This page has not been translated into 简体中文. Visit the 简体中文 page for resources in that language.
Valle Del Rio Pipeline
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation:FEMA-1044-DR-CA; Otay Water District; DSR 25733
Cross Reference:Pipeline; Improved Project; Engineering and Design services
Summary: The winter floods of 1995 completely removed a low-water crossing in which the Otay Water District (applicant) ran a 10-inch diameter waterline that crossed the Sweetwater Creek. Following an inspection of the damages, FEMA approved DSR 25733 for $18,480 to replace the damaged waterline and the 18-inch diameter encasement. The crossing was replaced with a bridge, and the applicant elected to attach the 10-inch water line to the bridge rather than replace it to its pre-disaster condition. By a letter dated May 3, 1999, FEMA informed OES that this constituted an improved project and in accordance with 44 CFR 206.204(d)(1), FEMA funding was limited to the Federal share of the approved estimate of eligible repair costs. The applicant's first appeal requested additional funding and asserted that the above- ground pipe installation on the bridge is similar in cost to repairing the pipe to its pre-disaster condition below ground. The applicant also asserted that the original estimate did not include inspection and construction management costs, consultant design fees, or overall project management costs. The applicant confirmed that it elected to perform an improved project to protect the pipe from future damages. The applicant estimated the improved project cost at $118,328. The Disaster Recovery Manager upheld the original determination and denied the appeal. In its second appeal, the applicant asserts that only the piping portion of the project attached to the side of the new bridge is an improvement. Conversely, the end segments of the pipeline would be restored in the same manner regardless of whether the pipeline was installed underground or above ground. Therefore, the applicant believes this portion of the project is "unimproved" and the costs associated with this part of the project should be eligible for funding. The applicant determined that the total "unimproved" repair estimate is $67,447.
Issues: Are there any additional project costs that are eligible for reimbursement?
Findings:Yes. The approved scope of work for DSR 25733 should have included the cost to replace a blowoff assembly that was part of the original waterline. In addition, the cost to disinfect and flush the existing portion of pipe is an eligible expense. Reasonable engineering and design services, project management, and permit fees are also eligible for funding. A total of $10,158 in additional costs are eligible.
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.202(d)(1); 44 CFR 206.203(d)(1); Public Assistance Guide, FEMA 286 (September 1996) p.60.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1044-DR |
| Applicant | Otay Water District |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 073-91033 |
| PW ID# | 25733 |
| Date Signed | 2000-12-29T05:00:00 |
Cross Reference:Pipeline; Improved Project; Engineering and Design services
Summary: The winter floods of 1995 completely removed a low-water crossing in which the Otay Water District (applicant) ran a 10-inch diameter waterline that crossed the Sweetwater Creek. Following an inspection of the damages, FEMA approved DSR 25733 for $18,480 to replace the damaged waterline and the 18-inch diameter encasement. The crossing was replaced with a bridge, and the applicant elected to attach the 10-inch water line to the bridge rather than replace it to its pre-disaster condition. By a letter dated May 3, 1999, FEMA informed OES that this constituted an improved project and in accordance with 44 CFR 206.204(d)(1), FEMA funding was limited to the Federal share of the approved estimate of eligible repair costs. The applicant's first appeal requested additional funding and asserted that the above- ground pipe installation on the bridge is similar in cost to repairing the pipe to its pre-disaster condition below ground. The applicant also asserted that the original estimate did not include inspection and construction management costs, consultant design fees, or overall project management costs. The applicant confirmed that it elected to perform an improved project to protect the pipe from future damages. The applicant estimated the improved project cost at $118,328. The Disaster Recovery Manager upheld the original determination and denied the appeal. In its second appeal, the applicant asserts that only the piping portion of the project attached to the side of the new bridge is an improvement. Conversely, the end segments of the pipeline would be restored in the same manner regardless of whether the pipeline was installed underground or above ground. Therefore, the applicant believes this portion of the project is "unimproved" and the costs associated with this part of the project should be eligible for funding. The applicant determined that the total "unimproved" repair estimate is $67,447.
Issues: Are there any additional project costs that are eligible for reimbursement?
Findings:Yes. The approved scope of work for DSR 25733 should have included the cost to replace a blowoff assembly that was part of the original waterline. In addition, the cost to disinfect and flush the existing portion of pipe is an eligible expense. Reasonable engineering and design services, project management, and permit fees are also eligible for funding. A total of $10,158 in additional costs are eligible.
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.202(d)(1); 44 CFR 206.203(d)(1); Public Assistance Guide, FEMA 286 (September 1996) p.60.
