alert - warning

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

Replacement of damaged culvert

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DesastreFEMA-1684-DR
ApplicantForest Lake Township
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#115-26648-00
PW ID#Project Worksheet 567
Date Signed2008-08-11T04:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1684-DR-PA, Forest Lake Township, PW 567

Cross-reference: Codes and Standards; Pre-Disaster Condition
Summary: In November of 2006, severe storms and flooding struck Forest Lake Township
(Applicant). As a result of high velocity floodwaters, a 30-inch pipe was clogged
with mud, cobble and roadway aggregate surface material. The Applicant advised
FEMA that it wanted to repair and mitigate the site by replacing a 20-foot section
of 30-inch pipe with a 20-foot section of 48-inch pipe. The original PW was
written and approved to replace the 30-inch pipe with 48-inch pipe at a cost of
$3,300. The Applicant was reimbursed for the actual costs of installing the new pipe at the site. The Applicant states that, as the result of a hydrology study performed at the site, it is required by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to replace the 48-inch pipe with an aluminum box culvert. The Applicant is requesting an additional $96,019 for the cost of replacing the 48-inch pipe with an aluminum box culvert.

The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency submitted the first appeal on behalf of the Applicant on October 17, 2007. In the first appeal, the Applicant claimed that the PW was written for temporary work and the Applicant requested a change in the scope of work for the site. The Regional Administrator found that repairs to the site, along with the mitigation effort, returned the site to a condition that exceeded its pre-disaster design and capacity. The first appeal was denied by letter on December 4, 2007. In its second appeal, the Applicant restates its position that work performed at the site was temporary work. The Applicant requests a change in the scope of work at the site to cover the expenses of replacing the 20-foot section of 48-inch pipe with a box culvert.
Issues: Has the Applicant demonstrated that an adopted code or standard required that the replacement culvert be sized to pass the 25-year flood?
Findings: No. The Applicant did not submit documentation establishing that an upgrade
was a code requirement.

Rationale: Stafford Act Section 406(e); 44 CFR §206.226(d).

Appeal Letter

August 11, 2008

Mimi Myslewicz
Governor’s Authorized Representative
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
2605 Interstate Drive
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-9364

Re: Second Appeal–Forest Lake Township, PA ID 115-26648-00
Replacement of damaged culvert, FEMA-1684-DR- PA, Project Worksheet (PW) 567

Dear Ms. Myslewicz:

This is in response to your letter dated March 24, 2008, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the Forest Lake Township (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of reimbursement for costs associated with replacing a recently-installed section of 48-inch pipe with an aluminum box culvert.

Severe storms and flooding struck Forest Lake Township in November of 2006. As a result of the flooding, a 20-foot long section of 30-inch culvert became clogged with mud, cobble and other aggregate roadway surface material. The Applicant repaired and mitigated the site by replacing the damaged 30-inch pipe with a 48-inch pipe. FEMA approved PW 567 for $3,300 for the installation of the 48-inch pipe on April 17, 2007. The Applicant completed the work prior to FEMA preparing the PW.

The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) forwarded an undated first appeal from the Applicant on October 17, 2007. The first appeal requested an additional $96,019 for the cost of removing and replacing the recently installed 48-inch pipe with an aluminum box culvert. The Applicant stated that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) required it to replace the recently-installed 48-inch culvert with an aluminum box culvert of sufficient size to pass the 25-year flood.
In the first appeal, both the Applicant and the PEMA’s stated that the “PW addressed only temporary work and did not include any of the permanent work required at the site.” FEMA prepared PW 567 as a permanent work category C project. Nothing in the provisions of the PW indicated that FEMA or the Applicant believed that the project was temporary emergency work.

Additionally, hazard mitigation measures are only authorized as part of permanent repairs.

The Regional Administrator denied the first appeal by letter dated December 4, 2007. The Regional Administrator found that the facility had been returned to a condition that exceeded its pre-disaster capacity and there was no basis for additional funding.

The Applicant submitted a second appeal on March 11, 2008. The second appeal restates its position that the installation of the 48-inch pipe was temporary emergency work. The second appeal also includes an emergency permit from DEP dated May 25, 2007. The emergency permit was issued “to remove a 4-ft diameter pipe damaged by Nov 2006 flood.” The Applicant also provided a handwritten estimate of the cost of replacing the 48-inch pipe in the amount of $99,319 on the stationery of Forest Lake Township Supervisors. The second appeal does not include a directive from DEP to replace the 48-inch pipe; nor does it include a citation of a code or standard that required the repaired culvert to pass the 25-year flood.
FEMA may pay for upgrades that are necessary to meet specific requirements of reasonable current codes and standards. The codes or standards must be reasonable, in writing, and formally adopted and implemented prior to the disaster declaration date. The code or standard must also apply uniformly to all similar facilities within the Applicant’s jurisdiction. The code or standard must have been enforced during the time that it was in effect. The second appeal does not provide information sufficient to conclude that an adopted code required the replacement culvert to pass the 25-year flood.

I have reviewed all of the information submitted with the Applicant’s second appeal and have determined that the Regional Administrator’s decision in the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance Program regulations and policies. Therefore, the appeal is denied.

Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.

Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate

cc: Jonathan Sarubbi
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region III