Emergency Protective Measures
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: 44 C.F.R. §206.225(a)(3), Emergency Protective Measures
Cross-reference: Immediate Threat
Summary: High velocity floodwaters from Hurricane Ivan destroyed the City of Jaspers only source of drinking water, the Cove Creek Raw Water Intake (Facility). PWs #414 and #443 were obligated in February 2005, for $9,469 to reimburse the Applicant for the cost of debris and sediment removal, installation of a temporary water source for the community, and construction of a temporary diversion stream to allow work on the Facility. In addition to the work performed at the damaged site, the Applicant performed work 500 yards upstream to prevent debris from clogging the Facility in a future event. This additional work included debris and sediment removal in and adjacent to the stream and the dredging of a spillway to redirect debris in future events. FEMA denied eligibility for this additional work. The Applicant filed a first appeal on May 17, 2005, arguing that the additional work provided protection of the Facility from future debris flows. Region IV denied the first appeal on July 28, 2005, because the additional work 500 yards upstream from the Facility did not address an immediate threat to life or improved property, which is limited to protection from a 5-year event. On October 10, 2005, the Applicant filed a second appeal.
Issues: Does the Applicants work located 500 yards upstream from the damaged facility meet FEMAs requirements as an immediate threat?
Findings: No.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.225(a)(3)
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1554-DR |
| Applicant | City of Jasper |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 227-41932-00 |
| PW ID# | N/A |
| Date Signed | 2006-05-18T04:00:00 |
Appeal Letter
May 18, 2006
Charlie English
Governors Authorized Representative
Georgia Emergency Management Agency
P.O. Box 18055
Atlanta, GA 30316-0055
Re: Second Appeal City of Jasper, Georgia, PA ID # 227-41932-00
Emergency Protective Measures, FEMA-1554-DR-GA
Dear Mr. English:
This is in response to your letter dated October 5, 2005, regarding the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Jasper (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) denial of assistance for certain emergency work performed by the Applicant.
As a result of Hurricane Ivan, floodwaters damaged the Applicants only source of drinking water, the Cove Creek Raw Water Intake. High velocity floodwaters deposited sediment and waterborne debris at the raw water intake location and damaged the adjacent embankments. Project Worksheets (PW) #414 and #443 provided a total of $9,469 to remove debris and sediment adjacent to the raw water intake, to re-establish the embankments, to install a temporary water source, and to construct a temporary diversion channel to facilitate the emergency work.
In addition to the work performed at the damaged site, the Applicant removed debris and dredged a spillway approximately 500 yards upstream from the damaged facility to redirect debris flows and protect the raw water intake in future flooding events. FEMA denied eligibility for this additional work because it was not deemed necessary to protect against an immediate threat to public health and safety or a hazard to improved property.
The Applicant filed a first appeal dated May 17, 2005, arguing that the work was necessary to protect the raw water intake from damage in future flooding events. FEMA denied the Applicants first appeal on July 28, 2005. The Applicants second appeal, dated October 5, 2005, requests reconsideration of FEMAs denial of assistance for the additional work performed approximately 500 yards upstream from the damaged facility.
FEMAs regulations at 44 C.F.R. § 206.225(a) provide assistance for emergency protective measures. However, such emergency measures are eligible only to the extent necessary to eliminate or lessen an immediate threat to lives, public health and safety, or to protect improved property from additional significant damage. FEMA has consistently interpreted an immediate threat to be the threat of damage from an event that has a 20% chance of occurring each year, i.e. a 5-year flood. We have determined that the additional work performed by the Applicant 500 yards upstream of the damaged facility was not necessary to protect the raw water intake from a 5-year flood event. Therefore, the Applicants appeal is denied.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination constitutes the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
David Garratt
Acting Director of Recovery
Federal Emergency Management Agency
cc: Mary Lynn Miller
Acting Regional Director
FEMA Region IV
Charlie English
Governors Authorized Representative
Georgia Emergency Management Agency
P.O. Box 18055
Atlanta, GA 30316-0055
Re: Second Appeal City of Jasper, Georgia, PA ID # 227-41932-00
Emergency Protective Measures, FEMA-1554-DR-GA
Dear Mr. English:
This is in response to your letter dated October 5, 2005, regarding the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Jasper (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) denial of assistance for certain emergency work performed by the Applicant.
As a result of Hurricane Ivan, floodwaters damaged the Applicants only source of drinking water, the Cove Creek Raw Water Intake. High velocity floodwaters deposited sediment and waterborne debris at the raw water intake location and damaged the adjacent embankments. Project Worksheets (PW) #414 and #443 provided a total of $9,469 to remove debris and sediment adjacent to the raw water intake, to re-establish the embankments, to install a temporary water source, and to construct a temporary diversion channel to facilitate the emergency work.
In addition to the work performed at the damaged site, the Applicant removed debris and dredged a spillway approximately 500 yards upstream from the damaged facility to redirect debris flows and protect the raw water intake in future flooding events. FEMA denied eligibility for this additional work because it was not deemed necessary to protect against an immediate threat to public health and safety or a hazard to improved property.
The Applicant filed a first appeal dated May 17, 2005, arguing that the work was necessary to protect the raw water intake from damage in future flooding events. FEMA denied the Applicants first appeal on July 28, 2005. The Applicants second appeal, dated October 5, 2005, requests reconsideration of FEMAs denial of assistance for the additional work performed approximately 500 yards upstream from the damaged facility.
FEMAs regulations at 44 C.F.R. § 206.225(a) provide assistance for emergency protective measures. However, such emergency measures are eligible only to the extent necessary to eliminate or lessen an immediate threat to lives, public health and safety, or to protect improved property from additional significant damage. FEMA has consistently interpreted an immediate threat to be the threat of damage from an event that has a 20% chance of occurring each year, i.e. a 5-year flood. We have determined that the additional work performed by the Applicant 500 yards upstream of the damaged facility was not necessary to protect the raw water intake from a 5-year flood event. Therefore, the Applicants appeal is denied.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination constitutes the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
David Garratt
Acting Director of Recovery
Federal Emergency Management Agency
cc: Mary Lynn Miller
Acting Regional Director
FEMA Region IV
Last updated