Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 079-99079-00; San Luis Obispo County
PW ID# PW 197; Slope Stabilization
FEMA-1505-DR-CA, San Luis Obispo County, PW 197, Slope StabilizationCross-reference:
Pre-disaster condition, erosion control, environmental mitigationSummary:
As a result of the December 22, 2003, San Simeon earthquake, San Luis Obispo County (Applicant) incurred costs for the permanent repair of Santa Rosa Creek Road. Three sections of the roadway were damaged by the earthquake. FEMA prepared a draft Project Worksheet (PW) 135-A on April 22, 2004 for $214,452.81 for repair of the roadway and stabilization of existing riprap, and a final PW 197 was obligated on June 24, 2004 for $219,281.24, adding $4,820.25 for erosion control. FEMA denied $336,680.80 for the installation of new riprap for slope stabilization, the installation of additional culverts, creek restoration, and environmental maintenance. In its first appeal dated September 14, 2004, the Applicant stated placing new riprap to stabilize the site of the access road, erosion control measures, and habitat restoration were necessary to restore the road to its pre-disaster condition and required by environmental permits. On August 24, 2005, FEMA denied the installation of the new riprap, citing FEMA Policy 9524.2, Landslide Policy
, and stating that the slope was unstable prior to the disaster. FEMA denied the Applicants request for funding for erosion control because funding had been provided under PW 197 and no additional documentation was submitted in support of the request. FEMA denied the habitat restoration citing FEMA Policy 9524.5, Tree Policy
. The Applicant filed a second appeal with FEMA on November 10, 2005, requesting $254,600 in funding for riprap installation, erosion control measures, and habitat restoration.Issues:
(1) Was the slope instability exclusively caused by the earthquake?
(2) Did the Applicant provide documentation sufficient to support its claim for additional funding for erosion control?
(3) Was the habitat restoration required by environmental permitting?Findings:
(1) No. The slope was unstable prior to the earthquake.
(2) No. The Applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to support its claim that the habitat restoration work performed was required by permit.
FEMA Policy 9524.2, 44 CFR §206.206