This page has not been translated into Español. Visit the Español page for resources in that language.
Emergency Protective Measures
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: FEMA-1491-DR-VA; City of Norfolk, Project Worksheet (PW) 338
Cross-reference: Emergency Protective Measures
Summary: Hurricane Isabel affected the City of Norfolk (City) on September 19, 2003. Dune erosion and washouts occurred along the Citys Chesapeake Bay Beach as a result of the storm. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) obligated PW 338-0 on November 8, 2003, for $209,530 to place emergency sand berms at six sites to either protect improved public property from a five-year storm or to replace the pre-storm profile of the protective dune field, whichever was less. The City submitted its first appeal on December 2, 2003, written by its consulting engineers to award grant funding of $8,411,258 for placing 378,000 cubic yards of sand along the entire 7.3 miles of shoreline. The City later reduced its claim to $4,439,000 because it already had a proposal and funding to restore the beach prior to the storm. FEMA requested additional information from the City on February 2, 2004, and April 6, 2004 in order to analyze the first appeal. FEMA received all of the requested information on July 2, 2004. Based on another field visit, FEMA partially approved the appeal, obligating PW 338-1 for $28,750 to place emergency sand berms at two additional sites. The FEMA Region III Acting Regional Director denied the remainder of the appeal on
December 10, 2004, because it was a request to build an engineered dune system that did not previously exist. Also, the amount of work previously authorized provided the limits of emergency protection allowed under the Public Assistance Program. The City submitted its second appeal on February 28, 2005, for $4,439,000 to permanently repair 7.3 miles of shoreline or $1,288,663 to place 46,940 cubic yards of sand at nine sites using the Kriebel method of sand volume calculation. The Virginia Department of Emergency Management supports the Citys appeal for $1,288,663.
Issues: Is the additional volume of sand eligible for reimbursement?
Findings: No. The volume of sand requested by the City provides a greater level of protection than the five-year flood event allowed under the Public Assistance Program.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.225
Appeal Brief
| Desastre | FEMA-1491-DR |
| Applicant | City of Norfolk |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 710-57000-00 |
| PW ID# | 338 |
| Date Signed | 2006-05-01T04:00:00 |
December 10, 2004, because it was a request to build an engineered dune system that did not previously exist. Also, the amount of work previously authorized provided the limits of emergency protection allowed under the Public Assistance Program. The City submitted its second appeal on February 28, 2005, for $4,439,000 to permanently repair 7.3 miles of shoreline or $1,288,663 to place 46,940 cubic yards of sand at nine sites using the Kriebel method of sand volume calculation. The Virginia Department of Emergency Management supports the Citys appeal for $1,288,663.
Appeal Letter
May 1, 2006
Mr. Michael M. Cline
State Coordinator
Virginia Department of Emergency Management
10501 Trade Court
Richmond, Virginia 23236-3713
Re: Second Appeal City of Norfolk, PA ID 710-57000-00, Emergency Protective Measures, FEMA-1491-DR-VA, Project Worksheet (PW) 338
Dear Mr. Cline:
This is in response to your letter dated April 22, 2005, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Norfolk (City). The City is appealing the Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMAs) level of funding for placement of emergency sand berms along Chesapeake Bay Beach.
Hurricane Isabel affected the City on September 19, 2003. Dune erosion and washouts occurred along the Citys Chesapeake Bay Beach as a result of the storm. Subsequent to a site visit on October 16, 2003, FEMA obligated PW 338-0 on November 8, 2003, for $209,530 to place 9,110 cubic yards of sand in emergency berms at six sites to provide emergency protection to improved public property from a five-year storm or to replace the pre-storm profile of the protective dune field, whichever was less.
The City submitted its first appeal on December 2, 2003, in the format of a FEMA large project worksheet written by its consulting engineers to award grant funding of $8,411,258 for placing 378,000 cubic yards along the entire 7.3 miles of shoreline. The City later reduced its claim to $4,439,000 because it already had a proposal and the associated funding earmarked to renourish the beach prior to the storm. FEMA requested additional information from the City on February 2, 2004, and April 6, 2004 in order to analyze the first appeal. FEMA received all of the requested information on July 2, 2004. Based on another field visit, FEMA partially approved the appeal, obligating PW 338-1 for $28,750 to place 1,250 cubic yards of sand in emergency berms at two additional sites. On December 10, 2004, the FEMA Region III Acting Regional Director denied the remainder of the appeal because it was a request to build an engineered dune system that did not previously exist. Also, the amount of work already authorized provided the limits of emergency protection allowed under the Public Assistance Program.
The City submitted its second appeal on February 28, 2005, claiming that the level of work recommended in the PWs is not adequate to protect the vulnerable improved property and infrastructure located along the Citys oceanfront shoreline. The City questioned the method FEMA used to calculate the volume of sand necessary to provide protection. The City articulated that it would prefer $4,439,000 to help it fund part of an emergency dune systems 7.3 miles in length. And if FEMA will not fund this, then the City states that FEMA should grant an additional award of $1,288,663 to place 46,940 cubic yards at nine sites using the Kriebel method of volume calculation. This alternate request also includes costs for nine acres of beach grass that did not exist prior to the event and the costs of its consulting engineers. The Virginia Department of Emergency Management supports the Citys appeal for an additional award of $1,288,663.
FEMA explained to the City and its consulting engineers at several meetings and site visits that FEMA used the Hallemeier & Rhodes (1988) methodology to determine the quantity of sand needed for emergency berming. This method was developed for FEMAs Flood Insurance Mapping Program by studying dunes that eroded but did not overwash. The volume of sand lost to erosion was calculated and compared to the storm surge elevation (referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD)). The resulting recurrence interval yields an erosion rate of six cubic yards per linear foot for a five-year storm plus any additional volume to maintain the design slope depending on the geometry of the shoreline. The City stated that the FEMA cross-sections showed the dune as height above grade rather than an elevation above datum, which does not allow for determination of the reconstructed dunes resistance to the five-year storm. However, the Hallemeier and Rhodes method is based on a datum (NGVD) and the volume calculated from it is based on a five-year storm event. Also included in the eligible amount were the mobilization and demobilization costs based on the actual contract costs the City incurred.
The Kriebel method is similar to Hallemeier & Rhodes except that it depends not only on surge but also on wave height and storm duration. The Kriebel method establishes a more permanent berm or dune line. By FEMA regulations, emergency work is allowed to protect improved property against a five-year event. The Hallemeier & Rhodes method does that. Chesapeake Bay Beach is a natural beach and is not an eligible facility under FEMAs Public Assistance Program. It did not have an engineered dune system prior to the event. Thus, permanent work is not eligible. Also, the grass and the consultants fees are not eligible for reimbursement. Based on these reasons, the appeal is denied.
Please inform the City of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
David Garratt
Acting Director of Recovery
Federal Emergency Management Agency
cc: Patricia Arcuri
Acting Regional Director
FEMA, Region III
Mr. Michael M. Cline
State Coordinator
Virginia Department of Emergency Management
10501 Trade Court
Richmond, Virginia 23236-3713
Re: Second Appeal City of Norfolk, PA ID 710-57000-00, Emergency Protective Measures, FEMA-1491-DR-VA, Project Worksheet (PW) 338
Dear Mr. Cline:
This is in response to your letter dated April 22, 2005, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Norfolk (City). The City is appealing the Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMAs) level of funding for placement of emergency sand berms along Chesapeake Bay Beach.
Hurricane Isabel affected the City on September 19, 2003. Dune erosion and washouts occurred along the Citys Chesapeake Bay Beach as a result of the storm. Subsequent to a site visit on October 16, 2003, FEMA obligated PW 338-0 on November 8, 2003, for $209,530 to place 9,110 cubic yards of sand in emergency berms at six sites to provide emergency protection to improved public property from a five-year storm or to replace the pre-storm profile of the protective dune field, whichever was less.
The City submitted its first appeal on December 2, 2003, in the format of a FEMA large project worksheet written by its consulting engineers to award grant funding of $8,411,258 for placing 378,000 cubic yards along the entire 7.3 miles of shoreline. The City later reduced its claim to $4,439,000 because it already had a proposal and the associated funding earmarked to renourish the beach prior to the storm. FEMA requested additional information from the City on February 2, 2004, and April 6, 2004 in order to analyze the first appeal. FEMA received all of the requested information on July 2, 2004. Based on another field visit, FEMA partially approved the appeal, obligating PW 338-1 for $28,750 to place 1,250 cubic yards of sand in emergency berms at two additional sites. On December 10, 2004, the FEMA Region III Acting Regional Director denied the remainder of the appeal because it was a request to build an engineered dune system that did not previously exist. Also, the amount of work already authorized provided the limits of emergency protection allowed under the Public Assistance Program.
The City submitted its second appeal on February 28, 2005, claiming that the level of work recommended in the PWs is not adequate to protect the vulnerable improved property and infrastructure located along the Citys oceanfront shoreline. The City questioned the method FEMA used to calculate the volume of sand necessary to provide protection. The City articulated that it would prefer $4,439,000 to help it fund part of an emergency dune systems 7.3 miles in length. And if FEMA will not fund this, then the City states that FEMA should grant an additional award of $1,288,663 to place 46,940 cubic yards at nine sites using the Kriebel method of volume calculation. This alternate request also includes costs for nine acres of beach grass that did not exist prior to the event and the costs of its consulting engineers. The Virginia Department of Emergency Management supports the Citys appeal for an additional award of $1,288,663.
FEMA explained to the City and its consulting engineers at several meetings and site visits that FEMA used the Hallemeier & Rhodes (1988) methodology to determine the quantity of sand needed for emergency berming. This method was developed for FEMAs Flood Insurance Mapping Program by studying dunes that eroded but did not overwash. The volume of sand lost to erosion was calculated and compared to the storm surge elevation (referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD)). The resulting recurrence interval yields an erosion rate of six cubic yards per linear foot for a five-year storm plus any additional volume to maintain the design slope depending on the geometry of the shoreline. The City stated that the FEMA cross-sections showed the dune as height above grade rather than an elevation above datum, which does not allow for determination of the reconstructed dunes resistance to the five-year storm. However, the Hallemeier and Rhodes method is based on a datum (NGVD) and the volume calculated from it is based on a five-year storm event. Also included in the eligible amount were the mobilization and demobilization costs based on the actual contract costs the City incurred.
The Kriebel method is similar to Hallemeier & Rhodes except that it depends not only on surge but also on wave height and storm duration. The Kriebel method establishes a more permanent berm or dune line. By FEMA regulations, emergency work is allowed to protect improved property against a five-year event. The Hallemeier & Rhodes method does that. Chesapeake Bay Beach is a natural beach and is not an eligible facility under FEMAs Public Assistance Program. It did not have an engineered dune system prior to the event. Thus, permanent work is not eligible. Also, the grass and the consultants fees are not eligible for reimbursement. Based on these reasons, the appeal is denied.
Please inform the City of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
David Garratt
Acting Director of Recovery
Federal Emergency Management Agency
cc: Patricia Arcuri
Acting Regional Director
FEMA, Region III