Improved Project
Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
pre-disaster design due to regulatory limitations on the quantity of fill that the Applicant could place in the creek channel. The State supported the appeal and contended that the completed work was the most cost-effective method of repair of the disaster damage.
2. Did the Applicant demonstrate that the creek embankments were improved and maintained natural features due to terracing?
2. No.
Second Appeal Summary
FEMA-1577-DR
PA ID# 111-99111-00; Ventura County
DSR ID# Project Worksheet 3139; Improved Project
07/07/2009
PA ID# 111-99111-00; Ventura County
DSR ID# Project Worksheet 3139; Improved Project
07/07/2009
Citation:
FEMA-1577-DR-CA, Ventura County, Steckel Park, PW 3139Cross-reference:
Improved Project, Work EligibilitySummary:
Back-to-back flood events eroded the Santa Paula Creek embankment in Steckel Park. FEMA approved PW 3139 for $324,800 to replace 16,240 cubic yards (CY) of eroded parkland near campgrounds. In its first appeal, Ventura County (Applicant) requested funding for an additional 12,680 CY of fill near the aviary. The Applicant claimed that the creek embankments in this area were improved by engineered terracing in 1969. The Applicant requested that FEMA apply the funding for the original PW and the additional fill as an improved project toward its completed work to construct six rock groins and place 8,444 CY of fill, estimated at $635,914. The Regional Director denied the request for additional funding in the first appeal because the proposed scope was not appropriate for damages to the site and the Applicant did not identify the damages within 60 days of the kickoff meeting. FEMA de-obligated PW 3139 because it was determined that the work was not a reasonable repair for campgrounds at a reasonable cost. In its second appeal, the Applicant objected to FEMA de-obligating PW 3139 and asserted that it identified additional damage within 60 days and captured it on a separate PW. The Applicant explained that the completed work did not restore the facility to itspre-disaster design due to regulatory limitations on the quantity of fill that the Applicant could place in the creek channel. The State supported the appeal and contended that the completed work was the most cost-effective method of repair of the disaster damage.
Issues:
1. Is the campground considered improved and maintained property?2. Did the Applicant demonstrate that the creek embankments were improved and maintained natural features due to terracing?
Findings:
1. No.2. No.
Rationale:
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §5170b Section 406, Repair, Restoration, and Replacement of Damaged Facilities; 44 CFR §206.226, Restoration of damaged facilities.