Arcade Creek
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
PURPOSE: Respond to third appeal of the City of Sacramento for restoration of Arcade Creek.
DISCUSSION: During the 1995 winter storms (FEMA-1044-DR-CA), portions of Arcade Creek were eroded. The subgrantee requested assistance through the USACE's PL 84-99 Program but was denied funding because the Creek deficiencies previously identified by the USACE had not been corrected. The subgrantee requested disaster assistance from FEMA for the repair of the Creek. DSR 07930 was prepared to repair the Creek for a total estimated cost of $366,035. However, during eligibility review, it was determined that as an FCW, the Creek would be under the specific authority of the USACE and, therefore, not eligible for FEMA assistance. The subgrantee submitted first and second appeals asserting that this section of the creek does not meet eligibility criteria for USACE funding. The Regional Director and Executive Associate Director upheld the determination that this portion of the Creek is an FCW, and as such, permanent restoration funding is within the specific authority of the USACE and, therefore, ineligible for FEMA assistance, regardless of whether the USACE provides any funding for the project. The subgrantee's third appeal restates their first and second appeal positions. However, it is found that, given the circumstances under which information was provided during the disaster event regarding funding authorities for FCWs, there is sufficient basis to consider Arcade Creek as an eligible facility for this disaster event. A supplemental DSR will be prepared to fund the eligible portion of the requested scope of work.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Sign letter granting this appeal.
Severe winter storms and flooding that occurred during the FEMA-1044 winter storm event (January/February 1995) damaged portions of Arcade Creek (Creek). The Creek, within the damaged length, consists of sections of earth-lined banks and gunite walls. The City of Sacramento (subgrantee) requested disaster assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the repair of this Creek. FEMA inspection teams, consisting of representatives of FEMA, the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES), and the subgrantee, visited the site on February 4, 1995, to document damages and prepare Category D Damage Survey Report (DSR) 07930. The DSR was prepared in the amount of $366,036 for debris removal, grading, placement of riprap and gravel, installation of geotextile material covered with topsoil, hydroseeding, and placement of reinforced concrete channel lining. The work was reported as 2% complete at the time of the site inspection. This DSR was recommended as eligible by the FEMA inspector.
In a letter dated February 14, 1995, the subgrantee requested assistance from United States Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE's) PL 84-99 Rehabilitation and Inspection Program for repair of a portion of Arcade Creek. The USACE inspected the Creek and responded to the subgrantee's request for disaster assistance in a letter dated March 24, 1995, stating that the repair of the damage along the Creek does not qualify for PL 84-99 funding because the previously identified deficiencies had not been corrected. Based on this reference, it was concluded during eligibility review of the DSR by FEMA that the Creek meets the USACE's definition of a flood control work (FCW), such that in accordance with the Federal Levee Policy, restoration funding for the Creek would be under the specific authority of the USACE and, therefore, not eligible for FEMA assistance. As the DSR was found to be ineligible, no further review of the specific scope of work recommended by the inspector was performed. DSR 07930 was finalized on March 2, 1995, and found ineligible for funding.
The subgrantee submitted first and second level appeals of FEMA's determination that the Creek is under the funding authority of the USACE. The subgrantee asserted that the damaged portion of Arcade Creek never met the USACE's eligibility criteria for disaster assistance. Further, the subgrantee clarifies that the section of the Creek for which repairs are requested in DSR 07930 is not within the leveed section of the Creek, but rather is downstream of that portion. Accordingly, the subgrantee asserts that this damaged section is not part of the creek which would be considered an FCW, but is an improved natural drainage channel. The Regional Director and Executive Associate Director both upheld the initial determination of ineligibility. Review of the available documentation supported that this section of the Creek is also considered part of the FCW by the USACE, and accordingly, permanent restoration funding for this Creek would be within the specific authority of the USACE and, therefore, ineligible for FEMA assistance, regardless of whether the USACE provides any funding for the project.
Third Appeal
The subgrantee's third appeal of DSR 07930 was transmitted by OES in a letter dated March 11, 1998. As in the first and second appeals, the subgrantee stated that the requested repairs are not eligible for funding through the USACE PL 84-99 Program, such that FEMA should reconsider eligibility for funding of these repairs.
