Slides and Roadway Repairs
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: Appeal Brief; Second Appeal; City of Trinidad; FEMA-1044-DR-CA; PA #023-80448
Cross Reference: DSR 72151; Slides and Roadway Repairs; Scenic Drive; Eligible Facility; Category C
Summary: In 1995, heavy rains and soil saturation resulted in a hillside slip-out and damage to 180 feet of road shoulder along Scenic Drive, in the City of Trinidad (City), California. The slip-out was at the top of a steep hillside descending into the Pacific Ocean. FEMA prepared DSR 16519 for $152,400 to repair the road and rebuild the hillside. Upon review, it was determined that the hillside repair was ineligible because the slip-out was within an historical landslide. The DSR was approved for $0 because eligible work was $400 for road shoulder repair, less than the $1,000 minimum. However, FEMA approved DSR 72151 for $20,000 for a geotechnical investigation study. Based on the results of the study, the City requested $25,000 of supplemental funding to design the roadway repairs. The Regional Director denied the supplemental request because the design involved slope stabilization of a natural slope. In the first appeal, the City re-requested the supplemental funding and contended that the damages were within the improved road prism and not within an historical landslide. The appeal was denied. The Regional Director determined that the failed slope below Scenic Drive was a natural facility, which was never improved or maintained. The Regional Director also indicated that the geotechnical study was funded to evaluate the stability of the hillside, not to evaluate stabilization measures. However, the Regional Director elected not to de-obligate the funding. In the second appeal, the City contends that the study demonstrates that the hillside was stable prior to the disaster, that the damages are not within a natural facility, and that the repairs are necessary for damages to the improved road prism, which is integral ground providing support to the roadway facility. The applicant is requesting both landslide repairs and design of the landslide repairs.
Issues:
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1044-DR |
| Applicant | City of Trinidad |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 023-80448 |
| PW ID# | 72151 |
| Date Signed | 1999-02-08T05:00:00 |
Cross Reference: DSR 72151; Slides and Roadway Repairs; Scenic Drive; Eligible Facility; Category C
Summary: In 1995, heavy rains and soil saturation resulted in a hillside slip-out and damage to 180 feet of road shoulder along Scenic Drive, in the City of Trinidad (City), California. The slip-out was at the top of a steep hillside descending into the Pacific Ocean. FEMA prepared DSR 16519 for $152,400 to repair the road and rebuild the hillside. Upon review, it was determined that the hillside repair was ineligible because the slip-out was within an historical landslide. The DSR was approved for $0 because eligible work was $400 for road shoulder repair, less than the $1,000 minimum. However, FEMA approved DSR 72151 for $20,000 for a geotechnical investigation study. Based on the results of the study, the City requested $25,000 of supplemental funding to design the roadway repairs. The Regional Director denied the supplemental request because the design involved slope stabilization of a natural slope. In the first appeal, the City re-requested the supplemental funding and contended that the damages were within the improved road prism and not within an historical landslide. The appeal was denied. The Regional Director determined that the failed slope below Scenic Drive was a natural facility, which was never improved or maintained. The Regional Director also indicated that the geotechnical study was funded to evaluate the stability of the hillside, not to evaluate stabilization measures. However, the Regional Director elected not to de-obligate the funding. In the second appeal, the City contends that the study demonstrates that the hillside was stable prior to the disaster, that the damages are not within a natural facility, and that the repairs are necessary for damages to the improved road prism, which is integral ground providing support to the roadway facility. The applicant is requesting both landslide repairs and design of the landslide repairs.
Issues:
- Was the hillside stable prior to the disaster?
- Are engineering and repair of the hillside and road necessary to restore integral ground of the road?
- Yes. The geotechnical study indicates that the integral portion of the roadway was stable prior to the disaster.
- Yes. A total of $14,869 is eligible for funding
Appeal Letter
February 8, 1999
Mr. D. A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
P.O. Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, CA 95741
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to your letter dated July 16, 1998, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) forwarding a second appeal of a request for FEMA funding under FEMA-1044-DR-CA on behalf of the City of Trinidad (City), California. The applicant is requesting funding for both design and repairs of a hillside slip-out adjacent to Scenic Drive.
In 1995, heavy rains resulted in a hillside slip-out and damage to 180 feet (ft) of road shoulder along Scenic Drive. The slip-out was at the top of a steep hillside descending into the Pacific Ocean. Following the disaster, FEMA prepared Damage Survey Report (DSR) 16519 for $152,000 for 19,000 cubic yards (cu yd) of unclassified fill to restore the hillside and $400 to repair the road. Upon review, it was determined that the slip-out was within an historical landslide and the hillside repair portion of the DSR was reduced to $0. The DSR was approved for $0 because eligible work was $400 for road shoulder repair and less than $1,000 minimum required for FEMA assistance. However, FEMA did approve DSR 72151 for $20,000 for a geotechnical investigation. Based on the investigation results, the City requested $25,000 in supplemental funding to design the roadway repairs. The Regional Director denied the request because he believed the design involved permanent stabilization of a natural slope. In the first appeal, the City re-requested the supplemental funding, contending the damages were within the improved road prism and not within an historical landslide. The appeal was denied. The Regional Director determined that the failed slope was not an eligible facility, but a natural feature, which was never improved or maintained. The Regional Director also indicated that the geotechnical study was funded to evaluate the stability of the hillside and not to evaluate stabilization measures. However, the Regional Director elected not to de-obligate the funding for the study.
In the second appeal, the applicant is requesting funding for both design and repairs of the slip-out. The City contends that the geotechnical report demonstrated the hillside was stable prior to the disaster. The City also contends the slip-out is not an unimproved facility, but integral ground providing support to the roadway. Therefore, the issues of this appeal are whether the hillside was stable prior to the disaster and whether the additional engineering and hillside repairs are necessary to restore integral ground of the road.
Regarding the stability of the hillside, the City contends the geotechnical study establishes that the hillside was stable prior to the disaster. Page three of the referenced study states, "The borings did not appear to intercept slip planes or other areas of weakness. This is consistent with surficial evidence that suggests all previous movement has occurred . outboard and downslope of the slipout." The study also indicates that the underlying bedrock is competent and will support heavy loads. Although these conclusions were based on interpretation of information from borings performed outside the hillside slip-out area, other information supports these conclusions, including historical aerial photography of the area, which does not show movement in the area since 1948. As such, the documentation demonstrates that the slip-out portion of the hillside was stable prior to the disaster.
With the historical stability of the area established, the primary issue is whether the hillside repairs and additional engineering are necessary to restore integral ground of the road. In accordance with the FEMA's landslide policy, Landslide Policy Relating to Public Facilities, No. 4511.300 A, EX, when a landslide site is stable prior to a disaster, the cost to restore the facility (including the integral ground) is eligible for FEMA funding. Integral ground may include supporting soils immediately beneath the roadway. The sketches included in the DSR show a portion of the slip-out extending beneath the surface of the road. This is supported by the geotechnical report, which states that the slip-out encroached into the southbound lane in several places and DSR photographs which show portions of missing road and road shoulder near the slip-out area. The documentation demonstrates that the portion of the slip-out directly beneath and immediately adjacent to the road (approximately 180 ft long by 25 ft deep by 10 ft wide - 1,667 cu yd) constitutes integral ground. However, the information does not demonstrate that the remaining portion of the slip-out is integral ground. Pursuant to FEMA's landslide policy, repair of the integral ground, not the natural hillside, is eligible for funding. The original DSR provided funding for unclassified backfill at $8 per cu yd to repair the slip-out, which is a reasonable method of repair of the slip-out. Therefore, we find that $13,336, or 1,667 cu yd of backfill at $8 per cu yd, is eligible for funding.
Regarding the request for additional engineering funding, design engineering associated with the repair of the integral ground is eligible for funding. Pursuant to the FEMA's 1996 Public Assistance Guide (PAG), funding is provided as a percentage of the construction expenses. Curve B of the PAG provides 8.5% as the allowable percentage for this type of repair. Based on the $13,336 estimate of repairs, $1,133 is eligible for design engineering. Additionally, eligible work now exceeds FEMA's minimum for approval and the $400 for road repairs not obligated in DSR 16519 is eligible for funding. The appeal is partially granted. With this letter, I am requesting the Regional Director prepare a DSR for $14,869 to implement this decision.
Please inform the applicant of my determination. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Martha Z. Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Mr. D. A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
P.O. Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, CA 95741
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to your letter dated July 16, 1998, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) forwarding a second appeal of a request for FEMA funding under FEMA-1044-DR-CA on behalf of the City of Trinidad (City), California. The applicant is requesting funding for both design and repairs of a hillside slip-out adjacent to Scenic Drive.
In 1995, heavy rains resulted in a hillside slip-out and damage to 180 feet (ft) of road shoulder along Scenic Drive. The slip-out was at the top of a steep hillside descending into the Pacific Ocean. Following the disaster, FEMA prepared Damage Survey Report (DSR) 16519 for $152,000 for 19,000 cubic yards (cu yd) of unclassified fill to restore the hillside and $400 to repair the road. Upon review, it was determined that the slip-out was within an historical landslide and the hillside repair portion of the DSR was reduced to $0. The DSR was approved for $0 because eligible work was $400 for road shoulder repair and less than $1,000 minimum required for FEMA assistance. However, FEMA did approve DSR 72151 for $20,000 for a geotechnical investigation. Based on the investigation results, the City requested $25,000 in supplemental funding to design the roadway repairs. The Regional Director denied the request because he believed the design involved permanent stabilization of a natural slope. In the first appeal, the City re-requested the supplemental funding, contending the damages were within the improved road prism and not within an historical landslide. The appeal was denied. The Regional Director determined that the failed slope was not an eligible facility, but a natural feature, which was never improved or maintained. The Regional Director also indicated that the geotechnical study was funded to evaluate the stability of the hillside and not to evaluate stabilization measures. However, the Regional Director elected not to de-obligate the funding for the study.
In the second appeal, the applicant is requesting funding for both design and repairs of the slip-out. The City contends that the geotechnical report demonstrated the hillside was stable prior to the disaster. The City also contends the slip-out is not an unimproved facility, but integral ground providing support to the roadway. Therefore, the issues of this appeal are whether the hillside was stable prior to the disaster and whether the additional engineering and hillside repairs are necessary to restore integral ground of the road.
Regarding the stability of the hillside, the City contends the geotechnical study establishes that the hillside was stable prior to the disaster. Page three of the referenced study states, "The borings did not appear to intercept slip planes or other areas of weakness. This is consistent with surficial evidence that suggests all previous movement has occurred . outboard and downslope of the slipout." The study also indicates that the underlying bedrock is competent and will support heavy loads. Although these conclusions were based on interpretation of information from borings performed outside the hillside slip-out area, other information supports these conclusions, including historical aerial photography of the area, which does not show movement in the area since 1948. As such, the documentation demonstrates that the slip-out portion of the hillside was stable prior to the disaster.
With the historical stability of the area established, the primary issue is whether the hillside repairs and additional engineering are necessary to restore integral ground of the road. In accordance with the FEMA's landslide policy, Landslide Policy Relating to Public Facilities, No. 4511.300 A, EX, when a landslide site is stable prior to a disaster, the cost to restore the facility (including the integral ground) is eligible for FEMA funding. Integral ground may include supporting soils immediately beneath the roadway. The sketches included in the DSR show a portion of the slip-out extending beneath the surface of the road. This is supported by the geotechnical report, which states that the slip-out encroached into the southbound lane in several places and DSR photographs which show portions of missing road and road shoulder near the slip-out area. The documentation demonstrates that the portion of the slip-out directly beneath and immediately adjacent to the road (approximately 180 ft long by 25 ft deep by 10 ft wide - 1,667 cu yd) constitutes integral ground. However, the information does not demonstrate that the remaining portion of the slip-out is integral ground. Pursuant to FEMA's landslide policy, repair of the integral ground, not the natural hillside, is eligible for funding. The original DSR provided funding for unclassified backfill at $8 per cu yd to repair the slip-out, which is a reasonable method of repair of the slip-out. Therefore, we find that $13,336, or 1,667 cu yd of backfill at $8 per cu yd, is eligible for funding.
Regarding the request for additional engineering funding, design engineering associated with the repair of the integral ground is eligible for funding. Pursuant to the FEMA's 1996 Public Assistance Guide (PAG), funding is provided as a percentage of the construction expenses. Curve B of the PAG provides 8.5% as the allowable percentage for this type of repair. Based on the $13,336 estimate of repairs, $1,133 is eligible for design engineering. Additionally, eligible work now exceeds FEMA's minimum for approval and the $400 for road repairs not obligated in DSR 16519 is eligible for funding. The appeal is partially granted. With this letter, I am requesting the Regional Director prepare a DSR for $14,869 to implement this decision.
Please inform the applicant of my determination. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Martha Z. Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Last updated