SUMTER COUNTY, FLORIDA - North CarolinaShady Brook 2/Wildwood Springs Updated hydrologic analysis...

Federal Emergency Management AgencyFLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER

12119CV000A

SUMTER COUNTY,FLORIDAAND INCORPORATED AREAS

Community Name Community NumberBUSHNELL, CITY OF 120297CENTER HILL, CITY OF 120615COLEMAN, CITY OF 120616SUMTER COUNTY,

UNINCORPORATED AREAS 120296WEBSTER, CITY OF 120298WILDWOOD, CITY OF 120299

EFFECTIVE: September 27, 2013

Reprinted with corrections on July 17, 2014

Sumter County

i

NOTICE TOFLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS

Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositoriesof flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This FloodInsurance Study (FIS) may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable tocontact 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 FISmay be revised by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication orredistribution of the FIS. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with communityofficials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current FIS components.

Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map panels for this community contain information that waspreviously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map panels(e.g., floodways and cross sections). In addition, former flood hazard zone designations havebeen changed as follows.

Old Zone(s) New Zone

A1 through A30 AEB XC X

Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: September 27, 2013.

This FIS report was reissued on July 17, 2014 to make a correction; this version replaces anyprevious versions. See the Notice-to-User Letter that accompanied this correction for details.

i

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 4

2.3 Principal Flood Problems 5

2.4 Flood Protection Measures 5

3.0 ENGINEERING METHODS 6

3.1 Hydrologic Analyses 6

3.2 Hydraulic Analyses 14

3.3 Vertical Datum 16

4.0 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS 18

4.1 Floodplain Boundaries 18

4.2 Floodways 18

5.0 INSURANCE APPLICATIONS 20

6.0 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP 21

7.0 OTHER STUDIES 23

8.0 LOCATION OF DATA 23

9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES 23

TABLE OF CONTENTS – continued

Page FIGURES Figure 1 - Floodway Schematic 19 TABLES Table 1 - Initial and Final CCO Meetings 2 Table 2 - Letters of Map Change 3-4 Table 3 - Summary of Discharges 8 Table 4 - Summary of Stillwater Elevations 8-14 Table 5 - Vertical Datum Conversion Values 16-17 Table 6 - Community Map History 22

EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 - Flood Profiles Farm Ditch Panel 01P-02P Jumper Creek Panel 03P-04P Little Withlacoochee River Panel 05P-07P Withlacoochee River Panel 08P-12P Exhibit 2 - Flood Insurance Rate Map Index Flood Insurance Rate Map

ii

FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY SUMTER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND INCORPORATED AREAS 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of Study This countywide Flood Insurance Study (FIS) investigates the existence and

severity of flood hazards in, or revises and updates previous FISs/Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the geographic area of Sumter County, Florida, including: the Cities of Bushnell, Center Hill, Coleman, Webster, and Wildwood; and the unincorporated areas of Sumter County (hereinafter referred to collectively as Sumter County).

This FIS aids in the administration of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and

the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. This FIS has developed flood risk data for various areas of the county that will be used to establish actuarial flood insurance rates. This information will also be used by Sumter County to update existing floodplain regulations as part of the Regular Phase of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and will also be used by local and regional planners to further promote sound land use and floodplain development. Minimum floodplain management requirements for participation in the 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 FIS are the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968

and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. This FIS was prepared to include the unincorporated areas of, and incorporated

communities within, Sumter County in a countywide format. Information on the authority and acknowledgments for each jurisdiction included in this countywide FIS, as compiled from their previously printed FIS reports, is shown below.

Sumter County: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the (Unincorporated Areas) FIS report dated September 15, 1981, were

performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Jacksonville District, for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under Interagency Agreement No. IAA-H-9-79, Project Order No. 16. This study was completed in April 1980.

Center Hill, City of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated January 18, 1989, were obtained from the FIS for Sumter County, Florida, and the

2

report titled “Flood Plain Information for the Panasoffkee-Jumper Creek Area, Sumter County, Florida” (Reference 1).

The authority and acknowledgments for the Cities of Bushnell, Coleman, Webster

and Wildwood are not available because no FIS reports were ever published for those communities.

For this countywide FIS, no new or revised hydrologic and hydraulic analyses were

prepared. The upstream portion of the Little Withlacoochee River study was taken from the Hernando County, Florida FIS.

Base map information shown on this FIRM was provided in digital format by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). The original orthophotos have been provided in color with a one-foot pixel resolution at a scale of 1” = 200’ from photography flown December 2008-2009. The projection used in the preparation of this map was Florida State Plane West FIPS Zone 1002 (feet). The horizontal datum was NAD 83, GRS80 spheroid. Differences in datum, spheroid, projection or State Plane zones used in the production of FIRMS for adjacent jurisdictions may result in slight positional differences in map features across jurisdiction boundaries. These differences do not affect the accuracy of this FIRM.

1.3 Coordination Consultation Coordination Officer’s (CCO) meetings may be held for each

jurisdiction in this countywide FIS. An initial CCO meeting is held typically with representatives of FEMA, the community, and the study contractor to explain the nature and purpose of a FIS, and to identify the streams to be studied by detailed methods. A final CCO meeting is held typically with representatives of FEMA, the community, and the study contractor to review the results of the study.

The dates of the initial and final CCO meetings held for Sumter County and the incorporated communities within its boundaries are shown in Table 1, "Initial and Final CCO Meetings."

TABLE 1 - INITIAL AND FINAL CCO MEETINGS

Community Initial CCO Date Final CCO DateCenter Hill, City of * March 2, 1988 Sumter County (Unincorporated Areas) November 29, 1978 May 5, 1981 *Data not available For this countywide FIS, SWFWMD, the Cooperative Technical Partner (CTP),

conducted a scoping meeting on December 8, 2010 in Wildwood. This meeting was attended by representatives of the study contractors and the communities.

3

2.0 AREA STUDIED

2.1 Scope of Study This FIS covers the geographic area of Sumter County, Florida. All or portions of the following watersheds were studied using detailed methods for

digital conversions: Gant Lake, Big Jones Canal, Bushnell, Clearwater Lake Outlet, Devils Creek, Gator Hole Slough, Gum Slough, Gum Swamp, Half Moon, Helena Run, Jumper Creek Canal, Lady Lake, Lake Deaton Outlet, Lake Miona Outlet, Lake Okahumpka Outlet, Little Jones Creek, Little Withlacoochee, Outlet River, Robinson Lake Outlet, Shady Brook, Big Prairie, Webster and Withlacoochee River. Limits of detailed study are indicated on the Flood Profiles (Exhibit 1) and on the FIRM (Exhibit 2).

