North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
Division of Emergency Management
Floodplain Mapping Program
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING
THE FLOOD HAZARD MAPPING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
INTRODUCTION
As of September 2000, the State of North Carolina, through the North Carolina Floodplain
Mapping Program (NCFMP), has been designated by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) as a Cooperating Technical State. This designation transfers the primary
custodian responsibility for all flood insurance rate maps (FIRMs) to North Carolina. Based on
this designation and partnership with FEMA, the state has embarked in an endeavor to remap all
FIRMs in North Carolina. This will include the collection of new, accurate elevation data, new
flood studies, and updated FIRM panels. With this in mind, responses to the attached
questionnaire will help the state identify the appropriate streams that need to be studied. FEMA
administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) by identifying Special Flood Hazard
Areas (SFHAs) – areas expected to have a 1% or greater chance of flooding in any given year –
on FIRMs. As development takes place and floodplain characteristics change, these maps
require updating to ensure that communities have a useful tool for floodplain management.
Some of the methods of evaluating mapping needs as described below may not apply to each
community. However, any pertinent data that are submitted will assist the NCFMP in
conducting the studies.
One of the best sources of information regarding the community’s map update needs is the
floodplain manager for the community. It is highly recommended that the community floodplain
manager by consulted for any of the information requested in the questionnaire, as well as any
other general FIRM update needs. More information on the NCFMP is available at
www.ncfloodmaps.com.
A. GENERAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION
Part A of the questionnaire contains demographic and general questions about your community.
B. FLOOD DATA UPDATE INFORMATION
Revisions to your community’s existing FIRMs may be necessary due to increased urbanization
or other physical changes in the watershed that alter the floodplain and its delineation on a
FIRM. Please provide the following information for those flooding sources in your community,
or portions of flooding sources, for which you believe changes in the flood hazard data on the
FIRM are warranted. The following sections should help you determine whether an update is
needed. For multiple flood sources, please copy pages 2 through 4 of the questionnaire and
complete Part B for each source.
1830-B Tillery Place, Raleigh NC 27604  Telephone (919) 715-8000 x 276
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
Flooding Source Information
Please provide the name of each flooding source that requires updated flood hazard data. Also,
list the panel number or numbers of community’s FIRM on which each flooding source is
shown. Provide the current flood zone designation(s) shown on the FIRM (i.e., Zone A, A1-30,
AE, B, C V, V1-30, VE, etc.). Measure the approximate length of each flooding source and
provide it on the questionnaire.
The Base Flood Elevation (BFE) shown on FIRMs is the elevation of the floodwater during a 1%
annual chance (100-year) flood. If changes that have occurred in the hydraulic or hydrologic
conditions of the flooding source are likely to result in a higher or lower BFE than currently
shown on the FIRM, please indicated this on the questionnaire. Also, please estimate the likely
change in the BFE (less than one foot, one to five feet, or greater than five feet).
Changes in Flood Data
Six categories of flood data updates are defined in the questionnaire. Please check those that
apply to each flooding source and complete the appropriate subsection.
1. Zone A Development Near Zone A and/or Unstudied Floodprone Areas
Areas designated on FIRMs as Zone A are areas where approximate methods were
used to delineate the SFHA. Because detailed hydraulic modeling was not conducted
in these areas, 1% annual chance (100-year) flood elevations are typically not
computed for Zone A areas, and the floodplain delineation is only approximate.
Consequently, if there has been development near Zone A areas, a detailed study may
be warranted to determine flood elevations and boundaries more precisely. Similarly,
if there are known floodprone areas that are subject to proposed development, these
areas would likely benefit from updated flood hazard data. The density of
development (low, moderate, or high) near each Zone A or unstudied floodprone area
in the community should be evaluated when determining whether the FIRMS should
be updated.
2. Recent Flooding Event Contradicts Maps
If a State or Federal water resource agency has made estimates of the average return
period of a flood in your community and it is approximately equal to the 1% annual
chance (100-year) flood, comparisons with the mapped SFHA should be made to note
any differences. However, care must be taken not to assume that a mapping error
exists on the FIRM on the basis of historical flood events. The return frequency of
flooding can vary greatly from stream to stream depending on the distribution of
rainfall over the drainage basins. For example, if precipitation is localized, flooding
on a small tributary may approach the 1% annual chance (100-year) event, but not
much more than the mean annual flood may occur on the larger receiving stream.
Conversely, the receiving stream could be experiencing flooding from rainfall in the
upper basins that did not occur in the lower tributary basins, causing less severe
flooding on the tributaries than the main stream.
2 of 5
Documentation of observed rainfall amounts and high-water marks, along with any
photographs of flooding events within the community, is useful information to review
when comparing historical floods with FIRMs. Please note whether such data is
available for any recent major flood events. However, anecdotal information on
flooding is not considered reliable unless it is combined with surveyed high-water
mark locations and includes the date and time of the high-water observation.
