Flood Control Channels
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
PURPOSE: Respond to third appeals submitted by the Ventura County Flood Control District for permanent restoration of various flood control facilities.
DISCUSSION: The winter storms of January and March 1995 (FEMA-1044/1046-DR-CA) caused extensive damage to flood control facilities throughout Ventura County. The FEMA inspector prepared numerous DSRs (17 in appeal) to fund repairs to various flood control facilities. The DSRs were found ineligible on the basis that the channels meet 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. However, the subgrantee was not notified of this determination until the DSRs were finalized, often one year or more after the initial site inspection. The subgrantee's first and second appeals primarily challenged the Federal Levee Policy as well as FEMA's coordination of disaster assistance as it relates to FCWs and the Policy. Appeal responses upheld the initial determinations of ineligibility. The third appeal reiterates much of the earlier positions, plus indicates that the subgrantee received funding for the same facilities in previous disasters, suggesting that FEMA's application of this Policy was inconsistent and misleading. 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 these flood control facilities as eligible facilities for this disaster event.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Sign letter granting these appeals.
BACKGROUND
Severe winter storms and flooding that occurred during the FEMA-1044 and FEMA-1046 (1044/1046) winter storm events damaged various flood control channels in Ventura County. The Ventura County Flood Control District (subgrantee) requested disaster assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the repair of these channels. FEMA inspection teams, consisting of representatives of FEMA, the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES), and the subgrantee, visited the individual sites to document damages and prepare Damage Survey Reports (DSRs). A total of 17 DSRs are addressed in this appeal analysis. A summary of the channels and the particular DSRs is provided in the enclosure.
The damaged facilities included various components of flood control channels, including concrete-lined, earth-lined, and stone/riprap protected channel walls, earth levees, access roads, and a steel sheet pile wall. Storm related damages typically were described as erosion of the various components, requiring repair, generally in-kind. The DSRs were all prepared as Category D, requesting permanent restoration assistance, and were recommended as eligible by the FEMA inspector. During eligibility review, FEMA concluded that each of the channels meet 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. Accordingly, FEMA denied funding for each of these DSRs. It is noted that on several of these DSRs, the FEMA reviewer also reduced the scope of work for various reasons, but typically because documentation did not support disaster related damages or certain scope items were found not eligible.
The subgrantee submitted first and second appeals regarding FEMA's determination of ineligibility for the various flood control facilities, focusing primarily on the application of the Federal Levee Policy during the 1044/1046 disaster events. Although the subgrantee did not dispute that the channels meet the USACE definition of an FCW, they asserted that the completed repairs are not eligible for the USACE PL 84-99 Rehabilitation and Inspection Program. The subgrantee contended that FEMA failed to perform its obligation to coordinate Federal disaster assistance, and that FEMA had approved various 1044/1046 DSRs for other portions of these same or similar facilities, wherein the scope of work included permanent repair of flood control facilities.
FEMA responded to these appeals by further clarifying the intent of the Federal Levee Policy and stressing the importance of providing Federal assistance within the appropriate funding authority. In support of the USACE Program, and the Federal Levee Policy, the Regional Director and the Executive Associate Director upheld the determination of ineligibility.
Third Appeal
The subgrantee's third appeal of these DSRs was transmitted by OES in a letter dated January 30, 1998. The subgrantee's appeal primarily challenges the Federal Levee Policy itself as well as FEMA's coordination of disaster assistance as it relates to FCWs and the Policy. The subgrantee further indicates that they received funding for the same facilities in previous disasters, suggesting that FEMA's application of this Policy was inconsistent and misleading.
DISCUSSION
In addition to the subgrantee's disagreement regarding the implementation of the Federal Levee Policy, they assert that because FEMA had funded flood control facilities in previous disasters, they assumed that these same facilities would be eligible in future disasters. With this expectation, they did not apply to other agencies, such as the USACE or NRCS, for funding, resulting in their not being eligible for any disaster related assistance.
