Cambridge Phase 1-SY 921130FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION
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
NOVEMBER 1992
RSD-1
INSTRUCTIONS POR COMPLETING THE APPLICATION/CERTIFICATION FORMS FOR
CONDITIONAL'LETTE~ OF MAP REVISION, LL'"FTERS OF MAP
REVISION, AND PHYSICAL MAP REVISIONS
In 1968, the U~. Confrere pemod the NRionM Flood InsurtnceAct, whkh creol~i the N&tioml Flood '
~ Profrmn (NFIP). Thi NFIP w~o 6osifMd to reduce furore flood Jomm th~ufh local
floedphin ~ment ~nd to provide protoetion for property owners qsinst potontitl losses throufh
flood insurance.
NFIP raps mn be revised ~s ~ppropri~te. This will Mlow ri~ premium mtm ~d floodpl&in
:nana~ment requirements to be baud on current data.
submittal. They will tiso &utu'e that: (&) the d~t8 end mothedolosy ere bsimd on current conditions;
(b) qualified profeseion~ls hive ~oembled dsm end performed ill nocemm-y eomput~tiom; &nd (c) ~ll
individusls &nd orwenintiom impeL'ted by proposed ch~nfu m'o ·wure of aha chartres end will hive
an opportunity to commont on thom~ The circul~tanc~ for which this ps~.ka~ is applicable are as
follows:
Conditional Letter of Map
Revision (CLOMR)
A isttor from FEMA commentinf on whither ·
prelmsed project, ifbuilt u propom~ wouldjustiI7 ·
mp revision (LOMR or PMR), or proposed
hydroio~ chafes (Me 44 CFR Ch. I, Pm-ts 60, 65,
~d 72}.
I~tter of M·p Revision
(LOMR)
A letter fFom FEMA officially revisin~ the current
NFIP map to show eh&n~s to floodplains,
floodways, or flood elevations. LOMRe typically
depict decreased flood hazards. (See 44CFR Ch. I,
Parts 60 and 65.)
Physical Map Revision
(PMR)
A reprinted NFIP map incorpor~th~ chinfes to
floodplains, floedways, or flood elevations. Because
of' the time end cost involved to chL,~e, reprint, and
redistribute ~n NFLP map, a PMR is usually
processed when · revision reflects increased flood
hsnrds or hrfe-scope chartres. (See 44 CFR Ch. 1,
Peru 60~nd
Please note that for the followin[ circumst~J~es, this psckqe is not applicable. Instead, the package
entitled Amo_n_dmonte nmi Revlti~m to Nnti_~,~l F__~__ lntMl"nmM. PrOfl~m kiln_ AnolleMion/
Certification Forms and Instructions for Conditional Idttef~ 9f ~4aD Amendmnnt. Letters
Ame~_dment. Conditionsi Lo__tto_re of_Ma~ Revision f_Rstsd on Fill). nmi Letters of Ma~ Revision (Bued
on Fill) is appropriate.
October 1992 1
Letter of' Map Amendment
(LOMA)
Conditional Letter of
Map Amendment (CLOMA)
A letter from FEMA removinff aa existinf structure
or · ioffnily dafiaod Imr~i ~ ~l~r~ by fill
~m ~ ~ (~ ~ C~ Ch. I, P~ 70).
A io~r ~m FE~ ~fio~ll~ ~moving a
p~ ~~ or · le~ll~ de~m~ ~l o~l~
~~ b~ ~ ~m ~ ~ (~ ~ CFR Ch. I,
~ 70~72). ·
letter of]dap Revision
Based on Fill (LOMR-BOI~
A io#w from FBld~ removing ~n ezistinf mructure
or · lo~lly defined pereel of'hod elMtmi by b
phmment orflll from m~ SI~IA (Me 44 CFR Ch. I,
Section 65.6).
ofhnd ~o bo olevoMd b~ b pim~mnent of~ll from
8n SFHA (me 44 CFR Ch. I, Soetion.65.S m~d P~rt
NFIP Regulation, 44 CFR Ch. I, Pm-t 59, eonMin S~uoml wovisiom of the NFIP with which &Il
requesters end community offiehls involved in revision roqum~ should be hmilhr.
NFIP Regulation, 44 CFR Ch. I, Section 65.2, cent·ia de,tuitions mhti~e to eertff~tion of~
analyses, and s~c~l ~r~. ~ ~o~n ~ ~~t ~ ~1 ~~~ ~~ ~~
~om~on ~n~ ~ ~on ~ ~ ~d ~ ~y ~~ ~r m ~ ~e
appli~o~~~n fo~.
Part 72 of the NFIP re~uhtions, published ·t 44 CFR 72, pr~ents information re$~rding the
reimbursement procedure that FEMA has initiated to allow for the recovery of co,ts e~ociatod with
the review of requests for Conditional LOMRs, LOMI~, or Physical Map Revisions, thereby reducing
the expense t~ the general taxl~yer. The initial, minimum fees for FEMA's review ~ml processing of
CLOMRs, LOMRs, and Physical Map Revisions requests are as follows:
CLOMR LOMR PMR
· Bridge or culvert only $490
· Channel modification only $560
· Channel modification mui new bridre or culvert $735
· Levees, bet-mi, or other structural modifications $945
· Structural measures on ~lluvi~l fan $2,800
· Review of revised hydroloiy $245
· 'As-Built' request for previous CLOMR --
$690 $690
$760 $760
$935 $935
$1,145 $1,145
S3,000 $3,000
82OO $200
Before · determination is issued, the requester will be billed for any actual costs incurred during the
review that exceed the initial fee. lfthe total cost will exceed $1,500, FEMA will advise the requester
and obtain approval in wri~inf before oom in er~m Of SI,S00 m~ incm-red, except for requests
involving levees end/or berms, or structural me~uur~ on ~lluvitl hl~ For thoee requests, the
requester will be notifiod ffco~a will mumm $2,500 ami ~5,000, respectively.
Oc~ber 1992 2
If ~e revision requestl rem~s An either · I,OMR or a Ph3~isal ]dap RevbAou, tbs requestor will be
charged · fee of'SSSO per revbed panel to cover the costs of'cartegrapi~ preparation. Pleue no~e that
received wi~in 90 da~ o~the receipt o~the ori~nal requ~ b~ FEM~ Check or mone2 orders should
be made payable to The National Flood Insurance Prosvam.
development in identified flood hamrd areas as opposed to planned floodplain development. Also
exempt are requests beood oolely on the submission of more detailod inbrma~ and roquesU to
correct NFIP mp m'ron.
wit. hste~! the impacts of the lO0-yoar flood event and will be adoquatoly maintninod (e) demonstrate
floodway bou~ierios) sro COEIfisM~ with tim e~oetivo LPZS inbrlliatis~
Completed application/certification forms should be noatly pnckapd in order, with the appropriate
enelosuro followinf each form subudtted. A notobook*stylo format is ideal The eomplete paekafe
should be submitted to the appropriate FEMA Refionai OffJm. Tho ~ and telephone numbers
of the ten Rerional OIF3ees, as well as information refardinf which aroas they suppor% are provided
inside the 1Mck cover of this deeumont. TIM addrom and tobphono number of tho Headquarters of F3ce
Additional information is contained on the forms. Whorover nocosoary, attach additional sM
required to provide the information requested on the forms.
November t992 3
Commonly Usod Acronyms
Natioml Flood
BIPE
The beoe flood is the flood timt Ires a I pef~,nt ~ty ofbinf oquaiod or exeeoded
inany liven yoar (abo referTod tomb lO0-yoar flood).
SFHA
Spoeial Flood HanntArtt Atoms hundatd by 8 flood imvinwa I percent prohbility
of beinw oqunlod or exeoodod in any pm.yum. (abm rebrrod to u tho 100-ymar flood).
FTIBM
The IPlood Hasard Boundary Map. Tho initial flood ~ map ismmd by IPEMA
that identified on the bash of approximate analysos, tim arums of 10(}.ymmr flood hazard
CHHA
Coasta~ Hifh Hazard Aru. An arms of spoeiM flood hasard mttendinw from offshore to
the ~nland limit of a primary frontal dune alonf an open Mt and any other area
subjoct to high velocity wave action from storm~ or seismic sources.
November 1992 4
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE
REVISION'REQUESTOR AND COMMUNITY OFFICIAL FORM
(FORM 1}
This form provides the basic h~formation re~m, din~ revision requests and must be submitted with each
request. It contai~ much artbe material needed for FEMA to m the nature and comple~ty of'the
propo~d revision. It will identify: (a) tho~e elements that will require supporting data and analyses;
Co) items needing coneurrenco arothers; and (¢) the type of respones expected from FEMA. This form
will also a~ure that the community is aware of'the imimets o~'the request aud ha~ notifi~i impacted
property owner~, if require~ Ali items mtmt be completed ~ly. If the reviaion request is bein~
submitted by an individual, firm, or other nou-co,~,~unity ~ coutact ~hould be made with
ba~d on new technical data be ~ubmittsd by the Chiar Executive O~h~r (C~O) ar the e~umunity or a
will a~ree to review it auly ff written evideuce i~ provided i~iicath~ the CEO or desi~e ha~ been
requestad to do ~o.
~ include watarehed development, flood amtrol ~ructur~, etc. Note that feea will be ·
a~ed for FEMA'8 review ar propo~l and '~-buflf' ~, a~ outlined In NFIP ~ati~ 44 CFR
Ch. I, Part ?~-. lmm, oved methodoloev may be · dtl~ereat tmehnhpm (model) or ad~ts to models
mappable.
~ rarere to a ~eecific lake, stream, ocean, et~ ~ ebould match the floodin~ ~ource
name shown on the FIRM, if it ha~ been labeled. (~xamples: ~ ~, Duck Pond, or Bi~
Hollow Creek.) Pro~ect Name/ldvlntifier can be the name ara flood control M'oject or other pertinent
sun~cture havin~ an impact on the effective FIS, the name ara subdivision or area, or ~ome other
idenl~fying phra~.
The mao number. ~ community n~li~ber and ~ can be obtained from the
FIRM title block. The sample FIRM panais (Fi~au'es 1 and 2) provide · convenient ~ource of
information to fill in item 5.
NFIP Comnliance
If the community or communities disagree with the proposed revision, a signed statement should be
attached to the request explaimng the rea~on~ or bas~s for disMTemment.
The community should refer te the document entitled Anueals. Revi~on~ and Amendments to Flood
Insurance Ma~s: A Guide for Community Ofl"tcials, dated January 1990.
