Debris Removal

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA DR-1046
ApplicantMonterey Peninsula Water Management District
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#053-91039
PW ID#73405
Date Signed1997-10-02T04:00:00
B>Citation: Appeal Brief; Second Appeal; Monterey Peninsula Water Management District; FEMA-1046-DR-CA; PA# 053-91039

Cross-Reference: DSR 73405; Debris Removal

Summary: Following the winter storms of 1995, FEMA prepared DSR 73405 for $23,533 to fund 14.5 miles of debris removal from the Carmel River. Upon review, FEMA reduced the DSR to $0 (as category `A' work), because the debris removal was not necessary to eliminate an immediate threat. On February 26, 1996, the State submitted the first appeal to reinstate the funding associated with DSR 73405. The basis of the first appeal was that the debris restricted the channel capacity and posed a significant threat of additional flooding and erosion, and a hazard to the public. In response to the first appeal, the Regional Director determined that the subgrantee did not submit sufficient documentation to support its assertion that the debris deposited by the disaster created an immediate threat from the 5-year flood event. The Regional Director denied the first appeal based on 44 CFR 206.224 and 206.221 (c). The State submitted the second appeal on April 18, 1997, providing maps, historical flow frequency data, and cross sections, to demonstrate that the 5-year flood event would exceed the banks of the river, and pose a threat to the public.

Issue: Was removal of the debris pile from the Carmel River necessary to eliminate an immediate threat of significant damage from a 5-year flood event?

Findings: No. The documentation provided contains inconsistencies in the hydrological and hydraulic evaluation, including the 5-year flow rate, cross sections, and water surface elevations. The documentation does not sufficiently demonstrate that the debris posed an immediate threat from the 5-year flood event.

Rationale: To be considered an eligible expense, debris removal must eliminate an immediate threat to either life, public health and safety, or an immediate threat of significant damage to improved property from a 5-year flood event, pursuant to 44 CFR 206.224 and 206.221 (c).

Appeal Letter

October 2, 1997

Ms. Nancy Ward
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 239013
Sacramento, California 95823

Dear Ms. Ward:

This is in response to your letter dated April 18, 1997, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). With that letter, you forwarded a second appeal of damage survey report (DSR) 73405 on behalf of Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (District). The District is requesting FEMA to pay the costs associated with debris removal from the Carmel River.

Following the winter storms of 1995, FEMA prepared DSR 73405 for $23,533 to fund 14.5 miles of debris removal from the river. FEMA reduced the DSR to $0 because the debris removal was not necessary to eliminate an immediate threat. The State submitted the first appeal on February 26, 1996. The basis of the first appeal was that the accumulated debris restricted the channel capacity, and posed a significant threat to private and public property, and a hazard to the public. On October 1, 1996, the Regional Director denied the first appeal because the subgrantee did not submit substantive documentation to support the assertion that an immediate threat existed as a result of the debris deposited by the disaster. Therefore, the debris removal was not an eligible expense, pursuant to Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, sections 206.224 and 206.221 (c).

The issue of the second appeal is whether or not the debris pile posed an immediate threat to either public or private property or to life, public health, and safety from a 5-year flood event. Additional documentation was submitted with the second appeal, including maps, historical flow frequency data, and cross sections. However, this documentation contains inconsistencies in the hydrological and hydraulic evaluation, including the 5-year flow rate, cross sections, and water surface elevations, and does not sufficiently demonstrate that the debris posed an immediate threat from the 5-year flood. We have thoroughly reviewed the second appeal submittal and have determined that the Regional Director's first appeal response is consistent with program regulations and statute. Therefore, I am denying the second appeal.

Please inform the applicant of my determination. The applicant may submit a third appeal 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
Last updated