Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Summary
PA ID# 089-91028; Igo Ono Community Services District
DSR ID# 11111; Repairs to Misselbeck Dam Spillway
Citation: Appeal Brief; Second Appeal; Igo Ono Community Services District; FEMA-1046-DR-CA; PA #089-91028
Reference: DSR 20138 and 39696; Eligible Facility; Hazard Mitigation Proposal
Summary: As a result of the disaster event, flood waters overtopped the spillway of Misselbeck Dam resulting in severe erosion and the undermining of the spillway floor slab and walls. DSR 20138 was prepared for $2,192 for engineering costs and for $20,299 for installation of control density fill to repair a cavity under the spillway floor. However, DSR 20138 did not include the $10,098 for Hazard Mitigation Proposal (HMP), as requested by the subgrantee. Upon review, FEMA deleted the engineering cost and the DSR was reduced to $20,299. On July 2, 1996, the State submitted the first appeal for inclusion of $10,098 for HMP and reinstatement of $2,192 for engineering costs with DSR 20138. The Regional Director denied the first appeal on October 4, 1996, because the damages were the result of the subgrantee's failure to maintain the spillway and advised the subgrantee that 44 CFR 206.233 (e) states "no assistance will be provided to an applicant for damages caused by its own negligence." Accordingly, FEMA prepared DSR 39696 to deobligate $20,299 from DSR 20138. The State submitted the second appeal on April 15, 1997, requesting reinstatement of the engineering costs and the deobligated funds, and inclusion of the HMP funding. Additional information was provided to document that the spillway was actually in the middle of a major project to reconstruct the 60 linear feet of wall along the west side of the chute when the disaster occurred.
Issues: 1. Was the original scope of work in DSR 20138 for $20,299 necessary as a direct result of the disaster event?
2. Are the engineering costs ($2,192) for the repair work warranted?
3. Is the HMP an eligible expense?
Findings: 1. Yes. The undermining damage to the floor slab and spillway walls were a result of the disaster and not the result of inadequate maintenance by the subgrantee.
2. Yes. The engineering costs, which were part of the repair project, are warranted and eligible for funding.
3. No. The HMP work was under contract by the subgrantee prior to the disaster, therefore the HMP work is not eligible.
Rationale: In accordance with the Public Assistance Guide, "If a Federal or state agency or other governing or regulatory body directed the applicant to correct deficiencies in a facility before the disaster, and the work had not yet been completed and accepted by the owner, the estimated cost of that work should be deducted from the disaster damages." Therefore, the HMP is not eligible. However, the engineering cost and repair of the erosion under the spillway walls and floor are a direct result of the disaster event and are eligible expenses.