HomeMy WebLinkAbout962115.tiff Federal Emergency Management Agency"
Washington, D.C. 20472
c
OCT 181996
CLEF c.
CERTIFIED MAIL IN REPLY REFER TO: TO THE i''?.
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Case No.: 96-08-335R
The Honorable Barbara J. Kirkmeyer Community: Weld County, Colorado
Chair, Weld County Board of Commissioners Community No.: 080266
P.O. Box 758
Greely, Colorado 80632 104
Dear Ms. Kirkmeyer:
This responds to a letter dated September 10, 1996, from Mr. Steven G. Smith, P.E., to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) regarding the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the
unincorporated areas of Weld County, Colorado. With his letter, Mr. Smith provided additional information
to support his July 16, 1996, request for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR). Mr. Smith
requested that FEMA evaluate the effects that a proposed channelization project along Chance Ditch (referred
to by Mr. Smith as Godding Hollow Creek) would have on the effective FIRM.
All data required by FEMA to evaluate this request were submitted with Mr. Smith's July 16 and
September 10 letters.
We have reviewed the data submitted and the flood data used to prepare the effective FIRM for Chance Ditch.
We believe that if the proposed project is constructed as shown on the plan sheet entitled "Godding
Hollow-CLOMR Grading Plan&Topographic Work Map," prepared by Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc.,
dated July 3, 1996, a revision to the FIRM would be warranted.
The proposed project will affect the reach of Chance Ditch from approximately 3,800 feet downstream to
approximately 4,100 feet upstream of County Road 22. The HEC-2 hydraulic model of the proposed
conditions indicates that the width of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), the area inundated by the flood
having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood), will decrease
compared to the SFHA width shown on the effective FIRM. The maximum decrease in SFHA width,
760 feet, will occur approximately 200 feet downstream of County Road 22.
Upon completion of the project, your community may submit the data listed below and request that we make
a final determination on revising the effective FIRM.
• As-built plans, certified by a registered professional engineer, for all proposed project
elements
• Community acknowledgment of the map revision request
• The IIEC-2 model of proposed conditions does not consider the effects of an existing elevated
flume that crosses Chance Ditch approximately 1,070 feet upstream of County Road 22. In
his September 10 letter, Mr. Smith stated that this existing elevated flume would not withstand
the force of the base flood. A stability analysis for the flume must be submitted to
demonstrate that the flume will not be in place during the base flood. The analysis should
include an assessment of the flood discharge that will cause the structure to fail. The effects
u
Pc*\
r kCIL ' : pGJ; DEMO CA 962115
2
of the structure before failure should be considered if the structure will fail during, rather
than before, the peak of the base flood.
If the stability analysis shows that the structure will be in place during the base flood, please
revise the HEC-2 model of proposed conditions to represent the obstruction caused by the
elevated flume. The results of the revised HEC-2 model should be presented on a
topographic work map of as-built conditions. Our review indicates that inclusion of the flume
in the HEC-2 model will result in an increase in the SFHA width just upstream of the existing
flume.
• Our review revealed discrepancies between the above-referenced plan sheet and the HEC-2
model of proposed conditions. Specifically, the channel lengths used in the HEC-2 model do
not match those indicated on the topographic work map. The topographic map shows channel
meanders that are not accounted for in the distances used in the HEC-2 model. Because much
of the base flood discharge is contained within the channel banks, it appears that the stream
thalweg should be used as the basis for the channel distances in the HEC-2 model. Our
evaluation indicates that revising the distances in the HEC-2 model will affect the computed
water-surface elevations and the resulting SFHA boundary delineation. Please revise the
HEC-2 model and mapping and make adjustments as necessary.
• The submitted topographic work map does not show the transition between the proposed
SFHA boundary delineations and the SFHA boundary delineations shown on the effective
FIRM at the upstream and downstream limits of the project. Please submit a topographic
work map showing such transitions. The mapping must be supported by hydraulic analyses
at the upstream and downstream limits.
• The detailed application and certification forms listed below may be required if as-built
conditions differ from the conceptual plans. If required, please submit new forms (copies of
which are enclosed) or annotated copies of the previously submitted forms showing the
revised information.
Form 4, entitled "Riverine Hydraulic Analysis Form"
Form 5, entitled "Riverine/Coastal Mapping Form"
With Form 4,hydraulic analyses, for as-built conditions, of the base flood must be submitted,
and with Form 5, a topographic work map showing the revised floodplain boundaries must
be submitted.
• Certification that all fill placed in the currently effective base floodplain and below the
proposed base flood elevation is compacted to 95 percent of the maximum density obtainable
with the Standard Proctor Test method issued by the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM Standard D-698) or an acceptable equivalent method for all areas to be
removed from the base floodplain
• As indicated in the enclosed notice, FEMA revised the fee schedule for reviewing and
processing requests for modifications to published flood information and maps. Under this
schedule, FEMA established a flat review and processing fee for each type of request. All
3
requests dated October 1, 1996, or later will be processed under this new schedule. The fee
for your map revision request will be $2,300 and must be received before we can begin
processing your request. Payment of this fee shall be made in the form of a check or money
order, made payable in U.S. funds to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), or by
credit card. The payment must be forwarded to the following address:
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fee-Collection System Administrator
P.O. Box 3173
Merrifield, Virginia 22116-3173
The basis of this CLOMR is, in whole or in part, a channel-modification project. NFIP regulations, as cited
in Paragraph 60.3(b)(7), require that communities assure that the flood-carrying capacity within the altered
or relocated portion of any watercourse is maintained. This provision is incorporated into your community's
existing floodplain management regulations. Consequently, the ultimate responsibility for maintenance of the
modified channel rests with your community.
This response to Mr. Smith's request is based on minimum tloodplain management criteria established under
the NFIP. Your community is responsible for approving all proposed tloodplain development, including this
request, and for assuring that the necessary permits required by Federal or State law have been received. State
and community officials, based on knowledge of local conditions and in the interest of human safety, may set
higher standards for construction or may limit development in tloodplain areas. If the State of Colorado or
your community has adopted more restrictive or comprehensive tloodplain management criteria, those criteria
take precedence over the minimum NFIP requirements.
If you have any questions regarding tloodplain management regulations for your community or the NFIP in
general, please contact the Consultation Coordination Officer (CCO) for your community. Information on
the CCO for your community may be obtained by contacting the Director, Mitigation Division of FEMA in
Denver, Colorado, at (303) 235-4830. If you have any technical questions regarding this CLOMR, please
contact Mr. John Magnotti of our staff in Washington, DC, either by telephone at (202) 646-3932 or by
facsimile at(202) 646-4596.
Sincerely,
S
- ,--Hazard Identification Branch
Mitigation Directorate
Enclosures
cc: Mr.Don Carroll
Weld County Engineering Department
Mr. Steven G. Smith, P. E.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY ANNOUNCES
CHANGES IN USER FEES FOR FLOOD MITIGATION PRODUCTS
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) recently announced its intent to
change the fee schedule for several of the products it provides to the public in support of the
National Flood Insurance Program(NFIP). These changes are being made (1)to simplify
existing administrative procedures for individuals who request Letters of Map Change and
Flood Insurance Study support information and archived data from FEMA and (2) to help
maintain the NFIP as a self-supporting,nontaxpayer-funded program.
Effective October 1, 1996, FEMA will change the fee schedule for the following products:
• Conditional Letters of Map Amendment
• Conditional Letters of Map Revision Based on Fill
• Conditional Letters of Map Revision
• Letters of Map Revision Based on Fill
• Letters of Map Revision
• Physical Map Revisions
• Flood Insurance Study Support Information and Archived Data Products
On August 30, 1996, FEMA published an interim final rule in the Federal Register that
details the reasons for the changes and provides the required revisions to the current NFIP
regulations presented in Parts 65, 70, and 72 of the NFIP regulations. On the same date,
FEMA also published a notice announcing the revised fee schedule in the Federal Register.
(A copy of that notice is attached.) The revised fee schedule will be applied to all new
requests dated October 1, 1996, or later.
Interested persons who do not have a subscription to the Federal Register may obtain copies
of the interim final rule, free of charge, by contacting Ms. Imelda Edwards at the address
shown below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Hazard Identification& Risk Assessment Division
500 C Street SW.
Washington,DC 20472
Telephone: (202)646-3860
Facsimile: (202)646-4596
This information also may be obtained electronically via FEMA's site on the World Wide
Web (http:/www.fema.govlMlT/feesch.htm) or by calling the FEMA Fax-on-Demand, at
(202) 646-3362,and requesting document number 20018.
46334 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 170 / Friday, August 30, 1996 / Notices
FEDERAL EMERGENCY charged to FEMA for labor and hour)shall be used to calculate the total
MANAGEMENT AGENCY materials.Because these rates and the fees that must be reimbursed.
actual review and processing costs may Fee Schedule for Conditional Letters of
Fee Schedule for Processing Requests vary from year to year,FEMA will Map Amendment and Conditional and
for Map Changes and for Flood publish revised fee schedules Final Letters of Map Revision Based on
Insurance Study Backup Data for FY periodically,when needed,as notices in Fill
1997 the Federal Register. Based on a review of actual cost data
AGENCY:Federal Emergency Simplification of Fee Schedule for for Fiscal Year 1995,FEMA established
Management Agency(FEMA). Conditional and Final Map Changes the following flat user fees,which are to
ACTION:Notice. The existing fee collection process is be submitted by requesters with
complex and its administration requires requests received by FEMA on and after
SUMMARY:f:This dolese fcontainsprocessing the P October 1, 1996:
revised fee schedules for time-intensive efforts on the part of
certain requests for changes to National FEMA.It also increases the time Single-lot/single-structure CLOMA. .
Flood Insurance Program(NFIP)maps required to provide requesters with the CLOMR-F,and LOMR-F $400
product theyrequire.The current Multiple-lot/multiple-structure
and for processing requests for Flood ph4A $700
Insurance Study(FIS)backup data.The system requires requesters to submit an Multiple-lot/multiple-structure
changes in the fee schedules will allow initial fee that is not intended to cover CLOMR-F and LOMR-F $800
FEMA to reduce further the expenses to the full review and processing costs or
the NFIP by recovering more fully the the cartographic production costs. Fee Schedule for Map Revisions
costs associated with(1)processing Requesters subsequently receive Unless the request is otherwise
conditional and final map change invoices for the balance.The current - exempted under 44 CFR 72.5,the flat
requests and(2)retrieving,reproducing, system is complicated further by the user fees shown below are to be
and distributing technical and pre-authorized spending limits placed submitted by requesters with requests
administrative support data related to on each product.When FEMA for LOMRs and Physical Map Revisions
FIS analyses and mapping. determines that these limits will be that are not based on structural
DATES:The revised fee schedules are exceeded,written authorization must be measures on alluvial fans that are
effective October 1,1996, obtained before proceeding with their received by FEMA on and after October
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: review.Processing the request is 1,1996.These fees are based on a
Michael K.Buckley,R.E.,Brief,Hazard delayed until the written authorization review of actual cost data for Fiscal Year
Identification Branch,500 C Street SW., is received. 1995.
Washington,DC 20472;(202)646-2756 FEMA has streamlined the process by Request based on bridge,culvert,
or by facsimile at(202)646-4596(not (1)charging flat user fees for most map channel,or combination thereof S3,700
toll-free calls). change products and services; (2) Request based on levee,berm,or other
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:This requiring full payment of fees before structural measure $4,300
notice contains the revised fee work is begun on most map change Request submitted as followup to CLOMR.
requests;(3)consolidating similar Request based solely on submission of
reests schedules foroc angesto certaino more detailed data $2,300
requests changes to National Flood products or services into a limited
Insurance Program(NFIP)maps and for number of user fee categories;and(4) Fee Schedule for Conditional Map
processing requests for Flood Insurance limiting the number of products for Revisions
Study(FIS)backup data.The revised fee which requesters may receive Unless the is requestotherwise
schedule for map changes is effective exemptions from payment of fees. As a exempted under 44 72.5',the flat
October 1,1996,in accordance with the result,requesters and FEMA know the user fees shown below are to be
product or service a providing prov g
rule for changes to 44 CFR parts 65,70, cost ofsubmitted by requesters with requests
and 72,published elsewhere in this before any work is begun. for CLOMRs that are not based on
edition of the Federal Register,and The initial fee for requests for LOMRs structural measures on alluvial fans that
supersedes the current fee schedule and CLOMRs based on structural are received by FEMA on and after
established on June 30,1992. measures on alluvial fans has been The revised fee schedule for requests maintained because(1)such requests October 1,1996.These fees are based ona review of actual cost data for Fiscal
1 for FIS backup data also is effective are rare,(2)the FEMA review for these year 1995.
', October 1,1996,and supersedes the requests is usually very complex,and Re oast based on new hydrology,
current fee schedule,also published in (3)the costs involved in processing the gbridge,culvert,channel,or
the Federal Register. requests can fluctuate significantly. combination $3,100
The basis for the initial fees,flat user Fees for Conditional and Final Map Request based on levee,berm,or other
fees,and hourly rates for requests for Revisions Based on Structural structural measure $3,300
Conditional Letters.of Map Amendment Measures on Alluvial Fans Fee Schedule for Requests for Flood
(CLOMAs),Conditional Letters of Map - Insurance Study Backup Data
Revision Based on Fill(CLOMR-Fs), Based on a review of actual cost data
Conditional Letters of Map Revision for Fiscal Year 1995,FEMA established The user fees shown below are to be
(CLOMRs),Letters of Map Revision $5,000 as the initial fee for requests for submitted by requesters with requests _
Based on Fill(LOMR-Fs),Letters of LOMRs and CLOMRs based on for FIS backup data that are received by
Map Revision(LOMRs),and Physical structural measures on alluvial fans. FEMA on and after October 1,1996.
Map Revisions and requests for FIS The remainder of the review and costs These fees are based on a review of
backup data received by FEMA on or is to be recovered by invoicing the actual cost data for Fiscal Year 1995.
i after October 1,1996 are provided in the requester before FEMA issues a They are based on the complete
separately published rule. determination letter,consistent with recovery of FEMA's costs for retrieving,
A primary component of the fees is current practice.The prevailing private- reproducing,and distributing the data, >_
1 the prevailing private-sector rates sector labor rate charged to FEMA($50/ as well as a pro rata share of the costs
i • Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 170 / Friday, August 30, 1996 / Notices 46335
4
-
3 for maintaining the data and operating (6)Category 6—Computer tapes of Overhead Fee for Requests in
r. the fee reimbursement system. Digital Line Graph files categories 1, 2, and 3 (per �3
As under the previous fee schedule, (7)Category 7—Computer diskettes
i Total Fee for Category 4 Requests(per
• all entities except FEMA's Study and user's manuals for FEMA programs letter) S40
• Contractors,FEMA's Technical - The costs of processing requests in Total Fee for Category 5 Requests(first
Evaluation Contractors,and the Federal Categories 1,2,and 3 above will vary panel) S3s
i agencies involved in performing FISs based on the complexity of the research Total Fee for Category 5 Requests
(i.e.,U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,U.S. involved in retrieving the data and the (additional panels) S2
Geological Survey,Natural Resources volume and medium of data to be Total Fee for Category 6 Requests(per
Conservation Service,National Oceanic reproduced and distributed.For these community) S15o
• and Atmospheric Administration,and categories of requests,FEMA will Total Fee for Category 7 Requests(per
Tennessee Valley Authority)will be require the payment of an initial copy) S25
• charged for requests for FIS backup - minimum fee,shown below,to cover Payment Submission Requirements
data.The only exception is that one the preliminary costs of research and Fee payments must be made in
copy of the FIS backup data will be retrieval.This fee will then be applied
provided to a community free of charge against the total labor costs,and the advance of services being rendered.
if the data are requested during the requester will be invoiced for the These payments are to be in the form of
i statutory 90-day appeal period for an remainder of the fees.No data will be a check or money order or by credit card
FIS. provided to a requester until all - payment.Checks and money orders are
FEMA has established seven required fees have been paid. to be made payable,in U.S.funds,to the
categories into which requests for FIS The costs for processing requests National Flood Insurance Program.
FE
. backup data are separated:These under Categories 4 through 7 above will MA will provide receipts to
categories are: not vary.Therefore,FEMA has requesters for their records or billing
(1)Category 1—Paper copies or established fiat user fees for these purposes.
microfiche of hydrologic and hydraulic categories of requests. The fees collected will be deposited to
backup data for current FIS the National Flood Insurance Fund,
Initial Fee for Requests in Categories 1,
(2)Category 2—Paper copies of which is the source of funding for
2,and 3(per request)...._................_....590
popgmpq mapping developed during labor pre for Requests in Categories 1, - providing��services.
