Repairs to Hungry Hollow Canal

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

Disaster	FEMA-1044-DR
Applicant	Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation
Appeal Type	Second
PA ID#	113-91001
PW ID#	75312
Date Signed	1998-03-05T05:00:00

Citation: FEMA-1044-DR-CA; Yolo County FC & WCD; DSR 75312

Cross Reference: Pre-disaster conditions, Debris removal

Summary: Excessive flows from the winter storms of 1995 caused overtopping of the Hungry Hollow Canal, eroding portions of the channel banks and depositing sediment in the canal. This reduced the capacity of the canal and made operation and maintenance roads unusable for flood fighting activities. DSR 75312 was prepared for $77,343 for permanent restoration of the channel to pre-disaster condition. The scope of work described included placement of riprap, grading and filling of operation and maintenance roads, earthwork for canal bank repair and installation of a field drain, debris removal, and engineering and project management costs. Upon review the scope of work was reduced by deleting debris removal and engineering and project management costs, as well as changing codes involving placement of riprap and slope grading to account for dumping of riprap from an adjacent road. The scope of work was approved for $33,261. The Regional Director upheld these determinations on first appeal. The subgrantee contends that debris removal is necessary to restore the pre-disaster condition of the facility, and is beyond the scope of routine maintenance. The subgrantee also states that riprap needs to be placed instead of dumped so as not to compromise the flow regime of the canal.

Issues:

1. Should FEMA fund debris removal from the canal?
2. Should FEMA fund the placement of riprap for slope repair and protection?

Findings:

1. Yes. The subgrantee has demonstrated that they have implemented a routine maintenance program. FEMA should fund the removal of 537 CY of debris to restore the facility to pre-disaster condition.
2. No. A review of the site configuration indicates that dumped riprap is adequate to restore the pre-disaster function of the facility.

Rationale: A subgrantee may be eligible for FEMA funding for debris removal to restore the facility to pre-disaster condition if they can reasonably demonstrate the pre-disaster condition of the facility.

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND
The winter storms of 1995 caused excessive flood flows draining from hillsides and sloughs to overtop sections of the Hungry Hollow Canal entering the facility, and in some areas, overtop the opposite bank. The canal is an irrigation facility. These flows damaged adjacent service roads, eroded sections of the canal, and deposited sediment in the canal. This erosion and sedimentation made operation and maintenance roads unusable in some areas and reduced the capacity of the channel. Emergency and temporary repairs were completed under Category A and B damage survey reports (DSRs). DSR 75312 was prepared for $77,343 for permanent restoration of the channel to pre-disaster condition. The scope of work described included placement of riprap, grading and filling of operation and maintenance roads, earthwork for canal bank repair and installation of a field drain, and debris removal. Engineering and project management costs were also included in the original DSR. Upon review, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reduced the scope of work by changing the code for placement of riprap to dumping of riprap from adjacent roadways, and deleting debris removal costs as well as engineering and project management costs. DSR 75312 was approved for $33,261.

First Appeal
The Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District submitted a first appeal of the reduction in a letter dated November 17, 1995. The subgrantee contended that sediment removal was required to return the canal to its pre-disaster condition, and was beyond the scope of routine maintenance. The subgrantee also stated that project management and engineering were necessary to ensure that the work was completed efficiently and in compliance with codes and standards. Further, the subgrantee noted that FEMA reduced costs for riprap placement and slope grading without providing an explanation. The California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) forwarded the appeal with a letter dated September 11, 1996.

The Regional Director responded to the first appeal in a letter dated April 3, 1997. In response to the issue of debris removal, the Regional Director stated that the subgrantee needed to document routine maintenance of the facility as well as the pre-disaster sediment level. The Regional Director also explained that the cost codes for placement of riprap and slope grading were reduced because a review of the site configuration indicated that repairs could be accomplished by dumping riprap from an adjacent road. These reductions resulted in a scope of work that met the definition of a small project pursuant to Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), paragraph 206.204(c)(2). Estimates for project management and engineering costs are generally not included in estimates of proposed work for small projects. Accordingly, the appeal was denied.

Second Appeal
The subgrantee submitted a second appeal to OES dated June 15, 1997. In support of their case, the subgrantee included a list of maintenance costs for the canal for the past ten years, however, asserted that they could not provide site specific maintenance information or pre-disaster sediment levels. The subgrantee also stated that riprap should be placed in the channel instead of dumped to assure that the flow regime of the canal is not negatively affected.

DISCUSSION
Under FEMA's current debris removal policy, FEMA may fund debris removal from engineered channels and debris basins if the subgrantee can submit documentation of pre-disaster maintenance and operation records which show disaster generated debris quantities and the impact they had on the facility. The subgrantee stated in their second appeal that pre- and post disaster sedimentation levels are not available in the format requested. The subgrantee contended that the District implements a routine maintenance program, and included copies of the District's canal maintenance expenditures over the last ten years. Although these records are not site specific, FEMA is satisfied that the subgrantee does maintain the irrigation channel. It is, therefore, reasonable to ascertain that the debris in the irrigation channel was deposited primarily as a result of the 1044-disaster event. Accordingly, I am approving funding for debris removal from the Hungry Hollow Canal consistent with the scope of work originally presented in DSR 75312.

The subgrantee is also appealing the modification of the original DSR to account for dumped riprap instead of placed riprap for slope protection in those areas subject to turbulent, high velocity flows, or cross-drainage into the channel. The subgrantee stated that the rock protection must be placed to assure that the flow regime of the canal is not affected. FEMA concurs that the use of riprap for the reconstruction and stabilization of the channel banks is a reasonable measure. We have found no basis, however, for the subgrantee's assertion that dumped riprap is inadequate to restore the pre-disaster function of the channel. A review of the site configuration indicates that the channel can be sufficiently repaired by dumping riprap from an adjacent maintenance road without adversely affecting the canal flow regime. Placement of riprap is determined excessive for a facility of this size and configuration. Accordingly, placement of riprap is found not eligible for FEMA funding.

CONCLUSION
Debris removal is eligible for FEMA assistance. The Region will prepare a supplemental DSR for the removal of 537 CY of debris from the canal. We also determined that dumping riprap is adequate for restoring the pre-disaster function of the channel. Placement of riprap is not eligible for FEMA funding.