Residents in areas affected by changes in proposed new flood maps found them impractical and inaccurate.

Many residents in areas affected were invited to a public meeting hosted by the Planning Commission and about 25 showed up. Their comments focused heavily on discrepancies of areas either added into floodways and floodzones and the areas that have increased in flood risk severity.

This process began when the city had a question about one element of the flood maps and the Federal Emergency Management Agency decided to redo the City and Borough of Juneau’s entire flood maps.

Community Development Planner Eric Feldt said FEMA contracted Northwest Hydraulics Consultants to draw the maps and complete the studies. Methods used were LIDAR (Light Detection and Radar), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s bathymetric system, hydrolic analysis conducted of flood frequency data by the U.S. Army Corps., and other methods.

However much of the designations, Feldt said, were done not a detailed study but rather approximates via the data.

Feldt explained that “A Zones” are of particular interest and considered high risk for flooding. These are riverine or coastal areas with less than three foot waves above base flood elevation (BFE). There also are velocity zones, coastal areas that can flood with more than three feet of water above BFE. “C, B and X” zones are considered “100 year” flood areas.

One homeowner on Douglas Island showed photos taken of bright orange markers at different elevations, according to areas on the flood maps which put his home in a flood zone. He also showed a picture of the elevation in front of his door, including a comparative elevation of the condo across the street. The condo across the street is at a lower elevation than his house, but is not in the flood zone.

Murray Walsh, who stated he is representing several property owners, said he looked at the 2011 tidebook, which lists high tide at 20 feet, and the highest tide in some areas at 23 feet. He said this study adds 6-8 feet on top of that as “freeboard” — putting places in that range in flood zones.

“I’m not saying it’s impossible to have higher than normal water,” Walsh said. “If you had 24 inches of water in 24 hour period, with a 100 mile an hour wind at the same time as high tide, we might be able to pile up a lot of water. I don’t know we should build our standards on that. The federal government is doing something wrong here. I don’t know if it’s lack of direct local knowledge or bad math or something. It’s insane to be predicting the kinds of floods they’re talking about.”

Citizen James Burgato said they paid careful attention to flood maps and studies when they built their house and avoided building their home in a floodway. After 19 years (with no floods), their home is drafted to be in a floodway. They built their driveway and home on elevations above the flood plain, and in order to get a waiver from FEMA they would need to spend money on elevation studies, or pay high dollars for flood insurance.

Many residents were concerned about the cost of paying for flood insurance, citing $400 for the first year, but thereafter approximately $1,500 per year. Others stated that even though these plans have not been adopted, their banks are already calling and telling them they will need flood insurance.

Lori Blood, who owns three affected properties, also pointed out flaws in the map, most noticeably at Gold Creek. She pointed out that it puts flood waters 6-7 feet above the concrete barriers of Gold Creek — and does so all the way leading up to the Federal Building, tapers off at federal property, and after waters pass that property suddenly flood out again.

“Why are all other properties in a flood zone and not the federal property?” she asked. “I’d like to ask for a more detailed assessment of the area before you put me in a flood zone.”

Resident Chip Verrelli also spoke out against the maps, citing inaccuracies. He had an issue with the broad 29 foot flood zone indicator. He added that his house would be designated in the flood zone, yet several residences on his block aren’t, when water from his property directly drains to theirs. Verrelli also raised issue with the cost to citizens to refute the change, from elevation studies to insurance.

Malcolm Menzies, a well-known local retired civil engineer, provided the commission with data on why the FEMA maps are flawed. He specifically cited the SuperBear/Nugget Mall area, which he had worked with. Those areas are designated in the flood plain, when SuperBear was engineered to 31 feet. Menzies questioned the datum the company used — Great Lakes flood datum, New Zealand or local. Menzies also believes local elevation increases were not considered in the mapping, since elevation raised 1.9 feet since 1960.

He said the mall elevation was built at 32 feet, and the parking lot at 31 feet. He said by now it should be higher.

“Something doesn’t compute to me,” he said. “We have never in 50 years seen that area flood. It has never been in the flood plain before. I question that map.”
Menzies cautioned the city on adopting the full map, and urged them to take it piece by piece and study each area so that they don’t repeat mistakes made in 1970, when the area considered west Mendenhall was designated in a floodway and no development could take place.

Menzies said the expense of proving that homes are above flood elevation and other issues with this change should not come at the expense of the citizens.

Many others had similar concerns, listing examples of their homes or condos being designated as a flood zone, while their neighbor either at the same elevation or even lower was not.

The commission agreed with residents and asked the staff to compile data and a strongly worded letter to FEMA asking for further study and more detail.

“We do have an obligation to the community,” said Commissioner Ben Haight, “That those that are truly in the flood zone are protected with insurance and that those that are truly not in the flood zone aren’t burdened with the cost of surveying, mapping, additional insurance. What I am seeing from all of the testimony, observation of the maps, is the study is flawed. The study has not been completed.”

Commissioner Ben Bishop agreed, saying they need to go through and show FEMA specific examples on the maps where it is flawed as a sample.

“I don’t think we have 10 percent of the issues we’re going to see,” he said. “The most egregious one is Gold Creek.”

Community Development Director Dale Pernula said they need to be sure and provide specific data, because at this point strong statements aren’t going to mean anything to FEMA. Pernula said several streams, including Gold Creek, need a more detailed analysis and he suggested they hire a hydrologist to go through and verify the report.

“We should not be endorsing something that puts people in harm’s way,” said Commissioner Frank Rue. “Mr. Pernula mentioned a couple places where clearly there was not precise data and now clearly they’re in the meat grinder. People should not be put in the program without very good data that clearly identifies their property as being in the flood plain.”

Citizens do not have the opportunity to make direct comments to FEMA, however there is a comment period where citizens are encouraged to make comments to the city. The city will include those sentiments in its report to FEMA. The deadline for those comments to the city is Saturday, but since city offices are closed on Saturday, Feldt asks those interested to submit comments by Friday.

• For more information on flood maps or how to submit comments see: http://www.juneau.org/cddftp/FloodMaps.php