DISCUSSION
Consideration for Funding of Flood Control Facilities
In response to numerous appeals from various applicants regarding the implementation of the Federal Levee Policy during the FEMA-1044 and FEMA-1046 (1044/1046) disaster events, we have conducted an extensive review of the circumstances associated with eligibility determinations regarding flood control facilities prior to and during the response to these disasters. Based on this review, it has been concluded that some confusion as to the eligibility of flood control facilities was apparent. We have found that some applicants received funding for such facilities during previous disasters, particularly FEMA-979 in 1993, supporting these applicant's positions that they relied on funding from previous disasters. Additionally, for many applicants who did apply before the disaster to the USACE for enrollment in their PL 84-99 Rehabilitation and Inspection Program, inspections of the facilities by the USACE were often not completed prior to the disaster, maintaining the applicants' "inactive" status in the PL 84-99 Program. It is noted that some inspections were not completed within a year of the request, and then not all requested facilities were inspected. Additionally, review of numerous DSRs prepared for the various applicants in these disasters found that the FEMA inspector often did not notify the applicants that their facilities were under the funding authority of another Federal agency, and that the applicants were not notified of these determinations until the DSRs were finalized, often one year or more after the initial site inspections.
Therefore, although the Federal Levee Policy does specifically indicate that permanent restoration of FCWs is not eligible for FEMA funding, it is recognized that some applicants may have relied on previous funding from FEMA to expect disaster related funding in subsequent disasters. Further, FEMA's delay in notifying applicants during the 1995 Storms that their facilities were under the authority of the USACE or Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) may have contributed to an applicant's failure to receive Federal funding for disaster related damages. Accordingly, FEMA has concluded that flood control facilities damaged during the 1044/1046 disaster that were found ineligible based on the Federal Levee Policy, may be considered eligible facilities under the Public Assistance Program for these disasters only. Although the circumstances described above do not specifically apply to this subgrantee's request for funding, the decision to consider permanent restoration funding of FCWs applies to all FCWs damaged as a result of the 1044/1046 disaster events.
Eligible Work
In accordance with the discussion presented above, DSR 07930 has been reviewed for eligibility for permanent restoration funding through the Public Assistance Program, consistent with FEMA regulations and policy for restoration of eligible facilities. Erosion of the creek banks occurred along a one-mile reach of Arcade Creek, at four locations. The locations are referred to in DSR 07930 as D9, D11, D12, and D13. Much of the damaged creek sections consisted of earthen banks, with the exception of Area D12 where gunite was present prior to the disaster. The DSR was prepared by the inspector in the amount of $366,036 for debris removal, grading, placement of riprap and gravel, installation of geotextile material covered with topsoil, hydroseeding, and placement of reinforced concrete channel lining. As the DSR was found to be ineligible based on the FCW issue, no further review of the specific scope of work recommended by the inspector was performed. Therefore, in response to this third appeal reversal of eligibility, we have performed an independent review of this DSR to determine the eligible scope of work. Comments regarding specific scope items is provided below.
At the writing of this analysis, it is unclear if the work as initially requested by the subgrantee has been completed. Should the subgrantee choose to complete the work as originally requested, such work would be considered an improvement over the pre-disaster condition and design of the channel. Accordingly, it will be necessary for the subgrantee to apply to the State for an Improved Project in accordance with 44 CFR 206.203(d). Federal funding for improved projects is limited to the Federal share of the approved estimate of eligible costs as presented on the Supplemental DSR.
Future Assistance
Although FEMA is providing this exception for funding of flood control channels for those facilities damaged during the 1044/1046 disaster events, it should be understood that the Federal Levee Policy will be strictly adhered to for all disasters occurring after December 31, 1996. I have enclosed a copy of the 1996 Policy entitled, "Policy for Rehabilitation Assistance for Levees and Other Flood Control Works" for reference regarding funding for flood control channels damaged after 1996.
In preparation for future disaster events, the subgrantee should take appropriate steps to apply to and meet the criteria of the USACE PL 84-99 Program or to take steps to meet the criteria of the NRCS Emergency Watershed Protection Program. Facilities that meet the USACE's definition of an FCW will not be eligible for FEMA permanent restoration assistance. As indicated in the attached Policy, the USACE defines a flood control work as a "structure designed and constructed to have appreciable and dependable effects in preventing damage by irregular and unusual rises in water level." To determine if a certain facility meets this definition, the USACE will review the design of that facility and in most cases, perform a site inspection. Facilities that meet the definition of an FCW but are not "active" ("inactive") in the PL 84-99 Program due to lack of inspection request, failure to meet design or maintenance criteria, or other reasons determined by the USACE, will not be eligible under the Public Assistance Program. As a result, a facility that meets the USACE definition but is not in "active" status in the program may not be eligible for any Federal disaster assistance for permanent restoration.
Other channels that do not meet the USACE's definition of an FCW may be eligible for FEMA assistance. However, for those channels which appear to meet the definition of an FCW, it may be necessary for the subgrantee to provide appropriate documentation to demonstrate that the facility does not meet the USACE's definition, in order for the channel to be considered an eligible facility. To best support their position, it is recommended that the subgrantee provide a letter from the USACE indicating that they do not consider the facility an FCW. Applicants should anticipate that it may be necessary for the USACE to perform an inspection of a site to definitively determine that a facility does not meet their definition of an FCW. This documentation would be significantly important to th44/1s.
CONCLUSION
Flood control facilities damaged during the 1044/1046 disaster events, that were found ineligible based on the Federal Levee Policy, may be considered eligible facilities under the Public Assistance Program for these disasters only. Accordingly, the scope of work on DSR 07930 has been reviewed for eligibility for permanent restoration funding through the Public Assistance Program. The Regional Director will prepare a Supplemental DSR to fund the eligible scope of work and estimated cost as described herein. The subgrantee's appeal is granted.
ENCLOSURE A
SUMMARY OF ELIGIBLE SCOPE OF WORK
CITY OF SACRAMENTO - ARCADE CREEK
SUPPLEMENT TO DSR 07930
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1044-DR |
| Applicant | City of Sacramento |
| Appeal Type | Third |
| PA ID# | 067-64000 |
| PW ID# | 07930 |
| Date Signed | 1998-08-03T04:00:00 |
DISCUSSION: During the 1995 winter storms (FEMA-1044-DR-CA), portions of Arcade Creek were eroded. The subgrantee requested assistance through the USACE's PL 84-99 Program but was denied funding because the Creek deficiencies previously identified by the USACE had not been corrected. The subgrantee requested disaster assistance from FEMA for the repair of the Creek. DSR 07930 was prepared to repair the Creek for a total estimated cost of $366,035. However, during eligibility review, it was determined that as an FCW, the Creek would be under the specific authority of the USACE and, therefore, not eligible for FEMA assistance. The subgrantee submitted first and second appeals asserting that this section of the creek does not meet eligibility criteria for USACE funding. The Regional Director and Executive Associate Director upheld the determination that this portion of the Creek is an FCW, and as such, permanent restoration funding is within the specific authority of the USACE and, therefore, ineligible for FEMA assistance, regardless of whether the USACE provides any funding for the project. The subgrantee's third appeal restates their first and second appeal positions. However, it is found that, given the circumstances under which information was provided during the disaster event regarding funding authorities for FCWs, there is sufficient basis to consider Arcade Creek as an eligible facility for this disaster event. A supplemental DSR will be prepared to fund the eligible portion of the requested scope of work.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Sign letter granting this appeal.
Appeal Letter
August 3, 1998
Mr. D. A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, California 95741-9023
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to your March 11, 1998, submittal of the City of Sacramento's third appeal of Damage Survey Report (DSR) 07930 prepared for permanent restoration of Arcade Creek damaged during the FEMA-1044 disaster event. The DSR was found ineligible on the basis that the channel meets the United States Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE's) definition of a flood control work (FCW), such that restoration funding for the channel would be under the specific authority of the USACE.
