The URL can be used to link to this page

Item J3J.3 t, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS County of Monroe Mayor Sylvia Murphy, District 5 The Florida. Keys Mayor Pro Tern Danny Kolhage, District 1 �pw° Michelle Coldiron, District 2 Heather Carruthers, District 3 David Rice, District 5 County Commission Meeting February 20, 2019 Agenda Item Number: J.3 Agenda Item Summary #5094 BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: Building TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Mark Boone (305) 289-2505 N/A AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Presentation of FEMA Coastal Study process to update Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) known as the Physical Map Revision (PMR), timeline, and recommended public information process and procedures for adopting, appealing and commenting on new maps, along with a request to authorize staff to develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) to retain a data and modeling expert, which may be needed if the County decides to appeal the new floodplain maps with an estimated cost of $225,000. ITEM BACKGROUND: Monroe County (and its communities) is part of a multi -year study by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to update FEMA's coastal flood maps. The coastal flood risks shown on the current effective FEMA flood maps are based upon outdated data and technology that are more than 30 years old. FEMA's new flood maps will better define local communities' coastal flood risk(s) by utilizing updated elevation data, new climatological data based upon recent storms, and the latest coastal hazard modeling technology. These updated coastal flood hazard maps will help guide future building, planning, mitigation, and flood insurance decisions for the county's incorporated and unincorporated governments, residents, and business owners. To ensure the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) remains updated, FEMA's mapping contractor, Taylor Engineering, Inc., has given multiple local public presentations over the past several years illustrating this study's progress to -date (Storm Surge Analysis Update (SSAU) Meetings were held on April 23, 24, and 25, 2018, and on May 1 and 2, 2018). Michael Delcharco presented to the BOCC on September 17, 2014 and October 21, 2015. They have also presented Flood Risk Remapping progress to the Cities. A study of this size takes time and goes through many phases. While the initial components of this study have been glimpsed, we have yet to see a draft coastal flood map with all of the study's different components combined. FEMA's consultants are targeting April 2019 to have these draft coastal flood maps ready for local governments to review and provide comments. FEMA works with a local government and staff will be analyzing areas shown on the maps that show a new floodzone. We will use GIS technology to compare existing floodzones to new ones. We will also compare new mobile lidar data (if received by the time we obtain draft maps) to make sure existing elevation data Packet Pg. 1386 J.3 is correct. After FEMA coordinates with the community on the draft maps, they will then submit preliminary coastal flood maps. When the preliminary maps are transmitted, there is an official timeline (see attachments) for communities to comment. The release of preliminary coastal flood maps comes several months after draft maps. Once the preliminary flood maps are publicly released, FEMA and the BOCC will coordinate public Flood Risk Open Houses for residents and business owners to view these maps, to see how their flood risk may have changed, and to have an opportunity to talk one-on-one with community and federal representatives, along with mapping and insurance specialists. The BOCC has retained the services of Bruce Bender, of Bender Consulting Services, Inc., to assist in this public outreach effort. We want to make sure we have the right expertise to assist citizens in understanding this process and the impacts the new maps may have on the community. Concurrent with, or after, the Flood Risk Open Houses, there will be a formal 90-day Public Comment Period, known as the "90-day Appeal Period," where comments and technical and scientific appeals may be submitted by members the public to FEMA. FEMA will announce the start of this 90-day Appeal Period by placing an advertisement in a local newspaper two times within a 10-day period. The actual 90-day period commences on the day of the second placement. To help understand what can be submitted, below are descriptions of an "Appeal" and a "Comment." An Appeal is a formal written objection to the addition or modification of preliminary Base Flood Elevations/Flood Depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries, Zone Designations, or Regulatory Floodway Boundaries depicted on FEMA's preliminary flood maps. The appeal should be accompanied by both data and documentation demonstrating that the proposed new or modified flood hazard information shown on FEMA's preliminary flood map is scientifically or technically incorrect. Appellants are required to demonstrate better methodologies, assumptions, or data exists in support of their position(s), and must also submit competent alternative analyses or data used to develop new or different flood hazard information on the preliminary flood map with their appeal package. A Comment is an objection to a Base Map Feature Modification or Addition, Update to the Flood Insurance Study Report materials, or any other non - appealable proposed change. Comments usually involve changes to subject matter such as road locations and street names, corporate limits, or other similar base map features. A person making a comment should submit a map or other materials showing more up-to-date information regarding such features. Once all appeals and comments are addressed, FEMA will issue a "Letter of Final Determination" to the county's local governments announcing that FEMA's new maps will become effective in six months. Note that by that six-month effective date, federal law requires that the county's local governments must have enacted an ordinance that adopts FEMA's new flood maps; if not, that local government community will be suspended from the federal National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and certain federal aid will no longer be available to that community. The unavailability of federal flood insurance may impact real estate transactions. This last phase ("post -preliminary map Packet Pg. 1387 J.3 release") can take up to two years or more, depending upon the number of appeals and comments filed. Given the brief timeframe between issuance of Preliminary Maps and the conclusion of appeal period, staff recommends the issuance of a RFQ or RFP to retain a resource to assist in reviewing the data and modeling completed by FEMA. This review would be presented to the BOCC to determine if the County wishes to appeal or is ready to adopt the maps as issued. The estimated cost is up to $225,000, depending on the issues that would be appealed. This is currently not budgeted in FYI in Fund 180. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: Adoption of FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map February 2005. September 17, 2014: Michael Delcharco, FEMA consultant, presented Coastal Flood map process to the BOCC. October 21, 2015: Michael Delcharco, FEMA consultant, updated the BOCC on the Coastal Flood map process. September 17, 2014: Michael Delcharco, FEMA consultant, presented Coastal Flood map process to the BOCC. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Board of County Commissioners examine the information presented and offer Staff direction on how to proceed with public information of Physical flap Revision, gathering comments, and direction to staff to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) for potential procurement of consultants for analysis of the FEMA maps and potential appeal, if necessary. DOCUMENTATION: Summary of Map Changes on Flood Insurance FIRM PMR Explanation GrandfatheringForAgents_03_2016 FRP 7-3 FEMA-NFIP Build Back Stronger- FEMA Stakeholder IASM Elevation Steps Brochure Appeal Supporting Data Fact Sheet_ECCFL Study Area Sept 2017 Appeal_Comment Processing_Guidance_Feb_2018 Appeal -and -Comment -Application AppealandComment-DataRequiredforPropertyOwners Appeal-and-Comment-Fact-Sheet-Region6 Appeals Process Fact Sheet _ECCFL Study Area Sept 2017 Appeals_and Comments for Community_Officials_2017 Application_for_Appeal_and_Comment FINANCIAL IMPACT: Packet Pg. 1388 J.3 Effective Date: Expiration Date: Total Dollar Value of Contract: $225,000 Total Cost to County: $225,000 Current Year Portion: $70,000 Budgeted: Not in FYI however sufficient revenue is expected in Fund 180 $155,000 in FY20 to be requested in FY20 Budget Source of Funds: Fund 180 CPI: Indirect Costs: Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts: Revenue Producing: Grant: County Match: Insurance Required: Additional Details: N/A REVIEWED BY: If yes, amount: Mark Boone Completed Rick Griffin Completed Assistant County Administrator Christine Hurley 02/05/2019 1:19 PM Ed Koconis Completed Rick Griffin Completed Steve Williams Completed Budget and Finance Completed Maria Slavik Completed Kathy Peters Completed Board of County Commissioners Pending Expected balance of 02/05/2019 12:51 PM 02/05/2019 12:54 PM Completed 02/05/2019 3:30 PM 02/05/2019 3:31 PM 02/05/2019 3:48 PM 02/05/2019 4:14 PM 02/05/2019 4:16 PM 02/05/2019 4:28 PM 02/20/2019 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 1389 J.3.a ■� BENDER CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. CHART F IMPACT OF MAP CHANGES FLOOD INSURANCE Land Newly No Change — but strongly encourage to Most lenders won't require flood Identified in High- purchase a Preferred Risk Policy (PRP) if insurance. Risk Area but there is no coverage in place You are close to a high -risk area and Building Is Not (e.g., encouraged to buy a PRP as Mother Zone X to A; Zone X Nature doesn't read flood maps. About to V) 25% of all flood claims come from these moderate -low risk areas. Building Newly Newly Mapped Procedure — buy w/in 12 Flood insurance will be required by Identified in High- months of map change and maintain most lenders. Risk Area (e.g., Zone coverage; rates will go up no more than Cost -saving options are available. Have X to A; Zone X to V) 18% annually until they reach a full risk a PRP in effect before the maps change rate. If lapses, pre -FIRM buildings must and renew it each year. be rated w/new maps; post -FIRM can be The cost -saving policy can be grandfathered. transferred to a new owner. High -Risk to Higher- Grandfathering — have a policy effective Cost -saving options available. Risk (e.g., Zone A to before the maps change to lock in the Have a policy in effect before the maps V, increase in Base lower risk zone or lower BFE for future change to lock in the lower risk zone or Flood Elevation rating. If lapses, pre -FIRM buildings must BFE for future rating; and renew it each (BFE)) be rated w/new maps; post -FIRM can be year. grandfathered again. The cost -saving policy can be transferred to the new owner. Decrease in Level of Re -rating — Policy should be re -rated Still at risk, but flood insurance just got High -Risk (e.g., Zone when new maps become effective. cheaper. Contact your insurance agent V to A, decrease in to re -rate your policy (when the maps BFE) become effective). Most lenders will continue to require flood insurance. No Longer in High- Conversion — Convert current high -risk Flood insurance just got cheaper. Most Risk Area (e.g., Zone policy to a PRP and receive a refund in lenders will no longer require flood V to X, Zone A to X) difference in premium. Contents are insurance. automatically included. However, the risk has only been reduced, not removed. Convert your current policy to a lower - cost PRP and receive a refund in the difference in premium — and contents is automatically included. Seaward of Limit of No Change — Insurance rates are the Most lenders require flood insurance. Moderate Wave same on either side of the LiMWA in No impact on insurance costs; Action (LiMWA) (e.g., Zone A; however, the seaward -side risk is however, the risk is even higher due to Coastal Zone A) higher. stronger wave action. Fully insure all buildings. 8374 E. CHERYL DRIVE • SCOTTSDALE, AZ • 85z58 PHONE: 480-368-'ZZ3 • FAX: 480-3i5-9z36 Packet Pg. 1390 J.3.b Monroe County (and its communities) is part of a multi -year study by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to update FEMA's coastal flood maps. The coastal flood risks shown on the current effective FEMA flood maps are based upon outdated data and technology that are more than 30 years old. FEMA's new flood maps will better define local communities' coastal flood risk(s) by utilizing updated elevation data, new climatological data based upon recent storms, and the latest coastal hazard modeling technology. These updated coastal flood hazard maps will help guide future building, planning, mitigation, and flood insurance decisions for the county's incorporated and unincorporated governments, residents, and business owners. To ensure the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) remains updated, FEMA's mapping contractor, Taylor Engineering, Inc., has given multiple local public presentations over the past several years illustrating this study's progress to -date (Storm Surge Analysis Update (SSAU) Meetings were held on April 23, 24, and 25, 2018, and on May 1 and 2, 2018). Michael Delcharco presented to the BOCC on September 17, 2014 and October 21, 2015. They have also presented Flood Risk Remapping progress to the Cities. A study of this size takes time and goes through many phases. While the initial components of this study have been glimpsed, we have yet to see a draft coastal flood map with all of the study's different components combined. FEMA's consultants are targeting late spring, 2019, to have these draft coastal flood maps ready for local governments to review and provide comments. Local governments and interested parties will likely have a short time to review these preliminary maps for conspicuous errors (e.g., street names, community boundaries, etc.). Once FEMA receives these comments, it will issue a preliminary coastal flood map. This release is targeted for the summer of 2019, depending upon the post -comment changes necessitated. The preliminary coastal flood map would then become available for public review and informal public comment. Once the preliminary flood maps are publicly released, FEMA and the BOCC will coordinate public Flood Risk Open Houses for residents and business owners to view these maps, to see how their flood risk may have changed, and to have an opportunity to talk one-on-one with community and federal representatives, along with mapping and insurance specialists. The BOCC has retained the services of Bruce Bender, of Bender Consulting Services, Inc., to assist in this public outreach effort. We want to make sure we have the right expertise to assist citizens in understanding this process and the impacts the new maps may have on the community. Concurrent with, or after, the Flood Risk Open Houses, there will be a formal 90-day Public Comment Period, known as the "90-day Appeal Period," where comments and technical and scientific appeals may be submitted by members the public to FEMA. FEMA will announce the start of this 90-day Appeal Period by placing an advertisement in a local newspaper two times within a 10-day period. The actual 90-day period commences on the day of the second placement. To help understand what can be submitted, below are descriptions of an "Appeal" and a "Comment." An Appeal is a formal written objection to the addition or modification of preliminary Base Flood Elevations/Flood Depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries, Zone Designations, or Regulatory Floodway Boundaries depicted on FEMA's preliminary flood maps. The appeal should be accompanied by both data and documentation demonstrating that the proposed new or modified flood hazard information shown on FEMA's preliminary flood map is Packet Pg. 1391 J.3.b scientifically or technically incorrect. Appellants are required to demonstrate better methodologies, assumptions, or data exists in support of their position(s), and must also submit competent alternative analyses or data used to develop new or different flood hazard information on the preliminary flood map with their appeal package. A Comment is an objection to a Base Map Feature Modification or Addition, Update to the Flood Insurance Study Report materials, or any other non -appealable proposed change. Comments usually involve changes to subject matter such as road locations and street names, corporate limits, or other similar base map features. A person making a comment should submit a map or other materials showing more up-to-date information regarding such features. Once all appeals and comments are addressed, FEMA will issue a "Letter of Final Determination" to the county's local governments announcing that FEMA's new maps will become effective in six months. Note that by that six-month effective date, federal law requires that the county's local governments must have enacted an ordinance that adopts FEMA's new flood maps; if not, that local government community will be suspended from the federal National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and certain federal aid will no longer be available to that community. The unavailability of federal flood insurance may impact real estate transactions. This last phase ("post -preliminary map release") can take up to two years or more, depending upon the number of appeals and comments filed. The following timeline demonstrates the process: Figural, PPP Tanefine C ICAmror�im°A,arrra ,a /e FPP and ' d6ia bad COMMWA9 Packet Pg. 1392 x� , To reflect current flood risks, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is updating the nation's Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) using the latest data -gathering and mapping technology. New FIRMs are being issued nationwide. When the new FIRMs take effect, some residents and business owners will learn that their properties' flood risks have changed and that their homes or buildings are now shown in high -risk areas. Such zones are known as Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) and are noted on FIRMs as zones beginning with the letters "A" or W." In these zones, property owners with mortgages from federally regulated or insured lenders are required to purchase flood insurance. Other property owners will learn that the Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) for their properties have increased. These changes also could result in higher flood insurance premiums. As an insurance professional, it is important for you to know the best option for your client. Jwpa[ttM oa UNU 5h; When flood map changes occur, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) provides a lower -cost flood insurance rating option known as "grandfathering." It is available for property owners who: • Already have flood insurance policies in effect when the new flood maps become effective and then maintain continuous coverage; or Have built in compliance with the FIRM in effect at the time of construction. While grandfathering typically will provide cost savings to a property owner when the new FIRM takes effect, there may be cases when using the rating based on elevation will result in lower premiums. So both options should always be evaluated. Timing is important as owners of most pre -FIRM buildings (built before the first flood map became effective) have only one chance to grandfather and lock in the existing zone for future rating. For a pre -FIRM property in a high -risk area that is mapped into a higher -risk zone (e.g., Zone AE to Newly Mapped into the Zone VE), the last chance SFHA Option to qualify for grandfathering is to buy or renew a policy Buildings newly mapped into before the new FIRM a high -risk flood area initially becomes effective. The same applies for a pre -FIRM property newly mapped into a high -risk area for the first time (e.g., Zone X to Zone AE or VE) that does not qualify for a Preferred Risk Policy (PRP) may be eligible for a lower - cost PRP rate in the year following a map change. However, premiums may increase up to 18 percent each year as part of the premium rate revisions put in place by the Homeowner flood Insurance