Carter Ph 1 FS-CS 980420 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEM~.NT AGENCY I OMB. Burden ,'¥o .~067-0148 I F£MA USE ONLY
REVISION REQUESTOR AND COMMUNITY OFFICIAL FORM J Expires lut¥ 31,
!
[)UBI.IC BURI)EN I)ISCLOSURE NOTICE
Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 2.13 hours per response. The burden estimate includ~ the
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing da~a sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and
completing and reviewing the form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any sugge~ions
for reducing this burden, to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, ~0
S~reet, S.W., Washington, DC ~04~2; and to the O~ce of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project
0148), Washington I)C 20503.
1. OVERVI[~
1. The basis fl)r this revision request is (are): (check alt that apply)
~ Physical change
~ Existing
~ l'roposed
~ hnproved methodology
~ Improved data
~ Vloodway revision
~ Other
Explain
2. Flooding Source: ~~'s~ ~
3. ProjectName/Identifier: ~l~ ~1~ ~Cl~~',O~ ~OC C~ffe~ A~i
4. VEM A v. one designations affected: ~ ~ X ~~ t t ~ ~ ~
(example: A, All, AO, Al-A30, A99, AE, V, VI-30, VE, B, C, 1), X)
5. The NFIP map panel[s) affected for all ~mpacted communities is (are):
Corn mu nity Corem unity M ap Panel Effective
No. Na me C. unty State No. No. 1)ate
EX' 480301 Katy,CiLy I larris, Fort Bend TX 480301 000513 0~08/~
480287 llarris County llarris TX 48201C 0220G 09/28/~
6. The area of revision encompasses the fo! lowing types of flooding, strucLures, and associated disciplines: (check aH
that apply)
Types of FIoodim[ Structures 1)isciplines'
~ Riverine ~ Channelization ~ Water Resources
~ Coastal ~ l.evee/Floodwall ~ llydrology
~ Alluvial IVan ~ lh'idge/CulverL ~ llydraulics
~ Shalh~wFIoodingfc.g. ZonesAOt~ndAIl) ~ l)am ~ ScdimentTransport
~ i,ukes ~ Coastal ~ Interior l)rainage
~ Fill ~ Structural
Affected by ~ l~ump Station ~ Geotechnical
wind!wt~veaction ~ None ~ l.andSurveying
[~ Yc.s ~ Channel Relocation ~ Other(describe)
~3 No ~ Excavation
~ Other (describe)
~ Other(describe)
* Attach completed "Certification by Registered Professional Engineer and/or 1.and Surveyor" Form for
each discipline checked. (Form 2)
~. VtOODwaV I~FOaMAllO~
~. I)oes the affected floudi~g source huve u floodway designated on tl~e effective I"IRM m' I"BI?M? ~ Yes ~ No
8. I)oes the revised floodway delineation differ from that shown on the effective FlltM or FI1FM ~Yes ~ No
lfyes, give reason:
[EMAFormS1-89, OCT~4 RevislonRequestorandCommunityOfflcialform MT-2 Forml pagelof~ ,
~ttach copy of either a public notice distributed by the community stating the community's intent to revise the
floodway or a statement hy the community that it has n~tified all a~ected property owners and affected adjacent
jurisdictions.
. Does the State have jurisdiction over the floodway or its adoption by communities purticiputing in the NFIP?
~ Yes ~ No
' yes, attach a copy ora letter notifying the appropriate Slate agency oCtbe floodway revision and documentation ,ffthe
. ,proval of the revised floodway by thc appropriate State agency.
L.
3. PROPOSED ENCROACHMENTS
1A. Does the revision request involve fill, new consLrucL~on, subst~nLi~l impruvemenL, ur oLher deve]opmun~
Jntheflood~ay? ~Yes ~No
I~yes, does thc, devulopn~ent cuu~ethe 109 year waLersur~aceelcv~L}on Loh~cr~ascuL~ny Iocatlonby more
Oran 0.0U0 feet? ~ Y~ ~ No
I I. WJLhouL~oodways:
2A. I]ous the revision requu~L invulve fill, new consCrucLion, subsC~ntiM impruvemen~,ur uU~ur deve[opmunL in
Lhel00-yuar~oodpl~in? ~Yes ~ No
2B. lfyes, does Lhu cumulaLive effecC Droll developmenL Lh~L ires occurred sh~ce LEe effective SFIIA was
or]~JnM]y ~denLified cause Lhe 100-yuur waLer ~ur~ace elevaL]on Lo increase ~L any IDeaL'on b~ more th~n
one foot (or other surcharge limit if cotnmttnity or state has adap/ed more stringent criteria)? ~Yes ~No
~ ; ~he answer to either Items 1B or 2B is yes, please provide documentation that all requirement~ of Section 65.12 of the
~ '- ?' ~!) regulations have been met, regarding evaluation ofal~ernatives, notice to individual legal properly owners,
:~ .:urrence of CEO, and certification that no insurnble structures are impacted.
4. REVISION REQUESTOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT
llavingread Nl"lPRegulations, 44Ct"RCh. l, parts 59, 60, 61, and 72,1 believe that the p:'oposcd revision ~ is
. ~ is not in compliance with the requirenmnts of the aforementioned NFIP Re~lutions.
5. COMMUNITY OFFICIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT
': Was this revision request reviewed by Lbo communiLy For compliance wiLh the communlty's adopLud ~oodplain
~ managemenLordinances? ~Yes ~No
i -"- Does this revision requesL bare the endorsement of the community? ~ Yes ~ No
'f :.o to either of the above questions, please explain:
~qease note that community acknowledgment and/or notification is required for all requests as ouUined in Section 65.4
~ ,Ji of the NFl P Regulations.
6. OP~aA~ION AND ~AINI~NANC~
15. Does the physical change involve a flood control structure (e.g., levees, floodwalls, channelization, basins, dams)?
~Yes ffi No
Ifyes, please provide the following informution for each ofthe new flood control structures:
A. Inspection ofthe flood control projecl will be conducted periodically by
enuty
with a maximum interval of n~onths between inspections.
B. Based on the results ofscheduled periodic inspections, appropriate maintenance ofthe ~ood control facilities
will be conducted by
(entity)
to ensure the integrity and degree of flood protection o~ the structure.
C. A formal plan ofoperation, including documentation o[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 one year, ~has ~ hes not been prepared for the flood control structure.
Revision Requqstot and Community Offioal Form ~ MT-2 form I Page 2 of 4
D. The community is willing Lo assume responsibility for [] portorming [] overseeing compliance with the
maintenance and operation plans otthe
(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 arid maintenance plans
7. REQUESTEO RESPONSE FROM FEMA
16. After examining the pertinent N I"l P regulations and reviewing the document entitled "Appeals, Revisions, and
Amendments to Flood Insu,'ancc Maps: A guide for Community Officials," dated January 1990, this request is for
a:
X a. C LOMR A letter from FI';MA commenting on whether a proposed project, Lrbuilt as proposed, would
justify a map revision (LOMR or PMR), or proposed hydrology changes (see 44 CFR Cit. I,
Parts 60, 65, and 72).
h. I,OMR A letter from Fi:.M A officially revising the current NFIP map to show changes to floodplains,
floodways, or flo,d elevations, tOM lt.s typical ly depict decreased flood hazards. (See 44 CFR
Ch. I Parts 60 anti ~5.)
__c. PM R A reprinted N I"11~ 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 4-1 Cb'It Ch. I, Parts 60 and 65.)
d. Other: Describe
8. FORMS INCLUD£D
] 7. Form 2 entitled, "CerLificaLion I~)' Registered Professional t.]ngineer ant[lot I.and Surveyor" must be submitted.
, 'I't~e following forms should be included with this request if(check the included forms):
~- · ltvdrologic analysis for flooding source differs £rom that [] llydrologic Analysis Form
used to develop FIRM (Form 3)
· l tydraulic analysis for riverine flooding differs from that [] Riverine Hydraulic Analysis Form
used to develop i"11(M (Form 4)
· The request is based on updated topographic [] Riverine/Coastal Mapping Form
information or a revised floodplain or' floodway (Form 5)
delineation is requested
· The request involves any type ofchannel modification [] Channelization Form (Form 6)
· The re(luest involves new bridge or culvert or revised [] Bridge/Culvert Iaorm
analysis oran existing bridge or culvert (Form 7)
· The request involves a new revised levee/floodwall [] I,eveefl?loodwall System Analysis Form
system (Form 8)
· 'J'he request involves analysis ofcoasLal flooding [] Coastal Analysis l'~orm (Form 9)
· The request involves coastal structures credited as [] Coastal Structures (Form 10)
providing protection from the 100-year flood
· The request involves an existing, proposed, or modified [] Dam Form (Porto 11)
d a III
· The request involves structures credited as providing [] Alluvial Fan Flooding Form
protection from the 100-year flood on an alluvial fan (Form 12)
Revision Requestor and Communhy Of.q¢ial Fo~m M¥-2 Form 1 Page 3 of 4
,,
,,
9. INITIAL REVIEW FEE
18. '['he minimum initial review fee for the appropriate request category has been included. [] Yes [-I No
Initial fee amount: $ ~, I C)~).~O
Oheck 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. This reques[ is 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 ofconstruction of
the flood control project. [] Yes [] No
or
,~0. This request is to correct map errors, to inelude the effects ofnatural chunges within the arcas ofspe¢ial flood
I hazard, or solely to provide more detailed data. [] Yes [] No :
Note: I understand that my signature indicates that all Note: Signature indicates that the community
~nformation submitted in support of this request is understands, from the revision requester, the
tcorrect, impacts of the revision flooding conditions
on
in the community.
S~9nature of Raves,on Requeste~ S~gnature of Commumty Ofhoal
~ PrmtedNamea. d ~teo ,e 'so Requester PrintedNameand'f.tleofCommumtyOff~c~al
i
I-- Company F:ame Commun,ty Name
L
'2
: Telephone No. Date Date
Does this requesL impact any other comn~unities? [] Yes [] No
If yes, attach letters from all affected jurlsdictions acknowledging revision request and approving changes [o floodway,
if applicable.
Note: Although a photograph of physical changes is not required, it may be helpful for I?EMA's review.
RevisionRequestorandCommunltyOfficiaIForm MT-2 Form 1 :Page,4of4
FEOERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY O.M.B. Burden No..t067-0148 F£MA USE ONLY
CER~FI~ON BY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER Expires July 31, 1997
AND/OR ~ND SURVEYOR FORM
I'UBLICBURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
Public reporting burden for this term ~s estimated to average. 23 hour per response, q'he burden estimate includes the
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and
completing and reviewing the form. Senti comments regarding the accuracy ef thc burden estimate and any
.suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collections blanagement, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20472; and to the Office o[Managcmen[ and Budget, Paperwork
Reduction Project ~3067- 0148), Washington, DC 20503.
I. This certification is in accordance with 44 CFR Ch. I,Section
2. I am licensed with an expertise in ~t~'~ ~
l example: war. er resources (hydrology, hydraulics, sediment tramsport, interior drainage? structural,
geotechnical, land surveying.1
3. I have ~ years experience in the expertise listed above.
4. lhave ~prepared ~ reviewed the attached supportingdata and analyses related to my expertise.
5. I ~ have ~ bare not visited and physically viewed the project.
~. In my opinion, the fi}llowing analyses and/or designs, is/are being certified:
7. Base upon Lbo following review, tim modifications in place bare been consLrucLed in general accm-dance with plans
and specifications.
~ Basis for above statement: (check all that apply)
a ~ Viewed all phases~ractual consb'ucLhm.
~ b. ~ Cumpared plans and specifications with as-built survey informuLi.Jn
c L~ I';xamined plans and specifications and compared with completed pr~[jccl.s
..~o. All [n[ormation std)miLLcd in support o~Lbis request is correct to Lbe best o[my know ed~c I undcrsLand LhaL any
~] false statement may be punishable by ~neor imprisonnlenL under TiL]e ]8 elL}Ia Ullitcd SLates Code Sx~don ]00].
i
Iple~se prinL ~)r
~ [please' priut or typu)
,Registration No. 3~ ~[ ~ Expiration Date:
State ~X 0 ~
'rype orl,ice~se p~oCess'~ o~0 I
Signature
Sea!
