Quogue Village Beach-Hazard Mitigation Proposal

Appeal Brief

Citation:  FEMA-1869-DR-NY, Village of Quogue, Quogue Village Beach-Hazard Mitigation Proposal

Cross-Reference:  Hazard Mitigation

Summary:  A severe storm and flooding event caused wave action and coastal flooding that eroded a section of the beach and dunes, washed-out a section of sand fence located on the dunes, damaged the boardwalk, and undermined the foundation of a building adjacent to the beach in the Village of Quogue (Applicant).  FEMA prepared PW 40 for $134,322 for the repair of the boardwalk and building foundation and PW 118 for $669,867 for the beach and dune restoration.  FEMA included an HMP with PW 40 for $157,500 for the placement of geo-cubes as erosion protection to protect the boardwalk and building from future, similar damage.  FEMA determined that in accordance with Disaster Assistance Policy DAP 9526.1 Hazard Mitigation Funding under Section 406 (Stafford Act) (Hazard Mitigation Policy), the HMP was ineligible because it was not cost effective. The Applicant submitted a first appeal stating “the placement of the geo-cubes provides erosion control mitigation to protect the structures against potential future damage or destruction and also protects part of the dune behind where they are located against future losses.”  NYS OEM transmitted the appeal, requesting that FEMA amend Appendix A of the Hazard Mitigation Policy to include geo-cubes and approve the HMP under PW 118.  The FEMA Regional Administrator denied the appeal, stating that Applicant installed the geo-cubes landward of the dune behind the beach project to protect the facilities listed in PW 40, and FEMA correctly included the HMP with PW 40.  The FEMA Regional Administrator also reiterated that the HMP is not cost effective.  The Applicant submitted a second appeal, requesting that FEMA combine the approved cost estimates of PWs 40 and 118 to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the HMP.  The Applicant states that it embedded the geo-cubes in the newly restored dunes and the geo-cubes protect both the facility and a substantial portion of dune. 

Issues:  1. Can the entire cost to restore the dunes and the beach be considered in the evaluation of the cost effectiveness of the HMP?

               2. Is the HMP cost effective according to the Hazard Mitigation Policy?

Findings:  1. No

                   2. No.

Rationale:  Disaster Assistance Policy DAP 9526.1 Hazard Mitigation Funding under Section 406 (Stafford Act),

.

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

Background

The severe storms and flooding from November 12-14, 2009, caused wave action and coastal flooding that eroded a section of the beach and dunes, washed-out a section of sand fence located on the dunes, damaged the boardwalk, and undermined the foundation of a building adjacent to the beach in the Village of Quogue.  FEMA prepared PW 40 for $134,322 for the repair of the boardwalk and building foundation and PW 118 for $669,867 for the beach and dune restoration.  FEMA included an HMP with PW 40 for $157,500 for the placement of geo-cubes as erosion protection to protect the boardwalk and building from future, similar damage.  Upon review of the HMP, FEMA determined that in accordance with Disaster Assistance Policy DAP 9526.1 Hazard Mitigation Funding under Section 406 (Stafford Act), the project was not cost effective and was, therefore, ineligible for funding.

First Appeal

The Village of Quogue (Applicant) submitted a first appeal of the denial of the HMP on October 5, 2010, after FEMA approved PW 40 and again on April 8, 2011, after FEMA approved PW 118.  In the October 5, 2010 letter, the Applicant stated that it had included the HMP with PW 118; however, it learned from FEMA and New York State Office of Emergency Management (NYS OEM) personnel that FEMA included the HMP with PW 40.  The Applicant stated that “the placement of the geo-cubes provides erosion control mitigation to protect the structures against potential future damage or destruction and also protects part of the dune behind where they are located against future losses.” 

In the April 8, 2011 letter, the Applicant reiterated its request for funding for the HMP.  NYS OEM transmitted both appeal letters to FEMA on April 29, 2011, requesting that FEMA amend Appendix A (a list of potential mitigation measures that are pre-determined to be cost effective if they meet certain criteria) of Disaster Assistance Policy DAP 9526.1 Hazard Mitigation Funding under Section 406 (Stafford Act), to include geo-cubes.  NYS OEM recommended that FEMA approve the HMP under PW 118.

The FEMA Regional Administrator denied the appeal on November 9, 2011, stating that Applicant installed the geo-cubes landward of the dune, behind the beach project, to protect the facilities listed in PW 40.  “Since the geo-cubes were placed landward of the beach area they do not protect the engineered beach facility. FEMA correctly included the proposal with the appropriate PW.”  The FEMA Regional Administrator also reiterated that in accordance with Disaster Assistance Policy DAP 9526.1, the project is not cost effective.

Second Appeal

The Applicant submitted a second appeal of the denial of the HMP on March 9, 2012, requesting that FEMA combine the approved cost estimates of PWs 40 and 118 to reevaluate the cost effectiveness of the HMP.  The Applicant states that it embedded the geo-cubes in the newly restored dunes and the geo-cubes protect both the facility and a substantial portion of dune.  The Applicant also requests that FEMA consider adding geo-cubes to Appendix A of Disaster Assistance Policy 9526.1, because they serve the same purpose as gabion baskets and riprap which are included in Appendix A for erosion control.

NYS OEM transmitted the Applicant’s appeal on April 30, 2012, stating that FEMA mistakenly prepared PW 40 as a Category E PW and that FEMA should have included the damages documented in PW 40 in the Category G PW 118, because the damaged facilities are park/recreation facilities.  Further, NYS OEM states that FEMA could consider the geo-cubes as an item listed in Appendix A, because they are comparable in function to gabion baskets and riprap.

Discussion

According to Disaster Assistance Policy 9526.1, to be eligible HMPs must be cost effective and cost effectiveness can be determined based on the following:

1. Mitigation measures are cost effective if the cost is up to 15% of the total eligible cost of the eligible repair work;
2. Mitigation measures listed in Appendix A are cost effective if the cost does not exceed 100% of the total eligible cost of the eligible repair work;
3. Mitigation measures are cost effective if shown by the Grantee or subgrantee to be cost effective based on an acceptable benefit/cost analysis methodology.

The FEMA Regional Administrator summarized the requirements for determining the cost effectiveness of an HMP in the first appeal response; however, neither NYS OEM nor the Applicant provided a benefit/cost analysis of the HMP.  Therefore, to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the HMP, the cost of the HMP must be compared to the total eligible cost of the eligible repair work.  The cost of the HMP ($157,500) is greater than the total eligible cost of the repair work approved in PW 40 ($134,322).  Therefore, the HMP is not cost-effective.

The Applicant asserts that the HMP mitigates damage to the restored dune and the facilities addressed in PW 40 and should be compared to the costs on PWs 40 and 118 combined ($804,189).  While the HMP as designed and installed should mitigate damage to the portion of the dune located behind the geo-cubes, it will not mitigate damage to the remaining portion of the dune or the restored beach.  Accordingly, the cost approved under PW 118 ($669,867) for the entire beach and dune restoration cannot be considered in an evaluation of the cost effectiveness of the HMP. 

The Applicant requests that FEMA consider geo-cubes as an item included in Appendix A of the policy; however, even if geo-cubes were included in Appendix A, the HMP would still not be cost effective in accordance with the second criteria provided by the policy (listed above), because the cost of the HMP is greater than the eligible repair costs approved in PW 40.

Conclusion

The cost of the HMP is greater than the cost to repair the damaged facilities addressed in PW 40.  Further, neither NYS OEM nor the Applicant submitted a benefit/cost analysis of the HMP demonstrating that the proposal is cost effective.  Therefore, the HMP is not eligible for Public Assistance funding.