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.