8.2 Agr Engr Supp Flood Map Rev CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE TIME
05/22/00 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION:
NO.
ITEM
NO.
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
Engineering & General Services
2 BY: Shawn O'Le~ BY: ~
ITEM
Supplemental Agreement for Engineering Services, FEMA Flood Map Revision.
BACKGROUND
On July 19, 1999, the City Commission approved Phase I, or the "discovery phase", of the two-phase
engineering agreement with Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation to request a revision of the 100-year
flood plain map for an area in south Salina. The request was made to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) on December 20, 1999 after an extensive engineering analysis of the
flood reduction impacts of the Schilling Drainage Improvement Project. The attached response to the
City's request was received from FEMA on March 27, 2000. City staff and BWR have thoroughly
reviewed and begun work on the additional requests from FEMA. However, it has been determined
that by virtue of the additional requests from FEMA, we have entered Phase II or the "application
phase" of the engineering services provided by BWR. The initial response and subsequent discussions
with FEMA and their review consultant in Washington, D.C. indicate that the City's application will
be considered favorably upon receipt of the full application materials and supporting documentation.
The attached Supplemental Agreement for engineering services with BWR addresses the relevant
contract obligations for Phase II of the program. The scope of work includes all known aspects of the
application process with FEMA. The focus of this phase will be the response to the attached requests
from FEMA in a timely manner. The deadline established by FEMA is June 25, 2000. The contract
is written in a "cost plus net fee" format with a maximum amount not to exceed $13,900.00. The fee
for Phase I was $17,567.00. If the maximum amount of services are needed in Phase II, the total cost
of engineering services will be $31,467.00. If the flood plain map is revised by FEMA, approximately
55 homeowners in south Salina may be relinquished from paying flood plain insurance at an average
cost of $480 per year. If approved, the fee for these engineering services will be paid from the Flood
and Drainage Fund.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Commission approve the Supplemental Engineering Agreement with
Bucher, Willis and Ratliff Corporation for Phase II of the FEMA application.
Resolution Number 00-5603
SUPPLEMENT TO
AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
This SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT, made and entered into this __ day of ,
2000, by and between the City of Salina, Kansas, hereinafter referred to as the "Owner" and Bucher,
Willis & Ratliff Corporation, with offices located in Salina, Kansas, hereinafter referred to as the
"Consultant".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, The Owner and Consultant entered into an Agreement for Engineering Services on
July 19, 1999 for Discovery Phase for updating the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map based on
Stage I Drainage Improvements to South Salina.
WHEREAS, The Owner now desires to have the Consultant provide Engineering Services for
Phase II - Prepare Application for Updating the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for South
Salina, based on the Completion of/the Schilling Drainage Project, hereinafter referred to as the
"Project - Phase II".
NOW, THEREFORE, the Owner and Consultant in consideration of their mutual covenants
herein agree in matters pertaining to the performance or fumishing of professional engineering services
by the Consultant with respect to the Project - Phase II and payment for those services by the Owner as
set forth below.
Add the following to Article II, SCOPE OF SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY THE
CONSULTANT.
Prepare plates for the Discovery Phase Report. (These services were previously provided.)
Review recommendations from FEMA from their review of the Discovery Phase Report.
Ans~qer questions and provide additional documentation as requested in the letter from
FEMA dated March 27, 2000 responding to the Discovery Phase Report.
· Provide the forms and documentation as r~.quested in the letter.
· Submit the application to FEMA with the support documentation.
· Respond to subsequent questions from FEMA.
Bo
Add the following to ARTICLE IV - TIME SCHEDULE
The Application with support documentation will be submitted within the 90-day period
as requested by FEMA.
Response to additional questions will be on an as-needed basis.
r:~99311XlOO6.74~'El,lA_DlSXlVPEXCONTRA~UPP_ ACR.doc Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation - 1
Add the following to ARTICLE V - COMPENSATION.
The total compensation for PHASE II - Prepare Application for Updating the FEIMA
Flood Insurance Rate Map shall be Thirteen thousand nine hundred dollars and 00 cents
($13,900). The actual salary costs, overhead costs, multipliers, and profit percentage will remain
the same as the original contract. A detailed breakdown of the fee estimate is included in
Attachment A.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Supplemental Agreement to be
effective as of the date first above written.
OWNER:
CITY OF SALINA
By:
Title:
Date:
Address for giving notices:
CONSULTANT
BUCHER, WILLIS & RATLIFF CORPORATION
William D. Strait, AICP
Title: Principal/Executive Vice President
Date: ~/~/// ~/ ~
Address for giving notices:
Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation
609 W. North Street
Salina, Kansas 67401
r:~o~J~luooa.?4~ma_msw~mzxcotoxAcr~v~,V_AaR.aoc Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation - 1
Federal
Emergency Management
Washington, D.C. 20472
Agency
",ECEIVED
The Honorable Monte Shadwick
City-Country Building
300 West Ash Street
P.O. Box 736
Salina, Kansas 67402-0736
March 27, 2000 APR 3
IN REPLY REFER TO: ~ T ~',,~,~ut:r~ o OFFICE
Case No.: 00-07-266P
Community:City of Salina and
Saline County, Kansas
Community Nos.: 200319 and 200316,
respectively
316-ACK.FEX
Dear Mayor Shadwick:
This responds to your request dated December 20, 1999, conceming a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR),
request that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issue a revision to the Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM) and Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM) for the above-referenced community. Pertinent
information about the request is listed below.
Identifier:
Schilling Road Drainage Improvement Project
Flooding Source:
Smoky Hill River Drainage and Magnolia Road
Ditch
FIRM Panels Affected:
City of Salina FIRM number 200319,
panel 0015 B, dated February 5, 1986
Saline County and unincorporated areas FIRM
number 200316, panel 0060 B, dated
February 5, 1986
FBFM Panels Affected:
City of Salina FBFM number 200319, panel 0015,
dated February 5, 1986
Saline County and unincorporated areas FBFM
number 200316, panel 0060, dated
February 5, 1986
On October 1, 1992, FEMA implemented the use of application/certification forms for requesting revisions or
amendments to National Flood Insurance Program maps for two reasons. First, because the forms provide a
step-by-step process for requesters to follow and are comprehensive, requesters are assured of providing all of
the necessary information to support their requests without having to go through an iterative process of
providing additional information in a piecemeal fashion. Experience has shown this to be a time-consuming
and cost-intensive process. Second, because use of the forms ensures that the requesters' submissions are
complete and more logically structured, FEMA can complete its review in a shorter timeframe. While
completing the forms may appear to be burdensome, we believe it is prudent to do so because of the
advantages that result for the requester.
As you may know, FEMA has implemented a procedure to recover costs associated with reviewing and
processing requests for modifications to published flood information and maps. However, your request
appears based on the effects of a federally sponsored flood-control project where 50 percent or more of the
project's costs are federally funded, if so no fees will be assessed for our review.
We have completed an inventory of the items that you submitted. The items identified below are the additional
items that are required before we can begin a detailed review of your request.
All applicable forms from the enclosed "Application/Certification Forms" package and the necessary
supporting data, as described in the package instructions, must be submitted:
ao
Form 3, enhtled "Hydrologic Analysis Form"
Form 4, entitled "Riverine Hydraulic Analysis Form"
Form 5, entitled "Riverine/Coastal Mapping Form"
Form 8, entitled "Levee/Floodwall System Analysis Form", with item 4 on page 1 completed.
The submitted data indicate that the requested LOMR will affect two jurisdictions, the City of Salina
and Saline County. Please submit MT-2 Form 1 (copy enclosed), titled "Revision Requester and
Community Official Form," with the signature of the appropriate Saline County official.
Please submit documentation/certification of compliance with NFIP regulations (copy enclosed)
Paragraphs 65.10Co), (c), (d) and (e), regarding levee criteria. Note that certification by the U,S. Army
Corps of Engineers that the levee modifications have been adequately designed and an engineer's
certification that the improvements were built as designed will meet the structural requirements.
As a parallel component to item 3 above, please provide evidence of an operation and maintenance
plan for the flapgates or any other operational components that have been incorporated in the design.
Please submit documentation that the project meets the criteria of NFIP regulations
Subparagraph 72.5(c)(1), regarding fee exemption.
Please submit the TR-20 hydrology and the HEC-2 hydraulic models of the 1% (100-year) annual
chance floodplain for the Magnolia Road Ditch and Smoky Hill River Drainage, representing
existing/as-built conditions as outlined on MT-2 Forms 3 and 4. The models should extend upstream
and downstream of the subject area until the revised flood hazard data coincide with those shown on
the FIRM. Please submit both paper and disk/electronic copies of the modeling.
