alert - warning

This page has not been translated into 简体中文. Visit the 简体中文 page for resources in that language.

Napa Creek - Stream Embankment Restoration

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1046-DR
ApplicantCity of Napa
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#055-50258
PW ID#21532
Date Signed1997-05-19T04:00:00

Citation: FEMA-1046-DR-CA; City of Napa; DSR 21532

Cross-Reference: Eligible facilities, Codes and Standards

Summary: Flooding in 1995 caused erosion along Napa Creek upstream of the Pearl Street crossing. The areas of erosion were at the ends of retaining walls on both sides of the creek and along 125 feet of the eastside of the stream upstream of the retaining wall. DSR 21532 was written for $17,771 for the restoration of the erosion with unclassified fill covered with fabric and riprap for slope protection. It was determined that the natural stream is not eligible for permanent restoration, as it was not an improved property. However, two areas of erosion at the ends of the retaining walls were eligible. The city did not have an adopted standard to repair eroded banks with riprap, thus the eligible scope of work was reduced to reflect the repair the eroded areas at the ends of the retaining walls with unclassified fill. The funding for DSR 21532, calculated to be $176, was deemed ineligible, as it was less than $1000. The first appeal was denied because the natural stream bank does not qualify for permanent restoration, as it is not an eligible facility. Further the Region stated that the City of Napa did not have a written, adopted standard for repairing eroded stream banks, and the restoration did not qualify as an emergency protective measure, as there was no immediate threat to life, public health, safety, or damage to improved property.

Issues: Should FEMA repair the erosion in the vicinity of the retaining wall with riprap?

Findings: No. The areas were not protected with riprap prior to the disaster and there is no adopted standard that would require such work.

Rationale: For costs associated with an applicant's standard, which change the construction of the facility, such standards must be in writing and formally adopted by the applicant prior to project approval. The city does not have a written adopted standard for repairing eroded areas with riprap. This also applies to the proposed concrete/stone transition area. Accordingly, funding is not available.

Appeal Letter

May 19, 1997

Mr. Richard Ray
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 239013
Sacramento, CA 95823-9013

Dear Mr. Ray:

This letter is in response to your November 18, 1996, submittal of the City of Napa's second appeal of Damage Survey Report (DSR) 21532 under FEMA-1046-DR-CA. This DSR denied costs associated with the restoration of areas of erosion along Napa Creek.

Although protecting the stream embankments is a sound engineering practice, the city does not have a written, adopted standard for the use of riprap for embankment restoration. Therefore, as explained in the attached appeal analysis, only restoration to pre-disaster condition is eligible. Note that the work to return the embankments to pre-disaster condition is not eligible as it costs less than $1000. Consequently, the appeal is denied.

Please inform the applicant of this determination and their right to submit a third appeal pursuant to 44 CFR 206.206(e).

Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate

Enclosure

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND
As a result of 1995 winter storms, flooding in the City of Napa caused erosion along Napa Creek upstream of Pearl Street, where retaining walls line both banks of the creek. The erosion areas were at the ends of the retaining walls on both sides of the creek and along 125 feet of the eastside of the stream, upstream of the retaining wall.

Damage Survey Report (DSR) 21532 was written for $17,771 on April 4, 1995, for the restoration of the two erosion areas at the ends of the retaining walls and the 125 feet of stream bank upstream. The method of restoration chosen was fill material, covered with fabric and riprap for slope protection. Upon review of the DSR, it was determined that the natural stream did not qualify for permanent restoration, as it was not improved property. Only the two areas of erosion at the ends of the retaining walls were determined to be eligible for permanent restoration. It was further found that the city did not have an adopted standard to repair eroded banks with riprap, even though city officials explained that it had been standard practice. The eligible scope of work was reduced to repair the two eroded areas at the ends of the retaining walls with unclassified fill only. In accordance with 44 CFR 206.202(d)(2), the project cost of $176 was ineligible because it was less than $1000.

Additionally, flooding during the declared winter storm disaster in 1993 (FEMA-0979-DR-CA) had previously damaged the east retaining wall. As a result, DSR 97311 was prepared and approved for $6,740 to repair the retaining wall and associated embankment erosion. At the time of the inspection of the 1995 erosion damage, the Federal inspector noted that the work funded by DSR 97311 had not been started. Also, note that the damaged incurred during the 979 disaster correlates to the damage at the end of the eastside retaining wall caused by the 1995 disaster event.

First Appeal
With a February 6, 1996, letter, the State of California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (State) transmitted the subgrantee's November 8, 1995, letter appealing the denial of work items from DSR 21532. The subgrantee believed the work should be eligible for the following reasons:

  • silt would accumulate if the damage was not repaired, impacting improved property downstream of the damaged reach, which was a natural stream; and
  • the city had "an adopted standard and long-standing practice of repairing eroded embankments with rock slope protection".

The State agreed that the subgrantee's request should be funded, yet contended that the restoration of the 125 feet of stream bank should be funded as an emergency protective measure. The Regional Director denied the appeal in a July 15, 1996, letter, which explained:

  • the natural bank did not qualify as a facility eligible for permanent restoration;
  • the City of Napa did not have a written adopted standard for repairing eroded stream banks; and
  • the restoration would not qualify as an emergency protective measure, as there was no evidence of an immediate threat to life, public health, safety, or damage to improved property.

Second Appeal
The State's November 18, 1996, letter transmitted the subgrantee's August 29, 1996, second appeal of DSR 21532 to FEMA. The city explains that to fill the eroded areas at the ends of the retaining walls without earthwork protection would be a waste of time and money, as it believes the unprotected fill would quickly erode. The city proposes that FEMA fund repair of the retaining walls and protect the adjacent backfill material with a 20-foot long concrete and stone transition area between the existing retaining walls and the natural stream banks. In the November 18, 1996, letter, the State explains that it agrees that the embankment repairs should be eligible for funding, although the city's transition area proposal is not specifically referenced. The State further requests that "in the interest of `good government'" the remaining embankment area should be considered a facility eligible for permanent restoration work. No new documentation was submitted with the second appeal.

DISCUSSION
The city's appeal focused on the funding of the eroded areas adjacent to the retaining wall. It is apparent that the city has agreed that the 125-foot area of erosion is not eligible for FEMA disaster assistance because it is not an eligible facility.

44 CFR 206.226(b)(3) explains that for the costs of the application of standards that will change the construction of a facility to be eligible, such standards must "be in writing and formally adopted by the applicant prior to project approval". In the State's November 18, 1996, letter, it was stated that "Although the City had not formally adopted the current standard of placing riprap on eroded embankments, the OES (Office of Emergency Services) is aware that it is the City's standard practice to perform such repairs." Because the City does not have a written, adopted standard for the restoration of eroded areas, only the cost to restore the eroded areas to pre-disaster condition is eligible. This means that only the placement of unclassified fill is eligible. However, the cost associated with this work is less than $1000 and is not eligible per 44 CFR 206.202(d)(2). Additionally, if the placement of riprap was an eligible method of repair the cost to do so is also less than $1000, and consequently would not be eligible.

Further, although the city's proposal to protect the fill adjacent to the retaining wall is a sound and common engineering practice, it is not eligible for FEMA funding. The construction of a concrete and stone transition area would provide embankment protection in excess of that which existed prior to the disaster event. And, without an adopted and enforced written standard for repair, FEMA funds only restoration to pre-disaster condition, as explained above.

CONCLUSION
The city does not have a written, adopted standard for embankment restoration; therefore, the eroded areas are eligible for restoration to pre-disaster condition only. This repair consists of unclassified fill, which costs less than $1000. Accordingly, the City of Napa's second appeal of DSR 21532 should be denied.