Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Letter
PA ID# 111-UL4GF-00; Ventura County Watershed Protection District
DSR ID# Project Worksheet 2493; Revolon Slough
January 22, 2008
Mr. Paul Jacks
Governor’s Authorized Representative
Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
Response and Recovery Division
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, CA 95655
Re: Second Appeal-Ventura County Watershed Protection District, PA ID 111-UL4GF-00,
Revolon Slough Channel, FEMA-1577-DR-CA, Project Worksheet (PW) 2493
Dear Mr. Jacks:
This letter is in response to the referenced second appeal Ventura County Watershed Protection District (Applicant) submitted to the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) on March 7, 2007. OES forwarded the second appeal to FEMA on May 10, 2007. The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of funding to remove debris from Revolon Slough Channel.
The storms and heavy rains of December 27, 2004, through January 11, 2005, caused excessive storm water runoff into Revolon Slough Channel. Debris and sediment were deposited along 900 feet of the 60-foot wide and 25-foot deep concrete channel. The Applicant requested that FEMA reimburse it $43,971 to remove debris and sediment. The work was completed on March 17, 2005. FEMA denied the request because the facility met the United States Army Corps of Engineer’s (USACE) definitional criteria of flood control work (FCW) and the debris did not pose an immediate threat to life, public health and safety, or improved property.
The Applicant submitted its first appeal on November 4, 2005. The Applicant claimed that the costs were eligible because the facilities were not active in the USACE’s Rehabilitation and Inspection Program (RIP), and were not under the specific authority of the USACE. Therefore, FEMA could waive its respective administrative conditions on reimbursement of facilities under the authority of another Federal agency. The Applicant stated that it had sole responsibility for maintenance and the debris removal should be eligible for reimbursement under the FEMA Public Assistance Program.
The Deputy Regional Director denied the first appeal on December 8, 2006, because the facility met the definition of an FCW. In accordance with FEMA Response and Recovery (R&R) Policy 9524.3, Policy for Rehabilitation Assistance for Levees and Other Flood Control Works, authority for FCWs resides with another Federal agency and FEMA’s Public Assistance Program may only reimburse FCWs for emergency work necessary to reduce an immediate threat to life, public health and safety, or improved property.
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on March 7, 2007, reiterating its position presented in the first appeal. The Applicant claims that the debris removal was necessary because additional debris accumulations “could have caused flood waters to overflow the banks. This would have resulted in extensive damage to several hundred acres of agricultural land, farm homes, industrial buildings, and would impact the Camarillo Hills Drain which could threaten the Camarillo Airport if compromised.” The second appeal did not provide any documentation to demonstrate that the debris removal was necessary for the channel to convey a five-year flood event or that a five-year flood would cause any damage if the debris was not removed.
We have reviewed all information submitted with the second appeal and have determined that the Deputy Regional Director’s decision in the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance Program regulations and policies. Therefore, I am denying the second appeal.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination constitutes the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206.
Carlos J. Castillo
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: Nancy Ward
FEMA Region IX