°
Please provide copies of FIRM numbers 200319 and 200316, panels 0015 B and 0060 B, respectively,
annotated to reflect the 1% annual chance floodplain for existing/as-built conditions. The annotations
should extend the revised flood hazard areas until it coincide with the existing flood hazard areas for
the Magnolia Road Ditch and Smoky Hill River Drainage. The annotations should show the limits of
any remaining flood hazard areas in the following locations: 1) between Ohio Street and Wayne
Avenue, and 2) north of Magnolia Road near Fourth Street.
If all required items are not submitted within 90 days of the date of this letter, we will treat any subsequent
request as an original submittal, and it will be subject to all submittal procedures.
If you are unable to meet the 90-day deadline for submittal of required items, and would like FEMA to
continue processing your request, you must request an extension of the deadline. This request must be
submitted to our Mapping Coordination Contractor in writing and must provide (1) the reason why the data
cannot be submitted within the requested timeframe, and (2) a new date for the submittal of the data. We
receive a very large volume of requests and cannot maintain inactive requests for an indefinite period of time.
Please direct all required items and questions concerning your request to our Mapping Coordination Contractor
at the following address:
PBS&J
12101 Indian Creek Court
Beltsville, MD 20705
Attention: Mr. Michael J. Smith
Telephone: (301) 210-6800
Fax: (301) 210-5157
When you write us about your request, you must include the case number referenced above in your letter.
If you have any questions concerning FEMA policy, or the National Flood Insurance Program in general,
please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center, toll free, at 1-877-FEMA MAP (1-877-336-2627).
Sincerely,
William R. Blanton, Jr., Project Officer
Hazards Study Branch
Mitigation Directorate
Enclosures
CCi
Mr. Michael White
Chairman of Saline County Board of Commission
Federal Emergency Management Agency
§65.10
§65.8 Review of proposed projects.
A community, or an individual
through the community, may request
FEMA's comments on whether a pro-
posed project, if built as proposed,
would justify a map revision. FEMA's
comments will be issued in the form of
a letter, termed a Conditional Letter of
Map Revision, in accordance with 44
CFR part 72. The data required to sup-
port such requests are the same as
those required for final revisions under
§§65.5, 65.6, and 65.7. except as-built cer-
tification is not required. All such re-
quests shall be submitted to the FEMA
Headquarters Office in Washington,
DC, and shall be accompanied by the
appropriate payment, in accordance
with 44 CFR parc 72,
[62 FR 5736. Feb. 6. [997]
§65.9 Review and response by the Ad-
ministrator.
If any questions or problems arise
during review, FEMA will consult the
Chief l[xecutive Officer of the commu-
nity (CEO), the community official des-
ignated by the CliO, and/or the re-
quester for resolution. Upon receipt of
a revision request, the Administrator
shall mail an acknowledgment of re-
ceipt of such request to the CliO. With-
in 90 days of receiving the request with
all necessary information, the Admin-
istrator shall notify the CliO of one or
more of the following:
(a) The effective map(s) shall not be
modified;
(b) The base flood elevations on the
effective FIRM shall be modified and
new base flood elevations shall be es-
tablished under the provisions of part
67 of this subchapter;
(c) The changes requested are ap-
proved and the map(s) amended by Let-
ter of Map Revision (LOMR);
(d) The changes requested are ap-
proved and a revised map(s) will be
printed and distributed;
(e) The changes requested are not of
such a significant nature as to warrant
a reissuance or revision of the flood in-
surance study or maps and will be de-
ferred until such time as a significant
change occurs;
(0 An additional 90 days is required
to evaluate the scientific or technical
data submitted; or
(g) Additional data are required to
support the revision request.
(h) The required payment has not
been submitted in accordance with 44
CFR part 72, no review will be con-
ducted and no determination will be is-
sued until payment is received.
[51 FR 30315, Aug. 25, 1986; 61 FR 46331, Aug.
30, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 5736, Feb. 6,
1997]
§65.10 Mapping of areas protected by
levee systems.
