DR9305-CS 930716 (3)3
7. Other~
Please note that if all
days of the date of this
original submittal and ~
including the initial fee
For a flood-control proj
must be sponsored by a
public benefit, and prim
structures in identified
commencement of construct
~itted within 90
be treated as an
~ment procedures,
:esslng costs, it
;nt, intended for
tion to insurable
dstence prior to
All required data (except the ~nzcza~ ~=c=~ ,Mu ~ ...... J concerning your
request are to be directed to our Technical Evaluation Contractor at the
following address:
Michael Baker Jr., Inc.
3601Eisenhower Avenue
Suite 600
Alexandria, Vlrg£nla_2.2304
(703) 960-8800
Attention: Mr. David P. Preusch, P.E.
When you vrite us about your request, please include the case number
referenced above in your letter.
If you have any questions concerning FEHA pollcy, or the NFIP in general,
please contact Mr. John Magnotti of my staff in~ Washington, DC, at
(202) 646-3932, or by facsimile at (202) 646-3445.
Sincerely,
William R. Locke
Chief, Risk Studies Division
Federal Insurance Administration
Enclosures
cc: The Honorable Tom Morton
Mayor, City of Coppell
Mr. Neal Chisholm, P.E.
Graham and Associates, Inc.
3
7. Other:
Please note that if all of the required items are not submitted within 90
days of the date of this letter, any subsequent request will be treated as an
orlginal submittal and will b~ subject to all submittal/payment procedures,
includlng the initial fees.
For a flood-control project to be exempt from fees and processing costs, it
must be sponsored by a Federal, State, or local government, intended for
public benefit, and prlmarily intended for flood-loss reduction to insurable
structures in identified flood hazard areas that were .in existence prior to
commencement of construction of the flood-control project.
All required data (except the initial fees) and questions concerning your
request are to be directed to our Technical Evaluation Contractor at the
following address:
Michael Baker Jr., Inc.
3601Eisenhower Avenue
Suite 600
Alexandria, Virginia _22304
(703) 960-8800
Attention: Mr. David P. Preusch, P.E.
When you write us about your request, please include
referenced above in your letter.
the case number
If you have any questions concerning FENA policy, or the NFIP in general,
please contact Nr. John Magnotti of my staff in Washington, DC, at
(202) 646-3932, or by facslmile at (202) 646-3445.
Sincerely,
William R. Locke
Chief, Risk Studies Division
Federal Insurance Administration
Enclosures
cc: The Honorable Tom Morton
Mayor, City of Coppell
Mr. Neal Chisholm, P.E.
Graham and Associates, Inc.
' T
· Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Insurance Administration
Fee Charges and Requirements for Map Revisions
On June 30, 1992 the Federal Insurance Admlnisuation (FIA) published a Final Rule
in the Fedora/Rog/star, Volume 57, Number 126, regarding changes to 44 CFR Parts
65 and 72 of tho National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations.
These changes were implemented effective ~lCtober 1, 1992 and if~oact persons
requesting revisions to NFIP maps on or after that data. The primary, change Involves
a fee requirement for map revision and Le.~ of Map RoMsion (LOMR) requests, much
like the curtain fee recluirernent~ for ~onditionsl requests. This action is being
imldernented to reduce expenses to the NFIP ~md will contribute to maintaining the
NFIP es self-supporting.
Part 72.5 of the aforementioned regulations provides exemption from fees for:
la)
Revisions or amendments to oormot errors or m include the effects of natural
changes within the areas of special flood hazard.
(bi
LOMFle, as determined m be ~ppropri~ by the Federal Insurance
Adminiatmmr, issued to remove ~ resident~ iota or structures from the
ama of special flood hazard besed M)IMy on the pbmenrtent of fill outeide of the
regulatory floodway. The Administr~or'l determi~ shall be based, in pan,
on whether the LOMR is being sought by an indivkluel property owner or
whether it is being requested prior to the trmtsfor of ownership of the property
in question from I developer to mt indhdduM properw owner.
(c)
Federal, State and local govemmente shill be exempt from fees for projects
they sponsor if the Administrator determines or the requesting agency certifies
that the particular project is for public benefit and primarily intended for flood
loss reduction to insurable structures in identified flood hazard ames which
were in existence prior to comntencement of co~n of the flood control
project. Projects undertaken primarily to protect planned flood plain
development ere not eligible for fee exemption.
The initial fee schedule is mprimed on'the reverse of this Notice. Please note that the
initial fee represents the m/nimum engineering review and administrative processing
costs associated with each type of project. The initial fee does not include costs for
labor and materials associated with the cartographic processing and preparation of a
map revision.
