This page has not been translated into 简体中文. Visit the 简体中文 page for resources in that language.
Library and Museum
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA 1419-DR-MN; City of Roseau; Project Worksheet 1042
Cross-reference: Pre-Disaster Conditions
Summary: From June 9 through June 28, 2002, the Roseau River caused widespread flooding
within the City of Roseau. The Citys Library and Museum (Library), located within the 100-year floodplain and floodway of the Roseau River, was inundated with six inches of water. The Project Worksheet (PW) noted damages to the interior and exterior walls, façade, and minor erosion. Initial estimates identified $109,624 in eligible building and contents damage. However, eligible assistance was reduced to $38,825 to reflect the maximum amount of insurance proceeds that would have been received had the City maintained full coverage on the structure and contents. In the first appeal the City identified additional damages that would result in a substantial damage determination and trigger floodplain ordinance compliance requirements, making the structure eligible for replacement in kind. Based on a re-inspection of the facilities by FEMA and the State, FEMA notified the City that the Library was found to be eligible for an additional $228,147 in damages. Again, the eligible assistance was reduced to $35,052 to reflect the maximum amount of insurance proceeds that would have been received had the City maintained full coverage on the structure and contents. The total amount of eligible assistance was revised to $73,877. The City submitted a second appeal, which was not supported by the State because erosion was an ongoing problem that was further made worse by the 2002 flood. The City asserted that the Library is at risk of significant structural damage due to disaster related destabilization of the riverbank. The City requests that we accept their estimates of damages, which would effect a determination of substantial damage and the replacement of the structure in kind.
Issues: 1. Is there an immediate threat?
2. Is the Library substantially damaged?
3. Did some of the damages in question exist prior to the disaster?
Findings: 1. No.
2. No.
3. Yes.
Rationale: 44 CFR § 206.221 (c); Section 1304 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (b) (2), as amended, 44 CFR § 60.3, and local floodplain ordinances; 44 CFR § 206.223 (a)(1)
From June 9 through June 28, 2002, the Roseau River overflowed its banks causing severe flooding within the City of Roseau. Because most of the City lies within the 100-year flood plain, it experienced damage to many of its homes, businesses and local government property.
The Citys Library and Museum (henceforth referred to as the Library) is located within the 100-year floodplain and floodway, approximately 40 feet away from the bank of the Roseau River. The 13,000 square foot structure was inundated with six to eight inches of water, and also sustained damage to adjoining sidewalks. The City did not carry flood insurance on the structure.
The Project Worksheet (PW) cited damage to the east exterior wall, brick façade, and interior walls, and minor erosion along the riverbank. It was also noted that no significant structural damage was observed in the building. Initial estimates identified $109,624 to repair the building, sidewalk, and for content damage, as well as placing topsoil and reseeding along the eroded slope. Because the City did not carry flood insurance, the eligible amount of Public Assistance funding was reduced to $38,825 to reflect the maximum amount of insurance proceeds that would have been received had the City maintained full coverage on the structure and contents.
First Appeal
On March 19, 2003, the State forwarded the Citys first appeal dated February 29, 2003, for PWs 963, 969, 1042, and 1043, addressing the City Hall, Police Station, Library, and the Roseau Memorial Ice Rink. The City cited previously unidentified damages to the City Hall, Library, and Police Station and requested relocation of the facilities because of their proximity to the floodway. The City also stated that the Library and City Hall were within the proposed alignment of a future flood protection levee for the City of Roseau. The State recommended a re-inspection of the facilities by FEMA and the State to determine the extent of damages resulting from the flood.
In coordination with the City, FEMA and the State re-inspected the facilities during the week of
May 19-23, 2003. On June 23, 2003, FEMA notified the City that the PWs were revised to more accurately reflect the eligible damages, and [additional] funding was approved to meet local codes and standards for hazard mitigation purposes.