(3)Cat O 3—Pa r co ies of curve rocess
2,and 3(per hour) 433 Dated:August 23,1996.
ag ry Pe P Y Wbrery Maintenance Fee for Requests Richard W.Krimm, •
notes developed during FIS process in Categories 1,2,and 3(pee
(4)Category copies of request) .528 Acting Associate Director,Mitigation
> individual Letters of Map Change Microfiche Production Fee for Directorate.
(5)Category 5—Paper copies of Requests in Categories 1,2,and 3 (FR Doc.96-22076 Filed 8-29-96;8:45 am]
preliminary map panels (per request) 322 aasmo coos me•a-v
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
MITIGATION DIRECTORATE
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION & RISK ASSESSMENT DIVISION
REVISIONS TO
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM MAPS
Application/Certification Forms and Instructions
for
Conditional Letters of Map Revision,
Letters of Map Revision, and
Physical Map Revisions
S
MT-2 FEMA FORM 81-89 SERIES, MAY 96 (SUPERSEDES MT-2, OCT 94)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE APPLICATION/CERTIFICATION FORMS FOR
CONDITIONAL LETTERS OF MAP REVISION, LETTERS OF MAP
REVISION, AND PHYSICAL MAP REVISIONS
GENERAL
In 1968,the U.S. Congress passed the National Rood Insurance Act, which created the National Flood
Insurance Program (NAP). The NAP was designed to reduce future flood losses through local
floodplain management and to provide protection for property owners against potential losses through
flood insurance.
As part of the agreement for making flood insurance available in a community, the NAP requires the
participating community to adopt floodplain management ordinances containing certain minimum
requirements intended to reduce future flood losses. The community is also responsible for submitting
data to the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)reflecting revised flood hazard information
so that NFIP maps can be revised as appropriate. This will allow risk premium rates and floodplain
management requirements to be based on current data.
Submissions to FEMA for revisions to effective Flood Insurance Studies (FISs) by individual and
community requestors will require the signing of application/certification forms. These forms will
provide FEMA with assurance that all pertinent data relating to the revision is included in the submittal.
They will also assure that: (a)the data and methodology are based on current conditions; (b) qualified
professionals have assembled data and performed all necessary computations; and (c) all individuals
and organizations impacted by proposed changes are aware of the changes and will have an
opportunity to comment on them. The circumstances for which this package is applicable are as
follows:
Conditional Letter of Map A letter from FEMA commenting on whether a
Revision (CLOMR) proposed project, if built as proposed, would
justify a map revision (LOMR or PMR), or
proposed hydrology changes (see 44 CFR Ch.
1, Parts 60, 65, and 721.
Letter of Map Revision A letter from FEMA officially revising the current
(LOMR) NFIP map to show changes to floodplains,
floodways, or flood elevations. LOMRs typic-
ally depict decreased flood hazards. (See 44
CFR Ch. 1, Parts 60 and 65).
Physical Map Revision A reprinted NFIP map incorporating changes to
(PMR) floodplains, floodways, or flood elevations.
Because of the time and cost involved to
change, reprint, and redistribute an NFlP map,
a PMR is usually processed when a revision
reflects incr d flood hazards or large-scope
changes. (See 44 CFR Ch. 1, Parts 80 and
65).
It should be noted that FEMA may decide to defer a revision until a future date. Please note that for
the following circumstances,this package is not applicable: Instead,the package entitled Amendments
and Revisions to National Rood Insurance Program Mans Aoolication/Certification Forms and
instructions for Conditional Letters of Mao Amendment. Letters of Mao Amendment. Conditional
Letters of Mao Revision (Based on Fill). and Letters of Mao Revision (Based on All) is appropriate.
1
Letter of Map Amendment A letter from FEMA removing an existing
(LOMA) structure or a legally defined parcel of land
unaltered by fill from an SFHA (see 44 CFR Ch.
1, Part 70).
Conditional Letter of A letter from FEMA conditionally removing a
Map Amendment (CLOMA) proposed structure or a legally defined parcel of
land unaltered by fill from an SFHA (see 44
CFR Ch. 1, Parts 70 and 72).
Letter of Map Revision A letter from FEMA removing an existing
Based on Fill (LOMR-BOF) structure or a legally defined parcel of land
elevated by the placement of fill from an SFHA
(see 44 CFR Ch. 1, Section 65.5).
Conditional Letter of Map A letter from FEMA conditionally removing a
Revision Based on Fill proposed structure or a legally defined parcel
(CLOMR-BOF) of land to be elevated by the placement of fill
from an SFHA(see 44 CFR Ch. 1, Section 65.5
and Part 72).
NFIP regulation, CFR Ch. 1, specifies the requirements regarding the submittal of revision requests to
FEMA. A document entitled Appeals.Revisions,and Amendments to National Rood Insurance Praaranl
Maps, A Guide for Community Officials dated December 1993, provides background on the NFIP and
an expanded explanation of these requirements.
NFIP Regulation, 44 CFR Ch. 1, Part 59, contain general provisions of the NFIP with which all
requestors and community officials involved in revision requests should be familiar.
NAP Regulation, 44 CFR Ch. 1, Section 65.2, contain definitions relative to certification of data,
analyses, and structural works. This information is important to all professionals certifying technical
information contains with revision requests and should be carefully reviewed prior to signing the
application/certification forms.
72 of the NFIP regulations, published at 44 CFR 72, presents information regarding • -
reim• - merit procedure that FEMA has initiated to allow for the recovery of costs associ: • with
the revie • requests for Conditional LOMRs, LOMRs, or Physical Map Revisions a initial,
minimum fees MA's review and processing of CLOMRs, LOMRs, and Phy.'• ap Revisions
requests are as foil' •
PROJECTTY- CLOM- LOMR PMR
• Bridge or culvert only 560 $785 $785
• Channel modification only $640 $865 $865
• Channel modification and new bridg $840 $1,065 $1,065
culvert
• Levees, berms, or other - • ral $1,080 $1,305 $1,305
modifications
• Structural res on alluvial fan $2,800 83,025 $3,025
• Re ' • revised hydrology $280 — —
• s-Built request for.previous CLOMR — 8225 $22
(see back 4r Wit/ self tix 1t)
2
•r requests involving a combination of the above, the highest fee will apply. Before a determinat•
is I: ed, the requestor will be billed for all actual costs incurred during the review that exce - the
initial - If the total cost will exceed $3,500, FEMA will advise the requestor and obtai• pproval
in writing • ore costs in excess of $3,500 are incurred, except for requests involy' • structural
measures on a vial fan. For those requests,the requestor will be notified if costs wi xceed $6,500.
If the revision reque . results in either a LOMR or a Physical Map Revisi• , the requestor will be
charged a fee of $410 • : evised panel to cover the costs of cartograp• preparation. Please note
that any initial fee already a • • itted will be applied to this request • •.: if all of the required data are
received within 90 days of the - :ipt of the original request by - A.
Payment must be made in the form of heck or mono . der made payable to the National Rood
Insurance Prooran'. Please forward payme o the f• •wing address:
Federal Emergen agement Agency
Revisions Fee- • ction Sy •: Administrator
P.O. Box 317
' errifield, Virginia 221 •
Fax: (703) 849-0282
For payment by credit c • the requestor must complete the "Credit Ca Information Form" (Form
1A).
Exempt from • - :e reimbursement procedures for either proposed or"as-built" condi• . ,s are requests
for proje that are for public benefit and are intended to reduce the flood hazer. o existing
develo• ent in identified flood hazard areas as opposed to planned floodplain developm Also
ex •t are requests based solely on the submission of more detailed information and reque to
•rrect NFIP map errors.
A request for a revision to the effective FIS information (Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Rood
Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM), and/or FIS report) is usually a request that FEMA replace the
effective floodplain boundaries, flood profiles, floodway boundaries, etc., with those determined by
the requestor. Before FEMA will replace the effective FIS information with the revised information,the
requestor awn: (a) provide all of the data used in determining the revised floodplain boundaries, flood
profiles, floodway boundaries, etc.; (b) provide Alf data necessary to demonstrate that the physical
modifications to the floodplain have been adequately designed to withstand the impacts of the 100-
year flood event and will be adequately maintained; (c) demonstrate that the revised information (e.g.,
hydrologic and hydraulic analyses and the resulting floodplain and floodway boundaries) are consistent
with the effective FIS information.
Completed application/certification forms should be neatly packaged in order, with the appropriate
enclosure(s) following each form submitted. A notebook-style format is ideal. The complete package
should be submitted to the appropriate FEMA Regional Office. The addresses and telephone numbers
of the ten Regional Offices, as well as information regarding which areas they support, are provided
inside the back cover of this document. The address and telephone number of the Headquarters office
in Washington, D.C., are also provided.
If the request is a follow-up to a CLOMR for a project built as proposed, only the Revision Requestor
and Community Official Form and the Professional Certification Form need to be completed.
Additional information is contained on the forms. Wherever necessary, attach additional sheets
required to provide the information requested on the forms.
3
Commonly Used Acronyms
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency.
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program.
BFE Base Flood Elevation. It is the height of the base flood, usually in feet, in relation to
the datum used, or the depth of the base flood usually in feet, above the ground
surface. The base flood is the flood that has a 1-percent probability of being equaled
or exceeded in any given year (also referred to as the 100-year flood).
FIS Flood Insurance Study. An engineering study performed under contract to FEMA to
identify flood-prone areas and to determine BFEs,flood insurance rate zones,and other
flood risk data for a community.
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map. An official map of a community, on which the Administra •
-
tor has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable
to the community.
FBFM The Flood Boundary and Floodway Map. The floodplain management map issued by
FEMA that depicts, on the basis of detailed analyses, the boundaries of the 100- and
500-year floodplain and the regulatory 100-year floodway.
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area. Areas inundated by a flood having a 1-percent probability
of being equaled or exceeded in any given year(also referred to as the 100-year flood).
4
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE
REVISION REQUESTOR AND COMMUNITY OFFICIAL FORM
(FORM 1)
This form provides the basic information regarding revision requests and must be submitted with each
request. It contains much of the material needed for FEMA to assess the nature and complexity of the
proposed revision. It will identify: (a) those elements that will require supporting data and analyses;
(b)items needing concurrence of others; and (c)the type of response expected from FEMA. This form
will also assure that the community is aware of the impacts of the request and has notified Impacted
property owners, if required. All items must be completed accurately. If the revision request is being
submitted by an individual, firm, or other non-community official, contact should be made with
appropriate community officials. NAP regulation 44 CFR Ch. 1, Section 85.4, requires that revisions
based on new technical data be submitted by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the community or
a designated official. Should the CEO refuse to submit such a request on behalf of another party,
FEMA will agree to review it only if written evidence is provided indicating the CEO or designee has
been requested to do so. The definitions below are provided to assist the requestor in completing the
form.
physical chanaea include watershed development, flood control structures, etc. Note that fees will be
assessed for FEMA's review of proposed and'as-built' projects,as outlined in NFIP regulations 44 CFR
Ch. 1, Part 72. improved methodoloav may be a different technique jmodel►or adjustments to models
used in the effective FIS. Improved data include revised as well as new data. Floodway modifications
involve any shift in the FEMA-designated floodway boundaries, regardless of whether the shift is
mappable.
floodina source refers to a specific lake, stream, ocean, etc. This must match the flooding source
name shown on the FIRM,if it has been labeled. (Examples: Lake Michigan, Duck Pond,or Big Hollow
Creek). Proiect Name/Identifier can be the name of a flood control project or other pertinent structure
having an impact on the effective AS, the name of a subdivision or area, or some other identifying
phrase.
The,mao number,panel number, community number, and effective date can be obtained from the FIRM
title block. The sample FIRM panels (Figures 1 and 2) provide a convenient source of information to
fill in item 5. FIRM panels may be ordered from the Map Service Center for a minimal fee by calling
1-800-358-9616. Orders may also be faxed to the Center at 1-800-358-9620.
NFIP Compliance
If the community or communities disagree with the proposed revision, a signed statement should be
attached to the request explaining the reasons or bases for disagreement.
The community should refer to the document entitled Appeals. Revisions.and Amendments to National
Flood Insurance Proaram Maos. A Guide for Community Officials dated December 1993.
Reauested Response from FEMA
In order to avoid confusion between FEMA and the revision requestor, the requestor should identify
the desired response from FEMA. Brief descriptions of possible responses are provided in the
introduction; more detail regarding these responses and the data required to obtain each response are
provided in the NFIP regulations, 44 CFR Ch. 1, and in the document entitled Appeals. Revisions. and
Amendments to National Flood Insurance Proaram Maos, A Guide for Community Officials, dated
December 1993.
5
1 RATIONAL ILNO MsnANCr FMIRAN ', I', MAMMAL FLOSS ENlISt MINI
NIIIIYI YYYiiilll p II II,.
f�N14 ' FIRM ;,j FIRM
IiII I iI FLOOD INSURANCE RATE YAP ROOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
NNN MORGAN COUNTY,
11 TOWN OFfl
WEST VIRGINIA AND
MARSHFIELD, INCORPORATED AREAS
�� VERMONT P"'', PANEL 7t OF IOU
I'� WASHINGTON COUNTY II MS ma,rM•DOMrr,u-r —'-
Community I s IRS
l PANEL 4 OF 20 Name/State r . �. 11111: m
,M4 0%2 W,UM,b
Ali `
Illij' ' Community —.—.------
----------
1
IIi COMMUNItY NDYIEt Number ` NoMEM
I 1 TLaN MDESCOOSE C
0 i MAP REVISED: EFFECTIVE DATE
•
MARCH 5.ins Panel or Map 7* : MARCH 5.Ins
Number
1j III Ronal E.MrpMFMM,FmMr AMM> I '�it FM,NGM,PMF Maiming*MMf
Effective Date
Figure 1. Sample FIRM Panel Figure 2. Sample FIRM Panel
(Single Community) (Countywide)
Sianature and Title of Revision Reauestor
The person signing this certification should own the property involved in the request or have legal
authority to represent a group/firm/organization or other entity in legal actions pertaining to the NFIP.
Sianature and Title of Community Officials
The person signing this certification should be the CEO for the community involved in this revision
request or a legally designated official by the CEO. If more than one community is affected by the
change, the community official from the community that is most affected should sign the form and
letters from the other affected communities should be enclosed.
,
6
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION FORM
(FORM 2)
The licensed professional engineer and/or land surveyor should have a current license in the State in
which one of the impacted communities resides and should provide the number of years of experience
in the specific area of expertise being certified, not the number of years as a licensed professional
engineer and/or land surveyor. While the individual signing this form is not required to have obtained
the supporting data or performed the analyses, he or she must have supervised and reviewed the work.
This form must be submitted with each request.
Viewing the physical changes (Item 5) involves an onsite visit and observation of all features upon
completion of the project. Examination of photographs must not be substituted for onsite visits.
If he or she is not familiar with all analyses conducted within the expertise cited on this form (Item 6)
or with all construction procedures involved with the construction of the completed project (Item 7),
the individual signing this form should attach a statement indicating the basis for concluding that all
analyses and construction were performed in accordance with sound engineering practice. The
individual signing this form should take care to identify other experts who may not be licensed
engineers and their assistance regarding the assessment of analyses and construction practices.
Please note that more than one certification form may be required to include all disciplines involved in
project completion.
A certification by a registered professional engineer or other party does not constitute a warranty or
guarantee of performance, expressed or implied. Certification of data is a statement that the data is
accurate to the best of the certifier's knowledge. Certification of analyses is a statement that the
analyses have been performed correctly and in accordance with sound engineering practices.
Certification of structural works is a statement that the works are designed in accordance with sound
engineering practices to provide protection from the base flood. Certification of "as-built" conditions
is a statement that the structure(s) has been built according to the plans being certified, is in place,
and is fully functioning.
If the requestor represents a Federal agency responsible for the design and construction of flood
control facilities, a letter stating that "the analyses submitted has been performed correctly and in
accordance with sound engineering practices" may be submitted in lieu of this form. Regarding the
certification of completion of flood control facilities, a letter from the Federal agency certifying its
completion and the flood frequency event to which the project protects may be submitted in lieu of
this form.
7
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS FORM
(FORM 3)
This form must be completed when discharges other than those used in the FIS are proposed.
Information requested is used to compare revised data to FIS data, compare revised discharges to FIS
discharges, and to determine the merit of using revised methods and data over those used in the AS.
For revisions based on alternative methodologies or improved data, an explanation as to why the
alternative methodology or improved data provides better results over the FIS must be presented and
supported throughout the form. Models submitted in support of a revision request must meet the
requirements of Subparagraph 85.6(a)16) of the NFIP regulations.
The data revision section should be completed as shown below.
Data Parameter New Revised Data Source
Curve Number ❑ ❑X Land Use Maas
❑ ❑ Published by SCS
❑ ❑ (Due to Extensive
❑ ❑ Develooment Since
❑ ❑ Effective FIS Date)
Attachment A - Statistical Analysis of Gaae Records (one Der aaae record):
Statistical analyses of gage data are based on the guidelines set forth in Bulletin 178 by the
Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data.
Systematic data refer to peak discharge data observed and recorded regularly over a period of time by
a government agency or private firm. Historical data refers to peak discharge data observed outside
the systematic period and recording only isolated outstanding events. Historical data should be
documented whenever possible.
jlomoaeneous data are data for which the long-term trend of the data should remain constant. In other
words, the probability distribution used to describe the data is independent of time. An example of
non-homogeneous data would be peak discharge data at the confluence of two streams following two
different flow regimes.
Data adiustmenta are adjustments made to the statistical data/record, such as the use of a second
gaging station to compensate for a short record or adjustments for zero flood years.
Bulletin 17B recommends the use of the log-Pearson Type III (LP3) distribution for the statistical
analysis of flood data. However, there may be situations where the LP3 distribution is inappropriate
and another probability distribution must be used. Other distributions include Extreme Value (Gumboil
and log-normal (Gabon). The use of dltemative distributions must be justified and fully documented.
8
Comparison of results with other analyse& includes comparing the analysis with another station on a
hydrologically similar stream or using an alternative analysis (e.g., regression equations) to verify the
reasonableness and logic of the results.
Attachment B - Reaional Regression Eauations (one per stream)
The source of the regression equations must be given along with a proper biblioaraohical reference.
The U.S. Geological Survey(USGS), in cooperation with State agencies in charge of monitoring water
data, has developed regression equations on a state-by-state basis. As these are revised regularly,
FEMA will accept only the most recently published regression equation report. Other agencies also
issue regression analyses reports, or a regional analyses can be performed.
}Ivdrolooic reaiona are groupings of stream gaging stations in which certain basin parameters have
been found to have roughly the sans influence on the peak flows as evidenced by the multiple
regression analysis. A stream watershed may encompass more than one region, in which case some
proportionality of the influence of each region upon the peak discharge must be considered.
Most regression equations are developed for rural or undeveloped conditions. These results can be
modified to reflect urban or developed conditions. If urbanized condition& were considered, the
methodology for developing the urban discharges must be described and/or referenced and the
percentage of the watershed that is urbanized must be given.
Because regression equations are based on compilation of data from several gage stations, a certain
amount of natural basin storage is inherent in the equations. However, regression equations are not
designed to handle watersheds controlled by major storage features such as flood control structures.
If such structures exist, a full account of how flood storage was considered must be given.
Attachment C - Precioitation/Runoff Model (One Per Modell
Baseflow is defined as the estimated flow occurring in the stream before the flood event occurs.
Because there are many different precipitation/runoff models, many with a different theoretical basis,
it is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove that one model provides superior results over another.
Therefore, it must be shown that the types of parameters, the theoretical basis, and source of data
provide superior results.
If possible, a precipitation runoff model should be compared and calibrated to a known flood event in
order to justify the values of the parameters and the assumptions made in the model. All calibration
and verification runs should be described and the results discussed. Please attach hard copies of the
calibration and verification model outputs.
Attachment D - Confidence Limits Evaluation
When revised discharges are not significantly different than the FIS discharges, FEMA may require a
confidence limits analysis at a later date to complete the review.
9
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE RIVERINE HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FORM
(FORM 4)
This form must be completed when the request involves a hydraulic analysis for riverine flooding that
differs from that used to develop the FIRM.
To obtain copies of the effective FIS models, either the community or FEMA Regional offices should
be contacted for direction. A list of FEMA Regional offices is located at the end of the instructions.
If the effective models are not available, the requestor must generate models that duplicate the FIS
profiles and the elevations shown in the Floodway Data Table in the FIS report to within 0.1 foot or
contact FEMA Headquarters for guidance. FEMA Headquarters should be contacted if this model
cannot be produced. If an alternative hydraulic model is used, it must be shown that the use of the
original model is inappropriate and the new model must be calibrated to reproduce the PS profiles
within 0.1 foot.
Only the guolicate effective model and the revised or oost-oroiect conditions mode(are required to be
submitted. The corrected effective mode(may be submitted to provide a more detailed analysis than
the duplicate effective mode(at the project site or fix any technical deficiencies. The existing or ore-
proiect conditions mode( may be required to support conclusions about the actual impacts of the
project associated with the revised or oost-oroiect conditions mode( or to establish more up-to-date
models on which to base the revised or oost-oroiect conditions model. The reylat or post-project
conditions mode(must always include the existing and post-project conditions. Additional information
about these models is contained on the form.
When the request is for a proposed project, the revised or Dost-oroiect conditions model should reflect
proposed conditions. The information requested on the Hydraulic Analysis Form are intended to
document the steps taken by the requestor in the process of preparing the revised or oost-oroiect
conditions hydraulic models and the resulting revised FIS information. The following guidelines should
be followed when completing the form:
(a) All changes to the duplicate and subsequent models must be supported by certified
topographic information, bridge plans, construction plans, survey notes, etc.
(b) Changes to the hydraulic models should be limited to the stream reach for which the
revision is being requested. Cross sections upstream and downstream of the revised
reach must be identical to those in the effective model. If this is done, water surface
elevations and topwidths computed by the revised models should match those in the
effective models upstream and downstream of the revised reach as required.
(c) There mum be consistency between the revised hydraulic models, the revised
floodplain and floodway delineations,the revised flood profiles,topographic work map,
annotated FIRMs and/or FBFMs, construction plans, bridge plans, etc.
For SFHAs designated as Zone A, the existino or ore-oroiect model and the revised or oost-oroiect
conditions model, or other hydraulic analyses for existino and revised conditions are required'to
determine the 100-year flood profile. The existino conditions model or analysis is required to support
conclusions about the actual impacts of the project associated with the revised or post-oroiect
conditions model or analysis.
10
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE RIVERINE/COASTAL MAPPING FORM
(FORM 51
This form is to be completed when mapping changes to either the FIRM or FBFM are proposed and to
auure that the revised floodplain and floodway boundary information tie-in to the effective information
so that a consistent NFIP map is maintained. In addition, the questions asked and information required
are to determine the impacts of the revision, including increases in SFHA and shifts in floodway both
on and off the requestor's property.
When fill is placed in the 100-year floodplain and the request is to alter 100-year flood boundary, in
order to permanently remove the filled area from the floodplain, the fill must be compacted and
protected against erosion from moving flood waters.
An insurable structure is defined as a walled and roofed building, other than a gas or liquid storage
tank, that is principally above ground and affixed to a permanent site, as well as a manufactured home
on a permanent foundation. For the latter purpose, the term includes a building while in the course
of construction, alteration or repair,but does not include building materials or supplies intended for use
in such construction, alteration or repair, unless such materials or supplies are within an enclosed
building on the premises.
11
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE CHANNEUZATION FORM
(FORM 61
This form is to be completed when any portion of the stream channel is altered or relocated. When
the Channelization Form is submitted, a Riverine Hydraulic Analysis Form must also be submitted.
The purpose of the Channelization Form is to assure that the channel will function properly as designed
and pass the 100-year flood as determined by the hydraulic analysis. Typically, channelization
increases the channel velocity above the natural channel velocity. Documentation must be provided
that assures that the channel lining will withstand the velocities associated with the 100-year flood.
Additional considerations are the stability of the flow regime and the effects of sediment transport.
12
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE BRIDGE/CULVERT FORM
(FORM 7)
This form is to be completed when the request involves a new bridge or culvert or a new or revised
analysis of an existing bridge or culvert.
Typically, a revision is not requested to reflect a new analysis of a previously studied existing structure.
If this is the case, an explanation of why the new analysis was performed is required. Typically, the
structure is analyzed using the same method of analysis used for the flooding source. If a different
method is used for the structure,justification why the hydraulic analysis utilized for the flooding source
could not analyze the structure must be enclosed.
Culvert Length or Bridge Width: The culvert length or bridge width in direction of flow
must be entered.
Culvert/Bridge Area: If a computer model is used to analyze the structure,
the calculated culvert/bridge area may be different than
the total culvert/bridge area in cases of low flow.
Elevations above which flow is These elevations are needed to ensure that the flow is
effective for the entire cross section: restricted to the effective cross section.
Top Widths: Top widths are the horizontal distance between
stations of the floodplain boundaries, floodway bound-
aries, and the limits of effective flow areas modeled in
a cross section.
13
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE LEVEE/FLOODWALL SYSTEM ANALYSES FORM
(FORM 8)
The purpose of this form is to assure that the levee or floodwall is designed and/or constructed to
provide protection from the 100-year flood, in full compliance with 44 CFR Ch. 1, Section 65.10 of
the National Flood Insurance Program (NAP) regulations, before reflecting its effects on an NFIP map.
A complete engineering analysis must be submitted in support of each section of this form. In
addition,a vicinity map along with a complete set of flood profile sheets, plan sheets, and layout detail
sheets must be submitted. These sheets must be numbered, and an index must be provided that
clearly identifies those sheets specifically relating to the levee or floodwall in question.
14
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE COASTAL ANALYSIS FORM
(FORM 9)
The information requested on the Coastal Analysis Form is intended to document the steps taken by
the requestor in the process of preparing the revised models or analyses and the resulting revised FIS
information. The following guidelines should be followed when completing the form:
a. All changes to effective models must be supported by certified topographic informa-
tion, structure plans, survey notes, storm surge data, meteorological data, etc.
b. The reanalysis of the effective study must tie-in with areas not restudied.
c. All equations or models used must be referenced.
15
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE COASTAL STRUCTURES FORM
(FORM 10)
The Coastal Structures Form is to be completed when a revision to coastal flood hazard elevations
and/or areas is requested based on coastal structures being credited as providing protection from the
base flood. If the coastal structure is a levee/floodwall, complete the Levee/Floodwall System Analysis
Form in lieu of this form. When the Coastal Structures Form is submitted, the Coastal Analysis Form
should also be submitted.
The purpose of the Coastal Structures Form is to assure that the structure is designed and constructed
to provide protection from the base flood without failing or causing an increase in flood hazards to
adjacent areas. Documentation must be provided that assures a coastal structure is designed and
constructed to withstand the wind and wave forces associated with the base flood. Additional
concerns include the impact to areas directly landward of the structure that may be subjected to
overtopping and erosion along with possible failure of the structure due to undermining from the
backside and the possible increase in erosion at the ends of the structure to unprotected properties.
The evaluation of protection provided by sand dunes must follow the criteria outlined in 44 CFR Ch.
1, Section 65.11.
16
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE DAM FORM
(FORM 11)
The Dam Form is to be filled out when there is an existing, proposed, or modified dam along a stream
studied in detail. Any flood control storage to be considered in the hydrologic analysis for the dam
should be totally dedicated to flood control. If the dam is not certified to safely pass the 100-year
flood and the dam has a reasonable probability of failure during the 100-year flood, a dam break
analysis should be submitted. The dam break analysis should provide consistent results, use empirical
peak discharges from actual dam failures, require minimal input data, and perform river routing of the
failure hydrograph by dynamic procedures, which includes attenuation and translation. The NFIP does
not involve appraisal of dam safety adequacy; however, the FISs should include impacts of structures
when subjected to 100-year flood hydrographs. Local, State, and/or Federal laws address dam safety
features.
17
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE ALLUVIAL FAN FLOODING FORM
(FORM 12)
The purpose of this form is to assure that a structural flood control measure in areas subject to alluvial
fan flooding is designed and/or constructed to provide protection from the 100-year flood, in
compliance with 44 CFR Ch. 1,Section 65.13 of the NFIP regulations, before it is recognized on a NFIP
map. Please be aware that elevation of a parcel of land or a structure by fill or other means only, will
not serve as a basis for removing areas subject to alluvial fan flooding from an area of special flood
hazards. See Section 65.13 of the NFIP regulations.
Complete engineering analyses must be submitted in support of each section of this form. In addition,
it may be necessary to complete other forms relating to specific flood control measures, such as
levees/floodwalls, channelizations, or dams.
18
FEMA REGIONAL OFFICES
�GION ( REGION V(
(Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont) Texas)
Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Emergency Management Agency
Mitigation Division Mitigation Division
J. W. McCormack Post Office and Federal Regional Center
Courthouse Building, Room 462 800 North Loop 288
Boston, Massachusetts 02109-4595 Denton, Texas 78201-3698
1617) 223-9559 (817) 898-6127
REGION It REGION VI(
(New York, Puerto Rico, New Jersey) (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska)
Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Emergency Management Agency
Mitigation Division Mitigation Division
26 Federal Plaza, Room 1351 Federal Office Building
New York, New York 10278-0002 2323 Grand Boulevard, Suite 900
(212) 225-7200 Kansas City, Missouri 64108-2670
(816) 283-7002
REGION 1I(
REGION VII(
(Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia) (Colorado, Montana, Noah Dakota, South Dakota,
Utah, Wyoming)
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Mitigation Division Federal Emergency Management Agency
Liberty Square Building Mitigation Division
(Second Floor) Denver Federal Center
105 South Seventh Street Building 710, Box 25287
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-3316 Denver, Colorado 80225-0267
(215) 931-5750 (303) 235-4830
REGION IV REGION Ix
(Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, (Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Nevada)
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee) Federal Emergency Management Agency
Mitigation Division
Federal Emergency Management Agency Presidio of San Francisco, Building 105
Mitigation Division San Francisco, California 94129-1250
1371 Peachtree Street, Northeast (415) 923-7177
Suite 736
Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3108 REGION )(
1404) 853-4400
(Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington)
REGION V
Federal Emergency Management Agency
(Illinois, Indiana, Michigan Mitigation Division
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin) Federal Regional Center
130 228th Street, SW
Federal Emergency Management Agency Bothell, Washington, 98021-9796
FEMA, Mitigation Division (206) 487-4682
176 West Jackson Boulevard.
Fourth Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60604-2698
(312) 408-5580
19
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FEMA USE ONLY O.M.B.No.3067-0/48
REVISION REQUESTOR AND COMMUNITY OFFICIAL FORM Expires July 31, 1997
PUBLIC BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 2.13 hours per response. The burden estimate includes
the time for reviewing instructions,searching existing data sources,gathering and maintaining the needed data, and
completing and reviewing the form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any
suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street,S.W.,Washington,DC 20472.
You are not required tq respond to thip collection of information unless a valid OMB Control Number is
displayed in the upper nght corner of this form.
1.OVERVIEW
1.The basis for this revision request is(are):(check all that apply)
❑ Ph sical change
0 Existing
0 Proposed
❑ Improved methodology
❑ Improved data
❑ Floodway revision
❑ Other
Explain
2.Flooding Source:
3. Project Name/Identifier:
4. FEMA zone designations affected:
(example: A,AH,AO,AI-A30,A99,AE,V,V1-30,VE,B,C,D,X)
5.The NFIP map panel(s)affected for all impacted communities is(are):
Community Community Map Panel Effective
No. Name County State No. No. Date
EX: 480301 Katy,City Harris,Fort Bend TX 480301 0005D 02/08/83
480287 I larris County Ileitis TX 48201C 0220G 09/28/90
6.The area of revision encompasses the following types of flooding,structures,and associated disciplines:(check all
that apply)
Types of Flooding
,Structures Disciplines"
❑ Riverine 0 � li�wa11 0 Water Resources
❑ Coastal Ilydrology
❑ Alluvial Fan 0 Bridge/Culvert 0❑ Hydraulics
❑❑ Shallow Flooding/e.g.Zones AO and Alt El DamSediment Transport
Lakes 0 Coastal 0 Interior Drainage
❑ Fill 0 Structural
Affected by 0 Pump Station 0 Geotechnical
wind/wave action 0 None 0 Land Surveying
❑ Yes 0 Channel Relocation 0 Other(describe)
❑ No 0 Excavation
❑ Other(describe)
❑ Other(describe)
• Attach completed"Certification by Registered Professional Engineer and/or Land Surveyor"Form for
each discipline checked.(Form 2)
2.FLOODWAY INFORMATION
7. Does the affected flooding source have a floodway designated on the effective FIRM or FBFM? 0 Yes 0 No
8. Does the revised floodway delineation differ from that shown on the effective FIRM or FBFM 0 Yes 0 No
If yes,give reason:
PLEASE REFER TO THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE APPROPRIATE MAILING ADDRESS
FEMA Form St-119,MAY 96 Revision Requesto,and Community 04fitial Form MT.? Form/ one 1 of 4
Attach copy of either a public notice distributed by the community stating the community's intent to revise the
floodway or a statement by the community that it has notified all affected property owners and affected adjacent
jurisdictions.