Fodend R,mbm ~ VoL SF. No. ~8 / Tuesday. Jun M. 2soz / Nob 290~
F
Initiml Fee Sdmdub pen rZ H a rmdt d tranmiuMI th.
fo~Mt:q from end luo-ntbmind cra=Muttons d dm actims listed umbr (lJ hymmzt of both th ~1 fu a.-.c~
order imymbb to UJ. fro:ds to the
hoot expemive 8etion d b dmt Naliaf. d Flood lfuurann Pmltlm a~
(a] hr CLf3IdAo m:d for CLf3MRm. h compum tho ommmbinatiea, rout be rm:~ved by FL'MA before
iniUml ben hmvm been umblishmd by Icj fo&mini ~ d FEMA'o CLOMA. ~ or L~dR wiU be
mbtect to tim t,.,4~ons of I ~.L slmu LI:)MB. er map ra~mhm. ~ht rtqutmar pmguji~ w411 bqin far m map rtvisimx.
will be bilbd mt Ibm estaMbhed budy (~atmbl of federmi Do~_Httc Auistan~e
ute for m]y re:mai u mn:nedin[ b No. 8a.xeo. 'Ylo~ ~-J
muty m mm 4mnpmd pi.m*
mst d ,n ,mid. tim mede- ruquuttudUinamapruvtdon, b .
emu d emrugmpbk lmupmrmim -.d unm,n,.,M
d nn amidn',k, mldan~ ludmniwdpeymm, bcmtd .
tTj~.-~dmdnnemmlr-m erboth.~m~bebmmbyHMA..' .
t~n~i~ ~ --d n,,
· ~_~ rJ8 Lf3Mb--dnmpnd be
~mndLmn. bm. em o,tm mm. nmfflddtlmmddpmd tmi emf
~-; .... ns tim tmi.,d dumm.b. ~lm n,qu~
al
U tim mi4mflt mndUm m b mm '
s~.c~'y, m b ~ d fl~l euwidm 1md m ebmmmmi mmmdiOm&nm.
cf tim mSdamrF ~. rqmnSm d b..dm.rmm
(¢J Far rJ3M~ ar mp ~ vimlmm Ired m Immm. btam.
which do not foib~ a CLf3Mlt imud b7 .t.dmmmmmi fmmm~.--- 2J0o
F~tA. tim intUal bt. mbJect to tim (4t*cl.tnmL Lf~Mb ~ U m-
~ °f i ?~-~' droll b paid bY the nn~ ftm-- ~
(hnd surety em mira pioommm u mtidpstnd m re:md tim 9n--
~m .-nqum~ to pmmd.
thru~ tht local m:nnsm~ for Tmview
(.~l IJuu. berm. e~ odmr s~um-
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION
FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION INTRODUCES
APPUCATION/CERTIFICATION FORMS
One of the Federal Insurance
Administration's. (FIA's) goals is to ensure
that National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) maps reflect the most accurate and
up-to-date information available. To
accomplish this goal, a number of
administrative procedures were established
to effect changes to NFIP maps. Over the
years, we have standardized these
administrative I~rocedures to make
requesting a map change a simpler process
and to decrease the amount of time that it
takes us to make a determination. On
October 1, 1992, we embarked on our latest
effort to make the map change process
quicker and more efficient.
As of October 1, we are requiring that
requesters fill out application/certification
forms for most types of map change
requests. Requesters who wish to request
map amendments or map revisions based
on fill to NFIP maps will be required to fill
out the Application/Certification Forms and
Instructions for Letters of Map
Amendment, Conditional Letters of Map
Amendment, Letters of Map Revision
(Based on Fill), and Conditional Letters of
Map Revision (Based on 'Fill). Those
requesters who wish to request map
revisions based on new or corrected
flooding information will be required to fill
out the Application/Certification Forms and
Instructions for Conditional Letters of Mal~
Revision, Letters of. Map Revision, and
Physical Mal~ Revisions.
In the past, it was not unusual for the'FIA to
have to contact a requester several times to
obtain the information necessary to
support a map amendment or revision
request. We developed these forms so that
the requester will understand what data
are required for his or her request. As a
result, requesters will have an excellent
chance of sending us a complete data
package the first time. For this reason, we
believe that these forms will significantly
decrease the amount of time that it takes
to process' map amendment and map
revision requests and issue our
determination.
To receive copies of the application/
certification forms and instructions, you
may contact your Federal Emergency
. Management Agency Regional Office (see
list on reverse side) or our Headquarters
Office at the following address:
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Insurance Administration
Office of Risk Assessment
500 C Street, SW
Washington, DC 20472
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT. AGENCY REGIONAL OFFICES
REGION I
ConneCticut, Maine. MassechusetU,'~lew Hampshire,
Road Island, Vermont
Federal Emergency M~nag~ment Agency
J. W. McCormack Post Office
and Courthouse Building, Room 462
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
(617) 223-9561
REGION VI
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
Texas
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Regional Center, Room 206
8O0 North Laop 288
Denton, Texas 76201-3698
(817)'898-5127
REGION II
New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
Federal Emergency Management Agency
26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349
NewYork, New York 10278
(212) 225-7000
REGION VII
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Office Building
911 Walnut Street, Room 200
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
(816) 283-7O02
REGIQN III
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
West Virginia
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Liberty Square Building, Second Floor
105 South Seventh Street
Philadelphia, Penn~/Ivania 19106
(215) 931-5750
REGIQN IV
Alabama. Florida, Georgia, Kentucky. Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee
Federal Emergency Managemerrt Agency
1371 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 735
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
(404) 853-4400
REGION VIII
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Utah, Wyoming
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Denver Federal C4flter
Building 710
Box 2S257
Denver, Colorado ~0225-0267
(3O3) 235.4a30
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Presidio of San FrenciKo
Building 105
San Francisco, California 94129
(41S) 923-7177
REGION V
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,
Wisconsin
Federal Emergency Management Agency
175 West Jackson Boulevard, Fourth Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60604-2698
(312) 408-S500
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Regional Center
130 228th Street, SW
Bothell, Washington 98021-9796
(206) 487-4682
Federal Emergenc? Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
July 8, 1993
Mr. Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Coppell
P.O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
IN REPLY REFER TO:
Case No.: 93-06-267R
Community: City of Coppell, Texas
Community No.: 480170
316-ACK
Dear Mr. Griffin:
This is in response to your request, dated June 25, 1993, for a Conditional
Letter of Map Revision (CLONR) to the Flood Insurance Rate Nap (FIRN) and/or
Flood Boundary and Floodway Nap (FBFN) for the above-referenced community.
Pertinent information about the request is listed below.
Identifier:
Grapevine Spring Park
Flooding Source:
Grapevine Creek
FIRM Panel(s) Affected:
480170 0010 D
FBFM Panel(s) Affected:
On October 1, 1992, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FENA)
implemented the use of detailed application and certification forms for
requesting revisions or amendments to National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
maps. These forms outline technical and NFIP-related considerations in a
fashion that facilitates an efficient review.
In addition, FENA has implemented a reimbursement procedure to recover costs
associated with reviewing and processing CLONR requests, thus reducing the
expense to the NFIP. The initial fees of $735 are the minimum charges
associated with our review of a project of this type. You will be notified
of the estimated costs if we anticipate that, due to the extent of the review
required, the total costs will exceed $1,500. In that situation, our review
would be suspended pending our receipt of written authorization from you to
proceed. If your request will result in a revision to the effective NFIP
map, the total costs will include a fee of $560 per revised panel to cover
the costs of cartographic preparation.
Using the previously referenced certification forms, we have completed an
inventory of the items that you submitted. The items identified below are
required before we can begin a detailed review of the request.
ITF2/
X
X
0
We have received all of the data and initial fees we require to
begin a detailed technical review of your request. If additional
data are required, we will inform you within days of the
date of this letter. However, if application/ce-'~-~-fication form
information is requested in Items 4 or 5 below, that information
must be provided before we can issue our final determination.
We must receive the initial fees, $735, before we will begin our
review. Payment must be in the form of a check or money order
made payable to the National Flood Insurance Program. For
identification purposes, the case number referenced above must be
included on the check or money order. Please forward this
payment to:
Federal Emergency Nanagement Agency
Revisions Fee-Collection SystamAdministrator
P.O. Box 3173
Nerrifield, Virginia 22116
Based on our initial review of your request, we have determined
that the total processing costs viii exceed [$1,500/$2,500/
$5,000]. Please provide written authorization for us to proceed
with our review to a limit of $ .
All applicable forms from the enclosed "Application/Certification
Forms" package and the necessary supporting data, as described in
the package instructions, must be submitted.
The following forms, which were omitted from your previous
submittal, must be provided:
bo
he
Form 1, entitled "Revision Requester and Co~nunity Official
Form"
Form 2, entitled "Certification by Registered Professional
Engineer and/or Land Surveyor"
Form 3, entitled "Hydrologic Analysis Form"
Form 4, entitled "Riverlne Hydraulic Analysis Form"
Form 5~ entltled "Riverine Napping Form"
Form 6, entltled "Channelizatlon Form"
Form 7, entltled "Bridge/Culvert Form" (one form per
new/revised bridge/culvert)
Form 8, entitled "Levee/Floodwall System Analysis Form**
Form 9, entitled "Coastal Analysis Form"
Form 10, entltled "Coastal Structures Form"
Form 11, entitled "Dam Form"
Form 12, entltled "Alluvial Fan Floodlng Form"
With this letter we are returning the original package indicating
those forms that have not been completed in their entirety or on
which data were requested. The item(s) that must be completed
and/or statement(s) requesting data have/has been marked with an
asterisk (*). Please revise and resubmit the form package.
