|
<br />\,'\ /' /' . ''\'\ \\ / /Z,V"'~
<br />\., -\. /~// \""", \ IT'<ZONE X
<br />",''\(; / "__,,,- v
<br />/ ~v. /~//' '\ . ;\
<br />///\ ,"1--,), /' / '-","" \
<br />/' / \.. \1", -' " "\
<br />\......... ,/ .-' '\ '
<br />/'.../ \,\\., ,/"/ \','\ ,I '\\
<br />/ \ // __\ I \
<br />,/ -<\" // /" ""\., ,\- ,/ \
<br />To'fi!.'C~ftate community floodplain managePtent uses, the FBFM was p~bduce~~ a large scale
<br />and iri\;h~ded topographic information and ~tructures. To provide easy"access io~,the insurance
<br />indu~~,\~", FIRM was ~~~~~U;f.:sIiiaiI/ scale. The program ~;1S/d~scontinued 'after two years
<br />b~c~e of\Cqst and quJl\jtY-prOblems. There were FIR}1andFBFM mismatches, ~\ local study
<br />/~ntractors la~ed.cart6graphic expertiseformaintllining and updating the maps, an\hhe process~""E1e9"'-!-I!./-
<br />~;/ was cost inef~&t~ecause the in~i~ac~<>.rs produced so few m<lI'~tbitt~t::=::::::~~ \///~
<br />/~/ were not able to d'evJse a smo()lh,-6fflCient process. -'~_'=::::"'~_.._---'::::::\-/-/\I ' \ \,
<br />~;/ \~~/:::7' ]C-.'-:J \\ ZONE'
<br />The first group{<J~ for the purpose of evaluating and ~ing recommendati(hs to /::,\ X
<br />imp.rove NFIP m~~?>4~ts was established in.January 1983. Ca1ltd the "Map Initiati'\.~_../;;/ \\'.
<br />", Project Task ,~~"It .w\~Eonvened to determme the need to, c?~~e NFIP maps, evaluate:--/ @ \\
<br />\,\ sample ~.prepared 10 a~ate formats, and prepare a feaslblhi~ report. The membership of- 'I '
<br />''<\\ the ~-Force included repr~~tlItives of the Federal Insurance ~fiministration, FEMA's (then) /)
<br />\\~}ite and Local Programs and S\l~rt Directorate, and the ~~fiation of State Floodplain :\\.::::>'
<br />) /Managers (ASFPM). The Task ~ e considered a numbef:efformats for the maps. One was a
<br />/<i/ FIRM with rectilinear floodpl~il6 aries. Rectilinear boundaries, as opposed to curvilinear
<br />/;/ boundaries, make floodpI~in'~age~ easier and simplify in/out determinations. From a
<br />V national perspective, h>>,eV'er, the maps''I\~d to be prepared with the same type of flood
<br />boundaries, and it ~~d.have been too coStb\ to revise the curvilinear flood boundaries of
<br />I8,OOO-plus co#niti~tQ rectilinear. An~~ option was a FIRM using an orthophoto base.
<br />This creates!4rrtap that w~xpensive to prod~~and, for some, difficult to use. The Task Force
<br />also consifl(red a FIRM witl1~{opographic base.'~ with the orthophoto base, the result was a
<br />cluttered rlij>n that, for some, Wa;S more difficult to Use,
<br />\'( \\ '.\
<br />"\-\ ", \ \. \
<br />The oP~~ chosen by the MIl,p'Initiatives Task ~_h;,e has been used for a majority of
<br />maps that becam~~~ective on or aft~~ctober I, I~Th.'\chosen format consolidated the
<br />FIRM and the FBr'1',and compressed~ num~fflood ~~ance risk zones from 68 to 9. It
<br />added a map panello-c)ltor diagram to th~1 ;1k,ck and an alp\~umeric index of flood-prone
<br />streets, which was latet~'tc.ol1JL~~cost-saving measure. ~):"imary uses are for flood risk
<br />determinations, flood insiitancerating, and floodplain management<~xisting maps have been
<br />retrofitted to the Map Initiatives FIRM where it has been cost effecti\>00 do so. The maps were.__
<br />not revised just to change map format. Whenever a FIRM/FBFM form'atm.ap is upda~the--;::.:::.::::;-;::;:=c=:-.c=
<br />decision to switch to the FIRM-only format is based solely on cost. ) L>>'-::::::::-::-===-"::=:':::"'':~:::://''
<br />~..~-_.~~:;;~:~~~:~~~~=.;:==---_.------._.--'
<br />. A further step in t~t:.:'.Q.l!l1io~~~wasllie develop~~ of the county-
<br />., Wide FIR!\:tJn.a'G,,~~<ffOrmat;t:ach community has a separately ptel'<!Ted map. In a
<br />2/==:-:;g~~~:aH-tireliiCorporate~ c~~unities and ~incorJ?or~ted ro:eas ot\~ county are
<br />=:==.:::.:::::::::::.-.shoWfi on the same set of maps but the mdlvlduaI commumtles mamtam their separil\~
<br />participation in the NFIP. The county-wide format ensures consistency in flood-hazar'<i.i'
<br />information across community boundaries and eliminates duplication of work in prepari*fllld
<br />printing separate maps for each community. All county-wide FIRMs are prepared in the Ml!:~
<br />Initiatives format. Although the smaller map scale that often results from the county-wide fo'rl.nat
<br />is a problem for some users, this format has proven very successful from a production standpoil\t\
<br />Newly generated flood studies and/or restudies make it cost effective to map the entire county \\,
<br />rather than prepare and/or update the separately published maps for the individual communities. '\\
<br />'\." \\
<br />\\\
<br />, ,
<br />'\\.'
<br />,\
<br />\\
<br />,
<br />
<br />
<br />\
<br />J)
<br />
<br />;
<br />
<br />ZONEX
<br />
<br />=:\=:::~::::::'--=:7 !--=::::'::::=-7-;=\\-=--::=::=.---===~_._E.A_SZQ.~_
<br />
<br />43
<br />
<br />TURNPIKE
<br />
|