E w = n �», a w wL1 o x • T T q I' LL LA 10 uoi}e}uasaadOOOS Nn ) OZOZ-9�-£ BIW C)OSMainab deW Aieulwilaad :}uGwt43e}}y a, N r _ o a1 ti G9 a V cp .� ca �- a m c cL • 06 w « ® LLI • O O a-j u � U Or C6 QL 'cn O CU u -0 N c c 12 as c +, b-0 r Q a w- LA y Y 1e u011eIuasaad0008 Nn ) OZOZ-84-£ 61w 008 MainaN-dew-Aieulwilaad :Iuauay3BPV c co N r 2 � a aA � o v7 v a E O a--j c6 O • 0 cn 4 v Q • v 0 LL c6 N N N ' V C6 v LL � a) c6 0 v v m o �p > N N •i t�A > a--j +-+ ' — LL U • V �' U x v N _v Ln c6 o o 0 L N C6 a--+ a--+ > E 4 .� � ' Q c N •N can o N U U N a-•' co 4-j • O CL U c6 c 4- 06 � � S CC E 'v w .i O O � � \ LL Ln c6LL v +-+ v L u m +•+ o QJ v N o LL N _0aA O E E 06 Q E Qo O Ln -C +r c E > � �c6 v ca v Q a °� U O 4-' � ro � � O U U O -C can = t7 cn 0 U N — 10 u014e4uasaad33O8 Nn ) OZOZ-86-£ 64W O08 Mainau-deW Aieulwilaad :4uOw43e44d cc N � a as •� a O • a--+ LU L E r ' W^, r b E W L W O •� R J ateJ O co 4-J L � b-0 s .� u V N ,v U 10 uoi}e}uasaadOOOS Nn ) OZOZ-9�-£ BIW OoeMainab deW Aieulwilaad :}uGwt43e}}y N >. N c6 '� CAA � •� O , O O 06 QL c6 cn ca u n > O O +, O O rl-. Ln cV Ln M k rf) u, O J 06 aA V RZI- N V ra N � U 0 0 10 u014e4uasaad33O8 Nn ) OZOZ-86-£ 64W O08 Mainau—deW Aieulwilaad :4uOw43e44d cc N 2 a as �a a Q rl ❑M QD ?� O • O LU 06 O E r N s w g CL 0 - ONO CL o Q � 0 Q .O W � � w O O MLjo :- o a� o ,+,, oc w L . w 10 u014e4uasaad33O8 Nn ) OZOZ-86-£ 64W O08 MainaII—deW Aieuivailaad :4uOwg3e d cc N 2 � a W � LL �' a C_ R � Uf mN¢Lu a o w �o ED ¢ ', • P d w o�w G7 w i V �X _ t ■ N bb 2 J �UuI O V r-`fir. I R7 N Q G s � U? m �a N d W W a w 5 W C w Q o � Q 0 w fG d Ln CD W m W co EJ Ol v iti -a 0� 10 u014e4uasaad33O8 Nn ) OZOZ-86-£ 64W O08 Mainau—deW Aieulwilaad :4uOwg3e 4y N � ' r• LO �Y ■ • �� �' : d 'y:r y-r uj �hr� ❑ ur r V P r.t�S''�:'►. Q o n /� • L ^ µ r Y r fN �[ � Li bt ti[c [t[I VI 1 i O ■ 4a. � � �.. � uj � m ■ � i e Y; ��� y�ice. q bb Ln V y r �.■ c QO W ¢S J O � O w �4 � C o R-;.- ►� J o o w LO Z i o • • P� I T - En bb CD rr ■ �' r :y era-:r k��°�" � .. K b ,Ja�+a �` '� x,,.,T■ � r � iT �1I �L O h Q Q J a) U cu Wwt aY # v W ED cr W a �"t r ■.. 11 !' L ■"14 �_ W uj LL � ■ LL co J O w � ■ W a �L r.. CO W Q C7 J • a Y ■ LO -a a - o LL • p�yj [] Z 7 jkr i, LL O 7 ■ d 10 u014e4uasaad33O8 Nn ) OZOZ-86-£ 64W O08 Mainau—deW Aieulwilaad :4uOwg3e 4y w wuj r M a 4 LL r e, i .l r - IL 13 ' o yLU N Q S '1 '� r . QO W Q S N Q d • O W O o W AL Ile mob av 4ik u r a Em bb O r` :6 P CL �. cu { U C W An • LL y a W Lu iL +m ' 7- w a w CD o w Ili s�� GD L .a a 10 u014e4uasaad33O8 Nn ) OZOZ-86-£ 64W O08 Mainau—deW Aieuivailaad :4uOwg3e 4y ti ' w r T .IN r V . LO a o w LL � 'r ■� to ' "�e'" •. }pre ' .. ■ 4 „ • mtw a Y„` 1 Lu .A .''' :ail,'. •^, 'i � Qo W ._ rt 1 j �^yr: `�` � J � ti •ABIW Ile LOt Em tw mo CL LO r' w t k ■ Q *r n■ . J w 1 c w � �\ W w e-/ z 242 N w I fro' � Y . • � vw r` W 2 ■•yam Q Qtix, _f O Q 2d4 + C 40 r cn. to Lu /f Q J r 6l LL w CV Cd c Z - "° w a w •� m _ w N, fl r Im % a y '� � 2 IO cr IL CL Q i W LL i 10 u014e4uasaad33OS Nn ) OZOZ-86-£ 64W O08 Mainau—deW Aieuivailaad :4uOw43e44d 00 00 LO r r do• '- o ❑ W d LL i •a.J• ty x9 L lL bbr IT } y� L Z Di r cn IV- 1 F.. tl7 a ■ � ASS ,„• � J ❑ Z J / 7 r � ➢ tI, i �• �� �St!}t�6� a��tV YIII I�I���,liw�l��it t w,."'w � 4ri sr W LL Nit i f ^ ��■ eu ^ 1` I i7 LLLL w D w • a., CN .. E a: Y ^ r r Lt r 4- ■ c / / 7 d r O W RS J N ■ f pr d L CD -a a w ;^ �'� W 1 10 u014e4uasaad33O8 Nn ) OZOZ-86-£ 64W O08 Mainau-deW Aieulwilaad :4uOw43e44d a, 00 . �,. cc i �• `� 4 ek, , 16 - o r n r x r a o A d ir ici + F •• +: LL o " _ +> ►r"� _" Yl fF F - 0` `a j Ol cm CL O - �■ re k I + r � • I ": �r � �• 'I V � .. it •� M •� ii N b- o III "; / s LyeLU — LU f co 0 N � i W r .. W UL baL q+ c40v J�lr �r co l wdL �C LL- r n ' N w • y 11 -a m a a Y C g W '• W d CO W '� 5d 1 J I L1 W 31 ' i 1e u011eIuasaad0008 Nn ) OZOZ-84-£ 61w 008 MainaN-dew-Aieulwilaad :Iuauay3BPV c N r 2 � a aA �, �_ Y a c6 E Q O p V V v O E E O Q — « v C Q N w4-0 v O O v v O V U •� 4— v c6 =C — m — v �O � _v Z O O i UQ O v v � i 0 Q E o cn m Q U 4-j N • E O v v '� O U o2S v O w O O O • � U • 0 C 0 > Q 0 u O •C - LU V Q .� > � LL cc w E Lu v aA V N av-+ v ,max can I..L Vf QJ W O G� 0 cn � w dJ GJ LL +-j v N O N m 0O v Q — N m c • 0 •N 4-' O N � Q v V a 4--J a� Q ' > 0 U 0 E of 4-j V v a W W L O = Q V Qa O w 0 O 3: ° L L • Q > O W0 ° � J [� (f) - L m O � Q V � t� s V o Q a� � W , ► N ?±,, w W 1Z J L i. Ow � 7� ,N i�' aLLJ � . a } Z W w i N Q m 4, ' y ►.-W J Z' V W o O 7 W J ZW a N • a a p C6 > > O o Cu O O '> a) o o aA co .— _ •+-' O Q Q o U cn c6 U � ro a� E � s cn cn °o a� a� Q °� ro O + + c 2 �' — E U U o O a oc o o o > co oca U w N m Ln (,o r--. w LL U cn M � 4j Qj 4-1 0 tlQj U Ln -� O 4� •— � oC zo'; �g�o��:��a c6 IPr4 10 . W m JLU u` �. .� QL Cu OTC " a� Q •� -0 � a� 2 �_ — � O � 'CU � O O 4-J Q L +� Q Q .� O O x w w 0 _ LL LL Q-o ra c6 -0 Cu ._ O (1) C O O .� (1) Q � — U cv m ern (10 r-.. Q CU O LL L z Q V z O _O O O C— U N +, O Q lz U N C- a--+ LU .� ro ro U Q U — }, — O CL Q N U � � M M ' cn ca N N O }' }' ro L c6 }, > to O O R. 0 O O — U — cn cn U ,� I c6 r i Q U `� W U � O ca CA w � � O r � cn cn O M 0O cn — CAA — +� .— Q � v — — LL O O '� cc Q LL M .� IL IL G LL I Q s 3: 2 G� o � W LL • • 0 v i CL bo C) O v lz m Q v }' j a }, cn -0 _v R 4 v 4-' OU v C OC Q v o O Z: a v W V � � � O CAA � O •''' v •� � v Q) � •� v icn N v v _ 0 ca v �' cc Z O G •V v v O _N - '� O c6 Q a a o� N O � U OC N •U cn � c6 E > _ (a) _ v > v � O Q � � _ > z � Q v � pwo � � _ � � ° � LLI LL • C O C6 L r) U Q C- `. O cn CAA ,� Q co � � Q o Ln � o _0 o � � � J O � � o O rl � +� cn Q O � w .O _0 J O O 0 CU 0 U 1 U Cu "� — U ,ra O C. c\n -0 �, Q � = O °o > 2 LLI o 06 cn _0 (1) C37 p CL w E . u E .� � > � C6 UO � � cn � L � zu0Cra- � uLL i o O v fti• LL h � x z ^, LL W L N cc 0 (3) (3) �j � CL 00 a Cl 00 • Cl a Co 0 Q0 N O 00 +� IE O � U) O E E v Ov M N Lr) rlrL o � — l0 a o fa � 0 i CL W O Ca E Cl O ro m C. 4-, E o CL w 2 �. w c z F- °LU a µ� LL V U) Z Q O ` V a C) .E c N W 4 a a G U 0a o a mo Z � : c W Q w o m a w w V W U O E c� N �O N 4-j N + f6 M Q Q N LL N F (6 L 9 a--+ ` a--+ cn O U O O Q a ' O N O Q O � CL N a--+ AT Ln a--+ Q s a CL N CL V) 4-J w O a N C: Q N U O .N cD O N —a N O V) o ° C: }' o rO U N > 4- .� d r-I N M L O n•9 � W o U a N Qj w > a L.L Y � � E I I G y 1 SSS u u p J J � X Q ro b � y a � W R.-� E O so o i N V O s cu m ++ 4 ,p O s m o a 4-1E :� r- o M co 3 a .Q ,o a, W U 3 u U ajm � 0 -0b.0 i W a� s o L- 4- -0 m -0 H aj s a 0 m p i W H i • H • .� 41 f0 .O 0 V oC V • 0 A A N 4-1 ,,O O 4-1 0 `' 4-1 h o � Q a� cn v r O � m V� o U a r, w a � � S Z Y 2 L nV// 'x '� �'°�''�•o r° � ei Q �f f W �JAd gg = O Q J7 A Q Y _ W G 4-) (n r f 11 1 � Y 4•r 3 � � a .. � � � 8 •� _I O ;. .'4[ggrgnud.mmPm13 U V V i O N O o p CD � E ry � i V) a 2 J N 7LU O O J > o • LL }+ cu cu V) •— m mE cu i m U �a rl N r 8 m U • LL _ 0 uiv g O ro m E : u • 2 g TM � O m - oo -.. O CT) LM a) O W 4-1 O O � V � r m = o a o a 23 n l' T T T" T U O - ► O a o n T 4-1 Imo; .V) m n o T a q fJ • 1 rp p loll W P io W N r0 Z o ry Bl p N {III w ° v v v v v [sK1 spuiM-sn5—44 Vl w @) 00 bA •N O C wv � LL •i a a•+ 0 CD i ++ Q ate+ • fa a..� r mN H •� �` "' ci N L bD Y N Z � • 0 o a� N N m • 0 uj "� V + m N v EC _ O V a © m a r1 CA CD V C N 0 m m V N a o rn m m m ©; O +� c _ J E o � r� ?. � �' W s a a c o " a mrl 1 ® in n a S, ® A © 7 m o a ca ca r 0 O C7 • I o o o L^ N N F m N L V rID CD m � o r m d Q 4 CD O v � aN v 4—j m ' ' T ID /� m m CD U a a ry N ry � ca o ® o 0 0 - - © ©� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c+ cam rs 10 ry u-s - U) La T • V/ O a� 4-, v C6 U CL U cn v Ln N Ln c6 0-01 E '� � � N •� v i v U +� v U v v O � O .O `n Ov v a) Ln U v � c c m ._ � v \ O L- v O N N — E j � v i O � O v �, +•+ � U U 0 >. X C: E Q O cn i •N v •V N E +v+ Lu E E v o LL o N N cn i O v N � G� U � C6 G� v E O O 'Z c of >. •— O N •�„ E O a O . > `n O cn fa Z O fa Zi O c6 V — u v v v v ° >- 0. o o f— = oc oc o �n L n L n V/ 0 N 1 1 1 a-J — • �' CL • — O Q 4-j c6 v i V •O N M O � O c6 cn O 4-J ,v > c6 L av-+ L • • — v O Q) j LL Q) N v v c6 O c�i) O O M +-+ � � � cn O N • O O N c6 N v M cn v � ra O +�-+ • •cn v C) a �, � vU •� � v � M � � L I-- c� LU v v > � Q m Eo o ° L v ate--+ ° V C6 aN-+ •N o so' t6a CL c6 v O +� Q cn a N wo > v NLL .— ' >, O � c6 -� cn 0 \ cn ZO E �O 0 u •X •O D Xx of v E c6 u `� v N CL U c6 Q w cz rl rV M 4 Lyi L O O a--+ co co O O � � � �� c6 O v� (MU � � � w U 11 Ap ' ✓. (/� V� w N N Q � � 1 1 Y N � Q c� U Q 0 U d Q ou = t a_ O >' c� cn N 4- p Ln cn 4-J Q N N N E Q i N cn cn cn �. + N 4-+ N cn O �-+ N N cLn Qc N � N E N y Ln Ln �G 0 N m Ln N f0 O c-I E W L > U ■ O w Q t]A b y >. m C6 U L > U p -0 N N N � a � O d • N rn U f6 W r O -J Q ��— U O > ,N U "p m nyi W w N as LM ri �i m � Sri II1 V� o WIN .V Syr, � • i 1 O O m N CD m •— L N o }� m U � N W U LU o • U ' O CL a o 00 O " Ln o JCD N LJJ M v O - 1 N i V) a cn 0 �' CCD D�+ .; . N \ O N L V) N � ago _ o CD •- _ IM O oCD Q v O 4 O •N u N Z Q O � o ca � cn — g w U � (880AVN `1�}na13 4-j 4-, M • N O a) � M c� O 4- O OLU t u >� w L • h 0 N cn a N un N Vf � o _ o oum r O � Q) L.- N U � N N v O �0 0 � � L -0 (Uu E O O -0 I O o E — N c N � M U U o E •� O -0 O � ( � ° o .(U .� aU o Q) � > - o +� (Ucn cn E Ca J cn -k'' i m N m c/) N Ln O Q � N U r L Q N N U cn t]A N N N LU /f E c/) Q E p v U N � � T 'n cn N 4— m > > N N > 4-1 •N � O N a z 0 U CL c O c6 v > N N N0 U ku E N \ v 0O N iA 0 c6 s c6 E O L- c6 O - c6 v +-+ cn N j O •n v m v N +� M O aA E c .j N L- m G o v v v ro E v ° E �' �- E O E E p O +� N v N O °� c6 M > N � O • Q � v C C O O •� i +v-+ cn \ V N _O c6 •— v `n N Q) v � u � Q v o O N m r � m v N O O N Q c6 4— � N v N ro 7 u v O v Q v NLL .`n +•+ c6 — o N � v o �> v G� -0 u M +-J w E � = O v � O — c6 Q O O � U DC C6 N Z � c� U N c6 — >N > v � cn � •— .N N v � � o p N v 4-j +v-+ • Ln 4-j 4-j cn v — •i N N v •v O N 4 Ln � v v o •� � � Q cn c6 �' E Ln v +�-+ O O i v N Q Q v X W U -0 ' — •— i J E v X N � o •NLn > ate.., C6 L LL N 0 0 v p cO u Cf 0O +•+ v (� > a--+ dJ � : -0 �► cr w O > w rl N M o c6 _0 E m O cu -0 > LL . Ln (14 ♦ A Owl Owl O Ol Ol O u N cr � u CC� m L.L C G O .� J aA v y ` ft O Qra Q C) ua C] V cY j O . _ LU • - - _ _ _ 0 0 . E ___ w o N d' N d' N d' Cc N f c 14 - - - - - �, ccco sd c M o � O _0 cu cu ra cn (1) — 3: W O +- M O c6 U O Q > co > �7 • N 03 a 0 N co rn m I «■ = r Mco q r co co o I co � f O r � 61 CO L N N U N pp o { I L N G1 N � 00 r ,. «. rn I r � � N � r L O 00 � r 61 y O 61 N � I y � 0Lo � m r s � � N •� Q Z O - LO LO vi m � � � CD O > U U —0 4 4 E • L Q OCU > Q O O g `r#- i ........... ..... .............. 00 co o (D a �- m �- 0 +•+ '0 .— ,..> 00 `�<? �. � r-k tv O co co "r N OQ O O OQ (ur} GH aAOM o `•, r o C (s) poiaad GAB o ao C o m t� .0 E {4 z a L1 - � o 43 CDL C � .r`7 U7 rr f L L p - � C C C p SV C - C M14 L -6 O � O v Q u > O Q > � z v O U O V CL i0 > v •— v -0 co •o +m•+ v � OvLee O o v v co v CL E _ E — o 4., a.., U a.., 'v M v > O 00 O Q o 0 Ile V N N > � v cn 4-j Q. LU .v v N m .m Q i V N v • O v O v O m O o ._ CL c6 > v E — O .o > N v v o ci c6 V 4'' v o — Q , m O � 2 U N 0 O E > c6 CL O ' • O C ■ CL L- O v O C- c6 v E c6 � 4-' O c6 � • Q O � c v G � � W v • L.L O • aJ j 07 cr c w > DC (Z rl N ul E N O O O O cn C) p M ca w O v O p to C) C: _0 Q ZZ > O ca E M •— > c� ca O co � o cn � lx � O • • • LLI cl LLI LL LLI � ram. � •. • - • M�a� • • • ♦ • � u } S • • • • ���' • • jai � • • � Z AI• N • `• O W • y� ,Vs ���p . . . • L p LO LO N bz N N V r-I N LQ M _ ._ M m M • L rn , Q �i W C + • a p v m N .. ._.. _........... N a LQ LO cc •� L L C C 0 Q • O ID W In 4] W _ IQ Da ............. _. ..:.... ....__ ........ __. C LL ._.. ......... __ 0 o _ o 61 00 F- CO LO Q M N O i N 61 CO I- LD lt7 Q M N 0 N ^/ (880/1HN`I) UOIJUA9f3 AWAA (89(]AVN`}�} UOIJUAO13 J01eM s , �.'w :t `� ]C w 7 , Nco G .. LU 1 I J C w I �` .. m C V1 ` � I w x ; 7 a w ff _. w - I > x L w I 7XI w m I O r1 I uj <N +, U. w 0- W t7 x < Q C7 , � x x W c tL ` -vCL Lu a� < x w a) J iL a..+ .. N c rl (�p to kn U O 4J a--+ v v 02s O LQ m � � O a=+ bn E v i N O N C/) • ,+^j ❑ V/ N ._. N .� O p) • c � ro� ro •� fj U c � D a • _ a W _ __LLJ � LL ...... . ............... .. 61_.... OO O N� G1 M f+ (D 0 (99GAVN'IJ)ua413Aa13 JOIPAA (88©AVN`ll)U04BAGG JalBM s � - cu Ln • " � „ 1 , W W a W w _� X N �v �J T Of w w w 7 • t%. W V 0) . _ Q a O co U a �f W W CD cu T t r r W W a v+ L 4) 00 T mo O. T 'G a) C 0 M 0 ■ O O ec Yf w i O z + �- V - k W w r- 00 M � Q a T otf cti r W � aT Y aA v �_ ate-j Ul � N v Ln E v v v v v N N m O V U i t�A _O v 4-, +-+ cn • i CAA s • N O v m m m cn E N — O O v N v v Ln ' M N v v U O }' U c6 M c6 c6 Q Q O •� v v L- E v v vLn i W E ._ a) LL o ' O v cn U N N . • .� > E v N v N O p 06 j o %Ln N � U G� 4-, E v v Q c N v CA N Ln ._ v O '� v v v v •� cn c� V Q v Q N •� c c6 0 U U v L- Q O c c = DC N Q a- • CL • ■ r • • i 4-j O C- v c6 + O _+ •— _� Ln O � N O •� E Ln C Ln E G v 14-- Lu E O o .� 4-1 Ln 4-j 4- i 0 O O O v — +.+ a� •� N v 4-j �-j Q v > Ou v O G� X Lnv E Qcr �C ri N M z U U Ln O ro cn =3 c6 + O > Cl) ra L z ll O U }+ � t�A U U ra ra C6 _� cn � O QW U O Q Q) _' � > U -0 �C LL E - � �C O O LO C"J '�J t'J O6 b p � C - Q Q l v 4 \III ZCID O Q C� o Q + `n O V/ C) li C LO _ Q Q w LA LL. cn cn NCL LD aU O • o > o + a) Ct '^ ^ , W N N LDD c O 0 � O i O p N S--I 0 i O >- O Ct 3f 3E +' � « N O r-I r-I 2 � O N O O rl O M 0 ~ 1 � O 06 CsA � O O O O � O O O O CD •Q O c o N m O M o 0 00 o O � O O rq N a Q Q o Q r! Q o a Q o Q) z z z 0 z o z 0 zZo 0 O ct O O o 0 0 a m u m ca a� a� a� Z o ct oU) °o O N + ct bA , t ' � o V � M w .� J o ai ai ai ai 0 0 0 0 a! U U U U O aJ aJ aJ aJ aJ a1 aJ aJ a1 aJ aJ a1 aJ Ti _0 � �_ 72 72 72 72 72 _0 72 72 72 a) a) N N aJ aJ aJ N aJ aJ aJ aJ cN N cN N a) •in N N 'O -p U U U 'O 'O 'O U U U 'O 'O 'O 'O U U U U 'O U U U N N -p N Ln N -p -p cN N un N 45� c/) -p w w f0 f0 f0 C w w w f0 f0 C C w w w w f0 f0 f0 f0 `—� M � f0 f0 7 7 - - - 2 7 7 7 - - — 7 7 7 7 - - - — 7 — a a a p a a p a p a a a a a p a a * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * U U U O O c-I c-I ci ci ci ci ci -O ci p ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci 0 Z Z o 6 o o 0 0 o m o Z o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U r f0 � 7 aj aJ aJ a1 aJ a1 a1 a1 aJ a1 Q a1 aJ aJ aJ a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 aJ aJ y., aJ a1 y., aJ a1 y.� a1 co f>0 f>0 f>0 f>0 f>0 f>0 f>0 f>0 f>0 aJ f>0 aJ O] aJ O] f>0 f>0 f>0 f>0 a1 CD aJ CD f>0 f>0 f>0 f>0 f0 LU n1 a= C a= C a= C a= C a= n1 a= n1 Zra 7 C aJ 0 a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 aJ a1 7 aJ 7 7 aJ aJ aJ aJ 7 = 7 � a) OL a1 a1 a1 aJ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q C s Q Q Q Q s Q CT Q Q Q Q wao 000 00 0 00 w0 wawa00 00wawa0 0 0 00 0 s rl a) N N Ol N m N N N N M N N N M M N ) M M M N N M N M M M M N M N N N O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 N Q N � v N v uLn rz O •U v � � v � �Z � co� `� M o Q ono U J N j 0 LL. L.L > U }' (U ai O Q � —0 i � . - v � II U o 0 � co ro• cn DC V cn 0 a� r � �nv � Q = .C: Q v ro ca U O cm Cm p }' C E cn >, c cn C: cu ° o N m aD E U Ln r • , ,,,fin �,,,��, 1 'fit Or l to 'i Oi c. o w cv r- W s v rr N ^^� O S? f7 C7 CI C7 CJ Q O CJ 1� a ■ V Jlia ,li + • t ow tA aj C r Q a c) Q r v y apt; �1 Ln C- a--+ 06 .- � • -. O L� � U b-0 m � O o � LA Z cn U U � N � � TT II L G 4-a r G� ?O'. � � N pf q � O A� • VJ a--+ � s ,R - •N Ile �1r�A yw yT, 777fff �1, � a� 6 # a� u m .� EC- o . > Z `o Q cn U U � N � V TT � N a z N v O U 4-j 'N � � N OU � w v ate-+ v ate-+ > Ln v v woo — +J v v v cate--+ O E i O W O Z) N +� v E U O m a� E U U c6 v E OU Q Ln o E •— m v v i � O +-+ O CL v v 'ago E � v • _ r>o j w co 4-j > .� LL j `n •� OUl Ov O N L- O v • 4-0 v v a� p Ln • Q c6 O C 4- m i O v v v cn v E ate0 Ln G� 5 c Q Ln ca N aA v N O Ln O v _ ._ O (u � > > Q v Q � N _ w Q O Cti• • N C6 (6 i ate-+ f6 CL r N • Q fti• O � N N � O O O O • v •a N c6 Q N M • Lr) O CUO O • W -0 M • L ro �O > `O � o v N N a •N 4A O ca Cf rro N r • cr rl N M 4 ro > _0 � O > ,_ (o � -0 O Ov c6 ON +� c6 0 c� O > N ' O C M +j 0 Q c6 X � Q O s aD U •� v, > >O ago c6 s > E z O � t�A � �, � O � v�ago U s Q ago Q U �, c c6 � � • a� a� w o w o O � O � E E U- U cn c� > O N w O I v C - � A J A d CL ul L O Al1n t # a n m N CL � n Ilk "�° .,N •. � _ � y �iI 1 LL u pi e e rtr m 19 IM z O Ll O C7 O G uJ i_, ■ O \/f '-a �, a 0 bb LU W a 1 ba ti • " ... m v • CDrO • 04 CL C O " • g 4' tL LL V. z � � V. O O �3L1 Q) w O cr NLLJ CA -, N71 o x ' �(L a *^ CL r . aU m �.. ,, a �+ � l�.r^ ��` r m � • L N Qj L.L w M Q a C 71 g LLI n< LU CD ss w -11" O 492 -, r- FL 11 C w,� q T'�Vlll a Mo LIS YV IIB, A L. Q N 1 CL C VZZ CL E LL y J r [o y , yy Ll w w r -N, 17) irz W r � C LLJE cc n 0 _ Z3. ." .sr N 71 LA ti J t� ti 0 cc CL w w m w w .� 0 G u U r 0 0L 'cn 0 E 0 CU u —0 L CD N4 Ire r MI CV a-J X U � — b-A c r cl� co +� V) W) � T- Q c Ln a O v •Q E > (— 6 v o E aA v � +� ° Ln > .O U `n c6 �j — c6 +M-+ w (� > v > • v v LL v c6 O aA v > m •� �O e . � L � E ,� •� •v O — v C v L.L U cnE v Ln c6 fa v N O Uate-+ N Ul v O N v75 N V _0 •> N V • +-+ a-j > Ul O � +�+ O O v v .CL ra c — 06 E W .• O 4-j N Q N NLU — 4-0> v ' — v X v a� E E 06 Q E o o 4- 4- •� 4 O O +-+ +� v m Q v N V • O v N — fti• 00 CL L 0 .N O O 0 +-+ v c6 • l0 O N 4 O N c) • c a 'L LLI 4-, LL � U O O N E � v N Vf >• c • CC ri Mo r. O 0 u 4-J 0 LU 0 E 0 buo 0 > 0 4-J u 06 4-0J b-0 sro u (f) u 4-J u CL if Ln N a--� N • C: Nro c6 O O CL QL c6 u > O O 0 O Lr, +� N � m . a � ••tk 06 tw ' r. v J � U (AU U m i m ra 0 0 0 0_ m 75; O Mo N O •r. nj CN MCF) O N o O ca N o v o O ca O o 0 � v • Q O � v Q • o`' p C)Lu U LLl O cn CAA Q w • rO Q .� m= M o LJJ E Q L D • LL N �~ w E • O �- WO U O M 0 CF) U) O (7 O ^ o 0 � m m M CF) Q O w E E 0 O o d UL � M O V o O rn J 0 o 0 rn N N rn o �p o CL a-+ V I. O N bA 9QI r J > Cj CV) C)0 0 C) 0 jI r a-�+ L � O `- O • U vCL O • c) i C O .� • c6 � v • 4—j • U � � N a--+ C6 • E _O O cn `. Ln Ln ate+ v av--+-+ O v a U W U 0O LL •- 4-j . cO O C •U (J) v O v O N N • v V O Q� a--+ C6 N O cr v N .— O cn c6 a v O cr c W U (Z rl fV cn Q ❑ 0 •— $. i CL 00 p>i O ■ O N � ul N I s Lu CL 0 a icn aA O < O o NO CL � Q O 0 Q •O J � > •- W (2) LL w 4- - O -J O � ■7 �'`/ A' Q �■/ W� W W O [ 3 OC wLL W d ir � F M� '* I Ln 7, 4+r =r r � u� :I a :' � a ,,a F •,. LL L' u> 4 � v J � • m 7 ui < N Q • LU 2LL w n� o A S mil • _ CL i Q Z i n V� J c ay W co I � QCV �. LL 7 ry w J LL c Z ccz w Q ¢ O 7 x d o • J 4 0o Y W I 0 Q � Y O •' ■ d: ❑ 7 LL o \ N C. ■ � 7 IP 1 C C� rt�•� � � Q .m; ' 7 LL •}.,� y,..e d T 4n N :.w G 1 m � . ■ y l<i. N in Lu ¢L 0 C W=� 4 • J o W m LL J �w o � L ■ i • • Ln f ■ ■ • o a � o co /. ��/� • o �R�,I T J ❑ = J ■ 73 2 ■ O � F QCD rn ❑ F- ui Lu k off' •sy.• c r ■moo ca '. OQ ■ ■ `• e; �C � W • l .. �' u. ■� 1 W X4^ W ¢ RJ ■ LO r_ W ¢ O 7 x �y w Q Q Cfi L _ ix LO i Ln W r ... CIO W ¢ o n r W d x LL r 7 4 LL V n ' d d O� r o ■• '�� n n W Cdw < �❑ o • '. 0) <oW J j ow m • L J IL m • i r L i• �; � ,� r - a � � � twCL ■ x J re o 2 k 01 J aD Q c' c M� k ,I �II�I�r � •`�� W `O O w o■ aui i w W d w • , r 6 I KIM .. t7 lu LL \ N y Illll � � IG W g IL uj � a v■t t si + w .