Affordability Pict of 2014. If a building has been substantially damaged or improved, it is not eligible to be grandfathered to the FIRM in effect at the time of the building's original construction date. The FIRM in effect at the time of the last substantial improvement or damage must be used. MARCH 2O16 Packet Pg. 1393 J.3.c Below are conditions and examples of applying grandfather rules. Pre -FIRM (construction prior to the date of the community's initial FIRM or prior to January 1, 1975) • If a policy was obtained before the effective date of a map change, the policyholder is eligible to maintain the prior zone as long as continuous coverage is maintained. The policy can be assigned to a new owner at the option of the policyholder. o Example A: A house was built in 1974, and the community's first FIRM became effective in 1986. When the insured's policy was written, the structure was in Zone A. As a result of a 2014 FIRM revision, the new flood zone is Zone VE. As long as there was no interruption in coverage and there have been no substantial improvements or damage, the customer's policy can continue to be rated using pre -FIRM Zone A rates. o Example B: A house that was built in 1983 was mapped into Zone X in the community's first and only FIRM in 1984. In anticipation of the upcoming FIRM and the house being mapped into Zone A, the homeowner purchased a standard -rated policy (due to loss history, the building did not qualify for a PRP) 30 days before the new FIRM's effective date of November 1, 2014. Consequently, when the standard -rated Zone X policy comes up for renewal, it will be renewed using Zone X standard rates. At subsequent renewals, coverage must be continuously maintained in order to keep using the Zone X rates. • If a policy was obtained prior to a FIRM revision but then the building was substantially improved, the building must be re -rated using the FIRM in effect at the time that the substantial improvement occurred. o Example: A house was built in 1968, and the community's first FIRM was in 1976. When the insured's policy was written, the pre -FIRM structure was in Zone AE. As a result of a 2009 map revision, the new flood zone is Zone VE. In 2014, the property owner completely renovated the building. As a result, grandfathering is not an option. The property owner will be required to use the Zone VE rates, and the year of construction will change to 2014. The building must be rated as post -FIRM. Pre -FIRM Exception: If the community's first FIRM was effective priorto January 1, 1975, and a building has not been substantially damaged or improved since its original construction, the rates can be based on the FIRM zone and/or the BFE on the FIRM in effect at the time of construction (i.e., it can be treated like a post -FIRM structure) if construction is after the initial FIRM date but before January 1, 1975. In this case, proper documentation must be provided. In all other instances, new policies for pre -FIRM buildings must use the FIRM in effect when coverage is applied for. o Example: A small office building was built in 1974; the community's first FIRM was 1971. The building is located in Zone B, behind a levee. In 2011, a new FIRM becomes effective showing the levee as no longer providing the required protection ("de -accredited"), placing the structure into Zone AE. The property owner decides not to purchase flood insurance as there is no mortgage on the building. Three years later, the building is sold and the new owner's lender requires flood insurance. Even though the building is technically classified as a pre -FIRM structure, Zone B can be grandfathered for rating as there was a FIRM in effect at the time of construction (see Post -FIRM below). Packet Pg. 1394 J.3.c Post -FIRM (construction on or after the date of the community's initial FIRM) Post -FIRM buildings have two opportunities to have a previous zone or BFE grandfathered. The simplest way to do this, and to avoid having to provide additional documentation, is the continuous coverage option. When a policy is obtained before the effective date of a map change, the prior zone and BFE can be used for rating as long as continuous coverage is maintained (Example A). If coverage is not purchased before the new effective date of a FIRM, a building still can be grandfather -rated by providing the proper documentation to show it was built in compliance as of the date of construction (as long as there has been no substantial improvement or damage since its construction; Example B). In either example, the policy can be assigned to a new owner at the option of the policyholder. o Example A (Continuous Coverage): In 1986, a house was built in an Unnumbered Zone A with no estimated BFE. The community's first FIRM was issued in 1978. There was no mortgage on this post -FIRM building, and the property owner did not purchase flood insurance initially. In 1994, the zone changed to Zone AE with a BFE of 10 feet. The property owner applied for a loan soon afterward, and the lender required flood insurance on the building. The owner applied for insurance, and an Elevation Certificate submitted with the Flood Insurance Application indicated that the lowest floor was constructed at the current BFE. The policy was issued using the new FIRM, because it provided a more favorable rate than the Unnumbered Zone A in effect when the house was built. In 2013, another map revision occurred, and the house remained in the Zone AE but the BFE increased to 11 feet. As long as there was no interruption in coverage and no substantial improvement or damage, the property owner's policy can continue to be rated using the BFE of 10 feet in Zone AE at each subsequent renewal. Example B (Built in Compliance): A small restaurant was built in 2001 in Zone AE. The community's first FIRM was in 1993 and was still in effect on the date of construction. The BFE was 10 feet on the 1993 FIRM, and the lowest floor elevation (LFE) was 11 feet, resulting in a +1 elevation difference for rating. A new FIRM for the community took effect in 2013. The building remained in Zone AE but the BFE became 12 feet, resulting in an elevation difference of-1 foot. Since the building had not been altered and was in compliance when constructed, it can continue using +1 elevation difference. Summary Rulles When a map change is approaching, it is important to remember that most pre -FIRM structures have only one opportunity to lock in the current flood zone for future rating' —before the new FIRMs take effect. The policy must then be renewed each year. The benefits of the grandfathered zone can be transferred to the new owner if the building is sold. Post -FIRM buildings have two chances to lock in the BFE and/or flood zone' —before the maps become effective or after the effective date, but with the proper documentation. Continuous coverage is not required. If, however, a building is substantially damaged or improved or if it was not built in compliance, grandfathering of previous zones or BFEs can no longer be applied. ' Buildings newly mapped into an SFHA that qualify for the PRP should be rated using the Newly Mapped procedure. Packet Pg. 1395 J.3.c The NFIP's grandfathering provision often offers premium savings to property owners. The examples below show how an agent can utilize a variety of cost -saving options available through the NFIP. To simplify the examples, potential annual premium increases were not applied to any of the premiums. Note that examples related to properties newly mapped into high -risk zones are not provided here, as those would use the Newly Mapped procedure. • Example 1: A home was constructed in 1974. The first (and current) FIRM took effect in 1984 and placed the home into Zone C. A new FIRM will become effective July 1, 2013, and the property will be mapped into Zone A. The home is considered to be a pre -FIRM building, and due to losses on a previous policy that is no longer in effect, it is not eligible for a PRP. If no standard -rated Zone X policy is purchased before the FIRM's effective date, the building will not qualify for grandfathering; a Zone A rate will be used and the annual premium will be $3,492. However, if a policy is purchased before July 1, 2013, the property will be eligible for grandfathering. By purchasing a policy before the maps become effective, the homeowner will pay $2,058. Compared to the non-grandfathered Zone A —rated premium, grandfathering results in savings of more than $1,400 a year • Example 2: A community's first FIRM was issued 7 years ago. A home was built a year later in Zone X. The original homeowner carried a PRP, but due to losses the building is no longer eligible for the PRP. Now, new FIRMs are being issued that will place it in a Zone AE. If the property owner purchases a policy using Zone X standard rates ($2,058), the building can be grandfathered using standard Zone X rates for subsequent years. NOTE: If the property owner purchases an Elevation Certificate after the new map takes effect and the survey indicates that the lowest floor is 2 feet above the BFE, then using the new map, the elevation rating would actually provide additional savings, as the rate for an elevation difference of +2 is only $735. So, by using the new FIRM information to rate, premiums will be less than half the grandfathered premium and the insured will save more than $1,300 a year. • Example 3: A home was built in Zone AE in 1995. The community's first FIRM was issued in 1991. The difference between BFE and LFE was +1 foot. When the new FIRMs took effect, the BFE increased 2 feet, so that the elevation difference is now -1 foot. The property received a notice requiring flood insurance and the premium calculated out to be $4,811. However, because it was a post -FIRM structure, it can be grandfathered using the previous BFE, resulting in a premium of $1,098 or a savings of more than $3,700 a year. Addlitionall Resources r The following are resources regarding map changes and grandfathering: • NFIP Help Desk: 1-800-427-4661 • Rating using the Grandfather Rule: fema.gov/flood-insurance-manual cm a • For information about effects of mapping changes and a status of mapping projects nationwide: Agents. FloodSmart.gov/mapupdates • NFIP's consumer site about flood insurance and PRP Eligibility Extension: FloodSmart.gov • View and print current and past (historic) flood maps for grandfathering: msc.fema.gov • For flood hazard mapping questions, contact the FEMA Map Information Exchange (FMIX): 1-877-336-2627 • For more information about FEMA's latest efforts in updating FIRMs: fema.gov/risk-mapping-assessment-planning • For more information on substantial damage and substantial improvements: fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=4160 2 Premiums are based on $200,000 in building coverage and $80,000 in contents, using minimum deductibles and April 2016 rates for a single-family residence, one floor, without a basement. Packet Pg. 1396 ■ �t r i I /1%: %%lr�j/ - rho iU JI , ,Y,1• rrrrr�/i �� •lf � (��l//%� mkt., %/r riiiii� /% r� .. ,. MNSAWNi., ti C� tX �+, p p atX i O �O v O G d " P. (L) > 4. �4. ` b o 4 V a V V� u o a0 0 b (L) b °o b b o M 7 b b o u f o 4 O' O 4 b O > c, , 4 u 0 tx p w .� u �„� � as 'o � � •� G ao ° Lr ? o p vi 0 u o 7 o u a °, a o o 4 0 0 0 b b G b a a o tx tx q ° ao b4 w tX b ao I � II bq G '3 tx c �. o�g�wb o o ° uu ° o b o m w ° a 0 u° G o ° 4 HPQ o H w 0 G o W wl �a w1 w PqI Co CD M r Cl a m m a c _InB n _� m n•_�dm m_n ©w d:wall m_mm _po m _lS m_m mVI W� m § \ \ LLI LLI CD LU _�a2 ®Im - CD - %A \ U V Lu - \ z / § .. LLI \ \ � \ , /It �§� »a \\ LU N§§ �w� c/Lu 0 � WA 2 � t^ cr LU LU Ez2 � 0 0 0 0 Q. Lei _ w U � 1\ w\i. r,y-EQ �2( ><E� �[ƒ > f) »2 r,y- n a � �) � (\ ry— O )/ � % 2 % # �\\ �\ ` ® � ~ � Ln-, p -===----=7--- Li-i)\ �aa 3®r � m:< o ■-_ \)E0 o ■ ■ \\ § � - 'a �`7 E k - -, 2 �o ° _ k \\ a ■% rn -a §�f /2 Co (suolleln6ab auozpoolj pue ss83oJd uol;dopy uolslnab deW le3lsALid :wall uolssn3sla) aimpoi8 sdalS uollenal3 WSVI :;uawy3elly N z O LJJ LU LU - - - - o, C _ - - _ - E " - - E o - E E �' o O= E tn °' C w V E o - o, cc G o E v- - = L - LL o_= N ._ cc Y E m- o Lu CC _ O 3- tn 3 w 2- E ;K .- - E - C= E J W v 3 - a W ZLLI E o - o -> Z- W > f V Z - W Y o- - o -- v- z= 0 ;EE - m a o- _ o Z _LLI w E E - LL¢ A- J �, E o2 ........................................................................................................................................ A OV ............ z O Q z L.LJ L.LJ J r m J.3.f AppealsAppeals and Comments Submitted by Communities and Preliminary. Maps and for Property Owners in ECCFL Study -Reports Area Must Be Supported by Data -$ East Coast Cenfral.F.I.orida tudy and Documentation This Fact Sheet provides technical Area.- Supportin.g.Data.. information regarding the supporting data and documentation that community officials Documenfation. and others must submit during the appeal period to request changes to the information shown on a Preliminary FIRM Introduction and Background and/or FIS report developed as part of a FEMA coastal flood risk study for the ECCFL Study Area. The following are key terms In support of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the Federal pertinent to this process: Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has completed a coastal flood • Appeal- A formal objection to FEMA's proposed flood hazard determinations risk study for the East Coast Central Florida (ECCFL) Study Area. Based submitted by the community CEO, FPA, on the results of the study, FEMA has released Preliminary versions of the or other community official designated Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRMS) and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) by the CEO during the 90-day appeal period. reports for Brevard, Indian River, Martin, and St. Lucie Counties and Proposed Road Hazard informationin associated products displaying proposed flood hazard information. Coastal,StudyAreas- New or revised Base Flood Elevations, Special Flood When flood hazard information is proposed through the issuance of a Hazard Areas, other flood hazard areas, Preliminary FIRM and FIS report and associated products, FEMA provides flood insurance risk zone designations, community officials and property owners with an opportunity to review Primary Frontal Dune designations, and Limit of Moderate wave Action and comment on the products provided before they become effective and boundaries. request changes to the information shown. This statutorily required, Comment- A formal objection to formal review and comment period provided is referred to as the 90-day information that is not related to the proposed flood hazard determinations appeal period. submitted by the CEO, FPA, or other community official designated by the The type and amount of supporting data and/or documentation required CEO during the appeal period. will vary based on the type of appeal or comment that is submitted. This Comments would include changes to Fact Sheet clarifies the data and documentation requirements that road names and configurations, corporate limits boundaries, and community officials and/or property owners must meet to submit a valid requests that changes effected by appeal or comment and obtain a change to the information shown on the Letter of Map Change be incorporated. Preliminary FIRMS and/or FIS reports for the ECCFL Study Area. EffeetiveFIRM and FIS Report -The version of the FIRM and FIS report that Supporting Data and Documentation for reflect the final results of the FEMA study and that are used for Appeals administering NFIP flood insurance and floodplain management requirements. Additional information regarding the coastal A valid appeal must be based on data and documentation which flood risk study process is provided on the demonstrate that the proposed flood hazard information shown on a FIRM FEMA Coastal Analysis and Mapping web and/or in an FIS report are scientifically incorrect or technically incorrect. Portal at ww.r;. o� .iitfig.eastc..oar�t a.l.rTi.a:.Ir.;.c:;()rr:. The distinction between scientifically incorrect and technically incorrect is important because of the differences in the types and amounts of data that a community (or a private appellant through the community) must submit to RiskMAP demonstrate one versus the other. Definitions of those terms are provided later in this document. increasing Resilience Together September 2017 https://www.fema.gov/risk-mapping-assessment-and-planning-risk-map • 1-877 Packet Pg. 1401 Page 2 Supporting Data and Documentation for Appeals and Comments First, however, it is appropriate to discuss the meaning information was incorrect because better methodologies Or of the word correct as it applies to the flood hazard information. The flood hazard information presented on the FIRM and in the FIS report is the result of engineering methodologies and computer models that were used by the FEMA-led ProjectTeam. Because numerous models and methodologies have been developed for determining flood elevations and flood hazard boundaries, the Project Team used their professional judgment in selecting models and methodologies that were appropriate for the study area. For the coastal flood risk study for the ECCFL Study Area and other coastal studies in the Southeastern U.S., the Project Teams used the models below. The Advanced Circulation model (ADCIRC) is a computer program for solving time -dependent water levels and currents in two dimensions. Input to the ADCIRC model include tides and winds that simulate tropical or extratropical events. The model is built on detailed topographic, bathymetric, and land -use data. The Simulating WAves Nearshore (SWAN) model is used to simulate waves including those that are generated from landfalling hurricanes, tropical storms, and other meteorological events. The Wave Height Analysis for Flood Insurance Studies (WHAFIS) model uses representative transects to compute wave crest elevations in the study area. Transects are cross sections taken perpendicular to the shoreline that represent a segment of coast with similar characteristics. The WHAFIS model uses topographic data and other onsite conditions to develop the flood hazard areas presented on FIRMS. In general, because the methodologies are the result of attempts to reduce complex physical processes to mathematical models, the methodologies may include simplifying assumptions. As is usual for FEMA coastal studies, methodologies were applied to the affected study area using data developed specifically for the project and specifically for the study area. Therefore, the results of the methodologies are affected by the amount of data collected and the precision of any measurements made. Because of the judgments and assumptions that were made, the correctness of the flood hazard information is often a matter of degree, rather than absolute. For that reason, an appellant who contends that the flood hazard could have been used, better assumptions could have been made, or better data could have been used must provide alternative analyses that incorporate such methodologies, assumptions, or data. The appellant must quantify the effect on the flood hazard information presented on the Preliminary FIRM and in the Preliminary FIS report. The data and documentation required to support various types of appeals are discussed below. Scientifically Incorrect Flood Elevations and/or Floodplain Boundaries The flood elevations and floodplain boundaries shown on the Preliminary FIRM are said to be scientifically incorrect if the methodology/model(s) used in the determination of the elevations and/or boundaries is inappropriate or incorrect, or if the assumptions made as part of using the methodology/model(s) are inappropriate or incorrect. An appeal that is based on the flood elevations or floodplain boundaries being scientifically incorrect would, therefore, contend that the use of a different methodology/model or different assumptions would produce more accurate results. To show that an inappropriate or incorrect coastal methodology has been used, a successful appellant must submit the following data as appropriate for the appeal: New coastal analyses based on the alternative methodology and original stillwater flood elevations, which are the projected elevations that floodwaters would assume in the absence of waves resulting from wind effects; 11111 Explanation for the superiority of the alternative methodology/model; Revised Flood Profiles, Transect Data Table, and/or Summary of Stillwater Elevations Table for the FIS report as applicable; and/or Revised 