alert - warning

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

Hungry Hollow Bridge

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

Desastre1628
ApplicantYolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#113-U682D-00
PW ID#1983
Date Signed2007-12-21T05:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1628-DR-CA; Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

Cross-reference: Pre-disaster Condition; Eligible Work

Summary: As a result of the 2005-2006, Winter Storms FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 1983 for $40,302 on April 27, 2006 to repair Hungry Hollow Bridge to its pre-disaster condition and mitigate against future erosion. FEMA obligated PW 1983 for $0 because it could not determine that damages to the bridge were caused by the declared disaster. The Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Applicant) disputed this decision but failed to provide maintenance records in its first appeal. In its second appeal, the Applicant provided Ride Reports from two years, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, demonstrating that structures along the Hungry Hollow canal are regularly inspected and needed repairs are cited. Hungry Hollow Bridge is not recorded as being in need of repairs for two years prior to the 2005-2006 Winter Storms. The Ride Reports substantiate the Applicant’s claim that the damages are the result of the declared disaster.
Issues: 1. Are damages to the facility the direct result of the disaster?

Findings: 1. Yes.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.223 and 206.226

Appeal Letter

December 21, 2007

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 – Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
PA ID 113-U682D-00, Hungry Hollow Bridge, FEMA-1628-DR-CA, Project Worksheet (PW) 1983

Dear Mr. Jacks:

This is in response to your letter dated August 29, 2007, transmitting the referenced second appeal on behalf of the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Applicant), dated June 28, 2007. The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) determination that repair work to the Hungry Hollow Bridge (Bridge) is not eligible for Public Assistance funding.

From December 17, 2005 to January 3, 2006, heavy rains flooded into the Hungry Hollow canal and eroded the Bridge abutment embankments, causing the west abutment to sink. The Bridge is a 14-foot wide, 21-feet long aluminum-decked farm bridge with steel “I” beams as span members attached to concrete abutments on each side of the canal. The flooding eroded backfill material from around and under both bridge abutments. The west abutment face area lost approximately 6 cubic yards (CY) of backfill material, and approximately 11 CY of backfill material was lost under the canal bed. As a result, the west abutment sank 2 to 7 inches into the canal bed. The east bridge abutment face lost approximately 0.5 CY of backfill material; and underneath the abutment, approximately 3 CY of backfill material was lost.

On April 27, 2006, FEMA prepared PW 1983 for $35,642 to restore the Bridge to its pre-disaster condition. A hazard mitigation proposal for $4,660 to prevent future erosion was included in the PW. In total, PW 1983 was prepared for $40,302. However, the Applicant did not produce maintenance records for the Bridge. Therefore, FEMA was unable to determine if the damages were a direct result of the disaster. Because the damage did not meet the requirements of 44 CFR §206.223, FEMA obligated PW 1983 for $0.

The Applicant submitted its first appeal on November 8, 2006. The Applicant maintained that damages to the Bridge were caused by the disaster. The California Office of Emergency Services (OES) conducted a site inspection and supported the Applicant’s claim. OES forwarded the appeal to FEMA on January 10, 2007. In a letter dated April 16, 2007, the Deputy Regional Administrator stated that the Applicant failed to provide requested maintenance records to substantiate its claim and denied the Applicant’s first appeal.

In its second appeal dated June 28, 2007, the Applicant submitted Ride Reports for two years, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, demonstrating that structures along the Hungry Hollow canal are regularly inspected and needed repairs are cited. The Ride Reports indicate that various structures along the canal were routinely inspected two years prior to the disaster. Also, some structures cited in the 2004-2005 report as damaged or needing maintenance were not cited in the 2005-2006 report. The Bridge is designated as “HUH-0029” on the map the Applicant submitted with the Ride Reports. HUH-0029 is not cited as damaged or in need of maintenance in either report. Additionally, the Applicant states that “the actual dimensions of the Bridge are 24 feet 3 inches by 14 feet 3 inches, not 21 feet by 14 feet, as indicated. Second, the write up should indicate that there was also undermining of the center support pier.”

Upon review of the information submitted in the Applicant’s second appeal, I have determined that the damage to the Bridge is a direct result of the disaster and is eligible for Public Assistance funding. The correct bridge dimensions are as stated above, and the description of damage in the PW should include erosion around the center support pier. In addition, the cost of the hazard mitigation proposal is less than 15% of the repair cost and is eligible for reimbursement. Therefore, I am granting the Applicant’s appeal. By copy of this letter, I request that the Regional Administrator take appropriate action to implement this determination.

Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.

Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate

cc: Nancy Ward
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IX