Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners - Volume 2: Map Revisions and Amendments
Summary of Changes for Volume 2, 

Map Revisions and Amendments 

The Summary of Changes below details changes to Volume 2 that were made subsequent to the 
initial publication of these Guidelines in February 2002. These changes represent new or 
updated guidance for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners. 

 

Date 

Affected 
Section/Subsection 

Description of Changes 

April 2003 

2.1.8 

Added section on Report and Map Production for 
Physical Map Revisions (PMRs) consistent with 
requirements of Volume 1. 

April 2003 

2.1.9.1 

Added section on Revised Preliminary processing 
for PMRs consistent with requirements of 
Volume 1. 

April 2003 

2.1.10 

Clarified Appeal and Protest Processing for 
PMRs. 

April 2003 

2.1.11 

Updated Summary of Map Actions (SOMA) 
Processing. 

April 2003 

2.1.12 

Clarified Final Flood Elevation Determination 
processing for PMRs. 

April 2003 

2.1.13 

Added description of floodplain management 
ordinance review procedures for PMRs consistent 
with requirements in Volume 1. 

April 2003 

2.1.14 

Updated requirements for final report and map 
production for PMRs. 

April 2003 

2.1.15 

Added procedures for Letter of Map Change 
(LOMC) validation for PMRs. 

April 2003 

2.2 

Revised the discussion of Coastal Barrier 
Resources System revisions to eliminate overlaps 
and inconsistencies with Appendix K. 

April 2003 

2.4.2.3 

Added wording regarding removal of structures 
from the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) but 
not floodway, unless requested to do so by 
participating community. Clarified Restrictions 




for Letter of Map Amendments (LOMAs). 

April 2003 

2.4.4.3 

Clarified Restrictions for Letter of Map 
Revisions based on Fill (LOMR-Fs). 

April 2003 

2.4.6.9 

Added guidance concerning the preparation of 
Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) attachments. 

April 2003 

2.4.6.12 

Clarified Appeal and Protest Processing for 
LOMRs. 

April 2003 

2.5.3 

Updated Summary of Map Actions (SOMA) 
Procedures. 

April 2003 

2.9.3 

Added a new subsection to include requirements 
for maintaining records in the Monitoring 
Information on Contracted Studies (MICS) 
system. 




Volume 2 

2.1 Physical Map Revisions [February 2002][JDA1] 


FEMA will typically initiate a Physical Map Revision (PMR) in response to a map revision 
request when one of the following will occur: 

- Changes resulting from the requested revision will be extensive and will cover more than 
one panel of the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). 
- Changes will result in significantly more mapped area being added to the Special Flood 
Hazard Areas (SFHAs). 
- Changes will result in increases in the Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) shown on the 
effective FIRM. 


FEMA also may prepare a revised Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report and, when appropriate, a 
revised Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM), depending on the nature of the revision. 
Under certain circumstances, FEMA may issue a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) even if the 
above-mentioned conditions exist. FEMA and the Mapping Partner that is assigned by FEMA to 
process the revision request (hereinafter referred to as the processing Mapping Partner) shall use 
the Standard Map Revision Decision-Making Flowchart in Figure 2-1 in selecting a processing 
option. 

At the direction of the FEMA Project Officer (PO) or his/her designee, the Mapping Partner shall 
prepare a revised FIRM and, as necessary, FIS report and FBFM in a standard publication format 
in accordance with the specifications outlined in Appendices J and K of these Guidelines. To 
accomplish this, the processing Mapping Partner shall: 

- Acknowledge the revision request; 
- Obtain all required data that are submitted by the revision requester with the first 
submittal; 
- Update the base information on the affected FIRM and FBFM panels as necessary; 
- Prepare manuscripts for use in drafting or digitizing the revised FIRM and FBFM panels; 
- Prepare the revised FIS report materials and FIRM and FBFM panels; and 
- Prepare and ensure accuracy and completeness of final reproduction materials, including 
a camera-ready copy of the FIS report and negatives of the FIRM and FBFM, or positive 
plots on mylar, or digital files; 



- Deliver the final reproduction materials to the FEMA Map Service Center (MSC) for 
printing by the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO). 
- Communicate with the revision requester and community, as necessary, throughout the 
process. 
- Coordinate activities with the FEMA Regional Office (RO) as directed by the FEMA PO 
or his/her designee. 
- Communicate with other Mapping Partners, as needed. 


 

Detailed information on the procedures for processing PMRs is provided in Subsections 2.1.1 
through 2.1.17. 

2.1.1 Receipt and Acknowledgment [February 2002] 


Map revision requests and any accompanying data from community officials and other Mapping 
Partners may be transmitted to the processing Mapping Partner or to FEMA RO or Headquarters 
(HQ) staff. If such requests are submitted directly to the processing Mapping Partner that 
processes map revision requests for FEMA, the processing Mapping Partner shall inform the 
FEMA PO or his/her designee. 

The processing Mapping Partner shall inventory the materials received and, within 5 working 
days of receipt, send an acknowledgment letter to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and 
floodplain administrator of the community. If the requester is anyone other than the CEO or 
floodplain administrator, the Mapping Partner shall send the requester a copy of the 
acknowledgment letter and, if necessary, telephone the requester to explain the review 
procedures. 

In accordance with Section 65.4 of the NFIP regulations, all requests for changes to effective 
maps other than those initiated by FEMA must be made in writing by the CEO of the 
community. The processing Mapping Partner shall request community concurrence if this 
information was not submitted with the request. If applicable, the Mapping Partner also shall 
request State concurrence, if that concurrence was not submitted with the revision request. 

 

 


Standard Map Revision Decision-Making Flowchart 

 

Figure 2-1. Standard Map Revision Decision-Making Flowchart 


Standard Map Revision Decision-Making Flowchart (continued) 

 

Figure 2-1. Standard Map Revision Decision-Making Flowchart (Contd) 

 

 


2.1.2 Case Initiation [February 2002] 


Upon receipt of the request, the processing Mapping Partner shall do the following: 

 Make an initial determination as to the expected processing procedure (i.e., PMR, 
LOMR). 
 Assign a case number in accordance with Subsection 2.3 of the FEMA Document Control 
Procedures Manual (FEMA, 2000). 
 Create a revision case file, in accordance with Section 66.3 of the NFIP regulations and 
Appendix M of these Guidelines. 
 Enter the revision request into an in-house Management Information System (MIS) and 
the Letter of Map Change (LOMC) module of FEMAs Community Information System 
(CIS) database. 
 Record the date of receipt as the date from which all required processing dates are 
determined. 
 Request, in writing, updated information from the community on other flooding sources, 
available hydraulic data, changes to corporate boundaries or jurisdictions, and other 
information pertinent to flood mapping. 
2.1.3 Initial Reconnaissance [February 2002] 




After the case has been properly recorded, the processing Mapping Partner shall begin a search 
of all available records to determine the status of the community in the NFIP and to identify all 
past actions by FEMA in the community that may affect the request. 

The processing Mapping Partner shall determine whether all data required to address the request 
have been submitted, advise the FEMA PO or his/her designee of the results of this review, and 
make a recommendation concerning action to be taken. 

2.1.4 Program Status and Map Actions [February 2002] 


The processing Mapping Partner shall review various portions of FEMAs databases (i.e., CIS, 
Monitoring Information on Contracted Studies [MICS], Map Needs Update Support System 
[MNUSS]) to determine the status of the community in the NFIP and obtain information on 
complete, active, and future required restudies, map revisions, and map amendments. 

The processing Mapping Partner also may use the NFIP Community Status Book, available in 
hardcopy form from the FEMA Map Service Center (MSC) or from the Mitigation Library on 
FEMAs Internet site (http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm), to determine whether the 
community is participating in the Emergency or Regular Phase of the NFIP. 


The processing Mapping Partner shall review the following data sources to obtain more detailed 
information on the nature and extent of any past map actions in the community: 

 Future Revision FilesThe processing Mapping Partner shall review these files to 
determine if additional revisions to the FIS report, FIRM, or FBFM are warranted. These 
files exist because, from time to time, information is submitted by the community or 
identified during the course of processing a restudy or map revision that does not 
significantly affect the communitys participation in the NFIP. Because of funding 
constraints, these revisions are deferred for future action and, at the request of the FEMA 
PO or his/her designee, placed in the future revision files. In particular, the processing 
Mapping Partner should review this information for changes affecting the underlying 
maps or models used in preparing the effective FIRM, FBFM, and FIS report. 
 Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) and Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill 
(LOMR-F) FilesThe processing Mapping Partner shall review these files to determine 
if past LOMA and LOMR-F actions are mappable (i.e., of sufficient size and scope to 
warrant inclusion in the ongoing revision). In general, single-lot LOMAs and LOMR-Fs 
do not warrant inclusion because of map scale limitations. However, multiple-lot 
LOMAs and LOMR-Fs may warrant inclusion in a PMR. Additional information on 
LOMA and LOMR-F processing is provided in Section 2.4of these Guidelines and in 
Section 3 of the FEMA Document Control Procedures Manual (FEMA, 2000). 
 MNUSSAs with the Future Revision Files, the processing Mapping Partner shall 
review the data in MNUSS and any supporting information to determine if additional 
revisions to the FIS report, FIRM, or FBFM may be warranted. 
 Other ItemsThe processing Mapping Partner shall ascertain the relevance of Coastal 
Barrier Resources System (CBRS) and Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) designations to 
the project area, and shall determine if the community has a floodplain ordinance in 
compliance with the latest version of the NFIP regulations. 
2.1.5 Required Data [February 2002] 




Based on the reason for and extent of the revision request, the processing Mapping Partner shall 
determine whether sufficient data have been submitted by the community or other revision 
requester for additional data in accordance with the applicable portions of Sections 65.5, 65.6, 
65.7, 65.10, 65.11, 65.12, and 65.13 of the NFIP regulations. In addition, the processing 
Mapping Partner shall ensure that the requester has completed and submitted the appropriate 
certification forms from the latest version of the MT-2 certification forms package, which may 
be downloaded from http://www.fema.gov/fhm/dl_mt-2.htm. 


In accordance with Part 65 of the NFIP regulations, a Registered Professional Engineer or 
Licensed Land Surveyor must certify all data. Examples of standard data requirements for 
various modifications include, but are not limited to, the following: 

All Revisions 

1. Topographic work map that includes the entire area of the revision and delineates 
floodplain and/or floodway boundaries, BFEs, and cross-section locations, and all 
applicable items required in the MT-2 package 
2. Floodplain and/or floodway boundary delineations on the effective map panels and the 
topographic work map 
3. Notification to affected adjacent communities 
4. Evidence that all revisions involving structures or fill placement meet the criteria of 
Sections 60.3, 65.5, and 65.6 of the NFIP regulations, which require that the 
communitys NFIP permit official certify that proposed or existing structures to be 
removed from the SFHA be reasonably safe from flooding 
5. Certified as-built construction or grading plans (if appropriate) 


Revisions in Riverine Areas 

1. Hydrologic analysis (if the discharges in the effective FIS report are not used) 
2. Effective hydraulic model run duplicating original hydraulic model (multiple profile and 
floodway). See Appendix C, Subsection C.5.2.1 of these Guidelines for information on 
FEMAs policy for conversion to HEC-RAS. 
3. Existing hydraulic model (multiple profile and floodway) if the calibration hydraulic 
model run does not reflect the floodplain conditions prior to the start of the project 
4. Revised hydraulic model (multiple profile and floodway) 
5. Floodplain and/or floodway boundary delineations on the effective map panels and the 
topographic work map 


Channelizations 

1. Transition structure design plans for as-built conditions 
2. New hydrologic analyses or diversion channel designs 



Levees (Dikes, Berms, and Embankments) (See Appendix H of these Guidelines) 

1. Evidence of structural stability, certified by a Registered Professional Engineer 
2. Evidence of operation and maintenance provisions 
3. Interior drainage analyses and SFHA boundary delineations 
4. Demonstration of compliance with Section 65.10 of the NFIP regulations 
5. Additional design data as necessary 


Dams (Detention Basins and Reservoirs) 

1. Certification by a Registered Professional Engineer that impoundment structures will 
remain stable during the base flood 
2. Evidence of operation and maintenance provisions 
3. Hydrologic analyses for downstream reach, if the dam is designed to lower the base flood 
discharge 


Flood-Control Structures Subject to Alluvial Fan Flooding (see Appendix G of these 
Guidelines) 

1. Certification by a Registered Professional Engineer that the flood-control structures will 
be able to withstand the hazards associated with flooding, erosion, scour, and relocation 
of flow paths during the base flood discharge 
2. Hydrologic analyses that quantify the discharges (if the discharges on which the effective 
FIRM is based are not used) and the volumes of water, debris, and sediment movement 
3. Engineering analyses demonstrating the impact of flooding from sources other than the 
fan apex 
4. Revised analysis of alluvial fan flooding (if the analysis on which the effective FIRM is 
based is not used), accompanied by a discussion of the effects of (1) the depth and 
velocity of flooding, and (2) the scour and sediment deposition on other areas of the fan 
5. Evidence of operation and maintenance provisions 
6. Revised floodplain boundary delineations on the affected panels of the effective FIRM 


Evidence of maintenance provisions, where referenced above, are to be in the form of an 
ordinance that specifies the activities to be performed, the frequency of performance, and the 
community officials responsible for the performance. If maintenance is to be accomplished by 
an agency other than the community, a logical provision (e.g., ordinance) for community 


monitoring and backup maintenance is required. The Mapping Partner shall ensure that 
maintenance agreements are submitted for levees and dams. 

Certifications, where referenced above, are defined as follows: 

 Certification of data is a statement that the data are accurate to the best of the certifiers 
knowledge. 
Certification of analyses is a statement that the analyses have been performed correctly 
and in accordance with sound engineering practices. 
Certification of structural works is a statement that the works are designed in accordance 
with sound engineering practices to provide protection from the base flood. 
Certification of as-built conditions is a statement that a structure has been built according 
to the plans being certified, is in place, and is fully functional. 


The processing Mapping Partner shall ensure that certifications include the certifiers name, 
signature, registration number, and the registration date of the certifier. 

2.1.6 Technical Review [February 2002] 


The processing Mapping Partner shall review the technical, scientific, and other information 
submitted by the revision requester to ensure that the data are technically accurate, consistent 
with standard engineering practice and FEMA standards, and sufficient to warrant a revision. 
The extent of the technical review will, generally, be limited to a review of the information 
presented on the certification forms and the supporting documentation submitted with them. 

For revisions involving the addition of detailed flood hazard information or changes to flooding 
sources originally studied by detailed methods, analyses and other supporting data for the 10- 
year (10-percent-annual-chance), 50-year (2-percent-annual-chance), 100-year (1-percent-
annual-chance), and 500-year (0.2-percent-annual-chance) floods and regulatory floodway may 
be required. At a minimum, the analyses and other supporting data provided in support of a 
revision request must meet the original standards employed by FEMA for the preparation of the 
FIS report, FIRM, and FBFM. 

2.1.6.1 Hydrologic Analyses [February 2002] 


FEMA requires that the computations performed to support a request for a revisions to the 
effective FIS report, FIRM, and FBFM be based on the flood discharge values used for the 
effective FIS report, FIRM, and FBFM if those discharges are still applicable. However, revision 
requests also may be based on new hydrologic conditions or better estimates of the flood 
discharges if significant hydrologic changes have occurred. 

The revision requester shall provide 5- and 95-percent confidence limits in support of new 
discharge values, when gage statistical analysis is performed in support of new hydrology. The 


revision requester shall provide sufficient data to support the use of the new discharges for the 1-
percent-annual-chance flood and, if necessary, the 10-, 2-, and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floods; 
the revision requester also shall determine all changes to the FIS report, FIRM, and FBFM that 
would result from the use of the new flood discharges. Therefore, the revision requester usually 
must submit hydraulic analyses and revised floodplain and floodway boundary delineations, in 
addition to hydrologic analyses. 

The processing Mapping Partner shall review the information presented in the MT-2 certification 
forms package to determine if the flood discharges are reasonable and adhere to the requirements 
listed below. The processing Mapping Partner shall check the flood discharge values for 
consistency, within the limitations of the methodology employed, throughout the information 
submitted by the revision requester. In performing this check, the processing Mapping Partner 
shall verify that, for flooding sources studied by detailed methods, the revision requester has 
submitted adequate information for any of the four recurrences interval floods that may be 
affected by the new hydrologic analyses. 

The following requirements apply to revision requests involving revised hydrology based on 
existing conditions: 

 The revised flood discharge must be significantly different from the effective flood 
discharge. The revised flood discharge shall be adopted if the effective flood discharge 
does not fall within the 5- and 95-percent confidence limits of the revised estimates. 
These limits shall be determined using methods contained in Bulletin 17B, Guidelines for 
Determining Flood Flow Frequency (Interagency Committee on Water Data, 1982). 
In cases where the new flood discharge must be approved by the State, the processing 
Mapping Partner shall ensure that the proper approval from the State has been acquired 
and submitted by the revision requester. 
In cases where the new flood discharge must be approved by a regional/local flood-
control agency, the processing Mapping Partner shall ensure that the proper approval 
from the regional/local flood-control agency has been acquired and submitted by the 
revision requester. 
An alternative methodology, if used by a revision requester, must meet the requirements 
of Paragraph 65.6(a)(6) of the NFIP regulations and must be on FEMAs list of accepted 
computer models. 
For the revised hydrologic analyses, the revision requester shall analyze the same 
recurrence interval floods as those analyzed for the effective analyses. 
The results from the revised hydrologic analyses must match those for contiguous 
communities. 
The data accumulated and analyses performed must be certified by a Registered 
Professional Engineer and submitted by the revision requester to FEMA for review. 



If the community has elected to present flood hazard information based on future-conditions 
hydrology on the FIRM and in the FIS report, the guidance provided in Subsection 2.4.6.7 shall 
be followed. 

2.1.6.2 Hydraulic Analyses [February 2002] 


The revision requester shall perform hydraulic analyses to support a revision request based on 
new hydrologic conditions or physical changes in channel or overbank conditions, if those 
conditions affect the elevation and extent of the 1-percent-annual-chance flood. For revisions 
involving flooding sources originally studied by approximate methods and designated as Zone A 
on the effective FIRM, the analyses performed by the revision requester generally must be 
consistent with FEMA standards for approximate studies presented in Volume 1 and Appendix C 
of these Guidelines. Therefore, the analyses may be in the form of hand calculations for step-
backwater, normal-depth, or stage-frequency relationships, or the analyses may be based on the 
use of step-backwater or coastal flooding computer programs. 

If the effective hydraulic model is available, the revision requester shall use it to establish 
baseline conditions. For revisions involving flooding sources that were studied by detailed 
methods, analyses performed by the revision requester must be consistent with FEMA standards 
for detailed studies Therefore, the analysis usually shall consist of step-backwater computations 
for riverine flooding sources, stage-frequency analyses for lacustrine flooding, hand 
computations for sheetflow areas, and storm-surge and wave-height or wave-runup calculations 
for coastal flooding. The FEMA standards for detailed studies are presented in Volume 1 and 
Appendices C through G of these Guidelines. 

The revision requester shall ensure that all submitted information and data are consistent. 
Therefore, the revision requester shall eliminate discontinuities between the flood hazard 
information shown for revised areas and the flood hazard information shown for non-revised 
areas in the FIS report and on the FIRM and FBFM before submitting the revision request to 
FEMA for review and processing. 

In addition, for revisions based on the effects of levees or other flood-control structures that have 
been credited with providing base flood protection, the revision requester shall submit 
verification, in the form of technical analyses, that those structures meet the minimum criteria 
outlined in Section 65.l0 of the NFIP regulations. (Additional information on the criteria for 
crediting for disaccrediting levees or other flood-control structures is provided in Appendix H of 
these Guidelines.) 

Similarly, for flood-control structures located in areas subject to alluvial fan flooding, the 
revision requester shall submit technical analyses to verify that the minimum criteria of Section 
65.13 of the NFIP regulations are met. (Additional information on the criteria for flood-control 
structures on alluvial fans is provided in Appendix G of these Guidelines.) 

The processing Mapping Partner shall verify that the effects of such structures are properly 
discussed in the FIS report and shown on the FIRM and FBFM. 


The following requirements shall apply to requests involving revised hydraulic analyses: 

 Revision requests shall be based on the effective hydraulic model. Where the input data 
representing the effective hydraulic model are unavailable, the revision requester shall 
develop an approximation. The revision requester shall establish a new model using the 
original cross-section topographic information, where possible, and the flood discharges 
on which the current FIS report and FIRM are based. The model must use the same 
effective-flow areas as established in the original effective analysis and must be 
calibrated to reproduce the original BFEs to within 0.5 foot. (See Appendix C, 
Subsection C.5.2.1 of these Guidelines for information on FEMA policy for conversion 
to HEC-RAS.) 
 If the revision requester uses an alternative hydraulic methodology, that methodology 
must be on FEMAs list of acceptable computer models and meet the requirements of 
Paragraph 65.6(a)(6) of the NFIP regulations. 
 To avoid discontinuities between the revised and non-revised flood data, the revision 
requester shall submit hydraulic analyses be that are extensive enough to ensure a logical 
transition can be shown between the revised flood elevations, floodplain boundaries, and 
floodway boundaries and those developed previously for areas not affected by the 
revision. The revised and non-revised water-surface elevations must match within 0.5 
foot where such transitions occur; however, FEMA would prefer that the transitions 
match within 0.10 foot if possible. The FEMA PO or his/her designee must approve 
exceptions to this standard. 
 In general, revision requests that result in increases in BFEs because of the physical 
actions of an individual property owner within the regulatory floodway are to be 
considered a potential violation of NFIP regulations unless evidence is provided to show 
that the criteria described in Section 65.12 of the NFIP regulations have been met. The 
processing Mapping Partner shall bring any violation or potential violation of the NFIP 
regulations to the attention of the FEMA PO or his/her designee. The FEMA PO or 
his/her designee shall then bring the matter to the attention of the FEMA RO for followup 
action with the community involved. 
 The processing Mapping Partner shall consult with the FEMA PO or his/her designee to 
ensure that the provisions of the June 2001 revisions to Sections 65.5 and 65.6 of the 
NFIP regulations are met. If fill is placed in the community to raise the ground surface to 
or above the BFE, the community must meet the criteria of Sections 60.3, 65.5, and 65.6 of 
the NFIP regulations, which require that the communitys NFIP permit official certify that 
proposed or existing structures to be removed from the SFHA be reasonably safe from 
flooding. Reasonably safe from flooding means floodwaters from the 1-percent-annual-
chance flood will not inundate the land or damage structures to be removed from the SFHA 
and that any subsurface waters related to the base flood will not damage existing or 
proposed buildings. Additional information on the June 2001 revisions to Sections 65.5 
and 65.6 of the NFIP regulations is provided in FEMA Technical Bulletin 10-01, Ensuring 
that Structures Built on Fill In or Near Special Flood Hazard Areas Are Reasonably Safe 



From Flooding, which may be downloaded directly from the FEMA Web site at 
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/fima/tb1001.pdf. (Additional Technical Bulletins may be 
downloaded from http://www.fema.gov/fima/techbul.shtm.) 
 The processing Mapping Partner shall ensure that the map revision request conforms to 
all applicable NFIP regulations, and shall consult with the FEMA PO or his/her designee 
to determine how current FEMA policies may affect the revision. 
2.1.6.3 Coastal Revisions [February 2002] 




To compute the stillwater flood level (SWFL), the revision requester shall consider many factors, 
and the computation is performed through the use of computer models or statistical analysis of 
tide gage data of adequate continuous record. Any revision of the SWFL must be based on new 
information that either refutes or supplements the gage data. The revision requester shall submit 
significant data or produce verifiable information that refutes the information FEMA used to 
construct the applicable computer model. 

In the case of tide gages, the revision requester shall perform a statistical analysis prepared with 
new data that supplements the existing tide gage records or provides evidence that the data used 
are incorrect. The processing Mapping Partner shall review the information presented on the 
MT-2 certification forms package to determine the appropriateness of incorporating the revised 
data on the FIRM. 

For map revision requests in coastal areas based on more up-to-date, site-specific topographic 
information, the revision requester shall provide a transect and a wave-height analysis based on 
the profile. For this analysis, the revision requester also may be required to consider other 
coastal processes, such as erosion and wave runup. This analysis may be conducted based on the 
terms of the effective FIS report and FIRM, the community, or the FEMA PO or his/her 
designee. 

Map revisions in coastal areas also may be based on existing, new, or improved shore-protection 
structures, such as bulkheads, seawalls, breakwaters, and dikes. When structures designed to 
diminish or absorb wave energy (e.g., breakwaters, bulkheads, seawalls) are involved, the 
revision requester shall submit evidence that the structure will survive the base flood and 
associated wave action. The items that the revision requester shall address for a map revision 
based on coastal structures are listed in Criteria for Evaluating Coastal Flood Protection 
Structures (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1989). (See Appendix D of these Guidelines for 
additional information.) Structures designed to provide flood protection (e.g., levees, dikes, 
floodwalls) must conform to Section 65.10 of the NFIP regulations and to the criteria outlined in 
Appendix H of these Guidelines. 


The revision requester also shall provide assurance from the State or local agency with 
maintenance responsibility that the structures involved in the revision will be maintained and 
will not settle, and shall submit as-built drawings of all structures. Wave height analyses based 
on transacts through these types of structures are valid only when these conditions are met. 

The processing Mapping Partner shall review the information presented in the MT-2 certification 
forms package to determine the items that require further review and the appropriateness of 
incorporating the revised data on the FIRM. 

2.1.6.4 Other Data [February 2002] 


Revision requesters also may request changes to flood risk zone designations, changes to 
floodplain boundaries based on new or more detailed topographic information, and changes to 
corporate limits. 

For revisions to flood insurance risk zone designations, the processing Mapping Partner shall 
verify the accuracy of any calculations the revision requester submitted and determine whether a 
revision is warranted based on a review of the MT-2 certification forms package and the 
supporting documentation. Requests that Zone V or Zone A areas be revised to Zone A or Zone 
B, respectively, are to be supported by hydraulic computations in most cases. 

For floodplain boundary revisions based on new or more detailed topographic information, the 
revision requester will not be required to submit revised hydraulic analyses unless the changes in 
ground contours have significantly affected the geometry of cross sections used for the effective 
FIS and FIRM or have altered effective-flow areas. For revisions involving only floodplain 
boundaries, the processing Mapping Partner shall review the information presented on the MT-2 
certification forms package to determine whether the requested revisions may be made. 

For changes to corporate limits, the revision requester and processing Mapping Partner shall 
refer to Section 2.6 for procedures and requirements. 

2.1.7 Reporting and Project Officer Approval [February 2002] 


Upon request, the processing Mapping Partner shall advise the revision requester, the FEMA 
RO, and/or the FEMA PO or his/her designee about the current status of a technical review. 
When the technical review is complete, the processing Mapping Partner shall discuss the results 
of the review, any additional data required to support the requested revision, and any problems 
encountered during the review with the FEMA PO or his/her designee. 


If appropriate, the FEMA PO or his/her designee shall direct the processing Mapping Partner to 
finalize the technical review using one of the following options: 

 Requesting, by telephone or letter, additional or revised data to complete the technical 
review; or 
 Proceeding with PMR. 


If the processing Mapping Partner is to proceed with the PMR, the processing Mapping Partner 
shall prepare a letter, referred to as a 316-PMR letter, to inform the community CEO and 
floodplain administrator that a PMR will be prepared and request that the community submit any 
information to be incorporated into the PMR. Additional information on the 316-PMR letter and 
other correspondence issued by FEMA and the processing Mapping Partner for a revision 
request is provided in the FEMA Document Control Procedures Manual (FEMA, 2000). 

2.1.8 Report and Map Production [April 2003] 


The following activities are accomplished during the Report and Map Production subphase of the 
Flood Map Project: 

 Base map acquisition and preparation; 
 FIRM compilation, which entails setting up the final FIRM format (scale, orientation, and 
panel scheme) and compiling existing flood hazard data (in manual or digital form) from 
the effective NFIP map and fitting it to the new or updated base map to meet current 
FIRM specifications; 
 Merging of revised and effective flood hazard data into a seamless dataset; 
 Research regarding LOMCs issued previously for affected FIRM panels; 
 Preparation of required news releases, legal notices, and LOMC summaries; 
 Preparation of new or revised FIS report, including Flood Profiles and supporting tables; 
 Preparation of new or revised FIRM panel(s); and 
 Development of DFIRM database for DFIRMs. 
2.1.8.1 Base Map Acquisition and Preparation [April 2003] 




If a Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) will be produced for the PMR, a digital base 
map that reflects reference features (i.e., roads, streets, hydrographic features, political 
jurisdiction boundaries) needed by users to locate properties will be required. Early coordination 
with all communities affected by a PMR is important. 


Therefore, the processing Mapping Partner or another assigned Mapping Partner shall send a 
letter to each affected community that: 

 Describes the DFIRM product; 
 Requests pertinent information (pertinent information that is requested includes base map 
data; a current corporate limits map; elevation data [either electronic or hardcopy] and 
any engineering information that needs to be updated or added to the DFIRM); 
 Describes the minimum requirements for the submittal of data to be included in the new 
DFIRM product, and 
 Identifies the base map source that will be used if community data are not available or 
suitable. 


A sample version of this letter and other correspondence that may be generated during the 
processing of the PMR are presented in the FEMA Document Control Procedures Manual 
(FEMA, 2001). 

2.1.8.2 Base Map Choice Priorities [April 2003] 


Base map data to be used in producing a DFIRM are prioritized as follows: 

1. Base map data that are supplied by communities or other non-Federal sources (e.g., State 
or regional agencies) and meet FEMA criteria are the first choice for DFIRM production. 
These files may be in either vector or raster format. If both are available, vector data are 
preferable due to the ease of their use, their file size, and their lower printing cost. 
However, community preferences are taken into account when making this choice. 
2. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Digital Orthophoto Quadrangles (DOQs) are the second 
choice and the default base map if suitable community data are not available. 


If neither suitable community base map data nor USGS DOQs are available for a county 
scheduled for DFIRM production, the FEMA Lead shall provide the community with 
information on base map sources, including information on partnering with USGS to initiate 
DOQ production for that county. DOQ production normally takes 12 to 14 months, so 
coordination with USGS must be initiated with that time frame and the DFIRM production 
schedule in mind. 

DFIRM road and railroad names are derived from community-supplied files or hardcopy 
sources, effective FIRM panels, and/or U.S. Bureau of the Census Topologically Integrated 
Geographic Encoding and Reference System (TIGER) files. Road names are needed regardless 
of which base map source is chosen for DFIRM production. 


2.1.8.3 Minimum Standards for Community-Supplied Data [April 2003] 


For FEMA to use community-supplied base map data instead of USGS DOQs for new DFIRM 
production, minimum standards for resolution, horizontal accuracy, vertical accuracy, horizontal 
reference system, data sources, currency, coverage, availability, restrictions on use, required and 
optional contents, thematic separation of data, file format and transfer media, tiling, data 
structure, and metadata must be met. These minimum requirements are summarized below. 

Resolution 

The minimum resolution requirement for raster data files is 1-meter ground distance. Higher 
resolution data are also acceptable. 

Horizontal Accuracy 

The NSSDA is used to report the horizontal accuracy of the base map data used by FEMA to 
produce a DFIRM. The NSSDA uses radial accuracy (Accuracyr) to report the radius of a circle 
of uncertainty, such that the true or theoretical location of a point falls within that circle 95 
percent of the time. The minimum horizontal positional accuracy for new FIRM base map data 
is that of the default base map  the USGS DOQs, which have an NSSDA radial accuracy of 38 
feet. Data that meet higher accuracy standards also are acceptable. Accuracyz of 38 feet is the 
same as radial root mean square error (RMSEr) of 22 feet. 

Vertical Accuracy 

For hilly terrain, where 4-foot contours are considered acceptable for hydraulic modeling, digital 
elevation data must have vertical accuracy (Accuracyz) of 2.4 feet (i.e., vertical root mean square 
error [RMSEz] of 1.2 feet). In moderate to flat terrain, where 2-foot contours are required to 
accurately determine 1-percent-annual-chance flood elevations and floodplain boundaries, the 
digital elevation data must have Accuracyz of 1.2 feet (i.e., RMSEz of 0.6 foot). 

According to the NSSDA, which replaced the National Map Accuracy Standards of 1947 for 
digital mapping products, Accuracyz defines vertical accuracy at the 95-percent confidence level. 
This means that the true or theoretical location of a point falls within  of that linear uncertainty 
value 95 percent of the time. Accuracyz = RMSEz x 1.9600, where RMSEz is the square root of 
the mean of the squared errors in elevations of check points used to evaluate the vertical 
accuracy of a digital dataset. 

Horizontal Reference System 

The files must be georeferenced to a known projection and datum and be accompanied by 
information that describes those parameters. 


Data Sources 

Community-supplied data may be in the form of digital orthophotos or vector data files. Locally 
produced digital orthophotos may be at larger scales and higher resolution than USGS DOQs, 
but they must meet USGS DOQ standards at a minimum. Aerial images that are not 
orthorectified are not acceptable. Vector files may be photogrammetrically compiled or digitized 
from orthophotos. Unacceptable vector file sources include TIGER files or other files compiled 
at scales smaller than 1:20,000. 

Currency 

The data must have been created or reviewed for update needs within the last 7 years. 

Coverage 

Complete and integrated data for an entire county are preferred. If only portions of a county are 
available, FEMA may choose to use the default base map source (USGS DOQs) for the county. 

Availability 

The data must be available at the time of the initial coordination contact and must be sent within 
30 days of receipt of the FEMA request for the data. 

Restrictions on Use 

FEMA must be able to print and distribute an unlimited number of hardcopy maps using the 
data. FEMA must also be able to distribute the base map data and floodplain information freely 
to the public. Conversion of vector base map data to a raster format for distribution is an option 
if this satisfies community concerns about the release of proprietary data. 

Required Contents 

The files must contain all transportation features (e.g., roads, railroads, airports) in the 
community. If DOQs are supplied, these features must be clearly visible. If vector files are 
supplied, they also must contain transportation features. Roads are considered to be those 
travelways intended and maintained for use by motorized vehicles. In vector format, roads may 
be portrayed as road centerlines or edges of pavement. 

The USGS DOQs or community-supplied transportation features shall be augmented with the 
following vector data if available: 

 Hydrographic features, including streams, rivers, lakes, and shorelines; 
 Current political boundaries, including those that define the county limits, corporate 
limits, extraterritorial jurisdictional areas, military lands, and Native American lands; 



 Parks or forest lands, if applicable; 
 Range, township, and section lines, if applicable; and 
 Feature names for all of the above features that have names. These may be provided as 
annotation/text features or as attributes. 


Optional Contents 

The following features shall be included, if available: 

 Bridges; 
 Unimproved roads or trails (i.e., those travelways not intended for motorized vehicles or 
not usually used by motorized vehicles due to width or seasonal conditions); 
 Flood-control structures (i.e., levees, dams, weirs, floodwalls, jetties); 
 Elevation data in the form of contours and spot elevations, DEM or DTM data, a 
Triangulated Irregular Network, or mass points and break lines; 
 Building footprints; 
 Parcel outlines or parcel centroids; and 
 Mass points and break lines and the resulting data that are derived from them, if 
available. 


Thematic Separation of Data 

Thematic data must be separated by level, layer, attribute, or file. 

File Format and Transfer Media 

The file format and transfer media requirements provided in Appendix L of these Guidelines 
must be met. 

Tiling 

One single file or a series of thematic files that cover the entire geographic area of the 
community are preferred to individual small tiles that cover limited geographic areas. 


Data Structure 

Vector data files must meet the data structure requirements provided in Appendix L of these 
Guidelines. 

Metadata 

The files must be accompanied by metadata that comply with the Federal Geographic Data 
Committee metadata standards. 

2.1.8.4 Flood Insurance Rate Map Compilation [April 2003] 


The processing Mapping Partner normally shall conduct the FIRM compilation process. This 
process normally shall occur concurrently with the preparation of new or revised flood hazard 
analyses. 

The compilation process includes determining FIRM scale, layout and paneling scheme, 
digitizing effective floodplain and regulatory floodway information, and fitting the effective 
floodplain and regulatory floodway information to the new base map. 

Map Scale Selection 

Existing FIRM scales are to be reviewed and, where appropriate, either the same map scales or a 
compatible map scale is to be used for the draft work maps. Existing small-scale FIRM panels 
are often remapped at larger scales to accommodate detailed floodplain mapping with narrow 
floodplains and/or floodways. 

To accomplish this at a reasonable cost, FEMA shall photo-enlarge the existing base map 
artwork to be used as-is for the revised FIRM or DFIRM. For example, one panel of an existing 
FIRM at a scale of 1 = 1,000 may need to be reformatted to create four panels at a larger scale 
due to the narrowness of the new floodplain delineations. If the existing FIRM is at the scale of 
1 = 1,000, the Mapping Partner should prepare the work maps at 1 = 1,000 (or 1 = 5 00 if 
the floodplains are narrow). If a work map scale of 1 = 400 was used by the submitting 
Mapping Partner, FEMA would either photo-reduce the work maps to match the existing FIRM 
base materials or redraft the entire FIRM to match the work map scale. Older, manually 
produced FIRMs may have been prepared with different map scales (e.g., 1 = 200, 1 = 400. 
1 = 800). Manual revisions of those panels may retain their existing scales. 

Paneling/Tiling Scheme 

The FIRM/DFIRM paneling scheme shall follow that used by the USGS for the 7.5-minute-
series quadrangle, or subdivisions thereof depending on the scale of the FIRM/DFIRM. Map 
panels shown at 1 = 2,000 are to be tiled using the same neatlines as the corresponding USGS 
7.5-minute-series quadrangles. Map panels shown at 1 = 1,000 are to be tiled using neatlines 
that correspond to USGS DOQs or 3.75-minute quarter-quadrangles. Map panels shown at 1 = 


500 are to be tiled using neatlines that correspond to USGS 1.875-minute quarter-quarter-
quadrangles. 

The quadrangle tiles are to be generated using the horizontal datum of the base map. If the base 
map is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83), the quad grid is to be 
generated in NAD83 and projected to match the coordinate system of the base map. 

Guidelines for Conversion to Quad Tiling for Small Communities 

When small jurisdictions that were formerly shown on one or a few FIRM panels now fall on 
significantly more panels as a result of quad-based tiling, the paneling scheme can be modified. 
If conversion to a quad paneling layout would double the panel count, or if the FIRM was 
formerly shown as an Only Panel Printed and the quad layout necessitates creation of a FIRM 
Index, a modified paneling scheme may be used. 

North Orientation 

All FIRMs/DFIRMs must be oriented so that grid north points to the top of the map sheet. 
Older, manually produced FIRMs may have been prepared with a different north orientation. If 
the revised FIRM panels are produced manually, the processing Mapping Partner may retain the 
existing north orientation. 

Rotation 

The FIRM data do not need to be rotated to align exactly to the map border. The slight tilt 
inherent in the data as the panels move farther away from the central meridian is acceptable. 

Coordinate System and Horizontal Datum 

A standard coordinate system and horizontal datum for all FIRMs/DFIRMs is preferred so that 
they can be easily referenced to each other. Additionally, FEMAs goal is to maintain 
nationwide datasets in a central online repository, and maintenance of the FIRMs/DFIRMs in a 
common coordinate system and horizontal datum facilitates this as well. 

The preferred coordinate system for DFIRMs is UTM referenced to NAD83. This coordinate 
system and horizontal datum are most commonly used by USGS for DOQs. DFIRMs may be 
prepared in other coordinate systems and horizontal datums if necessary. This situation 
primarily applies to map revisions for which a raster base map is supplied in a coordinate system 
other than UTM NAD83. Raster base map data are not to be reprojected if at all possible, 
because this operation is so time consuming. The DFIRM vectors are to be projected to fit the 
raster base map data. 


Map Insets 

All geographic areas shown on DFIRMs must be created and maintained in real-world 
coordinates. Map insets generally shall not be used in preparing DFIRMs because of this 
requirement. Narrow, extensive areas around the perimeter of a jurisdiction may be added to 
existing, adjacent map sheets as overedge areas, if space permits. Larger areas may require a 
separate map panel. 

Panel Numbering 

After the map scale(s) and layout for a community have been established, the map panels are 
numbered. FIRMs/DFIRMs are prepared using a panel numbering sequence that relates panel 
number to map scale. For panels prepared at a scale of 1 = 500, numbers divisible by 1 are 
used; for panels prepared at a scale of 1 = 1,000, numbers divisible by 5 (excluding those 
divisible by 25) are used; and for panels prepared at a scale of 1 = 2,000, numbers divisible by 
25 are used. Table 2-1 further illustrates the numbering sequence corresponding to the various 
map scales. 

Table 2-1. Panel Numbering Sequence 

 

Map Scale 

Panel Numbers 

1 = 500 

1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, etc. 

1 = 1,000 

5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 35, 40, 45, 55, 60, 65, 70, etc. 

1 = 2,000 

25, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 175, 200, 225, 250, etc. 



 

Single-Scale Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

Single-scale FIRMs are those in which all panels within the community or county are printed at 
the same scale. The panel numbering follows sequentially from left to right and from top to 
bottom according to the scale. Figure 2-2 contains an example of a FIRM with all panels shown 
at a scale of 1 = 500. 


 

Figure 2-2 Single-Scale Panel Numbering Scheme 

 

0001 

0002 

0003 

0004 

0005 

0006 

0007 

0008 

0009 

0010 

0011 

0012 

0013 

0014 

0015 

0016 

0017 

0018 

0019 

0020 

0021 

0022 

 

 

0023 

0024 

0025 

0026 

0027 

0028 

 



Figure 2-2 

Multiple-Scale Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

Multiple-scale FIRMs are to be numbered based on a logical breakdown of USGS 7.5-minute 
series quadrangle sheets. To accomplish this, the assigned Mapping Partner may envision a 
USGS quadrangle as having 16 possible subdivisions, with the smallest block being a 1 = 500 
scale segment and the largest block being the entire quadrangle at a scale of 1 = 2,000. 

Beginning with the first small-scale map panel, the four large-scale map panels that lie within the 
grid layout of the larger parent panel are to be numbered sequentially from left to right and top 
to bottom. The associated small-scale map panel is to be numbered sequentially after the four 
large-scale panels for the area of which it duplicates (i.e., Panel 0025 covers the same 
geographical area as Panels 0005, 0010, 0015, and 0020 combined). This numbering system is 
to be continued in a similar manner to the numbering system for single-scale maps; that is, the 
next number series would be 0030, 0035, 0040, and 0045 for the larger-scale panels, followed by 
0050 for the smaller-scale panel. Figure 2-3 illustrates this system. Figure 2-4 contains an 
example of a FIRM with panels shown at different scales. 


 

Figure 2-3. Multiple-Scale Panel Numbering Scheme 

0001 

0002 

0006 

0007 

0026 

0027 

0031 

0032 

0003 

0004 

0008 

0009 

0028 

0029 

0033 

0034 

0011 

0012 

0016 

0017 

0036 

0037 

0041 

0042 

0013 

0014 

0018 

0019 

0038 

0039 

0043 

0044 

0051 

0052 

0056 

0057 

0076 

0077 

0081 

0082 

0053 

0054 

0058 

0059 

0078 

0079 

0083 

0084 

0061 

0062 

0066 

0067 

0086 

0087 

0091 

0092 

0063 

0064 

0068 

0069 

0088 

0089 

0093 

0094 



Figure 2-3(Heavy lines indicate USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle neatlines) 

 

Text Box: 0005Text Box: 0010Text Box: 0015Text Box: 0020Text Box: 0030Text Box: 0035Text Box: 0025Text Box: 0040Text Box: 0045Text Box: 0050Text Box: 0055Text Box: 0060Text Box: 0065Text Box: 0070Text Box: 0075Text Box: 0080Text Box: 0085Text Box: 0090Text Box: 0095Text Box: 0100
 

 

 

 

0050 

 

 

 

 

0008 

0009 

 

 

 

 

0053 

0015 

0020 

 

 

 

 

 

0061 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0081 

0082 

0101 

0102 

0110 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Figure 2-4Figure 2-4. Multiple-Scale Panel Numbering Scheme 

 (Heavy lines indicate USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle neatlines) 

Digitization and/or Enhancement of Effective Floodplain Boundaries 

During this phase of the FIRM production process, the processing Mapping Partner focuses on 
digitizing and/or enhancing the effective, non-revised flood hazard information to meet FEMA 
mapping specifications. This stage in the development of the Preliminary version of the FIRM is 
often where non-revised flood hazard information is transferred from the effective FIRM (and, in 
some cases, FBFM) onto a newer and/or more up-to-date community base map. This process 
does not require new or updated flood hazard analyses or topographic information for the 
identified flooding sources on the effective FIRM. Appendix C, Subsection C.6.1 of these 
Guidelines provides details on the protocol for the transfer of effective flood hazard information 
onto a newer or more up-to-date base map source. 


2.1.8.5 Merging Revised and Effective Flood Hazard Data [April 2003] 


The focus of this stage of map production is to merge the revised flood hazard data together with 
the non-revised) flood hazard data to construct the Preliminary version of the FIRM. All 
supporting information in the effective FIS report also must be merged with the new/revised 
flood hazard data resulting from the PMR. 

Seamless Data 

The processing Mapping Partner shall ensure that the effective and revised flood hazard data are 
compiled into a seamless data with no discontinuities. All inconsistencies between new/revised 
flood hazard data and non-revised flood hazard data must be identified and resolved as 
appropriate in consultation with the FEMA Lead before work commences. The submitting 
Mapping Partner shall ensure that revised flood hazard data tie into the effective flood hazard 
data. Any problematic residual tie-in issues shall be brought to the attention of the FEMA RPO 
and/or PO for review and resolution. 

Countywide Format Issues 

If the PMR necessitates the creation of a countywide FIS report and FIRM, the processing 
Mapping Partner shall ensure that flood hazard data originating from formerly community-based 
FIS reports and FIRMs (and FBFMs, if appropriate) are properly merged. This will require the 
following: 

 Flood Profiles for streams crossing corporate limits shall be combined into one seamless 
set. Any identified discontinuities shall be addressed and resolved. Accordingly, data 
tables in the FIS report shall reflect a continuous dataset for each detailed flooding 
source. 
 Cross sections shall be re-lettered as appropriate to ensure continuity from the 
downstream beginning of the detailed study to the upstream limit of detailed study. 
 Differences in stream names crossing through different communities shall be eliminated. 
 Differences in flood hazard data across corporate limits of adjacent jurisdictions shall be 
identified and resolved. 
 Gaps or overlaps in aerial coverage shall be eliminated. 


Areas Not Included 

The following is a brief summary of the protocol to follow when the processing Mapping Partner 
encounters an Area Not Included during the preparation of the Preliminary FIRM; additional 
guidance is provided in Appendix K of these Guidelines. 

An Area Not Included is defined as an area excluded from the mapping of the subject community 
because (1) it is under the jurisdiction of another community and is mapped on the FIRM for that 


community, or (2) access to the area is limited due to security reasons (e.g., military 
installations). The assigned Mapping Partner shall submit any available flood information within 
these areas. The FEMA Lead shall make the final decision regarding how the information is to 
be depicted on the FIRM. 

Areas subject to Federal or State jurisdiction (e.g., parks, national forests, game reserves, certain 
military bases) shall normally be included on the FIRM. When the processing Mapping Partner 
encounters such areas, the processing Mapping Partner shall consult with the FEMA PO or 
his/her designee for guidance. The processing Mapping Partner may be requested to assess and 
delineate SFHAs in these areas using available source maps, such as USGS Floodprone Area 
maps. Where existing SFHA delineations on an effective FIRM are terminated at the boundary 
of an improperly excluded area, FEMA may request that the Mapping Partner responsible for the 
flood hazard analyses use detailed topographic mapping to extrapolate floodplain boundaries 
through the subject area. 

2.1.8.6 Summary of Map Action Preparation [April 2003] 


To assist communities in maintaining the NFIP maps, particularly the FIRM, the processing 
Mapping Partner shall prepare summaries of the LOMAs, LOMR-Fs, and LOMRs that will be 
superseded when the revised FIRM panels or new countywide FIRM panels become effective. 
FEMA provides these Summaries of Map Actions (SOMAs) to the communities at significant 
milestones during the processing of a PMR to make the affected communities aware of the effect 
the new or revised FIRM panels will have on previously issued LOMAs, LOMR-Fs, and 
LOMRs. 

To ensure the modifications made by LOMAs, LOMR-Fs, and LOMRs are included in a PMR, 
the processing Mapping Partner shall perform searches for determinations at four stages: (1) 
before the Preliminary copies of the affected FIRM panel(s) are prepared and sent to the 
community for review and comment; (2) before Revised Preliminary copies of the affected 
FIRM panel(s) are prepared and sent to the community for review and comment; (3) before the 
Letter of Final Determination (LFD) letter is sent to the community; and (4) before the effective 
date of the new or revised FIRM panels. 


At each stage, the processing Mapping Partner shall sort the LOMAs, LOMR-Fs, and LOMRs 
into the following categories: 

 Category 1 includes those LOMAs, LOMR-Fs, and LOMRs for which the results have 
been shown on the new or revised FIRM panel(s). 
 Category 2 includes those LOMAs and LOMR-Fs for which the results could not be 
mapped and shown on the new or revised FIRM panel(s) because of scale limitations or 
because the affected areas were determined to be outside the SFHA as shown on the 
effective FIRM. These LOMAs and LOMR-Fs are automatically revalidated after the 
new or revised FIRM panel(s) become(s) effective. 
 Category 3 includes those LOMAs, LOMR-Fs, and LOMRs for which the results have 
not been, and will not be, reflected on the new or revised FIRM panel(s) because the 
flood hazard information on which the original determinations were based is being 
superseded by new flood hazard information. 
 Category 4 includes those LOMAs, LOMR-Fs, and LOMRs for which new 
determinations must be made. LOMAs and LOMR-Fs that were previously issued for 
multiple lots or structures where the determination for one or more of the lots or 
structures has changed as a result of the re-mapping cannot be revalidated through the 
revalidation process. The processing Mapping Partner shall use the data submitted in 
support of the original LOMA or LOMR-F request to make a new determination after the 
new or revised FIRM becomes effective. FEMA will issue a single new determination 
letter for the subject properties. 


During the preparation of the Preliminary copies of the FIRM (and FBFM, if required), the 
activities below shall be completed. Additional information on SOMA production procedures is 
provided in the FEMA Document Control Procedures Manual (FEMA, 2000). 

 The processing Mapping Partner shall produce a Preliminary SOMA by generating a 
report of LOMAs, LOMR-Fs, and LOMRs completed or pending for the community. 
 The processing Mapping Partner shall review the in-house LOMA, LOMR-F, and LOMR 
case files, other community-based files, hard copies of LOMAs and LOMR-Fs completed 
by the ROs, and case files for LOMAs, LOMR-Fs, and LOMRs completed by the 
processing Mapping Partner to ensure all affected LOMAs, LOMR-Fs, and LOMRs are 
identified and listed on the SOMA. The processing Mapping Partner shall not investigate 
LOMAs, LOMR-Fs, and LOMRs that have already been superseded by a previous map 
(i.e., its determination date is prior to the current effective FIRM date) for inclusion on 
the SOMA. 
 The processing Mapping Partner shall review each identified LOMA, LOMR-F, and 
LOMR to determine whether it has been affected by new flood hazard information and if 
it can be incorporated into the new or revised FIRM. Those LOMAs, LOMR-Fs, and 
LOMRs that are unaffected by the new flood hazard information and can be reflected on 



the FIRM are listed in Category 1 of the SOMA. Those LOMAs, LOMR-Fs, and 
LOMRs that cannot be reflected on the FIRM but are unaffected by the updated flood 
hazard information are listed in Category 2 of the SOMA. 
 For the remaining LOMAs and LOMR-Fs, the processing Mapping Partner shall review 
the case files to determine whether the LOMA or LOMR-F can be revalidated. To 
determine this, the processing Mapping Partner shall perform the following activities: 
 Locate the LOMC site on the Preliminary copy of the FIRM; 
 Determine the proposed BFE for the site; and 
 Compare the Lowest Adjacent Grade (LAG), or the lowest ground elevation of 
undeveloped lot(s) to the proposed BFE at the site. 
 If the LAG(s) or lowest ground elevation at the site is above the proposed BFE, the 
processing Mapping Partner shall include the LOMA or LOMR-F in Category 2 of the 
SOMA, because it may be eligible for revalidation once the proposed BFEs are finalized. 
LOMAs and LOMR-Fs issued for properties with a LAG(s), LFFE(s), or lowest ground 
elevations below the BFE may be superseded and therefore may be included in Category 
3 of the SOMA. 
 As noted above, a single letter, the LOMC-VALID letter, revalidates LOMCs; therefore, 
the processing Mapping Partner shall include the LOMAs and LOMR-Fs issued for 
multiple structures or lots where the determinations for the lots/structures are no longer as 
they were for the original determination in Category 4 of the SOMA. 
 The processing Mapping Partner shall distribute the Preliminary SOMA with the 
transmittal letter that accompanies the Preliminary copies of the new or revised FIS 
report and FIRM. 
 If no LOMAs, LOMR-Fs, and LOMRs have been issued since the affected FIRM 
panel(s) became effective, the processing Mapping Partner shall include an explanatory 
paragraph in the Preliminary transmittal (100 or 100-A) letter to acknowledge this fact. 
2.1.8.7 Incorporation of Letters of Map Change [April 2003] 




 

The processing Mapping Partner shall ensure that previously issued LOMAs, LOMR-Fs, and 
LOMRs are incorporated into the new FIS report and FIRM where new or revised flood hazard 
information do not supersede the determination made by the LOMC. The processing Mapping 
Partner shall include the outline of the areas covered by LOMCs with the submitted FIRM 
information. Guidance on the data formats and attributes for these features are provided in 
Appendix L of these Guidelines. 


