Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4011 ORDINANCE NO. 4011 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 153 : FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION CODE, SECTION 153 .01 , ADOPTION BY REFERENCE; MAPS, OF THE CODE OF FAYETTEVILLE, TO UPDATE THE FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY AND THE ACCOMPANYING MAP. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS : Section 1 . That Chapter 153 : Flood Damage Prevention Code. § 153 .01 Adoption by reference; maps, of the Code of Fayetteville, is hereby deleted and the following shall be inserted in its stead: § 153 .01 Adoption by reference; maps. (A) The Flood Damage Prevention Code is hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this code as if set out in full herein. Three copies of such code shall be maintained on file in the office of the city clerk. (B) The Flood Insurance Study for Washington County, Arkansas, and Incorporated Areas, dated September 18, 1991 , with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps, both of which may from time to time hereafter be amended and updated by FEMA, are hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this code as if set out in full herein. Three copies of said study and maps shall be maintained in the office of the city clerk. JPSED AND APPROVED this 7th day of January 1997 . APPROVED- . ,. By : ✓� j:� Fred Hanna, Mayor ATTEST • By: �— Traci Paul, City Clerk ©,4O yoi/ FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY o I WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND INCORPORATED AREAS COMMUNITY COMMUNITY NAME NUMBER ELKINS, CITY OF 060214 ELM SPRINGS, TOWN OF 060213 FARMINGTON, CITY OF 060216 FAYETTEVILLE, CITY OF 060216 GOSHEN, TOWN OF 060694 GREENLAND, CITY OF 060217 JOHNSON, CITY OF 060218 LINCOLN, CITY OF 060338 y SPRINGDALE, CITY OF 060219 TONTITOWN, TOWN OF 060293 . WEST FORK, CITY OF • 060220 WINSLOW, CITY OF 060300 UNINCORPORATED AREAS 060212 0 REVISED: FEBRUARY 6,1997 Federal Emergency Management Agency C C 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 may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. This publication incorporates revisions to the original Flood Insurance Study. These revisions are presented in Section 10.0. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3 Principal Flood Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.4 Flood Protection Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.0 ENGINEERING METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3 . 1 Hydrologic Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3 .2 Hydraulic Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.0 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4. 1 Floodplain Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.2 Floodways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.0 INSURANCE APPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.0 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7.0 OTHER STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 8.0 LOCATION OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 • 9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 10.0 REVISION DESCRIP'T'IONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 10. 1 First Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Page FIGURES Figure 1 - Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Figure 2 - Floodway Schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 TABLES Table 1 - Scope of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7 Table 2 - Summary of Discharges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-17 Table 3 - Summary of Roughness Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table 4 - Floodway Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-32 Table 5 - Community Map History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35-36 EXIIIBITS Exhibit 1 - Flood Profiles Airport Branch Panels OIP-02P Brush Creek Panels 03P-04P Brush Creek Tributary Panel 05P Cato Springs Branch Panel 06P Clabber Creek Panels 07P-08P Clear Creek Panels 09P-11P Hamestring Creek Panels 12P-15P South Fork Hamestring Creek Panel 16P Mud Creek Panels 17P-18P Mud Creek Tributary Panels 19P-22P Muddy Fork Panels 23P-24P Moores Creek Panel 25P Moores Tributary Panel 26P Scull Creek Panels 27P-30P Spring Creek Panels 31P-32P Tributary 1 Panels 33P-35P Tributary 2 Panel 36P Tributary 4 Panels 37P-38P Tributary 5 Panel 39P Sublet Creek Panel 40P Owl Creek Panel 41P Tin Cup Creek Panel 42P Town Branch Panels 43P-44P West Fork White River Panels 45P-48P Main Ditch Panel 49P White River Panels 50P-52P Middle Fork White River Panels 53P-54P ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'() Exhibit 2 - Flood Insurance Rate Map Index and Street Index Flood Insurance Rate Map Exhibit 3 - Elevation Reference Marks iii FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND INCORPORATED AREAS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 . 