Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 111-41300-00; Village of Lake Delton
PW ID# 1851 & 2862; Eligible Work
Citation: FEMA-1768-DR-WI, Village of Lake Delton, Eligible Work, Project Worksheets (PW) 2862 and 1851
Reference: Section 406 Hazard Mitigation, Emergency Protective Measures, Scope of Work
Summary: As a result of storms and flooding from June 5-9, 2008, an earthen embankment along the shore of Lake Delton failed, allowing Lake Delton to drain completely. The overflow water damaged downstream infrastructure owned by the Applicant. Before the Applicant could refill Lake Delton, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources required it to make improvements to the dam structure. Additionally, while Lake Delton was drained, cottonwood seeds became implanted in the dry lakebed, causing trees to grow on approximately 60 percent of the 200-acre lakebed. FEMA prepared PW 1851 for $210,000 to document that the mechanical harvesting of these trees from the lakebed was ineligible. In its first appeal, submitted January 9, 2009, the Applicant requested funding for the Dell Creek Dam improvements and spillway, and for removal of the trees from the lake bed. FEMA denied the appeal on May 15, 2009, stating that the work was ineligible because the structures were not damaged due to the storm or flooding, and that if there was additional or hidden damage, the Applicant failed to notify FEMA. In its second appeal, dated November 30, 2009, the Applicant reiterated its requests from the first appeal, and argued that the dam improvements were eligible as a hazard mitigation measure. The improvements to the dam and the new spillway are ineligible because the Applicant has not demonstrated that these measures were cost effective, nor did the Applicant receive approval from FEMA prior to performing the work. Mechanical harvesting of the trees is ineligible as an emergency protective measure because the trees did not pose an immediate threat.
Issues: 1. Is the construction of a new emergency spillway eligible as a hazard mitigation measure where the Applicant did not receive prior approval for the work, or provide documentation demonstrating its cost effectiveness?
2. Is the removal of cottonwood trees from a dry lake bed where they posed no immediate threat eligible for Public Assistance funding?
Findings: 1. No.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.223(a)(1); 44 CFR §206.202(d)(1)(ii); 44 CFR §206.225.