Loading...
Magnolia Park-CS 860317 Federal Emergency Management kgency Washington, D.C. 20472 ~ March 17, 1986 Mr. Mark W. Roberts, P.E. IN Jack R. Davis & Associates, Inc. IA- 3535 Travis Street, Suite 100 RE'. Dallas, Texas 75204 le! Cot to ~ CAf Dear Mr. Roberts: This is in response to the above-mentioned letter requesting t~at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) determine the effects of a ~roposed flood plain modification in the following community: The City of Coppell, Texas (proposed Lincoln-Coppell swale pro Creek). Technical data submitted by 3ack R. Davis & Associate~ FEMA has initiated a reimbursement procedure to allow for the 1 costs associated with the review of such requests, thereby redl expenses to the general taxpayer. Enclosed for your informati¢ rule, as published in the Federal Register on September 4, 198! policy was implemented. We are currently reviewing your request package to determine t]~e appropriate processing procedure. When this initial review is completed, ~ will inform you of any fee or additional information that may be required ~ continue the processing of your submittal. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please ~ntact members of our Headquarters staff in Washington, D.C., at (202) 646-27ti7. Sincerely, ~nclosure cc: A~ng Chiefl Risk Studies DJ Federal Insurance Administrat Mr. Ed Powell, P.E., City Engineer for the City of Coppel] P.~PLY REFER TO: .RA-RS 44-72B February 25, 1986 ter from Mr. Ed Powell, ,pell City Engineer Mr. Bill Kuno, FEMA E NO.: 86-06-13R ~vi sion :ion ect along Denton , Incorporated. ~ecovery of icing the ~n is the final ;, by which this The City With A Beautiful Future February 25, 1986 Mr. Bill Kuno Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region IV Hazards and Mitigation Division Federal Center Denton, Texas 76201 Re: Request for Conditional Letter of Map Revisior Denton Creek Coppell, Texas Dear Mr. Kuno: The City of Coppell has recieved a Technical Repor existing and proposed flood plain and floodway con, along Denton Creek in Coppell. This report, prepa~ Jack R. Davis & Associates, Inc., Engineers, incluc detailed hydraulic analysis of the existing channel overbank conditions, as well as proposed improvemen report also includes the HEC-2 computer printout, f and floodway maps, and other data necessary to prov conditional letter of map revision and possible rev the existing flood insurance maps. If you have any technical questions on the enclosed please contact Mark W. Roberts, Jack R. Davis & Ass Inc. (214-522-9540). Any administrative questions directed to Ed Powell, P.E., City Engineer, City of (214-462-0022). Thank you for your consideration of this very impor' request. Sincerely, CITY OF COPPELL Ed Powell, P.E. City Engineer Enclosure cc: Mr. Mark W. Roberts, P.E., Jack R. Davis & Assl Mr. H. Wayne Ginn, P.E., Ginn, Inc. P O. Box 478 Coppell, Texas 75019 214 462- 0022 DEWBERRY & DAVIS on itions ed by es a and ts. The lood plain idea isions of report, ~ciates, should be Coppell :ant .ciates Wednesday September 4, 1985 Part V Managem( and ]'5 National Flood Insu~ Rule Federal Emergency nt Agency 'ance Program; Final VoL 80, No. 171 I Wedmmdsy, September 4. 1885 lqDdA receive~ · lax~e number of iueets t(~ review proPOsed pro~'ects to terrains if they would qualify for map were amendments and revisions upon the~ the v oompletion. Such prop~ed project~ Th. include flood plan fills, stream . channelizationL levee construction, or cate~ other flood control projects. This oer~_ ce ntini] IMm led to the issuance of conditional were ldtter~ of l~p Amendment ~LOMAo] mhd conditional Letters of Map Revision (LOMRs] that provide FI~ a_·surance to in~lividual·, developers, and of pr eommunities that their projects would ~tules and Regulation· oondil lonal LOMA or conditional LOIVIR l~que, d vary in proportion to the number of out mittals requi~d of an appellant to ancu~ ttely ·how the effects of his p~opo ted project, ss well es ~,~th the type df project involved. An incomplete iwobltn~ in the technical analy~e~, tok~ Jei~nificantly longer to process . ~ ~t must be reviewed, an additional deta ~equeet letter prepared and sent. m~d the new submittal re-reviewed. Whll~ administrative proceesins time vmrle, ~ between conditional LOlvL~ and mmdi tional LOMP~, it does not differ mf~nff icantl¥ within eecb cateBory of proJe :t. It wes also deter~!n*d that for :ate~ory of project, there are n miniature review and proc~il~ ~el~l ,~nts common to ~l,~ ~um review and processing co·ts used to develop the initial fees for trtous projects. ,, conditional LOMAs were first or. ed by the type o! project. Each ory wes then e~Ami,ted and sum review and processing times determined for engineering review. .·erin8 administration, word ,·sing and quality control This processing common to ··ch type ~ject was then converted to a dolhtr mt u~lng d~ect labor rates, be accepted for map revision upon ove~ ~ead, and fee, which PEMA pays onmpletion. The conditional LOMA and oonditional LOMR are often needed by '~T~ ~ determination of review and developers to obtain const~'uction loans proc,ssin~ time for conditional LOMAs mhd building permits and attics prospective buyere. It should be noted was simplified in that there i0 a distinct dtffe ~nca between ·Shale*lot an~! multi* that conditional LOMAs and LOMRs m ~ot/! ubdivieinn requests. Administrative mot based on any timltations or · deficiencies in the FEMA maps; rtthe~ prec..·sin8 was the same for each. but se·riss review time for multi-lo~/ they have come about in re·pons· to ~m~ ivision requests was approximately requests from individuals, developers, douhle that for ·inBle*lot determinations mid communities for I:'EMA review and for The ~se of processi]~ times _ conunent on proposed proJe~'~.. Thus, to type[ of LOMA was also narrower. The l*m:luce expenses to the sen·res · i~t~tihium times determined for each taxpayer, FI~ developed the - type[ were then converted to · dollar reimbursement procedure set.forth in the proposed r~le to allow_f~ the re~o..., very ~mo)mt aJ described above. 1 of*costs associated with these acuons. Tl~e proPOsed rule was erroneous y Under the procedure, an initial f~., the interpreted by several commentators to mount determined by the type o! mesh thtt FEMA will require project, will be required to th~se .s~dn8 rein~bursement for ~ lOMAs sad · conditional.LOMA or conditional Leith, The fee applies only to . conditional LOMAs and conditional LOMR before any review commences. LO o~8e~at are requested based on a The initial fee represents the min~.t~m flood plain modification that eoet required to review that type of pro d project. FEMA will then al.eSe.rains.the co~kl L~fect established fico mepplns. Maj~ appeals based on conditions octual cost associated with the review exf ,s~in8 st the time of the appeal will of a pM. flcuhr project and the .L?questor will be billed for &ny additional coots conunue to be reviewed st no cost to the blcurred. In this way ~ proposes to ·pp ruc, over the entire cost -ssocleted wSth & ~veral commentators addressed the the review and processing 0f conditional *'op ;n-end·ds·ss" of both the fees and LOMAs an'd conditional LOMI~s. the ~ime frame for review and FE]~s, determined that the coots ~ssins of · particular request. This &s·oc~ated with the technical review ~ [ rule establishes a fee cap of end administrative proc··sin8 of · ~or ~ ~nditional LOMAs end S1,500 for ~022 ~m~-~l Rqbt~t / VoC ~o. N~ ~ / WeclA, echT. ~.p~mber ~ ~e6 I Rule~ and conditional LOM~ that wilJ not be exceeded without written enthorLvatiou from the requestor. Requestor8 w~ be notified in m'itin8 when it is anticipated that e pm'ticular case would exceed cap. Processin~ would be suspended for the v&-~ouo types or requavts an6 converted to dohr ~mounts usin8 direct labor mta~ overbad, md fee, ~ FEMA pays for th~se services. Other commentators expremed concern bt tim rule could bays tbs effect of' discourqinS development pendinf r~.etpt by FE~A or wflttan authorization to proceed. Simihrl~. this because of' the be requirement& It ia not final rule establishes time frames for · the intent or the rah to either dlsoourup response from FEMA rep.*di~_ the development or discourqe th sulm~ttaJ adequacy of the data rdbmittod in of'propoeed projects for review. Because suppofl of a request end for comment by requeetors need FEMA commont on ~ reaardin8 the parUculm' request their proposed projects to eetis;y other Two comments de&it with the data ~quir~mentL and only th)* will beMflt requirements for condition&i LaMA end from thio service. FEMA developed th conditional LOMR request& FE~q hoe reimbursement pr~edure. In this wa)** seve~l documents, entitled C~ndY~'~As the feneral taxpayer is not pay~n~ for ~d ~rit~r/,. tht explain in 8Sacral th FEMA ~vkw ar I project iniflatad by · inform-tiaa required in support ora private