HomeMy WebLinkAbout16- Amendment 1 to PSA - Allied Engineering Services, Inc. - Bozeman Creek and Tributaries Floodplain Mapping Project - Selet Review anad EvaluationAmendment No. I to Professional Services Agreement
for Bozeman Creek and Tributaries Floodplain Mapping
Proiect — Select Review and Evaluation
THIS AGREEMENT is made as of this —_). X" day of No,�p,i , 2016,
between THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, a Municipal Corporation, Bozeman, Montana, herein referred
to as OWNER and ALLIED ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC., an Engineering Consulting Firm of
Bozeman, Montana, herein referred to as ENGINEER.
WHEREAS, the parties have entered into a Professional Services Agreement dated May 9,
2016, herein referred to as Original Agreement for professional engineering services; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to further amend the provisions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS
CONTAINED HEREIN, the parties agree as follows:
The conditions and provisions set forth in the attached Amendment No. 1 to Scope of Services for
Bozeman Creek and Tributaries Floodplain Mapping Project — Select Review and Evaluation
("Attachment A") are hereby incorporated in and made part of this agreement.
1
Except as specifically amended herein, the original agreement shall remain in full force and
effect and the Parties shall be bound by all terms and conditions therein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto do make and execute this Agreement on the day
and year first above written.
<
>F , , CITY O ZI✓M N
`oV
BO
2�,. B
ATTEST: 4�1 •
-U.�_"_
City Clerk �� T' • • • ' 10�'
INCO•S'
APPRFORM
By
gdiity�Attottorney
ENGINEER
By: col
Its: Vice President
ATTEST:
C
D
ENGINEERING
SERVICES, INC.
Terse Prolee�y�,
October 27, 2016
Brian Heaston
Project Engineer
City of Bozeman Engineering Division
bheaston@bozeman.net
Civil Engineering . Geotechnical Engineering . Land Surveying
32 Discovery Drive
Bozeman, Montana 59718
Ph: (406) 582-0221
Fax: (406) 582-5770
RE: Bozeman Creek and Tributaries Floodplain Mapping Project — Select Review and
Evaluation — Attachment A of PSA Amendment for Appeal Submittal
Dear Brian:
Attached is our proposed scope of work and budget for an appeal submittal for the Bozeman
Creek and Tributaries Floodplain Mapping Project and to evaluate the use of Mill Ditch as a
flood bypass channel to relieve flooding along Bozeman Creek. The proposed appeal submittal
will incorporate a combined ID/21) or 2D hydraulic modeling approach for the downtown area
as well as the incorporation of the Bond Street Bridge into the ID portion of the model.
The attached Exhibit A is our proposed scope of work and fees to complete the work. A table
(Exhibit B) showing a breakdown of the labor and expenses is also attached. Draft scoping
guidance provided by FEMA is also attached.
Please give me a call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Allied Engineering Services, Inc.
""Y"
gNafly zlg dby VaW 1. Sanlord
Paul J. Sanford IN ".-P anfwd@a tiMe� Ing wry WS
Dalt 0-017 14-2—
Paul Sanford, PE
Principal Civil Engineer
enc: Exhibit A — Scope of Work
Exhibit B — Itemized Budget
Draft scoping guidance provided by FEMA
MT -2 (LOMR) Forms
PA2016\16-062 COB Floodplain Evaluation\O1 Project Management\Proposals\Appeal\CoverLetter.doc
www.alliedengineering.com
Attachment A - Exhibit A.
Allied Engineering Services, Inc.
APPEAL TO FEMA FOR BOZEMAN CREEK AND
TRIBUTARIES FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROJECT
WORK SCOPE, BUDGET AND SCHEDULE
BACKGROUND
The Bozeman Creek and Tributaries Floodplain Mapping Project is being completed by Michael Baker
International for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and is currently undergoing
review and evaluation by the City of Bozeman prior to implementation. The Bozeman Creek and
Tributaries project aims to update floodplain mapping for the area using one-dimensional hydraulic
modeling with the Army Corps of Engineer's HEC -RAS computer program and updated elevation data.
Large scale floodplain mapping was last completed for the Bozeman area in 1988 with a digital
conversion of the data occurring in 2011.
In July 2016 Allied Engineering Services, Inc. (AESI) completed a Floodplain Evaluation report for the
City of Bozeman which provided select review and evaluation of the Bozeman Creek and Tributaries
Floodplain Mapping Project. The work included the following major tasks:
1. General Model Review for Bozeman Creek;
2. Mill Ditch Diversion Evaluation. Evaluate effect of increasing flow to Mill Ditch;
3. Creekside Park Evaluation. Evaluate accuracy of model at Creekside Park and evaluate
floodplain impacts for potential stream enhancement at the site;
4. Bond Street Bridge Evaluation. Complete a survey of Bond Street Bridge, revise the hydraulic
model to incorporate the bridge, and evaluate the bridge's effect on floodplain elevations and
inundation extents; and
5. Evaluate incorporating the two-dimensional modeling capabilities of HEC -RAS into the section
of Bozeman Creek from Olive Street to Lamme Street.
The scope of work described herein further expands the floodplain evaluation and modeling for items #2,
#4, and #5 listed above. Specifically, the scope of work includes development of an appeal to incorporate
1D/2D or 2D modeling in the downtown area and to update the preliminary 1D model to include the
Bond Street Bridge. The scope of work also includes evaluation of the Mill Ditch as a flood bypass
channel.
The objectives of this project include:
1. Develop a 1D/2D or 2D hydraulic model of the downtown area and incorporate into the
preliminary FIS model and mapping;
2. Incorporate the Bond Street Bridge into the preliminary FIS model and mapping;
3. Develop an appeal package to submit to FEMA; and
4. Evaluate the Mill Ditch as a flood bypass channel such that the flow remaining in Bozeman Creek
downstream of the Mill Ditch split flow results in bankfull flow or less in Bozeman Creek.
The project goals are to include the 1D/2D (or 2D) model of the downtown area and the Bond Street
Bridge in the final Flood Insurance Study for the Bozeman Creek and Tributaries Floodplain Mapping
Project and to evaluate the use of the Mill Ditch as a flood bypass channel to relieve flooding along
Bozeman Creek in the downtown area.
October 27, 2016 Page 1
Attachment A - Exhibit A.
WORK SCOPE
1 Project Management
Internal Project Management
Manage the project, AESI staff, and sub -consultant.
Administration
Allied Engineering Services, Inc.
Prepare invoices. Provide project setup. Assist with preparation of deliverables.
Communication with Stakeholders
Communicate with client, FEMA, DNRC, and other stakeholders.
Conference Calls
Project Manager and Hydraulic Engineer attend up to two conference calls with stakeholders.
2 Data Collection
Site Visit
Project team performs a site visit to evaluate the existing conditions in the downtown model reach.
Document the observed field conditions with notes and ground photographs.
Survey to Refine Lateral Weirs and Flow Splits
Perform survey to establish detailed location and profile of proposed lateral weir flow splits.
Obtain Record Drawings & Incorporate New Town Pump Culvert into Mill Ditch Diversion Model
Obtain record drawings (and any relevant floodplain development permit application information) from
City for the recently installed culvert that conveys Mill Ditch under the Town Pump site. Incorporate
culvert into Mill Ditch Diversion hydraulic model.
3 Floodplain Modeling
3_1 Incorporate 1 D / 2D or 2D Model in Downtown Area into Preliminary FIS
Develop Layout for Revised Hydraulic Analysis
Work with stakeholders to develop a proposed schematic layout for the 1D/2D or 2D hydraulic model.
Summarize proposed layout and methodologies in a memorandum and provide to FEMA for
review/approval. The memorandum will discuss proposed methodologies including but not limited to:
selection of a 1D/2D or 2D model; split flows; lateral weirs; Manning's n; floodway determination;
hydraulic structures; and annotation of FIRM, Flood Profiles, and FIS Report Tables.
Develop Hydraulic Model
Revise the preliminary FIS hydraulic model to incorporate a 1D/2D or 2D hydraulic model in the
downtown area. Preliminary analysis by AESI used a 1D/2D model setup, but a methodology recently
uncovered for modeling long culverts (like those that exist downtown) in a purely 2D environment will be
evaluated. Discussions with FEMA will need to take place regarding the acceptance of any
methodologies employed. If a lD/2D model is pursued, the preliminary model will need to be refined
and updated. Levee stations will need to be better defined and some overtopping culvert/bridge areas
need revision to better mimic existing conditions. Additionally, general model parameters will need to be
refined based on sensitivity simulation trials.
Provide the hydraulic model to stakeholders for review prior to developing the floodway model (below).
October 27, 2016 Page 2
Attachment A - Exhibit A.
Develop Floodway Model
Allied Engineering Services, Inc.
Develop floodway boundaries within the 1D/2D hydraulic model or 2D model. A first cut evaluation will
utilize the encroachment stations in the preliminary FIS 1D model into the 2D model to verify that the
maximum allowable surcharge is not exceeded.
Limited guidance is offered by FEMA for floodway analysis in 2D models, but there are several options
available. One likely method is to check conveyance reductions and surcharges at established 1D cross-
sections extended into the 2D area. The model would still be run in a ID/2D or 2D environment and
require an iterative approach with manually adjusted encroachments. An average water depth rise may be
employed to prevent problems caused by one or two individual cells showing larger than allowed
surcharges. Any option pursued will need prior acceptance by FEMA. It is anticipated that inundation
results from the floodplain extents model will influence how to proceed with the floodway analysis. Split
flows down streets may require separate floodways.
Close communication with Client and FEMA and several iterations are expected throughout the
development of the 1D/2D or 2D floodway model.
Develop Explanation for Superiority of Alternative Methodology
Develop text to demonstrate that the 1D/2D or 2D modeling approach results in more correct estimates of
flood hazard determinations in the downtown area.
Meeting with Stakeholders to Review Preliminary Model Results
Meet with stakeholders to review the preliminary model results (1D/2D (or 2D) and Bond Street Bridge).
Evaluate the benefits and risks with moving forward with an appeal. Develop a brief memorandum to
summarize the meeting and any follow up correspondence.
Complete Revisions to Model
Based on the outcome of the stakeholder meeting, complete revisions to the hydraulic model.
3_2 Mill Ditch Diversion Flood Capacity Analysis Bozeman Creek and Mill Ditch
Develop ID Hydraulic Model with Existing Geometry (Bozeman Creek at Bankfull; Mill Ditch
Takes Remainder)
Determine the 100 -year flow split required at the Mill Ditch Diversion that results in approximately
bankfull flow along Bozeman Creek in the downtown area downstream of the split. Revise the
preliminary FIS hydraulic model to reflect the flow split.
Develop Inundation Exhibits for Existing Geometry Scenario
Develop inundation exhibits to show the effect of the increased flow split on the flooding extents along
Bozeman Creek and Mill Ditch for the existing geometry scenario.
Develop Rough Proposed Geometry to Increase Conveyance Capacity in the Mill Ditch
After evaluating the inundation exhibits for the increased flow slit and the existing geometry, evaluate
improvements necessary along Mill Ditch to handle the increased flow. Develop proposed geometry for
the improvements.
Develop ID Hydraulic Model with Proposed Mill Ditch Geometry
Create a proposed geometry hydraulic model to reflect improvements to the Mill Ditch corridor.
Develop Inundation Exhibits for Proposed Mill Ditch Geometry Scenario
Develop inundation exhibits to show the effect of the increased flow split on the flooding extents along
Bozeman Creek and Mill Ditch for the proposed geometry scenario.
October 27, 2016 Page 3
Attachment A - Exhibit A. Allied Engineering Services, Inc.
Develop Draft Technical Memorandum
Develop a brief draft technical memorandum to document and summarize the Mill Ditch Flood Capacity
Analysis. The memorandum will include a copy of the hydraulic model and the inundation exhibits.
Develop Final Technical Memorandum
Following review by the Client, develop a final technical memorandum.
3_3 Incorporate Bond Street Bridge into Preliminary FIS
Refine ID Hydraulic Model
Review and refine the portion of the preliminary AESI 1D hydraulic model containing the Bond Street
Bridge.
Develop Floodway Model
Develop a floodway model to incorporate the Bond Street Bridge.
4 Floodplain Mapping (1D/2D or 2D Downtown Area and Bond Street Bridge)
Revise Flood Zone Boundary and Regulatory Floodway Boundary Delineations
Develop revised flood zone boundaries to reflect the 1D/2D or 2D model addition and the addition of the
Bond Street Bridge.
Develop Annotated Copies of FIRM, Flood Profiles, and FIS Report Tables
Develop annotated copies of FIRM, flood profiles, and FIS report tables to reflect the addition of the
lD/2D or 2D model and the Bond Street Bridge. The approach to developing the annotated copies of the
FIRM, Flood Profiles, and FIS Report Tables for the 1D/2D or 2D section of the model will require
acceptance from FEMA. For a 2D model, a set of cross sections will need to be employed at BFE contour
lines and extended into the floodway fringe on both sides of the floodway. Cross-sections will also be
placed at changes in floodway width and at a spacing to represent stream characteristics. For a 2D model,
the profile will show the profile baseline and modeled hydraulic structures. For a 1D/2D model, the
production of the annotated products will utilize the 1-D cross-sections applied to the stream channel.
Existing cross-sections developed for the main channel will be used to establish BFEs while new cross-
sections will be developed on an as -needed basis for split flows that require separate floodways.
Produce a Certified Topographic Work Map.
5 Develop Appeal Submittal Package
Develop Draft Summary Report
Develop a draft summary report to document and summarize the hydraulic model and mapping developed
for the appeal.
Develop Draft Appeal Submittal Package
Develop a draft cover letter and materials for submittal to FEMA. The materials will include the
hydraulic model and floodplain snapping.
Develop Final Summary Report
Following review by the Client (and ideally FEMA/DNRC), develop a final summary report.
Develop Final Appeal Submittal Package
Following review by the Client (and ideally FEMA/DNRC); develop a final appeal submittal package.
October 27, 2016 Page 4
I Attachment A - Exhibit A. Allied Engineering Services, Inc.
6 Address FEMA Review Comments
This task provides an estimated scope and budget to address FEMA Review Comments. The task will be
completed on a time and materials basis for a not -to -exceed cost of $10,447. The not -to -exceed budget
was estimated based on the assumed hours shown on Exhibit B. Work associated with this task may
include the following: communication with FEMA Reviewers; revisions to hydraulic model; revisions to
floodplain mapping; and development of a revised appeal submittal package.
Assumptions
1. Methodologies will require prior approval from FEMA;
2. The appeal will not modify hydrology;
3. The format of the model, maps, and report will follow the requirements laid out by FEMA for a
LOMR submittal (refer to attached MT -2 Forms 1, 2, and 3);
4. FEMA will update cHECk-RAS to run with HEC -RAS 5.0 or FEMA will grant a waiver from the
requirement to run cHECk-RAS; and
5. Regulatory floodway revision notification as shown in Section D.3 of the LOMR application MT -
2 form 2 will not be required.
Client Responsibilities
1. Provide plans (certified by a registered professional engineer) for the Bond Street Bridge;
2. Provide review fees if required; and
3. Facilitate communication and coordination with review agencies.
DELIVERABLES
The following deliverables will be submitted to the Client in completion of this scope of work.
Deliverables will be submitted in an electronic format except where hard copies are required by reviewing
agencies.
1. Schematic layout for revised hydraulic analysis and methodologies memorandum;
2. Preliminary Hydraulic Model (which incorporates 1D/2D or 2D and Bond Street Bridge) for
review by stakeholders;
3. Memorandum to Document Stakeholder Meeting Regarding the Preliminary Hydraulic Model
(1D/2D or 2D and Bond Street Bridge);
4. Draft Mill Ditch Diversion Flood Capacity Analysis Technical Memorandum;
5. Final Mill Ditch Diversion Flood Capacity Analysis Technical Memorandum;
6. Draft Summary Report and Appeal Submittal Package;
7. Final Summary Report and Appeal Submittal Package; and
8. Revised Appeal Submittal Package.
BUDGET
The estimated budget to undertake the scope of work is $86,674. A table (Exhibit B) showing a
breakdown of the labor and expenses is attached.
Invoicing will be based on percent complete and will utilize the following two tasks: 1. Appeal; and 2.
October 27, 2016 Page 5
Attachment A - Exhibit A. Allied Engineering Services, Inc.
Mill Ditch Diversion Flood Capacity Analysis.
SCHEDULE
Assuming authorization to proceed is granted by November 9, 2016, the following preliminary schedule
is estimated for completion of major project milestones:
1. Preliminary estimate of flow that would need to be diverted from Bozeman Creek to Mill Ditch to
result in bankfull flow along Bozeman Creek in the downtown area — November 9, 2016;
2. Layout for revised hydraulic analysis and proposed methods memorandum — December 2, 2016;
3. Preliminary hydraulic model for review by stakeholders — January 11, 2017;
4. Preliminary floodway model for review by stakeholders — February 10, 2017;
5. Memorandum to Document Stakeholder Meeting Regarding the Preliminary Hydraulic Model —
March 3, 2017;
6. Draft Summary Report and Appeal Submittal Package — March 31, 2017;
7. Final Summary Report and Appeal Submittal Package — April 28, 2017;
8. Draft Mill Ditch Diversion Flood Capacity Analysis Technical Memorandum — May 19, 2017;
9. Revised Appeal Submittal Package — May 24, 2017; and
10. Final Mill Ditch Diversion Flood Capacity Analysis Technical Memorandum — June 16, 2017.
October 27, 2016 Page 6
APPEAL TO FEMA for BOZEMAN CREEK and TRIBUTARIES FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROJECT
ATTACHMENT A - EXHIBIT B - ITEMIZED BUDGET
October 27, 2016
U)
TASK DESCRIPTION
HOURS AND FEES
F
U
W
z
d)
J
N
O
LL
LL
V
W
a
W
d a
m (�
c CY
m Lu
d CS c
a
d C 2
d
W N N
Q 7
c a O
o = _
LL
U
a.
d J
C
C V)
W N
itZ
3 0) 'E J
V c E F
_ ¢ OF
$100 $100 $55
W
J
F
OF
$135 $134 $257
Travel Other
1
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Internal Project Management
10
10
$1,350
$1,350
Administration (Invoicing, Project Setup, Copies, etc.)
4
4
$220
$50
$270
Communication with Stakeholders
8
8
16
$1,880
$1,880
Conference Calls
6
6
12
$1,410
$1,410
Subtotal Hours
24
0
0
14
0 4
42
Subtotal Costs
$3,240
$0
$0
$1,400
$0 $220
$4,860
$0 $50
$4,910
2
DATA COLLECTION
Site Visit
2
2
4
$470
$10
$480
Survey to Refine Lateral Weirs and Flow Splits
4
2
6
$600
_
$10 $100
$710
_
Obtain Record Drawings & Incorporate New Town Pump Culvert Into Mill Ditch Diversion Model
1
4
4
$400
1
$400
Subtotal Hours
2
0
0
10
2 0
14
Subtotal Costs
$270
$0
$0
$1,000
$200 $0
$1,470
$20 $1001
$1,590
3
FLOODPLAIN MODELING
Task 3.1 - Incorporate 1D 12D Model in Downtown Area to Preliminary FIS
Develop Layout for Revised Hydraulic Analysis
4
4
1
12
21
$2,533
$2,533
Develop Hydraulic Model
161
20
1
80
117
$13,097
$13,097
Develop Floodway Model
2
8
1
120
131
$13,599
$13,599
Develop Explanation for Superiority of Alternative Methodology
2
4
6
$668
$668
Meeting with Stakeholders to Review Preliminary Model Results
3
3
_
6
$705
$705
Complete Revisions to Model _
2
2
40
44
$4,538
$4,538
Task 3.2 - Mill Ditch Diversion Flood Capacity Analysis (Bozeman Creek and Mill Ditch)
Develop 1 D Hydraulic Model with Existing Geometry (Bozeman Cr. At Bankfull; Mill Ditch Takes Remainde 2
20
22
$2,270
$2,270
Develop Inundation Exhibits for Existing Geometry Scenario
6
6
$600
$600
Develop Rough Proposed Geometry to Increase Conveyance Capacity in the Mill Ditch
81
24
32
$3,480
$3,480
Develop 1 D Hydraulic Model with Proposed Mill Ditch Geometry
4
24
28
$2,940
$2,940
Develop Inundation Exhibits for Proposed Mill Ditch Geometry Scenario
8
8
$800
$800
Develop Draft Technical Memorandum
4
8
12
$1,340
$1,340
Develop Final Technical Memorandum
4
8
12
$1,340
$1,340
Task 3.3 - Incorporate Bond Street Bridge to Preliminary FIS
Refine 1 D Hydraulic Model _
4
4
$400
$400
Develop Floodway Model
21
4
32
38
$4,006
$4,006
Subtotal Hours
51
40
3
393
0 0
487
Subtotal Costs
$6,885
$5,360
$771
$39,300
$0 $0
$52,316
$0 $0
$52,316
4
FLOODPLAIN MAPPING (1 D 12D Downtown Area and Bond Street Bridge)
Revise Flood Zone Boundary and Regulatory Floodway Boundary Delineations
4
4
40
48$5,076
$5,076
Develop Annotated Copies of FIRM, Flood Profiles, and FIS Report Tables
4
32
36
$3,7361
$3,736
Subtotal Hours
41
8
01
72
0 0
84
Subtotal Costs
$540
$1,072
$0
$7,200
$0 $0
$8,812
$0 $0
$8,812
5
DEVELOP APPEAL SUBMITTAL PACKAGE
Develop Draft Summary Report
4
2
1
32
39
$4,265
$4,265
Develop Draft Appeal Submittal Package
2
2
4
8
$938
$25
$963
Develop Final Summary Report
4
2
16
22
$2,408
[::::$25
$2,408
Develop Final Appeal Submittal Package
21
2
1 4
8
$938
$963
Subtotal Hours
121
8
1
56
0 0
77
Subtotal Costs
$1,620
$1,072
$257
$5,600
$0 $0
$8,549
$0 $50
$8,599
6
ADDRESS FEMA REVIEW COMMENTS
Communicate with FEMA Reviewers
2
4
6
$670
$670
Revisions to Hydraulic Modeling (Tasks 3.1 and 3.3)
4
4
40
48
$5,076
$5,076
Revisions to Floodplain Mapping
2
2
20
24
$2,538
$2,538
Develop Revised Appeal Submittal Package
2
2
16
20
$2,138
$25
$2,163
Subtotal Hours
10
8
0
80
0 0
98
Subtotal Costs
$1,350
$1,072
$0
$8,000
$0 $0
$10,422
$0 $25
$10,447
TOTAL HOURS
103
64
4
625
2 4
802
TOTAL COSTS
$13,905
$8,576
$1,028
$62,500
$200 $220
$86,429
$20 $225
$86,674
compass
Identify, Interpret, Integrate
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Subject: City of Bozeman 1D/2D Appeal
1. Introduction
Compass PTS JV
a JV led by AECOM and CDM Smith
3101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite goo
Alexandria, VA 22201
At the request of FEMA Region VIII, Compass has provided recommendations in preparation for
responding to a potential appeal from the City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The City
will be conducting a high-level analysis of the 2D modeling using the latest version of HEC -RAS that
includes a combined 1D/2D modeling approach. The City has indicated that a combined 1D/2D
modeling method is superior to the more simplistic 1D approach in the complex urban
environment and that it is in the best interest of the floodplain program. Downtown Bozeman is a
good example of where a combined 1D/2D modeling approach may better reflect flood behavior
and risk.
2. Project site
The project site is located in the City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana: 45°41'7.11"N + 111'
4'10.39"W (click hyperlink to view in Google Maps). The study area is shown in Figure 1.
Q cWYedv.Y,{m{U6Nge9,9Vort.q>w1 Y[Yq
I;ZNd fl - 4.
19ry
'Telrac�
r
o m
%S -LN -TTP
�tlIRPAD MA .
—NDTI(ITIRID.M 0
r�
y-
—NDi {till P90.lgi M.:%
13 & lid1w."i
>rM
— •at ouwr w..et.
6 .
LN 199
—S"A/RODD zmi W,
0 5_TMI 6Xn
❑ S wnyn
I O_j!ONi zO l_,a v
�A
AE 1 PCT Ak4J4 Ct v
� Af. AI9YNLtRt,Ih4 tiQ
fi A<1900DNO -
LD
X AREA 01 WNWl ItCC
Cl SS.M hb
D 5_9n k_
H S,tpV.P.n
•as.ns�a
�
❑$0.2_N
Irv!
h'. _hou= ., 0.. .. :!• ! • _ -x. .. 1,i.
Figure 1— Bozeman HEC -RAS 1D model geometry
IS1645729 WMI 1111J99
3. Submission of Appeals and Comments on Preliminary FIRMs
When the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) releases the preliminary Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report for Gallatin County showing
updated flood hazard data for the communities, local officials and residents have the opportunity
to identify concerns before the FIRMs and FIS report are adopted by the community and become
the basis of floodplain management, development, and flood insurance requirements. Feedback
can be provided any time after the release of the preliminary FIRMs until the end of a statutory
90 -day appeal period. Each submittal received is categorized as an appeal or comment based on
the nature of the concern, the type of information provided to support the concern, and when it
was received. If warranted, the preliminary FIRM and/or FIS report will be updated before it is
finalized based on the feedback provided.
WHAT IS THE APPEALS PROCESS AND HOW DOES IT
The appeals process is part of the regulatory mapping process outlined in Title 44, Chapter I, Part
67 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (Click hyperlink to view FEMA Website) Whenever FEMA
issues preliminary FIRMs that involve changes to flood hazard information, a statutory 90 -day
appeal period is required. FEMA starts the appeals process by:
• Publishing a notice in the Federal Register (Click hyperlink to view FEMA Website);
• Notifying the affected communities by letter of the start of the appeal period; and
• Publishing a news release twice in a prominentlocal newspaper.
During the appeal period, anyone can submit' information (firstreviewedby their local
officials) that shows the proposed flood hazards or other information on the preliminary FIRM or
in the FIS report are not correct. Local officials then provide this information to FEMA for review.
If needed, the preliminary FIRM will be updated before it is finalized.
WHAT IS CONSIDERED AN APP
To be considered an appeal, a submittal must:
• Include data that shows the proposed flood hazard information (e.g. new or modified
Special Flood Hazard Area zones or boundaries, Base Flood Elevations, base flood
depths, and/or floodway boundaries) is scientifically or technically incorrect;
• Include the revised data for the FIRM and/or FIS report (e.g. boundaries of revised
floodplains); and
• Be received during the statutory 90 -day appeal period.
The designation of a submittal as an appeal provides certain appellant rights, including the
opportunity for the affected community to have data reviewed by a Scientific Resolution Panel
(SRP).
HOW WILL THE APPEAL BE EVALUATED, AGAINST WHAT CRITERIA, AND HOW WILL A
DETERMINATION BE MADE IF THE APPEAL IS VALID?
The process to evaluate Appeals and Comments is outlined in "Guidance for Flood Risk Analysis
and Mapping" Appeal and Comment Processing (May 2016) (click hyperlink to view FEMA
Website). Specifically, this document provides guidance on appeal and comment processing
procedures that occur during the Post -Preliminary Processing (PPP) phase of a Flood Risk Project
or Physical Map Revision (PMR), or following a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) issuance, as related
to Title 44, Chapter 1, Code of Federal Regulations Part 67 and 42 U.S Code § 4104(a) -(g) for flood
hazard determinations.
The appeal will be valid if all the applicable requirements for Part 67 are met. Additional detail on
the criteria for appealing proposed changes in flood hazard information on FIRMS may be found in
FEMA's "Criteria for Appeals of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (November 30, 2011)" (Click hyperlink
to view FEMA Website).
"The sole basis of appeal is the possession of knowledge or information indicating that the flood
hazard determinations proposed by FEMA are scientifically or technically incorrect. Since scientific
and technical correctness is often a matter of degree rather than absolute (except where
mathematical or measurement error or changed physical conditions can be demonstrated),
appellants are required to demonstrate that alternative methods or applications result in more
correct estimates of flood hazard determinations, thus demonstrating that FEMA's estimates are
incorrect."
If the appeal is valid FEMA will proceed with the revision to the appeal area as described on the
workflow in Figure 2.
Nn
Receive l
Incoming JIII
Appeals/
comments* All N,,jr)
Data Rrcewed?
Dlstrlbu
Ll'or -- Commen
Acknow
Figure 2. Appeal and Comment Resolution Overview
Community Consultation
Evaluate Data for, FEMA
Incorporation C,n urrenre-�
Alternative Resolution Option
All comments/appeals
No resolved tocommunih's
satisfaction?
and Intarpotate
�, • Data Through _ Comment �.es Issue Final
Revised Resolution Delennlnalfun
Preliminary
Process ��
InilWte 1'C
'Far Flood Risk Projects or PMRs, comments received and resolved outside of the statutory 90 day appeals Appeal ";U,,�
period may result in Rood hazard determination changes that require revised preliminary Issuance and a APDb*
lele
new appeal period; Resolution otan appeal may introduce Rood hazard determination changes Into a new
community, and thus requirea new appeals period.
Figure 2—Appeal and Comment Resolution Overview
WHAT DATA WOULD BE NEEDED FOR A VALID APPEAL?
The understanding is that the City's contractor will be using HEC -RAS 5.0 that includes the 1D/2D
combined modeling and it is an accepted model by FEMA. Below are some of the applicable
FEMA Standards and Guidance that apply for data submittal to support an appeal.
General Hydrologic Considerations for 2D models can be found in FEMA's "General
Hydrologic Considerations (May 2016)" Section 4.4.3 Two -Dimensional Models (Click
hyperlink to view FEMA Website).
