Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
LOMA Request
s` IIIIptlNWYYI ;5 . ` � •vV � � .n i 9/1/04 Telcon w /Shevon — FEMA rep. • Wants as -built plans for part of storm drain system, and the retention areas (Citrus, Tradition, Silverrock) • FEMA may want. a fee (Approximately $4,200) since some of the improvements were install by a private party. • Will contact Psomas and provide a detailed list of needed plans • Shevon is a new employee and will discuss this issue her supervisor. She was unsure if the fee would apply, and she was unsure exactly what plans she needed. T: \PWDEPT\ STAFF \SPEER \Notes & Concepts \040901 a.doc F9MA il. P.O. Box 1504 78 -495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 August 9, 2004 LOMA Depot 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 600 Alexandria, VA 22304 Re: Case No.: 04- 09 -1155P Community: City of La Quinta, CA Community No.: 060709 (760) 777 -7000 FAX (760) 777 -7101 Enclosed are the supplemental items requested in your letter of June 9, 2004. The enclosure includes: 1. A diskette containing input and out put files for all submitted hydraulic models 2. A certified map by a licensed surveyor with the datum used to prepare the work map. 3. A copy of the current effective FIRM panes annotated to reflect the revised. floodplain boundary delineations. Please contact our engineers Soorgul Wardak with Psomas at 714 - 751 -7373 or Doug Hamilton with Exponent at 949 - 341 -6016 with any technical questions. Sincerely, im�ty Jo son, f. E. Public Works Director /City Engineer c: Soorgul Wardak, Psomas Doug Hamilton, Exponent 1 P.O. Box 1504 78 -495 CALLE TAMPIco (760) 777-70-00 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 922'53 FAX (760) 777 -7101 May 24, 2004 LOMA Depot .3601, Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 600 .Alexandria, VA 22304 Attn: LOMA Manager LOMA.Request for the City of -La Quinta Based on More Accurate Hydrologic Data. Based on our review of the effective Flood Insurance.Rate Map for the City of La Quinta, we note -that a large part of the City is mapped as Zone A acid is based on out of date hydrology and topography. We submit the attache_ d request -to revise the FIRM based on more up to date data. The necessary forms and backup material are attached. Because this. submittal is based on the submission of more accurate data, it is exempt from review fees. Please contact our'engineers Soorgul Wardak with Psomas and Associates at 714- 751 -7373, or Doug Hamilton with Exponent at 949 - 341 -6016 with any technical questions. Sincerely, OTimoth'y . fds'sovn Public Works Director /City Engineer 0 c: Soorgul Wardak, Psomas Doug Hamilton, Exponent T:\ PWOEPT\ STAFF\SPEER\LETTERS\040524A.doc �� This package includes: 1. Description of the project site and Methodology 2. Necessary forms and map 3. HEC -RAS generated report for modified flow 4. HEC -RAS generated report to re- produce HEC -2 results 5. Modified Q's for HEC -RAS modeling 6. Catch Basins (C.B.) calculations 7. Previous study HEC -2 run hard copy 8. Previous study Hydrology report hard copy FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY O.M.B No. 3067 -0148 RIVERINE HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS FORM Expires September 30, 2005 PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 3 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right comer of this form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington DC 20472, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067- 0148). Submission of the form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send your completed survey to the above address. Flooding Source: Note: Fill out one form for each flooding source studied A. HYDROLOGY 1. Reason for New Hydrologic Analysis (check ail that apply) ❑ Not revised (skip to section 2) ❑ No existing analysis ® Improved data ❑ Alternative methodology ❑ Proposed Conditions (CLOMR) ❑ Changed physical condition of watershed 2. Comparison of Representative 1 %- Annual -Chance Discharges Location See Tables 1 and 2 Drainage Area (Sq. Mi.) 3. Methodology for New Hydrologic Analysis (check all that apply) FIS (cfs) Revised (cfs) ❑ Statistical Analysis of Gage Records ® Precipitation/Runoff Model [TR -20, HEC-1, HEC -HMS etc.] ❑ Regional Regression Equations ❑ Other (please attach description) Please enclose all relevant models in digital format, maps, computations (including computation of parameters) and documentation to support the new analysis. The document, "Numerical Models Accepted by FEMA for NFIP Usage" lists the models accepted by FEMA. This document can be found at: http:/ Avww.fema.gov /fhm /en_modi.shtm. 4. Review /Approval of Analysis If your community requires a regional, state, or federal agency to review the hydrologic analysis, please attach evidence of approval/review. 5. Impacts of Sediment Transport on Hydrology Was sediment transport considered? ❑ Yes ® No If yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport) of Form 3. If No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered. B. HYDRAULICS 1. Reach to be Revised Description Cross Section Water - Surface Elevations (ft.) Effective Proposed/Revised Downstream Limit 108 +00 See Table 4 Upstream Limit 234 +50 2. Hydraulic Method Used Hydraulic Analysis HEC -RAS [HEC -2 , HEC -RAS, Other (Attach description)] FEMA Form 81 -89A, SEP 02 Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form MT -2 Form 2 Page 1 of 2 B. HYDRAULICS 3. Pre - Submittal Review of Hydraulic Models FEMA has developed two review programs, CHECK -2 and CHECK -RAS, to aid in the review of HEC -2 and HEC -RAS hydraulic models, respectively. These review programs verify that the hydraulic estimates and assumptions in the model data are in accordance with NFIP requirements, and that the data are comparable with the assumptions and limitations of HEC- 2/HEC -RAS. CHECK -2 and CHECK -RAS identify areas of potential error or concern. These tools do not replace engineering judgment. CHECK -2 and CHECK -RAS can be downloaded from http: /Nvww .fema.gov /fhm /frm_soft.shtm. We recommend that you review your HEC-2 and HEC -RAS models with CHECK -2 and CHECK -RAS. If you disagree with a message, please attach an explanation of why the message is not valid in this case. Review of your submittal and resolution of valid modeling discrepancies will result in reduced review time. HEC- 2/HEC -RAS models reviewed with CHECK- 2/CHECK -RAS? ® Yes ® No 4. Models Submitted Duplicate Effective Model' Natural File Name: fo2 -got Floodway File Name: N/A Corrected Effective Model" Natural File Name:. Floodway File Name: Existing or Pre - Project Conditions Model Natural File Name: fo3- got Floodway File Name: Revised or Post - Project Conditions Model Natural File Name: Floodway File Name: Other - (attach description) Natural File Name: Floodway File Name: 'Not required for revisions to approximate 1%-annual-chance floodplains (Zone A) = for details, refer to the corresponding section of the instructions. The document "Numerical Models Accepted by FEMA for NFIP Usage" lists the models accepted by FEMA. This document can be found at: http: / /www.fema.gov /fhm /en_modl.shtm. C. MAPPING REQUIREMENTS A certified topographic map must be submitted showing the following information (where applicable): the boundaries of the effective, existing, and proposed conditions 1%-annual-chance floodplain (for approximate Zone A revisions) or the boundaries of the 1%- and 0.2 %- annual -chance floodplains and regulatory floodway (for detailed Zone AE, AO, and AH revisions); location and alignment of all cross sections with stationing control indicated; stream, road, and other alignments (e.g., dams, levees, etc.); current community easements and boundaries; boundaries of the requester's property; certification of a registered professional engineer registered in the subject State; location and description of reference marks; and the referenced vertical datum (NGVD, NAVD, etc.). Note that the boundaries of the existing or proposed conditions floodplains and regulatory floodway to be shown on the revised FIRM and/or FBFM must tie -in with the effective floodplain and regulatory floodway boundaries. Please attach a copy of the effective FIRM and/or FBFM, annotated to show the boundaries of the revised 1 %- and 0.2 %- annual -chance floodplains and regulatory floodway that tie -in with the boundaries of the effective 1 %- and 0.2 %- annual -chance floodplain and regulatory floodway at the upstream and downstream limits of the area of revision. D. COMMON REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 1. For CLOMR requests, do Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) increase? ❑ Yes ® No For CLOMR requests, if either of the following is true, please submit evidence of compliance with Section 65.12 of the NFIP regulations: • The proposed project encroaches upon a regulatory floodway and would result in increases above 0.00 foot. • The proposed project encroaches upon a SFHA with BFEs established and would result in increases above 1.00 foot. 2. Does the request involve the placement or proposed placement of fill? ❑Yes ®No If Yes, the community must be able to certify that the area to be removed from the special flood hazard area, to include any structures or proposed structures, meets all of the standards of the local floodplain ordinances, and is reasonably safe from flooding in accordance with the NFIP regulations set forth at 44 CFR 60.3(a)(3), 65.5(a)(4), and 65.6(a)(14). Please see the MT -2 instructions for more information. 3. For LOMR requests, is the regulatory floodway being revised? ❑ Yes ® No If Yes, attach evidence of regulatory floodway revision notification. As per Paragraph 65.7(b)(1) of the NFIP Regulations, notification is required for requests involving revisions to the regulatory floodway. (Not required for revisions to approximate 1 %- annual -chance floodplains [studied Zone A designation] unless a regulatory floodway is being added. Elements and examples of regulatory floodway revision notification can be found in the MT -2 Form 2 Instructions.) 4. For LOMR requests, does this request require property owner notification and acceptance of BFE increases? ❑ Yes ® No If Yes, please attach proof of property owner notification and acceptance (if available). Elements of and examples of property owner notification can be found in the MT -2 Form 2 Instructions. FEMA Form 81 -89A, SEP 02 Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form MT -2 Form 2 Page 2 of 2 r FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY O.M.B No. 3067 -0148 OVERVIEW & CONCURRENCE FORM Expires September 30,2005 PAPERWORK BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 1 hour per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right comer of this form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington DC 20472, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067 -0148). Submission of the form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National.Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send your completed survey to the above address. A. REQUESTED RESPONSE FROM FEMA This request is for a (check one): ❑ CLOMR: A letter from FEMA commenting on whether a proposed project, if built as proposed, would justify a map revision, or proposed hydrology changes (See 44 CFR Ch. 1, Parts 60, 65 & 72). ® LOMR: A letter from FEMA officially revising the current NFIP map to show the changes to floodplains, regulatory floodway or flood elevations. (See Parts 60 & 65 of the NFIP Regulations.) B. OVERVIEW 1. The NFIP map panel(s) affected for all impacted communities is (are): Community No. Community Name State Map No. Panel No. Effective Date Ex: 480301 City of Katy TX 480301 0005D 02/08/83 480287 Hams County TX 48201C 0220G 09/28/90 060704 City of La Quinta CA 060704 0005B 8 -19-91 2. Flooding Source: Local Streets 3. Project Name/ldentifier. La Quinta 4. FEMA zone designations affected: Ao, X (choices: A, AH, A0, Al -A30, A99, AE, AR, V, V1 -V30, VE, B, C, D, X) 5. Basis for Request and Type of Revision: a. The basis for this revision request is (check all that apply) ® Physical Change ® Improved Methodology /Data ❑ Regulatory Floodway Revision ❑ Other (Attach Description) . Note: A photograph and narrative description of the area of concern is not required, but is very helpful during review. b. The area of revision encompasses the following types of flooding and structures (check all that apply) Types of Flooding: ❑ Riverine ❑ Coastal ® Shallow Flooding (e.g., Zones AO and AH) ❑ Alluvial fan ❑ Lakes ❑ Other (Attach Description) Structures: ❑ Channelization ❑ Levee / Floodwal ❑ Bridge /Culvert ❑ Dam ❑ Fill ❑ Other, Attach Description FEMA Form 81 -89, SEP 02 Overview ifi Concurrence Form MT -2 Form 1 Page 1 of 2 C. REVIEW FEE Has the review fee for the appropriate request category been included? ❑ Yes Fee amount: $ ® No, Attach Explanation Please see the FEMA Web site at hftp://www.fema.qovtfhm/frm fees.shtm for Fee Amounts and Exemptions. D. SIGNATURE All documents submitted in support of this request are correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any false statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001. Name: Company: City of La Quinta Mailing Address: Daytime Telephone No.: Fax No.: E -Mail Address: Signature of Requester (required): Date: As the community official responsible for floodplain management, I hereby acknowledge that we have received and reviewed this Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or conditional LOMR request. Based upon the community's review, we find the completed or proposed project meets or is designed to meet all of the community floodplain management requirements, including the requirement that no fill be placed in the regulatory floodway, and that all necessary Federal, State, and local permits have been, or in the case of a conditional LOMR, will be obtained. In addition, we have determined that the land and any existing or proposed structures to be removed from the SFHA are or will be reasonably safe from flooding as defined in 44CFR 65.2(c), and that we have available upon request by FEMA, all analyses and documentation used to make this determination. Community Official's Name and Title: Telephone No.: Community Name: City of La Quinta, CA Community Official's Signature (required): Date: CERTIFICATION BY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND /OR LAND SURVEYOR This certification is to be signed and sealed by a licensed land surveyor, registered professional engineer, or architect authorized by law to certify elevation information. All documents submitted in support of this request are correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any false statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001. Certifier's Name: Soorgul Wardak License No.: C52913 Expiration Date: 12-31-2006 Company Name: Psomas and Associates Telephone No.: (714) 751 -7373 Fax No.: (714 )-545 -8883 Signature: Date: 5 -13-04 Ensure the forms that are appropriate to your revision request are Included in your submittal. Form Name and (Number) Required if ... ® Riverine Hydrology and Hydraulics Form (Form 2) New or revised discharges or water- surface elevations ❑ Riverine Structures Form (Form 3) Channel is modified, addition /revision of bridge /culverts, addition /revision of levee/floodwall, addition /revision of dam ❑ Coastal Analysis Form (Form 4) New or revised coastal elevations ❑ Coastal Structures Form (Form 5) Addition /revision of coastal structure Seal (Optional) ❑ Alluvial Fan Flooding Form (Form 6) Flood control measures on alluvial fans FEMA Form 81 -89, SEP 02 Overview & Concurrence Form MT -2 Form 1 Page 2 of 2 2004 Flood Plain Analysis within the City Of La Quinta In 1990 a flood plain analysis was performed for the City of La Quinta, California. Subsequently, the FIRM was revised in 1991. Most of the downtown area was in the flood plain designated AO. Since, 1991, the City has constructed a number of storm drains that intercept a major portion of the storm water that contributed to the .AO designation. One objective was to minimize the flooding in the area located south of La Quinta Evacuation Channel and between Eisenhower and Rondo Street. For this purpose, the City of La Quinta constructed on -site retention basins to prevent the runoff from off -site areas, such as Q1 through Q9 from flowing into this area (See Figure 1). In addition to this, the city constructed storm drains along Madrid, Coloma, Nagolas, Sonora and Sinaloa Streets to divert the runoff into these proposed retention basins or divert the runoff through storm drain into La Quinta Evacuation Channel. The City has conducted an analysis of the flood plain with the objective of determining the benefits of the storm drain construction. Methodology To examine the benefits of the storm drain construction, the 1990 HEC -2 model was reconstructed and calibrated to reproduce the same results for the 1990 model (see Table 3). The 2004 reconstructed HEC -RAS model used the same cross sections as the 1990 model. Then, the HEC -RAS model was run with reduced flows resulting from the storm drains diversion. The flow parameters were then calculated. The upstream flows from the Cove area are diverted by storm drains, in the streets mentioned earlier, to detention basins on the east side of Aveneda Bermudas (the basins are incorporated into the Tradition Golf Course). The water from the basins is then discharged to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel and does not re -enter the study area: The diversion of runoff from the off -site areas (i.e. Q1 through Q9) and the diversion of runoff through the storm drains resulted in reduced Q's for water surface profile analysis. The modified discharges used in the HEC -RAS analysis are shown in Table 2. ( see also Table 1) Results The calculated flow for the study area resulted in lower water surface elevation overall. The water depths generally less than one foot. The maximum depth of 14.3 inches is at the intersection of Avenue 52 and Rondo Street (i.e. Station 148 +50; see Table 4 for depths of flow). As shown in the revised flood plain map, the area downstream of Station 148 +50 is designated as AO zone, and upstream area south of La Quinta Evacuation Channel and between Rondo and Eisenhower Street is designated as X zone. c� . fi Recommendation It is recommended that a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) be issued to the City of La Quinta. The LOMA should designate the area shown in Plate 1 as Flood Plain designation X. rc:f-' Table 1 ADJUSTED PEAK DISCHARGES THAT WERE NOT USED IN HEC -RAS ANALYSIS The on -site area between C5 and C6 is (sq.mi) 0.2 The on -site area between C6 and C7 is (sq.mi) 0.2 The on -site area between C7 and C8 is ( sq.mi ) 0.2 Concentration drainage area Adjusted Runoff unit discharge q Peak Q Adjusted Q for point (sq.mi) drainage area ( inch) q (cfs /sq.mi /in) cfs Area ( cfs) sq.mi Previous stud C1 0.46 0.46 2.9 468 624 624 C2 0.49 0.49 2.9 441 627 627 C3 0.56 0.56 2.9 434 705 705 C4 0.72 0.72 2.9 403 841 841 C5 0.82 0.82 2.9 369 877 877 C6 * * 1.51 1.02 2.9 295 1,292 873 C7 1.91 1.22 2.9 253 1,401 895 C8 2.17 1.42 2.9 226 1,422 931 C9 ** 2.23 1.48 2.9 214 1,384 931 C10 ' * 2.27 1.52 2.9 201 1,323 931 C11 2.77 2.02 2.9 193 1,550 1131 Note: Ina previous study, the discharge used in HEC -2 at section located near C9 and C10, was taken 1,422 cfs In the present study, the discharge used in HEC -RAS at section located near C11 was taken 1,131 cfs * * For consistency, the D/S discharges should be equal or greater than the immediate U/S discharge. The discharge used in HEC -RAS is 877 cfs instead of 873 cfs Table 2 ADJUSTED PEAK DISCHARGES USED IN HEC -RAS ANALYSIS WHICH WERE MODIFIED FOR SD FLOW Total flow diverted from the SD system at Madrid Street is cfs 210 Total flow diverted from the SD system at Colima Street is cfs 291 Total flow diverted from the SD system at Nagoles Street is cfs 210 Total flow diverted from the SD system at Sonora Street is cfs 216 Total 927 Total flow diverted from the SD system at Sinaloa Street is 56 Station Number Computed Qs The Q's used HEC -RAS Model (1) in HEC -RAS Model cfs 234 +50 106.2 105 227 +00 109.2 110 220 +00 142 140 209 +50 267 270 196 +50 303 300 181 +20 [2] 303 300 168 +50 303 300 148 +50 321 320 145 +20 321 320 138 +80 321 320 134 +80 357 360 121 +70 357 360 108 +00 557 560 1 The 's computed and used in HEC -RAS are equal to Q's from the last column of Table 1, minus Q's diverted through storm drain system from Madrid Street SD , through Sinaloa Street SD downstream. [2] For consistency, the D/S discharges should be equal or greater than the immediate U/S discharge. I rv�(, em -w .. .,•., • , r � �� -� =� :• � _ � •• .�• _ � _ _ • � /� ,.,� ,off *tn� :••_� . .. - .I�� ;� A fNlO _� !r � ID • • a � f/SENNOWER � � � �� ��� �` ./ r• i. — .I� =. � �`'" =g •� _tee Jsoo j � � m •J � � Lam: /� 1j ;� • � ��- ;S w •f A��-,!�) c' y: •': / 448+ T-e 44 Nq 40 rr 50 CIO r' �� � � �— � �C.S, � J � 1 • aa>� /�,`� : Qom__ \ •-• �'^ �� 1! }I p s___a _____ ___asa___s___ '•...s r..... a.. �_r..:c: C � — 1—• Table 3 COMPARISON BETWEEN WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COMPUTED BY HEC -RAS AND HEC -2 Reach River Sta IQ Total IMin Ch EI JW.S. Elev I Crit W.S. JE.G. Elev JE.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area ITop Width IFroude#Chl IWSHEC-2[1]1 Difference cfs ft ft ft ft ft/ft ft/s) (sq ft ft (ft) ft Reach 1 234.5 624 69.3 69.94 69.94 70.12 0.006746 3.36 185.64 531.76 1 69.94 0.0 Reach 1 227 627 58.2 59.06 59.06 59.3 0.006367 3.91 160.26 350 1.02 59.06 0.0 Reach 1 220 705 50.2 51.49 51.47 51.72 0.004716 3.95 189.12 383.12 0.91 51.48 0.0 Reach 1 209.5 841 45 45.79 45.79 46.03 0.006122 3.97 211.63 438.51 1.01 45.68 -0.1 Reach 1 196.5 877 40 41.09 41.14 0.001411 1.66 526.83 818.31 0.37 40.98 -0.1 Reach 1 181.2 1294 39.1 40.36 40.37 0.000303 0.69 1872.95 2073.56 0.13 40.29 -0.1 Reach 1 168.5 1401 38.1 39.7 39.72 0.000964 1.16 1211.67 1475.41 0.22 39.63 -0.1 Reach 1 148.5 1420 35 36.86 36.28 36.93 0.002163 2.08 683.71 633.79 0.35 36.82 0.0 Reach 1 145.2 1420 34.6 35.78 35.53 35.87 0.006566 2.42 586.77 994.55 0.56 35.68 -0.1 Reach 1 138.8 1420 32 32.87 32.93 0.003365 1.92 738.94 1071.94 0.41 32.83 0.0 Reach 1 134.8 1420 30.6 31.7 31.28 31.75 0.002614 1.84 772.45 991.12 0.37 31.57 -0.1 Reach 1 121.7 1420 28 29.47 28.75 29.51 0.001197 1.6 888.56 782.79 0.26 29.47 0.0 Reach 1 108 1554 24.5 25.4 25.28 25.53 0.01175 2.85 545.5 1120 0.72 25.4 0.0 [1] Water surface elevation from previous HEC -2 run for FIRM preparation ( FIRM date August 19, 1991) Table 4 S ALLOW FLOODING DEPTHS AT DIFFERENT STATIONS AFTER THE DISCHARGES WERE MODIFIED FOR HEC -RAS RUNS Reach River Sta Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl Difference ( inches) cfs (ft) ft ft ((ft) ft/ft ft/s s ft (ft) WS -Min. Chl El Reach 1 234.5 105 69.3 69.59 69.59 69.68 0.00846 2.34 44.93 263.11 1 3.5 Reach 1 227 110 58.2 58.64 58.64 58.74 0.007775 2.64 41.69 190.99 1 5.3 Reach 1 220 140 50.2 51.1 50.94 51.18 0.003338 2.25 62.1 191.1 0.7 10.8 Reach 1 209.5 270 45 45.43 45.43 45.58 0.007107 3.15 85.78 282.03 1.01 5.2 Reach 1 196.5 300 40 40.7 40.72 0.001343 1.22 245.98 586.92 0.33 8.4 Reach 1 .181.2 300 39.1 39.72 39.72 0.000382 0.46 658.67 1618.95 0.13 7.4 Reach 1 168.5 300 38.1 38.99 38.58 39 0.000977 0.77 388.33 874.33 0.2 10.7 Reach 1 148.5 320 35 36.19 35.75 36.21 0.002069 1.16 275.46 590.25 0.3 14.3 Reach 1 145.2 320 34.6 35.34 35.11 35.37 0.003977 1.38 231.62 624.86 0.4 8.9 Reach 1 138.8 320 32 32.37 32.23 32.4 0.005474 1.37 234.28 817.02 0.45 4.4 Reach 1 134.8 360 30.6 31.26 31.28 0.001759 0.99 365.45 888.14 0.27 7.9 Reach 1 121.7 360 28 28.67 28.39 28.69 0.002225 1.2 300.05 647.02 0.31 8.0 Reach 1 108 560 24.5 25.32 25.03 25.34 0.002602 1.23 453.57 1053.74 0.33 9.8 CATCH BASINS FLOW CAPACITY LOCATED ALONG DIFFERENT STREETS CATCH BASINS FLOW ANALYSIS Flow analysis of catch basins (C.B.) that discharge runoff into storm drain located along Madrid Street. Total number of C.B. with length 14 feet is 6 Total number of C.B. with length 21 feet is 20 Total number of C.B. with length 10 feet is 2 Assume depression a = 2 inches and approach flow depth is 0.5 feet From Figure 5 -10 ( attached) Q/L =0.4 where L is the length of C.B. Qt = 0.4* 14 *6 + 0.4* 21* 20+ 0.4* 10 *2 = 210 cfs The effective diverted flow is about 35 % of the total flow CATCH BASINS FLOW ANALYSIS Flow analysis of catch basins (C.B.) that discharge runoff into storm drain located along Madrid Street. Total number of C.B. with length 14 feet is 6 Total number of C.B. with length 21 feet is 20 Total number of C.B. with length 10 feet is 2 Assume depression a = 2 inches and approach flow depth is 0.5 feet From Figure 5 -10 ( attached) Q/L =0.4 where L is the length of C.B. Qt = 0.4 *14 *6 + 0.4* 21* 20+ 0.4 *10 *2 = 210 cfs The effective diverted flow is about 35 % of the total flow Flow analysis of catch basins (C.B.) that discharge runoff into storm drain located along Colima Street. Total number of C.B. with length 14 feet is 3 Total number of C.B. with length 21 feet is 30 Total number of C.B. with length 17 feet is 2 Total number of C.B. with length 10 feet is 2 Q/L =0.4 where L is the length of C.B. Qt = 725 * 0.4 = 290 cfs The effective diverted flow is about 50 % of the total flow Flow analysis of catch basins (C.B.) that discharge runoff into storm drain located along Colima Street. Total number of C.B. with length 14 feet is 3 Total number of C.B. with length 21 feet is 30 Total number of C.B. with length 17 feet is 2 Total number of C.B. with length 10 feet is 2 Q/L =0.4 where L is the length of C.B. Qt = 725 * 0.4 = 29Y cfs The effective diverted flow is about 50 % of the total flow Flow analysis of catch basins (C.B.) that discharge runoff into storm drain located along Nagoles Street. Total number of C.B. with length 16 feet is 18 Total number of C.B. with length 18 feet is 10 Total number of C.B. with length 24 feet is 2 Total number of C.B. with length 9 feet is 1 Q/L =0.4 where L is the length of C.B. Qt = 525 * 0.4 = 210 cfs The effective diverted flow is about 60 % of the total flow (B) PARTIAL INTER- CEPTION RATIO FOR INLETS OF LENGTH LESS THAN L 1. 0.05 5 -39 0.1 CAPACITY OF INLETS FIGURE 5-10 HEC -RAS GENERATED REPORT [ FOR FLOOD PLAIN MAP] [BETWEEN RODON] AND [EISENHOWER STREET] HEC -RAS Version 3.0.1 Mar 2001 U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center 609 Second Street, Suite D Davis, California 95616 -4687 (916) 756 -1104 X X XXXXXX XXXX XXXX XX XXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXX XXXX X XXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXX XXXX X X X X XXXXX Hec -Ras Output for Modified Discharges PROJECT DATA Project Title: Flood plain analy for the City La Quinta Project File : LaQuinta.prj Run Date and Time: 5/12/2004 11:48:02 AM Project in English units PLAN DATA Plan Title: plan for modified flow due to SD Plan File : m: \lLAQ010100 \engr \design \hydr \LaQuinta.p02 Geometry Title: Geom. data taken from HEC -2 hard copy Geometry File : m: \1LAQ010100 \engr \design \hydr \LaQuinta.g01 Flow Title Flow data was modified for SD extraction Flow File m: \lLAQ010100 \engr \design \hydr \LaQuinta.f02 Plan Summary Information: Number of: Cross Sections = 13 Mulitple Openings = 0 Culverts = 0 Inline Weirs = 0 Bridges = 0 Computational Information Water surface calculation tolerance = 0.01 Critical depth calculaton tolerance = 0.01 Maximum number of interations = 20 Maximum difference tolerance = 0.3 Flow tolerance factor = 0.001 Computation Options Critical depth computed only where necessary Conveyance Calculation Method: At breaks in n values only Friction Slope Method: Average Conveyance Computational Flow Regime: Subcritical Flow FLOW DATA Flow Title: Flow data was modified for SD extraction Flow File : m: \lLAQ010100 \engr \design \hydr \LaQuinta.f02 Flow Data (cfs) River Reach RS PF 1 Major Flow PathsReach 1 234.5 105 Major Flow PathsReach 1 227 110 Major Flow PathsReach 1 220 140 Major Flow PathsReach 1 209.5 270 Major Flow PathsReach 1 196.5 300 Major Flow PathsReach 1 181.2 300 Major Flow PathsReach 1 168.50 300 Major Flow PathsReach 1 148.5 320 Major Flow PathsReach 1 145.2 320 Major Flow PathsReach 1 138.8 320 Major Flow PathsReach 1 134.8 360 Major Flow PathsReach 1 121.70 360 Major Flow PathsReach 1 108.00 560 Boundary Conditions River Reach Profile Major Flow PathsReach 1 PF 1 GEOMETRY DATA Geometry Title: Geom. data taken from HEC -2 hard copy Geometry File m: \1LAQ010100 \engr \design \hydr \LaQuinta.g01 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 234.5 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 6 Upstream Downstream Normal S = .0026 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 0 70 75 69.3 210 69.4 345 69.9 450 69.5 550 70 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .018 0 .018 550 .018 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 0 550 750 750 750 .3 .4 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS:'227 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 3 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 0 59 140 58.2 350 59 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .018 0 .018 350 .018 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 0 350 700 700 700 .3 .4 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 220 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 6 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 0 51.3 100 51.2 235 51 300 50.2 390 51.6 540 51.9 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .018 100 .018 390 .018 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 100 390 1050 1050 1050 .3 .4 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 209.5 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 6 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 0 50 50 46.7 220 45.1 385 45 500 45.6 725 46.1 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .018 50 .018 725 .018 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 50 725 1300 1300 1300 .3 .4 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 196.5 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 10 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 0 45.9 150 40 290 43.9 390 40 600 40 850 43.2 1000 41 1230 40.3 1330 40.5 1870 44 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .025 0 .025 1870 .025 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 0 1870 1530 1530 1530 .3 .4 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 181.2 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 7 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 0 43 20 40 470 39.2 1110 39.3 1400 39.1 1700 39.5 2110 40.4 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .035 20 .035 2110 .035 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 20 2110 1250 1250 1250 .3 .4 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 168.50 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 7 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 0 45 240 40 670 39.3 1120 38.1 1400 38.6 1600 38.8 2100 40.3 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .035 240 .035 2100 .035 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right 240 2100 2000 2000 2000 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 148.5 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 7 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta 0 40 1100 39 2400 38.6 2500 3050 36 3200- 40 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .035 1100 .035 3200 .035 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right 1100 3200 300 300 300 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 145.2 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 4 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta 1600 36 1850 34.6 2780 36 3000 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 1600 .035 1600 .035 2780 .035 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right 1600 2780 640 640 640 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 138.8 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 5 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta 0 35 210 32.6 800 32 1250 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val Coeff Contr. Expan. .3 .4 Elev Sta Elev 35 2800 36 Coeff Contr. Expan. .3 .4 Elev 38 Coeff Contr. Expan. .3 .4 Elev Sta Elev 32 1270 34.2 0 .035 0 .035 1270 .035 Basile Sta: Left. Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 0 1270 400 400 400 .3 .4 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 134.8 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 5 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 2350 32.23 2650 30.7 3100 31 3400 30.6 3500 33 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 2350 .035 2350 .035 3500 .035 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 2350 3500 1310 1310 1310 .1 .3 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 121.70 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 6 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 950 31.9 1000 28.3 1450 28 1650 28.7 1700 28.7 1900 31 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 950 .035 950 .035 1900 .035 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 950 1900 1370 1370 1370 .3 .4 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 108.00 INPUT Description: The most D/S Section Station Elevation Data num= 6 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta. Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 250 28 290 26.5 1070 25.8 1400 25.2 2200 24.5 2550 26 Manning's n Values , num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 250 .035 250 .035 2550 .035 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 250 2550 0 0 0 .3 .4 SUMMARY OF MANNING'S N VALUES River:Major Flow Paths Reach River Sta. nl n2 n3 Reach 1 234.5 .018 .018 .018 Reach 1 227 .018 .018 .018 Reach 1 220 .018 .018 .018 Reach 1 209.5 .018 .018 .018 Reach 1 196.5 .025 .025 .025 Reach 1 181.2 .035 .035 .035 Reach 1 168.50 .035 .035 .035 Reach 1 148.5 .035 .035 .035 Reach 1 145.2 .035 .035 .035 Reach 1 138.8 .035 .035 .035 Reach 1 134.8 .035 .035 .035 Reach 1 121.70 .035 .035 .035 Reach 1 108.00 .035 .035 .035 SUMMARY OF REACH LENGTHS River: Major Flow Paths Reach River Sta. Left Channel Right Reach 1 234.5 750 75'0 750 Reach 1 227 700 700 700 Reach 1 220 1050 1050 1050 Reach 1 209.5 1300 1300 1300 Reach 1 196.5 1530 1530 1530 Reach 1 181.2 1250 1250 1250 Reach 1 168.50 2000 2000 2000 Reach 1 148.5 300 300 300 Reach 1 145.2 640 640 640 Reach 1 138.8 400 400 400 Reach 1 134.8 1310 1310 1310 Reach 1 121.70 1370 1370 1370 Reach 1 108.00 0 0 0 SUMMARY OF CONTRACTION AND EXPANSION COEFFICIENTS River: Major Flow Paths Reach River Sta. Contr. Expan. Reach 1 234.5 .3 .4 Reach 1 227 .3 .4 Reach 1 220 .3 .4 Reach 1 209.5 .3 .4 Reach 1 196.5 .3 .4 Reach 1 181.2 .3 .4 Reach 1 168.50 .3 4 Reach 1 148.5 .3 .4 Reach 1 145.2 .3 .4 Reach 1 138.8 .3 .4 Reach 1 134.8 .1 .3 Reach 1 121.70 .3 .4 Reach 1 108.00 .3 .4 Profile Output Table - Standard Table 1 Reach River Sta Q Total Min Ch E1 W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft /ft) (ft /s) (sq ft) (ft) Reach 1 234.5 105.00 69.30 69.59 69.59 69.68 0.008460 2.34 44.93 263.11 1.00 Reach 1 227 110.00 58.20 58.64 58.64 58.74 0.007775 2.64 41.69 190.99 1.00 Reach 1 220 140.00 50.20 51.10 50.94 51.18 0.003338 2.25 62.10 191.10 0.70 Reach 1 209.5 270.00 45.00 45.43 45.43 45.58 0.007107 3.15 85.78 282.03 1.01 Reach 1 196.5 300.00 40.00 40.70 40.72 0.001343 1.22 245.98 586.92 0.33 Reach 1 181.2 300.00 39.10 39.72 39.72 0.000382 0.46 658.67 1618.95 0.13 Reach 1 168.50 300.00 38.10 38.99 38.58 39.00 0.000977 0.77 388.33 874.33 0.20 Reach 1 148.5 320.00 35.00 36.19 35.75 36.21 0.002069 1.16 275.46 590.25 0.30 Reach 1 145.2 320.00 34.60 35.34 35.11 35.37 0.003977 1.38 231.62 624.86 0.40 Reach 1 138.8 320.00 32.00 32.37 32.23 32.40 0.005474 1.37 234.28 817.02 0.45 Reach 1 134.8 360.00 30.60 31.26 31.28 0.001759 0.99 365.45 888.14 0.27 Reach 1 121.70 360.00 28.00 28.67 28.39 28.69 0.002225 1.20 300.05 647.02 0.31 Reach 1 108.00 560.00 24.50 25.32 25.03 25.34 0.002602 1.23 453.57 1053.74 0.33 Profile Output Table - Standard Table 2 Reach River Sta E.G. Elev W.S. Elev (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Reach 1 234.5 69.68 69.59 Reach 1 227 58.74 58.64 Reach 1 220 51.18 51.10 Reach 1 209.5 45.58 45.43 Reach 1 196.5 40.72 40.70 Reach 1 181.2 39.72 39.72 Reach 1 168.50 39.00 38.99 Reach 1 148.5 36.21 36.19 Reach 1 145.2 35.37 35.34 Reach 1 138.8 32.40 32.37 Reach 1 134.8 31.28 31.26 Reach 1 121.70 28.69 28.67 Reach 1 108.00 25.34 25.32 Vel Head Frctn Loss C & E Loss (ft) (ft) (ft) 0.08 6.07 0.01 0.11 3.25 0.01 0.08 5.58 0.02 0.15 3.26 0.05 0.02 0.99 0.01 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.01 2.78 0.00 0.02 0.84 0.00 0.03 2.97 0.00 0.03 1.11 0.01 0.02 2.58 0.00 0.02 3.35 0.00 0.02 Q Left Q Channel (cfs) (cfs) 105.00 110.00 140.00 270.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 320.00 320.00 320.00 360.00 360.00 560.00 Q Right Top width (cfs) (ft) 263.11 190.99 191.10 282.03 586.92 1618.95 874.33 590.25 624.86 817.02 888.14 647.02 1053.74 Profile Output Table - Standard Table 2 Reach River Sta E.G. Elev W.S. Elev (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Reach 1 234.5 69.,68 69.59 Reach 1 227 58.74 58.64 Reach 1 220 51.18 51.10 Reach 1 209.5 45.58 45.43 Reach 1 196.5 40.72 40.70 Reach 1 181.2 39.72 39.72 Reach 1 168.50 39.00 38.99 Reach 1 148.5 36.21 36.19 Reach 1 145.2 35.37 35.34 Reach 1 138.8 32.40 32.37 Reach 1 134.8 31.28 31.26 Reach 1 121.70 28.69 28.67 Reach 1 108.00 25.34 25.32 Vel Head Frctn Loss C & E Loss (ft) (ft) (ft) 0.08 6.07 0.01 0.11 3.25 0.01 0.08 5.58 0.02 0.15 3.26 0.05 0.02 0.99 0.01 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.01 2.78 0.00 0.02 0.84 0.00 0.03 2.97 0.00 0.03 1.11 0.01 0.02 2.58 0.00 0.02 3.35 0.00 0.02 Q Left Q Channel (cfs) (cfs) 105.00 110.00 140.00 270.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 320.00 320.00 320.00 360.00 360.00 560.00 Q Right Top Width (cfs) (ft) 263.11 190.99 191.10 282.03 586.92 1618.95 874.33 590.25 624.86 817.02 888.14 647.02 1053.74 HEGRAS GENERATED REPORT [ FOR RE- PRODUCING HEC -2 RESULTS] HEC -RAS Version 3.0.1 Mar 2001 U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center 609 Second Street, Suite D Davis, California 95616 -4687 (916) 756 -1104 X X XXXXXX XXXX XXXX XX XXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXx XXXX X XXX XXXX xxxxxx XXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXX XXXX X X X X XXXXX Output for re- producing HEC -2 water surface elevation PROJECT DATA Project Title: Flood plain analy for the City La Quinta Project File : LaQuinta.prj Run Date and Time: 5/12/2004 5:14:18 PM Project in English units Project Description: PLAN DATA Plan Title: Plan to re- produce HEC -2 values Plan File : m: \lLAQ010100 \engr \design \hydr \LaQuinta.p04 Geometry Title: Geom. data taken from HEC -2 hard copy Geometry File m: \1LAQ010100 \engr \design \hydr \LaQuinta.g01 Flow Title Flow data taken from HEC2 (original) Flow File m: \1LAQ010100 \engr \design \hydr \LaQuinta.f03 Plan Summary Information: Number of: Cross Sections = 13 Mulitple Openings = 0 Culverts = 0 Inline Weirs = 0 Bridges = 0 Computational Information Water surface calculation tolerance = 0.01 Critical depth calculaton tolerance = 0.01 Maximum number of interations = 20 Maximum difference tolerance = 0.3 Flow tolerance factor = 0.001 Computation Options Critical depth computed only where necessary Conveyance Calculation Method: At breaks in n values only Friction Slope Method: Average Conveyance Computational Flow Regime: Subcritical Flow FLOW DATA Flow Title: Flow data taken from HEC2 (original) Flow File : m: \lLAQ010100 \engr \design \hydr \LaQuinta.f03 Flow Data (cfs) River Reach RS PF 1 Major Flow PathsReach 1 234.5 624 Major Flow PathsReach 1 227 627 Major Flow PathsReach 1 220 705 Major Flow PathsReach 1 209.5 841 Major Flow PathsReach 1 196.5 877 Major Flow PathsReach 1 181.2 1294 Major Flow PathsReach 1 168.50 1401 Major Flow PathsReach 1 148.5 1420 Major Flow PathsReach 1 145.2 1420 Major Flow PathsReach 1 138.8 1420 Major Flow PathsReach 1 134.8 1420 Major Flow PathsReach 1 121.70 1420 Major Flow PathsReach 1 108.00 1554 Boundary Conditions River Reach Profile Major Flow PathsReach 1 PF 1 GEOMETRY DATA Geometry Title: Geom. data taken from HEC -2 hard copy Geometry File : m: \1LAQ010100 \engr \design \hydr \LaQuinta.g01 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths Upstream Downstream Known WS = 25.4 REACH: Reach 1 RS: 234.5 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 6 Sta' Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta 0 70 75 69.3 210 69.4 345 550 70 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .018 0 .018 550 .018 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right 0 550 750 750 750 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 227 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 3 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 0 59 140 58.2 350 59 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .018 0 .018 350 .018 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right 0 350 700 700 700 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 220 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 6 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta 0 51.3 100 51.2 235 51 300 540 51.9 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .018 100 .018 390 .018 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right 100 390 1050 1050 1050 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 209.5 Elev Sta Elev 69.9 450 69.5 Coeff Contr. Expan. .3 .4 Coeff Contr. Expan. .3 .4 Elev Sta Elev 50.2 390 51.6 Coeff Contr. Expan.. .3 .4 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 6 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta 0 50 50 46.7 220 45.1 385 725 46.1 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .018 50 .018 725 .018 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right 50 725 1300 1300 1300 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 196.5 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 10 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta 0 45.9 150 40 290 43.9 390 850 43.2 1000 41 1230 40.3 1330 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .025 0 .025 1870 .025 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right 0 1870 1530 1530 1530 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 181.2 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 7 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta 0 43 20 40 470 39.2 1110 1700 39.5 2110 40.4 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .035 20 ..035 2110 .035 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right 20 2110 1250 1250 1250 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 168.50 INPUT Elev Sta Elev 45 500 45.6 Coeff Contr. Expan. .3 .4 Elev Sta Elev 40 600 40 40.5 1870 44 Coeff Contr. Expan. .3 .4 Elev Sta Elev 39.3 1400 39.1 Coeff Contr. Expan. .3 .4 Description: Station Elevation Data num= 7 Sta Slev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta 0 45 240 40 670 39.3 1120 1600 38.8 2100 40.3 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .035 240 .035 2100 .035 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right 240 2100 2000 2000 2000 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 148.5 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 7 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta 0 40 1100 39 2400 38.6 2500 3050 36 3200 40 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .035 1100 .035 3200 .035 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right 1100 3200 300 300 300 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 145.2 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 4 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta 1600 36 1850 34.6 2780 36 3000 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 1600 .035 1600 .035 2780 .035 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right 1600 2780 640 640 640 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 138.8 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 5 Elev Sta Elev 38.1 1400 38.6 Coeff Contr. Expan. .3 .4 Elev Sta Elev 35 2800 36 Coeff Contr. Expan. .3 .4 Elev 38 Coeff Contr. Expan. .3 .4 1_ . Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Blev 0 35 210 32.6 800 32 1250 32 1270 34.2 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .035 0 .035 1270 .035 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 0 1270 400 400 400 .3 .4 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 134.8 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 5 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 2350 32.23 2650 30.7 3100 31 3400 30.6 3500 33 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 2350 .035 2350 .035 3500 .035 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 2350 3500 1310 1310 1310 .1 .3 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 121.70 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 6 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 950 31.9 1000 28.3 1450 28 1650 28.7 1700 28.7 1900 31 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 950 .035 950 .035 1900 .035 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 950 1900 1370 1370 1370 .3 .4 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 108.00 INPUT Description: The most D/S Section Station Elevation Data num= 6 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 250 28 290 26.5 1070 25.8 1400 25.2 2200 24.5 2550 26 Manning's n Values . Sta n Val Sta 250 .035 250 Bank Sta: Left Right 250 2550 num= 3 n Val Sta n Val .035 2550 .035 Lengths: Left Channel 0 0 SUMMARY OF MANNING'S N VALUES River:Major Flow Paths Reach River Sta Reach 1 234.5 Reach 1 227 Reach 1 220 Reach 1 209.5 Reach 1 196.5 Reach 1 181.2 Reach 1 168.50 Reach 1 148.5 Reach 1 145.2 Reach 1 138.8 Reach 1 134.8 Reach 1 121.70 Reach 1 108.00 SUMMARY OF REACH LENGTHS River: Major Flow Paths Reach River Sta Reach 1 234.5 Reach 1 227 Reach 1 220 Reach 1 209.5 Reach 1 196.5 Reach 1 181.2 Reach 1 168.50 Reach 1 148.5 Reach 1 145.2 Reach 1 138.8 Reach 1 134.8 Reach 1 121.70 Reach 1 108.00 nl Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 0 .3 .4 n2 n3 .018 .018 .018 .018 .018 .018 .018 .018 .018 .018 .018 .018 .025 .025 .025 .035 .035 .035 .035 .035 .035 .035 .035 .035 .035 .035 .035 .035 .035 .035 .035 .035 .035 .035 .035 .035 .035 .035 .035 Left Channel Right 750 750 750 700 700 700 1050 1050 1050 1300 1300 1300 1530 1530 1530 1250 1250 1250 2000 2000 2000 300 300 300 640 640 640 400 400 400 1310 1310 1310 1370 1370 1370 0 0 0 SUMMARY OF CONTRACTION AND EXPANSION COEFFICIENTS River: Major Flow Paths Reach River Sta. Contr. Expan. Reach 1 234.5 .3 .4 Reach 1 227 .3 .4 Reach 1 220 .3 .4 Reach 1 209.5 .3 .4 Reach 1 196.5 .3 .4 Reach 1 181.2 .3 .4 Reach 1 168.50 .3 .4 Reach 1 148.5 .3 .4 Reach 1 145.2 .3 .4 Reach 1 138.8 .3 .4 Reach 1 134.8 .1 .3 Reach 1 121.70 .3 .4 Reach 1 108.00 .3 .4 Profile Output Table - Standard Table 1 Reach (sq ft) River Sta Q Total Min Ch E1 W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Froude # Chl 189.12 383.12 3.97 211.63 438.51 1.66 526.83 818.31 0.69 1872.95 (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft /ft) Reach 1 234.5 624.00 69.30 69.94 69.94 70.12 0.006746 1.00 Reach 1 227 627.00 58.20 59.06 59.06 59.30 0.006367 1.02 Reach 1 220 705.00 50.20 51.49 51.47 51.72 0.004716 0.91 Reach 1 209.5 841.00 45.00 45.79 45.79 46.03 0.006122 1.01 Reach 1 196.5 877.00 40.00 41.09 41.14 0.001411 0.37 Reach 1 181.2 1294.00 39.10 40.36 40.37 0.000303 0.13 Reach 1 168.50 1401.00 38.10 39.70 39.72 0.000964 0.22 Reach 1 148.5 1420.00 35.00 36.86 36.28 36.93 0.002163 0.35 Reach 1 145.2 1420.00 34.60 35.78 35.53 35.87 0.006566 0.56. Reach 1 138.8 1420.00 32.00 32.87 32.93 0.003365 0.41 . Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width (ft /s) (sq ft) (ft) 3.36 185.64 531.76 3.91 160.26 350.00 3.95 189.12 383.12 3.97 211.63 438.51 1.66 526.83 818.31 0.69 1872.95 2073.56 1.16 1211.67 1475.41 2.08 683.71 633.79 2.42 586.77 994.55 1.92 738.94 1071.94 Reach 1 134.8 1420.00 30.60 31.70 31.28 31.75 0.002614 0.37 Reach 1 121.70 1420.00 28.00 29.47 20.75 29.51 0.001197 0.26 Reach 1 108.00 1554.00 24.50 25.40 25.28 25.53 0.011750 0.72 Profile Output Table - Standard Table 2 Reach River Sta E.G. Elev W.S. Elev Vel Head Frctn Loss C & E Loss 545.50 1120.00 (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Reach 1 234.5 70.12 69.94 0.18 4.91 0.02 Reach 1 227 59.30 59.06 0.24 3.78 0.00 Reach 1 220 51.72 51.49 0.23 5.68 0.00 Reach 1 209.5 46.03 45.79 0.25 3.30 0.08 Reach 1 196.5 41.14 41.09 0.04 0.76 0.01 Reach 1 181.2 40.37 40.36 0.01 0.64 0.00 Reach 1 168.50 39.72 39.70 0.02 2.78 0.01 Reach 1 148.5 36.93 36.86 0.07 1.05 0.01 Reach 1 145.2 35.87 35.78 0.09 2.93 0.01 Reach 1 138.8 32.93 32.87 0.06 1.18 0.00 Reach 1 134.8 31.75 31.70 0.05 .2.23 0.00 Reach 1 121.70 29.51 29.47 0.04 3.95 0.03 Reach 1 108.00 25.53 25.40 0.13 1.84 772.45 991.12 1.60 .888.56 782.79 2.85 545.50 1120.00 Q Left Q Channel Q Right Top Width (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) 624.00 531.76 627.00 350.00 53.56 651.44 3'83.12 841.00 438.51 877.00 818.31 0.10 1293.90 2073.56 1401.00 1475.41 1420.00 633.79 1420.00 994.55 1420.00 1071.94 1420.00 991.12 1420.00 782.79 1554.00 1120.00 Previous Effective Hydrology And HEC -2 Analysis �-�-&; e i, s k- Fc -2 r e 1 WATER SURFACE PROFILES * VERSION OF NOVEMBER 1976 * UPDATED APRIL.1980 * HP -UX VERSION JUNE 1985 * Mon Jun it 14:31:10 PDT 1990 AM441-40A, U . S . kRMY C 711#24 THE HYDROLO . * '609 SECOND * DAVIS, CALI *• (916) 440 -2 * * * * * * * * * * * * ** X X XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX X X X X X X X X X X. X X XXXXXXX XXXX X XXXXX XXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X• X XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX / i (C lao - �y VIRGINIA HEC2 RELEASE DATED NOV 76 UPDATED APRI 1980. ERROR CORR - 01,02,03,04 MODIFICATION - 50,51,52,53,54 '1 East la quinta flood insurance study- case.6x (center /main channel) '2 Improved condition.;effective ch width in street area is reduced to half '3 100 -year flood'event,topo updated on 9- 30- 88;Peak Q revised on 6 -5 -90 '1 ICHECK INQ NINV IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS Q .0. 0. 0. 0. .000000 .00 1.5 .1554,,. '2 NPROF IPLOT PRFVS XSECV XSECH FN ALLDC IBW -1.000 .000 - 1..000 .000 .000 .000 - 1..000 .000 I''C .015 .035 .035 .300 .400 .000 .000 :1 108.000 R 28..000 •R 0-0- 0 :2 1420.000 WSEL FQ 25.400 :000 CHNIM ITRACE .000 .000 .000 .00 6.000 250 0-QD 2550.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 '.000 2.6..500 290.000. 25.800 1070.000 25.200 1400_.000. ^ 245Q 2550.000 .000 .000 .0.00 .000 .000 .000 .00 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 121.700 6.000 3.1.900 950.000 3. 1. 0 _ .030 .030 1420.000 .000 950.000 1900.000 28.300 1000.000. .000 .000 .030 .000 .000 .000 1 134.800 5.000 2350.000 ,3500.000 R 32.230 2350.000 30.700 2650.000 1370.000 1370.000 28.000 1450.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ..000 .000 1310.000 1310.000 31:000 3100.000 1370.000 .000 28.700 160 5 00 0 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 1310.000 .000 .30.600 3400.000 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 -33.00 V 1 138.800 5.000 .000 127.0.000 400.000 400.000 400.000 .000 .00 GR .315.0 00 .000 32.60.0 21.0.000 32.000 800.000 32.000 1250.000 3'4.20 X1 145.200 4.000 1600.000 2780.000 640.000 640.000 640.000 .000 .00 GR 36.000 1600.000 34:600 1850.000' 36.000 2780.000 38.000 3000.000 .00 X2 1420.000 .000 .000 .000 ..000 .000 .000 .000 .00 X1 148.500 7.000 1 IQ0..000 12U.000 300.000 300.000 300.000 .000 .00 GR 40.000 .000 39.000 1100.000 38.600 2400.000 35.000 2500.000 36.00 GR 36.000 3050_.000 _ 40.000 3200..000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 X2 1401.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 X1 168.500. 7.000 240.000 2100.000 2000.000 2000..000 2000.000 .000 .00 GR 45.000 .000 40.000 240.000 39.300 670.000 38.100 1120.000 3_8.60 GR 3 8 .. S-QDL 1600.000 40.300 2100.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 X2 1294.000- .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 X1 181.200 7.000 20.000 2110.000 1250.000 .1250.000 1250.000 .000 .00 3R 43.000 .000 40.000 20.000 39..200 470.000 39.300 1110.000 39.10 GR 39.500 700.000 40.400 2110.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 00 X2 877.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 NC .-025 .025 .025 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00. Xi 196.500 10.000 .000 1870.000 1530.000 1530.000 1530.000 .000 .00 GR 45:900 .000 40.000 150.000 43:900 290.000 40.0009,0..000 40 00 1R 43.200 85 41.000 1000.000 40.300 1230.000 40.500 1330.000 0 0 -- K2 841.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 vC .018 .018 .018 .000 .000 .000 .000 ..000 .00 Kl 209.500 6.000 50.000 725.000 1300.000 1300.000 1300.000 .000 .00 3R 50.000 .000 46.700 50.000 45.100 220.000 45.000 385.000 4,5.60 3R 00 725.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .'00 'K2 705.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 K1 220.000 6.000 100.000 322- 0-OAO, 1090.000. 1050.000 1050.000 .000 .00 3R 51.300 .000 51.2.00 100.000 51.000 235.000 50.200 300.000 51.60 3R 51..900 540.000 .000 .00.0 .000 .000 .000 .000 �.00 K2 627.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 Ki 227'.000 3.000 .0.00 350.000 700.000 700.000 700.000 .000 .00 3R 59.000 .000 58.200 140.000 59.000 350.000 .000 .000 .00 K2 624.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 K1'. 234.500 6.000 .000 550.000 750.000 750.000 75.0.000 .000 .00 3R 70.000 .000 69.300 75.000 69.400 210.000 69.900 .3__45.000 69.50 3R 70.000 550.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 0 0 0 I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,o 0 0 h .W, SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL OLOSS BANK.ELEV Q QLOB QCH QROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TWA LEFT /RIGHT TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC. ICONT CORAR. TOPWID ENDST *PROF 1 CRITICAL DEPTH TO BE CALCULATED AT ALL CROSS SECTIONS CCHV= .300 CEHV= ..400 *SECNO 108.000 108.00 .90 25.40 25.38 25.40 25.61 .21 .00 .00 78.00 1554. 0. 1554. 0. 0. 420. 0. 0. 0. 26.00 .00 .00 3.70 .00 .035 .035 .035 .000 24.50 1290.00 .022323 0. 0. 0. 0 4 0 .00 940.00 2230.00 *SECNO 121.700 121.70 1.47 29.47 28.76 .00 29.50 .03 3.83 .05 31.90 1420. 0. 1420. 0. 0. 1002. 0. 22. 29. 31.00 .27 .00 1.42 .00 .035 .035 .035 .035 28.00 98.3.73 .000961 1370. 1370. 1370. 5 15 0 .00 896.33 1880._06. *SECNO 134.800 134.80 .97 31.57 31.28 .00 31.64 .07 2.12 .02 32.23 1420. 0. 1420. 0. 0. 648. 0. 47. 57. 33.00 .43 .00 2.19 .00 .030 .030 .030' .033 30.60 2479.51 .003304 1310. 1310. 131.0. 4 14 0, .00 960.89 3440.40 *SECNO 138.800 138.80 .83 32.83 32.55 .00 32.90 .06 1.25 .00 35.00 1420. 0. 1420. 0. 0. 700. 0. 53. 66. 34.20 .49 .00 2.03 .00 .030 .030 .030 .032 32.00 189.19 .002947 400. 400. 400. 3 11 0 .00 1068.43 1257.62 *SECNO 145.200 145.20 1.08 35.68 35.53 .00 35.81 .13 2.89 .03 36.00 1420. 0. 1420. 0. 0. 491. 0. 62. 81. 36.0.0 :55 .00 2.89 .00 .'007753 640. 640. 640: kSECNO 148.500 4 11 0 148.50 1.82 36.82 36.32 1420. 0. 1420. 0. .59 .00 2.24 .00 .002040 300. 300. 300. .030 .030 .030 4 8 0 .00 36.89 .08 0. 63.3. 0. .030 .030 .030 4 11 0 .032 34.60 1657.23 .00 909.88 2567.11 1.07 .02 39.00 66. 86. 40.00 .032 35.00 2449.50 .00 631.17 3080.67 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL OLOSS BANK ELEV Q . QLOB QCH QROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TWA LEFT /RIGHT TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST *SECNO 168.500 168.50 - 1.53 39.63 39.02 .00 39.66 .03 2.75 .02 40.00 1401. 0. 1401. 0. 0. 1079. ,0: 105. 133. 40.30 1.02 .00 1.30 .00 .030 .030 .030 ._031 38.10 464.63 .000986 2000. 2000. 2000. 5 8 0 .00 1413.47 1878.11 *SECNO 181.200 181.20 - 1.19 40.29 39.57 .00 40.30 .01 .63 .01 40.00 1294. 0. 1294. 0. 0. 1710. 0. 145. 182. 40.40 1.47 .23 .76 .00 .030 .030 .030 .031 39.10 18.11 .000295 1250. 1250. 1250. 2 17 0 .00 2038.85 2056.96 *SECNO 196.500 3265 DIVIDED FLOW 196.50 .98 40.98 40.55 .00 41.02 .04 .71 .01 45.90 877. 0. 877. 0. 0. 565. 0. 185. 234. 44.00 1.75 .00 1.55 .00 .025 .025 .025 .030 40.00 124.98 .001225 1530. 1530. 1530. 2- 14 0 .00 875.76 1404.68 *SECNO 209.500 7185 MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY 3720 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED 209.50 .68 45.68 45.68 .00 45.90 .22 3.03 .07 '46.70 841. 0. 841. 0. 0. 221. 0. 197. 254. 46.10 1.84 .00 3.81 .00 .018 .018 .018 .028 45.00 '158.80 .006356 1300. - 1300. 1300. 0 19 0 .00 502.60 661.40 *SECNO 220.000 3280 CROSS SECTION 220.00 EXTENDED .19 FEET 220. 00 1.28 51.48 .51.47 .00 51.71 .23 5.81 .00 51.20 705. 53. 652. 0. 24. 165. 0. 202. 265. 51.60 1.92 2.20 3.96 .00 .018 .018 .018 .027 50.20 .00 .004746 1050. 1050. 1050. 2 17 0 .00 383.05 383.05 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG Q QLOB QCH QROB ALOB ACH TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC rSECNO 227.000 1280 CROSS SECTION 227.00 EXTENDED .06 FEET '185 MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY ;720 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED 227.00 .86 59.06 59.06 .00 59.30 627. 0. 627. 0. 0. 160. 1.97 .00 3.91 .00 .018 .018 .006369 700. 700. 700. 0 23 ' SECNO 234.500 '185 MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY 720 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED 234.50 .64 69.9:4 69.94 .00 70.11 624. 0. 624'. 0. 0. 184. 2.03 .00 3..39 .00 .018 .018 .006974. 750. 750. 750. 0 19 I HV HL OLOSS BANK ELEV AROB VOL TWA LEFT /RIGHT XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST .18 5.00 .02 70.00 .24 3.80 .00 59.00 0. 205. 271. 59.00 .018 .027 58.20 .00 0 .00 350.00 350.00 .18 5.00 .02 70.00 0. 208. 278. 70.00 .018 .026 69.30_ 6.95 0 .00 533.97 540.92 HEC2 RELEASE DATED NOV 76 UPDATED APRI 1980 ERROR CORR - 01,02,03,04 MODIFICATION - 50,51,52,53,54 TOTE- ASTERISK ( *) AT LEFT OF CROSS - SECTION NUMBER INDICATES M SSAGE.IN SUMMARY OF ERRORS LIST .00 -year flood event,top UMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE 150 SECNO XLCH ELTRD ELLC ELMIN Q CWSEL CRIWS EG 10K *S 108.000 .00 .00 .00 24.50 1554.00 25.40 25.38 25.61 223.23 121.700 1370.00 .00 .00 28.00 1420.00 29.47 28.76 29.50 9.61 134.800 1310.00 .00 .00 30.60 1420.00 31.57 31.28 31.64 33.04 138.800 400.00 .00 .00 32.00 1420.00 32.83 32.55 32.90 29.47 145.200 640.00 .00 .00 34.60 142.0.00 35.68 35.53 35.81 77.53 148.500 300.00 .00 ..00 35.00 1420.00 36.82 36.32 36.89 20.40 168.500 2000.00 .00 .00 38.10 1401.00 39.63 39.02 39.66 9.86 181.200 1250.00 .00 .00 39.10 1294.00 40.29 39.57 40.30 2.95 J 196.500 1530.00 .00 .00 40.00 877.00 40.98 40.55 41.02 12.25 209.500 1300.00 .00 .00 45.00 841.00 45.68 45.68 45.90 63.56 220.000 1050.00 .00 .00 50.20 705.00 51.48 51.47 51.71 47.46 227.000 700.00 .00 .00 58.20 627.00 59.06 59.06 59.30 63.69 � 234.500 750.00 .00 .00 69.30 624.00 69.94 69.94 70.11 69.74 00 -year flood event,top UMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE 150 SECNO Q CWSEL DIFWSP DIFWSX DIFKWS TOPWID XLCH 108.000 1554.00 25.40 .00 .00 .00 940.00 .00 121.700 1420.00 29.47 .00 4.07 .00 896.33 1370.00 134.800 1420.00 31.57 .00 2.10 .00 960.89 1310.00 138.800 1420.00 32.83 .00 1.26 .00 1068.43 400.00 145.200 1420.00 35.68 .00 2.85 .00 909.88 640.00 1.48.500 1420.00 36.82 .00 1.14 .00 631.17 300.00 168.500 1401.00 39.63 .00 2.82 .00 1413.47 2000.00 181.200 1294.00 40.29 ..00 .65 .00 2038.85 1250.00 196.500 877.00 40.98 ..00 .70 .00 875.76 1530.00 209.500 841.00 45.68 .00 4.69 .00 502.60 1300.00 220.000 705.00 51.48 .00 5.81 .00 383.05 1050.00 227.000 627.00 59.06 .00 7.57 .00 350.00 700.00 234.500 624.00 69.94 .00 10.88 .00 53.3.97 750.00 0 r SUMMARY OF ERRORS AUTION SECNO= 209.500 PROFILE= 1 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED AUTION SECNO= 209.500 PROFILE= 1 MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY AUTION SECNO= 227.000 PROFILE= 1 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED AUTION SECNO= 227.000 PROFILE= 1 MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY ' AUTION SECNO= 234.500 PROFILE= 1 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED AUTION SECNO= 234.500 PROFILE= 1 MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY ormal termination of program execution u A'TTACHMENT A 100-Year Flood Discharge and 500-Year Flood Discharge �` �` ^•�� u\������1/ Ooz \'� � �� j� /�1,��_ . %,'-:��-- c%` /� vim. �`�� —�� // / /' -' _ `�•. –'t,. � ;: =_'= -: � MONO V i3� •� ENro � • ,i .' , !T •a � ElSENwpwEp 7— � �= •:tip i � � i J sn "� •J JD ♦ ♦ c • ~... � � . fell r _ � r '�-= ,� ��- ...fir -f � �: j,� '� • � _ f, / . 1� �••.... .. ;�; sue.. _ � ♦ .. __ - .. o ro on N j � .Casa. - � •� 4 ... • ,..fix. . 4, Cs CO q j A . � so �• op� �• .................... ........ ......a... ............... <-... �: - �'P-• � _ c+ : '- _ _ cap ± �.� -... 140a - Y,00- el TR-55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD Project : La Quinta -Cl User: ora VERSION 1.11 Date: 06-11-90 County : State: CA Checked: Date: Subtitle: Flood Insurance Study Data: Drainage Area .46 Sq Mi o Runoff Curve Number 82 time of Concentration: 0.63 Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number 1 -------------------- -- ------ .Frequency (yrs) 100 24-Hr Rainfall (in) 4o8 Ia/P Ratio 0.09 Used 0.10 Runoff (in) 2o90 Unit Peak Discharge 468 (cfs/sqmi/in) Pond and Swamp Factor 1..00 6.0tPonds Used ------- — ---------- Peak Discharge (qfs) 624-4 =Rxz2=:0Mx=zz= ALEXCANDRP,, /DD- yr, e2 TR -55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD Project : La Quinta -c? User: ora County : State: CA Checked: Subtitle: Flood Insurance Study Data: Drainage Area .49 Sq Mi -Runoff Curve Number 82 Time of Concentration: 0.70 Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area NONE- Storm Number Frequency (yrs) 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) Ia /P Ratio Used Runoff (in) Unit Peak Discharge (cfs /sgmi /in) Pond and Swamp Factor '0.0$ Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 100 4.8 0.09 0.10 2.90 441 1.00 627 VERSION 1.11 Date: 06 -11 -90 Date: �3 TR -55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1.11 Project : La Quinta - c3 User: ora Date: 06 -11 -90 County : State: CA Checked: Date: Subtitle: Flood Insurance Study Data: Drainage Area .56 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 82 Time of Concentration: 0.72 Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number --------------- - - - - -= Frequency (yrs) 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) Ia /P Ratio Used Runoff (in).: Unit Peak Discharge (cfs /sgmi /in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 100 4.8 0.09 0.10 2.90 434 1.00 705 /00 - V4". C¢ TR -55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD Project La Quinta - c4 User: Zora County State: CA Checked: Subtitle: Flood Insurance Study Data: Drainage Area .72 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 82 Time of Concentration: 0.82 Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number Frequency (yrs) 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) Ia /P Ratio Used Runoff (in) Unit Peak'Discharge (cfs /sgmi /in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (Cfs) 1 100 4.8 0.09 0.10 2.90 403 1.00 841 VERSION 1.11 Date: 06 -11 -90 Date: - D /OCR- yr. e5 TR -55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD Project : La Quinta - c5- User: Zora County : State: CA Checked: Subtitle: Flood Insurance Study Data: Drainage Area .82 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 82 Time of Concentration: 0.95 Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number Frequency (yrs) 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) Ia /P Ratio Used - Runoff (in) Unit Peak Discharge (cfs /sgmi /in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge. (cfs). 1 100 4.8 0.09 0.10 2.90 369 1.00 877 VERSION 1.11 Date: 06 -11 -90 Date: TR -55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD Project La Quinta - C 6 User: Zora County State: CA Checked: Subtitle: Flood Insurance Study Data: Drainage Area 1.51 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 82 Time of Concentration: 1.35 Hours Rainfall Type . II Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number Frequency (yrs) 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) Ia /P Ratio Used Runoff (in) Unit Peak Discharge (cfs /sgmi /in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs). 1 100 4.8 0.09 0.10 2.90 295 1.00 1294 VERSION 1.11 Date: 06 -11 -90 Date: /00 - yr. c7 TR -55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD Project : La Quinta - -7 User: Zora County State: CA Checked: Subtitle: Flood Insurance Study Data: Drainage Area' 1.91 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 82 Time of Concentration: 1.70 Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm-Number ----------------- - - - - -' Frequency (yrs) 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) Ia /P Ratio Used Runoff (in) Unit Peak - Discharge (cfs /sgmi /in) Pond and Swamp Factor.' 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 100 4.8 0.09 0.10 2.90. 253 1.00 1401 VERSION 1.11 Date: 06 -11 -90 Date: A9.0 - y' . M TR -55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD Project : La Quinta Cg User: Zora County State: CA Checked: Subtitle: Flood Insurance Study Data: Drainage Area 2.17 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 82 Time of Concentration: 2.00 Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number 1 ---------------= - - - - -- - - - - -- Frequency (yrs) 100 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) 4.8 Ia /P Ratio 0.09 Used 0.10 Runoff.(in), 2490 Unit Peak Discharge 226 (cfs /sqmi / in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 1.00 1420 VERSION 1.11 Date: 06 -11 -90 Date: C9 TR -55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD. Project : La Quinta — Ca . User • Zora County State: CA Checked: Subtitle: Flood Insurance Study Data: Drainage Area 2.23 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 82 Time of Concentration: 2.15 Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number Frequency (yrs) 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) Ia /P Ratio Used 1 100 4.8 0.09 0.10 Runoff (in) 2.90 Unit Peak Discharge 214 (cfs /sgmi /in) Pond and Swamp Factor 1.00 0.0% Ponds Used ------------ - - - - -- - - - - -- Peak Discharge (cfs) '1385 � Fr�r Cv�sevvar� ism 9 _ cy _ c8 A,,k }1,e C - 2 -ter . . uat 14zo els .VERSION 1.11 Date: 06 -11 -90 Date: C -/v TR -55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD Project : La Quinta - c f o User • Zora County State: CA Checked: Subtitle: Flood Insurance Study Data: Drainage Area Runoff Curve Number Time of Concentration: Rainfall Type Pond and Swamp Area Storm Number 1 ---------------- - - - - -- - - - - -- Prequency (yrs) 100 24- Hr'Rainfall (in) 4.8 Ia /'P Ratio 0.09 Used Runoff (in) Unit Peak Discharge . (cfs /sgmi /in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 0.10 2.90 201 1.00 1321 �10 2'.27 ' Sq Mi 82 - 2.35 Hours II . NONE e,M Siwvx,4.r0'" Glut -G /42U c.Ar Vc,o � t h+`r,-C - 2 7um . VERSION 1.11 Date: 06 -11 -90 Date: TR -55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE. METHOD Project : La Quinta - C l i User: Zora County State: CA Checked: Subtitle: Flood Insurance Study Data: Drainage Area. 2.77 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 82 Time of Concentration: 2.47 .Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number Frequency (yrs) 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) Ia /P Ratio Used Runoff (in) Unit Peak Discharge (cfs /sgmi /in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 100 4.8 0.09 0.10- 2.90 193 1.00 1554 VERSION 1.11 Date: 06 -11 -90 Date: \ :. � � \ \\� \�\ ƒ 1� �� � . . � � � . . � , y� � r' r P.O. Box 1504 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92247 -1504' 78 -495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 June 30, 2005 LOMA Depot 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 600 Alexandria,' VA 22304 Attn: LOMA Manager Subject: 'Revised Certified Map and Annotated FIRM Panel Case No. 04- 09 -1145P Community: City.of La Quinta, CA Community No.: 060709 - (7 60) 777 -7000 FAX (760) 777 -7101 In our letter dated August 9, 2004, we had submitted, at FEMA's request, a certified map with the datum used to prepare the work map, and a copy of the current effective FIRM panel (060709 0005 B) annotated to reflect the revised floodplain boundary delineations. The certified map submitted at that time incorrectly showed an area designated Zone AO. This area should have been designated as Zone X. Enclosed is a revised certified map and.. annotated FIRM panel that correctly show the designations according to the hydraulic models that have been submitted previously. Please contact our engineers Soorgul Wardak with Psomas at 714 -751 -7373 or Doug Hamilton with Exponent at 949 - 341 -6016 with any technical questions. Sincerely, d imoth tR asso , E. Public Works Direc or /City Engineer c: Soorgul Wardak Psomas jDoug Hamilton, Exponent JOINS PANEL 0010 GUAYMA!l AVE IDA _NAR NJA V NIDA LA JARITA APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 1000 0' 1000 t��lllll�I�llllll NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM HIM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP CITY OF ` LA QUINTA, .CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE COUNTY ZONE x PANEL 5 OF 10 1 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED) 52 PANEL LOCATION COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER 060709 0005 B ii MAP REVISED: AUGUST 19, 1991 Federal Emergency Management Agency l This is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. It was extracted using F-MIT On -Line. This map does not reflect changes or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the title dock. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www.msc.fema.nov j, M, ktl - PA lZM. Q. All 11 zEl r-P dm -'A. ,Kc , , W r .., &W,J- 12 P.O. Boa 1504 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92247 -1504 78 -495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 March 31, 2005 LOMA Depot 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 600 Alexandria, VA 22304 Attn: LOMA Manager (760) 777 -17000 i FAX (760) 777 -7101 Subject: Request for extension to reply to LOMA request for copies of notification letters to property owners shown in Zone AO Case No. 04- 09 -1145P Community: City of La Quinta, CA Community No.: 060709 This is our request for an extension of the April 7 deadline to submit copies of notification letters to property owners shown in Zone AO in the above - referenced case. We are currently gathering more detailed information regarding the elevations of the lots in question to determine if they should still be considered as part of Zone AO. We are requesting a 90 -day extension, which would make the new deadline July 6, 2005. { Please contact our engineers Soorgul Wardak with Psomas at 714 - 751 -7373 or Doug Hamilton with Exponent at 949 - 341 -6016 with any technical questions. Sincdrelv. Timothy R IDir P.E. Public Worr /City Engineer c: Soorgul Wardak, Psomas Doug Hamilton, Exponent P wm_,; P.O'. Box 1504 78 -495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 August 9, 2004 LOMA Depot 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 600 Alexandria, VA 22304 Re: Case No.: 04- 09 -1155P Community: City of La Quinta, CA Community No.: 060709 (7 60) 777 -7000 FAX (760) 7.77 -7101 Enclosed are the supplemental items requested in your letter of June 9, 2004. The enclosure includes: 1. A diskette containing input and out put files for all submitted hydraulic models 2. A certified map by a licensed surveyor with the datum used to prepare the work map. 3. A copy of the current effective FIRM panes annotated to reflect the revised. floodplain boundary delineations. Please contact our engineers Soorgul Wardak with Psomas at 714- 751 -7373 or Doug Hamilton with Exponent at 949 -341 -6016 with any technical questions. Sincerely, Timothy R. Jonasson, P.E. Public Works Director /City Engineer c: Soorgul Wardak, Psomas Doug Hamilton, Exponent 1� I 2 ' I I TYaininr� Dike I I I I ZONE AVENIDA ALVARADO CALLE vWCnTdp Z+ (ZONE A I / CALL" .�ti Qaaaa I LILE aS 0'A q Ieea.�k aaoao w Channel ,�_ 100 YEAR FLOOD p Eh A O CONTAINED) Or EZ M CHANNEL I I'r'q ZONE A _ J$ 'AV�INI UL I COn� NEZUMAAI, LE II �nnrr mimimimi almiml. .1 1 P 2 O Q i ZONE X //? a U/l x f RM 109 CALLE 1 MAZATLAN lii�lI APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 1000 0 1000 m I KEY TO STREETS 1 CALLE PORTU NA Z CALLE CADIZ 1L' ED ] CALLE BARCE LONA 4 CALLE GU ATEMALA iN 5 CALLE HUE NEME CALLE ILO) LO CALLEJACUMBA J J'� 8 CALLE KALMIA "' 100 YEAR FLOOD `-' CONTAINED INCONDUIT EA..' . mmi NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM ❑ FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP —CALLE GVAYMAJ CITY OF �NARINJA LA QUINTA, VENIIOA : .CALIFORNIA JARITA RIVERSIDE COUNTY F W W F a ZONE X PANEL 5 OF 10 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED) e 0 q. j 52 j PANEL LOCATION i COMMUNITY -PANEL NUMBER 060709 0005 B it MAP REVISED: AUGUST 19, 1991 6SF.dmal Emergency MBnagement.Agency TNa is an aaa1J COPT a a Oa a TW eeo o raorencee ame h n .ra meectm wiry F-MIT h,I J . 1Ne fPP eew —0-1 11 a to W caameas wnlcn 1 new tmn maee sut—t NI m tP R Bate en the 4tle tlack. Fa the lacer PIOEYCI laormetion eCaa NNOntl FloAe Imurence a an 4� e� e*� r� e4 a fi A � JJiim an 4� e� e*� N. r= W E S 0 500 1 000 2.000 Feet r� e4 a fi N. r= W E S 0 500 1 000 2.000 Feet • „�� � �� � � jig �'y � � � � � �.r � 3 Legend APPROXIMATE 4 STREET FLOODING 1 STREET - t PARCEL a bE CITY BOUNDARY �... �. CONTOUR w• "sy5„ 20 Foot Intervals 100 Foot Intervaas a fi 4� • „�� � �� � � jig �'y � � � � � �.r � 3 Legend APPROXIMATE 4 STREET FLOODING 1 STREET - t PARCEL a bE CITY BOUNDARY �... �. CONTOUR w• "sy5„ 20 Foot Intervals 100 Foot Intervaas May 5, 2004 LOMA Depot 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 600 Alexandria, VA 22304 Attn: LOMA Manager - Subject: LOMA Request for the City of La Quinta Based on More Accurate Hydrologic Data. Based on our review of the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map for the.City of La Quinta, we note that a large part of the City is mapped as Zone A and is based on out of date hydrology and topography. We submit the attached request to revise the FIRM based on more up to date data. The necessary forms and backup material are attached. Because this submittal is based on the submission of more accurate data, it is exempt from review fees. Please contact our engineers Soorgul Wardak with Psomas and Associates at 714 - 751 -7373 or Doug Hamilton with Exponent at 949 - 341 -6016 with any technical questions. Sincerely, City of La Quinta. AC L v� W� FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY PAYMENT INFORMATION FORM Community Name: Project Identifier: THIS FORM MUST BE MAILED, ALONG WITH THE APPROPRIATE FEE, TO ONE OF TWO POST OFFICE BOXES (SEE BELOW) OR FAXED TO THE FAX NUMBER BELOW. Type of Requsst: MT -1 .application fee MT-2 application fee (Insert 3173 as the P.O. Box number in the address below) External Data Requests (EDRs) (Insert 398 as the P.O. Box number in the address below) Federal Emergency Management Agency Revisions Fee - Collection System Administrator P.O. Box Merrifield, Virginia 22116 Fax: (703) 849 -0282 Request No.: (if known) Amount: ❑ INITIAL FEE* ❑ FINAL FEE ❑ FEE BALANCE" ❑ MASTERCARD ❑ VISA ❑ CHECK ❑ MONEY ORDER `Note: Check only for EDR and /or Alluvial Fan requests (as appropriate). Note: Check only if submitting a corrected fee for an ongoing request. COMPLETE THIS SECTION ONLY IF PAYING BY CREDIT CARD EXP. DATE 1 2 3 4 5' 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Month Year CARD NUMBER IDate Signature NAME (AS IT APPEARS ON CARD): (please print or type) ADDRESS: (for your credit card receipt - please print or type) DAYTIME PHONE: FEMA Form 81 -107, Payment Information Form FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY O.M.B No. 3067 -0148 OVERVIEW & CONCURRENCE FORM Expires September 30, 2005 PAPERWORK BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 1 hour per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right corner of this form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and -any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington DC 20472, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067- 0148). Submission of the form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send your completed survey to the above address. A. REQUESTED RESPONSE FROM FEMA This request is for a (check one): ❑ CLOMR: A letter from FEMA commenting on whether a proposed project, if built as proposed, would justify a map revision, or proposed hydrology changes (See 44 CFR Ch. 1, Parts 60, 65 & 72). ® LOMR: A letter from FEMA officially revising the current NFIP map to show the changes to floodplains, regulatory Foodway or flood elevations. (See Parts 60 & 65 of the NFIP Regulations.) B. OVERVIEW 1. The NFIP map panel(s) affected for all impacted communities is (are): Community No. Community Name State I Map No. Panel No. Effective Date Ex: 480301 City of Katy TX 480301 0005D 02/08/83 480287 Harris Coun ty 48201C 0220G 09/28/90 NAX -n ov his 2. Flooding Source: x —k 3. Project Name /Identifier: 4. FEMA zone designations affected: A (choices: A, AH, AO, Al -A30, A99, AE, AR, V, V1430, VE, B, C, D, X) 5. Basis for Request and Type of Revision: a. The basis for this revision request is (check all that apply) ® Physical Change ❑ Improved Methodology /Data ❑ Regulatory Floodway Revision ❑ Other (Attach Description) Note: A photograph and narrative description of the area of concern is not required, but is very helpful during review. b. The area of revision encompasses the following types of flooding and structures (check all that apply) Types of Flooding: ❑ Riverine ❑ Coastal ® Shallow Flooding (e.g., Zones AO and AH) ❑ Alluvial fan ❑ Lakes ❑ Other (Attach Description) Structures: ❑ Channelization ❑ Levee / Floodwal ❑ Bridge /Culvert ❑ Dam ❑ Fill ❑ Other, Attach Description FEMA Form 81 -89, SEP 02 Overview & Concurrence Form MT -2 Form 1 Page 1 of 2 C. REVIEW FEE Has the review fee for the appropriate request category been included? ❑ Yes Fee amount: $ ® No, Attach Explanation Please see the FEMA Web site at http://www.fema.gov/fhm/frm—fees.shtm for Fee Amounts and Exemptions. D. SIGNATURE All documents submitted in support of this request are correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any false statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001. Name: Company: City of La Quinta Mailing Address: Daytime Telephone No.: Fax No.: E -Mail Address: Signature of Requester (required): Date: As the community official responsible for floodplain management, I hereby acknowledge that we have received and reviewed this Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or conditional LOMR request. Based upon the community's review, we find the completed or proposed project meets or is designed to meet all of the community floodplain management requirements, including the requirement that no fill be placed in the regulatory floodway, and that all necessary Federal, State, and local permits have been, or in the case of a conditional LOMR, will be obtained. In addition, we have determined that the land and any existing or proposed structures to be removed from the SFHA are or will be reasonably safe from flooding as defined in 44CFR 65.2(c), and that we have available upon request by FEMA, all analyses and documentation used to make this determination. Community Official's Name and Title: Telephone No.: Community Name: City of La Quinta, CA Community Official's Signature (required): Date: CERTIFICATION BY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND /OR LAND SURVEYOR This certification is to be signed and sealed by a licensed land surveyor, registered professional engineer, or architect authorized by law to certify elevation information. All documents submitted in support of this request are correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any false statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001. Certifier's Name: Soorgul Wardak License No.: Expiration Date: Company Name: Psomas and Associates Telephone No.: Fax No.: Signature: Date: Ensure the forms that are appropriate to your revision request are included in your submittal. Form Name and (Number) Required if ... ® Riverine Hydrology and Hydraulics Form (Form 2) New or revised discharges or water -surface elevations ❑ Riverine Structures Form (Form 3) Channel is modified, addition /revision of bridge /culverts, addition /revision of levee /floodwal, addition /revision of dam ❑ Coastal Analysis Form (Form 4) New or revised coastal elevations ❑ Coastal Structures Form (Form 5) Addition /revision of coastal structure Seal (Optional) ❑ Alluvial Fan Flooding Form (Form 6) Flood control measures on alluvial fans FEMA Form 81 -89, SEP 02 Overview & Concurrence Form MT -2 Form 1 Page 2 of 2 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY O.M.B No. 3067 -0148 RIVERINE HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS FORM Expires September 30, 2005 PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 3 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right comer of this form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington DC 20472, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067- 0148). Submission of the form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send your completed survey to the above address. Flooding Source: Note: Fill out one form for each flooding source studied A. HYDROLOGY 1. Reason for New Hydrologic Analysis (check all that apply) ❑ Not revised (skip to section 2) ❑ No existing analysis ❑ Improved data ❑ Alternative methodology ❑ Proposed Conditions (CLOMR) ® Changed physical condition of watershed 2. Comparison of Representative 1 %- Annual -Chance Discharges Location Drainage Area (Sq. Mi.) 3. Methodology for New Hydrologic Analysis (check all that apply) FIS (cfs) Revised (cfs) ❑ Statistical Analysis of Gage Records ® Precipitation /Runoff Model [TR -20, HEC -1, HEC -HMS etc.] ❑ Regional Regression Equations ❑ Other (please attach description) Please enclose all relevant models in digital format, maps, computations (including computation of parameters) and documentation to support the new analysis. The document, "Numerical Models Accepted by FEMA for NFIP Usage" lists the models accepted by FEMA. This document can be found at: http:/ /www.fema.gov /fhm /en_modi.shtm. 4. Review /Approval of Analysis If your community requires a regional, state, or federal agency to review the hydrologic analysis, please attach evidence of approval /review. 5. Impacts of Sediment Transport on Hydrology Was sediment transport considered? ❑ Yes ® No If yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport) of Form 3. If No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered. B. HYDRAULICS 1. Reach to be Revised Description Cross Section Water -Surface Elevations (ft.) Effective Proposed /Revised Downstream Limit Upstream Limit 2. Hydraulic Method Used Hydraulic Analysis HEC -RAS [HEC -2 , HEC -RAS, Other (Attach description)] FEMA Form 81 -89A, SEP 02 Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form MT -2 Form 2 Page 1 of 2 _W: will N;11LifY el It 3. Pre - Submittal Review of Hydraulic Models FEMA has developed two review programs, CHECK -2 and CHECK -RAS, to aid in the review of HEC -2 and HEC -RAS hydraulic models, respectively. These review programs verify that the hydraulic estimates and assumptions in the model data are in accordance with NFIP requirements, and that the data are comparable with the assumptions and limitations of HEC- 2/HEC -RAS. CHECK -2 and CHECK -RAS identify areas of potential error or concern. These tools do not replace engineering judgment. CHECK -2 and CHECK -RAS can be downloaded from http: // www.fema.gov /fhm /frm_soft.shtm. We recommend that you review your HEC -2 and HEC -RAS models with CHECK -2 and CHECK -RAS. If you disagree with a message, please attach an explanation of why the message is not valid in this case. Review of your submittal and resolution of valid modeling discrepancies will result in reduced review time. HEC- 2/HEC -RAS models reviewed with CHECK- 2/CHECK -RAS? ❑ Yes ® No 4. Models Submitted Duplicate Effective Model' Natural File Name: Floodway File Name: Corrected Effective Model' Natural File Name: Floodway File Name: Existing or Pre - Project Conditions Model Natural File Name: Floodway File Name: Revised or Post - Project Conditions Model Natural File Name: Floodway File Name: Other - (attach description) Natural File Name: Floodway File Name: 'Not required for revisions to approximate 1 %- annual -chance floodplains (Zone A) — for details, refer to the corresponding section of the instructions. The document "Numerical Models Accepted by FEMA for NFIP Usage" lists the models accepted by FEMA. This document can be found at: http://www.fema.gov/fhm/en—modl.shtm. C. MAPPING REQUIREMENTS A certified topographic map must be submitted showing the following information (where applicable): the boundaries of the effective, existing, and proposed conditions 1 %- annual -chance floodplain (for approximate Zone A revisions) or the boundaries of the 1 %- and 0.2 %- annual -chance floodplains and regulatory floodway (for detailed Zone AE, AO, and AH revisions); location and alignment of all cross sections with stationing control indicated; stream, road, and other alignments (e.g., dams, levees, etc.); current community easements and boundaries; boundaries of the requester's property; certification of a registered professional engineer registered in the subject State; location and description of reference marks; and the referenced vertical datum (NGVD, NAVD, etc.). Note that the boundaries of the existing or proposed conditions floodplains and regulatory floodway to be shown on the revised FIRM and /or FBFM must tie -in with the effective floodplain and regulatory floodway boundaries. Please attach a copy of the effective FIRM and /or FBFM, annotated to show the boundaries of the revised 1 %- and 0.2 %- annual -chance floodplains and regulatory floodway that tie -in with the boundaries of the effective 1 %- and 0.2 %- annual -chance floodplain and regulatory floodway at the upstream and downstream limits of the area of revision. D. COMMON REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 1. For CLOMR requests, do Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) increase? ❑ Yes ® No For CLOMR requests, if either of the following is true, please submit evidence of compliance with Section 65.12 of the NFIP regulations: • The proposed project encroaches upon a regulatory floodway and would result in increases above 0.00 foot. • The proposed project encroaches upon a SFHA with BFEs established and would result in increases above 1.00 foot. 2. Does the request involve the placement or proposed placement of fill? ❑ Yes ® No If Yes, the community must be able to certify that the area to be removed from the special flood hazard area, to include any structures or proposed structures, meets all of the standards of the local floodplain ordinances, and is reasonably safe from flooding in accordance with the NFIP regulations set forth at 44 CFR 60.3(a)(3), 65.5(a)(4), and 65.6(a)(14). Please see the MT -2 instructions for more information. 3. For LOMR requests, is the regulatory floodway being revised? ❑ Yes ® No If Yes, attach evidence of regulatory floodway revision notification. As per Paragraph 65.7(b)(1) of the NFIP Regulations, notification is required for requests involving revisions to the regulatory floodway. (Not required for revisions to approximate 1 %- annual -chance floodplains [studied Zone A designation] unless a regulatory floodway is being added. Elements and examples of regulatory floodway revision notification can be found in the MT -2 Form 2 Instructions.) 4. For LOMR requests, does this request require property owner notification and acceptance of BFE increases? ❑ Yes ® No If Yes, please attach proof of property owner notification and acceptance (if available). Elements of and examples of property owner notification can be found in the MT -2 Form 2 Instructions. FEMA Form 81 -89A, SEP 02 Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form MT -2 Form 2 Page 2 of 2 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY O.M.B. No. 3067 -0148 RIVERINE STRUCTURES FORM Expires September 30, 2005 PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT. Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 7 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching 'existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right corner of this form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington DC 20472, Paperwork Reduction Project'(3067- 0148). Submission of the form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send your completed survey to the above address. Flooding Source: Note: Fill out one form for each flooding source studied A. GENERAL Complete the appropriate section(s) for each Structure listed below: Channelization ............... complete Section B Bridge /Culvert ................ complete Section C Dam ............................... complete Section D Levee /Floodwall ............. complete Section E Sediment Transport ....... complete Section F (if required) Description Of Structure 1. Name of Structure: Type (check one): ❑ Channelization Location of Structure: Downstream Limit/Cross Section: Upstream Limit/Cross Section: 2. Name of Structure: Type (check one): ❑ Channelization Location of Structure: Downstream Limit/Cross Section: Upstream Limit/Cross Section: 3. Name of Structure: Type (check one) ❑ Channelization Location of Structure: Downstream Limit/Cross Section: Upstream Limit/Cross Section: ❑ Bridge /Culvert ❑ Bridge /Culvert ❑ Bridge /Culvert NOTE: For more structures, attach additional pages as needed. ❑ Levee /Floodwall ❑ Dam ❑ Levee /Floodwall ❑ Levee /Floodwall ❑ Dam ❑ Dam FEMA Form 81 -896; SEP 02 Riverine Structures Form MT -2 Form 3 Pagel of 10 Flooding Source: Name of Structure: 1. Accessory Structures The channelization includes (check one): ❑ Levees [Attach Section E (Levee /Floodwall)] ❑ Superelevated sections ❑ Debris basin /detention basin ❑ Other (Describe): 2. Drawing Checklist 3. 4. B. CHANNELIZATION ❑ Drop structures ❑ Transitions in cross sectional geometry ❑ Energy dissipator Attach the plans of the channelization certified by a registered professional engineer, as described in the instructions. Hydraulic Considerations The channel was designed to carry (cfs) and /or the -year flood. The design elevation in the channel is based on (check one): ❑ Subcritical flow ❑ Critical flow ❑ Supercritical flow ❑ Energy grade line If there is the potential for a hydraulic jump at the following locations, check all that apply and attach an explanation of how the hydraulic jump is controlled without affecting the stability of the channel. ❑ Inlet to channel ❑ Outlet of channel ❑ At Drop Structures ❑ At Transitions ❑ Other locations (specify): Sediment Transoort Considerations Was sediment transport considered? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport). If No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered. C. BRIDGE /CULVERT Flooding Source: Name of Structure: 1. This revision reflects (check one): ❑ New bridge /culvert not modeled in the FIS ❑ Modified bridge /culvert previously modeled in the FIS ❑ New analysis of bridge /culvert previously modeled in the FIS 2. Hydraulic model used to analyze the structure (e.g., HEC -2 with special bridge routine, WSPRO, HY8): If different than hydraulic analysis for the flooding source, justify why the hydraulic analysis used for the flooding source could not analyze the structures. Attach justification. 3. Attach plans of the structures certified by a registered professional engineer. The plan detail and information should include the following (check the information that has been provided): ❑ Dimensions (height, width, span, radius, length) ❑ Shape (culverts only) ❑ Material ❑ Beveling or Rounding ❑ Wing Wall Angle ❑ Skew Angle ❑ Distances Between Cross Sections 4. Sediment Transport Considerations ❑ Erosion Protection ❑ Low Chord Elevations — Upstream and Downstream ❑ Top of Road Elevations — Upstream and Downstream ❑ Structure Invert Elevations — Upstream and Downstream ❑ Stream Invert Elevations — Upstream and Downstream ❑ Cross - Section Locations Was sediment transport considered? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport). If No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered. FEMA Form 81 -89B, SEP 02 Riverine Structures Form MT -2 Form 3 Page 2 of 10 D. DAM Flooding Source: Name of Structure: 1. This request is for (check one): ❑ Existing dam ❑ New dam ❑ Modification of existing dam 2. The dam was designed by (check one): ❑ Federal agency ❑ State agency ❑ Local government agency ❑ Private organization Name of the agency or organization: 3. Does the project involve revised hydrology? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, complete the Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form (Form 2). 4. Does the submittal include debris /sediment yield analysis? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport). If No, then attach your explanation for why debris /sediment analysis was not considered. 5. Does the Base Flood Elevation behind the dam or downstream of the dam change? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, complete the Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form (Form 2) and complete the table below. Stillwater Elevation Behind the Dam FREQUENCY (% annual chance) FIS REVISED 10 -year (10 %) 50 -year (2 %) 100 -year (1 %) 500 -year (0.2 %) Normal Pool Elevation 6. Please attach a copy of the formal Operation and Maintenance Plan FEMA Form 81 -89B, SEP 02 Riverine Structures Form MT -2 Form 3 Page 3 of 10 E. LEVEE /FLOODWALL 1. System Elements a. This Levee / Floodwall analysis is based on (check one): ❑ upgrading of an existing levee /floodwall system ❑ a newly constructed levee/floodwall system ❑ reanalysis of an existing levee /floodwall system b. Levee elements and locations are (check one): ❑ earthen embankment, dike, berm, etc. Station to ❑ structural floodwall Station to ❑ Other (describe): Station to c. Structural Type (check one): ❑ monolithic cast -in place reinforced concrete ❑ reinforced concrete masonry block ❑ sheet piling ❑ Other (describe): d. Has this levee /floodwall system been certified by a Federal agency to provide protection from the base flood? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, by which agency? e. Attach certified drawings containing the following information (indicate drawing sheet numbers): 1. Plan of the levee embankment and floodwall structures. Sheet Numbers: 2. A profile of the levee /floodwall system showing the Base Flood Elevation (BFE), levee and /or wall crest and foundation, and closure locations for the total levee system. Sheet Numbers: 3. A profile of the BFE, closure opening outlet and inlet invert elevations, type and size of opening, and kind of closure. Sheet Numbers: 4. A layout detail for the embankment protection measures. Sheet Numbers: 5. Location, layout, and size and shape of the levee embankment features, foundation treatment, floodwall structure, closure structures, and pump stations. Sheet Numbers: 2. Freeboard a. The minimum freeboard provided above the BFE is: Riverine 3.0 feet or more at the downstream end and throughout ❑ Yes ❑ No 3.5 feet or more at the upstream end ❑ Yes ❑ No 4.0 feet within 100 feet upstream of all structures and /or constrictions ❑ Yes ❑ No Coastal 1.0 foot above the height of the one percent wave associated with the 1 %- annual -chance stillwater surge elevation or maximum wave runup (whichever is greater). ❑ Yes ❑ No 2.0 feet above the 1 %- annual -chance stillwater surge elevation ❑ Yes ❑ No FEMA Form 81 -89B, SEP 02 Riverine Structures Form MT -2 Form 3 Page 4 of 10 E. LEVEE /FLOODWALL (CONTINUED) 2. Freeboard (continued) Please note, occasionally exceptions are made to the minimum freeboard requirement. If an exception is requested, attach documentation addressing Paragraph 65.10(b)(1)(ii) of the NFIP Regulations. If No is answered to any of the above, please attach an explanation. b. Is there an indication from historical records that ice - jamming can affect the BFE? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, provide ice -jam analysis profile and evidence that the minimum freeboard discussed above still exists. 3. Closures a. Openings through the levee system (check one): ❑ exists ❑ does not exist If opening exists, list all closures: Channel Station Left or Right Bank Opening Type Highest Elevation for Type of Closure Device Opening Invert (Extend table on an added sheet as needed and reference) Note: Geotechnical and geologic data In addition to the required detailed analysis reports, data obtained during field and laboratory investigations and used in the design analysis for the following system features should be submitted in a tabulated summary form. (Reference U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] EM- 1110 -2 -1906 Form 2086.) 4. Embankment Protection a. The maximum levee slope landside is: b. The maximum levee slope floodside is: c. The range of velocities along the levee during the base flood is: (min.) to (max.) d. Embankment material is protected by (describe what kind): e. Riprap Design Parameters (check one): ❑ Velocity ❑ Tractive stress Attach references Reach Sideslope Flow Depth Velocity Curve or Straight Stone Riprap Depth of Toedown Dioo D5o Thickness Sta to Sta to Sta to Sta to Sta to Sta to (Extend table on an added sheet as needed and reference each entry) 1T -2 Form 3 Page 5 of 10 E. LEVEE /FLOODWALL (CONTINUED) 4. Embankment Protection (continued) f. Is a bedding /filter analysis and design attached? ❑ Yes ❑ No g. Describe the analysis used for other kinds of protection used (include copies of the design analysis): Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans. 5. Embankment And Foundation Stability a. Identify locations and describe the basis for selection of critical location for analysis: . ❑ Overall height: Sta. ; height ft. ❑ Limiting foundation soil strength: Sta. depth to strength = degrees, c = psf } slope: SS = (h) to (v) (Repeat as needed on an added sheet for additional locations) b. Specify the embankment stability analysis methodology used (e.g., circular arc, sliding block, infinite slope, etc.): c. Summary of stability analysis results: Case Loading Conditions Critical Safety Factor Criteria (Min.) I End of construction 1,3 II Sudden drawdown 1.0 III Critical flood stage 1.4 IV Steady seepage at flood stage 1.4 VI Earthquake (Case 1) 1,0 (Reference: USACE EM- 1110 -2 -1913 Table 6 -1) d. Was a seepage analysis for the embankment performed? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, describe methodology used: e. Was a seepage analysis for the foundation performed? ❑ Yes ❑ No f. Were uplift pressures at the embankment landside toe checked? ❑ Yes ❑ No g. Were seepage exit gradients checked for piping potential? ❑ Yes ❑ No h. The duration of the base flood hydrograph against the embankment is hours. Attach 'engineering analysis to support construction plans. FEMA Form 81 -896, SEP 02 Riverine Structures Form MT -2 Form 3 Page 6 of 10 E. LEVEE /FLOODWALL (CONTINUED) 6. Floodwall And Foundation Stability a. Describe analysis submittal based on Code (check one): ❑ UBC (1988) or ❑ Other (specify): b. Stability analysis submitted provides for: Overturning ❑ Sliding If not, explain: c. Loading included in the analyses were: ❑' Lateral earth @ PA = psf; Pp = psf ❑ Surcharge -Slope @ ❑ surface psf ❑ Wind @ Pw = psf ❑ Seepage (Uplift); ❑ Earthquake @ Peq = %g ❑ 1 %- annual - chance significant wave height: ft. ❑ 1 %- annual -chance significant wave period: sec. d. Summary of Stability Analysis Results: Factors of Safety. Itemize for each range in site layout dimension and loading condition limitation for each respective reach. Loading Condition Criteria (Min) Sta To Sta To Overturn Sliding Overturn Sliding Overturn Sliding Dead & Wind 1.5 1.5 Dead & Soil 1.5 1.5 Dead, Soil, Flood, & 1.5 1.5 Impact Dead, Soil, & Seismic 1.3 1.3 (Ref: FEMA 114 Sept 1986; USACE EM 1110 -2 -2502) (Note: Extend table on an added sheet as needed and reference) e. Foundation bearing strength for each soil type: Bearing Pressure Sustained Load (psf) Short Term Load (psf) Computed design maximum Maximum allowable f. Foundation scour protection ❑ is, ❑ is not provided. If provided, attach explanation and supporting documentation: Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans. FEMA Form 81 -89B, SEP 02 Riverine Structures Form MT -2 Form 3 Page 7 of 10 t. LtVtt /I-LVVUWALLIt;UNIINULU 7. Settlement a. Has anticipated potential settlement been determined and incorporated into the specified construction elevations to maintain the established freeboard margin? ❑ Yes ❑ No b. The computed range of settlement is ft. to ft. c. Settlement of the levee crest is determined to be primarily from : ❑ Foundation consolidation ❑ Embankment compression ❑• Other (Describe): d. Differential settlement of floodwalls ❑ has ❑ has not been accommodated in the structural design and construction. Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans. 8. Interior Drainage a. Specify size of each interior watershed: Draining to pressure conduit: acres Draining to ponding area: acres b. Relationships Established Ponding elevation vs. storage ❑ Yes ❑ No Ponding elevation vs. gravity flow ❑ Yes ❑ No Differential head vs. gravity flow ❑ Yes ❑ No c. The river flow duration curve is enclosed: ❑ Yes ❑ No d. Specify the discharge capacity of the head pressure conduit: cfs e. Which flooding conditions were analyzed? • Gravity flow (Interior Watershed) ❑ Yes ❑ No • Common storm (River Watershed) ❑ Yes ❑ No • Historical ponding probability ❑ Yes ❑ No • Coastal wave overtopping ❑ Yes ❑ No If No for any of the above, attach explanation. f. Interior drainage has been analyzed based on joint probability of interior and exterior flooding and the capacities of pumping and outlet facilities to provide the established level of flood protection. ❑ Yes ❑ No If No, attach explanation. g. The rate of seepage through the levee system for the base flood is cfs h. The length of levee system used to drive this seepage rate in item g: ft. FEMA Form 81 -896, SEP 02 Riverine Structures Form MT -2 Form 3 Page 8 of 10 E. LEVEE /FLOODWALL (CONTINUED) 8. Interior Drainage (continued) L Will pumping plants be used for interior drainage? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes; include the number of pumping plants: For each pumping plant, list: Plant #1 Plant #2 The number of pumps The ponding storage capacity The maximum pumping rate The maximum pumping head The pumping starting elevation The pumping stopping elevation Is the discharge facility protected? Is there a flood warning plan? How much time is available between warning and flooding? Will the operation be automatic? ❑ Yes ❑ No If the pumps are electric, are there backup power sources? ❑ Yes ❑ No (Reference: USACE EM- 1110 -2 -3101, 3102, 3103, 3104, and 3105) Include a copy of supporting documentation of data and analysis. Provide a map showing the flooded area and maximum ponding elevations for all interior watersheds that result in flooding. 9. Other Design Criteria a. The following items have been addressed as stated: Liquefaction ❑ is ❑ is not a problem Hydrocompaction ❑ is ❑ is not a problem Heave differential movement due to soils of high shrink/swell ❑ is ❑ is not a problem b. For each of these problems, state the basic facts and corrective action taken: Attach supporting documentation c. If the levee /floodwall is new or enlarged, will the structure adversely impact flood levels and /or flow velocities floodside of the structure? ❑ Yes ❑ No Attach supporting documentation d. Sediment Transport Considerations: Was sediment transport considered? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport). if No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered. FEMA Form 81 -89B, SEP 02 Riverine Structures Form MT -2 Form 3 Page 9 of 10 It. LtVtr_1rLVVUWALL (UUN I INUt 10. Operational Plan And Criteria a. Are the planned /installed works in full compliance with Part 65.10 of the NFIP Regulations? ❑ Yes ❑ No b. Does the operation plan incorporate all the provisions for closure devices as required in Paragraph 65.10(c)(1) of the NFIP regulations? ❑ Yes ❑ No c. Does the operation plan incorporate all the provisions for interior drainage as required in Paragraph 65.10(c)(2) of the NFIP regulations? ❑ Yes ❑ No If the answer is No to any of the above, please attach supporting documentation. 11. Maintenance Plan a. Are the planned /installed works in full compliance with Part 65.10 of the NFIP Regulations? ❑ Yes ❑ No If No, please attach supporting documentation. 12. Operations and Maintenance Plan Please attach a copy of the formal Operations and Maintenance Plan for the levee /floodwall. F. SEDIMENT TRANSPORT Flooding Source: Name of Structure: If there is any indication from historical records that sediment transport (including scour and deposition) can affect the Base Flood Elevation (BFE); and /or based on the stream morphology, vegetative cover, development of the watershed and bank conditions, there is a potential for debris and sediment transport (including scour and deposition) to affect the BFEs, then provide the following information along with the supporting documentation: Sediment load associated with the base flood discharge: Volume acre -feet Debris load associated with the base flood discharge: Volume acre -feet Sediment transport rate (percent concentration by volume) Method used to estimate sediment transport: Most sediment transport formulas are intended for a range of hydraulic conditions and sediment sizes; attach a detailed explanation for using the selected method. Method used to estimate scour and /or deposition: Method used to revise hydraulic or hydrologic analysis (model) to account for sediment transport: Please note that bulked flows are used to evaluate the performance of a structure during the base flood; however, FEMA does not map BFEs based on bulked flows. If a sediment analysis has not been performed, an explanation as to why sediment transport (including scour and deposition) will not affect the BFEs or structures must be provided. FEMA Form 81 -89B, SEP 02 Riverine Structures Form MT -2 Form 3 Page 10 of 10 R . ra FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY O.M.B. No. 3067 -0148 COASTAL ANALYSIS FORM Expires September 30, 2005 PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 1 hour per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right comer of this form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington DC 20472, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067- 0148). Submission of the form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send your completed survey to the above address. Flooding Source: Note: Fill out one form for each flooding source studied Describe limits of study area: A. COASTLINE TO BE REVISED B. EFFECTIVE FIS The area being revised in the effective FIS was studied by detailed methods using (check all that apply): ❑ Storm surge modeling ❑ Wave setup computations ❑ Wave height computations ❑ Wave runup computations ❑ Wave overtopping computations ❑ Dune erosion computations ❑ Primary Frontal Dune Assessment ❑ N/A (area not studied by detailed methods) C. REVISED ANALYSIS 1. Number of transects in revised analysis: 2. Information used to prepare the revision (check all that apply): ❑ Wave setup analyses (complete Items 3, 4, and 5 below) ❑ Stillwater elevation determinations (complete Item 3) ❑ Erosion considerations (complete Item 4) ❑ Wave runup analysis (complete Items 4 and 5) ❑ Wave height analysis (complete Items 4 and 5) ❑ Wave overtopping assessment (complete Items 4 and 5) ❑ More detailed topographic information (complete Section E) ❑ Shore protection structures (attach completed Coastal Structures Form - Form 5) ❑ Primary frontal dune assessment (complete Item 5) ❑ Other, attach basis of revision request with explanation 3. Stillwater Elevation Determination a. How were stillwater elevations determined? ❑ Gage analysis (If revised gage analysis was used, provide copies of gage data and revised analysis.) ❑ Storm surge analysis ❑ Other (Describe): b. Specify what datum was used in the calculations: If not the FIS datum, have the calculations been adjusted to the FIS datum? ❑ Yes ❑ No Conversion factor: c. If revised storm surge analysis, was FEMA's storm surge model utilized? ❑ Yes ❑ No d. If FEMA's storm surge model was used, attach a detailed description of the differences between the current and the revised analyses, and why the revised analysis should replace the current analysis. e. If wave setup was computed, attach a description of methodology used. Amount of wave setup added to stillwater elevation: feet FEMA Form 81 -89C, SEP 02 Coastal Analysis Form MT -2 Form 4 Page 1 of 2 U. KtV1btU ANALT,IJ 4. Revised Analysis (i.e., erosion, wave height, wave runup, primary frontal dune, and wave overtopping) If FEMA procedures were utilized to perform the revision, attach a detailed description of differences between the current and the revised analyses, and why the revised analysis should replace the current analysis. If FEMA procedures were not utilized to perform the revision, provide full documentation on methodology and /or models used; including operational program, detailed differences between methodology and /or models utilized and FEMA's methodology and /or models. Also, attach an explanation of why new methodology and /or models should replace current methodology and /or models. If revision reflects more detailed topographic information and fill has been/will be placed in a V Zone, and is not protected from erosion by a shore protection structure, provide a detailed description of how the fill has been treated in the revised analysis. 5. Wave Runup, Wave Height, And Wave Overtopping Analysis Wave height analyses along a transect are greatly affected by starting wave conditions that propagate inland. Wave runup and overtopping analyses are typically considered when wave heights and /or wave runup are close to or greater than the crest of shore protection structures or natural land forms. a. Was an analysis performed to determine starting wave height and period for input into WHAFIS? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, attach an explanation of the method utilized. If No, explain why these analyses were not performed. b. Was wave setup included in wave height analysis and removed for erosion and wave runup analyses? ❑ Yes ❑ No c. Was an overtopping analysis performed for any coastal shore protection structures or natural land forms that may be overtopped? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, attach an explanation of the methodology utilized and describe in detail the results of the analysis. If overtopping was not analyzed, attach an explanation for why these analyses were not performed. 1. Stillwater storm surge elevation: feet Datum 2. Wave setup: feet 3. Starting deep -water significant wave condition: height: period: 4. Maximum wave height elevation: feet 5. Maximum wave runup elevation: feet 6. Estimated amount of maximum overtopping: cfs /feet 7. The areas designated as coastal high hazard areas (V Zones) have: ❑ increased ❑ decreased ❑ both Attach a description where they have increased and /or decreased. D. RESULTS 8. As a result of the revised analyses, the V Zone location has shifted a maximum of feet seaward and feet landward of its existing position. 9. The Base Flood Elevations have: ❑ increased ❑ decreased a. What was the greatest increase? feet b. What was the greatest decrease? feet 10. The special flood hazard area has: ❑ increased ❑ decreased ❑ both Attach a description where it has increased or decreased. E. MAPPING REQUIREMENTS A certified topographic map must be submitted showing the following information (where applicable): effective, existing conditions, and proposed conditions 1 %- annual -chance floodplain boundaries, revised shoreline due to either erosion or accretion, location and alignment of all transects, correct location and alignment of any structures, current community easements and boundaries, boundary of the requester's property, certification of a professional engineer registered in the subject State, location and description of reference marks, and the referenced vertical datum (NGVD, NAVD, etc.). Note that the existing or proposed conditions floodplain boundaries to be shown on the revised FIRM must tie -in with the effective floodplain boundaries. Please attach a copy of the current FIRM annotated to show the revised 1 %- annual -chance floodplain boundaries that tie -in with effective 1 %- annual -chance floodplain boundaries along the entire extent of the area of revision. FEMA Form 81 -89C, SEP 02 Coastal Analysis Form MT -2 Form 4 Page 2 of 2 P FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY O.M.B. No. 3067 -0148 COASTAL STRUCTURES FORM Expires September 30,2005 PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 1 hour per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right comer of this form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington DC 20472, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067- 0148). Submission of the form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send your completed survey to the above address. Flooding Source: Note: Fill out one form for each flooding source studied A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of structure (if applicable): 2. Structure location: 3. Type of structure (check one): ❑ Levee /Floodwall' ❑ Anchored Bulkhead ❑ Revetment ❑ Gravity Seawall ❑ Breakwater ❑ Pile supported seawall ❑ Other: *Note: If the coastal structure is a levee /floodwall, complete Section E of Form 3 (Riverine Structures Form). The remainder of this form does not need to be completed. 4. Material structure is composed of (check all that apply): ❑ Stone ❑ Earthen fill ❑ Concrete ❑ Steel ❑ Sand ❑ Other 5. The structure is (check one): ❑ New or proposed ❑ Existing ❑ Modification of existing structure ❑ Replacement structure of the same size and design as what was previously at the site Describe in detail the existing structure and /or modifications being made to the structure and the purpose of the modifications: If existing, please include date of construction: 6. Copies of certified "as- built" plans ❑ are ❑ are not attached. Attach all design analyses that apply. If "as- built' plans are not available for submittal, please explain why and attach a sketch with general structure dimensions including: face slope, height, length, depth, and toe elevation referenced to the appropriate datum (e.g. NGVD 1929, NAVD 1988, etc.). 7. Has a Federal agency with responsibility for the design of coastal flood protection structures designed or certified that the structures have been adequately designed and constructed to provide protection against the 1 %- annual -chance event? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, specify the name of the agency and dates of project completion and certification. If Yes, then no other sections of this form need to be completed. FEMA Form 81 -89D, SEP 02 Coastal Structures Form MT -2 Form 5 Page 1 of 4 P B. DESIGN CRITERIA 1 1. Desiqn Parameters a. Were physical parameters representing the 1 %- annual -chance event or greater used to design the coastal flood protection structure? ❑ Yes ❑ No b. The number of design water levels that were evaluated (number) range from the mean low water elevation of feet to the I %- annual -chance stillwater surge elevation of feet. The critical water level is feet. The datum that these elevations are referenced to is (e.g.: NGVD 1929, NAVD 1988, etc.). Attach an explanation specifying which water levels and associated wave heights and periods were analyzed. c. Were breaking wave forces used to design the structure? ❑ Yes ❑ No If No, attach an explanation why they were not used for design. 2. Settlement a. What is the expected settlement rate at the site of the structure? Please attach a settlement analysis. 1 3. Freeboard a. Does the structure have 1 foot of freeboard above the height of the 1 %- annual -chance wave - height elevation or maximum wave runup (whichever is greater)? ❑ Yes ❑ No b. Does the structure have freeboard of at least 2 feet above the I% annual chance stillwater surge elevation? ❑ Yes ❑ No 1 4. Toe Protection Specify the type of toe protection: If no toe protection is provided, provide analysis of scour potential and attach an evaluation of structural stability performed with potential scour at the toe. 1 5. Backfill Protection Will the structure be overtopped during the 1 %- annual -chance event? ❑ Yes ❑ No If the structure will be overtopped, attach an explanation of what measures are used to prevent the loss of backfill from rundown over the structure, drainage landward, under or laterally around the ends of the structure, or through seams and drainage openings in the structure. 6. Structural Stability - Minimum Water Level a. For coastal revetments, was a geotechnical analysis of potential failure in the landward direction by rotational gravity slip performed for maximum loads associated with minimum seaward water level, no wave action, saturated soil conditions behind the structure, and maximum toe scour? ❑ Yes ❑ No b. For gravity and pile- supported seawalls, were engineering analyses of landward sliding, landward overturning, and of foundation adequacy using maximum pressures developed in the sliding and overturning calculations performed? ❑ Yes ❑ No c. For anchored bulkheads, were engineering analyses performed for shear failure, moment failure, and adequacy of tiebacks and deadmen to resist loading under low -water conditions? ❑ Yes ❑ No FEMA Form 81 -89D, SEP 02 Coastal Structures Form MT -2 Form 5 Page 2 of 4 f B. DESIGN CRITERIA (CONTI 7. Structural Stability - Critical Water Level (Note: All structures must be designed to resist the maximum loads associated with the critical water level to be credited as providing protection from the 1% annual chance event.) a. For coastal revetments were geotechnical analyses performed investigating the potential failure in the seaward direction by rotational gravity slip or foundation failure due to inadequate bearing strength? ❑ Yes ❑ No b. For revetments, were engineering analyses of rock, riprap, or armor blocks' stability under wave action or uplift forces on the rock, riprap, or armor blocks performed? ❑ Yes ❑ No c. Are the rocks graded? ❑ Yes ❑ No d. Are soil or geotextile filters being used in the design? ❑ Yes ❑ No e. For gravity and pile supported seawalls, were engineering analyses of landward sliding, landward overturning, and foundation adequacy performed? ❑ Yes ❑ No f. For anchored bulkheads, were engineering analyses of shear and moment failure performed using "shock" pressures? ❑ Yes ❑ No For all analyses marked "No" above for the appropriate type of structure, please attach an explanation why the analyses were not performed. 8. Material Adeguacv The design life of the structure given the existing conditions at the structure site is years. 9. Ice and Impact Alignment a. Will the structure be subjected to ice forces? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, attach impact analysis and design details for such forces. b. Will the structure be subjected to impact forces from boats, ships, or large debris? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, attach impact analysis. 10. Structure Plan Alignment The structure is (check one): ❑ Isolated ❑ Part of a continuous structure with redundant return walls at frequent intervals. Please provide a map showing the location of the structure and any natural land features that shelter the structure from wave actions. FEMA Form 81 -89D, SEP 02 Coastal Structures Form MT -2 Form 5 Page 3 of 4 :P r C. ADVERSE IMPACT EVALUATION If the structure is new, proposed, or modified, will the structure impact flooding and erosion for areas adjacent to the structure? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, attach an explanation. D. COMMUNITY AND /OR STATE REVIEW Has the design, maintenance, and impact of the structure been reviewed and approved by the community, and any Federal, State, or local agencies having jurisdiction over flood control and coastal construction activities in the area the structure impacts? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, attach a list of agencies who have reviewed and approved the project. If No, attach an explanation why review and approval by the appropriate community or agency has not been obtained. E. CERTIFICATION As a Professional Engineer, I certify that the above structures will withstand all hydraulic and wave forces associated with the 1% annual chance flood without significant structural degradation. All documents submitted in support of this request are correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any false statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001. Certifier's Name: License No.: Exp. Date: Company Name: Telephone No.: Fax. No.: Signature: Date: Seal (optional) FEMA Form 81 -89D, SEP 02 Coastal Structures Form MT -2 Form 5 Page 4 of 4 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY ALLUVIAL FAN FLOODING FORM O.M.B. No. 3067 -0148 Expires September 30, 2005 PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 1 hour per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right comer of this form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington DC 20472, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067- 0148). Submission of the form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send your completed survey to the above address. Flooding Source: Note: Fill out one form for each flooding source studied A. THREE -STAGE ANALYSIS (Based on FEMA Guidelines dated February 23, 2000) Stage 1 Analysis a. The landform is composed of (check one) ❑ alluvial ❑ debris flow deposits. b. Source of data used to determine composition, morphology, and location of the landform: c. Is there an NRCS soils survey and soil survey map available? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, please include a copy of the map and any pertinent sections of the soil survey 2. Stage 2 Analysis a. The alluvial fan exhibits ❑ active ❑ inactive ❑ a combination of active and inactive alluvial fan flooding. b. Approximate age of inactive fan surfaces (thousands of years): yrs. c. Is there an opportunity for avulsions that could lead channels or sheetfloods across the older fan surfaces? ❑ Yes ❑ No d. Is there evidence of headcutting that could lead to stream piracy? ❑ Yes ❑ No e. Is there geomorphic evidence of past avulsions during the Holocene epoch? ❑ Yes ❑ No f. The fan exhibits the following types of flooding (check one): ❑ Flooding along stable channels ❑ Sheetflow ❑ Debris flow ❑ Unstable flow path flooding 3. Stage 3 Analysis The boundaries of the 1 %- annual -chance floodplain have been determined using (check one): ❑ Risk -Based Analysis ❑ FEMA FAN program (if discharge at the apex is different than that given in the effective FIS, then attach MT -2, Form 2 along with a plot of the flood frequency curve on log - normal probability paper and include the drainage area above the hydrographic apex, and the mean, standard deviation, and skew coefficient of the curve) ❑ Sheetflow Methods ❑ Hydraulic Analytical Methods ❑ Geomorphic Data, Post -Flood Hazard Verification, and Historical Information ❑ Composite Methods FEMA Form 81 -89E, SEP 02 Alluvial Fan Flooding Form MT -2 Form 6 Page 1 of 2 e A&*tizllloitll:7In;lxoZoIZiq�T aO iIWn:r_��1 ' 1. The following structural flood control measures are proposed or built (check one): ❑ Channelization ❑ Levee /Floodwall ❑ Dam ❑ Sedimentation Basin 2. Do the constructed or proposed structural measures affect flood hazards (including velocity, scour, and sediment deposition) on other areas of the fan? ❑ Yes ❑ No 3. Attach completed Form 3 (Riverine Structures Form). 4. Sediment Transport Considerations: Was sediment transport considered? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, then fill out Form 3, Section F (Sediment Transport). If No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered. 5. Please attach a copy of the formal Operations and Maintenance Plan. C. MAPPING REQUIREMENTS Attach a certified topographic work map showing the following: - The boundaries of the alluvial fan including: toe, topographic and hydrologic apexes, and lateral boundaries - The delineation of the active and inactive portions of the fan as determined by the Stage 2 analysis - The revised 1 %- annual -chance floodplain boundaries, as determined by the Stage 3 Analysis, that tie into the effective floodplain boundaries The correct alignment of all structural features - The map scale FEMA Form 81 -89E, SEP 02 Alluvial Fan Flooding Form MT -2 Form 6 Page 2 of 2 wl -2 X+ —2 jo 3/ A 0c 0, �= FEDERAL INSURANCE AND MITIGATION' ADMINISTRATION HAZARD .MAPPING DIVISION REVISIONS TO NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE: PROGRAM MAPS APPLICATION.FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR. CONDITIONAL. LETTERS OF MAP REVISION, AND LETTERS OF MAP REVISION IIIIIIIIIIII NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM I (I I �) 47 'R%RAX FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP 'FLOOD COUNTY, 1E AlAp USA AND :INCORPORATED AREAS PANEL 38 OF 40 WEE ..E. lial tllnCD) lk� MT-2 FEMA FORM 81-89 SERIES SEPT 02' I .......... me NUMBER pp mmmm EFFECTIVE DATE F MAN 0 AUGUST 19, 190 --p-7 M-nw—t AV--y I W I Federal Emer enc ' -- s Management Agency INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE APPLICATION FORMS FOR CONDITIONAL LETTERS OF MAP REVISION AND LETTERS OF MAP REVISION GENERAL In 1968, the U.S. Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Act, which created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The NFIP was designed to reduce future flood losses through local floodplain management and to provide protection for property owners against potential losses through flood insurance. As part of the agreement for making flood insurance available in a community, the NFIP requires the participating community to adopt floodplain management ordinances containing certain minimum requirements intended to reduce future flood, losses. The NFIP regulations for floodplain management are the minimum criteria a community must adopt for participation in the NFIP. The community is responsible for approving all proposed floodplain development and for ensuring that permits required by Federal or State law have been received. State and community officials, based on knowledge of local conditions and in the interest of safety, may set higher standards for construction or may limit development in floodplain areas. If the State or Community has adopted more restrictive or comprehensive floodplain management criteria, those criteria take precedence over the minimum NFIP requirements. The community is also responsible for submitting data to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reflecting revised flood hazard information so that NFIP maps can be revised as appropriate. This will allow risk premium rates and floodplain management requirements to be based on current data. Submissions to FEMA for revisions to effective Flood Insurance Studies (FISs), Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS), or Flood Boundary Floodway Maps (FBFMs) by individual and community requesters will require the signing of application forms. These forms will provide FEMA with assurance that all pertinent data relating to the revision are included in the submittal. They will also ensure that: (a) the data and methodology are based on current conditions; (b) qualified professionals have assembled data and performed all necessary computations; and (c) all individuals and organizations affected by proposed changes are aware of the changes and will have an opportunity to comment on them. If the submission involves revisions to multiple flooding sources, then separate forms should be completed for each flooding source. NFIP regulations can be accessed at littp: / /w %vw.access.gpo.goN,/ nara /cfr/waisidx_02 /44cfi-v1 02.html or can be obtained by calling FEMA's Map Assistance Center at 1- 877 -FEMA MAP (1- 877 - 336- 2627). FEMA's Internet site at http:/ hvAw.fema.gov /fhm/fim_form.slitm provides access to the forms and latest fees and revision procedures. FEMA is preparing online tutorials to assist users of the NFIP maps. The tutorials for revisions to the NFIP maps are currently being prepared and will be available soon. Other online tutorials are available at http://ww,,vv.fema.gov/fluri/ot—main.shtm. WHEN TO USE THESE FORMS This package is applicable for requests of the following: Conditional Letter of Map A letter from FEMA commenting on whether a proposed Revision (CLOMR) project, if built as proposed, would meet minimum NFIP standards or proposed hydrology changes [see 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Ch. 1, Parts 60, 65, and 72]. Letter of Map Revision. A letter from FEMA officially revising the current NFIP map (LOMB) to show changes to floodplains, floodways, or flood elevations (see 44 CFR Ch. 1, Parts 60, 65, and 72). Instructions MT -2 Forms WHEN NOT TO USE THESE FORMS This package is not applicable for requests of the following: Letter of Map Amendment A letter from FEMA stating that an existing structure or (LOMA) parcel of land that has not been elevated by fill (natural ground) would not be inundated by the base flood. Conditional Letter of A letter from FEMA stating that a proposed structure that is Map Amendment (CLOMA) not to be elevated by fill (natural ground) would not be inundated by the base flood if built as proposed. Letter of Map Revision A letter from FEMA stating that an existing structure Based on Fill (LOMB -F) or parcel of land that has been elevated by fill would not be inundated by the base flood. Conditional Letter of Map A letter from FEMA stating that a parcel of land or proposed Revision Based on Fill structure that will be elevated by fill would not be inundated (CLOMR -F) by the base flood if fill is placed on the parcel as proposed or the structure is built as proposed. For these requests, either the MT -EZ form package titled Amendments to National Flood Insurance Program Maps, Application Form for Single Residential Lot or Structures, or the MT -1 form package titled Amendments and Revisions to National Flood Insurance Program Maps, Application 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 are appropriate. The MT -EZ forms are used for single structure or lot requests that do not involve the placement of fill. The MT -1 forms are used for requests involving multiple structures or lots. The MT -EZ form package may be downloaded from FEMA's Internet site at http: / /www.fema.gov /fhni/dl_mt- ez.shtm, and the MT -1 form package may be downloaded from FEMA's Internet site at http:/ /www.fema.gov /4lm/dl_mt- l.shtm. Either form package may also be obtained by calling FEMA's Map M Assistance Center at 1- 877 -FEMA AP (1- 877 - 336 - 2627). SUMMARY OF FORMS Application forms for requesting a revision from FEMA are included in the back of this package. There are six forms plus a payment form in this package, which cover various situations for revisions. When submitting a request only the forms applicable to the request need to be submitted. The following is a list of the forms and a brief summary of when each is applicable. Form 1 - Overview & Concurrence Form provides the basic information regarding the revision request and requires the signatures of the requester, community official, and engineer. This form is required for all revision requests. Form 2 - Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form provides the basic information on the scope and methodology of hydrologic and/or hydraulic analyses that are prepared in support of the revision request. This form should be used for revision requests that involve new or revised hydrologic and/or hydraulic analyses of rivers, streams, ponds, or small lakes. Form 3 - Riverine Structures Form provides the basic information regarding hydraulic structures constructed in the stream channel or floodplain. This form should be used for revision requests that involve new or proposed channelization, bridges /culverts, dams, and/or levees /floodwalls. ' Form 4 - Coastal Analysis Form provides the basic information on the scope and methodology of coastal analyses that are prepared in support of the revision request. This form should be used for any revision requests that involve new or revised coastal analyses. Instructions MT -2 Forms Form 5 - Coastal Structures Form provides the basic information regarding hydraulic structures constructed along the coast. This form should be used for revision requests that involve new or proposed levees /dikes, breakwaters, bulkheads, seawalls, and/or revetments located along the coast. Form 6 - Alluvial Fan Flooding Form provides the basic information for analyses of alluvial fans. This form should be used.for revision requests involving alluvial fans. Payment Information Form - Provides the basic information regarding any fees paid for a CLOMR, LOMR, or External Data Request. FEES FEMA has implemented a procedure to recover costs associated with reviewing and processing requests for modifications to published flood information and maps. The current fees for review and processing of CLOMR and LOMR requests may be obtained from FEMA's Internet site at http://N3.,w%v.feriia.gov/flmi/fim—fe.es.shtm or by calling FEMA's Map Assistance Center at 1- 877 -FEMA MAP (1- 877 - 336 - 2627). Some requests for revisions may be exempt from the fees. NFIP Regulation, 44 CFR Ch. 1, Section 72.5, describes the circumstances for requests to be exempt from paying the fees. The exemptions are also described on FEMA's Internet site at http://vm,%v.fema.gov/fhm/fi-rii—fees.sbtm. Payment must be made by credit card, check or money order. Checks and money orders should be made payable in U.S. funds to the National Flood Insurance Program. Please forward payment along with a completed Payment Information Form to the following address: Using U.S. Postal Service: Using Overnight Service: Federal Emergency Management Agency Revisions Fee - Collection System Administrator Revisions Fee - Collection System Administrator c/o Dewberry & Davis, LLC METS Division P.O. Box 3173 8401 Arlington Boulevard, Stop 19A Merrifield, VA 22116 -3173 Fairfax, VA 22031 Please note, that the fee is to be sent to a different address than the request package. See page 4 for where to submit the request package. WHAT TO SUBMIT A CLOMR or LOMR request should include the application forms along with the appropriate supporting information. A notebook -style format is preferred. The submittal should include the following: 1. Completed application forms. 2. Narrative on project and submittal (optional but very helpful). Knowing the project and purpose of the request better ensures the needs of the requester are met. 3. Hydrologic Computations (if applicable) along with digital files of computer models used. 4. Hydraulic Computations (if applicable) along with digital files of computer models used. 5. Certified topographic map with floodplain and floodway (if applicable) delineations. 6. Annotated FEMA FIRM and/or FBFM to reflect changes due to project (FIRMS and /or FBFMs can be ordered on -line at http: / /store.msc.fema.govn. 7. Items required to satisfy any FEMA NFIP regulatory requirements. Before FEMA will replace the effective FIS information with the revised, the requester must: (a) provide all of the data used in determining the revised floodplain boundaries, flood profiles, floodway boundaries, etc.; (b) provide all data necessary to demonstrate that the physical modifications to the floodplain meet NFIP regulations, have been adequately designed to withstand the impacts of the 1% annual chance flood event, and will be adequately maintained; and (c) demonstrate that the revised information (e.g., hydrologic and hydraulic analyses and the resulting floodplain and floodway boundaries) is consistent with the effective FIS information. Instructions MT -2 Forms Where to Submit The completed package should be submitted to the appropriate address indicated in the following table. Note, fees are submitted to a separate address (see "Fees," page 3). If your request includes property in... Regions VIII, IX, and X Regions V, VI, and VII Regions I - IV Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, California, Colorado, Guam, Hawaii, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, U.S. Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and Massachusetts, Mississippi, Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, Wisconsin New Hampshire, New Jersey, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, U.S. Virgin Islands, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia Mail your request to... FEMA Map Coordination Contractor FEMA Map Coordination Contractor FEMA Map Coordination Contractor 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 600 12101 Indian Creek Court P.O. Box 2210 Alexandria, VA 22304 -6425 Beltsville, MD 20705 Merrifield, VA 22116 -2210 ' an X� Instructions MT -2 Forms FEMA Regions . 'NNW." a 4 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE OVERVIEW & CONCURRENCE FORM (FORM 1) This form provides the basic information regarding revision requests and must be submitted with each request. It contains much of the material needed for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to assess the nature and complexity of the proposed revision. It will identify: (a) the type of response expected from FEMA; (b) those elements that will require supporting data and analyses; and (c) items needing concurrence of others. This form will also ensure that the community is aware of the impacts of the request and has notified affected property owners, if required. All items must be completed accurately. If the revision request is being submitted by an individual, firm, or other non - community official, contact should be made with appropriate community officials. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulation Title 44 CFR Ch. 1, Section 65.4, requires that revisions based on new technical data be submitted through the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the community or a designated official. Should the CEO refuse to submit such a request on behalf of another party, FEMA will agree to review it only if written evidence is provided indicating that the CEO or designee has been requested to do so. Section A: Requested Response from FEMA Indicate the type of response being requested. Brief descriptions of possible responses are provided in the introduction; more detail regarding these responses and the data required to obtain each response are provided in the NFIP regulations, Title 44 CFR Ch. 1. Section B: Overview 1. The Community Number, Community Name, State, Map Number, Panel Number, and Effective Date can be obtained from the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) title block. The sample FIRM panels (Figures 1 and 2) provide a convenient example of information to complete item 1. 2. Flooding source refers to a specific lake, stream, ocean, etc. This should match the flooding source name shown on the FIRM, if it has been labeled. (Examples: Lake Michigan, Duck Pond, or Big Hollow Creek). 3. Project Name/Identifier can be the name of a flood control project or other pertinent structure having an impact on the effective FIS, the name of a subdivision or area, or some other identifying phrase. 4. The zone designations affected can be obtained from the FIRM. 5. a. Indicate the basis for the revision request. • Physical Changes include watershed development, flood control structures, etc. Note that fees will be assessed for FEMA's review of proposed and "as- built" projects, as outlined in NFIP regulations 44 CFR Ch. 1, Part 72. • Improved Methodology/Data may be a different technique (model) or adjustments to models used in the effective FIS. • Regulatory Floodway Revisions involve any shift in the FEMA - designated floodway boundaries, regardless of whether the shift is mappable. • Other involves any basis for the request not including the above items. b. Indicate the types of flooding and structure(s) associated with the revision request. Instructions MT -2 Forms NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM 1 M 1 11 lllllll 11 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FIRM FIRM INSURANCE RATE MAP I I II N� ROOD (INSURANCE RATE MAP TOWN OF FLOOD COUNTY, FLOODVILLE Community Name USA AND FLOOD COUNTY, USA IN 7 1 INCORPORATED AREAS PANEL 4 OF 20 PANEL 38 OF 40 (BEE YAP BIDE% FOP MNEt9 XOT PROREO) IEEE NAP MEX " PANEB NOT PNMIEO) COMM'' c01000E1Y NOISED PANE 51 M nmm�u.mra fP�l am � Community Number COMMUNITf -PANEL NUMBER MAP NUMBER -- ►1- RBB:�3B Panel or Map 99009COOx EFFECTIVE DATE Number EFFECTIVE DATE AUGUST 19. 19M AUGUST 19,1998 Pt*W rM IS ---I —S Effective Data I Fes, —,., tnFncY (Single Community) (Countywide) Section C: Review Fee Enter the fee amount associated with the request, or attach an explanation as to why the revision meets the requirements for a fee exemption. The current fees for review and processing of Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) requests may be obtained from FEMA's Internet site at http://xvw,A,.fema.gov/flu-n/frm—fees.shtm. Section D: Signature Signature and Title of Revision Requester The person signing this certification should own the property involved in the request or have legal authority to represent a group /finyi/organization or other entity in legal actions pertaining to the NFIP. The requester is responsible for obtaining all necessary Federal, State, and local permits as a condition of obtaining a LOMR or CLOMR. The community is required to make sure that all necessary permits have been obtained prior to issuing a floodplain development permit. The most commonly required Federal permits are wetlands permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 and incidental take permits under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1972. Necessary State permits vary depending on the State. If the requester needs a wetlands permit or is not sure if one is required, he should contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District Office. If the requester's proposed development impacts threatened or endangered species or if he is unsure if it does, he should consult with the nearest U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service field office. Instructions MT -2 Forms Signature and Title of Community Official The person signing this certification should be the CEO for the community involved in this revision request or an official legally designated by the CEO. If more than one community is affected by the change, the community official from the community that is most affected should sign the form, and letters from the other affected communities should be enclosed. If the community or communities disagree with the proposed revision, a signed statement should be attached to the request explaining the reasons or basis for disagreement. Under 44 CFR 60.3(a)(2), the community is required to ensure, prior to issuing a floodplain development permit that an applicant has obtained all necessary Federal and State permits related to development. The most commonly required Federal permits are wetlands permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 and incidental take permits under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1972. Necessary State permits vary depending on the State. If the community is not sure if a wetlands permit is required, refer the applicant to the U.S� Army Corps of Engineers District Office. If the proposed development impacts on threatened or endangered species or the community is unsure if it does, have the applicant consult with the nearest U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service field office. Certification by Registered Professional Engineer and /or Land Surveyor The person certifying this submittal must provide a valid license number and expiration date for their license. If this information is provided, affixing a seal is optional. If a seal is available, however, it may be affixed in the seal box provided on this form. The licensed professional engineer and/or land surveyor should have a current license in the State where the affected communities are located. While the individual signing this form is not required to have obtained the supporting data or performed the analyses, he or she must have supervised and reviewed the work. A certification by a registered professional engineer or other party does not constitute a warranty or guarantee of performance, expressed or implied. Certification of data is a statement that the data is accurate to the best of the certifier's knowledge. Certification of analyses is a statement that the analyses have been performed correctly and in accordance with sound engineering practices. Certification of structural works is a statement that the works are designed in accordance with sound engineering practices to provide protection from the 1% annual chance flood. Certification of "as- built" conditions is a statement that the structure(s) has been built according to the plans being certified, is in place, and is fully functioning. If the requester is a Federal agency who is responsible for the design and construction of flood control facilities, a letter stating that, "the analyses submitted have been performed correctly and in accordance with sound engineering practices" may be submitted in lieu of certification by a registered professional engineer. Regarding the certification of completion of flood control facilities, a letter from the Federal agency certifying its completion and the flood frequency event to which the project protects may be submitted in lieu of this form. Forms Submitted Indicate which forms are submitted with the revision request. Instructions MT -2 Forms 7 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE RIVERINE HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS FORM (FORM 2) This form should be used for revision requests that involve new or revised hydrologic and/or hydraulic analyses of rivers, streams, ponds, or small lakes. A separate form should be used for each flooding source. Section A: Hydroloey This section is to be completed when discharges other than those used in the effective Flood Insurance Study (FIS) are proposed. Indicate the reason for the new or revised hydrologic analysis. For revisions based on alternative methodologies or improved data, an explanation as to why the alternative methodology or improved data provides better results over the FIS must be presented and supported throughout the form. Compare the effective 1% annual chance (100 -year) discharges to the revised 1% annual chance discharges at three representative locations. In accordance with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations, if only a portion of a detailed study stream is revised, transition to the unrevised portion must be ensured to maintain the continuity of the study. Attach an explanation of how the proposed discharge in the revised portion of the stream transitions to the effective discharge in the unrevised portion of the stream, and vice versa. Specify the method used for the new analysis. Attach any additional backup computations and supporting data such as a drainage area map, soils map, soil group names, time of concentration computations, curve numbers, etc. Disks with the digital models should also be included. Models submitted in support of a revision request must meet the requirements of Subparagraph 65.6(a)(6) of the NFIP regulations. A list of accepted FEMA hydrologic models can be found at http://www.fema.gov/flirri/en—hydro.shtm. If approval of the new hydrologic analysis is required by a local, State, or Federal agency, indicate if the analysis and resulting peak discharge value(s), have been approved by the appropriate local, State, or Federal agency and attach evidence of the approval. In locations where sediment transport affects hydrology, the effects of sediment transport should be considered in the hydrology and Section F of Form 3 should be submitted. Section B: Hydraulics This section is to be completed when the request involves a hydraulic analysis for riverine flooding that differs from that used to develop the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Indicate the reach of stream to be revised. The area of the revision is defined by an effective tie -in at the upstream and downstream limits. For streams that have a detailed study, an effective tie -in is obtained when the revised base flood and floodway elevations are within 0.5 feet of the effective elevations, and the revised floodway encroachment stations match the effective floodway stations at both the upstream and downstream 'limits. For streams that do not have a detailed study, an effective tie -in is obtained when the revised base flood elevations are within 0.5 feet of the pre - project conditions model at both the upstream and downstream limits. Please note that the area of revision and the project area are not necessarily the same. If the revised model does not tie -in to the effective study at the project limits, the model must be extended upstream and downstream until it ties -in to the effective study. 2. Indicate the Hydraulic Method used for the revision. A list of Hydraulic models accepted by FEMA can be found at bttp: / /Nvww .fema.gov /fiun/en_hydra.shtm. If using a hydraulic model that does not appear on the list of accepted models, please provide documentation showing that the model meets the requirements of NFIP regulation 65.6(a)(6). Instructions MT -2 Forms 3. Indicate if the CHECK -2 or CHECK -RAS programs were used to verify that the hydraulic estimates and assumptions in the model are comparable to the assumptions and limitations of HEC -2 or HEC -RAS. CHECK -2 and CHECK -RAS are review tools that identify areas of potential error or concern. These tools do not replace engineering judgment. CHECK -2 and CHECK -RAS can be downloaded from FEMA's Internet site at http://wNvw.fe.ma.gov/flun/frm soft.shtm. We recommend that you review your HEC -2 and HEC -RAS models with CHECK -2 and CHECK -RAS. If you disagree with the comment messages, please attach an explanation of why the messages are not valid in each case. To reduce processing time, review your hydraulic model and resolve valid modeling discrepancies, before submitting it for review. 4. Indicate the hydraulic models submitted. Submittal requirements for areas that have detailed flooding: Printouts of input and output listings along with files on diskette or CD for each of the models and supporting data (e.g., description of vegetation and land use map) for the source of input parameters used in the models listed below must be provided. The summary must include a description of any changes made from model to model (e.g., Duplicate Effective Model to Corrected Effective Model). At a minimum, the Duplicate Effective Model and the Revised or Post - Project Conditions Model must be submitted. The hydraulic analyses shall be performed for all flood frequencies and the floodway published in the effective FIS. Submittal requirements for areas that do not have detailed flooding: Only the 1% annual chance (Base) flood computations are required. A hydraulic model is not required for areas that do not have detailed flooding; however, Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) may not be added to the revised FIRM. If a hydraulic model is developed for the area, the Existing or Pre - project Model and the Revised or Post - Project Conditions Model, if applicable, described below must be submitted. Duplicate Effective Model The duplicate effective model is a copy of the hydraulic analysis used in the effective FIS, referred to as the effective model. The effective model should be obtained and then reproduced on the requester's equipment to produce the duplicate effective model. This is required to ensure that the effective model's input data has been transferred correctly to the requester's equipment and to ensure that the revised data will be integrated into the effective data to provide a continuous FIS model upstream and downstream of the revised reach. For information on how to obtain copies of the effective FIS models, see FEMA's Internet site at http: / /www.fema.gov /fhm/st order.shtm. If data from the effective model is available and the same modeling program is being used, the requester must generate models that duplicate the FIS profiles and the elevations shown in the Floodway Data Table in the FIS report to within 0.1 foot. The appropriate FEMA Regional Office should be contacted if this model cannot be produced. See Appendix C for the addresses and telephone numbers of FEMA's Regional Offices. If the effective model is not available, the new model must be calibrated to reproduce the FIS profiles within 0.5 foot. If an alternative hydraulic model is used, it must be shown that the use of the original model is inappropriate and the new model must be calibrated to reproduce the FIS profiles within 0.5 foot. 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 current 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. Instructions MT -2 Forms 9 Existing or Pre - Project Conditions Model The Duplicate Effective Model 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 Model or Duplicate Effective Model. The existing or pre - project model may be required to support conclusions about the actual impacts of the project associated with the revised or post - project model or to establish more up -to -date models on which to base the revised or post - project conditions model. Revised or Post - Project Conditions Model The Existing or Pre - Project Conditions Model (or Duplicate Effective Model or Corrected Effective Model, as appropriate) is modified to reflect revised or post - project conditions. This model must incorporate any physical changes to the floodplain since the effective model was produced as well as the effects of the project. When the request is for a proposed project, this model must reflect proposed conditions. The information requested on the Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form is intended to document the steps taken by the requester in the process of preparing the revised or post - project conditions hydraulic model and the resulting revised FIS information. The following guidelines should be followed when completing the form: All changes to the duplicate and subsequent models must be supported by certified topographic information, bridge plans, construction plans, survey notes, etc. • Changes to the hydraulic models should be limited to the stream reach for which the revision is being requested. Cross sections upstream and downstream of the revised reach should be identical to those in the effective model. If this is done, water surface elevations and topwidths computed by the revised models should match those in the effective models upstream and downstream of the revised reach as required. • There must be consistency between the revised hydraulic models, the revised floodplain and floodway delineations, the revised flood profiles, topographic work map, annotated FIRMS and/or Flood Boundary Floodway Maps (FBFMs), construction plans, bridge plans, etc. Section C: Mapping Requirements A certified topographic map of suitable scale, contour interval, and planimetric definition must be submitted showing the applicable items indicated on the form If a digital version of the map is available, it may be submitted so that the FIRM may be more easily revised. Attach an annotated FIRM panel showing the revised 1% and 0.2% annual chance floodplains and floodway boundaries. The revised boundaries must tie into the effective boundaries. The annotated FIRM ensures that FEMA is aware of how the requester anticipates the FIRM will be revised. Section D: Common Regulatory Requirements Indicate "yes" for the following situations: • Projects that will have construction within the floodway, which cause the BFEs to increase (more than 0.00 feet), or • Projects that will have construction within the floodplain of streams that have a detailed effective study, but for which a floodway has not been established, which cause the BFEs to increase more than 1.0 foot (or any other more stringent requirement set by the community or State). If either of the two situations occurs, then the conditions in NFIP Regulation 44 CFR Ch. 1, Section 65.12 must be met. The conditions of NFIP Regulation 44 CFR Ch. 1, Section 65.12 include: Instructions MT -2 Forms 10 • An evaluation of alternatives, which would not result in a BFE increase above that permitted demonstrating why these alternatives are not feasible; • Documentation of individual legal notice to all affected property owners within and outside of the community, explaining the impact of the proposed action on their property; • Concurrence of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and any other communities affected by the proposed actions; and • Certification that no structures are located in areas that would be impacted by the increased base flood elevation. 2. Indicate if the placement of fill is involved with the revision request. Fill is defined as material from any source placed to raise the ground to or above the BFE. If fill has been placed to remove an area or structure from the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), the community must sign the appropriate section of Form 1 certifying that the area to be removed from the special flood hazard area, to include any structures or proposed structures, (will) meets all of the standards of the local floodplain ordinances, and is reasonably safe from flooding in accordance with NFIP Regulation 44 CFR 65.2(c). "Reasonably safe from, flooding" means that the base flood waters will not inundate the land or damage the structures to be removed from the SFHA and that any subsurface waters related to the base flood will not damage existing or proposed buildings. Information on ensuring that structures built on fill in or near the SFHA are reasonably safe from flooding may be obtained from FEMA's Technical Bulletin 10 -01, "Ensuring That Structures Built on Fill In or Near Special Flood Hazard Areas Are Reasonably Safe , from Flooding," which is available on FEMA's Internet site at http://wxvw.fema.gov/pdf/fmia/tblOOl.pdf. Indicate if the request involves a floodway revision. If the floodway is being revised, the` requirements of NFIP Regulation 44 CFR Ch. 1, Section 65.7 must be met. These requirements include submitting a copy of a public notice distributed by the community stating the community's intent to revise the floodway or a statement by the community that it has notified all affected property owners and affected adjacent jurisdictions. Samples of a public notice and of an individual notification for a floodway revision are shown in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. Indicate if property owner notification and acceptance (if available) are required because the revision request involves increases in flood hazards from those shown on the FIRM. FEMA must provide a statutory 90 -day appeal period for all map revisions entailing Base (1% annual chance [100 - year]) Flood Elevation (BFE) changes. LOMRs with decreasing flood hazards (1% annual chance water - surface elevations, floodplains, or floodways) typically are effective the day of issuance, with any necessary appeal period provided afterwards. LOMRs with increasing flood hazards typically are not effective until after any required appeal period has expired and any necessary ordinance changes have been made by the community (3 to 6 months). However, a LOMR that reflects increasing flood hazards may be effective on the day of issuance if all property owners affected by these increases are notified and approve of the increases, and the community concurs with the revision. Samples of individual notifications for various increases in the SFHAs, BFEs, and floodways are shown on Figures 4 through 8. Instructions MT -2 Forms 11 The (insert community name) (insert appropriate community department for floodplain management), in accordance with National Flood Insurance Program regulation 653(b)(1), hereby gives notice of the {insert community designation Township's / Village's/ Borough's / County's) intent to revise the floodway, generally located between {insert general location of floodway revision). Specifically, the floodway shall be revised from a point {describe downstream limit of floodway revision) to a point {describe upstream limit of floodway revision). As a result of the floodway revision, the floodway shall {widen and /or narrow) with a maximum widening of {insert maximum widening) feet at a point approximately {insert location of widening) and /or a maximum narrowing of {insert maximum narrowing) feet at a point approximately {insert location of narrowing). Maps and detailed analysis of the floodway revision can be reviewed at the {insert location) at {insert location address). Interested persons may call {insert community contact name or position) at {insert contact phone number) for additional information from ... to ... {insert dates during which community contact person can be contacted). Figure 3. SAMPLE NOTIFICATION FOR LOMR FLOODWAY REVISION (to be used by community when placing a notice in a newspaper) Instructions MT -2 Forms 12 {Date} {Affected property owner name} {Affected property owner mailing address} Re: Notification of Floodway Revision for {flooding source} Dear Mr. /Ms. /Mr. & Mrs. {Affected property owner} The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for a community depicts the floodplain, the area which has been determined to be subject to a 1% (100 -year) or greater chance of flooding in any given year. The floodway is the portion of the floodplain that includes the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land area that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water - surface elevation by more than a designated height. The {insert community name} {insert appropriate community department for floodplain management }, in accordance with National Flood Insurance Program regulation 65.7(b)(1), hereby gives notice of the {insert community designation Township's / Village's/ Borough's / County's} intent to revise the 1% annual chance (100 -year) floodway, generally located between {insert general location of floodway revision). Specifically, the floodway shall be revised from a point {describe downstream limit of floodway revision} to a point {describe upstream limit of floodway revision}. As a result of the floodway revision the floodway shall {widen and /or narrow} with a maximum widening of {insert maximum widening} feet at a point approximately {insert location of widening) and a maximum narrowing of {insert maximum narrowing} feet at a point approximately {insert location of narrowing }. Maps and detailed analysis of the floodway revision can be reviewed at the {insert location} at {insert location address }. If you have any questions or concerns about the proposed project or its affect on your property, you may contact {name of appropriate community official} of {name of community} at {community official contact information} from ... to ... {insert dates during which community contact person can be contacted }. Sincerely, {Community official name} {Community official position} {Community official contact information} Figure 4. SAMPLE LETTER FOR LOMR FLOODWAY REVISION NOTIFICATION (to be used by community if notifying property owners individually by letter) Instructions MT -2 Forms 13 {Date} {Affected property owner name} {Affected property owner mailing address} Re: Notification of increases in 1% (100 -year) annual chance water - surface elevations Dear Mr. /Ms. /Mr. & Mrs. {Affected property owner} The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for a community depicts land which has been determined to be subject to a 1% (100 -year) or greater chance of flooding in any given year. The FIRM is used to determine flood insurance rates and to help the community with floodplain management. {Revision Requester} is applying for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on behalf of {Revision requester's client} to revise FIRM {insert FIRM #, panel #, and suffix) for {insert community name, state} along {insert name of flooding source }. {Revision requester's client} is proposing {describe project} as part of (explain project purpose). The proposed project will result in increases {and decreases} in the 1% annual chance water - surface elevations for {insert flooding source} with a maximum increase of {enter maximum increase} feet at a point approximately (location of maximum increase) and a maximum decrease in the 1% annual chance water - surface elevation of {enter maximum decrease} feet at a point approximately {location of maximum decrease }. This letter is to inform you of the proposed increases in the 1% annual chance water - surface elevations on your property at {insert physical address }. If you have any questions or concerns about the proposed project or its affect on your property, you may contact {name of appropriate community official} of {name of community) at {community official contact information} from ... to ... {insert dates during which community contact person would like to be contacted }. Sincerely, {Revision requester name} Figure 5. SAMPLE LETTER FOR CLOMR NOTIFICATION OF INCREASES IN BFEs Instructions MT -2 Forms 14 {Date} (Affected property owner name) {Affected property owner mailing address} Re: Notification of {widening and /or narrowing) of 1% (100 -year) annual chance floodplain Dear Mr. /Ms. /Mr. & Mrs. {Affected property owner} The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for a community depicts land which has been determined to be subject to a 1% (100 -year) or greater chance of flooding in any given year. The FIRM is used to determine flood insurance rates and to help the community with floodplain management. {Revision Requester) is applying for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on behalf of {Revision requester's client) to revise FIRM {insert FIRM #, panel #, suffix} for {insert community name, state) along {insert name of flooding source). {Revision requester) is proposing to revise the FIRM to reflect {describe project). The revision to the FIRM will result in widening {and narrowing} of the 1% annual chance (Zone A) floodplain for {insert name of flooding source). The maximum, widening of {enter maximum increase) feet occurs at a point approximately {location of maximum widening) while the maximum narrowing of {enter maximum narrowing} feet occurs at a point approximately {location of maximum narrowing). {Choose one of the following two paragraphs) This letter is to inform you of the revision of the 1% annual chance (Zone A) floodplain on your property at {insert physical address). {or) We would like to obtain your acceptance of revision of the 1% annual chance (Zone A) floodplain on your property at {insert physical address). Please sign and date the provided copy of this letter to signify your acceptance and return it to {Revision Requester's address) by {insert date to return acceptance by). If you have any questions or concerns about the proposed changes to the FIRM or its effects on your property, you may contact me at {Revision requester contact phone number). Sincerely, {Revision requester name) {Insert the following if asking for property owner acceptance) I,, {insert property owner name), accept the redelineation of the 1% annual chance floodplain as described above. {insert property owner name) Date Figure 6. SAMPLE LETTER FOR LOMR NOTIFICATION & ACCEPTANCE IN ZONE A THAT WILL WIDEN AND NARROW THE FLOODPLAIN BUT NOT ESTABLISH BFEs Instructions MT -2 Forms 15 {Date) {Affected property owner name) {Affected property owner mailing address} Re: Notification of (widening and /narrowing) of 1% (100 -year) annual chance floodplain and establishment of Base Flood Elevations Dear Mr. /Ms. /Mr. & Mrs. {Affected property owner) The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for a community depicts land which has been determined to be subject to a 1% (100 -year) or greater chance of flooding in any given year. The FIRM is used to determine flood insurance rates and to help the community with floodplain management. {Revision Requester) is applying for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on behalf of {Revision requester's client) to revise FIRM {insert FIRM #, panel #, suffix) for {insert community name, state) along {insert name of flooding source). (Revision requester) is proposing to revise the FIRM to reflect {describe project). The Letter of Map Revision will result in: 1. Establishment of Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs). Currently, the flooding along {flooding source) is based on an approximate study. 2. Widening {and narrowing) of the 1% annual chance floodplain with the maximum widening of {enter maximum increase) feet at a point approximately {location of maximum widening) and the maximum narrowing of {enter maximum narrowing) feet at a point approximately {location of maximum narrowing). {Please choose one of the following two paragraphs) This letter is to inform you of the establishment of Base Flood Elevations and revision of the 1% annual chance floodplain on your property at {insert physical address). {or) We would like to obtain your acceptance of the establishment of Base Flood Elevations and revision of the 1% annual chance floodplain on your property at {insert physical address). Please sign and date the provided copy of this letter and return it to {Revision Requester's address) by {insert date to return acceptance by). If you have any questions or concerns about the proposed changes to the FIRM or its effect on your property, you may contact me at {Revision requester contact phone number). Sincerely, {Revision requester name) {Insert the following if asking for property owner acceptance) I, {insert property owner name), accept establishment of Base Flood Elevation on {insert flooding source name) and redelineation of the 1% annual chance floodplain as described above. {insert property owner name) Date Figure 7. SAMPLE LETTER FOR LOMR NOTIFICATION & ACCEPTANCE IN ZONE A THAT WILL ESTABLISH BFEs & WIDEN AND NARROW THE FLOODPLAIN Instructions MT -2 Forms 16 (Date) {Affected property owner name and address) Re: Notification of 1% (100 -year) annual chance water - surface elevation increases {and widening of the 1% annual chance floodplain) Dear Mr. /Ms. /Mr. & Mrs. {Affected property owner} The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for a community depicts land which has been determined to be subject to a 1% (100 -year) or greater annual chance of flooding in any given year. The FIRM is used to determine flood insurance rates and to help the community with floodplain management. {Revision Requester} is applying for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on behalf of {Revision requester's client) to revise FIRM {insert FIRM #, panel #, suffix) for {insert community name, state) along {insert name of flooding source}. {Revision requester's client) is proposing {describe project} as part of {explain project purpose). The Letter of Map Revision will result in: 1. Increases {and decreases} in the 1% annual chance water - surface elevations with a maximum increase of {enter maximum increase) feet at a point approximately {location of maximum increase) and a maximum decrease in the 1% annual chance water - surface elevation of {enter maximum decrease) feet at a point approximately {location of maximum decrease). 2. Widening {and narrowing) of the 1% annual chance floodplain with the maximum widening of {enter maximum increase) feet at a point approximately {location of maximum widening) and the maximum narrowing of {enter maximum narrowing) feet at a point approximately {location of maximum narrowing). {Choose one of the following two paragraphs) This letter is to inform you of revision of the 1% annual chance water - surface elevation and 1% annual chance floodplain on your property at {insert physical address). {or) We would like to obtain your acceptance of revision of the 1% annual chance water - surface elevation and 1% annual chance floodplain on your property at (insert physical address). Please sign and date the provided copy of this letter to signify your acceptance and return it to {Revision Requester's address) by {insert date to return acceptance by). If you have any questions or concerns about the proposed changes to the FIRM or its effect on your property, you may contact me at {Revision requester contact phone number). Sincerely, {Revision requester name) {Insert the following if asking for property owner acceptance) I, {insert property owner name), accept increases in the 1% annual chance water - surface elevations and redelineation of the 1% annual chance floodplain as described above. owner name) Date Figure 8. SAMPLE LETTER FOR LOMR NOTIFICATION & ACCEPTANCE THAT WILL RESULT IN INCREASES IN ZONE AE OF BFEs & WIDENING OF THE FLOODPLAIN Instructions MT -2 Forms 17 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE RIVERINE STRUCTURES FORM (FORM 3) This form should be used for revision requests that involve new or proposed channelization, bridges /culverts, dams, and/or levees /floodwalls. Only complete the sections of this form that are applicable to the revision request. A separate form should be used for each flooding source that has structures involved in the revision request. Section A: General Provide the name of the structure (e.g., Main Street Bridge or Flood Creek channelization), the type of structure, the location of the structure (e.g., 1000 feet upstream of Main Street or River Mile 10.4), and the appropriate cross - section labels for the structures that are part of the revision request. Attach additional pages if the revision request involves more than 3 structures. This form is not required for existing structures that are included in the hydraulic model for the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Section B: Channelization This section is to be completed when any portion of the stream channel is altered or relocated. The purpose of the Channelization section and the information to be submitted, is to ensure that the channel will function properly as designed and pass the 1% annual chance flood as determined by the hydraulic analysis. When the Channelization section is submitted, a Riverine Hydrologic & Hydraulic Form (Form 2) must also be submitted. 1. Indicate all accessory structures included with the channelization. The accessory structures should be shown on the submitted plans. 2. Attach engineering drawings of the channelization certified by a registered professional engineer. The drawings should include a plan view of the channelization that shows pre - construction topography and post - construction grading, channel cross section, channel lining, channel inlet and outlet, and details for any accessory structures included with the channelization. Typically, channelization increases the channel velocity above the natural channel velocity. Provide information that supports the conclusion that the channel lining will withstand the velocities associated with the 1% annual chance flood. The type of channel lining should be indicated on the plans. Indicate the channel design criteria (i.e., capacity and type of flow) and if there is a potential for a hydraulic jump. 4. In locations where sediment transport will affect the Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), the effects of sediment transport should be considered in the channelization analysis and Section F of Form 3 should be submitted. Section C: Bridge /Culvert This section is to be completed when the request involves a new bridge or culvert or a new or revised analysis of an existing bridge or culvert. 1. Indicate the reason for the new or revised bridge /culvert modeling. 2. Indicate the model used to analyze the hydraulics at the bridge /culvert. If this model is different than the model used to analyze the flooding on the stream, then include an explanation of why a different model was used to analyze the bridge /culvert. 3. Attach plans of the structure certified by a registered professional engineer. The bridge /culvert plans should include the information listed on the form. Indicate the items included on the plans, and attach an explanation of why any information is not included. 4. In locations where sediment transport will affect the BFEs, the effects of sediment transport should be considered in the bridge /culvert analysis and Section F of Form 3 should be submitted. Instructions MT -2 Forms 18 Section D: Dam This section is to be filled out when there is an existing, proposed, or modified dam along a stream studied in detail. Provide a complete engineering analysis and engineering drawings of the dam. The drawings should indicate the dam dimensions (height, top width, side slopes), the crest elevation of the top of the dam, the type of spillway, the spillway dimensions, the crest elevation of the spillway, the type of outlet, the outlet dimensions, and the invert elevation of the outlet. 1. Indicate the reason for the revision request involving a dam. 2. Indicate the agency or organization that designed the dam. 3. Indicate if the hydrologic analysis is revised as a result of the dam. Any storage upstream of the dam, considered in the hydrologic analysis to reduce the peak base flood discharge, should be totally dedicated to flood control. If the outflow of the dam is regulated, submit an explanation of the flow regulation plan. Complete Form 2, Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form, if the hydrology changes. 4. In locations where sediment transport will affect the BFEs, the effects of sediment transport should be considered in the dam analysis and Section F of Form 3 should be submitted. 5. Indicate if the Base Flood Elevations change as a result of the dam. If impacted, list the elevations. Indicate the stillwater elevations behind the dam. 6. Attach a copy of the Operation and Maintenance Plan for the dam with the revision request. Section E: Levee/Floodwall This section is to be completed when the revision request involves a new or modified levee and/or floodwall system. A levee is a man -made structure, usually an earthen embankment, designed and constructed in accordance with sound engineering practices to contain, control, or divert the flow of water so as to provide protection from temporary flooding. The purpose of this section is to ensure that the levee or floodwall is designed and/or constructed to provide protection from the 1% annual chance flood, in full compliance with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Regulation 44 CFR Ch. 1, Section 65. 10, before reflecting its effects on an NFIP map. In addition, a vicinity map along with a complete set of flood profile sheets, plan sheets, and layout detail sheets must be submitted. These sheets must be numbered, and an index must be provided that clearly identifies those sheets specifically relating to the levee or floodwall in question. 1. Indicate all the applicable levee /floodwall system elements, including their locations and types, and provide engineering drawings certified by a registered professional engineer. The drawings should show the items indicated. 2. Indicate the amount of freeboard that the levee has above the base flood elevation. Riverine levees must provide a minimum freeboard of three feet above the BFE. An additional one -half foot above the minimum must be provided at the upstream end of the levee, tapering to not less than the minimum at the downstream end of the levee. An additional one -foot above the minimum freeboard is required on both sides of the river or stream for a distance of 100 feet upstream of structures (such as bridges) riverward of the levee or wherever the flow is constricted. If exceptions to the minimum freeboard requirements are requested, attach documentation addressing NFIP Regulation 44 CFR Ch. 1, Subparagraph 65.10(b)(1)(ii). Ice jams can increase the flood elevations on a stream. Indicate if the stream has a history of ice jams, and, if so, provide evidence that the minimum freeboard still exists with the ice jam effects. 3. List the closure devices for all openings through the levee system. All openings must be provided with closure devices that are structural parts of the system during operation and design. Instructions MT -2 Forms 19 4. Complete the information to show where embankment protection is required, and submit supporting embankment protection analysis. The embankment protection analysis must demonstrate that no appreciable erosion of the levee embanlarient can be expected during the 1% annual chance flood, as a result of either current or waves, and that anticipated erosion will not result in failure of the levee embanlanent or foundation directly or indirectly through reduction of the seepage path and subsequent instability. Factors to be addressed include, but are not limited to: expected flow velocities, expected wind and wave action, ice loading, impact of debris, slope protection techniques, duration of flooding at various stages and velocities, embankment and foundation materials, levee alignment, bends, transitions, and levee side slopes. The table provide in the form is for riprap protection. If another method of embankment protection is used, then a table with similar information should be prepared and submitted with the forms. Complete the information to summarize the analysis of the levee and foundation. This analysis must evaluate both stability and seepage during the loading conditions associated with the base flood. The seepage analysis shall demonstrate that seepage into or through the levee embankment and foundation will not result in seepage and piping that will jeopardize the embankment and foundation stability. The slope stability analysis shall demonstrate that the levee cross section is stable under all loading and unloading conditions for the base flood. The analysis should include the river or channel slopes. Guidance on seepage and stability analyses is outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) manual "Design and Construction of Levees," EM 1110 -2 -1913. This manual may be obtained at http: / /www.usace.amiy.ii il/ inet / usace - docs /eng- manuals /em1110 -2- 1913 /toc.htm. Additional information on acceptable factors of safety for underseepage is in USACE technical letter "Design Guidance for Levees," ETL 1110 -2 -555. This technical letter may be obtained from the USACE Internet site at http: /hvww.usace.army.mil/inet/usace -docs /eng- tech- ltrs /etll 110 -2- 555 /toc.html. The factors that must be addressed in these analyses include: depth of flooding, duration of flooding, foundation conditions at the site, embankment and cut slope geometry and length of seepage path at the critical locations, internal drainage in the levee, seepage and/or stability berms and management of trees and vegetation. All backup material for these analyses should be submitted. 6. See above embankment and foundation stability discussion. In addition, waterstops and joint materials should be incorporated into the floodwall design as outlined in USACE manual "Waterstops and Other Preformed Joint Materials for Civil Works Structures," EM 1110 -2 -2102 to prevent passage of water through the wall. This manual maybe obtained at http:/ /Nvww.usace.army.mil/inet/usace -docs /eng - manuals /em1110 -2- 2102 /toc.htni. Complete the information to summarize the results from an analysis of potential settling of the levee. The settlement analysis must assess the potential and magnitude of future losses of freeboard and must demonstrate that the minimum freeboard requirements will be maintained. The analysis must address embanlanent loads, compressibility of embankment soils, compressibility of foundation soils, age of the levee system, and construction compaction methods. In addition, a detailed settlement analysis and determination of the appropriate amount of overbuild using procedures such as those described in USACE manuals "Settlement Analysis," EM 1110 -2 -1904 and "Design and Construction of Levees," EM 1110 -2 -1913, Chapter 6, must be submitted. Submit all backup information used in the analysis. Complete the information to summarize an analysis of potential flooding from interior drainage. In accordance with NFIP Regulation 44 CFR Ch. 1, Subparagraph 65.10(b)(6), the interior drainage analysis must be based on the joint probability of interior and exterior flooding and the capacity of facilities for evacuating interior floodwaters. The analysis must identify the extent of the flooded area, and the water - surface elevation(s) of the 1% annual chance flood if the average depth is greater than one foot. This information is to show on a certified topographic work map. Submit the calculation and back -up information for the analysis of flooding potential from interior drainage. 9. Complete the information and attach any supporting documentation regarding the design criteria indicated. 10. Complete the information to summarize the operational plan and criteria. For a levee system to be recognized by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the operational criteria must be as described in NFIP Regulation 44 CFR Ch. 1, Subparagraph 65.10(c). 