Holly Hill Dam

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1490-DR
ApplicantTown of Murfressboro
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#091-45640-00
PW ID#Project Worksheet 724
Date Signed2008-11-04T05:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1490-DR-NC, Town of Murfreesboro, Holly Hill Dam, PW 724
Cross-reference: Work Eligibility

Summary: Following Hurricane Isabel, FEMA prepared PW 724 to flush cut and remove 14 trees that were felled by the disaster, remove three stumps, and backfill the root ball craters on the Holly Hill Dam, an earthen dam.
The Town of Murfreesboro (Applicant) submitted its first appeal in a letter dated July 17, 2007, requesting additional funding for PW 724 to reflect all of the work performed. Specifically, the Applicant claimed that the need to remove all vegetation from the embankments, perform additional road work, and replace the bottom drain with a permanent siphon drain, was a direct result of Hurricane Isabel and was necessary to return the dam to its pre-disaster condition. In a letter dated October 29, 2007, the Regional Administrator denied the first appeal, stating that the removal of all vegetation from the embankments exceeded necessary repairs to disaster-related damages. The Regional Administrator also stated that the other work was related to long-deferred maintenance at the facility. The Applicant also failed to establish the eligibility of additional road work beyond that already funded under another PW. Finally, the preliminary site assessment attributed the problems with the bottom drain to severe corrosion, leaks, and barrel failure indicative of long-term deterioration and unrelated to the disaster.

In a letter dated January 22, 2008, the Applicant submitted its second appeal. The Applicant states that flush cutting the damaged trees would have inadequately repaired the dam and would make the dam more susceptible to internal erosion and potential failure. The Applicant claims it needed to remove all trees because they were vulnerable to failure and were necessary to access and remove the downed trees. The Applicant asserts that the lake level dropped 2 feet in 5 days showing disaster damaged the bottom drain and that the North Carolina Dam Safety requirements necessitated a permanent siphon drain. The Applicant also claims the road repairs resulted from heavy equipment and dump trucks using the road for work related to PW 724.

Issues: Are the repairs eligible disaster-related work?
Findings: No.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.223 and §206.226

Appeal Letter

November 4, 2008

Joann Jenkins Hash
Acting Public Assistance Section Manager
North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
Division of Emergency Management
116 W. Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603

Re: Second Appeal–Town of Murfreesboro, PA ID 091-45640-00, Holly Hill Dam,
FEMA-1490-DR-NC, Project Worksheet (PW) 724

Dear Ms. Hash:

This letter is in response to your letter dated January 22, 2008, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the Town of Murfreesboro (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of an additional $199,719 for repairs to the Holly Hill Dam.
Following Hurricane Isabel, FEMA prepared PW 724 to remove fallen and uprooted trees and remediate the root ball craters on the embankment of the Holly Hill Dam. The scope of work included flush cutting and removing 14 trees, removing three stumps, and backfilling the root ball craters. FEMA approved $2,897 for this work.
The Applicant submitted its first appeal in a letter dated July 17, 2007, requesting additional funding for PW 724 to reflect all of the work it performed at the site. Specifically, the Applicant removed all vegetation from the embankments, performed additional road work, and replaced the bottom drain with a permanent siphon drain. It claimed that this work was a direct result of Hurricane Isabel and was necessary to return the dam to its pre-disaster condition. In a letter dated October 29, 2007, the Regional Administrator denied the first appeal stating that the removal of all vegetation from the embankments exceeded work necessary to repair the disaster-related damages and was related to repairing long-deferred maintenance at the facility. In addition, the Applicant failed to establish that additional road damage resulted from the repairs to the embankment. Finally, the Regional Administrator stated that the site assessment performed by the Applicant’s engineering consultants, Jewell Engineering Consultants, P.C., attributed the problems with the bottom drain to corrosion, leaks, and barrel failure which are indicative of long-term deterioration and unrelated to damage caused by the hurricane.

In a letter dated January 22, 2008, the Applicant submitted its second appeal. The Applicant states that removing the stumps for all of the downed trees and backfilling large root ball craters, rather than flush cutting the damaged trees, eliminated susceptibility to internal erosion and potential failure of the dam. The Applicant claims it needed to remove all trees because they were vulnerable to future damage without the protection of the 14 uprooted or downed trees and was necessary to access and remove the downed trees. The Applicant asserts that the lake level dropped two feet in five days, which indicates that the disaster damaged the bottom drain. In addition, it stated that the North Carolina Dam Safety requirements necessitated a permanent siphon drain. The Applicant also claims the road repairs resulted from heavy equipment and dump trucks using the road for work related to PW 724.

The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ Dam Operation, Maintenance and Inspection Manual, 1985, states “Trees and brush should not be permitted on embankment surfaces or in vegetated earth spillways. Extensive root systems can provide seepage paths for water….” There were many trees on the embankments of the dam prior to the disaster. The Holly Hill Dam was not in compliance with the State’s requirements. It appears that the extensive work that the Applicant performed at the site was required to bring the dam into compliance with state’s requirements, which exceeded the work required to repair disaster-related damages. The removal of undamaged trees, including their roots, from the embankment of the dam was not necessary to repair disaster-related damages and is not eligible for reimbursement.

After review of all information submitted with the appeal, I have determined that the Applicant did not submit compelling information to justify its request for funds to replace the bottom drain and repair the road on top of the dam. Therefore, I support the Regional Administrator’s decision on the first appeal. Accordingly, I am denying the second appeal.

Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate

cc: Major Phil May
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IV
Last updated