Replacement of damaged culvert
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: FEMA-1684-DR-PA, Forest Lake Township, PW 567
Cross-reference: Codes and Standards; Pre-Disaster Condition
Summary: In November of 2006, severe storms and flooding struck Forest Lake Township
(Applicant). As a result of high velocity floodwaters, a 30-inch pipe was clogged
with mud, cobble and roadway aggregate surface material. The Applicant advised
FEMA that it wanted to repair and mitigate at the site by replacing a 20-foot section
of 30-inch pipe with a 20-foot section of 48-inch pipe. The original PW was
written and approved to replace the 30-inch pipe with 48-inch pipe at a cost of
$3,300. The Applicant was reimbursed for the actual costs of installing the new pipe at the site. The Applicant states that, as the result of a hydrology study performed at the site, it is required by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to replace the 48-inch pipe with an aluminum box culvert. The Applicant is requesting an additional $96,019 for the cost of replacing the 48-inch pipe with an aluminum box culvert.
The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency submitted its first appeal on behalf of the Applicant on October 17, 2007. In the first appeal, the Applicant claimed that the PW was written for temporary work and the Applicant requested a change in the scope of work for the site. The Regional Administrator found that repairs to the site, along with the mitigation effort, returned the site to a condition that exceeded its pre-disaster design and capacity. The first appeal was denied by letter on December 4, 2007. In its second appeal, the Applicant restates its position that work performed at the site was temporary work. The Applicant requests a change in the scope of work at the site to cover the expenses of replacing the 20-foot section of 48-inch pipe with a box culvert.
Issues: 1. Should the scope of work be revised to include work associated with Department
of Environmental Protection codes and standards?
2. Is replacement of the 48-inch pipe an eligible cost?
Findings: 1. No. The Applicant did not submit documentation establishing that an upgrade
was a code requirement.
2. No.
Rationale: Stafford Act Section 406(e); 44 CFR §206.226(d).
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1684-DR |
| Applicant | Forest Lake Township |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 115-26648-00 |
| PW ID# | Project Worksheet 567 |
| Date Signed | 2008-11-26T05:00:00 |
(Applicant). As a result of high velocity floodwaters, a 30-inch pipe was clogged
with mud, cobble and roadway aggregate surface material. The Applicant advised
FEMA that it wanted to repair and mitigate at the site by replacing a 20-foot section
of 30-inch pipe with a 20-foot section of 48-inch pipe. The original PW was
written and approved to replace the 30-inch pipe with 48-inch pipe at a cost of
$3,300. The Applicant was reimbursed for the actual costs of installing the new pipe at the site. The Applicant states that, as the result of a hydrology study performed at the site, it is required by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to replace the 48-inch pipe with an aluminum box culvert. The Applicant is requesting an additional $96,019 for the cost of replacing the 48-inch pipe with an aluminum box culvert.
The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency submitted its first appeal on behalf of the Applicant on October 17, 2007. In the first appeal, the Applicant claimed that the PW was written for temporary work and the Applicant requested a change in the scope of work for the site. The Regional Administrator found that repairs to the site, along with the mitigation effort, returned the site to a condition that exceeded its pre-disaster design and capacity. The first appeal was denied by letter on December 4, 2007. In its second appeal, the Applicant restates its position that work performed at the site was temporary work. The Applicant requests a change in the scope of work at the site to cover the expenses of replacing the 20-foot section of 48-inch pipe with a box culvert.
of Environmental Protection codes and standards?
2. Is replacement of the 48-inch pipe an eligible cost?
was a code requirement.
2. No.
Appeal Letter
November 26, 2008
Mimi Myslewicz
Governors Authorized Representative
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
2605 Interstate Drive
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-9364
Re: Reconsideration of Second AppealForest Lake Township, PA ID 115-26648-00
Replacement of damaged culvert, FEMA-1684-DR- PA, Project Worksheet (PW) 567
Dear Ms. Myslewicz:
This is in response to your letter dated August 13, 2008, which transmitted the referenced request for reconsideration on behalf of the Forest Lake Township (Applicant). Specifically, the Applicant requested that the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agency reconsider its August 11, 2008, second appeal determination of the Applicants request for funds to replace a 48-inch culvert with an 11 x 5 box culvert.
44 CFR §202.206 provides applicants with two levels of appeal of any FEMA funding determination. The first appeal is to the Regional Administrator. The second appeal is to the Assistant Administrator for Disaster Assistance. The Assistant Administrators determination is the agencys final administrative decision on all funding issues. FEMA may reconsider its second appeal determination if the applicant can conclusively demonstrate that FEMA did not appropriately consider all factual information submitted with the second appeal, or that FEMA administratively erred in evaluating the appeal.
We have reviewed all information submitted with the second appeal and have determined that we appropriately and fully evaluated all information submitted with the second appeal. Therefore, there is no basis to reconsider the second appeal determination.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: Jonathan Sarubbi
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region III
Mimi Myslewicz
Governors Authorized Representative
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
2605 Interstate Drive
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-9364
Re: Reconsideration of Second AppealForest Lake Township, PA ID 115-26648-00
Replacement of damaged culvert, FEMA-1684-DR- PA, Project Worksheet (PW) 567
Dear Ms. Myslewicz:
This is in response to your letter dated August 13, 2008, which transmitted the referenced request for reconsideration on behalf of the Forest Lake Township (Applicant). Specifically, the Applicant requested that the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agency reconsider its August 11, 2008, second appeal determination of the Applicants request for funds to replace a 48-inch culvert with an 11 x 5 box culvert.
44 CFR §202.206 provides applicants with two levels of appeal of any FEMA funding determination. The first appeal is to the Regional Administrator. The second appeal is to the Assistant Administrator for Disaster Assistance. The Assistant Administrators determination is the agencys final administrative decision on all funding issues. FEMA may reconsider its second appeal determination if the applicant can conclusively demonstrate that FEMA did not appropriately consider all factual information submitted with the second appeal, or that FEMA administratively erred in evaluating the appeal.
We have reviewed all information submitted with the second appeal and have determined that we appropriately and fully evaluated all information submitted with the second appeal. Therefore, there is no basis to reconsider the second appeal determination.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: Jonathan Sarubbi
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region III
Last updated