DOCSLIB.ORG

Flood Insurance Study Number 28087Cv000a

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Flood Insurance Study Number 28087Cv000a LOWNDES COUNTY, LOWNDES MISSISSIPPI COUNTY AND INCORPORATED AREAS Community Community Name Number ARTESIA, TOWN OF 280310 CALEDOINIA, TOWN OF 280347 COLUMBUS, CITY OF 280108 CRAWFORD, TOWN OF* 280346 LOWNDES COUNTY 280193 (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) * Non-floodprone community EFFECTIVE Month Day, 2010 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 28087CV000A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) 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. Part or all of this FIS may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this FIS may be revised by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current FIS components. Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: September 7, 1998 First Revised Countywide FIS Revision Date: To Be Determined TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of Study ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Authority and Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Coordination ........................................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 AREA STUDIED ................................................................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Scope of Study ........................................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 Community Description .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Principal Flood Problems ........................................................................................................................ 5 2.4 Flood Protection Measures ...................................................................................................................... 6 3.0 ENGINEERING METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 6 3.1 Hydrologic Analyses ............................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Hydraulic Analyses ............................................................................................................................... 10 3.3 Vertical Datum ...................................................................................................................................... 12 4.0 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS .................................................................................. 123 4.1 Floodplain Boundaries .......................................................................................................................... 13 4.2 Floodways ............................................................................................................................................. 14 5.0 INSURANCE APPLICATION ........................................................................................................................ 37 6.0 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ................................................................................................................ 37 7.0 OTHER STUDIES ............................................................................................................................................ 39 8.0 LOCATION OF DATA .................................................................................................................................... 39 9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 39 FIGURES Figure 1. Floodway Schematic ............................................................................................................... 15 TABLES Table 1: Summary of Previous Consultation Coordination Officers Meetings …………….…………………..2 Table 2: Limits of New Detailed Study ….…………………………………………………………………….3 Table 3: Limits of Detailed Study ……………………………………………………………………...………3 Table 4: Summary of Discharges - Detailed Study Streams ...........................................................................…...8 Table 5: Floodway Data………….……………………………………………………………………...…….16 Table 6: Community Map History……………………………………………………………………...…….38 i TABLE OF CONTENTS - continued EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 – Flood Profiles Black Creek Panels 01P – 02P Catalpa Creek Panels 03P – 04P Catalpa Creek Tributary Panels 05P – 06P Ellis Creek Panels 07P – 08P Ellis Creek Tributary Panels 09P Greens Creek Panels 10P – 13P Luxapalila Creek Panels 14P – 18P Luxapalila Creek Tributary Panels 19P – 21P Magby Creek Panels 22P – 25P McCrary Creek Panels 26P – 27P Moore Creek Panels 28P – 30P Oak Slush Creek Panels 31P – 32P Oak Slush Creek Tributary Panels 33P Tibbee Creek Panels 34P – 35P Tombigbee River Panels 36P – 46P Tombigbee River Split Flow Panels 47P – 48P Tombigbee River Tributary No. 1 Panels 49P – 50P Tombigbee River Tributary No. 2 Panels 51P Vernon Branch Panels 52P – 54P Yellow Creek Panels 55P Exhibit 2 – Flood Insurance Rate Map Index Flood Insurance Rate Map ii FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY LOWNDES COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI AND INCORPORATED AREAS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Study This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) revises and updates information on the existence and severity of flood hazards in the geographic area of Lowndes County, including the Towns of Artesia, Caledonia and Crawford, the City of Columbus, and the unincorporated areas of Lowndes County (referred to collectively herein as Lowndes County). The FIS 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 NFIP are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations at 44 CFR, 60.3. Please note the Town of Crawford has no mapped special flood hazard areas. In some states or communities, floodplain management criteria or regulations may exist that are more restrictive or comprehensive than the minimum Federal requirements. In such cases, the more restrictive criteria take precedence and the State (or other jurisdictional agency) will be able to explain them. 1.2 Authority and Acknowledgments The sources of authority for this FIS report are the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. This study was prepared to include incorporated communities within Lowndes County into a countywide-format FIS. Information on the authority and acknowledgments for each jurisdiction included in this countywide FIS, as compiled from their previously printed FIS report narratives, is shown below. Lowndes County The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for the FIS report (unincorporated areas): dated May 4, 1989, were prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Mobile District, for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), under Inter- Agency Agreement No. EMW-E-1153, Project Order No. 1. That work was completed in February 1985. For the September 28, 1990, revision, the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses were taken from the previously printed FIS for the unincorporated areas of Lowndes County (FEMA, 1989). For the July 16, 1996, revision, the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses were prepared by Braswell Engineering, Inc., for FEMA, under Contract No. EMW-93-C-4147. That work was completed on January 10, 1994. 1 City of Columbus: The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for the FIS report dated May 4, 1989, were prepared by the USACE, Mobile District, for FEMA, under Inter-Agency Agreement No. EMW-E-1153, Project Order No. 1. That work was completed in February 1985. For the September 28, 1990, revision, the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses were taken from the previously printed FIS for the City of Columbus (FEMA, 1989). For the July 16, 1996, revision, the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses were prepared by Braswell Engineering, Inc., for FEMA, under Contract no. EMW-93- C-4147. This work was completed on January 10, 1994. For the September 7, 1998 countywide study, the updated hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for Luxapalila Creek in Lowndes County and incorporated areas were prepared by the USACE, Mobile District. This work was completed February 13, 1997. The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for this study were performed by AECOM, under Contract No. EMA-2006-CA-5617. This study was completed May 2009. Base map information shown on this Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) was provided in digital format by Mississippi
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FINAL Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
    FINAL Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) For Organic Enrichment & Dissolved Oxygen Tombigbee River (Aliceville Reservoir) AL/03160106-0402-102 Pickens County, Alabama Prepared by: US EPA Region 4 61 Forsyth Street SW Atlanta, Georgia 30303 October 2008 Tombigbee River (Aliceville Reservoir) FINAL – Organic Enrichment/Dissolved Oxygen Table of Contents List of Figures .............................................................................................................. iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................ iv List of Abbreviations..................................................................................................... v 1.0 Executive Summary.................................................................................... 1 2.0 Basis for the §303(d) Listing...................................................................... 4 3.0 Technical Basis for TMDL Development................................................... 7 3.1 Applicable Water Quality Criterion....................................................................... 7 3.2 Source Assessment.................................................................................................... 7 3.2.1 Nonpoint Sources........................................................................................................ 9 3.2.2 Point Sources............................................................................................................ 10 3.3 Data Availability
    [Show full text]
  • By Larry J. Slack and Elizabeth A. Meadows U.S. GEOLOGICAL
    CURRENT WATER RESOURCES ACTIVITIES IN ALABAMA, FISCAL YEAR 1986 By Larry J. Slack and Elizabeth A. Meadows U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 86-131 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 1986 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey Op<m-File Services Section 520 19th Avenue Western Distribution Branch Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 U.!3. Geological Survey Box 25425, Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 CONTENTS Page Abstract............................................................. 1 Introduction......................................................... 1 Responsibilities and objectives of the U.S. Geological Survey........ 2 Organization of the U.S. Geological Survey........................... 3 Organization of the Alabama District................................. 3 District Chief's Office.......................................... 3 Functions and responsibilities............................... 3 Administrative services section.................................. 4 Functions and responsibilities............................... 4 Computer Services Section........................................ 4 Functions and responsibilities............................... 4 Hydrologic surveillance section.................................. 4 Functions and responsibilities............................... 4 Field headquarters - Cullman................................. 5 Functions and
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C: Status and Life History of the Eight Assessed Mussels
    Appendix C: Status and Life History of the Eight Assessed Mussels General information on the habitat requirements, designated critical habitat, food habits, growth and longevity, reproduction, and past and current threats of eight assessed mussels is provided below in Section C.1. Species-specific information for the following eight assessed mussels is provided in Sections C.2 through C.9: • Pink mucket pearly mussel • Rough pigtoe mussel • Shiny pigtoe pearly mussel • Fine-rayed pigtoe mussel • Heavy pigtoe mussel • Ovate clubshell mussel • Southern clubshell mussel • Stirrupshell mussel C.1 General Information C.1.1 Habitat Adult mussels are usually found in localized stream patches (beds) almost completely burrowed in the substrate with only the area around the siphons exposed (Balfour and Smock, 1995). The composition and abundance of mussels are directly linked to bed sediment distributions (Neves and Widlak, 1987; Leff et al., 1990) and physical qualities of the sediments (e.g., texture, particle size) may be important in allowing the mussels to firmly burrow in the substrate (Lewis and Riebel, 1984). In addition, other aspects of substrate composition, including bulk density (mass/volume), porosity (ratio of void space to volume), sediment sorting, and the percentage of fine sediments, may also influence mussel densities (Brim Box, 1999; Brim Box and Mossa, 1999). According to Huehner (1987), water velocity may be a better predictor than substrate for determining where certain mussel species are found in streams. In general, heavy-shelled species occur in stream channels with stronger currents, while thin-shelled species occur in more backwater areas. Stream geomorphic and substrate stability is especially crucial for the maintenance of diverse, viable mussel beds (Vannote and Minshall, 1982; Hartfield, 1993; Di Maio and Corkum, 1995).
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
    Thursday, July 1, 2004 Part III Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Three Threatened Mussels and Eight Endangered Mussels in the Mobile River Basin; Final Rule VerDate jul<14>2003 17:10 Jun 30, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\01JYR3.SGM 01JYR3 40084 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR or from our Web site at http:// the habitat needs of all 1,244 listed southeast.fws.gov/hotissue. species through conservation Fish and Wildlife Service If you would like copies of the mechanisms such as listing, section 7 regulations on listed wildlife or have consultations, the section 4 recovery 50 CFR Part 17 questions about prohibitions and planning process, the section 9 permits, please contact the appropriate protective prohibitions of unauthorized RIN 1018–AI73 State Ecological Services Field Office: take, section 6 funding to the States, and Alabama Field Office, U.S. Fish and the section 10 incidental take permit Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Wildlife Service, PO Box 1190, Daphne, process. The Service believes it is these and Plants; Designation of Critical AL 36526 (telephone 251–441–5181); measures that may make the difference Habitat for Three Threatened Mussels Georgia Field Office, USFWS, 247 South between extinction and survival for and Eight Endangered Mussels in the Milledge Ave., Athens, GA 30605 (706– many species. Mobile River Basin 613–9493); Mississippi Field Office (see Procedural and Resource Difficulties in ADDRESSES section above); Tennessee AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Designating Critical Habitat Field Office, USFWS, 446 Neal Street, Interior.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeology and Ground-Water Quality in the Black Belt Area of West-Central Alabama, And
    HYDROGEOLOGY AND GROUND-WATER QUALITY IN THE BLACK BELT AREA OF WEST-CENTRAL ALABAMA, AND ESTIMATED WATER USE FOR AQUACULTURE, 1990 By Robert E. Kidd and Darrell S. Lambeth U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4074 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL AND CONSERVATION SERVICE and the ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS Tuscaloosa, Alabama 1995 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GORDON P. EATON, Director For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Earth Science Information Center 520 19th Avenue Open-File Reports Section Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 Box 25286, MS 517, Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 CONTENTS Abstract.................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 2 Description of the study area........................................................................................ 2 Methods of study........................................................................................................... 5 Previous investigations................................................................................................. 5 Acknowledgments........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fayette County, Alabama Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan I
    2014 Fayette County, Alabama Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan I. Comprehensive Plan A multi-jurisdiction plan Town of Belk Town of Berry City of Fayette Town of Glen Allen Fayette County Cover photo by James Sanders of EF-1 tornado damage in Fayette County on April 28, 2014 with underground safe room in foreground. Prepared under the direction of the Fayette County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee With the support of the Fayette County EMA by: Funding provided by the Alabama EMA through the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program February 4, 2015 2014 Fayette County, Alabama, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Town of Belk, Town of Berry, City of Fayette, Town of Glen Allen, and Fayette County Fayette County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee James Sanders, Fayette County EMA Director John Ray Gordon, Fayette County Commission Treasa Blake, Fayette County 911 Tony Ellis, Chief, Fayette Fire Department Jason Cowart, Director, Fayette County DHR Dewayne Roby, City Eng/Bldg Inspector, City of Fayette Wade Shipman, Superintendent, Fayette County BOE Gerald Dedeaux, Town of Berry Ronald Stouch, Fayette Police Department Marie McClurky, Town of Berry Allen J. Dunavant, Town of Glen Allen Contacts James Sanders James E. Lehe, AICP Director Manager Fayette County EMA Lehe Planning, LLC http://www.fcema.org/ leheplanning.com 118 First Avenue, NE 300 Century Park S, Suite 216 Fayette, AL 35555 Birmingham, AL 35226 205-932-6113 205-978-3633 [email protected] [email protected] The preparation and publication of this plan was funded in part by a FEMA grant under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program awarded by the Alabama EMA to the Fayette County Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Tombigbee River and Tributaries, Luxapalila Creek Segment, Alabama and Mississippi
    FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT. TOMBIGBEE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES LUXAPALILA CREEK SEGMENT, ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI Prepared by U. S. Army Engineer District, Mobile , December 1974. SUMMARY Tombigbee River and Tributaries, Luxapalila Creek Segment, Alabama and Mississippi □ Draft Final Environmental Statement Responsible Office: District Engineer, U. S. Army Engineer District, P. 0. Box 2288, Mobile, Alabama 36628, 205-690-2511 1. Name of Action: Administrative £ J Legislative 2. Description of Action: The proposed flood control work on Luxapalila Creek analyzed in this environmental statement involves channel excavation and the clearing of the banks along a total of 19.9 miles of Luxapalila Creek beginning at the mouth, representing a reduction of 6.3 miles in the natural channel mileage of 26.2. Work on the lowermost 2.1 miles has already been completed. The lower 15.2 miles of construction would be in Lowndes County, Mississippi, and the upper 4.7 miles in Lamar County, Alabama. A total of 1,258 acres would be cleared, which would consist of the removal of all growth except selected trees, from a strip 300 feet to 900 feet in width. All snags, drift, and other debris would also be removed from the channel. The work consists of 6.6 miles of new channel and 13.3 miles of channel enlargement. The excavated material would be placed in mounds intermittently along both banks of the modified channel at least 25 feet from the top of the cut slope. No excavated material would be placed across the mouths of tributary streams entering the channel, and frequent gaps would be left in the mounds to provide for lateral drainage and prevent local ponding along the stream.
    [Show full text]