Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 041-11160-00; City of Centralia
PW ID# 1062; Bank Erosion
Citation: FEMA-1734-DR-WA, City of Centralia, China Creek Force Main Bank Erosion, Project Worksheet (PW) 1062
Reference: Emergency Protective Measures, Environmental Compliance
Summary: FEMA obligated PW 1062 for $25,159 for the restoration of support and cover to a 10-foot length of exposed sewer line along an eroded river bank. The approved scope of work included the installation of a 14-foot-long sheet pile wall. The Applicant’s consultant observed significant erosion along a 100-foot section of river bank and recommended stabilizing the entire length to eliminate the threat of additional erosion that could further threaten the sewer line. The Applicant entered into a contract for the armoring of a 100-foot section of bank and the construction of a rock and log jam groin based on its consultant’s recommendation. The Applicant submitted a first appeal stating that the emergency bank stabilization was complete and requested FEMA fund its actual costs incurred ($169,778). The Applicant submitted a memorandum from its consultant, which states that the bank had eroded within less than 5 feet from the sewer pipe, creating a hazard of exposure and failure for the entire 100-foot length of river bank. The consultant considered a sheet pile alternative recommended by FEMA, but determined it was not feasible due to the high risk of bank collapse. The Regional Administrator denied the appeal, because the Applicant had not demonstrated an immediate threat of damage to the pipe.
The Applicant submitted a second appeal requesting FEMA reimburse its actual costs for the stabilization of the creek bank. The Applicant states that the work was necessary to eliminate the immediate threat of additional damage to the sewer line and reiterates that FEMA’s recommended method of repair was not feasible. While the Applicant’s consultant states that the bank eroded to within 5 feet of the pipeline, the Applicant has provided no documentation to support that statement.
Issues: 1. Was there an immediate threat of additional damage to the pipe?
2. Was the project as completed reviewed for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act?
Findings: 1. No. The Applicant provided no documentation to support the claim that there was an immediate threat to the pipe for the entire 100-foot length of bank.
2. No. The project was not reviewed for compliance.
Rational: Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations §206.225; Response and Recovery Policy 9560.1, Environmental Policy Memoranda, Environmental Policy Memo #3