Mosquito and Arthropod Control
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-1069-DR-FL; Escambia County; DSR 59840
Cross Reference: Existence of serious health hazard, Nuisance, Mosquito Spray
Summary: In October 1995, Hurricane Opal struck Escambia, Florida and other surrounding areas. DSR 59840 was written in the amount of $11,373 for the additional cost of mosquito spraying beyond that normally used for the period following Hurricane Opal. The DSR was suspended pending verification from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that a health hazard existed.
Escambia County submitted their first appeal contending that the complaints of mosquito infestation rose significantly following the storm event. The subgrantee claimed that upon being notified by the State Health Department that a health hazard existed from the stagnant water and backed up sewage, the subgrantee increased the spraying for mosquito and arthropod. The first appeal was denied because FEMA determined that there was no immediate threat to the health and safety of the public. The DRM determined that an evaluation by the CDC was necessary prior to approving spraying for mosquito control to ensure that the increase in mosquito population constituted a health threat, not just an increased nuisance.
The subgrantee submitted their second appeal with additional documentation, including the letters from the State Health Department. The letters mentioned the existence of a health hazard and nuisance as a result of Hurricane Opal. However, the letters did not identify the threat from the occurrence of any specific disease as a result of not increasing the mosquito spraying.
Issues: Should FEMA reimburse the cost for mosquito spray?
Findings: No. No specific threat to the health and safety of the public has been identified.
Rationale: According to FEMA Regulation (Public Assistance Guide (FEMA 286/September 1996), removal of health and safety hazards activity includes vector control of insects when there is a serious health hazard, not when they are merely a nuisance. The documentation submitted does not indicate the existence of a serious health hazard that prompted emergency action.
In October 1995, Hurricane Opal struck Escambia, Florida and other surrounding areas. DSR 59840 (Category B) was written in the amount of $11,373 for the additional cost of mosquito spraying beyond that normally used for the period following Hurricane Opal. The DSR was suspended pending authorization from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that a health hazard existed and approval by the FEMA Regional Director. Escambia County (the subgrantee) did not concur with the recommendation to suspend the DSR. The subgrantee contended that complaints of mosquito infestation rose significantly following the storm event. The subgrantee further mentioned that Escambia County was notified by the State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) Environmental Administrator that a health hazard existed and therefore, the county responded to the emergency by increasing the spraying for mosquito and arthropod.
First Appeal
With an April 29, 1996, letter, the State transmitted the subgrantee's April 22, 1996 letter appealing the denial of work items from DSR 59840. The subgrantee believed the work should be eligible for the following reasons:
In response to the first appeal, in a letter dated July 1, 1996, the FEMA Regional Director denied the appeal and provided the following reasons for the denial:
The State's letter dated October 25, 1996, transmitted the subgrantee's second appeal (dated September 30, 1996) of DSR 59840 to FEMA. The subgrantee states that in accordance with 44 CFR, the DRM may require certification by local, State, and/or federal officials that a threat exists. The subgrantee notes that no contact or such request was made of the CDC by the DRM. The subgrantee contends that lacking a request by the DRM of the CDC, the DRM should consider the recommendation by the State HRS. In support of their claim, the subgrantee has submitted copies of the letters written by the HRS to various agencies including the Governor's Authorized Representative (GAR). These letters mentioned that there was a health hazard from the debris, backups from sewage lift stations and flooded areas still holding water. The letters also indicated that the hazard existed approximately 60 days following Hurricane Opal.
DISCUSSION
The subgrantee's appeal focuses on the issue regarding the existence of a threat to the public health from the backed up sewage and stagnant water resulting from Hurricane Opal that would become potential places for the mosquitoes to breed. The State and the subgrantee emphasize in their letters that in accordance with 44 CFR 206.225(a)(2) FEMA may require certification by local, State and/or federal officials that a threat exists. FEMA agrees with the State and the subgrantee on this issue and further indicates that a local or State certification clearly demonstrating the existence of a serious health hazard would be acceptable documentation in the absence of the CDC report. However, reference to a `nuisance' condition is not sufficient to demonstrate a threat.
Upon review of the available documentation, none of the letters written by the HRS in support of the subgrantee's claim, identify the specific nature of the health hazard. The letters do not cite the threat from any specific disease. Although the letters mention the existence of a health hazard and nuisance as a result of Hurricane Opal, they do not mention any specific disease.