The City With A Beautiful Futur;
FA~ ~DVlCE Sm~T
P.O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
214-462-0022
t~AX BO. 214/393-0948
PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLOb'T_NG PAGES TO:
TRANSN~TTED BY:
NUIqBE~ OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET:)
I! YOU DO ~ mY~-~IVI[ AI-[-OF111~ PAOF.~, lq.~Is~_ ~'.~%.L ~ ~ ~ ~ FO$~IIii.
T~.m~mmlm~_ BO: (214) 462--O022'ABD
iFEMA U~ON LY
REVISION REQUESTOR AND COMMUNITY OFFICIAL FORM
FORM 1
EX:
The basis for this revision request is (are): (check all that
[~] Phyoical ehan~
['-] Improved methodology
~ Improved data
[] Floodway revision
[-'[ Other
Explain
2. Floodin~Source: Grapevine Creek
3. Project NameJldenfifier: Grapevine Springs Park
4. FEMA zone designations affected: AE
(ex~mpi~. A, AH;-AO; AI-A3(~, A99,AE, V, VI-V30, VE;B, C, D, X}
5. The NFIP map panel(st affected for all impacted communities is (are):
Community Community Map Panel Effective
No, Nam~ County St~t~ NO, NO. Dat~ -
480301 Katy, City Harris, Fort Bend TX 480301 0005D 02/08/83
480287 Harris County Harris TX 48201C 0220G 09/28/90
480170 Coppell Dallas&Denton TX , 480170 O010D 10/16/91
6. The submitted request encompasses the following types of flooding, structures, and
associated disciplines: (check all that apply)
Twes of Floodi.a
[] Riverine
[] Coastal
[] Alluvial Fan
[] Shallow Flooding
[] Lakes
Affected by
wind/wave action
['-] Yes
C'] No
[] Other (describe)
~ Disciolines*
[] Channelization [~] Water Resources
[] Levee/Floodwall [] Hydrology
[] Bridge/Culvert [] Hydraulics
~-] Dam f--] Sediment Transport
{-'{ Coastal [~] Interior Drainage
[~ Fill ['-] Structural
[] Pump Station 'j'-~ Geotechnical
[-'] None [=-] Land Surveying
[~ Other (describe) C~ Other (describe)
* Attach completed "Certification by Registered Professional and/or Land Surveyor"
Fora for each discipline checked. (Form 2)
Octo~ 1992 Page I
g~V. 6-~6-93
Fl~y l~o~aUon
· Ooea the ~ fl~ing M~ ~ve · fl~way des~ on me eff~Uve ~I~ or FBi?
· O~s ~e revim fl~way del~ea~on aiff~r from ~ shown off the e~ve FIRM or FBFM?
If yes. ~ve ~n: he~rG~
Attach request to revise tho floodway from commumty CEO or desi~ otT~iai.
Attach copy of eit~aar I public notice diatribumi by the commumty smtin~ U~o communit3~l inte~
to revise the floodway or a statement by the commumty that it has notified all affect~ ptwerty
owners and affocted adjacent j~tiorm.
Does the State have jurisdiction over the flomiway or it's adoption by commum~ies partioilml~l~ in
the NFIP?. ['-I Yes [-] No
If yes, attach a copy of a letter not~fying the appropriate State afeney of tho floodway revioioll ami
documentation of the approval of the revised floodway by the appropriate State afency.
With floodways:
lA.
Proposed Encroardamonm
Does the revision request involve fill, new construction, su~ hnproj_v~ment, or other
development in the floodway? tat Yes i._l No
! B. It*yes, does the development cause the tOO-year water surfaco elevation increase at any
location by more than 0.000 feet? f~ Yea [~I No
Without floodways:
2A. Does the revision request involve fill, new construction, substantial improvement, or otiMr
deveiopmant in the tOO*year floodplain? ["] Yes [--I No
2B. If yes, does the cumulative effect of all development that has occured since the effective SFHA
was orifinaiy identified cause the 100*year water surface elevation increase at any lomticm
by more than one foot (or other surcharge limit if'community or state has adopted more
stringent criteria)? ['-lYes [~]No
if answer to either Items 113 or 2B is yes, please provide documentation that ail requiremente o~
Section 65.12 of the NFIP regulations have been met. SEE REPORT NARRATIVE
Revision Requestor Acknowledl~ement
Having read NFIP Regulations, 44 CFR Ch. I, parts 59, 60, 61, 65, and 72, I believe that the
proposed revision [~ is ['-1 is not in compliance with the requirements of the
aforementioned NFIP Regulations.
adopted floodplain management ordinances?
Does chis revision request have the endorsement of the community?
If no u2 either of the above questions, please explain:
Community Official Acknowiedqement
· Was this revision request reviewed by the community for complhnco with the community's
]¥es
· [~] Yes I-']No
Please note that community acknowledwement and/or notification is required for ail requeste
as outlined in Section 65.4 (b) of the NFIP RelaflationL
October 1992 PsSoSef8
e
REVISION ?~UESTOR AN D COMMUNITY OFFIC~ FORM
Operatio{t and Maintenance
Does the physical change involve a flood control structure (e.g., levees, floodwails,.~.._~
ch~ basins, dan~)? ~ ~,~,,~,~ ~_ ~'7 ['-] Yes ~
If ye.___s, please provide the following information for each of the new flood control structures:
A. Inspection of the flood control project will be conducted periodically by.
(entity)
with a maximttm interval of months between ixmpmction~
Based on tho results of scheduled periodic irmpections, appropriate maintenance of tbe flood
control facilities will be conducted by . .
(entity)
to ensure the integrity and degree of flood protection of the structure.
C. A formal plan of operation, including documentation of the flood warning system, specific
actions and a~ignmente of responsibility by individual name or title, and provisions for
testing the plan at intervals not less than one year, [] has ~] ha~ not been prelmred
for the flood control structure.
The community is willing to assume responsibility for ["-] per~ormlng ~--~ overseeing
compliance with the maintermnce and operation plans of the (Name)
flood control structure. If not performed promptly by an owner other than the community,
the community will provide the necessary services without cost te'the Federal government;
Attach operation and.maintenance plans
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:
X
CLOMR
A letter from FEMA commenting on whether a proposed project, if built as
proposed, would justify a map revision (LOMR or PMR}, or proposed
hydrology changes (see 44 CFR Ch. I, Parts 60, 65, and 72). '-"- -
b. LOMR
c. PMR
A letter from FEMA officially revising the current NFIP map to show
changes to floodplains, floodways, or flood elevations. LOMRs typically
depict decreased flood hazards. (See 44 CFR Ch. I, Parts 60 and 65.)
A reprinted NFIP map incorporating changes to floodplains, floodways, or
flood elevations. Because of the time and cost involved to change, reprint,
and redistribute an NFIP map, a PMR is usually processed when a revision
reflects increased flood hazards or largo-~cope changes. (See 44 CFR Ch. I,
Parts 60 and 65.)
.d. Other:
October 1992
Pa&,~aof5
Forms Included
I
Form 2 entitled "Certification By Registered Professional Engineer And/Or Land Surveyor" must be
submitted.
The following forms should be included with this request if(check the included forms):
Hydrologic analysis for riverine flooding differs from that
used to develop FIRM
Hydraulic analysis for riverine flooding differs from that
used to develop FIRM
The request is based solely on updated topographic
information
The request involves any type of channel modification
The request involves new bridge or culvert or revised
analysis of an existing bridge or culvert
['--] Hydrologic Analysis Form
(Form 3)
[] Riverine HydraulieAnalysis
(Form 4)
Riverine Mapping
(Form 5)
['--] Channelization (Form
[-'] Bridge/Culvert Form
(Form ?)
e
Initial Review Fee
If yes, the amount submitted is $
or
This request is for a project that is for public benefit and is intended to reduce the flood hazard ~o
existing development in identified flood hazard areas as opposed to planned floodplain
development. [] Yes ~ No
October 1992 Pa~ 4of5
Note: I understand that my signature
indicates that all information subm/tted
in support of this request is correct.
Signature of R~i;i~n P~quesu,r
Neal A. Chisholm
Printed Name and Title of Revision Requestor
Note: Signature indicates that the
commurdt¥ underm~nd~, from the revision
requestor, the impact~ of the revision on flooding
conditions in the community.
i[,~,neth lq_ griffin, p.g.. C~,~;¥ F-notneer
Printed Name and TiUe of Commur~ty Official
Graham Associates~ Inc. City of Coooel]=
Company Name Community Name
Date June 3:1993
Date June 25~ 1993
Attach letters from all affected jurisdictions acknowledging revision request and approving chaag~
to floodway, if applicable.
Note: Although a photograph of physical changes is not required, it may be helpful for FEMA's
review.
October 1992 Pa~ & of 5
FEMA USJiI~N L Y
FORM 4
RIVERINE HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FORM
Community Name: Coppell, Texas
Flooding Source: c.r~_n~.v~ n~ Crm~k
ProjeetNamefldentAfier: Grapevine Springs Park
Downstream limit
Upstream limit
Reach to be Revised
Bethel Rd. (Sect. 27620)
IH-635 (Sect. 38235)
Effective FIS
[~] Not studied
[] Studied by approximate methods
Downstream limit of study
Upstream limit of study
Studied by detailed methods
Downstream limit of study confluence Elm
Upstream limit ofstudy aoroorat~ limits
Floodway delineated
Downstream limit of floodway
Upstream limit of floodway
Fork
confluence Elm Fork
Trinity River
Trinity River
Hydraulic Analysis
Why is the hydraulic analysis different from that used to develop the FIRM.