Information about the performance of bridges and culverts during the flood event is
also useful. For example, did any bridge or culvert opening become clogged with
debris? Photographs of water levels at bridges and culverts during flooding are also
useful.
3. Significant Development Throughout the Watershed
Hydrologic conditions determine the quantity and rate of runoff generated by a given
rainfall event. This can be affected by various factors, such as the vegetation and
land cover in the watershed, the infiltration of the solids, the slope of the land, the
amount of impervious land, and the size of the watershed. The methods of hydrologic
analysis and discharge date used to develop the effective FIRM are published in the
community’s Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report, Section 3.1, Hydraulic Analyses.
This section of the FIS report will indicate how the effective discharges were
determined, and what information and methodologies were used.
When evaluating hydrologic conditions, consider each watershed or flooding source
separately. The hydrologic issues that should be considered in evaluating the
community’s need for a flood data update are significant changes in land use and new
hydrologic data. Significant development or other changes in land use in the
watershed (both within the community and any upstream communities) can
significantly change the flood discharges. Often, the increase in impervious areas
associated with urbanization causes increases in stream discharges. The amount of
development in a community can be evaluated by reviewing a variety of information,
including the community’s comprehensive plan, zoning maps, site plans for large
project, and stormwater utility plans.
Two kinds of new technical data may significantly affect the base discharge
estimation: new regional regression equations, and, in some circumstances, increases
in the length of stream gage records. The base discharges computed for the effective
FIS report can be compared to the base discharges computed using the most up-todate U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) regional regression equations. A significant
difference would indicate a need for a flood study update. An increase in the length
of a stream gage record may also affect the flood discharge estimate. If the effective
discharge was estimated by conducting a frequency analysis of a relatively short
record of stream gate data, the baseflow estimate may be sensitive to newly added
data. If stream gage data with a relatively long record (50 years or more) were used,
however, a few additional years usually will not cause significant changes in the base
flood estimation.
3 of 5
4. New or Modified Flood Control Structures
Certain flood control structures (reservoirs, for example) are designed to reduce the
peak discharges downstream. Therefore, any flood control structures constructed
since the effective FIRM was published should be carefully evaluated to determine
whether they have a significant effect on the base flood discharge. Note, however,
that not all reservoirs or ponds provide storage capacity to reduce the peak of the base
flood. It is necessary to evaluate the function(s) of a reservoir to determine whether a
new structure would impact a community’s flood mapping. In addition to evaluation
newly constructed flood control structures, previously existing flood control
structures need to be evaluated to determine whether they continue to operated in the
same manner they did when the effective FIS and FIRM were developed. For
example, changes in the operating flood stages of a reservoir may impact how
floodwaters are routed through the reservoir.
5. New or Replacement Bridges, Culverts, and Road Crossings
If a bridge opening or culvert is not sized properly, it can cause floodwaters to back
up, which increases flood levels upstream. Although most bridge openings and
culverts are designed to allow stream flows associated with frequent storm events to
pass without such backwater effects, they may still cause increases in 1% annual
chance (100-year) flood elevations. Therefore, any bridges, culverts, or other road
crossings that have been constructed since the analyses for the effective FIRM and
FIS were completed should be evaluated for their potential effect on the 1% annual
chance flood.
6. Changes in Stream Location or Size
Any significant changes in the stream channel or floodplain geometry could affect the
floodplain and floodway. Has any portion of the floodplain been filled? Has the
stream channel moved or changed location as a result of significant erosion and/or
deposition? Have any portions of the stream been channelized, widened, or dredged?
Have there been significant changes in the vegetation in the floodplain? Aerial
photographs are a useful tool in evaluating changes in stream channels and
floodplains.
COMMUNITY RECOMMENDATION
The last section of the attached questionnaire provides you the opportunity to recommend the
mapping option for each flooding source when your community’s FIRM is updated. The
mapping options include:
 No change
 Redelineated 1% annual chance (100-year) and 0.2% (500-year) floodplain
boundaries based on current BFEs and new topographic data
 Limited detailed analysis and mapping based on new BFEs and topographic data (1%
annual chance floodplain boundaries only)
 Detailed analyses and mapping based on new BFEs and topographic data (1% and
0.2% floodplains boundaries)
4 of 5
These options are listed in order of increasing level of effort and associated cost. For example,
detailed analyses are approximately five times more expensive that limited detailed analyses.
Therefore, this questionnaire and your recommendations will be used to assess flood-mapping
needs and determine restudy priorities.
DATA SUBMISSIONS
Feel free to include additional comments or description on this document. Also, please attach
any applicable explanatory or technical data, maps, photographs, etc. Please include
information on anything that the NC FMP can do for you related to problems with your
community’s FIS or FIRM. All submissions should be sent via surface mail, fax, or e-mail to
the following address:
N.C. Floodplain Mapping Program
4719 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4719
Attn: Scoping
fax: (919) 715-4080
e-mail: ncfpm-info@ncmail.net
Thank you for completing the Flood Hazard Mapping Needs Assessment questionnaire.
5 of 5