San Pedro Creek

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

Desastre	FEMA-1044-DR
Applicant	Santa Barbara County
Appeal Type	Second
PA ID#	083-00000
PW ID#	19551
Date Signed	1998-02-03T05:00:00

Citation: FEMA-1044-DR-CA; Santa Barbara County; DSR 19551

Cross Reference: Permanent restoration, Flood control works (FCWs), Federal Levee Policy

Summary: During the winter storms of 1995, a portion of the concrete lining along a section of the San Pedro Creek and a concrete access ramp were washed away. A gate and length of fence were also washed away during the flood. DSR 19551 was originally prepared in the amount of $10,572 to fund the restoration of the channel. Upon review of the DSR, certain line items were either reduced or deleted from the cost estimate, and the estimate was reduced to $3,580. The subgrantee submitted a first appeal of the reduction of the cost estimate in a letter dated February 29, 1996, specifically appealing the deletion of the aggregate surface course that was originally included in the cost estimate for the restoration of the concrete access ramp. Upon review of the first appeal, the Regional Director determined that San Pedro Creek was an FCW. Therefore, the restoration of the channel was found to be ineligible for FEMA funding. The subgrantee submitted a second appeal in a letter dated June 3, 1997, including two letters from the USACE stating that San Pedro Creek is a drainage channel, not an FCW. OES forwarded the appeal with a transmittal letter dated July 28, 1997. OES concurred that the San Pedro Creek is not an FCW and recommended that the costs associated with the repairs to the channel be determined eligible for reimbursement by FEMA. In addition, OES requested that the subgrantee's first appeal issue, the deletion of the aggregate surface course, be considered at this time.

Issues:

1. Is the restoration of San Pedro Creek eligible for FEMA assistance?
2. Are the costs associated with placing aggregate base course eligible?

Findings:

1. Yes. The subgrantee has provided documentation to support their claim that the San Pedro Creek is not an FCW; therefore, the facility is eligible for FEMA assistance.
2. Yes. Aggregate base course was necessary to adequately restore the concrete access ramp to its predisaster condition; therefore, the cost of the aggregate is eligible.

Rationale: The San Pedro Creek is an eligible facility, not an FCW, and was damaged as a direct result of the declared disaster. Accordingly, the work to restore that facility to its predisaster condition is eligible for FEMA assistance.

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND
During the winter storms of 1995, a portion of the concrete lining along a section of the San Pedro Creek and a concrete access ramp were washed away. A gate and length of fence were also washed away during the flood. Santa Barbara County (applicant) placed fill and riprap along the channel wall as a temporary protective measure to prevent further damage to the concrete lining. An inspection team prepared damage survey report (DSR) 19551 for $10,572 to restore the facility to its pre-disaster condition. The scope of work included the removal of the temporary fill and riprap, restoring the concrete lining and access ramp, and replacing the gate and fence. Upon review of the DSR, certain line items were either reduced or deleted from the cost estimate, and the estimate was reduced to $3,580.

First Appeal
The subgrantee appealed FEMA's reduction of the eligible work in a February 29, 1996, letter to the State of California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES). The subgrantee concurred that the aggregate surface course, as was originally requested, was not required for the concrete access ramp, but stated that an aggregate base course was necessary to provide a stable foundation and subsurface drainage for the access ramp. The subgrantee requested that the actual cost of $1,000 that they incurred for the aggregate base course be included in the total cost of DSR 19551. OES forwarded the appeal to the Regional Director with a transmittal letter dated September 8, 1996.

The Regional Director responded to the appeal in a letter dated April 15, 1997. The Regional Director determined that San Pedro Creek is a flood control work (FCW) and is, therefore, under the specific authority of the USACE. Pursuant to Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 206.226(a), FEMA generally does not fund permanent restoration of a facility that is under the specific authority of another Federal agency. Accordingly, supplemental DSR 83590 was prepared to de-obligate DSR 19551.

Second Appeal
The subgrantee appealed the de-obligation of DSR 19551 in a letter dated June 3, 1997. Because this appeal is in response to the first appeal determination, it is considered a second appeal. The subgrantee stated that San Pedro Creek is not classified as an FCW and submitted letters from the USACE to support their claim. The subgrantee is requesting that DSR 19551 be reinstated based on their actual costs of $31,259 and has submitted a cost summary and invoices for the work performed.

OES forwarded the appeal with a letter of transmittal dated July 28, 1997. OES concurs that the San Pedro Creek is not an FCW and recommends that the costs associated with the repairs to the channel be determined eligible for reimbursement by FEMA. In addition, OES requests that the subgrantee's first appeal issue, the deletion of the aggregate surface course, be considered at this time.

DISCUSSION
During the review of the first appeal, San Pedro Creek was found on the USACE's Los Angeles District listing of facilities that are active in the USACE PL 84-99 Rehabilitation and Inspection Program. As only facilities that are classified as FCWs are eligible for USACE funding under this program, FEMA concluded that San Pedro Creek was an FCW under the authority of the USACE. The subgrantee has submitted a letter from the USACE to support their position that San Pedro Creek is not an FCW. The USACE letter, dated January 14, 1997, states that San Pedro Creek is not an FCW; it is a drainage channel. Further, the letter states that the channel does not meet the minimum USACE engineering criteria, because its flow capacity is less than 800 cfs and the drainage area is less than 1.5 square miles. A second letter from the USACE dated May 28, 1997, was submitted confirming that the San Pedro Creek is not an FCW. Based on this information, it is concluded that this section of San Pedro Creek does not meet the definition of an FCW, and is therefore eligible for FEMA assistance.

In determining the eligible scope of work for this facility, the subgrantee's first appeal position regarding the deletion of the aggregate surface course has been reconsidered. The subgrantee had stated that although aggregate was not needed as a surface course, it was used as a base course. Based on a review of the scope of work originally presented on the DSR, it is agreed that placement of an aggregate base course would be appropriate, and therefore should be included in the eligible scope of work when reinstating funding for this project. Aggregate surface course material remains ineligible.

CONCLUSION
Based on the documentation provided with the second appeal, I have determined that San Pedro Creek does not meet the definition of an FCW, such that the damaged facility is eligible for permanent restoration assistance. The Regional Director will prepare a supplemental DSR for eligible costs for the project.