alert - warning

This page has not been translated into Español. Visit the Español page for resources in that language.

Wirtz Dam Impact Slab

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DesastreFEMA-1179-DR
ApplicantLower Colorado River Authority
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#000-92070
PW ID#73448,(24289)
Date Signed1999-06-16T04:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1179-DR-TX; Lower Colorado River Authority; DSR 73448(24289) - Wirtz Dam Impact Slab

Cross Reference: Impact Slab, Emergency Work, Mitigation, Improved Project, Maintained Natural Feature, Codes and Standards;

Summary: Flooding in the Texas Hill Country resulted in excessive flow through Wirtz Dam, which caused a scour hole in the granite riverbed just downstream of gates 6 and 8 of the dam spillway. The scour hole presented a danger to the dam's structural integrity. As a result, the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) contracted to immediately fill the scour hole and restore the granite dam base with concrete. After an initial inspection, a FEMA contractor team with dam expertise was called in to inspect the damages, and prepared DSR 24289 for $1,412,000 to fill the scour hole and anchor it to surrounding bedrock with reinforcement. The DSR included $280,000 in mitigation for extra concrete and additional reinforcing of the bedrock anchors, and a separate mitigation measure for $1,845,000 for a 260-ft. by 60-ft. by 5-ft. thick reinforced concrete impact slab. The DSR and the two mitigation measures were ruled ineligible during DSR review, because the granite streambed was not considered an eligible facility. The $280,000 mitigation measure had been initially approved as cost-beneficial by Region VI, however, mitigation associated with a project cannot be eligible if the project itself is not eligible. The impact slab mitigation measure ($1,845,000) had been ruled not cost-beneficial. The LCRA submitted a first appeal of the denial stating that the completed repairs were needed to restore the foundation of the dam to its pre-disaster condition, and were emergency in nature. The LCRA further stated that the work eliminated an immediate threat to life and property, and were conducted on a sole source contract within six months of the disaster. In addition, the LCRA submitted maintenance records documenting improvements and regular maintenance of the granite streambed at the base of the dam. In its response to the first appeal, FEMA Region VI determined that the granite streambed had been an improved and maintained feature, and was an eligible part of the dam facility. The Regional Director, granted the appeal for $1,132,000, ruling however, that the repairs were eligible only as emergency protective measures as stated by the LCRA. Thus the $280,000 mitigation that had been previously ruled cost-beneficial, was denied because mitigation was not eligible on Category B DSR's. The impact slab mitigation measure also remained ineligible. In its second appeal, the LCRA requests reconsideration of the denial of funding for the mitigation measures, stating that "it was necessary to restore the foundation of Wirtz Dam to its pre-flood strength." The LCRA also states that the impact slab may have been an improvement, but it is eligible because Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) would have required it.

Issues:
  1. Was the restoration of the Wirtz Dam base only eligible as Category B (emergency) work?
  2. Is the additional concrete ($280,000) mitigation measure eligible?
  3. Is the concrete impact slab mitigation measure ($1,845,000) eligible for FEMA funding?
Findings:
  1. No. Although the applicant stated that work was conducted on an emergency basis, the repairs were eligible permanent restoration of an eligible facility (the maintained granite streambed).
  2. Yes. This mitigation was ruled to be cost-beneficial, and because the restoration of the dam base was permanent restoration (Category D), the mitigation measure is allowed.
  3. No. The impact slab significantly improves and changes the pre-disaster design of the facility for withstanding future floods, and is not specifically required by any codes or standards.
Rationale: Pursuant to 44 CFR 206.226, work to restore an eligible facility to its pre-disaster function is eligible for FEMA Public Assistance funding.

