PA ID# 013-92100; Contra Costa County Department of Public Works
DSR ID# 28348; Creek Repair/Rock Slope Protection
Citation: Appeal Brief; Second Appeal; Contra Costa County Department of Public Works; FEMA-1044-DR-CA, PA 013-92100
Cross-Reference: DSR 28348; Creek Repair; Rock Slope Protection (RSP); Dewatering; Engineering Costs
Summary: Following the heavy rains and flooding of January 1995, in Contra Costa County (County), California, FEMA prepared DSR 28348 for $11,218 to restore Rodeo Creek's damaged channel embankment. After review, FEMA reduced the DSR to $793.55 by substituting unclassified fill protection for the proposed RSP and eliminating the other associated costs. The revised DSR was less than $1,000, therefore, FEMA funding was reduced to $0. The State submitted the first appeal to FEMA on January 18, 1996, requesting reinstatement of the original level of funding. The basis of the appeal was inconsistency in FEMA's application of earthen channel repair standards. The first appeal was supported by documentation of the County's earthen channel rip rap policy (adopted after the disaster). The Regional Director denied the first appeal because the County's policy on rip rap of earthen channel repair did not meet the regulatory requirements of 44 CFR 206.226 (b) and the County did not provide "documented justification" that engineering, dewatering, environmental processing, and traffic control costs were essential to restore the creek bank. The State transmitted the subgrantee's second appeal on April 11, 1996. The basis of the second appeal is that RSP, as well as engineering, dewatering and environmental processing costs, were essential to repair the damage described in DSR 28348. The subgrantee did not present additional information to support its appeal.
Issue:Was the County's channel repair policy uniformly applied, enforced and in effect at the time of the disaster?
Finding: No. Documentation was not provided to show that the policy was uniformly applied and enforced, or in effect at the time of the disaster.
Rationale: The language of the County's RSP policy, which appears to be a guideline rather than a mandatory policy of earthen channel embankment repair, does not meet the requirements of 206.226(b)(4). The date of the County's RSP policy is later than the project approval, therefore, the policy does not meet the requirements of 206.226(b)(3).