Addison-Evans Water Production & Laboratory
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-1491-DR-VA; County of Chesterfield; Debris Removal, PW #1965
Cross-reference: Debris Removal, Immediate Threat
Summary: As a result of Hurricane Isabel, the County of Chesterfield (Applicant) sustained significant rain fall and wind. Due to the saturated soils and strong winds, many trees fell over, threatening to dam local streams. The Addison/Evans Water Plant (Facility) flooded and had to stop all operations for 83 hours. The Applicant felt that debris in local streambeds raised the base flood elevation level, contributing to Facility flooding. FEMA prepared PW #1965 for the removal of debris for $0 stating that the debris was ineligible for funding because it was in a natural channel and did not pose an immediate threat to improved property. The Applicants first appeal requested reconsideration of the threat level, stating that the Facility flooded repeatedly after the Hurricane, making the debris more than a threat, but an actual cause of additional damage. The Acting Regional Director denied the first appeal pointing out that the Facility had flooded many times before the Hurricane and was therefore not a direct result of the Hurricane. The Applicant submitted additional rainfall data with their second Appeal and insisted that the base flood elevation was higher as a result of the Hurricane, and that the debris removal brought the threat level back to pre-Hurricane levels.
Issues: (1) Was the threat caused by a FEMA declared event?
(2) Does the debris pose an immediate threat to the facility?
Findings: (1) Yes. The debris accumulated because of the Hurricane.
(2)
(3) No. It is found that while the facility does frequently flood, the data provided by the Applicant does not demonstrate that the presence of the disaster-related debris during a 5-year flood event posed an immediate threat to improved property.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.223, 44 CFR §206.224, 44 CFR §206.202
As a result of Hurricane Isabel (FEMA-1491-DR-VA, declared September 18, 2003), the County of Chesterfield (Applicant) sustained strong winds and significant rainfall. Due to the saturated soils and strong winds, many trees fell over, threatening to dam local streams. The Addison/Evans Water Plant (Facility) flooded and had to stop all operations for 83 hours. The Applicant felt that debris in local streambeds raised the base flood elevation level, contributing to Facility flooding. The Applicant requested assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for removal of disaster-related debris.
On January 6, 2004, FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 1965 for the debris clean-up. The PW estimated that the debris removal would cost $104,450, however, after a review of the scope of work in late February, FEMA determined that the work was ineligible on the basis that the debris was in a natural channel and did not pose an immediate threat to improved property. The PW received a final review on February 25, 2004, and a determination of ineligibility was sustained. The PW was obligated for $0.
First Appeal
The Applicant submitted a first appeal of FEMAs denial of funding on April 26, 2004, stating that the debris was eligible for FEMA funding under Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR 44) § 206.224. The Applicants letter was transmitted and supported by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Emergency Management (State) in a letter dated April 28, 2004. The Applicant stated that the debris build-up not only posed an immediate threat but actually caused repeated flooding and damage to the Facility and its lagoons before the debris was removed by the Applicant. (The repair to damages to the Facility caused during the Hurricane was funded through PW 222).
To support their appeal, the Applicant resubmitted an Engineering report that concluded, The obstructions from fallen trees in the channel and floodplain of Swift Creek create the potential to raise the base food elevation along this section of the stream and therefore potentially increase the flooding risk at the Facility. The Applicant submitted actual costs for this related effort in the amount of $143,693.18.
The Acting Regional Director denied the first appeal in a letter dated August 4, 2004, stating several reasons. Primarily, that the disaster-related debris was not the sole cause of the flooding because the Facility had flooded before the Hurricane and after the clean-up effort. It was noted that significant construction in the area and storm water runoff could be contributing to Facility flooding. Furthermore, the Engineers report stated that the debris in the stream raised the flood elevation and also indicated that this conclusion was based on the opinion of the engineer rather than hydrological modeling or other technical data to support that judgment.
Second Appeal
The Applicant submitted a second appeal of FEMAs determination on October 19, 2004, providing additional rainfall and flood data from 1998 to 2004. The State transmitted and supported the letter on December 22, 2004. The Applicant did not analyze the supplied data but stated that the spreadsheets provided evidence that the base flood elevation had been raised and that flood frequency had been increased following the storm. The Applicant also stated that they felt the Engineers report was unfairly discounted by the Region as incorrect and undocumented. The State concurred with the Applicants plea that the threat of damage to property was immediate because the Facility lagoons flooded repeatedly after the event.
DISCUSSION
The primary issue of the Applicants appeal is FEMAs determination that debris resulting from Hurricane Isabel did not pose an immediate threat to the Facility or its lagoons.
44 CFR § 206.225, Emergency Work, authorizes reimbursement for emergency measures required to eliminate an immediate threat to life, public health and safety and additional damage to improved property. The disaster regulations define immediate threat as the threat of additional damage or destruction from an event which can reasonably be expected to occur within five years. For flooding, this means a flood that has a 20% probability of occurrence in any given year (i.e., the 5-year flood).