In its appeal, the City specifically identified $285,730 in additional damage to the Library. FEMA and the State found the Library was eligible for $189,321 in additional assistance for underestimated repair costs, minor structural damage, and mold remediation. Again, because the City did not carry flood insurance on any of the facilities under appeal, eligible assistance was adjusted downwards to $35,031 to reflect the estimated flood insurance proceeds that would have been received. The total amount of Public Assistance funding available for repairs to the Library was revised to $73,877.
Second Appeal
On September 19, 2003, the State transmitted a second appeal from the City dated September 5, 2003. The City appealed PW 1042 that was written for the Library. Based on the re-inspection and a review of the submitted documentation, the State did not support the second appeal because erosion was an ongoing problem that was further made worse by the 2002 flood. The Citys second appeal asserted that the Library was potentially at risk of significant structural damage due to disaster-related riverbank destabilization. The City stated, while damage to the structure at this time may only appear cosmetic, without corrective action to the foundation and the soils damage done as a result of the 2002 flood the building will continue to shift towards the river and result in significant structural damage and eventually a complete loss of the building.
The City submitted several observations, preliminary engineering and architectural reports, a geotechnical report conducted for an area of the river 1,200 feet upstream from the site, as well as sections from the Public Assistance Policy Digest (FEMA publication 321) addressing Landslides (p.74), Immediate Threat (p.65), and Erosion (p.47). The documentation submitted by the City included:
· Freeberg & Grund, Inc. Consulting Engineers, letter dated September 4, 2003
· Heyer Engineering, P.C., Structural Consultant, letter dated September 5, 2003
· Braun Intertec Corp., letter dated September 4, 2003
· Johnson, Laffen Galloway Architects, Ltd., fax dated September 9, 2003, and a copy of their assessment of the Library Museum dated June 2000
· Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc., Roseau River Embankment Failure Final Report for the City of Roseau, Minnesota, dated March 2003
DISCUSSION
The documentation submitted has not demonstrated any existing substantial damage or any immediate threat of substantial damage to the structure. In the year and a half since the flood the City has not undertaken any significant measures to stabilize the riverbank. Rather, the City cleaned up and repaired the Library within several months after the disaster and the building has been in full use serving as temporary offices for the local government. Furthermore, part of the documentation pre-dated the disaster by two years, clearly indicating pre-existing conditions with the structure and riverbank for which further monitoring and possible mitigation measures were recommended.
Substantial Damage
Section 1304 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (b) (2), as amended, as well as the Citys local floodplain ordinances, sets forth the requirements for substantial damage. In order to relocate the Library as requested in the first appeal, the Citys cost of restoring the structure to its pre-disaster condition must be greater than or equal to 50% of the market value of the structure (44 CFR § 60.3). In determining substantial damage the costs are those eligible damages (before the insurance deduction) that relate to the structure itself, not bank stabilization. FEMA and State engineers have examined the Library structure on multiple occasions and revised the PWs accordingly. Since that time, FEMA and the State have not found any additional eligible damage, and the City has not provided new information regarding damage to the Library Structure. In comparing the amount of building damages to the market value, the structure does not meet the requirement for substantial damage ($197,321 /$418,560 = 47%).
Immediate Threat
An immediate threat is defined in 44 CFR § 206.221 (c), as the threat of additional damage or destruction from an event, which can reasonably be expected to occur within five years. The City has not provided evidence demonstrating that the Library would be under an immediate threat of any additional damage from a five-year flood event. There is no adequate documentation, such as a geotechnical report, or records of active monitoring, to demonstrate a loss of structural integrity. The submitted geotechnical report for the site upstream cannot be substituted for site conditions at the Library. While conditions at the site may be similar in appearance to other areas that have experienced slope failure, the reports by Freeberg & Grund, Inc., Heyer Engineering, P.C., Structural Consultants, and Braun Intertec Corp., all recommended a further study to confirm initial speculations. No such studies were submitted.
Pre-existing Conditions
Several of the reports submitted with the appeal indicated that the problems with the structure and slope existed prior to the disaster. 44 CFR § 206.223 (a)(1) states To be eligible for financial assistance, and item of work must be required as the result of a major disaster event. The damages currentlo Library and the riverbank were first documented in a report that pre-dated the disaster by two years. In its June 2000 Physical Structure Assessment Report, Johnson, Laffen Galloway Architects, Ltd. noted considerable indications that movement has occurred in certain areas of the building. The description of the areas of movement mirrors the PW, most notably the cracks found along the east wall, and smaller cracks along the west wall. The majority of the problems were attributed to heaving of the slab, which could have been caused by change in moisture content of the underlying clay soil from season to season. Heyer Engineering, P.C., Structural Consultants in a letter dated September 5, 2003, stated, Cracks in the north and east wall appear to be due to river bank instability. The probability of this is reinforced by the facts that cracks originally observed over a year ago have increased. This additional movement is indicative of a reoccurring long-term problem and not subject to a one-time maintenance solution. The solution is dependent on a geotechnical study of the soil along the river.
CONCLUSION
The City has not provided adequate documentation to support its claims for Project Worksheet 1042. There is no immediate threat of substantial damage to the structure from bank destabilization. The damages in question are pre-existing conditions in nature and do not constitute substantial damage. Therefore, the appeal is denied.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1419-DR |
| Applicant | City of Roseau |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 135-55546-00 |
| PW ID# | 1042 |
| Date Signed | 2004-03-16T05:00:00 |
within the City of Roseau. The Citys Library and Museum (Library), located within the 100-year floodplain and floodway of the Roseau River, was inundated with six inches of water. The Project Worksheet (PW) noted damages to the interior and exterior walls, façade, and minor erosion. Initial estimates identified $109,624 in eligible building and contents damage. However, eligible assistance was reduced to $38,825 to reflect the maximum amount of insurance proceeds that would have been received had the City maintained full coverage on the structure and contents. In the first appeal the City identified additional damages that would result in a substantial damage determination and trigger floodplain ordinance compliance requirements, making the structure eligible for replacement in kind. Based on a re-inspection of the facilities by FEMA and the State, FEMA notified the City that the Library was found to be eligible for an additional $228,147 in damages. Again, the eligible assistance was reduced to $35,052 to reflect the maximum amount of insurance proceeds that would have been received had the City maintained full coverage on the structure and contents. The total amount of eligible assistance was revised to $73,877. The City submitted a second appeal, which was not supported by the State because erosion was an ongoing problem that was further made worse by the 2002 flood. The City asserted that the Library is at risk of significant structural damage due to disaster related destabilization of the riverbank. The City requests that we accept their estimates of damages, which would effect a determination of substantial damage and the replacement of the structure in kind.
2. Is the Library substantially damaged?
3. Did some of the damages in question exist prior to the disaster?
2. No.
3. Yes.
Appeal Letter
March 16, 2004
Mr. John Kerr
Alternate Governors Authorized Representative
Division of Emergency Management
444 Cedar Street, Suite 223
St. Paul, MN 55101-6223
Re: Second Appeal City of Roseau, PA ID: 135-55546-00,
Library and Museum, FEMA-1419-DR-MN, PW 1042
Dear Mr. Kerr,
This is in response to your letter of September 19, 2003, transmitting the above referenced appeal on behalf of the City of Roseau. The City is requesting that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reconsider the extent of damage to the City Library and Museum from the 2002 flood along the Roseau River.
As described in the enclosed appeal analysis, I have determined that the City has not provided documentation to show an immediate threat of landslide, or to support a substantial damage determination for the Library and Museum. The documentation submitted to FEMA shows that the situation at the Library and Museum was caused by a long-term pre-disaster condition. Unfortunately, I conclude that the City is not eligible for additional assistance. Therefore, I am denying the appeal.
Please inform the City of Roseau of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR § 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Daniel A. Craig
Director
Recovery Division
Emergency Preparedness and Response
Enclosure
cc: Edward Buikema
Regional Director
FEMA Region V
Mr. John Kerr
Alternate Governors Authorized Representative
Division of Emergency Management
444 Cedar Street, Suite 223
St. Paul, MN 55101-6223
Re: Second Appeal City of Roseau, PA ID: 135-55546-00,
Library and Museum, FEMA-1419-DR-MN, PW 1042
Dear Mr. Kerr,
This is in response to your letter of September 19, 2003, transmitting the above referenced appeal on behalf of the City of Roseau. The City is requesting that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reconsider the extent of damage to the City Library and Museum from the 2002 flood along the Roseau River.
As described in the enclosed appeal analysis, I have determined that the City has not provided documentation to show an immediate threat of landslide, or to support a substantial damage determination for the Library and Museum. The documentation submitted to FEMA shows that the situation at the Library and Museum was caused by a long-term pre-disaster condition. Unfortunately, I conclude that the City is not eligible for additional assistance. Therefore, I am denying the appeal.
Please inform the City of Roseau of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR § 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Daniel A. Craig
Director
Recovery Division
Emergency Preparedness and Response
Enclosure
cc: Edward Buikema
Regional Director
FEMA Region V
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDFrom June 9 through June 28, 2002, the Roseau River overflowed its banks causing severe flooding within the City of Roseau. Because most of the City lies within the 100-year flood plain, it experienced damage to many of its homes, businesses and local government property.
The Citys Library and Museum (henceforth referred to as the Library) is located within the 100-year floodplain and floodway, approximately 40 feet away from the bank of the Roseau River. The 13,000 square foot structure was inundated with six to eight inches of water, and also sustained damage to adjoining sidewalks. The City did not carry flood insurance on the structure.
The Project Worksheet (PW) cited damage to the east exterior wall, brick façade, and interior walls, and minor erosion along the riverbank. It was also noted that no significant structural damage was observed in the building. Initial estimates identified $109,624 to repair the building, sidewalk, and for content damage, as well as placing topsoil and reseeding along the eroded slope. Because the City did not carry flood insurance, the eligible amount of Public Assistance funding was reduced to $38,825 to reflect the maximum amount of insurance proceeds that would have been received had the City maintained full coverage on the structure and contents.
First Appeal
On March 19, 2003, the State forwarded the Citys first appeal dated February 29, 2003, for PWs 963, 969, 1042, and 1043, addressing the City Hall, Police Station, Library, and the Roseau Memorial Ice Rink. The City cited previously unidentified damages to the City Hall, Library, and Police Station and requested relocation of the facilities because of their proximity to the floodway. The City also stated that the Library and City Hall were within the proposed alignment of a future flood protection levee for the City of Roseau. The State recommended a re-inspection of the facilities by FEMA and the State to determine the extent of damages resulting from the flood.
In coordination with the City, FEMA and the State re-inspected the facilities during the week of
May 19-23, 2003. On June 23, 2003, FEMA notified the City that the PWs were revised to more accurately reflect the eligible damages, and [additional] funding was approved to meet local codes and standards for hazard mitigation purposes.
In its appeal, the City specifically identified $285,730 in additional damage to the Library. FEMA and the State found the Library was eligible for $189,321 in additional assistance for underestimated repair costs, minor structural damage, and mold remediation. Again, because the City did not carry flood insurance on any of the facilities under appeal, eligible assistance was adjusted downwards to $35,031 to reflect the estimated flood insurance proceeds that would have been received. The total amount of Public Assistance funding available for repairs to the Library was revised to $73,877.
Second Appeal
On September 19, 2003, the State transmitted a second appeal from the City dated September 5, 2003. The City appealed PW 1042 that was written for the Library. Based on the re-inspection and a review of the submitted documentation, the State did not support the second appeal because erosion was an ongoing problem that was further made worse by the 2002 flood. The Citys second appeal asserted that the Library was potentially at risk of significant structural damage due to disaster-related riverbank destabilization. The City stated, while damage to the structure at this time may only appear cosmetic, without corrective action to the foundation and the soils damage done as a result of the 2002 flood the building will continue to shift towards the river and result in significant structural damage and eventually a complete loss of the building.
The City submitted several observations, preliminary engineering and architectural reports, a geotechnical report conducted for an area of the river 1,200 feet upstream from the site, as well as sections from the Public Assistance Policy Digest (FEMA publication 321) addressing Landslides (p.74), Immediate Threat (p.65), and Erosion (p.47). The documentation submitted by the City included:
· Freeberg & Grund, Inc. Consulting Engineers, letter dated September 4, 2003
· Heyer Engineering, P.C., Structural Consultant, letter dated September 5, 2003
· Braun Intertec Corp., letter dated September 4, 2003
· Johnson, Laffen Galloway Architects, Ltd., fax dated September 9, 2003, and a copy of their assessment of the Library Museum dated June 2000
· Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc., Roseau River Embankment Failure Final Report for the City of Roseau, Minnesota, dated March 2003
DISCUSSION
The documentation submitted has not demonstrated any existing substantial damage or any immediate threat of substantial damage to the structure. In the year and a half since the flood the City has not undertaken any significant measures to stabilize the riverbank. Rather, the City cleaned up and repaired the Library within several months after the disaster and the building has been in full use serving as temporary offices for the local government. Furthermore, part of the documentation pre-dated the disaster by two years, clearly indicating pre-existing conditions with the structure and riverbank for which further monitoring and possible mitigation measures were recommended.
Substantial Damage
Section 1304 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (b) (2), as amended, as well as the Citys local floodplain ordinances, sets forth the requirements for substantial damage. In order to relocate the Library as requested in the first appeal, the Citys cost of restoring the structure to its pre-disaster condition must be greater than or equal to 50% of the market value of the structure (44 CFR § 60.3). In determining substantial damage the costs are those eligible damages (before the insurance deduction) that relate to the structure itself, not bank stabilization. FEMA and State engineers have examined the Library structure on multiple occasions and revised the PWs accordingly. Since that time, FEMA and the State have not found any additional eligible damage, and the City has not provided new information regarding damage to the Library Structure. In comparing the amount of building damages to the market value, the structure does not meet the requirement for substantial damage ($197,321 /$418,560 = 47%).
Immediate Threat
An immediate threat is defined in 44 CFR § 206.221 (c), as the threat of additional damage or destruction from an event, which can reasonably be expected to occur within five years. The City has not provided evidence demonstrating that the Library would be under an immediate threat of any additional damage from a five-year flood event. There is no adequate documentation, such as a geotechnical report, or records of active monitoring, to demonstrate a loss of structural integrity. The submitted geotechnical report for the site upstream cannot be substituted for site conditions at the Library. While conditions at the site may be similar in appearance to other areas that have experienced slope failure, the reports by Freeberg & Grund, Inc., Heyer Engineering, P.C., Structural Consultants, and Braun Intertec Corp., all recommended a further study to confirm initial speculations. No such studies were submitted.
Pre-existing Conditions
Several of the reports submitted with the appeal indicated that the problems with the structure and slope existed prior to the disaster. 44 CFR § 206.223 (a)(1) states To be eligible for financial assistance, and item of work must be required as the result of a major disaster event. The damages currentlo Library and the riverbank were first documented in a report that pre-dated the disaster by two years. In its June 2000 Physical Structure Assessment Report, Johnson, Laffen Galloway Architects, Ltd. noted considerable indications that movement has occurred in certain areas of the building. The description of the areas of movement mirrors the PW, most notably the cracks found along the east wall, and smaller cracks along the west wall. The majority of the problems were attributed to heaving of the slab, which could have been caused by change in moisture content of the underlying clay soil from season to season. Heyer Engineering, P.C., Structural Consultants in a letter dated September 5, 2003, stated, Cracks in the north and east wall appear to be due to river bank instability. The probability of this is reinforced by the facts that cracks originally observed over a year ago have increased. This additional movement is indicative of a reoccurring long-term problem and not subject to a one-time maintenance solution. The solution is dependent on a geotechnical study of the soil along the river.
CONCLUSION
The City has not provided adequate documentation to support its claims for Project Worksheet 1042. There is no immediate threat of substantial damage to the structure from bank destabilization. The damages in question are pre-existing conditions in nature and do not constitute substantial damage. Therefore, the appeal is denied.