Reouested 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 re~,~rding these responses and the data required to obtain each response are
provided in the I~FIP regulations, 44 CFR Ch. l, and in the document entitled ADoeais. Revisions and
Amendments to Flood Insurance Mans: A Guide for Community O~__,_~.'-_l.i, dated January 1990.
October 1992 5
m
Fifure 1. hmple FIRM Panol
(Sinfio
Fifure ~. Sample FIRM Panol
· · (Count~de)
SifTmture nnd ~itle ofltovinion Rammm~
The person sifntnf this certifimtion should own the properly involvod tn the roquemt or have legal
authority tm represent · froup/firu/orfanisation or otbr ontity in ~ ae~oms pm. tnininf to the
NPIP.
Sirnature and Title of'~ommunitv Officials
The person sifninf thio emrtiflmtiom obouM bo tho ~O for b ~ommunit7 invol~d ia ~ revision
request or · lefali~ d~ipmtod oflkhl by b CEO. if moro than oho oommunity is afbetod by the
change, the community oflicimi from the eommuntty thmt is mo~ sfbctod should miwn the form and
letters from tim ottmr aff~'tM oommunit~ should bo eocloomL
October 1~ 6
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION FORM
(FORM ~)
in the spocific ares o~expertin being ~ not tim numbor aFyoars as · ILmno~ profmional
en~ne~r end/or hnd surveyor. While the individual 8i~ninf this form is not required to have obMined'
the supporting dam or performed tho ana~yoas, ho or sim must IMv~ majjorvisod and reviewed the work.
This form must be submitted with otch r~iuesL
Viewinf the physical chartres (Item 4) involves an on*site visit and obcorv~tlon oF all futures upon
completion o~ the projoct, F.,nminatian o~ ~pha is no~ a oubstimU rot on, site visiu.
If not.familiar with ali analym cmducted within.tho ozportioe cited em this form(Item S) or with
construction procad~ involved with the construction of*the annpbtad pre~ atom 6), the
individual sifninf ~ form should attach · statement indicattnf the basis for concludi~ that all
individual ~ug this fora dlouJd teko care to Mont~ Mbor 8xport8 who may not be licansed
Please note that more than one corti~mtion brm may be required to include all disciplines invoivod in
project completion.
A certification by · rqimred probssional enfimmr or other per~ does not constitute · warranty or.
~tarantee of port'ormanco, txprusod or implbd. Certification ofdata is · statement that the data is
accurate to the best (fi'the cortifier*s knowlod~. Cortifi~tion of analyses is · statement that the
anelyses have been performed eorroctiy and in accordance with sound enfineerinf ~.
Certification of structural works is · statelllmStt that tho works sro ~ in accordance with mound
en&rineering practices to provide protection from the boom flood. Certification of'as built' conditions is
a statement that the structure(s) hot been built mccordi~ tho the plans beinf cortibd, is in place, and
is Fully functioninf.
October 1992 7
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS FORM
(FORM 3}
~ form is to be completed when ~ o~er ~ those used la ]PiS ~'~ ~~. ~o~o~
~ ~~ bm~toF~~~~~~~ ~ ~e ~.
For ~~ ~ on ~M~u ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ M why ~
~~ve mo~l~ or ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m~ b ~n~ ~d
s~~ ~~ut b fo~
a rove~,M_ ut afenc~ or private ~ Historical dam re&rs to peek dischrp data obeervod outside
the s~ematic period and roeordinf only isolated outomndin~ even~ Himm-i~ data should be
documented whenever possible.-
For data to be homoeeneous, the lonf-torm U'end of b data should remain constant. In other words,
the probability distribution used to describe it is iniependont oftime. An example of non-
homofeneous dam would be peek discharp data at tbs coafluenco oFt~o m foliowinf two
different flow refimes.
AliiIf~iiR~ made to the ~ daM/record, ouch as the uco OFa soeond furinf station to
compensate fOr a short r~ord or adjustments for sero flood years.
Bulletin 17B recommends the use of the lof. Poarson Type [] (LP3) distribution for the m~
analysis of flood data. However, there may be situations where the LP3 distribution is inappropriate
and another ;rgbabilitv distribution must be used. Other distributions include Extreme Value
CGumbel) and log-normal (Galton). The uN of &iternative distributions mu~t be justifiod and fully
documented.
~omDarison with other analyses includes comparing the analysis with another station on a
hydrolorically similar stream or usin~ an alternative analysis (e.g. refression equations) to verify the
reasonableness and lofic of the results.
At~achm~n% B ' Reeression Analysis (one per stream)
The source of the resTession equations must be given along with a proper i~iblioeraohical reference.
The U.~. Geological Survey (U~S), in cooperation with ~tate a~encies in charge of monitoring water
data, has developed refression equations on a state*by-state basis. As ~ are revised refularly,
FEMA will accept only the most recently published refression equation report. Other agencies also
put out rerression analyses reports, or a refional analyses can be poi-formed.
Stream stations are frouped in hvdroloeic ret, ions in which certain basin parameters have been found
to have roughly the same influence on the peak flows as evidenced by the multiple refression analym.
1~ can happen that a stream watershed may encompass more than one region, in which ease some
proportionality of the influence of each teflon upon the peak dbeharge mus~ be considered.
Most rerression equations are developed for rural or undeveloped conditions. Thcoe results can be
modified to reflect urban or developed conditions. If urbanized conditions were considered, the
October 1992 8
methodology for developing the urban discharges must be d#eribod sad/or refm~lcod sad the
percentage of the watershed that i~ urbxni~d must be given.
Because re~ression equations are hued on compilation of'data from ~veral WaWe stations, · certain
amount of ~Jtural ~ stora~ is inkmrmnt in the equations. Howev~, rm~rmmi~ equations are not
designM ~o l~udle w~mr~md~ controlled by um~or mrag~ f~mrm m~h m ~ mmrol mructur~. If
such structures exist, · full account of how flood storafe was considerod must be liven.
Attachn~nt C - Pr~eiuimtion/RunofF Model (OM Pm, Modal)
Bu~low is dM~ed u t~e eat~z~ted flow occurri~ in the stream ~ th4 flood event occurs.
Therefore, it must be shown that the types of'peramm% the thooroti~ bash, and ~ource of chin
provide super-or results.
If po~ible, a procipitation runoff modol should bo ~ and calibmMd to & known flood event in
order to juKl~y tim valu# ortho parameters and the ~ made in the modoL AIl calibration
and verification runs should b d#cribod and the results diocumo~ b attach copies afb
calibration and verification rum,
When revised discharfu are not ~ni~n~ly d;~Ferent than the FIS diochar~s, FKMA may rm~uire ·
confidence ~ analysis at · later date to complete tho review.
October 1992 9
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE RIVERINE HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FORM
(FORM 4)
This form is to be complst~d when the reque~ involves · h3Mrtulic a~mlysls for rivorins flooding t~mt
d~Sers from tiaa used to develop the FIRM. .
conMcMd~or direction. AllstofF~MARefiou~~'tiomMdS~tb°°mle~m°mou'ucu°ns' ~me
effective models sro no~ avMhble, the requas~or must fensmto ramble timt dupli~to the FIS profiles
and the elevations shown in the Floodway {ht~ Tsbls in the FIS report to within 0.! roo~ or cont~--t
FEMA Hoaaqum~rs for fuiasnCe. FEMA HomklmrUn should be ammctod iFthis model cannot be
foot.
~ may he mquirod to suppofl modudom about tho admaal bnPef~ of the ~
asooehted with the rvv4 _,--_d_ or __u~t*__ orohe~ modal or to establish moee uP're'dam mod°is °n which to
base the revi_.a or t~,,~*urob~ eomii~ions modal. The r~y~--a or ~-t-trobet coalitions model mus~
always include the existing and po~~ mnditbns. ~,~-.I IP;~yn-~'--h'ut theso models is
contained on the forn~
The information requested on the Hydraulic Analysis Form are intendod to dmmment the mpa taken
by the reques~or in the process of'preparing the Fev4-~ or _-~__t*oro.'_M__ conditions hydraulic models and
the resulting revised FIS information. The following guidolines should be followed when compls~ng
the form.:
(a)
Ali changes to the duplicate and subsequent models mus~ be supported by
ear,tried ~opographic inforumtion, bridge plans, eonRruc~ons plans, survey
nOtes, etc.
(b)
Changes to the hydraulic models should be limited to the stream reach for
which the revision is beiz~ requested. CroH-Nctions upatre&m and
downstream of'the revised reach should be Mantis! to those in the elective
model. If this is done, w·ter eurhce elsv~tions and topwidths computed by the
revised models should m~tch those in the effective models upatre·m and
downstream of the revised reach as required.
(c)
There mus~ be consistency between the revised hydraulic models, the revised
floodplain and floodway delineations, the revised flood profiles, t~pographic
work map, annotated FIRMs end/or FBFMs, construction plans, bridle plans,
etc.
For SFHAs designated as Zone A, the ~xistinf or nre-Droieet model and the rvvised or DOSt-nroiect
model,or other hydraulic armlyses for ex'_m_tinf and revised conditions are required to dele _rmi~e the
100.year flood profile. The ~.?ittinff mo4~l or analysis is required to support conclusions about the
actual impacU of the projec~ anociatai with the revi__e~_ or DOSt*Droiect model or a2mlvsis.
October 1992 10
INSTRUCTIONS I~R CO~G TH~ RIV[~Ii'~CO~ MAPP~G FORM
tYORM ~)
An insursblo strucm~ is definod es e wtllod mMi roarod butldinf, otb~ ths~ 8 fm e~ liquid stoufe
Mnk, that is principslly ~Mve fround snd ~fixod to a permmmm st~ m well ~s t m~n~ home
on t perumnomb~ For b btm. purpme, the tm.m ineludm & building whib in b a of
constTuctio~ 81torution or rglMir, but does not io~ludo hlfldtnf Ilist~hlo or 8upp]bs Jntembd for uoe
buildinf on r~e prembos.
.~ovember 1992 l l
INSTRUCTION'S POR COMPLETING THE CHANNELIZATION FORM
(FORM 6)
This form b to be oomplet~d ~ ~ny portion of'ti~ m~l b ~lter~d or r~~ ~ the
Chmmeli~tioa Form b ~mit~ · Rtvm'im Hydmulk Au~ly~ Form mu~t ~ I~ ~
sod~ment ~
October 1~92 12
t
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLSTING THE BRIDGE/CULVERT FORM
(l~OP..ld ?)