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundary delineations and/or 0.2-percent-annual- chance floodplain boundary delineations as appropriate. P 0 dskMAP Increasing Resilience Together September 201.7 https://www.fema.gov/risk-mapping-assessment-and-planning-risk-map • 1- Packet Pg. 1402 Page 3 Supporting Data and Documentation for Appeals and Comments Revised floodplain boundaries must be delineated on a Data believed to be better than the data used in the topographic map with a scale and contour internal that coastal analysis performed by the Project Team; U) meets FEMA standards. Documentation for the source of the new data; 0 Technically Incorrect Flood Elevations and or Floodplain Boundaries The flood elevations and floodplain boundaries shown on the Preliminary FIRM are said to be technically incorrect if at least one of the following is true: The methodology or models used for the study were not applied correctly. The methodology or models used for the study were based on insufficient or poor -quality data. The application of the methodology or models included indisputable mathematical or measurement errors. The methodology or models used for the study did not account for the effects of physical changes that have occurred in the floodplain. Appeals Based on Contention "/hatMethorlolo,;,1, Has Not Been Applied f orrcct/tr To show that a coastal methodology was not applied correctly, an appellant would have to submit the following: New coastal analysis in which the methodology (i.e., ADCIRC model, SWAN model, WHAFIS model) used by the Project Team has been applied differently; Revised Summary of Stillwater Elevations Table; Revised 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundary delineations; and Revised 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundary delineations (if such boundaries are shown on the Preliminary FIRM for the flooding source in question). Revised floodplain boundaries must be delineated on a topographic map with a scale and contour interval that meets FEMA standards. Appeals Tried on Contention That Insz��fic:ient or Poor- qua itg7 Meteorohe , is a Data Were Used To show that insufficient or poor -quality meteorological data were used, an appellant would have to submit the following: Explanation for the improvement resulting from use of the new data; New coastal analysis based on the new data; New Summary of Stillwater Elevations Table; New Transect Data Table; Revised 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundary delineations; and Revised 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundary delineations (if such boundaries are shown on the Preliminary FIRM for the flooding source in question). Revised floodplain boundaries must be delineated on a topographic map with a scale and contour interval that meets FEMA standards. Appeals Based on Contention '/hatAnatysis Contains Indisputable Errors To show that a mathematical error was made, the appellant must identify the error. FEMA will then perform any required calculations and make the necessary changes to the FIRM, FIS report, and/or associated products. To show that a measurement error (e.g., an incorrect surveyed elevation used in the study) was made, the appellant must identify the error and provide the correct measurement. Any new survey data provided by the appellant must be certified by a Registered Professional Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. FEMA will then perform any required calculations and make the necessary changes to the FIRM, FIS report, and/or associated products. Appeals of Primary Frontal Dune Delineations in CoastalAreas The Project Team determined that a Primary Frontal Dune (PFD) exists in certain parts of the study area. A PFD is a continuous or nearly continuous mound or ridge of sand with relatively steep seaward and landward P 0 dskMAP Increasing Resilience Together September 201.7 https://www.fema.gov/risk-mapping-assessment-and-planning-risk-map • 1- Packet Pg. 1403 Page 4 Supporting Data and Documentation for Appeals and Comments slopes immediately landward and adjacent to the beach. the area inundated by the I -percent- annual -chance, 1.5- The PFD is subject to erosion and overtopping from high foot breaking wave. See the figure below. tides and waves during major coastal storms. The Project Team analyzed the dune to show how it will be affected by the I -percent -annual -chance storm surge (i.e., the rise in water level associated with the passage of a major storm such as ahurricane) and wave hazards. The analysis considered whether the dune is large enough to survive a storm of this magnitude and estimated the extent of erosion expected during the storm. The Project Team also performed analyses to estimate the flooding expected landward of the eroded dune. The landward toe of a PFD is located at the point where there is a distinct change from a relatively steep slope to a relatively mild slope. The VE zone, also known as the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), was extended inland to the landward toe of the PFD toe. The CHHA is the area affected by high -velocity waves that are 3 feet or higher. To change the delineation of the PFD, the appellant must submit the following: 111111 Written description of suggested changes to PFD mapping; Topographic data for the PFD area; Cross -shore survey transects of the PFD; and Revised mapping of the PFD. Appeals of Lit -nit of Moderate Wave Action Delineations in CoastalAreas Another feature that only appears on FIRMS affected by coastal flood hazards is the Limit of Moderate Wave Action (LiMWA). The LiMWA marks the inland limit of The LiMWA is provided on the FIRM, for informational purposes, because these moderate waves can cause significant damage to structures; the damage would not be as severe as the damage caused by the I -percent - annual -chance, 3-foot breaking waves that occur in the CHHA. To change the delineation of the LiMWA, the appellant must submit the following: Written description of suggested changes to the LiMWA; Topographic data for the LiMWA area; Wave modeling or other wave data analysis showing changes in the LiMWA; and Revised mapping of the LiMWA. Appeals of Floodplain Boundary Delineations Based on Newer or More Detailed'ropographic or Elevation Data The Project Team made every effort to use the most accurate and up-to-date topographic data available in delineating the floodplain boundaries in areas studied by detailed methods. However, if topographic maps or other ground elevation data that are of greater detail than those used by the Project Team or that show more recent topographic conditions are available, FEMA will use those dataa to revise the floodplain boundaries shown on the FIRM. P 0 dskMAP Increasing Resilience Together September 203.7 https://www.fema.gov/risk-mapping-assessment-and-planning-risk-map • 1- Packet Pg. 1404 J.3.f The approximate floodplain boundaries shown on the Preliminary FIRM were delineated using the best available data. If more detailed data or analyses are available, FEMA would use the submitted data or analyses to revise the floodplain boundary delineations. Such data and analyses would include the following: 11111 Published flood maps that are more recent or more detailed than those used by FEMA; and Analyses that are more detailed than those performed by the Project Team or that are based on better data than those used by the Project Team. All maps and other supporting data provided by the appellant must be certified by a Registered Professional Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor and must reflect existing conditions. Maps prepared by an authoritative source, such as a Federal agency (e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation) or a State department of highways or transportation, are acceptable without certification as long as the sources and dates of the maps are identified. For appeal submittals that involve topographic data, the following additional guidelines must be followed: The data must be submitted in a digital Geographic Information System (GIS) format. The appeal must clearly state which flooding source(s) are the subject of the appeal. Updated 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundaries, in digital GIS format. All topographic data must adhere to the current FEMA data capture standards for such data. The appellant must provide a data sharing agreement, when necessary. Supporting Data and Documentation for Comments Challenges of the Preliminary FIRM and/or FIS report submitted during the 90-day appeal period that do not relate to new or modified flood hazard information are considered comments. Comments include, but are not Corporate limit changes; Road name and configuration changes; Requests that changes effected by Letter of Map Change — i.e., Letter of Amendment (LOMA), Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR-F), or Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) — be incorporated; Base map errors; or Other possible omissions or potential improvements to the mapping. The data and documentation that must be submitted to support comments are discussed below. Impacts of Changes in a Hoodplain 'rhat Were Not Submitted Previously to FEMA As noted in 5y,ec %can6,,5 3. of the NFIP regulations, the flood elevations in a community may increase or decrease as a result of physical changes affecting flooding conditions. Therefore, as soon as practicable, but not later than 6 months after the date such information becomes available, the community is to notify FEMA of the changes by submitting technical or scientific data in accordance with Fail 6.5 of the NFIP ........................................... regulations. For comments based on the effects of physical changes that have occurred in the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain, appellants must identify the changes that have occurred and provide the data FEMA needs to perform a revised analysis. Required data might include the following: Topographic maps; Grading plans; 111111 New stream channel and floodplain cross sections; or 111111 Dimensions of structures. Corporate Lit -nit Changes The corporate limits shown on the Preliminary FIRM were taken from community maps or other authoritative source materials obtained by the Project Team from limited to, the following: community officials or other non -Federal sources, which Impacts of changes that have occurred in the must meet FEMA criteria, or U.S. Geological Survey CL floodplain that should have previously been submitted in accordance with Section 65.3 of the NFIP regulations; Pds,kl%4AP = Increasing Resilience Together 0 September 201.7 https://www.fema.gov/risk-mapping-assessment-and-planning-risk-map • 1- Packet Pg. 1405 J.3.f Digital Orthophoto Quadrangles. The Project Team used the Digital Orthophoto Quadrangles where community base map data either were not submitted or did not meet FEMA criteria. If a community submits a comment to change the corporate limits shown on the FIRM, the community CEO, FPA, or other designated official must submit appropriate updates to the previously provided base map data or a geospatially accurate map that can be considered for revising the digital base map. Road Name and Configuration Changes On the preliminary version of the FIRM, the Project Team shows all roads that are in or adjacent to the mapped I -percent- annual -chance floodplain. If a community or individual appellant chooses to submit a comment to change the locations and names of roads in or adjacent to the mapped I -percent-annual- chance floodplains, the community CEO, FPA, or other designated official must submit appropriately registered maps or updates to the community -supplied base map data showing the names and locations of the new or revised roads. Changes to Incorporate Effective Letters of Map Change As part of the development of the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report, the Project Team incorporates all mappable amendments and revisions that were effected by FEMA through the issuance of LOMAs, LOMR-Fs, and LOMRs. To request that the results of an effective, mappable LOMA, LOMR-F, or LOMR be reflected on the FIRM and/or in the FIS report in the area where new or modified flood hazard information has been proposed, the CEO, FPA, or other designated community official must submit a written request indicating the case number and effective date of the LOMA, LOMR-F, or LOMR and/or a written request transmitting a copy of the LOMA, LOMR-F, or LOMR. Changes to Correct Base Map Errors To support a request that FEMA correct an error in the base map used for the FIRM, the community must submit appropriate updates to the previously provided base map data or a geospatially accurate map that can be considered for revising the digital base map. General Technical Guidance When developing technical support data or documentation, appellants need to consider the information below. Unless appeals are based on indisputable mathematical or measurement errors or the effects of physical changes that have occurred in the floodplain, they must be accompanied by all data that FEMA needs to revise the Preliminary FIRM panel(s) and FIS report materials. Therefore, for coastal flood hazard areas, appellants should be prepared to perform coastal analyses and to provide revised floodplain boundary delineations as necessary. New flood hazard information cannot be added to a FIRM panel in such a way as to create mismatches with the flood hazard information shown for adjacent FIRM panels. Therefore, in performing new analyses and developing revised flood hazard information, appellants must use good engineering judgment to tie the new flood elevations and floodplain boundaries into the new flood elevations and floodplain boundaries into those shown on FIRM panel(s) for areas that are not affected by the appeal. For appeals involving new coastal surge values, extensive changes in hydraulic conditions, or complex situations in which changes made to the flood hazard information developed for one flooding source will affect the flood hazard information developed for others, appellants may be required to provide new information for a large portion of the mapped area. All analyses and data submitted by appellants, including those that show mathematical or measurement errors, must be certified by a Registered Professional Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor, as appropriate. Appeals and comments cannot be based on the effects of proposed projects or future conditions. If coastal storm surge analyses are performed, they must be performed for the same recurrence interval floods as those performed for the study. P 0 ds,kl%4AP Increasing Resilience Together September 201.7 https://www.fema.gov/risk-mapping-assessment-and-planning-risk-map • 1- Packet Pg. 1406 Page 7 Supporting Data and Documentation for Appeals and Comments Unless appeals are based on the use of alternative The community CEO, FPA, or other community models or methodologies, the coastal analyses that official designated by the CEO should submit such appellants submit must be performed using the coastal models used by the Project Team. The analysis methods used to study coastal flooding sources are documented in Section 5.3 of the Preliminary FIS report. Information on the models used for the analysis of the hazards associated with coastal storm surge and wave action, including wave height and wave runup, are documented in Section 5.3 of the Preliminary FIS report. As required by Eq. g;p,gRh 6� of the NFIP regulations, when appeals are based on the use of an alternative hydrologic or hydraulic model, the appellant must show that several conditions have been met. The model used must have been reviewed and accepted for general use by a Federal agency responsible for floodplain identification or regulation or a notable scientific body. The model has been well documented (with a user's manual that includes source codes). The model must be available to all present and future parties affected by the FIRM that has been developed or amended through the use of the model. If appeals involve changing the floodplain boundaries shown on the Preliminary FIRM, the appellant is required to submit delineations of both the 1- and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundaries because both 1- and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundary delineations are shown on the Preliminary FIRM. Community officials may request that FEMA provide them with copies of the input and output data from the model(s) used by the Project Team or copies of other calculations or analyses performed by the Project Team. requests, in writing, to the attention of Mark A. Viera, the FEMA Coastal Flood Risk Study Lead, at the address below. Federal Emergency Management Agency Mitigation Division 3003 Chamblee Tucker Road Atlanta, GA 30341 For More Information Technical questions regarding the appeal process in general, and the coastal flood risk study for the ECCFL Study Area in particular, can be sent via email to Mark A. Viera, the FEMA Coastal Flood Risk Study Lead, at ln;arl. vlc;pa(cr),f i:na.cl.hs.g ay. For more information on the coastal flood risk study for the ECCFL Study Area, please visit www.soar�heas coas�ali:ns��s.oi:n/��ac/�.�ac>ie,� .coas� crrr~a,l;ral floaic3a.aspx.. P 0 ds,kl%4AP Increasing Resilience Together September 201.7 https://www.fema.gov/risk-mapping-assessment-and-planning-risk-map • 1- Packet Pg. 1407 Guidancefor !!1 Risk Analysis and Mapping Appeal 1 Comment ProcessinO J.3.g Packet Pg. 1408 Requirements for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Risk Mapping. Assessment, and Planning (Risk MAP) Program are specified separately bvstatute, regulation, or FEMA policy (primarily the Standards for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping). This document provides guidance to support the requirements and recommends approaches for effective and efficient implementation. Alternate approaches that comply with all requirements are acceptable. For more informadom, please visit the FEMA Guidelines and Standards for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping VV8bp@g8 . Copies Of the Standards for Flood Risk AO2|ySiS and Mapping policy, [8|2t8d gu|danoe, technical referenoeo, and other information about the guidelines and standards development process are all available here. You can also search directly by document title at Appeal and Comment Processing Guidance Document 26 February2018 Page J.3.g The following summary of changes details revisions to this document subsequent to its most recent version in May 2017. Affected Section or Subsection Date Description Minor language updates to clarify a current process that has February not changed. Figure 1 PPP Timeline, Figure 2 Appeal and Sections 3, 8, 8.1 2018 Comment Resolution Overview, Figure 3 Determining if a Second Appeal Period Is Required, and Figure 4 SRP Process Chart have also had minor revisions. Appeal and Comment Processing Guidance Document 26 February 2018 Page ii Packet Pg. 1410 J.3.g 1.0 Introduction...........................................................................................................................1 2.0 Post -Preliminary Processing Timeline..................................................................................1 3.0 Determining if an Appeal Period is Required........................................................................3 4.0 Appeal Period Initiation.........................................................................................................3 5.0 Appeal and Comment Classification.....................................................................................4 6.0 Tracking and Archiving of Incoming Appeals and Comments...............................................6 6.1 Tracking.............................................................................................................................6 6.2 Archiving............................................................................................................................6 7.0 Evaluation of Data Submitted................................................................................................7 7.1 Mathematical or Measurement Error or Changed Physical Condition...............................7 7.2 Technically Incorrect..........................................................................................................8 7.3 Scientifically Incorrect........................................................................................................9 7.4 Flooding Sources Studied by Approximate Methods.......................................................10 7.5 Topographic Data............................................................................................................10 8.0 Appeal and Comment Resolution Process.........................................................................11 8.1 Determine if a Second Appeal Period is Required..........................................................15 9.0 Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP).......................................................................................17 9.1 SRP Process...................................................................................................................17 9.2 Supporting an SRP Evaluation........................................................................................ 20 9.3 SRP Outcomes and Recommendations..........................................................................20 Figure1. PPP Timeline.................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Appeal and Comment Resolution Overview...................................................................12 Figure 3. Determining if a Second Appeal Period Is Required......................................................16 Figure4. SRP Process Chart.........................................................................................................18 Figure5. SRP Timeline..................................................................................................................19 Table 1: Appeal vs. Comment..........................................................................................................5 Table 2: Appeal and Comment Resolution Procedures.................................................................13 Appeal and Comment Processing February 2018 Guidance Document 26 Page iii Packet Pg. 1411 J.3.g 1.0 Introduction This document provides the standard procedures that staff from the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), FEMA contractors, and other organizations that partner with FEMA are to follow for processing new and revised Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports and a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Specifically, this document provides guidance on appeal and comment processing procedures that occur during the Post -Preliminary Processing (PPP) phase of a Flood Risk Project or Physical Map Revision (PMR), or following a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) issuance, as related to Title 44, Chapter 1, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 67 and 42 U.S. Code § 4104(a)-(g) for flood hazard determinations. For those seeking to submit an appeal to FEMA, additional detail on the criteria for appealing proposed changes in flood hazard information on FIRMs may be found in FEMA's Criteria for Appeals of Flood Insurance Rate Maps. 2.0 Post -Preliminary Processing Timeline Figure 1 depicts the overall PPP timeline of Flood Risk Projects or PMRs to demonstrate where appeal and comment processing occurs. For LOMRs, appeal and comment processing occurs following the LOMR issuance and prior to the LOMR effective date. Appeal and Comment Processing Guidance Document 26 February 2018 Page 1 Packet Pg. 1412 CP Ci gigillpic 1� ill, a d, 0) 0 2 co CN E E E 0 = C) 0 0 Co C-) co a a) cu 0 J.3.g Detailed guidance on Key Decision Points (KDPs) and Quality Reviews (QRs) may be found in Key Decision Point (KDP) Process Guidance and Quality Management for Flood Risk Projects Guidance documents, respectively, at rrr.f:irna,.ggy�gm:j�-lllilk�ir�ir. 3.0 Determining if an Appeal Period is Required The National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) authorizes FEMA to conduct Flood Risk Projects, PMRs, and LOMRs and prepare FIS reports, FIRMs and FIRM databases to identify and update flood risk zones and estimate the risk premium rates. Under the NFIA, FEMA must provide communities with a 90-day appeal period when FEMA proposes new or modified Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) for a community. Under the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, FEMA must also provide communities with a 90-day appeal period when FEMA designates new or modified base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs), and regulatory floodways for a community. The designated Mapping Partner must determine if communities within a Flood Risk Project, PMR, or LOMR should be afforded a statutory 90-day appeal period. An appeal period is provided for all new or modified flood hazard information shown on a FIRM, including when: • New BFEs or base flood depths are proposed or currently effective BFEs or base flood depths are modified; • New SFHAs are proposed or the boundaries of currently effective SFHAs are modified; • New SFHA zone designations are proposed or currently effective SFHA zone designations are modified; • New regulatory floodways are proposed or the boundaries of currently effective floodways are modified. Scenarios where an appeal period is required for a community that is part of a Flood Risk Project or PMR are provided in FEMA's Post -Preliminary Due Process Guidance document. Designated Mapping Partners should identify if data or information submitted during the comment period, or otherwise outside of an appeal period, has resulted in any warranted changes to flood hazard information since preliminary issuance. If so, a revised preliminary issuance of the modified FIRM panels and/or FIS Report to all communities determined by the Region and Mapping Partner to be impacted by the flood hazard information change is necessary prior to the start of an appeal period. Users should refer to FEMA's Preliminary Distribution and Revised Preliminary Guidance document. 4.0 Appeal Period Initiation Following a preliminary or revised preliminary release, communities impacted by a Flood Risk Project or PMR are provided a 30-day comment period in which they can comment on the new or revised FIRM and FIS Report. Per FEMA Standard Identification Number 622, the Flood Risk Project team will work with the FEMA Regional Office of External Affairs, other FEMA staff, community officials, and local radio and television outlets to further educate property owners about flood map revisions and the appeals process. Additionally, following a preliminary or revised preliminary release and the initial 30-day comment period, a statutory 90-day appeal period is provided to the communities based on the criteria identified in the section above. Some Appeal and Comment Processing February 2018 Guidance Document 26 Page 3 Packet Pg. 1414 J.3.g Regions may choose to provide an additional comment period to those communities not eligible for the statutory 90-day appeal period. If it is determined that communities within the Flood Risk Project or PMR require an appeal period, a series of steps must be taken before the appeal period can be initiated. Detailed information on initiating an appeal period for Flood Risk Projects or PMRs may be found in FEMA's Post -Preliminary Due Process Guidance. In some situations, a second appeal period may be required. This is discussed further in Section 8.1 of this document as part of the appeal and comment resolution process. Upon completing a LOMR, the designated Mapping Partner will issue the LOMR and enclosures to the community Chief Executive Officer (CEO), or designee, with copies to the other community officials and the revision requester for review and comment. For LOMRs not requiring a statutory 90-day appeal period, the community will receive a 30-day review period. A statutory 90-day appeal period is provided to the communities based on the criteria identified in the section above. The LOMR issuance and the proposed flood hazard determination letter sent to start the appeal period are sent at the same time. Any LOMR in a community already compliant with the necessary requirements outlined in 44 CFR Section 60.3 that requires an appeal period will become effective 120 days from the second newspaper publication date. LOMRs in communities that are not currently compliant with the necessary requirements outlined in 44 CFR Section 60.3, or in communities that require adoption of the LOMR, will become effective following a 6-month compliance period. For additional information on initiating an appeal period for a LOMR, users should refer to FEMA's Document Control Procedures Manual. 5.0 Appeal and Comment Classification The data and information provided by communities during a Flood Risk Project, PMR, or LOMR are classified as either a comment or an appeal and resolved by following the procedures discussed in this guidance. While FEMA considers all information and data submitted by a community throughout the Flood Risk Project, PMR, or LOMR lifecycle, the criteria for data submittals that classify as an appeal are outlined in Title 44, Chapter 1, CFR, Section 67.6(b) (44 CFR Section 67.6(b)) and in this document. The sole basis of appeal is the possession of knowledge or information indicating that the flood hazard determinations proposed by FEMA are scientifically or technically incorrect. Since scientific and technical correctness is often a matter of degree rather than absolute (except where mathematical or measurement error or changed physical conditions can be demonstrated), appellants are required to demonstrate that alternative methods or applications result in more correct estimates of flood hazard determinations, thus, demonstrating that FEMA's estimates are incorrect. Classification of submitted data and information as either an appeal or a comment is dependent on the factors outlined in Table 1. Appeal and Comment Processing Guidance Document 26 February 2018 Page 4 Packet Pg. 1415 J.3.g II allblle '"I IIpIpedl vs, :�ui°°ui°°uiui°°ui°°iu iii it Appeals Comments Appellant is either the community or the owner or lessee of Submitter does not need to be the community a property, and the appellant believes their property rights or the owner or lessee of a property or believe have been impacted by the proposed changes. their property rights are impacted by the proposed changes. Data or information is received during statutory 90-day Data or information is received before or after appeal period. the statutory 90-day appeal period. Note: A submittal of data or information outside of the statutory 90-day appeal period or related to areas unrevised for the study is considered to be a comment, regardless of the type of data and documentation submitted. FEMA will review all such comments and resolve as appropriate. Data or information submitted relates to areas where the Data or information submitted relates to Flood Risk Project has introduced new or revised BFEs, proposed flood hazard changes that were not base flood depth, SFHA boundaries (including increases or introduced as a result of the Flood Risk Project decreases in the extent of the SFHA), SFHA zone or are unrelated to flood hazard determinations. designation, and regulatory floodway boundaries (including increases or decreases in the extent of the regulatory floodway). Analyses and data submitted are certified by a registered Analyses and data submitted are not certified professional engineer or licensed land surveyor, as by a registered professional engineer or appropriate, such as when providing supporting data of the licensed land surveyor when they otherwise new data necessary for FEMA to conduct a reanalysis when would be required per 44 CFR Section it is believed the proposed BFEs are technically incorrect due 67.6(b)(1) or 44 CFR Section 67.6(b)(2). to a mathematical or measurement error or changed physical conditions (44 CFR Section 67.6(b)(1)) or when alternate data utilized or measurements made (such as topographic information) are provided to demonstrate the proposed BFEs are technically incorrect due to error in application of hydrologic, hydraulic, or other methods or use of inferior data in applying such methods (44 CFR Section 67.6(b)(2)). • Data or information submitted identifies that the If data that would typically be classified as an proposed BFEs are technically incorrect due to a appeal are submitted outside of the statutory mathematical or measurement error or changed physical 90-day appeal period, or if data received during conditions. The specific source of the error is identified. the appeal period are determined to be Supporting data are furnished to FEMA necessary for incomplete, the data will be classified as a FEMA to conduct a reanalysis. comment. However, FEMA will fully assess all • Data or information submitted identifies that the information provided, regardless of when it was proposed flood hazard determinations are technically submitted, and resolve the comment as incorrect due to error in application of hydrologic, appropriate. hydraulic, or other methods or use of inferior data in applying such methods. • Data or information submitted identifies the proposed flood hazard determinations are scientifically incorrect. Appeal and Comment Processing February 2018 Guidance Document 26 Page 5 Packet Pg. 1416 J.3.g Although the statutory 90-day appeal period cannot be extended, FEMA will evaluate all data and information provided during a Flood Risk Project, PMR, or LOMR and resolve as appropriate, regardless of when it is received. Resolution may therefore not result in incorporation of the data or information provided. 6.0 Tracking and Archiving of Incoming Appeals and Comments Throughout a Flood Risk Project, PMR, or LOMR, impacted communities may provide data or information related to the study area to FEMA or the designated Mapping Partner. Information submitted by the public related to appeals must be sent directly to the community CEO. Comments also should be sent directly to the community CEO for consideration. The community should review and consolidate all appeals and issue a written opinion stating whether there is sufficient scientific and technical information to justify an appeal on behalf of the property owner or lessee. The community must forward all appeals and comments that it receives, along with its decision to appeal or not appeal on behalf of the property owner or lessee, to FEMA or the designated Mapping Partner such that it is received not later than 90 days after the appeal period start. 6.1 Tracking The Flood Risk Project or PMR team and designated Mapping Partner for LOMRs must track all incoming comment and appeal correspondence and acknowledgement and resolutions issued and include them as part of the final community Flood Elevation Determination Docket (FEDD) file. Each challenge submitted for a Flood Risk Project or PMR, including those under review by FEMA or the designated Mapping Partner and not yet classified as an appeal or comment, will be tracked through FEMA's Mapping Information Platform (MIP) "Record Appeal/Comment" task. The task contains information on the community that submitted the information, the type and status of the comment or appeal, basis for appeal, sufficient data received, date received, acknowledgement, and community contact dates. Information within this task will be updated as the comments and appeals are resolved. The "Record Appeal/Comment" MIP task should be updated by the Flood Risk Project or PMR team as soon as possible following the receipt of the appeal or comment, updated every month as the comment/appeal is resolved, and completed prior to KDP 5 submittal. The Flood Risk Project or PMR team will update the task throughout the lifecycle of the appeal or comment and will upload the data received, acknowledgement, and resolution letters through this task. For information on PPP deliverables to be uploaded to the MIP and the appropriate MIP tasks to complete during the due process purchase, please see the Data Capture Technical Reference and Post-Preliminary Deliverables Guidance documents. 6.2 Archiving All comments and related data received from communities during the 30-day comment period should be captured within the Feedback Data Capture MIP task. All data received from communities during the statutory 90-day appeal period should be uploaded to the MIP within the Record Appeal/Comment MIP task. For information on the PPP deliverables to be uploaded to the MIP and the appropriate MIP tasks to complete during the due process purchase, please Appeal and Comment Processing February 2018 Guidance Document 26 Page 6 Packet Pg. 1417 J.3.g see the Data Capture Technical Reference and Post -Preliminary Deliverables Guidance documents. All appeals and comments, including incoming submittals, acknowledgement letters, and resolution letters, should be archived and submitted as part of the FEDD file by the designated Mapping Partner in the MIP. Additional information on required correspondence documentation and final archiving may be found in FEMA's Technical Support Data Notebook and Flood Elevation Determination Docket Guidance document. 7.0 Evaluation of Data Submitted To assist FEMA in the evaluation of data submitted during a Flood Risk Project, PMR, or LOMR, the designated Mapping Partner should review and evaluate the submittal, determine if the data and information fit the criteria for a comment or appeal, request additional data or clarifications as appropriate, and recommend resolutions to FEMA for all appeals and comments submitted during the statutory 90-day appeal period as well as for any comments submitted outside of the statutory 90-day appeal period. The criteria for appeal data submittals are outlined in 44 CFR Section 67.6(b) and in this document. For those seeking to submit an appeal to FEMA, additional detail may be found in FEMA's Criteria for Appeals of Flood Insurance Rate Maps. It is recommended that evaluation and acknowledgement by FEMA occur in a timely manner as soon as the information is received, although resolution may not be achieved until after the statutory 90-day appeal period has ended and additional community consultation has occurred. The following sections provide an overview of what data are important to receive to properly assess an appeal. If the data or information are not received as part of the original submittal, FEMA, in coordination with the designated Mapping Partner, may choose to request additional information or clarification to properly review the data or information submitted during the 90-day appeal period. While FEMA may consider data and information for incorporation at any time throughout the Flood Risk Project, no new appeals will be accepted after the 90-day appeal period. 7.1 Mathematical or Measurement Error or Changed Physical Condition To determine if a mathematical or measurement error or changed physical conditions has occurred, the specific source of the error must be identified as per 44 CFR Section 67.6(b)(1). The following should be submitted: • Information or data to demonstrate the application of the methodology included indisputable mathematical or measurement errors. o To show that a mathematical error was made, an appellant must identify the error. FEMA will perform any required calculations and make the necessary changes to the FIS Report and FIRM. o To show that a measurement error (e.g., an incorrect surveyed elevation used in the Flood Risk Project) was made, appellants must identify the error and provide the correct measurement. Any new survey data must be certified by a registered Appeal and Comment Processing February 2018 Guidance Document 26 Page 7 Packet Pg. 1418 J.3.g professional engineer or licensed land surveyor. FEMA will perform any required calculations and make the necessary changes to the FIS Report and FIRM. • Information or data to demonstrate the methodology did not account for the effects of natural physical changes that have occurred in the floodplain. o For appeals based on the effects of natural physical changes that have occurred in the floodplain, appellants must identify the changes that have occurred and provide the data FEMA needs to perform a revised analysis. The data may include new stream channel and floodplain cross sections or coastal transects. 7.2 Technically Incorrect The proposed BFEs, base flood depths, SFHA zone designations, or regulatory floodways are considered technically incorrect if the methodology was not applied correctly or the methodology was based on insufficient or poor -quality data, as per 44 CFR Section 67.6(b)(2). 7.2.1 Methodology Not Applied Correctly To demonstrate that a hydrologic methodology was not applied correctly, the following should be submitted: • New hydrologic analysis in which the original methodology has been applied differently. • An explanation for superiority of the new application. • New hydraulic/floodway or coastal analysis based on flood discharge values from the new hydrologic analysis. • A revised summary of discharges table and/or flood profiles and, if applicable, Floodway Data Table (FDT). • Revised SFHA boundary delineations and, if applicable, regulatory floodway boundary delineations. To demonstrate that a hydraulic methodology was not applied correctly, the following should be submitted: • New hydraulic/floodway analysis, based on the original flood discharge values, in which the original methodology has been applied differently. • As applicable, revised Flood Profiles, FDT, and other FIS Report tables. • Revised SFHA boundary delineations and, if applicable, regulatory floodway boundary delineations. To demonstrate that a coastal methodology was not applied correctly, the following should be submitted: • New coastal analysis, based on the original stillwater elevations, in which the original methodology has been applied differently. • Revised SFHA boundary delineations and all applicable FIS Report tables, including the transect data table. Appeal and Comment Processing February 2018 Guidance Document 26 Page 8 Packet Pg. 1419 J.3.g 7.2.2 Methodology Based on Insufficient or Poor -Quality Data To demonstrate that insufficient or poor -quality hydrologic data were used, the following should be submitted: • Data believed to be better than those used in the original hydrologic analysis. • Documentation for the source of the data. • An explanation of the improvement resulting from use of the new data. • New hydrologic analysis based on the better data. • New hydraulic/floodway or coastal analysis based on flood discharge values resulting from the new hydrologic analysis. • A revised summary of discharges table, flood profiles and, if applicable, FDT. • Revised SFHA boundary delineations and, if applicable, regulatory floodway boundary delineations. To demonstrate that insufficient or poor -quality hydraulic data were used, the following should be submitted: • Data believed to be better than those used in the original hydraulic analysis. • Documentation for the source of the new data. • An explanation of the improvement resulting from use of the new data. • New hydraulic analysis based on the better data and the original flood discharge values. • Revised flood profiles and, if applicable, FDT. • Revised SFHA boundary delineations and, if applicable, regulatory floodway boundary delineations. To demonstrate that insufficient or poor -quality coastal analysis data were used, the following should be submitted: • Data believed to be better than those used in the original coastal analysis. • Documentation for the source of the new data. • An explanation for of the improvement resulting from use of the new data. • New coastal analysis based on the better data and the original stillwater elevation values. • Revised SFHA boundary delineations and all applicable FIS Report tables, including the transect data table. 7.3 Scientifically Incorrect Proposed BFEs, base flood depths, SFHA zone designations, or regulatory floodways are scientifically incorrect if the methodology used in the determination of the BFEs, base flood depths, SFHA zone designations, or regulatory floodways is inappropriate or incorrect, or if the assumptions made as part of the methodology are inappropriate or incorrect, as per 44 CFR Appeal and Comment Processing February 2018 Guidance Document 26 Page 9 Packet Pg. 1420 J.3.g Section 67.6(b)(3). To show that an inappropriate or incorrect coastal, hydraulic, or hydrologic methodology has been used, the following should be submitted, if applicable: • New hydrologic analysis based on an alternative methodology and, if applicable, updated hydraulic/floodway or coastal analyses based on the updated discharge values. • New hydraulic/floodway analysis based on an alternative methodology and the original flood discharge values (if the appeal does not involve the hydrologic analysis). • New coastal analyses based on an alternative methodology and the original stillwater elevations (if the appeal does not involve the hydrologic analysis). • An explanation for the superiority of an alternative methodology. • As applicable, a revised Summary of Discharges Table, flood profiles, transect data table, summary of stillwater elevations table, and FDT. • Revised SFHA zone boundaries and, if applicable, regulatory floodway boundary delineations. A list of hydrologic, hydraulic, and coastal models accepted by the National Flood Insurance g vrvr.:irm �rir�u.irrm,irii ill imj`Il irm::(.iiir�w. Proram is avai a e on s we site at yr ImiInilrnui (n-1r X� ,Alilr lrlE.Iir�ts-i"attioirC � °-fflo;��"liI --,-Ir InCE`�2r2gIr 7.4 Flooding Sources Studied by Approximate Methods Typically, where BFEs or base flood depths are not available, flood zone boundaries are delineated with the best available data, including flood maps published by other federal agencies, information on past floods, and simplified hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. If more detailed data or analyses are submitted, FEMA will use them to update the flood hazard information shown on the affected map panels. For appeals related to approximate SFHAs, the following should be submitted: • Published flood maps that are more recent or more detailed than those used by FEMA; • Analyses that are more detailed than those performed by FEMA or that are based on more detailed data than those used by FEMA; or • Topographic data that are more detailed and accurate than those used by FEMA, carried through to revised SFHA boundaries. 7.5 Topographic Data For submittals during the appeal period that involve topographic data, the following should be submitted: • The data, preferably in a digital geographic information system (GIS) format, should be 0 more detailed and/or accurate than the information used to develop the preliminary or @ revised preliminary FIRM products for the Flood Risk Project. The submitter should indicate when the topographic data was collected and the accuracy of the data. For example, more detailed and/or accurate topographic data submitted on its own may be considered an appeal if it was available prior to the release of the preliminary or revised E preliminary maps. Appeal and Comment Processing February 2018 Guidance Document 26 Page 10 Packet Pg. 1421 J.3.g • If topography was submitted as part of hydrologic, hydraulic, or coastal analysis to demonstrate that the study was scientifically or technically incorrect, refer to the above sections for data and information associated with that analysis. • The submittal should clearly state which flooding sources are being appealed, based on the more detailed and/or accurate topographic data. • Updated SFHA boundary delineations that reflect the submitted topographic data for each appealed flooding source should also be provided, preferably in digital GIS format. • All submitted topographic data should adhere to FEMA's current data capture standards for such data. • If necessary, a data sharing agreement should be provided. 8.0 Appeal and Comment Resolution Process Throughout a Flood Risk Project, PMR, or LOMR lifecycle, FEMA and the designated Mapping Partners work with local communities to resolve comments and appeals received prior to issuing a Letter of Final Determination (LFD) or a LOMR 116-L Letter. FEMA remains committed to the concept of community consultation for resolution in a less structured, cooperative format, which typically leads to agreement on the appropriate data. On occasions when community consultation cannot produce a mutually acceptable resolution and other qualifying conditions are met, a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) may be made available. The SRP process is discussed in Section 9 of this document. An overview of the community consultation appeal and comment resolution process is depicted in Figure 2. Appeal and Comment Processing Guidance Document 26 February 2018 Page 11 Packet Pg. 1422 gigillpic 1� ill, CP CM C-1) C14 a. 00 CN 4) C) CN o) IL co co LL 0) 0 2 co CN E E E 0 = C) 0 0 Co C-) co a cu 0 J.3.g Appeals and comments received during a Flood Risk Project, PMR, or the LOMR process should be acknowledged and resolved by FEMA, in coordination with the designated Mapping Partner and the communities, following the procedures below. Templates for appeal and comment acknowledgement and resolution letters are available at rvrvr.t .iama.ttttt /Irri :del -n Iul a Lc s"� .1s,Z u.Fir m .0!,p4 /3 I�. 6'?id=-7 III. Mapping Partners should coordinate directly with the !t rc_ _ _ _________________________________________ Region for Regional templates that may be available. Il allblle ZAIIpIpealll aui°uid tt :�uiui°°uiuiui°°iu Dui°°urt IIC°Zes : llluiu IIC""uirocedu'n.,uluires Task Steps • Acknowledgement by FEMA of the receipt of an appeal in writing, ensuring that acknowledged appeals include all the data discussed in prior sections of this guidance document. • Acknowledgement by FEMA of the receipt of comments. This can be done either in writing, by FEMA, or through a documented telephone conversation between FEMA or the designated Mapping Partner and the community that submitted the comments. • At a minimum, FEMA must notify the community in writing that it did not receive any appeals. This can be done by separate correspondence Acknowledgement (Letter type 116-L" for LOMRs) or by the inclusion of language in the LFD (for Flood Risk Projects or PMRs). See FEMA's Letter of Final Determination Guidance document for additional detail for Flood Risk Projects and PMRs and FEMA's Document Control Procedures Manual for additional detail for LOMRs. • An acknowledgement letter or response after receiving an appeal or comment should be sent in a timely manner to the community. • Since addressed to the community CEO, all correspondence must be prepared and issued on FEMA Headquarters or FEMA Regional letterhead, which requires signature concurrence from FEMA Headquarters or the FEMA Region. • FEMA or the designated Mapping Partner will evaluate all data and information submitted, including any scientific or technical data submitted Evaluation for compliance with existing mapping statues, regulations, or guidelines and standards, and will perform technical analysis if requested and/or appropriate. • FEMA in coordination with the designated Mapping Partner may request additional scientific or technical data or clarifications required to properly review the data or information submitted during the 90-day appeal period. Additional Data or While FEMA may consider data and information for incorporation at any Clarification and time throughout the Flood Risk Project or PMR, no new appeals will be Community accepted after the 90-day appeal period. Consultation • Since addressed to the community CEO, all correspondence must be prepared and issued on FEMA Headquarters or FEMA Regional letterhead. Appeal and Comment Processing Guidance Document 26 February 2018 Page 13 Packet Pg. 1424 J.3.g Task Steps • FEMA or the designated Mapping Partner will review the alternative analyses or data provided and determine whether they are more correct than those used for the Flood Risk Project, PMR, or LOMR and whether changes to the FIS Report and/or FIRM and/or LOMR determination documents are warranted as a result. The designated Mapping Partner will make a recommendation to FEMA on Recommendation the resolution of the appeal or comment. • Consultation with the community(ies) should continue during this phase. • While LOMRs and their related appeal and comment resolutions are managed through FEMA Headquarters and the designated Mapping Partner and archived in the MIP, the applicable FEMA Region should have awareness for informational purposes. • The designated Mapping Partner will prepare updates to the FIS Report, materials (usually, flood profiles and/or data tables), FIRM panels, and/or database if appropriate and requested by FEMA. • FEMA or the designated Mapping Partner will prepare a draft appeal resolution letter (if all the criteria for an appeal are met) or comment resolution letter. • When applicable, Flood Risk Project, PMR, and LOMR resolution letters must offer communities the option to go through the SRP process, which is discussed in Section 9 of this document. • If community(ies) did not submit the original appeal or comment but flood hazard information within their jurisdictional boundaries have been modified as a result of the resolution, outreach to those communities should be performed and they should also receive a resolution letter. In these cases, a new or second appeal period may be required for the Resolution communities that did not submit the appeal or comment and are impacted by the resolution. See Section 8.1 for additional detail. • The designated Mapping Partner will dispatch the signed FEMA appeal or comment resolution letter and, if warranted, revised preliminary copies of the FIRM and FIS Report or revised LOMR documents and enclosures to the community CEO and floodplain administrator and all appellants, as applicable. • Since addressed to the community CEO, all correspondence must be prepared and issued on FEMA Headquarters or FEMA Regional letterhead. • FEMA provides a comment period of 30 days following the date the resolution letter is issued to allow the community/appellant to review FEMA's findings. Any comments received during the 30-day comment period must be addressed and resolved before proceeding with the LFD or LOMR 116-L letter. Extensions to this 30-day period following resolution can only be granted with FEMA Headquarters approval. • If required, the designated Mapping Partner should coordinate to initiate a Due Process new or second appeal period. Please refer to Section 8.1 for additional details. Appeal and Comment Processing Guidance Document 26 February 2018 Page 14 9 Packet Pg. 1425 J.3.g For Flood Risk Projects and PMRs, following appeal and comment resolution, FEMA will make a final determination within a reasonable amount of time and provide notification of the final determination directly to the CEO via an LFD. Additional guidance on this process may be found in FEMA's Letter of Final Determination Guidance document. For LOMRs, following appeal and comment resolution, the LOMR effective date will be confirmed via a letter (Type 116-L) from FEMA to the community. Additional guidance on the final letter for LOMRs is found in FEMA's Document Control Procedures Manual. Additional coordination by FEMA or their designee with FEMA's Map Service Center (MSC) is required when, as a result of appeal and comment processing or other circumstances, the LOMR effective date is delayed. In this situation, the case should not be posted to the MSC or it should be removed from the MSC if posted already. The case should not be included in the National Flood Hazard Layer until all comments and appeals are resolved. New or modified flood hazard determinations for Flood Risk Projects, PMRs, and LOMRs will be finalized through a final notice published in the Federal Register, as discussed in FEMA's Federal Reaister Notices Guidance document. 8.1 Determine if a Second Appeal Period is Required The resolution of a comment or appeal may result in the need for a new appeal period to be run for a community that had previously received an appeal period under the same Flood Risk Project or PMR. Figure 3 provides guidance on how to determine if a second appeal period may be required. Any changes to flood hazard information that occur after preliminary issuance and prior to the initial appeal period as a result of comment incorporation would require a revised preliminary issuance of the modified FIRM panels and/or FIS Report to all communities determined by the Region and Mapping Partner to be impacted by the flood hazard information change. This would be followed by initiation of the statutory 90-day appeal period. If an appeal period was already run and changes in flood hazard information are being made because of resolution of comments submitted outside of the appeal period (i.e., data received outside of the statutory 90- day appeal period) or comments not otherwise classified as an appeal during the 90-day appeal period, then a revised preliminary issuance and a second appeal period would be required for impacted communities. Flood hazard information changes as a direct result of appeal resolution will typically not require a new appeal period unless flood hazard changes are being introduced to a new community or a community that did not submit the appeal. Changes resulting from comments may be incorporated at the time that the final reproduction materials are prepared if they do not involve flood hazard information changes and impact due process. However, if the changes are significant, FEMA may direct the designated Mapping Partner to prepare and distribute revised preliminary copies of the revised FIS Report, FIRM, and/or database. Appeal and Comment Processing Guidance Document 26 February 2018 Page 15 Packet Pg. 1426 CP M N a 00( o Co a c� LL 0) a� U O ^L LL ... N N C E N E O C, U o � 0 c a) � U co a Q N AM - it� ld J.3.g 9.0 Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) FEMA's SRP process reinforces FEMA's commitment to work with communities to ensure the flood hazard data depicted on FIRMs are developed collaboratively, using the best science available. When proposed changes to a FIRM as part of a Flood Risk Project, PMR, or LOMR are met with conflicting technical and/or scientific data during a regulatory appeal period, an independent third -party review of the information may be appropriate. An SRP serves as an independent third party. The use of an SRP is not intended to be the first step for resolving conflicting technical and/or scientific data. FEMA remains committed to the concept of community consultation for resolving issues regarding data submitted during the appeal period. On occasions when community consultation does not result in a mutually acceptable resolution and other qualifying conditions are met, an SRP may be made available. The designated Mapping Partner should coordinate with FEMA to confirm that the technical or scientific data submitted during the Flood Risk Project, PMR, or LOMR appeal period meet the appropriate requirements for SRP eligibility. Data submitted outside of the 90-day appeal period will not be eligible for evaluation through the SRP process. FEMA will move an SRP request forward based on eligibility discussed in FEMA's Scientific Resolution Panels fact sheet. This document is found by searching by document title at vrWW,f :i ma.�l�y�Iliilkbira!y. 9.1 SRP Process The objective of the SRP process is to assist FEMA and communities by efficiently, impartially, and fairly resolving conflicting technical or scientific data or appeals to proposed flood hazard information. To meet this objective, it is imperative that all parties follow the guidelines, timeframes, and procedures throughout the SRP process. The chart in Figure 4. SRP Process Chart outlines the SRP process, and Figure 5 outlines the timeline for processing SRPs. Additional detail may be found in FEMA's Scientific Resolution Panels fact sheet. This document is found by searching by document title at r r r.f :i m-.�l�y�Iliilkbira!Y. The SRP process is under the operational direction of the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), an organization independent of and contracted by FEMA to manage the procedures and processes related to the SRP. Additional information regarding procedures and processes followed by NIBS to initiate an SRP and provide recommendations to the FEMA Administrator may be found at ww_, lloL)L ,oir� . Appeal and Comment Processing Guidance Document 26 February 2018 Page 17 Packet Pg. 1428 deW f O's y :we;l uoissnos' ) gLO —eou 'nulssOOOJ—4u8wwOO f add : uewgo CP CM i rn N T a coco o 0) m N c� L LL 0) U O ^L LL co .. N N C E N E E O = U o � 0 c � Co U co a N CB Q Q � Q 0 deW IeOls4d :we;l uoissnosla) gLOZ—qe_q—eouep!ng—BulssOOOJd-4u8wwOO—leadd V:4uewqoe44V CP CM n V. cn wiV uum T AWM .......... tlm CL GO 4A 6n 40 E LiJ ej 11, p 17 � 10 c E gl aj 2 CA Gnu E, F- -3 . ..... Cl A rl 2 dl a V— qR 7E W E CD co corn 4) C) (2) (a cq o) IL co co CL LL 0) 0 2 co CN E E E 0 = C) 0 0 Co C-) co a cu 0 J.3.g 9.2 Supporting an SRP Evaluation The designated Mapping Partner should be prepared to provide FEMA with the data used to generate the relevant flood hazards, the contesting data submitted by the community during the 90-day appeal period, and any correspondence between FEMA, the designated Mapping Partner, and the community. The information should include specific sections of the Technical Support Data Notebook used to determine proposed flood hazards relevant to the appeal or challenge and a summary of the issue. The designated Mapping Partner may also support FEMA in any requests from the panel for clarifications or for an oral presentation on the submitted data when it is deemed necessary. 9.3 SRP Outcomes and Recommendations The panel must present its written report to the community and FEMA within 90 days of being convened, and that report will be used by the FEMA Administrator for making the final determination. A panel determination must be in favor of either FEMA or the community on each distinct element of the dispute, and the panel may not offer any alternative determination as a resolution. In the case of a dispute submitted by the community on behalf of an owner or lessee of real property in the community, the panel determination must be in favor of either FEMA, the community, or the owner/lessee on each distinct element of the dispute. If changes to the FIRMs are recommended in the panel's determination, and FEMA elects to implement the panel's determination, FEMA and the designated Mapping Partner should: • For a Flood Risk Project or PMR, incorporate the changes into a revised preliminary FIRM and, if appropriate, FIS Report, and issue a resolution letter prior to issuing an LFD • For a LOMR, incorporate the changes into a revised LOMR determination that will serve as the final resolution to the appeal. The final 116 letter will then be distributed to notify the community that all appeals have been resolved and the LOMR is effective. The effective date on the originally issued LOMR may need to be modified as a result. Once the SRP provides its determination and FEMA's resolution letter is issued to implement the recommendations, the SRP recommendations are binding on all appellants and not subject to judicial review. If the FEMA Administrator elects not to accept the panel's findings, the Administrator will issue a written justification within 60 days of receiving the report from the SRP. Under these circumstances, the appellants maintain their right to appeal FEMA's final determination to the appropriate federal district court. The panel's report will be made public at www, II it .��iU The panel's report and the Administrator's final determination should be added to the community's FEDD file by the designated Mapping Partner along with all other correspondence between FEMA and the community. The FEDD file will contain the information described in 44 CFR Section 67.3 to show that FEMA has provided due process to communities impacted by new or updated flood hazard information. Appeal and Comment Processing February 2018 Guidance Document 26 Page 20 Packet Pg. 1431 FEMA Region 6 800 N. Loop 288 Denton, TX 76209 Application Information for Appeal and Comment of a Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (Submit this Form along with the Supporting Technical Data & Provide as much Digital Data Possible when Applicable) Date: Applicant Name Street Address City — E-mail Address (Optional) J.3.h Information of Appeal/Comment Community Name Watershed/Stream Name Street Name with Cross Street Map Panel Number Company (If Applicable State Phone Number Zip Code Type of Request (Please Indicate if You Are Submitting an Appeal OR Comment) Appeal — Eligible for appeal: Areas showing new or revised BFEs or base flood depths, areas showing a new or revised SFHA boundaries (including both increases and decreases in the extent of the SFHA); areas where there is a change in SFHA zone designation and areas showing new or revised regulatory boundaries (including both increases and decreases in the extent of the regulatory floodway). Depending on what specific aspect of the study is being challenged, various types of data are required to support an appeal. In some cases, the applicant is required to submit a revised flood study, including updated hydrologic and/or hydraulic analyses, flood profiles, and floodplain and floodway boundaries, using alternate methods or data that are believed to be superior to those used in the preliminary study. Unless appeals are based on indisputable mathematical or measurement errors or the effects of natural physical changes that have occurred in the floodplain they must be accompanied by all data that FEMA needs to revise the preliminary version of the FIS report and FIRMS. For more detailed information on specific data submissions that are required, refer to Appeals, Revisions, and Amendments to NFIP Maps: A Guide for Community Officials (FIA-12, Chapter 3- Appeals) httL)s://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/17930 Technical Information you are submitting with the Appeal Request (check all that apply) ❑ New Digital Model Data (this data could include: updated hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, digital data, any revised flood profiles and delineated revised SFHA zones and/or regulatory floodway boundaries) ❑ Certified Topographic Information (No certification needed if it is a government product, such as USGS Map). ❑ Elevation Certification Signed and Sealed by a Licensed Surveyor or Professional Engineer ❑ Copy of the Preliminary Flood Map Panel (with requested changes to the floodplain drawn on it). ❑ Other Information Comment — Eligible for comment: Impacts of changes that have occurred in the floodplain that should have been previously been submitted to FEMA in accordance with 44 Code of Federal Regulations; Section 65.3; corporate limit revisions; road name errors and revisions; requests that include incorporation of Letters of Map Change (LOMCs); base map errors; and other possible omissions or potential improvements to the mapping. . Technical Information you are submitting with the Comment Request (check all that apply) ❑ Copy of the Preliminary Flood Map Panel (with requested changes to the floodplain drawn on it). ❑ Digital data (shape files preferred) in NAVD 88 ❑ Other Information Please mail this application, along with all supporting technical data, to the following address: FEMA, Region 6 Attn: Sandra Keefe 800 North Loop 288 Denton, TX 76209-3698 E For more information, please call (940)898-5399; Fax (940)898-5195 Packet Pg. 1432 J.3.i �s necr,� r ° F.E.mA Appeals and Comments: Required Support Data and Documentation for Property Owners Any community or individual property owner can appeal proposed changes to flood hazard information or comment on other information included on the preliminary flood hazard maps, also known as Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) and in the preliminary Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report. Appeals and comments are subject to the data requirements outlined below and must be submitted to the appropriate community official within the designated "90-day appeal period" who will provide to FEMA for review (see "Appeals and Comments: Information for Property Owners" for more details on the process). The following provides guidance on developing the required data for an appeal or a comment. Appeals SFHAs are areas subject to Additions or changes to flood hazard information shown on the inundation by the base flood preliminary FIRM and in the accompanying FIS report, which may and include the following include Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special flood insurance risk zone Flood Hazard Area(SFHA) boundaries or Zone designations and/or designations: A, AO, AH, AT - regulatory floodways, are eligible to be appealed. This flood hazard A30, AE, A99, AR, AR/AT-A30, information is developed by experienced engineers and mapping , AO, AR/A AR/ , H AR/A, VO, AR/AEAR/AO, VE, and V. professionals using the latest engineering methods and computer models. The regulatory floodway is the Because numerous methodologies have been developed for channel of a river or other estimating flood discharges, elevations, and other flood hazard watercourse and the adjacent information, professional judgment is used to select land areas that must be reserved methodologies appropriate for a particular flooding source. The in order to discharge the base approach to be used is usually discussed with community flood without cumulatively officials at the beginning of the flood mapping process. Because increasing the water -surface elevation more than a the methodologies are the result of attempts to reduce complex designated height. physical processes to mathematical models, the methodologies include simplifying assumptions. The results are also affected by the amount of data collected and the precision of any measurements made. An appeal must be based on data and documentation showing the proposed flood hazard information shown on the preliminary FIRM or in the FIS report is scientifically or technically incorrect. Appellants need to demonstrate better methodologies, assumptions or data exists and provide alternative analyses that incorporate those methodologies, assumptions, or data if appropriate. The results must show an overall change in the flood hazard information shown on the preliminary FIRM Packet Pg. 1433 J.3.i FEMA and/or in the FIS report. The data that must be submitted in support of the various types of appeals are discussed in the sections that follow. Scientifically Incorrect BFEs, Base Flood Depths, SFHA Zone Designations, or Regulatory Floodways Proposed BFEs, base flood depths, SFHA zone designations, or regulatory floodways are said to be scientifically incorrect if the methodology used in the determination of the BFEs, base flood depths, SFHA zone designations, or regulatory floodways is inappropriate or incorrect, or if the assumptions made as part of the methodology are inappropriate or incorrect. An appeal that is based on the proposed BFEs, base flood depths, SFHA zone designations, or regulatory floodways being scientifically incorrect would, therefore, contend that the use of a different methodology or different assumptions would produce more accurate results. • To show an inappropriate or incorrect coastal, hydraulic or hydrologic methodology has been used, an appellant must submit the following data, as applicable: ■ New hydrologic analysis based on alternative methodology and if applicable, updated hydraulic/floodway or coastal analyses based on the updated discharge values; ■ New hydraulic/floodway analysis based on alternative methodology and original flood discharge values (if the appeal does not involve the hydrologic analysis); ■ New coastal analyses based on alternative methodology and original stillwater elevations (if the appeal does not involve the hydrologic analysis); ■ Explanation for superiority of alternative methodology; ■ As applicable, revised Summary of Discharges Table, Flood Profiles, Transect Data Table, Summary of Stillwater Elevations Table, and Floodway Data Table (FDT); and ■ Revised SFHA zone boundaries and, if applicable, regulatory floodway boundary delineations. Technically Incorrect BFEs, Base Flood Depths, SFHA Zone Designations, or Regulatory Floodways The proposed BFEs, base flood depths, SFHA zone designation or regulatory floodways are said to be technically incorrect if at least one of the following is true. 1. The methodology was not applied correctly. • To show a hydrologic methodology was not applied correctly, an appellant must submit the following: Sep-17 o New hydrologic analysis in which the original methodology has been applied differently; C o Explanation for superiority of new application; 0 Packet Pg. 1434 J.3.i o New hydraulic/floodway or coastal analysis based on flood discharge values from new hydrologic analysis; o Revised Summary of Discharges Table and/or Flood Profiles and, if applicable, FDT; and o Revised SFHA zone boundary and, if applicable, regulatory floodway boundary delineations. • To show a hydraulic methodology was not applied correctly, an appellant must submit the following information. o New hydraulic/floodway analysis, based on original flood discharge values, in which the original methodology has been applied differently; o As applicable, revised Flood Profiles, FDT and other FIS report tables as needed; and o Revised SFHA zone boundary and, if applicable, regulatory floodway boundary delineations. • To show a coastal methodology was not applied correctly, an appellant must submit the following: o New coastal analysis, based on the original stillwater elevations, in which the original methodology has been applied differently; o Revised SFHA zone boundary and, all applicable FIS report tables, including the Transect Data Table. 2. The methodology was based on insufficient or poor -quality • To show insufficient or poor -quality hydrologic data were used, an appellant must submit the following: o Data believed to be better than those used in original hydrologic analysis; a c o Documentation for source of data; CIL o 0 Explanation for improvement resulting from use of new data; o New hydrologic analysis based on better data; o New hydraulic/floodway or coastal analysis based on flood discharge values resulting from new hydrologic analysis; o C Revised Summary of Discharges Table, Flood Profiles and, if applicable, FDT; and E o E Revised SFHA zone boundary and, if applicable, regulatory floodway boundary c delineations. C • To show insufficient or poor -quality hydraulic data were used, an appellant must submit the following: o Data believed to be better than those used in original hydraulic analysis; C o Documentation for source of new data; Sep-17 Packet Pg. 1435 J.3.i ve- % ..... °�� o o Explanation for improvement resulting from use of new data; o New hydraulic analysis based on better data and original flood discharge values; o Revised Flood Profiles and, if applicable, FDT; and o Revised SFHA zone boundary and, if applicable, regulatory floodway boundary delineations. • To show insufficient or poor -quality coastal analysis data were used, an appellant must submit the following: o Data believed to be better than those used in original coastal analysis; o Documentation for source of new data; o Explanation for improvement resulting from use of new data; o New coastal analysis based on better data and original Stillwater elevation values; and o Revised SFHA zone boundary and, all applicable FIS report tables, including the Transect Data Table. 3. The application of the methodology included indisputable mathematical or measurement errors. To show a mathematical error was made, an appellant must identify the error. FEMA will perform any required calculations and make the necessary changes to the FIS report and FIRM. To show a measurement error (e.g., an incorrectly surveyed elevation was used) was made, appellants must identify the error and provide the correct measurement. Any new survey data provided must be certified by a Registered Professional Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. FEMA will perform any required calculations and make the necessary changes to the FIS report and FIRM. 4. The methodology did not account for the effects of natural physical changes that have occurred in the floodplain. For appeals based on the effects of natural physical changes that have occurred in the base floodplain, appellants must identify the changes that have occurred and provide the data FEMA needs to perform a revised analysis. The data may include new stream channel and floodplain cross sections or coastal transects. Appeals to SFHA Boundaries C 0 The supporting data required for changes to SFHA zone boundaries will vary, depending on whether the boundaries are for flooding sources studied by detailed methods (i.e., with BFEs established) or 0 flooding sources studied by approximate methods (i.e., with no BFEs established), as discussed a below. Flooding Sources Studied by Detailed Methods Usually, detailed SFHA zone boundaries are delineated using topographic data and the BFEs and base flood depths resulting from the hydraulic analysis performed for the flood mapping study. If E Sep-17 Packet Pg. 1436 J.3.i FEMA topographic data is available which is more detailed than that used by FEMA or which shows more recent topographic conditions, appellants should submit the data and the revised SFHA zone boundaries for FEMA to incorporate into the affected map panels. Flooding Sources Studied by Approximate Methods Usually, where BFEs or base flood depths are not available, flood zone boundaries are delineated with the best available data, including flood maps published by other Federal agencies, information on past floods, and/or simplified hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. If more detailed data or analyses are submitted, FEMA will use them to update the flood hazard information shown on the affected map panels. Such data and analyses may include the following: ■ Published flood maps that are more recent or more detailed than those used by FEMA; ■ Analyses that are more detailed than those performed by FEMA or that are based on more detailed data than those used by FEMA; ■ Topographic data and resulting updated SFHA boundaries. Please note that, when applicable, appeals related to the methodology used to develop an approximate flood zone boundary must follow the guidelines established for appeals to BFEs, base flood depths, SFHA zone designations, or regulatory floodways as discussed above. However, since flood profiles, FDTs, Summary of Discharges Tables, Transect Data Tables, and Summary of Stillwater Elevations Tables are not developed in support of approximate floodplains, these materials will not need to be submitted for appeals to flooding sources studied by approximate methods. Additional Guidance on Appeal Submittals Involving Topographic Data For appeal submittals that involve topographic data, the following additional guidelines must be followed: • The data must be more detailed/accurate, and/or reflect more recent topographic conditions, and be in a digital Geographic Information System (GIS) format preferably; • The appeal submittal must clearly state which flooding sources are being appealed based on the updated topographic data; • Updated SFHA boundary delineations that reflect the submitted topographic data for each appealed flooding source must also be provided, preferably in digital GIS format; • All topographic data submitted must adhere to FEMA's current data capture standards for such data; • If necessary, a data sharing agreement must be provided. Certification Requirements for Support Data and Documentation for Appeals All maps and other support data submitted must be certified by a Registered Professional Engineer or a Licensed Land Surveyor and must reflect existing conditions. Maps prepared by an authoritative source, such as a Federal agency that is, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)or a a State department of highways or transportation, are acceptable without certification as long as the sources and dates of the maps are identified. Sep-17 Packet Pg. 1437 J.3.i Ma i ' WYj .EM.A. General Technical Guidance When developing technical support data or documentation, appellants should consider the information below. • New flooding information cannot be added to a FIRM panel in such a way as to create mismatches with the flooding information shown for adjacent FIRM panels. Therefore, in performing new analyses and developing revised flooding information, appellants must tie the new flood elevations, floodplain boundaries, and regulatory floodway boundaries into those shown on the FIRM panel(s) for areas that are not affected by the appeal. • For appeals involving new flood discharge values, extensive changes in hydraulic conditions, or complex situations in which changes made to the flooding information developed for one flooding source will affect that developed for others, appellants may be required to provide new information for a large portion of the mapped area. • Appeals cannot be based on the effects of proposed projects, future conditions, or projects started after the study is in progress. • If hydrologic or hydraulic analyses are performed, they must be performed for the same recurrence interval floods as those performed for the study/mapping project. • The extent of the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses that appellants may be required to submit is determined not only by the basis of the appeal, but also by the type of flooding source and the scope of the study/mapping project. For example, if a hydraulic analysis of the regulatory floodway was performed for a riverine flooding source, a comparable analysis would have to be performed by an appellant if changes to the regulatory floodway boundaries shown on the FIRM are requested by an appellant. • Unless appeals are based on the use of alternative models or methodologies, the hydrologic and/or hydraulic analyses that appellants submit must be performed using the hydrologic and/or hydraulic models used by the study/project team. • Information on the models used for the analysis of the flood hazards shown on the preliminary FIRM is provided in the preliminary FIS report. • Appellants may request that FEMA provide them with copies of the input and output data from the model(s) used by FEMA or copies of other calculations or analyses performed by the study/project team. • Title 44 of the US Code of Federal Regulations Paragraph 65.6(a) (6) states that when appeals are based on the use of an alternative hydrologic or hydraulic model, the appellant must show that several conditions have been met. 0 ■ The model used must have been reviewed and accepted for general use by a Federal agency responsible for floodplain identification or regulation or a notable scientific body. ■ The model has been well documented (with a user's manual that includes source codes). ■ The model must be available to all present and future parties affected by the FIRM that has been developed or amended through the use of the model. c� Sep-17 Packet Pg. 1438 J.3.i If appeals will involve changing the floodplain boundaries shown on the FIRM, the appellant will be required to submit delineations of both the 1- and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundaries if 1- and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundary delineations are shown on the preliminary FIRM. Use of North American Vertical Datum of 1988 The National Geodetic Survey has determined that the national vertical control network needs to be readjusted. Therefore, FEMA has been converting NFIP maps gradually from the old national datum, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29), to a new national datum, North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). • When submitting an appeal, the appellant must use the reference datum on the preliminary FIRM. NAVD88 is the datum used along with the latest datum adjustments. • For more information on NAVD, interested parties should reference the following FEMA reference documents: ■ FIA-20, Converting the National Flood Insurance Program to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988, Guidelines for Community Officials, Engineers, and Surveyors, Appendix B, "Guidance for Converting to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988, of Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners. • Interested parties may locate these reference documents in the FEMA Information Resource Library, which is located at www.fema.gov/library. Comments Comments generally involve requests for changes to information shown on the preliminary FIRM and in the FIS report other than flood hazard data, such as corporate limit boundaries, road names and configurations, and other non -appealable changes. Changes to Corporate Limits The corporate limits shown on the preliminary FIRMS were taken from community data obtained by FEMA from local community officials. If changes to the corporate limits shown on the preliminary FIRMS are necessary, a community map or GIS dataset showing the current corporate limits must be provided. Changes to Road Names and Other Base Map features On the preliminary FIRMS, FEMA has shown all roads that are in or adjacent to the 1-percent- annual-chance floodplain. Property owners may provide a map showing more up-to-date information on locations and names of roads in or adjacent to floodplains if necessary. E Sep-17 Packet Pg. 1439 J.3.i (`MF u Where to Send Support Data and Documentation Property owners and other individuals who would like to submit appeals or comments must submit their written request along with the required support data and documentation to the community Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or other designated community official. Sep-17 Packet Pg. 1440 Recently your community received preliminary flood hazard maps prepared with input from your community in an effort to best describe the flood risk within your community. The updated flood hazard maps were prepared with the most up to date information available. These maps, once finalized, serve as the basis for your community's floodplain management program and serve as a tool identifying areas prone to flooding. The maps are also used to determine flood insurance rates and requirements. Property owners and residents are provided an opportunity to review and provide feedback on the preliminary flood hazard maps — also known as Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) — during a formal review period called the "90-day Appeal Period." Submitted written appeals and comments are consolidated by the community and provided to FEMA for consideration. What's ' Role as a Property Owner? FEMA welcomes public input on the preliminary FIRMS and FIS report through the appeals process. Additional information provided can result in more accurate FIRMS and better informs a community and its residents of flooding risk. If a property owner or other resident would like to submit an appeal or comment, they must submit their written request along with the required supporting data to the community Chief Executive Officer (e.g., the Mayor, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, etc.) or other designated community official. New Flood Maps Better Iriforrned t.r rrm nuriiutiie FEMA's Risk MAP goal is to measurably increase the public's awareness and understanding of flood risk so that a community's current and future vulnerability to flooding is reduced. With this increased awareness and understanding, communities are in a better position to take actions that will reduce the impacts associated with coastal flooding, and make them more resilient in the face of a future flooding event. This new study will provide updated flood risk data that will help communities implement a more sound approach to economic development, mitigation planning, emergency response and post -flood recovery. Residents and business owners will be able to make more informed decisions about their flood risk and take appropriate actions to physically and financially protect themselves. P Packet Pg. 1441 J.3.j What :is an Appeal? An appeal is a formal written objection to the addition/modification of preliminary Base Flood Elevations/Flood Depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries, Zone designations, or regulatory floodway boundaries depicted on the preliminary FIRMS your community received. According to the National Flood Insurance Program regulations, an appeal should be accompanied by data and documentation indicating that the proposed new or modified flood hazard information shown on the preliminary products is scientifically or technically incorrect. Appellants are asked to demonstrate better methodologies, assumptions or data exists and provide alternative analyses or data used to develop the new or updated flood hazard information on the preliminary FIRM with their appeal package. In order for FEMA to incorporate this information, the data provided will be reviewed to see if the information submitted is scientifically and technically sound and if any alternate analysis/data provided results in a change to the proposed BFEs, base flood depths, SFHA boundaries or zone designations and/or the regulatory floodways shown on the preliminary FIRM and/or FIS report. Property owners and residents may locate property on the community's preliminary maps to determine if new flood hazard information shown on the maps affects the property in question. Areas eligible for appeal include: Streams with changes to Base Flood Elevations, (Zone AE and Zone AH areas), Flooding/Ponding areas with changes to base flood depths (Zone AO areas), • Flooding sources with changes to SFHA boundaries, • Modification/addition of Zone designations, and/or • Modification/addition of the regulatory floodways depicted on the FIRMS. The community will forward this information to FEMA for review. FEMA will respond to all appeals through formal written correspondence to both the community and the original appellants. If warranted, FEMA will revise the preliminary FIRM and/or FIS report to reflect the information submitted in support of the appeal and provide copies of these materials with the appeal resolution letter. What is a Coninient? A comment is an objection to a base map feature modification/addition, update to the FIS report materials or any other non -appealable change. Comments usually involve changes to items such as road locations and road names, corporate limits updates, or other base map features. If needed, property owners and other residents should submit a map or other materials showing more up-to-date information on such features to their community CEO or other designated community official. The community will then consolidate all comments and appeals received related to the preliminary FIRM and FIS report and provide to FEMA. FEMA may use the submitted information to revise the preliminary FIRM and/or FIS report, or will explain why no changes could be made. )sere has the Map Changed? FEMA Region 6 also makes available an interactive mapping tool for use by community officials, residents and business owners through our RiskMAP6.com website. ,gyp EMA Packet Pg. 1442 . I orni.rni.en Appeals an.d. ts on. Appeal Period Provides O pportunity for Communities and Prelin.,iii.n.ary Maps an.d.R...eports for Property Owners in East Coast Central Florida Study Area to Request Changes to Preliminary the ioast entra].Florida, FIRM and FIS Report.dast Study Area,.� fle.Process This Fact Sheet provides general information regarding the 90-dayappeal peifodestablished to allow community I1IV11tIIII oduc ,IolIV11 and Background officials and others to request changes to the information shown on a Preliminary FIRM and/or FIS report developed as part of In support of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the Federal a FEMA coastal flood risk study for the Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has completed a coastal flood ECCFL Study Area. The Preliminary FIRM and FIS report reflect the initial results of risk study for the East Coast Central Florida (ECCFL) Study Area (i.e., the coastal flood risk study performed by Brevard, Indian River, Martin, and St. Lucie Counties). Based on the results FEMA. The following are key terms pertinent of the study, FEMA has released Preliminary versions of the Flood to this process: Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, Appeal- A formal objection to FEMA's and associated products displaying proposed flood hazard information. proposed flood hazard determinations, submitted by the community CEO, FPA, When flood hazard information is proposed through the issuance of a or other community official designated Preliminary FIRM and FIS report and associated products, FEMA provides by the CEO during the 90-day appeal period. community officials and property owners with an opportunity to review and Proposed Rood HazardInformation in comment on these products before they become effective for flood Coastal&udyAreas - New or revised insurance and floodplain management purposes and to request changes to Base Flood Elevations, Special Flood the information shown. This statutorily required, formal review and Hazard Areas, other flood hazard areas, comment period is referred to as the 90-day appeal period. flood insurance risk zone designations, Primary Frontal Dune designations, and Wheire to ]IFind the 1.11iremnainairy 11FIR.M.s and 11FIS Limit of Moderate Wave Action boundaries. Repoirts Comment- A formal objection to information that is not related to the Copies of the Preliminary FIRMS and FIS reports for the ECCFL Study proposed flood hazard determinations, submitted by the CEO, FPA, or other Area will be stored at the Community Map Repository (CMR) for each community official designated by the community. The CMR addresses are accessible through "Community CEO during the appeal period. I Information Table" linked through the.( o a..s a I S [.11 d..y n a..c s. and ..... . .... ..... ... .... . ..... . ... ..... . .... .... ..... .... . ... Comments would include changes to road names and configurations, Information for East Coast Central 11""lorida Sh.id A the FEMA ........................................................................................................................................ ..................................... ...................................................................................... ............ ............. y g�j pages on corporate limit boundaries, and Region IV Coastal Analysis and Mapping Web Portal. requests that changes effected by Letter of Map Change be incorporated. For some communities in the ECCFL Study Area, the Preliminary FIRM Effective 1-7RM and FS Repof t - The and FIS report will be accessible through a community -maintained website. version of the FIRM and FIS report that Links to community -maintained websites also are provided on the above- reflect the final results of the FEMA referenced "Community Information Table," where available. study and that are used for administering NFIP flood insurance and The Preliminary FIRMS and FIS reports also will be accessible through the floodplain management requirements. FEMA Flood Map Service Center website at.h t tJ -.Z/t.n ft tnq�Ajgy/,pg a.J... Additional information regarding the coastal flood risk study process is provided on the How the Appeal Period Is Adininisheir ed FEMA Coastal Analysis and Mapping Web Portal at cx) n. ................................................... ...... ......... .............. .. a �q,, .r . The community Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is responsible for ensuring that a community meets its obligations as a participant in the NFIP. PdskIVIAP cu Therefore, the FEMA-led Project Team consults and confers with the lncreasung Resilience Together < September 2017 https-//www.fema.gov/risk-mapping-assessment-and-planning-risk-map - 1-877-FEMA MAP I Packet Pg. 1443 1 J.3.k community CEO before, during, and after the appeal period. Community officials and property owners should address appeals and comments submitted during the 90- day appeal period to the CEO or to another local official designated by the CEO, such as the community floodplain administrator (FPA). In accordance with standard procedures, FEMA starts the 90-day appeal period by: 1. Publishing a Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations Notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER; 2. Preparing and posting a Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations notice to the FEMA website at www fl;oodin�l:.)s.%isna.(yov/f'h n/`�yca-.,.)Is/bfe rnain.asp; 3. Publishing public notices announcing the start of the appeal period twice, at least 1 week apart, in local newspaper(s) with wide circulation, as identified by the community CEO or other designated community official(s); and 4. Mailing letters, referred to as proposed flood hazard determination letters, to notify the CEOs and FPAs in each of the mapped communities about the appeal period and the proposed flood hazard information. The appeal period starts on the date of the second successful publication of the public notice in the identified local newspaper(s). Any individual property owner who wishes to appeal the proposed flood hazard information or to comment on any other information shown on the Preliminary FIRM, Preliminary FIS report, or associated products is required to submit the appeal or comment, along with appropriate supporting data and documentation, to the appropriate CEO or designated local community official. This approach allows the community to comply with the requirements of ,ail„_67„ of the NFIP regulations, which implements the requirements established by the U.S. Congress for the appeal period. The required supporting data and documentation are discussed in detail in a separate Fact Sheet titled "Appeals and Comments on Preliminary Maps and Reports for the East Coast Central Florida Study Area: Supporting Data and Documentation." This Fact Sheet is available from the ]nfonna6on for Eam Coast Central .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ....;�a;a%c..., ,,,,.... .;c�; Aajq page on the FEMA Coastal Web Portal. The CEO, FPA, or other designated community official is required to review each appeal or comment to determine whether the data or documentation submitted are sufficient to be forwarded to the FEMA Region IV Office in Atlanta, Georgia, for consideration. By reviewing the appeals and comments, the CEO, FPA, or other designated community official is better able to ensure that the community is meeting its obligations under NFIP regulations throughout the mapping process Wheire to Send Appeals and Conunents Property owners and other individuals who choose to submit appeals or comments should submit their written requests, along with the required supporting data and documentation, to the community CEO, FPA, or other designated community official. Contact information for the community CEOs and FPAs is accessible through a y Coastal yta; d.y m under "Community Contacts" on the ............................................................................. C`,cala;;a;s,;ls page on the FEMA Coastal Web Portal. The community CEO, FPA, or other designated community official is required to submit all appeals and comments, along with required supporting data and documentation, to the FEMA Region IV Office. The FEMA Region IV contact information for the submittal of appeals and comments is as follows: Federal Emergency Management Agency Mitigation Division 3003 Chamblee Tucker Road Atlanta, GA 30341 Attn: Mark A. Viera, Coastal Flood Risk Study Lead Questions regarding the appeals process in general, and the coastal flood risk study for the ECCFL Study Area in particular, can be sent via email to Mark A. Viera, the FEMA Coastal Flood Risk Study Lead, at in�srl� vlea,��r)fei:na.c�h�.g�ay. For more information on the coastal flood risk study for the ECCFL Study Area, please visit www.soa;i�heastcoas�ali.naU,s coin/�:�a c /�.�ac>ie,� k /e,4. k- coas� cenl;aal floaida.asl:x.. dsk1%4AP P 6 lncree,sing Resilience Together September 2017 https://www.fema.gov/risk-mapping-assessment-and-planning-risk-map • 1-877-FEMA MAP Packet Pg. 1444 J.3.1 Appeals and Comments: Required Support Data and Documentation for Community Officials Any community or individual property owner can appeal proposed changes to flood hazard information or comment on other information included on the preliminary flood hazard maps, also known as Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) and in the preliminary Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report. Appeals and comments are subject to the data requirements outlined below and must be submitted to the appropriate community official within the designated "90-day appeal period" and then consolidated and provided to FEMA for review (see "Appeals and Comments: Information for Community Officials" for more details on the process). The following provides guidance on developing the required data for an appeal or a comment. Appeals SFHAs are areas subject to Additions or changes to flood hazard information shown on the inundation by the base flood preliminary FIRM and in the accompanying FIS report, which may and include the following include Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special flood insurance risk zone Flood Hazard Area(SFHA) boundaries or Zone designations and/or designations: A, AO, AH, AT - regulatory floodways, are eligible to be appealed. This flood hazard A30, AE, A99, AR, AR/AT-A30, information is developed by experienced engineers and mapping , AO, AR/A AR/ , H AR/A, VO, AR/AEAR/AO, VE, and V. professionals using the latest engineering methods and computer models. The regulatory floodway is the Because numerous methodologies have been developed for channel of a river or other estimating flood discharges, elevations, and other flood hazard watercourse and the adjacent information, professional judgment is used to select land areas that must be reserved methodologies appropriate for a particular flooding source. The in order to discharge the base approach to be used is usually discussed with community flood without cumulatively officials at the beginning of the flood mapping process. Because increasing the water -surface elevation more than a the methodologies are the result of attempts to reduce complex designated height. physical processes to mathematical models, the methodologies include simplifying assumptions. The results are also affected by the amount of data collected and the precision of any measurements made. An appeal must be based on data and documentation showing the proposed flood hazard information shown on the preliminary FIRM or in the FIS report is scientifically or technically incorrect. Appellants need to demonstrate better methodologies, assumptions or data exists and provide alternative analyses that incorporate those methodologies, assumptions, or data if appropriate. The results must show an overall change in the flood hazard information shown on the preliminary FIRM E Packet Pg. 1445 and/or in the FIS report. The data that must be submitted in support of the various types of appeals are discussed in the sections that follow. Scientifically Incorrect BFEs, Base Flood Depths, SFHA Zone Designations, or Regulatory Floodways Proposed BFEs, base flood depths, SFHA zone designations, or regulatory floodways are said to be scientifically incorrect if the methodology used in the determination of the BFEs, base flood depths, SFHA zone designations, or regulatory floodways is inappropriate or incorrect, or if the assumptions made as part of the methodology are inappropriate or incorrect. An appeal that is based on the proposed BFEs, base flood depths, SFHA zone designations, or regulatory floodways being scientifically incorrect would, therefore, contend that the use of a different methodology or different assumptions would produce more accurate results. • To show an inappropriate or incorrect coastal, hydraulic or hydrologic methodology has been used, an appellant must submit the following data, as applicable: ■ New hydrologic analysis based on alternative methodology and if applicable, updated hydraulic/floodway or coastal analyses based on the updated discharge values; ■ New hydraulic/floodway analysis based on alternative methodology and original flood discharge values (if the appeal does not involve the hydrologic analysis); ■ New coastal analyses based on alternative methodology and original stillwater elevations (if the appeal does not involve the hydrologic analysis); ■ Explanation for superiority of alternative methodology; ■ As applicable, revised Summary of Discharges Table, Flood Profiles, Transect Data Table, Summary of Stillwater Elevations Table, and Floodway Data Table (FDT); and ■ Revised SFHA zone boundaries and, if applicable, regulatory floodway boundary delineations. Technically Incorrect BFEs, Base Flood Depths, SFHA Zone Designations, or Regulatory Floodways The proposed BFEs, base flood depths, SFHA zone designation or regulatory floodways are said to be technically incorrect if at least one of the following is true. 1. The methodology was not applied correctly. • To show a hydrologic methodology was not applied correctly, an appellant must submit the following: Sep-17 o New hydrologic analysis in which the original methodology has been applied 4i differently; 0 E o Explanation for superiority of new application; E Packet Pg. 1446 J.3.1 FEMA o New hydraulic/floodway or coastal analysis based on flood discharge values from new hydrologic analysis; o Revised Summary of Discharges Table and/or Flood Profiles and, if applicable, FDT; and o Revised SFHA zone boundary and, if applicable, regulatory floodway boundary delineations. • To show a hydraulic methodology was not applied correctly, an appellant must submit the following information. o New hydraulic/floodway analysis, based on original flood discharge values, in which the original methodology has been applied differently; o As applicable, revised Flood Profiles, FDT and other FIS report tables as needed; and o Revised SFHA zone boundary and, if applicable, regulatory floodway boundary delineations. • To show a coastal methodology was not applied correctly, an appellant must submit the following: o New coastal analysis, based on the original stillwater elevations, in which the original methodology has been applied differently; o Revised SFHA zone boundary and, all applicable FIS report tables, including the Transect Data Table. 2. The methodology was based on insufficient or poor -quality • To show insufficient or poor -quality hydrologic data were used, an appellant must submit the following: o Data believed to be better than those used in original hydrologic analysis; o Documentation for source of data; o Explanation for improvement resulting from use of new data; o New hydrologic analysis based on better data; o New hydraulic/floodway or coastal analysis based on flood discharge values resulting from new hydrologic analysis; o Revised Summary of Discharges Table, Flood Profiles and, if applicable, FDT; and o Revised SFHA zone boundary and, if applicable, regulatory floodway boundary delineations. • To show insufficient or poor -quality hydraulic data were used, an appellant must submit the R following: C 0 o Data believed to be better than those used in original hydraulic analysis; o Documentation for source of new data; Sep-17 Packet Pg. 1447 J.3.1 o Explanation for improvement resulting from use of new data; o New hydraulic analysis based on better data and original flood discharge values; o Revised Flood Profiles and, if applicable, FDT; and o Revised SFHA zone boundary and, if applicable, regulatory floodway boundary delineations. • To show insufficient or poor -quality coastal analysis data were used, an appellant must submit the following: o Data believed to be better than those used in original coastal analysis; o Documentation for source of new data; o Explanation for improvement resulting from use of new data; o New coastal analysis based on better data and original Stillwater elevation values; and o Revised SFHA zone boundary and, all applicable FIS report tables, including the Transect Data Table. 3. The application of the methodology included indisputable mathematical or measurement errors. To show a mathematical error was made, an appellant must identify the error. FEMA will perform any required calculations and make the necessary changes to the FIS report and FIRM. To show a measurement error (e.g., an incorrectly surveyed elevation was used) was made, appellants must identify the error and provide the correct measurement. Any new survey data provided must be certified by a Registered Professional Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. FEMA will perform any required calculations and make the necessary changes to the FIS report and FIRM. 4. The methodology did not account for the effects of natural physical changes that have occurred in the floodplain. For appeals based on the effects of natural physical changes that have occurred in the base floodplain, appellants must identify the changes that have occurred and provide the data FEMA needs to perform a revised analysis. The data may include new stream channel and floodplain cross sections or coastal transects. Appeals to SFHA Boundaries The supporting data required for changes to SFHA zone boundaries will vary, depending on whether the boundaries are for flooding sources studied by detailed methods (i.e., with BFEs established) or flooding sources studied by approximate methods (i.e., with no BFEs established), as discussed below. Flooding Sources Studied by Detailed Methods 0 Usually, detailed SFHA zone boundaries are delineated using topographic data and the BFEs and base flood depths resulting from the hydraulic analysis performed for the flood mapping study. If Sep-17 E Packet Pg. 1448 J.3.1 /j F E topographic data is available which is more detailed than that used by FEMA or which shows more recent topographic conditions, appellants should submit the data and the revised SFHA zone boundaries for FEMA to incorporate into the affected map panels. Flooding Sources Studied by Approximate Methods Usually, where BFEs or base flood depths are not available, flood zone boundaries are delineated with the best available data, including flood maps published by other Federal agencies, information on past floods, and/or simplified hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. If more detailed data or analyses are submitted, FEMA will use them to update the flood hazard information shown on the affected map panels. Such data and analyses may include the following: ■ Published flood maps that are more recent or more detailed than those used by FEMA; ■ Analyses that are more detailed than those performed by FEMA or that are based on more detailed data than those used by FEMA; ■ Topographic data and resulting updated SFHA boundaries. Please note that, when applicable, appeals related to the methodology used to develop an approximate flood zone boundary must follow the guidelines established for appeals to BFEs, base flood depths, SFHA zone designations, or regulatory floodways as discussed above. However, since flood profiles, FDTs, Summary of Discharges Tables, Transect Data Tables, and Summary of Stillwater Elevations Tables are not developed in support of approximate floodplains, these materials will not need to be submitted for appeals to flooding sources studied by approximate methods. Additional Guidance on Appeal Submittals Involving Topographic Data For appeal submittals that involve topographic data, the following additional guidelines must be followed: • The data must be more detailed/accurate, and/or reflect more recent topographic conditions, and be in a digital Geographic Information System (GIS) format preferably; • The appeal submittal must clearly state which flooding sources are being appealed based on the updated topographic data; • Updated SFHA boundary delineations that reflect the submitted topographic data for each appealed flooding source must also be provided, preferably in digital GIS format; • All topographic data submitted must adhere to FEMA's current data capture standards for such data; • If necessary, a data sharing agreement must be provided. Certification Requirements for Support Data and Documentation for Appeals All maps and other support data submitted must be certified by a Registered Professional Engineer or a Licensed Land Surveyor and must reflect existing conditions. Maps prepared by an authoritative source, such as a Federal agency that is, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)or a State department of highways or transportation, are acceptable without certification as long as the 0 E sources and dates of the maps are identified. Sep-17 Packet Pg. 1449 J.3.1 FEMA General Technical Guidance When developing technical support data or documentation, appellants should consider the information below. • New flooding information cannot be added to a FIRM panel in such a way as to create mismatches with the flooding information shown for adjacent FIRM panels. Therefore, in performing new analyses and developing revised flooding information, appellants must tie the new flood elevations, floodplain boundaries, and regulatory floodway boundaries into those shown on the FIRM panel(s) for areas that are not affected by the appeal. • For appeals involving new flood discharge values, extensive changes in hydraulic conditions, or complex situations in which changes made to the flooding information developed for one flooding source will affect that developed for others, appellants may be required to provide new information for a large portion of the mapped area. • Appeals cannot be based on the effects of proposed projects, future conditions, or projects started after the study is in progress. • If hydrologic or hydraulic analyses are performed, they must be performed for the same recurrence interval floods as those performed for the study/mapping project. • The extent of the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses that appellants may be required to submit is determined not only by the basis of the appeal, but also by the type of flooding source and the scope of the study/mapping project. For example, if a hydraulic analysis of the regulatory floodway was performed for a riverine flooding source, a comparable analysis would have to be performed by an appellant if changes to the regulatory floodway boundaries shown on the FIRM are requested by an appellant. • Unless appeals are based on the use of alternative models or methodologies, the hydrologic and/or hydraulic analyses that appellants submit must be performed using the hydrologic and/or hydraulic models used by the study/project team. • Information on the models used for the analysis of the flood hazards shown on the preliminary FIRM is provided in the preliminary FIS report. Appellants may request that FEMA provide them with copies of the input and output data from the model(s) used by FEMA or copies of other calculations or analyses performed by the study/project team. The community should submit such requests, in writing, to FEMA at the address shown in the "Where To Send Support Data and Documentation" section of this document. • Title 44 of the US Code of Federal Regulations Paragraph 65.6(a) (6) states that when appeals are based on the use of an alternative hydrologic or hydraulic model, the appellant must show that several conditions have been met. Sep-17 ■ The model used must have been reviewed and accepted for general use by a Federal agency responsible for floodplain identification or regulation or a notable scientific body. ■ The model has been well documented (with a user's manual that includes source codes). Packet Pg. 1450 J.3.1 e. ■ The model must be available to all present and future parties affected by the FIRM that has been developed or amended through the use of the model. If appeals will involve changing the floodplain boundaries shown on the FIRM, the appellant will be required to submit delineations of both the 1- and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundaries if 1- and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundary delineations are shown on the preliminary FIRM. Use of North American Vertical Datum of 1988 • The National Geodetic Survey has determined that the national vertical control network needs to be readjusted. Therefore, FEMA has been converting NFIP maps gradually from the old national datum, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29), to a new national datum, North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). • When submitting an appeal, the appellant must use the reference datum on the preliminary FIRM. NAVD88 is the datum used along with the latest datum adjustments. • For more information on NAVD, interested parties should reference the following FEMA reference documents: ■ FIA-20, Converting the National Flood Insurance Program to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988, Guidelines for Community Officials, Engineers, and Surveyors, Appendix B, "Guidance for Converting to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988, of Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners. • Interested parties may locate these reference documents in the FEMA Information Resource Library, which is located at www.fema.gov/library. Comments Comments generally involve requests for changes to information shown on the preliminary FIRM and in the FIS report other than flood hazard data, such as corporate limit boundaries, road names and configurations, and other non -appealable changes. Changes to Corporate Limits The corporate limits shown on the preliminary FIRMS were taken from community data obtained by FEMA from local community officials. If changes to the corporate limits shown on the preliminary FIRMS are necessary, a community must submit an up-to-date community map or GIS dataset showing the current corporate limits. Sep-17 E Packet Pg. 1451 J.3.1 M� ww'FEMA. Changes to Road Names and Other Base Map features On the preliminary FIRMS, FEMA has shown all roads that are in or adjacent to the 1-percent- annual-chance floodplain. Community officials may provide a map or GIS dataset showing more up- to-date information on locations and names of roads in or adjacent to floodplains if necessary. Where to Send Support Data and Documentation Property owners and other individuals who would like to submit appeals or comments must submit their written request along with the required support data and documentation to the community Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or other designated community official. The community CEO or designated community official must submit all appeals and comments along with the required support data discussed above to: Sandra Keefe, Director FEMA Region 6 — Mitigation Division ATTN: FIRM Appeal/Comment Submittal 800 N. Loop 288 Denton, Texas 76209 Sep-17 E Packet Pg. 1452 FEMA Region 6 800 N. Loop 288 Denton, TX 76209 Application Information for Appeal and Comment of a Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (Submit this Form along with the Supporting Technical Data & Provide as much Digital Data Possible when Applicable) Date: Applicant Name Street Address City — E-mail Address (Optional) Information of Appeal/Comment I J. Community Name Watershed/Stream Name Street Name with Cross Street Map Panel Number Company (If Applicable State Phone Number Zip Code Type of Request (Please Indicate if You Are Submitting an Appeal OR Comment) Appeal — Eligible for appeal: Areas showing new or revised BFEs or base flood depths, areas showing a new or revised SFHA boundaries (including both increases and decreases in the extent of the SFHA); areas where there is a change in SFHA zone designation and areas showing new or revised regulatory boundaries (including both increases and decreases in the extent of the regulatory floodway). Depending on what specific aspect of the study is being challenged, various types of data are required to support an appeal. In some cases, the applicant is required to submit a revised flood study, including updated hydrologic and/or hydraulic analyses, flood profiles, and floodplain and floodway boundaries, using alternate methods or data that are believed to be superior to those used in the preliminary study. Unless appeals are based on indisputable mathematical or measurement errors or the effects of natural physical changes that have occurred in the floodplain they must be accompanied by all data that FEMA needs to revise the preliminary version of the FIS report and FIRMS. For more detailed information on specific data submissions that are required, refer to Appeals, Revisions, and Amendments to NFIP Maps: A Guide for Community Officials (FIA-12, Chapter 3- Appeals) httL)s://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/17930 Technical Information you are submitting with the Appeal Request (check all that apply) ❑ New Digital Model Data (this data could include: updated hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, digital data, any revised flood profiles and delineated revised SFHA zones and/or regulatory floodway boundaries) ❑ Certified Topographic Information (No certification needed if it is a government product, such as USGS Map). ❑ Elevation Certification Signed and Sealed by a Licensed Surveyor or Professional Engineer ❑ Copy of the Preliminary Flood Map Panel (with requested changes to the floodplain drawn on it). ❑ Other Information Comment — Eligible for comment: Impacts of changes that have occurred in the floodplain that should have been previously been submitted to FEMA in accordance with 44 Code of Federal Regulations; Section 65.3; corporate limit revisions; road name errors and revisions; requests that include incorporation of Letters of Map Change (LOMCs); base map errors; and other possible omissions or potential improvements to the mapping. . Technical Information you are submitting with the Comment Request (check all that apply) ❑ Copy of the Preliminary Flood Map Panel (with requested changes to the floodplain drawn on it). ❑ Digital data (shape files preferred) in NAVD 88 ❑ Other Information Please mail this application, along with all supporting technical data, to the following address: FEMA, Region 6 0 Attn: Sandra Keefe 800 North Loop 288 Denton, TX 76209-3698 For more information, please call (940)898-5399; Fax (940)898-5195 Packet Pg. 1453