En-Joie Golf Course

Appeal Brief

Citation:

FEMA-1565-DR-NY; Village of Endicott, PW 100
 

Cross-reference:

Golf Course, Grass, Sod
 

Summary:

As a result of Hurricane Ivan (FEMA-1565-DR-NY), the Village of Endicott (Applicant) requested funding for the restoration of the En-Joie Golf Course. FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 100 on November 18, 2004, to fund the permanent repairs to the golf course. The scope of work in the PW was developed based on contract bid documents provided by the Applicant. The following line items were not included in the final eligible scope of work: “General Conditions” was deleted because there was no description of the work addressed under General Conditions; “Unidentified Irrigation Damage” was deleted because there was no apparent damage to the irrigation system; “Prep Fairways,” “Sod Fairways,” “Prep Rough,” and “Seed Roughs” were deleted because the work was determined ineligible in accordance with FEMA Policy 9524.5. FEMA Policy 9524.5, Trees, Shrubs, and Other Plantings Associated with Facilities, states that the costs associated with grass and sod is eligible only when it is necessary to stabilize slopes and minimize sediment runoff. PW 100 was approved in the amount of $349,408. The Applicant submitted a first appeal stating that the seeding of the roughs and fairways was needed to prevent erosion. The Regional Director denied the Applicant’s first appeal, stating that the sod and seeding was not required to stabilize slopes or minimize sediment runoff at the golf course. In the Second Appeal, the State, on behalf of the Applicant, contends that FEMA has incorrectly applied FEMA Policy 9524.5. It states that sod is appropriate, but at a minimum, the cost of the seeding required to restore the facility to its pre-disaster design should be considered eligible for FEMA funding.
 

Issues:

(1) Is the grass and/or sod necessary to stabilize slopes or to minimize sediment runoff?
 

Findings:

(1) No.
 

Rationale:

FEMA Policy 9524.5

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND

As a result of Hurricane Ivan on September 16, 2004 (FEMA-1565-DR-NY), heavy rain caused the Susquehanna River and the Nanticoke Creek to flood the En-Joie Public Golf Course. The flooding and the extended period of time during which the golf course was inundated by standing water resulted in extensive damage to the golf course. Approximately 80% of the course was covered with mineral debris and silt. The damage also included silt infiltration of the drains of 45 of the 51 bunkers. The Village of Endicott (Applicant) requested assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the restoration of the golf course.

FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 100 on November 18, 2004, to fund the permanent repairs to the golf course and a hazard mitigation proposal. The scope of work in the PW was developed based on contract bid documents provided by the Applicant. The following line items from the bid were not included in the eligible scope of work in the PW:
• General Conditions: $27,000 was deducted from the eligible amount because there was no description of the work addressed under General Conditions.
• Unidentified Irrigation Damage: $13,000 was deducted because there was no apparent damage to the irrigation system.
• The costs for “Prep Fairways” ($34,000), “Sod Fairways” ($236,000), “Prep Rough” ($8,000), and “Seed Roughs” ($7,000) were deducted because the work was determined ineligible in accordance with FEMA Policy 9524.5, Trees, Shrubs, and Other Plantings Associated with Facilities, which states that the costs associated with grass and sod will be eligible only when it is necessary to stabilize slopes and minimize sediment runoff.
PW 100 was approved on January 6, 2005, in the amount of $349,408.
First Appeal

On March 24, 2005, the Applicant submitted a first appeal letter, which was forwarded by the State to FEMA Region II on April 20, 2005. The Applicant asserted that the seeding of the roughs and fairways was needed to prevent erosion. The State asserted that without sod or grass, the facility would not be restored to pre-disaster design or function.

On May 9, 2005, the Regional Director denied the Applicant’s first appeal on the basis that the sod and seeding were not required to stabilize slopes or minimize sediment runoff at the golf course.
Second Appeal

The Applicant submitted a second appeal of FEMA’s determination to the State on June 8, 2005, transmitted by the State in a letter dated June 23, 2005. The State, on behalf of the Applicant, contends that FEMA has incorrectly applied FEMA Policy 9524.5. It states that sod is appropriate, but at a minimum, the cost of the seeding required to restore the facility to its pre-disaster design should be considered eligible for FEMA funding.

DISCUSSION

In its letter transmitting the Applicant’s appeal, the State refers to the following statement from FEMA Policy 9524.5: “Grass and sod will be eligible only when it is necessary to stabilize slopes and to minimize sediment runoff. Grass and sod will not be eligible for cosmetic purposes.” The State contends that a golf course fairway is a playing surface and not cosmetic in nature. Further, the States asserts that restoring the golf course to its pre-disaster design, function, and capacity qualifies as eligible work as defined in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) Sections 206.201(g) and 206.226.

FEMA policies are generally developed in order to further clarify the regulations, and these policies must be considered in concert with the Stafford Act and 44 CFR when evaluating a project for eligibility. While a golf course fairway is a playing surface and not cosmetic, the seed and/or sod is not required to stabilize slopes or to minimize sediment runoff. In accordance with Policy 9524.5, these are the only two conditions that would make the project eligible for FEMA funding for grass or sod.

In its letter, the State refers to a Florida Division of Emergency Management internal memo regarding FEMA Policy 9524.5, which states that, the planting of grass and sod for restoration of golf courses either has been or should be determined eligible by FEMA. This memo was not prepared by or concurred by FEMA regional staff or FEMA headquarters. The memo incorrectly interprets Policy 9524.5 with respect to the planting of grass and sod.

The State believes that economic and social hardship factors should be considered in the case, as the facility is the location of the BC Open. This is a PGA tournament, which is a major fundraising event. The State asserts that the cost to repair the golf course would have an economic impact on the community, as only $447,000 was budgeted for maintenance in the fiscal year beginning June 1, 2005. Unfortunately, these factors cannot be considered when evaluating a project for FEMA eligibility. FEMA’s Public Assistance Program is supplemental in nature, and FEMA has approved funding in the amount of $349,408 for the restoration of the golf course.
CONCLUSION

Based on a review of the information provided in the Applicant’s second appeal, we have concluded that the planting of grass and/or sod on the fairways and roughs is not required to stabilize slopes or minimize sediment runoff. The Applicant’s appeal is denied.