Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 071-UBHYB; Orleans Parish Communication District
PW ID# 9014; Temporary Relocation Facility
Citation: FEMA-1603-DR-LA, Orleans Parish Communication District, Temporary Relocation Facility, PW 9014
Reference: Environmental and Historical Preservation Compliance
Summary: The Orleans Parish Communication District’s (Applicant) 9-11 administration operations office was flooded during Hurricane Katrina. Because it was necessary for the city to have an emergency 9-11 operation, the Applicant proposed to construct a temporary facility on a piece of property it had leased prior to the disaster with the intention of building a permanent 9-11 administration facility. FEMA, a FEMA historic preservation specialist, a State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) representative, a State representative and the Applicant’s environmental consultant conducted a visit to the proposed site. FEMA identified possible environmental concerns and historic preservation issues and conveyed these concerns to the Applicant’s environmental consultant and the State representative. Prior to FEMA reviewing the project for environmental and historic compliance, the Applicant moved forward and erected temporary structures at the proposed site because the community needed an emergency call center. The Applicant requested FEMA prepare a Category B PW to reimburse its expenses to construct the modular structures. FEMA prepared PW 9014 and obligated it for $0 because the work at the site was performed prior to environmental and historical assessments.
In its first appeal transmitted to FEMA by the State on March 17, 2008, the Applicant submitted a Phase I Archeological Report to support its argument that there were no adverse environmental or historical effects as a result of the work at the site. On July 8, 2008, FEMA’s Regional Administrator (RA) denied the appeal because the Applicant’s actions violated provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The RA also determined the documentation provided with the Applicant’s appeal did not provide justification to reverse FEMA’s prior decision to deny funding.
Issue: Did the project require consultation with a regulatory agency to demonstrate historical and environmental measures were in compliance with Federal or State law prior to commencing the work?
Rationale: Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966(NHPA); National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); 44 CFR §10.4, Environmental Considerations, Policy; Response and Recovery Policy 9560.1, Environmental Policy Memoranda; Response and Recovery Policy 9560.3, Programmatic Agreement–Historic Review