Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Summary
PA ID# 037-91156; Castaic Lake Water Agency
DSR ID# 77524; Earl Schmidt Filtration Plant
Citation: FEMA-1008-DR-CA; Castaic Lake Water Agency, Earl Schmidt Filtration Plant, DSR 77524
Cross Reference:Hazard Mitigation Proposals, Codes and Standards
Summary: As a result of the January 1994 Northridge Earthquake, damages occurred to the Earl Schmidt Filtration Plant and Distribution Pipeline System. A total of 18 DSRs were prepared for funding of earthquake repairs, totaling $1,236,342. Of these DSRs, DSR 77254 was prepared on July 17, 1996, to consider six HMPs. The proposed HMPs consisted of two phases of work. Phase 1 (HMPs 1,2,3), totaling $1,312,474, completed by April 1995, and Phase 2 (HMPs 4,5,6), totaling $1,664,920, for work that had not yet been performed. FEMA found that the scopes of work for HMPs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 did not directly relate to the disaster damaged elements as required by a May 15, 1995 hazard mitigation policy letter. The scope of work for HMP 5 was found to be related to damaged elements, but a benefit-cost analysis found that the work was not cost-effective. DSR 77254 was obligated for $0 on January 21, 1998. The subgrantee's first appeal agreed that the scope of work did not relate specifically to damaged elements, but argued that because HMPs 1, 2, and 3 were completed prior to the May 15, 1995, policy letter, they should be evaluated relative to an earlier memo which did allow mitigation of non-damaged elements. In the first appeal response, the Federal Coordinating Officer concluded that the May 15, 1995, policy letter was applicable to HMPs 1, 2, and 3 and that the subgrantee's completion of the work prior to the May 1995 date had no bearing on its eligibility. The subgrantee's second appeal asserts that that the completed work was required by certain codes and standards, and that several similar hazard mitigation projects have been funded previously by FEMA.
- Is the requested work required by a code or standard?
- Is the requested work eligible for Section 406 hazard mitigation?
- Does the funding of other similar projects support funding of these HMPs?
- No. The referenced code requiring mitigation of facilities does not apply to the eligible repair efforts.
- No. The scopes of work within the requested hazard mitigation proposals do not specifically relate to disaster-damaged elements.
- No. The projects referenced by the subgrantee were funded under Section 404 mitigation, and support our determination that such work is not eligible under the Section 406 authority.
Rationale: Stafford Act Section 406 Hazard Mitigation; 44 CFR 206.226(c)