This page has not been translated into Kreyòl. Visit the Kreyòl page for resources in that language.
Huntsville, AL - Dallas Branch and Pinhook Creek Drainage Improvement Project
Appeal Brief
| Applicant | Alabama Emergency Management Agency |
| Appeal Type | 1st |
| Project Number | 217 |
| Date Signed | 2011-02-07T00:00:00 |
• Issue
o In October 2006 the City of Huntsville applied through the Alabama Emergency Management Agency (AEMA) for HMGP funding for a flood control project involving channelization of creeks, a retention pond, and acquisition/demolition of properties, as a two-phased project. Phase I was final planning and design, and phase II was final plans/specifications and construction. On July 1, 2010 FEMA Region IV denied Phase II (Construction) funding with a proposed federal share of$7,608,849. On September 27, 2010, AEMA appealed the decision to deny Phase II. Region IV convened an Appeals Board to review the appeal and denied it for the same reasons as in the original denial. AEMA subsequently submitted a 2nd Appeal.
• Reason for Denial
o Region for denied Phase II on the on the grounds that the methodology used to generate the Benefit-Cost Ratio of 1.10 did not meet FEMA requirements, that the submitted design and budget were not complete, and that necessary coordination with major interested parties in the project area had not taken place.
• Reference(s)
o 44CFR § 206.434 Eligibility, EO 11988 and EO 11990, 44 C.F.R. part 10, Environmental Considerations, 2006 BCA Guidance
o In October 2006 the City of Huntsville applied through the Alabama Emergency Management Agency (AEMA) for HMGP funding for a flood control project involving channelization of creeks, a retention pond, and acquisition/demolition of properties, as a two-phased project. Phase I was final planning and design, and phase II was final plans/specifications and construction. On July 1, 2010 FEMA Region IV denied Phase II (Construction) funding with a proposed federal share of$7,608,849. On September 27, 2010, AEMA appealed the decision to deny Phase II. Region IV convened an Appeals Board to review the appeal and denied it for the same reasons as in the original denial. AEMA subsequently submitted a 2nd Appeal.
• Reason for Denial
o Region for denied Phase II on the on the grounds that the methodology used to generate the Benefit-Cost Ratio of 1.10 did not meet FEMA requirements, that the submitted design and budget were not complete, and that necessary coordination with major interested parties in the project area had not taken place.
• Reference(s)
o 44CFR § 206.434 Eligibility, EO 11988 and EO 11990, 44 C.F.R. part 10, Environmental Considerations, 2006 BCA Guidance