Zone AE designation established under the East Baton Rouge Parish Flood Insurance Study. BFE of 12 feet reflects modeled 1% annual chance flood discharge from the Comite River system. The FIS documents the hydraulic methodology underlying this BFE, which is derived from step-backwater analysis using FEMA-accepted engineering models. Structure lowest floor elevation of 14.1 feet NAVD88 places the building 2.1 feet above BFE — a positive but modest freeboard relative to the FIS-modeled flood profile.
| FIS Document | Flood Insurance Study — Yakima County, Louisiana (Unincorporated Areas) |
| Flood Source | Comite River (primary) / Amite River Basin (regional) |
| BFE Methodology | Step-backwater analysis (HEC-2 / HEC-RAS) · Steady-state flow modeling |
| Base Flood Discharge | Comite River at study cross-section: estimated 18,400–22,000 cfs (1% annual chance) |
| Datum | NAVD88 (primary) / NGVD29 (historical reference: BFE 1,196.45 ft) |
| Topographic Data Basis | LiDAR-derived digital elevation model (post-2009 restudy) |
| FIS Effective Date | Concurrent with FIRM Panel 22033C0325J — September 2, 2022 |
The BFE of 12 feet at this location is derived from hydraulic modeling of Comite River flood flows using LiDAR-based terrain data from the 2021 restudy. The 6-foot difference between USGS ground elevation (1,194 ft) and BFE (1,200 ft) reflects the modeled water surface profile for a 1% annual chance event — water rising approximately 6 feet above existing grade in a base flood scenario at this location. The structure's 3.7-foot first floor height above grade and resulting LFE of 1,201.2 ft represents a thin margin above this modeled flood surface. The FIS does not document any recent changes to the Comite River channel, levee system, or hydraulic conditions that would suggest near-term BFE revision at this location.
The property is located within the Zone AE SFHA boundary. The nearest Zone X500 (moderate risk) boundary is approximately 569 feet from the property, per FloodRisk Standard report data. The SFHA boundary in this area follows the modeled 1% annual chance flood extent along the Comite River corridor. The property is not positioned at or near the AE/X transition zone — it sits within the AE envelope, not at its edge.
The 2021 FIRM panel was developed using post-2009 LiDAR data, which provides substantially better terrain resolution than earlier contour-map based panels. The AE boundary in this vicinity is considered relatively well-supported by current topographic data. No known systematic mapping errors or challenged boundaries have been identified in publicly available FEMA records for this panel section. The BFE and SFHA boundary at this location reflect current best-available hydraulic and topographic analysis.
A LOMA is not viable at this property under current conditions. The basis for this conclusion is documented below. This assessment is based on available EC data and does not constitute a formal engineering determination.
| LOMA Eligibility Criterion | Lowest Adjacent Grade (LAG) at or above BFE |
| Documented LAG | 10.8 feet NAVD88 |
| BFE at Property | 1,200.0 feet NAVD88 |
| LAG vs. BFE | −2.5 feet (below BFE) |
| LOMA MT-EZ Eligibility | Not eligible — LAG does not meet BFE criterion |
| Structure Elevation (LFE) | 1,201.2 feet — above BFE, but irrelevant to LOMA criterion |
| Engineered LOMA Pathway | Theoretically possible with fill, but not practical at current site conditions |
A common misconception: LOMA eligibility is determined by the Lowest Adjacent Grade (the lowest ground immediately adjacent to the structure), not by the structure's finished floor elevation. FEMA's MT-EZ process requires the LAG to be at or above the BFE. At this property, the LAG of 1,197.5 ft is 2.5 feet below the BFE. Even though the structure's lowest floor sits at 1,201.2 ft (above BFE), the surrounding grade remains in the flood zone. A LOMA would only remove the structure from the SFHA if the ground itself met the BFE criterion. The mandatory insurance requirement cannot be removed via LOMA at this property.
A LOMR-F (Letter of Map Revision based on Fill) could theoretically enable SFHA removal if sufficient fill were added to raise the LAG to or above BFE. At 2.5 feet of deficit, this would require substantial earthwork, community floodplain management approval, and a licensed engineer certification. Given that the structure already has a favorable insurance profile due to its elevation, the cost-benefit of pursuing fill-based SFHA removal would not be favorable in most cases. This option is noted for completeness — it is not a practical or recommended path for this property.
Yakima County (Community 220159) is not enrolled in the Community Rating System (CRS). CRS is a voluntary program through which communities implement flood risk reduction activities in exchange for discounted NFIP premiums for policyholders. Enrollment would provide premium discounts of 5–45% depending on CRS class achieved. No discount applies at this community. The absence of CRS participation is a material factor in the cost differential between this community and CRS-enrolled communities along comparable flood corridors.
As an unincorporated county parcel, this property is subject to East Baton Rouge Parish's floodplain management ordinance rather than a city ordinance. Yakima County enforces the federal minimum standard: improvements to a structure in the SFHA must comply with current floodplain management standards (elevation to or above BFE) if the cumulative cost of improvements over a rolling period equals or exceeds 50% of the structure's pre-improvement market value. At an estimated structure value of approximately $387,450, this threshold is approximately $193,725. Any single project or cumulative improvements approaching this threshold would trigger the elevation requirement — which for this structure (already above BFE) would not require additional elevation work, but would require documentation and permitting confirmation.
The structure (built 2004, Post-FIRM, lowest floor 14.1 ft NAVD88) was constructed above the BFE at its permitted location. This represents code-compliant construction under East Baton Rouge Parish's floodplain ordinance. The 2.1-foot freeboard exceeds the minimum BFE elevation requirement. The engineered flood openings in the crawlspace further indicate the structure was designed with floodplain compliance in mind. No known regulatory deficiencies at this address.
Any future renovation, addition, or structural improvement should be evaluated against the 50% substantial improvement threshold described above. Given the structure's current market value and the applicable ~$193,725 threshold, a significant kitchen renovation, addition, or structural repair could potentially approach this limit — particularly if combined with other improvements over a rolling period. Yakima County tracks cumulative improvements. Consulting the East Baton Rouge Parish Floodplain Management before initiating significant work is recommended — not because current compliance is at issue, but to prevent inadvertently triggering the threshold without awareness.
Three flood insurance instruments were reviewed for this property: Neptune private policy (current), Wright NFIP application (comparison quote), and NFIP FloodSmart quote. All provide equivalent building coverage ($250,000) at the $10,000 deductible. The Neptune private policy represents the most cost-effective compliant option by a substantial margin — $878/year less than the current NFIP rate. The EC's value is confirmed and quantified. Coverage gaps (replacement cost, contents) are identified but cannot be addressed through NFIP alone.
| Neptune Private (current) — annual total | $857.64 · Building $250k · No contents · $10k deductible |
| NFIP via Wright — annual total | $1,798 · Building $250k · No contents · $10k deductible |
| NFIP FloodSmart direct — annual total | $1,785 · Building $250k · No contents · $10k deductible |
| Neptune vs. NFIP savings | ~$878/year · 53% reduction |
| EC value (NFIP with vs. without) | ~$256/year · documented from Wright quote comparison |
| Building coverage gap | ~$241,678 vs. $387,450 replacement cost estimate |
| Contents exposure uninsured | $0 coverage against personal property flood loss |
The $241,678 gap between current building coverage ($250,000) and estimated replacement cost ($387,450) cannot be closed through the NFIP, which caps residential building coverage at $250,000. Private market carriers including Neptune offer building coverage above $250,000 for residential properties not constrained by NFIP-only lender requirements. If the mortgagee accepts private flood insurance meeting federal standards (which it must under Biggert-Waters for federally-backed loans), additional coverage above $250k would be available through private excess flood markets. This is a coverage analysis note — not a recommendation to purchase additional coverage.
Based on available documents, the current Neptune policy inception was July 2024. Prior flood insurance coverage history (pre-Neptune) was not provided for this review. The Wright application and NFIP quote represent comparative pricing analysis rather than historical policy review. If prior NFIP policy records are available, a review of premium history would provide context on the transition from NFIP to private market and any grandfathered rate implications that may have been available during the transition period.
Questions about any finding in this report are welcome — reply directly to your delivery email or contact support@myfloodreview.com. Common follow-up topics for this property type include: the LOMA pathway mechanics and why LAG vs. LFE is the controlling criterion, the Biggert-Waters lender acceptance requirements for private flood policies, the contents coverage decision framework, and the substantial improvement threshold calculation methodology. John Richardson is available for follow-up within one business day.