2.1.8.8 News Release Notice Preparation [April 2003] 


During the processing of a new or revised FIRM, a News Release notice is required for each 
community for the purpose of proposing new or revised BFEs. The News Release is critical in 
the initiation of the statutory 90-day appeals process. 

The processing Mapping Partner must, therefore, prepare a News Release notice for publication 
that lists all new or revised BFEs appearing on the FIRM. The publication of the News Release 
Notice shall be in accordance with the specifications noted in Subsection 2.1.??? and the 
regulations found at Section 67.3 of the NFIP Regulations. 

The News Release Notice is intended to: 

 Provide the community information on proposed BFEs; 
 Direct citizens to review the Preliminary version of the FIS report and FIRM/DFIRM; 
 Increase property owners awareness of their proximity to detailed-study 1-percent-
annual-chance floodplains; 
 Inform citizens where they can view or obtain copies of the Preliminary and effective 
versions of FIS report and FIRM/DFIRM; and 
 Provide a complete list of studied and/or revised flooding sources and the proposed BFEs 
(lowest and highest) for each flooding source. 


The processing Mapping Partner shall use the guidelines below when preparing a News Release 
Notice for a PMR. 

 List the extreme BFEs (lowest and highest, rounded to the nearest whole foot) for new or 
revised flooding sources. 
 List only one elevation for a given location. 
 List the lowest (downstream) elevation and description of the location first, then the 
highest (upstream) and its location. 
 Provide the latitude and longitude (if possible) for each referenced elevation. 
 Use the Flood Profile to determine the proposed BFE whenever possible. 
 For flooding sources not be represented by Flood Profiles, determine the flood elevations 
from supporting data tables in the FIS report or from the FIRM. For a coastal flooding 
source, the lowest BFE will likely be determined from a Zone AE area and the highest 
from a Zone VE area. 



 For Zone AO (an area of shallow flooding with depths between 1 and 3 feet), show the 
depth as #1, #2, or #3 with an appropriate footnote to explain that the number 
represents a base flood depth rather than a BFE. 
 For Zone AH, an area of shallow flooding with a BFE, show the BFE as *(BFE 
number) as with any other BFE. 
 For proposed BFE revisions, the location and elevation listed for the proposed revised 
elevation shall be at the point where there is only a 1-foot (rounded to the nearest whole 
foot) difference between the effective and the revised elevations. Exceptions are when 
the revision limits are at the corporate limits, Limit of Detailed Study, or stream 
confluence, or for any coastal flooding sources. For proposed revisions to existing BFEs, 
when determining the lowest and highest revised BFE value, it is important to note that 
the difference between effective and revised elevations may be as little as 0.1 foot. For 
example, an effective elevation of 55.4 (which rounds to 55) is revised to an elevation of 
55.5 (which rounds to 56). Conversely, an effective elevation of 55.5 and revised 
elevation of 56.4 both round to 56; therefore this is not considered a changed elevation. 
 If the Flood Profile for a detailed study tributary of a revised flooding source has been 
revised solely to reflect the backwater effects from that flooding source, entries for lowest 
and highest elevation change entries may be necessary on the News Release. The 
following guidelines shall be followed when appropriate: 
 The tributary requires its own News Release entries if the effects of the backwater 
extend more than 500 feet upstream of the tributary confluence with the flooding 
source. 
 If the backwater effects extend for less than 500 feet, the entries for the flooding 
source will cover the backwater elevations on the tributary. No separate entries 
are necessary. 
Follow the guidance below for the listing of location reference points on a News Release 
Notice: 
 Points shall be reflected on the Flood Profile. 
 Avoid using arbitrary points or points with no definite name (i.e., Unnamed or 
Access Road). 
 Limits of Detailed Study may be used only if it is the nearest point on the Flood 
Profile for 2 or less miles and it can be referenced to a stable point such as the 
confluence with the main flooding source or a named structure. 
 Convert the measured distance to miles (rounded to the nearest 1/10 mile) when 
the measured distance exceeds 2,000 feet Avoid referencing points that are great 
distances (more than three miles) from the subject elevation. 



 Describe distances as approximately (measured distance) upstream/downstream 
of. 
 Describe locations in close proximity (less than 50 feet) to a structure as 
upstream side of or downstream side of. 
 Reference Zone AO or AH shallow flooding areas by the surrounding streets. For 
example: Between Jones Road and Main Street and 300 feet north of Jones 
Road and 500 feet west of Main Street. 
 Relate the coastal elevation reference points to a point on the shoreline. Flooding 
areas affected by a single elevation such as with a lake can be referenced as the 
entire shoreline. 


The Sample Base Flood Elevations Worksheet in Figure 2-5 is provided as a guide for the 
Mapping Partner preparing the News Release. 

 

Flooding 
Source(s) 

Location of Referenced 
Elevation 

Latitude 
(optional) 

Longitude 
(optional) 

BFE (NGVD)

Effective 

Proposed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Figure 2-5. Base Flood Elevations Worksheet 

 

2.1.8.9 Countywide News Release Notice [April 2003] 


If the FIRM/DFIRM is to be prepared in the FEMA Countywide Format, the processing 
Mapping Partner shall prepare a single News Release for the mapped communities. This News 
Release will then be published in the appropriate local newspaper(s) to initiate the 90-day appeal 
period for each affected community. The countywide News Release will provide a listing for 
each stream that has proposed BFE changes at any location within the subject county, and will 
include a column to indicate the communities affected by the new or revised flood elevations. 


Four distinct situations will necessitate a News Release entry for a flooding source included on 
FIRM/DFIRM prepared in the FEMA Countywide Format: 

1. A detailed study has been performed for the subject flooding source. 
2. The subject flooding source was studied by detail methods in adjacent communities 
within the county, but the former community-based FIRMs do not exhibit a seamless 
match of BFEs across community boundaries. In this situation, the processing Mapping 
Partner shall adjust one of the two mismatched datasets to agree with the one that is 
considered to be the most recent and accurate. The revised BFEs shall be listed on the 
countywide News Release and the affected jurisdictions will be noted appropriately. 
3. The subject flooding source has been studied by detail methods in one community but has 
either not been studied or has been studied by approximate methods in an adjacent 
community. The former Zone A floodplain must be converted to a detailed Zone AE 
with BFEs, thereby necessitating a News Release entry. 
4. The floodplain for a flooding sources studied by detailed methods has been extended into 
an adjacent community to achieve a seamless match across jurisdiction boundaries. This 
scenario may occur even if the subject stream does not physically lie in the affected 
jurisdiction, but its associated floodplain extends across jurisdiction boundaries. 
5. The sample Countywide Base Flood Elevations Worksheet in Figure 2-6 is provided as a 
guide for the Mapping Partner preparing the countywide format News Release. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

Flooding 
Source(s) 

Location of 
Referenced 
Elevation 

Latitude 
(optional)

Longitude 
(optional) 

BFE (NGVD) 

Communities 
Affected by the 
Proposed BFEs 

Effective

New/ 
Revised 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Figure 2-6. Countywide Base Flood Elevations Worksheet 


2.1.9 Community Review and Comment [February 2002] 

At the request of FEMA, the processing Mapping Partner shall transmit Preliminary copies of the 
new or revised map panels, FIS report materials, and DFIRM spatial database to the community 
CEO and floodplain administrator, revision requester (if other than the CEO or floodplain 
administrator), and others for review and comment. For all PMRs, the community shall receive 
at least a 30-day review period. FEMA may extend this review period when appropriate to 
ensure the affected communities have sufficient time to review and comment. When BFEs are 
added or modified, a statutory 90-day appeal period shall be required in accordance with Part 67 
of the NFIP regulations. For most PMRs, the 90-day appeal period will be started after the 
community review and comment period has elapsed. 

Review and Comment Period 

FEMA generally will provide the community, revision requester (if other than a community), 
and all other interested parties with a 30-day review period. (For large-scale revisions or at the 
request of the community, FEMA may allow additional time to review the Preliminary copies.) 
During the review period, the community officials, revision requester (if other than a 
community), and other interested parties shall submit comments and suggested revisions to the 
Preliminary versions of the FIRM/DFIRM, FIS report, and DFIRM spatial database to FEMA. 

Once the 30-day review period has elapsed, the processing Mapping Partner shall review any 
comments submitted to determine whether revisions to the Preliminary versions of the map, 
report, and database are required. The processing Mapping Partner shall discuss the comments 
received and any additional data required to support them with the FEMA PO, his/her designee, 
and FEMA RO staff. The FEMA PO or his/her designee, in conjunction with the FEMA RO 
when required, shall determine whether changes are warranted. If changes are warranted, FEMA 
may direct the processing Mapping Partner to prepare and distribute Revised Preliminary copies 
of the revised FIS report, FIRM (and/or FBFM), and database to the community CEO and 
floodplain administrator and other recipients of the Preliminary copies. 

If no information is submitted during the review period or FEMA determines that the changes do 
not warrant issuing Revised Preliminary copies, FEMA shall direct the processing Mapping 
Partner to continue the production process. In such cases, the processing Mapping Partner shall 
incorporate any changes resulting from the review comments into the report and map materials 
and the database before the final reproduction materials are submitted to the MSC for publication 
by GPO (See Subsection 2.115.). FEMA shall notify the community in a subsequent letter that 
the requested changes shall be shown on the printed copies of the revised FIS report, FIRM, 
and/or FBFM. 

If the PMR will result in new BFEs or modifications to the effective BFEs, the processing 
Mapping Partner shall initiate the 90-day appeal period as discussed in Subsection 2.1.11. If the 
PMR does not involve new BFEs or modifications to effective BFEs and no Revised Preliminary 
copies are to be sent, the processing Mapping Partner shall prepare an LFD in accordance with 
the requirements documented in Subsection 2.1.10.. 


 

90-Day Appeal Period 

For PMRs that involve new or modified BFEs, the processing Mapping Partner shall initiate the 
statutory 90-day appeal period to provide community officials and residents of the affected 
communities an opportunity to appeal the new or modified BFEs. As in the processing of 
FEMA-contracted Flood Map Projects, the proposed or proposed modified BFEs must be 
published in a local newspaper with wide circulation and in the Federal Register to initiate the 
appeal period. 

For PMRs, the appeal period is initiated either before the start of or concurrent with the printing 
process for the revised FIS report, FIRM, and/or FBFM. The appeal period will occur prior to 
printing for revisions involving new or higher BFEs and may be concurrent with the printing 
process for revisions resulting in lower BFEs. For both the prior and concurrent procedures, the 
appeal period must elapse and the BFEs must be finalized before the revised FIS report, FIRM, 
and/or FBFM may become effective. 

2.1.9.1 Revised Preliminary Processing [April 2003] 

During or subsequent to the review and comment period, the FEMA PO or his/her designee may 
decide that revisions to the FIS report, and/or FIRM/DFIRM, and/or FBFM, and/or database are 
warranted. In such cases, the processing Mapping Partner, at the direction of FEMA, shall 
prepare and distribute Revised Preliminary copies of the appropriate materials. 

In most cases, the Revised Preliminary copies shall be sent to the community with the official 
notification of the start of the 90-day appeal period. However, at the request of FEMA in 
coordination with the community and other Project Team members, the processing Mapping 
Partner shall prepare and distribute Revised Preliminary copies for review before the statutory 
90-day appeal period is initiated. 

When Revised Preliminary copies are prepared and submitted to the community for review, the 
processing Mapping Partner shall generate a SOMA and conduct a review similar to that 
conducted before the Preliminary copies were issued. When required, the processing Mapping 
Partner shall revise the Preliminary SOMA and submit it to FEMA for review with a special 
transmittal letter to the community. The processing Mapping Partner shall mail the revised 
SOMA to the CEO, RO, and State NFIP Coordinator with the special transmittal letter. 

2.1.10 Statutory Appeal Period Requirements [April 2003] 

When FEMA proposes new or modified BFEs as the result of a PMR, FEMA must, in 
accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-234), 
provide all affected communities with a 90-day appeal period. In accordance with Section 67.4 
of the NFIP regulations, FEMA initiates the appeal period by publishing a proposed BFE 
determination notice in the Federal Register; by notifying the CEO of the community by 


certified mail, return receipt requested; and by publishing the proposed BFE determinations 
twice in a prominent local newspaper during the 10-day period immediately following 
notification of the community CEO. The proposed BFE determination notice typically is 
published in the legal advertisements portion of the newspaper. Although it is not required, 
FEMA encourages community officials to provide an even wider distribution of the notice to 
ensure that residents, property owners, and other interested stakeholders are aware of the 
proposed BFE determinations. 

When a 90-day appeal period is required for a PMR, the processing Mapping Partner shall 
prepare and process the correspondence for initiating the appeal period and proposing the new or 
modified BFEs. The processing Mapping Partner shall prepare the proposed BFE notices for 
publication in the Federal Register and a local newspaper with wide circulation and prepare all 
FEMA letters that will be sent to the CEO and floodplain administrator of the community, the 
State NFIP Coordinator, and others. 

The processing Mapping Partner shall ensure that the notices are correct, that they include BFEs 
for all flooding sources for which revisions were made, and that they are published in the local 
newspaper on the correct date and in the Federal Register. 

At the beginning of each month, the processing Mapping Partner shall compile the proposed 
BFE lists for all communities receiving proposed BFE determination letters and notices during 
the previous month and prepare the Proposed Rule for concurrence and signature and for 
publication in the Federal Register. The processing Mapping Partner shall then submit the 
Proposed Rule to the designated FEMA coordinator for routing, concurrence, and signature. 

The FEMA coordinator shall coordinate with GPO to ensure timely publication of the Proposed 
Rule in the Federal Register. The FEMA coordinator and the processing Mapping Partner shall 
review the published Proposed Rule to ensure it is accurate, and shall coordinate correction of 
the Proposed Rule through publication in the Federal Register when appropriate. 

2.1.10.1 Appeal and Protest Processing Requirements [April 2003] 

An appeal is a challenge of a proposed BFE. The sole basis of an appeal, as indicated in Section 
67.6 of the NFIP regulations, is the possession of knowledge or information indicating that the 
BFEs proposed by FEMA are scientifically or technically incorrect. The proposed BFEs are 
considered scientifically incorrect if the methodology or assumptions used in the determination 
of the BFEs is inappropriate or incorrect. The BFEs are considered technically incorrect if the 
BFEs were based on insufficient or poor quality data, analysis contains mathematical or 
measurement errors, or physical changes have occurred in floodplain. 

Comments received by FEMA during the appeal period that do not challenge proposed BFEs are 
considered protests. A protest is a challenge of information or data from a Preliminary FIS 
Report or FIRM other than BFEs. Types of protests include, but are not limited to, the 
following: 


Challenges of proposed floodplain boundary delineations based on more detailed or 
recent topographic data; 
Challenges of proposed regulatory floodway boundaries based on better modeling, 
Requests that changes effected by a previous Letter of Map Change be incorporated; 
Base map errors; and 
Errors of omission. 


Appeals and protests must be supported by scientific or technical data, provide proof of error, 
and provide sufficient data to make revisions (bridge plans, cross-section data) and may require 
certification of data by a Registered Professional Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. 

Additional information on the data required to support an appeal is presented in Chapter 3 of 
Appeals, Revisions, and Amendments to National Flood Insurance Program Maps: A Guide for 
Community Officials (FEMA, 1993). Additional information on the data required to support a 
protest is presented in Chapter 4 of Guide for Community Officials. 

In accordance with Section 67.7 of the NFIP regulations, private persons shall submit appeals to 
the community CEO during the appeal period. The CEO, or a community official designated by 
the CEO, shall review and consolidate all appeals by private persons and prepare a written 
opinion stating whether or not the appeal is justifiable. The community CEO or other designated 
community official shall then submit the opinion and the appeal(s) to FEMA for review. 


In accordance with Section 67.8 of the NFIP regulations, FEMA will review and fully consider 
any technical or scientific data submitted by the community that tend to negate or contradict the 
information upon which the proposed determination is based. Although not specifically 
required by the regulations, FEMA also will consider all technical or scientific data submitted in 
support of a protest as well. 

To assist FEMA, the processing Mapping Partner shall review and evaluate submitted data, 
request additional data when required, and recommend resolutions to FEMA for all appeals and 
protests submitted during the 90-day appeal period. An expanded discussion of these procedures 
also appears in the Guide for Community Officials (FEMA, 1993). 

At the request of FEMA, the processing Mapping Partner shall perform the following tasks: 

 Acknowledge receipt of an appeal or protest 
 Evaluate any data submitted; 
 Request, by telephone and/or in writing, any additional data required to support the 
appeal or protest; 
 Perform technical analyses if requested by FEMA; 
 Prepare and distribute Revised Preliminary copies of the affected FIS report, materials 
(usually, Flood Profiles and/or data tables), FIRM/DFIRM panels, and/or FBFM panels, 
if requested by FEMA; and 
 Assist FEMA in preparing and distributing an appeal or protest resolution letter to be sent 
to the community CEO and floodplain administrator and all appellants. 


For most appeals, FEMA shall provide a comment period (usually 30 days) following the date 
the appeal or protest resolution letter is issued before proceeding with the processing of the new 
or revised FIS report and FIRM by preparing and issuing an LFD. FEMA, with the support of 
the assigned Mapping Partner and other members of the Project Team for the Flood Map Project, 
shall address any comments received during this comment period before proceeding with the 
LFD. 

Changes resulting from protests usually shall be incorporated at the time that the final 
reproduction materials are prepared. However, if the changes are significant, the FEMA PO or 
his/her designee may direct the processing Mapping Partner to prepare and distribute Revised 
Preliminary copies of the revised FIS report, FIRM/DFIRM, and/or FBFM. If a Revised 
Preliminary is not required, the FEMA PO or his/her designee shall direct the processing 
Mapping Partner to include the protest resolution in the LFD. 


2.1.11 Final Summary of Map Action Preparation [April 2003] 

Approximately 2 weeks before the LFD date, the processing Mapping Partner shall generate and 
review the Final SOMA. The Final SOMA shall include all LOMRs, LOMAs, and LOMR-Fs 
included in the Preliminary SOMA and all LOMRs, LOMAs, and LOMR-Fs issued since the 
Preliminary or Revised Preliminary copies of the FIS report and FIRM/DFIRM were distributed. 

The processing Mapping Partner shall mail the Final SOMA to the CEO of the community, RO, 
and State Coordinator with the LFD. If no LOMRs, LOMAs, or LOMR-Fs have been issued for 
the affected map panel(s), the processing Mapping Partner shall include an explanatory 
paragraph in the LFD to acknowledge this fact, and no SOMA shall be sent to the CEO or any of 
the other recipients of the LFD. 

2.1.12 Final Determinations [April 2003] 

When the 90-day appeal period has elapsed and all appeals and protests have been resolved, or 
when the review and comment period has elapsed, all comments have been addressed, and no 
90-day appeal period is required, the processing Mapping Partner shall prepare an LFD to notify 
the community CEO and floodplain administrator, appellants, and others designated by FEMA 
that FEMAs determination is final. If new or modified BFEs were proposed, the processing 
Mapping Partner also shall prepare a Final Rule for publication in the Federal Register. (No 
notice will be published in a local newspaper.) The final BFE notice shall establish the final new 
or modified BFEs. (See Subsection 1.11 of the Document Control Procedures Manual [FEMA, 
2000] for additional information on LFD content.) 

The processing Mapping Partner shall then include the affected community on a docket listing all 
LFDs scheduled for a particular date and submit the docket to the FEMA PO or his/her designee 
for review and approval. The FEMA PO or his/her designee shall notify the processing Mapping 
Partner by concurring on the docket that the letters can be mailed. If special circumstances with 
the PMR exist or the proposed BFEs were appealed, the FEMA PO or his/her designee may 
direct the processing Mapping Partner to submit an original hard copy of the LFD for review. 

On the LFD date, the processing Mapping Partner shall mail the original LFD and enclosures 
(including the SOMA) to the community CEO and floodplain administrator; shall mail copies to 
the revision requester (if other than the community CEO and floodplain administrator) and 
appellants and protesters as necessary; and distribute external and in-house file copies in 
accordance with the requirements provided in Subsection 1.11 of the FEMA Document Control 
Procedures Manual (FEMA, 2000). 

At the beginning of each month, the processing Mapping Partner shall compile the final BFE 
lists for all communities receiving LFDs during the previous month and prepare the Final Rule 
for concurrence and signature and for publication in the Federal Register. The processing 
Mapping Partner shall then submit the Final Rule to the FEMA coordinator for routing, 
concurrence, and signature. The FEMA coordinator shall coordinate with GPO to ensure timely 
publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register. The FEMA coordinator and the processing 


Mapping Partner shall review the published Final Rule to ensure it is accurate, and shall 
coordinate correction of the Final Rule when appropriate. 

2.1.13 Floodplain Management Ordinance Updates [April 2003] 

With the issuance of the LFD, FEMA provides affected communities with 6 months (or 
otherwise agreed-upon timeframe) to adopt floodplain management ordinances that comply with 
the new or updated flood hazard data presented on the FIRM as discussed in Section 60.2 of the 
NFIP regulations. The new or updated ordinances, which are sometimes referred to as 
compliant ordinances, must meet the requirements Section 60.3 of the NFIP regulations. 

If a community has floodplain management ordinances in effect that require no amendment as a 
result of the new or updated flood hazard data, the compliance period may not be required. 
However, if the community did not have compliant ordinances when the LFD was issued, FEMA 
must give the community a 6-month compliance period and remind the community that it must 
submit updated floodplain management ordinances to the RO for review. 

If the community fails to submit compliant ordinances to the RO within the first 90 days of the 
compliance period, the processing Mapping Partner shall, at FEMAs request, prepare a 90-day 
suspension reminder letter to the community. If the community has not submitted compliant 
ordinances to the RO within 30 days of the effective date, the processing Mapping Partner shall 
prepare a 30-day suspension reminder letter for the community. For these suspension reminder 
letters, the processing Mapping Partner shall follow the preparation and distribution requirements 
presented in Subsection 1.14 of the FEMA Document Control Procedures Manual (FEMA, 
2000). 

If the community does not adopt the floodplain management ordinances by the effective date, 
FEMA shall suspend the community from participation in the NFIP until the community adopts 
compliant floodplain management ordinances. 

2.1.14 Preparation of Reports and Maps for Printing [April 2003] 

For PMRs, the Mapping Partner shall prepare final reproduction materials and submit them to 
the MSC for printing by GPO following the procedures documented in Volume 1, Appendixes J 
and K of these Guidelines. 

A standardized digital package shall be prepared by the processing Mapping Partner to archive 
all administrative and technical support data generated during the preparation and technical 
review of the FIS report and FIRM. The archival requirements, including the requirements for 
the Technical Support Data Notebook, are provided in Volume 3, Section 3.3 and Appendix M 
of these Guidelines. 

 


2.1.15 Revalidation of Letters of Map Change [April 2003] 

Approximately 1 month before the FIRM effective date, the processing Mapping Partner shall review and 
update the list of LOMCs included in the Final SOMA. The processing Mapping Partner shall use the list 
to produce the LOMC-VALID letter that is issued to the CEO of the community. (For further information 
on this process, see Section 2.5.) 

2.1.16 Coordination and Documentation Activities [February 2002] 

The processing Mapping Partner shall perform the required coordination and documentation activities 
necessary for processing each PMR. During the processing, the Mapping Partner shall: 

 Communicate with the requester and community, as necessary. 
 Coordinate activities with the FEMA RO as directed by the FEMA PO or his/her 
designee. 
 Communicate with other Mapping Partners, as needed. 
 Prepare letters and other correspondence for FEMA signature. 
 Maintain legal documentation, records of correspondence, and technical data. 
 Provide status reports and other information to FEMA as required by the FEMA PO or 
his/her designee. 


 

 

 


2.2 Coastal Barrier Resources System Revisions 
[February 2002] 
2.2.1 Overview [February 2002] 






The U. S. Congress passed the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) in 1982 and the Coastal 
Barrier Improvement Act in 1990, defining and establishing a system of protected coastal areas 
(including the Great Lakes), known as the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). Areas 
within the CBRS are subject to wave, tidal, and wind energies and protect landward aquatic 
habitats from direct wave attack. The Acts further define CBRS areas as all associated aquatic 
habitats, including the adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters, but 
only if such features and associated habitats contain few manmade structures and if these 
structures, and man's activities on such features and within such habitats, do not significantly 
impede geomorphic and ecological processes. 

The Acts provide protection to CBRS areas by prohibiting most expenditure of Federal funds 
within the CBRS. These prohibitions refer to "any form of loan, grant, guarantee, insurance, 
payment, rebate, subsidy or any other form of direct or indirect Federal assistance," with specific 
and limited exceptions. 

In addition to the CBRS, the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 established Otherwise 
Protected Areas (OPAs). OPAs are undeveloped coastal barriers within the boundaries of an 
area established under Federal, State, or local law, or held by a qualified organization, primarily 
for wildlife refuge, sanctuary, recreational, or natural resource conservation purposes. 

The U.S. Congress designated the initial CBRS areas in 1982. Subsequent modifications of the 
CBRS are introduced as legislation to be acted on by the U.S. Congress, and originate from State 
and local requests as well as recommendations made by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 
(USFWS). After Congress approves additions to the CBRS, the new areas are assigned a unique 
effective date, after which Federal assistance prohibitions apply. 

In cooperation with the USFWS, FEMA transfers CBRS and OPA boundaries to FIRMs using 
congressionally adopted source maps. FEMA ensures that FIRMs clearly depict the different 
CBRS areas and OPAs and their prohibition dates with special map notes and symbologies. 
Specific information on the notes and symbologies is provided in Appendix K of these 
Guidelines. Although FEMA shows CBRS areas and OPAs on FIRMs, the U.S. Congress is the 
only entity that may authorize a revision of these boundaries. 

These Guidelines use the terms Coastal Barriers and Coastal Barrier Resources System units 
(or CBRS units). These terms are intended to be inclusive of all classifications of Coastal 
Barriers within the CBRS, including areas designated as OPAs. 


2.2.2 Coastal Barrier Unit Classifications [February 2002] 


The two classifications of Coastal Barrier units are as follows: 

1. Coastal Barrier Resources System units were originally established by the CBRA of 
1982 (Public Law [P.L.] 97-348). The Act established 186 units within the CBRS. The 
Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 greatly expanded the identified land in the 
CBRS established by the CBRA of 1982 and modified existing barrier units. Subsequent 
to the 1990 Act, new legislation has been, and will likely continue to be, passed by 
Congress to revise the CBRS. 


FIRMs prepared after 1991 and prior to November 2000 may reflect CBRS units 
subdivided into two categories, to distinguish between 1982 CBRS units and 1990 or 
later CBRS units. (Because the original prohibition dates took effect in 1983, such units 
are hereinafter referred to as 1983 CBRS units.) 

2. Otherwise Protected Areas are undeveloped coastal barriers within the boundaries of an 
area established under Federal, State, or local law, or held by a qualified organization, 
primarily for wildlife refuge, sanctuary, recreational, or natural resource conservation 
purposes. The Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 established flood insurance 
prohibitions in designated OPAs, and subsequent legislation has modified, and will likely 
continue to modify, OPA boundaries. 
2.2.3 Flood Insurance Prohibitions [February 2002] 




Federal flood insurance is available in a CBRS area if the subject building was constructed (or 
permitted and under construction) before the CBRS area's prohibition date. For CBRS areas 
designated by the 1982 Act, the sale of Federal flood insurance is prohibited for structures built 
or substantially improved after October 1, 1983. For subsequent additions to the CBRS, the 
insurance prohibition date is either the date of the legislation passed by the U.S. Congress or the 
date of the notice in the Federal Register for changes allowed under a previous law such as the 
5-year CBRS update. For structures located in the OPAs, insurance may be obtained if written 
documentation is provided certifying that the structure is used in a manner consistent with the 
purpose for which the area is protected. All CBRS units shown on a FIRM shall be shown with 
their prohibition dates. 

If an existing insured structure in the CBRS or OPA is substantially improved or damaged, any 
Federal flood insurance policy will not be renewed. If a Federal flood insurance policy is issued 
in error, it will be canceled and the premium refunded; no claim can be paid, even if the error is 
not found until a claim is made. 

Each action (legislative or administrative) that results in a revision of CBRS boundaries is 
relevant to the mapping of the CBRS. New legislation that adds areas to the System creates new 
prohibition dates. When a particular piece of legislation only removes areas from the System, no 


new prohibition dates are associated with the 1982 Act. A comprehensive list of significant 
historical dates relative to the CBRS is provided in Subsection 2.2.3.1. 

2.2.3.1 Historical Dates [February 2002] 


The following is a historical summary of significant dates in the history of the CBRS. Dates 
shown in italics represent CBRS Federal funding prohibition dates that are published on the 
FIRMs prepared by FEMA. 

October 1, 1982 Passage of the Coastal Barrier Resources System Act (P.L. 97-348). The 
effect of this Act was to establish the CBRS and to provide a 1-year grace 
period during which communities could prepare for the Federal flood 
insurance funding prohibitions that would go into effect with publication 
of the FIRMs one year later on October 1, 1983. 

October 1, 1983 All Coastal Barrier units established with the passage of the Coastal 
Barrier Resources System Act of 1982 were mapped and finalized on 
FIRMs dated October 1, 1983. 

November 16, 1990 Passage of the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-591). The 
effect of this Act was to enlarge the CBRS significantly and to impose 
Federal insurance and funding prohibitions for new construction or 
substantial improvements within units added to the CBRS on and after 
November 16, 1990. This Act also established the addition of specific 
public lands designated as OPAs 1 year after passage of the Act; provided 
for minor and technical boundary modifications within 2 years from the 
date of enactment; and provided for a periodic (every 5 years) review of 
and adjustments to CBRS and OPA boundaries to account for subsequent 
physiographic changes. 

June 6, 1991 Federal Register notice of availability of CBRS maps showing the 
changes made under P.L.101-591. 

November 16, 1991 Date on which Federal flood insurance prohibitions were applied to public 
lands designated as OPAs. The only prohibition that applies in an OPA is 
Federal flood insurance for new construction or substantial improvements 
that occur after that date, with specific and limited exceptions. 

October 23, 1992 Passage of the Wild Exotic Bird Conservation Act (P.L.102-440 ). 
Section 303 of P.L. 102-440 modified the boundaries of OPA unit NC-01P 
to include only lands owned by the Audubon Society and to change the 
designation of this unit from OPA unit NC-01P to CBRS unit NC-01; 
modified the boundaries of OPA unit NC-05P to include only lands owned 
by the State of North Carolina; modified the boundaries of the southern 
segment of OPA unit VA-60P; and redesignated part of OPA unit VA-60P 
as CBRS unit VA-60. 


November 15, 1993 Publication of the Federal Register that provided notification of the 
changes made under Section 4(e) of P.L.101-591. This section of 
P.L.101-591 was established to allow for minor and technical boundary 
modifications subsequent to the passage of the Coastal Barrier 
Improvement Act. This Federal Register also provided notification of the 
availability of revised CBRS maps showing the changes made under 
Section 303 of P.L.102-440. 

November 2, 1994 Passage of P.L. 103-461, effecting changes to several CBRS and OPA 
units. The changes under Section 1 of this law, which involved mostly 
minor exclusions from the System, removed properties that were 
developed prior to 1982 and were erroneously included in the CBRS. The 
units affected by these changes are as follows: NY-75, VA-62P, FL-05P, 
P11A, FL-15, FL-36P, P17, P17A, P18P, P19P, FL-72P, P31P, FL-95P, 
AL-01P, and MI-21. 

February 23, 1995 Publication in the Federal Register of the availability of CBRS maps 
showing the changes made under Section 1 of P.L. 103-461. Although 
most changes under this act involved minor exclusions from the System, 
there were small areas added, thus the new prohibition dates. 

May 24, 1996 Passage of P.L. 104-148, which resulted in a reduction of OPA unit NY-
59P to remove privately held lands. 

October 9, 1996 Passage of P.L. 104-265, effecting a reduction of CBRS unit SC-01 to 
remove developed properties. 

November 12, 1996 Passage of P.L. 104-333, effecting changes to several Florida CBRS and 
OPA units. The units affected by these changes are as follows: P05, 
P05A, P10, P11, P11A, P18, P25, P32, and P32P. 

February 24, 1997 Publication in the Federal Register of the notice that finalized CBRS 
changes resulting from a 5-year review/update of CBRS and OPA unit 
boundaries provided for in Section 4(c) of P.L. 101-591. The intent of 
these changes was to keep the CBRS current with the physiographic 
changes that occur in coastal areas. The following CBRS units were 
affected by these changes: ME-17, ME-18, MA-03, C01B, MA-20P, MA-
24, C28, C31, D02B, NY-04P, NY-50, F10, NJ-09, MD-03, MD-37P, 
MD-38, VA-09, VA-23, VA-36, L07, L09, P16, P17, FL-89, FL-99, FL-
101, Q01A, and VI-07. 

April 18, 1997 Publication in the Federal Register of the availability of CBRS maps 
showing the changes made under Section 2 of P.L. 104-148 and Section 
201 of P.L. 104-265. 


May 28, 1997 Publication in the Federal Register of the availability of CBRS maps 
showing the changes made under Section 220 of P.L. 104-333. 

March 5, 1998 Notification by the U.S. Federal District Court of the District of Columbia 
that the boundary changes made by P.L. 104-333 were invalidated 
subsequent to a successful challenge being brought before the Court. 

October 21, 1998 Passage of P.L. 105-277, which reinstated the changes made by P.L. 104-
333 that were invalidated on March 5, 1998. P.L. 105-277 also effected 
other minor changes to the CBRS in South Carolina and Florida. Section 
335 of P.L. 105-277 reinstated the changes made by P.L. 104-333 for the 
following units: NY-75, VA-62P, FL-05P, P11A, FL-15, FL-36P, P17, 
P17A, P18P, P19P, FL-72P, P31P, FL-95P, AL-01P, and MI-21. Section 
101(e) of this law revised CBRS units FL-35 and SC-03 and OPA unit FL-
35P to remove developed properties from the System. Section 134 of P.L. 
105-277 changed the southern and western boundary of CBRS unit M09 
back to the boundary established in 1982. 

August 2, 1999 Publication in the Federal Register of the availability of CBRS maps 
showing the changes made under P.L. 105-277. 

November 29, 1999 Passage of P.L. 106-116, which replaced 7 maps relating to the System 
with 14 new maps. These changes affected CBRS unit L03 and OPA unit 
NC-03P. CBRS unit L03 was changed to meet the original intent of the 
U.S. Congress, and OPA unit NC-03P was changed to coincide with the 
boundary of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore. 

December 6, 1999 Passage of P.L. 106-128, which revised OPA unit DE-03P to add State 
parkland to the OPA and remove privately owned land outside the park. 

December 9, 1999 Passage of P.L. 106-167, which redesignated the CBRS as the John H. 
Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System. 

April 4, 2000 Publication in the Federal Register of the availability of CBRS maps 
showing the changes made under Section 1(a) of P.L. 106-116 and Section 
1(a) of P.L. 106-128. 

October 19, 2000 Passage of P.L. 106-332, which clarified the boundaries of National 
Audubon Society lands that CBRS unit NC-01 was intended to mirror. 

October 27, 2000 Passage of P.L. 106-360, which clarified the boundaries of Cayo Costa 
State Park and resulted in changes to CBRS unit P19 and OPA unit P19P. 

November 13, 2000 Passage of P.L. 106-514, the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization 
Act of 2000, which notably mandates a pilot project to convert a number 
of the CBRS maps to digital format. 


February 16, 2001 Publication in the Federal Register of the availability of CBRS maps 
showing the changes made under Section 1 of P.L. 106-332 and Section 1 
of P.L. 106-360. 

2.2.4 Work to be Performed [February 2002] 


The tasks to be performed by the Mapping Partner that is selected by FEMA to revise the 
affected FIRM panels (hereinafter referred to as the designated Mapping Partner) shall include, 
but are not limited to, the following: 

 Obtaining paper or digital copies of effective FIRMs; 
 Reviewing lists of active FEMA-contracted Flood Map Projects and map revisions to 
determine whether the necessary revisions to CBRS unit maps can be combined with 
current map actions; 
 Preparing the map layout and performing all manual or digital cartographic work 
associated with showing new boundaries and screens of CBRS boundaries from the 
CBRS maps on the affected FIRM panels; 
 Performing a detailed quality control review of all existing and revised CBRS boundaries 
on the FIRM panels being revised; 
 Preparing correspondence to notify affected communities, and the Mapping Partner 
assigned to maintain the national CBRS database, of the revisions being made; 
 Preparing final reproduction materials for the affected FIRM panels; 
 Preparing transmittal letters and paperwork to accompany final reproduction materials; 
 Submitting the final reproduction materials, correspondence, and paperwork to the 
FEMA MSC for publication by GPO; and 
 Providing review copies of the revised FIRM panels to the USFWS. 
2.2.5 Source Materials [February 2002] 




Delineation of CBRS units on the FIRM shall be based on the congressionally adopted CBRS 
source maps, which will be supplied to the designated Mapping Partner by the FEMA PO or 
his/her designee. These maps, hereinafter referred to as System maps, were produced by the 
USFWS from a set of maps adopted by the U.S. Congress pursuant to the Coastal Barrier 
Improvement Act of 1990 and amended as new legislation warrants. 

CBRS units and OPAs are numbered, and these numbers may be found on the System maps. A 
single letter (e.g., C14) precedes the 1983 CBRS unit numbers. The 1990 or later CBRS units 
(not OPAs) are preceded by the two-letter State abbreviation and include a hyphen (e.g., TX-05 


for a Texas unit). The 1991 or later OPAs are always followed by a P (e.g., C14P or TX-05P). 
These CBRS and OPA unit numbers shall not appear on the FIRM panels. 

In addition, a set of maps prepared in 1988 by the Department of the Interior entitled Report to 
Congress: Coastal Barrier Resources System, Recommendations for Additions to or Deletions 
from the Coastal Barrier Resources System (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1988) will be 
available to the designated Mapping Partner for reference purposes only. These maps show what 
was provided to Congress when the 1990 Act was pending. Although these maps shall not be 
used by the Mapping Partner for the delineation of CBRS units, they are useful in determining 
the original extent of 1983 CBRS units and the recommended changes. 

2.2.6 Types of Revisions [February 2002] 


FEMA has three distinctly different mechanisms for revising FIRMs to reflect modified CBRS 
boundaries. One of these three mechanisms shall be initiated as soon as FEMA submits the 
congressionally adopted source maps to the designated Mapping Partner. Often, a draft set of 
these maps will be made available to the designated Mapping Partner either through FEMA or 
the USFWS. In the event that advanced copies are made available, the Mapping Partner shall 
scope out the revision and prepare to make the FIRM changes using the most efficient of the 
methods described below. 

The designated Mapping Partner shall not revise the FIS report for revisions performed solely to 
add, remove, or revise Coastal Barriers. FIS reports that are being prepared to reflect other map 
updates shall not mention the action involving the CBRS changes. 

When processing a revision of a FIRM with CBRS units, any deviation that the designated 
Mapping Partner discovers between a Coastal Barrier delineation on an effective FIRM panel 
compared to the System maps shall be corrected, and FEMA shall inform the USFWS of all such 
changes. The processing Mapping Partner shall direct all questions or problems concerning the 
delineation of CBRS boundaries to the FEMA PO or his/her designee. 

2.2.6.1 Letter of Map Revision [February 2002] 


The LOMR process entails changing CBRS boundaries by letter. Revising CBRS boundaries 
through the LOMR process provides for a quicker turnaround time than the PMR process. This 
option shall be chosen, with the approval of the PO or his/her designee, only when the revision is 
relatively small in scope. 

When a CBRS revision is processed in this fashion, the MSC shall mail a copy of the LOMR to 
all parties that are on record as having a copy of the subject FIRM panel(s). This ensures a wider 
distribution than would normally occur for a LOMR. The Mapping Partner shall be responsible 
for providing the required number of copies to the MSC and for coordinating the distribution in 
advance. It is imperative that advanced coordination is accomplished to ensure that the LOMR is 
distributed by the MSC without delay. 


Any CBRS boundary changes effected by LOMR shall be followed immediately by a PMR 
unless the LOMR can be incorporated into an ongoing map update as discussed in Subsection 
2.2.6.2. 

2.2.6.2 Ongoing Map Update [February 2002] 


Whenever possible, designated Mapping Partner shall incorporate the CBRS boundary changes 
into an ongoing map update. If the ongoing map update is very early in its processing life or 
significant delays are expected (e.g., for a complicated appeal), the Mapping Partner shall 
consult with the FEMA PO or his/her designee to determine whether the LOMR or separate 
PMR methods are to be initiated to show the boundary changes so as not to delay excessively the 
incorporation of the CBRS boundary change into the affected FIRM panel(s). Such delays shall 
be acceptable, however, if the revision is solely to remove areas from the System. 

2.2.6.3 Separate Physical Map Revision [February 2002] 


When the area to be revised is too large to be accomplished by a LOMR and when there are no 
ongoing map updates for the affected FIRM panels, a separate PMR must be processed to reflect 
CBRS boundary changes. 

When processing a PMR to reflect a CBRS change, the Mapping Partner shall incorporate all 
effective LOMRs into the revision, and a SOMA must be prepared for all communities that 
appear on the FIRM panel(s) being revised. The following standard FIRM revision note shall be 
used in the FIRM legend: To incorporate previously issued Letters of Map Revision. 

2.2.7 Mapping Specifications [April 2003] 


The designated Mapping Partner shall ensure that the mapping specifications summarized in 
Appendix K of these Guidelines are applied to the revised FIRM panels. Table 2-2 summarizes 
where the different CBRS mapping specifications may be found in Appendix K. 

2.2.7.1 Map Notes [April 2003] 


The designated Mapping Partner shall ensure that the correct map notes appear on the revised 
FIRM panels. Specific map notes are provided in Appendix K in the subsections listed in Table 
2-2. In addition, FIRM panels that present CBRS boundaries may contain a general map note in 
the body of the FIRM panel similar to the note that is now placed in the FIRM title block. If any 
such general map notes exist from a previous effective FIRM, the designated Mapping Partner 
shall remove them. 


Table 2-2. Mapping Specification Citations in Appendix K 

Topic 

Appendix K Subsection 

FIRM Index note 

K.3.1.5 and K.3.4 

FIRM revision notes 

K.5.1.1 

Map screens 

K.4.4.2 

Title block note 

K.6 (Figures K-30 and K-31) 

Coastal Barrier identification notes 

K.4.4.3 

Abbreviated Coastal Barrier identification notes 

K.4.4.3 

Location of Coastal Barrier notes 

K.4.4.3 

Coastal Barrier Resources System legend 

K.5.1.2 

Coastal Barrier coordinator note 

K.4.4.3 and K.5.1.2 

Regulatory floodway note 

K.4.4.3 



 

2.2.7.2 Coastal Barrier Resources System Boundaries and Delineations 
[February 2002] 


The CBRS boundaries and delineations that are to be included on the revised FIRM panels are 
summarized below. 

1983 Coastal Barrier Resources System Boundaries 

1983 Coastal Barriers may appear more detailed on the FIRM than the Coastal Barrier 
delineation shown on the System maps. This does not mean that the existing Coastal Barrier has 
been redelineated. It is more likely that the difference between the System map and the FIRM is 
due to the difference in source maps used to delineate Coastal Barriers in 1983. 

In addition, 1983 Coastal Barrier units may have inadvertently been omitted from some 1983 
FIRMs because the Coastal Barrier screen was not extended past the shoreline to the full extent 
of the SFHA zone screen, or where the 1983 Coastal Barrier was missed when the Coastal 
Barriers were first mapped. When this occurs, the designated Mapping Partner shall show the 
addition as a 1983 Coastal Barrier, not a 1990 (or later) Coastal Barrier. 


Coastal Barrier Resources System Unit Boundaries Versus Houses 

The System maps show direct horizontal relationships between existing structures and the CBRS 
unit boundaries; the designated Mapping Partner must ensure that these relationships are 
maintained. Most often, the Coastal Barrier boundary has been delineated to keep existing 
structures out of the CBRS unit. 

Coastal Barrier Resources System Unit Boundaries Versus Linework Features 

The System maps use thick lines to represent CBRS unit boundaries. Although standard 
cartographic practice is to follow the center of a boundary, if the boundary has a direct 
relationship to a line work feature (such as being against the edge of a road), the designated 
Mapping Partner shall be careful to maintain that relationship, even if it means the edge of the 
boundary line shown on the System map is used. 

Floodplain Boundaries 

CBRS boundaries have no direct relationship to floodplain boundaries. The assigned Mapping 
Partner shall coordinate with the PO if any appearance as such occurs. 

Boundary Lines Between Contiguous Coastal Barrier Resources System Units 
with Same Prohibition Date 

CBRS units with different unit numbers may be contiguous to each other on the CBRS maps; the 
same holds true for OPAs with different numbers. The designated Mapping Partner shall ensure 
that the FIRM, however, does not show a boundary line between different CBRS units or 
different OPA if they carry the same prohibition date. 

Boundary Lines Between Contiguous Coastal Barrier Resources System Units 
with Different Prohibition Dates 

Boundary lines must be shown to differentiate between contiguous Coastal Barriers with 
different prohibition dates. This also means that same-screen Coastal Barriers must be shown as 
bisected by a boundary line if the Coastal Barriers on either side of the line have a different 
prohibition date. 

Boundaries of Enlarged Coastal Barrier Resources System Units 

If a CBRS unit is enlarged, System maps present the enlarged area as if it were a part of the same 
unit, and therefore do not show a boundary between, for example, 1991 and 1993 OPAs of the 
same unit number. However, these boundaries must be shown on the FIRM panels to 
differentiate between the different years of identification for each area (as a result of the different 
insurance prohibitions unique to each area). 


2.2.8 Community Notification [February 2002] 


The designated Mapping Partner shall prepare Proof Copies of revised FIRM panels and transmit 
them to the community CEO and floodplain administrator for revisions that are processed solely 
to add, delete, or modify Coastal Barriers. The Mapping Partner shall transmit the Proof Copies 
of the revised FIRM panels with a standard transmittal letter provided by FEMA HQ indicating 
that the subject FIRM will be revised in 6 months to show CBRS revisions that cannot be 
appealed. For these types of revisions, when the final reproduction materials are complete, the 
designated Mapping Partner shall replace the standard (179-series) transmittal letter to the CEO 
of the community with a special Coastal Barrier transmittal letter. 

2.2.9 Database Control [February 2002] 


A Mapping Partner selected by FEMA shall maintain the national CBRS database. The 
designated Mapping Partner shall update the database whenever a revision of a FIRM panel 
containing CBRS units or OPAs is processed. All such panel changes shall be reported to the 
Mapping Partner assigned to maintain the database. The assigned Mapping Partner shall forward 
the database to the NFIP Bureau and Statistical Agent on a monthly basis in a variety of data 
formats for uploading to the NFIP Web site, where it is available to the public. The protocol to 
be followed by the Mapping Partner assigned to this task is provided below. 

Throughout the month, the Mapping Partner assigned to maintain the database shall update the 
data in the source file, which is an Excel spreadsheet. On the first business day of each month, 
the Mapping Partner shall send a WinZip file to a designated individual at the NFIP Bureau and 
Statistical Agent via e-mail. The WinZip file shall consist of the latest version of the CBRS 
database in Excel, Lotus 123, Quattro Pro, ASCII, Access, and dBase formats. The assigned 
Mapping Partner shall follow the procedures below when creating the file translations. 

Quattro Pro and Lotus 123 Files 

1. Open the Excel file entitled cbrsdata.xls. 
2. Save the file as a WQ1 (Quattro Pro) with the same prefix, cbrsdata. 
3. Save the file as a WK4 (Lotus 1-2-3) file with the same prefix, cbrsdata. 


ASCII Files 

1. Open the Excel cbrsdata.xls file. 
2. From the File menu, select Save As. 
3. From the Save As type: drop-down menu, choose Text (OS/2 or MS-DOS) (*.txt) and 
then click Save. 


Access File 

1. Open a new database file in Access by selecting Blank Database from the startup 
screen. 
2. Name the new Access file with the prefix cbrsdata. 



3. Click New and then click OK for the datasheet view option from the Tables tab on 
the new database screen. 
4. From the File menu, choose Get External Data and then click Import. 
5. Choose Microsoft Excel from the Files type menu. 
6. Locate the Excel cbrsdata.xls file and select it for import. 
7. Select Show Worksheets and then click Next. 
8. Select First Row Contains Column Headings and then click Next. 
9. Select In a New Table and then click Next. 
10. Choose No Primary Key from the next screen and then click Next. 
11. Click Finish. 


dBase File 

1. Open the newly created Access file. 
2. From the File menu, click Save As/Export 
3. Click OK on the next screen. 
4. Select dBase IV (*.dbf) from the Save as Type drop-down menu on the next screen 
5. Change the file name to cbrsdata. 
2.2.10 Fish and Wildlife Service Review Comments [February 2002] 




The USFWS shall have a 30-day review period to ensure that Coastal Barriers are properly 
mapped. The designated Mapping Partner shall provide Proof Copies of FIRM panels showing 
the CBRS revisions to the USFWS at the beginning of this period and coordinate with the 
USFWS at the end of the review period to ensure proper inclusion of any changes. 


2.3 Notice-to-User Revisions [February 2002] 


The intent of a Notice-To-User revision is to quickly and inexpensively address a non-technical 
problem with a published FIS report, FIRM, or FBFM. These types of revisions are intended 
solely to correct an incorrect or omitted component and cannot be used to establish new or 
revised flood hazard information. 

2.3.1 Types of Incorrect or Omitted Components [February 2002] 


The errors or omissions that can be corrected using the Notice-to-User revision process include, 
but are not limited to, the following: 

 Typographic errors in BFEs shown on FIRM or DFIRM; 
 Missing tables included in the FIS report; 
 Incorrect entries in the tables included in the FIS report; 
 Incorrect map scale shown on the FIRM, DFIRM, and/or FBFM panels; 
 Incorrect flood insurance risk zone labels shown on the FIRM or DFIRM panels; 
 Incorrect or missing flood insurance risk zone screens on the FIRM, DFIRM, and/or 
FBFM panels; 
 Addition or correction of Corporate Limits shown on the FIRM, DFIRM, and/or FBFM 
panels; 
 Addition or correction of Township, Range, and Section lines on the FIRM, DFIRM, 
and/or FBFM panels; 
 Errors in Bench Marks or Elevation Reference Marks on the FIRM, DFIRM, and/or 
FBFM panels; and 
 Missing Elevation Reference Mark descriptions on the FIRM, DFIRM, and/or FBFM 
panels. 


When Notice-to-User revisions are completed, the affected FIS report, FIRM/DFIRM panels, 
and/or FBFM panels normally will receive a new effective date. However, FEMA may make 
exceptions on a case-by-case basis. For example, when a required correction is discovered 
shortly before or after the effective date of the item to be corrected, FEMA may decide to reissue 
the component without a revised date; the FEMA PO will make this decision. 

 


2.3.2 Identification of Incorrect or Omitted Component 
[February 2002] 


The incorrect component may be identified by FEMA or by one of FEMAs Mapping Partners. 
FEMAs decision regarding whether to use the Notice-To-User processes to address the error or 
omission shall be based on the answers to the following questions: 

What is the specific error or omission? 
How long has the component been in effect? 
How was the error or omission identified? 
Who is requesting the correction? 
How many copies of the component has FEMA printed and distributed? 
Are any revisions to the defective component ongoing or planned? 
2.3.3 Options for Correction [February 2002] 




When an error or omission is brought to the attention of FEMA, FEMA shall select the proper 
course of action to take based on the criteria listed in Subsection 2.3.1. The following correction 
options are to be considered: 

Correction via a PMR; 
Correction via LOMR; 
Correction via a Notice-to-User revision; or 
Deferral of the correction. 


FEMA shall base its decision on which of these processes shall be used on the relative priority 
assessed during the identification process. The FEMA PO shall make the decision on the 
appropriate correction process. The PMR and LOMR processes are discussed in Subsections 2.1 
and 2.4, respectively. The process to be followed when the Notice-to-User revision process is 
chosen is discussed in Subsection 2.3.4. 

 


2.3.4 Processing Protocol for Notice-to-User Revisions [February 2002] 


Once the Notice-to-User revision process has been chosen to address the identified error or 
omission, the Mapping Partner selected by FEMA to process the revision (hereinafter referred to 
as the processing Mapping Partner) shall proceed as follows: 

2.3.4.1 Research and Coordination [February 2002] 


During the research and coordination phase of the Notice-to User revision process, the 
processing Mapping Partner shall: 

 Determine if any previously issued LOMRs, LOMAs, or LOMR-Fs are to be reissued or 
incorporated into the component revision. 
 Obtain FEMA PO approval of the action taken and document the decision in writing in 
the format required by the PO. 
 Inform the MSC of the action being taken and the timeframe for submission of the 
corrected component (accelerated nature of correction process requires advance 
coordination to ensure timely printing and delivery to FIS report, FIRM, and FBFM 
users). 
 Contact the FEMA RO to determine if the community is already compliant or if the 
community requires a compliance period. If the community has model ordinances that 
specify that they will adopt all future revisions of the FIS report, FIRM, and FBFM, then 
the Notice-to-User revision may be accelerated. If the community requires a compliance 
period to adopt new ordinances, the processing Mapping Partner shall prepare, and 
FEMA shall send, a letter to the community CEO and floodplain administrator informing 
them of the need for the revision and the effective date for the new or revised component. 
2.3.4.2 Product Revision [February 2002] 




During the product revision phase of the Notice-to User revision process, the processing 
Mapping Partner shall: 

 Make the necessary corrections to the FIS report, FIRM, and/or FBFM. 
 Determine, after consultation with the FEMA PO, if the new corrected component will 
have a new effective date or will be issued with the same date as currently exists. 


Because it is advantageous to have the FIS report carry the same date as the FIRM Index and 
individual FIRM panels, the FIS report may be reissued with the same effective date and a 
notation that it is being reissued on [date] with corrections. When this option is chosen, the 
processing Mapping Partner shall ensure that the Notice to Users page in the front of the FIS 
report contains a brief description of the reason for revision. A sample of this paragraph follows: 


Notice To Users: 

This Flood Insurance Study report was reissued on June 11, 
1999, to add the Floodway Data Table for the Allegheny River, 
which was inadvertently omitted from the FIS report printed on 
March 22, 1999. 

The processing Mapping Partner also shall ensure that the FIS report cover is revised to include a 
note concerning the reprint. (See Figure 2-7.) 

2.3.5 Preparation of the Notice-to-User Letter [February 2002] 


Normally, FEMA shall send a Notice-to-User letter to all individuals on the MSC distribution list 
to explain why a revised component is being issued. The Notice-to-User letter, prepared for 
FEMA by the processing Mapping Partner, shall have the following components: 

 Name of community; 
 Community Identification Number; 
 Date; 
 Description of the corrected component; and 
 FEMA signature. 
2.3.6 Submittal to the Map Service Center 




The processing Mapping Partner shall submit the corrected component(s) to the MSC. The MSC 
shall coordinate with GPO, which will then print and distribute the component(s) to all 
individuals that previously received a copy of the FIRM panel, FBFM panel, or FIS report 
component that contained the error or omission. In addition to the corrected component, the 
processing Mapping Partner also shall submit the following items to the MSC a minimum of 2 
months before the new effective date: 

 Notice-to-User letter, signed by FEMA, that takes the place of the standard transmittal 
letter sent to the community CEO; 
 CMA list; and 
 Appropriate GPO paperwork (See Subsection 2.1.10 for requirements). 


The processing Mapping Partner shall contact the MSC to determine the requirement for 
providing copies of the signed letter or a digital copy for their reproduction purposes. 

 


 

Sample FIS Report Cover 

 

0-1 

 

CHARTER 

TOWNSHIP OF 

DELTA, MICHIGAN 

EATON COUNTY 

 

 

 

JUNE 2, 1999 

(Reprinted with corrections on November 22, 1999) 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

COMMUNITY NUMBER  260066 

Figure 2-7. Sample FIS Report Cover 

Text Box: Charter
Township
of Delta

2.4 Letter of Map Change Processing [February 2002] 

2.4.1 Conditional Letters of Map Amendment [February 2002] 

The processing procedures presented in Subsection 2.4.2 of these Guidelines for LOMAs also 
shall apply to requests for Conditional Letters of Map Amendment (CLOMAs), with the 
following exceptions: 

 Because CLOMAs are based on proposed construction, as-built information is not 
required. 
 The CLOMA Comment Documents that are issued by FEMA do not amend the effective 
Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) or FIRM. 
 A review and processing fee must be submitted for CLOMA requests, but not for LOMA 
requests. 


CLOMA requesters shall submit CLOMA requests, including the required review and processing 
fee, to the appropriate processing Mapping Partner address for the FEMA region in which the 
property that is the subject of the request is located. The addresses are provided in the 
certification forms package, referred to as MT-1, that must be used in preparing a CLOMA 
request for submittal. The MT-1 certification forms package is available for viewing or 
download at http://www.fema.gov/fhm/dl_mt-1.htm. The processing Mapping Partner shall 
review requests for CLOMAs in accordance with Parts 70 and 72 of the NFIP regulations. 
Additional information regarding the processing of CLOMAs is provided in Section 3 and 
Appendix C of the FEMA Document Control Procedures Manual (FEMA, 2000) and in Chapter 
8 of FIA-12, Appeals, Revisions, and Amendments to National Flood Insurance Program Maps: 
A Guide for Community Officials (FEMA 1993). 

2.4.2 Letters of Map Amendment [February 2002] 

Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) requesters shall submit LOMA requests to the appropriate 
processing Mapping Partner address for the FEMA region in which the property that is the 
subject of the request is located. The addresses are provided in the MT-1 certification forms 
package, which must be used in preparing a LOMA request for multiple lots and/or multiple 
structures. The MT-1 certification forms package is available for viewing or download at 
http://www.fema.gov/fhm/dl_mt-1.htm. For single-lot/single-structure requests, LOMA 
requesters may use the MT-EZ form, which is available for viewing or download at 
http://www.fema.gov/fhm/dl_mt-ez.htm. 

 


2.4.2.1 Receipt and Acknowledgment [February 2002] 

The requester will direct most LOMA requests to the processing Mapping Partner selected by 
FEMA to process LOMA requests through the address that appears in the MT-1 forms package. 
When appropriate, FEMA staff shall forward LOMA requests and accompanying data submitted 
directly to the FEMA RO or HQ to the processing Mapping Partner. The processing Mapping 
Partner shall process requests for LOMAs in accordance with Part 70 of the NFIP regulations. 
Additional information regarding the processing of LOMAs is provided in Section 3 and 
Appendix C of the FEMA Document Control Procedures Manual (FEMA, 2000) and in Chapter 
7 of FIA-12, Appeals, Revisions, and Amendments to National Flood Insurance Program Maps: 
A Guide for Community Officials (FEMA, 1993) 

Upon receipt of a LOMA request and supporting data, the processing Mapping Partner shall: 

 Record the requesters name, the community name, the property in question, the date of 
the request, and the date that the request was received in an in-house MIS or other 
database management system. 
 Establish a case number for the request following the procedures documented in 
Subsection 3.2.1 of the FEMA Document Control Procedures Manual (FEMA, 2000). 
 Establish case file for the request, which shall contain a summary sheet, a contact sheet, 
and records of all other contacts pertinent to the case, as well as a compilation of all case-
related information. Eventually, this file shall include dated copies of any FEMA 
correspondence and all subsequent actions. Documentation in the case file shall be up-to-
date and accurate, and the processing Mapping Partner shall maintain and store all 
LOMA files. 


The processing Mapping Partner shall perform an initial review of the requesters submittal to 
determine if information and all certification forms necessary to make a determination have been 
provided. Within 3 days of receipt of the request, the Mapping Partner shall prepare and mail a 
letter to the requester acknowledging receipt of the request. 

2.4.2.2 Required Supporting Information [February 2002] 

The Mapping Partner shall review the information submitted by the requester to determine 
whether it is sufficient to make a determination. Requesters must supply information as 
explained in the MT-EZ form (for single-lot and single-structure LOMAs) or the MT-1 
certification forms package. This information includes, but is not limited to, the following: 

1. Property description documentation consisting of either a copy of the Plat Map or Deed 
(containing the recorder's stamp and recordation date) accompanied by a tax assessor's 
map or other suitable map showing the surveyed location of the property. The 
recordation data (e.g., Book, Volume, Page, Reel, Document Number, Date) must be 
evident on the copies of these documents so that FEMA may cite the legal description of 
the property in the Determination Document. In addition, FEMA must be able to identify 



the property exactly. If the property is not recorded on a Plat Map, a copy of a tax 
assessor's map or other suitable map must be submitted to aid FEMA in locating the 
property. 
2. A photocopy of the effective FHBM or FIRM (and FBFM, if applicable) panel, annotated 
to show where the property is located. The panel number and effective date of the 
FHBM, FIRM, or FBFM panel must appear on the copy submitted. The actual map or a 
photographic copy must be used. A reproduction from a photocopy is unacceptable due 
to possible distortion. 
3. An Elevation Form (Form 2 of the MT-1 certification forms) package, or an Elevation 
Certificate (available on the FEMA Web site at http://www.fema.gov/nfip/elvinst.htm) 
must be included for all requests, except requests for determinations in which the FHBM 
or FIRM already shows the subject property to be CLEARLY located outside the SFHA. 


 

 

The processing Mapping Partner shall request any additional information required by telephone 
and by letter, and shall notify the requester that all necessary information to process a request 
must be received within 90 days of the date of the letter requesting the required information. If 
all information is not received within the 90-day period, the Mapping Partner shall suspend 
processing of the case. 

2.4.2.3 Technical and Programmatic Review [April 2003] 

After receiving the necessary information, the processing Mapping Partner shall make a 
determination concerning the property (i.e., legally defined parcel(s) of land or structure(s)) by 
comparing ground and/or structure elevation data with the base flood depth or BFE at the site in 
question. The extent of the work required for the processing Mapping Partner to make the 
determination will normally depend on the number of structures or lots involved and whether an 
approximate or detailed analysis was performed for the SFHA in which the property is located. 

Approximate Analysis 

For a LOMA request involving an SFHA determined by approximate-study methods and 
designated as Zone A on the effective FHBM or FIRM, the requester may provide data to 
substantiate a BFE from an authoritative Federal source (e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
[USACE], U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS]) 
or an authoritative State/Commonwealth source (e.g., Department of Natural Resources [DNR], 
Department of Environmental Quality [DEQ], Department of Transportation [DOT]). Other 
sources for obtaining BFEs include local Planning and Zoning or Building Departments, or a 
Registered Professional Engineer. BFEs supplied by the other (non-Federal or non-State) 
sources must include supporting technical information (i.e., hydraulic and hydrologic data). 
Requests for property greater than 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is lesser, must include a BFE in 
accordance with Paragraph 60.3(b)(3) of the NFIP regulations. 


When a requester provides a BFE, the processing Mapping Partner shall review the supporting 
information in light of the data used to prepare the FHBM or FIRM to verify that the BFE 
provided by the requester is reasonable. Providing a BFE is the responsibility of the requester. 
When the requester does not have the technical resources and/or the ability to provide a BFE, the 
processing Mapping Partner shall contact the PO or his/her designee to determine whether the 
processing Mapping Partner may determine the BFE using the best available information. 

Detailed Analysis 

For a LOMA request involving an SFHA that was determined using detailed-study methods and 
shown on an effective FIRM as Zone A1-30, AE, AO, or AH, the processing Mapping Partner 
shall make a determination using the BFE or base flood depth shown in the Summary of 
Elevations Table or Flood Profiles from the FIS report or the BFE shown on the FIRM. 
Requests based on BFEs or base flood depths that differ from those shown on the effective FIRM 
may not be handled under the LOMA process. Such requests must be processed as a request for a 
LOMR or PMR under Part 65 of the NFIP regulations. 

Restrictions 

LOMAs may not be issued or based on preliminary data for a FEMA-contracted Flood Map 
Project or community-initiated map revision; however, BFE data may be used from these sources 
if those data are the best available. LOMAs may not be issued for properties or structures 
located in coastal high hazard areas (Zone V), in alluvial fan flood hazard areas [(Zone AO, 
(depth and velocity specified), or Zone A, AH, or AO (Active or Inactive Alluvial Fan 
Flooding)]. Requests of this nature shall be considered LOMR or PMR requests and evaluated 
appropriately. LOMAs also may not be issued for structures elevated on posts, piers, or pilings 
if any portion of the structures, including a post, pier, or piling, is below the BFE. 

LOMAs issued for structures that are inadvertently located within the SFHA and the regulatory 
floodway shall only remove the structure from the SFHA. The structure shall remain within the 
regulatory floodway until such time that the participating community requests that the floodway 
designation be removed from the structure. Such requests shall be processed as requests for 
LOMRs based on better topographic data. 

2.4.2.4 Document Preparation [February 2002] 

The processing Mapping Partner shall prepare the LOMA determination document based on the 
results of the evaluation of the submitted data, usually, but not always, using automated software 
provided by FEMA and developed using Microsoft Access. In some cases a manual 
determination is necessary. Structures may be determined to be in or out of the SFHA; lots may 
be determined to be entirely in, partially in, or entirely out of the SFHA. The determination shall 
include the flood risk zone designation. 

Procedures for the preparation and content of LOMAs are presented in Section 3 and 
Appendix C of the FEMA Document Control Procedures Manual (FEMA, 2000). 


When directed by the PO or his/her designee, the processing Mapping Partner also shall prepare 
informational letters that provide FEMAs best estimate of the BFE in an SFHA. These 
documents also appear in the FEMA Document Control Procedures Manual (FEMA, 2000). 

2.4.2.5 Other Coordination and Documentation Activities [February 2002] 

The processing Mapping Partner shall perform the required coordination and documentation 
activities for processing each determination request. During the processing, the processing 
Mapping Partner shall communicate with the requester, as necessary; coordinate activities with 
FEMA; communicate with other Mapping Partners and Federal, State, and local agencies, as 
needed; prepare letters and other correspondence for FEMA signature; maintain legal 
documentation and records of correspondence and technical data; and provide inventory lists, 
status reports, and other information to the PO, or his/her designee, as required. 

2.4.2.6 Deliverable Products [February 2002] 

Following the preparation of the LOMA determination document, the processing Mapping 
Partner shall include the LOMA in the list of determinations that is to be sent to FEMA for 
official approval. Following approval, the processing Mapping Partner shall provide the 
requester with FEMA's final determination for all property covered by the request. The 
processing Mapping Partner also shall send a copy of the LOMA determination document to the 
community as verification of the amendment to the FIRM. 

2.4.3 Conditional Letters of Map Revision Based on Fill [February 2002] 

The processing procedures presented in Subsection 2.4.4 for LOMR-Fs also shall apply to 
requests for Conditional Letters of Map Revision Based on Fill (CLOMR-Fs); however, because 
CLOMR-Fs are based on proposed construction, as-built information is not required. 
CLOMR-Fs do not revise the effective FIRM. 

The processing Mapping Partner shall process reviews of requests for CLOMR-Fs in accordance 
with Parts 65 and 72 of the NFIP regulations. Additional information regarding the processing 
of CLOMR-Fs is provided in Section 2 and Appendix B of the FEMA Document Control 
Procedures Manual (FEMA, 2000). 

 

2.4.4 Letters of Map Revision Based on Fill [February 2002] 

2.4.4.1 Receipt and Acknowledgment [February 2002] 

Most LOMR-F requests will be submitted directly to the processing Mapping Partner by the 
requester. Requests for LOMR-Fs and any accompanying data received by FEMA RO and HQ 
staff shall be transmitted to the processing Mapping Partner. 


Upon receipt of a request, the processing Mapping Partner shall: 

 Record the requesters name, the community name, the property in question, the date of 
the request, and the date the request was received. 
 Assign a case number following the procedures in Subsection 3.1.1 of the FEMA 
Document Control Procedures Manual (FEMA, 2000). 
 Create a case file for the request. The case file shall contain a summary sheet, a contact 
sheet, and records of all other contacts pertinent to the case, as well as a compilation of 
all case-related information. Eventually, this file shall include dated copies of any FEMA 
correspondence and all subsequent actions. Documentation in the case file shall be kept 
up-to-date and accurate and the Mapping Partner shall maintain and store all LOMR-F 
files. 
 Perform an initial review of the requesters submittal to determine if all information, 
review and processing fee, and certification forms necessary to make a determination 
have been provided. 
 Within 3 days of receipt of the request, prepare and mail a letter acknowledging receipt of 
the request. 


2.4.4.2 Required Supporting Information [February 2002] 

The processing Mapping Partner shall review the information submitted by the requester to 
determine whether it is sufficient to make a determination. All requests for LOMR-Fs must be 
supported by sufficient information to demonstrate that structures or the entire area within the 
legal bounds of a parcel of land, having been elevated by fill, are at or above the BFE and are not 
subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood. This information, as explained in 
the MT-1 certification forms package, includes, but is not limited to the information summarized 
below. 

1. Property description documentation consisting of either a copy of the Plat Map or Deed 
(containing the recorder's stamp and recordation date) accompanied by a tax assessor's 
map or other suitable map showing the surveyed location of the property. The 
recordation data (e.g., Book, Volume, Page, Reel, Document Number, Date) must be 
evident on the copies of these documents so that FEMA may cite the legal description of 
the property in the Determination Document. In addition, FEMA must be able to identify 
the property exactly. If the property is not recorded on a Plat Map, a copy of a tax 
assessor's map or other suitable map must be submitted to aid FEMA in locating the 
property. 
2. A photocopy of the effective FHBM or FIRM and FBFM (if applicable) panel, annotated 
to show where the property is located. The panel number and effective date of the FIRM 
must appear on the copy submitted. The actual map or a photographic copy must be 
used. A reproduction from a photocopy is unacceptable due to possible distortion. 



3. An Elevation Form (Form 2 of the MT-1 certification forms package) or Elevation 
Certificate (available on the FEMA Web site at http://www.fema.gov/nfip/elvinst.htm) 
must be included for all requests, except requests for determinations in which the FIRM 
already shows property to be CLEARLY outside the SFHA. 
4. Community Acknowledgement (Form 3 of the MT-1 certification forms package), which 
must be submitted with all LOMR-F requests. This form provides the community 
certification that the request meets the criteria described in Paragraph 65.5(a)(4) of the 
NFIP regulations. These requirements include: 


a. Existing residential structures built in the SFHA have their lowest floor elevated to or 
above the BFE; 
b. The participating community has determined the land and any existing or proposed 
structures to be removed from the SFHA are reasonably safe from flooding, and 
that they have on file, available upon request by FEMA, all supporting analyses and 
documentation used to make that determination; 
c. The participating community has issued permits for all existing and proposed 
construction or other development; 
d. All necessary permits have been received from those governmental agencies where 
approval is required by Federal, State, or local law; and 
e. Fill has not been placed in a regulatory floodway, which causes a rise in flood 
elevations associated with the base flood discharge. 


5. Appropriate review and processing fee, in accordance with Part 72 of the NFIP 
regulations. (The current schedule for the review and processing fees is available on the 
FEMA Web site at http://www.fema.gov/fhm/frm_fees.shtm.) 


The processing Mapping Partner shall request any additional information required by telephone 
and by letter, and shall notify the requester that all necessary information to process a request 
must be received from the requester within 90 days of the date of the letter requesting the 
required information. If all information is not received within the 90-day period and the 
requester does not request an extension, the processing Mapping Partner shall suspend 
processing of the case. 

 

2.4.4.3 Technical and Programmatic Review [April 2003] 

After receiving the necessary information, the processing Mapping Partner shall make a 
determination concerning the property or structure by comparing fill and/or structure elevation 
data with the 1-percent-annual-chance flood depth or elevation at the site in question. The extent 
of the work required for the processing Mapping Partner to make a determination will usually 


depend on the number of structures or lots involved and whether the SFHA in which the 
structures are shown was determined based on an approximate or detailed analysis. 

Approximate Analysis 

For a LOMR-F request involving an approximate SFHA shown on an effective NFIP map (i.e., 
Zone A), the requester may provide data to substantiate a BFE from an authoritative Federal 
source (e.g., USACE, USGS, NRCS) or State source (e.g., DNR, DEQ, DOT). Other sources for 
obtaining BFEs include local Planning and Zoning or Building Departments, or a Registered 
Professional Engineer. BFEs supplied by the other (non-Federal or non-State) sources must 
include supporting technical information (i.e., hydraulic and hydrologic data). Requests for 
property greater than 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is lesser, must include a BFE, in accordance 
with Paragraph 60.3(b)(3) of the NFIP regulations. 

When a requester provides a BFE, the processing Mapping Partner shall review the supporting 
information in light of the data used to prepare the FHBM or FIRM to verify that the BFE 
provided by the requester is reasonable. Providing a BFE is the responsibility of the requester. 
When the requester does not have the technical resources and/or the ability to provide a BFE, the 
Mapping Partner shall contact the PO or his/her designee to determine whether the Mapping 
Partner should determine the BFE using the best available information. 

Detailed Analysis 

For a LOMR-F request involving a detailed SFHA shown on an effective FIRM, the processing 
Mapping Partner shall make a determination using the BFE or base flood depth shown in the 
Summary of Elevations Table or Flood Profiles from the FIS report or the BFE shown on the 
FIRM. Requests based on BFEs or base flood depths that differ from those shown on the 
effective FIRM may not be handled under the LOMR-F process; rather, they must be addressed 
under the LOMR or PMR processes discussed earlier in this Volume. 

Restrictions 

LOMR-Fs may not be issued or based on preliminary data for FEMA-contracted Flood Map 
Projects or community-initiated map revisions; however, BFE data may be used from these 
sources if those data are the best available. LOMR-Fs may not be issued for properties or 
structures located in coastal high hazard areas (Zone V), alluvial fan flood hazard areas [(Zone 
AO (depth and velocity specified), or Zone A, AH, or AO (active or inactive alluvial fan 
flooding)]. LOMR-Fs also may not be issued or structures elevated on posts, piers, or pilings, if 
any portion of the structure, including a post, pier, or piling, is still below the BFE. 

2.4.4.4 Document Preparation [February 2002] 

The processing Mapping Partner shall prepare the LOMR-F determination document based on 
the results of the evaluation of the submitted data, using usually, but not always, automated 
software provided by FEMA and developed using Microsoft Access. In some cases, a manual 


determination is necessary. The notification letter shall be addressed to the CEO of the 
community, with copies transmitted to the requester (if different from the CEO), the community 
floodplain administrator, and the State NFIP Coordinator, as applicable. Structures may be 
conditionally (CLOMR-Fs) or finally (LOMR-Fs) determined to be in or out of the SFHA; lots 
may be conditionally or finally determined to be entirely in, partially in, or entirely out of the 
SFHA. The determination shall include the revised flood risk zone designation. Procedures for 
the preparation and content of CLOMR-Fs and LOMR-Fs are provided in Section 2 and 
Appendix B of the FEMA Document Control Procedures Manual (FEMA, 2000). 

When directed by the PO or his/her designee, the Mapping Partner also shall prepare 
informational letters that provide FEMAs best estimate of the BFE in approximate and detailed 
SFHAs. These documents also appear in the FEMA Document Control Procedures Manual 
(FEMA, 2000). 

2.4.4.5 Other Coordination and Documentation Activities [February 2002] 

The processing Mapping Partner shall perform the required coordination and documentation 
activities for processing each LOMR-F or CLOMR-F request. During the processing, the 
processing Mapping Partner shall communicate with the requester, as necessary; coordinate 
activities with FEMA; communicate with other Mapping Partners and Federal, State, and local 
agencies, as needed; prepare letters and other correspondence for FEMA signature; maintain 
legal documentation and records of correspondence and technical data; and provide inventory 
lists, status reports, and other information to the PO or his/her designee, as required. 

2.4.4.6 Deliverable Products [February 2002] 

Following the preparation of the LOMR-F determination, the processing Mapping Partner shall 
prepare a list of LOMR-Fs to be sent to FEMA for approval. This list is referred to as a docket. 
The LOMR-F documents provide the requester with FEMAs final determination for each 
property covered by the request. The CLOMR-F documents provide the requester with a 
conditional determination for each property covered by the request. Following receipt of the 
approved docket from FEMA, the Mapping Partner shall send copies of the LOMR-F or 
CLOMR-F determination document to the community CEO and floodplain administrator and to 
the requester. Additional information on the distribution of LOMR-Fs and CLOMR-Fs is 
provided in Section 3 and Appendix C of the FEMA Document Control Procedures Manual 
(FEMA, 2000) 

2.4.5 Conditional Letters of Map Revision (CLOMR) [February 2002] 

The processing procedures presented in Subsection 2.4.6 for LOMRs also shall apply to requests 
for CLOMRs. Section 72.2 of the NFIP regulations states that a CLOMR is 

FEMAs comment on a proposed project that would, upon construction, affect the 
hydrologic or hydraulic characteristics of a flooding source and thus result in the 


modification of the existing regulatory floodway, the effective base flood 
elevations, or the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). 

A CLOMR does not revise the effective FIS report, FIRM, or FBFM; however, the CLOMR 
does describe changes to the effective FIS report, FIRM, or FBFM that will result from the 
project, if built as proposed. The CLOMR also describes any additional information (e.g., as-
built plans, fill compaction certification) required to process the final determination as a PMR or 
LOMR. 

For communities that propose floodplain modifications, requesting CLOMRs is not only prudent 
but, in some circumstances, required (Section 65.12 of the NFIP regulations). When a 
participating community proposes to permit an encroachment into its 1-percent-annual-chance 
floodplain where no floodway has been established, and the encroachment will cause an increase 
of more than 1.0 foot in the BFE, the community must first obtain FEMAs conditional approval 
of the proposed encroachment through submission of a CLOMR. Similarly, the community also 
must obtain conditional approval from FEMA before permitting an encroachment into a 
regulatory floodway that would result in any increases to flood levels. 

The main difference between the types of supporting data required for LOMRs and CLOMRs is 
that any maps, plans drawings, measurements, or ground elevation data submitted in support of a 
request for a CLOMR will not reflect existing conditions and consequently cannot be certified 
as-built. All data submitted in support of a request for a CLOMR must, however, reflect final 
design conditions. 

The requester shall not interpret the lack of a requirement for certified as-built supporting data to 
mean that incomplete data and vague descriptions of proposed projects will provide FEMA with 
an adequate basis for a conditional determination. In addition, although an as-built certification 
does not apply to design plans and other supporting data for a CLOMR, all submitted work maps 
and plans must still be stamped and signed with the seal of a Registered Professional Engineer or 
Licensed Land Surveyor, as appropriate. 

Standard submittal requirements for CLOMRs are as follows: 

 Hydraulic modeling analysis of the floodplain and regulatory floodway (as appropriate) 
of all flood frequencies listed in the communitys FIS report. Separate hydraulic analysis 
must be submitted duplicating the effective model and documenting proposed conditions 
though submission of a proposed conditions model. To document any physical changes 
within a communitys floodplain since the effective model it may be necessary to also 
provide an existing conditions model to accurately show the effects of a proposed project 
on a communitys flood levels. 
 Certified, dated, topographic work map, depicting scale, model cross-sections, vertical 
datum reference, and contour interval (contour interval should be equivalent to or more 
detailed than that used to develop communitys FIRM) delineating the 1- and 0.2-
percent-annual-chance floodplain and regulatory floodway boundaries (as appropriate). 



 A copy of the communitys FIRM (panel number and effective date must be included in 
copy) annotated to reflect the proposed 1- and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain and 
regulatory floodway boundaries (as appropriate). 
 All appropriate completed certification forms including community concurrence of 
proposed revision. 
 Appropriate review and processing fee, in accordance with Part 72 of the NFIP 
regulations. (The current schedule for the review and processing fees is available on the 
FEMA Web site at http://www.fema.gov/fhm/frm_fees.shtm.) 


For request that incorporate revised hydrologic data, flows for all flood flow frequencies listed in 
the communitys FIS must be submitted. Per Part 65.6 of the NFIP regulations, it must be 
demonstrated to FEMA that revised flows are statistically significantly different from the 
effective flows as measured by a confidence limits analysis of the new discharge estimates for 
effective flows to be revised. Certification form 3 (MT-2 Form 3) must be submitted in support 
of request including revised hydrologic analyses. 

The processing Mapping Partner shall process reviews of requests for CLOMRs in accordance 
with the provisions of Parts 65 and 72 of the NFIP regulations and the procedures discussed 
below. Additional information regarding processing of CLOMRs is provided in Section 2 and 
Appendix B of the FEMA Document Control Procedures Manual (FEMA, 2000). 

2.4.6 Letters of Map Revision Based on Conditions Other Than Fill 
[February 2002] 

2.4.6.1 Receipt and Acknowledgment [February 2002] 

All map revision requests and any accompanying data shall be transmitted to the processing 
Mapping Partner by the PO, his/her designee, or other FEMA HQ staff. The processing 
Mapping Partner shall 

 Inform the PO or his/her designee of any requests for information submitted directly to 
the processing Mapping Partner. 
 Inventory the materials received and, within 5 working days of receipt, send 
acknowledgment letters to the community CEO and floodplain administrator. If the 
requester is anyone other than the CEO or floodplain administrator, the processing 
Mapping Partner also shall send the requester a copy of the acknowledgment letter and, if 
necessary, telephone the requester to explain the review procedures. 


 In accordance with Section 65.4 of the NFIP regulations, all requests for changes to effective 
maps other than those initiated by FEMA must be made in writing by the CEO of the 
community. The processing Mapping Partner shall request community concurrence if the CEO 
has not submitted it. 


2.4.6.2 Case Initiation [February 2002] 

Upon receipt of the revision request, the processing Mapping Partner shall 

 Assign a case number using the procedures document in Section 2.3 of the FEMA 
Document Control Procedures Manual (FEMA, 2000). 
 Create a revision case file, in accordance with Section 66.3 of the NFIP regulations. 
 Telephone the community to obtain general information (name and address of the CEO 
and community contact person, and location of Community Map Repository) and, for 
PMRs, to request an updated community corporate limit map. 
 Enter the revision request into an in-house MIS and the LOMC module of the FEMA CIS 
database. 
 Make an initial determination as to the expected processing procedure. 
 Record the date of receipt as the date from which all required processing dates are 
determined. 


2.4.6.3 Initial Reconnaissance [February 2002] 

After the case has been properly recorded, the processing Mapping Partner shall begin a search 
of all available records to determine the status of the community in the NFIP and to determine 
any and all past actions by FEMA in the community that may affect the request. The processing 
Mapping Partner shall determine whether all data required to address the request have been 
submitted, advise the PO or his/her designee of the results of this review, and make a 
recommendation concerning follow-up. The PO or his/her designee shall make the final decision 
on how to proceed with the request. 

2.4.6.4 Program Status and Map Actions [February 2002] 

The processing Mapping Partner shall review various portions of FEMAs databases/systems 
(i.e., CIS, MICS, MNUSS) to determine the status of the community in the NFIP and obtain 
information on complete, active, and future required restudies, map revisions, and map 
amendments. The Mapping Partner also may use the NFIP Community Status Book, available in 
hardcopy form from the MSC or from the Mitigation Library on FEMAs Internet site, to 
determine whether the community is participating in the Emergency or Regular Phase of the 
NFIP. The processing Mapping Partner shall review the following data sources to obtain more 
detailed information on the nature and extent of any past map actions in the community: 

 Future Revision FilesThe Mapping Partner shall review these files to determine if 
additional revisions to the FIS report, FIRM, or FBFM are warranted. These files exist 
because, from time to time, information is submitted by the community or discovered 
during the course of processing a restudy or map revision that does not significantly 



affect the communitys participation in the NFIP. Because of funding constraints, these 
revisions are deferred for future action and, at the request of the PO or his/her designee, 
placed in the future revision files. These files also include LOMRs and LOMR-Fs for 
future PMRs. 
 LOMA and LOMR-F FilesThe Mapping Partner shall review these files to determine 
if past LOMA and LOMR-F actions are of sufficient scope to warrant inclusion in the 
ongoing revision. In general, single-lot LOMAs and LOMR-Fs do not warrant inclusion 
because of map scale limitations. However, multiple-lot LOMAs and LOMR-Fs may 
warrant inclusion in a PMR. 
 Five-Year Map Update FilesAs with the Future Revision Files, the Mapping Partner 
shall review these files to determine if additional revisions to the FIS report, FIRM, or 
FBFM are warranted. 


2.4.6.5 Required Data [February 2002] 

Based on the reason for the request, the processing Mapping Partner shall make a determination 
as to the need for additional data in accordance with the applicable portions of Sections 65.5, 
65.6, 65.7, 65.10, 65.11, 65.12, and 65.13 of the NFIP regulations. As part of the revision 
package, the requester is required to complete the certification forms included in the MT-2 
certification forms package. Examples of standard data requirements for various structural 
modifications include, but are not limited to, the following: 

Channelizations 

 Certified as-built construction or grading plans 
 Hydrologic analysis (if the discharges in the effective model are not used) 
 Calibration run duplicating original hydraulic model (multiple profile and floodway) 
 Existing hydraulic model (multiple profile and floodway) if the calibration hydraulic 
model run does not reflect the floodplain conditions prior to the start of the project 
 Revised hydraulic model (multiple profile and floodway) 
 Floodplain and/or floodway boundary delineations on the effective map panels 
 Transition structure design plans for as-built conditions 
 New hydrologic analyses or diversion channels 
 Evidence of adequate soil compaction and erosion protection (for placement of fill) 



 Certified topographic data that include the entire area of the revision and delineate 
floodplain and/or floodway boundaries, BFEs, vertical datum reference, and cross-section 
locations 


Culverts and Storm Systems 

 Certified as-built construction plans 
 Hydrologic analysis (if the discharges in the effective FIS report are not used) 
 Calibration run duplicating the original hydraulic model (multiple profile and floodway) 
 Existing hydraulic model (multiple profile and floodway) if the calibration hydraulic 
model run does not reflect the floodplain conditions prior to the start of the project 
 Revised hydraulic model (multiple profile and floodway) and the determination of 
headwater and tailwater elevations 
 Floodplain and/or floodway boundary delineations on the effective map panels 
 Evidence of adequate soil compaction and erosion protection (for placement of fill) 
 Certified topographic data that include the entire area of the revision and delineate 
floodplain and/or floodway boundaries, BFEs, vertical datum reference, and cross-section 
locations 



Bridges 

 Certified as-built construction plans 
 Hydrologic analysis (if the discharges in the effective model are not used) 
 Calibration run duplicating the original hydraulic model (multiple-profile and floodway) 
 Existing hydraulic model (multiple profile and floodway) if the calibration hydraulic 
model run does not reflect the floodplain conditions prior to the start of the project 
 Revised hydraulic model (multiple profile and floodway) 
 Evidence of adequate soil compaction and erosion protection (for placement of fill) 
 Certified topographic data that include the entire area of the revision and delineate 
floodplain and/or floodway boundaries, BFEs, vertical datum reference, and cross-section 
locations 


Levees (Dikes, Berms, and Embankments) 

 Certified as-built construction plans 
 Hydrologic analysis (if the discharges in the effective model are not used) 
 Hydraulic model with levee if compliant with Section 65.10 of the NFIP regulations 
 Hydraulic models with and without levee if not compliant with Section 65.10 of the NFIP 
regulations 
 Evidence of structural stability, certified by a Registered Professional Engineer, 
 Evidence of operation and maintenance provisions 
 Interior drainage analyses and SFHA boundary delineations 
 Floodplain and/or floodway boundary delineations on the effective FIRM/FBFM panels 
 Evidence of adequate soil compaction and erosion protection (for placement of fill) 
 Certified topographic data that include the entire area of the revision and delineate 
floodplain and/or floodway boundaries, BFEs, vertical datum reference, and cross-section 
locations 
 Additional design data as necessary 



Dams (Detention Basins and Reservoirs) 

 Certified as-built construction plans 
 Hydrologic analysis (if the discharges in the effective FIS report are not used) 
 Certification by a Registered Professional Engineer that impoundment structures will 
remain stable during the base flood 
 Evidence of operation and maintenance provisions 
 Hydraulic analysis 
 Floodplain and/or floodway boundary delineations on the effective FIRM/FBFM panels 
 Hydrologic analyses for downstream reach, if the dam is designed to lower the base flood 
discharge 
 Evidence of adequate soil compaction and erosion protection (for placement of fill) 
 Certified topographic data that include the entire area of the revision and delineate 
floodplain and/or floodway boundaries, BFEs, vertical datum reference, and cross-section 
locations 


Flood-Control Structures Subject to Alluvial Fan Flooding 

 Certified as-built construction plans 
 Certification by a Registered Professional Engineer that the flood-control structures will 
be able to withstand the hazards associated with flooding, erosion, scour, and relocation 
of flow paths during the base flood discharge 
 Hydrologic analyses that quantify the discharges (if the discharges on which the effective 
FIRM is based are not used) and the volumes of water, debris, and sediment movement 
 Engineering analyses demonstrating the impact of flooding from sources other than the 
fan apex 
 Revised analysis of alluvial fan flooding (if the analysis on which the effective FIRM is 
based is not used), in accordance with the analysis approach stated in Appendix G 
accompanied by a discussion of the effects of (1) the depth and velocity of flooding, and 
(2) the scour and sediment deposition on other areas of the fan 
 Evidence of operation and maintenance provisions 
 Revised floodplain boundary delineations on the affected panels of the effective FIRM 



 Topographic data that include the entire area of the revision and delineation of the revised 
floodplain boundaries (certified, if the topographic data on which the effective FIRM is 
based are not used) 
 Evidence of maintenance provisions, where referenced above, are to be in the form of an 
ordinance that specifies the activities to be performed, the frequency of performance, and 
the community officials responsible for the performance. If maintenance is to be 
accomplished by an agency other than the community, a logical provision (e.g., 
ordinance) for community monitoring and backup maintenance is required. The Mapping 
Partner shall ensure that maintenance agreements are submitted for levees and dams. 


Certifications, where referenced above, are defined as follows: 

 Certification of data is a statement that the data are accurate to the best of the certifiers 
knowledge. 
 Certification of analyses is a statement that the analyses have been performed correctly 
and in accordance with sound engineering practices. 
 Certification of structural works is a statement that the works are designed in accordance 
with sound engineering practices to provide protection from the base flood. 
 Certification of as-built conditions is a statement that a structure has been built according 
to the plans being certified, is in place, and is fully functional. 


The processing Mapping Partner shall ensure that certifications include the certifiers name, 
signature, registration number, and the registration expiration date of the certifier. 

2.4.6.6 Technical Review [February 2002] 

The processing Mapping Partner shall review the technical, scientific, and other information 
submitted by the revision requester to ensure that the data are technically accurate, consistent 
with standard engineering practice and FEMA standards, and sufficient to warrant a revision. 
The extent of the technical review will, generally, be limited to a review of the information 
presented on the certification forms and the supporting documentation submitted with them. 

The processing Mapping Partner shall use the forms to identify inconsistencies and discrepancies 
and judge reasonableness. In certain cases, such as review of requests involving alluvial fan 
flooding, unique hydrologic or hydraulic analyses, or significant changes to the SFHAs shown 
on the effective FIRM, additional technical reviews beyond the reviews of the certification forms 
may be required, as directed by the PO or his/her designee. 

For revisions involving the addition of detailed flood information or changes to flooding sources 
originally studied by detailed methods, analyses and other supporting data for the 10-, 2-, 1-, and 
0.2-percent-annual-chance floods and regulatory floodway may be required. At a minimum, the 
analyses and other supporting data provided in support of a revision request must meet the 


original standards employed by FEMA for the preparation of the FIS report, FIRM, and FBFM, 
which are documented in Volume 1 and related appendices in these Guidelines. 

Hydrologic Analyses 

FEMA requires that the computations performed to support requests for revisions to effective 
FIS reports, FIRMs, and FBFMs be based on the flood discharge values used for the effective 
FIS and FIRM; however, revision requests may also be based on new hydrologic conditions or 
better estimates of the flood discharges. The requester must provide 5- and 95-percent 
confidence limits in support of new discharge values, when applicable. The requester must not 
only provide sufficient data to support the use of the new discharges for the 1-percent-annual-
chance flood and, if necessary, the 10-, 2-, and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floods, but must also 
determine all changes to the FIS report, FIRM, and FBFM that would result from the use of the 
new discharges. Therefore, the requester will usually be required to provide hydraulic analyses 
and revised floodplain and floodway boundary delineations, in addition to hydrologic analyses. 

When new discharges are used, the processing Mapping Partner shall review the information 
presented on Form 2, entitled Riverine Hydrology and Hydraulics Form, included in the MT-2 
certification forms package to determine if the discharges are reasonable and adhere to the 
requirements listed below. The discharge values shall be checked for consistency, within the 
limitations of the methodology employed, throughout the information submitted by the requester. 
In performing this check, the processing Mapping Partner shall verify that, for flooding sources 
studied by detailed methods, adequate information has been provided for any of the four 
recurrence interval floods that may be affected by the new hydrologic analyses. 

The following requirements apply when processing requests involving revised hydrology: 

 The revised flood discharge must be significantly different from the effective flood 
discharge. The revised flood discharge shall be adopted if the effective flood discharge 
does not fall within the 5- and 95-percent confidence limits of the revised estimates. 
These limits shall be determined using methods contained in Bulletin 17B, Guidelines for 
Determining Flood Flow Frequency (Interagency Committee on Water Data, 1982). 
 In cases where the new discharge must be approved by the State, the Mapping Partner 
shall ensure that the proper approval from the State has been acquired. 
 In cases where the new discharge must be approved by a regional/local flood-control 
agency, the processing Mapping Partner shall ensure that the proper approval from the 
regional/local flood-control agency has been acquired. 
 An alternative methodology, if used by a revision requester, must meet the requirements 
of Paragraph 65.6(a)(6) of the NFIP regulations and must be on FEMAs list of accepted 
computer models. 
 The revised hydrologic analyses must analyze the same recurrence interval floods as 
those studied for the effective FIRM. 



 The methodology used in the revised hydrologic analyses must match that used for 
contiguous communities. 
 The data accumulated and analyses performed must be certified by a Registered 
Professional Engineer and submitted to the processing Mapping Partner for review. 
 If the processing Mapping Partner believes future-conditions discharges have been used 
for any revision request and the processing Mapping Partner has not received any 
guidance from FEMA for the community(ies) affected, the processing Mapping Partner 
shall discuss the revision request with the PO or his/her designee to determine followup 
actions to be taken. 


Hydraulic Analyses 

The requester must perform hydraulic analyses to support a revision request based on new 
hydrologic conditions or physical changes in channel or overbank conditions, if those conditions 
affect the elevation and extent of the base flood. For revisions involving flooding originally 
studied by approximate methods and designated as Zone A on the effective FIRM, the analyses 
performed by the requester generally must be consistent with FEMA standards for approximate 
studies. Therefore, the analyses may be in the form of hand calculations for step-backwater, 
normal-depth, or stage-frequency relationships, or the analyses may be based on the use of 
step-backwater or coastal flooding computer programs. 

For revisions involving flooding sources originally studied by detailed methods, analyses 
performed by the requester must be consistent with FEMA standards for detailed studies. 
Therefore, the analysis usually must consist of step-backwater computations for riverine flooding 
sources, stage-frequency analyses for lacustrine flooding, hand computations for sheetflow areas, 
and storm-surge and wave-height or wave-runup calculations for coastal flooding. 

The processing Mapping Partner technical review shall generally be limited to the information 
presented on the certification forms. The Mapping Partner shall review the forms to ensure that 
the requirements listed below are met. All data submitted by the requester must be consistent, 
and there may be no discontinuities between the information shown for revised areas and that 
shown for unrevised areas in the FIS report and on the FIRM and FBFM. 


The following requirements apply when processing requests involving revised hydraulic 
analyses: 

 Revision requests must be based on the effective hydraulic computer model. Where the 
input data representing the effective hydraulic model are unavailable, an approximation 
should be developed. A new model should be established using the original cross-section 
topographic information, where possible, and the discharges on which the current FIS 
report and FIRM are based. The model must use the same effective-flow areas as 
established in the original analysis and must be calibrated to reproduce the original BFEs 
to within 0.5 foot. See Appendix C, Subsection C.5.2.1 of these Guidelines for 
information on FEMAs policy for conversion to HEC-RAS. 
 If the revision requester uses an alternative hydraulic methodology, that methodology 
must be on FEMAs list of acceptable computer models and meet the requirements of 
Paragraph 65.6(a)(6) of the NFIP regulations. 
 To avoid discontinuities between the revised and unrevised flood data, the revision 
requester must submit hydraulic analyses be that are extensive enough to ensure a logical 
transition can be shown between the revised flood elevations, floodplain boundaries, and 
floodway boundaries and those developed previously for areas not affected by the 
revision. The revised and unrevised water-surface elevations must match within 0.5 foot 
where such transitions occur; however, FEMA would prefer that the transitions match 
within 0.10 foot if possible. The FEMA PO or his/her designee must approve exceptions 
to this standard. 
 In general, revision requests that result in increases in BFEs because of the physical 
actions of an individual property owner within the regulatory floodway will be 
considered a violation of NFIP regulations unless evidence is provided to show that the 
criteria described in Section 65.12 of the NFIP regulations have been met. Any violation 
or potential violation of the NFIP regulations must be brought to the attention of the PO 
or his/her designee. 
 For revisions based on the effects of levees or other flood-control structures that provide 
base flood protection, the processing Mapping Partner shall obtain verification, in the 
form of technical analyses, that those structures meet the minimum criteria outlined in 
Section 65.l0 of the NFIP regulations. Similarly, for flood-control structures located in 
areas subject to alluvial fan flooding, the processing Mapping Partner shall obtain 
technical analyses to verify that the minimum criteria of Section 65.13 of the NFIP 
regulations are met. If a PMR is processed, the processing Mapping Partner shall verify 
that the effects of such structures are properly discussed in the FIS report and shown on 
the FIRM and FBFM. 



Coastal Revisions 

Computation of the SWEL considers many factors and is performed through the use of computer 
models or statistical analysis of tide gage data of adequate continuous record. Any revision of 
the SWEL should be based on new information that either refutes or supplements the database. 
The requester must submit significant data or produce verifiable information that refutes the 
information used by the SC to construct the applicable computer model. 

In the case of tide gages, the requester must perform a statistical analysis prepared with new data 
that supplements the existing tide gage records or provides evidence that the data used are 
incorrect. The processing Mapping Partner shall review the information presented on Form 4, 
Coastal Analysis Form, from the MT-2 certification forms package to determine the 
appropriateness of incorporating the revised data on the FIRM. 

For map revision requests in coastal areas based on more up-to-date, site-specific topographic 
information, a transect and a wave-height analysis based on the profile must be provided. This 
analysis may also require consideration of other coastal processes, such as erosion and wave 
runup. This analysis may be conducted based on the terms of the effective FIS report and FIRM, 
the community, or the PO or his/her designee. 

Map revisions in coastal areas may also be based on existing, new, or improved shore-protection 
structures, such as bulkheads, seawalls, breakwaters, and dikes. When structures designed to 
diminish or absorb wave energy (e.g., breakwaters, bulkheads, seawalls) are involved, the 
requester must submit evidence that the structure will survive the base flood and associated wave 
action. The items that the processing Mapping Partner shall address before issuing a map 
revision based on coastal structures are listed in Criteria for Evaluating Coastal Flood 
Protection Structures (USACE, 1989). See Appendix D of these Guidelines for additional 
information. Structures designed to provide flood protection (e.g., levees, dikes, floodwalls) 
must conform to Section 65.10 of the NFIP regulations and to the criteria outlined in Appendix 
H of these Guidelines. 

The requester must also provide assurance from the State or local agency with maintenance 
responsibility that the structures involved in the revision will be maintained and will not settle. 
As-built drawings of all structures are required. Wave height analyses based on transacts 
through these types of structures are valid only when these conditions are met. 

The processing Mapping Partner shall review the information presented on Form 4, Coastal 
Analysis Form, and/or Form 5, Coastal Structures Form, from the MT-2 certification forms 
package to determine the items that require further review and the appropriateness of 
incorporating the revised data on the FIRM. 

Other Data 

Revisions involving changes to flood risk zones, floodplain boundaries, and corporate limits may 
also be requested. For revisions to flood risk zones, the Mapping Partner shall verify the 
accuracy of any calculations the requester submitted and determine whether a revision is 


warranted based on a review of Form 2, entitled Riverine Hydrology and Hydraulics Form, 
from the MT-2 certification forms package and the supporting documentation. Requests that 
Zone V or Zone A areas be revised to Zone A or Zone B/Zone X (shaded), respectively, must be 
supported by hydraulic computations in most cases. 

For floodplain boundary revisions based on new or more detailed topographic information, 
hydraulic analyses are usually not required unless the changes in ground contours have 
significantly affected the geometry of cross sections used for the effective FIS report and FIRM 
or have altered effective-flow areas. For revisions involving only floodplain boundaries, the 
processing Mapping Partner shall review the information described on Form 2, titled Riverine 
Hydrology and Hydraulics Form, or Form 4, titled Coastal Analysis Form, from the MT-2 
certification forms package to determine whether the requested revisions are acceptable. 

For changes to corporate limits, the revision requester and processing Mapping Partner shall 
reference Section 2.6 for procedures and requirements. 

2.4.6.7 Requests Based on Future-Conditions Hydrology [February 2002] 

Communities experiencing urban growth and other changes often use future-conditions 
hydrology in regulating watershed development. While some communities regulate based on 
future development, others are hesitant to enforce more restrictive standards without FEMA 
support. To assist community officials, FEMA will include future-conditions flood hazard data 
on FIRMs and in FIS reports for informational purposes on a community-by-community basis. 
This decision was documented in a Final Rule published in the Federal Register on 
November27, 2001. (The Final Rule may be downloaded from the FEMA Web site at 
http://www.fema.gov/fhm/frm_fchy.pdf.) 

Because multiple options exist for presenting future-conditions floodplains and related data on 
the FIRM and in the FIS report, interested community officials should contact the appropriate 
RO to discuss the available options and agree on the approach to be taken. For information on 
these options, FEMA encourages interested community officials to review the November 27, 
2001, Final Rule and the FEMA report entitled "Modernizing FEMA's Flood Hazard Mapping 
Program: Recommendations for Using Future-Conditions Hydrology for the National Flood 
Insurance Program" (FEMA, 2001). That report contains one possible scenario/example of 
depicting future-conditions flood hazard information on a FIRM and in an FIS report and may be 
downloaded from the FEMA Web site at http://www.fema.gov/fhm/ft_futur.shtm. 

At the request of a community and with the approval of FEMA, FIRMs and FIS reports may 
include, for informational purposes, flood hazard areas based on projected- or future-conditions 
hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. If community officials request that FEMA show the future-
conditions 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain on the FIRM, the future-conditions floodplains 
and flood insurance risk zone shall be shown on the FIRM and referenced in the accompanying 
FIS report. Although graphic specifications are flexible for the mapping of this flood insurance 
risk zone, the zone label will be Zone X (Future Base Flood). 


 The future-conditions flood hazard zone shall be defined in the FIRM legend and in the FIS 
report as follows: 

Zone X (Future Base Flood) is the flood insurance risk zone that corresponds to 
the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplains that are determined based on future-
conditions hydrology. No BFEs or base flood depths are shown within this zone. 

FEMA opted to use the Zone X (shaded) screen, in lieu of a new flood hazard zone designation, 
to depict the future-conditions 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain to minimize confusion by 
users of the FIRM that make determinations regarding Federal mandatory flood insurance 
purchase requirements. Those users now recognize that areas designated as Zone X (shaded) are 
floodprone, but that the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement does not apply. 
Because the risk premium rates for buildings located in the future-conditions 1-percent-annual-
chance floodplain will be the rate comparable to other areas outside the SFHA, FEMA believes 
designating these areas as Zone X (Future Base Flood) will be sufficient distinction. 

FEMA may develop graphic specifications for the presentation of future-conditions flood hazard 
data on the FIRM and specifications and guidelines for the inclusion of support information in 
the accompanying FIS report. However, it is FEMAs intent, as indicated in the previously 
referenced Final Rule, to have flexibility in the implementation of this community-requested 
mapping option. Because multiple options for presenting future-conditions flood hazard data 
exist, FEMA intends to work closely with each community to develop the presentation format 
that best meets community and FEMA needs. For the time being, FEMA, in coordination with 
the affected community (-ies) and the Mapping Partner that is preparing the Preliminary FIRM 
and FIS report, shall establish the presentation specifications on a case-by-case basis. 

Once future-conditions flood hazard data have been included on the FIRM and in the FIS report 
for a community, all revision submittals shall incorporate the future-conditions data developed 
by the community. The community is entirely responsible for developing and maintaining this 
data layer on a DFIRM. 

 

2.4.6.8 Reporting and Project Officer Approval [February 2002] 

Upon request, the processing Mapping Partner shall advise the PO or his/her designee about the 
current status of a technical review. When the technical review is complete, the processing 
Mapping Partner shall discuss the results of the review, any additional data required to support 
the requested revision, and any problems encountered during the review with the PO or his/her 
designee. The PO or his/her designee shall direct the processing Mapping Partner to finalize the 
technical review by one of the following options: 

 Requesting, by telephone or letter, additional or revised data to complete the technical 
review; or 
 Preparing a LOMR. 



2.4.6.9 Preparation of Letters and Enclosures [April 2003] 

When processing a LOMR, the processing Mapping Partner shall prepare the letter in accordance 
with the requirements provided in the FEMA Document Control Procedures Manual (FEMA, 
2000). 

Preparation of Enclosures 

When processing a LOMR, the processing Mapping Partner shall prepare the map (FIRM and/or 
FBFM panels), Flood Profile, and data table (i.e., Floodway Data and Summary of Discharges) 
enclosures in accordance with the requirements in this Subsection. 

Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel Enclosures 

LOMRs usually involve a revision to the FIRM. The delineations shown in the revised portion 
of the FIRM will be based on data shown on the topographic work-map that has been certified by 
a Registered Professional Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor in accordance with the NFIP 
regulations. Before a FIRM can be revised, the reviewing Mapping Partner must thoroughly 
review the topographic work-map provided by the revision requester and compare it to the 
results of the revised-conditions hydraulic model provided by the requester. Also, the processing 
Mapping Partner shall ensure that the BFEs plotted on the revised FIRM agree with the revised 
Flood Profile(s). Provided below are additional quality checks that must be made by the 
processing Mapping Partner during the preparation of the annotated FIRM panels. Following 
these quality checks is an example of an annotated FIRM (figure 1). 

 Cross Sections  Sometimes the cross sections will remain in the same location on the 
revised FIRM as they were on the effective FIRM. If it is deemed more appropriate to 
change the location of one or more of these cross sections, they must be in the 
appropriate location relative to the distances shown on the revised Flood Profiles and 
Floodway Data Table. 
 
Stream Distances  All distances on the revised FIRM must match those depicted on the 
revised Flood Profiles. Distances between cross sections, roads, and confluences should 
all be measured on the FIRM and compared with the Flood Profiles for accuracy. An 
error greater than 5-percent of the FIRM scale is not acceptable and should be corrected 
before being submitted to FEMA for review.
 Stream Channel Boundaries and Centerlines  Stream channel boundaries or centerlines 
should be checked to ensure they are mapped within the identified 1-percent-annual-
chance floodplain and, if a regulatory floodway is developed, the regulatory floodway 
boundaries. 
 BFEs  Isopleths (squiggly lines) are used to identify BFEs along a flooding source. 
They must be plotted on the revised FIRM in agreement with what is shown on the 
revised Flood Profiles and Floodway Data Table. The general rule to be followed by 



 FEMA is that the BFEs plotted on the FIRM should duplicate the BFEs shown on the 
Flood Profiles within 0.5 foot at all locations.
 Regulatory Floodways  At each cross section, the width of the regulatory floodway must 
be measured and compared to the width indicated on the Floodway Data Table. An error 
greater than 5-percent of the FIRM scale is not acceptable and should be corrected before 
being submitted to FEMA for review. 
 
1-Percent-Annual-Chance Floodplain  At each cross section, the width of the 1-percent-
annual-chance floodplain should be measured and compared to the width indicated in the 
revised-conditions hydraulic model provided by the revision requester. An error greater 
than 5-percent of the FIRM scale is not acceptable and should be corrected before being 
submitted to FEMA for review.
 0.2-Percent-Annual-Chance Floodplain  The 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain 
boundary delineations should be checked to ensure they are shown on the fringe of 
detailed-study 1-percent-annual-chance floodplains when appropriate. 
 
Structures  All structures (e.g., roads, culverts, footbridges) shown on the Flood Profile 
must also be shown on the FIRM.
 Flood Insurance Risk Zone Designations  All areas of flooding should be checked for 
labeling with the correct zone designations and leaders. This can be done by comparing 
the revised FIRM to the effective FIRM, unless a change has been made to zone 
designations as a result of the LOMR (e.g., changing from Zone A to Zone AE). 
 
Adjacent Panels  If the revision includes portions of adjacent panels, consistency 
between the adjacent panels must be verified.
 Revision Box  The revision box should be checked to ensure it includes the entire area 
of revision. The reach of the revision box must match the reach of the revision box 
shown on the revised Flood Profile(s). To do this, overlay the revised FIRM on the 
effective FIRM and ensure that there are no changes that occur in the area outside of the 
revision box. 
 
Culverts, Channels, Levees, and Basins  If flooding is contained in a culvert or channel 
or by a levee or basin, a note pertaining to this should be made on the revised FIRM. (See 
Appendix K, Subsection K.4.2 of these Guidelines for appropriate notes.)
 Rapid Expansions/Contractions  Ideally, overly rapid expansions or contractions of the 
regulatory floodway or the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain will be identified at an 
early stage of the LOMR processing. It is a good idea, however, to do a final check 
during the production of the revised FIRM. If the regulatory floodway contracts or 
expands rapidly in a direction perpendicular to that of the stream-line, further 
investigation into the plausibility of such an occurrence must be undertaken. The same 



can be said if this situation occurs with the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain, except 
such occurrences can often be explained by the existence of ineffective flow. 
 
Corporate Limits  Corporate limits may be revised if changes have taken place. Most 
times, a FIRM revised by LOMR will not reflect corporate limit changes; instead these 
changes will be filed until such time that a more extensive revision to the FIRM is made. 
Such decisions are made to ensure no voids are created between the coverage on the 
FIRM for one community and the coverage on the FIRM for the adjacent community.
 Title Block  The title block must match the title block shown on the effective FIRM. 
 Graphic Scale  The graphic scale should be checked to ensure that it matches that shown 
on the effective FIRM. Occasionally, the scale of the FIRM can be changed during a 
LOMR. In these instances, it should be checked against the scale of the topographic 
work map provided by the revision requester to ensure correctness. 
 Spelling  Spelling throughout the revised FIRM should be checked.



Figure 1 - Example of an annotated FIRM 

 2-85 Section 2.4 
Figure 1 - Example of an annotated FIRM. 


 

 

Flood Boundary and Floodway Map Panel Enclosures 

When appropriate, FBFM panels may be revised as part of a LOMR request. With the exception 
of the standards for BFEs and flood insurance risk zone labels and leaders, the processing 
Mapping Partners shall apply the standards for FIRM panel enclosures cited above to FBFM 
panel enclosures, 

Flood Profile Enclosures 

LOMR applications for flooding sources with detailed flood hazard data where BFEs have been 
established usually involve flood elevation changes. When flood elevation changes have occurred, 
revisions to the Flood Profiles are necessary. Once the revised-conditions hydraulic model has been 
reviewed and deemed acceptable by the processing Mapping Partner shall review the Flood Profiles to 
ensure they meet FEMA accuracy and quality standards. Below are the quality checks that must be 
made by the processing Mapping Partner during the preparation of the annotated Flood Profiles. 
Following these quality checks is an example of a revised profile (figure 2). 

 Stream Distances  The relationship between the revised-conditions hydraulic models 
stationing and the streams distance should be checked. 
 Flood Elevations  The revised elevations must match the effective elevations within 0.5 
foot at the upstream and downstream tie-in points for the revised reach. 
 Cross Sections  The locations of the lettered cross sections, if they are being re-located, 
must match the locations in the revised-conditions model, in the Floodway Data Table, 
and on the FIRM. Also, BFEs at the locations of the cross sections must agree with what 
is indicated in the revised Floodway Data Table. 
 Structure Locations  The names and locations of any new roads, bridges, culverts that 
are being shown on the revised FIRM must be shown on the Flood Profiles with the same 
name and location. 
 Corporate Limits  The locations of corporate limits, if they have changed, must be the 
same as those shown on the revised FIRM. 
 Title Block  The title block should be checked to ensure the community name, two-letter 
state abbreviation, county name, flooding source name, and Flood Profile panel number 
are correct. 
 Legend  The legend should be checked to ensure only the floods for which a profile is 
shown are included and depicted with the same type of line (e.g., dashed, solid). 



 Distances  Compare distances between roads and lettered FIS cross sections to ensure 
that they match those shown on the FIRM/FBFM. 
 Elevation Losses  Any significant losses in elevation that occur in the Flood Profiles 
over a very short distance (near-vertical drops) should be checked and explained. These 
losses will usually be associated with a bridge. Ensure that a bridge is shown at this 
location on the Flood Profile. 
 Bridges  An I-bar must be depicted to represent the bridges elevation and dimensions 
relative to the flood and streambed profiles. 
 Culverts  The culverts should be checked to ensure they are reasonably represented, if 
applicable. They are easily identifiable on a Flood Profile: they will look like a tunnel, 
through which some or all of the flood profiles will pass, and have ground-fill above 
them. Usually, a road crossing will be presented above a culvert, so a road label must 
appear above it. 
 Streambed  The streambed should be checked to ensure it is depicted using the proper 
symbols. 
 Profile Orientation  The orientation of the profile lines should be checked to ensure their 
position relative to one another is maintained. 
 Drawdowns  The profile should be checked to ensure no drawdowns, or dips, are 
depicted at any location. 
 
Stream Confluences  The stream confluence should be checked to verify that they are 
labeled and shown in the correct location. Also, it is important to ensure that there is 
agreement between the revised Flood Profile and the effective or revised Flood Profile of 
the other flooding source at the location of the confluence. 
 Backwater  The Flood Profile should be checked to verify that extents and source of 
backwater effects from another flooding source are depicted properly. 
 Adjacent Profiles  When the revision area includes an area shown on more than one 
Flood Profile panel, the panels must be checked to ensure that they match at the location 
where the profile splits. 
 Revision Box  A revision box should be included that shows what part of the profile has 
been revised. 
 Area Outside the Revision Box  A check shall be made to ensure there are no 
differences between the revised Flood Profile and the effective Flood Profile in the reach 
of the flooding source outside the revision box. An overlay of the revised profile with the 
effective profile on a light table is an appropriate mode of ensuring that they are identical 



outside the revision box. Ensure that the elevation scale and datum as well as distance 
scale are the same as the effective. 
 Other  Dams/spillways, reservoirs, lakes, and similar features may be included on some 
Flood Profiles. The information on the Flood Profile for such features should match the 
information in the revised-conditions hydraulic model. 


 


Figure 2 OE Example of an annotated flood profile 

Figure 2  Example of an annotated flood profile 


 

Data Table Enclosures 

For some LOMRs, the data tables included in the FIS report must be revised and enclosed. The 
requirements for these data table enclosures are provided in the remainder of this Subsection. 

Floodway Data Table 

If a LOMR will result in a revision to the regulatory floodway shown on the FIRM or FBFM, the 
Floodway Data Table for that flooding source likely may be required. If the revisions to the 
regulatory floodway will not result in changes to the information shown on the Floodway Data 
Table, the processing Mapping Partner shall not include the Floodway Data Table as an 
enclosure to a LOMR. If a revised Floodway Data Table is to be enclosed, the processing 
Mapping Partner shall check the data in the table to ensure that the criteria provided below are 
met. Following these criteria is an example of an annotated Floodway Data Table. 

 Cross Section Column  These letters are assigned to select cross sections from the 
existing-conditions hydraulic model. Often they remain at the same cross sections as 
they were in the effective model. However, at times, it is more appropriate to select new 
cross sections. They should be spaced at reasonable lengths apart so that they provide a 
good general summary of the flooding source in general. 
 Distance Column  The distance heading will have a footnote superscript indicating the 
reference point to which the distance is being taken. The distance values shown and the 
reference units (i.e., feet, miles, meters) should match those shown on the Flood Profiles. 
 Floodway Width Column  The values in this column should be taken directly from the 
existing-conditions hydraulic model. It is recorded to the nearest whole number. 
 
Floodway Section Area Column  The values in this column should be taken directly 
from the existing-conditions hydraulic model. The correct value is labeled as flow area 
in the HEC-RAS and HEC-2 output tables. These values are recorded to the nearest 
whole number.
 Floodway Mean Velocity Column  The values in this column should be taken directly 
from the existing-conditions hydraulic model. These values are labeled as Vel Chnl in 
the HEC-RAS output table and Mean Velocity in the HEC-2 output tables. These 
values are recorded to one decimal place. 
 
1-Percent-Annual-Chance Water-Surface Elevation (Regulatory) Column  The values in 
this column reflect the effects of backwater. These values are recorded to one decimal 
place.



 1-Percent-Annual-Chance Water-Surface Elevation (Without Floodway) Column  The 
values in this column should be taken directly from the existing-conditions hydraulic 
model. These values are recorded to one decimal place. 
 
1-Percent-Annual-Chance Water-Surface Elevation (With Floodway) Column  The 
values in this column reflect the regulatory floodway. Note that it can be neither less 
than the Without Floodway elevation or more than one foot greater than the elevation 
of the Without Floodway column. Some states have more stringent regulations than 
these, so be aware of what state the revision is taking place in. These values are recorded 
to one decimal place.
 1-Percent-Annual-Chance Water-Surface Elevation (Increase) Column  The values in 
this column are the differences between values in the With Floodway and Without 
Floodway columns. This increase is sometimes referred to as the surcharge. These 
values are recorded to one decimal place. 


Once the required data have been input to the table, the following additional requirements also 
must be met: 

Revision Box  A revision box must be shown around the portion of the Floodway Data 
Table that has been revised and labeled as Revised Area. 
Title Block  The title block must be filled in with the required information. 
Footnotes  Often there are one or more footnotes beneath the table, which require 
attention. If any of them are pertinent to the revised portion of the Floodway Data Table, 
the superscripts must be entered alongside the values to which they pertain. The 
processing Mapping Partners shall ensure that the elevation datum referenced matches 
that of the effective Floodway Data Table. 


When the Floodway Data Table is completed, the cross sectional values in the table should be 
cross-referenced with those shown on the revised FIRM and profiles to ensure agreement. 

 


Figure 3 OE Example of an annotated Floodway Data Table 

Figure 3  Example of an annotated Floodway Data Table 

Summary of Discharges 

If a LOMR will result in a revision to the effective hydrology, the Summary of Discharges table 
for that flooding source likely may be required. If the LOMR uses the effective hydrology, the 
processing Mapping Partner shall not include the Summary of Discharges table as an enclosure 
to a LOMR. If a revised Summary of Discharges table is to be enclosed, the processing Mapping 
Partner shall check the data in the table as described below. 

 Flooding Source and Location Column  These locations are areas that provide a point of 
reference to the user. The locations usually correspond to areas in the hydrologic 
modeling in which a change in flow rate occurs. In most instances multiple locations are 
reported per flooding source, however, if the corresponding flooding source uses the 
same flow rate for the entire reach, and then only one location will be reported on the 



 table. In addition, the locations that are reported should be referenced to a fixed location, 
i.e. road crossings, confluences, etc.
 Drainage Area Column  The drainage area heading will have a distance value shown, 
reported in square miles, and corresponds to the drainage area for the location reported in 
the Flooding Source and Location Column. 
 Peak Discharges Column  The values in this column should be taken directly from the 
existing-conditions hydrologic model and must correspond to the reported location 
defined in the Flooding Source and Location Column. The Peak Discharges Column is 
broken into four sub-columns for each reported storm events (i.e., 10-, 50-, 100-, and 
500-year events). The values are reported in cubic feet per second (cfs) and are rounded 
to the nearest whole number. In the event that there is no value associated with a 
particular event, an asterisk is placed in the corresponding sub-column, followed with a 
footnote stating Data Not Available. 


Once the required data have been input to the table, the following additional requirements also 
must be met: 

Revision Box  A revision box must be shown around the portion of the Summary of 
Discharges table that has been revised and labeled as Revised Area. 
Footnotes  Often there are one or more footnotes beneath the table, which require 
attention. If any of them are pertinent to the revised portion of the Summary of 
Discharges table, the superscripts must be entered alongside the values to which they 
pertain. 
The processing Mapping Partners shall ensure that the revised Summary of Discharges 
table is incorporated to the corresponding page in the effective FIS. In the event that 
there is additional information reported on the effective FIS page, the processing 
Mapping Partners shall transfer all information from the FIS to ensuing attachment with 
the revised Summary of Discharges table. 


When the Summary of Discharges table is completed, the location and peak discharge values in 
the table should be cross-referenced with those shown in the revised hydrologic and hydraulic 
modeling. 

2.4.6.10 Community Review and Comment [February 2002] 

Upon completing a LOMR, the processing Mapping Partner shall provide copies of the LOMR 
and enclosures to the revision requester and community officials for review and comment. The 
community shall receive a 30-day review period for all revisions. When BFEs are changed, a 
90-day appeal period shall be required. 


30-Day Review Period 

Because a LOMR is an official revision of the FIS report, FIRM, and/or FBFM and may become 
effective immediately, additional changes may be made only through the initiation of another 
revision; therefore, the PO or his/her designee may determine that such a revision should be 
deferred. If the changes are significant, a second revision may be warranted. 

90-Day Appeal Period 

For LOMRs that involve new or modified BFEs, the processing Mapping Partner shall initiate 
the statutory 90-day appeal period to provide residents of the affected community an opportunity 
to appeal the new or modified BFEs. As in the processing of PMRs, the proposed or proposed 
modified BFEs must be published in a local newspaper with wide circulation and in the Federal 
Register to initiate the appeal period. The proposed or proposed modified BFEs must be 
published in local newspapers on two separate dates, usually 1 week apart. The appeal period 
begins on the day of the second publication of the proposed BFEs. 

Because a revision made by a LOMR becomes effective immediately in cases where the SFHA 
width and BFEs are decreasing, the appeal period occurs after the effective date of the LOMR. 
In cases where the BFEs and SFHAs are increasing, however, the LOMR may not be effective 
until after the appeal period has elapsed unless notification and acceptance are received from all 
affected property owners. 

2.4.6.11 Proposed and Final Flood Elevation Determinations [February 2002] 

When a 90-day appeal period is required for a LOMR, the processing Mapping Partner shall 
prepare and process the correspondence for initiating the appeal period and finalizing the new or 
modified BFEs. The processing Mapping Partner shall prepare the proposed BFE notices for 
publication in the Federal Register and a local newspaper with wide circulation and the final 
BFE notice for publication in the Federal Register, and shall prepare and process the proposed 
and final BFE determination letters that will be sent to the CEO of the community, the State 
NFIP Coordinator, and all appellants. 

For revisions involving BFEs, the LOMR and the proposed BFE determination letter sent to start 
the appeal period are the same. The proposed BFE notice shall be prepared using the BFEs 
shown in the effective FIS report and FIRM, as well as those presented in the revised FIS report 
and FIRM. The processing Mapping Partner shall ensure that the notices are correct, that they 
include BFEs for all flooding sources for which revisions were made, and that they are published 
in a local newspaper with wide circulation and in the Federal Register. 

2.4.6.12 Appeals and Protests [April 2003] 

An appeal is a challenge of a proposed or proposed modified BFE. The sole basis of an appeal, 
as indicated in Section 67.6 of the NFIP regulations, is the possession of knowledge or 
information indicating that the new or modified BFEs proposed by FEMA are scientifically or 


technically incorrect. The proposed or proposed modified BFEs are considered scientifically 
incorrect if the methodology or assumptions used in the determination of the BFEs is 
inappropriate or incorrect. The proposed or proposed modified BFEs are considered technically 
incorrect if the BFEs were based on insufficient or poor quality data, analysis contains 
mathematical or measurement errors, or physical changes have occurred in floodplain. 

Comments received by FEMA during the appeal period that do not challenge proposed or 
proposed modified BFEs are considered protests. A protest is a challenge of information or 
data from a Preliminary FIS Report or FIRM other than BFEs. Types of protests include, but are 
not limited to, the following: 

Challenges of proposed floodplain boundary delineations based on more detailed or 
recent topographic data; 
Challenges of proposed regulatory floodway boundaries based on better modeling, 
Requests that changes effected by a previous Letter of Map Change be incorporated; 
Base map errors; and 
Errors of omission. 


Like PMRs, appeals and protests of LOMRs must be supported by scientific or technical data, 
provide proof of error, and provide sufficient data to make revisions (bridge plans, cross-section 
data) and may require certification of data by a Registered Professional Engineer or Licensed 
Land Surveyor. 

Additional information on the data required to support an appeal is presented in Chapter 3 of 
Appeals, Revisions, and Amendments to National Flood Insurance Program Maps: A Guide for 
Community Officials (FEMA, 1993). Additional information on the data required to support a 
protest is presented in Chapter 4 of Guide for Community Officials. 

In accordance with Section 67.7 of the NFIP regulations, private persons shall submit appeals to 
the community CEO during the appeal period. The CEO, or a community official designated by 
the CEO, shall review and consolidate all appeals by private persons and prepare a written 
opinion stating whether or not the appeal is justifiable. The community CEO or other designated 
community official shall then submit the opinion and the appeal(s) to FEMA for review. 

In accordance with Section 67.8 of the NFIP regulations, FEMA will review and fully consider 
any technical or scientific data submitted by the community that tend to negate or contradict the 
information upon which the proposed determination is based. Although not specifically 
required by the regulations, FEMA also will consider all technical or scientific data submitted in 
support of a protest as well. 

To assist FEMA, the processing Mapping Partner shall review and evaluate submitted data, 
request additional data when required, and recommend resolutions to FEMA for all appeals and 


protests submitted during the 90-day appeal period. An expanded discussion of these procedures 
also appears in the Guide for Community Officials (FEMA, 1993). 

At the request of FEMA, the processing Mapping Partner shall perform the following tasks: 

 Acknowledge receipt of an appeal or protest 
 Evaluate any data submitted; 
 Request, by telephone and/or in writing, any additional data required to support the 
appeal or protest; 
 Perform technical analyses if requested by FEMA; 
 Prepare and distribute revised LOMR determination letters; 
 Prepare and distribute revised copies of the affected portions of the FIS report, 
FIRM/DFIRM, and/or FBFM enclosures to the LOMR determination letter, if requested 
by FEMA; and 
 Assist FEMA in preparing and distributing an appeal or protest resolution letter to be sent 
to the community CEO and floodplain administrator and all appellants. 


For most denied appeals and protests, FEMA shall provide a comment period (usually 30 days) 
following the date the appeal or protest resolution letter is issued. FEMA, with the support of the 
assigned Mapping Partner and other members of the Project Team for the Flood Map Project, 
shall address any comments received during this comment period before proceeding with the 
LFD. 

For most successful appeals and protests, FEMA shall issue a new LOMR determination letter 
accompanied by revised versions of the appropriate FIS report, FIRM/DFIRM, and/or FBFM 
enclosures. For some successful protests, however, the FEMA PO or his/her designee may direct 
the processing Mapping Partner to defer changes to the revised FIS report, FIRM/DFIRM, and/or 
FBFM until the affected materials are physically revised and reissued. FEMA will take this 
action when the requested change does not effect the flood hazard information shown in the FIS 
report or on the FIRM/DFIRM and/or FBFM (e.g., changes to road names or configurations). 

2.4.6.13 Coordination and Documentation Activities [February 2002] 

The processing Mapping Partner shall perform the required coordination and documentation 
activities necessary for processing each LOMR. During the processing, the Mapping Partner 
shall: 

 Communicate with the requester and community, as necessary. 
 Coordinate activities with the FEMA RO as directed by the PO or his/her designee. 



 Communicate with other FEMA contractors and Federal, State, and local agencies, as 
needed. 
 Prepare letters and other correspondence for FEMA signature. 
 Maintain legal documentation, records of correspondence, and technical data. 


In addition, the processing Mapping Partner shall organize, and may be required to submit to 
FEMA, records of the correspondence and supporting data associated with LOMRs. (Refer to 
Volume 3, Section 3.3 and Appendix M of these Guidelines for details.) 


2.5 Revalidation Letters [February 2002] 

When a revised FIRM panel becomes effective, all previous map actions for that panel are 
superseded. Therefore, each time a FIRM panel is physically revised and republished, the panel 
must be updated to include the changes in flood hazard information resulting from previously 
issued map actions, including LOMRs, LOMAs, and LOMR-Fs. Frequently, the results of a 
LOMC cannot be shown on a revised FIRM panel due to one or more of the following reasons: 

 Map scale limitations; 
 The LOMA or LOMR-F determined that the property was outside the SFHA as shown on 
the previously effective FIRM; 
 Flood hazard data that were the basis for the LOMR, LOMA, or LOMR-F determination 
were superseded by new detailed flood hazard data; or 
 The LOMR, LOMA, or LOMR-F was issued after the LFD date. 


To assist communities in maintaining the FIRM and to reflect LOMRs, LOMAs, and LOMR-Fs 
previously issued by FEMA, FEMA developed a process for revalidating LOMRs, LOMAs, and 
LOMR-Fs automatically when a revised FIRM becomes effective. The result of this process is 
the issuance of a revalidation letter, termed a LOMC-VALID letter. 

2.5.1 Technical and Programmatic Review [February 2002] 

The procedures the Mapping Partner assigned by FEMA shall follow for automatically 
revalidating LOMCs are presented in Subsections 2.5.2, 2.5.3, and 2.5.4. Under these 
procedures, FEMA issues one letter for all affected LOMAs, LOMR-Fs, and LOMRs rather than 
an individual letter for each map change request. Individual property owners are no longer 
required to request that LOMRs, LOMAs, or LOMR-Fs be reissued. The result is a more 
effective tool for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. 

As discussed in Subsection 2.1.8.6, to assist communities in maintaining the NFIP maps, 
particularly the FIRM, FEMA directs the assigned Mapping Partner to prepare summaries of the 
LOMAs, LOMR-Fs, and LOMRs that will be superseded when revised FIRM panels become 
effective. FEMA provides the resulting SOMAs to the communities at significant milestones 
during the processing of revised FIRMs to make the communities aware of the effect revised the 
FIRM panels will have on previously issued LOMRs, LOMAs, and LOMR-Fs. . 

 


2.5.2 Coordination and Documentation Activities [February 2002] 

Because the changes made to the effective FIRM via the LOMR, LOMA, and LOMR-F 
processed become effective without the affected panel(s) being physically revised and 
republished, the assigned Mapping Partner must maintain records of these modifications so they 
may be incorporated into the next physical update of the affected panel(s). 

Approximately 6 weeks before the effective date of the revised map, the assigned Mapping 
Partner shall generate a list of the LOMAs, LOMR-Fs, and LOMRs that must be revalidated. 
The list is generated from the Final SOMA. (See Subsection 2.1.10.) 

The assigned Mapping Partner shall review the listed LOMAs, LOMR-Fs, and LOMRs to verify 
that all appropriate letter determinations are included. During the verification process, the 
assigned Mapping Partner shall assess the pending LOMAs, LOMR-Fs, or LOMRs for possible 
completion before the new effective date; pending letters that will be completed before the 
effective date may be revalidated. If necessary, the Mapping Partner shall obtain information 
from the case file to determine whether a LOMA, LOMR-F, or LOMR must be revalidated. 

The intent of the LOMC-VALID letter is to indicate that the new FIRM panels did not affect the 
previous determination. Therefore, if one of the determinations in a multiple-determination 
LOMA or LOMR-F is a denial for a certain property, the assigned Mapping Partner will not be 
required to specify the property that was removed from the SFHA or indicate in any way that the 
request for a certain property was denied. If the property was subsequently removed from the 
SFHA, the LOMA, LOMR-F, or LOMR that included that determination also will be revalidated 
by the LOMC-VALID letter. 

If a requester notifies FEMA about one or more LOMAs, LOMR-Fs, or LOMRs that he or she 
believes should have been revalidated but were not included in a LOMC-VALID letter, the 
assigned Mapping Partner shall review available information to determine the accuracy of the 
request. If the assigned Mapping Partner finds that one or more LOMAs, LOMR-Fs, or LOMRs 
should have been revalidated, the assigned Mapping Partner shall prepare a new LOMC-VALID 
letter or reissue the original LOMA, LOMR-F, or LOMR. If the assigned Mapping Partner could 
not locate the LOMA, LOMR-F, or LOMR in question on the FIRM, the Mapping Partner shall 
request appropriate information from the requester. 

Following the FIRM effective date, the assigned Mapping Partner shall prepare and distribute 
new amending or revising LOMAs, LOMR-Fs, and LOMRs for those cases in Category 4 of the 
Final SOMA for which new determinations could be made based on available information. 


2.5.3 Document Preparation [April 2003] 

After reviewing the LOMAs, LOMR-Fs, and LOMRs in Category 2 of the SOMA as discussed 
in Subsection 2.1.14, the assigned Mapping Partner shall prepare the LOMC-VALID letter, 
which includes the following information for each LOMA, LOMR-F, or LOMR: 

 Case number (when available); 
 Date issued; 
 Identifier; and 
 Map panel number, including suffix. 


Depending on the number of LOMAs, LOMR-Fs, and LOMRs to be revalidated, the assigned 
Mapping Partner shall include the information for each LOMA, LOMR-F, or LOMR in the 
LOMC-VALID letter itself or provide it as a separate attachment. 

