Various Flood Control Works

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1044/10
ApplicantSanta Barbara County
Appeal TypeThird
PA ID#083-00000
PW ID#Multiple (14)
Date Signed1998-11-19T05:00:00
PURPOSE: Respond to third appeals submitted by the County of Santa Barbara for permanent restoration of various flood control facilities.

DISCUSSION: The winter storms of January and March 1995 (FEMA-1044/1046-DR-CA) caused extensive damage to flood control facilities throughout Santa Barbara County. FEMA prepared numerous DSRs (14 in appeal) to fund repairs to various flood control facilities. The DSRs were found ineligible on the basis that the channels meet the United States Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE's) definition of a flood control work (FCW), such that restoration funding for the channel would be under the specific authority of the USACE. The subgrantee's first appeal primarily challenged individual eligibility determinations and the second appeals primarily challenged the Federal Levee Policy and FEMA's coordination of disaster assistance as it relates to FCWs and the Policy. Appeal responses upheld the initial determinations of ineligibility. The third appeal provides letters from the USACE identifying each of the channels as local drainage facilities, thereby making them eligible facilities. Accordingly, each of the DSRs included with this appeal have been reviewed for eligibility for permanent restoration funding through the Public Assistance Program, consistent with FEMA regulations and policy for restoration of eligible facilities. The Regional Director should prepare supplemental DSRs for the eligible scope of work as described in the third appeal analysis. DSR 94723 remains ineligible on the basis that damages are not disaster-related.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Sign letter partially granting these appeals.

Appeal Letter

November 19, 1998

Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, Third Floor
Pasadena, California 91103

Dear Mr. Najera:

This is in response to your January 9, 1998, and May 5, 1998, submittals of the County of Santa Barbara's third appeal of 14 Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) prepared for permanent restoration of various flood control channels damaged during the FEMA-1044 and FEMA-1046 (1044/1046) disasters. Each of the DSRs were found ineligible on the basis that the channels meet the United States Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE's) definition of a Flood Control Work (FCW), such that restoration funding for the channels would be under the specific authority of the USACE.

Based on clarification provided by the USACE, it is found that each of the channels included in this appeal were incorrectly identified as FCWs. Accordingly, each of the 14 DSRs (including deobligation DSRs) included with this appeal have been reviewed for eligibility for permanent restoration funding through the Public Assistance Program. By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Regional Director to prepare supplemental DSRs, as described in the enclosed analysis. DSR 94723, however, remains ineligible on the basis that the damages are not disaster-related. The subgrantee's appeal is partially granted.

Please inform the subgrantee of my determination, which constitutes the final level of appeal in accordance with 44 CFR 206.206(e).

Sincerely,

/S/

James L. Witt
Director

Enclosure

cc: Martha Z. Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND
Due to the severe winter storms and flooding that occurred during the FEMA-1044 and FEMA-1046 (1044/1046) winter storm events, various flood control channels in Santa Barbara County were damaged. The County of Santa Barbara (subgrantee) requested disaster assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the repair of these channels. FEMA inspection teams, consisting of representatives of FEMA, the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES), and the subgrantee, visited the individual sites to document damages and prepare Damage Survey Reports (DSRs). A summary of the channels and the particular DSRs is provided in the enclosure. It is noted that of the 14 DSRs in this appeal, 9 were prepared in response to the initial site inspections. The remaining 5 DSRs were prepared to deobligate funding subsequent to the first appeal review.

For the DSRs discussed herein, the reported damages occurred to the flood control channels themselves. Damages generally consisted of erosion of earth-lined channel banks and erosion and failure of concrete channel lining. At the time of the site inspections (July through August 1995), repair of the damaged channels had just begun. All of the DSRs were prepared as Category D, permanent restoration.

FEMA's initial determination of eligible scopes of work for these DSRs varied, however, the following work was consistently found ineligible: engineering services, damages that were not disaster-related, conditions where the channel function was not affected, and where the facility itself was found to not be eligible. DSRs 16845, 19550, and 46583 were made fully eligible for permanent restoration of the channels.

First Appeal
The subgrantee appealed FEMA's determination of ineligibility of several DSRs in various letters dated from February through August 1996. These appeals refuted the various reasons the DSRs were either not funded or were partially funded. During the appeal review, additional information revealed that the subject channels, with the exception of DSR 46572, met the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE's) definition of a Flood Control Work (FCW), such that restoration funding for the channels would be under the specific authority of the USACE. Accordingly, FEMA denied funding for each DSR being appealed, and deobligated any funding which had been previously approved. Further, review of the subgrantee's file found that other DSRs prepared for FCWs had been previously obligated. These DSRs were also deobligated in response to the first appeal.

Second Appeal
On January 16, 1997, and April 10, 1997, OES forwarded the subgrantee's second appeal letters. The subgrantee's appeals addressed FEMA's failure to coordinate federal disaster assistance, FEMA's application of the Federal Levee Policy, and the inaccurate identification of various drainage facilities as FCWs. The subgrantee also provided maintenance records for DSR 46572 to identify Maria Ygnacia Creek, previously found ineligible as a natural stream, as an improved and maintained feature.

FEMA responded to these appeals by further clarifying the intent of the Federal Levee Policy and stressing the importance of providing Federal assistance within the appropriate funding agency. Funding was reobligated for two DSRs identified by the USACE as local drainage facilities. However, no supporting documentation was provided to refute the remaining channels were FCWs. Further, the Executive Associate Director determined Maria Ygnacia Creek to be an FCW as well. In support of the USACE Program, and the Federal Levee Policy, the Executive Associate Director upheld the determination of ineligibility for the remaining 13 DSRs, including DSR 46572.

Third Appeal
The subgrantee's third appeal of these DSRs was transmitted by OES in two letters dated January 8 and May 5, 1998. The subgrantee provided letters from the USACE verifying that each of the subject facilities are not FCWs, but are in fact local drainage facilities. No other issues were appealed in these letters.

DISCUSSION
In accordance with the discussion presented above, it is found that each of the channels included in this appeal are eligible for permanent restoration funding. Accordingly, each of the nine original DSRs have been reviewed to determine the eligible scope of work, consistent with FEMA regulations and policy for restoration of eligible facilities. As the focus of FEMA's responses to the subgrantee's appeals for each of these DSRs has been directed toward the issue of eligibility of FCWs, it is necessary to reexamine the eligible scope of work for these DSRs. Individual discussions are provided below. Supplemental deobligating DSRs are indicated in parentheses.

Specific comments regarding each DSR are provided below. Additionally, it is noted that the subgrantee has requested that a line item for engineering services be provided on each DSR. Our review has concluded that some engineering effort may be required for the proposed scopes of work. Accordingly, each supplemental DSR will be prepared to include an estimate for engineering and inspection services, estimated utilizing the FEMA engineering cost estimating curve (Curve B), which provides for a 11% allowance for projects of the sizes reported herein.


DSRs 12279(24153), 12280(24154), 12281, 16845(83823), 19550(83824), 46585(83822)
These DSRs were written for repairs to concrete-lined channels. Damages included cracking of the concrete channel lining as well as erosion of fill behind the concrete. The method of repair included sawcutting the eroded concrete, replacing eroded fill, and replacing the damaged concrete lining. DSR 12281 was originally denied based on the determination that the damage to the concrete lining did not interfere with the pre-disaster functionof the channel. In reexamining this DSR, it is found that the repairs are eligible as they reestablish the pre-disaster conditionof the channel. The Regional Director will prepare supplemental DSRs consistent with the scope of work identified on the original DSRs to fund repairs to these channels, plus estimated engineering costs as described above.

DSR 46571
In response to severe erosion of an earth channel bank, riprap was placed to prevent further erosion and reestablish the pre-disaster slope of the channel bank. The scope of work as presented on the original DSR is reasonable and consistent with FEMA methods of repair for similar channels. Accordingly, the Regional Director will prepare a supplemental DSR consistent with this determination, including estimated engineering costs as described above.

DSR 46572
DSR 46572 was originally written to repair a scoured earth channel bank with grouted riprap. Review of this DSR concludes that the scope of work to repair an earth-lined channel bank with grouted riprap is considered to be excessive. However, the subgrantee has indicated that the repairs have been performed using un-grouted riprap rather than grouted. This method of repair is reasonable and consistent with FEMA methods of repair for similar channels. Accordingly, the Regional Director will prepare a supplemental DSR consistent with this determination, substituting the cost for grouted riprap with the FEMA cost code for ungrouted riprap (cost code 3251), plus estimated engineering costs as described above.

DSR 94723
As requested by the subgrantee, DSR 94723 was prepared to remove and replace a cracked concrete wall surrounding a culvert. The inspector submitted the DSR with a note that he believed the damages to be a pre-existing condition. In the first appeal, the subgrantee argued that such damages would have been identified in theirhoence with other DSRs that an annual maintenance program does exist, there is no substantiation that these damages would have been addressed. The inspector preparing this DSR also examined several other sites along this channel and is thus familiar with the types of damages inflicted upon the channel by the 1044/1046 events. Based on the inspector's recommendation, funding for this DSR is denied.

Actual Costs
The subgrantee has submitted actual costs for each of the DSRs included in this appeal. However, sufficient documentation has not been provided to demonstrate that the scope of the completed work is consistent with the eligible work described herein, or to justify the actual costs of the work. Further consideration of the actual costs for large projects will be provided at project close-out if sufficient documentation is provided. Additionally, it is noted that most of these projects are considered small projects, as the estimate of eligible funding is less than $43,600. After all small projects have been completed by the subgrantee, actual project costs should be compared with the estimates approved and obligated by FEMA. If the subgrantee discovers an aggregate cost overrun related to the final cost of all of their small projects, the subgrantee may submit an appeal for additional funding within 60 days of the completion of all of their small projects. Costs for each project must be directly related to the approved scope of work. Accordingly, we cannot provide funding based on the actual costs at this time.

CONCLUSION
Based on clarification provided by the USACE, it is found that each of the channels included in this appeal were incorrectly identified as FCWs. Accordingly, each of the 14 DSRs (including deobligation DSRs) included with this appeal have been reviewed for eligibility for permanent restoration funding through the Public Assistance Program, consistent with FEMA regulations and policy for restoration of eligible facilities. The Regional Director will prepare supplemental DSRs for the eligible scope of work as described herein. DSR 94723 remains ineligible on the basis that damages are not disaster-related. The subgrantee's appeal is partially granted.


ENCLOSURE 1

DSR

Disaster

Channel

12279 (24153)

1044

Atascadero Creek

12280 (24154)

1044

Atascadero Creek

12281

1044

Atascadero Creek

16845 (83823)

1044

Atascadero Creek

19550 (83824)

1044

Atascadero Creek

46571

1046

Tecolete Creek

46572

1044

Maria Ygnacia Creek

46585 (83822)

1046

Montecido Creek

94723

1044

Atascadero Creek


Supplemental deobligating DSRs are in parentheses.
Last updated