11. Indicate if the maintenance plan for the levee is in compliance with NFIP Regulation 44 CFR Ch. 1, Subparagraph 65.10(d). Instructions MT -2 Forms 20 12. Submit a copy of the Operation and Maintenance Plan with the revision request. This plan should address maintenance standards, intervals and procedures. It should also include requirements for management of vegetation similar to what is outlined in USACE manual "Landscape Planting and Vegetation Management for Floodwalls, Levees and Embankment Dams," EM 1110 -2 -301. This manual can be obtained from the USACE Internet site at http:// -%vww. usace .army.mil/inet/usace- docs /eng- manuals /em1110 -2- 301 /toc.htm. This plan should also include the design and construction requirements and inspection procedures for future utility crossings. The Operation and Maintenance Plan may not have to be submitted when requesting a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) for a proposed levee. However, it will be required after the levee is constructed and a revision to the FIRM is requested. Section F: Sediment Transport Complete the information to summarize an analysis of sediment transport (including scour and deposition) if there is any indication from historical records that sediment transport can affect. the BFE, or if based on the stream morphology, vegetative cover, development of the watershed and bank conditions, there is a potential for debris and sediment transport to affect the BFE or a structure. If sediment transport will not affect the BFE or a structure, then indicate that this section is not applicable and include an explanation as to why a sediment analysis was not performed. Please note that bulked flows are used to evaluate the performance of a structure during the base flood, but FEMA does not map BFEs based on bulked flows. Instructions MT -2 Forms 21 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE COASTAL ANALYSIS FORM (FORM 4) The information requested on the Coastal Analysis Form is intended to document the steps taken by the requester in the process of preparing the revised models or analyses and the resulting revised Flood Insurance Study (FIS) information. Refer to the Consolidated Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners, Appendix D: Guidance for Coastal Flooding Analyses and Mapping, which can be obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Internet site at http: / /www.fema.gov /fhm/dl_cgs.shtm, for the wave height analyses and mapping procedures used by FEMA for coastal areas. Wave height, wave run -up, and storm induced erosion may be analyzed using the program, CHAMP 1. 1, which was developed for FEMA. CHAMP 1.1 maybe obtained from FEMA's Internet site at http: / /www.fema.gov /flun/frm_soft.shtm. A list of accepted FEMA coastal models can be found on FEMA's Internet site at http:/h vww.fema.gov /fhnVen_coast.shtm. The following guidelines should be followed when completing the form: Section A: Coastline to be Revised Describe the limits of the restudied area. Road names and/or landmarks in the vicinity of the restudied area or transects used in the effective FIS may be used as reference points. Section B: Effective FIS The type of analyses (approximate or detailed wave parameter computations) used for the effective FIS for the community being restudied must be provided. This information is available in the hydrologic and hydraulic sections of the FIS report. Section C: Revised Analysis All changes to effective models must be supported by certified topographic information, structure plans, survey notes, storm surge data, meteorological data, etc. All equations or models used must be referenced. Descriptions and/or sketches of transect profiles should be attached for revised erosion, wave height, wave runup, and wave overtopping analyses. Wave runup and wave overtopping should be considered when the wave heights approach the crest of the shore protection structure or natural land forms. If FEMA procedures are not used in the revised analyses, provide an explanation. Section D: Results Information must be provided to determine the impact of the analysis on the mapping of the coastal high hazard areas, including the location of the coastal high hazard area boundaries, maximum wave height elevation, and the maximum wave runup elevation. Mapping resulting from the re- analysis of the effective study must tie -in with areas not re- studied. The mapped inland limit of the coastal high hazard areas (V Zones) as a result of the re- analysis must be in compliance with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Regulation 44 CFR Ch. 1, Section 65.11 in areas where primary frontal dunes are present. Section E: Mapping Requirements With the revision request, submit a certified topographic map showing the information indicated in the Mapping Requirements Section of the Coastal Analysis Form. Also submit a copy of the current FIRM annotated to show the revised 1% annual chance floodplain boundaries. Instructions MT -2 Forms 22 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE COASTAL STRUCTURES FORM (FORM 5) The Coastal Structures Form is to be completed when a revision to coastal flood hazard elevations and/or areas is requested based on coastal structures being credited as providing protection from the base flood. The purpose of the Coastal Structures Form is to ensure that the structure is designed and constructed to provide protection from the base flood without failing or causing an increase in flood hazards to adjacent areas. Refer to the Consolidated Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners, Appendix D: Guidance for Coastal Flooding Analyses and Mapping which can be obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Internet site at http: //N ww.fema.gov /flim/dl c s� for the criteria for evaluating flood protection structures. If the coastal structure is a levee /floodwall, complete the Levee/Floodwall System section of the Riverine Structure Form (Form 3), in addition to this form. When the Coastal Structures Form is submitted, the Coastal Analysis Form (Form 4) should also be submitted. Section A: Background Information about the type of structure, the location, the material being used, and the age of the structure must be provided. Certified "as built" plans must also be provided. If these plans are not available, an explanation must be given with sketches of the general structure dimensions as described. If the structure design has been certified by a Federal agency to provide flood protection and withstand forces from the 1% annual chance (base) flood, the dates of the project completion and certification of the structure should be provided, and the remainder of the form does not need to be completed. Section B: Design Criteria Documentation must be provided that ensures a coastal structure is designed and constructed to withstand the wind and wave forces associated with the base flood. The minimum freeboard of the structure must be in compliance with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Regulation 44 CFR Ch. 1, Section 65.10. Additional concerns include the impact to areas directly landward of the structure that may be subjected to overtopping and erosion along with possible failure of the structure due to undermining from the backside and the possible increase in erosion to unprotected properties at the ends of the structure. The evaluation of protection provided by sand dunes must follow the criteria outlined in NF1P Regulation 44 CFR Ch. 1, Section 65.11. Section C: Adverse Impact Evaluation If the structure is new, proposed, or modified, and will impact flooding and erosion for the areas adjacent to the structure, provide an explanation and documentation to support your conclusions. Section D: Community and/or State Review Provide documentation of Community and/or State review of the revision. Section E: Certification The licensed professional engineer and/or land surveyor should have a current license in the State where the affected communities are located. While the individual signing this form is not required to have obtained the supporting data or performed the analyses, he or she must have supervised and reviewed the work. If the requester is a Federal agency who is responsible for the design and construction of flood control facilities, a letter stating that "the analyses submitted have been performed correctly and in accordance with sound engineering practices" may be submitted in lieu of certification by a registered professional engineer. Regarding the certification of completion of flood control facilities, a letter from the Federal agency certifying its completion and the flood frequency event to which the project protects may be submitted in lieu of this form. Instructions MT -2 Forms 23 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE ALLUVIAL FAN FLOODING FORM (FORM 6) This form should be used for revision requests involving alluvial fans. The purpose of this form is to ensure that a structural flood control measure in areas subject to alluvial fan flooding is designed and/or constructed to provide protection from the 1% annual chance flood, in compliance with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Regulation 44 CFR Ch. 1, Section 65.13, before it is recognized on an NFIP map. Elevating a parcel of land or a structure by fill or other means will not serve as a basis for removing areas subject to alluvial fan flooding from an area of special flood hazards. See NFIP Regulation 44 CFR Ch. 1, Section 65.13. Complete engineering analyses must be submitted in support of each section of this form. In addition, it may be necessary to complete other forms relating to specific flood control measures, such as levees /floodwalls, channelization, or dams. Section A: Three -Stage Analysis The three -stage analysis of alluvial fans is described in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Consolidated Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners, Appendix G: Guidance for Alluvial Fan Flooding Analyses and Mapping, which can be obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Internet site at http://wAkv.fema.gov/fhnVdl_cgs.shtm. 1. Complete the information regarding the characterization of the alluvial fan landform. 2. Complete the information regarding the definition of active and inactive areas. 3. Complete the information regarding the determination of the 100 -year floodplain boundaries. Section B: Structural Flood Control Measures Complete the information regarding any flood control structures. Submit Form 3, Riverine Structure Form, and an Operation and Maintenance Plan with the revision request. The Operation and Maintenance Plan may be submitted when requesting a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR), but is not required. However, it will be required after construction is complete and a revision to the Flood Insurance rate Map (FIRM) is requested. Section C: Mapping Requirements With the revision request, submit a certified topographic map showing the information indicated in the Mapping Requirements section of the Alluvial Fan Flooding Form Also submit a copy of the current FIRM annotated to show the revised 1% annual chance floodplain boundaries. Instructions MT -2 Forms 24 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE PAYMENT INFORMATION FORM The Payment Information Form must be completed for all requests requiring a fee. The current fee schedule for the reviewing and processing of Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) requests may be obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Internet site at http://www.fema.gov/flun/frm—fees.shtrn or by calling FEMA's Map Assistance Center at 1- 877 -FEMA MAP (1- 877 -336- 2627). Indicate the name of the community and a project identifier (e.g., Floodville Estates Subdivision or Small Creek Channel Improvements). The fees are sent to a different location from the revision request package. It is important to have the name of the community and a project identifier on the fee form, so that fees can be matched to the revision requests. Indicate whether the fee is being submitted for an MT -1 application, an MT -2 application, or an External Data Request. This form is used for several types of requests. The type of request should be indicated so that the fees can be matched to the revision requests. The request or case number should be indicated if it is known. Generally, this number is not known when a revision is initially requested. However, the case number should be indicated in any subsequent correspondence with FEMA. Indicate the amount and method of payment being used to pay the fee. Instructions MT -2 Forms 25 APPENDIX A - COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS BFE Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevation. It is the height of the base flood, usually in feet, in relation to the datum used, or the depth of the base flood usually in feet, above the ground surface. The base flood is the flood that has a 1% probability of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (also referred to as the 100 -year flood or the 1% annual chance flood). CFR Code of Federal Regulations. CHHA Coastal High Hazard Area. An area of special flood hazard extending from offshore to the inland limit of a primary frontal dune along an open coast and any other area subject to high velocity wave action from storms or seismic sources. CHHAs are indicated as V or VE Zones on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. CLOMR Conditional Letter of Map Revision. A letter from FEMA commenting on whether a proposed project, if built as proposed, would meet the minimum standards of the National Flood Insurance Program. FBFM The Flood Boundary and Floodway Map. The floodplain management map issued by FEMA that depicts, on the basis of detailed analyses, the boundaries of the 100- and 500 -year floodplain and the regulatory floodway. FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency. FHBM The Flood Hazard Boundary Map. The initial flood insurance map issued by FEMA that identified on the basis of approximate analyses, the areas of 100 -year flood hazard in a community. FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map. An official map of a community, on which the Administrator has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. FIS Flood Insurance Study. An engineering study performed under contract to FEMA to identify flood -prone areas and to determine BFEs, flood insurance rate zones, and other flood risk data for a community. LOMR Letter of Map Revision. A letter from FEMA officially revising the current NFIP map to show changes to floodplains, floodways, or flood elevations. NFIP National Flood Insurance Program. PMR Physical Map Revision. 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 large scope changes. SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area. Areas inundated by a flood having a 1% probability of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (also referred to as the 100 -year flood). USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. WSEL Water Surface Elevation. Instructions MT -2 Forms 26 APPENDIX B - USEFUL INTERNET SITES Public Information: http: / /www.fema.gov - FEMA's Internet site. http://vv,v��v.fema.gov/fhni/en—main.shtm - FEMA's Internet site for engineers and surveyors. http://www.fema.gov/flu7Vot—n-iain.shtm main.shtm - FEMA's Internet site for online tutorials. http: / /wvA,vv.fema.gov /fema/csb.shtm - National Flood Insurance Program Community Status Book. http: / /store.nisc.fema.gov/ - Internet site for ordering NFIP maps. http:// wv< „�v .access.gpo.gov /nara/cfr/waisidx 02 /44cfrvl_02.hta-il - NFIP regulations. Amendment/Revision Forms and Information: http: //Nvww.fema.gov /flun/dl_mt- ez.shtm - MT -EZ form package, Amendments to National Flood Insurance Program Maps, Application Form for Single Residential Lot or Structure. http:/ /Nwvv.fema.gov /fhm/dl_mt- I.shtm - MT -1 form package, Revisions to National Flood Insurance Program Maps, Application Forms for Conditional and Final Letters of Map Amendment and Letters of Map Revision Based on Fill. http:// wv<tiv.fema.gov /fhm/dl_mt- 2.shtm - MT -2 form package, Revisions to National Flood Insurance Program Maps, Application Forms and Instructions for Conditional Letters of Map Revision and Letters of Map Revision. http://v;,A,%v.fema.gov/flun/frm—fees.shtni fees.shtni - Fee schedule for review and processing of CLOMR and LOMR requests. http: / /www.fema.gov /fhnVst order.shtm - Internet site for ordering backup information for an existing Flood Insurance Study. Documents, Guidelines and Manuals: http:// wvc, vv.fema.gov /pdf /fima/tb1001.pdf - FEMA's Technical Bulletin 10 -01, `Ensuring That Structures Built on Fill In or Near Special Flood Hazard Areas Are Reasonably Safe from Flooding.” http://v;,A,,,v.fema.gov/flim/dl—zonea.shtm - FEMA's manual, "Managing Floodplain Development in Approximate Zone A Areas, A Guide for obtaining and developing Base (100 -year) Flood Elevations." http:/ hvv;,�v.fema.gov /fhm/dl_cgs.shtm - FEMA's Consolidated Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners, Appendix G: Guidance for Alluvial Fan Flooding Analyses and Mapping. http:// wvA,vv.fema.gov /fhm/d1_cgs.shtm - FEMA's Consolidated Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners, Appendix D: Guidance for Coastal Flooding Analyses and Mapping. http: / /wv Acv. usace .army.millinetlusace- docsl eng- manualslem1110- 2- 19131toc.httn - USACE manual "Design and Construction of Levees," EM 1110 -2 -1913. Instructions MT -2 Forms 27 http: / /wmrNv. usace .army.mil /inetlusace - docs /enb tech- ltrs /et11110 -2- 555 /toc.html - USACE technical letter "Design Guidance for Levees," ETL 1110 -2 -555. http : / /www.usace.army.niil/inet/ usace - docs /eng- manuals /eml110 -2- 2102 /toc.htm - USACE manual "Waterstops and Other Preformed Joint Materials for Civil Works Structures," EM 1110- 2 -2102. http:// www.usace.army.niil/inet/usace- docs /eng - manuals /eml110 -2- 301 /toc.htm - USACE manual "Landscape Planting and Vegetation Management for Floodwalls, Levees and Embankment Dams," EM 1110 -2 -301. Software: http: / /www.fema.gov /flun/en_modl.sbtm - List of numerical models accepted by FEMA for the NFIP usage. http: / /wvA,w.fema.gov /fhm/fi-m soft.shtm - Engineering software developed by FEMA. The site also includes additional information, such as tutorials, user's manuals and guidance documentation for certain programs. Federal Agencies: http: / /www.epa.gov/ - Environmental Protection Agency http: / /vvww.nasa.gov/ - National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) http: / /wv<wv.noaa.gov/ - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) http: / /www.nws.noaa.gov/ - National Weather Service (NWS) http: / /wvA,%v.nres.usda.gov/ - Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) http: / /www.usace.army.mil/ - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) http: / /www.hec.usace.army.mil/ - USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) http: / /www.usda.gov/ - U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) http : / /wv<,vv.fws.gov /index.hhA - U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Instructions MT -2 Forms 28 APPENDIX C - FEMA OFFICES REGION I (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont) FEMA, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Division J. W. McCormack Post Office and Courthouse Building, Room 442 Boston, Massachusetts 02109 -4595 (617) 223 -9540 REGION II (New York, Puerto Rico, New Jersey) FEMA, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Division 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1351 New York, New York 10278 -0001 (212) 667 -8900 REGION III (Delaware, D.C., Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia) FEMA, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Division One Independence Mall, Sixth Floor 615 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 -4404 (215) 931 -5506 REGION IV (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, N. Carolina, S. Carolina, Tenn.) FEMA, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Division Koger Center - Rutgers Building 3003 Chamblee Tucker Road Atlanta, Georgia 30341 -4112 (770) 220 -5400 REGION V (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin) FEMA, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Division 536 South Clark Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, Illinois 60605 -1509 (312) 408 -5548 REGION VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas) FEMA, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Division Federal Regional Center 800 North Loop 288 Denton, Texas 76209 -3606 (940) 898 -5165 REGION VII (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska) FEMA, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Division 2323 Grand Boulevard, Suite 900 Kansas City, Missouri 64108 -2670 (816) 283 -7062 REGION VIII (Colorado, Montana, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Utah, Wyoming) FEMA, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Division Denver Federal Center Building 710, Box 25267 Denver, Colorado 80225 -0267 (303) 235 -4800 REGION IX (Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada) FEMA, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Division 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, California 94607 -4036 (510) 627 -7100 REGION X (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington) FEMA, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Division Federal Regional Center 130 228th Street, S.W. Bothell, Washington, 98021 -9796 (206) 487 -4600 Instructions MT -2 Forms 29 HEADQUARTERS Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration Hazards Studies Branch 500 C Street, SW Washington, DC 20472 1- 877 -FEMA MAP (1- 877 - 336 -2627) Instructions MT -2 Forms 30 This package includes: 1. HEC -RAS generated report. 2. SD calcs (At 50% capacity due to presence of debris) along Madrid through Sinaloa Street 3. Modified Q's for HEC -RAS modeling 4. A sample C.B. calculations 5. Previous study HEC -2 run hard copy 6. Previous study Hydrology report hard copy lHodau GalvuamaO svd-39H HEC -RAS generated report based on modified discharges ( 5 -6 -04) HEC -RAS Version 3.0.1 Mar 2001 U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center 609 Second Street, Suite D Davis, California 95616 -4687 (916) 756 -1104 X X XXXXXX XXXX XXXX gX XXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXX XXXX X XXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXX XXXX X X X X XXXXX PROJECT DATA Project Title: Flood plain analy for the City La Quinta Project File : LaQuinta.prj Run Date and Time: 5/5/2004 6:09:21 PM Project in English units PLAN DATA Plan Title: plan for modified flow due to SD Plan File : m: \lLAQ010100 \engr \design \hydr \LaQuinta.p02 Geometry Title: Geom. data taken from HEC -2 hard copy Geometry File m: \1LAQ010100 \engr \design \hydr \LaQuinta.g01 Flow Title Flow data was modified for SD extraction Flow File m: \lLAQ010100 \engr \design \hydr \LaQuinta.f02 Plan Summary Information: Number of: Cross Sections 13 Mulitple Openings 0 Culverts = 0 Inline weirs = 0 Bridges = 0 Computational Information Water surface calculation tolerance = 0.01 Critical depth calculaton tolerance = 0.01 Maximum number of interations = 20 Maximum difference tolerance = 0.3 Flow tolerance factor = 0.001 Computation Options Critical depth computed only where necessary Conveyance Calculation Method: At breaks in n values only Friction Slope Method: Average Conveyance Computational Flow Regime: Subcritical Flow FLOW DATA Flow Title: Flow data was modified for SD extraction Flow File : m: \lLAQ010100 \engr \design \hydr \LaQuinta.f02 Flow Data (cfs) River Reach RS PF 1 Major Flow PathsReach 1 234.5 50 Major Flow PathsReach 1 227 50 Major Flow PathsReach 1 220 65 Major Flow PathsReach 1 209.5 140 Major Flow PathsReach 1 196.5 150 Major Flow PathsReach 1 181.2 150 Major Flow PathsReach 1 168.50 150 Major Flow PathsReach 1 148.5 150 Major Flow PathsReach 1 145.2 150 Major Flow PathsReach 1 138.8 150 Major Flow PathsReach 1 134.8 150 Major Flow PathsReach 1 121.70 150 Major Flow PathsReach 1 108.00 340 Boundary Conditions River Reach Profile Major Flow PathsReach 1 PF 1 GEOMETRY DATA Geometry Title: Geom. data taken from HEC -2 hard copy Geometry File : m: \1LAQ010100 \engr \design \hydr \LaQuinta.g01 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 234.5 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 6 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta 0 70 75 69.3 210 69.4 345 550 70 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .018 0 .018 550 .018 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right 0 550 750 750 750 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 227 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 3 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 0 59 140 58.2 350 59 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .018 0 .018 350 .018 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right 0 350 700 700 700 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 220 INPUT Description: Upstream Elev Sta Elev 69.9 450 69.5 Coeff Contr. Expan. .3 .4 Coeff Contr. Expan. .3 .4 Downstream Normal S = .0026 Station Elevation Data num= 6 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 0 51.3 100 51.2 235 51 300 50.2 390 51.6 540 51.9 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .018 100 .018 390 .018 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 100 390 1050 1050 1050 .3 .4 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 209.5 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 6 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 0 50 50 46.7 220 45.1 385 45 500 45.6 725 46.1 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .018 50 .018 725 .018 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 50 725 1300 1300 1300 .3 .4 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 196.5 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 10 Sta E1 ev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 0 45.9 150 40 290 43.9 390 40 850 43.2 1000 41 1230 40.3 1330 40.5 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .025 0 .025 1870 .025 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right 0 1870 1530 1530 1530 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 181.2 INPUT Description: St t, 1 Sta Elev 600 40 1870 44 Coeff Contr. Expan. .3 .4 a on E evation Data num= 7 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 0 43 20 40 470 39.2 1110 39.3 1700 39.5 2110 40.4 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .035 20 .035 2110 .035 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right 20 2110 1250 1250 1250 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 168.50 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 7 Sta Elev St Sta Elev 1400 39.1 Coeff Contr. Expan. •3 .4 a Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 0 45 240 40 670 39'.3 1120 38.1 1400 38.6 1600 38.8 2100 40.3 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .035 240 .035 2100 .035 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right 240 2100 2000 2000 2000 CROSS SECT -ON RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 148.5 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 7 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta 0 40 1100 39 2400 38.6 2500 3050 36 3200 40 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .035 1100 .035 3200 .035 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right 1100 3200 300 300 300 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 145.2 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 4 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta 1600 36 1850 34.6 2780 36 3000 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 1600 .035 1600 .035 2780 .035 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right 1600 2780 640 640 640 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 138.8 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 5 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta 0 35 210 32.6 800 32 1250 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 0 .035 0 .035 1270 .035 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right 0 1270 400 400 400 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 134.8 INPUT Description: Station Elevation Data num= 5 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta 2350 32.23 2650 30.7 3100 31 3400 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 2350 .035 2350 .035 3500 .035 Coeff Contr. Expan. .3 .4 Elev Sta Elev 35 2800 36 Coeff Contr. Expan. .3 .4 Elev 38 Coeff Contr. Expan. .3 .4 Elev Sta Elev 32 1270 34.2 Coeff Contr. Expan. .3 .4 Elev Sta Elev 30.6 3500 33 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 2350 3500 .018 1310 1310 1310 .018 .1 .3 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths .018 .018 Reach 1 REACH: Reach 1 .018 RS: 121.70 .018 Reach 1 196.5 .025 .025 INPUT Reach 1 181.2 .035 .035 .035 Reach 1 Description: .035 .035 .035 Reach 1 148.5 .035 .035 Station Elevation Data num= 6 145.2 .035 .035 .035 Reach Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 950 31.9 1000 28.3 1450 28 1650 28.7 1700 28.7 1900 31 108.00 .035 .035 .035 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 950 .035 950 .035 1900 .035 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 950 1900 1370 1370 1370 .3 .4 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Major Flow Paths REACH: Reach 1 RS: 108.00 INPUT Description: The most D/S Section Station Elevation Data num= 6 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev 250 28 290 26.5 1070 25.8 1400 25.2 2200 24.5 2550 26 Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val 250 .035 250 .035 2550 .035 Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 250 2550 0 0 0 .3 .4 SUMMARY OF MANNING'S N VALUES River:Major Flow Paths SUMMARY OF REACH LENGTHS River: Major Flow Paths Reach River Sta Reach 1 234.5 Reach 1 227 Reach 1 220 Left Channel Right 750 750 750 700 700 700 1050 1050 1050 Reach River Sta. nl n2 n3 Reach 1 234.5 .018 .018 .018 Reach 1 227 .018 .018 .018 Reach 1 220 .018 .018 .018 Reach 1 209.5 .018 .018 .018 Reach 1 196.5 .025 .025 .025 Reach 1 181.2 .035 .035 .035 Reach 1 168.50 .035 .035 .035 Reach 1 148.5 .035 .035 .035 Reach 1 145.2 .035 .035 .035 Reach 1 138.8 .035 .035 .035 Reach 1 134.8 .035 .035 .035 Reach 1 121.70 .035 .035 .035 Reach 1 108.00 .035 .035 .035 SUMMARY OF REACH LENGTHS River: Major Flow Paths Reach River Sta Reach 1 234.5 Reach 1 227 Reach 1 220 Left Channel Right 750 750 750 700 700 700 1050 1050 1050 Reach 1 209.5 1300 1300 1300 Reach 1 196.5 1530 1530 1530 Reach 1 181.2 1250 1250 1250 Reach 1 168.50 2000 2000 2000 Reach 1 148.5 300 300 300 Reach 1 145.2 640 640 640 Reach 1 138.8 400 400 400 Reach 1 134.8 1310 1310 1310 Reach 1 121.70 1370 1370 1370 Reach 1 108.00 0 0 0 SUMMARY OF CONTRACTION AND EXPANSION COEFFICIENTS River: Major Flow Paths Reach River Sta. Contr. Expan. Reach 1 234.5 .3 .4 Reach 1 227 .3 4 Reach 1 220 .3 .4 Reach 1 209.5 .3 .4 Reach 1 196.5 .3 .4 Reach 1 181.2 .3 .4 Reach 1 168.50 .3 .4 Reach 1 148.5 .3 .4 Reach 1 145.2 .3 .4 Reach 1 138.8 .3 .4 Reach 1 134.8 .1 .3 Reach 1 121.70 .3 .4 Reach 1 108.00 .3 .4 Profile Output Table - Standard Table 1 Reach River Sta Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl ft) (ft) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft /ft) (ft /s) (sq Reach 24.08 1 234.5 50.00 69.30 69.50 69.50 69.57 0.009589 2.08 184.97 1.01 Reach 1 227 50.00 58.20 58.52 58.52 58.60 0.008942 2.28 21.90 138.42 1.01 Reach 1 220 65.00 50.20 50.86 50.75 50.93 0.002708 2.05 31.69 96.04 0.63 Reach 1 209.5 140.00 45.00 45.30 45.30 45.41 0.007834 2.64 53.11 245.11 1.00 Reach 1 196.5 150.00 40.00 40.52 40.53 0.001270 0.99 151.07 470.62 0.31 Reach 1 181.2 150.00 39.10 39.56 39.31 39.56 0.000377 0.36 418.58 1460.19 0.12 Reach 1 168.50 150.00 38.10 38.78 38.46 38.79 0.001184 0.67 223.13 714.67 0.21 Reach 1 148.5 150.00 35.00 35.93 35.55 35.95 0.001722 1.06 141.84 304.93 0.27 Reach 1 145.2 150.00 34.60 35.15 34.98 35.17 0.004228 1.17 128.24 464.94 0.39 Reach 1 138.8 150.00 32.00 32.25 32.14 32.27 0.004872 1.04 144.74 699.85 0.40 Reach 1 134.8 150.00 30.60 31.08 31.09 0.001964 0.73 204.89 844.07 0.26 Reach 1 121.70 150.00 28.00 28.47 28.48 0.002013 0.85 175.84 586.69 0.27 Reach 1 108.00 340.00 24.50 25.18 24.93 25.20 0.002602 1.06 321.26 940.33 0.32 Profile Output Table - Standard Table 2 Reach W.S. Elev River Sta Right Top Width (cfs) (ft) (ft) Reach 1 234.5 184.97 69.57 69.50 Reach 1 227 138.42 58.60 58.52 Reach 1 220 96.04 50.93 50.86 Reach 1 209.5 245.11 45.41 45.30 Reach 1 196.5 470.62 40.53 40.52 Reach 1 181.2 1460.19 39.56 39.56 Reach 1 168.50 714.67 38.79 38.78 Reach 1 148.5 304.93 35.95 35.93 Reach 1 145.2 464.94 35.17 35.15 Reach 1 138.8 699.85 32.27. 32.25 Reach 1 134.8 844.07 31.09 31.08 Reach 1 121.70 586.69 28.48 28.47 Reach 1 108.00 940.33 25.20 25.18 8 E.G. Elev W.S. Elev Vel Head Frctn Loss C & E Loss, Q Left Q Channel (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (cfs) (cfs) 69.57 69.50 0.07 6.94 0.00 50.00 58.60 58.52 0.08 2.93 0.01 50.00 50.93 50.86 0.07 5.51 0.01 65.00 45.41 45.30 0.11 3.26 0.04 140.00 40.53 40.52 0.02 0.97 0.01 150.00 39.56 39.56 0.00 0.77 0.00. 150.00 38.79 38.78 0.01 2.83 0.00 150.00 35.95 35.93 0.02 0.77 0.00 150.00 35.17 35.15 0.02 2.90 0.00 150.00 32.27. 32.25 0.02 1.18 0.00 150.00 31.09 31.08 0.01 2.60 0.00 150.00 28.48 28.47 0.01 3.28 0.00 150.00 25.20 25.18 0.02 340.00 9 STORM DRAIN FLOW CAPACITY LOCATED ALONG DIFFERENT STREETS [At 50% capacity] Worksheet Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Worksheet Circular SD - at Madrid Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Mannings Coefficient Slope Depth Diameter 0.013 0.021600 ft/ft 2.00 ft 48 in Results Discharge Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Top Width Critical Depth Percent Full Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Maximum Discharge Discharge Full Slope Full Flow Type 105.55 cfs 6.3 ftz 6.28 ft 4.00 ft 3.11 ft 50.0 % 0.005992 ft/ft 16.80 ft/s 4.39 ft 6.39 ft 2.36 227.08 cfs 211.10 cfs 0.005400 ft/ft Supercritical Project Engineer: Information Services Department I: \fmw\project la quinta .fm2 Psomas and Associates FlowMaster v6.0 [614e] 05/05/04 05:29:01 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Worksheet Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Worksheet Flow Element Method Solve For Circular SD Colima Circular Channel Manning's Formula Discharge Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Slope 0.016000 ft/ft Depth 2.75 ft Diameter 66 in Results Discharge Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Top Width Critical Depth Percent Full Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude (dumber Maximum Discharge Discharge Full Slope Full Flow Type 212 "37 cfs 11.9 ft2 8.64 ft 5.50 ft 4.08 ft' 50.0 % 0.004936 ft/ft 17.88 ft/s 4.97 ft 7.72 ft 2.14 456.90 cfs 424.75 cfs 0.004000 ft/ft Supercritical Project Engineer. Information Services Department I: \fmw \project la quinta .fm2 Psomas and Associates FlowMaster v6.0 [614e] 05/05/04 05:30:00 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Worksheet Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Worksheet Flow Element Method Solve For Circular SD Nagoles Circular Channel Manning's Formula Discharge Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Slope 0.011000 ft/ft Depth 2.50 ft Diameter 60 in Results Discharge Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Top Width Critical Depth Percent Full Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Maximum Discharge Discharge Full Slope Full Flow Type 136.57 cfs 9.8 ft2 7.85 ft 5.00 ft 3.35 ft 50.0 % 0.004424 fttft 13.91 fUs 3.01 ft 5.51 ft 1.75 293.82 cfs 273.14 cfs 0.002750 ft/ft Supercritical n Project Engineer: Information Services Department I: \fmw \project la quinta .fm2 Psomas and Associates FlowMaster v6.0 [614e) 05/05/04 05:30:32 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Discharge Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Top Width Critical Depth Percent Full Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Maximum Discharge Discharge Full Slope Full Flow Type 132.79 cfs 9.8 ft2 7.85 ft 5.00 ft 3.30 ft 50.0 % 0.004355 ft/ft 13.53 fits 2.84 ft 5.34 ft 1.70 285.69 cis 265.59 cis 0.002600 ft/ft Supercritical Project Engineer: Information Services Department I: \fmw \project la quinta .fm2 Psomas and Associates FlowMaster v6.0 [614e] 05/05/04 05:33:00 PM O Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Worksheet Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Worksheet Circular SD Sonora Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Slope 0.010400 ft/ft Depth 2.50 ft Diameter 60 in Results Discharge Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Top Width Critical Depth Percent Full Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Maximum Discharge Discharge Full Slope Full Flow Type 132.79 cfs 9.8 ft2 7.85 ft 5.00 ft 3.30 ft 50.0 % 0.004355 ft/ft 13.53 fits 2.84 ft 5.34 ft 1.70 285.69 cis 265.59 cis 0.002600 ft/ft Supercritical Project Engineer: Information Services Department I: \fmw \project la quinta .fm2 Psomas and Associates FlowMaster v6.0 [614e] 05/05/04 05:33:00 PM O Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Worksheet Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Worksheet Flow Element Method Solve For Circular SD Sinaloa Circular Channel Manning's Formula Discharge Input Daia Mannincs Coefficient 0.013 Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Depth 2.75 ft Diameter 66 in Results Discharge Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Top Width Critical Depth Percent cull Critical Slope Velocity Velocity (Head Specific Energy Froude Number Maximum Discharge Discharge Full Slope Full Flow Type 118.72 cfs 11.9 ft' 8.64 ft 5.50 ft 3.02 ft 50.0 % 0.003647 ft/ft 9.99 fvs 1.55 ft 4.30 ft 1.20 255.42 cfs 237.44 cfs 0.001250 ft/ft Supercritical Project Engineer: Information Services Department I:\fmw \project la quinta .fm2 Psomas and Associates FlowMaster v6.0 [614e] 05/05/04 05:31:36 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA' (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 .{ e Worksheet Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Worksheet Circular SD along Tampico at Sta. 196.5 Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Slope 0.001000 ft/ft Depth 2.25 ft Diameter 54 in Results Discharge 31.09 cfs Flow Area 8.0 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 7.07 ft Top Width 4.50 ft Critical Depth 1.60 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.003429 ft/ft Velocity 3.91 ft/s Velocity Head 0.24 ft Specific Energy 2.49 ft Froude Number 0.52 Maximum Discharge 66.89 cfs Discharge Full 62.18 cfs Slope Full 0.000250 ft/ft Flow Type Subcritical Project Engineer: Information Services Department I: \fmw \project la quinta .fm2 Psomas and Associates FlowMaster v6.0 [614e] 05/05/04 05:39:06 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 'J Worksheet Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Worksheet Circular SD Tampico at 181.2 Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Slope 0.001100 ft/ft Depth 2.25 ft Diameter 54 in Results Discharge 32.61 cfs Flow Area 8.0 ft' Wetted Perimeter 7.07 ft Top Width 4.50 ft Critical Depth 1.64 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.003435 ft/ft Velocity 4.10 ft/s Velocity Head 0.26 ft Specific Energy 2.51 ft Froude Number 0.54 Maximum Discharge 70.15 cfs Discharge Full 65.22 cfs Slope Full 0.000275 ft/ft Flow Type Subcritical Project Engineer: Information Services Department I: \fmw \project la quinta .fm2 Psomas and Associates FlowMaster v6.0 [614e] 05/05/04 05:40:41 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 . Worksheet Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Worksheet, Circular SD Tampico at 168.5 Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For.. Discharge Top Width 4.50 ft Critical Depth 1.71 ft Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Slope 0.001300 ft/ft Depth 2.25 ft Diameter 54 in Results Discharge 35.45 'cfs Flow Area 8.0 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 7.07 ft Top Width 4.50 ft Critical Depth 1.71 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.003455 ft/ft Velocity 4.46 fVs Velocity Head 0.31 ft Specific Energy 2.56 ft Froude Number 0.59 Maximum Discharge 76.27 cfs Discharge Full 70.90 cfs Slope Full 0.000325 ft/ft Flow Type Subcritical Project Engineer: Information Services Department I: \fmw \project la quinta .fm2 Psomas and Associates FlowMaster v6.0 (614e] 05/05/04 05:42:11 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Table 1 ADJUSTED PEAK DISCHARGES THAT WERE NOT USED IN HEC -RAS ANALYSIS The on -site area between C5 and C6 is ( sq.mi) 0.2 The on -site area between C6 and C7 is (sq.mi) 0.2 The on -site area between C7 a- is ( sq.mi) 0.2 Concentration point drainage area ( sq.mi) Adjusted drainage area s .mi Runoff ( inch) unit discharge q q (cfs /sq.mi /in) Peak Q cfs Previous stud Adjusted Q for HEC -RAS ( cfs) C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 "` * C7 C8 C9 "" C10 *" C11 0.46 0.49 0.56 0.72 0.82 1.51 1.91 2.17 2.23 2.27 2.77 0.46 0.49 0.56 0.72 0.82 1.02 1.22 1.42 1.48 1.52 2.02 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 468 441 434 403 369 295 253 226 214 201 193 624 627 705 841 877 1,292 1,401 1,422 1,384 1,323 1,550 624 627 705 841 877 873 895 931 931 931 1131 Note: Ina previous study, the discharge used in HEC -2 at section located near C9 and C10, was taken 1,422 cfs In the present study, the discharge used in HEC -RAS at section located near C11 was taken 1,131 cfs * * For consistency, the D/S discharges should be equal or greater than the immediate U/S discharge. The discharge used in HEC -RAS is 877 cfs instead of 873 cfs Table 2 ADJUSTED PEAK DISCHARGES USED IN HEC -RAS ANALYSIS WHICH WERE MODIFIED FOR SD FLOW Flow taken away from the SD system at Madrid Street at 50% capacity is cfs 105 Flow taken away from the SD system at Colima Street at 50% capacity is cfs) 210 Flow taken away from the SD system at Nagoles Street at 50% capacity is cfs) Flow taken awa from the SD system at Sonora Street at 50% capacit is cfs) Total 135 130 580 Flow taken away from the SD s stem at Sinaloa Street at 50% capaci is 120 Flow take6jway from the SD system Tampico at 196.5 at 50% capacity is 30 Flow taken away from the SD system Tampico at 181.20 at 50% capacity is 30 Flow taken awa from the SD system Tampico at 168.5 at 50% capacit is Total 35 95 Station Number Computed Qs The Q's used HEC -RAS Model (1) in HEC -RAS Model cfs 234 +50 44 50 227 +00 47 50 220 +00 65 65 205 +50 141 140 196 +50 147 150 181 +20 [2] 117 150 168 +50 100 150 148 +50 136 150 145 +50 136 150 145 +20 136 150 138 +80 136 150 134 +80 136 150 121 +70 136 150 108 +00 336 340 1 The Q's computed are equal to Q's from the last column of Table 1, minus Q's diverted through storm drain system from Madrid Street SD , through Sinaloa Street SD downstream [2] For consistency, the D/S discharges should be equal or greater than the immediate U/S discharge. SAMPLE CATCH BASIN FLOW ANALYSIS Flow analysis of catch basins (C.B.) that discharge runoff into storm drain located along Madrid Street. Total number of C.B. with length 14 feet is 6 Total number of C.B. with length 21 feet is 20 Total number of C.B. with length 10 feet is 2 Assume depression a = 2 inches and approach flow depth is 0.5 feet From Figure 5 -10 Q/L =0.4 where L is the length of C.B. Qt = 0.4* 14 *6 + 0.4* 21 * 20+ 0.4* 10 *2 = 210 cfs At 50% capacity, the flow is 105 cfs which is equal to the 50% capacity of the SD located along Madrid Street. w (B) PARTIAL INTER- CEPTION RATIO FOR INLETS OF LENGTH LESS THAN L rftjUKt 5-iu �� -f . WATER SURF-ACE PROFILES VERSION OF NOVEMBER 1576 UPDATED APRIL 1980 HP-UX VERSION JUNE 1985 Mon Jun 11-14:31:10.PDT1990 X x xxxxxxx xxxxx X x x x x X x x x xxxxxxx Xxxx x X x x x X x x x x X* x xkxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx X x X xxxxx X X xxxxxxx ALF);"iq?qvGfA, Y.RGINIA U.S. ARMY C THE HYDROLO. 609 SECOND DAVIS, CALI (916) 440-2 HEC2 RELEASE DATED NOV 76 UPDATED*APRI 1980. ERROR CORR - 01,02,03,04 MODIFICATION - 50,51,52,53,54 T1 East la quinta T2 Improved condi T3 100 -year flood J1 ICHECK INQ 0. 0. J2 NPROF IPLOT -1.000 .000 NC .035 flood insurance study- case.6x (center /main channel) tion;effective ch width in street area is reduced to half event,topo updated on 9- 30- 88;Peak Q revised on 6 -5 -9.0 NINV IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS Q 0. 0. .000000 .00 1.5 55 . .PRFVS XSECV XSECH FN ALLDC IBW -1.000 .000 .000 .000 -1.000 .000 .035 .035 . .300 . .400 .000 .000 WSEL FQ 25.400 ..000 CHNIM ITRACE .000 .000 .000 .00 t- HEC2 RELEASE DATED NOV 76 UPDATED*APRI 1980. ERROR CORR - 01,02,03,04 MODIFICATION - 50,51,52,53,54 T1 East la quinta T2 Improved condi T3 100 -year flood J1 ICHECK INQ 0. 0. J2 NPROF IPLOT -1.000 .000 NC .035 flood insurance study- case.6x (center /main channel) tion;effective ch width in street area is reduced to half event,topo updated on 9- 30- 88;Peak Q revised on 6 -5 -9.0 NINV IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS Q 0. 0. .000000 .00 1.5 55 . .PRFVS XSECV XSECH FN ALLDC IBW -1.000 .000 .000 .000 -1.000 .000 .035 .035 . .300 . .400 .000 .000 WSEL FQ 25.400 ..000 CHNIM ITRACE .000 .000 .000 .00 X1 108.000 6.000 250.0 00 2550.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 GR 28..000 .000 26.500 290.000. 25.800. 1070.000 25._200 140_0_.000 24..50 �R 26._0_0_.0 2550.000 .000 .000 .0.00 ..000 .000 .000 .00 X2 1420.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 K1 121.700 6.000 950.000 190 0.000 1370.000 1370.000 1370.000 .000 .00 3R 3.1.900 _ 950.000 28.300 1000.000- 28.000 _1450.000 28_.700 1650 28.70 -.0 3R 31.000- - 1900 X% .000 . 000 . 000 . 000 . 00-` -- - --- . 000 0 vC .030 .030 .030 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 l/ .00 K2 1420.000 .000 .000 .000 ..000 .000 .000 .000 .00 {1 13.4.800 5.000 2350.000 3500.0_00 1310.000 1310.000 1310.000 .000 .00 3R 32.230 2350.000 30.700 2650.000 31.:000 3100.000 30.600 3400.000 33.00 V C1 138.8.00 5.000 .000 127.0.000 400.000 400.000 400.000 .000 .00 GR 35 .000 .000 32. 600 210.000 640.000 640.000 640.000 .000 .00 X1 145.200 4.000 1600.000 2780.000 GR 36.000 1600.000 34:600 1850_.000 X2 1420.000 .000 .000 .000 X1 148.500 7.000 1100.000 3200.000 GR 40.000 .000 39.000 1100.000 GR 36.000 3050000 _ 40.000 3200.000 X2 1401.000 .000 .000 .000 32.000 800.000 32.000 1250.000 14.20 640.000 640.000 640.000 .000 .00 36.000 2780.000 38.000 3000.000 .00 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 300.000 300.000 300.000 .000 .00 38.600 2400.000 35.000 2500.000 36.00 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 X1 168.500 7.000 240.000 2100.000 2000.000 2000..000 2000.000 .000 I .00 GR 45.000 .000 40.000 240.000 39.300 670.000 38.100 1120.000 38.60 GR 38..89.0_ 1600.000 40.300 2100'.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 0 X2 1294.000- .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 Xl 181:200 7.000 20.000 2110.000 1250.000 .1250.000 1250.000 .000 .00 GR 43.000 .000 40.000 20.000 39.200 470.000 39.300 1110.000 39.10 GR .500 700.00 0 4 0.400 `.000 2110.000 .000 .000 .000 -.000 00 X2 877.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 NC . -025 .025 .025 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 J X1 196.500 10.000 .000 1870.000 1530.000 1530.000 1530.000 .000 .00 GR 45.900 .000 40.000 150.000 43:900 290.000 40.000 12.0-g.00 40.00 GR _43.200 850__000 41.000 1000:000 40.300 1230.000 40.500 1330.000 .00^� X2 841.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 '.00 NC .018 .018 .018 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 X1 209.500 6.000 50.000 725.000 1300.000 1300.000 1300.000 .000 .00 GR 50.000 .000 46.700 50.000 45.100 220.000 45.000 385..000 4_5.6.0 GR �4 6..._1000 725.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 w' . 000 -*:�00 X2 705.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 Xl 220.000 6.000 100.000 390 =...0.00 1090.000 1050.000 1050.000 .000 .00 GR 51.300 .000 51.2.00 100.000 51.000 235.000 50.200 300.000 51.60 GR 51.900 540.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 .X2 627.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 X1 227-.000 3.000 .000 350.000 700.000 700.000 700.000 .000 .00 .GR 59.000 .000 58.200 140.000 59.000 350.000 .000 .000 .00 X2 624.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 X1 234.500 6.000 .000 550.000 750.000 750.000 75.0.000 .000 .00 GR 70.000 .000 69.300 75.000 69.400 210.000 69.900 3_45.000 69.50 GR 70.000 550..000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 U 0 0 • o I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 a o 0 0 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL OLOSS BANK.ELEV Q QLOB QCH QROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TWA LEFT /RIGHT TIME VL0B VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST *PROF 1 CRITICAL DEPTH TO BE CALCULATED AT ALL CROSS SECTIONS CCHV= .300 CEHV= .400 * SECNO 108.000 108.00 '.90 25.40 25.38 25.40 25.61 .21 .00 .00 78.00 1554. 0. 1554. 0. 0. 420. 0. 0. 0. 26.00 .00 .00 3.70 .00 .035 .035 .035 .000 24..50 1290.00 .022323 0. 0. 0. 0 4 0 .00 940.00 2230.00 * SECNO 121.700 121.70 1.47 29.47 28.76 .00 29.50 .03 3.83 .05 31.90 1420. 0. 1420. 0. 0.. 1002. 0. 22. 29. 31.00' .27 .00 1.42 .00 .035 .035 .035 .035 28.00 98.3.73 .000961 1370. 1370. 1370. 5 15 0 .00 896.33 1880.06 * SECNO 134.800 134.80 .97 31.57 31.2.8 .00 31.64 .07 2.12 .02 32.23 1420. 0. 1420. 0. 0. 648. 0. 47. 57. 33.00 .43 .00 2.19 .00 .030 .030• .030' .033 30.60 2479.51 .003304 1310. 1310. 1310. 4 14 0, .00 960.89 3440.40 * SECNO 138.800 138.80 .83 32.83 32.55 .00 32.90 .06 1.25 .00 35.00 1420. 0. 1420. 0. 0. 700. 0. 53. 66. 34.20 .49 .00 2.03 .00 .030 .030 .030 .032 32.00 189.19 .002947 400. 400. 400. 3 11 0 .00 1068.43 1257.62 * SECNO 145.200 145.20 1.08 35.68 35.53 .00 35.81 .13 2.89 .03 36.00 1420. 0. 1420. 0. 0. 491. 0. 62. 81. 36.0.0 r '.55 .00 2.89 .00 .030 .030 .030- .032 34.60 1657.23 .'007753 640. 640. 640. 4 8 0 .00 909.88 2567.11 *SECNO 148.500 148.50 1.82 36.82 36.32 .00 36.89 .08 1.07 .02 39.00 1420. 0. 1420. 0.. 0. 633. 0. 66. 86. 40.00 .59 .00 2.24 .00 .030 .030 .030 .032 35.00 2449.50 .002040 300. 300. 300. 4 11 0 .00 631.17 3080.67 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL OLOSS BANK ELEV Q QLOB QCH QROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TWA LEFT /RIGHT TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST * SECNO 168.500 168.50 1.53 39.63 39.02 .00 39.66 .03 2.75 .02 40.00 1401. 0. 1401. 0. 0. 1079. ,0: 105. 133. 40.30 1.02 .00 1.30 .00 .030 .030 .030 A31 38.10 464.63 .000986 2000. 2000. 2000. 5 8 0 ..00 1413.47 1878.11 * SECNO 181.200 181.20 1.19 40.29 39.57 .00 40.30 .01 .63 .01 40.00 1294. 0. 1294. 0. 0. 1710. 0. 145. 182. 40.40 1.47 .23 .76 .00 .030 .030 .030 .031 39.10 18.11 .000295 1250. 1250. 1250. 2 17 0 .00 2038.85 2056.96 * SECNO 196.500 3265 DIVIDED FLOW 196.50 .98 40.98 40.55 .00 41.02 .04 .71 .01 45.90 877. 0. 877. 0. 0. 565. 0. 185. 234. 44..00 1.75 .00 1.55 .00 .025 .025 .025 .030 40.00 124.98 .001225 1530. 1530. 1530. 2" 14 0 .00 875.76 1404.68 * SECNO 209.500 7185 MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY 3720 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED 209.50 .68 45.68 45.68 .00 45.90 .22 3.03 .07 '46.70 841. 0. 841. 0. 0. 221. 0. 197. 254. 46.10 1.84 .00 3.81 .00 .018 - .018 .018 .028 45.00 158.8 .0 .006356 1300. - 1300. 13.00. 0 19 0 .00 502.60 661.40 * SECNO 220.000 3280 CROSS SECTION 220.00 EXTENDED .19 FEET 220.00 1.28 51.48 .51.47 705. 53. 652. 0. 1.92 2.20 3.96 .00 .004746 1050. 1050. 1050. .00 51.71 .23 24. 165. 0. .018 .018 .018 2 . 17 0 5.81 .00 51.20 202. 265. 51.60 .027 50.20 .00 .00 383.05 383.05 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG Q QLOB QCH QROB ALOB ACH TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC * SECNO 227.000 3280 CROSS SECTION 227.00 EXTENDED .06 FEET 7185 MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY 3720 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED 227.00 .86 59.06 59.06 .00 59.30 627. 0. 627. 0. 0. 160. 1.97 .00 3.91, .00 .018 .018 .006369 700. 700. 700. 0 23 * SECNO 234.500 7185 MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY 3720 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED 234.50 .64 69.94 69.94 .'00 70.11 624. 0. 624'. 0. 0. 184. 2.03 .00 3..39 .00 .018 .018 .006974' 750. 750. 750. 0 19 HV HL OLOSS BANK ELEV AROB VOL TWA LEFT /RIGHT XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST .24 3.80 .00 59.00 0. 205. 271. 59.00 .018 .027 58.20 .00 0 .00 350.00 350.00 .18 5.00 .02 70.00 0. 208. 278. 70.00 .018 .026 69.30_ 6..95 0 .00 533.97 540.92 ******************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** HEC2 RELEASE DATED NOV 76 UPDATED APRI 1980 ERROR CORR - 01,02,03,04 MODIFICATION - 50,51,52,53,54 ******************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** NOTE- ASTERISK ( *) AT LEFT OF CROSS - SECTION NUMBER INDICATES M SSAGE.IN SUMMARY OF ERRORS LIST 100 -year flood event,top SUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE 150 SECNO XLCH ELTRD' ELLC ELMIN Q CWSEL CRIWS EG .10K *S 108.000 .00 .00 .00. 24.50 1554.00 25.40 25.38 25.61 223.23 121.700 1370.00 .00 .00 28.00 1420.00 29.47 28.76 29.50 9.61 134.800 1310.00 .00 .00 30.60 1420.00 31.57 31.28 31.64 33.04 138.800 400.00 .00 .00 32.00 1420.00 32.83 32.55 32.90 29.47 145.200 640.00 .00 .00 34.60 142.0.00 35.68 35.53 35.81 77.53 148.500 300.00 .00 ..00 35.00 1420.00 36.82 36.32 36.89 20.40 168.500 2000.00 .00 .00 38.10 1401.00 39.63 39.02 39.66 9.86 181.200 1250.00 .00 .00 39.10 1294.00 40.29 39.57 40.30 2.95 196.500 1530.00 .00 .00 40.00 877.00 40.98 40.55 41.02 12.25 k 209.500 1300.00 .00 .00 45.00 841.00 45.68 45.68 45.90 63.56 220.000 1050.00 .00 .00 50.20 705.00 51.48 51.47 51.71 47.46 k 227.000 700.00 .00 .00 58'.20 627.00 5.9.06 59.06 59.30 63.69 * 234.500 750.00 .00 .00 69.30 624.00 69.94 69.94 70.11 69.74 u 100 -year flood event,top SUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE 150 SECNO Q CWSEL DIFWSP DIFWSX 108.000 1554.00 25.40 .00 .00 121.700 1420.00 29.47 .00 4.07 134;.800 1420.00 31.57 .00 2.10 138.800 1420.00 32.83 .00 1.26 145.200 1420.00 35.68 .00 2.85 148.500 1420.00 36.82 .00' 1.14 168.500 1401.00 39.63 .00 2.82 181.200 1294.00 40.29 .00 .65 196.500 877.00 40.98 ..00 .70 +� 209.500 841.00 45.68 .00 4.69 220.000 705.00 51.48 .00 5.81 +� 227.000 627.00 59.06 .00 7.57 +� 234.500 624.00 69.94 .00 10.88 DIFKWS TOPWID XLCH .00 940.00 .00 .00 896.33 1370.00 .00 960.89 1310.00 .00 .1068.43 400.00 .00 909.88 640.00 .00 631.17 300.00 .00 1413.47 2000.00 .00 2038.85 1250.00 .00 875.76 1530.00 .00 502.60 1300.00 .00 383.05 1050.00 .00 350.00 700.00 .00 53.3.97 750.00 SUMMARY OF ERRORS '_AUTION SECNO= '_AUTION SECNO= ::AUTION SECNO= _-AUTION SECNO= �'AUTION SECNO= 2AUTION SECNO= normal terminat. 209.500 209.500 227.000 227.000 234.500 234.500 Lon of pry PROFILE= 1 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED PROFILE= 1 MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY PROFILE= 1 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED PROFILE= .l MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY - PROFILE= 1 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED PROFILE= 1 MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY DgramI execution HEC2 RELEASE DATED NOV 76 UPDATED APRI 1980 ERROR CORR = .01,02,03,04 ' MODIFICATION 50,51,52,53,54 ATTACHMENT A 100 -Year Flood Discharge and 500 -Year Flood Discharge tt, •. t � Liar�.i "'ilia A' •�1LI'll �� ' � !�� � / %fir ��\ �� � �\`«y �a-.. �, �_��`� -��• NA Al ' 4 � �� '• � : 1 1 � O v • . � • � � 111..// £!S£NM0WER IN NINO JD gem t L� r E� to le, ♦ L.. c• Ax r = r I • to A M ur so `� iJ I 1 -� i`.- ....... C' � _ - 27 •��- 'mil '`�-- "•- '•A,. ".�.�.:.....: ,�•" .�.� ' -'_ D u V fl � ... c. •. c �' � n ` L � •�w TR -55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD Project : La Quinta -C) VERSION l.11 User:. County State: CA Checked: ora Date: 06 -11 -90 Date: Subtitle. Flood Insurance Study Data: Drainage Area .46 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 82 Time of Concentration: 0.63 Hours Rainfall TyPe II �-, Pond and Swam Area Swamp NONE Storm Number 1 - - Frequency (yrs) 100 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) 4.8 Ia /P Ratio 0.09 Used 0.10 Runoff (in) 2.90 Unit Peak Discharge 468 (cfs /sgmi /in) Pond and Swamp Factor 1.00 0.0% -Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 624 x ...f /DD - yr. e2 TR -55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD Project : La Quinta -CZ User: ora County State: CA Checked: Subtitle: Flood Insurance Study Data: Drainage Area Runoff Curve Number Time of Concentration: Rainfall Type Pond and Swamp Area Storm Number 1 Frequency (yrs) 100 24-Hr-Rainfall (in) 4.8 Ia /P Ratio 0.09 Used Runoff (in) Unit Peak Discharge (cfs /sgmi /in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.04 Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 0.10 2.90 441 1.00 627 .49 Sq Mi 82 0.70 Hours II NONE VERSION 1.11 Date: 06 -11 -90 Date: Boa -- TR -55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD Project : La Quinta - C3 User: ora County : State: CA Checked: Subtitle: Flood Insurance Study Data: Drainage Area .56 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 82 Time of Concentration: 0.72 Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number 1 ---------------- - - - - =- - - - - -- Frequency (yrs) 100 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) 4.8 Ia /P Ratio 0.09 Used 0.10 Runoff (in).: 2.90 Unit Peak Discharge 434 (cfs /sgmi /in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 1.00 705 VERSION 1.11 Date: 06 -11 -90 Date: •u o�y A90 - yy: C ¢- TR -55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD Project : La Quinta - Ct, User: Zora County State: CA Checked: Subtitle: Flood Insurance Study Data.: Drainage Area .72 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 82 Time of Concentration: 0.82 Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number 1 ----------------------- Frequency rs - - - - -- 100 a 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) 4.8 Ia /P Ratio 0.09 . Used 0.10 Runoff (in) 2.90 Unit Peak'Discharge 403 (cfs /sgmi /in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (tfs) 1.00 841 VERSION 1.11 Date: 06 -11 -90 Date: . -. /too - yr. C5' TR -55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD Project La Quinta - C5' User: Zora County State: CA Checked: Subtitle: Flood Insurance Study Data: Drainage Area .82 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 82 Time of Concentration: 0.95 Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number Frequency (yrs) 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) Ia /P Ratio Used Runoff (in) Unit Peak Discharge (cfs /sgmi /in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs). 1 100 4.8 0.09 0.10 2.90 369 1.00 877 VERSION 1.11 Date: 06 -11 -90 Date: �d0 C� TR -55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD Project : La Quinta -CG User: Zora County State: CA Checked: Subtitle: Flood Insurance Study Data: Drainage Area 1.51 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 82 Time of Concentration: 1.35 Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number Frequency (yrs) 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) Ia /P Ratio Used Runoff (in) Unit Peak Discharge (cfs /sgmi /in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 100 4.8 0.09 0.10 2.90 295 1.00 1294 VERSION 1.11 Date: 06 -11 -90 Date: /00 - yr. c7 TR -55 .GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD Project : La Quinta - C 7 User: Zora County State: CA Checked: Subtitle: Flood Insurance Study Data: Drainage Area* 1.91 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 82 Time of Concentration: 1.70 Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number Frequency (yrs) 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) Ia /P Ratio Used Runoff (in) Unit Peak Discharge (cfs /sgmi /in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0$ Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 100 4.8 Caflkl 0.10 2.90. 253 1.00 1401 VERSION 1.11 Date: 06 -11 -90 Date: /O O — iok�- M TR -55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD Project : La Quinta Cg User: Zora County State: CA Checked: Subtitle: Flood Insurance Study Data: Drainage Area 2.17 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 82 Time of Concentration: 2.00 Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number 1 ------------- --------- - - - - -- Frequency (yrs) 100 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) 4.8 Ia /P Ratio 0.09 Used 0.10 Runoff (in) 2.90 Unit Peak Discharge 226 (cfs /sqmi /in) I Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 1.00 1420 VERSION 1.11 Date: 06 -11 -90 Date: w�. - y-,- C9 TR -55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD Project : La Quinta - o User: Zora County State: CA Checked: Subtitle: Flood Insurance Study Data: Drainage Area 2.23 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 82 Time of Concentration: 2.15 Hours .Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number ---------------- - - - - -- Frequency (yrs) 24.-Hr 'Rainfall (in) Ia /P Ratio Used 1 100 4.8 0.09 0.10 Runoff (in) 2.90 Unit Peak Discharge 214 (cfs /sgmi /in) Pond and Swamp Factor 1.00 0.0% Ponds Used -------- - - - - -g ( - - - -�- - - - - -- Peak Dischar a cfs '1385 -4 F?ve L'v77 s�'vrr� ism 9c9 = 9, 2 . . VERSION 1.11 Date: 06 -11 -90 Date: C -/n TR -55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD Project : La Quinta - c!o User: Zora County State: CA Checked: Subtitle: Flood Insurance Study Data: Drainage Area 2.27 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 82 .Time of Concentration: 2.35 Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number 1 ---------------- - - - - -- Frequency (yrs) - - - - -- 100 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) 4.8 Ia /P Ratio 0.09 Used 0.10 Runoff (in) 2.90 Unit Peak Discharge 201 (cfs /sgmi /in) .Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 1.00 1321 {�Y tjo =. � 8 i3- ham' - 2 7n . 14-2o 0s VERSION 1.11 Date: 06 -11 -90 Date.: r- 16 -C TR -55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD Project La Quinta -co User: Zora County State: CA Checked: Subtitle: Flood Insurance Study Data: Drainage Azea 2.77 Sq Mi Runoff Curve Number 82 Time of Concentration: 2.47 Hours Rainfall Type II Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number 1 ---------------- - - - - -- - - - - -- Frequency (yrs) 100 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) 4.8 Ia /P Ratio 0.09 Used 0.10 Runoff (in) 2.90 Unit Peak Discharge 193 (cfs /sgmi /in) Pond and Swamp Factor 0.0% Ponds Used - Peak Discharge (cfs) 1.00 1554 VERSION 1.11 Date: 06 -11 -90 Date: