Notson Bridge Over Red Clover Creek
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-1046-DR-CA; Plumas County DPW; DSR 16344
Cross
Reference: Natural features, integral ground restoration, emergency protective measures, eligible damage
Summary: The Plumas County Department of Public Works is requesting funding for
permanent repair of a creek bank which suffered damage during the 1995 winter storms. Flooding of Red Clover Creek reportedly resulted in erosion of the creek banks, and threatened to erode Beckworth-Genesse Road and the abutment wingwalls of Notson Bridge. Four primary areas of erosion were identified; three at the bridge abutments and wingwalls, and the other along the creek bank adjacent to Beckworth-Genesse Road. DSR 16344 was prepared to provide funding for restoration of the three areas adjacent to the bridge, but it was determined that the portion of the creek bank adjacent to the road is a natural, unimproved feature, and as no damage to the adjacent road had been identified, it was found to be ineligible for assistance. A first appeal of this determination was submitted by the applicant but denied on this basis. The second appeal contends that the roadway is in danger of being eroded due to the condition of the creek bank. OES states that riprap was present prior to the disaster and should be replaced.
Issues: Was riprap present on the creek bank prior to the disaster, and is the creek
bank eligible for Public Assistance program funding?
Findings: The documentation does not support that riprap was present prior to the
disaster. The creek bank is a natural feature, and as the road itself is not damaged, is not eligible for permanent restoration assistance. A portion of the eroded bank is found to be posing a threat to the integrity of the roadway support, and as such, a supplemental DSR should be prepared to provide emergency protection to this roadway slope using riprap. The remaining length of the bank does not pose a threat to the roadway and remains ineligible for assistance.
Rationale: Natural, unimproved features are not eligible for permanent restoration
BACKGROUND
Due to the severe winter storms and flooding that occurred in March 1995, the President declared the State of California a major disaster area. The Plumas County Department of Public Works is an eligible applicant for Public Assistance Funding. Red Clover Creek, located in Plumas County, flooded due to the heavy rains. The flooding reportedly resulted in erosion of the creek banks, and threatened to erode Beckworth-Genesse Road and the abutment wingwalls of Notson Bridge. Notson Bridge is a county bridge (No. 3-111), located on county road 111.
On June 20, 1995, representatives from FEMA, the California Office of Emergency Services (OES) and the Plumas County Department of Public Works visited the site to inspect the damages. Four primary areas of erosion were identified; three at the bridge abutments and wingwalls, and the other along the creek bank adjacent to Beckworth-Genesse Road. The inspection team prepared DSR 16344 in the amount of $54,912, recommending placement of riprap, 6-ft. thick, at each of the four eroded locations. FEMA's review of the inspection team's scope of work concluded that (1) there was not sufficient documentation to support that a 6-ft. thickness of riprap was present at the bridge abutments prior to the disaster and reduced the eligible thickness to 3-ft; and (2) that the creek bank was not eroded to the extent of damaging Beckworth-Genesse Road such that placement of riprap along the bank would be considered hazard mitigation. Riprap along the creek bank was not identified as being present prior to the disaster. The eligible scope of work was reduced to provide a 3-ft. thickness of riprap at the three wingwall locations and DSR 16344 was obligated in the amount of $12,804.
First appeal
On October 27, 1995, the applicant submitted the first appeal of FEMA's decision, contending that the creek bank needs to be armored to protect the roadway, and that additional bedding material is necessary for placement beneath the riprap to provide the necessary slope protection.
FEMA denied the appeal in a letter dated March 8, 1996, on the basis that funding assistance may only be provided for eligible facilities to restore them to their pre-disaster condition. The creek bank is a natural, unimproved feature in that no riprap or other improvements were present prior to the disaster. As no damage to the adjacent road had been identified, the creek bank is not eligible for assistance. Further, no documentation was provided to support that a thickness of riprap greater than 3-ft. was present at the bridge abutments prior to the disaster, nor were any State or local codes provided to indicate that a greater level of protection is required.
Second Appeal
The applicant filed a second appeal through OES on April 4, 1996, appealing FEMA's decision to not replace riprap in the creek bank adjacent to the road. The applicant contends that a significant volume of material within the bank had been removed by the disaster. It is the applicant's position that this material provided protection to the road, and that the road is in danger of being eroded away in the absence of this protection.
DISCUSSION
The primary issue of appeal is regarding the eligibility of the creek bank for permanent restoration assistance. The applicant has indicated that prior to the disaster, the bank was a gradual slope from the road to the creek. Erosion occurred within this slope due to the flooding conditions.
The State's appeal letter indicates that riprap was present on the creek bank prior to the disaster, such that replacement of riprap is necessary to restore the slope to it's pre-disaster condition. It should be noted, however, that the applicant has not specifically indicated that riprap had been present on the slope, reference has only been made to the slope "material". Additionally, the initial inspection of the site did not indicate that the bank was previously protected with riprap, nor is the presence of riprap evidenced by the photographs included in the original DSR or the First Appeal documentation. The Second Appeal letter included a copy of an aerial photograph of the site taken immediately after the disaster. A note on the photograph states "riprap was placed between the road and the creek". However, given the distance from which the photograph was taken, we find no evidence that the bank was protected with riprap prior to the disaster. Therefore, based on our review of available documentation, it is our understanding that prior to the disaster, the creek bank was a natural earth slope, without riprap protection.
Federal disaster assistance for permanent restoration costs is only available for public or private nonprofit "facilities" pursuant to Section 403(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (P.L. 93-288), as amended (Stafford Act) and Title 44 CFR 206.226. As indicated above, this portion of the creek bank is a natural earth slope, and as such, is considered a naturally occurring, unimproved feature. Pursuant to Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 206.201(c), natural features are only considered "facilities" if they are "improved and maintained." Therefore, this portion of the creek bank is not an eligible "facility", and is not eligible for permanent restoration assistance.
FEMA assistance for repair of a natural creek would be limited to providing emergency protective measures (Category B) in the event that the condition of the creek posed an "immediate threat" to an eligible facility, such as the adjacent road. Pursuant to Title 44 CFR 206.225(a), to be eligible for assistance, emergency protective measures must be necessary to eliminate or lessen immediate threats to life, public health or safety, or must eliminate or lessen significant damage to improved public or private property.
Although there is evidence of erosion into what had been a relatively flat slope adjacent to the road, the available documentation indicates that the roadway itself was not damaged. Additionally, for a majority of the slope, the condition of the damaged section does not affect the integrity of the roadway, being that the eroded/failed area is outside the portion of the slope which would be considered to be providing integral support of the road. However, for a limited length of the creek bank, estimated at approximately 50-ft., the extent of the erosion is more extensive. In this area, the bank is eroded to within about two feet of the roadway edge, and a near-vertical slope down to the creek remains. As such, this condition is considered to be posing a threat to the roadway.
Accordingly, a Supplemental DSR should be prepared to provide funding for emergency protective measures for this 50-ft. length of bank. The scope of repair includes placement of riprap, 10-ft. high and 3-ft. deep, along this 50-ft. length. Although riprap was not present prior to the disaster, this method is considered appropriate as an emergency protective measure, allowing construction in-the-wet. The eligible scope also provides for placement of a filter fabric between the existing soil and riprap to prevent migration of fines and loss of adjacent ground.
Your letter further indicated that the "eligible work" was identified in the field by the inspection team in accordance with Title 44 CFR 206.202(d). It should be understood that the purpose of the field inspection is to document any apparent damage as reported by the Subgrantee, and to make a recommendation relative to eligibility. Neither the FEMA field inspector, nor the state or local representative, are authorized to make final judgment relative to facility or project scope eligibility. Title 44 CFR 206.202(e) further indicates thal
FEMA concurs that some erosion to the creek bank did occur as a result of the disaster flooding. However, based on a review of the available documentation, there is no documentation to support that riprap was present along this portion of the creek bank prior to the disaster. Therefore, as a natural feature, the creek bank is not eligible for permanent restoration assistance. Further, the roadway itself did not suffer damage from the disaster.
Considering eligibility for emergency protective measures, the available documentation indicates that only a limited portion of the eroded slope effects the integrity of the roadway support. For this portion, a supplemental DSR should be prepared for placement of riprap. The remaining length of the eroded creek bank is not eligible for emergency assistance.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1046-DR |
| Applicant | Plumas County Department of Public Works |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 063-00000 |
| PW ID# | 16344 |
| Date Signed | 1997-06-10T04:00:00 |
Citation: FEMA-1046-DR-CA; Plumas County DPW; DSR 16344
Cross
Reference: Natural features, integral ground restoration, emergency protective measures, eligible damage
Summary: The Plumas County Department of Public Works is requesting funding for
permanent repair of a creek bank which suffered damage during the 1995 winter storms. Flooding of Red Clover Creek reportedly resulted in erosion of the creek banks, and threatened to erode Beckworth-Genesse Road and the abutment wingwalls of Notson Bridge. Four primary areas of erosion were identified; three at the bridge abutments and wingwalls, and the other along the creek bank adjacent to Beckworth-Genesse Road. DSR 16344 was prepared to provide funding for restoration of the three areas adjacent to the bridge, but it was determined that the portion of the creek bank adjacent to the road is a natural, unimproved feature, and as no damage to the adjacent road had been identified, it was found to be ineligible for assistance. A first appeal of this determination was submitted by the applicant but denied on this basis. The second appeal contends that the roadway is in danger of being eroded due to the condition of the creek bank. OES states that riprap was present prior to the disaster and should be replaced.
Issues: Was riprap present on the creek bank prior to the disaster, and is the creek
bank eligible for Public Assistance program funding?
Findings: The documentation does not support that riprap was present prior to the
disaster. The creek bank is a natural feature, and as the road itself is not damaged, is not eligible for permanent restoration assistance. A portion of the eroded bank is found to be posing a threat to the integrity of the roadway support, and as such, a supplemental DSR should be prepared to provide emergency protection to this roadway slope using riprap. The remaining length of the bank does not pose a threat to the roadway and remains ineligible for assistance.
Rationale: Natural, unimproved features are not eligible for permanent restoration
Appeal Letter
June 10, 1997
Ms. Nancy Ward
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Disaster Assistance Branch
2800 Meadowview Road
Sacremento, CA 95832
Dear Mr. Najera:
This letter is in response to the second appeal of Damage Survey Report (DSR) 16344, in which the Plumas County Department of Public Works requested disaster assistance funds for permanent restoration of a portion of the Red Clover Creek bank. Your letter dated November 12, 1996, forwarded the second appeal to me.
Based on my review of all the documentation submitted, I have resolved this appeal as follows. As a natural feature, the creek bank is not eligible for permanent restoration assistance. However, a portion of this creek bank does pose a threat to the integrity of the adjacent roadway support and is eligible for Emergency Assisting funding. The remaining length of the creek bank is found to not pose a threat and is therefore ineligible for funding. Please refer to the enclosed analysis for more detail.
I have asked the Regional Director to proceed with the estimation and obligation of the additional funding made available by this decision. Coordination of this effort will be made by the Regional Director and your office. Please inform the applicant of this determination. In the event that the applicant does not agree with this determination, a third appeal may be submitted to the Director pursuant to 44 CFR 206.206(e).
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
Ms. Nancy Ward
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Disaster Assistance Branch
2800 Meadowview Road
Sacremento, CA 95832
Dear Mr. Najera:
This letter is in response to the second appeal of Damage Survey Report (DSR) 16344, in which the Plumas County Department of Public Works requested disaster assistance funds for permanent restoration of a portion of the Red Clover Creek bank. Your letter dated November 12, 1996, forwarded the second appeal to me.
Based on my review of all the documentation submitted, I have resolved this appeal as follows. As a natural feature, the creek bank is not eligible for permanent restoration assistance. However, a portion of this creek bank does pose a threat to the integrity of the adjacent roadway support and is eligible for Emergency Assisting funding. The remaining length of the creek bank is found to not pose a threat and is therefore ineligible for funding. Please refer to the enclosed analysis for more detail.
I have asked the Regional Director to proceed with the estimation and obligation of the additional funding made available by this decision. Coordination of this effort will be made by the Regional Director and your office. Please inform the applicant of this determination. In the event that the applicant does not agree with this determination, a third appeal may be submitted to the Director pursuant to 44 CFR 206.206(e).
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUND
Due to the severe winter storms and flooding that occurred in March 1995, the President declared the State of California a major disaster area. The Plumas County Department of Public Works is an eligible applicant for Public Assistance Funding. Red Clover Creek, located in Plumas County, flooded due to the heavy rains. The flooding reportedly resulted in erosion of the creek banks, and threatened to erode Beckworth-Genesse Road and the abutment wingwalls of Notson Bridge. Notson Bridge is a county bridge (No. 3-111), located on county road 111.
On June 20, 1995, representatives from FEMA, the California Office of Emergency Services (OES) and the Plumas County Department of Public Works visited the site to inspect the damages. Four primary areas of erosion were identified; three at the bridge abutments and wingwalls, and the other along the creek bank adjacent to Beckworth-Genesse Road. The inspection team prepared DSR 16344 in the amount of $54,912, recommending placement of riprap, 6-ft. thick, at each of the four eroded locations. FEMA's review of the inspection team's scope of work concluded that (1) there was not sufficient documentation to support that a 6-ft. thickness of riprap was present at the bridge abutments prior to the disaster and reduced the eligible thickness to 3-ft; and (2) that the creek bank was not eroded to the extent of damaging Beckworth-Genesse Road such that placement of riprap along the bank would be considered hazard mitigation. Riprap along the creek bank was not identified as being present prior to the disaster. The eligible scope of work was reduced to provide a 3-ft. thickness of riprap at the three wingwall locations and DSR 16344 was obligated in the amount of $12,804.
First appeal
On October 27, 1995, the applicant submitted the first appeal of FEMA's decision, contending that the creek bank needs to be armored to protect the roadway, and that additional bedding material is necessary for placement beneath the riprap to provide the necessary slope protection.
FEMA denied the appeal in a letter dated March 8, 1996, on the basis that funding assistance may only be provided for eligible facilities to restore them to their pre-disaster condition. The creek bank is a natural, unimproved feature in that no riprap or other improvements were present prior to the disaster. As no damage to the adjacent road had been identified, the creek bank is not eligible for assistance. Further, no documentation was provided to support that a thickness of riprap greater than 3-ft. was present at the bridge abutments prior to the disaster, nor were any State or local codes provided to indicate that a greater level of protection is required.
Second Appeal
The applicant filed a second appeal through OES on April 4, 1996, appealing FEMA's decision to not replace riprap in the creek bank adjacent to the road. The applicant contends that a significant volume of material within the bank had been removed by the disaster. It is the applicant's position that this material provided protection to the road, and that the road is in danger of being eroded away in the absence of this protection.
DISCUSSION
The primary issue of appeal is regarding the eligibility of the creek bank for permanent restoration assistance. The applicant has indicated that prior to the disaster, the bank was a gradual slope from the road to the creek. Erosion occurred within this slope due to the flooding conditions.
The State's appeal letter indicates that riprap was present on the creek bank prior to the disaster, such that replacement of riprap is necessary to restore the slope to it's pre-disaster condition. It should be noted, however, that the applicant has not specifically indicated that riprap had been present on the slope, reference has only been made to the slope "material". Additionally, the initial inspection of the site did not indicate that the bank was previously protected with riprap, nor is the presence of riprap evidenced by the photographs included in the original DSR or the First Appeal documentation. The Second Appeal letter included a copy of an aerial photograph of the site taken immediately after the disaster. A note on the photograph states "riprap was placed between the road and the creek". However, given the distance from which the photograph was taken, we find no evidence that the bank was protected with riprap prior to the disaster. Therefore, based on our review of available documentation, it is our understanding that prior to the disaster, the creek bank was a natural earth slope, without riprap protection.
Federal disaster assistance for permanent restoration costs is only available for public or private nonprofit "facilities" pursuant to Section 403(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (P.L. 93-288), as amended (Stafford Act) and Title 44 CFR 206.226. As indicated above, this portion of the creek bank is a natural earth slope, and as such, is considered a naturally occurring, unimproved feature. Pursuant to Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 206.201(c), natural features are only considered "facilities" if they are "improved and maintained." Therefore, this portion of the creek bank is not an eligible "facility", and is not eligible for permanent restoration assistance.
FEMA assistance for repair of a natural creek would be limited to providing emergency protective measures (Category B) in the event that the condition of the creek posed an "immediate threat" to an eligible facility, such as the adjacent road. Pursuant to Title 44 CFR 206.225(a), to be eligible for assistance, emergency protective measures must be necessary to eliminate or lessen immediate threats to life, public health or safety, or must eliminate or lessen significant damage to improved public or private property.
Although there is evidence of erosion into what had been a relatively flat slope adjacent to the road, the available documentation indicates that the roadway itself was not damaged. Additionally, for a majority of the slope, the condition of the damaged section does not affect the integrity of the roadway, being that the eroded/failed area is outside the portion of the slope which would be considered to be providing integral support of the road. However, for a limited length of the creek bank, estimated at approximately 50-ft., the extent of the erosion is more extensive. In this area, the bank is eroded to within about two feet of the roadway edge, and a near-vertical slope down to the creek remains. As such, this condition is considered to be posing a threat to the roadway.
Accordingly, a Supplemental DSR should be prepared to provide funding for emergency protective measures for this 50-ft. length of bank. The scope of repair includes placement of riprap, 10-ft. high and 3-ft. deep, along this 50-ft. length. Although riprap was not present prior to the disaster, this method is considered appropriate as an emergency protective measure, allowing construction in-the-wet. The eligible scope also provides for placement of a filter fabric between the existing soil and riprap to prevent migration of fines and loss of adjacent ground.
Your letter further indicated that the "eligible work" was identified in the field by the inspection team in accordance with Title 44 CFR 206.202(d). It should be understood that the purpose of the field inspection is to document any apparent damage as reported by the Subgrantee, and to make a recommendation relative to eligibility. Neither the FEMA field inspector, nor the state or local representative, are authorized to make final judgment relative to facility or project scope eligibility. Title 44 CFR 206.202(e) further indicates thal
FEMA concurs that some erosion to the creek bank did occur as a result of the disaster flooding. However, based on a review of the available documentation, there is no documentation to support that riprap was present along this portion of the creek bank prior to the disaster. Therefore, as a natural feature, the creek bank is not eligible for permanent restoration assistance. Further, the roadway itself did not suffer damage from the disaster.
Considering eligibility for emergency protective measures, the available documentation indicates that only a limited portion of the eroded slope effects the integrity of the roadway support. For this portion, a supplemental DSR should be prepared for placement of riprap. The remaining length of the eroded creek bank is not eligible for emergency assistance.
Last updated