Based on a review of the circumstances regarding the implementation of the Federal Levee Policy during the FEMA-1044 and FEMA-1046 disaster events, I have concluded that flood control facilities damaged during these events, which were found ineligible based on the Federal Levee Policy, may be considered eligible facilities under the Public Assistance Program for these disasters only. Accordingly, DSR 07930 has been reviewed for eligibility for permanent restoration funding through the Public Assistance Program. It is noted that much of the requested scope of work represents an improvement to the pre-disaster design of the facility. Accordingly, the eligible scope of work has been reduced from that originally requested. By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Regional Director to prepare a Supplemental DSR to fund the eligible scope of work and estimated cost for DSR 07930, as defined in the enclosed analysis. The subgrantee's appeal to consider this channel as an eligible facility is granted, however, the eligible scope of work has been reviewed and reduced.
Please inform the applicant of my determination.
Sincerely,
/S/
James L. Witt
Director
Enclosure
cc: Martha Z. Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Mr. D. A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, California 95741-9023
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to your March 11, 1998, submittal of the City of Sacramento's third appeal of Damage Survey Report (DSR) 07930 prepared for permanent restoration of Arcade Creek damaged during the FEMA-1044 disaster event. The DSR was found ineligible on the basis that the channel meets the United States Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE's) definition of a flood control work (FCW), such that restoration funding for the channel would be under the specific authority of the USACE.
Based on a review of the circumstances regarding the implementation of the Federal Levee Policy during the FEMA-1044 and FEMA-1046 disaster events, I have concluded that flood control facilities damaged during these events, which were found ineligible based on the Federal Levee Policy, may be considered eligible facilities under the Public Assistance Program for these disasters only. Accordingly, DSR 07930 has been reviewed for eligibility for permanent restoration funding through the Public Assistance Program. It is noted that much of the requested scope of work represents an improvement to the pre-disaster design of the facility. Accordingly, the eligible scope of work has been reduced from that originally requested. By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Regional Director to prepare a Supplemental DSR to fund the eligible scope of work and estimated cost for DSR 07930, as defined in the enclosed analysis. The subgrantee's appeal to consider this channel as an eligible facility is granted, however, the eligible scope of work has been reviewed and reduced.
Please inform the applicant of my determination.
Sincerely,
/S/
James L. Witt
Director
Enclosure
cc: Martha Z. Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDSevere winter storms and flooding that occurred during the FEMA-1044 winter storm event (January/February 1995) damaged portions of Arcade Creek (Creek). The Creek, within the damaged length, consists of sections of earth-lined banks and gunite walls. The City of Sacramento (subgrantee) requested disaster assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the repair of this Creek. FEMA inspection teams, consisting of representatives of FEMA, the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES), and the subgrantee, visited the site on February 4, 1995, to document damages and prepare Category D Damage Survey Report (DSR) 07930. The DSR was prepared in the amount of $366,036 for debris removal, grading, placement of riprap and gravel, installation of geotextile material covered with topsoil, hydroseeding, and placement of reinforced concrete channel lining. The work was reported as 2% complete at the time of the site inspection. This DSR was recommended as eligible by the FEMA inspector.
In a letter dated February 14, 1995, the subgrantee requested assistance from United States Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE's) PL 84-99 Rehabilitation and Inspection Program for repair of a portion of Arcade Creek. The USACE inspected the Creek and responded to the subgrantee's request for disaster assistance in a letter dated March 24, 1995, stating that the repair of the damage along the Creek does not qualify for PL 84-99 funding because the previously identified deficiencies had not been corrected. Based on this reference, it was concluded during eligibility review of the DSR by FEMA that the Creek meets the USACE's definition of a flood control work (FCW), such that in accordance with the Federal Levee Policy, restoration funding for the Creek would be under the specific authority of the USACE and, therefore, not eligible for FEMA assistance. As the DSR was found to be ineligible, no further review of the specific scope of work recommended by the inspector was performed. DSR 07930 was finalized on March 2, 1995, and found ineligible for funding.
The subgrantee submitted first and second level appeals of FEMA's determination that the Creek is under the funding authority of the USACE. The subgrantee asserted that the damaged portion of Arcade Creek never met the USACE's eligibility criteria for disaster assistance. Further, the subgrantee clarifies that the section of the Creek for which repairs are requested in DSR 07930 is not within the leveed section of the Creek, but rather is downstream of that portion. Accordingly, the subgrantee asserts that this damaged section is not part of the creek which would be considered an FCW, but is an improved natural drainage channel. The Regional Director and Executive Associate Director both upheld the initial determination of ineligibility. Review of the available documentation supported that this section of the Creek is also considered part of the FCW by the USACE, and accordingly, permanent restoration funding for this Creek would be within the specific authority of the USACE and, therefore, ineligible for FEMA assistance, regardless of whether the USACE provides any funding for the project.
Third Appeal
The subgrantee's third appeal of DSR 07930 was transmitted by OES in a letter dated March 11, 1998. As in the first and second appeals, the subgrantee stated that the requested repairs are not eligible for funding through the USACE PL 84-99 Program, such that FEMA should reconsider eligibility for funding of these repairs.
DISCUSSION
Consideration for Funding of Flood Control Facilities
In response to numerous appeals from various applicants regarding the implementation of the Federal Levee Policy during the FEMA-1044 and FEMA-1046 (1044/1046) disaster events, we have conducted an extensive review of the circumstances associated with eligibility determinations regarding flood control facilities prior to and during the response to these disasters. Based on this review, it has been concluded that some confusion as to the eligibility of flood control facilities was apparent. We have found that some applicants received funding for such facilities during previous disasters, particularly FEMA-979 in 1993, supporting these applicant's positions that they relied on funding from previous disasters. Additionally, for many applicants who did apply before the disaster to the USACE for enrollment in their PL 84-99 Rehabilitation and Inspection Program, inspections of the facilities by the USACE were often not completed prior to the disaster, maintaining the applicants' "inactive" status in the PL 84-99 Program. It is noted that some inspections were not completed within a year of the request, and then not all requested facilities were inspected. Additionally, review of numerous DSRs prepared for the various applicants in these disasters found that the FEMA inspector often did not notify the applicants that their facilities were under the funding authority of another Federal agency, and that the applicants were not notified of these determinations until the DSRs were finalized, often one year or more after the initial site inspections.
Therefore, although the Federal Levee Policy does specifically indicate that permanent restoration of FCWs is not eligible for FEMA funding, it is recognized that some applicants may have relied on previous funding from FEMA to expect disaster related funding in subsequent disasters. Further, FEMA's delay in notifying applicants during the 1995 Storms that their facilities were under the authority of the USACE or Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) may have contributed to an applicant's failure to receive Federal funding for disaster related damages. Accordingly, FEMA has concluded that flood control facilities damaged during the 1044/1046 disaster that were found ineligible based on the Federal Levee Policy, may be considered eligible facilities under the Public Assistance Program for these disasters only. Although the circumstances described above do not specifically apply to this subgrantee's request for funding, the decision to consider permanent restoration funding of FCWs applies to all FCWs damaged as a result of the 1044/1046 disaster events.
Eligible Work
In accordance with the discussion presented above, DSR 07930 has been reviewed for eligibility for permanent restoration funding through the Public Assistance Program, consistent with FEMA regulations and policy for restoration of eligible facilities. Erosion of the creek banks occurred along a one-mile reach of Arcade Creek, at four locations. The locations are referred to in DSR 07930 as D9, D11, D12, and D13. Much of the damaged creek sections consisted of earthen banks, with the exception of Area D12 where gunite was present prior to the disaster. The DSR was prepared by the inspector in the amount of $366,036 for debris removal, grading, placement of riprap and gravel, installation of geotextile material covered with topsoil, hydroseeding, and placement of reinforced concrete channel lining. As the DSR was found to be ineligible based on the FCW issue, no further review of the specific scope of work recommended by the inspector was performed. Therefore, in response to this third appeal reversal of eligibility, we have performed an independent review of this DSR to determine the eligible scope of work. Comments regarding specific scope items is provided below.
- Earth Slope Repair (Areas D9, D11, D13)
The subgrantee requested repair of the earth slopes utilizing the following method:- Lay geotextile material directly over the eroded surface
- Place riprap on top of the geotextile
- Place gravel fill on top of the riprap to fill voids in riprap
- Place geotextile material on the surface of the gravel fill
- Baede fact that the creek banks prior to the disaster were earth-lined banks, this method of repair would constitute a considerable improvement to the pre-disaster condition of the creek, and is considered excessive for the repair of these banks. Additionally, the subgrantee has not provided any documentation to support that such a detail is required by any applicable code or standard. Accordingly, the requested scope of work is found to be not eligible for funding.
FEMA does recognize, however, that restoration of a relatively steep slope with compacted fill is not always technically feasible, or practical to construct. Therefore, as an alternate, more reasonable, approach to that requested by the subgrantee, the eligible scope of work is limited to placement of earth fill to within 2-ft. of the face of the slope, followed by placement of a 2-ft. thickness of dumped riprap. A 3-ft. by 3-ft. toe trench, filled with riprap, is to be constructed at the toe of the slope to provide a stable base for the support of the riprap. Filter fabric should be placed on all soil surfaces (face of soil slope and toe trench) prior to placement of riprap. Additional eligible scope items include minor grading of the eroded slopes prior to fill placement, and excavation of the toe trench. This method of repair is consistent with generally accepted engineering practices, and has been used successfully by other applicants for repair of similarly damaged earth-lined channels.
- Gunite Slope Protection (Area D12)
At Area D12, the inspector indicted that gunite was present on the banks, and damaged by the disaster. The damaged gunite is eligible for removal and replacement. However, DSR 07930 includes the cost code for removal of reinforced concrete and placement of reinforced concrete channel lining. As the material present prior to the disaster was gunite, rather than reinforced concrete, it would be more appropriate to utilize cost codes for removal of non-reinforced concrete removal (Cost Code 4051) and placement of concrete slope protection (Cost Code 3260) for this scope of work.
- Aggregate Surface Material
DSR 07930 includes a scope item for placement of 460 cy of aggregate surface material. However, there is no specific reference to where this material is to be placed so as to demonstrate that the location of its placement would be considered an eligible facility, or that the loss of aggregate was directly related to the disaster. Although the DSR does reference the deposition of some gravel within the channel, there is not a direct correlation between this material and loss of gravel from an eligible facility. Therefore, this scope item in not eligible for funding.
- Debris Removal
The inspector referenced several areas where debris and sediment collected in the creek, and in the vicinity of the nearby bridge structure, reportedly from the disaster. The inspector recommended removal of such materials to facilitate construction and to restore the function of the channel. Additionally, several trees were uprooted during the disaster and require removal to facilitate the proposed repairs. Quantities and cost estimates for these items may be left unchanged from that recommended by the inspector.
- Engineering
The subgrantee has requested various engineering related scope items, including surveying, environmental processing, design, drawings and specifications, materials testing, staking and inspection, and contract administration. The requesting costs for these items totals $81,183, or about 30% of the construction cost for the scope of work as originally presented on the DSR. Such a percentage is considered excessive for a project of this nature. Accordingly, the eligible scope for engineering services should provide an allowance for engineering and construction inspection, utilizing the FEMA engineering cost estimating curve (Curve B), which provides for a 10% allowance for such engineering efforts. Note that engineering services may be provided only for the "engineered" portions of the eligible scope of work, that being slope repair. Engineering services are not considered necessary for the debris removal activities described in this DSR.
At the writing of this analysis, it is unclear if the work as initially requested by the subgrantee has been completed. Should the subgrantee choose to complete the work as originally requested, such work would be considered an improvement over the pre-disaster condition and design of the channel. Accordingly, it will be necessary for the subgrantee to apply to the State for an Improved Project in accordance with 44 CFR 206.203(d). Federal funding for improved projects is limited to the Federal share of the approved estimate of eligible costs as presented on the Supplemental DSR.
Future Assistance
Although FEMA is providing this exception for funding of flood control channels for those facilities damaged during the 1044/1046 disaster events, it should be understood that the Federal Levee Policy will be strictly adhered to for all disasters occurring after December 31, 1996. I have enclosed a copy of the 1996 Policy entitled, "Policy for Rehabilitation Assistance for Levees and Other Flood Control Works" for reference regarding funding for flood control channels damaged after 1996.
In preparation for future disaster events, the subgrantee should take appropriate steps to apply to and meet the criteria of the USACE PL 84-99 Program or to take steps to meet the criteria of the NRCS Emergency Watershed Protection Program. Facilities that meet the USACE's definition of an FCW will not be eligible for FEMA permanent restoration assistance. As indicated in the attached Policy, the USACE defines a flood control work as a "structure designed and constructed to have appreciable and dependable effects in preventing damage by irregular and unusual rises in water level." To determine if a certain facility meets this definition, the USACE will review the design of that facility and in most cases, perform a site inspection. Facilities that meet the definition of an FCW but are not "active" ("inactive") in the PL 84-99 Program due to lack of inspection request, failure to meet design or maintenance criteria, or other reasons determined by the USACE, will not be eligible under the Public Assistance Program. As a result, a facility that meets the USACE definition but is not in "active" status in the program may not be eligible for any Federal disaster assistance for permanent restoration.
Other channels that do not meet the USACE's definition of an FCW may be eligible for FEMA assistance. However, for those channels which appear to meet the definition of an FCW, it may be necessary for the subgrantee to provide appropriate documentation to demonstrate that the facility does not meet the USACE's definition, in order for the channel to be considered an eligible facility. To best support their position, it is recommended that the subgrantee provide a letter from the USACE indicating that they do not consider the facility an FCW. Applicants should anticipate that it may be necessary for the USACE to perform an inspection of a site to definitively determine that a facility does not meet their definition of an FCW. This documentation would be significantly important to th44/1s.
CONCLUSION
Flood control facilities damaged during the 1044/1046 disaster events, that were found ineligible based on the Federal Levee Policy, may be considered eligible facilities under the Public Assistance Program for these disasters only. Accordingly, the scope of work on DSR 07930 has been reviewed for eligibility for permanent restoration funding through the Public Assistance Program. The Regional Director will prepare a Supplemental DSR to fund the eligible scope of work and estimated cost as described herein. The subgrantee's appeal is granted.
SUMMARY OF ELIGIBLE SCOPE OF WORK
CITY OF SACRAMENTO - ARCADE CREEK
SUPPLEMENT TO DSR 07930
ITEM | CODE | MATERIAL | UNIT | QTY | UNIT PRICE | COST |
1 | 3060 | Grading (Subgrade Shaping) | SY | 2,044 | $ 1.75 | $ 3,577.00 |
2 | 3031 | Excavation and Short Haul | CY | 257 | $ 6.23 | $ 1,601.11 |
3 | 3020 | Fill (Unclassified) | CY | 1,190 | $ 8.00 | $ 9,520.00 |
4 | 4130 | Riprap, Fabric For Under | SY | 764 | $ 2.90 | $ 2,215.60 |
5 | 3251 | Slope Protection, Riprap (Dumped) | CY | 1,265 | $ 44.00 | $ 55,660.00 |
6 | 4051 | Concrete Removal, Non-Reinforced | CY | 8.4 | $ 80.00 | $ 672.00 |
7 | 3260 | Slope Protection, Concrete | SY | 18 | $ 36.00 | $ 648.00 |
8 | 1032 | Debris (Trees 37" Above) | EA | 1 | $ 520.00 | $ 520.00 |
9 | 1031 | Debris Trees (Broken Uprooted) | EA | 2 | $ 310.00 | $ 620.00 |
10 | 1111 | Debris (Channel Exc. And Haul) | CY | 444 | $ 8.00 | $ 3,552.00 |
11 | 9999 | Dump Truck and Driver | HR | 16 | $ 50.13 | $ 802.08 |
12 | 9999 | Backhoe and Operator | HR | 8 | $ 53.36 | $ 426.88 |
13 | 1090 | Debris (Earth Fill - Levee) | CY | 120 | $ 4.5 | $ 540.00 |
14 | 9999 | Engineering, 10% Items 1-7 | LS | 1 | $ 7,390.00 | $ 7,390.00 |
y | y | y | y | y | Total | $87,744.67 |
Last updated