(a) General For purposes of the NFIP,
Fl[MA will only recognize in its flood
hazard and risk mapping effort those
levee systems that meet, and continue
to meet, minimum design, operation,
and maintenance standards that are
consistent with the level of protection
sought through the comprehensive
flood plain management criteria estab-
lished by §60.3 of this subchapter. Ac-
cordingly, this section describes 'the
types of Information FEMA needs to
recognize, on NFIP maps, that a levee
system provides protection from the
base flood. This Information must be
supplied to Fl[MA by the community
or other party seeking recognition of
such a levee system at the time a flood
risk study or restudy is conducted,
when a map revision under the provi-
sions of part 65 of this subchapter is
sought based on a levee system, and
upon request by the Administrator dur-
ing the review of previously recognized
structures. The Fl[MA review will be
for the sole purpose of establishing ap-
propriate risk zone determinations for
NFIP maps and shall not constitute a
determination by Fl[MA as to how a
structure or system will perform in a
flood event.
(b) Design criteria. For levees to be
recognized by Fl[MA, evidence that
adequate design and operation and
maintenance systems are in place to
provide reasonable assurance that pro-
tection from the base flood exists must
be provided. The following require-
ments must be met:
(1) Freeboard. (i) Riverine levees must
provide a minimum freeboard of three
feet above the water-surface level of
the base flood. An additional one foot
above the minimum is required within
100 feet in either side of structures
(such as bridges) riverward of the levee
or wherever the flow is constricted. An
335
§65.10
44 CFR Ch. I (10-1-97 Edition)
additional one-half foot above the min-
imum at the upstream end of the levee,
tapering to not less than the minimum
at the downstream end of the levee, is
also required.
(ii) Occasionally, exceptions to the
minimum riverine freeboard require-
ment described in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of
this section, may be approved. Appro-
priate engineering analyses dem-
onstrating adequate protection with a
lesser freeboard must be submitted to
support a request for such an excep-
tion. The material presented must
evaluate the uncertainty in the esti-
mated base flood elevation profile and
include, but not necessarily be limited
to an assessment of statistical con-
fidence limits of the 100-year discharge;
changes in stage-discharge relation-
ships; and the sources, potential, and
magnitude of debris, sediment, and ice
accumulation. It must be also shown
that the levee will remain structurally
stable during the base flood when such
additional loading considerations are
imposed. Under no circumstances will
freeboard of less than two feet be ac-
cepted.
(iii) For coastal levees, the freeboard
must be established at one foot above
the height of the one percent wave or
the maximum wave runup (whichever
is greater) associated with the 100-year
stillwater s.urge elevation at the site.
(iv) Occasionally, exceptions to the
minimum coastal levee freeboard re-
quirement described in paragraph
(b)(1)(tii) of this section, may be ap-
proved. Appropriate engineering analy-
ses demonstrating adequate protection
with a lesser freeboard must be submit-
ted to support a request for such an ex-
ception. The material presented must
evaluate the uncertainty in the esti-
mated base flood loading conditions.
Particular emphasis must be placed on
the effects of wave attack and overtop-
ping on the stability of the levee.
Under no circumstances, however, will
a freeboard of less than two feet above
the 100-year stillwater surge elevation
be accepted.
(2) Closures. All openings must be pro-
vided with closure devices that are
structural parts of the system during
operation and design according to
sound engineering practice.
(3) Embankment protection. Engineer-
ing analyses must be submitted that
demonstrate that no appreciable ero-
sion of the levee embankment can be
expected during the base flood, as a re-
sult of either currents or waves, and
that anticipated erosion will not result
in failure of the levee embankment or
foundation directly or indirectly
through reduction of the seepage path
and subsequent instability. The factors
to be addressed in such analyses in-
clude, but are not limited to: Expected
fiow velocities (especially in con-
stricted areas); expected wind and wave
action; ice loading; impact of debris;
slope protection techniques; duration
of flooding at various stages and ve-
locities; embankment and foundation
materials; levee alignment, bends, and
transitions; and levee side slopes.
(4) Embankment and foundation stabil-
ity. Engineering analyses that evaluate
levee embankment stability must be
submitted. The analyses provided shall
evaluate expected seepage during load-
ing conditions associated with the base
flood and shall demonstrate that seep-
age into or through the levee founda-
tion and embankment will notjeopard-
ize embankment or foundation stabil-
ity. An alternative analysis dem-
onstrating that the levee is designed
and constructed for stability against
loading conditions for Case IV as de-
fined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers (COE) manual, "Design and Con-
struction of Levees" (EM 1110-2-1913.
Chapter 6, Section II), may be used.
The factors that shall be addressed in
the analyses include: Depth of flooding,
duration of flooding, embankment ge-
ometry and length of seepage path at
critical locations, embankment and
foundation materials, embankment
compaction, penetrations, other design
factors affecting seepage (such as
drainage layers), and other design fac-
tors affecting embankment and founda-
tion stability (such as berms).
(5) Settlement. Engineering analyses
must be submitted that assess the po-
tential and magnitude of future losses
of freeboard as a result of levee settle-
ment and demonstrate that freeboard
will be maintained within the mini-
mum standards set forth in paragraph
(b)(l) of this section. This analysis
336
Federal Emergency Management Agency
§65.10
must address embankment loads, com-
pressibility of embankment soils, com-
pressibility of foundation soils, age of
the levee system, and construction
compaction methods. In addition, de-
tailed settlement analysis using proce-
dures such as those described in the
CaE manual, "Soil Mechanics Design--
Settlement Analysis" (EM 1100-2-1904)
must be submitted.
(6) Interior drainage. An analysis must
be submitted that identifies the
source(s) of such flooding, the extent of
the flooded area, and, If the average
depth Is greater than one foot, the
water-surface elevation(s) of the base
flood. This analysis must be based on
the.joint probability of interior and ex-
terior flooding and the capacity of fa-
cilities (such as drainage lines and
pumps) for evacuating Interior flood-
waters.
(7) Other design criteria. In unique sit-
uations, Such as th6Se where the levee
system has relatively high vulner-
ability, FEMA may require that other
design criteria and analyses be submit-
ted to show that the levees provide
adequate protection. In such situa-
tions, sound engineering practice will
be the standard on which FEMA will
base Its determinations. FEMA will
also provide the rationale for requiring
this additional Information.
(c) Operation plans and criteria. For a
levee system to be recognized, the
operational criteria must be as de-
scribed below. All closure devices or
mechanical systems for internal drain-
age, whether manual or automatic,
must be operated In accordance with
an officially adopted operation manual,
a copy of which must be provided to
FEMA by the operator when levee or
drainage system recognition is being
sought or when the manual for a pre-
viously recognized system is revised tn
any manner. All operations must be
under the `jurisdiction of a Federal or
State agency, an agency created by
Federal or State ]aw, or an agency of a
community participating in the NFIP.
(1) Closures. Operation plans for clo-
sures must include the following:
(i) Documentation of the flood warn-
ing system, under the `jurisdiction of
Federal, State, or community officials,
that will be used to trigger emergency
operation activities and demonstration
that sufficient flood warning time ex-
ists for the completed operation of all
closure structures, Including necessary
sealing, before floodwaters reach the
base of the closure.
(ii) A formal plan of operation in-
cluding specific actions and assign-
ments of responsibility by individual
name or title.
(iii) Provisions for periodic oper-
ation, at not less than one-year inter-
vals, of the closure structure for test-
ing and training purposes.
(2) Inter/or drainage systems. Interior
drainage systems associated with levee
systems usually Include storage areas,
gravity outlets, pumping stations, or a
combination thereof. These drainage
systems will be recognized by FEMA on
NFIP maps for flood protection pur-
poses only if the following minimum
criteria are Included tn the operation
plan:
(t) Documentation of the flood warn-
ing system, under the `jurisdiction of
Federal, State, or community officials,
that will be used to trigger emergency
operation activities and demonstration
that sufficient flood warning time ex-
Ists to permit activation of mechanized
portions of the drainage system.
(tl) A formal plan of operation in-
cluding specific actions and assign-
ments of responsibility by individual
name or tttle.
(iii) Provision for manual backup for
the activation of automatic systems.
(tv) Provisions for periodic Inspection
of Interior drainage systems and peri-
odic operation of any mechanized por-
tions for testing and training purposes.
No more than one year shall elapse be-
tween either the Inspections or the op-
erations.
(3) Other operation plans and criteria.
Other operating plans and criteria may
be required by FEMA to ensure that
adequate protection is provided in spe-
cific situations. In such cases, sound
emergency management practice will
be the standard upon which FEMA de-
terminations will be based.
(d) Maintenance plans and criteria. For
levee systems to be recognized as pro-
viding protection from the base flood,
the maintenance criteria must be as
described herein. Levee systems must
be maintained in accordance with an
officially adopted maintenance plan.
337
§65.11
and a copy of this plan must be pro-
vided to FEMA by the owner of the
levee system when recognition is being
sought or when the plan for a pre-
viously recognized system is revised in
any manner. All maintenance activi-
ties must be under the jurisdiction of a
Federal or State agency, an agency
created by Federal or State law, or an
agency of a community participating
in the NFIP that must assume ulti-
mate responsibility for maintenance.
This plan must document the formal
procedure that ensures that the stabil-
ity, height, and overall integrity of the
levee and its associated structures and
systems are maintained. At a mini-
mum, maintenance plans shall specify
the maintenance activities to be per-
formed, the frequency of their perform-
ance, and the person by name or title
responsible for their performance.
(e) Certitlcatlon requirements. Data
submitted to support that a given levee
system complies with the structural
requirements set forth in paragraphs
(b)(l) through (1) of this section must
be certified by a registered professional
engineer. Also, certified as-built plans
of the levee must be submitted. Certifi-
cations are subject to the definition
given at §65.2 of this subchapter. In
lieu of these structural requirements, a
Federal agency with responsibility for
levee design may certify that the levee
has been adequately designed and con-
structed to provide protection against
the base flood.
[51 FR 30316, Aug. 25, 1986]
§65.11 Evaluation of sand dunes in
mapping coastal flood hazard areas.
(a) Ceneral conditions. For purposes of
the NFIP, FEMA will consider storm-
induced dune erosion potential in its
determination of coastal flood hazards
and risk mapping efforts. The criterion
to be used in the evaluation of dune
erosion will apply to primary frontal
dunes as defined in §59.1, but does not
apply to artificially designed and con-
structed dunes that are not well-estab-
lished with long-standing vegetative
cover, such as the placement of sand
materials in a dune-like formation.
(b) Evaluation criterion. Primary fron-
tal dunes will not be considered as ef-
fective barriers to base flood storm
surges and associated wave action
44 CFR Ch. I (10-1-97 Edition)
where the cross-sectional area of the
primary frontal dune, as measured per-
pendicular to the shoreline and above
the 100-year stillwater flood elevation
and seaward of the dune crest, is equal
to. or less than, 540 square feet.
(c) Exceptions. Exceptions to the eval-
uation criterion may be granted where
it can be demonstrated through au-
thoritative historical documentation
that the primary frontal dunes at a
specific site withstood previous base
flood storm surges and associated wave
action.
[53 FR 16279, May 6, 1988]
§65.12 Revision of flood insurance
rate maps to reflect base flood ele-
vations caused by proposed en-
croachments.
(a) When a community proposes to
permit encroachments upon the flood
plain when a regulatory floodway has
not been adopted or to permit en-
croachments upon an adopted regu-
latory floodway which will cause base
flood elevation increases in excess of
those permitted under paragraphs
(c)(10) or (d)(3) of §60.3 of this sub-
chapter, the community shall apply to
the Administrator for conditional ap-
proval of such action prior to permit-
ting the encroachments to occur and
shall submit the following as part of its
application:
(1) A request for conditional approval
of map change and the appropriate ini-
tial fee as specified by § 72.3 of this sub-
chapter or a request for exemption
from fees as specified by §72.5 of this
subchapter, whichever is appropriate;
(2) An evaluation of alternatives
which would not result in a base flood
elevation increase above that per-
mitted under paragraphs (c)(10) or
(d)(3) of §60.3 of this subchapter dem-
onstrating why these alternatives are
not feasible;
(3) Documentation of individual legal
notice to all impacted property owners
within and outside of the community,
explaining the impact of the proposed
action on their property.
(4) Concurrence of the Chief Execu-
tive Officer of any other communities
impacted by the proposed actions;
338
Federal Emergency Management Agency
funds, shall be made payable to the
tional Flood Insurance Program.
(g) For CLOMA, CLOMR-F, LOMA,
and LOMR-F requests, FEMA shall:
(1) Notify the requester and commu-
nity within 30 days as to the adequacy
of the submittal, and
(2) Provide to the requester and the
community, within 60 days of receipt of
adequate information and fee, a deter-
mination letter or other written com-
ment in response to the request.
(h) For CLOMR, LOMR, and PMR re-
quests. FEMA shall:
(1) Notify the requester and commu-
nity within 60 days as to the adequacy
of the submittal; and
(2) Provide to the requester and the
community, within 90 days of receipt of
adequate Information and fee, a
CLOMR, a LOMR, other written com-
ment in response to the request, or pre-
llminary copies of the revised FIRM
panel~, FBFM pane[~, 'and/or affected
portions of the FIS report for review
and comment.
[62 FR 5737. Feb. 6, 1997]
§ 72.5 Exemptions.
(a) Requests for map changes based
on mapping or study analysis errors or
the effects of natural changes within
SFHAs shall be exempt from fees.
(b) Requests for LOMAs shall be ex-
empt from fees.
(c) Map change requests based on the
following shall be exempt from fees:
(1) Federally sponsored flood-control
projects where 50 percent or more of
the project's costs are federally funded;
and
(2) Detailed hydrologic and hydraulic
studies conducted by Federal. State, or
local agencies to replace approximate
studies conducted by FEMA and shown
on the effective FIRM.
[62 FR 5738, Feb. 6, 1997]
§72.6 Unfavorable response.
(a) Requests for CLOMAs, CLOMRs,
or CLOMR-Fs may be denied or the de-
terminations may contain specific
comments, concerns, or conditions re-
garding proposed projects or designs
and their impacts on flood hazards In a
community. Requesters are not enti-
tled to any refund of fees paid if the de-
terminations contain such comments,
Pt. 73
concerns, or conditions, or if the re-
quests are denied. Requesters are not
entitled to any refund of fees paid if
the requesters are unable to provide
the appropriate scientific or technical
documentation or to obtain required
authorizations, permits, financing,
etc., for which requesters seek the
CLOMAs, CLOMRs. or CLOMR-Fs.
(b) Requests for LOMRs. LOMR-Fs.
or PMRs may be denied or the revi-
sions to the FIRM, FBFM, or both.
may not be in the manner or to the ex-
tent desired by the requesters. Re-
questers are not entitled to any refund
of fees paid if the revision requests are
denied or if the LOMRs, LOMR-Fs, or
PMRs do not revise the map specifi-
cally as requested.
[62 FR 5738, Feb. 6, 1997]
§ 72.7 Resubmittals.
(a) Resubmittalsof CLOMA, CLOMR,
CLOMR-F, LOMR, LOMR-F, or PMR
requests more than 90 days after FEMA
notification that the requests were de-
nied or after FEMA ended its review
because the requester provided insuffi-
cient information will be treated as
original submissions and subject to all
submittal/payment procedures de-
scribed in §72.4. The procedure in §72.4
also applies to a resubmitted request
(regardless of when submitted) if the
project on which the request is based
has been altered significantly in design
or scope other than as necessary to re-
spond to comments, concerns, or other
findings made by FEMA regarding the
original submission.
(b) When LOMR. LOMR-F. or PMR
requests are made after FEMA issues
CLOMRs or CLOMR-Fs. the procedures
in §72.4 and the appropriate fee apply,
as referenced in §72.3(c). When the as-
built conditions differ from the pro-
posed conditions on which FEMA is-
sued the CLOMRs or CLOMR-Fs, the
reduced fee for as-built requests will
not apply.
[62 FR 5738. Feb. 6. 1997l
PART 73--IMPLEMENTATION OF
SECTION 1316 OF THE NATIONAL
FLOOD INSURANCE ACT OF 1968
Sec.
73.1 Purpose of part.
363
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Region VII
2323 Grand Blvd., Suite 900
Kansas City, MO 64108-2670 ,
January 13, 2000
IN REPLY REFER TO:
RVII-CASE NO.: 2955
Monte Shadwick
Mayor, City of Salina
City-County Building
300 West Ash Street
P.O. Box 736
Salina, Kamas 67402-0736
Dear Mayor Shadwick:
This letter will acknowledge the receipt of your request for a Letter of Map Correction
(LOMC) dated December 20, 1999 for Schilling Road Drainage Improvement project, Salina,
Kansas.
Your request is being forwarded to our National Office for processing. You will be contacted
if any additional information is required to process your application.
If you have any questions concerning the status of your application, please call 1-877-FEMA
MAP or 1-877-336-2627.
Sincerely,
Albert L. Schulz,
Regional Hydrologist
Mitigation Division
CC:
Agnes DeCoca, Program Specialist
with enclosures