Debris Removal
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: FEMA-1372-DR-PR; Municipality of Yauco, Debris Removal, PW 344
Cross
Reference: Debris Removal, Environmental
Summary: Severe flooding affected the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on May 6-11, 2001. On July 19, 2001, the Municipality of Yauco (Municipality) submitted a request for reimbursement of $2,376,957 for removing 191,916 cubic yards (cy) of sediment and rubble from roads, streams and embankments. After inspecting the debris removal and disposal sites, FEMA and the Governors Authorized Representative determined that only 107,379 cy ($1,205,394) of the requested amount was eligible because the Municipality removed ineligible debris from stream banks and other embankments. The Municipality argued in the first appeal that the additional debris was removed to eliminate an immediate threat to life and property. The acting Regional Director denied the first appeal.
Issues: Is the additional debris removal eligible for reimbursement?
Findings: No. The Municipality did not submit any information that supports its claim that the debris was removed to eliminate an immediate threat to life and property.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.224, 44 CFR §206.225
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1372-DR |
| Applicant | Municipality of Yauco |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 153-99153-00 |
| PW ID# | 344 |
| Date Signed | 2003-04-11T04:00:00 |
Cross
Reference: Debris Removal, Environmental
Appeal Letter
April 11, 2003
Ms. Melba Acosta, Esq.
Governors Authorized Representative
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
P.O. Box 902-1812
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936-1812
Re: Second Appeal: Municipality of Yauco, PAID 153-99153-00, Debris Removal, FEMA-1372-DR-PR, Project Worksheet (PW) 344
Dear Ms. Acosta:
Thank you for your letter dated October 7, 2002, from the Commonwealth Public Assistance Officer, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the Municipality of Yauco (Municipality) to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), now part of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate (EP&R) of the Department of Homeland Security. The Municipality requested reimbursement for an additional $1,171,563 for debris removal costs following severe flooding in May 2001. We apologize for our delayed response.
Severe flooding affected the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on May 6-11, 2001, leaving sediment debris throughout the Municipality. The Municipality hired eight contractors to remove sediment and rubble debris from roads and streams near bridges at various locations throughout the Municipality. On July 19, 2001, the Municipality requested reimbursement from FEMA for $2,376,957 for removing approximately 191,916 cubic yards (CY) of debris from various roads and along streams near bridges.
On August 2, 2001, FEMA and the Governors Authorized Representative (GAR) inspected the debris removal and disposal sites and determined that they could verify only 107,379 CY of eligible sediment. Specifically, the team determined that the Municipality removed sediment and rubble from streams too far upstream of road crossings and removed excessive materials from stream banks and other embankments, which are ineligible for FEMA funds. The team further determined that the cost the Municipality requested for transporting different types of debris ($9/CY for sediment and $15-$21/CY for rubble) was not reasonable, and reduced all transport costs to $9/CY.
FEMA and the GAR discussed their findings with the Municipality at a meeting on October 15, 2001. FEMA subsequently re-inspected the debris sites on October 18 and 19, 2001. In a letter dated December 7, 2001, FEMA informed the GAR that it would process Project Worksheet (PW) 344 to reimburse the Municipality $1,205,394 for debris removal, $1,171,563 less than the Municipality requested.
The Municipality submitted a first appeal to the GAR in a letter dated February 13, 2002, which the GAR forwarded to FEMA on March 27, 2002. The Municipality stated that it removed the 84,537 CY (191,916 CY-107,379 CY) of debris to eliminate an immediate threat to the public, for which FEMA denied assistance. Therefore, it reasoned, the costs should be eligible.
The Acting Regional Director for Region II denied the appeal in a letter dated
April 11, 2002 (forwarded to the Municipality on May 30, 2002). The Acting Regional Director stated there was no basis to characterize the debris removal as an emergency protective measure. He also stated that the Municipality may have removed debris from streams without obtaining the appropriate permits pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.
The Municipality submitted a second appeal report dated August 2, 2002. The GAR does not support the Municipalitys second appeal. The second appeal stated that the Municipality removed sediment and rubble from streams to prevent future flooding, and from embankments to eliminate immediate threats to life and property. The report contains photographs of the debris removal sites. It referred to FEMAs landslide policy to support its claim that the additional debris removal was necessary to eliminate an immediate threat to life and safety. The report also purports to support the Municipalitys claim that it complied with environmental requirements.
My staff scheduled a conference call with the Caribbean Area Office, the GAR and the Municipality on December 9, 2002 to discuss the appeal. The call was subsequently cancelled at the request of the Municipality. The Municipality submitted additional information regarding environmental requirements and asked that we consider that information in our evaluation.
