Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Perimeter Levee
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-1041-DR-TX; Ponderosa Joint Powers Agency; DSR 31991
Cross
Reference: Pre-disaster conditions, Hazard mitigation
Summary: The levee along Cypress Creek, that protects the Ponderosa Joint Powers Agency (PJPA) Sewage Treatment Plant from flooding, sustained damage as a result of the declared event. DSR 31991 was prepared to document the damages, and was suspended pending the Architect-Engineer's (A&E) proposal for repair. On February 7, 1995, PJPA requested funding in the amount of $326,554 based on a contractor's bid for the levee repairs. The proposed work included work that exceeded what was necessary to restore the facility to its pre-disaster condition, including driving sheetpiling and adding rip rap as hazard mitigation. DSR 31991 was approved in the amount of $88,866 with a scope of work that included setting back the levee and placing rip rap for slope protection. The set-back was determined to be what was required to restore the damaged levee, and the rip rap was included as hazard mitigation. PJPA's first appeal was denied, because a benefit/cost analysis showed that the sheet pile alternative was not cost beneficial hazard mitigation. However, a technical review performed during the first appeal concluded that a longer set back would have been required. The funding was increased to $102,673 to include the cost of the 170 linear feet of set-back, rip rap slope protection for the creek bank, and an engineering and design allowance. PJPA stated in their second appeal that 170 linear feet of set back would not have been a feasible alternative, and they are requesting that FEMA provide full funding for their selected alternative.
Issues: 1) Should FEMA adjust the cost estimate for restoration of the levee?
2) Should FEMA provide additional funding for hazard mitigation?
Findings: 1) No. The funding provided to date would have been sufficient to restore the facility to its pre-disaster function.
2) No. FEMA has provided funding for a cost effective hazard mitigation alternative.
Rationale: The Stafford Act allows for the cost of repairing a public facility only to a condition as it existed immediately prior to a major disaster. Funding for cost effective hazard mitigation measure is available on a discretionary basis.
The levee along Cypress Creek, that protects the Ponderosa Joint Powers Agency (PJPA) Sewage Treatment Plant from flooding, sustained damage as a result of the declared event. The plant is operated by the PJPA. The plant is surrounded on all sides by an eight-foot high levee. The section of the levee that sustained damage was 70-feet long. The levee failed due to the erosion of the adjacent creek bank. On December 1, 1994, Damage Survey Report (DSR) 31991 was prepared to document the damage to the levee and was subsequently suspended pending the Architect-Engineer's (A&E) proposal for repair.
By letter dated February 7, 1995, the PJPA submitted a request for funding in the amount of $326,554 based on a contractor's bid for the levee repairs. The proposed work, however, included work that exceeded what was necessary to restore the facility to its pre-disaster condition, including driving sheet piling to restore the levee's foundation and adding rip rap as hazard mitigation. A letter dated February 24, 1995 was sent by FEMA to the State that stated that the additional work, sheet pile driving and rip rap placement, is not eligible as restorative work. Accordingly, the letter stated that FEMA would not fund the PJPA's proposed project; however, FEMA would provide $21,131 to fund a levee set-back alternative, setting 120 linear feet of the levee back away from the creek. Restoring the levee to its pre-disaster condition along its original alignment was not a feasible alternative, due to inevitable future erosion of the creek bank. The set-back alternative was determined to be cost effective hazard mitigation and; therefore, eligible for FEMA funding.
At the request of the PJPA, a meeting was held at the Disaster Field Office to discuss the project, which was already under construction. By letter dated March 2, 1995, the PJPA provided additional information, including the fact that they had considered a levee set-back alternative. The PJPA's set-back alternative, that included a set-back of 400 linear feet of the levee, was less costly than the sheet piling alternative. After a review of the additional documentation, FEMA responded by letter on the same day (March 2, 1995). The 400 linear foot set-back alternative was considered to be excessive. The letter stated that FEMA funding would be limited to that amount estimated to have been required for a 150 linear foot set-back alternative, with rip rap placement as hazard mitigation. The cost estimate for this alternative was determined to be $88,866 based on PJPA bid costs and estimates where possible. This cost estimate included $26,962 for rip rap placement as hazard mitigation.
First Appeal
The PJPA submitted its first appeal of this determination through the state by letter dated March 9, 1995. On April 7, 1995, the Regional Director provided an interim response to the first appeal, which approved the $88,866. DSR 31991 was approved for that amount on April, 10, 1995. The interim response noted that technical assistance was being sought in order to aid in the first appeal review. The funding for the project could be adjusted as a result of the technical review.
The main point that PJPA based their first appeal on is that if the set-back alternative had been chosen, it would have been necessary to set-back 400 linear feet of levee. This was stated in a geotechnical report that PJPA submitted in support of their appeal. PJPA stated in their appeal letter that 150 feet of set-back would have been inadequate, because the alignment of the levee section adjacent to the damaged section would have to be adjusted to tie-in to the set-back portion.
An independent technical contractor (PaRR) was tasked with reviewing the project to determine the level of work necessary to restore the levee section to pre-disaster condition. A draft report of the results of the review was submitted to FEMA by letter dated August 16, 1995. The report concluded that in order to restore the levee to its pre-disaster condition 170 linear feet of levee would have to be set-back from its original alignment. PaRR's alternative would allow for the damaged section of the levee (70 linear feet) to be set-back a distance of 20 feet from its original centerline. The remaining 100 linear feet of set-back length would be necessary to tie the set-back portion back into the existing levee. PJPA's set-back alternative called for the damaged section of levee to be set back a distance of 40 feet from its original centerline, which was determined by PaRR to be excessive.
The estimated cost of restoring the damaged facility to its pre-disaster condition (the 170 foot set-back alternative) was determined based on unit bid prices and estimates provided by PJPA. This cost, $73,948, was determined to be the amount of eligible funding. The sheet pile retaining wall alternative exceeded the requirement for restoration only to pre-disaster conditions; therefore, the first appeal was denied.
The first appeal response addressed the hazard mitigation issue, as well. Two hazard mitigation proposals were reviewed, although the work had already been completed. The first proposal reviewed was the placement of rip rap to protect the slope with a cost estimate of $20,160; this alternative was found to be cost beneficial. An additional $5,242 ($73,948+$20,160-$88,866), plus an engineering and design allowance of $8,565, was obligated, bringing the total funding amount to $102,673. The sheet pile alternative was also reviewed. The total cost of the project was $309,734. Because the cost of restoring the facility was determined to be $73,948, the remaining cost of the sheet pile alternative, $235,786, was attributed to the cost of hazard mitigation. This alternative was found not to be cost beneficial; therefore, it was not eligible for funding.
Second Appeal
PJPA submitted a second appeal by letter dated October 22, 1996 through the State by letter dated December 10, 1996. The State recommends that the eligible funding be increased to at least $178,700 plus the applicable A&E allowance. The cost of the 400 linear foot set-back alternative was estimated by PJPA's geotechnical consultant to be $178,700. The State feels as though this is the alternative that would have been required in order to restore the facility so that it provides its pre-disaster level of protection.
The PJPA states in their appeal letter that the assumptions and conclusions in PaRR's report are flawed. Specifically, PJPA's geotechnical consultant evaluated the 170 foot set-back alternative and concluded that the design would result in frequent slope failures along the creek side of the levee. Further, PJPA states that FEMA's benefit/cost analysis was "skewed by failure to recognize site restraints and by oversimplifications." PJPA responded to the PaRR report by letter dated November 15, 1995. A copy of this letter and a copy of a letter dated November 3, 1995 from PJPA's geotechnical consultant, HVJ Associates, Inc., have been submitted in support of the second appeal. The main points brought out in the two letters are summarized in the Discussion below.
PJPA's second appeal concludes by stating that the levee could not have been restored unless the foundation was restored and protected. Further, they state that additional funding should be authorized for hazard mitigation, because restoration of the levee foundation will preempt frequent damage to the levee in the future.
DISCUSSION
Work to restore a damaged eligible facility on the basis of the design of the facility as it existed prior to the disaster is eligible. If restoration to pre-disaster design is not feasible due to constructibility issues or site constraints, the most cost effective wa bgation may also be eligible.
In this case, restoration of the levee to its pre-disaster condition was not feasible. PJPA repaired the damages based on recommendations provided to them by their geotechnical consultant, HVJ Associates. While their chosen alternative may be a well engineered solution, the issue is whether or not the levee's function could have been restored by a more cost effective alternative. Because PJPA went ahead with their alternative prior to FEMA's approval, we are forced to determine what the eligible costs are after the fact. FEMA determined, based on technical reviews, that the most cost effective method of restoring the pre-disaster function of the levee would have been the 170 foot set-back alternative; therefore, this alternative was determined to be eligible for funding.
PJPA is arguing two main points:
1. PJPA and HVJ contend that PaRR's suggested alternative would not have been a feasible alternative.
2. PJPA and HVJ disagree with many of the assumptions used by FEMA in the Benefit/Cost Analysis.
PJPA and HVJ have brought up many specific points related to the feasibility of the 170 linear foot set-back alternative in their letters responding to the PaRR report and the first appeal determination. These points are summarized below, and our response to each point is italicized.
HVJ Associates, Inc. letter dated November 3, 1995
u The Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) Design Criteria and accepted practice based on local experience substantiate the 3H:1V slope and the 400 foot set-back length as presented in HVJ Associates Report No. 94-227G. The 2.5H:1V design slope presented in the PaRR report is not allowed under local design criteria. The PaRR report suggests cutting the creek bank slope back to a 2.5H:1V and setting the levee back from its original alignment to provide a 15-foot wide berm between the bank and the creekside toe of the levee. The criteria that HVJ is referencing is The Criteria Manual for the Design of Flood Control and Drainage Facilities in Harris County, Texas. The manual states that "Maximum earthen side slopes should be 3H:1V." PaRR is not recommending that the design slope of the levee be 2.5H:1V. Cutting the creek bank slope back is not considered to be a design of a Flood Control or Drainage Facility; it simply provides a more stable slope for the creek bank than what was left as a result of the disaster. Further, HVJ states that "slopes steeper than 3H:1V were used on the project due to the constraints imposed on the construction by site boundaries." This implies that PJPA is not required to strictly adhere to the design criteria and that the 2.5H:1V slope for the creek bank, as suggested in the PaRR report, would be acceptable. If the creek bank is cut back to a 2.5H:1V slope, the levee would not have to be set back as far as HVJ suggested in their original report and the required length of set-back would be less than 400 feet. The linear feet of levee to be set-back is closely related to the slope of the creek bank. If the creek bank is cut to a 3H:1V slope (flatter than 2.5H:1V) as suggested by HVJ, the levee would have to be set farther back from its original alignment than if the creek bank was cut at a 2.5H:1V slope. By limiting the distance that the levee is set back from its original alignment, the length of the levee set-back is also limited. In other words, as you set the levee further back, a longer length is required in order to provide for a gradual transition to tie the levee back into the existing levee in its original alignment.
u The PaRR report "erroneously discounted" the need to consider rapid drawdown in the slope stability analysis. HVJ states that although the slope failure at issue was not caused by rapid drawdown, rapid drawdown is a legitimate design concern when the local sand is used for the construction of dikes or levees. The factor of safety of the slope as it existed prior to the disaster was calculated by HVJ to be 0.41, when extreme pore water pressures were taken into account. This indicates that the slope was unstable during rapid drawdown conditions. This was a pre-existing condition that was not related to the disaster. Therefore, considering rapid drawdown when determining the work eligible for FEMA funding is inappropriate. Although rapid drawdown is a legitimate design concern, we must consider the pre-disaster condition of the facility when determining funding eligibility.
u "The constraints on this project due to limited extent of property owned upstream of the site was neglected. These constraints limit the effectiveness of the erosion control measures implemented" as part of the alternative identified in the PaRR report as the more cost effective alternative. This comment is referring to the fact that there is a storm sewer outlet located just upstream of the repaired area on land that is not owned by the PJPA. This pipe is owned by the HCFCD. HVJ states that the rip rap included as part of PaRR's chosen alternative would have to extend upstream of the repaired area in order to protect the repaired slope from erosion due to the location of the storm sewer outlet. The problems due to the location of the storm sewer outlet were not caused by the disaster. In fact, the location of the storm sewer outlet most likely contributed to the creek bank erosion which led to the levee failure at issue.
PJPA letter dated November 15, 1995
u "Limiting the restoration to slide repair is an oversimplification of the problem." "The sheet piling as installed will prevent undermining of the levee foundation from tractive force caused by the current and the eddies from upstream." If FEMA had suggested restoring the levee in its pre-disaster alignment, this comment would be relevant. FEMA did not suggest simply restoring the failed slope, but did suggest a cost effective alternative for restoring the facility to its pre-disaster function, the 170 foot set-back alternative. The set-back alternative does not limit the restoration to slide repair; it provides for a stable foundation for the levee further away from the creek. Although setting the levee back does not eliminate the problem of the meandering creek and other problems associated with the preexisting erosion situation, it does restore the pre-disaster function of the levee.
u The project implemented was the most viable alternative and resulted in a project to the benefit of local, state and federal authorities having jurisdiction." Although this is true, FEMA funding is limited to projects that restore damaged facilities to their pre-disaster condition in the most cost- effective manner. As previously discussed, a hazard mitigation project may be eligible for funding; however, the hazard mitigation measure must have a favorable Benefit/Cost Ratio (BC ratio) greater than 1.
In addition to the points brought up by PJPA and HVJ related to the technical aspects of the repair alternatives, both PJPA and HVJ dispute various assumptions that were made for the Benefit/Cost Analyses (BCA) that were performed by FEMA. FEMA analyzed two mitigation alternatives, PJPA's sheetpile alternative and the placement of rip rap on the creek bank. The sheet pile alternative was determined not to be cost beneficial, because the Benefit/Cost Ratio (BC ratio) was less than one. The BC ratio for the rip rap alternative was greater than one; therefore, it was determined to be cost beneficial.
Even if the BCA were performed again taking PJPA's and HVJ's comments into account and the BC ratio for the sheet pile alternative was determined to be greater than one, this would not make the sheet pile alternative eligible for funding. Funds for hazard mitigation are available on a discretionary basis. Typically, wheastlternative that is the most cost beneficial. When combined with the set-back of the levee, the rip rap alternative provides a stable foundation for the levee along with erosion protection for the creek bank, and it is much less expensive than the sheet pile alternative.
CONCLUSION
PJPA's second appeal of the approved funding amount for the levee repairs should be denied. The suggested alternative of 170 linear feet of levee set-back combined with the placement of rip rap on the creek bank would have been a cost effective method for restoring the levee and provides cost effective hazard mitigation.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1041-DR |
| Applicant | Ponderosa Joint Powers Agency |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 201-90101 |
| PW ID# | 31991 |
| Date Signed | 1997-05-21T04:00:00 |
Citation: FEMA-1041-DR-TX; Ponderosa Joint Powers Agency; DSR 31991
Cross
Reference: Pre-disaster conditions, Hazard mitigation
Summary: The levee along Cypress Creek, that protects the Ponderosa Joint Powers Agency (PJPA) Sewage Treatment Plant from flooding, sustained damage as a result of the declared event. DSR 31991 was prepared to document the damages, and was suspended pending the Architect-Engineer's (A&E) proposal for repair. On February 7, 1995, PJPA requested funding in the amount of $326,554 based on a contractor's bid for the levee repairs. The proposed work included work that exceeded what was necessary to restore the facility to its pre-disaster condition, including driving sheetpiling and adding rip rap as hazard mitigation. DSR 31991 was approved in the amount of $88,866 with a scope of work that included setting back the levee and placing rip rap for slope protection. The set-back was determined to be what was required to restore the damaged levee, and the rip rap was included as hazard mitigation. PJPA's first appeal was denied, because a benefit/cost analysis showed that the sheet pile alternative was not cost beneficial hazard mitigation. However, a technical review performed during the first appeal concluded that a longer set back would have been required. The funding was increased to $102,673 to include the cost of the 170 linear feet of set-back, rip rap slope protection for the creek bank, and an engineering and design allowance. PJPA stated in their second appeal that 170 linear feet of set back would not have been a feasible alternative, and they are requesting that FEMA provide full funding for their selected alternative.