9. Does the State have jurisdiction over the flood way or its adoption by communities participating in the NFIP?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes,attach a copy of a letter notifying the appropriate State agency of the floodway revision and documentation of the
approval of the revised floodway by the appropriate State agency.
3.PROPOSED ENCROACHMENTS
10. With floodways:
a. Does the revision request involve fill,new construction,substantial improvement,or other development
in the floodway? ❑Yes ❑No
b. If yes,does the development cause the 100-year water surface elevation to increase at any location by more
than 0.000 feet? ❑Yes ❑No
11. Without floodways:
a. Does the revision request involve fill,new construction,substantial improvement,or other development in
the 100-year floodplain? 0 Yes 0 No
b. If yes,does the cumulative effect of all development that has occurred since the effective SFHA was
originally identified cause the 100-year water surface elevation to increase at any location by more than
one foot(or other surcharge limit if community or state has adopted more stringent criteria)? ❑Yes ❑No
If the answer to either Items 10b or l lb is yes,please provide documentation that all requirements of Section 65.12 of
the NFIP regulations have been met,regarding evaluation of alternatives,notice to individual legal property owners,
concurrence of CEO,and certification that no insurable structures are impacted.
4.REVISION REOUESTOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT
12. Having read NFIP Regulations,44 CFR Ch.I,parts 59,60,61,and 72,1 believe that the proposed revision 0 is
❑ is not in compliance with the requirements of the aforementioned NFIP Regulations.
S.COMMUNRY OFFICIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT
13. Was this revision request reviewed b the community for compliance with the community's adopted floodplain
management ordinances? 0 Yes No
14. Does this revision request have the endorsement of the community?0 Yes 0 No
If no to either of the above questions,please explain:
Please note that community acknowledgment and/or notification is required for all requests as outlined in Paragraph
65.4(b)of the NFIP Regulations.
6.OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
15. Does the physical change involve a flood control structure(e.g.,levees,floodwalls,channeliration,basins,dams)?
❑Yes 0 No
If yes,please provide the following information for each of the new flood control structures:
A. Inspection of the flood control project will be conducted periodically by
entity
with a maximum interval of months between inspections.
B. Based on the results of scheduled periodic inspections,appropriate maintenance of the flood control facilities
will be conducted by
(entity)
to ensure the integrity and degree of flood protection of the structure.
C. A formal plan of operation,including documentation of the flood warning system,specific actions and
assignments of responsibility by individual name or title,and provisions for testing the plan at intervals
not less than I year, 0 has 0 has not been prepared for the flood control structure.
Revision Requester and Community Official Form MT 2 Form t Page 7 or 4
D. The community is willing to assume responsibility for 0 performing 0 overseeing compliance with the
maintenance and operation plans of the
(Name)
flood control structure. If not performed promptly by an owner other than the community,the community
will provide the necessary services without cost to the Federal Government.
Attach operation and maintenance plans
7.REQUESTED RESPONSE FROM FEMA
16. After examining the pertinent NFIP regulations and reviewing the document entitled"Appeals,Revisions,and
Amendments to National Flood Insurance Program Maps,A Guide for Community Officials,"dated December
1993,thisrequestisfor a:
a. CLOMR A letter from FEMA commenting on whether a proposed project,if built as proposed,would
justify a map revision(LOMR or PMR),or proposed hydrology changes(see 44 CFR Ch.I,
Parts 60,65,and 72).
b. LOMR A letter from FEMA officially revising the current NFIP map to show changes to floodplains,
floodways,or flood elevations. LOMRa typically depict decreased flood hazards.(See 44 CFR
Ch.I Parts 60 and 65.)
c. PMR A reprinted NFIP map incorporating changes to floodplains,floodways,or flood elevations.
Because of the time and cost involved to change,reprint,and redistribute an NFIP map,a
PMR is usually processed when a revision reflects increased flood hazards or large-scope
changes.(See 44 CFR Ch.I,Parts 60 and 65.)
d. Other: Describe
I.FORMS INCLUDED
17. Form 2 entitled,"Certification By Registered Professional Engineer and/or Land Surveyor"must be submitted.
The following forms should be included with this request if(check the included forms):
• Hydrologic analysis fur flooding source differs from that 0 Hydrologic Analysis Form
used to develop FIRM (Form 3)
• Hydraulic analysis for riverine flooding differs from that ❑ Riverine hydraulic Analysis Form
used to develop FIRM (Form 4)
• The request is based on updated topographic ❑ Riverine/Coastal Mapping Form
information or a revised floodplain or floodway pp g
delineation is requested (Form 5)
• The request involves any type of channel modification 0 Channelization Form(Form 6)
• The request involves new bridge or culvert or revised 0 Bridge/Culvert Form
analysis of an existing bridge or culvert (Form 7)
• The request involves a new revised levee/floodwall 0 Levee/Floodwall System Analysis Form
system (Form 8)
• The request involves analysis of coastal flooding
0 Coastal Analysis Form(Form 9)
• The request involves coastal structures credited as 0 Coastal Structures(Form 10)
providing protection from the 100-year flood
• The request involves an existing,proposed,or modified 0 Dam Form(Form 11)
dam
• The request involves structures credited as providing 0 Alluvial Fan Flooding Form
protection from the 100-year flood on an alluvial fan (Form 12)
Revision Requester and Community Official Form MT-2 Form 1 Page 3 of
C.INITIAL RENEW FEE
18. Has the minimum initial review fee for the appropriate request category been included? 0 Yes 0 No
Initial fee amount: $
Check or money order only. Make check or money order payable to : National Flood Insurance Program. If
paying by Visa or Mastercard please refer to the credit card information form which follows this form.
or
19. Is this request for a project that is for public benefit and is primarily intended for flood loss reduction to insurable
structures in identified flood hazard areas which were in existence prior to the commencement of construction of
the flood control project? 0 Yes 0 No
or
20. Is this request to correct map errors, to include the effects of natural changes within the areas of special flood
hazard,or solely to provide more detailed data? 0 Yes 0 No
Note: I understand that my signature indicates that all Note: Signature indicates that the community
information submitted in support of this request is understands,from the revision requester,the
correct. impacts of the revision on flooding conditions
in the community.
Signature of Revision Requester Signature of Community Official
Printed Name and Title of Revision Requester Printed Name and Title of Community Official
Company Name Community Name
Telephone No. Date Date
Does this request impact any other communities? 0 Yes 0 No
If yes, attach letters from all affected jurisdictions acknowledging the revision request and approving the changes to
the floodway,if applicable.
Note: Although a photograph of physical changes is not required,it may be helpful for FEMA's review.
Revision Requester and Community Offkial Form MT•2 Form I Page 1 ale
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FEW USE ONLY O.M.B.No.3067-0148
CERTIFICATION BY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
AND/OR LAND SURVEYOR FORM ExpiresJuy31, 1997
PUBLIC BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average.23 hour per response.The burden estimate includes the
time for reviewing instructions searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data and
completing and reviewing the form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any
suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management
Agency,500 C Street,S.W.,Washington,DC 20472.
You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB Control Number is
displayed in the upper right corner of this form.
1. This certification is in accordance with 44 CFR Ch.1,Section 65.2
2. I am licensed with expertise in
(example:water resources(hydrology,hydraulics,sediment transport,interior drainage)'structural,
geotechnical,land surveying.)
3. I have years experience in the expertise listed above.
4. I have 0 prepared 0 reviewed the attached supporting data and analyses related to my expertise.
b. 1 0 have 0 have not visited and physically viewed the project.
6. In my opinion,the following analyses and/or designs,Ware being certified:
7. Based on the following review,the modifications in place have been constructed in general accordance with
plans and specifications.
Basis for above statement:(check all that apply)
a.0 Viewed all phases of actual construction.
b.❑ Compared plans and specifications with as-built survey information.
c.0 Examined plans and specifications and compared with completed projects.
d.0 Other(Specify)
8. All information submitted in support of this request is correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any
false statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section
1001.
Name:
(please print or type)
Title:
(please print or type)
Registration No. Expiration Date:
State
Type of License
Signature
Date
Seal
'Specify Subdiscipline lOpt1O"°t)
Note: Insert not applicable(N/A)if statement does not apply.
PLEASE REFER TO THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE APPROPRIATE MAILING ADDRESS
FEMA Forms a1 a9A,MAY SG Certification by Registered professional
Engineer and/or Land Surveyor Form MT-2 Form 2
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY fgAEA USE ONLY O.M.B.No.3067-0148
HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS FORM ExpiresJuy31, 1997
PUBLIC BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 3.67 hours per response. The burden estimate includes
the time for reviewing instructions,searching existing data sources,gathering and maintaining the needed data, and
completing and reviewing the form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any
suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management
Afencr,500 C Street,S.W.,Washington,DC 20472.
IYou are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB Control Number is
displayed in the upper right corner of this form.
Community Name:
Flooding Source:
(One form for each flooding source)
Project Name/Identifier:
I. HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS IN FIS
❑ Approximate study stream(Zone A)
❑ Detailed study stream(briefly explain methodology)
2.REASON FOR NEW HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS
❑ No existing analysis
❑ Improved data(see data revision on page 3)
❑ Changed physical conditions of watershed(explain)
❑ Alternative methodology(justify why the revised model is better than model used in the effective PIS)
❑ Evaluation of proposed conditions(CLOMRs only)(explain)
❑ Other
If a computer program/model was used in revising the hydrologic analysis,please provide a diskette with the input
files for the 10-,50-, 100-and 500-year recurrence intervals.
Only the 100-year recurrence interval need be included for SFHAs designated as Zone A.
3.APPROVAL OF ANALYSIS
❑ Approval of hydrologic analysis,including the resulting peak discharge value(s)has been provided by the
appropriate local,state,or Federal Agency.(i.e.,
Attach evidence of approval. )
❑ Approval of the hydrologic analysis is not required by any local,State,or Federal Agency.
IPLEASE REFER TO THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE APPROPRIATE MAILING ADDRESS I
f EMA Form SI III.MAY>6 Hydrologic Analysis form
MT•2 Form 3 Pa9e 1 of 7
e.REVIEW OF swan
Stream:
Comparison of 100-year Flood Discharges
Location Drainage area FIS(cis): Revised(cfs):
Wig mi.)
Note: When revised discharges are not significantly different than FIS discharges,FEMA may require a
confidence limits analysis on attachment D at a later date to complete the review.
As is often the case with revision requests,only a portion of a stream may actually be revised or affected by a revision.
Therefore, transition to the unrevised portion is important to maintain the continuity of the study. NFIP regulations
stipulate that such a transition must be assured. What is the transition from the proposed discharges to the effective
discharges? Please explain how the transition was made(attach separate sheet if necessary)
Attach a completed "review of results' page for each flooding source.
Is the new hydrologic analysis being developed solely to revise the flow values presented in the FIS(i.e.no changed
hydraulic conditions)? ❑Yes 0 No
If yes,does the 100-year water surface elevation change by 1.0 foot or more? ❑ Yes 0 No
Note: FEMA does not normally revise NFIP maps solely due to flow changes when changes iri 100-year water surface
elevation are less than 1.0 foot.
Nydeloeic Analysis sons Mr•! Pone 3 Paya 2 of 7
S.HISTORICAL FLOODING INFORMATION
Is historical data available for the flooding source? ❑Yes ❑ No
If yes,provide the following:
Location along flooding source:
Maximum peak discharge: cfs
Second highest peak discharge:
cfs
Source of information:
E.GAGE RECORD INFORMATION
Inration of nearest gage to project site(along flooding source or similar watershed;specify)
Gaging Station:
Drainage area at gage: mix
Number of years of data:
7.DATA REVISION
Please use the following table to list all the data and/or parameters affected by this request and identify them as
new data(New)or as revising existing data(Revised).(If necessary,attach a separate sheet.)
Data Parameter New Revised Data Source
❑ 0
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ 0
❑ ❑
• The data source can be a Federal,State,or local government agency,or a private source. Some State and
local governments may have less strict data requirements than Federal agencies,in which case the hydrologic
data may not be accepted by FEMA unless it is demonstrated that the data give a better estimate of the flood
discharge.
• Attach documentation corroborating each data source(i.e.,certified statement,report,bibliographical reference to
a published document). In the case of a published document or a government report,providing copies of the cover
and pertinent pages may be helpful.
I.METHODOLOGY FOR NEW ANALYSIS
❑ Statistical Analysis of Gage Records(use Attachment A)
❑ Regional Regression Equations(use Attachment B)
❑ Precipitation/Runoff Model(use Attachment Cl
❑ Other (specify;attach backup computations and supporting data)
Hydrologic Analysis Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 3 of
ATTACRMENT A: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF GAGE RECORDS
Gaging Station:
Gage Location(latitude and longitude):
FIS: Revised:
1.Number of years of data
Systematic
Historical
2.Homogeneous data? 0 Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No
9.Data adjustments? ❑ Yes 0 No 0 Yes 0 No
4.Number of high outliers
Low outliers
Zero events
b.Generalized skew
6.Station skew
7.Adopted skew
8.Probability distribution used(justify
if log-Pearson Ill was not used)
9.Transfer equations to ungaged sites 0 Yes ❑ No
If yes,specify method
10.Expected probability* 0 Yes ❑ No
11.Comparison of results with other analyses 0 Yes 0 No
If yes,describe comparison
•FEMA does not accept expected probability analyses for the purpose of reflecting flood hazard information in a
FIS.
If any data are not available,indicate with"N/A".
Attach analysis including plot of flood frequency curve.
NydrolOya Anaysis Ferro MT-2 Form 3 Page 4 of 7
ATTACHMENT R: REGIONAL REGRESSION EQUATIONS
1. Bibliographical Reference:
(Attach a copy of title page,table of conk nts,and pertinent pages including equations.)
2. Gaged or ungaged stream:
3. Hydrologic region(s):
Attach backup map.
4. Provide parameters,values,and source of data used to define parameters.
PIS Revised
5. Urbanized conditions calculations? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Yes 0 No
6 Percent of watershed urbanization
7. Is the watershed controlled? 0 Yes 0 No ❑ Yes 0 No
8. Comparison with other analyses? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Yes 0 No
If the answer to questions b,7,or 8 is yes,explain methodology in Comments.
If data are not available,indicate with"N/A".
9. Comments
Attach computation and supporting maps delineating the watershed boundary and drainage area divides.
Hydrologic Analysis Form MT•a Form 3 Pogo S of T
ATTACHMENT C: FAEOITATIONIRUNOFF MODEL
FIS: Revised
1. Method or model used:
Version:
Date:
2. Source of rainfall depth:
3. Source of rainfall distribution:
4. Rainfall duration:
6. Areal adjustment to precipitation(3):
6. Maximum overland flow length
7. Ilydrograph development method:
8. Loss rate method:
Source of soils information:
Source of land use information
9. Channel routing method:
10. Reservoir routing: 0 Yes 0 No ❑Yes 0 No
11. Baseflow considerations: 0 Yes 0 No ❑Yes 0 No
If yes,explain how baseflow was determined:
12. Snowmelt considerations? ❑ Yes 0 No 0 Yes 0 No
13. Model calibration? 0 Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 No
If yes,explain how calibration was performed
14. Future land use conditions? 0 Yes 0 No
If yes,explain why
NOTE: FEMA policy is to base flooding on existing conditions.
If data are not available,indicate with"N/A".
Attach precipitatioNrunoff model,hydrologic model schematic,curve number calculations,time of concentration
calculations,and supporting maps,delineating the watershed boundary and drainage area divides.
Hydrologic Analysis Form M7-2 Form 3 lass i of 7
ATTACHMENTD: CONFIDENCE LIMITS EVALUATION
Stream:
Selected location for Confidence Limits Evaluation(describe location):
Discharges for selected location:
Exceedance Probability FIS Revised
10% (10-year) cfs cfs
2% (50-year) cfs cfs
1% (100-year) dm cfs
0.2% (500-year) cfs cfs
1%(100-year)Flood Confidence Intervals
90%Confidence Interval: 5%limit cfs
95%limit eta
50%Confidence Interval: 25%limit cfs
75%limit cfs
If the value of the 100-year frequency flood in the
FIS is beyond the 50%confidence interval but
within the 90%confidence interval,does the 100-year
water surface elevation change by 1.0 foot or more? ❑ Yes 0 No
Note: An example of confidence limits analysis can be found in Appendix 9 of Bulletin 17B.
Attach Confidence Limits Analysis.
Hydrologic Analysis farm MT•2 Form 3 Page 7 of 7
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 1FEMA USE WILY ' O.M.B.No.3067-0148
RIVERINE HYDRAUUC ANALYSIS FORM Expires July37, 1997
PUBLIC BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 2.26 hours per response.The burden estimate includes the
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and
completing and reviewing the form. Send comments reggaarding the accuracy or the burden estimate and any suggestions
for reducingthis burden, to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street,S.W ,Washington,DC 20472.
IYou are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB Control Number is
displayed in the upper right corner of this form.
Community Name:
Flooding Source:
(Ons form for each flooding source)
Project Name/Identifier:
1.REACH TO BE REVISED
Downstream limit:
Upstream limit:
2.EFFECTIVE RS
❑ Not studied
❑ Studied by approximate methods
Downstream limit of study
Upstream limit of study
❑ Studied by detailed methods
Downstream limit of detailed study
Upstream limit of detailed study
❑ Floodway delineated
Downstream limit of Floodway
Upstream limit of Floodway
e.HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
Why is the hydraulic analysis different from that used to develop the FIRM.(Check all that apply)
❑ Not studied in MS
❑ Improved hydrologic data/analysis. Explain:
❑ Improved hydraulic analysis.Explain:
❑ Flood control structure. Explain:
❑ Other. Explain:
PLEASE REFER TO THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE APPROPRIATE MAILING ADDRESS
FEMA Form 81 e9C,MAY 96 Riweine Hydraulic Analysis Form MT-2 Form 4 Page 1 of 6
3.asndsls subunits('
For areas which have detailed flooding:
Full input and output listings along with files on diskette(if available)for each of the models listed below(items 1,2,3,
4,and bland summary of the source of input parameters used in the models must be provided. The summary must
include a complete description of any changes made from model to model(e.g.duplicate effective model to corrected
effective model) At a minimum,the Duplicate Effective(item 1)and the Revised or Post-Project Conditions(item 4)
models must be submitted. See instructions for directions on when other models may be required.
For areas which do not have detailed flooding:
Only the 100-year flood profile is required. A hydraulic model is not required for areas which do not have detailed
flooding;however,BF Es may not be added to the revised FIRM. If a hydraulic model is developed for the area,items 3
and 4 described below must be submitted.
If hydraulic models are not developed,hydraulic analyses for existing or pre-project conditions and revised or post-
project conditions must be submitted. All calculations must be submitted for these analyses.(See Item 6 below.)
i. Duplicate Effective Model Natural Floodway
Copies of the hydraulic analysis used in the effective FIS,referred to as the 0
CI
effective models (10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year multi profile runs and the
floodway run) must be obtained and then reproduced on the requester's
equipment to produce the duplicate effective model. This is required to
assure that the effective model input data has been transferred correctly to
the requester's equipment and to assure that the revised data will be
integrated into the effective data to provide a continuous FIS model
upstream and downstream of the revised reach.
2. Corrected Effective Model Natural Floodway
The corrected effective model is the model that corrects any errors that
occur in the duplicate effective model adds any additional cross sections to
the duplicate effective model or incorporates more detailed topographic
information than that used in the currently effective model. The corrected
effective model must gj reflect any man-made physical changes since the
date of the effective model. An error could be a technical error in the
modeling procedures, or any construction in the floodplain that occurred
prior to the date of the effective model but was not incorporated into the
effective model.
3. Existing or Pre-Project Conditions Model Natural Floodway
The duplicate,effective model or corrected effective model is modified to
produce the existing or pre-nroiect conditions model to reflect any
modifications that have occurred within the floodplain since the date of the
effective model but prior to the construction of the project for which the
revision is being requested. If no modification has occurred since the date of
the effective model, then this model would be identical to the corrected
effective model or duplicate effective model.
4. Revised or Post-Project Conditions Model Natural Floodway
CI 0
The existing or pre-project conditions model(or duplicate effective model or
corrected effective model as appropriate)is revised to reflect revised or post-
project conditions. This model must incorporate any physical changes to
the floodplain since the effective model was produced as well as the effects
of the project. When the request is for proposed project this model must
reflect proposed conditions.
Natural Floodway
5. Other: Please attach a sheet describing all other models submitted.
6. hydraulic Analyses(Only if l Iydraulic Models are not developed)
Attach all calculations for the existing or pre-project conditions and the
revised or post-project conditions. Proceed to Form 5, "Riverine/Coastal
Mapping Form".
River in*Hydraulic Analysis Form MT-2 Form 4 Page 2 of 6
5.MODEL PARAMETERS(front modal used Co win f00-year water surface elevation)
1. Discharges: Upstream Limit Downstream Limit
10-year
50-year
100-year
500-year
Attach diagram showing changes in 100-year discharge
2. Explain how the starting water surface elevations were determined
3. Give range of friction loss coefficients(Manning's s)Channel
Overbanks
If friction loss coefficients are different anywhere along the revised reach from those used to develop the FIRM,
give location,value used in the effective FIS,and revised values and an explanation as to how the revised values
were determined.
Location EIS Revised
Explain:
4. Describe how the cross section geometry data were determined(e.g.,field survey,topographic map,taken from
previous study)and list cross sections that were added.
5. Were natural channel banks selected as the location of the left and right channel banks in the model?
❑ Yes 0 No If no,explain why not:
Riverine Hydraulic Analysis Form MT-2 Form a Page 3 of 6
S.MODEL PARAMETERS Monn p 3/4
6. Explain how reach lengths for channel and overbanks were determined:
S.RESULTS prom modal used la(trite 1ee year water surface elevations)
1. Do the results indicate:
a.Water surface elevations higherthan end points of cross sections? 0 Yes 0 No
b.Supercritical depth? 0 Yes 0 No
c.Critical depth? 0 Yes 0 No
d.Other unique situations 0 Yes Cl No
If yes to any of the above,attach an explanation that discusses the situation and how it is presented on the
profiles,tables,and maps.
2. What is the maximum change in energy gradient between cross-sections?
Specify location
3. What is the distance between the cross-sections in 2 above?
4. What is the maximum distance between cross-sections?
Specify location
6. Floodway determination
a.What is the maximum surcharge allowed by the community or State? foot
b.What is the maximum surcharge for the revised conditions? foot
Specify location
c.What is the maximum velocity? fps
Specify location
d.Are there any negeative surcharge values at any cross-section? 0 Yes 0 No
If yes,the floodway may need to be widened. If it is not widened,please explain and indicate the maximum
negative surcharge.
Explain:
Rayons'Mydrauk Analysis fens MT•2 Pone Pegs 4ef6
s.essutTS(coned)
6. Is the discharge value used to determine the floodway anywhere different from that used to determine the
natural 100-year flood elevations? 0 Yes 0 No
If Yes, explain:
7. Do 100-year water surface elevations increase at any location? 0 Yes ❑ No
If yes,please attach a list of the locations where the increases occur,state whether or not the increases are located
on the requestor's property,and provide an explanation of the reason for the increases.(For example:State if the
increase is due to fill placed within the flooduaylringe or placed within the currently adopted floodway limits)
Attach a completed comparison table entitled: Water Surface Elevation Check(see page 6)
7.REVISED FMMIF5FM AND FLOOD PROFILES
8. The revised water surface elevations tie into those computed by the effective FIS Model((0-,50-,100-,and 500-
year),downstream of the project at cross-section within feet(vertical)and upstream of
the project at cross section within feet(vertical).
9. The revised floodway elevations tie into those computed by the effective FIS model,dowstream of the project at
cross section within feet(vertical)and upstream of the project at cross section
within feet(vertical).
10. Attach profiles,at the same vertical and horizontal scale as the profiles in the effective FIS report,showing
stream bed and profiles of all floods studied(without encroachment). Also,label all cross sections,road crossings
(including low chord and top-of-road data),culverts,tributaries,corporate limits,and study limits. If channel
distance has changed,the stationing should be revised for all profile sheets.
11. Attach a Floodway Data Table showing data for each cross section listed in the published Floodway Data Table in
the FIS report.
Proceed to Ka verine/Coastal Mapping Form(Form 5)
Riverins Hydraulic Analysis Penn MT-2 Form 4 Page S of 6
6 IO
F N
U 0
Lu Y
s
O W E
N
ep ua
u.
Lu
V1
tt la/ W H
It C N
2 ; f
O 2 Y O
W a
f T I
Q
2 F a e
r >
W e.4
N Y
W C
O 5
y d VIy
as 6 W A L
41
Li
CCV ea
a L
2
F Y
VIM a
K ; C
W is V
2 Y
O a.
✓ W Y C ea •
�S p
M al. X
< V 3
2 2 W J O
O W N n w
U' F V .2 Y` gj
W O W Id
- de• de
> a
et
• N U e
W A Y
> W 2 CC7 Y np
2 U O CC auy 6
W p 0 g
wu- O U ;
W C LL 2 EV
T
W laY
CC E
H W ir a 0 ' N 5.
Vu. FW 4. asC
U.
-a W re .2V N
W C
F V
$ J 2
a. v.
0 Ida
N 8
OLe E
z 2
c_
C
V
C G O
4.1
S Y
is y
W W i
5 W
N q
W ; t YY
U. w a
LL N
W r
f 14.
N 3
Q ; w
2 W .
H 9
2 . N
g O 2 a
5 W f a.
O N O g
v
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY MA USE ONLY O.M.B.No.3067-0148
RIVERINE/COASTAL MAPPING FORM I Expires Ally 31, 1997
PUBLIC BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 1.5 hours per response.The burden estimate includes the
time for reviewing instructions searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data and
completing and reviewing the form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any
suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management
Agency,500 C Street,S.W.,Washington,DC 20472.
(You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB Control Number is
displayed in the upper right corner of this form.
Community Name:
Flooding Source:
Project Name/Identifier:
1.MAPPING CHANGES
1.A topographic work map of suitable scale,contour interval,and planimetric definition must be submitted showing
(indicate N/A when not applicable):
Included
A. Revised approximate 100-year floodplain boundaries(Zone A)? 0 Yes ❑ No 0 N/A
B. Revised detailed 100-and 500-year floodplain boundaries? ❑ Yes 0 No 0 N/A
C. Revised 100-year floodway boundaries? ❑ Yes 0 No 0 N/A
D. Location and alignment of all cross sections used in the revised
hydraulic model with stationing control indicated? 0 Yes 0 No 0 N/A
E. Stream alignments,road and dam alignments? ❑ Yes 0 No 0 N/A
F. Current community boundaries? 0 Yes 0 No 0 N/A
G. Effective 100-and 500-year floodplain and 100-year floodway
boundaries from the FIRM/MN reduced or enlarged to the
scale of the topographic work map? 0 Yes 0 No 0 N/A
II. Tie-ins between the effective and revised 100-and 500-year
floodplains and 100-year floudway boundaries? 0 Yes 0 No 0 N/A
I. The requestor's property boundaries and community easements? ❑ Yes ❑ No 0 N/A
J. The signed certification of a registered professional engineer? 0 Yes 0 No 0 N/A
K. Location and description of reference marks? ❑ Yes 0 No 0 N/A
L. Vertical datum(example: NGV D;NAVD etc.)? ❑ Yes 0 No 0 N/A
M. Coastal zone designations tie into adjacent areas not being revised? 0 Yes ❑ No 0 N/A
N. Location and alignment of all coastal transects used to revise the
coastal analyses? 0 Yes 0 No 0 N/A
If any of the items above are marked no or N/A,please explain:
2. What is the source and date of the updated topographic information(example:orthophoto maps,July 1985;field
survey,May 1979,beach profiles,June 1987,etc.)?
3. What is the scale and contour interval of the following workmaps?
a. Effective EIS scale Contour interval
b. Revision Request scale Contour interval
NOTE: Revised topographic information must be of equal or greater detail.
4. Attach an annotated FIRM and FBFM at the scale of the effective FIRM and FBFM showing the revised 100-
and 500-year floodplain and the I00-year floodway boundaries and how they tie into those shown on the effective
FIRM and F IIF'M downstream and upstream of the revisions or adjacent to the area of revision for coastal studies
Attach additional pages if needed
PLEASE REFER TO THE INSTRUCTION FOR THE. APPROPRIATE MAILING ADDRESS
FEMA Form 91-B9D,MAY 96 aiverins/Coaatal Mapping Form MT-2 Form S Page t of 3
1.MAPPING CHANGES(Caned)
b. Flood Boundaries and 100-year water surface elevations:
a. Has the 100-year floodplain been shifted or increased or the 100-year water surface elevation increased at
any location on property other than the requestor's or community's? 0 Yes ❑ No
If yes,please give the location of shift or increase and an explanation for the increase.
b. Have the affected property owners been notified of this shift or increase and the effect it will have on their
property? ❑ Yes 0 No
If yes,please attach letters from these property owners stating they have no objections to the revised flood
boundaries if a 1.OMR is being requested.
c. What is the number of insurable structures that will be impacted by this shift or increase?
6. Have the floodway boundaries shifted or increased at any location compared to those shown on the effective
FBFM or FIRM?
0 Yes 0 No
If yes,explain:
7. If a V-zone has been designated,has it been delineated to extend landward to the heel of the primary frontal
dune?
0 Yes 0 No
If no, explain:
8. Manual or digital map submission:
❑ Manual
❑ Digital
Digital map submissions may be used to update digital FIRMs(DFIRMs). For updating DFIRMs,these
submissions must be coordinated with FEMA Headquarters as far in advance of submission as possible.
iiverinetteastap Mapping Poem MT-a Form 5 Page of
2.EARTH Fat PLACEMENT
1. The fill is: 0 Existing 0 Proposed
2. Has fill been placed/will be placed in the regulatory floodway? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Ryes,please attach completed Riverine Hydraulic Analysis Form.(Form 4)
3. Has fill been/will be placed in floodway fringe(arm between the floodway
and 100-year floodplain boundaries)? 0 Yes ❑ No
If yes,then complete A,B,C,and 1)below.
a. Are fill slopes for granular materials steeper than one vertical
on one-and-one-half horizontal? 0 Yes 0 No
If yes,justify steeper slopes
b. Is adequate erosion protection provided for fill slopes exposed to moving flood waters?(Slopes exposed to
flows with velocities of up to 5 feet per second(fps)during the 100-year flood must,at a minimum,be
protected by a cover of grass,vines,weeds,or similar vegetation;slopes exposed to flows with velocities
greater than 5 fps during the 100-year flood must,at a minimum,be protected by stone or rock riprap.)
O Yes ❑ No
If no,describe erosion protection provided
c. Has all fill placed in the revised 100-year floodplain been compacted to 95 percent of the maximum density
obtainable with the Standard Proctor Test Method or acceptable equivalent method? 0 Yes 0 No
d. Can structures conceivably be constructed on the fill at any time in the future? 0 Yes ❑ No
If yes,provide certification of fill compaction(Item e.above)by the community's NFIP permit official,a registered
professional engineer,or an accredited soils engineer.
4. Has fill been placed/will be placed in a V-zone? 0 Yes 0 No
If yes, is the fill protected from erosion by a flood control structure such as a revetment or
seawall? 0 Yes 0 No
If yes, attach the coastal structures form.
RiverinsKWfnl Mapping Fenn Mrs Fen s Faye 3 Al 3
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY I FEMA USE ONLY I O.M.a.No.3067-0148
CHANNEUZATION FORM Expires July 31, 1997
PUBLIC BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 1.75 hours per response.The burden estimate includes
the time for reviewing instructions searchin existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data,
and completing and reviewing the form. Send comments regarding the accurac of the burden estimate and any
suggestions for reducingthis burden to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management
.W
Agency,500 C Street,S .,Washington,DC 20472.
You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB Control Number is
displayed in the upper right corner of this form.