There is no dispute that the water treatment plant is located within the 100-year floodplain and was flooded more than 19 times between 1998 and 2004. The plant was flooded 11 times before Hurricane Isabel, five times between the time the Hurricane hit and when debris was removed from the creek downstream of the plant, and three times after the debris was removed. In addition, a rainfall larger than ones that caused flooding before the Hurricane did not flood the facility after the debris was removed from Swift Creek downstream from the facility.
The Countys engineering consultant concluded that it is our opinion that the obstructions from the fallen trees in the channel and floodplain of Swift Creek create the potential to raise the base flood elevation along this section of the stream and therefore potentially increase the flooding risk at the Facility. Under the National Flood Insurance Program, the base flood elevation is defined as the 100-year flood elevation. The consultants report does not address the impact of the debris on the 5-year flood elevation, which is the criterion used to evaluate an immediate threat under the Public Assistance Program.
The County states that rainfall amounts of 1.41 inches, 1.53 inches, and 1.81 inches did not flood the facility prior to Hurricane Isabel, while post-hurricane rainfalls of 1.5 inches, 1.45 inches, 1.35 inches and 1.48 inches did flood the facility. The County concludes that this demonstrates that the debris created an immediate threat to the facility because the facility actually experienced flooding during this time. It is important to note that eligible emergency protective measures are authorized to protect against additional damages from up to a 5-year event only. Although the facility experienced flooding after the Hurricane, the County has not submitted any information that demonstrates that the post-hurricane flooding events which flooded the facility were less than or equal to the 5-year flood. In addition, the County did not submit any information demonstrating that the post-hurricane floods caused additional damage to the sludge lagoon or created a threat to public health and safety. The fact that the County informed the Department of Environmental Quality each time after the sludge lagoon was flooded does not demonstrate that a threat to public health and safety existed.
The removal of trees from the floodplain along Swift Creek downstream of the facility may have been a prudent action for the County to take to reduce the frequency of flooding of the facility. However, it does not meet the criterion for an eligible emergency protective measure under the Public Assistance Program.
CONCLUSION
Based on a review of the information provided in the Applicants second appeal, we have concluded that the disaster-related debris did not pose an immediate threat to the Facility. The Applicants appeal is denied.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1491-DR |
| Applicant | County of Chesterfield |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 041-99041-00 |
| PW ID# | 1965 |
| Date Signed | 2005-09-27T04:00:00 |
(2) Does the debris pose an immediate threat to the facility?
(2)
(3) No. It is found that while the facility does frequently flood, the data provided by the Applicant does not demonstrate that the presence of the disaster-related debris during a 5-year flood event posed an immediate threat to improved property.
Appeal Letter
September 27, 2005
Mr. Michael M. Cline
Governors Authorized Representative
State Coordinator,
Department of Emergency Management
10501 Trade Court
Richmond, Virginia 23236-3713
RE: Second Appeal County of Chesterfield; PA ID 041-99041-00
Addison-Evans Water Production and Laboratory, FEMA-1491-DR-VA, Project Worksheet (PW) 1965
Dear Mr. Cline:
This letter is in response to the referenced second appeal transmitted by your letter dated December 22, 2004. In their appeal, the County of Chesterfield (Applicant) requested payment for debris removal from downstream of the Addison-Evans Facility.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the Applicant has not demonstrated that there was an immediate threat caused by the debris. Accordingly, the appeal is denied.
Please inform the Applicant of my determination. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Daniel A. Craig
Director
Recovery Division
Emergency Preparedness and Response
Enclosure
cc: Patricia G. Arcuri
Acting Regional Director
FEMA, Region III
Mr. Michael M. Cline
Governors Authorized Representative
State Coordinator,
Department of Emergency Management
10501 Trade Court
Richmond, Virginia 23236-3713
RE: Second Appeal County of Chesterfield; PA ID 041-99041-00
Addison-Evans Water Production and Laboratory, FEMA-1491-DR-VA, Project Worksheet (PW) 1965
Dear Mr. Cline:
This letter is in response to the referenced second appeal transmitted by your letter dated December 22, 2004. In their appeal, the County of Chesterfield (Applicant) requested payment for debris removal from downstream of the Addison-Evans Facility.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the Applicant has not demonstrated that there was an immediate threat caused by the debris. Accordingly, the appeal is denied.
Please inform the Applicant of my determination. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Daniel A. Craig
Director
Recovery Division
Emergency Preparedness and Response
Enclosure
cc: Patricia G. Arcuri
Acting Regional Director
FEMA, Region III
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDAs a result of Hurricane Isabel (FEMA-1491-DR-VA, declared September 18, 2003), the County of Chesterfield (Applicant) sustained strong winds and significant rainfall. Due to the saturated soils and strong winds, many trees fell over, threatening to dam local streams. The Addison/Evans Water Plant (Facility) flooded and had to stop all operations for 83 hours. The Applicant felt that debris in local streambeds raised the base flood elevation level, contributing to Facility flooding. The Applicant requested assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for removal of disaster-related debris.
On January 6, 2004, FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 1965 for the debris clean-up. The PW estimated that the debris removal would cost $104,450, however, after a review of the scope of work in late February, FEMA determined that the work was ineligible on the basis that the debris was in a natural channel and did not pose an immediate threat to improved property. The PW received a final review on February 25, 2004, and a determination of ineligibility was sustained. The PW was obligated for $0.
First Appeal
The Applicant submitted a first appeal of FEMAs denial of funding on April 26, 2004, stating that the debris was eligible for FEMA funding under Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR 44) § 206.224. The Applicants letter was transmitted and supported by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Emergency Management (State) in a letter dated April 28, 2004. The Applicant stated that the debris build-up not only posed an immediate threat but actually caused repeated flooding and damage to the Facility and its lagoons before the debris was removed by the Applicant. (The repair to damages to the Facility caused during the Hurricane was funded through PW 222).
To support their appeal, the Applicant resubmitted an Engineering report that concluded, The obstructions from fallen trees in the channel and floodplain of Swift Creek create the potential to raise the base food elevation along this section of the stream and therefore potentially increase the flooding risk at the Facility. The Applicant submitted actual costs for this related effort in the amount of $143,693.18.
The Acting Regional Director denied the first appeal in a letter dated August 4, 2004, stating several reasons. Primarily, that the disaster-related debris was not the sole cause of the flooding because the Facility had flooded before the Hurricane and after the clean-up effort. It was noted that significant construction in the area and storm water runoff could be contributing to Facility flooding. Furthermore, the Engineers report stated that the debris in the stream raised the flood elevation and also indicated that this conclusion was based on the opinion of the engineer rather than hydrological modeling or other technical data to support that judgment.
Second Appeal
The Applicant submitted a second appeal of FEMAs determination on October 19, 2004, providing additional rainfall and flood data from 1998 to 2004. The State transmitted and supported the letter on December 22, 2004. The Applicant did not analyze the supplied data but stated that the spreadsheets provided evidence that the base flood elevation had been raised and that flood frequency had been increased following the storm. The Applicant also stated that they felt the Engineers report was unfairly discounted by the Region as incorrect and undocumented. The State concurred with the Applicants plea that the threat of damage to property was immediate because the Facility lagoons flooded repeatedly after the event.
DISCUSSION
The primary issue of the Applicants appeal is FEMAs determination that debris resulting from Hurricane Isabel did not pose an immediate threat to the Facility or its lagoons.
44 CFR § 206.225, Emergency Work, authorizes reimbursement for emergency measures required to eliminate an immediate threat to life, public health and safety and additional damage to improved property. The disaster regulations define immediate threat as the threat of additional damage or destruction from an event which can reasonably be expected to occur within five years. For flooding, this means a flood that has a 20% probability of occurrence in any given year (i.e., the 5-year flood).
There is no dispute that the water treatment plant is located within the 100-year floodplain and was flooded more than 19 times between 1998 and 2004. The plant was flooded 11 times before Hurricane Isabel, five times between the time the Hurricane hit and when debris was removed from the creek downstream of the plant, and three times after the debris was removed. In addition, a rainfall larger than ones that caused flooding before the Hurricane did not flood the facility after the debris was removed from Swift Creek downstream from the facility.
The Countys engineering consultant concluded that it is our opinion that the obstructions from the fallen trees in the channel and floodplain of Swift Creek create the potential to raise the base flood elevation along this section of the stream and therefore potentially increase the flooding risk at the Facility. Under the National Flood Insurance Program, the base flood elevation is defined as the 100-year flood elevation. The consultants report does not address the impact of the debris on the 5-year flood elevation, which is the criterion used to evaluate an immediate threat under the Public Assistance Program.
The County states that rainfall amounts of 1.41 inches, 1.53 inches, and 1.81 inches did not flood the facility prior to Hurricane Isabel, while post-hurricane rainfalls of 1.5 inches, 1.45 inches, 1.35 inches and 1.48 inches did flood the facility. The County concludes that this demonstrates that the debris created an immediate threat to the facility because the facility actually experienced flooding during this time. It is important to note that eligible emergency protective measures are authorized to protect against additional damages from up to a 5-year event only. Although the facility experienced flooding after the Hurricane, the County has not submitted any information that demonstrates that the post-hurricane flooding events which flooded the facility were less than or equal to the 5-year flood. In addition, the County did not submit any information demonstrating that the post-hurricane floods caused additional damage to the sludge lagoon or created a threat to public health and safety. The fact that the County informed the Department of Environmental Quality each time after the sludge lagoon was flooded does not demonstrate that a threat to public health and safety existed.
The removal of trees from the floodplain along Swift Creek downstream of the facility may have been a prudent action for the County to take to reduce the frequency of flooding of the facility. However, it does not meet the criterion for an eligible emergency protective measure under the Public Assistance Program.
CONCLUSION
Based on a review of the information provided in the Applicants second appeal, we have concluded that the disaster-related debris did not pose an immediate threat to the Facility. The Applicants appeal is denied.
Last updated