- Removal of Storm Debris from Spillway Channel
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-1046-DR-CA; Casitas Municipal Water District; DSR 012554
Cross-Reference: Emergency Work, Debris Removal
Summary: As a result of the winter storms of March 1995, the spillway outlet works for the Casitas Municipal Dam became obstructed with debris. The obstruction caused the storm water to back up into the dam outlet tunnel, posing an immediate threat to the safety of the earthen dam structure. The subgrantee issued an emergency contract to remove the debris in a limited area to relieve the obstruction. After the initial debris removal was completed, a FEMA inspection team observed that the spillway channel below the initial work area was clogged with debris. DSR 12554 was prepared to cover the work completed to clear the area located adjacent to the spillway outlet and the work to be completed to clear the spillway channel. After a review by FEMA, the work to clear the spillway channel was deleted from the scope of work for DSR 12554. The Region concluded that the debris in the lower portion of the spillway was due to delayed maintenance and not a result of the disaster. The subgrantee has submitted a second appeal requesting that the work to clear the lower portion of the spillway channel be funded based on its contention that the debris in this portion of the spillway was deposited by the winter storms.
Issues: Is the removal of debris in the spillway channel eligible?
Findings: The documentation submitted does not quantify the amount of debris deposited by the disaster. However, FEMA recognizes that a portion of the debris present in the spillway channel was deposited by the disaster. Therefore, we have determined that it is reasonable to fund fifty percent (50%) of the proposed debris removal at a cost of $21,389. This funding is in addition to the $2,393 previously obligated.
Rationale: Debris removal from engineered channels and debris basins would normally only be eligible for funding if the applicant is able to demonstrate the pre-disaster level of debris. Although the amount of debris deposited by this disaster cannot be specifically determined, a reasonable estimate can be made based on the documentation submitted by the subgrantee.
On March 11, 1995, the Casitas Municipal Water District experienced a flash flood due to the winter storms of that year. During the flooding, the spillway outlet works for the Casitas Dam became blocked with debris. This blockage caused storm water to back up in the area of the spillway outlet. As the spillway outlet is the point where the dam spillway, toe drain and outlet channel converge, the backup of water prevented all three from functioning properly.
The subgrantee identified the blockage as a threat to the safety of the dam, and issued an emergency contract to excavate the debris adjacent to the spillway outlet works to relieve the obstruction. Following the initial work, an inspection team identified that the spillway channel below the initial work area was clogged with debris. Damage survey report (DSR) 12554 was prepared on July 12, 1995, as Category A to fund both the completed removal of the debris adjacent to the spillway outlet ($2,393), and the proposed removal of debris in the spillway channel ($42,777). However, a review of DSR 12554 by FEMA determined that the removal of debris adjacent to the spillway outlet was sufficient to remove the immediate threat to the dam. The debris in the spillway channel was attributed to pre-existing sediment buildup and, therefore, considered ineligible for funding. Consequently, the scope of work was reduced to include only the removal of the debris adjacent to the spillway outlet and DSR 12554 was approved for the amount of $2,393.
First Appeal
A March 5, 1996, letter from the California Office of Emergency Services (State), transmitted the subgrantee's first appeal letter dated January 30, 1996. In this first appeal, the subgrantee asked that the debris removal from the spillway channel ($42,777) be funded. The subgrantee contended that the debris in the spillway channel was deposited as a direct result of the winter storm and, therefore, the debris removal would only "restore the facility to a pre-disaster condition."
The Regional Director responded to this first appeal in a letter dated September 10, 1996. The appeal was denied as the removal of the debris from the spillway channel was a mitigation measure and was, therefore, ineligible for FEMA restoration funding. The Regional Director also pointed out that the presence of vegetation within the spillway indicated a lack of maintenance to the channel prior to the disaster.
Second Appeal
A second appeal was submitted by the subgrantee in a letter dated November 11, 1996. The State forwarded this appeal letter to FEMA on January 27, 1997. In the second appeal letter, the subgrantee supported their claim that the clearing of debris in the spillway channel should be funded with the following information. The dam facility had been operated in accordance with U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) regulations, which require regular inspections and maintenance. In the past, the dam spillway had been overtopped and in none of these past occurrences had debris ever clogged the outlet works. Therefore, the subgrantee contended that it was due to the extreme nature of this particular storm that the debris was deposited. The subgrantee also stated that the damage to the catch basin located upstream of the spillway outlet works was one more source of the excess debris that collected in and clogged the spillway channel.
DISCUSSION
For the removal of debris from an engineered channel to be funded, the subgrantee must establish the pre-disaster level of debris present in the channel. In their second appeal, the subgrantee presented several items in support of their contention that the spillway channel was free of debris immediately prior to the disaster. The following discussion addresses the points presented by the subgrantee.
The subgrantee asserted that all of the debris was deposited as a direct result of the disaster. In support of this claim, the subgrantee has submitted the following documentation: 1) A November 16, 1993, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) report indicating the condition of the facility; 2) A damtender's log dated July 1988 as proof that maintenance had been performed on the spillway channel; 3) Survey data of the area of the spillway outlet structure in 1989 (pre-storm) and 1995(post-storm) indicating that 3.9 feet of silt was deposited in the area during the time between the surveys; 4) Records of the water volumes that had overtopped the dam spillway for the years 1959 through 1995 as proof that these prior occurrences had not caused the deposition of debris in the spillway channel. Additionally, the subgrantee referenced the verbal statement made by the damtender to the inspection team that the spillway channel was free of debris prior to the disaster.
The above data does not substantiate the subgrantee's claim that all of the debris was deposited by the 1995 winter storms. First, the BOR report submitted was for an inspection that took place 16 months prior to the disaster. Although this report established the channel as being free of debris, no records were submitted showing that the facility remained free of debris between the inspection and the disaster. Second, the damtender's log showed that debris was cleared from the channel seven years prior to the disaster. This does not support the claim that the channel was free of debris immediately prior to the disaster. Third, the survey data presented does not indicate the amount of debris that was present in the channel immediately prior to the disaster. Fourth, the spillway records submitted do not directly give an indication of the spillway capacity and, therefore, do not support the contention that the channel was clear prior to the disaster. Finally, the verbal statement given by the damtender asserting that the spillway channel was clear of debris prior to the disaster was not supported by any documentation.
As the documentation submitted by the subgrantee does not establish the pre-disaster level of debris in the spillway channel, the amount of debris directly deposited by the disaster cannot be quantified. In cases where the amount of pre-disaster debris cannot be quantified, the debris removal would normally not be funded. However, FEMA recognizes that a portion of the debris was deposited by the disaster and is eligible for funding, and believes it would be reasonable to fund a portion of the proposed removal costs.
CONCLUSION
The documentation submitted does not quantify the amount of debris deposited by the disaster. However, FEMA recognizes that a portion of the debris present in the spillway channel was deposited by the disaster. Therefore, the appeal is partially granted. We have determined that it is reasonable to fund fifty percent (50%) of the proposed debris removal at a cost of $21,389. This funding is in addition to the $2,393 previously obligated.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1046-DR |
| Applicant | Casitas Municipal Water District |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 111-91054 |
| PW ID# | 12554 |
| Date Signed | 1997-09-11T04:00:00 |
Cross-Reference: Emergency Work, Debris Removal
Summary: As a result of the winter storms of March 1995, the spillway outlet works for the Casitas Municipal Dam became obstructed with debris. The obstruction caused the storm water to back up into the dam outlet tunnel, posing an immediate threat to the safety of the earthen dam structure. The subgrantee issued an emergency contract to remove the debris in a limited area to relieve the obstruction. After the initial debris removal was completed, a FEMA inspection team observed that the spillway channel below the initial work area was clogged with debris. DSR 12554 was prepared to cover the work completed to clear the area located adjacent to the spillway outlet and the work to be completed to clear the spillway channel. After a review by FEMA, the work to clear the spillway channel was deleted from the scope of work for DSR 12554. The Region concluded that the debris in the lower portion of the spillway was due to delayed maintenance and not a result of the disaster. The subgrantee has submitted a second appeal requesting that the work to clear the lower portion of the spillway channel be funded based on its contention that the debris in this portion of the spillway was deposited by the winter storms.
Issues: Is the removal of debris in the spillway channel eligible?
Findings: The documentation submitted does not quantify the amount of debris deposited by the disaster. However, FEMA recognizes that a portion of the debris present in the spillway channel was deposited by the disaster. Therefore, we have determined that it is reasonable to fund fifty percent (50%) of the proposed debris removal at a cost of $21,389. This funding is in addition to the $2,393 previously obligated.
Rationale: Debris removal from engineered channels and debris basins would normally only be eligible for funding if the applicant is able to demonstrate the pre-disaster level of debris. Although the amount of debris deposited by this disaster cannot be specifically determined, a reasonable estimate can be made based on the documentation submitted by the subgrantee.
Appeal Letter
September 11, 1997
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, 3rd Floor
Pasadena, California 91103-3678
Dear Mr. Najera:
This letter is in response to your January 27, 1997, submittal of the Casitas Municipal Water District's second appeal of damage survey report (DSR) 12554 under FEMA-1046-DR-CA. The applicant is appealing the denial of funding for the removal of debris from the spillway channel.
In its second appeal, the subgrantee provided documentation in support of their position that all of the debris within the spillway channel was deposited by the disaster event. A review of the documentation submitted failed to quantify the amount of debris directly deposited by the disaster. However, FEMA recognizes that a portion of the debris present in the spillway channel was deposited by the disaster. Therefore, we have determined that it is reasonable to fund fifty percent (50%) of the proposed debris removal at a cost of $21,389. This funding is in addition to the $2,393 previously obligated. The basis for this determination is explained in the enclosed appeal analysis.
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
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, 3rd Floor
Pasadena, California 91103-3678
Dear Mr. Najera:
This letter is in response to your January 27, 1997, submittal of the Casitas Municipal Water District's second appeal of damage survey report (DSR) 12554 under FEMA-1046-DR-CA. The applicant is appealing the denial of funding for the removal of debris from the spillway channel.
In its second appeal, the subgrantee provided documentation in support of their position that all of the debris within the spillway channel was deposited by the disaster event. A review of the documentation submitted failed to quantify the amount of debris directly deposited by the disaster. However, FEMA recognizes that a portion of the debris present in the spillway channel was deposited by the disaster. Therefore, we have determined that it is reasonable to fund fifty percent (50%) of the proposed debris removal at a cost of $21,389. This funding is in addition to the $2,393 previously obligated. The basis for this determination is explained in the enclosed appeal analysis.
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
BACKGROUNDOn March 11, 1995, the Casitas Municipal Water District experienced a flash flood due to the winter storms of that year. During the flooding, the spillway outlet works for the Casitas Dam became blocked with debris. This blockage caused storm water to back up in the area of the spillway outlet. As the spillway outlet is the point where the dam spillway, toe drain and outlet channel converge, the backup of water prevented all three from functioning properly.
The subgrantee identified the blockage as a threat to the safety of the dam, and issued an emergency contract to excavate the debris adjacent to the spillway outlet works to relieve the obstruction. Following the initial work, an inspection team identified that the spillway channel below the initial work area was clogged with debris. Damage survey report (DSR) 12554 was prepared on July 12, 1995, as Category A to fund both the completed removal of the debris adjacent to the spillway outlet ($2,393), and the proposed removal of debris in the spillway channel ($42,777). However, a review of DSR 12554 by FEMA determined that the removal of debris adjacent to the spillway outlet was sufficient to remove the immediate threat to the dam. The debris in the spillway channel was attributed to pre-existing sediment buildup and, therefore, considered ineligible for funding. Consequently, the scope of work was reduced to include only the removal of the debris adjacent to the spillway outlet and DSR 12554 was approved for the amount of $2,393.