�Y 4 1 i 5� ' � �■ �' � � Sit (� " �,' ✓ 4%1J j 'N . LL a a5 t p } O M d t toa Q� s � o � J i f ^ .-atR a ■.�,� N t 2i ID 21 0 tw .r "TMw. ■ �a. d�. J ; = J CL • .. ■ ro C ! N w C r W � uj 202 w N� Z ■ � w T o vw � ■ r y� w 203 O ■.� Q a 204 1. W iN a rn 12f w ■ r W 'J r W d W j+ ■ ¢ O 7 xx IA lk to uj z LL • � o �■1 r ��, 2p'f �� � � III LO • • Via' rt ;`xi N�. D � r � „�\ � � r+� � owl � o • r J ;.,1 ",7 .o, ol r ■ o b� e - 1 ~ a W 3 r' ❑ ao � J 0 Z J Oy CLp O -� • E N U LO LL Mi v / N uj r ■ , ,� z w •� N i E a o � � T — ■ c / a _J r W c (u y ',fy W M k+ a % w „ J W W 1. cr ■ Ln ; .' • r .�. r LL t I 4 N it C o► ,I::�: J & o N ? G oul o .: gCl W ¢"'J d � Qy o W 4 %fit'�4815}ti' ` ■ O �• , S �• v a P CL A cn LLI 0 ecz --k__�� cvz ui■ w w r LL 1 �� a N W ■{ t" 1 07 } r w � r u� ' M Li 45�n 61 co N —� � {6 Li Z r IL Ln LL �■ r � c N I ¢ w ° w in d r � � I � w 3 ssz �■ sz y � i FL aA .a OL E Q O p w V V v O •� ._ E E v > +v-+ c6 m = m -C N O Q O z > . j c v V Ln O O '0 v v G� + E 4-' V U m — v O � v 0 i Up 0 a) : v O Q O p cn v 0 U v N • E p U O v U c L- W O • C)- O Q v • � O .- m ate--+ j LU a W • •� > v woo v O � v � GJ LL Q U cn p �0 v N4-j Z c E -El .N p w V — p m c6 ca V aA � > 0 U 0 L- N � V v N v � v a--+ C U •v • C6 CL 4-j v • N v C6 4-j • C6 4-j r Q • J v N N L — � v v •O O Q •Ln E c6 v N • 4-' • • 'N N v • N U • t�A c6 U C6 • LWL .CL v — i OL L- •c6 Oc6 a.., E U c6 4-J o fit a� O •o m c- • N 4-j �• v O +-j — c6 cr M Ln .• (Z r-I N N � N LO O O .0 a0 M co EW LL m c CL e cm, N N N 0 0 ■ O El 1� SO N J N N N Win' L.� ` ba r c • p L > LL > O > L - Qj O O CAA 4-, 4-jO U -1- � L u c Q - O E O E 4-+ C6 cn U � p QL O 4j vi ,v V > ELL Q O O E 0 ago 4- 0 1 LL N f6 0 U +-+ L aJ N ro Q) a--+ 4 cv a--+ 4- CO E E O N O Q L J N � C 0 U LL N ° a"'' fo f6 N L _0 a--+ C 0 Ln p 4- bA a1 } •+-+ Ln LL - m L 0 n 4- LJ 0 Q o c N L v r v u 3 a v o •° +0 0 p co f° �O v z a _ _ _ Q L v � un C 17) > QJ LO � m O a) co c>n 6 o c Cl -0 bA 0 > co aJ r U U j L bA N > 0 O O co Ln co +� v 3 � L Ln Q Qj Lnvl u m 4 v v � v a a co 0 U Ul) _ L L O LnL co .� U Ln U Ln Ln t 4.1 ro —0 4- 7 +-+ vn Q L _0 Ln Q) Ln p Ln4.1 a 4.1 �Ln w C QJ N QJ aJ OLn n3 C C Ln O Ln M1• a U 0 Q) L L _ }, fo aJ Q) Ln 0 V Q C Q) O ?� C Ln Ln7 cu Q C Ln Ln ° M1n > u Ln — Ln u 0 6 00 ?) 0 Q) Q) O 4- CU p � L +-+ L Q� a--+ Ln 0 4 N _ 4- roco t >c Q Q OQJ m 'N Cl. Q) co n Ln v v ° o o f ° ° v Q '` f6 0 u c L L C N U L Lr L C m N 'L L ro O v Q) — o a, co v L co E tin = 0 0- v � co Q) +, Ln o N v N > L c co E .U > L O Q) 4- l0 n3 > 4- L N N QJ 'a C L o co O }' N fo V7 X Q) N '� O Y bn Ln Q) N LO 0 O Q) E +- CO a) U } L co L L � 4- m > Q) 0 ro Q) > L ro L 7 7 o Ln N Ln O Ln Q) O Q O o 0oo ° vx � O x X LU > a co co Q m Lu OLxu C r ri N m L n LD I� 00 0) O1 c-I -1 -1 O o S.. v Q • o -,a o Ln o + Z Ln v o cL o 0 U Ln o U Z v o a v _ o �� o o Ln N o °Ln' Mi a cf v J L.L N t a- L O (/1 v L Qi }� O +� M1• O N ° f0 U N °CU Q f6 O Q Q -0 OLnv M1• cu OU _0 QJ _ 4- Q cu � r = L C: N C ■ •� of M1. O O u Ln U 0 c6 N m N v 0O -Ln v c6 QJ N L N ) O Ln QJ ca 3 0u ca L o 0 +' 4- i O O O O � L w C O C a ° v o U O o a) t O c N ca N U L N -0 `~ ro U M1. ° QJ LJ Q1 _N •N 4- O c1 f0 m - fa N N a1 O Q- v a N � E E co ca O N +� N v a0i cii 4- No v E ro L N o Ln o N pp Q >- 'to v V) 'ate—_, _0 v N Ln c ° hn t � N O N c N cn c 4- ca '� O > v ca Q �' v 4- L Q- bn ° cii N c fC0 QJ NN L U C U -0 4 cN6 O C Q Q � C f0 a'.' f0 -a aJ C v LnU ?�. t N N Ln CO N N � M1• N f0 - 3 N - a : W (0 C C t t t t Q t L O +' _ Lu U Ou Ln 0- N L!1 to r- 00 Ql O r-I L Q v o a a, I�1� � EE a v v� a Q) � o 0 0 N o 06 LO ul CL cNn oO C— O O +, E .� O0 0 0 E — O cu V CU U ,W �' •_ p V v � Q cu •U bn p cn +� O Oco — '� Q •� c 0 CU W O _0 cn W LL � = c6 c6 rlr OC • LO s 13 r+, a Gu H u .3 . WLL i ra'ra • 5 xxxxx �a E V O L L Linate' b w b CL u IN a �o air- i�l4� Rra U d 1 Q 4J UO S� C1A G Q _ LL O (V > O • (V U o W ul c., a-J • U Q O X ' 5L 0 -0 LL U cn N U u 0O U a) o U UCL P) oCL �' •° a� z a 4-; o 'L — O O Ln ca U Q a� o N O ca ca s o : N cn cn E E o v o N � � }� v a ac a U cn cn Lnaa CU a Q U.S.Department of Homeland Security Region IV 3003 Chamblee Tucker Road Atlanta,GA 30341 O�YA/R y � FEMA S � o�A ND StJ� IN REPLY REFER TO: Preliminary DFIRM Database/Maps Comments June 11,2020 Ms. Christine Hurley,AICP Community: Monroe County,FL Assistant Administrator,Monroe County 1100 Simonton Street, Suite 205 Community No.: 125129 Key West,Florida 33040 Dear Ms. Hurley: This letter acknowledges receipt of the letter from your office dated May 4,2020,regarding the preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps(FIRMS)and Flood Insurance Study(FIS)for Monroe County, FL issued December 27,2019. Per the subject of the letter, Un-incorporated Monroe County Preliminary Map Review Findings,twenty-one comments were included in your letter. Responses to each comment have been provided in an attachment enclosed with this letter. We encourage the continued review of the preliminary FIRMS,FIS, and supporting information. Please review and provide any comments regarding the attached responses within 30 days of this letter. Requested data may be sent to the Mapping Partner, Michael Taylor,PE, CFM,PMP AECOM 1360 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 500 Atlanta, GA 30309 If FEMA does not receive additional data from your community within the 30-day period,FEMA will proceed forward with the mapping process. FEMA appreciates your community's comments and commitment to having the most accurate flood hazard information available reflected on the FIRMS and in the FIS. If you have any questions regarding this matter,please contact Mark Vieira of my office either by telephone at 770-220-5450 or by e-mail at Mark.Vieira@fema.dhs.gov or Michael Taylor of Compass by telephone at 404-946-9488 or by email at Michael.Taylor@aecom.com. Sincerely, Kristen M. Martmenza,P.E.,TFM, Chief Risk Analysis Branch FEMA Region IV cc: Steve Martin, State NFIP Coordinator www.fema.gov bee: Jesse Munoz,Regional Mitigation Director(via email,without enclosures) Mark Vieira,Region IV RA Project Engineer(via email,without enclosures) Dewana Davis,Region IV FM&I(via email,without enclosures) Virgilio "Chris"Perez,Region IV FM&I(via email,without enclosures) John Newcomb-Thompson,RSC4(via email,without enclosures) FEDD File 2 U.S.Department of Homeland Security Region IV 3003 Chamblee Tucker Road Atlanta,GA 30341 O*?NRF rb y � FEMA o S � o ND 5k'' Attachment: Response to Monroe County 5/4/2020 Letter Slide Deck 1: Storm Selection 1) Explain why the Florida Keys were not explicitly handled. Response:The South Florida(SFL)IDS 3, Section 2 report states"For purposes of the probabilistic model, the Florida Keys are not treated explicitly.The storm population with an impact on the Keys is a combination of the storms that affect both coasts of the South Florida Storm Surge Study(SFLSSS)area; therefore,the storm population impact on the Keys is implicitly treated within the development of the other two probabilistic storm sets." The SFL IDS 1, Section 5(Chapter 3) adds,"the curvature of the shoreline in the study area can lead to multiple instances of coastline impact(i.e.,landfall and exiting events). For example,Hurricane Wilma in 2005 is classified as a landfalling storm for Monroe County and as exiting storm at Palm Beach County. The shoreline alignment complexities along the SFL counties necessitate splitting the coastline into two shorelines,each represented by an independent probabilistic model. This preserves the uniqueness of storm classifications in an effort to reduce complexity of the probabilistic model. . . .IDS 2, Section 2 will deal with the development of the optimized storm set,and the treatment of the Florida Keys will be handled through replication of storm tracks across the Florida Keys." 2) Why was a single reference point for both the east and west coast used for establishing storm rates,storm parameter distributions vs. spatially varied reference points as was done in other FL studies? Response:IDS 1, Section 5(Chapter 5) includes discussion of why a single coastal reference point(CRP) was applied for both the east coast and west coast. Chapter 5.1 of the report states,"Coastal Reference Points(CRP)at coastlines capture the effect of historic events.These points are important in understanding whether storm rates are homogenous for the study region or whether there are variations along the study area that would necessitate varying treatment of the storm rate and characteristics.A sensitivity analysis was performed on the number of CRPs at each coastline.This analysis revealed that the number of CRPs do not impact the storm intensity distribution in the study area.Thus,one CRP at each coastline can capture the homogeneous storm sets."Figure 5.4(cast coast)and Figure 5.8(west coast)show the results of the SFLSSS sensitivity study completed to evaluate the CRP setup,with the analysis concluding that 1 CRP for each coast provides a suitable approach. a x 1 o-a one CRP two CRPs o E three CRPs u 0 -200 -150 -100 .50 0 50 100 150 200 Heading(°J Figure 1.Storm rate sensitivity to the number of CRPs at the East Coast(Figure 5.4 of IDS 1 Section 5). www.fema.gov _ 5 one GRIP two CRPS three CRPs 0 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 Heading(0) Figure 2.Storm rate sensitivity to the number of CRPs at the West Coast(Figure 5.8 of IDS 1 Section 5). 