This page has not been translated into 한국어. Visit the 한국어 page for resources in that language.
St. Lucie County, Indian River Estates - Drainage System Upgrade
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
FEMA Headquarters personnel have thoroughly reviewed the information submitted with this second level appeal. After careful consideration I have concluded that the original determination by Region IV should stand. This appeal was denied because construction began prior to the award of the grant, in violation of FEMA' s programmatic and regulatory requirements. The second level appeal does not contain new or substantive information that would provide grounds for overturning the decision made at the Region.
In conclusion, after review of the second level appeal documentation, FEMA Headquarters concurs with the determination by the Region that project did not meet eligibility standards and should not be awarded.
If you have any additional questions regarding this issue, please contact Clay Saucier, Chief, Hazard Mitigation Assistance Branch, FEMA Region IV, at (770) 220-5488.
Sincerely,
cc: Major Phil May, Regional Adminstrator, FEMA Region IV
Brad Loar, Director, Mitigation Division, FEMA Region IV
Appeal Brief
| Applicant | Florida Division of Emergency Management |
| Appeal Type | 2nd |
| Project Number | 249 |
| Date Signed | 2009-07-27T00:00:00 |
1st Appeal
• Issue
o The original application proposed to upgrade the existing storm-water management system by adding a pumping station and gravity conveyance system to a residential area. The first phase of the project application, pump station construction, was denied on the basis of inadequate flood mitigation benefits. The State appealed the denial on behalf of the subapplicant. FEMA then found that an EPA grant was awarded to construct a pump station, and that duplication of federal funding (DOB) could result if that element of the scope of work (SOW) were to be funded by FEMA. A site visit also revealed that the construction of the pump station had begun.
• Reason for Denial
o Region IV denied the 1st appeal on the grounds that construction of the pump station, included in the SOW supporting the HMGP application, had been initiated prior to HMGP funding approval.
• Reference(s)
o 44 CFR 206.434.c(5) Eligibility; 44 CFR 206.440 Appeals
• Issue
o The original application proposed to upgrade the existing storm-water management system by adding a pumping station and gravity conveyance system to a residential area. The first phase of the project application, pump station construction, was denied on the basis of inadequate flood mitigation benefits. The State appealed the denial on behalf of the subapplicant. FEMA then found that an EPA grant was awarded to construct a pump station, and that duplication of federal funding (DOB) could result if that element of the scope of work (SOW) were to be funded by FEMA. A site visit also revealed that the construction of the pump station had begun.
• Reason for Denial
o Region IV denied the 1st appeal on the grounds that construction of the pump station, included in the SOW supporting the HMGP application, had been initiated prior to HMGP funding approval.
• Reference(s)
o 44 CFR 206.434.c(5) Eligibility; 44 CFR 206.440 Appeals
2nd Appeal
• Issue
o The State submitted a formal 2nd appeal of FEMA’s decision to deny further consideration for construction of the pump station, but no new information was provided by the State. The appeal referred to FEMA’s response time of 2.5 years for HMGP application review and initial denial, impeding needed mitigation for public health, safety and welfare; and to FEMA’s initial erroneous initial application denial.
• FEMA Findings
o FEMA HQ denied the 2nd appeal, upholding Region IV’s decision to deny the 1st appeal.
o The rationale for the 2nd appeal denial was that no additional information was provided during the 2nd appeal and construction of the project was underway prior to award of the requested grant.
o Reference(s): 44 CFR 206.440 Appeals; 44 CFR 206.434 Eligibility; 44 CFR 206.436(d) Application Procedures
• Issue
o The State submitted a formal 2nd appeal of FEMA’s decision to deny further consideration for construction of the pump station, but no new information was provided by the State. The appeal referred to FEMA’s response time of 2.5 years for HMGP application review and initial denial, impeding needed mitigation for public health, safety and welfare; and to FEMA’s initial erroneous initial application denial.
• FEMA Findings
o FEMA HQ denied the 2nd appeal, upholding Region IV’s decision to deny the 1st appeal.
o The rationale for the 2nd appeal denial was that no additional information was provided during the 2nd appeal and construction of the project was underway prior to award of the requested grant.
o Reference(s): 44 CFR 206.440 Appeals; 44 CFR 206.434 Eligibility; 44 CFR 206.436(d) Application Procedures
Appeal Letter
Ruben D. Almaguer
Interim Director
Florida Department of Emergency Management
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Interim Director
Florida Department of Emergency Management
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Dear Mr. Almaguer:
I am writing in response to the Florida Department of Emergency Management's request dated January 9, 2009 for FEMA to review the second level appeal for the County of St. Lucie, FL. This second appeal follows the decision by the FEMA Region IV Office in Atlanta, GA not to award the application submitted under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).
FEMA Headquarters personnel have thoroughly reviewed the information submitted with this second level appeal. After careful consideration I have concluded that the original determination by Region IV should stand. This appeal was denied because construction began prior to the award of the grant, in violation of FEMA' s programmatic and regulatory requirements. The second level appeal does not contain new or substantive information that would provide grounds for overturning the decision made at the Region.
In conclusion, after review of the second level appeal documentation, FEMA Headquarters concurs with the determination by the Region that project did not meet eligibility standards and should not be awarded.
If you have any additional questions regarding this issue, please contact Clay Saucier, Chief, Hazard Mitigation Assistance Branch, FEMA Region IV, at (770) 220-5488.
Sincerely,
Deborah S. Ingram
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mitigation
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mitigation
cc: Major Phil May, Regional Adminstrator, FEMA Region IV
Brad Loar, Director, Mitigation Division, FEMA Region IV
Appeal Analysis
The 1st appeal was denied because construction began prior to the award of the grant, in violation of FEMA' s programmatic and regulatory requirements. The second level appeal did not contain new or substantive information to provide grounds for overturning the decision made at the Regional level.