Dodge County, NE, Elkhorn River Bank Reconstruction and Stabilization
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Mr. Bill Whitney
Assistant Director
Nebraska Emergency Management Agency
1300 Military Road
Lincoln, Nebraska 68508
Dear Mr. Whitney:
I am writing to you with regard to the third appeal submitted by your office for the proposed Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Project for the Elkhorn Breakout levee in Dodge County, Nebraska. We have performed a detailed engineering, economic, and program eligibility review based on your appeal. We have appreciated the cooperation from your staff, the Nebraska Natural Resources Commission, the Lower Platte North Natural Resources District, and the Papio-Missouri River Natural Resources District.
This cooperation has greatly aided FEMA in making a thorough evaluation of the merits of this project. Based on review and engineering analysis, there still exists three technical issues that impact the benefit/cost ratio for the project. These issues are as follows:
• The area protected by the project;
• The effective life of the project; and,
• Amount of historical road damage in the area.
The attached technical summary details these specific issues and the impacts they have on the computed benefit/cost ratio for the project. I have decided that it is in the best interests of all concerned parties to assume the following regarding the above technical issues:
• The area protected by the project is 5,100 acres;
• The effective life of the project is 10 years; and
• Historical road damage data is representative of losses that could be expected in the area protected by the project and these data, on a per acre basis, will be used to estimate expected benefits from the project.
All of the above mentioned determinations are favorable to the applicant. The resulting benefit/cost ratio, using these assumptions, results in a beneficial ratio of 1.2. Had we made assumptions that were on the conservative side, the benefit/cost ratio would have been 0.5. Based on our analyses and the 1.2 benefit/cost ratio, FEMA will approve the proposed mitigation project.
Again, I wish to express my appreciation for your cooperation and patience in evaluating this project. If you have any questions or concerns with this determination, please contact either me at (202) 646-3672, or Mr. Craig Wingo of my staff at (202) 646-3026.
Sincerely,
James L. Witt
The resulting benefit/cost ratio under these assumptions resulted in a beneficial ratio of 1.2. Assumptions on conservative side, not using these assumptions, had resulted in the benefit/cost ratio of 0.5. Based on the additional analyses and the 1.2 benefit/cost ratio, FEMA approved the proposed mitigation project under the following provisions:
1. The approval is provided based on the assumption that the applicant will assume all responsibility of repair and maintenance of the structure, even in the event of a major flood on the Elkhorn River.
2. The original project required that FEMA perform an Environmental Assessment (EA) to be in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The EA resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) from the project. The project design has been modified to include jetties that extend into the Elkhorn River. This modification to the original design will require that FEMA prepare an addendum to the EA to be compliant with NEPA and to address any possible impacts associated with the revised design. The approval of this project is subject to the addendum to the EA still resulting in a FONSI for the project. I do not envision this to be a problem and I assure you that FEM.A will complete this environmental evaluation in a timely manner to ensure that the construction of the project is not unnecessarily delayed.
3. Applicant must notify the public that the structure provides very limited protection against frequent but very low flow flood events and that applicant ensure stringent enforcement of floodplain management.
Appeal Brief
| Applicant | Nebraska Emergency Management Agency |
| Appeal Type | Supplemental |
| Project Number | 13 |
| Date Signed | 1997-08-04T00:00:00 |
1st Appeal
• Issue
o Dodge County, Nebraska, submitted an application through Nebraska Emergency Management Agency for HMGP funding of a river bank reconstruction and stabilization project on the west side of the Elkhorn River. The project was not approved, and a 1st level appeal was denied by Region VII.
• Reason for Denial
o Region VII found that the proposed project did not meet the cost-effectiveness requirement of the HMGP.
• Reference(s)
o 44 CFR 206.434 HMGP Eligibility; 44 CFR 206.440 Appeals
• Issue
o Dodge County, Nebraska, submitted an application through Nebraska Emergency Management Agency for HMGP funding of a river bank reconstruction and stabilization project on the west side of the Elkhorn River. The project was not approved, and a 1st level appeal was denied by Region VII.
• Reason for Denial
o Region VII found that the proposed project did not meet the cost-effectiveness requirement of the HMGP.
• Reference(s)
o 44 CFR 206.434 HMGP Eligibility; 44 CFR 206.440 Appeals
2nd Appeal
• Issue
o Dodge County submitted a 2nd appeal to overturn the Region VII 1st appeal denial. The applicant had provided a benefit-cost analysis that did not address essential elements of benefit-cost analysis, such as flooding recurrence probabilities and present value calculations. An upper bound benefit cost analysis was done by FEMA, generating a benefit-cost ratio of 0.57, indicating that the project was not cost effective.
• FEMA Findings
o The 2nd appeal decision upheld the 1st appeal denial.
o The rationale for the 2nd appeal decision was that the grant application did not meet the cost-effectiveness eligibility requirement of the HMGP.
o Reference(s): 44 CFR 206.434 HMGP Eligibility; 44 CFR 206.440 Appeals
• Issue
o Dodge County submitted a 2nd appeal to overturn the Region VII 1st appeal denial. The applicant had provided a benefit-cost analysis that did not address essential elements of benefit-cost analysis, such as flooding recurrence probabilities and present value calculations. An upper bound benefit cost analysis was done by FEMA, generating a benefit-cost ratio of 0.57, indicating that the project was not cost effective.