¢ Opt:onal}
*Specify Subdiscipline
Note: Insert not applical)le (N/A) when statement does not apply.
FEMA Form 8 ! -89A, OCT 94 Ce~ification by Registered Professional
: ~ Engineer an&'or Land Surveyor Form MT-2 Fom~ 2
I
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY I O.M.B. BurdenNo 3067-0;~'~ I FEMA USE ONLY
RIVERINE HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FORM ~ Expires )uly31, 1997
I
PUBLIC BURDEN I)ISCLOSURENOTICE
Public re~rtlng burden rot this ~orm is estimated to average 2.25 hours per response. Thc 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 ~he accuracy ofthe burden estimate and any suggestions
for reducing ~his burden, to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emet'gencv Management Agency, 500 C
Street, S.W., Washington, I)C 20472; and to the O~ce of Management and Budget, Papc~,'.'::'k Reduction Project (3067-
0148), Washin~on, DC 20503.
l"loodingSource: ~~'t ~ C~~
(0 ne [orm [or eo ch fl~odi ttg ~o~, rcet
Downstream limit:
~ No[ sLudied
~ SLudied by approximaLe meLhods
])ownsLrea m Ii mi L o[ sLudy
UpsLream ]JmiLo~sLudy
~ SLudicd by deLailcd methods
~ Floodway delineated
Downstream limit of Floodway
U pstreu m Ii mit of I"lood way
3. HYDRAULIC t, NALYSIS
Wh5 is the hydraulic analysis different h'om tirol used Lo develop Lhe FII~,'X1. (Check oll ~h.~ cpply)
~N '
. otstudmd in VIS
~ ]mpr'oved hydrologic daLa/analysis. Explain:
.~ lmp:-oved hydraulic analysis. Explain: Add', -k'~o~c~t c ross .--~ec_+'~o,--,g
dote_el +o q-ocfi I.
[] Flood conLrol sLructure, t'3xplain:
[] Other. Explain:
FEMAForm81-BgC, OCT94 : RiverineHydraulicAna!ysisFo;m MT-2 Form4 " Page 1off
;
3. RIVERINE HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FORM
Models Submitted
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 5) and 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) AL a minimum, the Duplicate Effective (item I ) and the Revised or Post-Project Conditions (,item 4)
models must be submitted. See instructions for directions on when oLher models may he required.
For areas whleh 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, BFEs may notbe added to the revised FIRM. Ifa hydraulic model is developed for the area, items
and 4 described below must be submitted.
[£ hydraulic models are not developed, hydz-aulic 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)
~ Duplicate Effective Model Natural Floodway
Copies of the hydraulic analysis used in the effective t"IS, referred to as the []
effective models (I0-, 50-, I00-, and 500-year multi-profile ru~s and the
floodway run) must be obtained and then reproduced on the requestor'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 requestor'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 tiny ~dditiorml 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 no~t reflect any man-made physical changes since the
date of the effective mod,cl. An error could be a technical error in tile
modeling procedures, or any construction in the floodplain that occurred
prior to the date o1' the effective model hut was not incorporated into the
effective model.
3. Existing or })re-Project Conditions Model Natural Floodway
The du[>licate effective or corrected n'..odel is modiSed to produce the
existin~ or pre-¢roiect conditions model to reflect any modifications that ~;c:~r-~
have occurred within the floodplain since the date ofthe 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 t--loc[o_
model, then this model would be identical to the corrected effective or
d uvlicate effective model.
' Revised or Post-P,'oject Conditions Model Natural Floodway
The existinL, or pre-'oroiect conditions model (or duplicate effective or
corrected effectioe model, as ap?ropriate) 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 should
reflect proposed conditions.
Natural Floodway
5. Other: Please attach a sheet describing all other models submitted.
6. Hydraulic Analyses (Only if Hydraulic Models are not developed)
[)lease 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".
: Rb~etine }tydr auh¢ A~aI), ~i$ [ or m
4. MODEL PARAMETERS (from mode/used to revise 100.ye,r w~ter surlace elevedon)
I. Discharges: Upstream Limit Downstream Limit
10-year ..................................... '-/._~CD~ ~---~ -7~0~ ~---'~
50-year ..................................... 1,0,~ CJ~-~ lC:), ,_~C:g~ C__SC'..q:
lO0--year .................................... I ~Sczx~ ~_~ t t ,4E~::::~o ~._~c~
500-year .................................... I~, ~ O0 C_-¢'._% ~ tCX::) C__~¢~'.~
Attach diagram showing changes in 100-year discharge
2. Explain how the starting water surface elevations were determined ~ to_~o.~-', o ~ ~ ~ r-o_
+o, ~-v-, '~'r~,,-', ~-~,~_ Co~ ~+~c~ E I~l~+', ~ l~qoc~ I
3. Give range of friction loss coefficients (Manning's "N') 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.
l.oca ti on FI S Re v i sed
Explain:
4. Describe how the cross section geometry data were determined (e.g., field survey, topographic map, taker, 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 [] No lfno, explain why not:
RiVe~ ine I'tydraulic Analysis I: otto MT-2 roi m 4 Page. 3 of 6
4. MODEL PARAMETERS (Cont*d)
6. Explain how reach lengths for channel and overbanks were determined:
S. RESULTS [from mode,' used to revise 'lO0-year waIersu~ace elevations)
1. I)o the results indicate:
a. Water sur£ace elevations higher titan end points ofcross sections? .................. ~ Yes ~ No
b. Supercritical depth? ............................................................ ~ Yes ~ No
c. Critical depth? .................................................................
d. Other uniquesi~u~tions ........................................................ ~ Yes ~ No
lfyes to any of the above, atLach an explanation that discusses the situation and how it is presented on the
~rofiles, tables, andmaps. Pt~g~ ~e~ ~a',ie~ ~~ reporff e~+;tl~d ,
2. Wi~at is tim maximum change in energy gradient between cross-sections? .......
Specify location ..........................................
3. What is the distance between the cross-sections in 2 above? ....................
4. Wh~t is the m~ximum dishnce between cross-sections? ........................
Specify location ..........................................
5. Floodway determination (~S~ ~~ O~!H )
a.What is the maximum surcharge allowed by the community or State? ......... I .~ foot
b. What is the maximum surcharge for the revised conditions? .................. ~ · ~ foot
Specify location ..........................................
c. What is the maximum velocity? ............................................ I I .~ fps
Speci6' location ............................................................
d. Are there any negeativesurcharge va]ucsat any cross-section? ~ Yes ~ No
lfyes, the fl~dway may need to be widened. Ifi~is not widened, please explain ~md iBdicate the maximum
negative surcharge.
Explain:
Rivedne Hydrau!ic AnalySis Form MT-2 Form 4 Page 4 o! 6
5. RESULTS (Cont'd)
6. Is the discharge value used to determine the floodway anywhere different from that used to determine the
natural lO0-year flood elevations? ................................................. [] Yes [] No
lfYes, explain:
7. Do 100-year water surface elevations increase at any location? ....................... [] 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 floodway fringe or placed within the currently adopted floodway lira its)
Please attach a completed comparison table entitled: Water Surface Elevation Check (See page 6)
6. REVISED FIRFA,'FBFM AND FLOOD PROFILES
A. The revised water surface elevations tie into those computed by the effective FIS Model (I0-, 50-, 100-, and 500-
3'ear), downstream of the project at cross-section 18coSr:D within O feet (vertical) and upstrea,n of
the project at cross section ~_Ooc>o within cD feet(vertical).
B. The revised floodway elevations tie into those computed by the effective FIS model, dowstream of the project at
cross sectionl~5~o550 within CD feet(vertical) and upstream of the project at cross section2OCxDc>
within 0 feet (vertical).
C. Attach profiles, at the same vertical and horizontal scale as the profiles in the effective FIS report, showing
stream bed and profiles ofall floods studied (without encroachment). Also, label all cross sections, road crossings
{including low chord and top-oLroad data), culverts, tributaries, corporate limits, and study limits. If channel
distance has changed, the stationing should be revised for all profile sheets.