We reviewed all information submitted with the appeal. The Municipality has not submitted any information that supports its claim that the debris was removed as an emergency protective measure. It is clear from the file that the Municipality is seeking reimbursement for removing ineligible debris. There is no basis for reversing the Acting Regional Directors decision on the first appeal. Therefore, I am denying the appeal.
Please inform the Municipality of my determination. My decision constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Laurence W. Zensinger
Acting Director
Recovery Division
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate
Bcc.: Jose Bravo
Manager
Caribbean Area Office
Ms. Melba Acosta, Esq.
Governors Authorized Representative
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
P.O. Box 902-1812
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936-1812
Re: Second Appeal: Municipality of Yauco, PAID 153-99153-00, Debris Removal, FEMA-1372-DR-PR, Project Worksheet (PW) 344
Dear Ms. Acosta:
Thank you for your letter dated October 7, 2002, from the Commonwealth Public Assistance Officer, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the Municipality of Yauco (Municipality) to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), now part of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate (EP&R) of the Department of Homeland Security. The Municipality requested reimbursement for an additional $1,171,563 for debris removal costs following severe flooding in May 2001. We apologize for our delayed response.
Severe flooding affected the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on May 6-11, 2001, leaving sediment debris throughout the Municipality. The Municipality hired eight contractors to remove sediment and rubble debris from roads and streams near bridges at various locations throughout the Municipality. On July 19, 2001, the Municipality requested reimbursement from FEMA for $2,376,957 for removing approximately 191,916 cubic yards (CY) of debris from various roads and along streams near bridges.
On August 2, 2001, FEMA and the Governors Authorized Representative (GAR) inspected the debris removal and disposal sites and determined that they could verify only 107,379 CY of eligible sediment. Specifically, the team determined that the Municipality removed sediment and rubble from streams too far upstream of road crossings and removed excessive materials from stream banks and other embankments, which are ineligible for FEMA funds. The team further determined that the cost the Municipality requested for transporting different types of debris ($9/CY for sediment and $15-$21/CY for rubble) was not reasonable, and reduced all transport costs to $9/CY.
FEMA and the GAR discussed their findings with the Municipality at a meeting on October 15, 2001. FEMA subsequently re-inspected the debris sites on October 18 and 19, 2001. In a letter dated December 7, 2001, FEMA informed the GAR that it would process Project Worksheet (PW) 344 to reimburse the Municipality $1,205,394 for debris removal, $1,171,563 less than the Municipality requested.
The Municipality submitted a first appeal to the GAR in a letter dated February 13, 2002, which the GAR forwarded to FEMA on March 27, 2002. The Municipality stated that it removed the 84,537 CY (191,916 CY-107,379 CY) of debris to eliminate an immediate threat to the public, for which FEMA denied assistance. Therefore, it reasoned, the costs should be eligible.
The Acting Regional Director for Region II denied the appeal in a letter dated
April 11, 2002 (forwarded to the Municipality on May 30, 2002). The Acting Regional Director stated there was no basis to characterize the debris removal as an emergency protective measure. He also stated that the Municipality may have removed debris from streams without obtaining the appropriate permits pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.
The Municipality submitted a second appeal report dated August 2, 2002. The GAR does not support the Municipalitys second appeal. The second appeal stated that the Municipality removed sediment and rubble from streams to prevent future flooding, and from embankments to eliminate immediate threats to life and property. The report contains photographs of the debris removal sites. It referred to FEMAs landslide policy to support its claim that the additional debris removal was necessary to eliminate an immediate threat to life and safety. The report also purports to support the Municipalitys claim that it complied with environmental requirements.
My staff scheduled a conference call with the Caribbean Area Office, the GAR and the Municipality on December 9, 2002 to discuss the appeal. The call was subsequently cancelled at the request of the Municipality. The Municipality submitted additional information regarding environmental requirements and asked that we consider that information in our evaluation.
We reviewed all information submitted with the appeal. The Municipality has not submitted any information that supports its claim that the debris was removed as an emergency protective measure. It is clear from the file that the Municipality is seeking reimbursement for removing ineligible debris. There is no basis for reversing the Acting Regional Directors decision on the first appeal. Therefore, I am denying the appeal.
Please inform the Municipality of my determination. My decision constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Laurence W. Zensinger
Acting Director
Recovery Division
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate
Bcc.: Jose Bravo
Manager
Caribbean Area Office
Last updated