FEMA - Fill

Is this the first FIRM Panel produced for the specific location? A new map doesn't restart the clock...

This is the 6th map. So fill is not fill had it been placed prior to the first map?

Even though the site is not technically within floodplain?

Fill is only fill if it was placed after the first Panel effective date AND was placed to raise the structure above a flood hazard.

Interesting comments on fill. In the local county (Clark County, Washington) it is not fill if placed before March 24, 1999. Once the public interest group in the Puget Sound area sued FEMA for letting fill go into areas that could have been, or could be, salmon spawning habitat the ESA date became Oct. 23, 2008 for FEMA concerns. Once FEMA lost the lawsuit, the forms changed for the official to sign off on the Community Acknowledgement Form to the official stating it will NEVER flood where the fill was placed. Know anybody that isn't on their deathbed willing to sign that?

Per the MT-1:

"Fill that is placed before the date of the first National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) map showing the area in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) is considered natural grade."

Now, if you fall into that situation, good luck getting anyone from FEMA's LOMA review to acknowledge the existence of that statement ... even thought it's written on the face of the MT-1 in bold print.

I've been having an on going battle with FEMA over this on two lots. They were constructed in 1994-1995, when the area are considered an X. In 2003, a new map comes out and calls in an A (No BFE). This year I did an el-cert for the two owners, found the property was 3' higher than it needed to be based on the County Flood Management BFE. So, I looked into it and I was sure that since the fill (if any) would have been placed in 1995ish before property was considered a Zone A (2003), it would qualify for LOMA rather than a LOMR-F.

I supplied FEMA with the current map, the previous map, and marked up with explanation and notes, and records relating to the date of construction of the homes, and a letter from the county stating that fill would have been placed in 1994 or 1995..... I've written several letters explaining, in detail, the timeline and quoting the above statement ... (they don't provide an email or phone number, and seem to only communicate through snail mail, even though I've provided my phone number and email with every correspondence)

All I get back is form letters, asking for information, or telling me I need certain documents printed on official county letterhead (copies of emails and web printouts are not good enough, I guess), and telling me I need to withdraw my current application and apply for a LOMR-F and provide a check for $425 per lot ...

Sorry, you struck a nerve. I had actually been thinking about this earlier today, since I haven't heard anything back from them since my last correspondence 6 weeks ago.

That's close, but not 100% true. It's based on the date of first panel that shows the property in a flood zone. If the first ever panel showed the property in a zone C (Which would have been around 1978, here), then the second panel revision (1983, here) showed the property in an A, then you would use the 1983 date of the second panel as the "Cut-off" when determining if it's "fill" or "natural grade". At least, in theory. As I posted below, good luck getting reviewer who will follow their own rules.

I has one of these last year. I knew that the site had been filled but I could not document what month and year. I knew that the site was developed prior to the first panel that showed it as being in a SFHA (2007). I talked with the community official and then submitted as a LOMA with a map and description to remove 90% of the lot from the SFHA with no mention of fill. Since their own directions on the form define it as natural ground I saw no need to tempt a bureaucrat by mentioning it. It went through like butter.

I don't know which state you are in, but in Washington if you want to remove the structure based on fill, the client will need to obtain a biological assessment that shows the fill did not or will not cause problems with salmon spawning. I also have spoken with Flood Plain Managers in Oregon that have similar federal requirements with the dates of fill. This has been covered numerous times in our trade publications about the Puget Sound Lawsuit and the fills placed in that area of the state. The Flood Plain Managers in the 5 county area (Oregon & Washington) will not even consider signing off the Community form because of what they are committing to. It used to be a simple thing to do if fill was placed before the county date to have all the paperwork and send it in. The last attempt I made was on a parcel elevated 9' and it was denied after the client sent all the salmon habitat information to Michael Baker including the state and federal fisheries along with the department of commerce giving the approval to remove it. No stream, just a wetlands and a manmade ditch.

As an afterthought for those interested, the publication can be found covering this online as "NFIP-ESA Model Ordinance". It is good reading for those sleepless nights. It created Rule No.1 for clients asking to remove a structure on fill "What was the date of the fill and can we prove it?" If it was before those 2 dates, I do an MT-EZ.

I'm telling you, I'm at my wits end with this one. I wish I had your reviewer. In fact, in the form letters I got back, they stated I had 90 days from the start of process to submit more information or the LOMA application would be cancelled. While I did respond, again, 6 weeks ago, before the 90 days was up, I'm guessing they have failed to make a decision within that 90 day window and have cancelled my application, and I'll have to start again (which might be a good thing, maybe I'll get someone who knows what they are doing, this time).

My client is fortunate that his property is in a coastal flood zone A. I permitted the proposed fill along with the detachment of a deck. The deck is now freestanding with a 2" gap to the house and the lowest structural member within the future floodplain.

My client is pleased. This change has reduced his premium from ~$10k per year to $500 per year. It gave him good reason to replace his decking.

I asked this question of two of the three state level flood plain managers and I received as many answers from each of them as I did from the NFIP hotline.

Sorry to strike a nerve.

I will send along this analysis to the state level crack team we have here to see if their opinions can be reduced to one.