Issues: 1) Should FEMA adjust the cost estimate for restoration of the levee?
2) Should FEMA provide additional funding for hazard mitigation?
Findings: 1) No. The funding provided to date would have been sufficient to restore the facility to its pre-disaster function.
2) No. FEMA has provided funding for a cost effective hazard mitigation alternative.
Rationale: The Stafford Act allows for the cost of repairing a public facility only to a condition as it existed immediately prior to a major disaster. Funding for cost effective hazard mitigation measure is available on a discretionary basis.
Appeal Letter
May 21, 1997
Mr. Moises S. Dugan
Alternate Governor's Authorized Representative
Texas Department of Public Safety
Post Office Box 4087
Austin, TX 78773-001
Dear Mr. Dugan:
This letter is in response to your December 10, 1996, submittal of the Ponderosa Joint Powers Agency's second appeal of Damage Survey Report (DSR) 31991 under FEMA-1041-DR-TX. The applicant is requesting additional funding for the repair of damages to the levee surrounding their wastewater treatment plant.
While the applicant's chosen alternative may be a well engineered solution, the levee's function could have been restored by a more cost effective alternative. It has been determined, based on technical reviews, that the most cost effective method of restoring the pre-disaster function of the levee is the 170 foot set-back alternative. The funding that has been provided to date is sufficient to both restore the damaged facility and to provide for a cost effective hazard mitigation measure. After review of the documentation submitted, I have denied this appeal for the reasons explained in the attached appeal analysis.
Please inform the applicant of this determination and their right to submit a third appeal pursuant to 44 CFR 206.206(e).
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
Mr. Moises S. Dugan
Alternate Governor's Authorized Representative
Texas Department of Public Safety
Post Office Box 4087
Austin, TX 78773-001
Dear Mr. Dugan:
This letter is in response to your December 10, 1996, submittal of the Ponderosa Joint Powers Agency's second appeal of Damage Survey Report (DSR) 31991 under FEMA-1041-DR-TX. The applicant is requesting additional funding for the repair of damages to the levee surrounding their wastewater treatment plant.
While the applicant's chosen alternative may be a well engineered solution, the levee's function could have been restored by a more cost effective alternative. It has been determined, based on technical reviews, that the most cost effective method of restoring the pre-disaster function of the levee is the 170 foot set-back alternative. The funding that has been provided to date is sufficient to both restore the damaged facility and to provide for a cost effective hazard mitigation measure. After review of the documentation submitted, I have denied this appeal for the reasons explained in the attached appeal analysis.
Please inform the applicant of this determination and their right to submit a third appeal pursuant to 44 CFR 206.206(e).
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDThe levee along Cypress Creek, that protects the Ponderosa Joint Powers Agency (PJPA) Sewage Treatment Plant from flooding, sustained damage as a result of the declared event. The plant is operated by the PJPA. The plant is surrounded on all sides by an eight-foot high levee. The section of the levee that sustained damage was 70-feet long. The levee failed due to the erosion of the adjacent creek bank. On December 1, 1994, Damage Survey Report (DSR) 31991 was prepared to document the damage to the levee and was subsequently suspended pending the Architect-Engineer's (A&E) proposal for repair.
By letter dated February 7, 1995, the PJPA submitted a request for funding in the amount of $326,554 based on a contractor's bid for the levee repairs. The proposed work, however, included work that exceeded what was necessary to restore the facility to its pre-disaster condition, including driving sheet piling to restore the levee's foundation and adding rip rap as hazard mitigation. A letter dated February 24, 1995 was sent by FEMA to the State that stated that the additional work, sheet pile driving and rip rap placement, is not eligible as restorative work. Accordingly, the letter stated that FEMA would not fund the PJPA's proposed project; however, FEMA would provide $21,131 to fund a levee set-back alternative, setting 120 linear feet of the levee back away from the creek. Restoring the levee to its pre-disaster condition along its original alignment was not a feasible alternative, due to inevitable future erosion of the creek bank. The set-back alternative was determined to be cost effective hazard mitigation and; therefore, eligible for FEMA funding.
At the request of the PJPA, a meeting was held at the Disaster Field Office to discuss the project, which was already under construction. By letter dated March 2, 1995, the PJPA provided additional information, including the fact that they had considered a levee set-back alternative. The PJPA's set-back alternative, that included a set-back of 400 linear feet of the levee, was less costly than the sheet piling alternative. After a review of the additional documentation, FEMA responded by letter on the same day (March 2, 1995). The 400 linear foot set-back alternative was considered to be excessive. The letter stated that FEMA funding would be limited to that amount estimated to have been required for a 150 linear foot set-back alternative, with rip rap placement as hazard mitigation. The cost estimate for this alternative was determined to be $88,866 based on PJPA bid costs and estimates where possible. This cost estimate included $26,962 for rip rap placement as hazard mitigation.
First Appeal
The PJPA submitted its first appeal of this determination through the state by letter dated March 9, 1995. On April 7, 1995, the Regional Director provided an interim response to the first appeal, which approved the $88,866. DSR 31991 was approved for that amount on April, 10, 1995. The interim response noted that technical assistance was being sought in order to aid in the first appeal review. The funding for the project could be adjusted as a result of the technical review.
The main point that PJPA based their first appeal on is that if the set-back alternative had been chosen, it would have been necessary to set-back 400 linear feet of levee. This was stated in a geotechnical report that PJPA submitted in support of their appeal. PJPA stated in their appeal letter that 150 feet of set-back would have been inadequate, because the alignment of the levee section adjacent to the damaged section would have to be adjusted to tie-in to the set-back portion.
An independent technical contractor (PaRR) was tasked with reviewing the project to determine the level of work necessary to restore the levee section to pre-disaster condition. A draft report of the results of the review was submitted to FEMA by letter dated August 16, 1995. The report concluded that in order to restore the levee to its pre-disaster condition 170 linear feet of levee would have to be set-back from its original alignment. PaRR's alternative would allow for the damaged section of the levee (70 linear feet) to be set-back a distance of 20 feet from its original centerline. The remaining 100 linear feet of set-back length would be necessary to tie the set-back portion back into the existing levee. PJPA's set-back alternative called for the damaged section of levee to be set back a distance of 40 feet from its original centerline, which was determined by PaRR to be excessive.
The estimated cost of restoring the damaged facility to its pre-disaster condition (the 170 foot set-back alternative) was determined based on unit bid prices and estimates provided by PJPA. This cost, $73,948, was determined to be the amount of eligible funding. The sheet pile retaining wall alternative exceeded the requirement for restoration only to pre-disaster conditions; therefore, the first appeal was denied.
The first appeal response addressed the hazard mitigation issue, as well. Two hazard mitigation proposals were reviewed, although the work had already been completed. The first proposal reviewed was the placement of rip rap to protect the slope with a cost estimate of $20,160; this alternative was found to be cost beneficial. An additional $5,242 ($73,948+$20,160-$88,866), plus an engineering and design allowance of $8,565, was obligated, bringing the total funding amount to $102,673. The sheet pile alternative was also reviewed. The total cost of the project was $309,734. Because the cost of restoring the facility was determined to be $73,948, the remaining cost of the sheet pile alternative, $235,786, was attributed to the cost of hazard mitigation. This alternative was found not to be cost beneficial; therefore, it was not eligible for funding.
Second Appeal
PJPA submitted a second appeal by letter dated October 22, 1996 through the State by letter dated December 10, 1996. The State recommends that the eligible funding be increased to at least $178,700 plus the applicable A&E allowance. The cost of the 400 linear foot set-back alternative was estimated by PJPA's geotechnical consultant to be $178,700. The State feels as though this is the alternative that would have been required in order to restore the facility so that it provides its pre-disaster level of protection.
