Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Summary
PA ID# 000-92003; Department of Forestry
DSR ID# 16023; Embankment slipout at Hihn's Mill Road
Citation: Appeal Analysis; Second Appeal; Department of Forestry; FEMA-1046-DR-CA, PA 000-92003
Cross-Reference: DSR 16023; Winter Storms of 1995; Improvements; Crib Wall; Hilfiker Wall
Facts: Following the winter storms of 1995, FEMA prepared DSR 16023 for $15,760 to repair the damaged road site by constructing a Hilfiker wall. The DSR contained estimates for two methods of repair. Method 1 was to construct a Hilfiker wall while Method 2 consisted of constructing a crib wall. Upon review, the regional staff determined that the Hilfiker wall was an improvement over the pre-disaster condition. Accordingly, the reviewer determined that the crib wall was the appropriate method of repair, and consequently reduced the DSR to $7,146. The Office of Emergency Services (OES) submitted the applicant's first appeal on April 11, 1996. The applicant stated that the estimated cost to construct the crib wall was $49,631, while the cost to construct the Hilfiker wall was $15,760. Therefore, it requested that FEMA approve the Hilfiker wall and increase funding to $15,760. The Regional Director denied the appeal in a letter dated August 19, 1996, because the Hilfiker wall was an improvement over pre-disaster condition and there was no applicable code that mandated the use of Hilfiker walls for logging roads. Also, the Regional Director stated that if the applicant incurs a cost overrun when constructing the crib wall, it may be eligible for additional funds if there is a net overrun on all of the applicant's small projects.
OES transmitted the applicant's second appeal to FEMA with a letter dated May 27, 1997. The applicant does not appeal FEMA's determination that the crib wall is the appropriate repair method. However, it does appeal FEMA's estimated cost to construct the crib wall. The applicant estimates that the cost to construct the crib wall ".to ensure that the road embankment will last and not be susceptible to further collapse." is $49,631. The amount in contention is now $42,485 ($49,631 - $7,146 already approved). In its transmittal letter, the region acknowledged that portions of the additional work requested by the subgrantee would be necessary to adequately restore the facility to its pre-disaster condition and prepared a cost estimate of $23,478.
Issue: Would the items in the new region's estimate of $23,478 restore the facility to its pre-disaster condition?
Findings: Yes. The original scope of work of DSR 16023 did not provide a constructable crib wall, and the subgrantee's estimate of $49,631 includes improvement over pre-disaster condition.
Rationale: The items of work in the revised estimate of $23,478 would restore the facility to its pre-disaster condition. The cost estimate of $49,631 submitted by the subgrantee includes improvement items over the pre-disaster condition of the facility. Pursuant to 44 CFR 206.203(d)(1), the improvement items are not eligible.