Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 103-60422-00; Village of Quogue
PW ID# 40 and 118; Quogue Village Beach-Hazard Mitigation Proposal
Citation: FEMA-1869-DR-NY, Village of Quogue, Quogue Village Beach-Hazard Mitigation Proposal
Cross-Reference: Hazard Mitigation
Summary: A severe storm and flooding event caused wave action and coastal flooding that eroded a section of the beach and dunes, washed-out a section of sand fence located on the dunes, damaged the boardwalk, and undermined the foundation of a building adjacent to the beach in the Village of Quogue (Applicant). FEMA prepared PW 40 for $134,322 for the repair of the boardwalk and building foundation and PW 118 for $669,867 for the beach and dune restoration. FEMA included an HMP with PW 40 for $157,500 for the placement of geo-cubes as erosion protection to protect the boardwalk and building from future, similar damage. FEMA determined that in accordance with Disaster Assistance Policy DAP 9526.1 Hazard Mitigation Funding under Section 406 (Stafford Act) (Hazard Mitigation Policy), the HMP was ineligible because it was not cost effective. The Applicant submitted a first appeal stating “the placement of the geo-cubes provides erosion control mitigation to protect the structures against potential future damage or destruction and also protects part of the dune behind where they are located against future losses.” NYS OEM transmitted the appeal, requesting that FEMA amend Appendix A of the Hazard Mitigation Policy to include geo-cubes and approve the HMP under PW 118. The FEMA Regional Administrator denied the appeal, stating that Applicant installed the geo-cubes landward of the dune behind the beach project to protect the facilities listed in PW 40, and FEMA correctly included the HMP with PW 40. The FEMA Regional Administrator also reiterated that the HMP is not cost effective. The Applicant submitted a second appeal, requesting that FEMA combine the approved cost estimates of PWs 40 and 118 to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the HMP. The Applicant states that it embedded the geo-cubes in the newly restored dunes and the geo-cubes protect both the facility and a substantial portion of dune.
Issues: 1. Can the entire cost to restore the dunes and the beach be considered in the evaluation of the cost effectiveness of the HMP?
2. Is the HMP cost effective according to the Hazard Mitigation Policy?
Findings: 1. No
Rationale: Disaster Assistance Policy DAP 9526.1 Hazard Mitigation Funding under Section 406 (Stafford Act),