1 Purpose of Study This countywide-format Flood Insurance Study investigates the existence and severity of flood hazards in, or revises previous Flood Insurance Studies/Flood Insurance Rate Maps for, the geographic area of Washington County, Arkansas, including: the Cities of Elkins (formerly a Town), Farmington, Fayetteville, Greenland, Johnson, Lincoln, Springdale, West Fork, and Winslow; the Towns of Elms Springs, Goshen, and Tontitown; and the unincorporated areas of Washington County (hereinafter referred to collectively as Washington County). The City of Prairie Grove is non-flood-prone. This Flood Insurance Study 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 assist the community in its efforts to promote sound floodplain management. This information will also be used by Washington County to update existing floodplain regulations as part of the Regular Phase of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and by local and regional planners to further promote sound land use and floodplain development. 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 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 Flood Insurance Study 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 Washington County in a countywide Flood Insurance Study. Information on the authority and acknowledgements for each of the previously printed Flood Insurance Studies and Flood Y Insurance Rate Maps for communities with the county, compiled from their effective Flood Insurance Study reports, is shown below. City of Fayetteville: The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for the study effective July 20, 1981 (Flood Insurance Rate Map dated January 20, 1982) were prepared by the U . S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District (USACE) for FEMA, under Inter-Agency Agreement (IAA) No. H-7-76, Project Order No. 23 , and IAA No. H-7-77, Project Order No. 2. This work was completed in June 1978 . In the revised study effective September 29, 1989, hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for Hamestring Creek and South Fork Hamestring Creek were prepared by the USACE, Little Rock District. The work for the revised study was completed in February 1988 . City of Johnson: The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for the study effective in January 1980 (Flood Insurance Rate Map dated July 16, 1980) were prepared by the USACE, Little Rock District for FEMA, under IAA No. H-18-78, Project Order No. 32. This work was completed in December 1978. City of Springdale: The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for the study effective December 15, 1980 (Flood Insurance Rate Map dated June 15, 1981) were prepared by HTB , Inc. , for FEMA, under Contract F No. H-4596. This work was completed in September 1979. City of West Fork: The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for the study effective in January 1980 (Flood Insurance Rate Map dated July 2, 1980) were prepared by HTB, Inc. , for FEMA, under Contract No. H-4596. This work was completed in October 1978. In this countywide study, hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for flooding sources within Washington County were prepared by the USACE, Little Rock District, for FEMA , under IAA No. EMW-87-E-2509, Project Order No. 1 . This work was completed in September 1988. Also in this countywide study, updated hydraulic analyses for Tributaries 1 and 5 , within the City of Springdale, were prepared by the USACE, Little Rock District, under agreement with FEMA. This work was completed in March 1988. An updated hydraulic analysis for Mud Creek, within the City of Fayetteville, was prepared by Crafton, Tull and Associates, Inc. This work was completed in October 1988. A restudy that involved a revised hydraulic analysis for Brush Creek Tributary, within the City of Springdale, was prepared by the USACE, Little Rock District in June 1985 , and has been incorporated into this revised study. Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for Main Ditch, in the Town of Tontitown, were prepared by the USACE, Little Rock District, and were submitted to FEMA in February 1990. 1 .3 Coordination The dates of the initial and final Consultation Coordination Officer's (CCO) meetings held ` for Washington County and the incorporated communities within its boundaries are shown in the following tabulation. Community Name Initial CCO Date Final CCO Date City of Fayetteville December 18, 1975 April 25 , 1979 City of Johnson July 28, 1978 July 18, 1979 City of Springdale June 1977 July 24, 1980 City of West Fork June 1977 May 28, 1979 Unincorporated Areas April 9, 1986 August 29, 1990 2 The initial CCO meetings were held with representatives from FEMA, the communities , and the study contractors to explain the nature and purpose of Flood Insurance Studies, and to identify the streams to be studied by detailed methods. The final CCO meetings were held with representatives from FEMA, the communities, and the study contractors to review the results of the studies . The final CCO meeting for the unincorporated areas of Washington County also served as the final CCO meeting for this countywide study and was open to representatives from all communities within the county that were included in this countywide study. • The preparation of this countywide Flood Insurance Study was coordinated with Washington County, the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), and the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS). v 2.0 AREA STUDIED 2. 1 Scope of Study This Flood Insurance Study covers the geographic areas of the Washington County, Arkansas. The area of study is shown on the Vicinity Map (Figure 1). Table 1 , "Scope of Study, " lists the limits of study for the flooding sources studied by detailed methods. In this countywide study, Tributary 1 was restudied from a point approximately 80 feet downstream of the Burlington Northern Railroad bridge to a point approximately 0.96 mile upstream of Old Missouri Road; Tributary 5 was restudied from its confluence with Tributary 4 to a point approximately 0.59 mile upstream. This countywide study incorporates the effects of alignment and channelization projects carried out on Tributaries 1 and 5. This countywide study also incorporates the determinations made in a Letter of Map Revision, issued by FEMA, that redelineated the 100-year floodplain boundaries for Mud Creek on the basis of updated topographic information. As part of an updated hydraulic analysis of the stream referred to as Brush Creek in the previously printed Flood Insurance Study for the City of Springdale, the name of the stream was changed to Brush Creek Tributary; this countywide study includes analyses of flood hazards along another stream now referred to as Brush Creek. In this study, detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analyses were added for Main Ditch, in the Town of Tontitown. Changes in the corporate limits for the City of Fayetteville, the City of Springdale, and the City of West Fork have also been included in this countywide study . The areas studied by detailed methods were selected with priority given to all known flood hazard areas and areas of projected development and proposed construction. The following flooding sources were studied by approximate methods : Ballard Creek, Banan Fork, Beatty Branch, Beaver Lake, Blackburn Creek, Blair Creek, Budd Kidd Creek, Bush Creek, Bushy Creek, East Fork Cato Springs Branch, Cincinnati Creek, College Branch, Cove Creek, Dry Creek, Dye Creek, Ellis Branch, Evansville Creek, Fall Creek, Farmington Branch, the City of Fayetteville's water-supply and recreational lake, North Fork Farmington Branch, South Fork Farmington Branch, Fly Creek, Friendship Creek, Funhouser Branch, Goose Creek, Middle Fork Hamestring Creek, 3 iU its ✓ �tf��'� � �i� � %1 ip a= i ` 7iS�i ' la{l�ail le MIN .41 m KIM Elm SAM OMM ow QC wl, REMAIN, memp, 4 f mm i'm Irk .. AMA Pl \ � ' i ��+/%J/":C��'� .f•'���'lj// �`�tJ r-moi pi���y Holum �� 9 W � C O Oyp N N G 00 O 0 _ •n' � n. o — M y o 4 .. _ n 06 a� U o 00 x b O o ?? x 00 00 rl 5 h o a o v o a v a o 4) .--i co E G 7 p ..7 p x N v U 0 h b Q a : 0 0 0 0 cG C u o o m C7 Ry° 0 R° r�- c� $ y y v) 3 03 w U 0 � U ° g v° E b ° u Cd 00 in o U U e .� :: p E a o f r c 5 � = U U a a 3 a 3 un ^� o p v d 7 O O 7 .d •J <a a 0.l F x <+i d U x U T ' v •.� vii rj .� � •5 •� •� .= � 0 0 •$_ •$ 'S � M � E 0 3 o r B 3 3 � � � 0 3 3 3 .� o •� o a C c c rn c x v v u Q15o o v •p b d •> > °' aci v v a is w iad E F- E E o E E c E ° 0 o a o 7 0 oZ�t o 0 a o 0 0 0 .o o •o w w wC7 ww r; U w w 0 w w w ow u a x v 0 U eq • p F y U F V V C Ln N N O L U U c U w° O 0 5 0 o S o 5 2 3 a 0 V O O O l� p O O •i1 N 0 p .i 7 >+ r cr1 EW o a a o o a co m u R Y o cd ow Cd R. �, n, u a z " o a " o O o o 00 0 3 o p •O0 ax°i g Z axi L94 ^�00 g x e U s y ^ 0 U U N o U �o t o on O ow 0 Is 0 C4 0 ON 3 .. CQ 3 E E 3 o f a C C yy" C as O. _ q C 7 Y N q O C CL N o0 U 7 G Oar 7 cctl C41 d a -N. 7 N •--� ��r+ 3m A 19 9 ou 0a. ,� o cri Cd E: ° E w" O wE o ° wE wE a wE E wE wEwE 2u 0 o 0 0 a0 0 O o wo 0 xw0 Y Y � a px ,x°, N a x Y Y Cl U y Y Y U 'L` �` Z` 'l.` U a o o U .5 a a a p U ` H v"i F F F F Gn O H F 3 6