GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS REQUIRING ELEVATIONS CERTS OF SURVEYORS

When there's no BFE.

The rules or instructions say that sections E, F, & G need to be filled in when there's no BFE and that a survey is not required . . . no elevations are needed.

STILL . . . for years surveyors in Ohio(at least in Trumbull County, Ohio), have been required to have a surveyor measure, report and certify elevations in areas with no BFE's.

I have informed clients that they don't need an E.C., but they always come back needing one . . . according to the county.

I have asked this before and all I get is that they need elevations and the elevations need to be certified.

I wonder if the county(and the state), are actually doing nothing more than gathering more information on the monies of the taxpaying citizenry . . . taxation without representation.



I wonder if anyone else makes Elevations Certifications in areas of no BFE?

John Francis

This is a very misunderstood topic. Unfortunately, many surveyors are among those who don't have a firm grasp on how to deal with parcels located in Zone A w/no BFE established. Likely because this situation is not a surveying situation, it is really a civil engineering exercise.  What also needs to be emphasized is the huge liability undertaken in these projects.  The BFE needs to be determined. It is not something to be undertaken unless one is thoroughly competent in the arena of hydraulics and hydrology.

and yes, an EC is the required product for lands within Zone A w/no BFE.  Contrary to the instructions, Section E has very little application in Zone A.  The distance from HAG/LAG has absolutely nothing to do with flood elevation except in situations that can be shown to be shallow flooding less than 2' in depth. This is rarely the case in riverine Zone A locations.

Maybe E.C.'s are greatly understood.  But if they are, the instructions cause much of the misunderstanding and the flood plain managers cause even more.

I won't even delve into a common home-owner paying thousands of dollars to have a flood study that should have been done by the government.(I call it taxation without representation to pay to do the government's duty) . . . THE WHOLE BUFAW IS A GOVERNMENT OPERATION.

Regardless of the instructions, I've been told from the county and state officials, that had the building been built 2.0 above the grade "before", the construction had begun, the permit would be approved.  The fact that normal/original grades exist 25-30 feet away, I can't find anything that allows the use of elevations that aren't actually at the building.  Why doesn't it make any sense to use the grades that reflect the original grade?

I was told that(by the guberment flood reps) since a previous owner had previously built the land up about 3 feet or so(not verfiable by me), the the newer construction now must be 2 feet above the three feet . . . about 5 feet above the original grade. 

There's no BFE and there's no flood depth figures.

One of the last one of these involved a house shown in an A zone with no BFE,  a house that was about 22 feet above the flood and a distance of about 100+ feet from an area that "might" have flooded.  In that one, the house was about 3 feet above the street, which was out of the flood and about 14 feet above another street(up-stream), that was "out" of the A-zone.  New flood maps(about a year later), finally showed the more correct zone boundaries.

BTW . . . we all new about the "new" boundaries and the maps with the "new" boundaries could be looked at.  But it took almost 2 years for the maps to be "officially" released . . . and, "officially" used.

This whole program, regarding zones with no BFE needs to totally re-evaluated and re-adjusted.

I can tell that retirement and getting away from the near-constant interpretation and compliance to ever increasing rules and regulations, just looks so much better day by day.
 

What about the triggers? What causes this to happen? Usually there is construction and an application for National Flood Insurance in the mix requiring a cert.

I am a frequent critic of FEMA. Even when their maps are good, they aren't very good. If the county is a "cooperating technical partner" with the feds, they will typically try to collect data to improve their database.

Here we operate with a Bench Mark Book. Construction plans  needs to be tied to a "certified" bench mark. We even let engineers make those ties.
MLB

As an Ex-Governmental official I can tell you this. Most rules or requirements written into ordinances relate to supposedly safe guarding the public. If they require a flood certificate in an area with out a base flood elevation established, do one. Unless you can convince the governing body that the requirements put an undue burden onto the public as a whole (they don't care about you, it's the public, the voters that they work for). Measure at 90 degrees to the closest highest bottom of stream bed elevation, shot the top of water at normal flow if possible, record and then get all the appropriate elevations around the site that are asked for in the Certificate. State very clearly in the Certificate that no BFE is established on that particular stream, give all the data relative to the closest flood  map, community #, map #, publication date, etc..... State exactly what you did, as in a Surveyor's Report, which is what you are doing. Seal and day it. It would be preferable if your report is written as an attachment and so stated on the actual form, "See Attachment A "Surveyor's Report by So & So, Surveyor" ". The liability you incur should then be limited to what you actually state and not what might be implied in the Certificate. Remember professional liability can run for years so be very careful with level runs, always check, double check everything that is done and is written. Good Luck and May God speed on your way.  

As AverageJoe has pointed out this isn't a surveying problem or exercise (besides actually doing the EC) The issue is an Engineering problem that will require the assistance of a surveyor to be able to calculate the BFE in a zone A w/o a BFE.  We have ran into several of these situations over the past year all of which were part of FEMA's new maps.  FEMA came though and says 'you're in the flood zone now just look at our highly inaccurate map. Please pay thousands of dollars to prove or disprove our map'  You may also have to do a LOMA depending on the outcome of the hydaulic study that an experienced Engineer will need to do.

Another great example of government ran afowl.  They put all the burden on the private land owner to prove or disprove their data with no chance of compensation.

Lets see.
Person decides he wants a house in area of bottom land.  Due to limited development in area FEMA has only performed an approximate study and shows there is a likelyhood of flood potential in the area.  Person builds where he believes is clear of the approximate line FEMA has shown.
Person chooses to not employ the advice of a professional engineer as to the risk of flooding, likely because he really doesn't understand what the FIRM is showing.
Person proceeds with building on land that was created by the deposition of silt during flooding, e.g. "prime bottom land".  Person really has no true idea of what level of risk he has invested into.
FEMA comes along and does an update of their maps.  Many times the lines don't change with these updates, but sometimes they do for various reasons.  What I've mostly seen recently are updates where the lines don't change, but the Datum is switched over to the more modern '88 from the old '29 standard. 
This type of map update has been triggering review by the lending institutions.  I have had several folks approch me for EC's because a corner of their land falls in the approximate zone and the lending institution's review results in their desired assurance of the relationship between the flood zone and the structure involved. Basically the lending institutions have become better educated on risk factors as a result of some of the huge losses from floods in the last decade and a half
I can't blame them for this.
I can't blame FEMA for only performing approximate methods on rural streams which have limited development. This is clearly something the local agency should be addressing with their building and development standards. i.e. make the developer understand the risk level by requiring analysis by a competent engineer. Simple matter really.
I can't blame FEMA for decertifying a levee due to substandard construction or maintenance. 
I can't blame the layman developer of being ignorant of the risk associated with building in bottom land when the flood zone is clearly described as approximate and that the base flood elevation has not been determined.

I blame us, the professionals who should know better and who should be educating the community building officials and land owners as to what a Zone A really is.

Let me say that again THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED.
Which means the boundary is approximate since the contour for which it follows is dependant upon an elevation that HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED.

As professionals, we should be educated to be able to discuss what an approximate flood zone A without BFE really means to the layperson, and why it is such a great idea to actually consult with a civil engineer competent in hydrologic and hydraulic analysis.  Money well spent.  If the structure is clearly out of the potential area of flooding by a 1% event, then the analysis is fairly simple.  If not, then it is probably a good thing to get a good understanding on the risk level one's investment is subject to.

Be professional, don't blame the government.  If you want the federal government to foot the bill for detailed studies on all these zone A situations, then fine. And don't complain about your tax bill.

Myself, I believe FEMA is correct in putting their budgeted monies spent on studies where the intense development is and putting the burden on the local community for underdeveloped areas.  If the local community is going to allow development pressure, then it is they, and the consttuents who need to be educated as to best practices and why they should be responsilble for the cost of determining the actual level of risk when development is allowed to occur.

Get involved in your local community on this issue and help educate the laypersons and building and development officials. 

If you choose rather just to complain about FEMA and their floodplain mapping, then you really are just the same as the layperson as you don't have a clear understanding of what and why zone A w/o BFE exists. Be a professiona, educate yourself and those whom rely upon your status as a professional.
You might find it to be quite beneficial to be known in your area as someone with a clear understanding of NFIP, FIRM, FIS, Floodplain, Floodway and FEMA.

I know I have.

Average Joe

That's fine.

But I think the government has an "obligation" to be very concise and specific when they impede and devalue a U.S. citizens rights to excercise ALL HIS/HER RIGHTS to the use of his/her property . . . often to the complete excusion of any rights, excepting to walk it and enjoy the wildlife.

I don't care about the cost . . .   If the cost is too great in a more undeveloped area, then DO NOTHING more than to publish the maps with a warning that anyone who builds in that area will suffer any consequenses regarding flooding, UNLESS they "choose" to spend gobs of money to more concisely or more specifically define the limits of the impediments the federal government has placed upon their property.

Personally, I think the (*$%^%#$^(^ government has no right to come in and place "undefined" restrictions on properties.

S1969:

I've witnessed far too many negative consequences resulting from unrestricted development in floodplains.
With that consideration, I find it difficult to believe you have the full comprehension necessary to provide professional guidance to the public regarding this subject matter. 

Requiring owners to develop an understanding of the risk factors on lands within an identified floodplain for the sake of public health and safety, and for the realization of insurability, is an objective I fully support.

What the FEMA has done is akin to making a super highway with vaying speed limits, not telling anyone what those speed limits are or where they are and then penalizing the public for non-compliance.

I suppose a driver can hire a professional engineer to determine(for him), at a substantial cost, where and how fast he can "probably" go without getting into trouble.

It surreal to expect a homebuilder, who is already strapped to the limit with outrageous and ever climbing permits costs, septic costs, inspections costs and what-have-you, to now add the substantial costs of doing what the federal government should've done in the first place.

Might I add, that in the 1970's virually NONE OF THIS PROPERTY EVER FLOODED.  BUT of course in the late 60's and early 70's the state of Ohio began a program to re-introduce and repopulate the beaver population . . . just to add more problems to the citizenry.

Plain and simple, the government has no problem with impeding a private home-owner's use of his or her property.

THE least they can do, aside from THEM determining the BFE, is to make landowners aware of the problem EDUCATE them as to the BEST solution and inform them that they WILL NOT be eligible for flood insurance if they don't proceed with certain cautions.

Quite honestly, this is a bunch of unmitigated bull$#$%$^%$^%$ and I personally think the viewpoint of a former government employee might be a little biased in favor of the government at the cost of the citizenry.

S1969,

What would be your answer?

A.  Have the federal government fund detailed flood studies for all zone A lands to create accurate BFE's?
B.  Require local governments fund detailed flood studies for all zone A lands to create accurate BFE's?
C.  Have FEMa remove Zone A from mapping and only show those special hazard areas which have had detailed studies performed?
D.  Disallow local governments from requiring engineer studies for Zone A lands?
E.  Disallow FEMA from revising a Zone A boundary except where a detailed study has been performed which results in accurate BFE data?
F.  Other?

I would first off require citizens who want to assume responsibility for building in a noted, but not accurately determine flood zone to be educated as to the dangers and all that shistuff, then, as long as they're not in a floodway, build with no flood insurance(their choice).

If the citizen is willing to foot the bill for a costly flood study, then in a fashion similar to sanitary sewers, require home builders, who are now benefitting from the detailed flood study pay a fee(relatively small), when they build in the next 10-20 years.

This would still not be fair to the citizenry.  

Basically, I feel the owner has the right to benefit from his/her land the same as everyone else.  

In this particular case, these rules are so screwed up that my client actually is getting screwed because a previous owner had already built the land almost twice as high than my client would've been required to do, if the first house was never built.

The remedies that are in place now, are just plane and simply unrealistic and lack common sense in too many ways.

SURV1969:
I would first off require citizens who want to assume responsibility for building in a noted, but not accurately determine flood zone to be educated as to the dangers and all that shistuff, then, as long as they're not in a floodway, build with no flood insurance(their choice).

 

If the BFE has not been determined since there has been no detailed study, then it holds that the floodway has not been determined either.

SURV1969:
Basically, I feel the owner has the right to benefit from his/her land the same as everyone else.  

 

Bear in mind that construction in a floodplain can adversely affect adjoining owners due to the potential for decreasing flood storage volume. Often it is insignificant on the individual basis but can cause considerable flood elevation change on a cumulative case.


From your comments, it appears the issue you have is really not with FEMA, their flood maps, or the NFIP in general.  What it appears to me is that you are in disagreement with the local agency policies on development within a floodplain.  FEMA does not regulate how local development occurs.  Rather this is the authority of the local building officials.

Note that those who do build in areas subject to flooding can purchase flood insurance policies.  The cost of these policies are not only dictated by the building specifics such as elevation above the 100 yr flood. 

The costs of flood insurance are also dictated on the community rating in the NFIP program.  If a community is proactive and works to address a wide number of NFIP criteria, then the citizens of that community will benefit by lower rates.  Some of these criteria are things such as maintaining a high order benchmark system in the affected community. 

Basically the NFIP and FEMA encourage the local community to be educated on those things which will reduce the loss of property and lives in catastrophic flood events. This is not only in the interest of maintaining the value of improvements, but more signficantly in protecting public health and safety.

I'll say that once again:  "protecting public health and safety".  If you disagree with that mantra of your local community, then good luck in your endeavor of trying to change how your building officials and local elected officials have been addressing development within a floodplain.

What's getting lost here are people's rights.

If you or I performed a service to determine hazards and to determine that properties are either unbuildable or required additional, costly compensations . . . WITHOUT ACCURATELY DENOTING THOSE HAZARDS . . . and additionally tell property owners they can not fully use their properties unless and until, AT THE LEAST, they suffer the monetary loss of relatively large sums of money, we'd be held in ridicule and probably suffer monetary loss for stealing the value of the citizen's land.

These "flood" areas affect . . . in each community . . . hundreds of land-owners, that are now strapped with proving the guestimated data from the federal government that has now emperiled the use of their land . . . to a great extent.

These maps should be treated for exactly what they are . . . hard toilet paper, that quite literally scratches the booties of thousands of citizens in the United States . . . WITH NO DEFINED PARAMETERS.

AND you think for a minute, that the costs of ACCURATELY DETERMINING the limits of these areas shouldn't at the last be bore within the millions of wasted tax dollars . . . of which these land owners also pay.

This whole program steps all over the rights of citizens and no one who garners money from servicing the succars who find themselve caught up in this, or earn monies from the organizations that control or direct the program and it's many, many, many fingers that reach out into all these little communities . . . seem to think there's much of anything wrong with the program and it's impact on people's rights.

My gawd, we have areas here where there's no BFE.  I tthink drugg-ridden smoke doping hippies of the local colleges, on some sort of government giveaway program got to draw lines in the most ungoddliest of places in their dialated rose-colored glasses . . . probably having a good laugh the next day or betting who can make the most outrageous flood limit determination.

I can tell you this, no one but a person in some sort of "stuper", could draw some of the lines that exist in in some of these maps.

BTW . . . the topo maps of the 60's and 70's  were basically pretty darn good and serve as a truly poor excuse for the reason that are most often used to explain how bad these maps are.  Druggs, dope and programs to hire no-carem college students seem to a more reasonable excuse.

How in the ^%^&( does one get a flood A zone up a 20-30 foot hill, while 400 feet away a whole strech of the actual river(the sourse of the flood), lies outside the flood A zone(no BFE)?  I have seen this scenerio so much in northeast Ohio, that I hate even looking at these maps.


AND STILL . . . you feel it's right that the land-owner living next to the river gets a free pass, while the guy on top the hill has to pay to have a BFE determined to the tun of thousands of dollars.

This is one of the most obnoxious examples of a government agency gone wild.

At the least, maybe they should've hired hot chicks with tiny bikinis and we could've at least gotten a half-way descent calendar out of the whole %$^&^%^ thing.

There's no excuse . . . no way.

Mapping is pretty good around here.  The zone A w/no BFE are generally reasonable.  Many are at a small scale so determining the line location is difficult. But then again, it is an approximation and shouldn't be relied on anyways.
However, FEMA has done a decent job of identifying areas of special flood hazard around here.  I have no complaints.

Perhaps it is a regional issue as to quality of mapping by FEMA, but without actually reviewing the areas you describe I can only speculate as to what is really going on.  All I can comment on is the area I practice and they've done a good job here.