Appeal Letter
December 29, 2000
Mr. D. A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
75 North Fair Oaks Avenue, East Annex, Fourth Floor
Pasadena, California 91103-3647
Re: Second Appeal; Otay Water District; FEMA-1044-DR-CA; Valle Del Rio Pipeline; DSR 25733
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to your March 14, 2000 letter, forwarding additional information in support of the Otay Water District's (applicant's) above referenced second appeal. The applicant submitted a second appeal directly to FEMA by a letter dated January 3, 2000. In your March 14, 2000 letter, the Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) formally submitted and supported the second appeal.
In the winter of 1995, floods along Sweetwater Creek washed away a low-water crossing owned by the Willow Glen Homeowners Association. The applicant owned a 10-inch diameter waterline that crossed the creek under the low-water crossing. Following an inspection of the damages, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approved Damage Survey Report (DSR) 25733 for $18,480 to replace the damaged waterline and an 18-inch diameter encasement.
Rather than replace the low-water crossing, the homeowners association constructed a new bridge, and the applicant elected to attach the 10-inch waterline to the bridge. The bridge construction and waterline replacement were performed under the same contract awarded by the homeowners association. By a letter dated May 3, 1999, FEMA informed OES that attaching the waterline to the bridge was a change from the pre-disaster condition of the waterline and this constituted an improved project. In accordance with 44 CFR 206.203(d)(1), FEMA funding was limited to the Federal share of the approved estimate of eligible repair costs.
By a letter dated August 16, 1999, OES transmitted the applicant's first appeal. The applicant requested additional funding to cover items of work that were not included in the approved DSR, such as testing the integrity of the ends of the existing waterline and disinfecting the existing pipe sections prior to connecting them to the new pipe. The applicant asserted that FEMA's repair estimate did not include inspection and construction management costs, consultant design fees, or overall project management costs. The applicant stated that it elected to perform an improved project due to the benefits of increasing the life span of the pipe and decreasing future damages. The applicant estimated that the cost of the waterline portion of the total bridge construction project was $118,328. The applicant asserted that the above ground pipe installation on the bridge was similar in cost to repairing the pipe to its pre-disaster condition below ground. In a response letter dated September 17, 1999, the Disaster Recovery Manager upheld the original determination and denied the appeal.
In its second appeal, the applicant contends that the new above ground waterline is essentially the same as the original waterline and it is made with the same material and appurtenances. In addition, the applicant asserts that the bridge design eliminated the possibility of placing the pipeline underground due to the number and depth of the piers. Also, the limits of the existing utility easement prevented locating the pipeline to the side of the piers. The applicant also states that its current waterline installation practice prohibits waterline crossings under riverbeds and streambeds where environmental impacts will occur and extensive permitting is required. However, the applicant has not provided any documentation that demonstrates that the bridge design or any applicable codes and standards prohibited the underground alignment of the waterline.
The applicant also asserts that only the piping portion of the project attached to the side of the new bridge is an improvement. Conversely, they claim that the end segments of the waterline, which consist of PVC and steel piping, air release valves, blowoff assemblies and concrete thrust restraints, would be restored in the same manner regardless of whether the waterline was installed under or above ground. Therefore, the applicant believes that the end segments of the pipe replacement project are not improvements over the pre-disaster condition of the waterline and should be eligible for funding. However, the damage description and scope of repair work in DSR 25733 did not depict any damages or describe any required repair to these items.
With the second appeal, the applicant provided an as-built plan of the pre-disaster waterline. Of the equipment that the applicant described as part of the pre-disaster waterline (air release valves, blowoff assemblies, concrete thrust restraints), only one two-inch blowoff is clearly shown on the pre-disaster as-built plan and located in the section of the waterline that was damaged by the disaster. Because there is no evidence that these other appurtenances were in place prior to the disaster or that they were damaged, FEMA cannot consider them in its repair estimate.
As the construction contract for the bridge and waterline was bid as a lump sum amount, the applicant was not able to use actual costs of the improved project to estimate the cost to restore the waterline to its pre-disaster condition. In its second appeal the applicant revised its initial repair estimate from $118,328 to $67,447. The revised estimate included only those elements that the applicant asserted were part of the pre-disaster waterline (blowoff assemblies, air vacuum assembly, thrust blocks, PVC pipe, steel pipe) or were direct costs required to restore the waterline to its pre-disaster condition (pipe disinfection, project management, permit fees, engineering and design fees).
FEMA funding for "improved projects" is capped at the Federal estimate, because the actual costs for eligible "unimproved" repairs, generally, cannot be separated from the actual costs for ineligible "improvements." As such, FEMA approves funding based on its estimate to repair the facility to its pre-disaster condition. Therefore, it is important that if an applicant intends to perform an "improved" project, it should ensure that FEMA's scope of eligible repair work and estimate are accurate.
In the second appeal, the applicant is requesting that FEMA accept its estimate for the repairs to the end sections of the waterline. However, the applicant based a portion of its estimate on items that were not identified in DSR 25733. The approved scope of work in the DSR only includes the replacement of the waterline and its encasement. The DSR does not identify any damages to the blowoffs, thrust blocks, and air vacuum assembly that are included in the applicant's repair estimate. As stated in 44 CFR 206.202(d)(1), at the time of the FEMA/OES inspection, it is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that all eligible work and costs are identified.
I have reviewed the information provided by the applicant and determined that additional work beyond what is described in DSR 25733 would have been required to repair the waterline to its pre-disaster condition. More specifically, the pre-disaster as-built plan shows that one two-inch blowoff would have been required to restore the waterline. Furthermore, the disinfection and flushing of the existing waterline may have been necessary to properly sanitize the existing pipe that was contaminated by floodwaters. In addition, the costs related to engineering and design, project management, and permit fees would have been required if the waterline was restored to its pre-disaster condition.
Using the estimates provided by the applicant, I have determined that an additional $2,100 is eligible for the two-inch blowoff and $3,500 for flushinone estimated eligible waterline repair construction costs versus the total actual bridge and waterline construction cost, I have determined that $2,005 of the applicant's estimate for project management and permit fees is eligible for reimbursement. Using Cost Curve B for engineering and design services in the Public Assistance Guide, FEMA Publication 286 (September 1996) p.60, I have determined that 10.6 percent of the estimated construction cost, or $2,553, for engineering and design services is also eligible.
The applicant has performed an "improved project" and in accordance with 44 CFR 206.203(d)(1), Federal funding for the project is limited to the Federal share of the approved estimate of eligible costs. I have determined that a total of $10,158 in additional costs are eligible for reimbursement bringing the total eligible funding to $28,638. By copy of this letter, the Regional Director is requested to prepare a supplementary DSR in the amount of $10,158. The appeal is partially approved.
Please inform the applicant of my decision. My decision constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Martha Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Mr. D. A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
75 North Fair Oaks Avenue, East Annex, Fourth Floor
Pasadena, California 91103-3647
Re: Second Appeal; Otay Water District; FEMA-1044-DR-CA; Valle Del Rio Pipeline; DSR 25733
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to your March 14, 2000 letter, forwarding additional information in support of the Otay Water District's (applicant's) above referenced second appeal. The applicant submitted a second appeal directly to FEMA by a letter dated January 3, 2000. In your March 14, 2000 letter, the Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) formally submitted and supported the second appeal.
In the winter of 1995, floods along Sweetwater Creek washed away a low-water crossing owned by the Willow Glen Homeowners Association. The applicant owned a 10-inch diameter waterline that crossed the creek under the low-water crossing. Following an inspection of the damages, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approved Damage Survey Report (DSR) 25733 for $18,480 to replace the damaged waterline and an 18-inch diameter encasement.
Rather than replace the low-water crossing, the homeowners association constructed a new bridge, and the applicant elected to attach the 10-inch waterline to the bridge. The bridge construction and waterline replacement were performed under the same contract awarded by the homeowners association. By a letter dated May 3, 1999, FEMA informed OES that attaching the waterline to the bridge was a change from the pre-disaster condition of the waterline and this constituted an improved project. In accordance with 44 CFR 206.203(d)(1), FEMA funding was limited to the Federal share of the approved estimate of eligible repair costs.
By a letter dated August 16, 1999, OES transmitted the applicant's first appeal. The applicant requested additional funding to cover items of work that were not included in the approved DSR, such as testing the integrity of the ends of the existing waterline and disinfecting the existing pipe sections prior to connecting them to the new pipe. The applicant asserted that FEMA's repair estimate did not include inspection and construction management costs, consultant design fees, or overall project management costs. The applicant stated that it elected to perform an improved project due to the benefits of increasing the life span of the pipe and decreasing future damages. The applicant estimated that the cost of the waterline portion of the total bridge construction project was $118,328. The applicant asserted that the above ground pipe installation on the bridge was similar in cost to repairing the pipe to its pre-disaster condition below ground. In a response letter dated September 17, 1999, the Disaster Recovery Manager upheld the original determination and denied the appeal.
In its second appeal, the applicant contends that the new above ground waterline is essentially the same as the original waterline and it is made with the same material and appurtenances. In addition, the applicant asserts that the bridge design eliminated the possibility of placing the pipeline underground due to the number and depth of the piers. Also, the limits of the existing utility easement prevented locating the pipeline to the side of the piers. The applicant also states that its current waterline installation practice prohibits waterline crossings under riverbeds and streambeds where environmental impacts will occur and extensive permitting is required. However, the applicant has not provided any documentation that demonstrates that the bridge design or any applicable codes and standards prohibited the underground alignment of the waterline.
The applicant also asserts that only the piping portion of the project attached to the side of the new bridge is an improvement. Conversely, they claim that the end segments of the waterline, which consist of PVC and steel piping, air release valves, blowoff assemblies and concrete thrust restraints, would be restored in the same manner regardless of whether the waterline was installed under or above ground. Therefore, the applicant believes that the end segments of the pipe replacement project are not improvements over the pre-disaster condition of the waterline and should be eligible for funding. However, the damage description and scope of repair work in DSR 25733 did not depict any damages or describe any required repair to these items.
With the second appeal, the applicant provided an as-built plan of the pre-disaster waterline. Of the equipment that the applicant described as part of the pre-disaster waterline (air release valves, blowoff assemblies, concrete thrust restraints), only one two-inch blowoff is clearly shown on the pre-disaster as-built plan and located in the section of the waterline that was damaged by the disaster. Because there is no evidence that these other appurtenances were in place prior to the disaster or that they were damaged, FEMA cannot consider them in its repair estimate.
As the construction contract for the bridge and waterline was bid as a lump sum amount, the applicant was not able to use actual costs of the improved project to estimate the cost to restore the waterline to its pre-disaster condition. In its second appeal the applicant revised its initial repair estimate from $118,328 to $67,447. The revised estimate included only those elements that the applicant asserted were part of the pre-disaster waterline (blowoff assemblies, air vacuum assembly, thrust blocks, PVC pipe, steel pipe) or were direct costs required to restore the waterline to its pre-disaster condition (pipe disinfection, project management, permit fees, engineering and design fees).
FEMA funding for "improved projects" is capped at the Federal estimate, because the actual costs for eligible "unimproved" repairs, generally, cannot be separated from the actual costs for ineligible "improvements." As such, FEMA approves funding based on its estimate to repair the facility to its pre-disaster condition. Therefore, it is important that if an applicant intends to perform an "improved" project, it should ensure that FEMA's scope of eligible repair work and estimate are accurate.
In the second appeal, the applicant is requesting that FEMA accept its estimate for the repairs to the end sections of the waterline. However, the applicant based a portion of its estimate on items that were not identified in DSR 25733. The approved scope of work in the DSR only includes the replacement of the waterline and its encasement. The DSR does not identify any damages to the blowoffs, thrust blocks, and air vacuum assembly that are included in the applicant's repair estimate. As stated in 44 CFR 206.202(d)(1), at the time of the FEMA/OES inspection, it is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that all eligible work and costs are identified.
I have reviewed the information provided by the applicant and determined that additional work beyond what is described in DSR 25733 would have been required to repair the waterline to its pre-disaster condition. More specifically, the pre-disaster as-built plan shows that one two-inch blowoff would have been required to restore the waterline. Furthermore, the disinfection and flushing of the existing waterline may have been necessary to properly sanitize the existing pipe that was contaminated by floodwaters. In addition, the costs related to engineering and design, project management, and permit fees would have been required if the waterline was restored to its pre-disaster condition.
Using the estimates provided by the applicant, I have determined that an additional $2,100 is eligible for the two-inch blowoff and $3,500 for flushinone estimated eligible waterline repair construction costs versus the total actual bridge and waterline construction cost, I have determined that $2,005 of the applicant's estimate for project management and permit fees is eligible for reimbursement. Using Cost Curve B for engineering and design services in the Public Assistance Guide, FEMA Publication 286 (September 1996) p.60, I have determined that 10.6 percent of the estimated construction cost, or $2,553, for engineering and design services is also eligible.
The applicant has performed an "improved project" and in accordance with 44 CFR 206.203(d)(1), Federal funding for the project is limited to the Federal share of the approved estimate of eligible costs. I have determined that a total of $10,158 in additional costs are eligible for reimbursement bringing the total eligible funding to $28,638. By copy of this letter, the Regional Director is requested to prepare a supplementary DSR in the amount of $10,158. The appeal is partially approved.
Please inform the applicant of my decision. My decision constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Martha Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX