This page has not been translated into Kreyòl. Visit the Kreyòl page for resources in that language.
Bridge Replacement
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
SECOND APPEAL BRIEF
FEMA-1593-DR-AL
PA ID# 017-99017-00; Chambers County
Bridge Replacement, Project Worksheet #76
Citation: FEMA-1593-DR-AL; Chambers County, PW #76, Bridge Replacement
Cross-reference: Eligible work; 50% Rule
Summary: As a result of heavy rainfall from Hurricane Dennis on July 9-10, 2005, floodwaters from an unnamed stream eroded fill behind both abutments of bridge number 86 on County Road 176. Chambers County (Applicant) asserts that the streambed at the center pier was jeopardized by excessive scour due to the disaster event. FEMA approved Project Worksheet (PW) #76 for $2,315 to excavate behind the abutments, tighten the deadman cables, fill the excavation and compact the fill behind the abutments. Repair of the center pier was not included in the approved PW. On December 28, 2005, the Applicant appealed FEMAs recommendation, arguing that flood waters scoured the streambed around the center pier and jeopardized the integrity of the structure. The Applicant supplied depth soundings as documentation. With the first appeal, the Applicant requested funding to replace the bridge, in order to remove the center pier and prevent future damage. FEMA Region IV denied the first appeal stating that the documentation did not indicate the damage was due to the disaster and the replacement of the bridge could not be evaluated with the information provided. The Applicant submitted its second appeal on June 6, 2006, with additional narrative explaining the depth soundings and a repair/replacement cost comparison for consideration. The Applicant requests replacement of the bridge at a cost of $173,065.
Issues: Is the bridge eligible for replacement?
Findings: No. The Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that the disaster-related damage required replacement of the bridge.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.223(a)
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1593-DR |
| Applicant | Chambers County |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 017-99017-00 |
| PW ID# | PW# 76 |
| Date Signed | 2006-12-18T05:00:00 |
FEMA-1593-DR-AL
PA ID# 017-99017-00; Chambers County
Bridge Replacement, Project Worksheet #76
Citation:
Appeal Letter
Mr. Benjie Abbott
Recovery Branch Chief
Emergency Management Agency
5898 County Road 41
P.O. Drawer 2160
Clanton, AL 35046-2160
Re: Second Appeal Chambers County, PA ID 017-99017-00, Bridge Replacement, FEMA-1593-DR-AL, Project Worksheet #76
Dear Mr. Abbott:
This is in response to your letter dated June 6, 2006, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Chambers County (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMAs) denial of $173,065 in funding for the replacement of Bridge #86 on County Road 176.
As a result of heavy rainfall from Hurricane Dennis on July 9-10, 2005, floodwaters from an unnamed stream eroded backfill behind both abutments of bridge number 86 on County Road 176. FEMAs Project Officer and Public Assistance Coordinator observed the eroded backfill behind the abutments, but were unable to confirm the scour around the center pier due to water turbidity. The Public Assistance Coordinator prepared Project Worksheet (PW) #76 for $2,315 to excavate behind the abutments, tighten the deadman cables, fill the excavation and compact the fill behind the abutments. Repair of the center pier was not included in the eligible scope of work.
On December 28, 2005, the Applicant appealed FEMAs recommendation and asserted that the streambed at the center pier was jeopardized by excessive scour due to the disaster event. In support of its appeal, the Applicant submitted depth sounding reports, a letter from the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) recommending replacement of the bridge, and a cost estimate for the replacement. The Applicant requested funding for a bridge replacement design that eliminates the center pier and thus mitigates future damages. The Regional Director determined that the additional information submitted by the Applicant did not support the claim that scour was due to the disaster and insufficient in order to evaluate the request for a replacement bridge.
The Applicants second appeal was submitted on June 6, 2006, with additional narrative explaining the depth soundings and a repair/replacement cost comparison for consideration. The State Emergency Management Agency recommends fulfilling the Applicants request to replace the bridge for $173,065.
