Tell him it is your license that is of concern in this matter.
"I see that he has added the FIRM map floodline, which is great. However, he is still showing and labeling his "field run" floodline. That is the line that will be very problematic when we start trying to answer attorney's questions, as well as through the permitting process. His field run line is not enforcable (for permitting), so it needs to be removed along with his label.
Please have him remove his line and label. We will need the new dwg file resent, as well as pdf's of the survey."
My reply,
"The State Director of ---------- Flood Plain Mapping advised me to show both. I understand the line marked ae floodline from fema panel is the enforceable line. The contour is labeled as Base flood contour, It is shown with you and --------'s best interest in mind and to cover my interests in case something got built in the area vertically below the base flood elevation. The AE was originally drawn from cross sections and then determined using Lidar, not a very accurate representation of what is on the ground.With that said, Would it be acceptable if I remove the Base flood contour, but add a statement regarding my findings in the notes?"
I feel like I am being more than cordial. Any one ever had that requested of them?
Adam, post: 331059, member: 8900 wrote: My reply,
"The State Director of ---------- Flood Plain Mapping advised me to show both. I understand the line marked ae floodline from fema panel is the enforceable line. The contour is labeled as Base flood contour, It is shown with you and --------'s best interest in mind and to cover my interests in case something got built in the area vertically below the base flood elevation. The AE was originally drawn from cross sections and then determined using Lidar, not a very accurate representation of what is on the ground.With that said, Would it be acceptable if I remove the Base flood contour, but add a statement regarding my findings in the notes?"
I feel like I am being more than cordial. Any one ever had that requested of them?
You can apply for a Letter of Map Ammendment, through FEMA, with a metes and bounds legal description of the BFE contour. They will issue a determination recognizing your established location for the SFHA if you jump through all the right hoops. It's really not that difficult of a process to go through.
In my humble opinion, I think you have to show both, especially if that is what the state adviser recommended. It is your license and e&o insurance on the line here. I would think the engineer would also want to err on the side of caution as well. It sounds like they may be trying to shift as much liability as possible onto your shoulders.
I have possibly found a little common ground with the engineer. That is removing the graphical depiction of the BFE contour, but adding some text regarding my findings in my notes. Seems like this will work, he gets what he wants and I still have info on the map regarding the descrepancy. Will a note carry the same weight as a graphical depiction of this line, if things went South?
Tell the engineer to stamp the plan 🙂
I have run across this issue many, many times with these things. The biggest issue is that in many places around where I work, the choice of whether or not to purchase flood insurance isn't a choice given to the land owner or potential buyer. Most of the calls I get are people asking me if I can do an EC to "get them out of the flood plain". I tell them that I can't because all I can do is survey the site and report what I find. My EC will not change "the flood plain" on the FEMA panel or what areas on the ground are actually below the BFE. It seems that most of these requests are in the hopes that an EC will show that the landowner/buyer won't need to pay for mandatory flood plain insurance.
One of the other issues I see is that, as the original post described, the line drawn on the map doesn't reflect an actual contour as it exists on the ground. And in flat areas, this horizontal difference can be quite pronounced. What I will usually do is show my best estimate of the line as drawn on the FEMA panel (usually done by scaling or overlaying a PDF into CAD) and then drawing an actual contour line. This can get tricky, however, when the limits of the flood plain are along a gradient of elevations. Copious amounts of notes and explanations are my best friend in situations like this.
My thoughts are to just put as much information on the exhibits as possible to explain all of the data that needs to be considered by the owners.
This is an engineer making the request. The site is going to be a solar farm. Last time I checked electricity and water dont mix. The state flood plain director called me back this morning and said he had spoken with some the survey and engineers board members for our state and they wanted to know who the engineer was to question him on this. I am not one to stir the sh*t pot, and was just looking to show what I found to be true. Wow, wonder how this will work out.
As others have said, you shouldn't let anyone, including an engineer, control your work product, which I'm sure violates your Board Rules as well as E & O insurance terms.
Isn't this just the situation that the LOMC/A process is intended to address? Letter-of-map-change... when the map is wrong? When property has been "erroneously" included in SFHA? I agree that the FIRM should be viewed as the regulatory line until such time as FEMA accepts the actual field-run topography as the boundary. But has anyone ever seen FEMA reject the real topography when applying for a LOMA? I've had 'em second guess my interpolation of the BFE from the flood profile (second guess, but never overrule after discussion) but I've never had 'em reject the ground topography as the 1% boundary after the BFE is established. In fact, the regulators here in VT (primarily the State Rivers Management Section) seem to fully comprehend the inadequacy of the mapping and treat the real-world elevations as the boundary. That may not square with an insurance requirement by a lender, but as far as enforcement of the NFIP, it seems to be the case here.
Jumbomotive, post: 331374, member: 7178 wrote: Isn't this just the situation that the LOMC/A process is intended to address? Letter-of-map-change... when the map is wrong? When property has been "erroneously" included in SFHA? I agree that the FIRM should be viewed as the regulatory line until such time as FEMA accepts the actual field-run topography as the boundary. But has anyone ever seen FEMA reject the real topography when applying for a LOMA? I've had 'em second guess my interpolation of the BFE from the flood profile (second guess, but never overrule after discussion) but I've never had 'em reject the ground topography as the 1% boundary after the BFE is established. In fact, the regulators here in VT (primarily the State Rivers Management Section) seem to fully comprehend the inadequacy of the mapping and treat the real-world elevations as the boundary. That may not square with an insurance requirement by a lender, but as far as enforcement of the NFIP, it seems to be the case here.
That has been my experience too. I've never had the reject anything, except for interpolation of the BFE from the FIS profile. Took several rounds of sparring and additional illustrations for them to agree. I believe that most of the reviewers for the LOMC's are E.I.T.'s and are not experienced much at all.
Adam, post: 331053, member: 8900 wrote: Follow up on this matter. I spoke with our state director of our states flood mapping agency. He advised me to show the AE line from the panel as well as the contour of the Base flood elevation. I did this and labeled as AE flood line drawn from FEMA panel and Base flood elevation contour from field run topography. The engineer has responded back and told me to remove the contour and note about the Base flood elevation. What now?
Tell him to stick to engineering and you'll do the surveying. I have an email from FEMA that says the contour elevations trump the FIRM. I'd show both. the 677' line based on the FIRM and the 677' contour line based on my field topo. Maybe a LOMA is necessary to solve the problem. But for now, I'd show both.
Joe the Surveyor, post: 331391, member: 118 wrote: Tell him to stick to engineering and you'll do the surveying. I have an email from FEMA that says the contour elevations trump the FIRM. I'd show both. the 677' line based on the FIRM and the 677' contour line based on my field topo. Maybe a LOMA is necessary to solve the problem. But for now, I'd show both.
Word of caution...
When dealing with an Agency or Entity it's great to get an email. Remember that it only helps if the person has the authority to make the call. My habit is to request documentation for the underlying policy. I've never had anyone from FEMA, BLM, etc. squawk. I have had them say 'wow' glad you asked me to look...
I just want to say that I am learning from as well as enjoying reading this thread.
OMG!! First thing I have to say is, if you don't know the laws, rules and regulations, then DON'T DO IT!! Leave the work for the trained professionals and don't work outside your area of expertise. Nothing, however, prevents any surveyor from gaining the expertise, then offering the service.
I am totally amazed at the amount of misinformation being bantered about in this thread. There are only a few posts which are pointing in the right direction. This is SCARY!
thebionicman, post: 330251, member: 8136 wrote: Sorry but no, he hasn't. The AE line is not the contour unless and until the amendment is done. The AE line is an administrative line delineating insurance rates. The line may not relate to the actual risk but that's a different story...
Bionic is right on the money here. The FEMA AE line IS NOT A CONTOUR LINE! The AE line is a HORIZONTAL component taken from the maps as they are published. There is no VERTICAL aspect to this regulatory delineation at all. Yes, I realize as a surveyor that the map is full of crap and that it in no way reflects the reality relative to a flood event. That doesn't matter. It's just a line on a piece of paper that tells the lender that flood insurance is or is not required. The elevation or the BFE comes into play only when #1 you're in the zone and #2 you have a structure in the zone. The vertical distance from the structure to the BFE is used to determine the insurance rate you will pay.
Jim in AZ, post: 330283, member: 249 wrote: ABSOLUTELY! The graphical line on the map controls everything - elevations are essentially (but not always) irrelevant. It has been this way from day 1 - that's why you see so many of us stating over and over again what an absolute joke the whole process is.
I completely agree with Jim, here. It's not only a joke; it's a complete farce that has been handed to the landowners. With that said, there are ways that we professionals can provide a professional service to the landowners. The extent of our working knowledge with FEMA rules and regulations and the advice we can share with the landowners on the multitude of alternatives available to them to reduce their insurance premiums (or perhaps eliminate them entirely) is a vital service that we can provide. Any surveyor with a good working knowledge can literally save their clients $10's of thousands of dollars of unneeded or unnecessary premium payments over the life of their mortgage. Such a valuable service ought to come at a very hefty price. It's not just a matter of taking a couple of shots and filling out a form for $150.
JBS