Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Summary
PA ID# 087-70588; City of Scotts Valley
DSR ID# 59016 & 93870; Vine Hill School Road Culvert Crossing
Citation: FEMA-1203-DR-CA; City of Scotts Valley, California; Vine Hill School Road Culvert Crossing, DSRs 59016 & 93870
Cross-reference: Disaster-Related Damage; Duplication of Benefits; Environmental Compliance; Landscaping
Summary: Heavy rains and flooding damaged a culvert and associated wing walls and washed away riprap at the crossing of Vine Hill School Road over Carbonera Creek. The Applicant requested assistance to repair the culvert and wing walls, replace the riprap, construct sidewalks on the upstream and downstream sides of the culvert, construct a fish ladder, re-landscape, and compensate two firms for providing duplicate engineering services. FEMA reviewed the initial request and the request of the first appeal and concluded that the sidewalks, concrete culvert lining, landscaping, and duplicate engineering services were not eligible. The Applicants argues (1) the necessity of the upstream sidewalk to comply with City code, (2) the culvert lining is an integral part of the fish ladder required to comply with regulations, (3) hydroseeding is an erosion control measure and landscaping restores the site to pre-disaster conditions, and (4) the engineering services provided by one contractor do not duplicate the services provided by the second contractor.
Issues: (1) Does the City code necessitate that the upstream sidewalk be constructed?
(2) Is the concrete culvert lining an integral part of the fish ladder design required by California Department of Fish and Game?
(3) Is hydroseeding eligible to prevent erosion? Are tree plantings eligible to restore the site to its pre-disaster condition?
(4) Did two contractors provide duplicate engineering services?
Findings: (1) No, the upstream side of the culvert was not structurally damaged as a direct result of the disaster, such that the code requirement to construct the sidewalk is not applicable.
(2) Yes, the culvert lining is required as part of the fish ladder design and should be funded.
(4) Yes, hydroseeding is an effective erosion control method and should be funded. No, trees and shrubs are not eligible under the Public Assistance program.
(6) The engineering services provided by one contractor did duplicate those provided by another. The cost of the services provided by the first contractor is recoverable by the Applicant for nonperformance. No further funding is eligible.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.223; (2) FEMA 322, Public Assistance Guide pp. 102-104, 107, 110; (3) Recovery Policy 9524.5.