McMichael's Creek Embankment

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

Disaster	FEMA-1093-DR
Applicant	Stroud Township
Appeal Type	Second
PA ID#	089-74880
PW ID#	39686,72953
Date Signed	1999-07-12T04:00:00

Summary: In January 1996, disaster-related flooding eroded an embankment along McMichael's Creek in Stroud Township, Pennsylvania. In March 1996, Damage Survey Report (DSR) 47196 was prepared in the amount of $107,703 for dredging and rip-rap repairs to a 375-foot section of the embankment adjacent to a pump station. In April 1996, the site was re-inspected and DSR 39686 was approved in the amount of $2,724 to regrade the area, replace the damaged filter fabric and replace the stone protection on a 100-foot section of the embankment adjacent to the pump station. The subgrantee appealed for reinstatement of DSR 47196 in the full amount of $107,703. The Regional Director denied the appeal on the basis that there was no evidence that the embankment was an improved and maintained facility. However, the Regional Director approved supplemental DSR 72953 in the amount of $9,401 to fund additional fill, rip-rap, and geotextile fabric to properly protect the pump station from a five-year threat. In October 1998, the subgrantee submitted a second appeal stating that the actual eligible costs for DSRs 39686 and 72953 should be $108,427. The increased cost is due to the installation of gabion baskets placed along the embankment in lieu of the rip-rap that was approved in DSRs 39686 and 72953. The subgrantee requests that FEMA obligate an additional $96,738 to fully fund the completed repair work.

Issues:

1. Is the gabion basket repair work eligible for permanent restoration funding?
2. Is the gabion basket repair work eligible as an emergency protective measure?
3. Is additional work necessary to protect the embankment from a five-year event?

Findings:

1. No. The embankment is not an eligible facility and the gabion baskets were not in place prior to the disaster.
2. No. It was not demonstrated that the gabion baskets were the only viable and cost effective means of protecting the pump station from an immediate threat. Rip-rap would have properly protected the embankment from erosion from a five-year event.
3. Yes. The scope of work identified in DSRs 39686 and 72953 does not include all of the materials and costs necessary to complete the rip-rap protection project.

Rationale: 44 CFR 206.201(c) and 206.225

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND

In January 1996, disaster-related flooding eroded an embankment along McMichael's Creek in Stroud Township, Pennsylvania. On March 13, 1996, Damage Survey Report (DSR) 47196 was prepared in the amount of $107,703 for excavation and rip-rap repairs to a 375-foot section of the embankment adjacent to a pump station. Upon review, DSR 47196 was suspended for re-inspection. On April 25, 1996, the site was re-inspected and DSR 39686 was approved in the amount of $2,724 to regrade the area, replace the damaged filter fabric and replace the stone protection on a 100-foot section of the embankment adjacent to the pump station.

First Appeal
On March 12, 1997, the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (Grantee) submitted Stroud Township's (subgrantee's) first appeal of DSRs 47196 and 39686. The subgrantee requested the reinstatement of DSR 47196 for $107,703 to repair the 375-foot section of the stream embankment. The Grantee stated that, following the disaster, further erosion threatened the pump station and stabilization of the embankment was necessary to eliminate the threat. The Regional Director denied the first appeal on the basis that the recent erosion was not related to the disaster event. Furthermore, there was no evidence that stone protection existed prior to the flood event or that the stream bank was maintained. Therefore, the embankment was not an eligible facility. In addition, it was determined that the scope of work to repair the 375-foot section exceeded what was necessary to protect the pump station.

It was also determined that DSR 39686 inadequately addressed the volume, size, and placement method of the rip-rap required along the 100-foot embankment section to protect the pump station. Therefore, DSR 72953 was approved in the amount of $9,401 to fund additional fill, rip-rap, and geotextile fabric to properly protect the pump station from a five-year flood threat.

Second Appeal
On October 28, 1998, the subgrantee submitted a second appeal stating that the actual eligible costs for DSRs 39686 and 72953 are $108,427. The increased cost is due to the installation of gabion baskets placed along the embankment in lieu of the rip-rap that was approved in DSRs 39686 and 72953. The Grantee contends that the subgrantee was not able to begin repairs to protect the pump station until the spring of 1998 due to uncertainty of funding and the length of the appeals process. Because of this delay, the situation deteriorated to the point where using rip-rap was no longer feasible and the use of the gabion baskets along the embankment was required.


DISCUSSION

FEMA funds two major types of disaster-related work under the Public Assistance Program. Under Section 403 of the Stafford Act, emergency work is eligible for FEMA funding in order to eliminate immediate threats to public health and safety and property. Permanent restoration of damaged public facilities is eligible under Section 406 of the Stafford Act.

As noted in the first appeal analysis, the stream embankment is not an eligible facility and, therefore, is not eligible for permanent restoration funding. However, the disaster-related embankment failure created an immediate threat to the pump station. Therefore, emergency protective measures needed to protect the pump station from the immediate threat are eligible for FEMA funding.

Emergency Work
Public Assistance funding is provided for emergency protective measures when they are undertaken to eliminate an immediate threat to public health and safety or improved property. In this case, an immediate threat is that which is expected from a five-year flooding event. In addition to eliminating an immediate threat, emergency protection of improved property must be cost effective.

When the embankment protection work was performed, gabion baskets were installed along the 100-foot section at a depth approximately 4.5 feet below the creek bed. This appears to be a permanent repair designed to protect against an event of greater magnitude than a five-year flood and, therefore is not eligible for emergency work funding. The subgrantee's method of repair may have been eligible as an emergency protective measure if it was demonstrated that installation of the gabion baskets was the only cost effective and viable means of protecting the pump station from a five-year event. However, the subgrantee did not provide such a justification.

The Grantee contends in the second appeal transmittal that the subgrantee was not able to begin repairs to the embankment until the spring of 1998 due to the uncertainty of funding and the length of the appeals process. Because of the delay, further erosion of the embankment occurred which exceeded the usefulness of placing rip-rap and required the more complex gabion basket method of repair. However, FEMA only funds those emergency protective measures that protect a facility from an immediate threat that is a direct result of the disaster. Those measures undertaken to address the threat caused by non disaster-related erosion are not eligible. Furthermore, it is not explained why the use of rip-rap was not a useful repair method. Based on the information available, rip-rap would have properly protected the embankment from the immediate threat. Therefore, only the estimated cost to complete the rip-rap protection project is eligible for FEMA funding.

Additional Eligible Costs
The gabion basket repair constitutes an improved project. In accordance with 44 CFR 206.203, Federal funding for an improved project is limited to the Federal share of the approved estimate of eligible costs. Therefore, the cost of the gabion basket construction above the approved estimate for the rip-rap protection is not eligible for funding. However, DSRs 39686 and 47196 did not include all eligible items of work and materials necessary to properly complete the rip-rap protection project. In addition, the previous estimates did not include those costs related to completion of the work by contract.

The following are the additional items of work that would have been necessary to complete the rip-rap protection project. Costs were obtained from established local rates and the low bid estimate for the gabion basket contract. See attachment 1 for quantity calculations:

1. A volume of rockfill and rip-rap adequate to protect the facility as described in the first appeal including geotextile fabric. The proximity to the creek requires that rock fill in lieu of unclassified fill be used. Approximately 363 cubic yards (cy) of rockfill is required at $40/cy. Estimated cost = $14,520. Rip-rap armoring approximately 2.5 feet deep along the surface of the embankment yields a volume of 183 cy at a cost of $50/cy. Estimated cost = $9,150.
   
2. Two sheets of 12.5 foot wide geotextile fabric along the entire length of the embankment yields 278 square yards (sy) at a cost of $1.50/sy. Estimated cost = $417.
   
3. Clearing of the area to prepare for work. This cost is based on the low bid for the gabion basket contract. Estimated cost = $1,900.
   
4. Excavation to prepare the area for the placement of rip-rap would be required. The excavation price in the contract was for the placement of the gabion baskets 4.5 feet below the creek bed. It is estimated that half of the excavation costs required to construct the gabions, as bid by the contractor would be necessary to place rip-rap. Estimated cost = $4,400.
   
5. The sedimentation and erosion control measures as bid by the contractor. Estimated cost = $3,625.
   
6. The claimed engineering and design costs for the gabion basket project is considerably more than that which would have been required to place rip-rap. Therefore, it is recommendedst have required the preparation of plans for the purpose of obtaining permits and to solicit bid proposals. Estimated cost = $3,571.

Summary of Eligible Costs

Item of Work/Material	Eligible Cost
Rockfill and Rip-rap Armor	$23,670
Geotextile Fabric	$417
Clearing of Site	$1,900
Excavation	$4,400
Sedimentation and Erosion Control	$3,625
Engineering and Design Costs	$3,571
Total Eligible Costs	$37,583

CONCLUSION

The stream embankment is not an eligible facility and, therefore, is not eligible for permanent restoration funding. The pump station adjacent to the creek bank was threatened by erosion of the embankment. Thus, erosion protection of the embankment is eligible as an emergency protective measure. However, the subgrantee did not justify that the gabion basket repair was the only viable means of protecting the embankment from erosion due to a five-year event. Rip-rap protection is sufficient to provide such protection and is eligible for public assistance funding. It was determined that DSRs 39686 and 72593 did not include all of the materials and costs necessary to complete the rip-rap protection project. It is estimated that the cost to have completed the rip-rap project is approximately $37,583. As $12,125 was previously obligated, the Regional Director will prepare a supplemental DSR in the amount of $25,458 to cover the estimated additional eligible costs.


Attachment 1
FEMA 1093-DR-PA, Stroud Township
Calculation Sheet



Rockfill Volume:
(14'x 14'/2)(100')= 9,800 cubic feet (cf)
9,800 cf/27 = 363 cy

Rip-rap armoring of 2.5':
19.8' x 2.5' x 100' = 4950 cf
4950 cf/27 = 183 cy

Geotextile Fabric Area:
(12.5' standard width)
25' x 100' = 2500 sf
2500 sf/9 = 278 sy