DOCSLIB.ORG

Flood Insurance Study Users” Page for Additional Details

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Flood Insurance Study Users” Page for Additional Details VOLUME 1 OF 1 TOWN OF AMHERST, MASSACHUSETTS HAMPSHIRE COUNTY Community Community Name Number Amherst, Town of 250156 Hampshire County Notice This preliminary FIS report includes only revised Flood Profiles and Floodway Data tables. See “Notice to Flood Insurance Study Users” page for additional details. REVISED PRELIMINARY 6/11/2019 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 250156V000A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republished part or all of this FIS at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult with community officials and check the community repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels for this community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM) panels (e.g., floodways, cross sections). In addition, former flood hazard zone designations have been changed as follows: Old Zone New Zone A1 through A30 AE B X C X This FIS report was revised on (TBD). Users should refer to Section 9.0, Revisions Description, for further information. Section 9.0 is intended to present the most up-to-date information for specific portions of this FIS report. Therefore, users of this FIS report should be aware that the information presented in Section 9.0 supersedes information in Sections 1.0 through 8.0 of this FIS report. Initial FIS Report Effective Date: June 15, 1983 Revised FIS Report Dates: TBD TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume I 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Authority and Acknowledgements ................................................................................. 1 1.3 Coordination ................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 AREA STUDIED .............................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Scope of Study ................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Community Description .................................................................................................. 2 2.3 Principal Flood Problems ................................................................................................ 3 2.4 Flood Protection Measures ............................................................................................. 4 3.0 ENGINEERING METHODS .......................................................................................... 4 3.1 Hydrologic Analyses ....................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Hydraulic Analyses ......................................................................................................... 6 3.3 Vertical Datum ................................................................................................................ 7 4.0 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS ................................................... 8 4.1 Floodplain Boundaries .................................................................................................... 8 4.2 Floodways ....................................................................................................................... 9 5.0 INSURANCE APPLICATIONS.................................................................................... 11 6.0 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ............................................................................. 13 7.0 OTHER STUDIES .......................................................................................................... 15 8.0 LOCATION OF DATA .................................................................................................. 15 9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ..................................................................... 15 10.0 REVISION DESCRIPTIONS ........................................................................................ 17 10.1 First Revision (TBD) .................................................................................................... 17 a. Acknowledgments .................................................................................. 17 b. Scope .................................................................................. 17 c. Hydrologic Analyses .................................................................................. 18 d. Hydraulic Analyses .................................................................................. 18 e. Manning .................................................................................. 18 f. Floodplain Mapping Updates .................................................................................. 21 g. Vertical Datum .................................................................................. 21 h. Bibliography and References .................................................................................. 22 APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................................... 31 i Volume 1-continued FIGURES Page Figure 1 Floodway Schematic ………………………..…….…….…………. 10 TABLES Table 1 Summary of Discharges …………………………………………… 6 Table 2 Community Map History 14 Table 3 Flooding Sources Restudied Or Newly Studied By Detailed Methods 19 Table 4 Flooding Sources Restudied Or Newly Studied By Approximate 19 Methods Table 5 Summary of Peak Discharges Studied By Detailed Methods 20 Table 6 Floodway Data Table 23 APPENDIX A Figure 2 FIRM Notes to Users ………………………………………………… 31 Figure 3 Map Legend for FIRM ………………………………………………. 34 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 – Flood Profiles Eastman Brook Panels 01P-02P Fort River Panels 03P-08P Hop Brook Panels 09P-10P Mill River Panels 11P-13P Muddy Brook Panels 14P-15P Plum Brook Panels 16P-17P Unnamed Tributary to Fort River Panel 18P Unnamed Tributary to Mill River Panel 19P Exhibit 2 – Flood Insurance Rate Map Index (Published Separately) Flood Insurance Rate Map (Published Separately) ii FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY TOWN OF AMHERST, MASSACHUSETTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Study This Flood Insurance Study investigates the existence and severity of flood hazards in the Town of Amherst, Hampshire County, Massachusetts, and aids in the administration of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. This study has developed flood risk data for various areas of the community that will be used to establish actuarial flood insurance rates and to assist the community in its efforts to promote sound floodplain management. Minimum floodplain management requirements for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations at 44 CFR, 60.3. In some states or communities, floodplain management criteria or regulations may exist that are more restrictive or comprehensive than those on which these federally-supported studies are based. In such cases, the more restrictive criteria take precedence and the state (or other jurisdictional agency) shall be able to explain them. 1.2 Authority and Acknowledgements The source of authority for this Flood Insurance Study is the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses in this study represent a revision of the original analyses by Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc., for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, under Contract No. EMW-C-0277. The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses in the updated study were performed by Whitman & Howard, Inc. This work was completed in July 1981. 1.3 Coordination In June 1979, streams requiring detailed study were identified at an initial Consultation and Coordination Officer's (CCO) meeting attended by representatives of the FEMA, the Town of Amherst, and Whitman & Howard, Inc. (the study contractor). During the course of the study, specific information on peak discharge• frequency relationships, flood control channel and dam improvements, previous flood hazard evaluations, recent and impending floodplain development, and the extent of historical flooding were obtained, reviewed, and discussed with various community officials, residents, and the state coordinator. 1 On January 5, 1983, the results of the study were reviewed at a final cco meeting held with representatives of the FEMA, the town, and the study contractor. 2.0 AREA STUDIED 2.1 Scope of Study This Flood Insurance Study covers the incorporated area of the Town of Amherst, Hampshire County, Massachusetts. The following streams were studied by detailed methods: the Mill River from the downstream corporate limits to Mill Street; the Fort River from the downstream corporate limits to Pelham Road; Plum Brook
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Summary
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Summary Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement August 2015 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Summary Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement August 2015 Summary This document summarizes the draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) Overview and environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge (Conte Refuge, refuge). The draft CCP/EIS evaluates four alternatives for managing the refuge over the next 15 years. To download the full draft CCP/EIS, visit: http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Silvio_O_Conte/what_we_do/ conservation.html The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is releasing the draft CCP/EIS for a 90-day public comment period. During this comment period, we hope you will take the opportunity to review the document and provide us with comments. We will be accepting written comments, as well as oral comments at four public hearings. For more information on how to submit written comments, see the end of this summary document. For public hearing dates, times, and locations, please visit the website listed above. The comment method does not impact how they will be considered as part of this public process (i.e., oral comments do not carry more weight than written comments). We recognize that the draft CCP/EIS is very lengthy, so we have developed this summary to highlight the major proposals in the draft plan and point readers to where they can find more detailed information in the full-text version of the draft plan.
    [Show full text]
  • August 25, 2021 UNITED STATES of AMERICA BEFORE the FEDERAL
    August 25, 2021 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC Project No. 2325-100 Merimil Limited Partnership Project No. 2574-092 Hydro-Kennebec, LLC Project No. 2611-091 KENNEBEC COALITION’S AND CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION’S JOINT MOTION TO INTERVENE, WITH PROTESTS AND COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION TO INCORPORATE SPECIES PROTECTION PLAN INTO THE PROJECT LICENSES This Motion to Intervene, Protests, Comments, including demand for Commission compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., and Request for Orders of Plans for Decommissioning, are filed by the Kennebec Coalition and Conservation Law Foundation pursuant to the Notice of Amendment Application to Incorporate Species Protection Plan into the Project Licenses and Soliciting Comments, Motions to Intervene, and Protests, issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“Commission” or “FERC”), on July 26, 2021. The amendment application was filed by Brookfield Power US Asset Management, LLC (“Brookfield”) on behalf of the affiliated licensees of three hydroelectric projects on the Kennebec River in Maine – the Lockwood Project FERC No. P-2574, the Hydro-Kennebec Project FERC No. P-2611, and the Weston Project FERC No. P-2325. In accordance with the Notice and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. §385.210, .211 and .214, the Atlantic Salmon Federation U.S. 1 (“ASF”), the Kennebec Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited (“KVTU”), the Natural Resources Council of Maine (“NRCM”), Maine Rivers (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Kennebec Coalition”), and the Conservation Law Foundation (“CLF”), hereby move to intervene in the above-captioned proceeding and to protest and comment on the amendment application that has been filed with the Commission for these Projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Hazard Mitigation Plan
    DRAFT Town of Shutesbury Hazard Mitigation Plan Adopted by the Shutesbury Select Board on , 2021 Approved by FEMA on , 2021 Prepared by Shutesbury Hazard Mitigation Committee and Franklin Regional Council of Governments 12 Olive Street, Suite 2 Greenfield, MA 01301 (413) 774-3167 www.frcog.org This project was funded by grants received from the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Acknowledgements The Shutesbury Select Board extends special thanks to the Shutesbury Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee as follows: XX The Shutesbury Select Board offers thanks to the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) for developing the 2018 Massachusetts Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Plan which served as a resource for this plan and to staff for reviewing and commenting on the draft plan and to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for making the funds available and for the development of the Local Mitigation Planning Handbook, which provides a thorough overview of the Mitigation Planning process. Franklin Regional Council of Governments Peggy Sloan, Director of Planning & Development Kimberly Noake MacPhee, Land Use & Natural Resources Program Manager Tamsin Flanders, Land Use & Natural Resources Planner Ryan Clary, Senior GIS Specialist Cover photo of damage during the December 2008 ice storm courtesy of the Town of Shutesbury. Town of Shutesbury Hazard Mitigation Plan i Contents 1 PLANNING PROCESS .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Provisional Not4es on Pelham's Earliest Settlers
    PROVISIONAL NOTES ON PELHAM’S EARLIEST SETTLERS Alfred S. Romer September 1967 Of great interest is the question of our town’s earliest settlers—who were they? Where did they come from? What happened to them? Have they descendants here today? As is well known, most of the first settlers were “Scotch-Irish.” In the early 1600s King James of Great Britain, having trouble with the unruly Irish of Ulster, decided to quiet things by settling there a colony of peaceable Scotch Presbyterian farmers. For a time things went well with them, but in the early 1700s conditions worsened, and a large fraction decided to emigrate to America. Most went to Philadelphia and spread southward as frontiersmen in the Appalachians. A fraction went to the west bank of the Hudson in New York State, settling Orange and Ulster Counties. A relatively small number came to New England. Some (including a few later Pelham residents) took part in an abortive settlement on the Kennebec in Maine. Others founded Londonderry, New Hampshire. Those In Massachusetts mainly settled at first in the Worcester region. They were, however, none too happy there; for example, they built a Presbyterian church in Worcester, but it was torn down by the local Puritans. Some went to “The Elbows” (later Palmer), others to Colrain; quite a number to a township which they wished to call New Glasgow, but which became Blandford. Still others, however, decided to form a town of their own. With the aid and advice of Squire John Chandler of Worcester, two leaders, James Thornton and Robert Peebles, engaged to buy a large tract which was to constitute most of Pelham for Colonel Stoddard of Northampton (and several years later four of the settlers bought an additional strip along he south border).