D. Attach a Floodway Data Table showing data for each cross section listed in the published Floodway Data Table in
the FIS report.
Proceed to Riverine/Coastal Mapping Form
: Riverine Hydraulic Analysis Form MT-2 Form 4 Page 5 of 6
:
-"EDERAL EMERGE";CY :.'A~AGM[};T AG E.",'C"'
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION CHECK
CO%-'M~'~TY "'¢;.,M E r-.OCD;:~D SOURCE PROJECT r,;A.",,' E/I.D. ENT,F~R
EFFECTIVE DUPLICATE EFFECTIVE CORRECTED EFFECTIVE EXISTING/PRE-PROJECT REVISED/PROJECT
i
SECNO NCWSEL: FCWSEL:;' J SURC.] NC',,'v'SEL; FCWSEL: SURC.] NCWS[L~ FCWSEL~ SURC) NCWSEL: FCWSEL:~ SURC.'] NCWSEL'~ FCWSEL~ SURC.]
20q75 472.2l z~72.8~ 0.65 z%72.17 472.83 0.67 472.15 z~T2.SZ O. G7
2f~G5 z~Vj .87 472.52. O.G5 4-71.8Z 472.~ o. G7 47t.~o 4'~2.4~ 0.68
ZlGqO 474.13 474,32. O. lC:/ 474.~G 474.32.
COMMENTS;
,-, ~O-year (natural) Water Surface E:evation 2.Encroachment (floodway) Water Surface Elevation ]-Surcharge Value
Inc!ude all cross sections in the mode:~ between tie-in points. Any interpo!ated values should be indicated in parentheses. MT-2 Form 4 Page ~of 6
Sheet ~, of ~,
[[DE~AL E;!ERGENCv :.;,.&;.;AGMEN'T AGE,NCv
WATER SURFACE ~::VALON CHECK
COMMU',':Tv '.:A:,,;E i F,.OOD:ND SOURCE PROJEC'[ N,.%~'~_.',E/~ENT~F~,!.[~ R ,
C',+M. o-~, C~c~{.l,Oe~vk:>.",Co~,--,',-~,TexcxsI Gr~,-,',~e. Cr-ee_k. ,r-or Cc~ Ac:~,',+',a,.-,
EFFECT:VE DUPLICATE EFFECTIVE CORRECTED EFFECTIVE EXISTING;PRE-PROJECT REVISED/PROJECT
$£CN0 NCWSEL: FCWSEL: SURC.] NCWSEL: FCWSEL,' J SURCfi NCWSEL~ FO, VSEL" SURC3 NCWSEL~ FCWSE? SURC.'~ NCWSEL~ FCWSEL; SURC.3
1856.G 4co~.4-7 4~5.~4 o.87.4~54.4714~5.34 0.87 zl(:~.47 465.34 o.87
I
I
2~ ~70.&7 471.31 0.8~ 470.~ 471.26 o.gl &~O. 3t ¢7t.24 o.q3
14~1.~7 472.~ 0.76 42(.41 472.~ 0.79 47~.39 ~72.tq 0.80
COMMENTS:
1-100.year (natural)Water Surface Elevation 2-Encroachment (floodway) Water Surface Elevation 3-Surcharge Value
Include ai! c,oss sect[ons in the modei; between tie-in points. Any ~nterpolated values shou!d be indicated in parentheses. [ /,4T,2~_ Form 4 Page 6 o! fi
Sheet of
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY O.M.$. Burden NO. 3057-01J$ FEMA USE ONLY
RIVERINE/COASTAL MAPPING FORM ExpJres July 31, 1997
PUBI.IC BURI)EN I)ISCLOSURE NOTICE
Public reporting burden for Lids form is estimaLed Lo average 1.5 hours per response. Tim burden estimate includes thc
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and
completing and reviewing ti~e form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden csti mate and any suggestions
for reducing thishurden, to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500C
Street, S.W., Washington, I)C 20472; and to the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork R,:ducti,n Project
0148), Washington, I)C 20503.
Community Name: ~''+U o~ C~e[[ ,O~tt°a Coo~,
Flooding Source: ~~'t~e C~e~
Project Name/Identif,er: g{~ P {~'~ Coc Cac+e dd',
1. MAPPING CHANGES copp I i/
1. A topographic w.rk map of suitable scalu, contour intervnl, and planimetric definition must lm submilted showing
(i~alic~m' N/A when not atq~licubh'): Included
A. Revised approximatel00-yearrhmdplainbounclaries(ZoneA) ............ [] Yes [] No [] N/A
Il. Revised cteLailed l00- and 500-year floodplain boundaries ................ [] Yes [] No [] N/A
C. Revised 100-year floodway boundaries ................................. 1~ Yes [] No [] N/A
1). l,ocation and alignment o£ull cross sections used in the revised
hych'au!ic model with stationingcontrol indicated ....................... [] Yes [] No [] N/A
E. SLrea,n alignments, road anddam alignments .......................... [] Yes [] No [] N/A
F. Current c, mmunity I)oundaries ....................................... [] Yes [] No [] N/A
G. l':ffective 100- and 500-year floodplain and 100-year floodway
boundaries fi'om the I:IRM/FIH'~M reduced or enlarged to the
scale of the topographic wo,'k map ..................................... J~ Yes [] No [] N/A
II. Tie-ins between the effective and revised 100- and 500-year
floodphtinsand 100-year floodway boundaries .......................... I~ Yes [] No [] N/A
!. The requestor's properly boundaries and community easements .......... l~ Yes [] No [] N/A
,J. The sigr, ed certification o£a registered pro£essional e'ngineer ............. [] Yes [] No [] N/A
K. l.ocation and descripLion of reference marks ............................ ~ Yes [] No [] N/A
I.. Vertical datum (example:NgVI),NAVDetc.) .......................... {[~J Yes [] No [] N/A
M. Coastal zone designations tie into adjacent areas not being revised ....... [] Yes [] No [] N/A
N. l.ocation and alignment ofall coastal transects used to revise the
coastal analyses .................................................... [] Yes [] No [] N/A
IfanyoftheitemsalmvearemarkednoorN/A, pleaseexplain: A. {~,o',~:~d ~C'[oo<5
2. What is Lbo source and date ofthe updated topographic information (example: orthophoto ntups, July' 19~5; field
survey, Moy 1979, be'ach profiles, dune 1987, elc )? ~1~--[~ 5~t~ r-qe~ t D~c. I otc}~
3. What is the scale and contour interval ofthe following workmaps?
a. l';ffecLive FIS t--~'~l*<re',ov,~ ~ scale Contour interval
b. Revision Request [ ~ = too ' scale ~ Contour interval
NOTE: Revised topographic info,'mation must be of equal or greater detail.
4. Attach an annotated t"IRM and FBFM at the scale ofthe effective FIRM and FBFM s'.':owing the revised 100-year
and 500-year floodplains and the 100-year floodway boundaries and how they tie into those shown on the effective
I.'IRM and I"III"M downstream and upstream of the revision or adjacent to the area of revision for coastal studies.
Attach additional pages if needed.
form 81-89D. OCl 94 Rivc~ine/Coastal f/lapping Form I~,'T-2 Fc~trr~ 5 Page 1 of 3
\ ' $,D~;15,1~,~-t.~;.:t. da~e,:orpora[ellnqts.".3c~ange~,ase?.oode~evat:ons,
speci,~.l .~'o. o,J ha,:;~rd a'cas, tO change zone design at~ons and lo incorpora:e
Z O N F: X pre;"o.4s!y issued Lea, ers o! Map Revision.
J TO c~,'[~.'rnh'~c i! flood in..'ur.~Ce is availa~b~e in this ¢ommun y. conhICl your
~ insu'a,~¢e agent or ca'l ~he .'*,36onal Flood !.".iurance Program *~! [~0} 638-6~20.
' APP~.OXI.MATE SC^L-c
1~30 0 1~ FEET
,iq" FIRM
;.!i ~ FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
' Iii'Id
'!ii'~ii.,,. 'l/ ST c]T~ COPPELL, RE OF ET INDEX
i?TEXAS
~ !i' [Il ONLY PANEL
l'
: .. :. COMMtlHITY-?AHEL HUMBER
I,
- i i~ 480170 0010 E
i ill}
;;i . Ill
:;: ~,--- MAP REVISED:
APRIL 15, 1994
,:! ~[I, ~,"
Federal Emergency Manasement Agency
~lh! iff!
i: ZONE X .