3) Provide more details on the three CRPs evaluated for the study and where they were located. Response: The following CRP locations were evaluated for the study.Notes about the sensitivity findings for these locations are summarized in the SFL IDS 1, Section 5 report. Table 1.CRP locations evaluated for the SFL study. Latitude Longitude 25.592 -81.244 25.381 -81.144 25.175 -80.871 25.327 -80.259 25.842 -80.118 26.410 -80.064 2 i .Uol<uqh Osceola Brevard POIk Atlantic Ocean Indian River r Manatee Hardee ._. _ t -� 1�Okeechobee St Lucia Xighlands Sarasota nesoto / Martin Charlotte Glades Florida palm Beach t� Lee .-dry Collier )D.� Gulf Of Mexico `�onroe 0 0 20 40 y Miles CRP SensWvlty Locations N SFLCcunties n Florida Counties N Figure 3.CRP sensitivity locations tested for the SFL study. 4) Confirm for synthetic storms with tracks over land mass(Cuba,Hispaniola),land attenuation was not accounted for in storm wind and pressure fields used for input in ADCIRC-SWAN model. Assess impacts of not accounting for this. Response:The historical storm review and JPM-OS analysis focused on tropical cyclone parameters at landfall in the SFLSSS project area,or closest approach to the project area.Therefore,the analysis of the historical storms and the JPM-OS analysis focused on storm conditions specific to the SFLSSS shoreline and after any land attenuation caused by Caribbean island land masses.If attenuation by Caribbean islands occurred in the Oceanweather wind and pressure fields,then the JPM-OS storm analysis would have been required to examine storm conditions east or south of the Caribbean islands(before any land-induced attenuation)with different,and often much stronger,storm characteristics applied in the JPM-OS storms. Examining the historical storm conditions at landfall in the project area is common practice in the recent FEMA coastal surge studies.IDS 1, Section 5(Chapter 2)text states,"Following the approach detailed in the FEMA JPM-OS guidance(FEMA,2012),the primary variables to consider are the ones most important to the characterization of a hurricane.Original JPM studies developed in the 1970s(Myers, 1975;Ho and Myers, 1975)utilized conditions at landfall.In general,hurricane data(most notably for older historical records)are more reliable and plentiful near the coast.Resio(2007)showed that most of the coastal surge is generated by the storm in the 90 nautical miles(167 km)prior to landfall. Storm characteristics are examined at landfall,or at the point of closest approach for storms that do not make landfall.These characteristics are used to develop the probabilistic model." 3 5) Appendix G,Table 1.1 of IDS 3 Section I lists JPM East parameters provided for production. For storm tracks 30006003—30006015,RMW at landfall is 32.1 nMi,but in JPM summary plots(as shown in this document),RMW is 5nMi higher at landfall. Please explain this discrepancy. Response:RMW in the JPM summary figures are a simple radius derived off the target grid maxima to the storm center based on model output. These illustrations will be close to the JPM conditions,but not equal. Oceanweather developed the JPM-OS wind and pressure fields and specified that the Planetary Boundary Layer model is not formulated with RMW as an input,but Rp/RAD1 (the scale pressure radius)is the required input parameter. Consistent with the East Coast Central Florida(ECCFL)methodology,Equation 2.1 of IDS 3, Section I (Appendix G)was applied to convert RMW to Rp for modeling purposes. This equation is:RMW=0.5387+0.9524 Rp—0.00575 Rp2+ 1.17xl0-5 Rp3. Slide Deck 2: Statistical Analysis 6) Explain why non-standard CPA approach was used in this study and why analysis was different that other FL studies where there are multiple sets of tropical storms(i.e.landfalling,bypassing,land-exiting). Response:The SFL IDS 3, Section 2(Chapter 2.5) explains how the unique geographic location and historic exposure to various storm directions generated a need for each landfalling/bypassing storm set to be represented independently based on the east/west coast storm populations. The text states,"As described in IDS 1, Section 5,the need to create two storm suites is related to the fact that storms approaching the study area from the Gulf/Caribbean and making initial landfall/bypassing on the"west coast"have differences in their storm parameter distributions(i.e.pressure,forward velocity,heading,etc.)compared to storms approaching the study area from the Atlantic and making initial landfall on the"east coast".Thus, the storms from the different area had to be treated as independent storm sets in order to accurately reflect the respective distributions for the Atlantic storms and the Gulf/Caribbean—creation of a single storm set to represent both of these populations would have resulted in distributions that don't properly represent either." Note,the East Coast Central Florida Storm Surge Study(ECCFLSSS)performed an analysis to determine if exiting storms(storms that move through the Gulf of Mexico and made landfall on the west coast of Florida)would influence the low-frequency water levels(referring to the 2, 1,and 0.2-percent-annual- chance water levels) in the ECCFL region.The sensitivity study found that exiting storms produced water levels that would not significantly influence the low-frequency water levels when viewing the shoreline of the entire(regional)study.Had the sensitivity results shown that the exiting storms influenced the ECCFL low-frequency water levels,the ECCFLSSS would have applied a combined probability analysis to develop the stillwater level versus return period curves.The ECCFL study IDS 2, Section I (Chapter 5.2)text states,"the exiting storms have minimal effect on the 0.2%-annual-chance water levels with an average effect of 0.05 ft on an average water level of 7.5 ft.On average,the exiting storms influence the 1%water levels by 0.08 ft on an average water level of 4.8 ft.On average,the exiting storms influence the 2%water levels by 0.13 ft on an average water level of 3.7 ft.The results show the expected response that the exiting storms have more influence on the 2%levels than the 0.2%levels.These results indicate the exiting storms have a minimal effect on the low-frequency water levels.Notably,discussions with personnel involved in ongoing FEMA coastal surge studies on Florida's west coast revealed that their analyses for exiting storms showed a similar minimal influence on low-frequency water levels.Given the limited influence of the exiting storms on low frequency water levels,and the presence of other uncertainties which influence the modeling results to a larger degree,the ECCFLSSS excluded exiting storms within the meteorological optimization." 7) Why was no measurement error included in the statistical analysis as was done in other adjacent FL studies? Response:The SFL IDS 3, Section 2.2 states,"given the low density of observation points(ex.high water marks)in the SFLSSS study area,measurement error cannot be appropriately calculated."While the SFLSSS had a sufficient number of measured water levels to validate the SWAN+ADCIRC model,the 4 measured data point locations were not in close enough proximity to each other to evaluate any site-specific error terms associated with measurements in very close proximity.This is consistent with the ECCFL and GANEFL studies,which did not include a measurement error.For the Gulf Coast studies(Big Bend,WFL and SWFL),there were not enough high water mark data points to determine the measurement uncertainty, so the value calculated for the Mississippi study was used(1.31 ft). Although the SFL surge study did not incorporate a measurement error,there was not enough information specific to this study and incorporating error data from another state did not seem justifiable for the SFL region. These decisions were documented in IDS 3 at that time and were approved by FEMA and the Steering Committee. 8) Would spatially varied validation error be more appropriate given the large validation error that exists in localized areas(primarily attributed to Andrew)? Response: A regional error term is most appropriate since this is a regional model.The validation error is calculated as the standard deviation of the differences between simulated and measured water surface elevations at observation points used in the model validation analysis for Hurricanes Andrew,Betsy,David, Georges,and Wilma.The SFL IDS 2, Section I report validation analysis indicates that,"the vast majority of the points fall within the 1 ft error band and that there is no prominent bias in the model results as compared to the measured HWM data." Chapter 3.8 of the report details a sensitivity test of the validation analysis where Hurricane Andrew data points within a particular region were removed from the analysis: it was determined that the complete dataset provided the most appropriate summary of the validation effort. An internal review of the error term focused on the Monroe County area showed a negligible difference in the in the total error term. Slide Deck 3:Wave Model Validation 9) Explain why existing wave buoy data was not used for purposes of wave model validation. Response:The study team did not find wave data from NDBC stations relevant to validating the wave model for peak hurricane conditions for the five tropical cyclones selected for validation in the SFL IDS 1, Section 3 based on the criteria listed in that report.The SFL IDS 2, Section I states,"While the lack of measured data precludes validation of the SWAN+ADCIRC