Creekview Add PD-CS 930120 2'4-462-0022 1-20-93
Erv A. Meyer, P.E.
- Nathan D. Maier ~:
Creek View Addition
Three NorthPark ...
8800 N. Central Expy., Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75231
( ] Copt of Ii. utes [ ] CopT.o! LdCcer [ ] Spec~ficatioed
[ ] Cllel, order ( ]
DATE mO. DESCltIPTE(Xe
Executed FEMA Form 1 "Revision Requestor and
Community Official Form"
01 ~00
.m.zo& TeTOT_z:T0 A~,TunmmoD pue :ro:~sanbatt UOTSTAa~l. T mzo& l/l~l& T
NOIXdlUO$]Q 'ON ]1¥0
REVISION REQUESTOR AND COMMUNITY OFFICIAL FORM
I
1. The basis for this revision request is (are): (check all that apply) [] Physical change
[]
~] Improved methodology
[] Improved data
[] Floodway revision
[] Other To Reflect "As-Built' Conrlltions
Expl~n
2. Fl~ilng ~u~: Gra~evlnA Creek =nfl two (~) Tributaries
3. p~j~tNamdldentifie~. Creek view Addition
4. FEMA wne desi~natlo~ af~t~ ~
(example: A, AH, AO, Al-A30, A99, AE, ¥, ¥1-V30, VE, B, C, D, X)
5. The NFIP map panel(s) idrected for ali impacted communities is (are):
Community Community Map Panel Effective
No. Name _.~ State ~qg. No. ,, D~te
EX: 480301 Katy, City Harris, Fort Bend TX 480301 000SD 02/08/83
480287 Harris County Harris TX 48201C 0'2~0G 09/28/90
6. The submitted request encompasses the following types offloodinL structures, and
associated disciplines: (check all that apply)
[] Riverine
[-] Coastal
[] Alluvial Fan
[] Shallow Fl~din~
I-"] /~es
Afl'ectod by
wind,wave action
[] Yes
[]
[] Other (describe)
[] Channelixation
[--] Levee/Floedwall
[] Bridge/Culvert
[] Dam
[] Coastal
[] Fill
[] Pump Station
f--I None
[] Other (de~ribel
[] Water Resources
[] Hydrology
[] Hydraulics
['-I Sediment ?ransport
[] Interior Drainage
[] Structural
[] Geotecimical
[] Land Surveyin~
[] Other (describe)
Attach completed 'Certification by Registered Prdessional and~or Land sUrVeyor'
Form for e~ch discipline checked. (Form l)
October 1992
Pa~e 1
AFPL1CATIO~q~C&~ ! IFICATIOI~ FOP. MS FOR CONDITIONAL LL e ~ ~s OF ~A~ ~l~l(~q. LETY~ OF MAP ~LSION A/qD PH~CAL MAP ~
· · Flood'ay lr~or~tion
[]Yes ~-] No
· Does the revised floedwev delineation am'er from th.t shown on the effective FIll'VI or FBFM?
If yes, ~ive reason:
Attach request to revise the floodway from community CEO or desisnat~d of~cial.
Attach copy of either a public notice dlst~ibut~i by the community stating the community's intent
~o revise the floodway or a statement by the community that it h,,. notified all a/rected property
owners and affected adjacent jurL~icfions.
Does the State have juri~Uc~on over the~.~floedway or it's adoption by comm,m~ies participating in
theNFIP? I lyes tat No .
If yes, attach a copy of a letter no .~fyln~.the. a_ppr.o, pria? ?~t~_M___q~__n__cy._o.f_ eth, e. ,fl. ~o~_..wa_y. revision and
documentation of the approval of the rev~e~ lloo~way Dy me appr~prmw
Proposed Encroachments
With floodways: ., substan.~ld impcov..._~ment, or other
lA. Does the revision request involve fill, new construction
development in the floodway?
lB. If yes, does the development c~use the lO0-year water surface elevation increase at any
location by more than 0.000 feet? [] yes [--] No
Without floodways:
2A. Does the revision request involve fill, new construction, substantial improvement, or other
development in the 100-year floodplain? [] Yes [] No
2B. If)'es, does the cumulative eKect of all development that has Occurred since the effective
SFH^ -ns od inall)' iden ed the e!.evation !n eaes,at
location by more than one foot (or other surcharge limit; il'commr~l tvy.o.r s~._~ ~o aaop~e~l
more stringent criteria)? t t,=, ~.m
If ans.er to either Items tB or 2B is yes, pieaso provide documentation that all requirements
Section 65.12 o; the NFIP regulations have been met.
Community O~cial Acknow[edjement
· Was this revision request reviewed by the communit;y for compliance with the community'e
adopted floodplain management ordinances? []Yes [] No
· Does this revision request have the endorsement of the community? [-~ Yes [] No
If no to either of the above questions, please explain:
Please note that community acknowledgement and/or notification is required for all requests
as outlined in Section 65.4 (b) oftbe NFIP Resmlations.
