Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 115-26648-00; Forest Lake Township
PW ID# Project Worksheet 567; Replacement of damaged culvert
FEMA-1684-DR-PA, Forest Lake Township,
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 at 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 (DEP) 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 its 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:
Should the scope of work be revised to include work associated with Department
of Environmental Protection codes and standards?
2. Is replacement of the 48-inch pipe an eligible cost? Findings:
No. The Applicant did not submit documentation establishing that an upgrade
was a code requirement.
2. No. Rationale:
Stafford Act Section 406(e); 44 CFR §206.226(d).