McCoy Road Levee along Blue Tent Creek

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

Disaster	FEMA DR-1046
Applicant	Tehama County Flood Control & Water Conservation District
Appeal Type	Second
PA ID#	103-91003
PW ID#	18952
Date Signed	1997-10-02T04:00:00

Citation: FEMA DR-1046-CA; Tehama County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (the District); DSR 18952

Cross-Reference: Federal levee policy, flood control work (FCW), and water control structure.

Summary: In the spring of 1995, flooding in Tehama County, California, damaged at four locations an earthen structure or "levee," located between McCoy Road and Blue Tent Creek. Repairs to the levee consisted of placing compacted fill and grading the slopes to restore its original cross section. The damage survey report (DSR) data sheet, with an inspection date of May 4, 1995, requested $14,417. On September 8, 1995, DSR 18952 was approved for $0. The work was declared ineligible by FEMA because the levee site had been identified to be within the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The first appeal was denied because, under current Federal interagency policy, permanent restoration of a facility that fits the USACE definition of a flood control work, even though not constructed with federal involvement, is not eligible for FEMA restoration funding. In their second appeal, the applicant somewhat argues the case that the structure is actually a "channel realignment" facility.

Issues:

1. Is the levee a flood control work?
2. Is the levee a channel alignment facility?

Findings:

1. No. McCoy Road is the only improved property that the levee could conceivably protect from flooding, and it does not serve to do this. In fact, it may only cause flood-related damages to be more extensive.
2. Yes. The applicant makes the case that the levee is a "channel realignment" facility.

Rationale:

1. Response and Recovery Directorate Policy No. 4511.300 PO, EX-Policy for Rehabilitation assistance for Levees and Other Flood Control Works (the Levee Policy) dated September 11, 1996.
2. The Levee Policy.

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND
In the spring of 1995, flooding occurred in Tehama County (the County), California. It was subsequently included in the declared federal disaster area. The flood damaged at four locations an earthen structure or "levee," located between McCoy Road and Blue Tent Creek. Floodwaters also flowed in the area between this levee and the road, and eroded the side slope of the road in some places. Repairs to the levee consisted of placing compacted fill and grading the slopes to restore its original cross section. Repairs to the side slope of the road were also made, but were performed by the Road Department.

The damage survey report (DSR), with an inspection date of May 4, 1995, requested $14,417 for funding the costs to repair the levee. On September 8, 1995, DSR 18952 was approved for $0. The work was declared ineligible by FEMA because the levee site had been identified to be within the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

First Appeal
The Tehama County Flood Control & Water Conversation District (the District) submitted a first appeal to the State of California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) by letter of December 22, 1995. In their letter, they state that the sole purpose of the levee is to protect McCoy Road. It provides little, if any, protection to private property. They noted that there are no records that indicate that the USACE ever had any involvement with the construction of this levee. Another significant statement in their narrative was "long-time employees of the Road Department indicate that the County originally installed this levee in conjunction with improvements made to McCoy Road and local County gravel extraction operations in Blue Tent Creek."

The first appeal was denied by the FEMA Regional Director's letter of August 24, 1996. The basis was that, under current Federal interagency policy, permanent restoration of facilities that fit the USACE definition of a flood control work (FCW), whether constructed with federal involvement or not, is not eligible for FEMA restoration funding.

Second Appeal
The District submitted a second appeal to OES by letter of October 30, 1996. In this appeal, they reference a meeting held on September 16, 1996, attended by a representative of both
FEMA and the USACE. At that meeting, a consensus was reached that the embankment was better described as a "channel realignment" facility. Furthermore, it ".accomplishes this task by directing streamflow from Blue Tent Creek under the bridge, rather than around the bridge." However, no details were provided about this bridge (i.e. its location, structure type).

The Regional Director did not accept the applicant's assertion that the levee is a channel realignment facility. She reiterates that ".the levee is consistent with a facility that meets the definition of a FCW as outlined in the interagency policy."

DISCUSSION
Response and Recovery Directorate Policy No. 4511.300 PO, EX-Policy for Rehabilitation Assistance for Levees and Other Flood Control Works (Levee Policy) dated September 11, 1996, states that "Permanent repairs of flood control works that are eligible to join the USACE PL 84-99 Rehabilitation and Inspection Program, whether or not they are active participants in the program, are ineligible." The Levee Policy also states that water control structures (including earthen levees) that do not meet the definition of a flood control work may be eligible for assistance. An example cited is a structure built for channel alignment.

So the question is whether the levee is actually a 1) flood control work or 2) a channel alignment structure. The following narrative addresses these possibilities.

1. The evidence indicates that the levee was neither originally constructed as, nor is presently serving as, a flood control work. Three reasons supporting this are:
   • The location of the levee, being 30-40 feet from the road and adjacent to the creek, results in a much lower cross sectional area for the waterway than if the levee were located directly adjacent to the road. This means that higher water surface elevations will result from any given flow, and thus a greater likelihood that the levee will be breached from any given high water event. In fact, when considering the cross sectional conditions without the levee, it isregardless of its locationprobably increasing the likelihood that any given flood will reach and inundate the road.
   • The levee's triangular shape and composition of creek bed gravel ensure that it will be breached when the elevation of floodwaters is well below the top. So even if the top elevation is three feet higher than that of the road (as stated in the DSR narrative), it will likely be breached at an elevation below that of the road. This may, in fact, be what occurred during the subject flood event.
   • Even if the levee does serve to protect the road from one to two feet of inundation, then it probably would have been initially much more cost effective to have raised the grade of the road, rather than construct the levee. Similarly, if the intention were protecting the side slope of the road from erosion, then placement of riprap directly on the slope would have been a much more cost-effective alternative.
2. The evidence indicates that the levee may qualify as a channel alignment structure, as defined in the Federal Levee Policy. As stated therein, "Examples of eligible structures include those built for channel alignment, land reclamation, drainage and erosion control." The levee may have been originally constructed as, or is now serving as, a channel alignment facility. It does narrow the width of waterway, and thus provides more definition to the alignment of the stream or channel.

However, one statement seems to indicate that the levee was originally constructed as neither a flood control work, nor a channel alignment structure. As noted in the preceding text, when long-time employees of the Road Department were interviewed, they indicated that the County originally installed this levee in conjunction with improvements made to McCoy Road and local County gravel extraction operations in Blue Tent Creek. This can be interpreted to mean that the levee is just an embankment of gravel stockpiled and left behind when the stream was excavated for use in road construction. This is very plausible; the gravel embankment would then be readily accessible for future construction or maintenance needs, andas long as it remained in placewould also function to align the channel.

CONCLUSION
We agree with the applicant that the levee is a channel alignment structure. Therefore, it is eligible for repair of disaster-related damages. Accordingly, the appeal is approved.