Liefer Road Dip Crossing

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA DR-0979
ApplicantCity of Temecula
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#065-78120
PW ID#97284,04230
Date Signed1997-09-24T04:00:00
Citation: FEMA DR-0979-CA; City of Temecula (the City);DSR 97284,04230

Cross-Reference: Emergency protective measure, eligible facility.

Summary: Prior to the flood, Liefer Road crossed Santa Gertrudis Creek via a low water concrete "dip" structure. The flood did little or no damage to the crossing. On February 26, 1993, DSR 97425 for $128,000 was prepared to fund the construction of a temporary bridge. Several weeks later, FEMA voided the DSR and replaced it with DSR 97284, which provided funding for construction of a new permanent bridge. DSR 97284 for $125,245 was approved on May 14, 1993. On July 9, 1995, DSR 04230 was prepared deobligating all funding for the new bridge, because ". no disaster related damage to the roadway dip crossing occurred during the incident period as required under 44 CFR Parts 206.223 and 206.226."

The City submitted a first appeal on November 27, 1995, citing "the need for emergency access to this area." The first appeal was denied because "the construction of a new bridge to replace a partially washed-out low water crossing.is not eligible for funding as either an emergency protective measure.or as permanent restoration work." The City submitted a second appeal on March 18, 1997, enclosing four photographs showing the road just after the flooding, and stating that these ".photographs show that the Liefer Road dip crossing was destroyed (failed) due to flooding."

Issues:
  1. Is a bridge, either temporary or permanent, required to provide emergency protective measures to save lives, to protect public health and safety, and to protect improved property?
  2. Does the new bridge restore eligible facilities on the basis of the design of such facilities as they existed immediately prior to the disaster?
Findings:
  1. No. The preexisting low water dip crossing had been serving the public adequately before the flood, and it was only impassable for several days. This was not an uncommon occurrence at this low water crossing.
  2. No. The new permanent bridge is a complete change from and upgrade to the preexisting road dip crossing.
Rationale:
  1. Title 44 CFR Part 206.225, Emergency work.
  2. Title 44 CFR Part 206.226, Restoration of damaged facilities.

Appeal Letter

September 24, 1997

Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, Third Floor
Pasadena, California 91103-3678

Dear Mr. Najera:

This letter is in response to your May 27, 1997, transmittal of the City of Temecula's second appeal of damage survey report (DSR) 04230 under FEMA-0979-DR-CA. The applicant is requesting funds to construct a new bridge to replace a low water crossing along Liefer Road over San Gertrudis Creek. The low water crossing was flooded for several days, but was not damaged.

Liefer Road crosses Santa Gertrudis Creek via a paved dip structure. The flood inundated the crossing for several days, isolating several residential structures. The Federal/State inspection initially wrote DRS 97425 for $128,000 to fund the construction of a temporary replacement bridge. Later, FEMA deobligated this DSR and prepared DSR 97284 for $125,245 to fund the construction of a permanent bridge. Upon review, FEMA determined that the new bridge was ineligible because the predisaster function of the crossing was restored after the flood receded. Therefore, there was no disaster-related need for the new structure. The Regional Director sustained this decision on first appeal.

I have reviewed all information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the applicant is not eligible for a new bridge because the predisaster function of the crossing was restored when the flood receded. Therefore, I am denying the appeal for the reasons contained in the enclosed appeal analysis.

Please inform the applicant of this determination. The applicant may appeal this determination to the Director of FEMA. The appeal must be submitted through your office and the Regional Director within 60 days of receipt of this determination.

Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate

Enclosure

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND
In February 1993, flooding occurred in the City of Temecula, California (the City). At that time, Liefer Road crossed Santa Gertrudis Creek via a concrete paved "dip" structure. The pavement would be dry when flows in the creek were low, but would be overtopped when there were heavy rains. During the flood, the creek crested six to seven feet above the pavement. After several days of high water, it returned to its normal low flow level.

On February 20, 1993, the FEMA inspector visited the site. At that time, the 100-foot crossing was covered with two feet of flowing water. He observed four-wheel drive vehicles crossing with difficulty. In the narrative backup to the damage survey report (DSR), a reference is made to a February 23 telephone conversation between the inspector and the City Engineer. As stated in the narrative, it was "determined that although access was not currently a problem, concern was expressed that with anticipated storms there would be future access problems to the residents." An estimate of the actual damage to the crossing was never made.

Concerned about this future access problem, government officials (including FEMA representatives) decided-in the days that followed-to go forth with the construction of a temporary bridge. On February 26, 1993, DSR 97425 for $128,000 was approved to fund this bridge. This amount was estimated by a CalTrans engineer based on cursory information obtained at the time of the emergency.

After several weeks of research, CalTrans and City engineers concluded that a permanent bridge could be constructed at a lower cost than that estimated for the temporary bridge. As a result, DSR 97425 was voided, and the new DSR 97284 for $127,987 was approved to fund the permanent bridge. This amount was subsequently revised two times. The DSR was finally approved on May 14, 1993, for $125,245.

On July 9, 1995, DSR 04230 was prepared deobligating all funding provided under DSR 97284. The primary basis for this was ". no disaster related damage to the roadway dip crossing occurred during the incident period as required under 44 CFR Parts 206.223 and 206.226."

First Appeal
The City submitted a first appeal to the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) by letter of November 27, 1995. The primary basis for their appeal was "the need for emergency access to this area." The first appeal was denied by the FEMA Regional Director's letter of October 17, 1996, for essentially the same reason that funding had been deobligated by DSR 04230. As stated therein, "the construction of a new bridge to replace a partially washed-out low water crossing.is not eligible for funding as either an emergency protective measure.or as permanent restoration work."

Second Appeal
The City of Temecula submitted a second appeal to OES by letter of March 18, 1997. In this appeal, they enclose four photographs showing the road just after the flooding. They state that these ".photographs show that the Liefer Road dip crossing was destroyed (failed) due to flooding."

DISCUSSION
To qualify as an emergency protective measure, as stated in Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 206.225, Emergency work, the work must consist of "Emergency protective measures to save lives, to protect public health and safety, and to protect improved property." The preexisting "low water" dip crossing had been serving the publicapproximately 50 residences within the cityadequately before the flood, and it was only out of service for several days during the flood and while the waters receded. The evidence indicates that this was not an uncommon occurrence. This is, in fact, the way a low water crossing is expected to function.

To qualify as a permanent restoration, as stated in 44 CFR 206.226, Restoration of damaged facilities, the work must ".restore eligible facilities on the basis of the design of such facilities as they existed immediately prior to the disaster." The new permanent bridge is a complete change from and upgrade to the preexisting road dip crossing; therefore, reimbursement is not supported.

CONCLUSION
The predisaster function of the low water crossing was restored when the flood receded. Therefore, the construction of a new bridge, either temporary or permanent, is not eligible for reimbursement. The second appeal is denied.
Last updated