    [Show full text]
  • TOWN of SHUTESBURY Open Space and Recreation Plan Update 2015
    TOWN of SHUTESBURY Open Space and Recreation Plan Update 2015 – 2022 Cover Photo: Ames Pond as viewed from the overlook on Mt. Mineral, fall 2004. TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1: PLAN SUMMARY..................................................................................1 SECTION 2: INTRODUCTION....................................................................................5 A. Statement of Purpose..........................................................................................5 B. Planning Process and Public Participation.......................................................5 SECTION 3: COMMUNITY SETTING......................................................................11 A. Regional Context...............................................................................................11 B. History of the Community.................................................................................11 C. Population Characteristics...............................................................................13 D. Growth and Development Patterns..................................................................14 Patterns and Trends........................................................................................14 Infrastructure..................................................................................................16 Long-term Development Patterns……………………………………………...…17 SECTION 4: ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS........................19 A. Geology, Soils and Topography......................................................................19
    [Show full text]
  • August 14, 2021 UNITED STATES of AMERICA BEFORE the FEDERAL
    August 14, 2021 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC Project No. 2322-069 KENNEBEC COALITION’S AND THE CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION’S JOINT PROTESTS AND COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE “DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDRPOWER LICENSE” FOR THE SHAWMUT PROJECT NUMBER 2322-069, MAINE Pursuant to the Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment and Revised Procedural Schedule (July 1, 2021), the Kennebec Coalition and the Conservation Law Foundation jointly submit these Protests and Comments in opposition to the Draft Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License.1 In accordance with the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. §385..214, the Atlantic Salmon Federation U.S. (“ASF”), the Kennebec Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited (“KVTU”), the Natural Resources Council of Maine (“NRCM”), and Maine Rivers (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Kennebec Coalition”) timely moved to intervene in the above-captioned proceeding on August 31, 20202 with the 1 Commission staff also indicated that the Draft EA would serve simultaneously as the Commission’s Biological Assessment for purposes of initiation of formal section 7 consultation with NMFS under the Endangered Species Act (the “ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1536, for the relicensing of the Shawmut Project. FERC Accession No. 20210709-3034 (Turner to Petony correspondence requesting formal consultation on the relicensing of the Shawmut Project, July 9, 2021) (“The DEA [Draft EA] serves as our biological assessment and EFH [essential fish habitat] assessment.”). Hence these Comments will also serve as the Kennebec Coalition’s and Conservation Law Foundation’s protests and comments on the Biological Assessment under the ESA, and on the EFH assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Connecticut River Watershed: Conserving the Heart of New England
    published by THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND “Few rivers in the United States offer more potential for a satisfying total environment to a greater concentration of people.” Connecticut River Program Connecticut Conserving the Heart of New England The Connecticut River Watershed The Trust for Public Land conserves land for people to enjoy as parks, gardens, and other natural places, ensuring livable communities for generations to come. Research: Elizabeth Adams, Clem Clay, Brenda Faber, Jim Hafner, Lexi Shear, Christian Smith Writing: Clem Clay, Michelle Deininger, Jim Hafner Editing: Clem Clay, Ethan Nedeau Design: Ethan Nedeau, Biodrawversity Copyright 2006 by The Trust for Public Land All rights reserved ISBN 978-1-932807-06-6 Left Cover Photo: Jerry and Marcy Monkman Right Cover Photo: Patrick Zephyr Left Inside Cover Photo: Jerry and Marcy Monkman Middle Inside Cover Photo: Patrick Zephyr Right Inside Cover Photo: Jerry and Marcy Monkman Cover quotation from New England Heritage: The Connecticut River National Recreation Area Study. Washington, DC, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (1968) To cite this document: Clay, C., et al. 2006. The Connecticut River Watershed: Conserving the Heart of New England. The Trust for Public Land, viii+56 pages. To download a free copy, additional appendices, or order a hard copy of this report, visit www.tpl.org/ctriver For more information, contact: Clem Clay, Director Connecticut River Program The Trust for Public Land 1 Short Street, Suite 9 Northampton, MA 01060 (413) 584-6686 [email protected]
    [Show full text]