Loading...
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