entity. reques~ for · LAMA, LOIvlR, floodwa~ 73M final mb contains th fsi]awful revbion, or map revision. With the cheeses in rea·rd to fees far conditional exceptfon ar'as-built'plato of · LaMA mad LOMR review from th completed project, the data requirements for conditional LOMAs and LOl~b and actual amendments ancYrevisions are essenUalb~ the seme and ere covered by the various ~di~'a~a ar~ Cn'~e,,'/a documents. It not passible to bt detailed nbmiuton requirements for each t~e ar project in these documents due to the unique ensineerh~ hctom involved tn different installations. ~ does intend to expand its feneral submission requirements under 44 CFR Parts 86 70 in Fiscal Year 1086. One commentator requested clarification on the lnfommtion· community must submit to obtain an exemption from the fee. As addressed J 723 of the propo~l rule. exemptions apply to those Federal, State. andlocal 8overnment projects desisned primmtly to benefit the general public. A cer'~fication will be required fi'om tim Federal. State. or local ~ernment or esency bt the pm-ticuler project is for the public benefit M~d pFimertl~ intended for flood loss r~d~cflon to exJeting development in flood arua opposed to planned flood plain proposed rub ar April ts, 1. Section 72.1 cler4fies that there is no be requirement for final LOJ~Lad LOin,Ob that correct errore in th orifind FIe ~nd FIRM or are otherwise requested on the basis o~ exisfln8 flood plain conditions. billed end establishes a fee cap for conditional LOMAs end conditional Lairds tht would not be exceeded without written authorization from th requestor. Section 72.4 bas ~ been modified to adctreu the time frsme for response by FEMA to a conditional LOMA or conditional LOMR requeeL 8. Section 723 cIm'ifies the conditions by which a Federal. State, or loc&i rro vernmont or asen~/would be m the ben. In addition to the c~onges dlscusmed above that thh final rule mmb to Om proposed rub. a few cba~es of m aditorlal mturm wer~ al~o umdm. FEMA bas determined, based upou Environmental AJsessment~ thor this rule does not bare significant impa~ upon the quality of the human - environment As · result, an Environment Impact Statement will not be prepared. A f~ndin8 of no sJgnifl~nt in the formal docket Tbb rub b no defined in Exe~ February 1981, a nal~is has bee The colbcUon t~luirements co aubmftted to the Raguldtiono I · "m~jor rak" u tive Order 12291. dated nd. hence, no resulator7 n prepared. of intormlUoa ~tained in th~ rule were O~ce of Monaaement and Budaet (OM~ for t~v~ under section ss04(hl ~f,the Paperwork development. - ~ne commentator expressed coacem ~ or SubJects that the proposed rule was not clet~ iB impact definin~ payment responsibility. FEMA file and is evadable for publio will bill the enUty that prepare~ Om inopecUon ~d copyin8 at the Rules _ Flood tusuran oriain&i request. Com,~unJties in_valved Docket C3erk, Of~ce of'General Counsel. lnteraovemmen in their own review ~nd eventual Federal F. meraency Man~aemont . Accord~q~, t~ardmitt&i or the request to FE~IA A~ency, MO C Street. SW,. Washinato~ Subchxpter B is 'would not be billed simply because th~ DC: ~ were the qenc~ t~ansmittin8 tho request. Two commentators feJt the coot for · sin~le*lot conditional LO~& w~s too his~ and alon8 with othere felt tim initial : fees in general were exceselve. Ad already explained, the fees detem,.ined tlu, oush an analysJa of tim minimum pa)cassia8 and revkw ttmem m 44 CFR Pert~ s~, aB, -.am relation& Faders] Re~is~er / VoL 80, ~Jo. 171 ! Wednesday, September 4, lga5 / Rules · PART FOR OBTAINI APPROVAL O Definitto~ Y'L4 Submfttal~ of Condftional Amendment (c Condition~! Le (condiUonal LI LOMR. srante deficiencies ar reimbursemen I.~Lt Except pm't. the nd keffulations :)CEDURE AND FEE~ qG CONDmONAL MAP CHANGES I~.C. ~'l; 42 U.S.C. 4001 si ~ioa Plaa No. ~ of IS'~ K.O. of this pert is to provide and cost recover), ensineertn~ review ~nd ~:fated with the Issuance briers or Map onditionel LOMAs) and tter~ o! Map Revision )MRs). Final lOMAs nd to correct map not subject to this otherwise provided i~ eFugtions set forth in Pm't Federal Re~ster / Vol. SO, No. 17'1 / Weclne,de~,. September 4. 1985 / Rt ~ of thi. subchaptar are applicable is this ~ [bi For the purpose of this part.. Conditional Letter of Map Amendment (conditional LO]vIA) is FEMA's comment mt a proposed project to be located in and affectin8 only that poflfon of the area of special flood beard outside the reg~atory floodway and havin8 no Impact on the existin8 regulatory floodway or effective bale flood (c) For the pu~ose of ~. i;art, a Conditional letter of Map Revision {conditional Lair[RI will be FEMA'o comment on a proposed-project that would .i~C't the hyde')ionic indoor hydraulic charec~ertstics of a floodin8 source and thus result in the modification of the existing regulatory floodway or effective base flood elevations. {a) For conditional letteTM of IV[ap AmendmenL the initial fee shah be paid' by the requestor in the foHowin~ amounts: (1) Stalls-ia*: l~s (2] MLOti-lot/subd]visJa- ..... {b} For conditional letters of Map Revision, the initial fee shah be paid by the requestor in the foHowin8 amounts: (1l New b'dae or culvert {no channelization} ....... 1350 [Zl Channel modifications on])' : __ 8400 [3} Channel modification and new br~dae or culvert IS=S {4) Levees. banns, o~ other structural measures. [c] For projects involvin8 combinations of the above actions which are not separately identified, the initial fee shall be that charged for the ' most expensive of the actions comprisin8 the combination. (a) Initial fees shah be submitted with the request for FE]vlA review and processin8 of conditional LOMAs and conditional LOMRs. {b] Initial fees must be received by ~ before the review can be Initiated for any conditional LaMA or conditional LOMR request. (c] FoHowir~ completion of review for any conditional LaMA or conditional LOMR, the requestor will be b~ed at the prevailin8 private sector hbor rets (currently $25.00 per hour) for any actual costs exceedin8 the initial fee Incurred dm'ins the review. (1} Requestors of conditional LOMAs will be notified of the anticipated total cost if the total cost of processin8 their ruquest will exceed SM0. (2} Requestors of conditional will be notified of the anticipated tow coot if the total cost of proceasin8 their request will exceed (3} In the event that ptocesein8 costs exceed the l~nits dafined in {c)(1} and (2) of this section, processin8 of the request will be suspended pendinf FEMA receipt of Mitten approval from the requestor to proceed. (dj The entity that applies to FEMA throuah the local community for review will be billed for the cost of the review. The local community incurs no financial obligation under the reimbu~ement proced~ set forth in this part as a result of t2'ansmittin8 the submittal to (e} Payment of both the tnitial fee and final cost shah be by check or money o~er payable to the United States Treasu.'? and must be received by * ~ before the conditional I. OMA or conditional LOt,~R will be issued. (fi For conditional LaMA requests, I:'E]vfA shall: {1) NOLO, the requestor w'lthin ~0 days as to the edequac~ of the submittal, and , {2} With.in 30 days of receipt of adequate information, provide comment to the requestor on the proposed project. (8) For conditional LO)d~ requests, F'EM.A shall: {1) Notify the requestor wJth~ 00 days as to the adequacy of the submittal, and {2} With~ 00 days of receipt of . adequate information, provide comment to the requestor on the proposed project. Federal, state, and local 8ovemments and theh' aaencte, shall be exempt fr~n fee, for projects they sponsor if the requestor certifies that the pm-ticular project f, for public benefit and pr~narily intended for flood loss reduction to exlst~'~ development in identified flood haza~ opposed to planned flood plain development. LOMR E specific conditio not entit contains conditio requestc the requ qu~ec ooufhL Any r~ than gO c review and au1 procedm includinl of J ?2.4 nibs app', other fha previous or condii des and Regulations nfavorab6l rneponse. :litional ],OMA or conditional lay be denied or may contain ~mments, cancer]Il, Or ~s reaardin8 a proposed project ~ and its impacts on flood in a community. A requestor ia led to any refund if the letter such comanents, concerns, or ~o, or if the letter is denied. A r is not entitled to any refund if .*star is unable to obtain authorizations, permits. etc.. for which the letter was .submittal of a request more fays after ~ notification luest has been denied or after a as been terminated due to ~nt information or other reasons e0ted as an original submission act to all submittal/payment es as described in J 72.4, it he initial fee. The procedure includin~ the initial fee, will y if the project has been ~tly altered in desisn or scope n that necessary to respond to y issued comments, concerns, ions by FEMA.