Let's say just for the sake of discussion that there is an elementary school building built in the 1980s in a FEMA flood fringe. Let's say that in 2015 an architect designed parking lot and building additions for a church on the site without a current survey. Say they just copied the original plans and assumed it was all built perfectly per those plans.
Say they list an existing FFE of 665.50 and a FIRM map interpolated BFE of 663.00. And say they note the local requirement of BFE+2.00'. Also say they have obtained local ILPs as well as DNR approval for construction of a parking lot in the floodway.
Say some dumb old construction surveyor comes along and notices that the FFE is actually 664.88 and the BFE might actually be closer to 664, which would require the building (existing AND addition, right?) to be +2' = 666. Ironic, right?
Say this dumb old surveyor has informed the church and has recommended that they hire an engineer to verify his discoveries. Say the church would rather not (they have paid the architect and expect a professional service, which in the dumb surveyors opinion is simply not going to happen). Say they simply refuse to hire the engineer.
The surveyor is feeling compelled to "blow a whistle", though he HATES being in this position to the local floodplain administrlator (who has already approved the plans) as well as to the lender since the owner (church) is refusing to acknowledge this potentially extremely expensive problem in the future if they insist on building the addition too low (or at all).
Now what?
Not sure if your area, but it my area going from Geoid 99 to Geoid12B is about 0.60 tenths, this could be one of the reasons. I am sure when the Church goes to get flood insurance the Surveyor they hire will catch the building is low.
Scott Ellis, post: 394196, member: 7154 wrote: Not sure if your area, but it my area going from Geoid 99 to Geoid12B is about 0.60 tenths, this could be one of the reasons. I am sure when the Church goes to get flood insurance the Surveyor they hire will catch the building is low.
NGVD1929 to NAVD1988 around here is about - 0.4'
This discussion need not be further muddied by that fact. The hypothetical situation is based on the NAVD1988 datum in 2016.
And yes Scott, thank you, the dumb surveyor of 2016 is TRYING to save the entire team from future surveyor 2017+.
Brad Ott, post: 394205, member: 197 wrote: NGVD1929 to NAVD1988 around here is about - 0.4'
This discussion need not be further muddied by that fact. The hypothetical situation is based on the NAVD1988 datum in 2016.And yes Scott, thank you, the dumb surveyor of 2016 is TRYING to save the entire team from future surveyor 2017+.
I wish other Profession could see into the future like Surveyors can. After years of knowing where to set control points and bench marks so they will last decades to come helps train us to see into the future.
I find a nice email sent to a few people in charge, with all CC together so they know everyone else read the same, hey this building is low, helps to gets things done in a hurry
Scott Ellis, post: 394208, member: 7154 wrote: I wish other Profession could see into the future like Surveyors can. After years of knowing where to set control points and bench marks so they will last decades to come helps train us to see into the future.
I find a nice email sent to a few people in charge, with all CC together so they know everyone else read the same, hey this building is low, helps to gets things done in a hurry
Those e-mails have been sent all year, and duly ignored so far by the architect and the church representative who has a day job keeping him busy 12 hours 6 days elsewhere. The only folks not yet e-'mailed directly are the elders, pastors, money lenders, and the local ILP floodplain administrator. This is the "whistle blowing, your welcome for killing this project and saving you millions of futute dollars" CYA phase that has the dumb surveyors butt cheeks all tightened up.
The dumb old surveyor is struggling with the finesse details of how to approach this.
E-mail the whole world?
Leave anyone out initially?
One thought might be to find a bm from the firm or the flood study and run an actual level run on the ground and see what you get.
makerofmaps, post: 394216, member: 9079 wrote: One thought might be to find a bm from the firm or the flood study and run an actual level run on the ground and see what you get.
The BFE is the main concern. The FFE is what it is.
Brad Ott, post: 394215, member: 197 wrote: The dumb old surveyor is struggling with the finesse details of how to approach this.
E-mail the whole world?
Leave anyone out initially?
Dear Church,
If you would like the new Church Building to survive the next 40 days and nights of rain the building needs to raised up X amount of feet. This is due to the fact that after checking with the FEMA Flood Maps the BBF is 664.00 feet not 663.00 feet, also the forms for the finish floor are built to low, Since the concrete has not been poured yet, this will be a cheap fix and will not add on much time to the construction time frame. After pouring the concrete the cost to fix this will go up, if nothing is done then you will be paying more for insurance every year, and they may not cover the damage if the building does flood.
Or, is the surveyor overthinking this?
663+2=665 got the local ILP permit, okay fine.
If the BFE really is 664 and the FFE really is 664.88 then okay fine, maybe there is no future insurance trouble after all?
Apples~Oranges~Chicken Little?
Brad Ott, post: 394220, member: 197 wrote: Or, is the surveyor overthinking this?
663+2=665 got the local ILP permit, okay fine.
If the BFE really is 664 and the FFE really is 664.88 then okay fine, maybe there is no future insurance trouble after all?
Apples~Oranges~Chicken Little?
Maybe then again Maybe not
If they are higher than the FEMA maps great they should get flood insurance, however if they City requires a grade above what FEMA requires they may have a difficult time getting an occupancy permit.
