Embankment Erosion-West Bank Borrego Canyon Wash

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1044-DR
ApplicantSantiago Aqueduct Commission
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#059-91110
PW ID#91666
Date Signed1997-09-11T04:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1044-DR-CA; Santiago Aqueduct Commission, DSR 91666

Cross-Reference: Restoration, Bank Erosion

Summary: As a result of the winter rain storms of January 1995, two Santiago Aqueduct Commission (SAC) water supply pipelines were threatened by scour. The two pipes pass under the Borrego Canyon Wash. The Borrego Canyon Wash Interim Erosion Control Facilities Project (Project) was initiated in January 1995, to replace the eroded soil cover layer over the pipes and to restore the protection to the pipelines originally offered by the banks. A second group of storms hit in February 1995, causing an immediate threat to the pipelines where the banks were originally damaged during the January storms. The SAC took emergency steps to protect the pipelines by placing riprap along the banks. DSR 26246 (Category B) was approved to cover the cost associated with the placement of riprap to abate an immediate threat to the pipelines. The costs of the Project were covered under DSR 91666. At the time of the inspection, the FEMA inspector and the State representative agreed that the work was not eligible, stating that the site is a natural feature and there is no threat to lives, public health or safety. The Regional Director upheld this determination in the first appeal. In the second appeal, the subgrantee noted that the scope of work is designed to restore the flowline of the Wash, thereby protecting the facility.

Issues:
  1. Is the eroded channel bank a facility?
  2. Can the Project be considered an emergency protective measure?
Findings:
  1. No. The eroded slope is not improved and maintained as is required for a natural feature to be a facility.
  2. No. The project cannot be considered an emergency protective measure since emergency steps to protect the pipelines were covered under DSR 26246. The project was initiated to mitigate future damages.
Rationale:
  1. A natural feature must be improved and maintained in order to be considered an eligible facility. (44 CFR 206.201(c))
  2. In order to be eligible, emergency protective measures must eliminate or lessen immediate threats to life, public health or safety. (44 CFR 206.226(a)(3))

Appeal Letter

September 11, 1997

Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, 3rd Floor
Pasadena, California 91103-3678

Dear Mr. Najera:

This letter is in response to your January 23, 1997, submittal of the Santiago Aqueduct Commission's (SAC) second appeal of damage survey report (DSR) 91666 under FEMA-1044-DR-CA. This DSR was prepared to cover the costs associated with The Borrego Canyon Wash Interim Erosion Control Facilities Project (Project). The Project was initiated in order to provide protection to two regional water transmission pipelines that pass under the Borrego Canyon Wash, or more specifically, to restore protection of the pipelines that existed prior to the winter rain storms of 1995. The scope of work included the installation of riprap, soil cover, and hydro seeding on the stream banks, in order to replace the eroded soil cover layer over the pipelines. The Project was completed in November 1995.

The first group of rain storms hit in January 1995, causing significant erosion of the banks of the wash in the vicinity of the pipelines. The pipes were not damaged during the storm event. A second group of storms hit in February 1995, causing an immediate threat to the pipelines where the banks were originally damaged during the January storms. The SAC took emergency steps to protect the pipelines by placing riprap along the banks. DSR 26246 (Category B) was approved for $10,583 to cover the cost associated with the placement of riprap to abate an immediate threat to the pipelines.

The inspection team prepared DSR 91666 to fund the construction of the Project. The Project was determined by FEMA to be ineligible since (1) the banks of the Borrego Canyon Wash are a natural feature with no improvements, and (2) the project is considered a "mitigation project" designed to prevent further damage due to erosion and is not intended to restore the damaged banks.

The subgrantee's first appeal, submitted in a letter dated April 30, 1996, stated that the DSR does not adequately document the disaster-related damage or the immediate threat of additional damage which was present. The subgrantee believes that the soil embankments should be considered part of the "improved public facility" since they offer protection to the pipelines and work was done on the banks when constructing the pipelines. The subgrantee also cites 44 CFR 206.225(a)(1), noting that the project is an emergency protective measure designed to protect public health and safety, and to protect improved property. The Regional Director upheld its original determination on eligibility based on the banks being a natural feature, which are not improved and maintained. The Regional Director noted that this project was developed to mitigate future damages to the banks due to future storms and was not intended to restore damages incurred during 1044-DR. The work is not restoration work and does not meet the eligibility criteria for funding as an emergency protective measure since there is no indication of an immediate threat. DSR 26246 (Category B) was approved to cover costs associated with the placement of riprap to abate an immediate threat to the pipelines.

The subgrantee's second appeal restates points made in the first appeal. The subgrantee states that the work done to the Borrego Canyon Wash is designed to restore the flowline of the wash, thereby protecting the pipelines. The subgrantee has submitted no additional information beyond that submitted with the first appeal that would overturn the determination of ineligibility. The only additional issue presented in the grantee's second appeal is a reference to the Landslide policy (FEMA Policy No. 4511.300 A. EX). The grantee states that the project associated with DSR 91666 meets the criteria set forth by the Landslide policy. There is no basis for applying this policy when working with a natural stream channel.

Based on a review of the documentation submitted with this appeal, I concur with the Regional Director's first appeal determination that the project is not eligible for FEMA assistance. Therefore, I have denied this appeal.

Please inform the applicant of my determination. The applicant may submit a third appeal to the Director of FEMA. The appeal must be submitted through your office and the Regional Director within 60 days of receipt of this determination.

Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate

Enclosure
Last updated