Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Summary
PA ID# 101-86972; City of Yuba City
DSR ID# 29474; Wastewater Percolation Ponds
Citation: FEMA-1155-DR-CA; City of Yuba City; DSR 29474
Reference: Hazard Mitigation, NEPA, wastewater percolation ponds
Summary: During the first weeks of 1997, floodwater overtopped the berm on the north side of the City of Yuba City's (City's) percolation ponds located along the Feather River, eroded pond levees and bottoms and damaged concrete spillways and pipes. FEMA prepared Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) 29474, 77098 and 05789 for $1,312,019, to repair flood damages and restore the facility to its pre-disaster condition. The City suggested several hazard mitigation proposals (HMPs); FEMA found each to be economically infeasible. In February 1998, the City proposed attenuating the slope of the north berm from 3:1 to 10:1 and adding rock slope protection. On April 27, 1998, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board approved the City's request for a time extension to their discharge permit. On June 3, 1998, the City submitted a request for a change in scope of work to include the HMP. On August 27, 1998, FEMA found that the proposal passed the benefit cost ratio requirement and prepared DSR 05789 for $246,000. To comply with the Programmatic Biological Opinion and other environmental considerations, the City hired an environmental consultant. The City requested the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) grant permission to place rock slope protection along the north berm. Construction of the project commenced shortly after CDWR granted permission of the rock slope protection on September 1, 1998, and without allowing FEMA the opportunity to conduct an environmental review of the project. Upon discovering that the HMP was completed without an environmental review, on February 19, 1999, FEMA denied the request for the change in scope of work. The Regional Director supported this determination in the response to the first appeal and deobligated all previous funding for the project. In the second appeal the City requests reimbursement of $1,555,559 for restoration of the facility and the HMP.
Issues: Is the applicant eligible to receive any funding for the project, even though FEMA did not complete the environmental review prior to construction of the project?
Findings: Yes, the applicant is eligible to receive $1,312,019 of the $1,555,559 requested.
Rationale: 44 CFR Parts 9 & 10