First question, have you gone to an RM listed on the 1980's flood map then leveled out to the finish floor? Whatever the map said that RM's elevation was may be the key to the issue. Because, if you compare what they said it was way back then to what they said the finish floor was you may find that you agree with the elevation difference, you're just using different numbers.
Second question, has the flood map been updated since the one used in the 1980's? That's a completely different issue. Also, does the plus two feet still exist as a mandatory requirement or as a suggested requirement which may be waived by the appropriate building-approving committee.
Dear Church Elders, Pastors, and Money Lenders,
This project deserves the attention of a qualified civil engineer. At this phase in the project construction we have an opportunity to allow an engineer to offer many improvements to the site design (such as sidewalk & parking lot pavement slopes and grades) as well as offering potential avoidance of certain possible future liabilities.
Not the least of which centers around some uncertainties associated with the finish floor elevations (FFE) of the existing and proposed building additions relative to the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) for the creek. I have sent several e-mails, and we have had multiple on-site meetings with the ownersÛª representative, the architectsÛª representative, and the contractors regarding these issues.
The major issue surrounding the FFE/BFE continues to be ignored by the entire team so far. Therefore, I have widened the audience to try to shine some light onto this issue in order to try to protect the entire team and ultimately save the owners from future potentially very expensive costs to address the FFE/BFE issue.
It is my opinion that it will be much better and much less expensive to address this issue now rather than later. Additionally, if you do choose to bring a civil engineer along with this project then you will benefit from multiple additional improvements to the overall site design elements, as well as a professional with the ability to communicate with the local ILP and floodplain administrator regarding possible variances or options that might allow this project to continue to move forward in some fashion.
Following is a summary of the FFE/BFE issue:
This entire site is located within the FEMA Flood Fringe (see the attached FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map). While the northeasterly portion of the property is located within the floodway, which required approval from DNR (also attached) for construction of the parking lot in the floodway. Note that this DNR approval has nothing to do with the building addition.
The architect designed the site without any current survey data. They relied on the original construction plans for the elementary school and assumed that everything then was built exactly according to the original plans.
They list an existing FFE of 665.50 and a FEMA FIRM map interpolated BFE of 663.00 and they note a minimum floor elevation of 665.00 (which reflects a local County requirement that the building FFE must be 2.0 feet higher than the BFE).
It should be noted here that when the lender and the insurance company down the road request an elevation certificate or a LOMA from a professional land surveyor in order to reduce or even allow for flood insurance on the building FEMA will not allow the FIRM map interpolated BFE procedure. They will instead require a community determined (DNR) or FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS) creek profile interpolation to determine the BFE.
I have attached a couple DNR Floodplain Information Portal Reports that indicate that the BFE might actually be at an elevation closer to 664, which would require the building FFE to be at an elevation of 666. I do not know how this rule might apply to the existing building FFE vs the building addition FFE.
One detail worth noting is that if in fact the BFE proves to be closer to 664.0 and the FFE is 664.88 this might be good news regarding the flood insurance issues. However, it begs the question of future potential issues with obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy from the local authority after all the construction is completed due to the local requirement that the FFE is supposed to be 2.0 feet above the BFE.
I first notified the team on May 23, 2016 that in fact the existing FFE is 664.88 feet. One of the team leaders with The Construction Group asked the question regarding the BFE+2.0Ûª=FFE note and I included that question to the team in a summary e-mail after the on-site meeting Friday September 23, 2016.
You have an opportunity right now to choose to be proactive and address this issue up front with the County Planning Engineer, ILP administrator, and local FEMA floodplain administrator via a qualified professional civil engineer who might be able to communicate alternative tracks or other options to address these issues before you spend time and money building this addition.
Or you can continue the teamÛªs current approach of ignoring the issue and proceed with spending time and money and ultimately be in a position of having to react to Mr. County Planning EngineerÛªs inevitable discovery of the issue at hand.
My goal in raising this issue now and encouraging you to hire a qualified civil engineer is to help protect the entire team and ultimately save the owners a lot of time and money.
But........................they know all about asking for forgiveness. ;);)
You have done much more than most, believe me. It's their money and their problem. Your concerns are admirable, to say the least, but don't grow more grey hairs worrying about it.
@HC: Wonder if the "666" elevation is spooking them? Maybe 665.98 would work?
Lots of good info and advice in that letter, but nontechnical people's eyes will glaze over before they get the gist of it or get through the length of it. Can you get the message boiled down to three or four concise paragraphs and support that message with attached detail information?
Your audience includes people who have never seen decimal feet and are not used to lots of acronyms. They may not digest the message.
And of course be very sure of your numbers and datums.
One major consideration that hasn't been mentioned is the LAG of the existing and proposed structures. That's what is the other key element. While the FFE has to comply with the local freeboard requirement that you mentioned, the LAG will be the first place that stormwater will touch and damage may first occur.
Glenn Breysacher, post: 395039, member: 188 wrote: One major consideration that hasn't been mentioned is the LAG of the existing and proposed structures. That's what is the other key element. While the FFE has to comply with the local freeboard requirement that you mentioned, the LAG will be the first place that stormwater will touch and damage may first occur.
Excellent point. Thank you.