Consideration for Funding of Flood Control Facilities
Our review of the circumstances associated with eligibility determinations regarding flood control facilities prior to and during the response to the 1995 Winter Storms has concluded that some confusion as to the eligibility of flood control facilities was apparent. We have found that some applicants, including this subgrantee, did receive funding for such facilities during previous disasters, particularly FEMA-979 in 1993, supporting the subgrantee's position that they relied on funding from previous disasters. Additionally, for those channels for which the subgrantee 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 subgrantee's "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 the 17 DSRs in this appeal found that the FEMA inspector did not notify the subgrantee that any of their facilities were under the funding authority of another Federal agency, and that the subgrantee was 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 subgrantees may have relied on previous funding from FEMA to expect disaster related funding in subsequent disasters. Further, FEMA's delay in notifying subgrantees during the 1995 Storms that their facilities were under the authority of the USACE or NRCS may have contributed to a subgrantee'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.
Eligible Work
In accordance with the discussion presented above, each of the 17 DSRs addressed in this appeal 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. Each of the DSRs was prepared with the intent to restore the facilities to their pre-disaster design, generally with in-kind repairs. For more than half of the DSRs (DSRs 20697, 93274, 93275, 93284, 93709, 93719, 93733, 93736, 95002, 39977, 93716, and 93721), all members of the inspection team were in agreement as to the scope of repair and estimated costs. For these DSRs, the scope of work presented on the DSR reflects that requested by the subgrantee.
For other DSRs (DSR 20688, 46593, 93730, 93718, and 11394), some modifications to the requested scope of work were made during final review, thus reducing the eligible scope and/or estimated costs. As indicated in this analysis, the subgrantee has not addressed these reductions in their appeal letters. However, it is recgonized that the subgrantee's focus has been directed toward the primary determination of ineligibility, that the facilities are FCWs, rather than specific line items of scope. Therefore, we have performed an independent review of these DSRs to determine the eligible scope of work. Specific comments for each of these DSRs are provided below:DSR 20688
Invoices submitted with this DSR identified three separate sites where work was completed; Fox Debris Basin, Stewart Dam and Basin, and Ventura River. Accordingly, each site should have been included in separate DSRs. The FEMA reviewer separated costs for each site, based on invoices submitted, and found that the costs associated with Fox Debris Basin and Stewart Dam anwideducted from the force account costs reported on the final DSR. It is found that this reduction was appropriately made, limiting eligible funding to that shown on the final DSR, $45,965.
DSR 46593, DSR 11394
The FEMA inspectors prepared these DSRs to repair the channel banks with placed or grouted riprap. The FEMA reviewer changed the material to dumped riprap, thus reducing the estimated cost. The documentation provided with the original DSR does not support that placed or grouted riprap is warranted for this site. The eligible scope on each DSR is appropriately limited to dumped riprap, for a total estimated cost of $31,682 (DSR 46593) and $56,500 (DSR 11394), as shown on the final DSRs.
DSR 93730
The FEMA inspector prepared this DSR to repair localized areas of erosion throughout Flood Zone 3 channels, by means of manual and mechanical tamping. Work was performed by force account labor and was 95% complete at the time of the site inspection, precluding the inspector from assessing the extent of disaster damages. The FEMA reviewer noted that each individual site must have its own DSR, but sufficient detail was not provided by the subgrantee to identify costs per site, or to accurately identify the pre-existing condition of the sites or the disaster damages. In the absence of the necessary information, the final DSR was prepared for $0. It is found that this DSR was appropriately determined ineligible.
DSR 93718
The FEMA reviewer noted that the dates of use of some equipment (dozer) do not correspond with the dates of the force account labor, and therefore recommended reducing the eligible cost by $1,060. Additionally, a referenced invoice in the amount of $2,661 was not provided with the documentation, such that the reviewer recommended reducing the cost by an additional $2,661. Because the DSR was denied based on the FCW issue, these changes were not made on the final DSR. However, it is found that without documentation to support these costs, it is appropriate to reduce the eligible cost on the final DSR by a total amount of $3,720, resulting in an eligible cost of $7,311.
Based on this review, the Regional Director will prepare Supplemental DSRs to restore the scope of work and estimated costs for these DSRs, consistent with that identified on the final DSR or as described above. A summary of the estimated eligible funding is provided on the enclosure. It is noted that as for all permanent restoration projects, prior to project approval, it may be necessary, where applicable, for the FEMA regional office to complete a review of each of these projects relative to the various environmental protection and historic preservation regulations.
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 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. The subgrantees 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 those facilities which were found ineligible in the 1044/1046 or previous disasters.
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, each of the 17 DSRs included with this appeal have been reviewed for eligibility for permanent restoration funding through the Public Assistance Program. The Regional Director will prepare Supplemental DSRs to fund the scope of work and estimated costs for these DSRs as described above. The subgrantee's appeal is granted.
Enclosure 1
Summary of Appealed DSRs
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1044/10 |
| Applicant | Ventura County Flood Control District |
| Appeal Type | Third |
| PA ID# | 111-91042 |
| PW ID# | Various |
| Date Signed | 1998-08-03T04:00:00 |
DISCUSSION: The winter storms of January and March 1995 (FEMA-1044/1046-DR-CA) caused extensive damage to flood control facilities throughout Ventura County. The FEMA inspector prepared numerous DSRs (17 in appeal) to fund repairs to various flood control facilities. The DSRs were found ineligible on the basis that the channels meet 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. However, the subgrantee was not notified of this determination until the DSRs were finalized, often one year or more after the initial site inspection. The subgrantee's first and second appeals primarily challenged the Federal Levee Policy as well as FEMA's coordination of disaster assistance as it relates to FCWs and the Policy. Appeal responses upheld the initial determinations of ineligibility. The third appeal reiterates much of the earlier positions, plus indicates that the subgrantee received funding for the same facilities in previous disasters, suggesting that FEMA's application of this Policy was inconsistent and misleading. 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 these flood control facilities as eligible facilities for this disaster event.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Sign letter granting these appeals.
Appeal Letter
August 3, 1998
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, 3rd Floor
Pasadena, California 91103
Dear Mr. Najera:
This is in response to your January 30, 1998, submittals of the Ventura County Flood Control District's third appeal of 17 Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) prepared for permanent restoration of various flood control channels damaged during the FEMA-1044 and FEMA-1046 (1044/1046) disaster events. Each of the DSRs was found ineligible on the basis that the channels meet 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 1044/1046 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, each of the 17 DSRs included with this appeal has been reviewed for eligibility for permanent restoration funding through the Public Assistance Program. By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Regional Director to prepare Supplemental DSRs to fund the scope of work and estimated costs for these DSRs as described in the enclosed analysis. Accordingly, the subgrantee's appeal is granted.
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
Enclosure
cc: Martha Z. Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, 3rd Floor
Pasadena, California 91103
Dear Mr. Najera:
This is in response to your January 30, 1998, submittals of the Ventura County Flood Control District's third appeal of 17 Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) prepared for permanent restoration of various flood control channels damaged during the FEMA-1044 and FEMA-1046 (1044/1046) disaster events. Each of the DSRs was found ineligible on the basis that the channels meet 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 1044/1046 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, each of the 17 DSRs included with this appeal has been reviewed for eligibility for permanent restoration funding through the Public Assistance Program. By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Regional Director to prepare Supplemental DSRs to fund the scope of work and estimated costs for these DSRs as described in the enclosed analysis. Accordingly, the subgrantee's appeal is granted.
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
Enclosure
cc: Martha Z. Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUND
Severe winter storms and flooding that occurred during the FEMA-1044 and FEMA-1046 (1044/1046) winter storm events damaged various flood control channels in Ventura County. The Ventura County Flood Control District (subgrantee) requested disaster assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the repair of these channels. FEMA inspection teams, consisting of representatives of FEMA, the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES), and the subgrantee, visited the individual sites to document damages and prepare Damage Survey Reports (DSRs). A total of 17 DSRs are addressed in this appeal analysis. A summary of the channels and the particular DSRs is provided in the enclosure.
The damaged facilities included various components of flood control channels, including concrete-lined, earth-lined, and stone/riprap protected channel walls, earth levees, access roads, and a steel sheet pile wall. Storm related damages typically were described as erosion of the various components, requiring repair, generally in-kind. The DSRs were all prepared as Category D, requesting permanent restoration assistance, and were recommended as eligible by the FEMA inspector. During eligibility review, FEMA concluded that each of the channels meet 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. Accordingly, FEMA denied funding for each of these DSRs. It is noted that on several of these DSRs, the FEMA reviewer also reduced the scope of work for various reasons, but typically because documentation did not support disaster related damages or certain scope items were found not eligible.
The subgrantee submitted first and second appeals regarding FEMA's determination of ineligibility for the various flood control facilities, focusing primarily on the application of the Federal Levee Policy during the 1044/1046 disaster events. Although the subgrantee did not dispute that the channels meet the USACE definition of an FCW, they asserted that the completed repairs are not eligible for the USACE PL 84-99 Rehabilitation and Inspection Program. The subgrantee contended that FEMA failed to perform its obligation to coordinate Federal disaster assistance, and that FEMA had approved various 1044/1046 DSRs for other portions of these same or similar facilities, wherein the scope of work included permanent repair of flood control facilities.
FEMA responded to these appeals by further clarifying the intent of the Federal Levee Policy and stressing the importance of providing Federal assistance within the appropriate funding authority. In support of the USACE Program, and the Federal Levee Policy, the Regional Director and the Executive Associate Director upheld the determination of ineligibility.
Third Appeal
The subgrantee's third appeal of these DSRs was transmitted by OES in a letter dated January 30, 1998. The subgrantee's appeal primarily challenges the Federal Levee Policy itself as well as FEMA's coordination of disaster assistance as it relates to FCWs and the Policy. The subgrantee further indicates that they received funding for the same facilities in previous disasters, suggesting that FEMA's application of this Policy was inconsistent and misleading.
DISCUSSION
In addition to the subgrantee's disagreement regarding the implementation of the Federal Levee Policy, they assert that because FEMA had funded flood control facilities in previous disasters, they assumed that these same facilities would be eligible in future disasters. With this expectation, they did not apply to other agencies, such as the USACE or NRCS, for funding, resulting in their not being eligible for any disaster related assistance.
Consideration for Funding of Flood Control Facilities
Our review of the circumstances associated with eligibility determinations regarding flood control facilities prior to and during the response to the 1995 Winter Storms has concluded that some confusion as to the eligibility of flood control facilities was apparent. We have found that some applicants, including this subgrantee, did receive funding for such facilities during previous disasters, particularly FEMA-979 in 1993, supporting the subgrantee's position that they relied on funding from previous disasters. Additionally, for those channels for which the subgrantee 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 subgrantee's "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 the 17 DSRs in this appeal found that the FEMA inspector did not notify the subgrantee that any of their facilities were under the funding authority of another Federal agency, and that the subgrantee was 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 subgrantees may have relied on previous funding from FEMA to expect disaster related funding in subsequent disasters. Further, FEMA's delay in notifying subgrantees during the 1995 Storms that their facilities were under the authority of the USACE or NRCS may have contributed to a subgrantee'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.
Eligible Work
In accordance with the discussion presented above, each of the 17 DSRs addressed in this appeal 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. Each of the DSRs was prepared with the intent to restore the facilities to their pre-disaster design, generally with in-kind repairs. For more than half of the DSRs (DSRs 20697, 93274, 93275, 93284, 93709, 93719, 93733, 93736, 95002, 39977, 93716, and 93721), all members of the inspection team were in agreement as to the scope of repair and estimated costs. For these DSRs, the scope of work presented on the DSR reflects that requested by the subgrantee.
For other DSRs (DSR 20688, 46593, 93730, 93718, and 11394), some modifications to the requested scope of work were made during final review, thus reducing the eligible scope and/or estimated costs. As indicated in this analysis, the subgrantee has not addressed these reductions in their appeal letters. However, it is recgonized that the subgrantee's focus has been directed toward the primary determination of ineligibility, that the facilities are FCWs, rather than specific line items of scope. Therefore, we have performed an independent review of these DSRs to determine the eligible scope of work. Specific comments for each of these DSRs are provided below:
Invoices submitted with this DSR identified three separate sites where work was completed; Fox Debris Basin, Stewart Dam and Basin, and Ventura River. Accordingly, each site should have been included in separate DSRs. The FEMA reviewer separated costs for each site, based on invoices submitted, and found that the costs associated with Fox Debris Basin and Stewart Dam anwideducted from the force account costs reported on the final DSR. It is found that this reduction was appropriately made, limiting eligible funding to that shown on the final DSR, $45,965.
DSR 46593, DSR 11394
The FEMA inspectors prepared these DSRs to repair the channel banks with placed or grouted riprap. The FEMA reviewer changed the material to dumped riprap, thus reducing the estimated cost. The documentation provided with the original DSR does not support that placed or grouted riprap is warranted for this site. The eligible scope on each DSR is appropriately limited to dumped riprap, for a total estimated cost of $31,682 (DSR 46593) and $56,500 (DSR 11394), as shown on the final DSRs.
DSR 93730
The FEMA inspector prepared this DSR to repair localized areas of erosion throughout Flood Zone 3 channels, by means of manual and mechanical tamping. Work was performed by force account labor and was 95% complete at the time of the site inspection, precluding the inspector from assessing the extent of disaster damages. The FEMA reviewer noted that each individual site must have its own DSR, but sufficient detail was not provided by the subgrantee to identify costs per site, or to accurately identify the pre-existing condition of the sites or the disaster damages. In the absence of the necessary information, the final DSR was prepared for $0. It is found that this DSR was appropriately determined ineligible.
DSR 93718
The FEMA reviewer noted that the dates of use of some equipment (dozer) do not correspond with the dates of the force account labor, and therefore recommended reducing the eligible cost by $1,060. Additionally, a referenced invoice in the amount of $2,661 was not provided with the documentation, such that the reviewer recommended reducing the cost by an additional $2,661. Because the DSR was denied based on the FCW issue, these changes were not made on the final DSR. However, it is found that without documentation to support these costs, it is appropriate to reduce the eligible cost on the final DSR by a total amount of $3,720, resulting in an eligible cost of $7,311.
Based on this review, the Regional Director will prepare Supplemental DSRs to restore the scope of work and estimated costs for these DSRs, consistent with that identified on the final DSR or as described above. A summary of the estimated eligible funding is provided on the enclosure. It is noted that as for all permanent restoration projects, prior to project approval, it may be necessary, where applicable, for the FEMA regional office to complete a review of each of these projects relative to the various environmental protection and historic preservation regulations.
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 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. The subgrantees 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 those facilities which were found ineligible in the 1044/1046 or previous disasters.
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, each of the 17 DSRs included with this appeal have been reviewed for eligibility for permanent restoration funding through the Public Assistance Program. The Regional Director will prepare Supplemental DSRs to fund the scope of work and estimated costs for these DSRs as described above. The subgrantee's appeal is granted.
Summary of Appealed DSRs
DSR | Disaster | Channel | Requested Funding | Eligible Funding | |
20688 | 1044 | Levee Access Roads; Zone I | $ 47,802 | $ 45,965 | |
20697 | 1044 | Levee Access Roads; Zone II | $ 15,719 | $ 15,719 | |
46593 | 1044 | Casitas Springs Levee | $ 47,282 | $ 31,682 | |
1044 | Live Oak Acres Levee | $ 9,212 | $ 9,212 | ||
93275 | 1044 | Ventura River Levee | $ 5,187 | $ 5,187 | |
93284 | 1044 | Calleguas Creek | $ 7,968 | $ 7,968 | |
93709 | 1044 | Arroyo Simi Channel | $ 14,915 | $ 14,915 | |
93718 | 1044 | Arroyo Simi Channel | $ 11,032 | $ 7,311 | |
93719 | 1044 | Arroyo Simi Channel | $ 4,880 | $ 4,880 | |
93730 | 1044 | Camarillo Area Levees - Zone III | $ 22,618 | $ 0 | |
93733 | 1044 | Calleguas Creek | $ 16,600 | $ 16,600 | |
93736 | 1044 | Calleguas Creek | $ 19,118 | $ 19,118 | |
95002 | 1044 | Arroyo Simi Channel | $ 34,480 | $ 34,480 | |
11394 | 1046 | Arroyo Simi Channel | $ 84,500 | $ 56,500 | |
39977 | 1046 | Bus Canyon Channel | $ 6,087 | $ 6,087 | |
93716 | 1046 | Arroyo Simi Channel | $ 33,806 | $ 33,806 | |
93721 | 1046 | Arroyo Simi Channel | $ 2,589 | $ 2,589 | |
Totals: | $ 383,795 | $ 312,019 | |||
Last updated