McGaffigan Mill Road Bridge
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: FEMA-1203-DR-CA; County of Santa Cruz; McGaffigan Mill Road Bridge
Cross Bridge; legal responsibility; eligible applicant; privately owned
Reference:
Summary: The El Ni?o storms of 1998 caused damage to the McGaffigan Mill Road bridge. In March of 1999, a group of residents of the neighborhood entered into an agreement with the County of Santa Cruz (County). The agreement was established such that the County would submit a claim to FEMA for the repair of the damages to the bridge on behalf of the neighborhood residents. On June 1, 1999, the County requested that FEMA prepare a Damage Survey Report to fund the repair of the bridge. FEMA denied the request pursuant to 44 CFR 206.223(a)(3) stating that the bridge was not the legal responsibility of the County. The County appealed this decision and asserted that the neighborhood was inaccessible to emergency vehicles and, therefore, FEMA should fund the replacement of the bridge as an emergency protective measure. The Regional Director denied the first appeal on the basis that the work to replace the privately- owned bridge was not the legal responsibility of an eligible applicant. The Regional Director determined that the agreement entered into by the County and the neighborhood residents specifically exempted the County from the legal responsibility for the facility. In the second appeal, the neighborhood residents and County state that the unsafe conditions of the bridge have made it difficult in obtaining septic tank service, because the service trucks are too heavy to cross the bridge. According to County Environmental staff, septic system failure due to improper maintenance and pumping is a violation of the County Health and Safety Code. Consequently, the homes within the neighborhood could be red-tagged which would result in the displacement of residents should the septic system result in a violation of the County Code. Because of this, the County requests that FEMA fund the costs to repair the bridge to its pre-disaster condition.
Issues: 1. Is the County legally responsible for the repair of the bridge?
2. Is the bridge repair eligible as an emergency access project?
Findings: 1. No. The County has not provided any information demonstrating that it has legal responsibility for the project.
2. No. The project does not meet the criteria of 44 CFR 206.225(b)
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.223(a)(3); 44 CFR 206.225(b)
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1203-DR |
| Applicant | County of Santa Cruz |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 087-00000 |
| PW ID# | 11111111 |
| Date Signed | 2001-03-19T05:00:00 |
Cross Bridge; legal responsibility; eligible applicant; privately owned
Reference:
Summary: The El Ni?o storms of 1998 caused damage to the McGaffigan Mill Road bridge. In March of 1999, a group of residents of the neighborhood entered into an agreement with the County of Santa Cruz (County). The agreement was established such that the County would submit a claim to FEMA for the repair of the damages to the bridge on behalf of the neighborhood residents. On June 1, 1999, the County requested that FEMA prepare a Damage Survey Report to fund the repair of the bridge. FEMA denied the request pursuant to 44 CFR 206.223(a)(3) stating that the bridge was not the legal responsibility of the County. The County appealed this decision and asserted that the neighborhood was inaccessible to emergency vehicles and, therefore, FEMA should fund the replacement of the bridge as an emergency protective measure. The Regional Director denied the first appeal on the basis that the work to replace the privately- owned bridge was not the legal responsibility of an eligible applicant. The Regional Director determined that the agreement entered into by the County and the neighborhood residents specifically exempted the County from the legal responsibility for the facility. In the second appeal, the neighborhood residents and County state that the unsafe conditions of the bridge have made it difficult in obtaining septic tank service, because the service trucks are too heavy to cross the bridge. According to County Environmental staff, septic system failure due to improper maintenance and pumping is a violation of the County Health and Safety Code. Consequently, the homes within the neighborhood could be red-tagged which would result in the displacement of residents should the septic system result in a violation of the County Code. Because of this, the County requests that FEMA fund the costs to repair the bridge to its pre-disaster condition.
Issues: 1. Is the County legally responsible for the repair of the bridge?
2. Is the bridge repair eligible as an emergency access project?
Findings: 1. No. The County has not provided any information demonstrating that it has legal responsibility for the project.
2. No. The project does not meet the criteria of 44 CFR 206.225(b)
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.223(a)(3); 44 CFR 206.225(b)
Appeal Letter
March 19, 2001
Mr. D. A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
PO Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, CA 95741-9023
Re: Second Appeal; County of Santa Cruz; FEMA-DR-1203-CA; McGaffigan Mill Road Bridge
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to your August 25, 2000, letter transmitting the County of Santa Cruz's (County's) second appeal regarding the McGaffigan Mill Road bridge which is a privately-owned access bridge for the residents of the McGaffigan Mill neighborhood. The El Ni?o storms of 1998 caused the San Lorenzo River to erode most of the stream bank under the McGaffigan Mill Bridge, exposing the steel abutments and damaging the wooden bridge structure.
In your second appeal transmittal letter, you state that the residents in the McGaffigan Mill neighborhood applied for assistance to repair or replace the bridge through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Individual Assistance Programs. The residents that received assistance under that program were dissatisfied, because the funding was inadequate to replace or repair the damaged bridge. Therefore, the residents of the neighborhood approached the County for additional assistance.
In March of 1999, a group of residents of McGaffigan Mill neighborhood entered into an agreement with the County. This agreement was established to allow the County to submit a claim to FEMA for the repair of the damages to the bridge on behalf of the neighborhood residents. On June 1, 1999, the County requested that FEMA prepare a Damage Survey Report to fund the repair of the bridge. FEMA denied the request pursuant to 44 CFR 206.223(a)(3), stating that the bridge was not the legal responsibility of the County.
Following the denial, OES transmitted the County's first appeal to FEMA's Regional Director by a letter dated January 10, 2000. The County asserted that the neighborhood was inaccessible to emergency vehicles. Therefore, FEMA should fund the replacement of the bridge as an emergency protective measure. In addition, the County cited FEMA's Public Assistance Guide, FEMA 286 (now FEMA 322), that states that emergency assistance is available for privately-owned access routes. The County also cited FEMA's regulations regarding FEMA's Individual Assistance Program in 44 CFR 206.101 (g)(4)(iii)(K) that also permits FEMA to fund emergency repairs to private access routes. By a letter dated April 6, 2000, the Regional Director denied the first appeal on the basis that the work to repair or replace the privately-owned bridge was not the legal responsibility of an eligible applicant.
According to the second appeal, the neighborhood residents have been advised by an engineering firm to keep the vehicle loads as low as possible on the bridge due to the unsafe conditions resulting from disaster damage. The County states that the thirteen homes within the neighborhood are experiencing difficulties in obtaining septic tank service, because the service trucks are too heavy to cross the bridge. According to County Environmental staff, septic system failure due to improper maintenance and pumping is a violation of the County Health and Safety Code. Consequently, the County states that the homes within the neighborhood could be red-tagged which would result in the displacement of residents should the septic system failure result in a violation of the County Code. Because of this, the County requests that FEMA fund the costs to repair the bridge to its pre-disaster condition. OES does not support the appeal because it believes that the County has not provided any information disputing FEMA's first appeal denial or accepting responsibility to repair the bridge.
Our regulation at 44 CFR 206.225(b) states, "An access facility that is not publicly owned or is not the direct responsibility of an eligible applicant for repair or maintenance may be eligible for emergency repairs or replacement provided that the emergency repair or replacement economically eliminates the need for temporary housing. The work will be limited to that necessary for the access to remain passable through events which can be considered an immediate threat. The work must be performed by an eligible applicant..."
Although the residents' need for septic tank service is important, it does not meet the above criteria for funding under the Public Assistance Program. In addition, the County has not demonstrated that it is legally responsible to repair the bridge as required by 44 CFR 206.223(a)(3). Therefore, there is no basis for reversing the Regional Director's decision on the first appeal. I regret that I must deny the appeal.
Please inform the County of my decision. My decision constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Karen E. Armes
Acting Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Mr. D. A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
PO Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, CA 95741-9023
Re: Second Appeal; County of Santa Cruz; FEMA-DR-1203-CA; McGaffigan Mill Road Bridge
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to your August 25, 2000, letter transmitting the County of Santa Cruz's (County's) second appeal regarding the McGaffigan Mill Road bridge which is a privately-owned access bridge for the residents of the McGaffigan Mill neighborhood. The El Ni?o storms of 1998 caused the San Lorenzo River to erode most of the stream bank under the McGaffigan Mill Bridge, exposing the steel abutments and damaging the wooden bridge structure.
In your second appeal transmittal letter, you state that the residents in the McGaffigan Mill neighborhood applied for assistance to repair or replace the bridge through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Individual Assistance Programs. The residents that received assistance under that program were dissatisfied, because the funding was inadequate to replace or repair the damaged bridge. Therefore, the residents of the neighborhood approached the County for additional assistance.
In March of 1999, a group of residents of McGaffigan Mill neighborhood entered into an agreement with the County. This agreement was established to allow the County to submit a claim to FEMA for the repair of the damages to the bridge on behalf of the neighborhood residents. On June 1, 1999, the County requested that FEMA prepare a Damage Survey Report to fund the repair of the bridge. FEMA denied the request pursuant to 44 CFR 206.223(a)(3), stating that the bridge was not the legal responsibility of the County.
Following the denial, OES transmitted the County's first appeal to FEMA's Regional Director by a letter dated January 10, 2000. The County asserted that the neighborhood was inaccessible to emergency vehicles. Therefore, FEMA should fund the replacement of the bridge as an emergency protective measure. In addition, the County cited FEMA's Public Assistance Guide, FEMA 286 (now FEMA 322), that states that emergency assistance is available for privately-owned access routes. The County also cited FEMA's regulations regarding FEMA's Individual Assistance Program in 44 CFR 206.101 (g)(4)(iii)(K) that also permits FEMA to fund emergency repairs to private access routes. By a letter dated April 6, 2000, the Regional Director denied the first appeal on the basis that the work to repair or replace the privately-owned bridge was not the legal responsibility of an eligible applicant.
According to the second appeal, the neighborhood residents have been advised by an engineering firm to keep the vehicle loads as low as possible on the bridge due to the unsafe conditions resulting from disaster damage. The County states that the thirteen homes within the neighborhood are experiencing difficulties in obtaining septic tank service, because the service trucks are too heavy to cross the bridge. According to County Environmental staff, septic system failure due to improper maintenance and pumping is a violation of the County Health and Safety Code. Consequently, the County states that the homes within the neighborhood could be red-tagged which would result in the displacement of residents should the septic system failure result in a violation of the County Code. Because of this, the County requests that FEMA fund the costs to repair the bridge to its pre-disaster condition. OES does not support the appeal because it believes that the County has not provided any information disputing FEMA's first appeal denial or accepting responsibility to repair the bridge.
Our regulation at 44 CFR 206.225(b) states, "An access facility that is not publicly owned or is not the direct responsibility of an eligible applicant for repair or maintenance may be eligible for emergency repairs or replacement provided that the emergency repair or replacement economically eliminates the need for temporary housing. The work will be limited to that necessary for the access to remain passable through events which can be considered an immediate threat. The work must be performed by an eligible applicant..."
Although the residents' need for septic tank service is important, it does not meet the above criteria for funding under the Public Assistance Program. In addition, the County has not demonstrated that it is legally responsible to repair the bridge as required by 44 CFR 206.223(a)(3). Therefore, there is no basis for reversing the Regional Director's decision on the first appeal. I regret that I must deny the appeal.
Please inform the County of my decision. My decision constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Karen E. Armes
Acting Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Last updated