Appeal Letter

June 16, 1999

E.C. Smith
Alternate State Coordinating Officer
Division of Emergency Management
Texas Department of Public Safety P.O. Box 4087
Austin, Texas 78773

RE: Second Appeal - Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA), Wirtz Dam , DR-1179- TX, DSRs 24289 and 73448

Dear Mr. Smith:

This letter is in response to the referenced second appeal to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). DSR 24289 was initially prepared for $1,412,000 for restoration of the base of Wirtz Dam where a large hole had been scoured out of the granite bedrock. This total included a hazard mitigation measure (additional concrete and bedrock anchors) for $280,000, which was initially approved by Region VI as cost-beneficial. An additional mitigation measure for $1,845,000 to construct a 260-ft. by 60-ft. by 5-ft. thick reinforced concrete impact slab was also submitted with the DSR, but was ruled to be not cost-beneficial by Region VI. FEMA ruled that restoration of the granite streambed, which was a natural feature, was not eligible.

The LCRA submitted a first appeal, stating that the repairs would restore the foundation of the dam to its pre-disaster condition. The LCRA further stated that the repairs were emergency in nature, eliminated an immediate threat to life and property, and were conducted on a sole source contract within six months of the disaster. In addition, the LCRA submitted maintenance records documenting improvements and regular maintenance of the granite streambed at the base of the dam. In its response to the first appeal, FEMA Region VI agreed that the granite dam base had been an improved and maintained feature, and was an eligible part of the dam facility. The Region granted the appeal for $1,132,000, ruling that the repairs were eligible as emergency protective measures only (Category B) as requested by the LCRA. The $280,000 for hazard mitigation was denied because mitigation could not be eligible as part of a Category B DSR. In its second appeal, the LCRA has requested reconsideration of the denial of funding for the additional concrete ($280,000) and the impact slab mitigation ($1,845,000), stating that "it was necessary to restore the foundation of Wirtz Dam to its pre-flood strength." The LCRA also states that even if the impact slab was an improvement, it was an eligible improvement, because Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) Standards would have required it. The LCRA has submitted a memorandum from its engineering consultant stating that the impact slab was required to restore the base of the dam to its pre-disaster strength, stating that without the impact slab, the plain concrete in the scour hole will fail in a "future flood." The LCRA seeks an additional $2,125,000 for the two mitigation measures.

After a review of the second appeal and all submitted documentation, I find partially in favor of the LCRA in its appeal. The LCRA initially stated that the repairs were emergency in nature, to prevent a denial in eligibility based on the granite dam base being a natural feature and not a facility. The LCRA has established that the granite base of the dam is an improved and maintained natural feature, and is thus an eligible facility integral to the dam structure. The completed repairs, although conducted in an accelerated and urgent fashion, constituted permanent repairs to an eligible facility. Therefore, the hazard mitigation measure ($280,000) is eligible under a Category D DSR.

In the Model Study of the Wirtz Dam Spillways and associated video, prepared by the Utah Water Research Laboratory, the extended impact slab was shown to be effective in reducing additional scour in the miniature scale model dam. However, FEMA contends that the impact slab goes well beyond restoring the dam to its pre-disaster design, and represents a significant improvement because it does not merely return the spillway base to its pre-disaster design. The impact slab is a sound engineering solution that would increase scour resistance downstream of the dam; however, it was determined to be not cost-effective by FEMA Region VI when analyzed by the FEMA cost-benefit analysis program, and is thus not eligible for FEMA funding. References made by the LCRA to Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission standards that required the impact slab do not satisfy FEMA requirements for applicable codes and standards according to FEMA regulations found in 44 CFR 206.226(b). LCRA has not provided FEMA with enough information to evaluate whether the TNRCC standards would meet FEMA requirements.

By copy of this letter I request that the Regional Director rewrite DSR 73448 as a Category D DSR ($1,132,000) and prepare a supplemental DSR for $280,000 to fund the cost-beneficial hazard mitigation measure for additional bonding of the scour hole concrete to the surrounding granite. Please inform the applicant of my determination. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.

Sincerely,

/S/

Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate

cc: R. L. "Buddy" Young
Regional Director
FEMA Region VI