• FEMA Standards for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping can be found in FEMA's "FEMA
POLICY Standards for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping FEMA Policy #FP 204-078-1
Rev 5)" (Click hyperlink to view FEMA Website). Related Existing Standards for
Engineering, PMRs, H&H Analyses, 2D Models, Floodway, Flood Profiles, and tie-in are
shown in Appendix A.
• In the case of a two-dimensional model, floodway boundaries are generally developed
through trial and error; applying engineering judgment to delineate the boundary
needs to be defined.
• There are no guidance or quality assurance protocols for the review of floodway
boundaries derived from two-dimensional model results. At this point per Standard
73, pre -approval is required if they want to use anything other than 1D steady-state.
• A general recommendation when using u
profile model in unsteady, then get the pe
steady state run for the floodway.
EC -RAS 5.0 is to do the multi-
rom that and plug them into a
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY O.M.B No. 1660-0016
OVERVIEW & CONCURRENCE FORM Expires February 28,2014
PAPERWORK BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 1 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 it displays a valid OMB control number. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden
estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA 20958-3005, Paperwork Reduction Project (1660-0016). 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.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
AUTHORITY: The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, Public Law 90-448, as amended by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, Public Law 93-
234.
PRINCIPAL PURPOSE(S): This information is being collected for the purpose of determining an applicant's eligibility to request changes to National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).
ROUTINE USE(S): The information on this form may be disclosed as generally permitted under 5 U.S.0 § 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as
amended. This includes using this information as necessary and authorized by the routine uses published in DHS/FEMA/NFIP/LOMA-1 National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP); Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) February 15, 2006, 71 FR 7990.
DISCLOSURE: The disclosure of information on this form is voluntary; however, failure to provide the information requested may delay or prevent
FEMA from processing a determination regarding a requested change to a NFIP Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).
A. REQUESTED RESPONSE FROM DHS -FEMA
This request is for a (check one):
❑ CLOMR: A letter from DHS -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 DHS -FEMA officially revising the current NFIP map to show the changes to floodplains, regulatory floodway or flood
elevations. (See 44 CFR Ch. 1, Parts 60, 65 & 72)
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
Example: 480301
City of Katy
TX
48473C
0005D
02/08/83
480287
Harris County
TX
48201C
0220G
09/28/90
2. a. Flooding Source:
b. Types of Flooding: ❑ Riverine ❑ Coastal ❑ Shallow Flooding (e.g., Zones AO and AH)
❑ Alluvial fan ❑ Lakes ❑ Other (Attach Description)
3. Project Name/Identifier:
4. FEMA zone designations affected: (choices: A, AH, AO, Al -A30, A99, AE, AR, V, V1 430, 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 ❑ Base Map Changes
❑ Coastal Analysis ❑ Hydraulic Analysis ❑ Hydrologic Analysis ❑ Corrections
❑ Weir -Dam Changes ❑ Levee Certification ❑ Alluvial Fan Analysis ❑ Natural Changes
❑ New Topographic Data ❑ Other (Attach Description)
Note: A photograph and narrative description of the area of concern is not required, but is very helpful during review.
FEMA Form 086-0-27, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81-89 MT -2 Form 1 Page 1 of 3
The area of revision encompasses the following structures (check all that apply)
Structures: ❑ Channelization ❑ Levee/Floodwall ❑ Bridge/Culvert
❑ Dam ❑ Fill ❑ Other (Attach Description)
6. ❑ Documentation of ESA compliance is submitted (required to initiate CLOMR review). Please refer to the instructions for more information.
C. REVIEW FEE
Has the review fee for the appropriate request category been included? ❑ Yes Fee amount: $
❑ No, Attach Explanation
Please see the DHS -FEMA Web site at http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/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:
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 requirements for when fill is 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. For Conditional LOMR requests, the
applicant has documented Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance to FEMA prior to FEMA's review of the Conditional LOMR application. For
LOMR requests, I acknowledge that compliance with Sections 9 and 10 of the ESA has been achieved independently of FEMA's process. For actions
authorized, funded, or being carried out by Federal or State agencies, documentation from the agency showing its compliance with Section 7(a)(2)
of the ESA will be submitted. 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:
Community Name:
Mailing Address:
Daytime Telephone No.:
Fax No.:
E -Mail Address:
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 data, hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, and any other supporting information as per NFIP regulations paragraph 65.2(b) and as
described in the MT -2 Forms Instructions. 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.:
Expiration Date:
Company Name:
Telephone No.:
Fax No.:
Signature:
Date:
E -Mail Address:
FEMA Form 086-0-27, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81-89 MT -2 Form 1 Page 2 of 3
Ensu: a the forms that are appropriate to your revision request are included in your submittal.
Form Name and (Number)
Reauired if ...
❑ Riverine Hydrology and Hydraulics Form (Form 2) New or revised discharges or water -surface elevations
❑ Riverine Structures Form (Form 3)
❑ Coastal Analysis Form (Form 4)
❑ Coastal Structures Form (Form 5)
❑ Alluvial Fan Flooding Form (Form 6)
Channel is modified, addition/revision of bridge/culverts,
addition/revision of levee/floodwall, addition/revision of dam
New or revised coastal elevations
Addition/revision of coastal structure
Flood control measures on alluvial fans
Seal (Optional)
FEMA Form 086-0-27, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81-89 MT -2 Form 1 Page 3 of 3
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY O.M.B No. 1660-0016
RIVERINE HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS FORM Expires February 28, 2014
PAPERWORK BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 3.5 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, Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington VA 20958-3005, Paperwork Reduction Project
(1660-0016). 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.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
AUTHORITY: The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, Public Law 90-448, as amended by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, Public Law
93-234.
PRINCIPAL PURPOSE(S): This information is being collected for the purpose of determining an applicant's eligibility to request changes to National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).
ROUTINE USE(S): The information on this form may be disclosed as generally permitted under 5 U.S.0 § 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as
amended. This includes using this information as necessary and authorized by the routine uses published in DHS/FEMA/NFIP/LOMA-1 National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) February 15, 2006, 71 FR 7990.
DISCLOSURE: The disclosure of information on this form is voluntary; however, failure to provide the information requested may delay or prevent
FEMA from processing a determination regarding a requested change to a NFIP Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).
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 B) ❑ 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.) Effective/FIS (cfs) Revised (cfs)
3. Methodology for New Hydrologic Analysis (check all that apply)
❑ Statistical Analysis of Gage Records ❑ Precipitation/Runoff Model 4 Specify Model:
❑ 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.
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
Is the hydrology for the revised flooding source(s) affected by sediment transport? ❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport) of Form 3. If No, then attach your explanation..
FEMA Form 086-0-27A, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81-89 MT -2 Form 2 Page 1 of 3
B. HYDRAULICS
1. Reach to be Revised
Description Cross Section Water -Surface Elevations (ft.)
Effective Proposed/Revised
Downstream Limit*
Upstream Limit*
*Proposed/Revised elevations must tie -into the Effective elevations within 0.5 foot at the downstream and upstream limits of revision.
2. Hydraulic Method/Model Used:
3. Pre -Submittal Review of Hydraulic Models*
DHS -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. We recommend that you review your HEC -2 and HEC -RAS models with CHECK -2 and CHECK -RAS.
4.
Models Submitted
Duplicate Effective Model*
Corrected Effective Model*
Existing or Pre -Project
Conditions Model
Revised or Post -Project
Conditions Model
Natural Run Floodwav Run Datum
File Name: Plan Name: File Name: Plan Name:
File Name:
File Name:
File Name:
Plan Name:
Plan Name:
Plan Name:
File Name:
File Name:
File Name:
Plan Name:
Plan Name:
Plan Name:
Other - (attach description) File Name: Plan Name: File Name: Plan Name:
* For details, refer to the corresponding section of the instructions.
❑ Digital Models Submitted? (Required)
C. MAPPING REQUIREMENTS
A certified topographic work 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.).
Topographic Information:
I Source:
Accuracy:
❑ Digital Mapping (GIS/CADD) Data Submitted (preferred)
Date:
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, at the same
scale as the original, 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 on
revision.
❑ Annotated FIRM and/or FBFM (Required)
FEMA Form 086-0-27A, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81-89 MT -2 Form 2 Page 2 of 3
D. COMMON REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS*
1. For LOMR/CLOMR requests, do Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) increase?
❑ Yes ❑ No
a. 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 compared to pre -project
conditions.
• The proposed project encroaches upon a SFHA with or without BFEs established and would result in increases above 1.00 foot
compared to pre -project conditions.
b. Does this LOMR request cause increase in the BFE and/or SFHA compared with the effective BFEs and/or SFHA? ❑ Yes ❑ No
If Yes, please attach proof of property owner notification and acceptance (if available). Elements of and examples of property owner
notifications can be found in the MT -2 Form 2 Instructions.
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 seethe 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 established. Elements and examples of regulatory floodway revision
notification can be found in the MT -2 Form 2 Instructions.)
4. For CLOMR requests, please submit documentation to FEMA and the community to show that you have complied with Sections 9 and 10 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA).
For actions authorized, funded, or being carried out by Federal or State agencies, please submit documentation from the agency showing its
compliance with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. Please see the MT -2 instructions for more detail.
regulatory requirements. For details, see 44 CFR parts 60 and 65.
FEMA Form 086-0-27A, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81-89 MT -2 Form 2 Page 3 of 3
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY O.M.B. NO. 1660-0016
RIVERINE STRUCTURES FORM Expires February 28, 2014
PAPERWORK BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
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, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA 20598-3005,
Paperwork Reduction Project (1660-0016). 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.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
AUTHORITY: The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, Public Law 90-448, as amended by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, Public Law
93-234.
PRINCIPAL PURPOSE(S): This information is being collected for the purpose of determining an applicant's eligibility to request changes to National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).
ROUTINE USE(S): The information on this form may be disclosed as generally permitted under 5 U.S.0 § 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as
amended. This includes using this information as necessary and authorized by the routine uses published in DHS/FEMA/NFIP/LOMA-1 National
Flood Insurance Program; Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) February 15, 2006, 71 FR 7990.
DISCLOSURE: The disclosure of information on this form is voluntary; however, failure to provide the information requested may delay or prevent
FEMA from processing a determination regarding a requested change to a NFIP Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).
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 Modeled Structure
1. Name of Structure:
Type (check one): ❑ Channelization
Location of Structure:
Downstream Limit/Cross Section:
Upstream Limit/Cross Section: _
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)
Location of Structure:
❑ Channelization
Downstream Limit/Cross Section:
Upstream Limit/Cross Section:
❑ Bridge/Culvert ❑ Levee/Floodwall ❑ Dam
❑ Bridge/Culvert ❑ Levee/Floodwall ❑ Dam
❑ Bridge/Culvert ❑ Levee/Floodwall ❑ Dam
NOTE: FOR MORE STRUCTURES, ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NEEDED.
FEMA Form 086-0-271113, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81-89B MT -2 Form 3 Page 1 of 11
B.
Name of Structure:
1. 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):
2. Channel Design Plans
Attach the plans of the channelization certified by a registered professional engineer, as described in the instructions.
3. Accessory Structures
The channelization includes (check one):
❑ Levees [Attach Section E (Levee/Floodwall)] ❑ Drop structures ❑ Superelevated sections
❑ Transitions in cross sectional geometry ❑ Debris basin/detention basin [Attach Section D (Dam/Basin)] ❑ Energy dissipator
❑ Weir ❑ Other (Describe):
4. Sediment Transport Considerations
Are the hydraulics of the channel affected by sediment transport? ❑ 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.
C. BRIDGE/CULVERT
Flooding Source:
Name of Structure:
1. This revision reflects (check one):
❑ Bridge/culvert not modeled in the FIS
❑ Modified bridge/culvert previously modeled in the FIS
❑ Revised 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) ❑ Distances Between Cross Sections
❑ Shape (culverts only) ❑ Erosion Protection
❑ Material ❑ Low Chord Elevations — Upstream and Downstream
❑ Beveling or Rounding ❑ Top of Road Elevations — Upstream and Downstream
❑ Wing Wall Angle ❑ Structure Invert Elevations — Upstream and Downstream
❑ Skew Angle ❑ Stream Invert Elevations — Upstream and Downstream
❑ Cross -Section Locations
4. Sediment Transport Considerations
Are the hydraulics of the structure affected by sediment transport? ❑ Yes ❑ No
If Yes, then fill out Section F Sediment Transport) of Form 3. If no, then attach an explanation.
FEMA Form 086-0-27B, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81-89B MT -2 Form 3 Page 2 of 11
D. DAM/BASIN
Flooding Source:
Name of Structure:
1. This request is for (check one): ❑ Existing dam/basin ❑ New dam/basin ❑ Modification of existing dam/basin
2. The dam/basin was designed by (check one): ❑ Federal agency ❑ State agency ❑ Private organization ❑ Local government agency
Name of the agency or organization:
3. The Dam was permitted as (check one): ❑ Federal Dam ❑ State Dam
Provide the permit or identification number (ID) for the dam and the appropriate permitting agency or organization
Permit or ID number Permitting Agency or Organization
a. ❑ Local Government Dam ❑ Private Dam
Provided related drawings, specification and supporting design information.
4. Does the project involve revised hydrology? ❑ Yes ❑ No
If Yes, complete the Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form (Form 2).
Was the dam/basin designed using critical duration storm? (must account for the maximum volume of runoff)
❑ Yes, provide supporting documentation with your completed Form 2.
❑ No, provide a written explanation and justification for not using the critical duration storm.
5. 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?
6. Does the Base Flood Elevation behind the dam/basin or downstream of the dam/basin change? ❑ Yes ❑ No
If Yes, complete the Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form (Form 2) and complete the table below.
Stillwater Elevation Behind the Dam/Basin
FREQUENCY (% annual chance) FIS REVISED
10 -year (10%)
50 -year (2%)
100 -year (I%)
500 -year (0.2%)
Normal Pool Elevation
7. Please attach a copy of the formal Operation and Maintenance Plan
FEMA Form 086-0-27B, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81-898 MT -2 Form 3 Page 3 of 11
a. This Levee/Floodwall analysis is based on (check one):
upgrading of
a newly
reanalysis of
❑ an existing
❑ constructed ❑
an existing
levee/floodwal I
levee/floodwall
levee/floodwall
system
system
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
FEMA Form 086-0-27113, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81-89B MT -2 Form 3 Page 4 of 11
e. Attach certified drawings containing the following information (indicate drawing sheet numbers):
1. Plan of the levee embankment and floodwall structures.
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
3. A profile of the BFE, closure opening outlet and inlet invert elevations, type and size
of opening, and kind of closure.
4. A layout detail for the embankment protection measures.
5. Location, layout, and size and shape of the levee embankment features, foundation treatment,
Floodwall structure, closure structures, and pump stations.
2. Freeboard
a. The minimum freeboard provided above the BFE is:
Riverine
3.0 feet or more at the downstream end and throughout
3.5 feet or more at the upstream end
4.0 feet within 100 feet upstream of all structures and/or constrictions
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).
Sheet Numbers:
Sheet Numbers:
Sheet Numbers:
Sheet Numbers:
Sheet Numbers:
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
2.0 feet above the 1 %-annual-chance stillwater surge elevation ❑ Yes
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):
If opening exists, list all closures:
❑ exists ❑ does not exist
❑ No
❑ No
Channel StationI Left or Right Bank ( Opening Type ( Highest Elevation for ( Type of Closure Device '
Ooenina Invert
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.)
FEMA Form 086-0-27113, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81-89B MT -2 Form 3 Page 5 of 11
4.
Embankment Protection
a. The maximum levee slope land side is:
b. The maximum levee slope flood side 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
D,—
DSo
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)
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:
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:
FEMA Form 086-0-276, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81-898 MT -2 Form 3 Page 6 of 11
E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL (CONTINUED)
5. Embankment And Foundation Stability (continued)
Case
Loading Conditions
Critical Safety Factor
Criteria (Min.)
1
End of construction
1.3
11
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.
6. Floodwall And Foundation Stability
a. Describe analysis submittal based on Code (check one): ❑ UBC (1988) ❑ 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 @ PBq = %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.
Criteria (Min)
Sta
To
Sta
To
Loading Condition
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
FEMA Form 086-0-27B, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81-89B MT -2 Form 3 Page 7 of 11
(Ref: FEMA 114 Sept 1986; USACE EM 1110-2-2502)
Note: (Extend table on an added sheet as needed and reference)
E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL (CONTINUED)
6. Floodwall And Foundation Stability (continued)
e. Foundation bearing strength for each soil type:
Bearing Pressure
Sustained Load (psf)
Short Term Load (psf)
Computed design maximum
Maximum allowable
FEMA Form 086-0-27113, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81-89B MT -2 Form 3 Page 8 of 11
f. Foundation scour protection ❑ is, ❑ is not provided. If provided, attach explanation and supporting documentation:
Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans.
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.
e. 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.
E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL (CONTINUED)
8. Interior Drainage (continued)
I. Will pumping plants be used for interior drainage? ❑ Yes ❑ No
If Yes, include the number of pumping plants: For each pumping plant, list:
FEMA Form 086-0-2713, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81-89B MT -2 Form 3 Page 9 of 11
E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL (CONTINUED)
FEMA Form 086-0-27113, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81-89B MT -2 Form 3 Page 10 of 11
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.
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.
E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL (CONTINUED)
FEMA Form 086-0-27113, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81-89B MT -2 Form 3 Page 10 of 11
11.' Maintenance Plan
Please attach a copy of the fomal maintenance plan for the levee/floodwall
12. Operations and Maintenance Plan
Please attach a copy of the formal Operations and Maintenance Plan for the levee/floodwall.
CERTIFICATION OF THE LEVEE DOCUMENTION
This certification is to be signed and sealed by a licensed registered professional engineer authorized by law to certify elevation information data,
hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, and any other supporting information as per NFIP regulations paragraph 65.10(e) and as described in the MT -2
Forms Instructions. 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.: Expiration Date:
Company Name: Telephone No.: Fax No.:
Signature: Date: E -Mail Address:
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 086-0-278, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81-898 MT -2 Form 3 Page 11 of 11