First Appeal
A March 5, 1996, letter from the California Office of Emergency Services (State), transmitted the subgrantee's first appeal letter dated January 30, 1996. In this first appeal, the subgrantee asked that the debris removal from the spillway channel ($42,777) be funded. The subgrantee contended that the debris in the spillway channel was deposited as a direct result of the winter storm and, therefore, the debris removal would only "restore the facility to a pre-disaster condition."
The Regional Director responded to this first appeal in a letter dated September 10, 1996. The appeal was denied as the removal of the debris from the spillway channel was a mitigation measure and was, therefore, ineligible for FEMA restoration funding. The Regional Director also pointed out that the presence of vegetation within the spillway indicated a lack of maintenance to the channel prior to the disaster.
Second Appeal
A second appeal was submitted by the subgrantee in a letter dated November 11, 1996. The State forwarded this appeal letter to FEMA on January 27, 1997. In the second appeal letter, the subgrantee supported their claim that the clearing of debris in the spillway channel should be funded with the following information. The dam facility had been operated in accordance with U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) regulations, which require regular inspections and maintenance. In the past, the dam spillway had been overtopped and in none of these past occurrences had debris ever clogged the outlet works. Therefore, the subgrantee contended that it was due to the extreme nature of this particular storm that the debris was deposited. The subgrantee also stated that the damage to the catch basin located upstream of the spillway outlet works was one more source of the excess debris that collected in and clogged the spillway channel.
DISCUSSION
For the removal of debris from an engineered channel to be funded, the subgrantee must establish the pre-disaster level of debris present in the channel. In their second appeal, the subgrantee presented several items in support of their contention that the spillway channel was free of debris immediately prior to the disaster. The following discussion addresses the points presented by the subgrantee.
The subgrantee asserted that all of the debris was deposited as a direct result of the disaster. In support of this claim, the subgrantee has submitted the following documentation: 1) A November 16, 1993, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) report indicating the condition of the facility; 2) A damtender's log dated July 1988 as proof that maintenance had been performed on the spillway channel; 3) Survey data of the area of the spillway outlet structure in 1989 (pre-storm) and 1995(post-storm) indicating that 3.9 feet of silt was deposited in the area during the time between the surveys; 4) Records of the water volumes that had overtopped the dam spillway for the years 1959 through 1995 as proof that these prior occurrences had not caused the deposition of debris in the spillway channel. Additionally, the subgrantee referenced the verbal statement made by the damtender to the inspection team that the spillway channel was free of debris prior to the disaster.
The above data does not substantiate the subgrantee's claim that all of the debris was deposited by the 1995 winter storms. First, the BOR report submitted was for an inspection that took place 16 months prior to the disaster. Although this report established the channel as being free of debris, no records were submitted showing that the facility remained free of debris between the inspection and the disaster. Second, the damtender's log showed that debris was cleared from the channel seven years prior to the disaster. This does not support the claim that the channel was free of debris immediately prior to the disaster. Third, the survey data presented does not indicate the amount of debris that was present in the channel immediately prior to the disaster. Fourth, the spillway records submitted do not directly give an indication of the spillway capacity and, therefore, do not support the contention that the channel was clear prior to the disaster. Finally, the verbal statement given by the damtender asserting that the spillway channel was clear of debris prior to the disaster was not supported by any documentation.
As the documentation submitted by the subgrantee does not establish the pre-disaster level of debris in the spillway channel, the amount of debris directly deposited by the disaster cannot be quantified. In cases where the amount of pre-disaster debris cannot be quantified, the debris removal would normally not be funded. However, FEMA recognizes that a portion of the debris was deposited by the disaster and is eligible for funding, and believes it would be reasonable to fund a portion of the proposed removal costs.
CONCLUSION
The documentation submitted does not quantify the amount of debris deposited by the disaster. However, FEMA recognizes that a portion of the debris present in the spillway channel was deposited by the disaster. Therefore, the appeal is partially granted. We have determined that it is reasonable to fund fifty percent (50%) of the proposed debris removal at a cost of $21,389. This funding is in addition to the $2,393 previously obligated.
Last updated