alert - warning

This page has not been translated into Español. Visit the Español page for resources in that language.

Hazard Mitigation - 30

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DesastreFEMA-1155-DR
ApplicantCity of San Luis Obispo
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#079-68154
PW ID#00284
Date Signed1999-03-23T05:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1155-DR-CA; PA ID 079-68154; DSR 00284.

Cross-reference: Winter storm and flooding; pipeline damage; hazard mitigation measures.

Summary: In the aftermath of the winter storms of January 1997, the City of San Luis Obispo applied for disaster assistance to repair a 30-inch water pipeline that sustained damage caused by the earth moving. FEMA wrote DSR 00284 for $6,938 to reimburse the City for funds it expended to effect the repairs. The City submitted a hazard mitigation proposal (HMP) to move the pipeline to a more stable location at an estimated cost of $1.9 million. The Regional Director denied the request and a first appeal because, at $1.9 million, the project was not cost effective. The City is submitting this second appeal for FEMA to reconsider the request because the estimate has been revised to $770,000.

Issue: Should FEMA fund the HMP?

Findings: No. The cost of the proposal to relocate the pipeline submitted by the City is not cost effective.

Rationale: FEMA's Landslide Policy

Appeal Letter

March 23, 1999

Mr. D.A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, California 95741

Dear Mr. Christian:

This is in response to your October 9, 1998, letter forwarding the July 8, 1998, second appeal from the Mayor of the City of San Luis Obispo of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) denial of the City's Section 406 Hazard Mitigation Proposal (HMP). The City's HMP requested funding to relocate approximately 3,600 linear feet of the 30-inch water line that was damaged in the January 1997 winter storm disaster (FEMA-1155-DR-CA) at a cost of $1.9 million. FEMA denied the first appeal request because the HMP was not cost effective.

In its second appeal, the City requested a reconsideration of the HMP. The City claimed that the cost estimate to relocate the pipeline was reduced to $770,000 due to the extremely accurate mapping abilities of the radar imaging process. You forwarded the appeal on October 9, 1998, with the observation that you were still unable to support the proposal. Section 406 hazard mitigation funding is a discretionary funding program under the Stafford Act. The implementing regulations and FEMA policy prescribe that mitigation measures be cost effective to be eligible. Cost effectiveness is determined by evaluating the benefit/cost ratio. Mitigation measures are deemed to be cost effective if the ratio of the benefit [accruing to the federal government] to the mitigation project costs equals or exceeds 1.0. The applicant has not demonstrated that its proposal is cost effective. I, therefore, concur with the Regional Director's decision on the first appeal and your observation in denying this appeal.

I was made aware that the pipeline was damaged again in the early-1998 flood disaster (FEMA-1203-DR-CA) and that another HMP was submitted. I can assure you that this HMP will be considered on its merits. Please inform the applicant of my determination. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.

Sincerely,

/S/

Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate

Enclosure

cc: Martha Z. Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX