This page has not been translated into Kreyòl. Visit the Kreyòl page for resources in that language.
Wilmington Dam
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: FEMA-1296-DR-NY; Town of Wilmington; PW 1077; Wilmington Dam
Cross Pre-existing damage; sheet piling; dam inspection reports
Reference:
Summary: Following Tropical Storm Floyd in September 1999, FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 1077 for $31,570 to replace a sheet piling wall along the left abutment of the Wilmington Dam. The New York State Emergency Management Office (SEMO) later requested additional funding for a mitigation project for the dam. Following a site visit and a review of previous dam inspection reports, FEMA determined that the damage to the sheet piling existed prior to the disaster. By a letter dated November 8, 2000, FEMA informed SEMO that the $31,570 to replace the sheet piling would be de-obligated. By a letter dated July 26, 2001, SEMO transmitted the applicant's first appeal to FEMA. The applicant acknowledged that there was pre-existing damage to the dam. But the applicant asserted that the dam inspection reports did not provide a continuous perspective of the damage to the dam over time. The applicant asserted that the disaster caused additional damage. The applicant provided a letter from an engineer, which states that additional damage occurred to the dam between 1997 and 2000. The Acting Regional Director denied the first appeal citing the 1982, 1988, and 1992 dam inspection reports that describe the pre-existing damage to the sheet piling which is consistent with its post-disaster condition. On October 25, 2001, SEMO transmitted the applicant's second appeal. The applicant again contends that the Tropical Storm caused additional damage to the dam. The applicant cites photographs taken during the storm and letters from a private engineer and the Chief of the Dam Safety Section of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to support its case.
Issues: Is the damage to the sheet piling disaster-related?
Findings: No. Based on a comparison of pre- and post-disaster photographs of the dam and the dam inspection reports from 1982, 1988, 1992, and 2000, the damage is pre-existing and not related to Tropical Storm Floyd. Therefore, replacement of the sheet piling is not eligible for Public Assistance funding.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.223(a)(1)
SUMMARY SHEET
SUBJECT: Second appeal dated October 28, 2001, from the Town of Wilmington, New York concerning damage to the Wilmington Dam.
PURPOSE: To respond to and deny the second appeal.
BACKGROUND: Following Tropical Storm Floyd in September 1999, FEMA prepared PW 1077 for $31,570 to replace a sheet piling wall along the left abutment of the Wilmington Dam. Following a site visit and a review of previous dam inspection reports, FEMA determined that the damage to the sheet piling existed prior to the disaster. Therefore, FEMA de-obligated the $31,570. In its first appeal, the applicant acknowledged that there was pre-existing damage to the dam. But the applicant also asserted that the disaster caused additional damage to the dam. The applicant provided a letter from an engineer that states that additional damage occurred to the dam between 1997 and 2000, but it does not specifically cite any disaster-related damage. The Acting Regional Director denied the first appeal citing past dam inspection reports that describe the pre-existing damage, which is consistent with its post-disaster condition. In the second appeal, the applicant again contends that the Tropical Storm caused additional damage to the dam. The applicant cites photographs taken during the storm and letters from a private engineer and the Chief of the Dam Safety Section of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to support its case. A comparison of pre- and post-disaster photographs and past dam inspection reports show that the damage was pre-existing.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1296-DR |
| Applicant | Town of Wilmington Dam |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 031-82315-00 |
| PW ID# | 1077 |
| Date Signed | 2002-07-17T04:00:00 |
Cross Pre-existing damage; sheet piling; dam inspection reports
Reference:
SUMMARY SHEET
SUBJECT: Second appeal dated October 28, 2001, from the Town of Wilmington, New York concerning damage to the Wilmington Dam.
PURPOSE: To respond to and deny the second appeal.
BACKGROUND: Following Tropical Storm Floyd in September 1999, FEMA prepared PW 1077 for $31,570 to replace a sheet piling wall along the left abutment of the Wilmington Dam. Following a site visit and a review of previous dam inspection reports, FEMA determined that the damage to the sheet piling existed prior to the disaster. Therefore, FEMA de-obligated the $31,570. In its first appeal, the applicant acknowledged that there was pre-existing damage to the dam. But the applicant also asserted that the disaster caused additional damage to the dam. The applicant provided a letter from an engineer that states that additional damage occurred to the dam between 1997 and 2000, but it does not specifically cite any disaster-related damage. The Acting Regional Director denied the first appeal citing past dam inspection reports that describe the pre-existing damage, which is consistent with its post-disaster condition. In the second appeal, the applicant again contends that the Tropical Storm caused additional damage to the dam. The applicant cites photographs taken during the storm and letters from a private engineer and the Chief of the Dam Safety Section of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to support its case. A comparison of pre- and post-disaster photographs and past dam inspection reports show that the damage was pre-existing.