This FIS also incorporates the determinations of letters issued by FEMA resulting

in map changes (Letter of Map Revision [LOMR], Letter of Map Revision - based on Fill [LOMR-F], and Letter of Map Amendment [LOMA], as shown in Table 2, "Letters of Map Change."

TABLE 2 - LETTERS OF MAP CHANGE

Community Flooding Source(s)/Project Identifier Date Issued Type/Case # Sumter County (Unincorporated Areas)

Ponding areas at a point approximately 0.75 mile southwest of the intersection of Buenos Aires Boulevard and U.S. Highway 27 (U.S. Highway 441)

Updated hydrologic analysis, placement of fill, channelization, and topographic mapping

October 5, 1999 LOMR/99-04-1286P

Sumter County (Unincorporated Areas)

Unnamed Ponding Area/Lee Capital Limited Partnership, Parcel F12-035 in Section 12, T19S, R22E – 2068 East State Road 44 (Mnk) Updated hydrologic analysis and new topographic data

June 10, 2009 LOMR/09-04-4547P


Black Lake, Lake Cherry, Lake Miona, Lake Miona Ponding Area 1, and Miona Prairie Preserve/Villages of Sumter – Units 168, 169, and Sumter Landing

Base map changes, updated hydrologic analysis, and new topographic data

June 30, 2009 LOMR/09-04-3548P


SMC Pond 1 through SMC Pond 9/Southern Motor Coach Resort

Updated hydrologic and hydraulic

November 26, 2010 LOMR/10-04-1900P

4

TABLE 2 - LETTERS OF MAP CHANGESumter County (Unincorporated Areas) Sumter County (Unincorporated Areas) Sumter County (Unincorporated Areas) Wildwood, City of

Unnamed Pond 1 and Unnamed Pond 2. Base map changes, updated hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, and updated topographic data Villages of Sumter – Bonifay Destin. Base map changes, Hydrologic & Hydrologic analysis and new topographic data Santa Fe Crossing. Base map changes, Hydrologic & Hydrologic analysis and new topographic data Farm Ditch and Ponding Areas 1 through 88/Landstone – Wright Tract Base map changes, updated hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, and updated topographic data

July 28, 2011 August 30, 2011 January 30, 2012 June 30, 2008

LOMR/11-04-5885P LOMR/11-04-6000P LOMR/12-04-0016X LOMR/ 08-04-0921P

Wildwood, City of Lake Shady Brook 1 and Lake Shady Brook 2/Wildwood Springs

Updated hydrologic analysis and new topographic data

March 30, 2009 LOMR/08-04-1977P

(Continued)

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.

All or portions of numerous flooding sources in the county were studied by approximate methods. Approximate analyses were used to study those areas having a low development potential or minimal flood hazards. The scope and methods of study were proposed to, and agreed upon by, FEMA and Sumter County.

2.2 Community Description Sumter County had a 2009 census population of 93,420, an increase of 75 percent

from the 2000 population of 53,345 (Reference 2). Through the years Sumter County has grown steadily. Agriculture is the backbone of the county’s economy. Many retired persons, attracted to the area by the favorable year-round climate, beautiful scenery, and its productive bass fishing facilities, have become permanent residents.

The flood plains of the Sumter County consist of lowland adjacent to the streams

and lakes. The topography is relatively flat with some gently rolling hills. Ground elevations in Sumter County range from less than 40 feet to 150 feet NAVD. The climate of Sumter County is semitropical, characterized by warm, humid summers and mild, dry winters. The average annual temperature is about 71°F.

5

Daily maximum temperatures average 81° F in the summer and 58° F in the winter. Temperature extremes of over 100° F or under 20° F are rare.

The average annual precipitation in Sumter County is about 50 inches, most of

which occurs in the June-October rainy season. The soils in Sumter County are of two general types: sand and organic. The sandy soils are well to excessively drained in the higher elevations and poorly drained on the valley floor where the water table is close to the land surface. The organic soils are poorly drained with thickness up to 80 inches. Agriculture is important in Sumter County. Citrus groves, farms, and ranches are located throughout the county (Reference 3). The City of Center Hill is in eastern Sumter County, Florida, and is surrounded by the unincorporated areas of the county. Center Hill is approximately 35 miles west of the City of Orlando and 50 miles northeast of the City of Tampa. The community is served by CSX railroad. The 1980 population of Center Hill was reported to be 751 (Reference 4).

2.3 Principal Flood Problems

Floods can occur in Sumter County any time during the year; however, they are most frequent during the June-October rainy season. Floods on the lakes would result from prolonged heavy rainfall over the study area with high antecedent lake stages. Floods on the streams would result from prolonged heavy rainfall over a large area. The flooding would be more severe from rainfall associated with hurricanes or tropical storms and when antecedent rainfall has resulted in saturated ground conditions when the infiltration is minimal. Cloudburst storms can occur ant time but do not constitute a serious flood hazard in the study area. No stream flow records are available on the Withlacoochee River prior to 1931. Also, the area was practically uninhabited prior to the 1930’s. Therefore, flood records along the Withlacoochee River are scarce. Floods causing significant damage along the Withlacoochee River are reported to have occurred in 1934, 1950, and 1960. The March 1960 flood was the highest of record in the northern portion of the Withlacoochee River basin and the June 1934 flood was the highest of record in the southern portion of the basin. In Sumter County, the 1934 flood was the highest of record upstream near Coogle-Wysong Dam and the 1960 flood was the highest of record downstream near Coogle-Wysong Dam. The 1934 and 1960 floods approximated the 100-year flood in some areas of Sumter County. No records are available on flood stages on the lakes in Sumter County.

2.4 Flood Protection Measures Coogle-Wysong Lock and Dam is located on the Withlacoochee River at River

Mile 55.8, and is a water inflatable variable crest, adjustable dam. The purpose of the dam is the conservation of water in those reaches of the river (and connecting lakes) during the dry season of most years, without reducing minimal base flows downstream and without aggravating problems of flooding in wet periods of high discharge. Coogle-Wysong Dam is not a flood control dam.

6

There are no existing or other proposed flood protection projects in Sumter County and the surrounding area which would alleviate or significantly reduce the 100-year flood levels in Sumter County.

3.0 ENGINEERING METHODS For the flooding sources studied in detail in the county, standard hydrologic and hydraulic

study methods were used to determine the flood hazard data required for this FIS. Flood events of a magnitude which are expected to be equaled or exceeded once on the average during any 10-, 50-, 100-, or 500-year period (recurrence interval) have been selected as having special significance for floodplain management and for flood insurance rates. These events, commonly termed the 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year floods, have a 10-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent chance, respectively, of being equaled or exceeded during any year. Although the recurrence interval represents the long term average period between floods of a specific magnitude, rare floods could occur at short intervals or even within the same year. The risk of experiencing a rare flood increases when periods greater than 1 year are considered. For example, the risk of having a flood which equals or exceeds the 100-year flood (1-percent chance of annual exceedence) in any 50-year period is approximately 40 percent (4 in 10), and, for any 90-year period, the risk increases to approximately 60 percent (6 in 10). The analyses reported herein reflect flooding potentials based on conditions existing in the county at the time of completion of this FIS. Maps and flood elevations will be amended periodically to reflect future changes.

3.1 Hydrologic Analyses

Hydrologic analyses were carried out to establish the peak discharge-frequency

relationships for the flooding sources studied in detail affecting the county. Precountywide Analyses The City of Center Hill and the unincorporated areas of Sumter County have

previously printed FIS reports. The hydrologic analyses described in those reports have been compiled and are summarized below.

The hydrologic data for the Withlacoochee River was taken from “Flood Hazard

Information, Withlacoochee River, Nobleton to Gulf of Mexico, Florida,” dated August 1976 (Reference 5) and the “Flood Plain Information, Withlacoochee River, Nobleton at S.R. 476 to Cumpressco at S.R. 471”, dated October 1976 (Reference 6). The reports presented flood profiles for the mean annual, 10-, 4-, 2-, and 1-percent chance floods, and the Standard Project Flood. The 0.2-percent chance flood profile was determined by plotting the various frequency floods on probability paper at various locations on the Withlacoochee River and extrapolating the 0.2-percent chance flood elevation.

The hydrologic data for the Little Withlacoochee River was taken from the

Hernando County Flood Insurance Study which is being prepared for publication. The flows of the required frequencies for the Little Withlacoochee River were based on statistical analyses of discharge records covering the 20-year period taken from the Rerdell, Florida gage (no. 2312200) on the Little Withlacoochee River. The statistical analysis was accomplished based on material presented in USGS open file report 79-1293, entitled, “Regional Flood Frequency Relations for West-Central Florida” (Reference 7).

7

The hydrologic data for Jumper Creek and Lake Panasoffkee was taken from

“Flood Plain Information for the Panasoffkee-Jumper Creek Area, Sumter County, Florida,” dated August 1978 (Reference 1). The report presents flood profiles and hydrologic data for the mean annual, 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent chance floods.

Rainfall-frequency estimates for Lakes Black, Cherry, Miona, Okahumpka, and

Deaton were obtained by a statistical analysis of records from Bushnell and Lisbon rainfall stations and compared with eight long-term rainfall stations in and near Orange and Seminole Counties, Florida (Reference 8). The mean and standard deviations were almost identical for the same period (1936 to present). Accordingly, the rainfall-frequency data previously developed for Orange and Seminole Counties was used in this study. Results of that rainfall study are summarized below.

DURATION

RAINFALL – (INCHES)

10-PERCENT 2-PERCENT 1-PERCENT 0.2-PERCENT

24 hours 6.6 9.7 11.3 16.4 2 days 7.1 10.0 11.7 16.8 3 days 7.7 10.6 12.3 17.3 4 days 8.2 11.2 12.9 17.8 5 days 8.7 11.8 13.5 18.3

Lakes Black, Cherry, Miona, Okahumpka, and Deaton are predominately

groundwater lakes that periodically cycle from low to high stages in accordance with accumulated excess or deficit rainfall over a several year period. A correlation analysis between accumulated monthly rainfall minus evaporation and groundwater lake stages in western Orange County was used to develop a relationship to predict lake stage based on preceding rainfall excess in Sumter County. The best correlation was found when the preceding 48 months of rainfall minus evaporation were weighted in a linear decreasing fashion. Using this relationship and monthly rainfall minus evaporation data from northeast Sumter County from 1936 to 1979 and monthly rainfall minus evaporation from the Orlando gage from 1893 to 1936, a theoretical lake stage was determined for each month for the 87 years of rainfall record. From the 1,044 monthly stages, a stage duration curve was developed which represents the groundwater fluctuations that have occurred in the past. Unless rainfall patterns change, this also represents fluctuations that will occur in the future.

The coincident-frequency method was used to determine the stage-frequencies of

Lake Black, Cherry, Miona, Okahumpka, and Deaton. This involves the incremental probability that the groundwater component will be at a certain stage and multiplying this times the probability that a storm of a given magnitude will occur at that time. These increments are then integrated over the full length of the stage duration curve to determine the resultant stage frequency. Design storms were selected to have a 5-day duration. Elevations for floods of the selected recurrence intervals in Sumter County are shown in Table 5.

8

Revised Analyses For this countywide FIS, no new or revised hydrologic analysis was prepared.

The hydrologic analysis for the upstream portion of the Little Withlacoochee River was taken from the Hernando County, Florida FIS. The hydrologic analysis for Farm Ditch was provided by LOMR case number 08-04-0921P.

A summary of the drainage area-peak discharge relationships for Farm Ditch and Little Withlacoochee River studied by detailed methods is shown in Table 3, "Summary of Discharges." No discharge information is available for the Withlacoochee River or Jumper Creek.

TABLE 3 - SUMMARY OF DISCHARGES

FLOODING SOURCE AND LOCATION

DRAINAGEAREA

(sq. miles) PEAK DISCHARGES (cfs) 10-PERCENT 2-PERCENT 1-PERCENT 0.2-PERCENT

FARM DITCH At approximately 3,500 feet downstream of County Road 526

91.3

*

*

1,221

* At approximately 14,800 feet upstream of County Road 526

68.3

*

*

638

* LITTLE WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER

At Rerdell 145 1,290 2,660 3,440 5,860 * Data not available The stillwater elevations have been determined for the 10-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent

annual chance floods for the flooding sources studied by detailed methods and are summarized in Table 4, "Summary of Stillwater Elevations." These elevations were derived from the following models:

TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF STILLWATER ELEVATIONS

FLOODING SOURCE AND LOCATION ELEVATION (feet NAVD) 10-PERCENT 2-PERCENT 1-PERCENT 0.2-PERCENT

Lake Panasoffkee 41.9 43.5 44.3 46.1 Black Lake 55.8 57.4 58.0 59.5 Cherry Lake 55.8 57.4 58.0 59.5 Lake Miona 55.8 57.4 58.0 59.5 Lake Okahumpka 59.0 60.4 61.0 62.1 Lake Deaton 63.6 65.0 65.5 66.1

9

TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF STILLWATER ELEVATIONS (Continued)


Lake Miona Ponding Area 1 * * 61.5 * Lake Shady Brook 1 * * 53.2 * Lake Shady Brook 2 * * 52.5 * Miona Prairie Preserve * * 58.0 * Grass Pond 1 * * 57.2 * Grass Pond 2 * * 56.7 * Pond B-4E * * 64.9 * Pond B-10 * * 64.9 * Pond B-19 * * 66.4 * Pond B-21 * * 64.1 * Pond B-50A * * 71.0 * Pond B-52 * * 72.2 * Pond B-53 * * 65.6 * Pond B-53C * * 65.6 * Pond B-53D * * 65.3 * Pond B-54 * * 65.7 * Pond B-55 * * 65.4 * Pond B-56 * * 65.4 * Pond B-56A * * 64.6 * Pond B-62 * * 64.2 * Pond B-63 * * 64.5 * Pond B-64 * * 65.7 * Pond B-73 * * 64.1 * Pond B-73B * * 64.1 * Pond B-74 * * 66.6 * Pond B-74A * * 66.6 * Pond B-75 * * 69.1 * Pond B-75A * * 69.2 * Pond B-75B * * 69.2 * Pond W-19 * * 64.6 * Pond W-22 * * 62.8 * Ponding Area 1 * * 78.5 * Ponding Area 2 * * 78.6 * Ponding Area 3 * * 79.0 * Ponding Area 4 * * 79.0 * Ponding Area 5 * * 85.2 * Ponding Area 6 * * 86.1 * Ponding Area 7 * * 86.1 * Ponding Area 8 * * 86.1 * Ponding Area 9 * * 87.0 * Ponding Area 10 * * 87.2 * Ponding Area 10 * * 87.2 * Ponding Area 11 * * 87.0 * Ponding Area 12 * * 86.6 * Ponding Area 13 * * 86.7 * Ponding Area 14 * * 85.5 * Ponding Area 15 * * 84.4 * *Data Not Available

10



Ponding Area 16 * * 83.0 * Ponding Area 17 * * 78.5 * Ponding Area 18 * * 82.7 * Ponding Area 19 * * 85.2 * Ponding Area 20 * * 85.4 * Ponding Area 21 * * 84.3 * Ponding Area 22 * * 83.1 * Ponding Area 23 * * 84.4 * Ponding Area 24 * * 84.7 * Ponding Area 25 * * 84.7 * Ponding Area 26 * * 84.7 * Ponding Area 27 * * 86.7 * Ponding Area 28 * * 86.7 * Ponding Area 29 * * 86.6 * Ponding Area 30 * * 87.4 * Ponding Area 31 * * 87.2 * Ponding Area 32 * * 87.4 * Ponding Area 33 * * 87.1 * Ponding Area 34 * * 87.1 * Ponding Area 35 * * 87.5 * Ponding Area 36 * * 87.6 * Ponding Area 37 * * 87.6 * Ponding Area 38 * * 87.6 * Ponding Area 39 * * 87.9 * Ponding Area 40 * * 88.6 * Ponding Area 41 * * 74.6 * Ponding Area 42 * * 79.3 * Ponding Area 43 * * 80.3 * Ponding Area 44 * * 79.9 * Ponding Area 45 * * 78.6 * Ponding Area 46 * * 78.3 * Ponding Area 47 * * 80.3 * Ponding Area 48 * * 82.2 * Ponding Area 49 * * 82.6 * Ponding Area 50 * * 84.1 * Ponding Area 51 * * 85.0 * Ponding Area 52 * * 82.3 * Ponding Area 53 * * 82.3 * Ponding Area 54 * * 85.1 * Ponding Area 55 * * 85.5 * Ponding Area 56 * * 83.4 * Ponding Area 57 * * 83.4 * Ponding Area 58 * * 84.8 * Ponding Area 59 * * 84.4 * Ponding Area 60 * * 84.8 * Ponding Area 61 * * 84.4 * *Data Not Available

11




12




13




14



Ponding Area 200 * * 81.1 * Ponding Area 201 * * 122.5 * Ponding Area 202 * * 92.3 * Ponding Area 203 * * 80.9 * Ponding Area 204 * * 91.4 * Ponding Area 205 * * 96.6 * Ponding Area 206 * * 79.8 * Ponding Area 207 * * 76.6 * Ponding Area 208 * * 93.9 * Ponding Area 209 * * 93.9 * Ponding Area 210 * * 80.4 * Ponding Area 211 * * 84.8 * Ponding Area 212 * * 84.8 * Ponding Area 213 * * 80.3 * Ponding Area 214 * * 74.7 * Ponding Area 215 * * 74.7 * Ponding Area 216 * * 91.1 * Ponding Area 217 * * 74.2 * Ponding Area 218 * * 57.0 * Ponding Area 219 * * 67.7 * Ponding Area 220 * * 61.6 * Ponding Area 221 * * 74.6 * Ponding Area 222 * * 74.6 * Ponding Area 223 * * 74.6 * Ponding Area 224 * * 74.6 * Ponding Area 225 * * 74.6 * Ponding Area 226 * * 61.9 * Ponding Area 227 * * 61.9 * Ponding Area 228 * * 61.9 * Ponding Area 229 * * 59.8 * SMC Pond 1 * * 61.9 * SMC Pond 2 * * 61.9 * SMC Pond 3 * * 61.9 * SMC Pond 4 * * 64.1 * SMC Pond 5 * * 66.4 * SMC Pond 6 * * 66.4 * SMC Pond 7 * * 67.3 * SMC Pond 8 * * 67.5 * SMC Pond 9 * * 66.7 * Unnamed Pond 1 * * 71.7 * Unnamed Pond 2 * * 71.7 * Unnamed Pond 3 * * 71.7 * Unnamed Pond 4 * * 78.4 * Unnamed Pond 5 * * 86.5 * Unnamed Pond 6 * * 54.9 * *Data Not Available

15



Unnamed Pond 7 * * 56.7 * Unnamed Pond 8 * * 68.1 * Unnamed Pond 9 * * 63.1 * *Data Not Available

3.2 Hydraulic Analyses

Analyses of the hydraulic characteristics of flooding from the source studied were carried out to provide estimates of the elevations of floods of the selected recurrence intervals. Users should be aware that flood elevations shown on the FIRM represent rounded whole-foot elevations and may not exactly reflect the elevations shown on the Flood Profiles or in the Floodway Data tables in the FIS report. For construction and/or floodplain management purposes, users are encouraged to use the flood elevation data presented in this FIS in conjunction with the data shown on the FIRM.

The hydraulic analyses for this FIS were based on unobstructed flow. The flood

elevations shown on the profiles are thus considered valid only if hydraulic structures remain unobstructed, operate properly, and do not fail.

Precountywide Analyses The City of Center Hill and the unincorporated areas of Sumter County have previously printed FIS reports. The hydraulic analyses described in those reports have been compiled and are summarized below.

Analyses of the hydraulic characteristics of the flooding sources studied in detail in

the unincorporated areas of Sumter County were carried out to provide estimates of the elevations of floods of the selected recurrence intervals along each of the flood sources.

Flood profiles (Exhibit 1) were drawn showing computed water-surface elevations

to an accuracy of 0.5 foot for floods of the selected recurrence intervals. Water-surface elevations of floods of the selected recurrence intervals for the Withlacoochee River were determined from analysis of stream gages which have sufficiently long periods of record (Reference 5). Water-surface elevations of the selected recurrence intervals for Jumper Creek in the unincorporated areas of Sumter County were determined using a step-backwater analysis using USGS E-431 computer program (Reference 1). Water-surface elevations of floods for the selected recurrence intervals for Jumper Creek in the City of Center Hill were determined using the HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (Reference 9).

16

Channel roughness factors (Manning’s “n” values) used in the hydraulic computations were chosen based on aerial photography and field observations of the streams and floodplain areas. The Manning’s “n” values for the main channel of the Little Withlacoochee River range from 0.066 to 0.088 with a channel roughness value of 0.250 for all floods. Manning “n” values were not available for the other detailed streams in Sumter County. Flood boundaries in other locations in Sumter County, which overflow relatively undeveloped areas, were determined by approximate methods. The approximate method involved the use of USGS quadrangle maps (Reference 10). During floods, debris collecting at culverts could decrease their carrying capacity and cause greater water depths (backwater effect) upstream of the structures. However, since the occurrence and amount of debris are indeterminate factors, only the physical characteristics of the structures were considered in preparing the profiles. Flood elevations as shown on the profiles are thus considered valid only if hydraulic structures in general remain unobstructed. Revised Analyses For this countywide FIS, no new or revised hydraulic analysis was prepared. The hydraulic analysis for the upstream portion of the Little Withlacoochee River was taken from the Hernando County, Florida FIS. The hydraulic analysis for Farm Ditch was provided by LOMR case number 08-04-0921P.

All qualifying bench marks within a given jurisdiction that are cataloged by the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) and entered into the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) as First or Second Order Vertical and have a vertical stability classification of A, B, or C are shown and labeled on the FIRM with their 6-character NSRS Permanent Identifier. Bench marks cataloged by the NGS and entered into the NSRS vary widely in vertical stability classification. NSRS vertical stability classifications are as follows:

• Stability A: Monuments of the most reliable nature, expected to hold

position/elevation well (e.g., mounted in bedrock) • Stability B: Monuments which generally hold their position/elevation

well (e.g., concrete bridge abutment) • Stability C: Monuments which may be affected by surface ground

movements (e.g., concrete monument below frost line) • Stability D: Mark of questionable or unknown vertical stability (e.g.,

concrete monument above frost line, or steel witness post)

17

In addition to NSRS bench marks, the FIRM may also show vertical control monuments established by a local jurisdiction; these monuments will be shown on the FIRM with the appropriate designations. Local monuments will only be placed on the FIRM if the community has requested that they be included, and if the monuments meet the aforementioned NSRS inclusion criteria. To obtain current elevation, description, and/or location information for bench marks shown on the FIRM for this jurisdiction, please contact the Information Services Branch of the NGS at (301) 713-3242, or visit their Web site at www.ngs.noaa.gov. It is important to note that temporary vertical monuments are often established during the preparation of a flood hazard analysis for the purpose of establishing local vertical control. Although these monuments are not shown on the FIRM, they may be found in the Technical Support Data Notebook associated with this FIS and FIRM. Interested individuals may contact FEMA to access this data.

3.3 Vertical Datum

All FISs and FIRMs are referenced to a specific vertical datum. The vertical datum provides a starting point against which flood, ground, and structure elevations can be referenced and compared. Until recently, the standard vertical datum in use for newly created or revised FISs and FIRMs was the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29). With the finalization of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88), many FIS reports and FIRMs are being prepared using NAVD 88 as the referenced vertical datum. All flood elevations shown in this FIS report and on the FIRM are referenced to NAVD 88. Structure and ground elevations in the community must, therefore, be referenced to NAVD 88. It is important to note that adjacent communities may be referenced to NGVD 29. This may result in differences in base flood elevations across the corporate limits between the communities. Conversion locations and values for Sumter County are shown below in Table 5, “Vertical Datum Conversion Values.”

TABLE 5 – VERTICAL DATUM CONVERSION VALUES WATERSHED DATUM OFFSET (FEET) Gant Lake -0.84 Big Jones Canal -0.86 Bushnell -0.84 Clearwater Lake Outlet -0.86 Devils Creek -0.86 Gator Hole Slough -0.86 Gum Slough -0.86 Gum Swamp -0.86 Half Moon -0.86Helena Run -0.86Jumper Creek Canal -0.86Lady Lake -0.86Lake Deaton Outlet -0.86

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/

18

TABLE 5 – VERTICAL DATUM CONVERSION VALUES Lake Miona Outlet -0.86Lake Okahumpka Outlet -0.86Little Jones Creek -0.86Little Withlacoochee -0.86Outlet River -0.86Robinson Lake Outlet -0.86Shady Brook -0.86Big Prairie -0.87Webster -0.86Withlacoochee River -0.86

For more information on NAVD 88, see Converting the National Flood Insurance Program to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988, FEMA Publication FIA-20/June 1992, or contact the Vertical Network Branch, National Geodetic Survey, Coast and Geodetic Survey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, Maryland 20910 (Internet address http://www.ngs.noaa.gov).

4.0 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS The NFIP encourages State and local governments to adopt sound floodplain management

programs. To assist in this endeavor, each FIS provides 1-percent annual chance floodplain data, which may include a combination of the following: 10-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent annual chance flood elevations; delineations of the 1- and 0.2-percent annual chance floodplains; and 1-percent annual chance floodway. This information is presented on the FIRM and in many components of the FIS, including Flood Profiles, Floodway Data tables, and Summary of Stillwater Elevation tables. Users should reference the data presented in the FIS as well as additional information that may be available at the local community map repository before making flood elevation and/or floodplain boundary determinations.

4.1 Floodplain Boundaries

To provide a national standard without regional discrimination, the 1-percent annual

chance flood has been adopted by FEMA as the base flood for floodplain management purposes. The 0.2-percent annual chance flood is employed to indicate additional areas of flood risk in the county. For the streams studied in detail, the 1- and 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain boundaries have been delineated using the flood elevations determined at each cross section. Between cross sections, the boundaries were interpolated using topographic maps at a scale of 1 inch = 2,000 feet with a contour interval of 5 feet (Reference 10).

For the flooding sources studied by approximate methods, the boundaries of the 1-percent annual chance floodplains were delineated using topographic maps taken from the previously printed FIS reports, FHBMs, and/or FIRMs for all of the incorporated and unincorporated jurisdictions within Sumter County with the exception of the City of Coleman (Reference 11). For some of the flooding sources studied by approximate methods, the boundaries were developed using a wetlands file provided by the SWFWMD in conjunction with imagery from 2004 and 2009.

19

Minor adjustments of the boundaries have been made to specific base map features.

The 1- and 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain boundaries are shown on the

FIRM (Exhibit 2). On this map, the 1-percent annual chance floodplain boundary corresponds to the boundary of the areas of special flood hazards (Zones A and AE), and the 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain boundary corresponds to the boundary of areas of moderate flood hazards. In cases where the 1- and 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain boundaries are close together, only the 1-percent annual chance floodplain boundary has been shown. Small areas within the floodplain boundaries may lie above the flood elevations but cannot be shown due to limitations of the map scale and/or lack of detailed topographic data.

For the streams studied by approximate methods, only the 1-percent annual chance

floodplain boundary is shown on the FIRM (Exhibit 2).

4.2 Floodways Encroachment on floodplains, such as structures and fill, reduces flood-carrying

capacity, increases flood heights and velocities, and increases flood hazards in areas beyond the encroachment itself. One aspect of floodplain management involves balancing the economic gain from floodplain development against the resulting increase in flood hazard. For purposes of the NFIP, a floodway is used as a tool to assist local communities in this aspect of floodplain management. Under this concept, the area of the 1-percent annual chance floodplain is divided into a floodway and a floodway fringe. The floodway is the channel of a stream, plus any adjacent floodplain areas, that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 1-percent annual chance flood can be carried without substantial increases in flood heights. Minimum federal standards limit such increases to 1.0 foot, provided that hazardous velocities are not produced. The floodways in this FIS are presented to local agencies as minimum standards that can be adopted directly or that can be used as a basis for additional floodway studies.

A floodway is not appropriate in areas such as those that may be inundated by flood waters from lakes and shallow flooding areas. Thus, no floodways were determined for Lakes Panasoffkee, Black, Cherry, Miona, Okahumpka, and Deaton (Reference 12). The flood profiles for the Withlacoochee River and Jumper Creek were taken from previous studies which did not include determination of floods. It was determined at the precontract consultation and coordination meeting on November 29, 1978, to not include a floodway analysis for the Withlacoochee River and Jumper Creek. The flood profile for Farm Ditch was provided by LOMR 08-04-0921P which determined no floodway information.

The area between the floodway and 1-percent annual chance floodplain boundaries is termed the floodway fringe. The floodway fringe encompasses the portion of the floodplain that could be completely obstructed without increasing the water-surface elevation of the 1-percent annual chance flood by more than 1.0 foot at any point. Typical relationships between the floodway and the floodway fringe and their significance to floodplain development are shown in Figure 1.

20

Figure 1. Floodway Schematic

21

5.0 INSURANCE APPLICATIONS For flood insurance rating purposes, flood insurance zone designations are assigned to a

community based on the results of the engineering analyses. The zones are as follows:

Zone A Zone A is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1-percent annual

chance floodplains that are determined in the FIS by approximate methods. Because detailed hydraulic analyses are not performed for such areas, no base flood elevations or depths are shown within this zone.

Zone AE

Zone AE is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1-percent annual

chance floodplains that are determined in the FIS by detailed methods. In most instances, whole-foot base flood elevations derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown at selected intervals within this zone.

Zone AH Zone AH is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the areas of 1-percent

annual chance shallow flooding (usually areas of ponding) where average depths are between 1 and 3 feet. Whole-foot base flood elevations derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown at selected intervals within this zone.

Zone AO Zone AO is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the areas of 1-percent

annual chance shallow flooding (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain) where average depths are between 1 and 3 feet. Average whole-foot depths derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown within this zone.

Zone AR

Area of special flood hazard formerly protected from the 1-percent annual chance flood event by a flood control system that was subsequently decertified. Zone AR indicates that the former flood control system is being restored to provide protection from the 1-percent annual chance or greater flood event.

Zone A99 Zone A99 is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to areas of the 1-percent

annual chance floodplain that will be protected by a Federal flood protection system where construction has reached specified statutory milestones. No base flood elevations or depths are shown within this zone.

22

Zone V Zone V is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1-percent annual

chance coastal floodplains that have additional hazards associated with storm waves. Because approximate hydraulic analyses are performed for such areas, no base flood elevations are shown within this zone.

Zone VE

Zone VE is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1-percent annual

chance coastal floodplains that have additional hazards associated with storm waves. Whole-foot base flood elevations derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown at selected intervals within this zone.