~. !'.
BETHEL ZONE
ZONE AE ,. ,'.
)NEX
ZONE
FLOOD PRONE STREET INDEX
NOTE TO USER
This index provides a list of all streets shown 'on the Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM~ that are partially or tota!ly ~.~/it'niri
Special Flood H-3zard Areas (SFHAs). This index should not be
used as an authoritative source for determining whether
specific streets, properties, or buildings are within an SFHA.
This index is intended to be used only as a guide for determinin;
the relative Ioca::on of the s.',reet in question on the FIRM panel
KEY
1. MAPPING CHANGES (Cont'd)
5. Flood Boundaries and 100-year water surface elevations:
Has thc lO0-year floodplain been shifted or increased or the lO0-year water surface elevation increased at any
location on property other than the requestor's or community's ? [] Yes [] No
If yes, please give the location of shift or increase and an explanation for the increase.
a. Have the affected property owners been notified of this shift or increase and the effect it will have on their
property? ........................................................... [] Yes [] No
lfyes, please attach letters from these property owners stating they have no objections Lo tl~c revised flood
boundaries ifa I,OMR is being requested.
b. What is the number of insurable structures that will be impacted by this shift or increase? CE)
6. H ave the floodway boundaries shifted or increased at any location compared to those shown on the effective
FBFM or FIRM? ......................................................... [] Yes 15q No
Ifyes, explain:
7. Ifa V- zone has been designated, has it. been delineated to extend landward to the heel ofthe primary frontal
dune? [] Yes [] No
Ifno, explain:
8. Manual or digital map submission:
~1 Manual
[] Digital
Digital map submissions may be used to update digital FIRMs (DFIRMs). For updating DFIRMs, these
submissions must be coordinated with I?I",M A I Ieadquarters as far in advance ofsubmission as possible.
River]ne/Coastal Mapping Form : I~.T.2 Form 5 Page 2 of .3
2. EARTH FILL PLACEMENT
1. The fill is: [] Existing [] Proposed
2. ltas fill been/will bo placed in the regulatory floodway? ...................... 1-1 Yes [] No
If yes, please attach completed Riverine tlydraulic Analysis Form.
3. ltas fill been/will be placed in floodway fringe (area between the floodway
and lO0-yearfloodplain boundaries)? ...................................... [] Yes [] No
lfyeso then complete A, B, C, and D below.
A. Are fill slopes for granular materials steeper than one vertical
on onc-and-one-halfhorizontal? ....................................... [] Yes [] No
lfyes, justify steeper slopes
B. Is adequate erosion protection provided for flu slopes exposed to moving flood waters? (Slopes exposed to
flows with velocities of up to 5 feet per second (fps) during the I O0-year flood must, at a m iniraum, be
protected by a cover of grass, vines, weeds, or similar vegetation; slopes exposed to flows with velocities
greater than 5 fps during the lO0.year flood must, at a minimum, be protected by stone or rock riprap.)
.................................................................... [] Yes [] No
If no, describe erosion protection provided
C. l las all fill placed in revised 100-year floodplain been'compacted to 95 percent ofthe maximum density
obtainable with the Standard Proctor Test Method or acceptable equivalent method? [] Yes [] No
D. Can structures conceivably be constructed on the flu at any time in the future? [] Yes [] No
lfyes, provide certification of fill compaction (item C. above) by the community's NF1P permit official, a
registered professional engineer, or. an accredited soils engineer. };~r-oO~C_'l- '~-~ ~c~[:~:~a:e~
4. llasfillbeen/willbeplacedinaV-zone? [] Yes [] Ho
]lyes, is the fill protected from erosion by a flood control structure such as a revetment or
seawall? [] Yes [] No
If yes, attach the coastal structures form.
: Riverlne/CoastalMapplng Form : MT-2 Form 5 Page 3 of 3
_,