Appeal Letter
July 17, 2002
Mr. John A. Agostino
Governor's Authorized Representative
New York State Emergency Management Office
1220 Washington Avenue
Building 22, Suite 101
Albany, New York 12226-2251
Re: Second Appeal: Town of Wilmington; FEMA-DR-1296-NY; Project Worksheet 1077; Wilmington Dam
Dear Mr. Agostino:
This is in response to your October 25, 2001, letter transmitting the Town of Wilmington's (applicant) above referenced second appeal. I apologize for the delayed response.
Following Tropical Storm Floyd, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 1077 for $31,570 to replace the sheet piling along the left abutment of the Wilmington Dam. On February 4, 2000, FEMA approved and obligated PW 1077. By a letter dated August 21, 2000, your office submitted a request for additional funding for a mitigation plan for the dam. Following a review of the project files, including past dam inspection reports and a site visit in September 2000, FEMA determined that the damage to the dam existed prior to the disaster. Therefore, FEMA determined that replacement of the sheet piling and the requested mitigation work was not eligible for Public Assistance funding. FEMA informed the New York State Emergency Office (SEMO) of this decision by a letter dated November 8, 2000.
On July 26, 2001, SEMO forwarded the applicant's first appeal. The applicant asserted that different inspectors completed all the inspection reports so there was no opportunity for one observer to provide a continuous point of view and report on the condition of the dam over time. The applicant, however, asserted that its claim was based on the observations of an engineer, Frank Christie, P.E., who has observed the dam continuously for over 20 years. According to a March 8, 2000, letter from Mr. Christie, the condition of the dam worsened in the 2-1/2 years since his last inspection in October 1997. Between those inspections, Tropical Storm Floyd occurred in September 1999.
By a letter dated August 10, 2001, the Acting Regional Director denied the first appeal. The Acting Regional Director noted that the damages described in the dam inspection reports and shown in pre-disaster photographs were consistent with the damages found by FEMA after the disaster. As the damages were not disaster-related, the repair of the dam was not eligible for Public Assistance funding.
On October 25, 2001, SEMO transmitted the applicant's second appeal. The applicant asserts that Tropical Storm Floyd caused incremental damage beyond the pre-existing damage to the dam. The applicant cites letters from Frank Christie, P.E. dated March 8, 2000, and July 7, 2000, which state that the sheet piling is close to total collapse and the dam condition has deteriorated since his inspection in 1997. The applicant also cites photographs taken during Tropical Storm Floyd, which show water behind the sheet piling. The applicant asserts that the photographs demonstrate that the tropical storm caused further damage. Finally, the applicant cites an October 18, 2001, letter from Michael R. Stankiewicz, P.E., Chief of the Dam Safety Section of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Mr. Stankiewicz's letter states that the dam has deteriorated between 1992 and 2000. He also states that his conclusions are contrary to those of FEMA's November 8, 2000, letter which denied assistance for the repair based on pre-existing damage. Mr. Stankiewicz concurs with the applicant's assessment that damage occurred to the dam between mid-1997 and February 2000. Finally, Mr. Stankiewicz asserts that the 1992 dam inspection report does not support that all of the damage to the dam was pre-existing. Rather, he asserts that it helps document that additional damage has occurred.
We have thoroughly reviewed all of the information provided with this appeal. During this review, we examined the dam inspection reports from 1982, 1988, 1992 and 2000. All of the dam inspection reports note the same type of damage to the sheet piling. For example, the 1982 report notes that the sheet piling was falling down and that it was tied back with wire rope and it was shearing near the center at the point of maximum stress. The 1988 report stated that the sheet piling was displaced. The 1992 report states that the sheet piling was tilted and splitting out in the middle. The March 2000 inspection report, which was completed after the disaster, noted that the sheet pile wall was pushed over after installation. The report also stated that no recent wall movements were apparent and that the embankment slope appeared stable except for erosion. These reports clearly describe the existence of pre-existing damage to the sheet piling, but the post-disaster report of March 2000 also suggests that there was no recent damage to the sheet piling.
We also reviewed photographs of the dam taken in November 1997, during the storm in September 1999, and on May 4, 2001. The condition of the sheet piling is consistent between the pre- and post- disaster photographs. Based on these photographs and the historical dam inspection reports, we have determined that the disaster did not cause any discernable additional damage to the sheet piling. Therefore, there is no basis to overturn the Acting Regional Director's decision. The appeal is denied.
Please inform the applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
John R. DAraujo, Jr.