This form is to be eomplotod when the request involves · now bridp or culvert or · new or revised
tmiysis of~n ezirdng ~ or cuiver~
Typimlly, tim smamu'u is mmlyzed using tho mine mothod ofmml3mio mod for tim flooding ~ource. If
a different method is mod for the structu~,~ wh7 th hydraulic mml3mis utUisod fok the
flood~ source could not ~nalyze the structure must be enclmod.
The culvert lentth or bridp width in direction orflow
must be entered.
Culverf/Brid~e ~
If a oomputm* modM is u~od to mmlyse the structure,
the ~ eul~ n may be dltV~rent
th~n the total euivm, tflJrMp 8ro~ in runs of low flow.
Elev~tiom above which flow is dbetivu
for the entire e~-om*se~io~
Top Widths:
Top width are th borimmtal distance between
sud~e~ of'the floodplain boundsries, floodwty
boundari~ and the limin of effective and ineffective
flow m in a crom-ooction~
Ocu~ber 1992 13
INSTRUCTIOI~S FOR COMPLFIYNG THE LE~I~ALL SYSTEM ANALYSES FOlt~
(FOP~ S)
The purpose ofthis form is ~o ~sure tJmt the ievoe o~ floodwefl is dmifnod muger eoastrmmd M
provide proto~Gion ~rom tho !00*~ur flood, in full eomplhnm with 44 ClPR Ch. I, So,tim 68.10 or tim
N&tioml Flood Imurmm Profrmn (NFIP) rquh~ beroro refloctinf in effoets on on NIPIP nap. A
complete enginoet'ing ~ysis must be submitmd in support ~ ~ o~thb form. In miditio~ ·
vicinity mp tJong with a mmplete set orflood Woflle gboom, pin dmom, md hyout domil sboets
must be gubmth ~mme M must b ~ aud mn indmz ummt b pfmvidmd tJmt elomrly
identtflos thooe shoem ~ly relating m the levoo or, floodwuli Jn quoation~
.~ovember 1992 14
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE COASTAL ANALYSIS FORM
(YORM 9)
i.
All ehoAfes to effoff:ive models must be suppormd b~ em, tlAod topofrtphic
informat/on, structure plans, surve~ horns, mm'm ourge dam, mt. orolo~ical
dam, etc.
November 1992 IS
INSTRUCTIONS POR COMPI~"I~ING THg COASTAL ~TRU~ PORM
(l~ 10)
The C, mustal Su"uetmm l~orm is to be mmpiotad wbon ~ revision to amstal flood hamrd ~
and/or artu is roqusmd lured an ONdtal smmuus beths ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~
hue flood. Iftbo mmml ~ Is a Jeme4Jedwill, mmpiom tim Idvoe/Floedwnll Systom Annlynio
po,sible ~ in eroeion ~t tho ends of'tho struttur, to mq]rotdetM ~ The evaluation of'
protoRion pt'ovidod by .m~d dunm must follow tho eriterta outlinod in 44 C~PR ~'h. l, S.~bn 6S.II.
November 1992 16
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPI,2'IqNG ~ DAld l~OltM
(l~Olt~ 11)
The Dam Form Is ~ be filled eut wbem ther, is e~ exiet~ prepae~ ar umdlfled dam ala~ a ~
ehould be to~llydedkated te fleedeeutml. Ifthedam kzet~teee/ely pemtbe lO0-year fleod
and tbe dam bna a masmabk Wuhnb~ty ~ffa~lm dm'b~ th~ 1~-~ floud, & dam ~ analysis
should be submlttad. The dam htuak analysis sbe~dd ~ ~matatamt tusulta, uae emlsh'k~ lmait
fa~lm'e hydr~,~aph by dynan~e ~, w~_,'~ tndudaa atlan~antgm and tmnalntim. '1~ NFIP
dnm safety fmtutua.
November 1992 ]?
INSTRUCTIONS IPOR COMPLBTING THE AI2,UVIAL PAN FLOODING FORM
(I~ORM 1~)
The p~ ~ form b M omure ~ · ~ ~ coati momure b sram su~ ~ ~luv~i
~ 44 C~ ¢~ I. i ~.13 ~ N~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ns, ~ore
it ia reco~ds~ on I NFIP map. pimm be &ware thnt ebvntion or& petrol of hnd or ast, ructore by fill
or other momm only, will not serve u · bmmis for removing areas md~oet to alluvial fan flooding from
an area of f~a~:ial flood haaards. So~ Sot~ 6~.la ortho NIPIP rqulatiee& Complete onjinoerinf
analyses must be submittod in support of m~h ruction d'thio form. In Mdition. it may I~ Memmary to
compi~t~ oti~r forms rmlmting tm ~ Pood mmrol mmmmurmm, mm:h m ~mmlh.
November 1~2 ! 8
~Con~e~ticut, Maine, Massachueetti,
Ne.w Hampshire, Rhode bland, and Vermont)
Federal Emergency MInt~mont Afenc~
Natural ami Technol~ H&urds
Division
J.W. McCormack Post Office and
Courthouse Building, Room 462
Boston, Massachusett{ 021094595
(617}
(Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Okishoma, and Texu)
Federal Emereenc~ Manqement Agency
Natural H~za~ls Branch
Federal Regional Cen~er
(817) 808-6127
REGION II
(New York, Puem Rico, New Jer~y,
and Virgin Islands)
Federal Eme_rgency ]dmmfu~nt Apncy
Natural &nd Technoloa~ml H&urds
Division
26 Federtl Plm, Room 1337
New York, New York 10278-0002
911 Walnut Street, Ro~m
Kansas City, ~ MI0S-M
(212)
(816) 2~-7021
(Dehwere, District of Columbia,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virjinia,
and West V~)
(~oiorudo. Montana, North Dtkot~,
South Dtkot~ Uuh, end Wyoming)
Foderal Emergency Management A{ency
Natural and Technolo~ml Hazards
Division
Liberty Square Building
(Second Floor)
105 South Seventh Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-3316
(215) 931-5750
Federal Emer~oncy Mana{ement A{ency
Natural ami Technologiml Hazards
Division
DenveF Podaral ~onMr. Building ?10
Box 2S267
Denver, ~olorado 80225-0267
(3O3) 23S-4830
(Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, North Carolum, South
Carolina, and Tennessee)
(Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, and
Nevada)
.F. ederal Emergency Management Agency
Natural and Technological Hazards
Division
1371 Peachtree Street, Northeast
Suite 700
Atlanta. Georgia 30309-3108
(404) 853-4418
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Natural and Technological Hazards
Division
Building 105
Presidio of San Francisco
San Francisco, California 94129-125'0
(415) 923-7!77
REGION V
(Illinois. Indiana. Michiran,
Minnesota, Ohio, and WmC°nsin)
(Alasim. Idtho. Ore. n. and Washing'con)
Federal Emergency Manafement Afency
Natural and Technological Hanrds
Division
175 West Jackson Boulevard
(Fourth Floor)
Chicago. Illinois 60604-2698
(312) 408-5533
Division
Federal Refional Cent~
130 228th gtroet, SW.
Bothell, Washinfton 98021-9796
(206) 4~-4M2
Continued on Next Pnge
Inquiries to FEMA Hemiqum'ters should be midressed
to ihe Risk Studies Division it the followin~ address:
Federal .Emerfenc~ ~ment Afenc7
Office of Risk Assessment
5OO C Street, SW
W~shinf~on, D.C. 204'/2
(2O2)646-2767
IFEMA US~ ONLY
FOl~! 1
REVISION I~QUESTOR AND COMMUNITY OFFICIAL FORM
1. Thebesisfortl~~' nrequ,stis(m): (cJ~ck-' thitipp~y)
2. Fioodinf Souru:
3. Projoct N~tLfl~.
4. FEMAzonedesifnationsiffocte~ ~
(example: A, AH, AO, Al-A30, AO9~ V, VI.V30, V~ B, C, D, 1D
5. The NFIP map panel(s) affoctod br all impectod ~ommunitim is (are):
EX:
Community Community Mlp Panel Effective
~9. ~ Counw SuM No. No. IbM ,
480301 l~tT, Cit7 Hm-rb, Fort Bend TX 480301 000SD 02/08/83
480287 ltarris County HL'TiS TX 48~01C 0220G 09/28/90
6. The submitted request eneompmmes the following types offloodin& structures, ~nd
~ Riverine
[] Alluvial Fan
[] Shallow Fioodin~
wind/wave action
[] Yes
~1 No
[] Other (describe)
associated disciplines: (check all that apply)
Twes of Floodine S~ctures
~--1 Chtnnelintion
~ Brid~e/CulveFt
[] Dam
~-~ Coastal
Fill
Pump Station
] None
I~] Other (describe)
I~ Wmr bsources
I~1 Hych'oio~
Hydraulics
Sediment Transport
~ Interior Drainage
r"l su~.~unl
['--] Land Surveyin~
[] Other (describe)
* Attar. h completed 'Certification by Registered Professional and/or LaAd Surveyor'
Form for ear. h discipline checkod. (Form 2)
October 1~2 Pqu 1 of 5
REVISION RF~UF.~I~R AND COMM~JNTI~ OFFICIAL FORM
Flood~ty Information
· Does the afl'ec~d flooding, source have · floodway desigmtM on the effective FIRM or FBFM?
· Does the revised floodway delineation differ from tht shown on the effective FIRM or FBFM?
Attach request to revioo the floodway from e.mmuni~y ~ o~ de~ignamd offiehl.
Attach copy of either a public notice distribu~ by the eommunity mtinf tho ~ommunity's intent
to revise the floodway or · mtement by the armmunit~ that it hms no~lfiod all affected proper~y
owners and affected adjacent j~.
the NFIP? I~1Y~o [..I No
If yes, a~ach a copy of · leRor not~ing the appropriate hie afen~ of*the floodway revision and
Wi~hfloodways:
dev~lopmenttnthof]oodwuy? I I Yes L~J No~-~
lB. If yes, does the dovolopment mum the 100*yom' wtMr mn-h~ elmtion incroaM at any
location by more than 0.000 foet? [~ Yes ['~ No ~ ~
Without floodways: . c~ ~. ~. ~
development in the 100.year floodplain?