model within the study area,the SWAN+ADCIRC model has undergone significant model validation including efforts for the GANEFLSSS (FEMA,2013b)and ECCFLSSS(FEMA,2014)and independent efforts(Dietrich et al.,2012b;Sebastian et al.,2014).The validation efforts for these two studies included comparisons of measured wave parameters and simulated SWAN+ADCIRC model results.The SWAN+ADCIRC model was shown to accurately reproduce the measured wave parameters.In addition,several other recent FEMA coastal storm surge studies have applied the SWAN model to produce the offshore waves and radiation stress gradients including studies in North Carolina,South Carolina,and along the west coast of Florida.These previous successful validation efforts give the study team confidence in the SWAN+ADCIRC model's capability." With regards to NDBC station 42025,the gage is located approximately 50 miles southwest of the landfall location for Hurricane Andrew. Maximum measured wave heights were near 2 meters due to the distance from land and the location of station on the south side of landfall;this data indicated that the station did not capture the major wave conditions produced by the hurricane and does not represent an ideal case for validation.Figure 4.11 of the IDS 2, Section I report shows the maximum simulated wave height conditions with the mean wave direction moving away from the Monroe County coastline at the time of maximum significant wave height.Note,the NDBC Station 42025 did not record wave directions,so the modeled wave directions cannot be compared to measure data. Regarding the additional tropical events listed with this comment,Hurricane Erin and Tropical Storm Gordon did not meet enough criteria(as shown in Table 5.1 of the SFL IDS 1, Section 3 report)to be included in the list of candidate validation storms. 10) Request further validation be performed. Response:The existing validation effort is well-documented in the SFLSSS IDS reports and was approved by both FEMA and the Steering Committee reviews.As stated in IDS 2 Section 1,the study team believes 5 the S WAN+ADCIRC model was shown to accurately reproduce the measured wave parameters for adjacent studies on the east and west coasts of Florida.These previous successful validation efforts give the study team confidence in the SWAN+ADCIRC model's capability to simulate the nearshore wave conditions. Slide Deck 4:Model Resolution 11) Fix conveyance errors in mesh. Response:While the South Florida mesh features a minimum nodal spacing of 30 feet,the minimum resolution could not be applied to every small creek in a way that would still meet the project requirements of scope and schedule;with 2.25 million nodes,0.5 second ADCIRC time step,and inclusion of tightly- coupled SWAN,the South Florida mesh was the most computationally intensive mesh to run within the entire recent generation of FEMA coastal studies.As stated in IDS I Section 7,the team aimed to set nodal spacing throughout the Florida Keys at 250 feet—a decision approved by the Steering Committee and FEMA.The mesh resolution at both Cow Key Channel and Tavernier Creek exceeded the target resolution within the Keys:the narrowest constrictions of these two channels are approximately 115 ft and 165 ft, respectively.Cow Key Channel is captured with two nodes,or one wet element,across at low water condition through the entire channel.Tavernier Creek is captured with one wet element across at low water condition except at the bridge constriction where the high ground of the bridge approaches took precedence;this opening is captured with one bathymetric node which will allow conveyance as the bridge approaches are overtopped. The presentation on the April 28'call indicated that there must be more than 2 nodes to convey water,but only 2 nodes across are required to be wet to provide conveyance via one wet element.While 3 nodes would be desirable for capturing channel thalwegs,computational resources and project schedule typically preclude capturing small canals with 3 or more nodes across. The request to improve conveyance pertains to a higher level of detail analysis that falls outside of current scope of the Flood Study.If the community wishes to incorporate a higher level of detail in the mesh, evaluation and technical justification would need to be submitted as an appeal(See FEMA Guidance Document 26, Guidance for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping:Appeal and Comment Processing[Feb. 2019]). 12) Assess potential impacts of having resolution errors. Response:The SFLSSS is a regional-scale study that aimed to provide updated coastal surge levels relevant to the 7 million residents of South Florida spanning from Jupiter through Key West.The study team chose to apply spatially variable model resolution based on several factors as detailed in the SFL IDS 1, Section 7 report,and the project Steering Committee and FEMA approved those decisions.Thus,the resolution of node spacing identified at Cow Key Channel and Tavernier Creek do not represent an"error"but rather a study decision to allow the project to proceed on schedule.Additional investigation of mesh resolution in particular channels would be considered a higher level of detail analysis that falls outside of the current scope. 13) Reconduct production storm simulations if warranted. Response:The SFLSSS is a high-fidelity model that includes notable improvements over previous FEMA Storm Surge Studies.The study underwent both a FEMA review and a Steering Committee review before being approved. Additional production simulations are not warranted at this time. Slide Deck 5: Overland Model 14) What data were used to identify reef areas since CLAP data does not include? 6 Response:IDS 1, Section 7,which shows Manning's n values in all bathymetric zones as constant 0.02, was written prior to inclusion of hardbottom/seagrasses in nodal attributes which occurred during the validation phase of the study. Spatial extents of land use classes of hardbottom and derived from the following Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission shapefiles: A) http://geodata.Luyfwc.com/datasets/coral-and-hard-bottom-habitats-in-florida B) http://geodata.Myfwc.com/datasets/seagrass-habitat-in-florida 15) What was the basis for Manning's n applied for reefs? Response:Manning's n values corresponding to seagrass and land use derived from hydraulic roughness values found in Nelson(1996)Hydraulic Roughness of Coral Reef Platforms (hLtps://doi.org/l0.I016/SO141-1187(97)00006-0). 16) Why was Manning's n value of 0.05 used in offshore open water areas? Response: The offshore open water areas that applied the Manning's n value of 0.05 were mapped as hardbottom in the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission shapefiles (hqp://geodata.Myfwc.com/datasets/coral-and-hard-bottom-habitats-in-florida). Slide Deck 6:Mangroves in Overland Modeling 17) Why was the more recent S WFMD 2014-2016 dataset not considered? Response:The SFWMD 2014-2016 dataset was considered by the study team.The Monroe County 2009 land cover land use dataset,a high resolution vector dataset,supplemented by NOAA's 2010 CCAP data, were ultimately determined to be the most appropriate dataset available for use in the WHAFIS application. Per the Monroe County IDS 4&5 report,`Both the 2009 Monroe County Land Cover Habitat and 2010 C- CAP digital datasets were chosen for use as the basis of the land cover classification for the WHAFIS modeling.The 2009 Monroe County dataset has a high-resolution vector format and is based on 2006 aerial imagery and 2009 ground conditions.The dataset was obtained directly from the Monroe County government and can be viewed on the Monroe County website(http://monroecounty- fl.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Webappviewer/index.html).The Monroe County dataset covers the Florida Keys but not the uninhabited islands on the outer Florida Keys and throughout Florida Bay.This dataset also does not cover mainland portions of the county,including Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve.The 2010 C-CAP dataset was used to fill these gaps in spatial extent." Note,the 2014-1016 SFWMD dataset was posted to their GIS portal in 2018,after the transect-based coastal analysis work for Monroe County had already begun. Additionally,Monroe County communities were asked via email in July 2017 if they had a recommendation for the datasets used. Slide Deck 7:Transect Spacing in Overland Wave Modeling 18) Explain why transect spacing does not meet defined criteria in IDS 4-5 for developed areas of Monroe County Response:Please refer to the full sentence in the Monroe County IDS 4&5 report as the quoted information in Slide 11 of the `6-8 Overland Review' Slide deck may be misinterpreted as a sentence fragment. The full text from IDS 4&5 states"Spacing between the transects in the Florida Keys range from one to two transects per mile for undeveloped shorelines to approximately one transect every 1,000 to 2,000 feet for developed shorelines.Transects were more closely spaced in areas of denser development and in areas with more heterogenous shoreline characteristics."In the most densely developed areas of Monroe County(such as Key West),the transects were spaced between 1,000—2,000 feet. In other areas with moderate or low density,the transect spacing was larger,as stated in the report. Additionally,most transects along the Keys are bi-directional,accounting for wave modeling from both directions to address exposure from both Atlantic and Gulf shorelines. 7 19) Why is transect spacing in these developed areas higher for Monroe County compared to other South FL counties? Response:Population density along the shoreline of neighboring counties is generally higher than that of communities in Monroe County. Additionally,variations in shoreline characteristics impacted the spacing. Note,transect layouts for each county were specifically approved through FEMA and Steering Committee reviews. Slide Deck 8: Review of FEMA Touo2rauhv 20) Will reanalysis and mapping using this more recent LiDAR dataset be accepted as an appeal? Response:Based on FEMA Guidance for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping:Appeal and Comment Processing(Feb.2019),analyses that involve topographic data can be considered as an appeal.Please reference the above guidance to understand the requirements for submitting a revised coastal analysis inclusive of updated topography. 21) Should we send each area as separate appeals? We do not one area being denied to affect other potentially acceptable revisions. Response:Appeals or comments submitted by the same requestor on behalf of a community will most likely be treated as one appeal. If the submittal contains a set of isolated transect-based modeling and mapping updates,the resolution of one isolated area most likely will not impact other acceptable revisions. Please note that the FEMA Guidance for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping:Appeal and Comment Processing states,"the community should review and consolidate all appeals and issue a written opinion stating whether there is sufficient scientific and technical data to justify an appeal on behalf of the property owner or lessee. The community must forward all appeals and comments that it receives,along with its decision to appeal or not appeal on behalf of the property owner or lessee,to FEMA or the designated Mapping Partner such that it is received not later than 90 days after the appeal period start date." 8 U.S.Department of Homeland Security Region IV 3003 Chamblee Tucker Road Atlanta,GA 30341 a� aei�t. FEMA IN REPLY REFER TO: Preliminary DFIRM Database/Maps Comments June 11, 2020 Ms. Christine Hurley, AICP Community: Monroe County, FL Assistant Administrator, Monroe County 1100 Simonton Street, Suite 205 Community No.: 125129 Key West, Florida 33040 Dear Ms. Hurley: This letter acknowledges receipt of the letter from your office dated May 4,2020,regarding the preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) and Flood Insurance Study(FIS)for Monroe County, FL issued December 27, 2019. Per the subject of the letter, Un-incorporated Monroe County Preliminary Map Review Findings,twenty-one comments were included in your letter. Responses to each comment have been provided in an attachment enclosed with this letter. We encourage the continued review of the preliminary FIRMS, FIS, and supporting information. Please review and provide any comments regarding the attached responses within 30 days of this letter. Requested data may be sent to the Mapping Partner, Michael Taylor,PE, CFM,PMP AECOM 1360 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 500 Atlanta, GA 30309 If FEMA does not receive additional data from your community within the 30-day period,FEMA will proceed forward with the mapping process. FEMA appreciates your community's comments and commitment to having the most accurate flood hazard information available reflected on the FIRMS and in the FIS. If you have any questions regarding this matter,please contact Mark Vieira of my office either by telephone at 770-220-5450 or by e-mail at Mark.Vieira@fema.dhs.gov or Michael Taylor of Compass by telephone at 404-946-9488 or by email at Michael.Taylor@aecom.com. Sincerely, Kristen M. Martmenza,P.E., CFM, Chief Risk Analysis Branch FEMA Region IV cc: Steve Martin, State NFIP Coordinator www.fema.gov bee: Jesse Munoz, Regional Mitigation Director(via email,without enclosures) Mark Vieira, Region IV RA Project Engineer(via email,without enclosures) Dewana Davis, Region IV FM&I(via email,without enclosures) Virgilio "Chris"Perez, Region IV FM&I(via email, without enclosures) John Newcomb-Thompson, RSC4 (via email,without enclosures) FEDD File 2 U.S.Department of Homeland Security Region IV 3003 Chamblee Tucker Road Atlanta,GA 30341 a��aei�t. FEMA Attachment: Response to Monroe County 5/4/2020 Letter Slide Deck 1: Storm Selection 1) Explain why the Florida Keys were not explicitly handled. Response:The South Florida(SFL)IDS 3, Section 2 report states"For purposes of the probabilistic model, the Florida Keys are not treated explicitly.The storm population with an impact on the Keys is a combination of the storms that affect both coasts of the South Florida Storm Surge Study (SFLSSS)area; therefore,the storm population impact on the Keys is implicitly treated within the development of the other two probabilistic storm sets." The SFL IDS 1, Section S(Chapter 3) adds,"the curvature of the shoreline in the study area can lead to multiple instances of coastline impact(i.e.,landfall and exiting events). For example,Hurricane Wilma in 2005 is classified as a landfalling storm for Monroe County and as exiting storm at Palm Beach County. The shoreline alignment complexities along the SFL counties necessitate splitting the coastline into two shorelines,each represented by an independent probabilistic model. This preserves the uniqueness of storm classifications in an effort to reduce complexity of the probabilistic model. . . .IDS 2, Section 2 will deal with the development of the optimized storm set,and the treatment of the Florida Keys will be handled through replication of storm tracks across the Florida Keys." 2) Why was a single reference point for both the east and west coast used for establishing storm rates,storm parameter distributions vs. spatially varied reference points as was done in other FL studies? Response:IDS 1, Section S(Chapter S) includes discussion of why a single coastal reference point(CRP) was applied for both the east coast and west coast. Chapter 5.1 of the report states,"Coastal Reference Points(CRP)at coastlines capture the effect of historic events.These points are important in understanding whether storm rates are homogenous for the study region or whether there are variations along the study area that would necessitate varying treatment of the storm rate and characteristics.A sensitivity analysis was performed on the number of CRPs at each coastline.This analysis revealed that the number of CRPs do not impact the storm intensity distribution in the study area.Thus,one CRP at each coastline can capture the homogeneous storm sets."Figure 5.4(cast coast)and Figure 5.8(west coast)show the results of the SFLSSS sensitivity study completed to evaluate the CRP setup,with the analysis concluding that 1 CRP for each coast provides a suitable approach. 41 0_ cans CRP 2 _ a CRPs three CRP 0 o -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 11eading('') Figure 1.Storm rate sensitivity to the number of CRPs at the Fast Coast(Figure 5.4 of IDS 1 Section 5). www.fema.gov 5 - URP t"10 CRPS ftee CRPs E 7 0 -200 -1DD -50 0 50 100 150 200 Heading Figure 2.Storm rote sensitivity to the number of CRPs at the West Coast(Figure 5.8 of IDS 1 Section 5). 3) Provide more details on the three CRPs evaluated for the study and where they were located. Response: The following CRP locations were evaluated for the study.Notes about the sensitivity findings for these locations are summarized in the SFL IDS 1, Section 5 report. Table 1. CRP locations evaluated for the SFL study. Latitude Longitude 25.592 -81.244 25.381 -81.144 25.175 -80.871 25.327 -80.259 25.842 -80.118 26.410 -80.064 2 i .Uol<uqh Osceola Brevard POIk Atlantic Ocean Indian River r Manatee Hardee ._. _ t -� 1�Okeechobee St Lucia Xighlands Sarasota nesoto / Martin Charlotte Glades Florida palm Beach t� Lee .-dry Collier )D.� Gulf Of Mexico `�onroe 0 0 20 40 y Miles CRP SensWvlty Locations N SFLCcunties n Florida Counties N Figure 3.CRP sensitivity locations tested for the SFL study. 4) Confirm for synthetic storms with tracks over land mass(Cuba,Hispaniola),land attenuation was not accounted for in storm wind and pressure fields used for input in ADCIRC-SWAN model. Assess impacts of not accounting for this. Response:The historical storm review and JPM-OS analysis focused on tropical cyclone parameters at landfall in the SFLSSS project area,or closest approach to the project area.Therefore,the analysis of the historical storms and the JPM-OS analysis focused on storm conditions specific to the SFLSSS shoreline and after any land attenuation caused by Caribbean island land masses.If attenuation by Caribbean islands occurred in the Oceanweather wind and pressure fields,then the JPM-OS storm analysis would have been required to examine storm conditions east or south of the Caribbean islands(before any land-induced attenuation)with different,and often much stronger,storm characteristics applied in the JPM-OS storms. Examining the historical storm conditions at landfall in the project area is common practice in the recent FEMA coastal surge studies.IDS 1, Section 5(Chapter 2)text states,"Following the approach detailed in the FEMA JPM-OS guidance(FEMA,2012),the primary variables to consider are the ones most important to the characterization of a hurricane.Original JPM studies developed in the 1970s(Myers, 1975;Ho and Myers, 1975)utilized conditions at landfall.In general,hurricane data(most notably for older historical records)are more reliable and plentiful near the coast.Resio(2007)showed that most of the coastal surge is generated by the storm in the 90 nautical miles(167 km)prior to landfall. Storm characteristics are examined at landfall,or at the point of closest approach for storms that do not make landfall.These characteristics are used to develop the probabilistic model." 3 5) Appendix G,Table 1.1 of IDS 3 Section 1 lists JPM East parameters provided for production. For storm tracks 30006003—30006015,RMW at landfall is 32.1 nMi,but in JPM summary plots(as shown in this document),RMW is 5nMi higher at landfall. Please explain this discrepancy. Response:RMW in the JPM summary figures are a simple radius derived off the target grid maxima to the storm center based on model output. These illustrations will be close to the JPM conditions,but not equal. Oceanweather developed the JPM-OS wind and pressure fields and specified that the Planetary Boundary Layer model is not formulated with RMW as an input,but Rp/RAD1 (the scale pressure radius)is the required input parameter. Consistent with the East Coast Central Florida(ECCFL)methodology,Equation 2.1 of IDS 3, Section 1 (Appendix G)was applied to convert RMW to Rp for modeling purposes. This equation is:RMW=0.5387+0.9524 Rp—0.00575 Rpz+ 1.17xi 0-5 Rpl. Slide Deck 2: Statistical Analvsis 6) Explain why non-standard CPA approach was used in this study and why analysis was different that other FL studies where there are multiple sets of tropical storms(i.e. landfalling,bypassing,land-exiting). Response:The SFL IDS 3, Section 2(Chapter 2.5) explains how the unique geographic location and historic exposure to various storm directions generated a need for each landfalling/bypassing storm set to be represented independently based on the east/west coast storm populations. The text states,"As described in IDS 1, Section 5,the need to create two storm suites is related to the fact that storms approaching the study area from the Gulf/Caribbean and making initial landfall/bypassing on the"west coast"have differences in their storm parameter distributions(i.e.pressure,forward velocity,heading,etc.)compared to storms approaching the study area from the Atlantic and making initial landfall on the"east coast".Thus, the storms from the different area had to be treated as independent storm sets in order to accurately reflect the respective distributions for the Atlantic storms and the Gulf/Caribbean—creation of a single storm set to represent both of these populations would have resulted in distributions that don't properly represent either." Note,the East Coast Central Florida Storm Surge Study(ECCFLSSS)performed an analysis to determine if exiting storms(storms that move through the Gulf of Mexico and made landfall on the west coast of Florida)would influence the low-frequency water levels(referring to the 2, 1,and 0.2-percent-annual- chance water levels) in the ECCFL region.The sensitivity study found that exiting storms produced water levels that would not significantly influence the low-frequency water levels when viewing the shoreline of the entire(regional)study.Had the sensitivity results shown that the exiting storms influenced the ECCFL low-frequency water levels,the ECCFLSSS would have applied a combined probability analysis to develop the stillwater level versus return period curves.The ECCFL study IDS 2, Section 1 (Chapter 5.2)text states,"the exiting storms have minimal effect on the 0.2%-annual-chance water levels with an average effect of 0.05 ft on an average water level of 7.5 ft. On average,the exiting storms influence the 1%water levels by 0.08 ft on an average water level of 4.8 ft. On average,the exiting storms influence the 2%water levels by 0.13 ft on an average water level of 3.7 ft.The results show the expected response that the exiting storms have more influence on the 2%levels than the 0.2%levels.These results indicate the exiting storms have a minimal effect on the low-frequency water levels.Notably,discussions with personnel involved in ongoing FEMA coastal surge studies on Florida's west coast revealed that their analyses for exiting storms showed a similar minimal influence on low-frequency water levels. Given the limited influence of the exiting storms on low frequency water levels,and the presence of other uncertainties which influence the modeling results to a larger degree,the ECCFLSSS excluded exiting storms within the meteorological optimization." 7) Why was no measurement error included in the statistical analysis as was done in other adjacent FL studies? Response:The SFL IDS 3, Section 2.2 states,"given the low density of observation points(ex.high water marks)in the SFLSSS study area,measurement error cannot be appropriately calculated."While the SFLSSS had a sufficient number of measured water levels to validate the SWAN+ADCIRC model,the 4 measured data point locations were not in close enough proximity to each other to evaluate any site-specific error terms associated with measurements in very close proximity.This is consistent with the ECCFL and GANEFL studies,which did not include a measurement error.For the Gulf Coast studies(Big Bend,WFL and SWFL),there were not enough high water mark data points to determine the measurement uncertainty, so the value calculated for the Mississippi study was used(1.31 ft). Although the SFL surge study did not incorporate a measurement error,there was not enough information specific to this study and incorporating error data from another state did not seem justifiable for the SFL region. These decisions were documented in IDS 3 at that time and were approved by FEMA and the Steering Committee. 8) Would spatially varied validation error be more appropriate given the large validation error that exists in localized areas(primarily attributed to Andrew)? Response: A regional error term is most appropriate since this is a regional model.The validation error is calculated as the standard deviation of the differences between simulated and measured water surface elevations at observation points used in the model validation analysis for Hurricanes Andrew,Betsy,David, Georges,and Wilma.The SFL IDS 2, Section 1 report validation analysis indicates that,"the vast majority of the points fall within the 1 ft error band and that there is no prominent bias in the model results as compared to the measured HWM data." Chapter 3.8 of the report details a sensitivity test of the validation analysis where Hurricane Andrew data points within a particular region were removed from the analysis: it was determined that the complete dataset provided the most appropriate summary of the validation effort. An internal review of the error term focused on the Monroe County area showed a negligible difference in the in the total error term. Slide Deck 3:Wave Model Validation 9) Explain why existing wave buoy data was not used for purposes of wave model validation. Response:The study team did not find wave data from NDBC stations relevant to validating the wave model for peak hurricane conditions for the five tropical cyclones selected for validation in the SFL IDS 1, Section 3 based on the criteria listed in that report.The SFL IDS 2, Section 1 states,"While the lack of measured data precludes validation of the SWAN+ADCIRC model within the study area,the SWAN+ADCIRC model has undergone significant model validation including efforts for the GANEFLSSS (FEMA,2013b)and ECCFLSSS (FEMA,2014)and independent efforts(Dietrich et al.,2012b; Sebastian et al.,2014).The validation efforts for these two studies included comparisons of measured wave parameters and simulated SWAN+ADCIRC model results.The SWAN+ADCIRC model was shown to accurately reproduce the measured wave parameters.In addition,several other recent FEMA coastal storm surge studies have applied the SWAN model to produce the offshore waves and radiation stress gradients including studies in North Carolina,South Carolina,and along the west coast of Florida.These previous successful validation efforts give the study team confidence in the SWAN+ADCIRC model's capability." With regards to NDBC station 42025,the gage is located approximately 50 miles southwest of the landfall location for Hurricane Andrew. Maximum measured wave heights were near 2 meters due to the distance from land and the location of station on the south side of landfall;this data indicated that the station did not capture the major wave conditions produced by the hurricane and does not represent an ideal case for validation.Figure 4.11 of the IDS 2, Section 1 report shows the maximum simulated wave height conditions with the mean wave direction moving away from the Monroe County coastline at the time of maximum significant wave height.Note,the NDBC Station 42025 did not record wave directions,so the modeled wave directions cannot be compared to measure data. Regarding the additional tropical events listed with this comment,Hurricane Erin and Tropical Storm Gordon did not meet enough criteria(as shown in Table 5.1 of the SFL IDS 1, Section 3 report)to be included in the list of candidate validation storms. 10) Request further validation be performed. Response:The existing validation effort is well-documented in the SFLSSS IDS reports and was approved by both FEMA and the Steering Committee reviews.As stated in IDS 2 Section 1,the study team believes 5 the SWAN+ADCIRC model was shown to accurately reproduce the measured wave parameters for adjacent studies on the east and west coasts of Florida.These previous successful validation efforts give the study team confidence in the SWAN+ADCIRC model's capability to simulate the nearshore wave conditions. Slide Deck 4:Model Resolution 11) Fix conveyance errors in mesh. Response:While the South Florida mesh features a minimum nodal spacing of 30 feet,the minimum resolution could not be applied to every small creek in a way that would still meet the project requirements of scope and schedule;with 2.25 million nodes,0.5 second ADCIRC time step,and inclusion of tightly- coupled SWAN,the South Florida mesh was the most computationally intensive mesh to run within the entire recent generation of FEMA coastal studies.As stated in IDS 1 Section 7,the team aimed to set nodal spacing throughout the Florida Keys at 250 feet—a decision approved by the Steering Committee and FEMA.The mesh resolution at both Cow Key Channel and Tavernier Creek exceeded the target resolution within the Keys:the narrowest constrictions of these two channels are approximately 115 ft and 165 ft, respectively. Cow Key Channel is captured with two nodes,or one wet element,across at low water condition through the entire channel.Tavernier Creek is captured with one wet element across at low water condition except at the bridge constriction where the high ground of the bridge approaches took precedence;this opening is captured with one bathymetric node which will allow conveyance as the bridge approaches are overtopped. The presentation on the April 281h call indicated that there must be more than 2 nodes to convey water,but only 2 nodes across are required to be wet to provide conveyance via one wet element.While 3 nodes would be desirable for capturing channel thalwegs,computational resources and project schedule typically preclude capturing small canals with 3 or more nodes across. The request to improve conveyance pertains to a higher level of detail analysis that falls outside of current scope of the Flood Study.If the community wishes to incorporate a higher level of detail in the mesh, evaluation and technical justification would need to be submitted as an appeal(See FEMA Guidance Document 26, Guidance for Flood RiskAnalvsis and Mapping:Appeal and Comment Processing[Feb. 2019]). 12) Assess potential impacts of having resolution errors. Response:The SFLSSS is a regional-scale study that aimed to provide updated coastal surge levels relevant to the 7 million residents of South Florida spanning from Jupiter through Key West.The study team chose to apply spatially variable model resolution based on several factors as detailed in the SFL IDS 1, Section 7 report,and the project Steering Committee and FEMA approved those decisions.Thus,the resolution of node spacing identified at Cow Key Channel and Tavernier Creek do not represent an"error"but rather a study decision to allow the project to proceed on schedule.Additional investigation of mesh resolution in particular channels would be considered a higher level of detail analysis that falls outside of the current scope. 13) Reconduct production storm simulations if warranted. Response:The SFLSSS is a high-fidelity model that includes notable improvements over previous FEMA Storm Surge Studies.The study underwent both a FEMA review and a Steering Committee review before being approved. Additional production simulations are not warranted at this time. Slide Deck 5: Overland Model 14) What data were used to identify reef areas since CLAP data does not include? 6 Response:IDS 1, Section 7,which shows Matu ing's n values in all bathymetric zones as constant 0.02, was written prior to inclusion of hardbottom/seagrasses in nodal attributes which occurred during the validation phase of the study. Spatial extents of land use classes of hardbottom and derived from the following Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission shapefiles: A) http://geodata.ipyfwc.com/datasets/coral-and-hard-bottom-habitats-in-florida B) http://geodata.myfwc.com/datasets/seagrass-habitat-in-florida 15) What was the basis for Manning's n applied for reefs? Response:Manning's n values corresponding to seagrass and land use derived from hydraulic roughness values found in Nelson(1996)Hydraulic Roughness of Coral Reef Platforms (https://doi.org/l0.1016/SO141-1187(97)00006-0). 16) Why was Manning's n value of 0.05 used in offshore open water areas? Response: The offshore open water areas that applied the Manning's n value of 0.05 were mapped as hardbottom in the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission shapefiles (http://geodata.my fwc.com/datas ets/coral-and-hard-bottom-habitats-in-florida). Slide Deck 6:Mangroves in Overland Modeling 17) Why was the more recent SWFMD 2014-2016 dataset not considered? Response:The SFWMD 2014-2016 dataset was considered by the study team.The Monroe County 2009 land cover land use dataset,a high resolution vector dataset,supplemented by NOAA's 2010 CCAP data, were ultimately determined to be the most appropriate dataset available for use in the WHAFIS application. Per the Monroe County IDS 4&5 report,`Both the 2009 Monroe County Land Cover Habitat and 2010 C- CAP digital datasets were chosen for use as the basis of the land cover classification for the WHAFIS modeling.The 2009 Monroe County dataset has a high-resolution vector format and is based on 2006 aerial imagery and 2009 ground conditions.The dataset was obtained directly from the Monroe County government and can be viewed on the Monroe County website(http://monroecounty- fl.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html).The Monroe County dataset covers the Florida Keys but not the uninhabited islands on the outer Florida Keys and throughout Florida Bay.This dataset also does not cover mainland portions of the county,including Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve.The 2010 C-CAP dataset was used to fill these gaps in spatial extent." Note,the 2014-1016 SFWMD dataset was posted to their GIS portal in 2018,after the transect-based coastal analysis work for Monroe County had already begun. Additionally,Monroe County communities were asked via email in July 2017 if they had a recommendation for the datasets used. Slide Deck 7:Transect Suacin in Overland Wave Modeling 18) Explain why transect spacing does not meet defined criteria in IDS 4-5 for developed areas of Monroe County Response:Please refer to the full sentence in the Monroe County IDS 4&5 report as the quoted information in Slide 11 of the `6-8 Overland Review' Slide deck may be misinterpreted as a sentence fragment. The full text from IDS 4&5 states"Spacing between the transects in the Florida Keys rimed from one to two transects per mile for undeveloped shorelines to approximately one transect every 1,000 to 2,000 feet for developed shorelines.Trsects were more closely spaced in areas of denser development and in areas with more heterogenous shoreline characteristics."In the most densely developed areas of Monroe County(such as Key West),the transects were spaced between 1,000—2,000 feet. In other areas with moderate or low density,the transect spacing was larger,as stated in the report. Additionally,most transects along the Keys are bi-directional,accounting for wave modeling from both directions to address exposure from both Atlantic and Gulf shorelines. 7 19) Why is transect spacing in these developed areas higher for Monroe County compared to other South FL counties? Response:Population density along the shoreline of neighboring counties is generally higher than that of communities in Monroe County. Additionally,variations in shoreline characteristics impacted the spacing. Note,transect layouts for each county were specifically approved through FEMA and Steering Committee reviews. Slide Deck 8:Review of FEMA Tououauhv 20) Will reanalysis and mapping using this more recent LiDAR dataset be accepted as an appeal? Response:Based on FEMA Guidance for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping:Appeal and Comment Processing(Feb.2019),analyses that involve topographic data can be considered as an appeal.Please reference the above guidance to understand the requirements for submitting a revised coastal analysis inclusive of updated topography. 21) Should we send each area as separate appeals? We do not one area being denied to affect other potentially acceptable revisions. Response:Appeals or comments submitted by the same requestor on behalf of a community will most likely be treated as one appeal. If the submittal contains a set of isolated transect-based modeling and mapping updates,the resolution of one isolated area most likely will not impact other acceptable revisions. Please note that the FEMA Guidance for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping:Appeal and Comment Processing states,"the community should review and consolidate all appeals and issue a written opinion stating whether there is sufficient scientific and technical data to justify an appeal on behalf of the property owner or lessee. The community must forward all appeals and comments that it receives,along with its decision to appeal or not appeal on behalf of the property owner or lessee,to FEMA or the designated Mapping Partner such that it is received not later than 90 days after the appeal period start date." 8