Community Name:
Flooding Source:
Project Name/Identifier:
1.EXTENT OF CHANNELQATION
Downstream limit:
Upstream limit:
7.CHANNEL DESCRIPTION
1. Describe the inlet to the channel
2. Briefly describe the shape of the channel(both cross sectional and planimetric configuration)and its lining
(channel bottom and sides)
3. Describe the outlet from the channel
4. The channelization includes:
❑ Levees(Attach Levee IFloodwall system analysis Form)
❑ Drop structures
D Superelevated sections
❑ Transitions in cross sectional geometry
❑ Debris basin/detention basin
❑ Energy dissipater
❑ Other
5. Attach the following:
a. Certified engineering drawings showing channel alignment and locations of inlet,outlet,and items
checked in item 4
b. Typical cross sections and profiles of channel banks and invert
PLEASE REFER TO THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE API'HOPHIATE MAILING ADDRESS
FEMA Form a1 491.MAY 9t Cwnnelualion Form
MT-2 Fprm 6 Page T of 3
3.NYDRAUUCCONSDERATIONS
1. What is the 100-year flood discharge? ds
2. Do the cross sections in the hydraulic model match the typical cross sections in the plans? 0 Yes ❑ No
3. Are the channel banks higher than the 100-year flood elevations everywhere? ❑ Yes ❑ No
4. Are the channel banks higher than the 100-year flood energy grade lines everywhere? .. 0 Yes 0 No
6. Is the land on both sides of the channel above the adjacent 100-year flood elevation
at all points along the channel? ❑ Yes ❑ No
6. What is the range of freeboard? — feet
7. What is the range of the 100-year flood velocities? — ft/sec
8. What is the lining type(both bottom and sides)?
Explain how the channel lining prevents erosion and maintains channel stability(attach documentation)
9. What is the design elevation in the channel based on?
❑ Subcritical flow
❑ critical flow
❑ Supercritical flow
❑ Energy grade line
Is the 100-year flood profile based on the above type of flow? 0 Yes 0 No
If no,explain:
10. Is there the potential for a hydraulic jump at the following locations:
Inlet to channel? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Outlet of channel? ❑ Yes ❑ No
At Drop Structures? ❑ Yes 0 No
At Transitions?
0 Yes ❑ No
Other locations.?Explain:
If the answer to any of the above is yes,please explain how the hydraulic jump is controlled and the effects of the
hydraulic jump on the stability of the channel.
Explain:
Clionnoilsetien fens MT•2 Forma Page 2 of 3
4.SEDIMENT TRANSPORT CONSIDERATIONS
1. a. Is there any indication from historical records that sediment transport(including scour and deposition)can
affect the 100-year water surface elevations and/or the capacity of the channel? ❑ Yes 0 No
b. Based on the conditions of the watershed and stream bed,is there a potential for sediment transport
(including scour and deposition)to affect the 100-year water surface elevations and/or the capacity of the
channel? ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. If the answer to either IA or 1 B is yes:
a.What is the estimated sediment(bed)load?
cfs(attach gradation curve)
Explain method used to estimate load
b.la the 100-year flood velocity anywhere within the channel less than the
100-year flood velocity of the inlet? 0 Yes 0 No
c.Will sediment accumulate anywhere within the channel? ❑ Yes 0 No
d.Will deposition or scour occur at or near the inlet? 0 Yes 0 No
e.Will deposition or scour occur at or near the outlet? 0 Yes 0 No
Attach documentation showing affects on the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses
Gaon Fenn MT-2 Form 6 Pays 3 of 3
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FEMA USE ONLY I O.M.B.No.3067-0148
BRIDGE/CULVERT FORM I Expires July 31, 1997
PUBLIC BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 2 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the
Lime for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and
completing and reviewing the form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions
for reducingthis burden, to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street,S.W,Washington,DC 20472.
IYou are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB Control Number is
displayed in the upper right corner of this form.
Community Name:
Flooding Source:
Project Name/Identifier:
1.IDENTIFIER
1. Name of structure(roadway;railroad,etc.):
2. Location of bridge/culvert along flooding source(in terms of stream distance or cross-section identifier):
3. This revision reflects(check one of the following):
O New bridge/culvert not modeled in the FIS
O Modified bridge/culvert previously modeled in the FIS
El New analysis of bridge/culvert previously modeled in the FIS
(Explain why new analysis was performed)
2.BACKGROUND
Provide the following information about the structure:
1 Dimension,material,and shape of structure(e.g.two l0 x 5 feet reinforced concrete box culvert;three 30-foot
span bridge with 2 rows of two 3-foot diameter circular piers;40-foot wide ogee shape spillway)
2. Entrance geometry of culvert/type of bridge opening(e.g.30°-75°wing walls with square top edge,sloping
embankments and vertical abutments)
3. Hydraulic model used to analyze the structure(e.g.,HEC-2 with special bridge routine, WSPRO,IfY8)
If different than hydraulic analysis for the flooding source,justify why the hydraulic analysis used for the
flooding source could not analyze the structure(s).(Attach justification)
Note: If any items do not apply to submitted hydraulic analysis,indicate with"N/A"
•One form per new/revised bridge/culvert
PLEASE REFER TO THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE APPROPRIATE MAILING ADDRESS
FEMA Form S1.B91.MAY 96 BridgsCulvert Form MT-2 Form 7 Page 1 of 6
3.ANALYSIS
Sketch the downstream face of the structure together with the road profile. Show,at a minimum,the maximum low
chord elevation,invert elevation,minimum top of road elevation,and ineffective flow widths.
Sketch the upstream face of the structure together with the road profile. Show,at a minimum,the maximum low
chord elevation,invert elevation,and minimum top of road elevation.
aridgvKotwn Form MTQ Form 7 Page 7 or 6
3.ANALYSIS KonEd)
Sketch the plan view of the structurels) Show,at a minimum,the skew angle,cross-section locations,distances
between cross sections,and length of structure(a).
flow
Attach plans of the structure(s)certified by a registered professional engineer.
Culvert length or bridge width(ft)
Calculated culvert/bridge area(ft y)
by the hydraulic model,if applicable
Total culvert/bridge area(ft t)
artlg.Calwrt Form MT-2 Form 7 Mea 3 of 6
3.ANALYSIS(Comd)
Elevations Above Which Flow ie Effective for Overhanlca
Left Overbank Right Overbank
Upstream face
Downstream face
Minimum Ton of Road Elevation
Left Overbank Right Overbank
Upstream face
Downstream face
100-Year flood elevations Water Surface Energy Gradient
Elevations Elevations
Upstream face
Downstream face
Discharge Low Flow Pressure Flow Weir Flow Total Flow
Amount of flow
through/over
the structure(s)(cfs)
The maximum depth of
flow over the roadway/railroad(ft.)
Weir length(ft.)
Ton Widthq Total Total
Floodplain Effective Flow Floodway
Width Width Width
Upstream face
Downstream face
erideeKulvort Form MT-2 form 7 Page 4 of 6
3.ANALYSIS(Cant'd)
Loss Coefficients
Entrance loss coefficient
Manning's"n"value assigned to the structure(s)
Friction loss coefficient through structure(s)
Other loss coefficients(e.g.,bend manhole,etc.)
Total loss coefficient
Weir coefficient
Pier coefficient
Contraction loss coefficient
Expansion loss coefficient
•.SEDIMENT TRANSPORT CONSIDERATIONS
1. a. Is there any indication from historical records that sediment transport(including scour and deposition)can
affect the 100-year water surface elevations? ❑Yes ❑No
b Based on the conditions(such as geomorphology,vegetative cover and development of the watershed and stream
bed,and bank conditions),is there a potential for debris and sediment transport(including scour and
deposition)to affect the 100-year water surface elevations and/or conveyance capacity through the
bridge/culvert? 0 Yes 0 No
2. If the answer to either la or lb is yes:
a. What is the estimated sediment(bed material)load?
cfs(attach gradation curve)
Explain method used to estimate the sediment transport and the depth of scour and/or
deposition
b. Will sediment accumulate anywhere through the bridge/culvert? ❑ Yes 0 No
If yes,explain the impact on the conveyance capacity through the
bridge/culvert?
S.FLOOOWAY ANALYSIS
Explain method of bridge encroachment(floodway run)
andq&Culvort Fenn MT•2 Form 7 Par S of 6
5.FLA00WAY ANALYSIS(Coned)
Comments(explain any unusual situations):
Attach analysis.
WidgetCulvert Fonts MTQ form Pars of
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY I FEMA USE ONLY I O.M.B.No.3067-0148
LEVEE/FLOODWALL SYSTEM ANALYSES FORM Expiresluly31, 1997
PUBLIC BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
Public reporting burden fur this form is estimated to average 3.0.hours peryesponse.The burden estimate includes the
time for reviewing instructions searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data and
completing and reviewing the form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any
suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management
Agency,500 C Street,S.W.,Washington,DC 20472.
You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB Control Number is
displayed in the upper right corner of this form.
Community Name:
Flooding Source:
Project Name/Identifier:
I.REACH TO BE REVISED
Downstream limit:
Upstream limit:
This Levee/Floodwall analysis is based on:
❑ upgrading of an existing levee/floodwall system
❑ a newly constructed levee/floodwall system
❑ reanalysis of an existing levee/floodwall system
2.LEVEFFLOODWALL SYSTEM ELEMENTS
1. Levee elements and locations:
❑ earthen embankment,dike,berm etc. Station to
❑ structural floodwall Station to
❑ other(describe) Station to
2. Structural Type:
❑ monolithic cast-in place reinforced concrete
❑ reinforced concrete masonry block
❑ sheet piling
❑ other(describe)
3. Has this levee/foodwall system been certified by a Federal agency to provide protection against the 100-year
flood event?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes,by which agency?
If yes,complete only the interior drainage section on pages 7 and 8 of this form and the operation and
maintenance section of Revision Requestor and Community Official Form.
IPLEASE REFER TO THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE APPROPRIATE MAILING ADDRESS
1 EMA Penn 81 891E,MAY 96 LewNFbndwalt System Analyses Form
MT-2 Form 8 Page 1 of
2.LEVEE/FLOODWALI SYSTEM ELEMENTS(Cant'd)
3. Attach certified drawings containing the following information(indicate drawing sheet numbers):
a. Plan of the levee embankment and floodwall structures. Sheet Numbers
b. A profile of the levee/floodwall system showing the 100-year
water surface elevations,levee and/or wall crest and
foundation,and closure locations for the total levee system. Sheet Numbers
c. A profile of the 100-year water surface elevation,closure
opening outlet and inlet invert elevations,type and size of
opening,and kind of closure device. Sheet Numbers
d. A layout detail for the embankment protection measures. Sheet Numbers
e. Location,layout,and size and shape of the levee
embankment features,foundation treatment,floodwall
structure,closure structures,and pump stations. Sheet Numbers
3.FREEBOARD
1. The minimum freeboard provided above the 100-year water surface elevation is:
Riverine
3.0 feet or more at the downstream end and throughout ❑ Yes 0 No
3.5 feet or more at the upstream end 0 Yes 0 No
4.0 feet immediately upstream and downstream of all structures and constrictions ❑ Yes 0 No
Coastal
1.0 foot above the height of the one percent wave for the 100-year
stillwater surge elevation or maximum wave runup(whichever is
greater). 0 Yes 0 No
2.0 feet above 100-year stillwater surge elevation ❑Yes 0 No
Please note, occasionally exceptions are made to the minimum freeboard requirement. If an exception is
requested, attach documentation addressing Part 65.10 (b) (1) (ii) of the National Flood Insurance Program
regulations.
If no is answered to any of the above,please explain where and why:
2. Is there an indication from historical records that ice-jamming can effect the 100-year water surface elevation?
0 Yes ❑ No If yes,provide ice-jam analysis profile and evidence that the minimum freeboard discussed
above still exists.
3. Tabulate the elevations at critical locations(tabulate values at each levee crest grade change)
100-Year Water
Station Location Surface Elevation Levee Crest Freeboard(ft.)
Upper end
Lower end
(Extend table on an added sheet as needed and reference)
Levec' loodwall System Analyses Form MT 2 Fo,m$ n
aryc)of 9
S.SEDIMENT TRANSPORT CONSIDERATIONS
1. a. Is there any indication from historical records that sediment transport(including scour and deposition)can
affect the 100-year water surface elevations?
❑Yes ❑No
b. Based on the conditions(such as geomorphology,vegetative cover and development of the watershed
and stream bed,and bank conditions),is there a potential for debris and sediment transport(including
scour and deposition)to affect the 100-year water surface elevations and/or the freeboard for the
levee/floodwall? ❑Yes ❑No
2. If the answer to either 1 a or lb is yes:
A. What is the estimated sediment(bed material)load?
cfs(attach gradation curve)
Explain method used to estimate the sediment transport and the depth of scour and/or deposition
B. Will sediment accumulate anywhere along the levee/Roodwall(such as along any bends in the
channel)?
❑Yes ❑No
If yes,what is the minimum freeboard at these locations? feet.
S.CLOSURES
1. Openings through the levee system:
❑ exist ❑ do not exist
If openings exist,list all closures:
Channel Left or Right Opening Highest Elevation for Tvoe of
)talion Bank Tvoe Ooenina Inver( Closure Device
(Extend table on an added sheet as neded and reference)
Geotechnical and geologic data:
In addition to the required detail analysis reports,data obtained during field and laboratory investigations and
used in the design analysis must be submitted in a tabulated summary form for the following levee system
features. (Reference U S.Army Corps of Engineers EM-1110-2-1906 Form 2086).
levnMaodwaf System Analyses Form MT-2 Form S Rage 3 of 9
4.EMBANKMENT PROTECTION
1. Maximum levee slope landside:
2. Maximum levee slope floodside:
3. Range of 100-year riverine flood velocities along the levee: (min.)
to (max.)
4. Embankment material is protected by(describe the kind):
5. Riprap Design Parameters: (Include references) 0 Velocity; 0 Tractive stress
Curve or, Stone Riprap Depth of
Reach Sideslone Flow depth Velocity 5traiahf D,00 Qso Thickness Toedown
Sta to
Sta to
Sta to
(Extend table on an added sheet as needed and reference)
6. Has a bedding/filter analysis and design been included ❑Yes❑ No
7. Describe the analysis for other kinds of protection used(include copies of the design analysis):
Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans.
LeveelflaodwaN System Analyses Form MTa Fond B Page 4 of
7.EMBANKMENT AND FOUNDATION STAMUTY
1. Identify locations and describe the basis for selection of critical locations for analyses:
❑ Overall height: Sta , height ft.
❑ Limiting foundation soil strength:
Ste ,depth to
strength .6 = degrees,c= psf
❑ slope:SS= (h)to (v)
(Repeat as needed on an added sheet for additional slopes and locations)
2. Specify the embankment stability analyses methodology used(e.g.circular arc,sliding block,infinite slope,
etc.):
3. Summary of stability analysis results:
Critical
3g Loading Conditions Safety Factor Criteria(Min.)
End of construction 1.3
II Sudden drawdown 1.0
III Critical flood stage 1.4
IV Steady seepage at flood stage 1.4
VI Earthquake(Case I) 1.0
(Reference: U.S.Army Corps of Engineers EM-1110-2-1913 Table 6-1)
4. Was a seepage analysis for the embankment performed? 0 Yes 0 No
Describe methodology used:
S. Was a seepage analysis for the foundation performed? 0 Yes 0 No
Were uplift pressures at the embankment landside toe checked? 0 Yes 0 No
Were seepage exit gradients checked for piping potential? 0 Yes 0 No
6. Duration of 100-year flood hydrograph against the embankment: Hrs.
Note: Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans.
L.nef loodwaN System An lyres Form MT-2 Form a Page S of 9
t.FLOODWAU.AND FOUNDATION STASLtW
1. Describe analysis submittal based on Code:
❑ UBC(1988) or 0 Other(specify)
2. Stability analysis submittedbrovides for:
❑ Overturning; Sliding; If not,explain
3. Loading included in the analyses were:
❑ Lateral earth @ PA= psf; P P= psf
❑ Surcharge--Slope @ 0 surface psf
❑ Wind@Pw= psf
❑ Seepage(Uplift) 0 Earthquake @ P.e re %g
❑ 100-year significant wave height ft
❑ 100-year significant wave period sec.
4. Summary of Stability Analysis Results: Factors of Safety. Itemize for each range in site layout dimension and
loading condition limitation for each respective reach.
Loading Condition Criteria(Min) Sta To Sta To
Overturn Sliding Overturn Sliding Overturn Sliding
Dead&Wind 1.5 1.5
Dead&Soil 1.5 1.5
Dead,Soil, Flood&Impact 1.5 1.5
Dead,Soil &Seismic 1.3 1.3
(Ref: FEMA 114 Sept 1986; COE EM 1110-2-2502)
(Note: Extend table on an added sheet as needed and reference)
5. Foundation bearing strength for each soil type:
Bernina Pressure Sustained Load Short Term Load
Computed design maximum psf psf
Maximum allowable psf psf
6. Foundation scour protection 0 is, 0 is not provided,(describe)
Note: Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans.
leve&Floodwat system Analyses form MT-2 form 8 Page 6 of 9
I.SETTLEMENT
1. Has anticipated potential settlement been determined and incorporated into the specified construction
elevations to maintain the established freeboard margin?
0 Yes 0 No
2. Computed range of settlement: ft.to ft.
3. Settlement of the levee crest is determined to be primarily from:
❑ Foundation consolidation
❑ Embankment compression
❑ Other(describe)
4. Differential settlement of floodwalls
❑ has 0 has not been accommodated in the structural design and construction.
