Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 111-70042-00; City of Santa Paula
PW ID# Project Worksheets 3122 and 3123; Rock Weir Repair and Hazard Mitigation Proposal
FEMA-1577-DR-CA, City of Santa Paula, PWs 3122 and 3123, Rock Weir Repair and Hazard Mitigation Proposal Cross-reference:
Disaster Related Damage; Hazard Mitigation, Benefit-Cost AnalysisSummary:
As a result of the December 2004/January 2005 winter storms (1577-DR-CA, declared February 4, 2005, for severe storms, flooding, debris flows, and mudslides from December 27, 2004, through January 11, 2005), the Harvey Dam and the fish ladder downstream of the dam owned by the City of Santa Paula (Applicant) were damaged. FEMA prepared Project Worksheets (PWs) 3122 and 3123 for the repairs to the dam and fish ladder, respectively. FEMA denied funding for the proposed replacement of the rock weirs downstream of the dam and a Hazard Mitigation Proposal (HMP) to protect the dam from future damage. FEMA determined that the rock weirs were washed away prior to the declared event, and that the HMP was not cost effective. The Applicant submitted a first appeal on February 9, 2006, stating that the rock weirs were constructed in 1999 and in place prior to the event. Further, the Applicant asserted that the HMP was cost-effective. FEMA denied the first appeal, because although the weirs were constructed in 1999, the weirs had been washed out by an event prior to the declared disaster. Further, the Applicant did not show the HMP to be cost effective through a benefit-cost analysis (BCA). The Applicant submitted a second appeal on December 13, 2006, reiterating its position that the damage to the rock weirs was caused by the declared event. In addition, a BCA was submitted with the second appeal indicating that the HMP was cost effective.Issues:
1. Is the restoration of the rock weirs required as the result of the disaster?
2. Did the BCA support the cost effectiveness of the HMP?Findings:
1. No. The Applicant did not submit documentation in support of its position.
2. No. The Applicant did not submit documentation in support of the assumptions made in the BCA.Rationale:
44 CFR § 206.223(a)(1); FEMA Response and Recovery Directorate Policy 9526.1 (Hazard Mitigation Policy)