The Public Assistance Guide (prepared to interpret Stafford Act and regulations) (FEMA 286/September 1996) explains that "Removal of health and safety hazards activity includes vector control of insects when there is a serious health hazard, not when they are merely a nuisance. Verification of the threat by the federal CDC may be required." The supporting documentation submitted by the subgrantee indicates the mosquito spray work was carried out to reduce the nuisance. The documentation does not demonstrate the existence of any threat by identifying any specific disease. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the mosquito spraying was required to reduce a specific threat. Accordingly, we maintain that the requested scope of work in DSR 59840 is not eligible for FEMA assistance.
CONCLUSION
FEMA concurs that documentation provided by the HRS would be acceptable in lieu of that from the CDC. However, the HRS letters do not address a specific threat posed by the increased mosquito population. Accordingly, the available documentation does not support that an immediate threat was present; therefore, the costs for the mosquito spray work carried out by the subgrantee is not eligible. Escambia County's second appeal of DSR 59840 is denied.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1069-DR |
| Applicant | Escambia County |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 033-00000 |
| PW ID# | 59840 |
| Date Signed | 1997-08-12T04:00:00 |
Cross Reference: Existence of serious health hazard, Nuisance, Mosquito Spray
Summary: In October 1995, Hurricane Opal struck Escambia, Florida and other surrounding areas. DSR 59840 was written in the amount of $11,373 for the additional cost of mosquito spraying beyond that normally used for the period following Hurricane Opal. The DSR was suspended pending verification from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that a health hazard existed.
Escambia County submitted their first appeal contending that the complaints of mosquito infestation rose significantly following the storm event. The subgrantee claimed that upon being notified by the State Health Department that a health hazard existed from the stagnant water and backed up sewage, the subgrantee increased the spraying for mosquito and arthropod. The first appeal was denied because FEMA determined that there was no immediate threat to the health and safety of the public. The DRM determined that an evaluation by the CDC was necessary prior to approving spraying for mosquito control to ensure that the increase in mosquito population constituted a health threat, not just an increased nuisance.
The subgrantee submitted their second appeal with additional documentation, including the letters from the State Health Department. The letters mentioned the existence of a health hazard and nuisance as a result of Hurricane Opal. However, the letters did not identify the threat from the occurrence of any specific disease as a result of not increasing the mosquito spraying.
Issues: Should FEMA reimburse the cost for mosquito spray?
Findings: No. No specific threat to the health and safety of the public has been identified.
Rationale: According to FEMA Regulation (Public Assistance Guide (FEMA 286/September 1996), removal of health and safety hazards activity includes vector control of insects when there is a serious health hazard, not when they are merely a nuisance. The documentation submitted does not indicate the existence of a serious health hazard that prompted emergency action.
Appeal Letter
August 12, 1997
Mr. Joseph F. Myers
Governor's Authorized Representative
State of Florida Department of Community Affairs
Emergency Management
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
Dear Mr. Myers:
This letter is in response to your October 25, 1996, submittal of Escambia County's second appeal of Damage Survey Report 59840 under FEMA-1069-DR-FL. Escambia County is requesting funding for mosquito spraying. This DSR was suspended at the Disaster Field Office pending a determination by the Centers of the Disease Control that spraying was required to eliminate an immediate health threat.
We have reviewed the case and have determined that the documentation submitted by the subgrantee does not demonstrate that the increase in mosquito population presented an immediate threat to the safety of the public. Consequently, the appeal is denied. Please refer to the enclosed appeal analysis.
Please inform the applicant of this determination and their right to submit a third appeal pursuant to 44 CFR 206.206(e).
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
Mr. Joseph F. Myers
Governor's Authorized Representative
State of Florida Department of Community Affairs
Emergency Management
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
Dear Mr. Myers:
This letter is in response to your October 25, 1996, submittal of Escambia County's second appeal of Damage Survey Report 59840 under FEMA-1069-DR-FL. Escambia County is requesting funding for mosquito spraying. This DSR was suspended at the Disaster Field Office pending a determination by the Centers of the Disease Control that spraying was required to eliminate an immediate health threat.
We have reviewed the case and have determined that the documentation submitted by the subgrantee does not demonstrate that the increase in mosquito population presented an immediate threat to the safety of the public. Consequently, the appeal is denied. Please refer to the enclosed appeal analysis.
Please inform the applicant of this determination and their right to submit a third appeal pursuant to 44 CFR 206.206(e).
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDIn October 1995, Hurricane Opal struck Escambia, Florida and other surrounding areas. DSR 59840 (Category B) was written in the amount of $11,373 for the additional cost of mosquito spraying beyond that normally used for the period following Hurricane Opal. The DSR was suspended pending authorization from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that a health hazard existed and approval by the FEMA Regional Director. Escambia County (the subgrantee) did not concur with the recommendation to suspend the DSR. The subgrantee contended that complaints of mosquito infestation rose significantly following the storm event. The subgrantee further mentioned that Escambia County was notified by the State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) Environmental Administrator that a health hazard existed and therefore, the county responded to the emergency by increasing the spraying for mosquito and arthropod.
First Appeal
With an April 29, 1996, letter, the State transmitted the subgrantee's April 22, 1996 letter appealing the denial of work items from DSR 59840. The subgrantee believed the work should be eligible for the following reasons:
- Complaints of mosquito infestation rose significantly following the storm event
- The subgrantee was notified by the state Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) that a health hazard existed
In response to the first appeal, in a letter dated July 1, 1996, the FEMA Regional Director denied the appeal and provided the following reasons for the denial:
- FEMA agrees that spraying for mosquito control is an emergency protective measure. However, in accordance with 44 CFR 206.225(a)(3)(i), an emergency protective measure will be eligible for reimbursement only if the protective measures eliminate or lessen immediate threats to life, public health or safety. In accordance with 44 CFR 206.225(a)(2), the Regional Director may require certification by local, State, and/or federal officials that a threat exists, including identification and evaluation of the threat and recommendations of the emergency work necessary to cope with the threat.
- The Disaster Recovery Manager (DRM) determined that an evaluation by the CDC was necessary prior to approving spraying for mosquito control to ensure that the increase in mosquito population constituted a health threat, not just an increased nuisance.
- The subgrantee conducted the spraying prior to evaluation by the CDC; the required certification could not be obtained.
The State's letter dated October 25, 1996, transmitted the subgrantee's second appeal (dated September 30, 1996) of DSR 59840 to FEMA. The subgrantee states that in accordance with 44 CFR, the DRM may require certification by local, State, and/or federal officials that a threat exists. The subgrantee notes that no contact or such request was made of the CDC by the DRM. The subgrantee contends that lacking a request by the DRM of the CDC, the DRM should consider the recommendation by the State HRS. In support of their claim, the subgrantee has submitted copies of the letters written by the HRS to various agencies including the Governor's Authorized Representative (GAR). These letters mentioned that there was a health hazard from the debris, backups from sewage lift stations and flooded areas still holding water. The letters also indicated that the hazard existed approximately 60 days following Hurricane Opal.
DISCUSSION
The subgrantee's appeal focuses on the issue regarding the existence of a threat to the public health from the backed up sewage and stagnant water resulting from Hurricane Opal that would become potential places for the mosquitoes to breed. The State and the subgrantee emphasize in their letters that in accordance with 44 CFR 206.225(a)(2) FEMA may require certification by local, State and/or federal officials that a threat exists. FEMA agrees with the State and the subgrantee on this issue and further indicates that a local or State certification clearly demonstrating the existence of a serious health hazard would be acceptable documentation in the absence of the CDC report. However, reference to a `nuisance' condition is not sufficient to demonstrate a threat.
Upon review of the available documentation, none of the letters written by the HRS in support of the subgrantee's claim, identify the specific nature of the health hazard. The letters do not cite the threat from any specific disease. Although the letters mention the existence of a health hazard and nuisance as a result of Hurricane Opal, they do not mention any specific disease.
The Public Assistance Guide (prepared to interpret Stafford Act and regulations) (FEMA 286/September 1996) explains that "Removal of health and safety hazards activity includes vector control of insects when there is a serious health hazard, not when they are merely a nuisance. Verification of the threat by the federal CDC may be required." The supporting documentation submitted by the subgrantee indicates the mosquito spray work was carried out to reduce the nuisance. The documentation does not demonstrate the existence of any threat by identifying any specific disease. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the mosquito spraying was required to reduce a specific threat. Accordingly, we maintain that the requested scope of work in DSR 59840 is not eligible for FEMA assistance.
CONCLUSION
FEMA concurs that documentation provided by the HRS would be acceptable in lieu of that from the CDC. However, the HRS letters do not address a specific threat posed by the increased mosquito population. Accordingly, the available documentation does not support that an immediate threat was present; therefore, the costs for the mosquito spray work carried out by the subgrantee is not eligible. Escambia County's second appeal of DSR 59840 is denied.
Last updated