~B. If yu. do~ the cumulative Mbct of rtl d~v~~t *~-t has o~NIrrmi Mnc~ kho off~"tive
SFHA wt, origimlly id, ntifiod cam th, lO0-y~ar w~mr mlffaco ebv~tion incrHn at thy
lmmtion by mom khan one foot (or othor sure, ha~ limit if community or state has adopted
more stringent criteria)? ~ Yes .~ No
If amwer to either Imm lB or 2B it yos, pleeoe provide documentation that all roqu~ments of
Sec~on 65.12 of the NFIP refulations have been
Revision l~uostor Acknowledjemem
Having read NIPIP ~fula~ions, 44 CFR Ch. I, peru 59, 60, 61, 66, and 72, I believe
propond revision]~J is [~]' is not in compliance with the requArements of ~he
~orem~ntioned NFIP Refulations.
Commurd~/Ofl3cial Acknowlodfement
· Was thio revision requee~ reviewed by the communi~j for complian~ with the ~ommunity's
adopted floodplain management ordinances? ~es ~ No
· Does ,hit revision request have t~e endorsemen~ of~he communi~? ~/~es J'-] No
If no ~o either or,he above questions, please explain: '
Please no~e ~t community acknowledgement and/or notification is roquirod for all requeeU
H outlined in Section 65.4 (b) of the ~ Re. IliUM.
November 1992
~ 2 ors
REVISION REQUESTOR AND COMMUNITY OFFICIAL FORM
Does the physical ch·rife involve 8 flood control structure (e.g., levees, floodwalis,
channelintion, be·bLt, dams)? r'-] Yes ~ No
If yes, pleese provide the followinf information for each of the new flood control m'uctur~:
As
Inspection of the flood control pr~joct will be eouductod pertodk~Jly by
(en~tT!
with · maximum imm-val of ~ be·woe· inspectiom.
Bo
lhesd on the ruulu of schedulod periodic hspectiom, epproprieM meinMnance of·he flood
coum)l heillties will be conducted by
to ensure the intefflty and defroo of flood protoeth~ ofth ·true, re.
Co
testinf the plan nt intervals not less than ono ~ear, [~J his D hunotbeenpreptred
br tho flood control structure.
Do
The community is willin to usume ruponsibilit F--! pe or G-; ove eseb
compliance with th maintenance end opera, on piano of th (Nmne}
flood control structure. If not performed promptly by an owner otheF than the
the community will provide the necessary m-vieu without cost to the Federal rovemment.
Attach operation and maintenance plans
Requested Response from FEMA
After examining the pertinent NFIP refulations and reviewin~ the document entitled "Appeals,
Revisions, and Amendmenu to Flood Insurance Maps: A Guide for Commur~t~ Oft~cials,' dated
January 1990, this roqmt is for a:
/~a. CLOMR
/~b. LOMR
A letter from FEMA commenting on whether · proposed pro~ect, Kbuiit as
proposed, would ~ustSfy · map revision (LOMR or PMR), or proposed
hydrology chans~ (see 44 CFR Ch. I, Parts 60, 65, and 72).
A letter from FEMA officially revising the current NFIP map to show
changes m floodplah~s, floodways, or flood elevations. LOMRs typically
depict decreased flood hazards. (See 44 CFR Ch. 1, Parts 60 and 65.}
c. PMR
A reprinMd NFIP map incorporating chanfes to floodplains, floodway·, or
flood elevations. Because of the time and cost involved to ch·rife, reprint,
and redistribute tn NFIP map, · PMR is usually processed when · revision
reflecu increased flood hazards or large-scope chartres. (See 44 CFR Ch. I,
ParU 60 and 65.)
~d. Other: Describe
October 10o2 Pap 3Of·
REVISION RF.~U~R AND CA)MMUNIT Y
Forms Included
· Hydrolofic m~lysis hr riverino floodinf differs from that
used to develop FIRM
· Hydrtulic amlysis for riverine floodinf dtffen from that
· The roquest is beood ~._~on updatod ~
information
· The reque~ involv~ ~ny type ofc]Mnnel moclffimtioa
· The request involves · now or revisod ievNflbod~ systom
· The roquestinvolvesmmlysisofooesMlfloodinf
· The request involves cout&i Rruct~res erodited es providinf
protection from the 10~yesr flood
· The request involves ~n eziRiz~, propofld, or modibd dam
J'"l Hydroiofic Analysis Form
(Form 3)
Riverino Hydraulic Atulysis
(Form 4)
i--1 Chsnnelintion (Form 6)
!-! BrMf~ulurt Form
A,n~iyBb (Form 8)
['=1 Cout~ Anoiysis Form
(Form 9)
(Form 10)
~] DtmForm(Formll) ~//,~
Initial Review Poe
· The minimum initial z~vbw les for the appropriate :'.quit mterory hu been included.
rE yes
ti'yes, the mouat .ubniR.d i~ $ ~ ~ 0
or
This request is for a project that is for public benefit and is intended to reduce the flood hazard to
existir~ development in idenr, ified flood hLurd m u oppoood to planned floodpl~-~
development. [-'] Yes [~ No
November 1992 Page 4 of~
Note: I understand that my signature
indicates that all information submitted
in support of this request is correc~
Signature of Revis~n ~Cor
Note: Signature indicaus that the
communit~ understands, from the revision
requesrar, the imm of the revision on floodi~
Attach letters from all afl'ected jurisdictions acknowledging revision request and approving chan~es
~o floodway, if applicable.
Note: Although a pho~ofraph of physical changes is~not required, it may be helpful for FEMA's
October 1992
NOTE: Attached is a copy of the October 16, 1991 effective map for
Coppell. Superimposed onto this map is the true location of Denton
Creek in relationship to DeForest Road. As you can see, the
October 16, 1991 map is in error. The floodway width should be
based on hydraulic data, however, its location should be based on
accurate topographic data. Please consider this information in the
review of our project. We do not intend to encroach into the
floodway with our project. Please review the support data to
verify this fact.
R FLOOD
3JECT TO
:LOODS.
I=
LOCATION OF LEVEE AS SHOWN [
ON OCTOBER, 1991 MAP
ACTUAL LOCATION OF LEVEE
DENTON COUNTY
COUNTY
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE OCTOBER 15, 1993 PROOF MAP FOR THE CITY OF
COPPELL SHOWS THE LEVEE IN THE CORRECT LOCATION AND SHOWS THAT
THERE WILL BE NO FILLING IN THE FLOODWAY WHEN THIS PROJECT IS
DEVELOPED.
'FEMA USE ONLY
CERTIFICATION BY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
AND/OR LAND SURVEYOR
FORM 2
7.
This certification is in accordance with 44 CFR Ch. I, Soction 65.2.
I am liaenood with an exl~rtise in
[example: wator reso .m:c_-_-_-_-_-_-_-~es. (hjsLuflof~. h~.~_~, Nd/me~ trtnsport, in~)*
m-uetm, tl, I. otec/mic~, hn/.urveyinf.]-
I have ~/prejmrod 1'~ reviewed the *LWchad .uppor~inf dtt~ end sml~ue, rehUd to
m~ expert~e.
I [~J/have [] have not visited and physically viowod b peojoch
In my opP.'on, the followin~ analyses and/or desifn, wore performed in accordance with
/
Based upon the followin~ review, the modifications in plaee have been eo~ in
fenertl accordance with plans and spocifications.
Basis for ~)ove mtemen~: (check 811 that apply)
&. [] Viewed rtl phefes of~-L~ml construct~n.
b.. r~ Compared plans and ~cif~m with ss-built survey iAf'orumtion.
c. [] Ex&min~ pleas and spoc~cttiorm sad compared with compleMd pro, ecU.
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 f'me or imprisonment under
Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001.
(please print or type)
(please print or
Re~s~afion No. ~ ~~ E~ira~on Da~e:
*Spec/fy Subdiscipline
Sell
(Optional)
Note: Insert not applicable (N/A) when statement does not apply.
October 1992 Pale 1 of 1
Community Name:
MA USE ONLY
HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS FORM
FORM
Flooding Source:
l-I Alternative methodology/ju~dfy why the reviood mod~l is better than model
used in the effective FIS)
[] Evaluation of propoeed eonditions (CLOMRo 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 n~d be included for SFHAs desifnated u Zone A.
October 1992
Approval of Analysis
[] Approval of the hydrologic analysis, including the result_'_,_n_,a peak discharge value (I) has
been provided by the appropriate local, state, or Federal A~ency. (i.e.,
Attach evidence of approval. )
[] Approval of the hydrologic analysis is not required by any local, state or Federal Agency.
Page 1 of 7
H'k"DROI,OOlC ANALYSIS FORM
Review of' Results
Stream
location: FIS: ~'
Note: Wh~ ~ diScharg~ are not ~miflmntly dtfbrentthan lqS disdmreu, FEMA
may require a confidence limits analysb on aM;admJent D at · later date to complete
tho review.
As is often the case with revision request, only a portion of a stream may actually be revised
or be affec~i by a revision. Thru, afore, trtndtion to the ~ wrtion is important to
m&in~ the continuity of the study. NFIP regulations stipulate that such a tr~,,tition must
be assured. What is the trm~ition from the propooM diochrgu te the efl'ecttve diochargu?
Please explain how the transition w~ made (attach Mparate shoot if nocoesary).
Attach a completed Review of lb~ulU page for each flooding source.
Is the new hydrologic analysi~ being developed solely to revise the flow values presented in the FIS
(i.e. no changed hydraulic conditions)? [] Yes [] No
If yes, does the lO0-year water-surface elevation change by 1.0 foot or more? f-{ Yes [] No
FEMA does not normally revise NFIP maps solely due to ~t flow changes where
changes in lO0-year water-surface elevation are less than 1.0 foot.
October 1992 Page 2 of 7
HYDROL,OGIC ,~NALY$IS FOP, M
Historical Floodin~ Information
Is his~ dam available for the flooding source?
If yu, provida tim follow~.
Lo~t~n alon{ flooding source:
Maximum peak dischargo:
[] Yes [] No
C,~ i~eeord Information
cfs
Please use the followin~ table to list all the data and/or parunmtan, s a~r~efad by this roquest
and identify tlmm as new data (New) or as revising extstinl d~tn (Revia~D. (If n~cessary,
attach · esptrate sheet.)
Data Parameter New ~ 'Data Source
O
O []
0
C] 0
[] []
Dam source can be from a Federal, State, or local government agency, or from a private
source. Some state and local governments may have less strict data requirements than
Federal agencies, in which cHe the 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., carried statement, report,
bibliographical reference to a published document). In the case ora published document
or a government report, providing copies of the cover and pertinent pages may be helpful.
Metbedoio[~y for New Anal.viis
[-] Statistical Analysis of Oago Records (use Attachment A)
[] RegionalRagrunion Equations (use Attachment B)
[] Precipitation/Runoff'Model (use Attachment C)
[-{ Other (specify; attach backup computation~ and suppertin~ data)
October 1992
Pa~e 3 of? /(.///~,
HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS FORM
Atmchnmnt A:
location (htitude and longitude):
1. Numberof y~rsofdnta
S~t~ma~
Historical
~. Hon~~ data
4. Numberof hifho~
Low outliers
Zero events
S. Generalized skew.
$. Station skew
7. Adopted skew
8. Probebilit7 cbtflbutbn used (just~
Lt' lo~*Poarson Ol was not used)
9. Tran~er equations to un~qed ~m
Cl Yes I-I No C] Yes C] No
I'1 Ye~ [] lqo 1'lyes Ci No
ClYe~ ClN'o
~o. Expected prostrate.
11. Comparison of.results with other anal~es
Ii' ~es, describe comparison
C~ Yes [] No
ClYe~ CDNo
FEMA does not accept expected probability analyses for the purpose of' reflectinf flood
hazard information in · FIS.
Ii'any dam is not available, indicate by N/A.
Attach analysis including plot of' flood frequency curve.
October 1092 Pep 4 of*7
HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS FORM
Atttchment B:
Bibliormp~ Reference:
a, jio~ ~,~ F, clua~o,u
(At~e.h · ~ ofti~le pqe, t~ble of eont~nU, m~d pertinen~ pn~s tncludin~
equ~ms.)
C. qod or unfafed su. um:
lt~imlofic reSion(s):
At~aeh hekup map.
6.
7.
8.
UrbtniJ~ conditions c~icul~tions
Percent o~ watershed urbeniu~
Is the watershed conU~lled?.
Comparison with other analyses
!-I Ym O' No [] Yes []No
[] Yes r-I No [] Yes I-1
r-1 Yes ~ l%To 0 Yes
I~ t~e answer to 5, 7, or 8 is yes, explain methodology in Comments.
If data is not available, indicate by NIA.
Comments
At. mr.h computations mi supportinf mpa.
October 1991 Pq~ 5 o£?
HYDROI~}GIC ANALYSIS FORM
Attaehnmnt C: P~eipitation/RunoiY Model
OY# I-I~o r-ly~ I-l~To
11. Smswmelt considerations:
12.
Model calibration:
Eyes, explain how calibration was
perfomed.
f'lYes [~]No I'lYes r'lNo
F'"I Yes [] No [] Yes t-I No
13. Future land use conditions: [-1 Yes I-] No
Ii'yes, explain why.
Note: FEMA poli~y is to ba~ flooding on exis~nf conditions.
Edam is not available, iAdicate by N/A.
Attach precipitation/runoff model, hydrologic model Schematic, and supportin~ maps.
October 1992 Pare 6 of ? ~
HYDROLOOIC ANALYSIS FORM
At~chment D: Confidence Limits Evaluation
Seloc~ one location for Confidence Limits Evaluation (doocribe loc~tion):
for oeloctod location:
Exceedsace Probebility
10% (10-year) els
2% (SO-year) eft,
1% (lO0-year) els
0.2% (500-year) ets
1% (100-yetr) Flood Confidence Interv&b
5% limit
95% limit
limit
limlt
If the value of the lO0-yesr frequency flood in the
FIS is beyond the 50~ conf~ence interval but
within the 90% confidence interval, does the 100-year
water-surface elevation chan~ by !.0 foo~ or mom?
[] Yes I-I No
An example of confidence limits analysis can be found in AM~ndix 9 o£Bulletin 17B.
Attach Confidence LimiU AnAlysis.
October
1992 P~ 7 of? ~//,/~
ONLY
POR~ 4
Not studied
[] Studied by approximate method~
. Downstr~ limit of~mdy
Ul~tre~m limit of ~udy
Why is she hydraulic snaly~i~ d~/reren~ from that u~d to develop the FIRM.
(Check &Il ttmt apply)
~ Not s~u~ in FIS ~ ~Y~
~" Imp~v~ hyd~lo~c ~~lysis. E~I~:
[] Improved hydraulic analysis. Explain:
[] Flood conu~l structure. Explain:
RIVERI~E HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FORM
Models Submitted
Full Lnput and output listinrs alonf with files on diskette (it* available) for each of' the models
listed below and · eumma~ of the source of input parameters used in the models must be
provided. The summary must include a C°mnlete description of any chartres made from model
to model (e.f. dupli~te effective model to mrrected effective model). Only the Duplicate
Effective and the Revised or Post-Project Conditions models must be submitted. See
ins~ns for directions on when other models may be required. Only the lO0-yoar flood
profile is required for SFHAo with · Zone A designa~n.
~ Duplicate EfFective Model
as the effective models (10-, SO-, 100-, end SOO-yom' multl*prdlle
runs and the floodway run) must be obtained end then ruprodumd
on the roqusstor's equipment to predate the duulicate efbetive
model. This is roquirmd to minute tlmt the efbetive mmbi inlmt data
has been tref~e~ correctly to the requostor*s equipmmt end to
date to provide t continuous FIS model upstrum end downstrum
of the reviood reach.
~ ~orrocted EfFective Model
The corrected effective model is the model that eorrecte any errors
that occur in the d,,nli,~te effective model, adds any additional erom
sections to the q~uDii~mte effective model, or ineorporates more
detailed tepogrephic information than ttmt used in the currently
effective model. The eorrected effective model must not reflect any
man-made physical chanfco since the date of the effective model.
An error could be a technical error bi the modelinf procedures, or
any co~n in the floodpl&~n that occurred prior to tho date of
the effective model but was not incorporated into the effective
model.
[~] Existing or Pre-Project Conditions Model
The duplicate effective or C0rwcted effective model is modified to
produce the ~i_~tinf or Dre-Droiect conditions model to reflect any
modhelcations that have occurred within the floodplain since the
dale of the ~tT~ctive 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 ~p~ected effective or cJuulicate effective model.
~ Revbed or Post. Project Con~tions Model
The ~tina or Dre*Droiect conditions model (or duplicate effective
or corrected effective model, as appropriate) is revbod to reflect
revbed or post-project conditions. This model must incorporate any
physical ChSAfco to the floodplain since the effective model was
produced ss well as the eft'ecu of the project.
[] Otha~. Please attach a sheet cleocr~inf all otber models
submitted.
Natural
Floodway
October 1992 Pap 2 of 5
RIVERINE HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FORM
(from model used to revise 100-lear water surface elevations)
Give ranfe of*friction loss cesfficien~
SMrtinf Water Surfues Elevation
//
If'friction ioes coefficients sro different anywhere along the reviood reach from those used
to develop the FIRM, ~ive location, value used in the effoctive FIS, and revised values
and an explanation es to how the revised values were deter~?,,qL ~(~/£ )
t,ocation FIS Revi~l
Expl&i~:
4. Describe how the cross section reometr~ data were determined (e.g., field survey,
topofrxphic ump, taken from previous stud),) and list crom oo~tions that were added.
Model Parameters (Cont'd)
Explain how reach lengths for channel and overbanb were deMrmined:
Do the results ind~ate:
& Wster surface elevations hifher than end point~ oFcrom ooetious'J~ Yes J~rNo
b. Supe ,, depth?
c. cflti depth?
d. Other unique itu'dons?
If yes to any of the above, attach an ezplanatSon that dbcumes
the situation and how it h proeented on the profiles, tablm, and
'~Aat ~t the maximum head logs between crooo*ooetions?
W~Ltt is tho d~sM~o between tho ~ in 2 above?
What is the maxim,,,,~ distance between cr~s-soctions?
Floodway determination
a. What is the maximum surcharp allowed by the oommunity or State?
b. What is the maximum surcharge for the revised conditions?
c. What is the maximum velocity?
cl. What type et'erosion protection is provided?
[] Yes ~J No
foot
foot
October 1992 Pu~ 4of'5
o
Results CC~ned!
1==3 Yes [~ No
At~ch a Floodway D~m Table showi~ clem br ouch ef~o Neki~ ~q
listodinthepublislmlb,,iydatatabbinthoFISroport. (~tt ~t' '>
Do lO0-year water surfaco slevatiom ~ at any Jocaflon? [~] Yes f-"l No
It yes, ploaoe attach · list ed'the iomtiom w'mre th inereame omur, mm whether or not
reason for the
Please at. ch · eompletod comparison table entitloth W&ter Surface Elevation Chock.
The revised water surface elevations tie into those computod by the effective FIS Model (10-,
50-, 100-, and 500-year), dom~lzeam of the project at croos-ooetion ~c3 ~/~ within
~.~) feet and upotremn of the project a~ cr~s Notion ~ ~ 37/p within
~. ~? feet.
The revised floodway elevatiom tie mm t3~ose computed by the effoctive FIS model, down-
stream of the project at cross section ~'ZP~,~ within ~. c) feet and upstream of
thelmrojeetaterossseetion ~'~?0 w,i~m~n ~.~}~ feet.
Attach profiles, a~ the same vertical and horizontal scale u the peoflles in the effective
report, showing stream bed and profiles of all floods studied (withom encroachment). Also,
label all cross sections, road crossings (including low chord and top-of-road data), cuiverU,
~'ibutifiOS, corporsr& limits, &lid $~,l~y limit.
Proceed to Rive~l Mapping Fore.
November 1992 Page $ ors
FEMA USE ONLY
bo submitted 8bowinf (insert N/A when not &ppLiesblo):
A. Revi~d 100- year floodplain boundari~ (Zo~ A)
B. Revi~d 100- end 500-year floodl~in ~
C. ~ l~~y~
D. ~~~~~~~~~
h~ ~el'~ ~~ ~1 ~~
G. ~ve 1~ ~ ~fl~ ~ l~~y
~~es f~m ~e ~~~ ~ or ~ ~ ~
~e of ~e ~p~c ~rk ~
fl~~ ~ 1~ fl~y ~~~
I. ~e ~u~r's p~ ~~~ ~ ~mm~ ~~
J. The ~ ~~on ora ~~ ~fmio~ ~r
K. ~on ~d d~p~on of ~e~n~ ~
L. Ve~l ~tum (exmple: N~ 1~, NA~ 19~, e~.)
M. C~l ~ne d~o~ ~e ~ ~nt ~ ~t ~
rev~
Included
Yes I*~ No [~ N/A
[~y# F~So r==l N/A
Y~ ~ No ~ N/A
F--! Yes [-=! No [===[ N/A
[] yes F-~ No []
[] Yes [] No []
~myes rmSo r-'J N;A
{'-] Yes {'-{ No {'"3 N/A
I'--1 yes ['-I No [] N/A
r-] yes rm No
[=--I yes [] No [] N/A
r-I yes [] No [] N/A
~} yes r~No r-~
r"] Yes F'-~No ~'] N/A
if any of the items above are markod no or N/A, please explain:
What is the source and date of the updated toporraphic information (example: orthopboto maps,
July 1985; field survey, May 1979, beach profiles, June 19~, etc.}?
What is the scale and contour intelwtl of the followinf workmal~?
&. Effective FIS scale Contour interval
b. Revision Request ~ale Contour interval
Note:
Revised topographic information must be of equal or treater detail
November 1992 Pqe 1 of 3
A..I~LICA'r1oN.'Cr..ItT~IPICAT~O~ ~ KC)It COIVD~rlONAZ. LL'TT~Zt
RIV~RINF. JCOASTAL MAPPING FORM
M~ppin~ Ch~u~ (Continued)
they Lie into those drown on the edbcfive FIRM mid FBFld downstream and up.rum of the
revision, or m~jacent to the ~ o~r~rbiou rm' amst~l ~
A~..h addiLioml pages ff' ua. dad.
Flood Boundorbs mid 100-yoar wator mu-h~ eiov~io~.
Hu the 100-y~r floodplain b4en ~ or bammmd or the lO0-3~r watar surface elevation
increased at any location on ~ other than the requestor's or eommuni~'s?
i-1 I'-I No
If 3~8, pb~oe give the Iomtion ofohlf~ or ingresm sad on ez~ for the lnerusoe.
bo
Have the alfected lzrelmrty owners been natiflM ~ ~ er increase and the etfeet it
will have on their lropert'y? f'"'! Yes' ["'=! No
If*~. ploue au.~ch leuers from thm~ ~ ~ ~ they h~ve no oln,je~ns to
the revised flood boundirim.
What is the number ~~e ~ ~t ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ or
increue?
Have the floodway boundsrios 8hiAod or ~ ~t ~ty ]o~tion ~ompermJ to thooe shown on
the effocLive FBFM or FIRM? l'-I ym I"1 No
If' yes, explain:
Ifa V-zone has been desirrmted, has it been delineated to extend landward to the heel of the
primary frontal dune? [] Y~ ]-~ No
if no, explain:
Manual or difiMl amp submission:
[] Manual
~ Digital
Digital map submi~ m~ ~ ~ ~ u~ ~l ~ (D~s). For u~
DFI~s, ~m I~om m~t ~ ~~ wi~ ~ H~ ~ ~ ~ ~va~ of
submiuion u Mible.
November 1992
A~l I C A?Jt~.CEJ~r~ FI~AYJO~
P, IVERINF,/COA~AL MAPPING FOKM
F.m~h Fill Placement
Hoo fill boon pLteod in the refuhmr~ floodway?
If'~s, plosoe aL~ch ~ompl~tod Riverine H]Mruulic Forn~
H~s fill been pheod in floodway ~ (~roe beL~voen the floodwuy
·nd ~O0-yur floodp~-~ boundtrbs)?
A. Are FLll slopes for grtmulm, mare-his steeper th~ one ~
on ono4nd-ono-half horisonml?
[] Y~ ~] No
Yes ~ No
~'1 y# I--I No
Is mbqmte erosion proteet~u provided for fill slopes ezpoeed to movinf fl~ mu?
(Slopos exposed to flows with velocitbs or up to 6 bo~ per oecoud b) durinf ~he 100-
year flood must, &t~ minimum, be promemd by ~ oover o~fram, vines, weeds, or similar
vegetaZion; slopes ezpoood ~o flows with veloeitim frottm' than ~ fpo during t~e lO0-yosr
flood mus~ at · ,,,i,,~,~,.~ b protected by Roue or rock riprsp.)
no, describe erosion proUcfion providod
Co
Hu ~11 fill placed in revised 100*year floodpl&~ been eomp~*ted ~o 95 parcent ofthe
maximum densit~ obtiinable wi~ the Standm. d Proctor Tes~ Method or Icceptible
equivalen~ me.od? [] Yes [~J No
Do
Can sU-uctures conceivably be eons~ on the fill &~ any time in the future?
yes
If~es, provide cert~c~fion offill compaction (item C. above) by the community's NFIP
permit ofFiciAl, a refi~ered professional enf~M~r, or tn m~ditod soils engineer.
Hst fill.been phced i~ · V-zone?
i'lYes r--lNo
If yes, is Lhe fill protocted L-om erosion by · flood eonU'ol sU'uc~ such es · r~veUnent or
seawtll? r-~ Yes [] No
November 1992 Pqe 3of3
Community Name:
Floodinf source:
Project No, me/Identifier:
'FEMA USE ONLY
CHAIqlqEMEATION PORM
FORM 6
C~mel lkecrtptk~
1. Ik~n'ibe t~ inkt to the e~anel
o
Briefl~ describe the shape of the channel (both cro~ sectional fund plmdmetric configuration)
end ira lining (channel bo~om end sides)
3. Describe the outlet from the channel
4. The chnnelintion includes:
[] Levoes
[] Superelevmted sections
J-'] Transitions in cross sectional ~eometry
~-~ Debris basin/detention bes~n
['-1 Energy diniptter
[] Other
October 1992 Page
Se
Hydrtulic Considerations
What is the 100*yelr d.ischarp?
Do ~e cross esctions in the h2~h'~ulic model match
the L'~ crouJeCt~om in the pious?
Are the channel banha hi~har than the lO0-yur
flood elevttions eve~whare?
Are the chnnel banks hifher thn tho 100..yttr
I, the hnd on both sides ~the chnnel ~ove tbs 8d~eCent
100*~er flood elevstion a ~i points sieur b ~Mnnel?
What is the ranjo orrroeboai~
What is tbo ranfe of tbo lO0-year flood velocities?
What is the llnlng type? (both bottom and ames)
I"1 Yes
i'-i Yes [::] No
I'lYes
[-] Yes
I-'1 No
l--'lNo
- bet,
Explo.in how the chonnel lininf ~ eroeioa 8nd msin~ ch~unol sMMli~ (e~.h
do~mm~ttion)
What is tho design elevation in the channel band on?:
Subcri~ flow
Critic81 flaw
.[-'1 Supercrit~:~l flow
[] Ener8~ srmbline
Is 100-yom' flood profile hued on ~ drove ~ al'flow?
If no, explain:
Yes I-'1 No
10. Is there the potential for a hydraulic jump at the following locations?
Inlet ~o channel
Outlet of channel
At Drop Structures
At Transitions
Other location. ~xplain:
[~] Yes
i'-! Yes
~--1 Yes
[] Yes
!'-I No
[~ No
[~ ~o
[~ No
If the answer ~o any of the above is yes, please explain how the hydraulic jump is
conu~lleci and the effects of the hydraulic jump on the stability of the channel.
Explain:
October 1992 Page 2of'3 ~
CHANNELIZATIOlq FORM
Sediment Transport Considerations
Is there say indicttion from historie~ roeords tht sediment tz~,,~port (includ~
scour sad deposition) csn ~ffoct the 100*yetr w~ter*mn-hco elevations sad/or the
ctp&city o~ the channel?
F y,,
o
Bo
Blood on the omditiono of*the weiorubod sod ii,mere izod, is thoro · potential for
surhee eleutions 8nd/or tim mped~ of'tim
Is the 100-year flood velocity ~nywhere within the
chsAnel less tilth the 100-ye~ flood velocit~ ofthe
inlet?
i'--! Yes I'--I ~o
Will sediment accumulate anywhere within the
chnnel? F'~ Yes [-'! No
D. Will deposition or scour occur at or near the inlet? ~'] Yes [] 1%Io
£. Will deposition or scour occur at or near the outlet? [~ Yes .~ No
October 199~
PEMA USE ONLY
BRIDGF~ULVERT FORM*
Community N~me:
Flcodir~ Sours:
Proj~
Provide the followinf informstion about the structure:
Dimension, m~teri81, and shape (e.f. ~wo 10 x 5 feet reir~orcod concrete box culvert;
~u-ee 30-foot spin bridle with 2 rows of two 3Joot diameter circul~ piers; 40-Foot wide ofee
shape spillway*)
En~r&nce feome~ orculve~ t~pe ofbridfe openir~ (e.g. 30* - 75° wing wills with
square ~op edfe, siopinf embsAkmen~s sad vertical ibutmenU)
3. Hydraulic model used ~o L,~lyze the structure (e.f., HEC-2 with spechl bridle routine,
WSPRO,HY8)
If difl'erent than hydraulic analysis for the floodinf Source,justify why the hydraulic
8~lysi~ used for the flooding source could not ~l~ze the sr,-uc~3n~s). (Attach
explm~ion)
No~e: If any i~ems do not apply W submitted hydraulic analysis, indicate by N/A
*One form per now/revised brids~/culver~
1992
Pqe 1 of 6
BRIDGE/CULVERT FORM
Sketch the downsU-eun hoe of'the structure top~er with the roid profile. Show.
mi~]~mum, the mmzimum low chord elevat, ion, invart elevation, sad mi,,i,,,um top of road
elevation.
Sketch the upstream bce of the structure tofether with the romi profile. Show, st · minimum,
the nmximum low chord elevation, invert elevation, sad minimum top of' romi elevation.
October 1992 Pap 2of6
BRIDGErCT~I,VERT FORM
An&l~sis (Cont'd)
Sketch.the plan view of'the structure(s). Show, at · ,~i,,i,~om. the skew anfJe, croos-soction
locations, distances bet;woen cron soctions, and lenfth of'structure(s).
flow
Attach plans oft. he structure(s) certified by · refistermd Professional Rnwineer.
Culver~ length or brid~ width (f~.)
C&lculaMd culvert/bridle ~ (f~)
by ~e hydraulic model, i~ applicable
T0ml culvert/bridle M'e8 (f~e)
October 19~2
Pawe 3oF6
BP. II)GE/CULVERT FORM
(Cont'd)
Elevi~ons Above W~ch Flow is F~Fective for Overb~'tb
Upstretm hoe
Left Overbe~k
ToD of*Road Eleution
Rifht Ourbenk
~ ~Y~r Eimtiora
Wmar-Surb~
l~lmtiom
Amount offlow
through/over
the structure(s)
The mtximum depth of
flow over the roadway/
railroad (ft.)
Weir length (ft.)
Iow Flow Pressure Flow Weir Flow Total Flow
Tou Widths
Upstream face
Downstream face
Fioodpliin Floodway
ToD Widths
Upstream face
Downstream face
EEeetive end
lneffoctive Flow
October 1992 Pqe 4 of 6
BRIDGF,/CULVERT FORM
An~is (Con~'d)
Entrm~e loes ces~F~bnt
Msaniag's 'n' value usi~nod to the structure(s)
Friction loss es~fieient through m*ucmre(s)
Other loss eseff~ients (e.g., bend,
uaniMle, etc.)
Total loss eoef~ent
Weir coeff3cient
Pier coM~cient
Contrtction loss coetF3cbnt
Expension Ion eoefSaent
1. A. Is there cay ~n from hbtoriml roeords tblt Ndimeat transport (includin~
~ d~~) ~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ eim~?
0 Y~ ~ No
B. ~ on ~e ~m (su~ ~ ~m~l~, ~fl~ ~ ~ ~l~ent ~
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~), b ~ & ~mn~ for debm ~
~m~ ~~ (~l.aG~ ~ ~ ~~n) m ~ ~ 1~
0 y~ 0 No
A. ~ ~ ~s ~~ ~m~n~ ~ ~1~ 1~
~ (t~ch ~ion c~e)
E~I~ me~ ~ ~ es~M ~e ~en~ ~~ ~d ~e dep~ o~ur
de.simon
B. Will sediment accumulate en~where ~u-ough the brids~culvert?
[] Yes
IFyes, expl&in what is the imMict on the conveyance clptcit~ through the
brids~culvert?
[] No
Octoi~r 1992 pa~t 5 M. 6//i~
BItlDGF~UI,VERT FOKM
Analylil (Cont'd)
Explain method ~f brid~ ~.hn~nt
· (flood~y run)
Comments (explain any unusual situltio~l):
Attach anal~is
October 1992
l~le 6of6 ~
il~MA USE ONLY
LEVEE/FI,OODWALL SYSTEM ANALYS~S l~ltM
FORM
This Idv~/l~oodw~ll m~lysis is beood on:
I--I upsTtdinf of an existinf ieveo~bedwtll mm
CJ & ~iy con~tructmd lwv~lloodw~31 ~
levee elements end locttions are:
'ti struc%ural flomtwall
I-i Other (~)
SMtiou
SM~ion
Staten
I-! monolithic cast.in place reinforced coneeoto
I-1 reinforced concrete masonr7 block
O she~ pUinf
I-1 others (describe)
to
H~s this leve~floodwall system been cert~md by a Federtl 8fen~ to provide protocti°n
against the lO0*ye&r flood event?
[] Ye, I-]
lf'y~, by which efency?
Lf yes, complete only the interior drtinq~ section on IMpS ? m~d 8 of'9 of'this form
and the operation nd maintenance section of'Form 1.
November 1992
P~e I of 9
o
LEVEF,/FLOODWALL SYSTEM ANALYSES FOBJd
Levoe/Floodwal! Srv~em Elements (Cont'd)
Attach certified drawings containi~ the followi~ information (indicate drawin~ sheet
numberu):
L Plan otthe levee embankment and floodwall structure~
b. A proflle of the levoe/floodwall syztemshowinfthe.100-yoar
water surface elevation, levee mM/or wall crest and
fo~ sad elosur~ lomtiom for the total levoe system.
c. Aprofll~afthe 100-yoarwatermrfaee~levatiou, clooure
opozdnf outlot and inlet invert elevations, type and size of
d. A layout detail for the embenkmont protoctioa nma~zre~
embealunent features, foundation truUnent, floodwall
Sheet Numbers
Sheet Numbers
Sheet Numbers
Sheet Numbers
Shoet Numbeu
The minimum freeboard provided Above tho lO0-ymr wstm' surfsm elevation if:
3.0 feet or more at tho downztroam ond ~nd througho~ [] Yes [] No
3.5 foet or more at the upstroam ~ J"] Yes J-J No
4.0 foe~ immodhtoly ~ ofMl sU3amarM sad constrictions [] Yes [-] No
1.0 foot ~)ove the h~i~ht of the one per~nt wav~ for the 100-y~r
~dllwatm. ,ur~ elevation or mazimum wave nmup (wbkhev~r i~
2.0 f~tabove 100-y~r Killwater sur~ elevation ~-~ Yes ~ No
Piea~ note. occuionally exc,ptiom am made to the minimum freeboard r~luire~nk If
an exception i~ requ~tM, attach docum, nmtion ~ Part 66.10 th) (1) (ii) of the
National Flood Insur~c, Pro,am re~ulatiom.
l~ no is anzwer~l to any af the above, please ~plain wh~m and wh~.
Tabulate the elevations at critical locations (tabulate values at each levee crest trade
chan~e)
Station ~ ~ur~ace Elevation ~ ~
end
lower end
(Extend table on 8n addM sheet as needed sad reference)
November 1992
Pate 2 of 9
LEV'a-a~F LOODWAI,A, SYSTEM A.niAl, X ~ F~K~
Sed~nent T~ CoEdidorationo
1. A. I~ there any indlmtion from hb~orical rocm~ that esdiment transport ~includin~ scour
ami deposition) cna sfl'oe~ the lO0-y~ar ~er~m-hes elova~em?
[] Yes Cl
B. Beood on the conditions (such as geomorpholo~, vefetative eover and development of
the watershed and stream bed, and bank conditions), is there · poton'~-I for debris and
[] yes []
2. If the answer to either lA or lB is yes:
A. Wha~ b the estimamd sodimen~ (bed mterial) lomb.
ab (attach Iradm~n curv.)
Ezpi&in method used to esthnate the --' .... ; ~.~.~,-; and the depth dm,ur and/or
deposition
Will sodimont mm~muhto an~beso ~ tho ~ (m~.h as alonf any
bends in the channel)?
C] Yes [] No
Ii'yes, what is the ~i~4~um fresboard at thee iocatlom?
feel.
Cloeures
OperdngJ through the levee system:
~-] exist [] do no~ exist
If openings exist, list all closures:
Hiehest Elevation for
(Extend table on an added sheet es needed and re~erence)
In addition to the required detail analysis reports, data obtained during field and laboratory
investigations and used in the design analy~ for the following levee ~y~em £eatur~ Ihould
be submitted in a tabulated summary form. (Reference U~. Army Corl~ of Engineers
EM-1110-2-1906 Form 2086).
November 1992
Embankment Protection
1. The msximum leue slope hndside is
2. The maximum levee dope fbodside is
3. The range of' 10O. yoar riverine flood veloeib along the ievoe?
to (max.)
4. Embankment matm-hl is protoetod b~' (dmerlb b ~
St~ ~o ----
(Ex~end Mble on an mJdod shoet as needed and re~eronce)
RAprap DeaAgn Partmed~: (Include rgbren~)
o deum Vebe, v Su fh
0 Vebct~. 0 Truct~vom'em
H~s a beddinf/fllter ~tl~sis & desifn boon includod 0 ¥0s [] NO
Describe the L'~Iysis used for other kinds of'protection used (include copies of'the desifn
analy'~is):
~o~e: A~.ach engineering anal2sis M suppo~ construction plans.
November 1992
Pule 4 of'9 ~
Embankment and Foundation Stabilit~
Describ tim IMsis for seloction of critical Io~tiou for analysis:
[] Overull heifht: Sta , heifht
I-! l, imitinf foundation Mil stzenr~
Su ,dep~ to
Rrens~h 2-- do~m,c z
O slope: SS -- , (h) to (v)
(Repeat u Meded on an idded nbeet for additktml lo~da~nl)
Specify tim embenkment stability au&lyom motbodolofy used (e.f. eirculm- arc, s 'hdinf
block, iuflnb slope,
I F, nd ofeo~ 1.3
ri Sudden dmwdown 1.0
m ¢~ flood sr~re 1.4
IV Stmdy Mepqe &t flood stale 1.4
VI Eartbqemke (Cra I or III) 1.0
(Reference: U.S. Army Corps. of Enginoers EM-1110-2-1913 Table 6-1)
Was a seepage anal2~sis for the embankment perrormod?.
Describe methodolo~ used:
Yes [] No
Wu a seepqe armlysis for t~e foundation performed?
Were upli~ prusures at the embankment landside toe ehoekod?.
Were seepefe exit jradienta checked for piping potential?
Yes [] No
Yes I'"l
Yes [] No
6. The duration of 100-yom. flood hydrograph agtinst the embankment is --. Hrs.
Note: Attach enfineering analysis ~o suppo~ consta'uc~on phns.
November 1992
I~DWALL SYSTEM ANALYSES FORM
Fioodw~ll and Foundation Stability
1. Desifn tntiysis submittal is buod on Code:
r~ usc(~988) or O Otbr(spec~) '
o
I-1 100-year ~niflc~nt wave heist
O lO0-y~r ~t w~ve period
p~P,=
, Osurhee
Dead & Wind
Dead & Soil
Dead, Soil, Flood & Impact
Dead, Soil & Seismic
Crltm, h 0
1.$ 1.5
1.5 1.6
1.5 1.5
1.3 1.3
To....._
(Ret': FEMA 114 Sept 1986; COg EM 1110.2-2502)
(Note: Extend table on an added sheet as needed and reference)
Foundation bearing strength for e~ch soil t~/pe:
Bear~na Pressure ~
~omputed desifn m&~mum pal'
Maximum allowsble pst'
6. FoundAtion scour protoction [] is, [] is not provided. (describe)
Note: Attach ens~neeri~g mmi),uis to support construction ph. ns.
November 1992
Put, e 6 of 9 ~
Settlement
Anticipated potential settlement has been detarmined and ~ into the specifi~
co~n elevations to maintain the establklmi freeboard ~
The compuUd range of se~emont is f~ ~o
Se~lement of the levee crest is d~m-minod go be primarily f~om:
Foundation eonsolidn~ion
Embankment eompress~n
Other (da~rlbe)
C] Y~s [] No
4. Differential settlement of floodwalis
2. Relattons~ps Estabttshed
o
Pondinf elevation vs. storqe
Pondinf elevation vs. ~ravity flow
Differential head vs. fravity flow
The river flow duration curve is enclosed
Specify the discharge capecit~ ofthe pressure conduit
Which Floodi~ Conditions Were Analyzod?
· Gravity flow flnterior Water~hed)
· Common storm (River Warm. shod)
· Historical pondinj probability
· Coastal wave over~oppinf
If no, explain
C]Yes I-INa
0 Y# [] No
I-!~'# [] No
0 Y# 0 No
[-I Yes I="1 No
n yes [] No
[] Yes ~ No
O y# D No
Interior drainage has been analyzed beoed on joint probability of interior and exterior
floo~i;n.- and the capacities o£pumpln~ and outlet facflitles to provide the establbhed level of
flood proMction
Cl Yas r=! No
If no, explain why:
7. The rate of seepafe throufh the levee symm for the 100-year flood is
November 1992
Pqe 7 of 9//~
o
Interior l)rtbdp (Cont'd)
The lensth oflevee 83~som uood to doriv~ thio coepeP ~ b
Will · pumping pltnt(s) be used for interior drtinqe?
If y~s, indimto the number o~ pumping plante:
For each pumping phnk list:
The number of pumps
The ~um pumpin~ rste
The pumpin~ mmtin~ eleu~ion
Is there · flood werninf phn?
How much time is ~vuihble betwoen
Will the operations be automatic?
Iftbe puml~ are ehgtric, are there bedmp power ~ueMa?
Cl yes [] No
[] Yes 0 No
[] yes 0 No
(l~'ereuco: U.S. Army Corpe og~ngiMera EM 1110-M101, ]10~. ~10~, ~104, and
Include · copy o~~ documentation o~dm ami aual~. Provl~ · map sbowin~
the flooded area and maximum ponding elevations for Ill Intm'ior watm, ahed~ that result
~floo~n~.
Other Desert Criterh
1. The followin~ items h~ve been &ddregood ~s mto~
Liquehction [~ is Cl i~ not ·problem.
H~iroeompe~on [] i~ C] i~not·problou~
Heave/differentitl movement duo to ooilo of high shrink/swell ~'1 b [] is not a problem~
2. For each o~ the~e problems, state the ba~c facts and corregdve agtion taken.
If the levee or floodwall is new or enlarged, will the structure adversely impect flood levels
8ad/or flow veiocities floo~t~e of the structure? ~]Yes [~ No
~o~e: Attach supportinf documentttion.
The ploAned/imtilled works m'e in full compliance with NFIP roguhtion Section 44 CFR Ch. 1.
65.10
[] Yes ~ No
November 199...
Pq, e 8 of 9
LEVEF.~LOODWALL SYSTEM ANALYSES PORM
The operation plea inmrporttm ell the ~ ~ clom'o devices
· s roquirod in soetion SS.lO (c)(l), of'the NFIP regulations
[] Yes
[--I No
The operation plan inan.'poratm ~11 the p*ovisiom for htorior
~ o,s required in section 6S.10 (eXS), of'dud ~ regulations
Yes
1-1 No
November 1992
Pufu 9of'9
~ U~ ONLY
COASTAL ANALY~q FORM
Coe~liM to be Rovimd
FORM 9
I"l studied in the FIS by approxlmate methods
r'l studied in the FIS with only the Kill~' ~ elevation desiS~ted
~ studied in the FIS by detMled methods ~
~[] wave runup computations
wav~ height mmputmtiom
dune erosion computatiom
O SPLASH [] SLOm
O v~suso~ [] warn
[] FEMA S~OS.M stntoe. I-I OTHER
· Check all that apply
Check all analyN~ u~d to prepare the revision.
[-] Stillwater elevation demrmirmtiom (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 proration sU-ucturu (auach completed Coastal Structur~ form)
[] Other
If other, give basis of revision request with an explanation~
November 1992
Pare 1 of 4
COASTAL ANALYSIS FORM ,
1. Stiliw~tor Elevation Determinations
How were st~liwtt~r elev~t:bns detorminod?.
0 otbm.- ezphin
(hfe Nulnber
Numb~ ~'Y~r~
Provide copies o~ 8qe dsm end revised
Spoc~ what dsL~un wfts used in tho
I~ not the FIS ch~m.h~ve ~he csJ~-uh~ been m~justod to the LPIS clAum?
CI yes Cl ~o Cl Spec~onversionhetor
0 yes !'1
Ii*~es, describe in deMil differences betwoen current
&nd why rev~sod ~utl~sis shoutd replm:e current
November 1992
P~81 2 oF4 ~
COASTAL ANALYSIS FORM
2. ?o be completod for revised analyses (i.e., en~ioa, wav~ b~h~, ami w~v~ ruoup)
IfFEMA procoduru wore not utibd to perbrm tim revtsim, peovide full documentation
on methodolo87 and/or models uood, includinf operational profrum, dotailod d~erenou
between mothodolojy &nd/or model utilisod and FEMA'e mothodolofy and/or model. Also,
explain why now methodology and/or model should repheo current methodology and/or
model.
o
To be comple~d for wave height and wave runup analyses
OverMppi2~ m~iysis is typimlly considered when w~ve heights mMior w~ve runup ire
close to or freater than the crest of'shore protection s'a-uctur~s or mtursl land forms.
Was an overtopping analysis performed for any coastal shore promotion structures or
natural land forms that may be overtopped?
r~ Yes D No
If yes, explain methodolofy u~lized and describe in detail the ruulto of the analysis.
November 1992
P~fe 3of4
COAS~A~ ANALYSIS FORM
I-I No
f~t
f~t
Piem p~vi~ · ~tp with revised 8~b d~ M ei~ erot~n or ~t~n, if a~prhM.
Note: If any items do not apply to mubmitted coastal aualy~, indimm by N/A.
November 19~2
PiS~ 4 of 4 ~
Comm-~ty Nm:
FEMA USE ONLY
COASTAL STRUCTURES FORM
FORM 10
0 Bulkimd
0 Sodt Shoeo Pzometim (Le., smd dunes)
[] Stone [] ~nflll
[] Concrete ~ Steel
I-! Send [] Other
Is Stmcmre:
O Ne. [] [] Propo,ed
Ii' existbxg, describe in demi] the modificttions being ramie to the structure end
~he purpooe of tho modifi~m.
Copies ofeertified "~-built" phns ["l ore [] tre not beinf submitted. H'%s-built=
plans are not available for submittal, pl~a~e sxpl~in why and m~mlt · Mmteh with gen~ml
mructur~ dmer~iom imludin~, f~., slol~, h~i~ht, l~d~, depth, ~mi toe elevation
referenced ~o ~he appropriate datum (example: NGVD 1929, NAVD 1988, etc.).
Has ~ Federul qenc~ with rerpomibility for the desifn of coestal flood proMction struc~res
desifned or certified that the structure(s) h~h~ve been mtoqu~tely desifued ~nd co~ ~o
provide protection q&inst t~e base (100-year) flood?
[] yes Cl No
If yes, specify the n&me of'the qeney iud dates of projoct comple~ion 8nd/or e~fim~ion. No
other sections of'~ rom need to be completod. If yes:
November 1992
COJ~-'I'~ STRV,.T~S FOR~
DESIGN CRITERIA
Phy~al ptr~metar~ reprobating the base (lO0-year) flood .vent or gr~m' w,r~ used to
~ Y~ ~ No
The number ar design water levels that were evaluated (number) range
from moan iow w~ter foot to the lO0*yom* stillwstm, surp elevation of
foot. Tb=i~w~l~,~lb ~ Tbodsmmthat
theoe elevatiom m'o refmumd to is , (emmpb: NGVD 1020.
NAVD 1968, ot~..)
Wtve heifhts sad periods were computod for each water level
Cl Y# C] No
1 oo.~r sit~hnt w~v, heit~t is
100*year sifnffkant were period is
lO0-yetr ono*percont wave bight is
Were bruking wave forces uood to do~ifn the m~m'e?
[] Y# ~] No
l/no, plea,me mxplm~z why t~y ~ere no~ usod for desis~
What is the settlement ram expocml at the site ofthe structure?
Please provide · settlement analysis.
November 1992
Page 2of6
COASTAL STEUCTURE~
DESIGN CRXTF, EI&
Does tim structure IMve 1 foot of' fruboerd Ii)eve the beiiht of'the om-percent wive for the
lO0-yeir st~llw&ter surle elevm~on or maximum wive runup (whichever is freiter)?
[] Ye~ [] No
D°es the ~'bJre I~ve fl~eboerd of'~ loiit °~ roo~ fdxvu the lO0-~oir stillwiter surie
elevetion? .
I-I y# 0 No
Specify the ~ype o~'toe prot4~on.
ihekflll Protect~n
Will ~he strucL3~ be oyez'copped durinf tim lO0-yetr flood event?
Cl yas Cl No
If the the structure will be overtopped, wiMt measures L-e used to prevent the loss of*beckfili
~rom rundown over the structure, drtirmp iindw~d, under or hter~lly ~round the ends
the structure, or throu~ ~emns m~d dr~imp ~ i~ the structure?
November 199'2
Pqe 3ot'6
DESIGN CRITERIA
~;~ SmbiUtv- Minimum wamr level
For comal revetments, m a ~~ ~ ~mn~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
~on ~ ~m~o~ ~ s~p ~o~ for ~~ ~ ~~ ~ mla~mum
0 vu 0 No
0 Ym 0 No
For ~o~ b~, ~ e~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~n~
0 Y~ 0 No
~tructur~l Stabilitv- Critiml Water Idyll (~qote: All ga'ucmr~ must be dosisnod to mist
the maximum lomb uoochtod with tJM critiml wster loyal to bo e~oditmi ~8 iroviding 100-
yam' protoction.)
For cou~ revotmenu were footocbniml amlyN~.perrormod investi~tinf tim potontiAl
failure in the ~award di.,~'tion by rotational gravity ~ or foundation failure due to
[] Yes !"I No
For revetments, were engineering ~mlyees o~ rock. ripr~p, or mr bioeb* stability under
wave action performed or upU/t forcm on tho rock, ripr~p, or L~nor blocks?
I-! Yes I-1 No
Are t~e rocks gr&ded:
[] Yes [] No
Are soil or reetox~ile filters being uNd in the deei~?
[] Yes ~ No
For gravity iud pile support, ed seawills, were engineering ezdlyees o~ landward sliclJ~,
landw&rci over~urnJ~, Lid f'ounch~on adequacy perYorm~.
[] Yes I-I No
For anchored bulkh~ad~, were engineering analym of shear and momnt failure perfornmi
usi~ 'shock~ preesures?
[] Yes [] No
For all analys~ m~rk~d "No' above for the appropriate t~se ~ sU~-mre, pieue exph~n why
~e ~ly~es were not performed.
November 1992
Pqe 4 of 6