The PJPA states in their appeal letter that the assumptions and conclusions in PaRR's report are flawed. Specifically, PJPA's geotechnical consultant evaluated the 170 foot set-back alternative and concluded that the design would result in frequent slope failures along the creek side of the levee. Further, PJPA states that FEMA's benefit/cost analysis was "skewed by failure to recognize site restraints and by oversimplifications." PJPA responded to the PaRR report by letter dated November 15, 1995. A copy of this letter and a copy of a letter dated November 3, 1995 from PJPA's geotechnical consultant, HVJ Associates, Inc., have been submitted in support of the second appeal. The main points brought out in the two letters are summarized in the Discussion below.
PJPA's second appeal concludes by stating that the levee could not have been restored unless the foundation was restored and protected. Further, they state that additional funding should be authorized for hazard mitigation, because restoration of the levee foundation will preempt frequent damage to the levee in the future.
DISCUSSION
Work to restore a damaged eligible facility on the basis of the design of the facility as it existed prior to the disaster is eligible. If restoration to pre-disaster design is not feasible due to constructibility issues or site constraints, the most cost effective wa bgation may also be eligible.
In this case, restoration of the levee to its pre-disaster condition was not feasible. PJPA repaired the damages based on recommendations provided to them by their geotechnical consultant, HVJ Associates. While their chosen alternative may be a well engineered solution, the issue is whether or not the levee's function could have been restored by a more cost effective alternative. Because PJPA went ahead with their alternative prior to FEMA's approval, we are forced to determine what the eligible costs are after the fact. FEMA determined, based on technical reviews, that the most cost effective method of restoring the pre-disaster function of the levee would have been the 170 foot set-back alternative; therefore, this alternative was determined to be eligible for funding.
PJPA is arguing two main points:
1. PJPA and HVJ contend that PaRR's suggested alternative would not have been a feasible alternative.
2. PJPA and HVJ disagree with many of the assumptions used by FEMA in the Benefit/Cost Analysis.
PJPA and HVJ have brought up many specific points related to the feasibility of the 170 linear foot set-back alternative in their letters responding to the PaRR report and the first appeal determination. These points are summarized below, and our response to each point is italicized.
HVJ Associates, Inc. letter dated November 3, 1995
u The Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) Design Criteria and accepted practice based on local experience substantiate the 3H:1V slope and the 400 foot set-back length as presented in HVJ Associates Report No. 94-227G. The 2.5H:1V design slope presented in the PaRR report is not allowed under local design criteria. The PaRR report suggests cutting the creek bank slope back to a 2.5H:1V and setting the levee back from its original alignment to provide a 15-foot wide berm between the bank and the creekside toe of the levee. The criteria that HVJ is referencing is The Criteria Manual for the Design of Flood Control and Drainage Facilities in Harris County, Texas. The manual states that "Maximum earthen side slopes should be 3H:1V." PaRR is not recommending that the design slope of the levee be 2.5H:1V. Cutting the creek bank slope back is not considered to be a design of a Flood Control or Drainage Facility; it simply provides a more stable slope for the creek bank than what was left as a result of the disaster. Further, HVJ states that "slopes steeper than 3H:1V were used on the project due to the constraints imposed on the construction by site boundaries." This implies that PJPA is not required to strictly adhere to the design criteria and that the 2.5H:1V slope for the creek bank, as suggested in the PaRR report, would be acceptable. If the creek bank is cut back to a 2.5H:1V slope, the levee would not have to be set back as far as HVJ suggested in their original report and the required length of set-back would be less than 400 feet. The linear feet of levee to be set-back is closely related to the slope of the creek bank. If the creek bank is cut to a 3H:1V slope (flatter than 2.5H:1V) as suggested by HVJ, the levee would have to be set farther back from its original alignment than if the creek bank was cut at a 2.5H:1V slope. By limiting the distance that the levee is set back from its original alignment, the length of the levee set-back is also limited. In other words, as you set the levee further back, a longer length is required in order to provide for a gradual transition to tie the levee back into the existing levee in its original alignment.
u The PaRR report "erroneously discounted" the need to consider rapid drawdown in the slope stability analysis. HVJ states that although the slope failure at issue was not caused by rapid drawdown, rapid drawdown is a legitimate design concern when the local sand is used for the construction of dikes or levees. The factor of safety of the slope as it existed prior to the disaster was calculated by HVJ to be 0.41, when extreme pore water pressures were taken into account. This indicates that the slope was unstable during rapid drawdown conditions. This was a pre-existing condition that was not related to the disaster. Therefore, considering rapid drawdown when determining the work eligible for FEMA funding is inappropriate. Although rapid drawdown is a legitimate design concern, we must consider the pre-disaster condition of the facility when determining funding eligibility.
u "The constraints on this project due to limited extent of property owned upstream of the site was neglected. These constraints limit the effectiveness of the erosion control measures implemented" as part of the alternative identified in the PaRR report as the more cost effective alternative. This comment is referring to the fact that there is a storm sewer outlet located just upstream of the repaired area on land that is not owned by the PJPA. This pipe is owned by the HCFCD. HVJ states that the rip rap included as part of PaRR's chosen alternative would have to extend upstream of the repaired area in order to protect the repaired slope from erosion due to the location of the storm sewer outlet. The problems due to the location of the storm sewer outlet were not caused by the disaster. In fact, the location of the storm sewer outlet most likely contributed to the creek bank erosion which led to the levee failure at issue.
PJPA letter dated November 15, 1995
u "Limiting the restoration to slide repair is an oversimplification of the problem." "The sheet piling as installed will prevent undermining of the levee foundation from tractive force caused by the current and the eddies from upstream." If FEMA had suggested restoring the levee in its pre-disaster alignment, this comment would be relevant. FEMA did not suggest simply restoring the failed slope, but did suggest a cost effective alternative for restoring the facility to its pre-disaster function, the 170 foot set-back alternative. The set-back alternative does not limit the restoration to slide repair; it provides for a stable foundation for the levee further away from the creek. Although setting the levee back does not eliminate the problem of the meandering creek and other problems associated with the preexisting erosion situation, it does restore the pre-disaster function of the levee.
u The project implemented was the most viable alternative and resulted in a project to the benefit of local, state and federal authorities having jurisdiction." Although this is true, FEMA funding is limited to projects that restore damaged facilities to their pre-disaster condition in the most cost- effective manner. As previously discussed, a hazard mitigation project may be eligible for funding; however, the hazard mitigation measure must have a favorable Benefit/Cost Ratio (BC ratio) greater than 1.
In addition to the points brought up by PJPA and HVJ related to the technical aspects of the repair alternatives, both PJPA and HVJ dispute various assumptions that were made for the Benefit/Cost Analyses (BCA) that were performed by FEMA. FEMA analyzed two mitigation alternatives, PJPA's sheetpile alternative and the placement of rip rap on the creek bank. The sheet pile alternative was determined not to be cost beneficial, because the Benefit/Cost Ratio (BC ratio) was less than one. The BC ratio for the rip rap alternative was greater than one; therefore, it was determined to be cost beneficial.
Even if the BCA were performed again taking PJPA's and HVJ's comments into account and the BC ratio for the sheet pile alternative was determined to be greater than one, this would not make the sheet pile alternative eligible for funding. Funds for hazard mitigation are available on a discretionary basis. Typically, wheastlternative that is the most cost beneficial. When combined with the set-back of the levee, the rip rap alternative provides a stable foundation for the levee along with erosion protection for the creek bank, and it is much less expensive than the sheet pile alternative.
CONCLUSION
PJPA's second appeal of the approved funding amount for the levee repairs should be denied. The suggested alternative of 170 linear feet of levee set-back combined with the placement of rip rap on the creek bank would have been a cost effective method for restoring the levee and provides cost effective hazard mitigation.
Last updated