This page has not been translated into العربية. Visit the العربية page for resources in that language.
Stafford Lake Bridge
Appeal Brief
Disaster | FEMA-1628-DR |
Applicant | Marin County |
Appeal Type | Second |
PA ID# | 041-99041-00 |
PW ID# | 2988 |
Date Signed | 2010-03-23T04:00:00 |
SECOND APPEAL BRIEF
FEMA-1628-DR-CA
Marin County Department of Parks and Landscape, PA ID 041-99041-00
Bridge Repair, Project Worksheet (PW) 2988
Citation: FEMA-1628-DR-CA, Marin County, Bridge Repair, PW 2988
Cross-
Reference: Improved Project
Summary: Heavy rains from December 17, 2005, through January 3, 2006, damaged a wooden foot bridge in Marin County. Marin County Department of Parks Landscape (Applicant) requested assistance to repair a pedestrian foot bridge. On May 30, 2006, FEMA prepared PW 2988 for $30,537 to repair the bridge. On December 10, 2007, the Applicant submitted a request for additional funding for $113,862, stating although PW 2988 was a small project, the lowest bid significantly exceeded the amount funded by FEMA. The Applicant also requested a change in scope of work (SOW) to replace the wooden bridge with a steel bridge. The request included $16,000 in costs related to bridge access for American Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance. FEMA denied the first appeal, stating that the replacement of the bridge is not eligible according to 44 CFR §206.226 (d)(1) and that as a repair project, upgrades to comply with codes and standards are not eligible. In addition, FEMA states that the Applicant must submit a request for an improved project prior to initiating the work in order to allow FEMA the opportunity to perform an environmental review in accordance with 44 CFR §206.203 (d)(1). In its second appeal the Applicant is requesting an additional $103,273 to replace the wooden bridge with a steel bridge.
Issues: 1. Should the scope of work be revised to allow for the construction of a new steel bridge?
2. Should the cost be increased to the total project amount?
Findings: 1. No. FEMA prepared a Project Worksheet with a scope of work to repair the damages to the wooden bridge.
2. No. The total project cost should not be increased because the Applicant’s scope of work exceeds that which is necessary to repair the damage caused by the declared event.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.203 (d)(1), Federal grant assistance, Improved project;
44 CFR §206.226 (f)(1), Restoration of damaged facilities, Repair vs. replacement
Appeal Letter
March 23, 2010
Francis McCarton
Governor’s Authorized Representative
California Emergency Management Agency
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, California 95655
Re: Second Appeal–Marin County, PA ID 041-99041-00, Stafford Lake Bridge,
FEMA-1628-DR-CA, Project Worksheet (PW) 2988
Dear Mr. McCarton:
This letter is in response to your letter dated July 28, 2009, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Marin County Department of Parks and Landscape (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) determination to deny an additional $103,273 for the replacement of the Stafford Lake Bridge.
Heavy rains from December 17, 2005, through January 3, 2006, damaged the Stafford Lake Bridge. The large volume of water lifted off over half of the wooden bridge decking and broke four of the support beams loose causing one end of the bridge to drop. The Applicant removed the bridge because of the hazard it presented to the public. FEMA prepared PW 2988 on May 30, 2006, for $30,538 to repair the disaster damage to the bridge. On December 10, 2007, the Applicant submitted a request to the Grantee for an additional $113,862 to replace the wooden bridge with a steel bridge and to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Grantee sent the request to FEMA in a letter dated May 19, 2008. FEMA denied the Applicant’s request for an additional $113,863 in a letter dated October 9, 2008. The Applicant appealed this determination in a letter dated December 22, 2008. The Acting Regional Administrator partially approved the Applicant’s first appeal in a letter dated March 19, 2009. Specifically, the Acting Regional Administrator approved an additional $6,108 for ADA compliance in accordance with Response and Recovery Policy 9525.5, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Access Requirements, dated October 20, 2000. The Applicant submitted a second appeal in a letter dated May 28, 2009.
I reviewed all information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Stafford Lake Bridge is not eligible for replacement and the eligible cost to comply with ADA requirements is limited to 20 percent of the eligible cost to repair the disaster damage. The Acting Regional Administrator’s decision on the first appeal was consistent with applicable statue, program regulations and policies. Therefore, I am denying the second appeal.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination is the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR§206.206, Appeals.
Sincerely,
/s/
Elizabeth A. Zimmerman
Assistant Administrator
Recovery Directorate
cc: Nancy Ward
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IX