{Check all that apply)
[[~ Not studied in FIS
[~ Improved hydrologicdata/analysis. Explain:
[-~ Improved hydraulicanalysis. Explain: Bett~r Topographic data. more cross
sec t t ohs
[] Flood control structure. Explain:
Other. Explain:
October 1992
Pa~ 1 ors
App t r CAT~ON/C~s'[CATXON FO~,M~ FO~ CONDFf~0NAL L'.~'~.~= OF ~ I~V~q~ON. t= i-r ~. OF MA~P ~._t'V~XO~ A~D P H'~CA~ ~ ~
Models Submitted
Full input and output listings along with files on diskette (if available) for each of the models
listed below and a 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). Only the Duplicate
Effective and the Revised or Post-Project Conditions models must be submitted. See
instructions for directions on when other models may be required. Only the 100-year flood
profile is required for SFHAs with a Zone A designation.
~ Duplicate Effective Model
Copies of the hydraulic analysis used in the effective FIS, referred to
as the effective models (10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year multi-profile
runs and the floodway run) must be obtained and then reproduced
on the requestor's equipment to produce the duplicate ~ffective
mod~!. This is required to assure that the effective model input data
has been transferred con-ectly to the reques~or'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.
Corrected Effective Model
The corrected effective model is the model that corrects any errors
that occur in the duplicate effective model, adds any additional cross
sections to the duplicate effective model, or incorporates more
detailed topographic information than that used in the currently
effective model. The corrected effective model must not reflect any
man-made physical changes since the date of the effective model.
An error could be a technical error in the modeling procedures, or
any construction in the floodplain that occurred prior to the date of
the effective model but was not incorporated into the effective
model.
~ Existing or Pre-Project Conditions Model
The duplicate effective or corrected effective model is modified to
produce the existing or pre-project conditions model to reflect any
modifications that have occurred within the floodplain since the
date of the effective model but prior to the construction of the project
for which the revision is being requested. If no modification has
occurred since the date of the effective model, then this model would
be identical to the corrected effective or duplicate effective model.
[--'] Revised or Post-Project Conditions Model
The existin~ or ore-proiect conditions model (or duplicate effective
or corrected effective model, as appropriate) is revised to reflect
revised or post-project conditions. This model must incorporate any
physical changes to the floodplain since the effective model was
produced as well as the effects of the project.
Other: Please attach a sheet describing all other models
submitted. PROPOSED
Natural Floodway
Natural Floodway
Natural Floodway
Natural Floodway
Natural Floodway
October 1992 Pag~ 2 of 5
A. PPLICATION/CLRTIFICATIO~ FO~q FOR CONDI'~ONAL LETi'~, OF MAP R~'VI~ION. LETT~ OF MA~ S~'%~OI~I A~ID PI~'~CA~ MAP ~V~](3~
RIVERINE HYDRAULIC ANALY~I~ v o~.~L
Model Param. eters
(from model used to revise 'lO0-year water surface elevations)
Discharges:
Upstream Limit
Downstream Limit
10-year 7,300 6,700
50-year ~0.000 9.400
100-year 11.200 10.500
500-year 14,200 .. 19.400
Attachdiagram showingchangesinlOO-yeardischarge
changes between 35570 & 35770
Explainhowthestartingwatersurfaceelevati°nsweredetermined lQ0 & 500
ygar from Kimlev-Horn 1-2-89. 10 & 50 year nrtnted profile
Starting Water Surface Elevation
10-year 489.65
at section 50-year 491.70
27070 100-year 492.43
Floodway 492.82
500-year 494.05
Give range of friction loss coefficients for effective FIS
channel .015 to .045
overbank .050 to .070
If friction loss coefficients are different anywhere along the revised reach from those useg
to develop the FIRM, give location, value used in the effective FIS, and revised values
and an explanation as to how the revised values were determined.
Location FIS Revised.
27620 to 30130 chan.= .045 .030 to .060
27620 to 30130 overbank..065 to .070 .040 to .120
Explain: Lower chan. 'n' due to existing improvements. Higher chaD..
'n' due to trees in channel. Lower overbauk 'n' due to mowed grass.
Btgher overbank 'n' due to dense trees and brush
Describe how the cross section geometry data were determined (e.g., field survey,
topographic map, taken from previous study) and list cross sections that were added.
The new sections (1.0 thru 6.0) are from field surveys or field
furvmved
October 1992
tooo maos. The other sections from the effective FIS
Pa~ 3 of 5
Ap p LI C AI'ION~i:L'ETIFICATION FOI~ FO~. CONDITIONAL L~ OF ~ RL~fI~ON. ~ OF ~ ~.~'%q~ON AIqD pHT~ICA~ M-~ls ~-L'NISIO~
Ill'
Model Parameters iCont'd) ~
Explain how reach lengths for ~hannel'and overbanks were determined:
Reach [en~ths scaled from topo map and plots of field surveyed dale.
3.
4.
5.
Results
(from model used to revise 100-year water surface elevations)
Do the results indicate:
a. Water surface elevations higher than end points ofcross sections?l'~ Yes ['-'] No
b. Supercritical depth?
[] Yes ~ No
[] Yes [] No
~ Yes [--~ No
c. Critical depth?
d. Other unique situations?
If yes to any of the above, attach an explanation that discusses
the situation and how it is presented on the profiles, tables, and
maps.
What is the maximum head loss between cross-sections? 4.89
at existing drop structure
What is the distance between the cross-sections in 2 above?
What is the maximum distance between cross-sections? 1 ~05 '
Floodway determination
a. What is the maximum surcharge allowed by the community or State? 1.0 foot
b. What is the maximum surcharge for the revised conditions? 0.59 foot
c. What is the maximum velocity? at: 38235 15.3 fps
d. What typeoferosion protection is provided? conc. slooe oave~gBt
Explain: Purpose of the oro~ect is to reoair
in thm By pass ahannel. Max. vel. is NOT on
v~l. ~n the by pass channel is 6.86 fDS
and Prevent e:osioll.
oro~ect site. Max
October 1992 Pa~, 4 of 5
APPLICATION~C~tTI~ICAT~OI~ FOIgM~ FOIl COIq~ITIONAL La.i-i~,~ ,~ O[~ MAP RL'VI~ION. ~R 0[' MAP B. LN/L~ON AND PHY~CAL MAP RL'~I~ON
RIV~d~INE HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FORM
~EV. 6-16-93
Results (Cont'd)
Is the diechar~ value used to determine the floodway anywhere
different from that used to determine the natural 100.year flood
elevations?
If'yes, explain:
[] Yes ~ No
Att·eh · Floodway Data Table showing dam for eech~rese section
listed in the published floodway data table in the FIS report.
Do 100-year water surface elevations increase at any location?
Attached
[] Yes [] No
If yes, please attach a List of the loc~tions 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 increales. Water surface increases between the RR and TH-63~
are due to a more accurate existing toad. hydraulic model. Water
surface increase in the Park area are only 0.01 feet and are
contained on the requestor's property. The energy gradeline
decrease 0.03 feet in this area.
Please attach a completed comparison table entitled: Water Surface Elevation ChedL
Attached
Revised FIRM/FBFM and Flood Profiles
The revised water surface elevations tie into those computed by the effective FIS Model (10-,
50-, 100-, and 500-year), downstream of the project at cross-section 27400 _ within
~. O0 feet and upstream of the project at cross section 3823~ within
0.00 feet.
The revised floodway elevations tie into those computed by the effective F[S model, down-
stream of the project at cross section 27400 within 0.00 feet and upstream of
the prOject at cross secuon 38235 within 0.00 feet.
Attach profiles, at the same vertical and horizontal scale as the profiles tn the effective FIS
report, showing stream bed and profiles of all floods studied (without encroachment}. Also,
label all cross sections, road crossings (including low chord and top-of-road data), culverts,
tributaries, corporate limZts, and study limits.
Attached
Proceed to Riverme Mapping Form.
October ~992
I
I
I
I
I
iz..~,-//~
I
I
I
I
I
t
FEMA L~ONLY
FORM
RIVERINE MAPPINGFORM
CommunityN&mo: Coppell~ Texas
Floo~Souree: Grapevine Creek
P~j~Na~l~en~i~m~. Grapevine Sprin~s Park
Mappinf CJmn~u
kEV. 6-16-93
o
A topo~raphi~ work map of smteble seals, contour interval, and planime~rie definition mu~ be
submittal shovin~ (insoR N/A when not applicable):
Included
C. Revised 100-year floodway boundaries
D. Loe~t~..andalign.m. ento£allcrosss~etionsusodintherevis~d []Yes I-=INa I"-INIA
hydrauli~ model w~th stationin~ control indicated f=~ Yen l"-I No f'~ NIA
E. Stream ~m, road ted dan aiianmeato [] Yes [] No i'-[ NIA
~ '~ F.._~f~nteomm--~tybou~..4-. r-[Yes f'-[No iT[N/A
G. Effective 100- and 600-year floodpltin and 100*yetr floodway
A. Revisod 100- yearfloedplain boundaries (Zone A} f'"~¥es f'~No I'~ N/A
B. Revised 100- and 500*year floedpltin boundaries ~ Yes [] No I'-r N/A
boundaries from the FIRM/FBFM reduced or enlarged to the
sctieof..tbo.~opoaraphkworkump. (seperate map) fX-] Yes I'-[ No ~ N/A
.~ H. Tie'inni~tw~nth~~and~l~l~lOO. andSOO, vear ~ ~
floodplains and 100-year floodway boundaries ' ' Yes [] No NIA
[. The requeRor's property boundaries and community easemnts Yes L'~ No N/A
J. Thosi~uedeertificationofaregbMredprofesoionalen~ineer f~l Yesi-'lNo f-IN/A
K. Location and description of reference marks [~] Yes [] No [--"l N/A
L. Vertical datum (example: NGVD 1929, NAVD 1988. etc.) ['~ Yes [] No ~ N/A
H' any o£ the items above are marked no or N/A, pleHeexplain: A, No orooosqd chanfea
,-o zon~ ,A, ~od_o~ntns ~. Community boundaries O~-¢hana~d H. Tie-i~-
NOT possible since e~ect~ve F~S map is not up to date L. FENA RN's
used for field surveys, City topo used for base map. --:
What is the source and date of the updated topographic information (example: orthophoto mal~,
July 1985: field survey, May 1979. beach orofiles. June 1987, etc }9 City Aerial tooo
maps dated 2-29-92 and oR-site field surveys 5-$~'& 9-9~
What is the scale anti contour mterval or'the tbllowinf workmaps?