• FEMA Findings
o The 2nd appeal decision upheld the 1st appeal denial.
o The rationale for the 2nd appeal decision was that the grant application did not meet the cost-effectiveness eligibility requirement of the HMGP.
o Reference(s): 44 CFR 206.434 HMGP Eligibility; 44 CFR 206.440 Appeals
Supplemental (3rd Appeal)
1st Appeal
• Issue
o Dodge County, Nebraska, submitted an application through Nebraska Emergency Management Agency for HMGP funding of a river bank reconstruction and stabilization project on the west side of the Elkhorn River. The project was not approved, and a 1st level appeal was denied by Region VII.
• Reason for Denial
o Region VII found that the proposed project did not meet the cost-effectiveness requirement of the HMGP.
• Reference(s)
o 44 CFR 206.434 HMGP Eligibility; 44 CFR 206.440 Appeals
2nd Appeal
• Issue
o Dodge County submitted a 2nd appeal to overturn the Region VII 1st appeal denial. The applicant had provided a benefit-cost analysis that did not address essential elements of benefit-cost analysis, such as flooding recurrence probabilities and present value calculations. An upper bound benefit cost analysis was done by FEMA, generating a benefit-cost ratio of 0.57, indicating that the project was not cost effective.
• FEMA Findings
o The 2nd appeal decision upheld the 1st appeal denial.
o The rationale for the 2nd appeal decision was that the grant application did not meet the cost-effectiveness eligibility requirement of the HMGP.
o Reference(s): 44 CFR 206.434 HMGP Eligibility; 44 CFR 206.440 Appeals
Supplemental (3rd Appeal)
• Issue
o Dodge County, Nebraska, submitted an application through Nebraska Emergency Management Agency for HMGP funding of a river bank reconstruction and stabilization project on the west side of the Elkhorn River. The project was not approved, and a 1st level appeal was denied by Region VII.
• Reason for Denial
o Region VII found that the proposed project did not meet the cost-effectiveness requirement of the HMGP.
• Reference(s)
o 44 CFR 206.434 HMGP Eligibility; 44 CFR 206.440 Appeals
2nd Appeal
• Issue
o Dodge County submitted a 2nd appeal to overturn the Region VII 1st appeal denial. The applicant had provided a benefit-cost analysis that did not address essential elements of benefit-cost analysis, such as flooding recurrence probabilities and present value calculations. An upper bound benefit cost analysis was done by FEMA, generating a benefit-cost ratio of 0.57, indicating that the project was not cost effective.
• FEMA Findings
o The 2nd appeal decision upheld the 1st appeal denial.
o The rationale for the 2nd appeal decision was that the grant application did not meet the cost-effectiveness eligibility requirement of the HMGP.
o Reference(s): 44 CFR 206.434 HMGP Eligibility; 44 CFR 206.440 Appeals
Supplemental (3rd Appeal)
• Issue
o Dodge County submitted a 3rd appeal to request reconsideration of the 2nd appeal denial. FEMA performed a detailed engineering, economic, and program eligibility review based on your appeal. Through that technical review and also cooperation from the involved stakeholders, the eligibility issues were narrowed to three issues that could be resolved through specific assumptions.
o Dodge County submitted a 3rd appeal to request reconsideration of the 2nd appeal denial. FEMA performed a detailed engineering, economic, and program eligibility review based on your appeal. Through that technical review and also cooperation from the involved stakeholders, the eligibility issues were narrowed to three issues that could be resolved through specific assumptions.
• FEMA Findings
o The 3rd appeal decision was to approve the appeal of the 2nd appeal denial.
o The rationale for the 3rd appeal decision was that the grant application, based on detailed technical review and specific assumptions addressing remaining issues, meets the cost-effectiveness (beneficial ratio of 1.2) eligibility requirement of the HMGP.
o Reference(s): 44 CFR 206.434 HMGP Eligibility; 44 CFR 206.440 Appeals
o The 3rd appeal decision was to approve the appeal of the 2nd appeal denial.
o The rationale for the 3rd appeal decision was that the grant application, based on detailed technical review and specific assumptions addressing remaining issues, meets the cost-effectiveness (beneficial ratio of 1.2) eligibility requirement of the HMGP.
o Reference(s): 44 CFR 206.434 HMGP Eligibility; 44 CFR 206.440 Appeals
Appeal Letter
August 4, 1997
Mr. Bill Whitney
Assistant Director
Nebraska Emergency Management Agency
1300 Military Road
Lincoln, Nebraska 68508
Subject: Elkhorn Breakout Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Project, Dodge
County, Nebraska.
County, Nebraska.
Dear Mr. Whitney:
I am writing to you with regard to the third appeal submitted by your office for the proposed Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Project for the Elkhorn Breakout levee in Dodge County, Nebraska. We have performed a detailed engineering, economic, and program eligibility review based on your appeal. We have appreciated the cooperation from your staff, the Nebraska Natural Resources Commission, the Lower Platte North Natural Resources District, and the Papio-Missouri River Natural Resources District.
This cooperation has greatly aided FEMA in making a thorough evaluation of the merits of this project. Based on review and engineering analysis, there still exists three technical issues that impact the benefit/cost ratio for the project. These issues are as follows:
• The area protected by the project;
• The effective life of the project; and,
• Amount of historical road damage in the area.
The attached technical summary details these specific issues and the impacts they have on the computed benefit/cost ratio for the project. I have decided that it is in the best interests of all concerned parties to assume the following regarding the above technical issues:
• The area protected by the project is 5,100 acres;
• The effective life of the project is 10 years; and
• Historical road damage data is representative of losses that could be expected in the area protected by the project and these data, on a per acre basis, will be used to estimate expected benefits from the project.
All of the above mentioned determinations are favorable to the applicant. The resulting benefit/cost ratio, using these assumptions, results in a beneficial ratio of 1.2. Had we made assumptions that were on the conservative side, the benefit/cost ratio would have been 0.5. Based on our analyses and the 1.2 benefit/cost ratio, FEMA will approve the proposed mitigation project.
This approval is subject to following three provisions:
1. The approval is provided based on the assumption that the applicant will assume all responsibility of repair and maintenance of the structure, even in the event of a major flood on the Elkhorn River.
2. The original project required that FEMA perform an Environmental Assessment (EA) to be in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The EA resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) from the project. The project design has been modified to include jetties that extend into the Elkhorn River. This modification to the original design will require that FEMA prepare an addendum to the EA to be compliant with NEP A and to address any possible impacts associated with the revised design. The approval of this project is subject to the addendum to the EA still resulting in a FONSI for the project. I do not envision this to be a problem and I assure you that FEMA will complete this environmental evaluation in a timely manner to ensure that the construction of the project is not unnecessarily delayed.
3. Applicant must notify the public that the structure provides very limited protection against frequent but very low flow flood events and that applicant ensure stringent enforcement of floodplain management.
1. The approval is provided based on the assumption that the applicant will assume all responsibility of repair and maintenance of the structure, even in the event of a major flood on the Elkhorn River.
2. The original project required that FEMA perform an Environmental Assessment (EA) to be in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The EA resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) from the project. The project design has been modified to include jetties that extend into the Elkhorn River. This modification to the original design will require that FEMA prepare an addendum to the EA to be compliant with NEP A and to address any possible impacts associated with the revised design. The approval of this project is subject to the addendum to the EA still resulting in a FONSI for the project. I do not envision this to be a problem and I assure you that FEMA will complete this environmental evaluation in a timely manner to ensure that the construction of the project is not unnecessarily delayed.
3. Applicant must notify the public that the structure provides very limited protection against frequent but very low flow flood events and that applicant ensure stringent enforcement of floodplain management.
Again, I wish to express my appreciation for your cooperation and patience in evaluating this project. If you have any questions or concerns with this determination, please contact either me at (202) 646-3672, or Mr. Craig Wingo of my staff at (202) 646-3026.
Sincerely,
James L. Witt
Appeal Analysis
Three technical issues impacted the benefit/cost ratio for the project:
• The area protected by the project;
• The effective life of the project; and,
• Amount of historical road damage in the area.
• The area protected by the project;
• The effective life of the project; and,
• Amount of historical road damage in the area.
Upon the request for reconsideration, FEMA decision was made to to assume the following regarding the above technical issues:
• The area protected by the project is 5,100 acres;
• The effective life of the project is 10 years; and
• Historical road damage data is representative of losses that could be expected in the area protected by the project and these data, on a per acre basis, will be used to estimate expected benefits from the project.
• The area protected by the project is 5,100 acres;
• The effective life of the project is 10 years; and
• Historical road damage data is representative of losses that could be expected in the area protected by the project and these data, on a per acre basis, will be used to estimate expected benefits from the project.
The resulting benefit/cost ratio under these assumptions resulted in a beneficial ratio of 1.2. Assumptions on conservative side, not using these assumptions, had resulted in the benefit/cost ratio of 0.5. Based on the additional analyses and the 1.2 benefit/cost ratio, FEMA approved the proposed mitigation project under the following provisions:
1. The approval is provided based on the assumption that the applicant will assume all responsibility of repair and maintenance of the structure, even in the event of a major flood on the Elkhorn River.
2. The original project required that FEMA perform an Environmental Assessment (EA) to be in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The EA resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) from the project. The project design has been modified to include jetties that extend into the Elkhorn River. This modification to the original design will require that FEMA prepare an addendum to the EA to be compliant with NEPA and to address any possible impacts associated with the revised design. The approval of this project is subject to the addendum to the EA still resulting in a FONSI for the project. I do not envision this to be a problem and I assure you that FEM.A will complete this environmental evaluation in a timely manner to ensure that the construction of the project is not unnecessarily delayed.
3. Applicant must notify the public that the structure provides very limited protection against frequent but very low flow flood events and that applicant ensure stringent enforcement of floodplain management.
Last updated