Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 039-UHFLZ-00; Treasure Island Municipal Untility District
PW ID# 1012; Deobligation of Funds
Citation: FEMA-1379-DR-TX; Treasure Island Municipal Utility District, PW 1012
Cross-reference: Deobligation, Environmental Compliance, Change of Scope
Summary: As a result of Tropical Storm Allison (FEMA-1379-DR-TX, June 2001), the Treasure Island Municipal Utility District (Applicant) requested funding for repair to a sand-filled geo-tube revetment protecting Treasure Island Beach, located in Brazoria County, Texas. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 1012 to fund costs of the repair and replacement of washed-out sand. The funding approved in PW 1012 was contingent upon the submission of the scope of work to the Texas General Land Office (GLO) for a consistency finding and compliance with any Texas Coastal Coordination Council (CCC) requirements. The Applicant proceeded with the repairs to the geo-tubes before obtaining the necessary consistency finding. Prior to completing the permanent repairs on the geo-tubes, the revetment suffered additional damage. In an effort to prevent further erosion, the Applicant placed concrete rubble on top of the collapsed geo-tube and backfilled the revetment with sand between the rubble and the nearby road. FEMA deobligated PW 1012 on the basis that the Applicant had undertaken work that was not part of the eligible scope of work and, furthermore, had begun the work prior to obtaining the required consistency finding. The Applicant submitted a first appeal asserting that because it chose not to repair the geo-tubes, there was no requirement to obtain a consistency finding. The Acting Regional Director denied the appeal, stating that the Applicant did not comply with the requirement to submit the project to the GLO for approval. In its Second Appeal, the Applicant continues to assert that no consistency finding was required. The Applicant requests reimbursement for the work associated with replacing the washed-out sand, in the amount of $18,021.26.
Issues: (1) Did the Applicant comply with the requirement to submit the project to the GLO for a consistency finding prior to any construction activity?
(2) Did the Applicant perform the approved scope of work as documented in PW 1012?
Findings: (1) No, the Applicant began the repair prior to submitting the project to the GLO for review.
(2) No, the Applicant changed the scope of work and did not submit the changes to FEMA for review.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.204 (e)