Debris Removal from Sediment Basins
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-1577-DR-CA, County of Santa Barbara, Project Worksheet #1488, Debris Removal from Sediment Basins
Cross-reference: Debris Removal, Timeline for Debris Removal, Work Eligibility
Summary: Severe Winter Storms hit California from December 27, 2004, to January 11, 2005, (FEMA-1577-DR-CA) resulting in high velocity storm water surges and flooding that deposited sediment and other debris into five debris sediment basins owned and maintained by the County of Santa Barbara. Project Worksheet (PW) 1488 was prepared for $785,299 to reimburse costs related to work completed by the County to restore the basins to their pre-disaster condition. In February 2005, a second round of winter storms hit California (FEMA-1585-DR-CA), but did not result in a declaration for the County. As a result of these storms, additional debris was washed into the Countys sediment basins. FEMA determined that any debris removal subsequent to February 16, 2004, (the onset of the second-round of storms) was not related to the declared event. The County claims that FEMA-1577-DR-CA dislodged the debris, which was subsequently flushed into the basins following the February rains. It also states that it should be given six months to remove debris. The Countys first appeal asked for an additional $202,938 to remove debris after February 16, 2004. FEMA denied this appeal by letter dated May 10, 2006. The Countys second appeal dated July 6, 2006, asks for an additional $611,144.
Issues: 1. Was debris removal subsequent to February 16, 2004, a result of the declared disaster event?
2. Should the County be allowed to continue debris operations for six months after the incident period?
Findings: 1. No.
2. No, the six-month timeframe is given for the removal of disaster-related debris.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.223(a)(1), 44 CFR §206.204(c)
Severe winter storms struck California from December 27, 2004, to January 11, 2005, (FEMA-1577-DR-CA) resulting in high velocity storm water surges and flooding that deposited sediment and other debris into five debris sediment basins owned and maintained by the County of Santa Barbara. Project Worksheet (PW) 1488 was prepared for $785,299 to reimburse costs related to work completed by the County of Santa Barbara to restore the basins to their pre-disaster condition by using drag-line cranes and wheel loaders to remove storm-related debris from the basins.
The work described in PW 1488 was completed during the period of January 9, 2005, to March 15, 2005. PW 1488 was approved for $785,299.00 to cover the work completed by the County during the period of January 9, 2005, to February 16, 2005. Work completed after February 16, 2005, was determined to be ineligible for funding because it appeared to be required as a result of a second-round of storms that hit California between February 16, 2005, and February 23, 2005 (FEMA-1585-DR-CA). The total amount found to be ineligible at the time was $202,938.
First Appeal
The County submitted its first appeal in a letter dated September 26, 2005, which was transmitted through the Governors Office in a letter dated November 17, 2005. The County claimed that it should be allowed six months to complete debris removal activities. It stated that debris mobilized by the declared event was subsequently washed into the basins during events in February and March and that the debris removal should be viewed as a continuous process required by one continuous event. The County claimed that if it had waited until the six-month debris removal deadline approached to initiate debris removal then all debris removed from the basins would be eligible work.
In a letter dated May 10, 2006, FEMA denied the Countys first appeal. FEMA determined that the County had removed the debris deposited by the declared event prior to February 16, 2005, and that subsequent debris removal was not a result of the major disaster. FEMA contended that subsequent occurrences in which the debris, which may have been deposited in creeks and tributaries during the declared event, moved into the basins was a result of subsequent rains, and not the original declared disaster.
FEMA also made reference to the States submittal letter, which requested an additional $60,000 for Atascadero Basin on the basis that 10,000 cubic yards of debris remained in the basin prior to February 16, 2005. FEMA denied this request as well as there was no documentation supporting the request.