a. Effective FI$ unknown scale unknown Contour interval
b. Revision Request ~"=20o' seals 2' Contour interval
Attach an annotated FIRM and FBFM at the scale of the eRreetive FIRM and FBFM showh~
the revised 10G-year and 500-year floodplains and the 10G-year floodway boundaries and how
they tie into those shown on the effeetive FIRM and FBFM downstream and upscr~ of the
revlsion.
Attached
Attach addiliorml pallu ii' needed.
Ocum~r l~
Paleld3
~'~RIVERINE MAPPING FORM
Mapping Changes (Continued}
Flood Boundaries and 100-year wa~er surface elevations:
Has the 100-year floodplain been shifted or increased or the 100-year water surface elevation
increased ac any location on proper~y other than the requestor's or community's?
[] Yes ~=1 No
If yes, please give the location of shift or increase and an explanation for the increase.
Shift upstream of Southwestern Blvd. due to channelization by others
Case 86-06-47R. Increase due to revised exisiting cond. hydraulic
modelin8 using new topographic data.
~ a. Have the affected property owners been notified of this shift or increase and the effect it
~c/~7' ~ will have on their property? [] Yes [] Bio
~.~ ~__~e, please attach ~rom these proper~y owners stating they have no objections
the revised flood boundaries.
b. What is the number of insurable structures that will be impacted by this shift or
increase?
Have the floodway boundaries shifted or increased at any location compared to those shown on
the effective FBFM or FIRM? [~ Yes [] No
lfyes, explain:
Effective FIS ignored the exisitng, naturally created by pass channel
which carries a larse part of the discharge but was excluded from the
floodway.
Manual or digital map submission:
~-] Manual
Digital map submissions may be used to update digital FIRMs (DFIRMs). For updating
DFIRMs, these submissions must be coordinated with FEMA Headquamrs as far in advance of
submission as possible.
October 1992 Page 2 o~ 3
RIVERINE MAPPING FORM
Earth Fill Placement
I 1. Has fill been placed in the regulatory floodway? [] Yes [] No
If yes, ples~ attach completed Riverine Hydraulic Form.
2. Has fill b~n placed in flomtway fringe (area betw~n the floodway ~ ..
and lO0-year floodplain boundaries)? ~ ~es
I If yes, then complete A, B, C, and D below.
A. Are fill slopes for granular materials steeper than one vertical ,-...
on one-and-one-half horizontal? , I yes
I If yes, justify steeper slopes '
'1 B. Is adequate 'ro'i°n Pr°tocti°n Pr°~ .ded f_°r fi!l s.l'Pe.S. 'xpesed ~ .m~°_~°-°d,- .~e-~--l~?
(Slopes exposed to flows with veloc~t/es of up ~o ~ zeet per_soconu ~rpsj uunn~.
re'flood must, at a minimum, be protected by a cover of ~ss, vines, weeus:
I ~egetation; slopes exposed to flows with velocities ~reeter than 5 fps during me lOO-ye~r
flood must, at a ~ioimum, be protected by stone or rock riprap.) [] Yes [] No
I If no, describe erosion protection provided .__~ee cons_ t__~uct~on~ plans ..
!
Co
Has 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?
fill settlement OK in this area of the park [] Yes ~ No
Can structures conceivably be constructed on the fill at any time in the future?
fill is not out of 100 year floodplain [] Yes [-~ No
If yes, provide certification of fill compaction (item C. above) by the community's NFIP
permit official, a registered professional engineer, or an accredited soils engineer.
Octobor 199~ Pa~e 3o1'3