This page has not been translated into 简体中文. Visit the 简体中文 page for resources in that language.
Embankment Restoration on San Luis Obispo Creek
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: FEMA-1044-DR-CA; City of San Luis Obispo; DSR 26182
Cross-Reference: Erosion damage, natural feature
Summary: DSR 26182 was prepared to fund the restoration of a 250-foot long by 20-foot wide eroded embankment of San Luis Obispo Creek. A 15-foot long section of a corrugated metal pipe (CMP) was damaged in the eroded area. The DSR was deemed ineligible because it was determined that the creek was a natural stream and not a facility, and that though the CMP is eligible, the repair is less than the $1,000 minimum. The first appeal cited a 1983 local standard, other similar scopes which were found eligible, and the danger of a driveway falling into the creek. The response to the first appeal indicated that the stream is a natural feature. The second appeal provided some additional information on the city's efforts to effect improvements with the Corps of Engineers and through standards. The Region's second appeal transmittal states that no standards require that the stream be restored.
Issues:
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1044-DR |
| Applicant | City of San Luis Obispo |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 079-68154 |
| PW ID# | 26182 |
| Date Signed | 1997-08-29T04:00:00 |
Cross-Reference: Erosion damage, natural feature
Summary: DSR 26182 was prepared to fund the restoration of a 250-foot long by 20-foot wide eroded embankment of San Luis Obispo Creek. A 15-foot long section of a corrugated metal pipe (CMP) was damaged in the eroded area. The DSR was deemed ineligible because it was determined that the creek was a natural stream and not a facility, and that though the CMP is eligible, the repair is less than the $1,000 minimum. The first appeal cited a 1983 local standard, other similar scopes which were found eligible, and the danger of a driveway falling into the creek. The response to the first appeal indicated that the stream is a natural feature. The second appeal provided some additional information on the city's efforts to effect improvements with the Corps of Engineers and through standards. The Region's second appeal transmittal states that no standards require that the stream be restored.
Issues:
- Is the eroded slope a facility?
- Is the restoration of the pipe eligible?
- No. The eroded slope is not improved and maintained as is required for a natural feature to be a facility.
- No. Normally, the pipe would be eligible for restoring its function as it existed prior to the disaster; however, work for less than the minimum DSR amount of $1,000 is not eligible.
- Per 44 CFR 206.201(c) the definition of Facility includes improved and maintained natural features. Since the channel of the creek has no improvements (other than the pipe) it is not a facility.
- Facilities are eligible to be restored on the basis of their design prior to the disaster, per 44 CFR 206.226. However, the minimum amount for a DSR is $1,000.
Appeal Letter
August 29, 1997
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 239013
Sacramento, CA 95823-9013
Dear Mr. Najera:
This letter is in response to your January 16, 1997, submittal of the City of San Luis Obispo's second appeal of damage survey report (DSR) 26182 under FEMA-1044-DR-CA. This DSR documented the cost associated with restoration of an eroded slope on San Luis Obispo Creek and repair of a damaged section of a 12-inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP). The work described in the DSR was determined to be ineligible since the creek was a natural feature with no improvements and the repair of the pipe was less than the minimum DSR amount of $1,000.
The subgrantee's second appeal states that the creek is in a natural state and includes a copy of their Flood Management Policy from 1983 which indicates the subgrantee's goal to maintain creeks in a natural state. No indications of improvements or maintenance of the creek are provided. The subgrantee states that it is evaluating its maintenance and repair of drainage facilities in conjunction with obtaining a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit. The subgrantee also requests that FEMA postpone a final determination until reports required by the USACE on biological resources, hydraulics, and engineering are complete. The outcome of the reports will not affect this determination on eligibility.
The DSR team noted that there were no improvements to the creek embankment (other than the CMP) and none of the information provided by the subgrantee indicates that the creek embankment was improved at the time of the disaster. Therefore, it is not a facility since it is a natural feature that has not been improved, per 44 CFR 206.201(c). FEMA only funds repairs to eligible facilities. Therefore, the embankment is not eligible for repair.
The CMP does qualify as a facility. The capacity and function of the CMP may be restored by cutting the CMP and placing erosion control stone or concrete beneath its discharge point. This work would cost less than the $1,000 minimum project amount. Therefore, the repair of the CMP remains ineligible.
Please inform the applicant of this determination and their right to submit a third appeal pursuant to 44 CFR 206.206(e).
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 239013
Sacramento, CA 95823-9013
Dear Mr. Najera:
This letter is in response to your January 16, 1997, submittal of the City of San Luis Obispo's second appeal of damage survey report (DSR) 26182 under FEMA-1044-DR-CA. This DSR documented the cost associated with restoration of an eroded slope on San Luis Obispo Creek and repair of a damaged section of a 12-inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP). The work described in the DSR was determined to be ineligible since the creek was a natural feature with no improvements and the repair of the pipe was less than the minimum DSR amount of $1,000.
The subgrantee's second appeal states that the creek is in a natural state and includes a copy of their Flood Management Policy from 1983 which indicates the subgrantee's goal to maintain creeks in a natural state. No indications of improvements or maintenance of the creek are provided. The subgrantee states that it is evaluating its maintenance and repair of drainage facilities in conjunction with obtaining a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit. The subgrantee also requests that FEMA postpone a final determination until reports required by the USACE on biological resources, hydraulics, and engineering are complete. The outcome of the reports will not affect this determination on eligibility.
The DSR team noted that there were no improvements to the creek embankment (other than the CMP) and none of the information provided by the subgrantee indicates that the creek embankment was improved at the time of the disaster. Therefore, it is not a facility since it is a natural feature that has not been improved, per 44 CFR 206.201(c). FEMA only funds repairs to eligible facilities. Therefore, the embankment is not eligible for repair.
The CMP does qualify as a facility. The capacity and function of the CMP may be restored by cutting the CMP and placing erosion control stone or concrete beneath its discharge point. This work would cost less than the $1,000 minimum project amount. Therefore, the repair of the CMP remains ineligible.
Please inform the applicant of this determination and their right to submit a third appeal pursuant to 44 CFR 206.206(e).
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate