Devils Lakes

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1050-DR
ApplicantUnited Power Association
Appeal TypeThird
PA ID#000-90121
PW ID#64877
Date Signed1998-11-18T05:00:00
N/A

Appeal Letter

November 18, 1998

Douglas C. Friez
Governor's Authorized Representative
North Dakota Division of Emergency Management
P.O. Box 5511
Bismarck, North Dakota 58506-5511

Dear Mr. Friez:

This is in response to your September 15, 1998 letter, to James L. Witt, Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), supporting the United Power Association's (UPA's) request for a third appeal. Effective May 8, 1998, disaster regulations allow for two levels of appeal, one to the Regional Director and one to FEMA Headquarters. Therefore, this request can only be regarded as a request for reevaluation of FEMA's second appeal determination that UPA was not eligible for federal assistance for relocating electrical transmission lines along Devils Lake.

The transmission towers were originally constructed on dry land; however, the expansion of Devils Lake inundated the bases of the poles with several feet of water. UPA relocated several miles of power line away from the lake because it believed the facilities would be subject to potential damage from ice flows during the following spring and clearance under the lines was less than required for safety. UPA requests that FEMA reevaluate its second appeal decision to deny funding for relocation of the electrical transmission lines because this proposal meets all the requirements of the relevant statute, regulations, and policies and that FEMA made errors of fact and law in its previous appeal determinations. Representatives of UPA met with members of our Public Assistance staff and congressional staff on October 5, 1998, to explain in more detail why FEMA should approve UPA's appeal.

Each second appeal response proceeds through a comprehensive concurrence process and receives full internal scrutiny. The current appeal procedure governing appeal decisions facilitates FEMA's appellate process and provides the applicant with an expedited final agency decision. Upon review of my second appeal determination and the information discussed in the October 5th meeting, I have concluded that all relevant facts were considered in the evaluation of the second appeal. Therefore, there is no compelling reason to reconsider my second appeal decision and reevaluate the merits of the case.

Accordingly, your request is denied. I recognize the burden this may place on UPA, but I have determined that the work is not eligible for federal assistance.

Sincerely,

/S/

Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate

cc: Richard P. Weiland
Regional Director
FEMA Region VIII
Last updated