Remove mud, silt and sand from Arana Creek
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-1044-DR-CA; Santa Cruz City Schools DSR 16097
Cross-Reference: Immediate Threat; Damage to unimproved property
Summary: As a result of the 1995 Winter Storms Disaster, DSR 16097 was written to remove mud, silt and sand from Arana Creek between State Highway 1 and Harbor High School Emergency Access Road. The Category A DSR was written for $1,939 for removal of 277 cubic yards of debris. During review, FEMA determined that the area of proposed work was a natural unmaintained area and subsequently not eligible for funding. The subgrantee's first appeal was denied by FEMA since debris removal is considered eligible for funding when it is necessary to eliminate immediate threats to improved public or private property. The first appeal response from FEMA stated that Arana Creek was not considered improved property. The subgrantee filed a second appeal on the basis that the creek was an improved facility since it was "engineered" in 1966 and was partially lined with concrete. They address the issue of immediate threat to public property by stating that "heavy, prolonged 'event' rainfall in the Arana Creek watershed would result in the debris totally blocking the channel. The blocked channel would cause the water to flow over the tennis courts and across to the swimming pool berm and Gymnasium and parking lots," causing major damage to these facilities without intervention.
Issues:
As a result of the 1995 Winter Storms, DSR 16097 was written to remove mud, silt, and sand from Arana Creek between State Highway 1 and Harbor High School Emergency Access Road (also referred to as the fire road). The Category A DSR was written for $1,939 for removal of 277 cubic yards of debris. During review, FEMA determined that the area of proposed work was a natural unmaintained area and subsequently not eligible for funding. A hazard mitigation proposal to remove trees and brush on Arana Creek and install a concrete-lined channel between the two culverts under State Highway 1 and the Harbor High School Emergency Access Road was included in DSR 16097 for $56,460. As this DSR was not approved, the hazard mitigation proposal was not approved.
First Appeal
On February 29, 1996, the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (State) forwarded a December 8, 1995 letter from the Santa Cruz City Schools (the subgrantee) appealing FEMA's decision not to fund the project. The appeal included a cost estimate for removal of small trees, brush and accumulated sediment in the amount of $2,800 (plus an additional $1,400 if a stream water bypass is required by the State Fish and Game Department). The first appeal states, "In the past two years, approximately $100,000 has been spent to improve the Arana Creek channel on the lower part of the campus. Brush and trees on the channel have been trimmed or cut back at least twice in the last ten years, including the area that is within the scope of this DSR."
The subgrantee's first appeal was denied by FEMA in a letter dated June 4, 1996. The appeal was denied since debris removal is considered eligible for funding when it is necessary to "eliminate immediate threats to improved public or private property." The first appeal response from FEMA further states that Arana Creek is not considered improved property since it is not "a structure, facility or item of equipment, which was built, constructed or manufactured."
Second Appeal
The State forwarded the July 30, 1996 second appeal from the subgrantee in a letter dated November 18, 1996. The second appeal states that in 1966 when the school district purchased the property, a civil engineer was retained through their architect to "engineer" a new creek channel from Highway 1 to Soquel Avenue. They also state that the channel is partially lined with concrete including the "basin" area between the highway and the fire road. They address the issue of immediate threat to public property by stating that "heavy, prolonged 'event' rainfall in the Arana Creek watershed would result in the debris totally blocking the channel. At that point, the water would move in to the tennis courts and flow across to the swimming pool berm and Gymnasium and parking lots." They also state that these facilities would receive major damage without intervention.
Neither the first or second appeal addresses the hazard mitigation proposal in the DSR. For the purpose of this analysis, only the debris removal will be addressed.
DISCUSSION
Immediate Threat Issue
For emergency debris removal to be eligible for FEMA funding, an immediate threat must be demonstrated. The subgrantee stated that a heavy prolonged "event" rainfall could result in major damage to property if the debris removal does not occur. This "event" rainfall is not defined by the subgrantee, but appears to be a larger storm than that used by FEMA to define an immediate threat. For a flood related disaster, an immediate threat is defined by the damage to life, public safety or improved property, that could be expected to occur from a flood with frequency of five years or in other words, a five year flood. A five-year flood is defined as having a 0.2 percent chance of occurring in any given year. To establish an immediate threat, the delineation of the flood plain for the five-year flood must be provided along with supporting backup calculations. The backup calculations must, at a minimum, include hydrologic and hydraulic analyses along with site specific topography, which illustrates the threat to nearby facilities. If, upon review, the delineation supports that an immediate threat exists, work to eliminate that threat would be considered eligible. Since no demonstration of an immediate threat has been presented, the debris removal is not eligible.
Facility Issue
Debris removal from natural streams is not normally eligible for assistance unless an immediate threat is demonstrated, as discussed above. Debris removal from an engineered channel could be eligible if the engineered channel meets the definition of a facility and if FEMA can determine from maintenance records the pre-disaster level of debris. As stated in 44 CFR 206.201 (c), a facility means any publicly or privately owned building, works, system, or equipment, built or manufactured, or an improved and maintained natural feature (emphasis added). FEMA's review of the DSR indicated that it was a natural unmaintained area. The hazard mitigation proposal included in the DSR is to install a concrete lining at this part of the creek, never acknowledging the presence of an existing concrete lining. Although the subgrantee contends that the creek was "engineered" when the school district purchased the property in 1966 and that it was partially lined with concrete, they have not shown that the area was maintained. No records of maintenance have been provided. Therefore, no documentation has been presented to demonstrate that an improved and maintained natural feature exists. Therefore, the channel does not meet the definition of a facility and the debris removal is not eligible. Even if the channel was determined to be a facility, the subgrantee must provide maintenance records that allow a determination of the pre-disaster level of debris. Without maintenance records, it is impossible to determine how much of the debris existed prior to the disaster event and how much was deposited as a result of the event. Therefore the debris removal would not be eligible even if the channel was determined to be a facility.
CONCLUSION
Based on a review of the documentation submitted, as discussed above, the subgrantee has not established that an immediate threat to lives, public health or property exists. Therefore, the debris removal cannot be funded as an emergency measure. Debris removal from an engineered channel could be eligible if the engineered channel meets the definition of a facility and if FEMA can determine from maintenance records the pre-disaster level of debris. The subgrantee has not demonstrated that Arana Creek between State Highway 1 and Harbor High School Emergency Access Road is an improved and maintained natural feature as required in the definition of a facility eligible for FEMA funding. Even if the channel was determined to be a facility, the subgrantee has not provided maintenance records that allow a determination of the pre-disaster level of debris. Therefore the debris removal would not be eligible even if the channel was determined to be a facility.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1044-DR |
| Applicant | Santa Cruz City Schools |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 087-91024 |
| PW ID# | 16097 |
| Date Signed | 1997-06-13T04:00:00 |
Cross-Reference: Immediate Threat; Damage to unimproved property
Summary: As a result of the 1995 Winter Storms Disaster, DSR 16097 was written to remove mud, silt and sand from Arana Creek between State Highway 1 and Harbor High School Emergency Access Road. The Category A DSR was written for $1,939 for removal of 277 cubic yards of debris. During review, FEMA determined that the area of proposed work was a natural unmaintained area and subsequently not eligible for funding. The subgrantee's first appeal was denied by FEMA since debris removal is considered eligible for funding when it is necessary to eliminate immediate threats to improved public or private property. The first appeal response from FEMA stated that Arana Creek was not considered improved property. The subgrantee filed a second appeal on the basis that the creek was an improved facility since it was "engineered" in 1966 and was partially lined with concrete. They address the issue of immediate threat to public property by stating that "heavy, prolonged 'event' rainfall in the Arana Creek watershed would result in the debris totally blocking the channel. The blocked channel would cause the water to flow over the tennis courts and across to the swimming pool berm and Gymnasium and parking lots," causing major damage to these facilities without intervention.
Issues:
- Does removal of the debris meet immediate threat criteria?
- Is Arana Creek in the area identified in DSR 16097 an eligible facility?
- No. The debris in of the creek has not been shown to pose an immediate threat to life or improved property.
- No. The subgrantee has not demonstrated that Arana Creek between State Highway 1 and Harbor High School Emergency Access Road is an improved and maintained natural feature as required in the definition of an eligible facility.
Appeal Letter
June 13, 1997
Mr. Richard Ray
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 239013
Sacramento, CA 95823-9013
Dear Mr. Ray:
This letter is in response to your November 18, 1996, submittal of the Santa Cruz City Schools' second appeal (July 30, 1996) of Damage Survey Report (DSR) 16097 under FEMA-1044-DR-CA. This DSR, prepared for debris removal in Arana Creek, was determined ineligible because the area of proposed work was a natural unmaintained area.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, review of the information submitted indicates that there is no documentation supporting an immediate threat to life or improved property. Additionally, the applicant does not demonstrate that the subject portion of Arana Creek between State Highway 1 and Harbor High School Emergency Access Road is an improved and maintained natural feature, as required in the definition of an eligible facility. Consequently, the work scope in DSR 16097 is not eligible.
Please inform the applicant of this determination and their right to submit a third appeal pursuant to 44 CFR 206.206(e).
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
Mr. Richard Ray
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 239013
Sacramento, CA 95823-9013
Dear Mr. Ray:
This letter is in response to your November 18, 1996, submittal of the Santa Cruz City Schools' second appeal (July 30, 1996) of Damage Survey Report (DSR) 16097 under FEMA-1044-DR-CA. This DSR, prepared for debris removal in Arana Creek, was determined ineligible because the area of proposed work was a natural unmaintained area.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, review of the information submitted indicates that there is no documentation supporting an immediate threat to life or improved property. Additionally, the applicant does not demonstrate that the subject portion of Arana Creek between State Highway 1 and Harbor High School Emergency Access Road is an improved and maintained natural feature, as required in the definition of an eligible facility. Consequently, the work scope in DSR 16097 is not eligible.
Please inform the applicant of this determination and their right to submit a third appeal pursuant to 44 CFR 206.206(e).
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDAs a result of the 1995 Winter Storms, DSR 16097 was written to remove mud, silt, and sand from Arana Creek between State Highway 1 and Harbor High School Emergency Access Road (also referred to as the fire road). The Category A DSR was written for $1,939 for removal of 277 cubic yards of debris. During review, FEMA determined that the area of proposed work was a natural unmaintained area and subsequently not eligible for funding. A hazard mitigation proposal to remove trees and brush on Arana Creek and install a concrete-lined channel between the two culverts under State Highway 1 and the Harbor High School Emergency Access Road was included in DSR 16097 for $56,460. As this DSR was not approved, the hazard mitigation proposal was not approved.
First Appeal
On February 29, 1996, the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (State) forwarded a December 8, 1995 letter from the Santa Cruz City Schools (the subgrantee) appealing FEMA's decision not to fund the project. The appeal included a cost estimate for removal of small trees, brush and accumulated sediment in the amount of $2,800 (plus an additional $1,400 if a stream water bypass is required by the State Fish and Game Department). The first appeal states, "In the past two years, approximately $100,000 has been spent to improve the Arana Creek channel on the lower part of the campus. Brush and trees on the channel have been trimmed or cut back at least twice in the last ten years, including the area that is within the scope of this DSR."
The subgrantee's first appeal was denied by FEMA in a letter dated June 4, 1996. The appeal was denied since debris removal is considered eligible for funding when it is necessary to "eliminate immediate threats to improved public or private property." The first appeal response from FEMA further states that Arana Creek is not considered improved property since it is not "a structure, facility or item of equipment, which was built, constructed or manufactured."
Second Appeal
The State forwarded the July 30, 1996 second appeal from the subgrantee in a letter dated November 18, 1996. The second appeal states that in 1966 when the school district purchased the property, a civil engineer was retained through their architect to "engineer" a new creek channel from Highway 1 to Soquel Avenue. They also state that the channel is partially lined with concrete including the "basin" area between the highway and the fire road. They address the issue of immediate threat to public property by stating that "heavy, prolonged 'event' rainfall in the Arana Creek watershed would result in the debris totally blocking the channel. At that point, the water would move in to the tennis courts and flow across to the swimming pool berm and Gymnasium and parking lots." They also state that these facilities would receive major damage without intervention.
Neither the first or second appeal addresses the hazard mitigation proposal in the DSR. For the purpose of this analysis, only the debris removal will be addressed.
DISCUSSION
Immediate Threat Issue
For emergency debris removal to be eligible for FEMA funding, an immediate threat must be demonstrated. The subgrantee stated that a heavy prolonged "event" rainfall could result in major damage to property if the debris removal does not occur. This "event" rainfall is not defined by the subgrantee, but appears to be a larger storm than that used by FEMA to define an immediate threat. For a flood related disaster, an immediate threat is defined by the damage to life, public safety or improved property, that could be expected to occur from a flood with frequency of five years or in other words, a five year flood. A five-year flood is defined as having a 0.2 percent chance of occurring in any given year. To establish an immediate threat, the delineation of the flood plain for the five-year flood must be provided along with supporting backup calculations. The backup calculations must, at a minimum, include hydrologic and hydraulic analyses along with site specific topography, which illustrates the threat to nearby facilities. If, upon review, the delineation supports that an immediate threat exists, work to eliminate that threat would be considered eligible. Since no demonstration of an immediate threat has been presented, the debris removal is not eligible.
Facility Issue
Debris removal from natural streams is not normally eligible for assistance unless an immediate threat is demonstrated, as discussed above. Debris removal from an engineered channel could be eligible if the engineered channel meets the definition of a facility and if FEMA can determine from maintenance records the pre-disaster level of debris. As stated in 44 CFR 206.201 (c), a facility means any publicly or privately owned building, works, system, or equipment, built or manufactured, or an improved and maintained natural feature (emphasis added). FEMA's review of the DSR indicated that it was a natural unmaintained area. The hazard mitigation proposal included in the DSR is to install a concrete lining at this part of the creek, never acknowledging the presence of an existing concrete lining. Although the subgrantee contends that the creek was "engineered" when the school district purchased the property in 1966 and that it was partially lined with concrete, they have not shown that the area was maintained. No records of maintenance have been provided. Therefore, no documentation has been presented to demonstrate that an improved and maintained natural feature exists. Therefore, the channel does not meet the definition of a facility and the debris removal is not eligible. Even if the channel was determined to be a facility, the subgrantee must provide maintenance records that allow a determination of the pre-disaster level of debris. Without maintenance records, it is impossible to determine how much of the debris existed prior to the disaster event and how much was deposited as a result of the event. Therefore the debris removal would not be eligible even if the channel was determined to be a facility.
CONCLUSION
Based on a review of the documentation submitted, as discussed above, the subgrantee has not established that an immediate threat to lives, public health or property exists. Therefore, the debris removal cannot be funded as an emergency measure. Debris removal from an engineered channel could be eligible if the engineered channel meets the definition of a facility and if FEMA can determine from maintenance records the pre-disaster level of debris. The subgrantee has not demonstrated that Arana Creek between State Highway 1 and Harbor High School Emergency Access Road is an improved and maintained natural feature as required in the definition of a facility eligible for FEMA funding. Even if the channel was determined to be a facility, the subgrantee has not provided maintenance records that allow a determination of the pre-disaster level of debris. Therefore the debris removal would not be eligible even if the channel was determined to be a facility.
Last updated