November 1992
Pese 2 of 5
A,PPUCAT~ON,'C £]tTIrlCATIOH rO~ FOR CO~rOmO~Ah ~ OF M~' L~'~O~. ~ ~ ~ h~ or ~ eL'V'~O~ ,~o pHYSICAL MAP
Operation and l~faintenencs ~,~
Does the physical Chango i~volve a flood con~rol structure (s.s., levees, floodwalis,
channelization, basins, dame)? [-'] Yes [~] No
Ii'yes, please provide the following information for each of the new flood control structures:
Co
Do
Inspection of the flood control project will be conducted periodically by
(enti~
with a maximum interval of months between inspections.
Based on the results of scheduled periodic inspections, appropriate maintenance of the flood
control facilities will be.conducted by
(satin!
to ensure the integrity and degree of toed protection of the structure.
A formal plan of operation, including documentation of the flood warning system, specific
actions and assignments of responsibility by individual name or title, and provisions for
testing the plan at intervals not less than one year, [] has [] has not been prepared
for the flood control structure.
The community is willing to assume responsibility for ['-] performin~ [] overseein_a
compliance with the maintenance and operation plans of the (Blame)
flood control structure. Ii'not performed promptly by an owner other than the comm,,,,ity,
the community will provide the necessary services without cost to the Federal government.
Attach operation.and maintenance plans
x b.
Requested Response from FEMA
After examining the pertinent NFIP regulations and reviewing the document entitled 'Appeals,
Revisions, and Amendments to Flood Insurance Maps: A Guide for Community Officials,' dated
January 1990, this request is for a:
a. CLOMR A letter from FEMA commenting on whether a proposed project, if built as
proposed, would justify a map revision (LOMR or PMR), or proposed
hydrolo~ changes (see 44 CFR Ch. 1, Parts 60, 65, and 72).
LOMR A letter from FEMA officially revising the current NFIP map to show
changes ~o Iloodplains, floodways, or flood elevations. LOMRs typically
depict decreased flood hazards. (See 44 CFR Ch. I, Parts 60 and 65.)
c. PMR A reprinted NFIP map incorporatinl chants 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 iar~e.scopo changes. (See 44 C1;'R Ch. I,
Parts 60 and 65.)
d. Other: Describe
October 1992 Page 3 of 5
sForm 2 entitled 'Cert. Uication By
ubmitted. .
Forms Included /,~,
Re~stered Professional En&~neer And/Or Land Surveyor* must be
.*he f.ollowing forms should be included with this request if(check tho included forms):
· Hydrologic an~lysls for riverine floo~g diPrers tree that [] Hydrologic Analysis Fotnn
used to develop FIRM (Form 3)
[] Riverine Hydraulic Analysis
(Form 4)
· Hydraulic analysis for riverine flooding d;~rers f.rom that
used to develop FIRM
· The request is based solely on updated topographic
info,,~ation
· The request involves any type of.channel med~* xcation
· The request involves new bridge or culvert or revised
analysis of.an existing bridge or culvert
[] Riverine/Coastal
(Form
[] Channelisation (Form 6)
[] Brid~Culvert Form
(Form ~)
· The request involves a new or revised leveeYfloedwall system [] Levee/Floodwall System
Analysis (Form 8)
· The request involves analysis of'coastal flooding
[] Coastal Analysis Form
(Form 9)
· The request involves coastal structures credited u provldi~ [] Coastal Structures Form
(Form 10)
protection f.rom the 100-year flood
· The request involves an existing, proposed, or modified dam
· This request involves structures credited es providin.a
protection from the 100.¥ear flood on an alluvial fan
Dam Form (Form 11)
[] Alluvial Pan Ploeding Form
(Form 12)
Initial Review Fee
· The minimum initial review tee for the appropriate request category has been included.
~ Yes ['-J ~o
Eyes, the amount submitted is $ 760.00
or
· This request is for a project that is for public benefit and is intended to reduce the flood hazard to
existing development in identified flood hazard areas &s opposed to planned floodplain
development. [] Yes [] No
November 1992
Page 4 of 5
.,.pp LiC. AT~ON~Ct*Ir~IrlCATION rOB~S rOIt cO~rDITION.41, ~ OF tL4~ ~'VI~O~, ta, rz s~ OP' MAP ~
l~lote: I understand that my signature
indicates that all information submitted
in support of this request is correct.
~ignature of Revision Requbstor
Ervin A. Me~erI P.E. .
Print~l Name and Title of Revision Requester
Note: Si~'~ture indicates that the
communit~ understands, from the revision
requester, the impL-'t~ of the revision on floodLng
conditions in the community.
Printed N.-,e and Title of. Commpp!(y Official"
Nathan D. Maier Consultin~ Engineers, Cit~ of Coppell
Company Name Inc. Commt. ni~y Nam~
Attach letters from all affected jurisdictions acknowledgi~ revision request and approving change~
~o floodway, R~ applicable.
Note: Although a photograph of physical changes is not required, it may be helpful for FEMA's
review.
October 1992 Pa~e 5
A~P LICA'["I ON ~C ~]~rlF~C AT'JO N l~)ltMS ~01 C0NI~noNAL ~ OF ~ IL~.I~ION. ~ Og MAP RV~iON AJ~D