This page has not been translated into 한국어. Visit the 한국어 page for resources in that language.
Campground
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
PURPOSE: Respond to third appeal submitted by the Siskiyou County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for relocation of 39 damaged campsites.
DISCUSSION: Late winter storms in 1995 (FEMA-1046-DR-CA) caused heavy rains and high winds in Siskiyou County, resulting in a loss of 600 trees at local campgrounds. DSR 18938 was written for debris removal, though the FEMA inspector recommended relocating the most badly damaged campsites. The relocation was found ineligible based on 44 CFR 206.226(e)(1), which states that the Regional Director may recommend relocation if the facility is subject to repetitive damages and the project is cost effective. The first and second appeal responses upheld that determination. The third appeal states that relocation was necessary and cost effective, at $200,473. In its submittal letter, the State recommended that FEMA approve funding for tree replacement. There is no evidence to indicate that the relocation project met the criteria of 44 CFR 206.226(e)(1). Furthermore, there is no evidence that the trees were specifically maintained or systematically replaced prior to the disaster, as required by public assistance tree replacement policy in effect at the time of the disaster. Therefore, there is no basis to consider funding relocation or tree replacement.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Sign letter denying this appeal.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1046-DR |
| Applicant | Siskiyou County Flood Control and Water Conservation District |
| Appeal Type | Third |
| PA ID# | 093-91040 |
| PW ID# | 18938 |
| Date Signed | 1999-06-01T04:00:00 |
DISCUSSION: Late winter storms in 1995 (FEMA-1046-DR-CA) caused heavy rains and high winds in Siskiyou County, resulting in a loss of 600 trees at local campgrounds. DSR 18938 was written for debris removal, though the FEMA inspector recommended relocating the most badly damaged campsites. The relocation was found ineligible based on 44 CFR 206.226(e)(1), which states that the Regional Director may recommend relocation if the facility is subject to repetitive damages and the project is cost effective. The first and second appeal responses upheld that determination. The third appeal states that relocation was necessary and cost effective, at $200,473. In its submittal letter, the State recommended that FEMA approve funding for tree replacement. There is no evidence to indicate that the relocation project met the criteria of 44 CFR 206.226(e)(1). Furthermore, there is no evidence that the trees were specifically maintained or systematically replaced prior to the disaster, as required by public assistance tree replacement policy in effect at the time of the disaster. Therefore, there is no basis to consider funding relocation or tree replacement.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Sign letter denying this appeal.
Appeal Letter
June 1, 1999
D.A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Public Assistance Branch
Post Office Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, California 95741-9023
RE: Third Appeal, Siskiyou County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Campground, FEMA-1046-DR-CA, DSR 18938
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to the referenced third appeal that you forwarded to FEMA on July 18, 1998. The applicant requests $200,473 to fund relocation of 39 campsites that were damaged during 1995 winter storms. Relocation costs were previously found to be ineligible according to 44 CFR 206.226(e)(1).
The applicant's second appeal was denied on April 10, 1998. The analysis stated that relocation is eligible "only if required by the Regional Director or if the facility is susceptible to repetitive damage and its relocation is cost effective. . there was no basis for FEMA providing funding for relocation of the camp sites." The applicant's third appeal, dated May 26, 1998, provided no new information. In a July 17, 1998 letter accompanying the appeal, you asked FEMA to approve the cost the County incurred to replace trees at the site.
The damage to the campsites consisted of fallen trees. 44 CFR 206.226(e)(1) states that the Regional Director may approve relocation when "the facility is and will be subject to repetitive heavy damage; the approval is not barred by other provisions of 44 CFR; and the overall project, including all costs, is cost effective." There is no evidence to indicate that the relocation of these campsites met these criteria. Therefore, the appeal is denied.
At the time of DR-1046, FEMA public assistance policy guidance stated that in order for tree replacement to be eligible, the trees must serve a planned or functional purpose. In addition, the applicant must show that they were responsible for specifically maintaining or systematically replacing trees. Since there is no evidence to indicate that these trees met criteria outlined in the policy guidance, we also cannot fund replacement of trees at the site.
Please inform the applicant of my determination, which constitutes the final level of appeal in accordance with 44 CFR 206.206(e).
Sincerely,
/S/
James L. Witt
Director
cc: Martha Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
D.A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Public Assistance Branch
Post Office Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, California 95741-9023
RE: Third Appeal, Siskiyou County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Campground, FEMA-1046-DR-CA, DSR 18938
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to the referenced third appeal that you forwarded to FEMA on July 18, 1998. The applicant requests $200,473 to fund relocation of 39 campsites that were damaged during 1995 winter storms. Relocation costs were previously found to be ineligible according to 44 CFR 206.226(e)(1).
The applicant's second appeal was denied on April 10, 1998. The analysis stated that relocation is eligible "only if required by the Regional Director or if the facility is susceptible to repetitive damage and its relocation is cost effective. . there was no basis for FEMA providing funding for relocation of the camp sites." The applicant's third appeal, dated May 26, 1998, provided no new information. In a July 17, 1998 letter accompanying the appeal, you asked FEMA to approve the cost the County incurred to replace trees at the site.
The damage to the campsites consisted of fallen trees. 44 CFR 206.226(e)(1) states that the Regional Director may approve relocation when "the facility is and will be subject to repetitive heavy damage; the approval is not barred by other provisions of 44 CFR; and the overall project, including all costs, is cost effective." There is no evidence to indicate that the relocation of these campsites met these criteria. Therefore, the appeal is denied.
At the time of DR-1046, FEMA public assistance policy guidance stated that in order for tree replacement to be eligible, the trees must serve a planned or functional purpose. In addition, the applicant must show that they were responsible for specifically maintaining or systematically replacing trees. Since there is no evidence to indicate that these trees met criteria outlined in the policy guidance, we also cannot fund replacement of trees at the site.
Please inform the applicant of my determination, which constitutes the final level of appeal in accordance with 44 CFR 206.206(e).
Sincerely,
/S/
James L. Witt
Director
cc: Martha Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX