alert - warning

This page has not been translated into 한국어. Visit the 한국어 page for resources in that language.

Kizhuyak River Erosion Control Project

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1072-DR
ApplicantAlaska Energy Authority
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#000-92101
PW ID#48714
Date Signed1997-09-30T04:00:00

Citation: FEMA-1072-DR-AK; Kodiak Island; DSR 48714

Cross

Reference:
Immediate threat

Summary:
In September of 1995 the Kizhuyak River flooded and eroded a portion of the channel bank on which the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Facility (Facility) is located. The magnitude of erosion that occurred in this storm, estimated to be a 15- to 20-year flood event, alerted the operators to the vulnerability of the 12-year old plant to undermining from erosion. The channel bank is still 400 feet from the nearest structure. The damage survey report (DSR) 48714 dated October 21, 1995, estimated the cost at $440,000 for a permanent structure that would protect the channel bank from erosion. To do this, the applicant proposes to construct spur dikes extending into the river. These dikes are designed to redirect the river back to its original course away from the facility, and to divert floods of up to the 100-year event. The project does not meet FEMA's funding guidelines under Section 403 of the Stafford Act, and is not eligible as an emergency protective measure. DSR 48714 was suspended while an engineering study by Dewberry and Davis was performed. DSR 48714 was unsuspended and determined ineligible on July 26, 1996. On April 9, 1997, the Regional Director denied the appeal because the proposed project is not eligible for Federal funding under the 406 Public Assistance program. The State argues in the second appeal letter of May 30, 1997, that the decision and the recommendation from the Dewberry and Davis engineering study were based on an incorrect interpretation of the immediate threat from a five-year event.

Issues: Does the daily erosion of the temporary dike qualify as an "immediate threat" to the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Facility?

Findings: No, the proposed erosion control project is not eligible under PL 93-288 since the erosion is a progressive event and not an "immediate threat" as defined in 44 CFR 206.221(c).

Rationale:
44 CFR 206.221(c)

Appeal Letter

September 30, 1997

Ms. Dianna Alcantra
Governor's Authorized Representative
Alaska Division of Emergency Services
Fort Richardson, Alaska 99595-5750

Dear Ms. Alcantra:

This letter is in response to your second appeal letter of May 30, 1997, for damage survey report (DSR) 48714. The Federal Emergency Management Agency Region X, denied eligibility of the Alaska Electric Authority, Erosion Control Project for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Facility for the 1995 South-central floods.

The proposed erosion control project is not eligible under PL 93-288 since the erosion is a progressive event and not an "immediate threat" as defined in 44 CFR 206.221(c). The five-year flood event may cause additional damage but not enough to erode the 400 feet of channel bank to the nearest structure. There is no single event within that range of events, that could cause enough erosion to jeopardize the facility. The second appeal is denied.

Please inform the applicant of my determination. The applicant may submit a third appeal to the Director of FEMA. The appeal must be submitted through your office and the Regional Director within 60 days of receipt of this determination.



Sincerely,

/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND

In September 1995, the Kizhuyak River flooded and eroded a portion of the channel bank on which the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Facility is located. The magnitude of erosion that occurred in this storm, estimated to be a 15- to 20-year flood event, alerted the operators to the vulnerability of the 12-year old plant to undermining from erosion. The channel bank is still 400 feet from the nearest structure. The damage survey report (DSR) 48714 dated October 21, 1995, estimated the cost of $440,000 for a permanent solution to the Kizhuyak river encroachment into the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Facility. DSR 48714 was suspended until July 25, 1996, pending completion of an engineering study performed by Dewberry and Davis to determine if an immediate threat to the plant existed.

The applicant proposed to construct an erosion control project consisting of spur dikes extending into the river at a cost of $855,800. The estimated cost is the result of a design study conducted by the applicant. These dikes are designed to redirect the river back to its original course away from the facility, and to divert floods of up to the 100-year event. The dikes are reinforced and sized to resist scour from the river flow. While the project would be effective in reducing hazards over the life of the hydroelectric facility, the study determined that a 5 year flood would not cause sufficient flooding or erosion to jeopardize the hydroelectric facility. DSR 48714 was unsuspended and determined ineligible on July 26, 1996.

First Appeal

The subgrantee submitted a first appeal to the State on January 3, 1997, disagreeing with the interpretation of "immediate threat" in the Dewberry and Davis report. The State, supporting the subgrantee, forwarded the first appeal to Region X on January 15, 1997.

The first appeal was denied because the erosion threat to the hydroelectric facility was not immediate as required in 44CFR 206-221(c). The regulations define "immediate threat" as the threat of additional damage from a five-year frequency event. Such an event would cause additional erosion but would not threaten the facility. On April 9, 1997, the Regional Director denied the appeal because the proposed project is not eligible for Federal funding under the 406 Public Assistance program. The Regional Director suggested that the erosion problem would be more appropriately addressed as a Hazard Mitigation project under Section 404.



Second Appeal

The State argues in the letter of May 30, 1997, that the decision and the recommendation from the Dewberry and Davis engineering study were based on an incorrect interpretation of the threat from a five-year event. The subgrantee argues that continuous erosion, rather than the five-year frequency event constitutes the immediate threat. Region X states that incremental erosion is not considered an "immediate threat" but rather a progressive event. Also, there is no single event within that range of events that could cause enough erosion, including the five-year flood event, to jeopardize the facility.

DISCUSSION

The appeal argues that the erosion that is taking place on the Kizhuyak River in the vicinity of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Facility is an "immediate threat" as defined in 44 CFR 206.221(c). As defined in the regulations "Immediate threat means the threat of additional damage or destruction from an event which can reasonably be expected to occur within five years." It is unlikely that a five-year flood event would be able to erode 400 feet of alluvial material between the channel alignment created in the 1995 flood and the storage building and incinerator. The appeal argues that "any event," including continuous erosion, is an immediate threat. Over time continuous erosion may damage the tailrace but the intent of the regulation is not to provide five years of protection, rather, to prevent damage or destruction from an event which can reasonably be expected to occur every five years. The five-year event is defined in the regulation and is not an interpretation by FEMA.

CONCLUSION

The proposed erosion control project is not eligible under PL 93-288 since the erosion is a progressive event and not an "immediate threat to improved property" as defined in 44 CFR 206.221(c). The second appeal is denied.