This page has not been translated into Español. Visit the Español page for resources in that language.
Floating Boat Dock
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: FEMA-1628-DR-CA, Reclamation District Number 2127, Floating Boat Dock, Project Worksheet (PW) 3010
Cross-reference: General Eligibility
Summary: Wind and wave action from the 2005-2006 Winter Storms caused damage to a floating boat dock. Project Worksheet (PW) 3010 was prepared in the amount of $5,200 to restore the dock to pre-disaster condition. Six months after the incident period, a 70-foot tall eucalyptus tree fell on the dock causing further damage. The Reclamation District Number 2127 (Applicant) requested additional funding in the amount of $42,708 for repair of damage caused by the fallen tree. FEMA denied the request because the damage occurred outside of the incident period. In its first appeal, the Applicant claimed that the root ball of the tree was undermined by the disaster causing the tree to fall at a later date. The Applicant provided documentation from four professional sources to support that a tree could fall some time after the root ball had been saturated and undermined from a storm event. The Deputy Regional Administrator denied the first appeal because the Applicant did not demonstrate that damage to the tree was a direct result of the declared disaster. In its second appeal, the Applicant argued that it is unreasonable for FEMA to deny that a tree can be damaged by a storm and fall at a later date when numerous experts support this case. OES supported the Applicants appeal and added that damages, such as landslides or mudflows, can occur outside of the incident period.
Issues: Has the Applicant demonstrated that damage to the floating boat dock from a fallen tree was a direct result of the declared disaster?
Findings: No.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.223(a)(1)
Appeal Brief
| Desastre | FEMA-1628-DR |
| Applicant | Reclamation District Number 2127 |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 095-UKSM9-00 |
| PW ID# | PW 3010 |
| Date Signed | 2009-03-19T04:00:00 |
Appeal Letter
Dear Mr. McCarton:
This is in response to your letter, dated May 8, 2008, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the Reclamation District Number 2127 (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) denial of funding for repair of damages caused by a fallen tree.
Wind and wave action from the 2005-2006 Winter Storms damaged a floating boat dock. FEMA approved PW 3010 for $5,200 on July 12, 2006, to restore the dock to its pre-disaster condition. Six months after the incident period, a 70-foot eucalyptus tree fell and caused additional damage to the dock and an adjacent levee. The Applicant subsequently requested an additional $42,708. FEMA denied the Applicants request because the new damage occurred outside of the incident period.
The Applicant stated in its first appeal, submitted July 12, 2007, that the trees root ball was undermined by the declared disaster and the damage caused by the tree is a result of the disaster. The Applicant included a letter from a landscaping company that asserts that the damaged root ball is typical of such undermining that can be expected from a major storm. The Applicant also provided documentation from three other sources substantiating the fact that a tree can fall some time later after its root ball has been saturated and undermined. The Deputy Regional Administrator denied the appeal on December 4, 2007, because the Applicant did not demonstrate that the damage to the tree was a direct result of the declared disaster.
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on February 8, 2008, and provided two additional letters from companies to support its claims. The Applicant argued that it is unreasonable for FEMA to deny that a tree can be damaged by a storm and fall at a later date when numerous experts support this case.
Pursuant to 44 CFR §206.223 General work eligibility, work must be required as a direct result of disaster event that occurred during the incident period designated by FEMA. Damage that occurs after the incident period must be directly related to the declared event. The Applicant did not demonstrate that damage caused by this particular eucalyptus tree was a direct result of the declared event. Because the damage occurred outside of the incident period and was not directly related to the declared event, it is not eligible for repair.
I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Deputy Regional Administrators decision in the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance regulations and policy. Accordingly, I am denying the second appeal.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206 Appeals.
Sincerely,
/s/
James A. Walke
Acting Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: Karen Armes
Acting Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IX
This is in response to your letter, dated May 8, 2008, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the Reclamation District Number 2127 (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) denial of funding for repair of damages caused by a fallen tree.
Wind and wave action from the 2005-2006 Winter Storms damaged a floating boat dock. FEMA approved PW 3010 for $5,200 on July 12, 2006, to restore the dock to its pre-disaster condition. Six months after the incident period, a 70-foot eucalyptus tree fell and caused additional damage to the dock and an adjacent levee. The Applicant subsequently requested an additional $42,708. FEMA denied the Applicants request because the new damage occurred outside of the incident period.
The Applicant stated in its first appeal, submitted July 12, 2007, that the trees root ball was undermined by the declared disaster and the damage caused by the tree is a result of the disaster. The Applicant included a letter from a landscaping company that asserts that the damaged root ball is typical of such undermining that can be expected from a major storm. The Applicant also provided documentation from three other sources substantiating the fact that a tree can fall some time later after its root ball has been saturated and undermined. The Deputy Regional Administrator denied the appeal on December 4, 2007, because the Applicant did not demonstrate that the damage to the tree was a direct result of the declared disaster.
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on February 8, 2008, and provided two additional letters from companies to support its claims. The Applicant argued that it is unreasonable for FEMA to deny that a tree can be damaged by a storm and fall at a later date when numerous experts support this case.
Pursuant to 44 CFR §206.223 General work eligibility, work must be required as a direct result of disaster event that occurred during the incident period designated by FEMA. Damage that occurs after the incident period must be directly related to the declared event. The Applicant did not demonstrate that damage caused by this particular eucalyptus tree was a direct result of the declared event. Because the damage occurred outside of the incident period and was not directly related to the declared event, it is not eligible for repair.
I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Deputy Regional Administrators decision in the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance regulations and policy. Accordingly, I am denying the second appeal.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206 Appeals.
Sincerely,
/s/
James A. Walke
Acting Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: Karen Armes
Acting Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IX