Zone X Zone X is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to areas outside the 0.2-

percent annual chance floodplain, areas within the 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain, and to areas of 1-percent annual chance flooding where average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of 1-percent annual chance flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than 1 square mile, and areas protected from the 1-percent annual chance flood by levees. No base flood elevations or depths are shown within this zone.

Zone D Zone D is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to unstudied areas where

flood hazards are undetermined, but possible. 6.0 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP The FIRM is designed for flood insurance and floodplain management applications. For flood insurance applications, the map designates flood insurance rate zones as

described in Section 5.0 and, in the 1-percent annual chance floodplains that were studied by detailed methods, shows selected whole-foot base flood elevations or average depths. Insurance agents use the zones and base flood elevations in conjunction with information on structures and their contents to assign premium rates for flood insurance policies.

For floodplain management applications, the map shows by tints, screens, and symbols, the

1- and 0.2-percent annual chance floodplains. Floodways and the locations of selected cross sections used in the hydraulic analyses and floodway computations are shown where applicable.

The current FIRM presents flooding information for the entire geographic area of Sumter

County. Previously, separate Flood Hazard Boundary Maps and/or FIRMs were prepared for each identified flood-prone incorporated community and the unincorporated areas of the county. This countywide FIRM also includes flood hazard information that was presented separately on Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps (FBFMs), where applicable. Historical data relating to the maps prepared for each community are presented in Table 6, "Community Map History.

*

COMMUNITY NAME

INITIAL IDENTIFICATION

FLOOD HAZARD BOUNDARY MAP REVISIONS DATE

FIRM EFFECTIVE DATE

FIRM REVISIONS DATE

BUSHNELL, CITY OF January 4, 1974 NONE June 25, 1976 CENTER HILL, CITY OF January 18, 1989 NONE January 18, 1989

SUMTER COUNTY June 17, 1977 NONE March 15, 1982UNINCORPORATED AREAS WEBSTER, CITY OF November 23, 1973 July 2, 1976 July 1, 1987

WILDWOOD, CITY OF January 23, 1974 May 28, 1976 December 26, 1980 March 10, 1978COLEMAN, CITY OF September 27, 2013

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

SUMTER COUNTY, FL AND INCORPORATED AREAS

COMMUNITY MAP HISTORY

TAB

LE 6

23

7.0 OTHER STUDIES A Flood Insurance Rate Map for Sumter County is, for insurance purposes, the principal

result of the Flood Insurance Study. This map contains the official delineation of the flood insurance zones and base flood elevation lines. Base flood elevation lines show the locations of the expected whole-foot water-surface elevations of the base (1-percent annual chance) flood. This map is developed in accordance with the latest flood insurance map preparation guidelines published by FEMA.

Information pertaining to revised and unrevised flood hazards for each jurisdiction within

Sumter County has been compiled into this FIS. Therefore, this FIS supersedes all previously printed FIS Reports, FHBMs, FBFMs, and FIRMs for all of the incorporated and unincorporated jurisdictions within Sumter County.

8.0 LOCATION OF DATA

Information concerning the pertinent data used in the preparation of this study can be obtained by contacting FEMA, Mitigation Division, Koger Center – Rutgers Building, 3003 Chamblee Tucker Road, Atlanta, Georgia 30341.

9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES

1. Southwest Florida Water Management District, Flood Plain Information for the Panasoffkee-Jumper Creek Area, Sumter County, Florida, August 1978.

2. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, U.S. Census of Population,

2011.

3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, General Soil Map, Sumter County, Florida, 1976. 4. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of

Population, Number of Inhabitants, Florida, Washington, D.C., February 1982. 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, Flood Hazard Information,

Withlacoochee River, Nobleton to Gulf of Mexico, Florida, August 1976. 6. Southwest Florida Water Management District, Flood Plain Information on the

Withlacoochee River, Nobleton at S.R. 476 to Cumpressco at S.R. 471, October 1976.

7. U.S. Geological Survey, Regional Flood-Frequency Relationships for West-

Central Florida, Open File Report 79-1293, 1979.

8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, Rainfall-Frequency Estimates, Orange and Seminole Counties, Florida, March 1977.

9. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, HEC-2 Water-

Surface Profiles, Generalized Computer Program, Davis, California, April 1984.

24

10. U.S. Geological Survey, Quadrangle Maps, 7.5 Minute Series: Stokes Ferry

(dated 1954), Lake Panasoffkee NW (dated 1966), Oxford (dated 1966), Lady Lake (dated 1966), Rutland (dated 1967), Wildwood (dated 1967), Leesburg West (dated 1966), Nobleton (dated 1954), Wahoo (dated 1958), Bushnell (dated 1958), and Center Hill (dated 1969).

11. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Insurance

Administration, Flood Hazard Boundary Maps, Sumter County, Florida, scale: 1 inch = 2,000 feet, June 17, 1977.

12. U.S. Geological Survey, The Hydrology of the Lakes Deaton-Okahumpka Area,

Northeast Sumter County, Florida, 1979 by E.P. Simonds and E.R. German (draft open-file report).

55

60

65 65

70 70

75 75

80 80

85 85

90 90

95 95

100 100

16,000 17,000 18,000 19,000 20,000 21,000 22,000 23,000 24,000 25,000 26,000 27,000 28,000 29,000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AVD

88

)

STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE U.S HIGHWAY 301

FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

SU

MT

ER

CO

UN

TY

, FL

AN

D I

NC

OR

PO

RA

TED

AR

EA

S

FLO

OD

PR

OFI

LES

FA

RM

DIT

CH

01P

CO

UN

TY

RO

AD

52

6

LIM

IT O

F D

ET

AIL

ED

ST

UD

Y

LEGEND

0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD*

1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD

2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD*


STREAM BED

CROSS SECTION LOCATION

*DATA NOT AVAILABLE

CULVERT

70

75

80 80

85 85

90 90

95 95

100 100

105 105

110 110

115 115

29,000 30,000 31,000 32,000 33,000 34,000 35,000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AVD

88

)

STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE U.S HIGHWAY 301

FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

SU

MT

ER

CO

UN

TY

, FL

AN

D I

NC

OR

PO

RA

TED

AR

EA

S

FLO

OD

PR

OFI

LES

FA

RM

DIT

CH

02P

UN

NA

MED

RO

AD

LIM

IT O

F D

ET

AIL

ED

ST

UD

Y

LEGEND

0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD*




STREAM BED


*DATA NOT AVAILABLE

CULVERT

30

35

40 40

45 45

50 50

55 55

60 60

65 65

70 70

75 75

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000 60000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AVD

88

)

STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE MOUTH

FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

SU

MT

ER

CO

UN

TY

, FL

AN

D I

NC

OR

PO

RA

TED

AR

EA

S

F LO

OD

PR

OFI

LES

JU

MP

ER

CR

EEK

03P

INT

ER

ST

AT

E 7

5

CO

UN

TY

HIG

HW

AY

47

5

US

HIG

HW

AY

30

1

CO

NFL

UEN

CE W

ITH

LEGEND

0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD




STREAM BED


PR

IVA

TE B

RID

GE

FLOODING CONTROLLED BY WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER

RA

ILR

OA

D

CR

31

1 R

D

WIT

HLA

CO

OC

HEE R

IVER

W C

R 3

11 R

D

55

60

65 65

70 70

75 75

80 80

85 85

90 90

95 95

100 100

55000 60000 65000 70000 75000 80000 85000 90000 95000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AVD

88

)

STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE MOUTH

FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

SU

MT

ER

CO

UN

TY

, FLO

RID

AA

ND

IN

CO

RP

OR

AT

ED

AR

EA

S

FLO

OD

PR

OFI

LES

JU

MP

ER

CR

EEK

04P

ST

AT

E H

IGH

WA

Y 4

71

KIN

GS

HIG

HW

AY

LIM

IT O

F D

ET

AIL

ED

ST

UD

Y

LEGEND





STREAM BED


SE 2

5T

H S

T

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AVD

88

)

STREAM DISTANCE IN THOUSANDS OF FEET ABOVE MOUTH

FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

SU

MT

ER

CO

UN

TY

, FLO

RID

AA

ND

IN

CO

RP

OR

AT

ED

AR

EA

S

FLO

OD

PR

OFI

LES

LIT

TLE

WIT

HL A

CO

OC

HEE R

IVER

05P

CO

NFL

UEN

CE W

ITH

LEGEND





STREAM BED


WIT

HLA

CO

OC

HEE R

IVER 70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AVD

88

)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

SU

MT

ER

CO

UN

TY

, FLO

RID

AA

ND

IN

CO

RP

OR

AT

ED

AR

EA

S

F LO

OD

PR

OFI

LES

LIT

TLE

WIT

HL A

CO

OC

HEE R

IVER

06P

LEGEND





STREAM BED


13

75

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

55

60

65

70

75

80

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AVD

88

)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

SU

MT

ER

CO

UN

TY

, FLO

RID

AA

ND

IN

CO

RP

OR

AT

ED

AR

EA

S

F LO

OD

PR

OFI

LES

LIT

TLE

WIT

HLA

CO

OC

HEE R

IVER

07P

U.S

. H

IGH

WA

Y 3

01

RA

ILR

OA

D

LEGEND





STREAM BED


LIM

IT O

F D

ET

AIL

ED

ST

UD

Y

80

75

70

65

60

55

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AVD

88

)

STREAM DISTANCE IN MILES ABOVE MOUTH

FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

SU

MT

ER

CO

UN

TY

, FL

AN

D I

NC

OR

PO

RA

TED

AR

EA

S

FLO

OD

PR

OFI

LES

WIT

HLA

CO

OC

HEE R

IVER

08P

ST

AT

E H

IGH

WA

Y 4

4

CO

NFL

UEN

CE O

F

LEGEND





STREAM BED


CO

UN

TY

BO

UN

DA

RY

GU

M S

LOU

GH

(D

EA

D R

IVER

)

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AVD

88

)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

SU

MT

ER

CO

UN

TY

, FL

AN

D I

NC

OR

PO

RA

TED

AR

EA

S

F LO

OD

PR

OFI

LES

WIT

HLA

CO

OC

HEE R

IVER

09P

ST

AT

E H

IGH

WA

Y 4

8

WY

SO

NG

LO

CK

AN

D D

AM

CO

NFL

UEN

CE O

F

CO

NFL

UEN

CE O

F O

TT

ER

SLO

UG

H

CO

NFL

UEN

CE O

F

LEGEND





STREAM BED


JU

MP

ER

CR

EEK

PRINCESS

LAKE

OU

TL E

T R

IVER

BONNET

LAKE

50

45

40

35

30

25

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AVD

88

)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

SU

MT

ER

CO

UN

TY

, FL

AN

D I

NC

OR

PO

RA

TED

AR

EA

S

FLO

OD

PR

OFI

LES

WIT

HLA

CO

OC

HEE R

IVER

10P

ST

AT

E H

I GH

WA

Y 4

76

LEGEND





STREAM BED


NELSON

LAKE

END OF NOBLETON TO

GULF OF MEXICO STUDY

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

45

50

55

60

73.5 74.0 74.5 75.0 75.5 76.0 76.5

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AVD

88

)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

SU

MT

ER

CO

UN

TY

, FL

AN

D I

NC

OR

PO

RA

TED

AR

EA

S

F LO

OD

PR

OFI

LES

WIT

HLA

CO

OC

HEE R

IVER

11P

ST

AT

E H

IGH

WA

Y 4

76

LEGEND





STREAM BED


60

55

50

45

45

50

55

60

65

76.5 77.0 77.5 78.0 78.5 79.0 79.5 80.0 80.5 81.0 81.5

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AVD

88

)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

SU

MT

ER

CO

UN

TY

, FL

AN

D I

NC

OR

PO

RA

TED

AR

EA

S

F LO

OD

PR

OFI

LES

WIT

HLA

CO

OC

HEE R

IVER

12P

RA

ILR

OA

D

INT

ER

ST

AT

E H

IGH

WA

Y 7

5

LIT

TLE

WIT

HLA

CO

OC

HEE

LEGEND





STREAM BED


CO

NFLU

EN

CE W

ITH

65

60

55

50

45

SUMTER COUNTY, FLORIDA - North CarolinaShady Brook 2/Wildwood Springs Updated hydrologic analysis...

Documents

Transcript of SUMTER COUNTY, FLORIDA - North CarolinaShady Brook 2/Wildwood Springs Updated hydrologic analysis...