The Applicant submitted historic depth sound readings in two-year intervals for the last eight years. The documentation indicates the streambed has consistently eroded between approximately six and 18 inches every two years. Depth sound readings taken within days after the disaster event indicate the streambed eroded between 3.4 and 7.2 feet since the last readings taken eight months prior.
The ALDOT recommends the bridge be replaced because the cost to repair the center pier is more than 50% of the replacement cost of the bridge. The ALDOT inspection report documents only scour of the streambed and it does not indicate specific damage to the center pier. Furthermore, the Applicant does not offer an engineering analysis or other documentation to demonstrate the center pier was jeopardized by the event. The soundings show that scour occurred in the streambed in an eight-month period prior to and just after the disaster and it can be assumed that much of this scour is attributed to the disaster event. However, the Applicant did not illustrate how the scour impacted the center pier or the overall structural integrity of the bridge warranting its replacement. Therefore, I am denying the appeal.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
John R. DAraujo, Jr.Director of Recovery
cc: Major Phil May
Regional Director
FEMA Region IV
Recovery Branch Chief
Emergency Management Agency
5898 County Road 41
P.O. Drawer 2160
Clanton, AL 35046-2160
Re: Second Appeal Chambers County, PA ID 017-99017-00, Bridge Replacement, FEMA-1593-DR-AL, Project Worksheet #76
Dear Mr. Abbott:
This is in response to your letter dated June 6, 2006, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Chambers County (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMAs) denial of $173,065 in funding for the replacement of Bridge #86 on County Road 176.
As a result of heavy rainfall from Hurricane Dennis on July 9-10, 2005, floodwaters from an unnamed stream eroded backfill behind both abutments of bridge number 86 on County Road 176. FEMAs Project Officer and Public Assistance Coordinator observed the eroded backfill behind the abutments, but were unable to confirm the scour around the center pier due to water turbidity. The Public Assistance Coordinator prepared Project Worksheet (PW) #76 for $2,315 to excavate behind the abutments, tighten the deadman cables, fill the excavation and compact the fill behind the abutments. Repair of the center pier was not included in the eligible scope of work.
On December 28, 2005, the Applicant appealed FEMAs recommendation and asserted that the streambed at the center pier was jeopardized by excessive scour due to the disaster event. In support of its appeal, the Applicant submitted depth sounding reports, a letter from the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) recommending replacement of the bridge, and a cost estimate for the replacement. The Applicant requested funding for a bridge replacement design that eliminates the center pier and thus mitigates future damages. The Regional Director determined that the additional information submitted by the Applicant did not support the claim that scour was due to the disaster and insufficient in order to evaluate the request for a replacement bridge.
The Applicants second appeal was submitted on June 6, 2006, with additional narrative explaining the depth soundings and a repair/replacement cost comparison for consideration. The State Emergency Management Agency recommends fulfilling the Applicants request to replace the bridge for $173,065.
The Applicant submitted historic depth sound readings in two-year intervals for the last eight years. The documentation indicates the streambed has consistently eroded between approximately six and 18 inches every two years. Depth sound readings taken within days after the disaster event indicate the streambed eroded between 3.4 and 7.2 feet since the last readings taken eight months prior.
The ALDOT recommends the bridge be replaced because the cost to repair the center pier is more than 50% of the replacement cost of the bridge. The ALDOT inspection report documents only scour of the streambed and it does not indicate specific damage to the center pier. Furthermore, the Applicant does not offer an engineering analysis or other documentation to demonstrate the center pier was jeopardized by the event. The soundings show that scour occurred in the streambed in an eight-month period prior to and just after the disaster and it can be assumed that much of this scour is attributed to the disaster event. However, the Applicant did not illustrate how the scour impacted the center pier or the overall structural integrity of the bridge warranting its replacement. Therefore, I am denying the appeal.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
John R. DAraujo, Jr.Director of Recovery
cc: Major Phil May
Regional Director
FEMA Region IV