Bank Erosion

March 29, 2010

Gerard Urbas

Deputy State Coordinating Officer

State of Washington Military Department

Emergency Management Division

MS: TA-20, Building 20

Camp Murray, WA  98430-5122

Re:   Second Appeal–City of Centralia, PA ID 041-11160-00, Bank Erosion,

FEMA-1734-DR-WA, Project Worksheet (PW) 1062

Dear Mr. Urbas:

This letter is in response to your letter dated May 26, 2009, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Centralia (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of its request for funding for the stabilization of an eroded creek bank adjacent to the China Creek force main.

During the declared December 2007 flood event, the Chehalis River flooded and a portion of its bank adjacent to the China Creek sewer main eroded, exposing a 10-foot length of the pipe.  Based on the recommendation of a geotechnical specialist, FEMA obligated PW 1062 on March 21, 2008, for $25,159 for the restoration of support and cover to the exposed length of pipe.  The approved scope of work included the installation of a 14-foot-long sheet pile wall.

The Applicant’s consultant observed significant erosion along a 100-foot-long section of the river bank and recommended stabilizing the entire length of eroded bank to eliminate the threat of additional erosion, which could further threaten the sewer line.  In April 2008, the Applicant entered into a contract for the armoring of a 100-foot section of bank and the construction of a rock and log jam groin based on its consultant’s recommendation.

On May 30, 2008, the Applicant submitted a first appeal stating that it had completed the emergency bank stabilization and requested FEMA fund the actual project cost of $169,778.  The Applicant submitted a memorandum dated May 5, 2008, from its consultant that states that the bank had eroded to within less than five feet from the sewer pipe, creating a hazard of exposure and pipe failure for the entire 100-foot length of riverbank.  The consultant had considered a sheet pile alternative as recommended by FEMA, but determined that it was not feasible due to the high risk of additional bank collapse.  The Regional Administrator denied the appeal because the Applicant had not demonstrated that there was an immediate threat of damage to the pipe.

The Applicant submitted its second appeal on March 28, 2009, requesting FEMA reimburse its actual costs for the stabilization of the 100-foot section of creek bank.  The Applicant states that the work was necessary to eliminate the immediate threat of additional damage to the sewer line and reiterates that FEMA’s recommended method of repair was not feasible.  While the Applicant’s consultant states that the bank eroded to within five feet of the pipeline, the Applicant did not provide any documentation to support that statement.  The appeal references as-built drawings; however, the Applicant did not submit the drawings in support of the appeal.  Further, the Applicant completed the project without performing, or allowing FEMA to perform, an environmental review for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Response and Recovery Policy 9560.1, Environmental Policy Memoranda, includes Environmental Policy Memo #3, which describes how FEMA treats projects that Applicants complete prior to performing an environmental review.  Actions completed without fulfilling the specific documentation and procedural requirements of NEPA may not be considered for funding.  There are exceptions to the policy for those projects that are eligible for funding as emergency work or for those repair projects that restore a facility substantially to its condition prior to the disaster.  As discussed above, the scope of work that the Applicant completed is not eligible as emergency work.  While the work required to restore cover to the exposed 10-foot length of pipe would have been eligible for funding as permanent work, the Applicant restored the cover to the exposed pipe in conjunction with the bank stabilization.  FEMA did not review the final scope of work for compliance with NEPA prior to the Applicant starting the work. Therefore, FEMA can provide no funding for the project.

I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and determined that the Regional Administrator’s decision in the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance regulations and policy.  Therefore, I am denying the second appeal.

Please inform the Applicant of my decision.  This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206, Appeals.

Sincerely,

/s/

Elizabeth A. Zimmerman

Assistant Administrator

Disaster Assistance Directorate

cc:  Dennis A. Hunsinger, PhD

    Acting Regional Administrator

      FEMA Region X