The assigned Mapping Partner shall submit the LOMC-VALID letter to FEMA for review and 
approval approximately 5 weeks before the new effective date and mail the LOMC-VALID letter 
to the community CEO and floodplain administrator approximately 2 to 4 weeks before the new 
FIRM effective date. In addition, the assigned Mapping Partner shall provide a copy of the 
LOMC-VALID letter to the LOMC Subscription Coordinator for inclusion in the LOMC 
Subscription Service CD-ROM. (See Volume 3, Subsection 3.2.6 of these Guidelines for 
additional information on this product.) 

If, subsequent to the issuance of the LOMC-VALID letter, a community official or individual 
property owner requests that a LOMA, LOMR-F, or LOMR be reissued and the LOMA, 
LOMR-F, or LOMR is listed in the LOMC-VALID letter, the assigned Mapping Partner shall 
send the requester a copy of the LOMC-VALID letter and, if requested, a copy of the original 
LOMA, LOMR-F, or LOMR. Again, no fees shall be assessed for these requests. However, 
subsequent requests for copies from the requester or requests from someone other than a 
community official or individual property owner shall be subject to the fee schedule for technical 
and administrative support data published in the Federal Register. (See Volume 3, Subsection 
3.3.3 of these Guidelines for additional information on external data requests.) 


2.5.4 Deliverable Products [February 2002] 

In preparing the LOMC-VALID letter, the Mapping Partner shall follow the general guidelines 
below in presenting case-specific information on revalidated LOMCs. 

 A panel number must appear for each revalidated LOMA, LOMR-F, or LOMR included 
in the LOMC-VALID letter. If the FIRM has been reformatted since a LOMA, LOMR-
F, or LOMR was issued and the Mapping Partner cannot readily identify the correct panel 
number, the Mapping Partner shall NOT include the LOMA, LOMR-F, or LOMR in the 
LOMC-VALID letter. 
 If the revalidated letter is a LOMR, the Mapping Partner is not required to include a new 
flood insurance risk zone. 
 If the revalidated letter is a multiple-determination LOMA or LOMR-F and multiple 
zones are cited in the letter, the word MULTIPLE may be included in place of the 
zone. 
 If the new flood insurance risk zone for a revalidated LOMA or LOMR-F is a Zone X 
and the assigned Mapping Partner can readily determine whether it is Zone X (shaded) or 
Zone X (unshaded), the Mapping Partner shall include the complete flood insurance risk 
zone designation in the LOMC-VALID letter. If the Mapping Partner cannot make this 
determination readily, the term Zone X shall be included. 


The LOMC-VALID letter is to become effective 1 day after the effective date of the newly 
effective FIRM panels. The LOMC-VALID letter is considered legally binding, in the same 
manner as the original LOMA, LOMR-F, or LOMR, provided that a copy of the original LOMA, 
LOMR-F, or LOMR accompanies the LOMC-VALID letter. If required by the requester, the 
assigned Mapping Partner shall forward a copy of the original LOMA, LOMR-F, or LOMR with 
the LOMC-VALID letter. No fee is to be assessed for such requests. 

 


2.6 Corporate Limit Changes [February 2002] 

Corporate limit changes may occur in a community as a result of annexation, incorporation, or 
other appropriate legal actions. Section 64.4 of the NFIP regulations requires communities to 
update their ordinance within 6 months of such an activity; however, some communities may not 
provide this information in a timelier manner. Occasionally, communities provide this 
information with other information they regularly provide to FEMA, such as the Biennial Report. 
Corporate limit change information is forwarded by FEMA to the Mapping Partner responsible 
for processing updates to the FIRM for that community. If the boundary change affects an 
SFHA, FEMA and the processing Mapping Partner shall provide appropriate guidance to the 
community, identifying the affected FIRM (and, in some cases, FBFM) panels and FIS report 
components for the affected area. 

If there is an ongoing map update (i.e. FEMA-contracted Flood Map Project, LOMR, PMR) for 
the community that affects the panels on which the corporate limit changes appear when the 
corporate limit changes are submitted, the processing Mapping Partner shall incorporate the 
corporate limit change information into the ongoing, and no additional response is necessary. If 
the corporate limit change is for a community that is mapped on numerous panels and the panels 
for which the corporate limit changes are submitted are not panels that are being updated as part 
of an ongoing update, the processing Mapping Partner shall coordinate with the PO to determine 
the appropriate action to be taken. However, in the majority of the cases, no map update is 
ongoing when the change is received. 

The procedures presented in Subsections 2.6.1 through 2.6.4 have been developed to provide 
guidance for the actions and response to such a corporate limit change submittal. A decision-
making flowchart for corporate limit changes is graphically illustrated in Figure 2-8 at the end of 
this section. 

It is unlikely that FEMA would receive change information from a non-participating community, 
and that issue is not addressed. However, it should be noted that if a non-participating 
community expands into an area that was previously in a participating community, the situation 
could result in a PMR and would warrant review by the affected jurisdictions on a case-by-case 
basis. 

2.6.1 Technical and Programmatic Review [February 2002] 

The technical review of the data submitted consists of reviewing the corporate limit change 
submittal for certain information. Two items are required: a complete copy of the corporate limit 
change ordinance, including the date the change became effective; and a map showing the 
location and area involved in the change. Usually, a letter from a community official is included; 
this is helpful contact information. If either the map or the ordinance is not submitted, the 
processing Mapping Partner shall telephone the community and request this information. 

When the corporate limit change request is for a community FIRM that is not being updated, the 
processing Mapping Partner shall determine the location of the change on the effective FIRM. If 


the area of change does not include a SFHA, the processing Mapping Partner shall prepare a 
Standard Response Letter for FEMA signature. The processing Mapping Partner also shall 
review the flood hazard information on the FIRM panels for adjacent land areas for consistency. 
If they are inconsistent, the processing Mapping Partner shall initiate a map update to address the 
problem. If they are consistent, a letter response is appropriate. The processing Mapping Partner 
shall use the Standard Response Letter be used in situations where the ordinance level is the 
same in both affected communities, or where the ordinance level of the community assuming 
jurisdiction is higher than that in the affected area. 

To resolve inconsistencies, the processing Mapping Partner must first verify whether data are 
available, and whether those data are available internally or must be requested from the 
community. If insufficient data are available, the processing Mapping Partner shall prepare the 
Standard Response Letter to notify the affected communities that the change will be incorporated 
in the next revision of that FIRM panel. If sufficient data are available, the processing Mapping 
Partner shall determine the magnitude of the change and shall, in close coordination with FEMA, 
determine whether a LOMR or PMR is to be initiated. LOMRs are discussed in Section 2.4 and 
PMRs are discussed in Section 2.1. 

In such cases, the processing Mapping Partner shall prepare a Restudy Response Letter to inform 
the community of the upcoming map action. The ordinance levels are detailed in Paragraphs 
60.3(a) through (f) of the NFIP regulations. For the purpose of reviewing corporate limit change 
materials, a very general overview of the levels of ordinances as they apply to map information 
follows: 

 Paragraph 60.3(a)The community has no data and no FIRM; 
 Paragraph 60.3(b)The FIRM has only Zone A flood hazard information; 
 Paragraph 60.3(c)The FIRM shows some BFEs and detailed flood hazard information; 
 Paragraph 60.3(d)The FIRM or FBFM shows regulatory floodway information; and 
 Paragraph 60.3(e)The FIRM shows coastal high hazard information (V Zones). 


If a community will be incorporating flood hazard information with the corporate limit change 
that will require a higher floodplain management ordinance level, the community must upgrade 
the ordinance. For example, if the changed area includes a regulatory floodway and the effective 
FIRM or FBFM for the community assuming jurisdiction also presents a regulatory floodway , 
the community likely will not be required to update its floodplain management ordinance and the 
Standard Response Letter is appropriate. 

However, if the changed area has a regulatory floodway shown, and the FIRM or FBFM for the 
community assuming jurisdiction does not present a regulatory floodway, then the community 
must upgrade its floodplain management ordinance to incorporate the requirements of Paragraph 
60.3(d) of the NFIP regulations. The community must be advised of the change required in their 
ordinance, and this can be accomplished using the Ordinance Upgrade Response Letter. 


The content and distribution requirements for the Standard Response Letter, Restudy Response 
Letter, and Upgrade Response Letter may be found in next update to the FEMA Document 
Control Procedures Manual. 

2.6.2 Document Preparation [February 2002] 

The corporate limit change submittal usually shall include a copy of the ordinance, a map 
showing the location and area involved in the change, and a letter from a community official. 
Once the corporate limit change submittal arrives at the processing Mapping Partner, it shall be 
assigned for review and processing. 

The processing Mapping Partner shall review the submittal for the required materials, 
specifically for the map and the ordinance, and shall obtain the FIRM for the changed area and 
the community assuming jurisdiction. The following information shall be noted: 

FIRM panel name and number for the community assuming jurisdiction; 
FIRM panel name and number for the changed areas previous community; 
The name and title/department of the official of the community assuming jurisdiction 
this is the person who wrote the letter accompanying the corporate limit change 
submittal (if no letter, no name) 
The name and address of the CEO of the community assuming jurisdiction; 
Date of letter that accompanied the change submittal (if no letter, date the mapping 
partner received the change submittal); and 
Date the change became effective (usually on the last page of the ordinance). 


The processing Mapping Partner shall use this information to create the appropriate response 
letter to the community. The processing Mapping Partner shall review the FIRM panels as 
discussed in Subsection 2.6.1, shall prepare the appropriate response letter, shall submit the letter 
to FEMA, and shall mail the letter and distribute copies as appropriate. 

2.6.3 Other Documentation Activities [February 2002] 

FEMA uses the MNUSS database to assist when prioritizing funding for map updates, and a 
corporate limit change is considered a Map Maintenance Need. The processing Mapping 
Partners shall complete a MNUSS Worksheet (see Appendix I, Subsection I.) to document the 
change and shall enter the required information into the MNUSS data. The Worksheet and a 
copy of the response letter are attached to the corporate limit change submittal and filed in the 
Future Files maintained by the processing Mapping Partner. 

 


The processing Mapping Partner shall enter the following information is entered into a 
Worksheet and the MNUSS database: 

CID, name, County, State of community assuming jurisdiction; 
CID, name, County, State of community losing jurisdiction; 
Number of changes; 
Ordinance received (Y/N or Date); 
Map received (Y/N or Date); 
Date most recent change became effective; 
Date received the change submittal; 
Date responded to the change submittal; and 
Method of response (which type of letter). 


2.6.4 Deliverable Products [February 2002] 

The processing Mapping Partner shall prepare and distribute the Standard Response Letter, the 
Ordinance Upgrade Response Letter, or the Restudy Response Letter as indicated in Subsection 
2.6.1. FEMA shall provide the content for these letters to the processing Mapping Partner. The 
letters shall be included in a future update to the FEMA Document Control Procedures Manual. 

 


Map Revision Decision-Making Flowchart 

Figure 2-8. Map Revision Decision-Making Flowchart for Corporate Limit 
Changes 


2.7 Program Implementation [February 2002] 

2.7.1 Documentation Control Procedures [February 2002] 

The assigned Mapping Partner shall perform the required procedures for preparing and 
distributing standard and nonstandard letters for conditional and final map revisions and map 
amendments as presented in Sections 2 and 3 and Appendices B and C of the FEMA Document 
Control Procedures Manual (FEMA, 2000). This includes mailing letters, with their appropriate 
enclosures, as specified in the U.S. Postal Service Domestic Mail Manual (U.S. Postal Service, 
2001). 

2.7.2 Standard Processing [February 2002] 

In accordance with Section 65.9 of the NFIP regulations, when a revision of an NFIP map is 
requested, the CEO of the community must receive notification (in writing) of the status of the 
request. This notification must be provided within 90 days of the receipt of the request and will 
state one or more of the following: 

 The effective map(s) shall not be modified. 
 The BFEs on the effective FIRM shall be modified, and new BFEs shall be established. 
 The changes requested are approved, and the map(s) are revised by a LOMR. 
 The changes requested are approved. Revised FIRM (and FBFM) panels will be printed 
and distributed. 
 The changes requested are not significant enough to warrant a reissuance or revision of 
the FIS report, FIRM, and/or FBFM and will be deferred until such time as a significant 
change occurs. 
 The evaluation of the scientific or technical data submitted will require an additional 
90 days to complete. 
 The data submitted to support the revision request are not adequate. Additional data must 
be provided. 
 The required fee has not been received, and no work may be done until it is received. 


This notification is generally interpreted as a written response by the Administrator of the 
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration or his/her designee; therefore, the assigned 
Mapping Partner shall complete all reviews or determine that such completion is not possible to 
allow ample time for correspondence preparation, review, signature, and mailing within the 
timeframe. However, to ensure a timely review of and response to any revision requests 


(including LOMR-Fs and LOMAs), the assigned Mapping Partner shall prepare a letter that 
either outlines the additional data needed to resolve the revision request or provides an 
explanation of what revisions will be undertaken within 30 days of receipt of a revision request. 

Furthermore, because lengthy delays in resolving requests for map revisions may occur, the 
assigned Mapping Partner shall develop and institute procedures to ensure that periods of 90 
days or more do not elapse without FEMA corresponding with the requester. The purpose of the 
correspondence is to advise the revision requester of the status of his or her revision request. 

 


2.8 Fee-Collection System Responsibilities [February 2002] 

2.8.1 Background [February 2002] 

In January 1986, FEMA instituted a fee-collection system to recover costs incurred in reviewing 
proposed projects and issuing CLOMAs, CLOMR-Fs, and CLOMRs. In October 1992, FEMA 
expanded the system to provide for the recovery of costs incurred in reviewing completed 
projects and issuing LOMR-Fs, LOMRs, and PMRs. On October 1, 1996, FEMA established a 
flat fee schedule for processing most requests for conditional and final map amendments and 
revisions. The most recent revision of the fee schedule occurred on September 1, 2002. Up-to-
date information on the fee schedule is available on the FEMA Flood Hazard Mapping Web site 
at http://www.fema.gov/fhm/frm_fees.shtm. 

2.8.2 Coordination Responsibilities [February 2002] 

Under the fee schedule, with one exception, requesters are required to submit payment to FEMA 
in advance of a review. The exception is requests for changes involving structural measures on 
alluvial fans. 

For most requests, the assigned Mapping Partner will only be required to acknowledge receipt of 
the payment and coordinate with the Fee-Collection System Administrator (FCSA) to ensure all 
payments are deposited into the National Flood Insurance Fund. For requests involving 
structural measures on alluvial fans, requesters must submit an initial fee, and the Mapping 
Partner must document all billable hours (to nearest half hour) spent on these requests. The 
Mapping Partner must then notify FEMA and the requester if the initial fee will be exceeded and 
provide a revised estimate of the total review and processing costs (calculated as the total 
number of hours multiplied by an hourly rate). 

Additional information on the required coordination and documentation is provided in Section 2 
of the FEMA Document Control Procedures Manual (FEMA, 2000). 

2.8.3 Fee Exemptions [February 2002] 

In accordance with Section 72.5 of the NFIP regulations, no review and processing fee shall be 
collected by the Mapping Partner for the following exempted types of requests: 

 Map change requests based on mapping or study analysis errors; 
 Map change requests based on the effects of natural changes within SFHAs; 
 LOMA requests; 
 Map change requests based on federally sponsored flood-control projects where 50 
percent or more of the projects costs are federally funded; and 



 Map change requests based on detailed hydrologic and hydraulic studies conducted by 
Federal, State, or local agencies to replace approximate studies conducted by FEMA and 
shown on the effective FIRM. 
 Map changes based on flood hazard information meant to improve upon that shown on 
the flood map or within the flood study. (NOTE: Improvements to flood maps or studies 
that partially or wholly incorporate manmade modifications within the SFHA will not be 
exempted from fees.) 


 


2.9 Special Conversions [February 2002] 

Under standard conversion procedures, a newly identified community or a community that 
previously participated in the Emergency Phase of the NFIP enters the Regular Phase of the 
NFIP based on the results of the detailed or approximate analyses performed as part of a FEMA-
contracted Flood Map Project. However, through the Special Conversion process, FEMA may 
also convert a community to Regular Phase of the NFIP without performing a flood hazard 
study. For some communities, the Special Conversion process may be initiated at the 
recommendation of a Mapping Partner that has undertaken a FEMA-contracted Flood Map 
Project as discussed in Volume 1 of these Guidelines.. In such cases, that Mapping Partner may 
submit some form of analysis with a letter report recommending a Special Conversion. 

Under this process, a community is converted, at the recommendation of the RO, through one of 
the following procedures: 

Non-floodprone conversion; 
Minimal conversion by map; or 
Minimal conversion by letter. 


These procedures are described in more detail in Subsections 2.9.1 and 2.9.2. 

The FEMA RO staff initiates the Special Conversion process by submitting a Special Conversion 
Recommendation Report (SCRR) and/or letter report discussed above and appropriate supporting 
data to the FEMA PO or his/her designee. The FEMA PO or his/her designee then forwards the 
SCRR and appropriate supporting data to the Mapping Partner assigned by FEMA to review and 
process the Special Conversion (hereinafter referred to as the processing Mapping Partner). For 
all Special Conversion procedures, the processing Mapping Partner shall perform the 
coordination and documentation activities required to convert the community to the Regular 
Phase of the NFIP, in accordance with the detailed procedures documented in Section 4 of the 
FEMA Document Control Procedures Manual (FEMA, 2000). 

2.9.1 Non-Floodprone Conversions [February 2002] 

Non-floodprone communities are those communities that are determined not to be subject to 
inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood. The administrative guidelines for determining 
whether a community is designated as non-floodprone state that all of its SFHAs must be less 
than 200 feet wide and drain areas less than 1 square mile, or that physiographic features must 
exist that preclude floodplain development in the community. If the floodprone areas in a 
community do not fit at least one of these guidelines, the community is not, under any 
circumstances, to be designated as non-floodprone. 

 


Non-floodprone communities are converted to the Regular Phase of the NFIP by letter only. No 
FIRM is issued, and any existing FHBM is rescinded. The entire community is designated as 
Zone X (unshaded). 

Upon receipt of the SCRR and/or letter report from FEMA, the processing Mapping Partner shall 
ensure that at least one of the criteria for non-floodprone conversions is met. If at least one of 
these criteria is not met, the processing Mapping Partner shall inform the FEMA PO or his/her 
designee, who will request that the RO submit additional justification for its recommendation. 

Once a community has been approved for a non-floodprone conversion, the processing Mapping 
Partner shall prepare the necessary correspondence to effect the conversion. Depending on the 
communitys status in the NFIP, the processing Mapping Partner shall prepare one of three non-
floodprone conversion letters. The processing Mapping Partner shall distribute copies of the 
letters and prepare a CMA list for each community. Distribution shall occur 2 weeks prior to the 
effective date determined by the processing Mapping Partner from a list provided by FEMA and 
noted on the CMA list. 

The processing Mapping Partner shall prepare the required correspondence for non-floodprone 
conversions to notify the community CEO and floodplain administrator, State NFIP Coordinator, 
affected Federal agencies, and the RO of the conversion. The types of correspondence to be 
prepared by the assigned Mapping Partner are discussed in detail in Section 4 of Document 
Control Procedures Manual (FEMA, 2000). 

2.9.2 Minimal Conversions [February 2002] 

Minimally floodprone communities are those communities subject to inundation by the 
1-percent-annual-chance flood, but for which existing conditions indicate that the area is unlikely 
to be developed in the foreseeable future. The criteria used by RO staff to evaluate a 
communitys development potential are as follows: 

 Floodplains are publicly owned and designed for open space or preservation. 
 Zoning laws, sanitary codes, subdivision regulations, shore land regulations, or 
community regulations effectively prohibit floodplain development. 
 Surrounding land use or topography effectively limits the development potential. 
 Population is decreasing or stable, and there is no foreseeable pressure for floodplain 
development. 
 Floodplains are remote and uninhabited, and future development is unlikely. 


The FEMA RO may use other indicators in addition to these criteria to assess the development 
potential. One important indicator is the size of the undeveloped floodplain relative to the size of 
the entire community. The larger the proportion, the more the floodplain is likely to be subject 
to pressure for development. 


Minimal conversions can be accomplished by map or by letter, depending on whether revisions 
to the existing FHBM are required. For communities for which no FHBM has been published 
(i.e., newly identified communities), an assigned Mapping Partner shall follow the procedures 
detailed in Volume 3, Subsection 3.21.2 of these Guidelines 

The length of the entire minimal conversion process and the processing Mapping Partner 
processing times for minimal conversions are discussed in Subsections 2.9.2.1 and 2.9.2.2. The 
length of the entire minimal conversion process depends on the conversion method used (map or 
letter) and on whether the community to be converted is compliant with the NFIP requirements 
concerning community floodplain management ordinances set forth in Sections 60.2 through 
60.6 of the NFIP regulations. In general, the conversion process for compliant communities is 
shorter, because noncompliant communities must be allowed 6 months to enact the required 
ordinances before the conversion can become effective. 

2.9.2.1 Minimal Conversions by Map [February 2002] 

If the SFHA shown on the existing FHBM for a community must be revised, the community is 
converted to the Regular Phase of the NFIP with a FIRM that is an updated version of the 
FHBM. The following categories of FIRMs may be printed, depending on the flooding situation 
in the community: 

 The FIRM shows all SFHAs with a Zone A designation. 
 The FIRM Index notes that all areas in the community are Zone D (used in cases where 
the FIRM is the communitys initial map and all areas are considered remote and 
uninhabited). 
 The FIRM (one or more panels printed) shows Zones A and C (or Zone X (unshaded)) 
for the communitys most populated areas and notes on the Map Index that all unprinted 
panels are Zone D, under the remote and uninhabited criteria. 


When a FIRM is to be prepared, the processing Mapping Partner shall obtain the most current 
data, including USGS topographic maps; USGS floodprone area maps; original FHBM artwork; 
FIS reports and FIRMs for contiguous communities; Floodplain Information Reports; watershed 
work plans; other reports available through USGS, NRCS, or USACE; and documentation for 
the effective FHBM. The processing Mapping Partner also shall incorporate changes made 
previously by LOMA, LOMR-F, or LOMR, as appropriate. 

With the SCRR and/or letter report, the RO shall submit an annotated FHBM or community map 
with updated corporate limits, road names, and flooding information. The processing Mapping 
Partner shall compare this information to effective NFIP maps for contiguous communities to 
ensure the flood hazard information matches. If, during the review of contiguous communities, 
the processing Mapping Partner finds that floodplain boundaries do not match, or if other sources 
are found to provide detailed flooding information, the processing Mapping Partner shall consult 
with the PO or his/her designee to determine if a FIRM and FIS report similar to those resulting 
from FEMA-contracted Flood Map Projects is appropriate. If the PO or his/her designee, in 


coordination with FEMA RO staff, determine that a FIRM and FIS report showing BFEs is 
appropriate, the processing Mapping Partner shall process the FIRM and FIS report in 
accordance with the requirements in Volume 1 of these Guidelines. 

Unless the SCRR and/or letter report indicate an appropriate engineering review has already 
been completed, the processing Mapping Partner shall review the areas of flooding designated in 
the available information. The processing Mapping Partner shall investigate and, if needed, 
correct apparent errors or discrepancies . Although the processing Mapping Partner is not 
required to check the flood discharges, the evaluation performed by the processing Mapping 
Partner shall include, but not be limited to, an application of the criteria for non-floodprone 
communities. 

All SFHAs shall be designated as Zone A. All areas outside SFHAs shall normally be identified 
as Zone X (unshaded), unless the RO has requested that some areas in the community (primarily 
remote and uninhabited areas in the community) be identified as Zone D. The processing 
Mapping Partner shall obtain concurrence from the PO or his/her designee before depicting Zone 
D areas on FIRMs. 

If the technical review performed by processing Mapping Partner indicates that a minimal 
conversion for a particular community may be inappropriate, or that significant effort would be 
involved for such a conversion, the processing Mapping Partner shall consult with the PO or 
his/her designee on the action to be taken. 

Because maps are to be converted to depict the most up-to-date FEMA procedures and flood 
hazard information, the assigned Mapping Partner shall use the most recent graphic guidelines, 
presented in Appendix K of these Guidelines. Extensive changes that may require conversion of 
an FHBM from an 11 x 17 format to a Z-fold format must be approved by the PO or his/her 
designee. 

At the completion of the technical review, the processing Mapping Partner shall prepare the 
FHBM for the cartographic or digital mapping phase of the minimal conversion process. At this 
time, the processing Mapping Partner shall assign an effective date for the FIRM using a list 
provided by FEMA and prepare a schedule in order to track the conversion through in-house 
production and GPO processing. The entire minimal conversion process usually requires 7 
months from the receipt of the SCRR and/or letter report and all necessary data by the processing 
Mapping Partner to the new FIRM effective date. 

The processing Mapping Partner shall prepare the required correspondence for minimal 
conversions by map to notify the community CEO and floodplain administrator, State NFIP 
Coordinator, affected Federal agencies, and the RO of the conversion. The types of 
correspondence to be prepared by the assigned Mapping Partner and the responsibilities for 
monitoring community review of the FIRM are discussed in detail in Section 4 of the FEMA 
Document Control Procedures Manual (FEMA, 2000). 

 


2.9.2.2 Minimal Conversions by Letter [February 2002] 

If no changes are required to the SFHA shown on the existing FHBM, the community may be 
converted to the Regular Phase of the NFIP with a letter only. In such cases, the processing 
Mapping Partner shall verify that this procedure is correct by checking the accuracy of the 
corporate limits, floodplain boundary delineations, and other physical and cultural features. 

If, during the review, the processing Mapping Partner locates sufficient data to prepare FIRM 
and FIS report reflecting BFEs for the community, the processing Mapping Partner shall consult 
with the PO or his/her designee. If the assigned Mapping Partner determines the FHBM is 
inaccurate, the processing Mapping Partner shall contact the RO to determine if a minimal 
conversion by map is warranted. 

For those FHBMs that meet the criteria for conversion by letter, the assigned Mapping Partner 
shall prepare and distribute the required correspondence. The specific procedures to be followed 
are discussed in detail in Section 4 of Document Control Procedures Manual (FEMA, 2000). 

2.9.3 Status Reporting [April 2003] 

For all FEMA-funded mapping, including Special Conversions, an assigned Mapping Partner 
shall ensure that all appropriate fields in MICS system are completed. Detailed guidance on the 
use of the MICS system by Mapping Partners can be found at https://mics.fema.gov. 


2.10 References [February 2002] 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Document Control Procedures Manual, July 2000. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, FIA-12, Appeals, Revisions, and Amendments to 
National Flood Insurance Program Maps: A Guide for Community Officials, December 1993. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Modernizing FEMAs Flood Hazard Mapping 
Program: Recommendations for Using Future-Conditions Hydrology for the National Flood 
Insurance Program, November 2001. 

U.S. Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual, 2001. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Coastal Barriers Study Group, Report to Congress: Coastal 
Barrier Resources System, Recommendations for Additions to or Deletions from the Coastal 
Barrier Resources System, 1988. 

Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, Office of Water Data Coordination, Hydrology 
Subcommittee, Bulletin 17B, Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency, 1982.