Note: Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans.
to.INTEMOR DRAINAGE
1. Specify size of each interior watershed
Draining to pressure conduit
Draining to ponding area
2. Relationships Established
Ponding elevation vs.storage 0 Yes 0 No
Ponding elevation vs.gravity flow 0 Yes 0 No
Differential head vs.gravity flow 0 Yes 0 No
3. The river flow duration curve is enclosed 0 Yes 0 No
4. Specify the discharge capacity of the head pressure conduit
S. Which Flooding Conditions Were Analyzed?
• Gravity flow(Interior Watershed) 0 Yes 0 No
• Common storm(River Watershed) 0 Yes 0 No
• Historical ponding probability 0 Yes 0 No
• Coastal wave overtopping ❑ Yes 0 No
If no,explain why:
6. Interior drainage has been analyzed based on joint probability of interior and exterior flooding and the
capacities of pumping and outlet facilities to provide the established level of flood protection. •
0 Yes 0 No
If no,explain why:
7. The rate of seepage through the levee system for the 100-year flood is cfs
Leveatoodwea System Analyses Form MT4 Form B ►age 7 of 9
1a eITERIOR DRAINAGE(Cont'd)
8. The length of levee system used to drive the seepage rate in item 7: ft.
9. Will a pumping plant(s)be used for interior drainage? 0 Yes 0 No
If yes,include the number of pumping plants:
For each pumping plant,list: Plant#1 Plant#2
The number of pumps
The ponding storage capacity
The maximum pumping rate
The maximum pumping head
The pumping starting elevation
The pumping stopping elevation
Is the discharge facility protected?
Is there a flood warning plan?
How much time is available between
warning and flooding?
Will the operations be automatic? 0 Yes 0 No
If the pumps are electric,are there backup power sources? 0 Yes 0 No
(Reference: U.S.Army Corps of Engineers EM-1110.2-3101,3102,3103,3104,and 3105)
boa: Include a copy of supporting documentation of data and analysis. Provide a map showing the flooded area and
maximum ponding elevations for all interior watersheds that result in flooding.
11.OTHER DESIGN CRITERIA
1. The following items have been addressed as stated:
Liquifaction 0 is 0 is not a problem.
Hydrocompaction 0 is 0 is not a problem
Heave differential movement due to soils of high shrink/swell 0 is 0 is not a problem.
2. For each of these problems,state the basic facts and corrective action taken.
3. If the levee/floodwall is new or enlarged,will the structure adversely impact flood levels and/or flow velocities
floodside of the structure?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Attach supporting documentation
Are the planned/installed works in full compliance with NAP regulations,Section 44 CFR Ch. 1.65.10?
0 Yes 0 No
taventloodwaa system Analyses Form MT-2 Form S Pan a et e
OPERATIONAL PLAN AND CRITERIA
1. Does the operation plan incorporate all the provisions for closure devices as required in Section 65.10(c)(1),of
the NAP regulations?
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Does the operation plan incorporate all the provisions for interior drainage as required in Section 65.10(c)(2),
of the NAP regulations?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If the answer is no to either of the above,please explain below.
LawMloodwaI System Analyses Penn PAT-2 Penn l rage l off
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FEMA USE ONLY O.M.B.No.3067-0148
COASTAL ANALYSIS FORM ( Expires July 31, 1997
PUBLIC BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 1.0 hour per response.The burden estimate includes the
time for reviewing instructions searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data and
completing and reviewing the form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any
suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management
Agency,500 C Street,S.W.,Washington,DC 20472.
IYou are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB Control Number is
displayed in the upper right corner of this form.
Community Name:
Flooding Source:
Project Name/Identifier:
I.COASTLINE TO SE REVISED
Describe limits of study area:
2.EFFECTIVE FIS
The area being revised was:*
❑ studied in the FIS by approximate methods
❑ studied in the FIS with only the stillwater surge elevation designated
❑ studied in the FIS by detailed methods with:
❑ wave runup computations
❑ wave height computations
❑ dune erosion computations
❑ storm surge modeling.Specify model used:
❑ SPLASH 0 SLOSH
❑ TTSURGE 0 WIFM
❑ FEMA STORM SURGE 0 OTHER
*Check all that apply
3.REVISED ANALYSIS
Check all analyses used to prepare the revision:
❑ Stillwater elevation determinations(complete Section 1)
❑ Erosion considerations(complete Section 2)
❑ Wave height analysis(complete Sections 2 and 3)
❑ Wave runup analysis(complete Sections 2 and 3)
❑ New shore protection structures(attach completed Coastal Structures Form)
❑ Other
If other,give basis of revision request with an explanation:
PLEASE REFER TOTIti: INSTRIIl!Tl6N&FOR THE AI I ItOI FtI ATE MAILING ADDRESS
FEMA Form NI 19G MAY 96 Coastal Analysis Form MT•2 Form 9 Page'of 1
7.NOSED ANALYSIS(Continwdl
1. Stillwater Elevation Determinations
How were stillwater elevations determined?
❑ gage analysis
❑ storm surge analysis
❑ other-explain
If revised gage analysis,list gages utilized:
Number of Years
Gage Number of Record Gage Site Location
Provide copies of gage data and revised analysis.
Specify what datum was used in the calculations.
If not the FIS datum,have the calculations been adjusted to the FIS datum?
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ Specify Conversion factor
If revised storm surge analysis,was FEMA's storm surge model utilized?
❑ Yes 0 No
If yes,describe in detail differences between current analysis and revised analysis,and why revised
analysis should replace current analysis.
Coastal Analysis form
MT-2 forme Paget of
3.REVISED ANALYSIS(ContMusd)
2. To be completed for revised analyses(i.e.,erosion,wave height and wave runup)
If FEMA procedures were utilized to perform the revision, describe in detail each difference between
the current and the revised analysis,and why the revised analysis should replace the current analysis.
If FEMA procedures were not utilized to perform the revision, provide full documentation on
methodology and/or models used, including operational program, detailed differences between
methodology and/or model utilized and FEMA's methodology and/or model. Also, explain why new
methodology and/or model should replace current methodology and/or model.
3. To be completed for wave height and wan runup analyses
Overtopping analysis is typically considered when wave heights and/or wave runup are close to or
greater than the crest of shore protection structures or natural land forms.
Was an overtopping analysis performed for any coastal shore protection structures or natural land
forms that may be overtopped?
❑Yes ❑No
If yes,explain methodology utilized and describe in detail the results of the analysis.
Coastal Analysis Farr. MT-2 forms Page 3of4
&USULTS
Stillwater storm surge elevation
Maximum wave height elevation
Maximum wave runup elevation
Have areas designated as coastal high hazard areas(V-zones)increased? 0 Yes 0 No
If yes,describe where they have increased.
The base(100-year)flood elevations have: 0 increased 0 decreased
What was the greatest increase? feet
What was the greatest decrease? feet
The 100-year flood boundary has: 0 increased 0 decreased
Describe where it has increased or decreased.
Please provide a map with revised shoreline due to either erosion or accretion,if appropriate.
Note: If any items do not apply to submitted coastal analysis,indicate with` N/A`.
Coastal Analysis Fens tAT4 fens! Per 1of4
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY I FEMA USE ONLY I O.M.B.No.3067-0118
COASTAL STRUCTURES FORM Expires July 3t, 1997
PUBLIC BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 1.0 hour per response. The burden estimate includes the
time for reviewing instructions searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and
completing and reviewing the Corm. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any
suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management
Agency,500 C Street,S.W.,Washington,DC 20472.
IYou are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB Control Number is
displayed in the upper right corner of this form.
Community Name:
Flooding Source:
Project Name/Identifier:
1.eaustoudo
1. Name of structure(if applicable):
2. Structure location:
3. Type of structure:
❑ Levee/dike* 0 Bulkhead
❑ Revetment 0 Seawall
❑ Breakwater 0 Soft Shore Protection(i.e.,sand dunes)
❑ Other
*Mg: If the coastal structure is a levee/Foodwall,complete the Levee/Floodwall System Analyses Form.
The remainder of this form does not need to be completed.
4. Material structure is composed of:
❑ Stone 0 Earthen fill
❑ Concrete 0 Steel
❑ Sand ❑ Other
5. Status of structure:
❑ New 0 Existing 0 Proposed
If existing,describe in detail the modifications being made to the structure and the purpose of the
modifications.
Copies of certified'as-built'plans 0 are 0 are not being submitted. If'as-built'plans are not available
for submittal, please explain why and submit a sketch with general structure dimensions including: face slope,
height, length, depth, and toe elevation referenced to the appropriate datum (example: NGVD 1929, NAVD
1988,etc.).
`
Has a Federal agency with responsibility for the design of coastal flood protection structures designed or certified that
the structures)haslhave been adequately designed and constructed to provide protection from the 100-year flood?
❑yes ❑ No
If yes,specify the name of the agency and dates of project completion and/or certification. No other sections of
this form need to be completed.If yes:
' PLEASE REFER TO THF:INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE APPROPRIATE MAILING ADDRESS. '
FEMA Fone 81-89/.MAY M Coastal Structures Form
MT-) Form 10 nage.of 6
t.DESIGN Cf ITEaIA
1. Desian Parameters
Were physical parameters representing the 100-year flood event or greater used to design the coastal flood
protection structure?
0 Yes 0 No
The number of design water levels that were evaluated (number)range
from mean low water feet to the 100-year stillwater surge elevation of feet.
The critical water level is feet. The datum that these elevations are referenced to is
(example: NGVD 1929,NAVD 1988,etc.)
Wave heights and periods were computed for each water level analyzed.
❑ Yes 0 No
If no,specify which water levels were analyzed.
100-year significant wave height is
100-year significant wave period is
100-year one-percent wave height is
Were breaking wave forces used to design the structure?
❑ Yes 0 No
If no,please explain why they were not used for design.
2. Settlement
3. What is the settlement rate expected at the site of the structure?
Provide a settlement analysis.
Coastal structures Fenn PAT-2 Form 10 Page 2 of fi
2.law Craw(Cantiond)
3. Freeboard
Does the structure have 1 foot of freeboard above the height of the 1-percent wave for the 100-year stillwater
surge elevation or maximum wave runup(whichever is greater)?
❑ Yes 0 No
Does the structure have freeboard of a least 2 feet above the 100-year stillwater surge elevation?
❑ Yes 0 No
FEMA does not typically recognize structures as providing 100-year flood protection if they do not meet the
freeboard criteria listed above. Please note, occasionally exceptions are made to the minimum freeboard
requirement. Pleases consult the National Flood Insurance Program Regulation 65.10, regarding freeboard
requirements.
Toe Protection
Specify the type of toe protection.
If no toe protection is provided, provide analysis of scour potential and attach an evaluation of structural
stability performed with potential scour at the toe.
4. 6ackfiill Protection
Will the structure be overtopped during the 100-year flood event?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If the structure will be overtopped, what measures are used to prevent the loss of backfill from rundown over
the structure, drainage landward, under or laterally around the ends of the structure, or through seams and
drainage openings in the structure?
Coastal Structures Faro MT•2 Form 10 ►aye 3 of 6
2.DESIGN CMRENA(Continued)
5. structural Stability-Minimum water level
For coastal revetments,was a geotechnical analysis of potential failure in the landward direction by rotational
gravity slip performed for maximum loads associated with minimum seaward water level, no wave action,
saturated soil conditions behind the structure,and maximum toe scour?
❑Yes ❑ No
For gravity and pile-supported seawalls, were engineering analyses of seaward sliding, seaward overturning,
and of foundation adequacy using maximum pressures developed in the sliding and overturning calculations
performed?
❑Yes ❑ No
For anchored bulkheads, were engineering analyses performed for shear failure, moment failure, and
adequacy of tiebacks and deadmen to resist loading under low-water conditions?
❑Yes ❑ No
6. Structural Stability-Critical Water Level (Not All structures must be designed to resist the maximum loads
associated with the critical water level to be credited as providing 100-year protection.)
For coastal revetments were geotechnical analyses performed investigating the potential failure in the
seaward direction by rotational gravity slip or foundation failure due to inadequate bearing strength?
❑Yes ❑ No
For revetments, were engineering analyses of rock, riprap, or armor blocks' stability under wave action
performed or uplift forces on the rock,riprap,or armor blocks?
❑Yes ❑ No
Are the rocks graded?
❑Yes ❑ No
Are soil or geotextile filters being used in the design?
❑Yes ❑ No
For gravity and pile supported seawalls,were engineering analyses of landward sliding, landward overturning,
and foundation adequacy performed?
❑Yes ❑ No
For anchored bulkheads, were engineering analyses of shear and moment failure performed using "shock"
pressures?
❑yes ❑ No
For all analyses marked "No" above for the appropriate type of structure, please explain why the analyses
were not performed.
coastal Structures Fonts MT-2 form 10 Paee 1 or 6
2.DESIGN OUTER**(Continued)
7. Material Adequacy
The design life of the structure given the existing conditions at the structure site is years.
Ice and Impact Alionment
Will the structure be subjected to ice forces? 0 Yes 0 No
If yes,was it designed for such forces? 0 Yes 0 No
If yes,attach impact analysis.
Will the structure be subjected to impact forces from boats,ships,or large debris?
0 Yes ❑ No
If yes,was it designed for those impact forces? 0 Yes 0 No
If yes,attach impact analysis.
8. Structure Plan Alignment
The structure is:
❑ isolated
❑ part of a continuous structure with redundant return walls at frequent intervals.
Provide a map showing the location of the structure and any natural land features which shelter the structure from
wave actions.
Coastal Structures Form PAT-2 Form 10 Faye S of 6
3.ADVERSE IMPACT EVALUATION
The structure is: 0 existing
❑ new
❑ an enlargement of an existing structure
❑ a replacement structure of the same size and design
as what was previously at the site
If the structure is new or enlarged,will the structure impact flooding and erosion for areas adjacent to the
structure?
❑ No
❑ Yes,explain
4.COMMUNITY AND/OR STATE REVIEW
Has the design, maintenance,and impact of the structure been reviewed and approved by the community, and
any Federal,State, or local agencies having jurisdiction over flood control and coastal construction activities in
the area the structure impacts?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes,please provide a list of agencies who have reviewed and approved the project.
If no,explain why review and approval by the appropriate community or agency has not been obtained.
Enclose all design analyses that apply.
coastal Structure Form MT-2 Form 10 Page 6 or 6
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY I FEMA USE ONLY I O.M.R.No.3067-0148
DAM FORM Expires Juy31, 1997
PUBLIC BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 0.5 hour per response.The burden estimate includes the
time for reviewing instructions searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data and
completing and reviewing the form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any
suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management
Agency,500 C Street,S.W.,Washington, DC 20472.
IYou are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB Control Number is
displayed in the upper right corner of this form.
Community Name:
Flooding Source:
Project Name/Identifier:
1.DENTIFIER
. Name ofDam:
Location of dam along flood source(in terms of stream distance or cross section identifier):
Check one of the following:
❑ Existing dam
❑ New dam
❑ Modifications of existing dam(describe modifications)
Was the dam designed by: Federal agency _State agency
Local government agency _Private organization?
2.IACRGROUND
Does the dam have dedicated flood control storage? 0 Yes 0 No
Does the project involve revised hydrology?
❑Yes 0 No
If yes, complete Hydrologic Analysis Form(Form 3)and include calculations of the 100-year inflow flood
hydrograph routed through the dam with the beginning pool at the normal pool elevation (spillway
crest elevation for ungated spillway). Include any inflow hydrograph bulking by watershed sediment
yield and provide necessary debris and sediment yield analysis.
Does the revised hydrology affect the 100-year water-surface elevation behind the dam or downstream of the
dam? ❑ Yes 0 No
If yes, complete the Riverine Hydraulic Analysis Form (Form 4) and complete the table shown on the
following page.
PLEASE REFER TO THE INSTKUCTJONS FOR THEAPPROPRIATE MAILING ADDRESS. '
FEMA Form 91-e9H,MAY 9E Dam Fsm MT-2 Form 11 Page 1 of 2
3.REsuLTS
Stillwater Elevation Behind the Dam
f.11 Revised,
10-year
50-year
100-year
500-year
Normal Pool Elevation
Was long term sediment accumulation taken into consideration in determining the normal pool
elevation? 0 Yes 0 No
Was the dam designed to withstand the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces associated with floods
greater than the 100•year flood? 0 Yes 0 No
If no,and the dam has a reasonable probability of failure during the 100-year flood,please attach
dam break analysis.
