alert - warning

This page has not been translated into Español. Visit the Español page for resources in that language.

Debris Removal

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DesastreFEMA-1731-DR
ApplicantYuima Municipal Water District
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#073-1C971-00
PW ID#NA
Date Signed2010-01-25T05:00:00

SECOND APPEAL BRIEF
FEMA-1731-DR-CA
Yuima Municipal Water District, PA ID 073-1C971-00
Debris Removal

Citation:             FEMA-1731-DR-CA, Yuima Municipal Water District, Debris Removal

Cross
Reference:
         Debris Removal
 
Summary:           On January 4, 2008, FEMA amended the wildfire declaration to expand the incident type for the disaster to include flooding, mudflows, and debris flows directly related to the wildfires.  The amendment stated that only those areas that the Federal Coordinating Officer determined on a case-by-case basis to be damaged or adversely affected would be eligible.  FEMA prepared multiple PWs for the Yuima Municipal Water District (Applicant) for damage sustained as a result of the wildfires.  However, FEMA determined that $100,000 associated with mud and debris flows was ineligible.    

The Applicant submitted its first appeal June 11, 2008, arguing that removal of the mudflow debris was necessary as a direct result of the wildfires.  The Applicant sustained damage to its public facilities as a result of heavy rains that washed debris down the denuded hillsides.  The Applicant incurred costs of approximately $100,000 for post-fire debris removal.  The Applicant asserted that it was not reasonable for FEMA to determine that only the La Jolla and Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians warranted inclusion under the amendment.  In a letter dated January 29, 2009, the Acting Regional Administrator denied the appeal, stating that the Applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to establish that the event impacted the Applicant to such an extent and intensity as to warrant inclusion under Amendment Number Two. 

In a letter dated March 26, 2009, the Applicant submitted its second appeal, reasserting its original argument that the damage sustained and the work performed are eligible for reimbursement under Amendment Number Two.  
 
Issues:              Is the post-fire debris removal work that the Applicant performed eligible under the amended declaration for public assistance?

Findings:           No.
 
Rationale:         44 CFR §206.31-40; 44 CFR §206.223, General work eligibility

Appeal Letter

January 25, 2010

 

 

Frank McCarton

Governor’s Authorized Representative

California Emergency Management Agency

3650 Schriever Avenue

Mather, California 95655

 

Re:    Second Appeal–Yuima Municipal Water District, PA ID 073-1C971-00, Debris Removal,

         FEMA-1731-DR-CA

 

Dear Mr. McCarton:

 

This letter is in response to your letter dated July 1, 2009, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Yuima Municipal Water District (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of $100,000 for post-fire debris removal costs.

Severe wildfires damaged and destroyed several hundred acres in San Diego County from October 2007 to January 2008.  The President declared a major disaster for the fires on October 24, 2007.  As a result of rainfall that occurred November 30, 2007, FEMA published Amendment Number Two to the declaration on January 4, 2008, to expand the incident type for the disaster to include flooding, mudflows, and debris flows directly related to the wildfires.  The amendment stated that the Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) would determine on a case-by-case basis the areas that were eligible for assistance under the amendment.  FEMA prepared multiple PWs for the Applicant for damage sustained as a result of the wildfires. 

In its first appeal dated June 11, 2008, the Applicant claimed that it incurred damages to its public facilities totaling approximately $100,000 when they were inundated with mud, burnt tree trunks, and debris as a direct result of the October wild fires.  The Applicant stated that this occurred following heavy rain on November 30, 2007, which triggered the debris and mudflow from the compromised burned watershed.  The Applicant also asserted that it was not reasonable for FEMA to determine that only the La Jolla and Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians warranted inclusion under the amendment.  In a letter dated January 29, 2009, the Acting Regional Administrator denied the first appeal because the Applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to establish that the event impacted the Applicant to such an extent and intensity as to warrant inclusion under Amendment Number Two. 

The Applicant transmitted information related to its second appeal on March 26, 2009.  The California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA) forwarded the second appeal to FEMA in a letter dated July 1, 2009, stating that the Applicant had submitted its second appeal within the established 60-day deadline, but that submission of the appeal to FEMA was delayed due to an administrative error by CalEMA.  CalEMA requested that the Applicant not be penalized for CalEMA’s mistake.  The Applicant reiterates its request for $100,000 for reimbursement of debris removal costs, reasserting its original argument.  With its appeal, the Applicant submitted various weather reports for the time period at issue describing rainfall in the Applicant’s county.

Amendment Number Two provided the FCO with the authority to determine eligibility for those areas damaged or adversely affected as a direct result of the compromised watershed conditions on a case-by-case basis.  The Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation to establish that post-fire rain events impacted the Applicant to such an extent and intensity as to warrant inclusion under the amendment. 

I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Acting Regional Administrator’s decision in the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance regulations and policy.  Accordingly, I am denying the second appeal.

Please inform the Applicant of my decision.  This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206, Appeals.

Sincerely,

 /s/

Elizabeth A. Zimmerman

Assistant Administrator

Disaster Assistance Directorate

cc:     Nancy Ward

Regional Administrator

FEMA Region IX