Assistant Director
Readiness, Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Joseph F. Picciano
Acting Regional Director
FEMA Region II
Mr. John A. Agostino
Governor's Authorized Representative
New York State Emergency Management Office
1220 Washington Avenue
Building 22, Suite 101
Albany, New York 12226-2251
Re: Second Appeal: Town of Wilmington; FEMA-DR-1296-NY; Project Worksheet 1077; Wilmington Dam
Dear Mr. Agostino:
This is in response to your October 25, 2001, letter transmitting the Town of Wilmington's (applicant) above referenced second appeal. I apologize for the delayed response.
Following Tropical Storm Floyd, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 1077 for $31,570 to replace the sheet piling along the left abutment of the Wilmington Dam. On February 4, 2000, FEMA approved and obligated PW 1077. By a letter dated August 21, 2000, your office submitted a request for additional funding for a mitigation plan for the dam. Following a review of the project files, including past dam inspection reports and a site visit in September 2000, FEMA determined that the damage to the dam existed prior to the disaster. Therefore, FEMA determined that replacement of the sheet piling and the requested mitigation work was not eligible for Public Assistance funding. FEMA informed the New York State Emergency Office (SEMO) of this decision by a letter dated November 8, 2000.
On July 26, 2001, SEMO forwarded the applicant's first appeal. The applicant asserted that different inspectors completed all the inspection reports so there was no opportunity for one observer to provide a continuous point of view and report on the condition of the dam over time. The applicant, however, asserted that its claim was based on the observations of an engineer, Frank Christie, P.E., who has observed the dam continuously for over 20 years. According to a March 8, 2000, letter from Mr. Christie, the condition of the dam worsened in the 2-1/2 years since his last inspection in October 1997. Between those inspections, Tropical Storm Floyd occurred in September 1999.
By a letter dated August 10, 2001, the Acting Regional Director denied the first appeal. The Acting Regional Director noted that the damages described in the dam inspection reports and shown in pre-disaster photographs were consistent with the damages found by FEMA after the disaster. As the damages were not disaster-related, the repair of the dam was not eligible for Public Assistance funding.
On October 25, 2001, SEMO transmitted the applicant's second appeal. The applicant asserts that Tropical Storm Floyd caused incremental damage beyond the pre-existing damage to the dam. The applicant cites letters from Frank Christie, P.E. dated March 8, 2000, and July 7, 2000, which state that the sheet piling is close to total collapse and the dam condition has deteriorated since his inspection in 1997. The applicant also cites photographs taken during Tropical Storm Floyd, which show water behind the sheet piling. The applicant asserts that the photographs demonstrate that the tropical storm caused further damage. Finally, the applicant cites an October 18, 2001, letter from Michael R. Stankiewicz, P.E., Chief of the Dam Safety Section of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Mr. Stankiewicz's letter states that the dam has deteriorated between 1992 and 2000. He also states that his conclusions are contrary to those of FEMA's November 8, 2000, letter which denied assistance for the repair based on pre-existing damage. Mr. Stankiewicz concurs with the applicant's assessment that damage occurred to the dam between mid-1997 and February 2000. Finally, Mr. Stankiewicz asserts that the 1992 dam inspection report does not support that all of the damage to the dam was pre-existing. Rather, he asserts that it helps document that additional damage has occurred.
We have thoroughly reviewed all of the information provided with this appeal. During this review, we examined the dam inspection reports from 1982, 1988, 1992 and 2000. All of the dam inspection reports note the same type of damage to the sheet piling. For example, the 1982 report notes that the sheet piling was falling down and that it was tied back with wire rope and it was shearing near the center at the point of maximum stress. The 1988 report stated that the sheet piling was displaced. The 1992 report states that the sheet piling was tilted and splitting out in the middle. The March 2000 inspection report, which was completed after the disaster, noted that the sheet pile wall was pushed over after installation. The report also stated that no recent wall movements were apparent and that the embankment slope appeared stable except for erosion. These reports clearly describe the existence of pre-existing damage to the sheet piling, but the post-disaster report of March 2000 also suggests that there was no recent damage to the sheet piling.
We also reviewed photographs of the dam taken in November 1997, during the storm in September 1999, and on May 4, 2001. The condition of the sheet piling is consistent between the pre- and post- disaster photographs. Based on these photographs and the historical dam inspection reports, we have determined that the disaster did not cause any discernable additional damage to the sheet piling. Therefore, there is no basis to overturn the Acting Regional Director's decision. The appeal is denied.
Please inform the applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
John R. DAraujo, Jr.
Assistant Director
Readiness, Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Joseph F. Picciano
Acting Regional Director
FEMA Region II