Provide the following data on the dam:
Dimensional Height:
Crest Elevation of top of dam:
100-year flood storage capacity:
Freeboard(measured from 100-year water surface elevation):
Spillway(s): Outlet(s):
Type: 0 gated 0 ungated Type: 0 gated 0 ungated
Dimensional Width: Width:
Dimensional Height: Height
Crest Elevation of top of spillway: Diameter:
Invert Elevation:
Explain flow regulation plan:
Are the project features,including the emergency spillway,designed to accommodate the 100-year flood
discharge without overtopping the dam? 0 Yes 0 No
Was the dam designed in accordance with all currently applicable local,State,and Federal
regulations? 0 Yes 0 No
If no,please provide explanation.
FEMA may request a list of regulations that have been complied with and supporting documentation
demonstrating compliance with these regulations.
Attach copy of formal operation and maintenance plan
Answer WA to any questions which are not applicable
Dom Form Mt-2 Form traq.2a:
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY I FEMA USE ONLY O.M.B.No.3067-0148
ALLUVIAL FAN FLOODING FORM Expires July 31, 1997
PUBLIC BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 1.0 hour per response.The burden estimate includes the
time for reviewing instructions searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data and
completing and reviewing the form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any
suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management
Agency,500 C Street,S.W.,Washington,DC 20472.
IYou are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB Control Number is
displayed in the upper right corner of this form.
Community Name:
Flooding Source:
Project Name/Identifier:
1.AMA TO OE REVISED
Downstream limit:
Upstream limit:
Describe flood zone designation as shown on the effective FIRM for area to be revised(i.e. Zone AO with depth
and velocity,Zone AO with depth, or Zone A)
Attach a topographic map(s)which show the following items:
❑ The revised flood boundaries with revised depths and velocities (if applicable)that tie into the effective
boundaries
❑ The correct alignment and location of all structural features
2.STRUCTURAL FLOOD CONTROL MEASURES
The following structures are proposed or built: (Check all that apply).
❑ Channelization (Attach completed form)
❑ Levee/Floodwall (Attach completed form)
❑ Dam (Attach completed form)
❑ Sedimentation Basin
❑ Other(describe)
Have the impacts and the design and maintenance requirements of the structural measures been reviewed and
approved by all impacted communities and by state and local agencies that have jurisdiction over flood control
activities? 0 Yes 0 No
Attach copies of letters stating communities'and agencies'approval.
PLEASE RE YEN TO THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE APPROPRIATE MAILING ADDRESS. '
FEMA Foe.Si 491,MAY% Alluvial Fan Flooding Fain MT-2 Form 12 Page 1 of 3
3.HYDROLOGIC AND SEDIMENT ANALYSES
1. 100-year flood discharge at the apex: Peak Flow cfs
Is the 100-year flood discharge at the apex that is listed above,the discharge presented in the effective
FIS? ❑Yes D No
If no,submit the following:
a) Attach a plot of the flood frequency curve on log-normal probability paper and include the name of
the flooding source and the drainage area above the apex,and the mean,standard deviation,and
skew coefficient of the curve.
b) Attach the Hydrologic Analysis Form.
2. Sediment load associated with the
100-year flood discharge at the apex: Peak Flow ds
Volume acre-feet
Explain method used to estimate sediment load. Attach all calculations.
3. Debris load associated with the
100-year flood discharge at the apex Peak Flow cfs
Volume acre-feet
Explain method used to estimate debris load. Attach all calculations.
ANmvial fan Flooding Fenn MT-2 form 12 Pogo 2 of 3
3.HYDROLOGIC AND SEDIMENT ANALYSES(Caned)
4. Bulking factor,if any,used for this project._
5. Complete the following for potential adverse conditions(such as deforestation of the watershed by fire):
100-year discharge at the apex Peak Flow cfs
Volume acre-feet
Sediment load associated with the
100-year discharge Peak Flow cfs
Volume acre-feet
Debris load associated with the
100-year discharge Peak Flow cfs
Volume acre-feet
Attach all supporting calculations.
6. Attach engineering analyses which demonstrate that flooding(including local runoff)from sources other
than the apex is insignificant or has been accounted for in the design.
4.STRUCTURAL ANALYSES
For channelization and/or levee/floodwall projects,answer the following:
1. Do the constructed or proposed structural measures provide protection from hazards associated with the
possible relocation of flow paths from other parts of the fans? 0 Yes 0 No
2. Do the constructed or proposed structural measures affect flood hazards (including depth, velocity,
scour,and sediment deposition)on other areas of the fans? ❑ Yes 0 No
Explain the methodology used to assess the impact.
Attach detailed engineering analyses to support answers if not included as part of completion of other forms.
Alluvial fan Flooding Form MT-2 Form 12 Fags 3 of 3
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FEMA USE ONLY O.M.B.No.3067-0147
CREDIT CARD INFORMATION Expires July 31, 1997
PUBLIC BURDEN DISCLOSER NOTICE
"Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 6 minutes per response. The burden estimate includes
the time for reviewing instructions,searching existing data sources,gathering and maintaining the needed data,and
completing and reviewing the form. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any suggestions for reduction
this burden to: Information Collections Management,Federal Emergency Management Agency,500 C Street,S.W.,
Washington,DC,20472.
You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB Control Number is
displayed in the upper right corner of this form.
If paying by credit card, this form must be completed. THIS FORM SHOULD,NQT BE INCLUDED WITH THE REST OF
THE FORMS PACKAGE. IT MUST BE MAILED OR FAXED TO:
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Revisions Fee-Collection System Administrator
P.O. Box 3173
Merrifield, Virginia 22116
Fax: (703)849-0282
Caseit (if known) Amount: S
ElINITIAL FEE ❑ ADDITIONAL INITIAL FEE ❑ INVOICE
ElVISA El MASTERCARD
CARD NUMBER
CIDEICIDOCIEICEIEIDEIDEIEJ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
E�XP. DATE
Signature ❑Month -Do
ar
NAME(AS IT APPEARS ON CARD):
ADDRESS:
DAYTIME PHONE:
NOTICE: A COPY OF THE PROPERTY INFORMATION FORM BEING SUBMITTED FOR THIS
REQUEST MUST BE ATTACHED TO THIS FORM.
FEMA Form a1-e91,MAY 9E Credit Card Information Fpm
MT-2 Form IA
*U.S. GOVRRamNT PRINTING OF►ICE: 1996-720-015/62802
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY ANNOUNCES
CHANGES IN USER FEES FOR FLOOD MITIGATION PRODUCTS
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) recently announced its intent to
change the fee schedule for several of the products it provides to the public in support of the
National Flood Insurance Program(NFIP). These changes are being made(1)to simplify
existing administrative procedures for individuals who request Letters of Map Change and
Flood Insurance Study support information and archived data from FEMA and (2)to help
maintain the NFIP as a self-supporting,nontaxpayer funded program,
Effective October 1, 1996,FEMA will change the fee schedule for the following products:
• Conditional Letters of Map Amendment
• Conditional Letters of Map Revision Based on Fill
• Conditional Letters of Map Revision
• Letters of Map Revision Based on Fill
• Letters of Map Revision
• Physical Map Revisions
• Flood Insurance Study Support Information and Archived Data Products
On August 30, 1996, FEMA published an interim final rule in the Federal Register that
details the reasons for the changes and provides the squired revisions to the current NFIP
regulations presented in Parts 65, 70, and 72 of the NFIP regulations. On the same date,
FEMA also published a notice announcing the revised fee schedule in the Federal Register.
(A copy of that notice is attached,) The revised fee schedule will be applied to all new
requests dated October 1, 1996,or later.
Interested persons who do not have a subscription to the Federal Register may obtain copies
of the interim final rule, free of charge, by contacting Ms. Imelda Edwards at the address
shown below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Hazard Identifcation&Risk Assessment Division
500 C Street SW.
Washington,DC 20472
Telephone: (202)646-3860
Facsimile:(202)646-45%
informati
also may be obtained
This
jj http:/w 2�,and electronic*
or �via�AFEMA noon-World
Dematd, at
requesting document number 20018.
46334 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 170 / Fri
day, August 30, 1996 / Notices
FEDERAL EMERGENCY charged to FEMA for labor and - —
MANAGEMENT AGENCYfees
hour)shall b must used m ursed. the total
materials.Because these[etas and the that be reimbursed.
Map Amendoont and Conditional and
for Map Chimps Floodal vary lictualreview�and ! will may Fee Schedule 6r Conditional Letter of
Foe s000dole for Processing publish revised fee
1es
997
rrraa Study p Data for FY Ily, sch r notices in Fecal Ldw en*,en*,Resisiou Based an
Ragisse. FM
Based on•review of actual cost data
AGENCY:Federal Bme �y
Aceto►C t (FEMA Simplification of Schedule for for Fiscal Year 1995,FRMA bushed
ManagemenConditional and Final Map Champs the following flat user fees.which are to
gym"This notice contains the The a fee_collection process is be submitted by requesters with
revised fee schedules forg complex and its efforts o atrafisn the e ragd� O ober mind by F on and after
certain
requests kr Ong to National FDAA.It also increases the time rt Siaei_otof Sidebar iinole :
and for processing requests Program �Flood product they require.The cone[ Mul pLd amane required to provide requesters with the onant-F.and um ---_SaOo
Insurance Study(FIS)backup date.The system requires requesters to submit an (�UaiA
changes in the tee schedules will allow initial fee that is not intended to cover 37ao
FEW to reduce furthsrths expenses to the full review and prooeWog costs or ,N_��F�____
the NPIP by more full the the Map
Con associated with i) ycartographic production costs. Fee Schedule far
costs ass ci end finalwith png Requesters subsequently receive MaP otherwise
s
requests and(2) map change for the
balance.The wean[ Unless the requestisder 44 CFR 72.5.
a administrative support
mgrrd�n& pliWddfmhtbmitby the • �bill"
are U be flat
ad analyses and pp map related to on art mtrproductd Whin FEMA
Plead submitbd by regnss ice with re Revisions Map
ing.
for are notB.anbased
structural
Dre
DATER:The 1evisad fee schedules are exceeded,determines p limits will be that are bard
October 1,1996. obtained bef re proceeding with on their maenads on alluvial and
that eO
Michael mar uFwmatiou CONTACT, review.Prating the requast b received by se fees ere
and after October
Buckley.P.R.,(blot Hazard delayed until the 1,1996.That sad based on a
Identiftcedon Branch.500 C Street SW„ is received written�'eUOr1zetiO°. 1995.
of admit cost data far Fiscal Year
Washington.DC 20472:(202)646.2758 FBMA has
or bY facsimile at(202)Bab-4596(not (1)charging Bat��floe most bY p Roans bsi, c
changesurettamrsift products and �P ue Request bat a fie'alert
400
notice �marces This workthe revised fee Is full palrrt fw( aeuct uci1 r Lvse ether..i3.7oo
requests forschedules te ping D°rtain requ estm(3)consolidating similaren moot map change Request submitted y followup to submission M
Insurance Program(NFIP)maps and for changes to National Flood Produc s or revive int a limibd meRequen dwilad bred�ly on. ... of
processing
(Fng) for Flood Insurance �tuumissr ees number user of Products (4) Fee Schedule for Conditional_` zoo
pdate.'t7rs•revisedhe whichrequsnrstryreceive Revl'� Map
schedule for map changes is effective osomptiona Tram im Unless the ctra,Ls
Oc for tober.ir,,�1�,998.in accordanOe with the reault.segrunrs PEW know the er°empted under CFR 7 to the Nat
andl72, u ges to 44 CPR parts 65.70, cost of Les
published elsewhere in this before any g� °r service own below are'U be
uests
edition of the Federal Register,and The initial fee for LOMRa for CLOMmeas that by es ot based on
supersedes on the currentfee schedule and CLOMRshaaed on structural structural measures on alluvial fans that
The revised fees30, 1992. measures on alluvial fans has been
re received by FEMA on and after
for FIS data schedule en for requests
Dined because(1)such requests October 1.1996.These Les are based on
October ,backupku8,and supersedes ois effective the rare.
(2)the F
uests is EEMA review for these a review of actual cost data for Fiscal
current fee schedule,also publish in (3)the coats involved in very and Year 1995.
the Federal Register. Processing the Request based ea rare hydcelegy,
The basis tog the fees.Net user requests Con fluctuate significantly.' bridge,alve t,-Lscasl,or
fees.and hourly hera initial for requests us Fess far Conditional and Finaltion.._._e...i item
_ Oute_33.100
Conditional Letters of Map Amendment Revrioes Based on Structural �P Request bawd ea lease,harm or olive
(CLOMM),Conditional Letters of Map Ideamda ere AWrvb1 Faun . Schedule
recurs"' •••..t3 3pD Revision Based on Fill(CLOMR-Fs), Based on a review of actual Fee Sc edu far Requests forEats
Flood
Conditional Letters of Map Revision for Fiscal Year 1993,FEMA coat data L Theshed u a Seedy shown b Date
(Q.OMRs).Letters of Map Revision 55,000 as the initial fee for requestsquL bmi user by re e bwow are to is
Based on Fill(LOMR-Ps),Letters of LOMRs and CLOMRs based wbe
Map Revision(I.OMRs),and Ph submitted requesters with arts
Map Revisions and Rsta n fah Physical
structural measures on alluvial fans. FEMA for PISbackupdata that are received by
backup deb received by pg on or The remainder of the review and costs These fees are after and 1.w of.
after October 1, 1ve are provided in the is U be recoveredv Invoicing the based on a review of
lete
separatelyOctoerr I,1996 rule. requester beforees actual costThey are b data for hased an e co Year 1995.
the p nma y component ottt�is d°brnt practil The consistental �v� reproducing.
of Fand distributing
eau for retrieving,thedata.
revs[.private-sector currant recovery
sector is Isto charged to PRMA(� acing,and to sharetifg costs
as well as a pro reb share of the coats
• Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 170 / Friday, August 30, 1996 / Notices 46335
for maintaining the data and operating (6)Category 6--Computer tapes of Overhead Pee for Requests in the fee reimbursement system. Digital Line Graph files Cate ocise 1. 2. and 3 (par
As under the previous fee schedule. (7)Category 7—Computer diskettes !run" _--- HJ
all entities except MIA's Study and use's manuals for PIMA Tow Pee for Category 4 Requests per
Contractors,MIA's Technical programs law Sao
Evaluation Contractors,and the Federal costs of and 3 above
requests in Tow Fes far Catsgor7 5 Requests(first
agencies involved in Figs hued on t e o and 3 above were researchea pond)_____..__..5 inqu.._.»_» s3s
(i.e..U.S.ArmyPerforming hood on In complexity ty of data ddenTotal d for Categoryanel S inquests
Corps of lingineen.U.S. involved in retrieving tM and the (additional peraeb)._..._....»...........»_.....52
Geological Survey.Natural Resources auburn,and medium of data to be Total Fee for Category 6 Regcwts(per
Conservation Service,National Oceanic rapudnad and dianibutad.For these soomonity)...»»___...__..__.._....v...3tso
and Atmospheric Administration,and ca again of requsb,FIRdA will Total Pee far CaupYy 7 Requests(per
Tennessee Valley Authority)will ben the payment of an Initial
charged for requests for FLS backup minimum fie,shown below,to cover Payment So6mirion Lgaicmmb
data.The only emsption is that one the preliminary casts of rsaarrb and
copy of the FLS backup data will be retrieval.This he will-then be applied Fee payments must be made is
provided to a community bee of charge against tie total labor coats.and the advance of services being rendered.
Rthe data an requested during the requester will be invoiced f r ter Thesepay ts as to be in the form of
statutory 90-day appal period for an' remainder of the fees.No data will be a costa to money order or by credit card
Fffi�f/►!on established seven provided to a until all payment Checks and money orders am
categoriesrequired bee here been paid. on be made payable.in U.S.funds,to the
ackn b toarwhichregrated.Ttrsfo P7S The costs requests National Flood Insurance Program.
categories under 4�7 above wW FIIldA will provide receipts to
ca(1)Cab9ary 1—Paper copies or not vary. FDAA hs for their records or billing
ofmicrofiche established Rat user hs for these Purp
pdata for current FLYdrologic
4 d hydraulic categories of request: The fees Collected will be deposited to
(2)Cy 2—Paper of Initial�far Requests in Chewiest _tree the National Flood InsurancegF ,
I mP ap mapping during which iethe of for
PIS
taw gm hoes Rsq�rMe b caws I. providing these services.
(3r`amgory 3—Paper copies of sunny' 2"lad S(per hero) _ _gSS Dated;Angst 23.tees. .
no(tees developed during woaes > �war
Requests ttiehard w.l6ris u
copies ofca. Acting
(Spn�t�P panelsLetters f cepp �s in Catego Pee .2 M. �
Begets Its Catchier«i,S,asd 3 Int ma c os erse76 Piled e-26-a6:a:+6 aml
(Pwrsq�tes0 ...iI2 ma cross atasst.e.
•
Hello