Second Appeal
The County submitted its second appeal on July 6, 2006. It was transmitted through the Governors Office of Emergency Services by letter dated September 8, 2006. The County requests funding in the amount of $611,144. The County disagrees with terminology used in FEMAs first appeal response, argues that it should given a full six months to remove debris from its sediment basins and claims that the storms experienced in February 2005 were not strong enough to create the type of debris later found in its basins. The County agrees with FEMA that subsequent occurrences of rainfall carried debris into the basins. However, it disagrees with FEMA with regard to whether or not this was a result of the declared disaster (FEMA-1577-DR-CA).
DISCUSSION
The County rejects some of the language FEMA has used in past responses. For example, FEMA used the word watershed to describe the creeks and tributaries that feed into the sediment basins. However, this is the terminology used by the Countys Manager of Flood Control Maintenance and provided in the Countys appeal. The County also objects to FEMAs use of the term rain events to describe the disaster. The disaster declaration was for severe storms, flooding, debris flows, and mudslides and FEMA understands the severity of the events as evidenced by the declaration of a major disaster. These arguments have no bearing on the issue of the eligibility.
The County claims that debris that was a result of the declared disaster was deposited in creeks and tributaries that had not and could not have reached the sediment basins during the incident period. It states that had the subsequent rains not occurred, this debris would not have been flushed into the basins and would have eventually been cleared from the creeks and tributaries by the County. Federal funding in accordance with Section 407 of the Stafford Act cannot be predicated on what might have happened given different circumstances. Any speculation on the part of the County or FEMA as to where the debris originated, where it was deposited prior to reaching the sediment basins, and what may have happened if not for subsequent rains, is irrelevant. PW 1488 was written to fund debris removal from five County-owned and maintained sediment basins. Any debris removal funded through this PW must be for debris that was deposited in the sediment basins during the declared disaster incident period of December 27, 2004, to January 11, 2005. To be eligible for assistance, debris removal must be required as a result of a declared disaster, in accordance with 44 CFR §206.223(a)(1). Any debris deposited subsequent to the disaster incident period, regardless of where it originated or how it was transported, is not eligible.
The County also argues that it should be given six months in order to remove debris from its sediment basins. The six-month timeframe for debris removal, in accordance with 44 CFR §206.204(c), is not given for an applicant to remove any debris deposited into an eligible facility during that time, but rather is given for the removal of disaster-related debris. The work to remove the debris deposited into the Countys sediment basins during the disaster incident period was complete at the time the PW was written. The County asks for the same consideration given to Mississippi and Louisiana in terms of time extensions granted for the removal of debris. In these cases, the tens of millions of cubic yards of debris that is being removed in these states is a direct result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and not subsequent weather events. Therefore, the County is being given the same consideration as applicants affected by these disasters.
It is unclear why the Countys first appeal requested $202,938, plus $60,000 requested by the State, and this appeal asks for $611,144. According to the documentation submitted by the County, the $611,144 figure includes contract and force account labor and equipment for a period from February 16, 2005, to June 30, 2005. PW 1488 states that it was written for work completed between January 9, 2005, and March 15, 2005. Perhaps the discrepancy in amount requested is due to this, though it has not been explained. It is also noted that some of the force account equipment line items were dated prior to February 16, 2005, so it is not apparent whether these costs have already been accounted for in the obligated amount of $785,299, or if the amount included in this summary (Applicants Exhibit E), which totals $15,804.25 , may be eligible costs.
CONCLUSION
The County has not shown that debris removed from the sediment basins after February 16, 2005, is a result of the disaster event. For this reason, the appeal is denied. If it is found that the amount of $15,084.25 for force account equipment used prior to this date, and included in Exhibit E of the Countys appeal, has not been obligated as part of the eligible funding in PW 1488, then it should be added as an eligible cost and a PW for this
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1577-DR |
| Applicant | County of Santa Barbara |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 083-99083-00 |
| PW ID# | PW1488 |
| Date Signed | 2007-01-24T05:00:00 |
2. Should the County be allowed to continue debris operations for six months after the incident period?
2. No, the six-month timeframe is given for the removal of disaster-related debris.
Appeal Letter
January 24, 2007
Mr. Paul Jacks
Governors Authorized Representative
State of California
Governors Office of Emergency Services
Response and Recovery Division
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, California 95655
Re: Second Appeal-County of Santa Barbara, FIPS# 117083-99083-00,
Debris Removal from Sediment Basins, FEMA-1577-DR-CA, Project Worksheet 1488
Dear Mr. Jacks:
This letter is in response to the referenced second appeal submitted by the County of Santa Barbara (County) to your office on July 6, 2006, transmitted by your letter dated September 8, 2006. The County is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) denial of $611,144 for debris removal from five sediment basins owned and maintained by the County.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that costs related to debris removal from the Countys sediment basins after February 16, 2005, are not eligible for funding. However, I am asking the Regional Director to determine if the County has already been reimbursed for all force account equipment costs prior to February 16, 2004. If not, then by copy of this letter, I am asking her to prepare a PW in the amount of $15,084.25 for eligible costs related to debris removal following FEMA-1577-DR-CA.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination constitutes the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/s/
John R. D'Araujo, Jr.
Director of Recovery
cc: Nancy Ward
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Mr. Paul Jacks
Governors Authorized Representative
State of California
Governors Office of Emergency Services
Response and Recovery Division
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, California 95655
Re: Second Appeal-County of Santa Barbara, FIPS# 117083-99083-00,
Debris Removal from Sediment Basins, FEMA-1577-DR-CA, Project Worksheet 1488
Dear Mr. Jacks:
This letter is in response to the referenced second appeal submitted by the County of Santa Barbara (County) to your office on July 6, 2006, transmitted by your letter dated September 8, 2006. The County is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) denial of $611,144 for debris removal from five sediment basins owned and maintained by the County.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that costs related to debris removal from the Countys sediment basins after February 16, 2005, are not eligible for funding. However, I am asking the Regional Director to determine if the County has already been reimbursed for all force account equipment costs prior to February 16, 2004. If not, then by copy of this letter, I am asking her to prepare a PW in the amount of $15,084.25 for eligible costs related to debris removal following FEMA-1577-DR-CA.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination constitutes the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/s/
John R. D'Araujo, Jr.
Director of Recovery
cc: Nancy Ward
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDSevere winter storms struck California from December 27, 2004, to January 11, 2005, (FEMA-1577-DR-CA) resulting in high velocity storm water surges and flooding that deposited sediment and other debris into five debris sediment basins owned and maintained by the County of Santa Barbara. Project Worksheet (PW) 1488 was prepared for $785,299 to reimburse costs related to work completed by the County of Santa Barbara to restore the basins to their pre-disaster condition by using drag-line cranes and wheel loaders to remove storm-related debris from the basins.
The work described in PW 1488 was completed during the period of January 9, 2005, to March 15, 2005. PW 1488 was approved for $785,299.00 to cover the work completed by the County during the period of January 9, 2005, to February 16, 2005. Work completed after February 16, 2005, was determined to be ineligible for funding because it appeared to be required as a result of a second-round of storms that hit California between February 16, 2005, and February 23, 2005 (FEMA-1585-DR-CA). The total amount found to be ineligible at the time was $202,938.
First Appeal
The County submitted its first appeal in a letter dated September 26, 2005, which was transmitted through the Governors Office in a letter dated November 17, 2005. The County claimed that it should be allowed six months to complete debris removal activities. It stated that debris mobilized by the declared event was subsequently washed into the basins during events in February and March and that the debris removal should be viewed as a continuous process required by one continuous event. The County claimed that if it had waited until the six-month debris removal deadline approached to initiate debris removal then all debris removed from the basins would be eligible work.
In a letter dated May 10, 2006, FEMA denied the Countys first appeal. FEMA determined that the County had removed the debris deposited by the declared event prior to February 16, 2005, and that subsequent debris removal was not a result of the major disaster. FEMA contended that subsequent occurrences in which the debris, which may have been deposited in creeks and tributaries during the declared event, moved into the basins was a result of subsequent rains, and not the original declared disaster.
FEMA also made reference to the States submittal letter, which requested an additional $60,000 for Atascadero Basin on the basis that 10,000 cubic yards of debris remained in the basin prior to February 16, 2005. FEMA denied this request as well as there was no documentation supporting the request.
Second Appeal
The County submitted its second appeal on July 6, 2006. It was transmitted through the Governors Office of Emergency Services by letter dated September 8, 2006. The County requests funding in the amount of $611,144. The County disagrees with terminology used in FEMAs first appeal response, argues that it should given a full six months to remove debris from its sediment basins and claims that the storms experienced in February 2005 were not strong enough to create the type of debris later found in its basins. The County agrees with FEMA that subsequent occurrences of rainfall carried debris into the basins. However, it disagrees with FEMA with regard to whether or not this was a result of the declared disaster (FEMA-1577-DR-CA).
DISCUSSION
The County rejects some of the language FEMA has used in past responses. For example, FEMA used the word watershed to describe the creeks and tributaries that feed into the sediment basins. However, this is the terminology used by the Countys Manager of Flood Control Maintenance and provided in the Countys appeal. The County also objects to FEMAs use of the term rain events to describe the disaster. The disaster declaration was for severe storms, flooding, debris flows, and mudslides and FEMA understands the severity of the events as evidenced by the declaration of a major disaster. These arguments have no bearing on the issue of the eligibility.
The County claims that debris that was a result of the declared disaster was deposited in creeks and tributaries that had not and could not have reached the sediment basins during the incident period. It states that had the subsequent rains not occurred, this debris would not have been flushed into the basins and would have eventually been cleared from the creeks and tributaries by the County. Federal funding in accordance with Section 407 of the Stafford Act cannot be predicated on what might have happened given different circumstances. Any speculation on the part of the County or FEMA as to where the debris originated, where it was deposited prior to reaching the sediment basins, and what may have happened if not for subsequent rains, is irrelevant. PW 1488 was written to fund debris removal from five County-owned and maintained sediment basins. Any debris removal funded through this PW must be for debris that was deposited in the sediment basins during the declared disaster incident period of December 27, 2004, to January 11, 2005. To be eligible for assistance, debris removal must be required as a result of a declared disaster, in accordance with 44 CFR §206.223(a)(1). Any debris deposited subsequent to the disaster incident period, regardless of where it originated or how it was transported, is not eligible.
The County also argues that it should be given six months in order to remove debris from its sediment basins. The six-month timeframe for debris removal, in accordance with 44 CFR §206.204(c), is not given for an applicant to remove any debris deposited into an eligible facility during that time, but rather is given for the removal of disaster-related debris. The work to remove the debris deposited into the Countys sediment basins during the disaster incident period was complete at the time the PW was written. The County asks for the same consideration given to Mississippi and Louisiana in terms of time extensions granted for the removal of debris. In these cases, the tens of millions of cubic yards of debris that is being removed in these states is a direct result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and not subsequent weather events. Therefore, the County is being given the same consideration as applicants affected by these disasters.
It is unclear why the Countys first appeal requested $202,938, plus $60,000 requested by the State, and this appeal asks for $611,144. According to the documentation submitted by the County, the $611,144 figure includes contract and force account labor and equipment for a period from February 16, 2005, to June 30, 2005. PW 1488 states that it was written for work completed between January 9, 2005, and March 15, 2005. Perhaps the discrepancy in amount requested is due to this, though it has not been explained. It is also noted that some of the force account equipment line items were dated prior to February 16, 2005, so it is not apparent whether these costs have already been accounted for in the obligated amount of $785,299, or if the amount included in this summary (Applicants Exhibit E), which totals $15,804.25 , may be eligible costs.
CONCLUSION
The County has not shown that debris removed from the sediment basins after February 16, 2005, is a result of the disaster event. For this reason, the appeal is denied. If it is found that the amount of $15,084.25 for force account equipment used prior to this date, and included in Exhibit E of the Countys appeal, has not been obligated as part of the eligible funding in PW 1488, then it should be added as an eligible cost and a PW for this
Last updated